Post: #1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11...66064.html

Quote:Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto is under fire after his latest piece about rape on college campuses.

In a column on Monday entitled "Drunkenness and Double Standards," Taranto suggested the female college students are as guilty as their aggressors if they are sexually assaulted while intoxicated.

Original piece:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...4067975558

Quote:Which points to a limitation of the drunk-driving analogy. If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex. But when two drunken college students “collide,” the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser’s having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. . . . In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that “if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.” In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.

Quote:But as Mac Donald notes, contemporary feminists "embrace the Victorian conceit of delicate female vulnerability while leaving out the sexual modesty that once accompanied it." That they do all this in the name of equality is downright Orwellian.

Unsurprisingly, the original piece is incredibly sane and well reasoned. Also, FIRE is an amazing organization those of you who are students should look into.

That said I'm curious... who started the lynchmob against this author?

Post: #2

I don't think Mr. Taranto really gives a fuck. His views are very similar to ours and he understands that these people can't be reasoned with, only mocked and used to win over people by demonstrating their craziness. I salute him for his piece and hope he doesn't "apologize" or something. If he does pen any editorial response to these lunatics, it should be Roosh-style.

Post: #3

Agree, I sincerely hope he doesn't apologize. In fact, I hope he eggs them on to show what total nutcases he's working against.

Post: #4

I couldn't read the comments, made me too angry. It's not about being mad with women, or feminists, it's about being mad at fucking morons across the spectrum.

Absolute idiots on that HuffPo article.

Post: #5

The Young Turk video on it

Post: #6

That feeling when you wake up with some drunk gross bitch on your dick after blacking out I imagine is what a chick feels like when she claims rape the next day. Complete disgust. The only difference is any logical being will stop putting yourself in these situations like I have. It takes an insane and selfish cunt to expect laws to be created for your dumbass decisions

Post: #7

The NAGs (National Association of Gals) (actually it's NOW, but NAGs seems more appropriate) are getting their enormous panties in a bunch over this column and demanding Taranto be fired.

Quote:NOW Demands Wall Street Journal Fire Columnist James Taranto for Promoting 'Rape Culture'
By Tim Graham | February 12, 2014 | 15:18


The National Organization for Women – that deeply principled hive of feminists who never supported the impeachment or resignation of Bill Clinton for lying in a sexual harassment case – has demanded The Wall Street Journal fire columnist James Taranto for arguing against the bizarre notion that the drunker a woman gets, the more guilty a man is for being sexually involved with her.

Taranto was painted as determined to enhance a “rape culture” by daring to argue in his Monday "Best of the Web Today" column that it’s a “drunkenness double standard” to say a woman’s intoxication is an aggravating factor for a man accused of assault:

If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex. But when two drunken college students "collide," the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

NOW’s press release energetically distorted Taranto’s point, implying the feminist idea that in any rape accusation, there is – verdict first, evidence afterward – a male rapist and a female victim:

In his Monday Wall Street Journal column, James Taranto stated that in sexual assault cases where both the victim and rapist are drunk -- both parties are equally to blame for the attack.

Taranto even went as far as to compare rape to a car crash involving two drunk drivers saying, "one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex."

Surely this ugly kind of victim-blaming is beneath the dignity of The Wall Street Journal. Approximately one in four young women will be sexually assaulted during their college career - an alarming statistic that should spur all of us to seek effective policies to provide services to rape survivors and hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes. But Taranto seems determined to maintain or even deepen the rape culture that pervades campuses and indeed much of U.S. society. What does that say about The Wall Street Journal?

If NOW really cared about a "rape culture," they would have demanded an answer when Juanita Broaddrick came forward on national television in 1999 and accused Clinton of rape in a Little Rock hotel room. They accepted Clinton's dodgy talk-to-my-lawyer defenses to reporters. They've had no credibility for decades now -- if the accused rapist will preserve abortion rights, then there is no real controversy.

Let’s now go back to Taranto’s actual point:

As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser's having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt:

Stanford's definition of consent to sex imposes a concept that is foreign to most people's idea of adult consent and inconsistent with California state law. Stanford policy states that sexual assault occurs "when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent . . . if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol." In other words, any sexual activity while intoxicated to any degree constitutes sexual assault. This is true even if the activity was explicitly agreed to by a person capable of making rational, reasoned decisions, and even if the partners are in an ongoing relationship or marriage.

In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that "if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other." In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.

That is self-evidently unjust, yet it turns out to be a matter of high principle for many feminists. Last fall Slate's Emily Yoffe, the mother of a college-age daughter, was the target of a Two Minutes Hate for a post titled "College Women: Stop Getting Drunk," even though she offered the same advice to college men: "If I had a son, I would tell him that it's in his self-interest not to be the drunken frat boy who finds himself accused of raping a drunken classmate."

Yoffe was also accused of promoting "rape culture." But NOW never asked for Yoffe to be fired. She wasn't male enough, apparently.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/...z2tA93fKzT

Post: #8

NOW Wrote:Approximately one in four young women will be sexually assaulted during their college career

That old lie again.

Post: #9

Brilliant article. The argument against the drunk sexual assaults is so fucking simple, I find it hard that multiple such articles are even required. It needs no hashed up data, no nothing! When you can pack so much truth in such a short argument vs one where so much fudging and long speeches and rallies are needed...well a logical person can tell where the truth lies.

Post: #10

"That is self-evidently unjust, yet it turns out to be a matter of high principle for many feminists. Last fall Slate's Emily Yoffe, the mother of a college-age daughter, was the target of a Two Minutes Hate for a post titled "College Women: Stop Getting Drunk," even though she offered the same advice to college men: "If I had a son, I would tell him that it's in his self-interest not to be the drunken frat boy who finds himself accused of raping a drunken classmate."

Why do that? just let himread RoK, Roosh gave 6 reasons not to rape.

But seriously, do you see the message..behavioural aversion is directed to males "don't get drunk" and avoid the bullshit associated with drunken female behaviour, but not females to avoid getting drunk.

Another burden of men in regards to women.

Post: #11

NOW Wrote:Approximately one in four young women will regret being slutty at one point during their college career

Fixed it

Post: #12

The pricks commenting seem to be deliberately missing the point that even if the female consents, it is void if she has consumed alcohol. They are, I would guess intentionally, interpreting his comments as being about a situation in which an actual rape takes place where both parties are drunk. Cunts.

Post: #13

I've always been curious about the RvF groupthink on this. Do you guys think current DUI laws are over reaching and the nags that made it are as crazy as the feminists who push the rape culture junk?

Post: #14

(02-13-2014 09:48 AM)frenchie Wrote:  I've always been curious about the RvF groupthink on this. Do you guys think current DUI laws are over reaching and the nags that made it are as crazy as the feminists who push the rape culture junk?

No. Operating heavy machinery while intoxicated is the very definition of reckless.

Post: #15

(02-13-2014 09:48 AM)frenchie Wrote:  I've always been curious about the RvF groupthink on this. Do you guys think current DUI laws are over reaching and the nags that made it are as crazy as the feminists who push the rape culture junk?

Absolutely. Mothers against drunk driving are the same kind of crazy as feminists.

Post: #16

That TYT clip is interesting.


I think as men, it's our duty to have most accurate picture of what is happening. We've got to the numbers and stats.

Is there really an epidemic of false rape accusations, or are we just being paranoid?

Post: #17

(02-13-2014 11:38 AM)Only One Man Wrote:  

(02-13-2014 09:48 AM)frenchie Wrote:  I've always been curious about the RvF groupthink on this. Do you guys think current DUI laws are over reaching and the nags that made it are as crazy as the feminists who push the rape culture junk?

Absolutely. Mothers against drunk driving are the same kind of crazy as feminists.

The two biggest civilian crimes in America seem to be "sexual assault" and drunk driving. The second one definitely doesn't belong...and we've talked extensively about the first.

Post: #18

When was the last time a drunk dude getting handsy with a chick at a frat party resulted in this:


The two aren't even comparable. Our DUI laws are fucked, but only because they aren't harsh enough on repeat offenders.