Some thoughts on alcohol, "hook-ups," and responsibility
The best way to avoid unwanted situations is to avoid placing yourself in them. If you choose to, anyway, be prepared to bear the consequences of your decision.
While I’m engaged in expressing controversial and possibly unpopular opinions…! This came across my Instagram feed from “The Transformed Wife (Lori Alexander):
She commented,
“Save sex for marriage. It’s the only safe place for it as God commands. Women are blaming everything on men. They’re being taught to always be victims. Teach your children to be sexually pure before and after marriage and what this means. Teach them the dangers of alcohol. God commands that we be sober.
“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:1-2).
Needless to say, I agree! But being me, I can’t help commenting further…
Please understand that in what I am about to say, I am by no means defending a) non-consensual sex, b) getting involved in sexual situations while intoxicated, or c) hook-up culture. Period. Hopefully that will be clear from reading this post!
But having said that:
I wonder, does the law actually say “a woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent to sex”? If it does, then yes, Jake was technically at fault. But if so, why is the law so written? Shouldn’t it be “A PERSON who is intoxicated cannot give his or her legal consent to sex”? Because as many people – most of them women, interestingly enough – who responded in comments to this post pointed out, that is exactly true!
I used to teach the effects of alcohol as part of driver education, and a BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration) of as low as 0.02 (or less!) to 0.05% – 1-to-2 drinks, for most people – begins to impair judgment, reduce shyness, and lower inhibitions.
Doesn’t matter whether you’re a man or a woman, what matters is the BAC. And yes, men are usually bigger and heavier, but that doesn’t mean we’re immune:
But the point is that the scenario specifies that BOTH were DRUNK (although even if they were only “buzzed,” my points still hold). “Drunk” generally means 0.06 – 0.11% BAC, at which point judgment, rationality, and inhibitions are further impaired. Regardless of sex.
Perhaps the poster should read,
“Jake was drunk. Josie was drunk. Josie came on strongly to Jake, and they had sex. Now Jake is getting blamed for / bearing the penalty for Josie’s actions.”
I’m not saying that is necessarily how it happened; I AM saying that it very easily could have. Is this justice? Even if it was a mutual thing that just sort of happened, either a) BOTH parties consented, or b) NEITHER party consented. What we have here is a double-standard, by the Left’s OWN standards:
The Left: “I’m a woman! I am 100% equal to a man in every way!” Okay, fine. No argument there. Not identical (that would be a whole ’nother post…), but equal, in worth, quality, rights, etc. Sure! Absolutely.
Also the Left: “We had sex and I regretted it in the morning. It’s the man’s fault, because the man is ALWAYS the aggressor!” Whoa!!! Slow down a minute, there, friend… that ain’t exactly true.
Even if she wasn’t the initiator (I wasn’t there, at this hypothetical hook-up, so I don’t know), Josie nonetheless placed herself in a position where, as the legalese might put it, she as “a reasonable person knew or should have known” that she would be at potential risk for something like this happening.
Is this saying that she bears no responsibility, fault, or culpability for the situation as it occurred? That does not seem rational to me.
It sounds like someone is saying that a woman can do anything she wants to, anywhere she wants to, any way she wants to, and bear no consequences for the results of her choices; but a man has to be constantly on his guard, because he will be held responsible for anything that happens. The point is not that Jake has no responsibility for what happened; obviously, he does. The point is that both share in responsibility.
So here is my alternative suggestion: if Jake is going to be charged with rape, maybe Josie should be charged as an accessory to the crime? Betcha that would reduce the number of such unjust, one-sided accusations! And maybe… possibly… hopefully… lead to some wiser decision-making on the part of some women.
Just my own – admittedly controversial – opinion.
Bottom line: if you’re going to place yourself in a high-risk situation, male or female, you’d better be prepared to face the consequences of that decision. Participating in hook-up culture, and becoming intoxicated in the presence of members of the opposite sex, whether individually or in combination, are unwise, high-risk choices. Choose wisely.
Nota Bene: “If you don’t like it, you can’t have any!”
The Anglophilic Anglican II is a personal blog, not a debating society. I post things because I think there are those who might find them interesting, informative, useful, or enjoyable. If you don’t, that’s on you. I have neither the time, the energy, nor the inclination to argue about it. If you don’t like or agree with something that I have written, scroll on past, or if necessary, un-subscribe. No skin off my teeth – I am not in a popularity context, nor is this my job. And if you choose to be disputatious anyway, be advised that I am very well acquainted with how to delete and block.
Just sayin’. Have a great day, and God bless you!