RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceAt the beginning of her freshman year, Katie Rodriguez ’11 would get “shit-faced just for fun.” As her first year on campus progressed, her drinking escalated until she was blacking out on a regular basis. Then, toward the end of ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
If a girl gets drunk, gets into a car, and hits someone on the way home, that's called her fault. If however she gets drunk and has sex, that's called the guy's fault.
Kudos on the headline! Catchy.
@'nuff said
Sigh, you are all sorts of wrong. The girl that got drunk didn't crash into the guys penis, for starters. Sexual assault and getting it on are two VERY different things. It is the guy's fault if he does something that the girl doesn't want, Period. No one is blaming a guy for consensual sex, and I doubt the girl is either.
Sure, I think it's totally wrong for the default to be, in cases of intoxication, that the woman necessarily cannot be able to give consent (current law in NJ?). However, this doesn't take away from the fact that a woman who feels violated was violated. And it was, indeed, the guy's fault for not making absolutely certain that there was consent. A girl grinding on you doesn't mean she wants you inside her. A girl lying naked on your bed also doesn't give you free reign over her body. Especially in cases of intoxication, you can't take consent for granted. You best be learnin' that quick. And I won't even get into guys purposefully getting girls drunk to take advantage of their lowered inhibitions...
"However, this doesn't take away from the fact that a woman who feels violated was violated."
Why is a girl's feeling after the fact, rather than, say, the actions taken by either party, the basis for law? If you can retroactively say what you want, the judicary's in trouble.
@@Roscoe
Well, it's not the feelings after the fact, they are the feelings during the fact. It's not like women wake up and say, "oh noes! bad decision, I guess I got raped." A woman who knows they got sexually assaulted but can't do anything about it because of her mental state is what we are talking about.
Plus, you're making it sound as though I'm advocating just locking up every alleged rapist. I mean, there is this thing called due process. And, of course, it would be prudent to investigate if there was some conspiracy to screw the guy over, or if the woman talked to her friends about "making a huge mistake" and not mentioning anything about the alleged assault, or if she has a history of coning people. These may be relevant facts to the case, it's due process after all!
love the title
kudos to katie for speaking out on the record
krod, you're amazing. i'm proud of you. love.
roscoe: you're awesome for responding to 'nuff said.
and seriously, it's so strange how some guys completely assume that a flirty/sexual drunk girl equals green light for sex. who in their right mind would do it with any person (girl or guy) who's black out? from the comments by 'nuff said and @roscoe, it really seems that drunken sex has become such the accepted norm that there's not even an attempt to get real consent. and no, a black out yes isn't a real yes, just like a drugged-up yes or suicidal yes doesn't mean a yes
but hopefully, those two commenters are the minority.
No, they're not in the minority. Any rational human being would be annoyed that if two drunk people had sex, the poor, poor girl was viciously "assaulted" and "exploited" while the evil, evil boy was being a sexual animal and wanted to "possess" the girl.