Alcohol, rape, and man-hating sharia on college campuses

Drunk woman in CardiffI thought it would be interesting to juxtapose two stories about drunkenness and rape.   The first is hearsay:  I heard it from a former judge’s clerk who was telling me about the funniest case she ever worked on, back in the 1980s.  I don’t have details, but I do remember the core facts she told me.  The second is ripped from today’s academic headlines.

The first case, which happened in the mid-1980s, was a rape trial.  The alleged rape took place at a beach party that involved lots and lots of booze.  The claim was that the victim was reclining in a beach chair when the defendant raped her.

The victim testified in sobbing detail about her terrible ordeal.  The judge passed a note to his clerk saying, “She’s dumb as a post.”  How right the judge was came out under cross-examination.  It quickly became apparently that the sex was entirely consensual because the “victim” had been so drunk she thought the defendant was her boyfriend — and she thought this even though her boyfriend was wearing a heavy cast on his leg that night, while the defendant was not.  The defendant was swiftly acquitted.

I guess it was that story, which I heard almost 30 years ago, that has made me leery to this day about accepting at face value rape claims from women who were admittedly drunk almost to the point of unconsciousness.

And now for the other rape story, this one coming from Dartmouth, an Ivy League institution that prides itself on — ahem — the quality education it gives its students.  There, a young man named Parker Gilbert was arrested and tried for rape.  He was fully acquitted because all of the available evidence indicated that both he and the young women were drunk as skunks and that the sex was consensual.  (The girl’s roommate said that the sounds of “consensual sex” were present, which makes it sound as if a Dartmouth dorm is pretty much the equivalent of a brothel, with sex taking place openly in semi-public rooms.  Everyone at college is apparently an exhibitionist or, whether unwittingly or unwillingly, a voyeur.)  I pass the narrative baton to Robert Stacy McCain:

The accuser was drunk, the accused was drunk, and the witnesses were drunk — evidently everybody on campus at Dartmouth was completely hammered that night, and the only thing anyone can remember for sure is that “vaginal penetration” occurred.

Permit me to digress: Can someone get a trial transcript and provide me with verbatim quotes of Nancy Wu’s testimony? Because I’m curious to know what she says she heard, which the newspaper euphemistically describes as “sounds consistent with consensual sex.” Was the alleged victim moaning passionately, as if in a state of orgasmic ecstasy? “Oh, Parker! You sexy beast! Do me, baby!” But I digress . . .

You can see why I was so strongly reminded of that long-ago reminiscence about crazy days in the District Court.  But here’s an add-on that would, I think, have still been unthinkable back in the halcyon days of the 1980s:  In modern-day Dartmouth, even though Gilbert was completely exonerated, Dartmouth still considered him guilty:

How did the activists at Dartmouth respond? With a lengthy statement (still labeling the accuser as a “victim”) denouncing the jury, demanding a “cultural shift” in what could be considered a crime. . . .

If Gilbert had been convicted, the message would have been a need to address “rape culture” at Dartmouth. With Gilbert acquitted, the message was a need to address “rape culture” at Dartmouth (and in New Hampshire!). Facts, it appears, don’t matter.

As McCain notes, it’s not a matter of ignoring facts, it’s a matter of not knowing facts — but in the absence of knowledge, the man is guilty.  In other words, America’s finest educational institutions have come up with a mirror image of the sharia standard:  when it comes to sex, it’s always the man’s fault.  While Islam holds that women always ask for it, meaning a man cannot be guilty of rape, America’s universities hold that men are always forcing it and must, even in the absence of knowledge or the presence of consent, be deemed guilty of rape.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. says

    Is it oh surprising that now more and more people are coming to hate the Leftist alliance? On a personal, not abstract, level.
    Btw, the Navy did this first, or at least before this incident at least.

  2. says

    If America becomes the Islamic States of America, it’ll mostly be because people got fed up with the impure relationships going around.
    Now people might think that impure relationships and sex don’t matter. Wait until they see what happens in a war with that as the base of your “youth” holding your civilization up.

  3. Kevin_B says

    The amount of alcohol abuse that exists in our present-day societies would almost justify reviving the temperance movement and prohibition…

  4. Tara S says

    Honestly, leaving aside all else, it’s obvious that A LOT of young women who get drunk one night wake up the next morning and realize that, hey, they had sex that they /did not/ want to have, whether it was consensual on their part at the time or not (and obviously it’s a heckuva lot worse if it wasn’t consensual, but even if it was my point still stands). Why, then, do so many young women continue to think getting falling-over drunk is a good idea? I assume their parents or driving instructors have told them about “defensive driving,” where even if you’re driving completely correctly you have to assume that other drivers will be careless or uncaring of the rules. It’s the same darned principle. Even if it’s not your fault, /you have the ability and the responsibility to do certain things to protect yourself/.
    Saying things like that is construed as victim-blaming, though, because it’s implying that the victim of an assault is at fault. I’m not sure why. If I leave my car in the driveway with the windows rolled down and the keys in the ignition, it might not be my fault if it gets stolen, but I sure as heck could have helped to prevent it. You don’t walk through a dark alleyway in a bad part of town at night; you don’t leave your front door open and your jewelry on the counter while you’re away on vacation; and you don’t get too sloshed to function correctly when you’re at a gathering that includes physically strong males whose morality you aren’t 100% certain of. How is this not common sense?

    • says

      The Left can’t allow women to realize they have the power to change things by changing their behavior. That doesn’t require the Regime or the State or the Totalitarian Utopia. So they need to wipe those options out of existence in the minds of traumatized and peer pressured women.
      That way, the only thing left to them is to Obey the Left if they want rape protection. It’s a way of checkmating people, by limiting their options. A form of debt peonage.  Remember Natalie Holloway in Aruba? Japan tries to set up the group or buddy system on their numerous oversea trips for kids and tourists. There’s a reason for that. The solo individual generally is easy prey when left out of the group’s protection, except for special exemptions like super warriors or survivalists.
      Teens are very obedient to authority, specifically peer pressure which is always in their face. Shaving their legs, shaving other parts, and drinking are all part of the social diagram and circle dance placed around livestock, I mean humans. FGM in Africa is enforced by the women, not so much the men.

  5. Eidolon says

    I saw a show once that was about what had happened to a person who was killed leading up to their death; my wife and I were flipping channels or something. We ended up watching this episode about a guy who was out with a girl, drinking, who met some strangers in the bar or wherever and decided to go with them to their place (they turned out to be delinquents/criminals). Eventually the girl got a ride or something, the guy got sloshed, and later he had a fight with someone (who was jealous about the girl), went out to the sidewalk to walk away, and was shot in the back and killed on the street.
    What really fascinated me was a cop they had on at the end, who said “It was just an unfortunate situation. There’s really no lesson to learn, it was just a tragedy.” And I thought: no lesson to learn! This kid did about a hundred moronic things, and if he had acted halfway sensibly in any one of those cases he’d have been fine! Even a cop couldn’t list any of the dozens of mistakes he made? Are we so far gone that we can’t even recognize stupid actions when we see them?

  6. sabawa says

    I lived in Riyadh in the 80s.   Yep, women cover their faces AND especially their hair as  otherwise men would be so aroused by the the women’s wondrous tresses  (something women would purposely encourage if Sharia law didn’t force head covering…wink, wink) that there would be wanton activities in the streets all day long.    Perhaps America’s little coeds should limit their alcohol intake and cover their heads.  You can never be too safe.

    • Tara S says

      I may not agree with a lot of the fashion choices fellow females make nowadays, but I don’t think a woman’s clothing or lack of clothing is any kind of a justification for a man to assault a woman. This post isn’t talking about personal appearance, and I don’t think anybody here is saying that a woman is responsible for her own rape if her appearance causes arousal in a man.
      Limiting alcohol intake, on the other hand, is an entirely reasonable step, because it protects a woman’s ability to /protect herself/ from unwanted advances, whether by words (“stop that, I don’t want you to touch me”) or by actions (kneeing the guy between the legs and walking away while he whimpers). Alcohol impairs both your judgment and your ability to act on whatever judgment you’ve got, and makes it easy for other people to take advantage of you; therefore, if you don’t want to be taken advantage of, one way to help prevent it is to be careful about your alcohol intake.

      • sabawa says

        I was being facetious……sorry.  I agree that a woman is not responsible for her rape by her attire.  I was trying to point out how ridiculous that p.o.v. is…..seen through Sharia-eyes.   I didn’t do a very good job of it, did I?

        • Tara S says

          Oh! I didn’t think you personally thought women could be responsible for rape because of their clothing — I thought you were equating the “women should be more careful about their attire to prevent rape” line of thought with the “women should be more careful about their alcohol consumption to prevent rape” line of thought, and I was objecting to the comparison. Sorry, I obviously misread your comment.

    • says

      A lot of societies and cultures over project their rules and boundaries on other people. Gangs for example might shoot you if you make a sign or wear certain clothes. To us, that’s stupid because we’re not part of gangs, but to them they hear us communicating to them in their language. That’s the result of too many stupid people with fire and death, backing their ideology.
      So the Arabian Muslims think that if you don’t wear what they determine as correct, a woman has a big “Rape Meat Free for Men” sign on them all the time.

  7. Charles Martel says

    I think it’s common sense to tell a woman to avoid putting herself in situations where she could end up in trouble because of her attire and behavior. That is never to say that any woman “deserves” rape or asks for it. That’s the kind of excuse you hear among sociopaths and way too many Muslim men.
    One thing that adds to the whole air of unreality about feminist snits over “rape culture” and “shaming” is the ludicrous notion that all men are responsible for all other men—that all we need to do is to attend our secret wordlwide men’s conclave, pass the talking stick, and agree to eliminate rape.
    This notion mirrors leftist fantasies about almost everything—blacks all think alike (or should); Latinos, too; Republicans are uniformly sinister and harbor control fantasies about wymyn; and so on. Tedious, mindless, irrational stuff, but, as Sam Spade once said, “It’s the stuff that dreams are made of.”

    • says

      Most of the laws on gun and human control are designed for criminals, but imposed on citizens only mostly.
      Of course Democrat gun runners and black thug Holder are excluded from gun control. So was WACO raiders and the death squad leaders there.

  8. says

    You all seem to have forgotten my Facebook experience, with all the liberals saying it was absolutely wrong to tell young women not to drink, because doing so would make them feel bad later if they got drunk and raped.  Moreover, telling the girls to take common sense protective measures would also remove all responsibility from the boys and once again create a “she asked for it” mentality.  They were impenetrable to logic, real world experience, shared responsibility, and self-protection.

  9. Charles Martel says

    “. . . it was absolutely wrong to tell young women not to drink, because doing so would make them feel bad later if they got drunk and raped.”
    One of the most famous prayers in European churches during the Middle Ages, from Britain and Germany to Iberia and the Dardanelles, was the imploration, “And, Lord, protect us from the wrath of the Norsemen.”
    I suppose the modern equivalent is, “Lord, protect us from the haywire ‘reasoning’ of the feminists.” Can you imagine that the worst thing that can happen to the poor little dears described above is that the thing they’ll feel worst about is the warning not to drink but not the rape that could occur after they poo-pooh the warning?
    =SIGH= Take me now, Lord.

  10. Tara S says

    I think the thing that gets me most about the liberal view of this subject is that their solution to the entire problem is to “teach men not to rape.” Literally, word-for-word — I’ve seen it in more than one place — that’s how these people propose to fix everything.
    And I have to wonder just what kind of utopia they’re envisioning where we will be able to magically eradicate rape — and all other crimes, for that matter! — by just TEACHING people empathy and self-restraint. “No, no, Freddie, when she yells at you and tries to push you away she means that she doesn’t like that. You’re disrespecting her wishes and making her sad. You need to let her go and say you’re sorry.”

  11. Libby says

    Book, I remember the brouhaha over a feminist columnist very gently mentioning that girls could avoid some potential rape situations by not drinking to excess. It was crazy. In fact, the whole discussion about rape has become incoherent because these young women believe that they can rail against the  nebulous concepts of “rape culture” & the “unwanted male gaze” while still flaunting their  slutty appearance & behavior (see: Slut Walks). 
    You can’t escape human (animal) nature: predators select the weakest prey, and getting stumbling drunk and/or dressing in a manner that says you’re open for business makes you a great target, not a deserving one. Why present a bad dude with a crime of opportunity?
    As with so many of the Left’s current causes, this pulls attention away from legitimate cases of rape and the rape jihad occurring in other parts of the world, such as the UK  and the Netherlands,

  12. says

    Tara, keep in mind that their version of teaching people a lesson involves mass hallucinative rape of people like Sarah Palin. As well as false rape charges like Duke case, they are all their version of “teaching lessons to men on how to not rape”. How charging innocent people with the crimes the Left and their rapists are guilty of is going to teach anyone anything… well, that’s for a zombie necromaster to know.

  13. says

    Something people may not have thought of it, even here at the Bookworm Room which is ahead of society in 95% of cases.
    The Left directly causes or indirectly causes women to be raped. The women then are traumatized and easier to make obedient to the Left’s empowering sense of victimhood. Those women are then scared of empowering themselves with society’s traditional warning, so end up drinking themselves senseless to forget the trauma.
    Entire generations of women are being raped and traumatized by the Left or the Left’s policies. This makes it even more difficult for them to figure out which is the correct path. After all, it’s common evidence that little girls that were raped sometimes grow to be promiscuous later on, because they think men violating them is socially normal and expected of the role the woman is in.
    The Left is conditioning obedient slaves, in this case sex slaves. Groupies and various  other fanatics for Hollywood, you can’t stop that. But you can stop the Left from controlling vast swathes of women, who only obey the Left because of fear of being raped. And they only fear being raped because of… the Left and being a slave on the Left’s plantation makes them feel weak, powerless, and afraid. The Left has a version of capitalism and free market, but what they trade/create isn’t wealth but evil.

  14. Mike Devx says

    “Teach men not to rape”?
    Isn’t that like closing the barn door after the horse is gone?  The only men who need to be taught not to rape are those who rape.
    Ah… unless you view ALL men as men who rape.  Men are rapists by their very nature!!!  Which is ridiculous, insulting, inflammatory, and outrageous.  But that’s how the rabid feminist groups justify forcing all men to sit through indoctrination.  Probably we would all have to be recertified as non-rapists by sitting through a yearly licensed indoctrination class every year.  “I just finished my non-rape certification class for 2014″, I boasted.  Look, I even have my “I am an enlightened male” sticker to wear on my lapel, to prove it!
    Of course, I am not a captive audience.  But those young guys stuck in government high schools are a captive audience!  And surprisingly, according to Book’s evidence, it appears the men in Universities are a captive audience, too.  Ready to be controlled – and forced into indoctrination classes and camps – by totalitarian campus groups, or ELSE.
    We could have a double-dipper.  “Anti-rape sensititivity training camp” in the morning, and “Global warming is Evil you Capitalist Authoritarian Paternalist Pigs” sensitivitity training in the afternoon.  Just for men!
    Do’t get me wrong.  I think there is such a thing as rape culture.  “She was asking for it”, by her manner of dress, behavior, or drunkenness, is a cultural attitude.  Some men will protect a defenseless (inebriated) woman, and others will rape her.  It basically comes down to how these men were raised and trained, and what the prevailing attitude is among their homeboys (or the cultural group they run with).
    Those jihadist teenage dogs who run in packs and prey on young Western women in Europe, raping them when they can merely for the crime of walking alone… that’s an attitude of their culture, STRONGLY aided and abetted by those who trained them, including their imams and other elders.
    Remember the first time when you were a teenager, leafing through a National Geographic – you may have been at the library – and you turn the page, and there they are, those pictures of bare-breasted women standing in front of primitive jumgle huts?  Drop the magazine quickly like it was highly radioactive and glance around to see who caught you with that naughty pornography!!!  Disgusting evil boy!  Even though it was not naughty pornography.  That’s all cultural.
    Women shouldn’t have to worry about how they dress.  They shouldn’t have to worry about getting too drunk.  They shouldn’t have to worry about where the party is at, what bar they’re at, what night it is,w hat time it is.
    But when you’re out there at a party scene, you are not safe within your own homogenous little cultural bubble.  You are out there in the wild, in the mix, and there are those in that mix who do not share your cultural values.  And some of them are predators, and some of those predators will rape for reasons of their own.  The fact that you do not share their reasons will not protect you.
    We like to think that things are safe, and cozy, and warm, like a protective fetal amnoitic sac, everywhere and at all times in America and even in the world.  That is simply not true.  I wish we would teach our young girls simply that the world is not a safe place, and they need to take care of themselves, and protect themselves.

  15. says

    “Women shouldn’t have to worry about how they dress.  They shouldn’t have to worry about getting too drunk.  They shouldn’t have to worry about where the party is at, what bar they’re at, what night it is,w hat time it is.”
    Unless you want to devolve back into an animal, the responsibility of free will demands that one worry about such things. Women aren’t excluded.

    • Tara S says

      I agree that responsible adults should be prudent in all of their actions, but it would be nice if we didn’t have to have the constant awareness in the back of our minds that one wrong move in any of those areas could lead to our assault and/or murder.

      I mean, I’ve never met a guy who had to carry pepper spray in his pocket in case another, stronger guy tried to get too intimate with him. Or a guy who had to figure out how to turn down creepy, unwanted advances in a sweet and humble enough way that the advancer wouldn’t turn angry and potentially violent. Or a guy who always made sure to go places with a buddy because walking around as a vulnerable lone male just has too many risks nowadays. Or, for that matter, a guy who was constantly aware of the fact that any strange male he met could be a potential rapist.

      Women in North America (at least, the ones I know and have read about) have certain mindsets and behavior patterns to protect ourselves that the majority of men don’t have to have. And obviously we should do everything in our power to be safer, but it IS kind of messed up that we have to, say, be wary about wearing ponytails while jogging because an attacker could use them as handles. In a better world, we wouldn’t have to worry about things like that.

        • says

          I know what you mean, Tara S.  Sometimes it’s nice to imagine life in pre-Sharia, non-rape Sweden or Japan, which seems to be quite civil.  We are what we are, though, which is an aggressive society.

          We’re also a society that’s made it easier for men to rape.  In the old days, when colleges stood in place of the parents, girls dorms were barred to men.  Today, bathrooms are co-ed.  The former might have been oppressive, but it was certainly safer.  

          I think we can do both:  demand a civil society, but remind women that that human biology exists and that men, some more than others, are predatory. Ignoring this reality won’t make it go away, although we can try taking the edge off it, so we’re more Japan and less South Africa.

          • says

            In Japan, dorms are led by a dorm leader and males aren’t allowed on the female floor. Of course, females are allowed on the male floor.
            What this tends to do is to give people, that are like me, more power over male behavior. As it lets higher status males get in the face of the other males, forcing them to obey the rules using violence, force of personality, etc. They can’t ignore us, by going down the hallway to their little sex kitten’s room 5 doors over. Just talking to any girl, who will wish the rule enforced, will give information on who is going where. There’s an entire SPY agency there monitoring the process, not just the teachers.
            A group of all males or all females are much more orderly than a mixed group. If you’ve ever even SEEN how mixed groups behave, it’s different. The stuff males can do to each other in the company of only males is much different than in mixed company. What women do in the rest room talking… is also different.
            By using gender bias and models, humanity can enforce certain standards, without social or law intervention. The Left, however, does not wish for the authority of gender bias or models to be present. And you can begin to see why.

      • says

        Here’s the list of things I had to worry about when I first trained in various H2H systems after 9/11.
        1. Getting killed by a bunch of terrorists with bombs or firearms or knives.
        2. Getting beat up at a bar and kidnapped.
        3. Some combination of the above.
        Then after I learned H2H sufficiently to a proficient level, I had different worries.
        1. How was I going to explain 20 corpses around me if I happened to be in a gang fight or attacked by a terror squad, so that the police won’t shoot me on sight because I’m the only guy standing.
        2. How do I explain to police, lawyers, or the jury what self defense is, since running away from the scene of the crime isn’t a good thing.
        3. How do I not kill my training partners in the dojo, since I needed them to learn how to become better.
        4. How do I integrate martial arts knowledge from their community into what I want to do, without alienating every instructor and student on the planet (alienating 68% is a good thing though, but not 100%).
        What most people get PTSD guilt and trauma from when worrying is due to their reflexive, victim like, defensive mentality. They are like the guy riding convoy always expecting a terror attack but never figuring out where it will come from. So my mental state before H2H training was “paranoid” but also “tense and scared”. Because the threat was real but it was also immaterial, unlikely, and or unspecific. Transgressing into the next stage requires offensive mentality, where a convoy guard is still defending but now simulating how AQ will attack his convoy because that’s how he would attack his convoy. Thus he spends his time gaming out attack scenarios and preparing for specifics, and thus the trauma and fear is removed because he is doing something proactive, something effective.
        Fear is merely what the human biology created to motivate us to action. Until we know what to do and do it, fear will seem like a traumatic experience and something to be “worried over”. After one transcends social boundaries and limitations, what people worry about aren’t so much the predators and rapists out there, but society’s limitations and laws itself. This is a paradigm shift. And it’s something only warrior sages, people out in the woods surviving on wilderness lore only, often come to.
        My mentality these days is “if it is too much paperwork, I won’t get into touching range with diseased sub human punks”; they are going to have to file a permit if they want to get killed by me, or invade my home. Or it is “the only excuse I need is to see evil, once someone presents me evil, I’ll do something about it”. For strangers I have a different level of response than for friends or associates. For kids, I have a different response as well. I train in those responses, since those social responses are weaker and less accurate than my H2H knowledge. People should see how animals act around me, especially the feral packs of dogs. They can smell the difference and it’s something humans often cannot detect until they get stuck in, way past the point of No Return.
        As for being long winded, that’s not something you should say to me. I was originally known for writing extremely long comments as if they were blog posts, except on my blog I wrote like 3 paragraphs. The clarity and advent of internet freedom is the ability to think, speak, or write your thoughts, without the limitations of social authority pressuring you due to names or identity. In Japan, many prefer to be “anonymous”, since it feels very freedom like compared to school and working society there. In America, we prefer cognomens above all else, for our individual identity cannot stand anonymity when voicing our opinions. For those that OBEY LAWS and rules only because they fear being punished, being without social restraint makes them into beasts and rude criminals (as opposed to polite con artists). For those that work with the best interest of humanity in mind, irregardless of the punishment, being without society is the same as being in society, there is no difference, for they follow an internal code that cannot be changed by external force or threats. The reason why the Left can hijack the former but not the later, is merely because of that difference. The former can change over night from the Boy and Girl Scouts of America, into a brother for the homosexual pleasure of anyone that wants to pay the price, if the Left can change the leadership of the organization. The later are full of stubborn individuals and freedom fighters, they aren’t going to Obey merely because the Leader orders them to bend over.
        There are extremely dangerous individuals present in America. And by that, I mean extremely dangerous to criminals, rapists, and terrorists. But they aren’t allowed to ride herd or shotgun on the rest of society or to suppress the bad guys. Prisons are a place where the criminal is kept to protect society from them, right? In my world, a prison would be a place that the criminal is in to protect the criminal… From Us. And to the criminals, they actually do use the prisons as a sort of rest area when they are tired of being sick or hungry or beaten in normal society. Sure, there is violence in prisons, but they don’t have to worry about the mafia sending a hit men on them when they are asleep or burning their house down with them tied down inside. They get free tv, free weight lifting equipment, cigarettes are smuggled in, sexual pleasure too, and free food. For a few years of this, they recuperate and then go outside into the world to make more burglaries and assaults. Revolving Door.
        The only reason Japan works is not because of their authoritarian system, akin to Singapore. The reason why Japan or Singapore even works is because the authoritarian system relies upon the individual initiative of every person in their society, not merely the “obedience” of said person. They want every individual informing on and correcting the behavior of every other individual. People agree to this because it benefits them. But it has certain effects, like suicidal tendencies for those that don’t fit. In Japan, if you are the nail that stands out, you get hammered first. Every society, including American society, has pluses and minuses. Only those blind with patriotic or alien fervor, cannot recognize that.

  16. says

    I posted this interview link at Neo’s blog about the knifing at school too. But it should educate people on my relationship with violence, since Larkin was one of my original instructors. Sensei, to the Japanese.
    In the martial arts community, there’s a lot of pure bred interest in lineages, so it matters to them what my base or fundamentals came from, the art I took first. Modern systems don’t really look at it like that. I don’t look at it like that. I doubt Larkin and his training cadre looks at it like that. Every person has a toolbox, whatever is at the bottom of the toolbox is their personal choice since what really matters is which problem can be fixed with what tool. Not what the toolbox is made out of, or what the fundamentals are.


Leave a Reply