I really shouldn't read Slate. And yet, sometimes I do.
"Sokolow’s report ... claims that “incapacity rules are not gender-specific, so that anyone who has sex with an incapacitated person can be held responsible, regardless of whether the situation is male-on-female, female-on-male, male-on-male or female-on-female,” but the report uses “the pronouns of the usual suspects”—he’s the rapist, she’s the victim—“for convenience.”"
"Even if an incapacitated party is the sexual aggressor in an encounter, she is still the victim: “Too many incapacity inquiries become mired in ‘but she came on to him,’ ” Sokolow’s report states. “It does not matter.”"
Okay, so what about when a super drunk man physically holds down and penetrates a sober person who is screaming and resisting all the way? Is the drunk man the victim?
Nope. I mean, obvs, nope. But here:
"“Arguing that ‘he was drunk too’ doesn’t function to excuse the misconduct, especially since it is almost always disingenuous,” Sokolow wrote in his report. “How would two genuinely incapacitated people have the physical coordination necessary for sexual intercourse?”"
So, that's just ridiculous. Someone hasn't been paying attention to what drunk looks like. And if you haven't been paying attention to what drunk looks like, you shouldn't be writing policy about it.
"When a male student who had been expelled by Duke University for violating its sexual misconduct policy sued the university last year, Duke dean Sue Wasiolek testified that in cases where both parties are drunk, “assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”"
Just seems loony to me. Altho at least Wasiolek specified heterosexuality as a precondition. What about a couple drunk gay men? Hey, what about a drunk gay man and a drunk straight man? How about a drunk gay man and a sober straight woman? Actually, I sorta want to know the answer to that one, because it would seem like an awesome way to expose all kinds of biases in the people passing judgment. I bet a whole lot of people would squirm, because they want to say, well, he wanted it, and then they'd be going, wait. . .
"That’s an assumption that dates back to Shakespeare, but it’s not backed up by modern science. “It’s true that orgasm is impaired in both sexes” when people drink, says Dr. George Koob, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. “With even tiny levels of alcohol,” sexual response “slows down, and delays, and sometimes goes completely.” But Koob also cautioned that there’s no absolute line past which all men are incapable of having an erection and that a total loss of sexual function is less likely for young men, the ones who are implicated in most campus sexual assault disputes."
So this is sort of amazing to me. Don't any of these people read the Bible? I mean, I know this is _spectacularly_ something-ist, because it's the Hebrew Bible take on where some of their neighbors got their start, but:
Basically, after mum got turned into a pillar of salt, Lot and his two daughters went to live in a cave, the women got dear old dad drunk on some wine and got themselves knocked up and their offspring were the progenitors of the Moabites and the Ammonites.
Older. Than. Shakespeare. Part of our cultural heritage. More importantly, you'd think someone with a name like Sokolow would know that.