« "Postracial Candidate" Caught Deliberately Manipulating Race... | Main | Monkey See, Monkey Do »

May 12, 2008

Coffee Snorters: College Daze Edition

Proof that not all college kids are brain dead:

Equally maddening must be the reaction that sometimes greets performers in Sex Signals, an improvisational show on date rape whose venues include Harvard, Yale, and schools throughout the Midwest. “Sometimes we get women who are advocates for men,” the show’s founders told a Chicago public radio station this October, barely concealing their disbelief. “They blame the victim and try to find out what the victim did so they won’t do it.” Such worrisome self-help efforts could shut down the campus rape industry.

“Promiscuity” is a word that you will never see in the pages of a campus rape center publication; it is equally repugnant to the sexual liberationist strand of feminism and to the Catherine Mac-Kinnonite “all-sex-is-rape” strand. But it’s an idea that won’t go away among the student Lumpenproletariat. Students refer to “sororistutes”—those wild and crazy Greek women so often featured in Girls Gone Wild videos. And they persist in seeing a connection between promiscuity and the alleged campus rape epidemic. A Rutgers University freshman says that he knows women who claim to have been sexually assaulted, but adds: “They don’t have the best reputation. Sometimes it’s hard to believe that kind of stuff.”

Rape consultant David Lisak faced a similar problem this November: an auditorium of Rutgers students who kept treating women as moral agents. He might have sensed the trouble ahead when in response to a photo array of what Lisak calls “undetected rapists,” a girl asked: “Why are there only white men? Am I blind?” It went downhill from there. Lisak did his best to send a tremor of fear through the audience with the news that “rape happens with terrifying frequency. I’m not talking of someone who comes onto campus but students, Rutgers students, who prowl for victims in bars, parties, wherever alcohol is being consumed.” He then played a dramatized interview with a student “rapist” at a fraternity that had deliberately set aside a room for raping girls during parties, according to Lisak. The students weren’t buying it. “I don’t understand why these parties don’t become infamous among girls,” wondered one. Another asked: “Are you saying that the frat brothers decided that this room would be used for committing sexual assault, or was it just: ‘Maybe I’ll get lucky, and if I do, I’ll go there’?” And then someone asked the most dangerous question of all: “Shouldn’t the victim have had a little bit of education beforehand? We all know the dangers of parties. The victim had miscalculations on her part; alcohol can lead to things.”

In a column this November in the University of Virginia’s student newspaper, third-year student Katelyn Kiley gave the real scoop on frat parties: They’re filled with boys hoping to have sex. She did not call these boys “rapists.” She did not demonize their sex drive. She merely offered some practical wisdom to the “scantily clad” freshman girls trooping off to Virginia’s fraternity row: “That frat boy really is just trying to get into your pants.” Most disturbingly, she advised the girls to exercise sexual control: “So dance with that good-looking guy. If he offers, you can even go up to his room to get a mixed drink. . . . Flirt. But it’s probably a good idea to keep your clothes on, and at the end of the night, to go home to your own bed. Interestingly enough, that’s how you get them to keep asking you back.”

You can read thousands of pages of rape crisis center hysteria without coming across such bracing common sense. Amazingly, Kiley hasn’t received any of the millions of dollars that feminists in the federal government have showered on campuses to prevent what they call rape.

Clearly our education system is failing these young women. One weeps...

Posted by Cassandra at May 12, 2008 08:12 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2133

Comments

"All sex is rape!?" I feel so cheap, so used.

Katelyn is one smart lady! I would further add as common sense, that ladies pair up and keep an eye on each other. We have designated drivers so how about designated girl friend morality advisors?

"You have had enough girl friend! Time to go home!"

Posted by: vet66 at May 12, 2008 11:16 AM

Now, to be fair... while I understand the young men's motivation (I was once a raging pile of hormones myself), someone should really pull these guys aside and have a talk with THEM about self respect.

I think this is something that frequently gets overlooked. We're used to warning the young ladies about the predatory male, and the good news is that some (e.g. Katelyn) are also recognizing that they bear some responsibility for their actions too (didn't we just have a long conversation about women being fully capable of taking care of themselves recently?). But other than pointing fingers at the young men and shouting "RAPIST! J'accuse!" they seem to get a pass on their own behavior.

Basically, all I am saying is that there's some middle ground between being a slavering beastial monster bent on deflowering helpless maidens and being an incompetent fool who is mentally disabled by testosterone flowing through his bloodstream. These guys are NOT idiots. Nor are they monsters. If you lay out to them that sexual conquest is not a game, and that if they don't respect themselves how is anyone else going to (and let's not forget the "would you really want some other dude treating your sister/daughter like that" logic... cause guys hate that), then I suspect the world might be improved.

I'm no Pollyanna... I know what college dorm life is like. I also know that it took me till the ripe old age of 24 to get my head out of my fourth point of contact. But dammit, let's have more respect for guys (and for them to have more respect for themselves) and grant that hormones do not cause men to become Neaderthals.

Posted by: MikeD at May 12, 2008 11:58 AM

You mean, playing hard to get and making the boy chase you works?

Who'da thunk it?

Duh.

Posted by: Cricket at May 12, 2008 12:32 PM

"College girls drink themselves into near or actual oblivion before and during parties. That drinking is often goal-oriented, suggests University of Virginia graduate Karin Agness: it frees the drinker from responsibility and 'provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that she ordinarily wouldn’t.' " from Heather Mac Donald' piece "The Campus Rape Myth" to which VC linked in the first sentence "Proof that not all college kids are brain dead".

I suggest that if these women had received proper sex education and guidance from their parents (which IMO has to start long before the onset of physical sexual maturity), they wouldn't put themselves into these situations; the same applies to the young men as well. None of these kids would need alcohol to loosen their inhibitions, because they wouldn't have "inhibitions" - instead, they'd have self respect, standards, self-control, and they'd give themselves permission to have sex when the remaining circumstances were "correct": love, affection, mutual respect, on-going relationship, etc. (the way some of us did in our college years). IMHO, the unhealthy emphasis on sex is the result of a culture that glorifies casual "hooking up" (watch any prime-time comedy such as "How I Met Your Mother", or "Two and a Half Men" or any others of that ilk, not to mention "Desperate Housewives", "Big Brother", "The Bachelor", etc.) in an environment which fails to provide fair, honest, realistic and responsible "sex education" to kids. So many parents are so hung up on perpetuating their own "morality" and "values" (which they see as sufficient for all times and places) that they fail to teach their children about the biological, social, emotional, financial, personal aspects of adult sexuality, with the result that kids are not prepared to "ride the tiger" that is their hormone-fueled sexual ability. If they weren’t so repressed about their sexuality, they wouldn’t need to intoxicate themselves into a state of lack of self-control to express it, and they would be less likely to put themselves into situations where they would need to protect themselves from others who are out of control.

Posted by: Ministry of Speaking Truth to Power at May 12, 2008 12:42 PM

Well, speaking as a female, I've rarely seen a girl get drunk in order to free herself from sexual repression :p

More often, girls get drunk for one of several reasons:

1. A misplaced desire to fit in/be accepted/look cool. You will note here that being taught to be a bit more "repressed" might not be a bad thing here, since I have personally witnessed girls doing things when drunk that cause them deep and abiding humiliation and sorrow once they sober up.

I went to a school where there were 3 1/2 guys for every girl.

I was very lucky, but there were girls who were, quite literally, what I would consider gang raped in frats. No girl wants to have oral sex with that many guys. That isn't love. There is no voluntariness, nothing of affection or joy in that. Nothing recognizable as giving. It is all taking from someone who just is not in their right mind. Now did they get themselves too drunk to resist? Absolutely.

But there is no way in hell these girls would have done these things sober. No girl wants to have sex with 10 or 15 guys in one night. She just doesn't. A part of why I left school was my utter disillusionment with people. I was shocked at a few things that I heard about, and that happened to people I knew.

2. Because they are intentionally drugged. And yeah, that happens. A lot more than you think. And if you have a daughter you'd best warn her about that.

3. Because they are uncomfortable morally with what they are doing, and alcohol is Dutch courage. And here you'll note that this is, contra Mark's premise, a situation where a young woman does not actually want to have sex in the first place, but is succumbing to peer pressure and gets drunk to quiet that little voice inside her head that keeps telling her she's selling herself too cheaply.

And it's not her parent's values that are the problem. It's her own.

To most girls, having sex means the beginning of a committed relationship. I know that is what it always meant to me. To many guys the same age, it means nothing more than the exchange of bodily fluids. It's just a hook up. But today's morality looks down on girls who are selective. They are viewed as prudes.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 12, 2008 01:09 PM

That actually sounds exactly like Mark's premise, except he views the little voice as a form of repression embedded by her parents.

I've met a lot of women with a lot of different upbringings. Some of them I knew in High School were the sort whose family kept a copy of Our Bodies, Ourselves around the house for perusing -- I had never heard of it until I encountered it at a friend's house, in fact. (With my own upbringing, even as a teenager my reaction was something like, "What kind of parent thinks this is a good idea?" But the parents doubtless meant well, and thought they were doing just the right thing.)

(Now that's a book I haven't thought of in years. Looking at the online version to see what advice it offers here, I'm struck by the way it structures its advice on 'Relationships with Men': how to develop communication, how to define expectations, how to keep a separate identity during the relationship, knowing when to leave, and getting help when it becomes abusive.

(That structure suggests that relationships with men will be almost wholly negative as a matter of course: they won't understand you, they'll expect too much, they'll try to control you, and when you are finally ready to leave, abuse is their normal and expected response. Good God: who is building fearful and repressive notions into people's heads?)

In any event, I think Cass is right -- the ones who had sex early were never as happy as the ones who waited until they had a committed relationship, one that was at least seriously likely to lead to marriage. It's a good thing to do that.

This is the honest truth about sexuality, in my opinion, that parents should be teaching. Not just their daughters.

Posted by: Grim at May 12, 2008 01:42 PM

And again, we're accepting the premise that women must be drugged/inebriated/coerced/forced into a sexual encounter, but "boys will be boys". And I personally find that sad. The young men should NOT get off that easily. I do not consider the average college man to be a rapist in waiting. Nor do I find that he is faultless in the hookup culture. It takes two to tango, and yet all focus has been on "protecting the woman" with no thought towards reining in the men. They're responsible adults too, what wrong with making them act like it.

By all means, educate the women. But get these frat boys to clean up their act as well.

Posted by: MikeD at May 12, 2008 01:48 PM

And it's not her parent's values that are the problem. It's her own.

IMHO it is her lack of values, or maybe rather her screwed up values: valuing what her peers think over what her own conscience (if she has one) thinks.

I'm not against parental influence; I just don't automatically give parents qua parents the benefit of the doubt on some of these things. How many parents have you known who (subconsciously or otherwise) manage to inculcate the bad kind of "other-oriented" values (giving in to peer pressure) into their kids? And let's not EVEN get started on the example seen in the Southern United States during the years leading up to the so-called "civil rights era" - where were the f*****g parents? They (not all, certainly, but WAY too many) managed to inculcate racism, hate, lynching, etc., ad nauseum (and ad mortem) as an institution spreading over many generations. So it's undisputed that one's status as "parent" clearly (IMO) does not by itself make one an authority on morality.

[Too bad we can't require licenses to carry loaded testicles and ovaries, like we require for the other kind of "concealed carry", huh?]

... being taught to be a bit more "repressed" might not be a bad thing here ...

Clearly self-repression is a salutary trait conducive to survival. But repression (of sexuality) for its own sake is like putting a band-aid on a torn artery. It's a stop-gap measure called into play when the moral, biological, social, emotional education of the person relying on repression are inadequate to guide the person to wise choices as s/he encounters the challenges of adult sexuality. And the thing about repression IMO is that it plays into ignorance and never really addresses the fundamental issues.

Posted by: Ministry of Speaking Truth to Power at May 12, 2008 01:56 PM

That should not be taken as a condemnation of girls who don't wait, by the way -- I've been friends to many who didn't, and regard them just as kindly as others. It's merely an observation about what seems to make women happy, both in the short term and the long run.

Posted by: Grim at May 12, 2008 01:56 PM

Yes, let's not even get started with condemnations of "the Southern United States," if you please. I'll take that kindly.

Posted by: Grim at May 12, 2008 02:02 PM

I expect this may make me unpopular with some people, but I am a bit more of a free thinker on this subject. I don't think early sex (whatever that is) *per se* is necessarily a problem for girls.

I think the problem is when they don't go into it on their own terms, and for the right reasons.

I think that, for the most part, women and girls enjoy sex more within the context of a relationship. For us, it's more of a two- or three-dimensional act. We don't want to just jump into bed and screw; we want to make love. There is a difference. I am not even sure that (and again this may make me unpopular) all girls/women need to be in a committed relationship. I think what is important is that there *be* a relationship.

People have different morals. What I may think or you may think doesn't always matter. But as a matter of what people need to be happy, I think most girls or women need both affection and sex together. It's a package deal. If the first element is lacking then we feel used and betrayed, and it's they that we lose our self-respect, because we gave away not only sex, but a part (no matter how large or small) of our hearts and got nothing in return. Unlike men, we don't chop everything into sterile little compartments, and it is kind of incomprehensible to us that you guys can.

That is why it hurts a woman so much if a man cheats. She will always assume that his heart as well as his body strayed, because if it had been her, that would have been the case.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 12, 2008 02:02 PM

Yes, let's not even get started with condemnations of "the Southern United States," if you please. I'll take that kindly.

When we're talking morality, it is a natural point of reference IMHO.

Posted by: Ministry of Speaking Truth to Power at May 12, 2008 02:13 PM

I think the problem is when they don't go into it on their own terms, and for the right reasons.

IMHO, a parent MUST prepare her/his kids to know how and when to "go into it" and what the right reasons are. I kinda doubt that Jesus really cares all that much if people have sex before they are married. I like to think that he would condemn young men who prey on young women's emotional and physical frailties (and that he would condemn young women who prey on young men's emotional and physical frailties).

Posted by: Ministry of Speaking Truth to Power at May 12, 2008 02:17 PM

A point too obvious to have required your repeating it. I'll try to forgive you, however, in the hope that my own sins may someday be likewise overlooked.

Posted by: Grim at May 12, 2008 02:18 PM

I'll try to forgive you, however, in the hope that my own sins may someday be likewise overlooked.

I take you at your words here and I do not hold you personally responsible for anything that happened in the south. Please just don't tell me if I should: I'm Irish and I can carry a grudge.

Posted by: Ministry of Speaking Truth to Power at May 12, 2008 02:26 PM

Well now Boyo...

If it's a grudge yer lookin' fer, Ye might want to be lookin' a good piece farther north, lad...

Posted by: Sister Mary Bag O'Metaphors at May 12, 2008 02:31 PM

Understand that in the feminist world, suggesting to a young woman that she probably shouldn't have dressed like a whore, gone to a frat party and drunk a 1/3 of a bottle of vodka is known as "blaming the victim".

To a certain extent that's true. To the extent that someone someone in control of themselves takes advantage of someone not in control of themselves, the former has wronged the latter. But what they seem to forget is that in such a situation, the young man involved has quite likely also had way too much to drink. Yet somehow that never seems to make a difference to the feminist side of the house - I guess the presumption is that a man is always responsible for his own behavior regardless of circumstances. The furthest out of them maintain that all men are rapists and that all heterosexual sex is rape - the use of alcohol simply overcomes their inhibitions against rape.

Don't expect to win the radical feminist side of the debate over with rationality.

Posted by: RonF at May 12, 2008 02:49 PM

When I sent my daughter off to school she had a pretty good grounding in overall morality, but we had to have a discussion about drinking and about how you never take a drink from a container you didn't see opened or that has been out of your sight once opened.

Posted by: RonF at May 12, 2008 02:51 PM

My red-haired blue-eyed son had to move to NYC for college before he ever heard the term "Mick". I'd heard it, but I never gave it a nano-second's thought because it was never part of my experience, seein's how the Irish, bein' far superior to the other races* in matters historical, intellectual, diplomatic, musical, poetic, etc., are currently dominating the world, as rightly they should.

* Racial superiority mentioned purely for comedic and rhetorical effect and are not necessarily indicative of the views of the author, Sony Pictures or their affiliates or subsidiaries.

Just don't sing "Danny Boy".

Posted by: Ministry of Speaking Truth to Power at May 12, 2008 02:52 PM

That should not be taken as a condemnation of girls who don't wait, by the way -- I've been friends to many who didn't, and regard them just as kindly as others. It's merely an observation about what seems to make women happy, both in the short term and the long run.

Yea ... a really annoying thing, from the p.o.v. of the recalcitrant gadfly, is that all this traditional stuff does serve a lot of people well. I regard it, however, as a dumbing-down of what we are capable of understanding.

Posted by: Ministry of Speaking Truth to Power at May 12, 2008 03:05 PM

Well, yes it probably is dumbing down what is understandable.

We do this all the time. For instance, we tell children not to talk to strangers. Yet doing so is rarely ever dangerous (we do it all the time to no ill-effects). It's just that children don't have the background and experience to be qualified to judge for themselves when it is and is not OK.

The problem is that for many people, by the time they figure out the underlying issues of the advice, they are past the age of needing it. :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 12, 2008 03:16 PM

For instance, we tell children not to talk to strangers. Yet doing so is rarely ever dangerous (we do it all the time to no ill-effects). It's just that children don't have the background and experience to be qualified to judge for themselves when it is and is not OK.

Well that advice is age-appropriate for our children; we hairy adults have a bit more experience to rely on.

Posted by: Ministry of Speaking Truth to Power at May 12, 2008 03:18 PM

You mean the 18 year old adults or the 80 year old adults.

The latter I'll agree with, the former, yes, but not so much.

Even within the relm of adults, I think that age (or maturity)-appropriateness is still a valid viewpoint.

We see this (agree with it or not) that while an 18 year old is an adult, we still don't let them drink.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 12, 2008 03:22 PM

yea ... the 18-year olds I know are largely just children hiding in adult bodies ... but the brains are starting to work, and I don't think that "dumbing-down" is good for one's over-all health ...

Posted by: Ministry of Speaking Truth to Power at May 12, 2008 03:30 PM

And that's a WHOLE 'nother can of worms to be opening Yu. All I ask on that front is consistancy. Are you adult enough to know right from wrong? Are you adult enough to serve in the military or law-enforcement? Are you adult enough to vote responsibly? Are you adult enough to enter into a legal contract? If yes, then by gum you ought to be old enough to drink responsibly. If you prove you cannot do so, then you're adult enough to go to jail. Make em all 18. Hell, make em all 21. Raise the driving age to match. Just be consistant please. Is that so much to ask?

Posted by: MikeD at May 12, 2008 03:34 PM

Almost certainly too much.

I think it's too much to ask that we have a uniform standard for all people on any of these questions. Some (few) people are adult enough for all of that at 15; some aren't at thirty. I wish we could move away from age-based standards, and find a way of establishing adulthood (particularly for voting rights) based on performance.

Posted by: Grim at May 12, 2008 04:16 PM

One thing I noticed about Moving Away From Home was that I was on my own. No one made me get up to go to class. No one fixed my meals when I got home from work. No one stood over my shoulder to make sure I was doing what was right or making the correct choices and acting on them. That was all on me...after my parents got through teaching me, and the few short flights from the nest via work and dating while still at home reinforced those teachings. Excellent preparation for reality and the world.

I didn't get into trouble. I was the designated driver.

Posted by: Cricket at May 12, 2008 04:37 PM

Well I just read yet another slam on the south from MofSTTP, sheesh and I see the Grim has already suggested

"Yes, let's not even get started with condemnations of "the Southern United States," if you please. I'll take that kindly."
so I'll just second that appeal to you Mark and suggest that you consider, with care, the stones you choose to so flippantly cast.

Posted by: bthun at May 12, 2008 06:54 PM

"I think it's too much to ask that we have a uniform standard for all people on any of these questions. Some (few) people are adult enough for all of that at 15; some aren't at thirty. I wish we could move away from age-based standards, and find a way of establishing adulthood (particularly for voting rights) based on performance."
Indeed, but how to accomplish that?

And I think I agree with MikeD

"And again, we're accepting the premise that women must be drugged/inebriated/coerced/forced into a sexual encounter, but "boys will be boys". And I personally find that sad. The young men should NOT get off that easily."
in that the young male should have some responsibility in the grand scheme of things. Integrity I think is the word for which I might be looking.

Posted by: bthun at May 12, 2008 07:03 PM

I believe I tried to articulate a similar thought in a different context a while back, but I was soundly beaten back by the "we're just wired that way... get over it" line of "reasoning".

I wiped out a response to MikeD earlier today, whose comments I generally find heartening, because I was afraid it would sound bitter.

I'm sorry, but I think the world of men. I do.

And because I do, I expect, not perfection, but something more than what I all too often see. And in real life, when I've expected it, I've almost always gotten it from the real, live men I've known. So I know that it is not an unrealistic standard.

I'm sorry, but I think that men are capable of great nobility. It is just that, as with women, we all need something worthy of the effort. If you don't set the standard, you don't get much. But if you do... look out. And you don't have to coerce, or beat people over the head. They do it, more often than not, of their own free will. Because I don't think people want to sink to the lowest common denominator.

And now you can make fun of me. Sorry, I think people want something to believe in.

Posted by: Sister Mary Bag O'Metaphors at May 12, 2008 07:21 PM

"And now you can make fun of me."
I'll take my ruler to the first soul who does! *whack*, *whack*... *whack*-*whack*-*whack*-*whack*

Posted by: Sister Mary Stigmata at May 12, 2008 07:37 PM

I, for one, believe its high time somebody spoke up for MALE rape victims!

I recall, lo these many years ago, my days as a young freshman in college. I remember the female sexual predators who would compliment me and ply me with drinks all night, then target me with their giant hooties, ultra-short miniskirts, and/or lack of undergarments. Oh the horror! I was helpless to resist their womanly wiles and they all too often had their way with me.

(tearfully) Then I would wake up in the morning after an all night rodeo feeling so CHEAP and DIRTY. Plus they never called the next day like they promised! Why, they USED me for their own satisfaction like some sex object! When I climbed into bed with one of these sexual Vampirellas, I had NO IDEA they were trying to seduce me. I was horrified that they assumed that being naked and in bed together meant I automatically gave them permission to have their way with me. What an outrage! No means no, Ma'am!

(sob)I can barely even bring myself to talk about it even these many years later. I will always bear the shame and humiliation of what those women did to me. These women need to be stopped!

Posted by: a former european at May 12, 2008 08:03 PM

dude! you musta had it goin' on!

Posted by: Ministry of Speaking Truth to Power at May 12, 2008 08:10 PM

I guess it's not JUST a stiff p***k that has no conscience ...

Posted by: Ministry of Speaking Truth to Power at May 12, 2008 08:18 PM

As with all stories that begin with an explicit or implied "No $#!t...", protocol permits one to hold one's arm skyward and announce save your watch as the tale unfolds and the seepage begins to rise. And so I hold my watch up while I commiserate with AFE... =8^}

Posted by: bthun at May 12, 2008 08:38 PM

"I was horrified that they assumed that being naked and in bed together meant I automatically gave them permission to have their way with me. What an outrage! No means no, Ma'am!"
Oh yeah, AFE, remember that touch means go, push means no... Bill will 'spain it.

Posted by: bthun at May 12, 2008 09:22 PM

afe....

Oh, nevermind :)

[shaking head]

Posted by: Sister Mary Bag O'Metaphors at May 12, 2008 09:45 PM

For whatever it may be worth afe, the Unit commiserates with you :p

Posted by: Sister Mary Bag O'Metaphors at May 12, 2008 09:47 PM

I guess I must be a prude. Before I left for college, pretty much all my mom said to me was "don't let some guy sweep you off you feet and into bed". Man, how I didn't want to talk about sex with my mom. I was like "you should know better" - I wasn't the sort of girl who did things like that. That's not to say my parents didn't give permission for me to get sex education (which did not include putting condoms on bananas...) in school. I was well aware of the "birds and the bees", but sex was not a topic of conversation at home. But, my parents must have done a good job of instilling their values in me over the years.

My parents put their 18-year old daughter on a plane in Munich, alone. I didn't see a parent until my mom came back to see her dying father one last time in March of my freshman year (he'd been diagnosed with lung cancer between the time I got back to Texas but before I was off at school for the fall semester). Where I went to school, there were no co-ed dorms (and will never be, if they want to keep their endowment). Guys had to be signed in at the front desk, and had to be out by a designated time. Not that some girls didn't sometimes sneak a guy in through one of the exit doors at the bottom of any of the 4 stairwells in the women's high rise... During the fall of my freshman year, I didn't go out like so many of my friends in the dorm - I didn't start going out with them until just before the end of the semester. Even then, I was pretty much always the sober one (even though we were all under the legal drinking age). One friend (who is now married with children and a school teacher), who was raised in a VERY strict household - there was no such thing as dating when she was in high school, they didn't rent anything but G movies. She got to college, had freedom she'd never had before and went apesh*t. She always went home EVERY weekend that semester, on Saturdays normally, so she could go out again Friday night. Eventually, she'd stay the weekend, but she'd get up at the a$$crack of dawn to drive 45 miles to go to the "right" brand of Church of Christ. Even though she was sometimes hiding ear-to-ear hickies with makeup and a turtleneck. She's also the one I had to drag, projectile vomitting, to a bathroom at some party we'd gone to. Again, I was the sober one (and our other friends left us there - that God the guy whose apartment it was, was a decent guy). After Pepper (the guy) helped me get a dry-heaving friend to her car, we had an adventure getting back to campus - she had a 4-speed Mustang, and I hadn't yet mastered the art of driving a manual transmission. Good thing the roads were pretty much empty at whatever time that was. She'd tell me when to put in the clutch, and she would shift gears from the passenger seat.

I can still count on one hand the number of times I have been even tipsy (and truly drunk, I am pretty sure still stands at a single occurrence). I don't like not being in control of myself. I think that's the biggest factor in why I don't really ever drink (one, maybe two, is pretty much my limit).

As Cassandra mentioned, I'm one of those women who can't separate the physical from thinking "commitment". If there's not a commitment, there's a limit to the physical. I'm sure I've saved myself from heartache over the years because of that. I've learned I don't "need" to have a man in my life, but I know I'd still really like to have one. I'm unlike a former coworker who couldn't seem to go without having a boyfriend, even for a few weeks - she just didn't seem to know what to do with herself. Thank goodness I'm not like that, needing to have a man around to feel validated or whatever. But, I also think she was one of those women who sells herself short by giving sex too easily.

Now, my sisters, who are both still in their 20s, drink more than I do. But, they only drink around friend, mostly guys, but they trust those friends deeply. They know that they don't have to worry about their friends actions, and that their guy friends aren't going to let anything happen to them. However, my sisters weren't like the typical college girls - they lived and home and weren't really part of any campus social life, although my oldest sister made some poor choices (not in regard to men &/or drinking, as far as I know) her first semester of college and her grades suffered for it (and kept her from being able able to get into the program she really wanted for want of a certain GPA).

But, yes, young women need to be taught that when they drink too much, and/or dress a certain way, and put themselves into situations in which they no longer have control, around people they don't really know, they are potentially putting themselves in danger. And, yes, young men need to be taught to not take advantage of someone who is not able to take care of themselves (as mentioned earlier, this does connect back to that other thread...).

Not all men (or college guys) are potential rapists, and they shouldn't all be treated as if they are. But, women need to take some personal responsibility to not put themselves in a compromised situation. Everyone needs to take a bit of personal responsibility. Yeah, I know, tall order in the society we seem to be in, where everything is someone else's fault and never the consequence of one's own decisions...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at May 12, 2008 11:52 PM

Being old enough to look back and still young enough to remember, I firmly believe that God knew what He was doing when He said to wait. Not that I did, it's just that life would have been much better if I hadn't torn out bits of my heart along with the oats that I was sowing.

Going back to the old part... when did dressing like a slut become high fashion for our young women? And where in the hell are the parents that let them leave the house.

Posted by: Russ at May 13, 2008 02:33 AM

I'm still waiting, as a matter of fact.

I know some people - Christians now, if not then - who did not wait, and now they are regretting that decision. HPV, if for no other reason.

Not that I'm all that attractive or handsome, but when you're at Uni and everyone's dead drunk, well, all cats are grey and all that.

Not that I was ever drunk either. Closest I came was after 6 pints and I started feeling light-headed, at which point I decided to call it a night and got the cab home.

Actually, a very boring life up to now, I guess. But I am grateful that I will be able to share sexual experiences with ONE woman someday in holy matrimony, if the Lord is OK that idea.

So I have nothing to spare for young women unable to control their behaviour. If I, a red-blooded and extremely horny hound dog could do it then (I still am a horny old dog), then so should these women.

And I got no sympathy for the young men either. Abstinence is still the best policy for us, if for no other reason than because of the [ahem] 'date rape' business described in the blogpost. Keep the pants zipped and all is well, is what I think.

Posted by: Gregory at May 13, 2008 05:38 AM

OMG, bthun.

That was hysterical. He is right. It took me a while to learn not to be indirect. Women are that way, naturally though, a lot of the time.

We don't do it to be frustrating.

I think part of it is that we pay closer attention to things people say and do, so we think we're giving clear signals (and to be perfectly fair here, sometimes we *are* and you guys really are not paying attention). But other times women do this maddening passive-aggressive thing where we won't come right out and ask for what we want and then sit around feeling ignored because we didn't get it.

Hopefully after you're in a relationship for a while, both parties smarten up a bit. I know that I've gotten far more direct than I used to be over the years, and my husband (in return) has gotten a lot better at noticing if something is bothering me. I still don't like 'demanding' something that I really want - because I'm female, that puts me way out of my comfort zone - and I don't think he really likes the whole 'being sensitive and noticing' deal. But it is something you do when you care about the other person; you try and meet them halfway. And I think it makes you a better person: more well-rounded.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 13, 2008 05:53 AM

...remember that touch means go, push means no... Bill will 'spain it.

Why me? In *my* world, "Touch and Go" and "No Push" reference flying machines. Although there *is* that whole, "Flying is the most fun you can have with your pants on" deal.

Oh. *That* Bill. Never mind.

Posted by: BillT at May 13, 2008 06:19 AM

Yup, Bill Engvall is a hoot!

And yes, I remember sneaking girls into the dorm. But it was only because they made me do it. Keep in mind, I was a helpless and naive waif throughout this time, and not responsible for what I did, just like the feminists taught me.

I was a regular girl-smuggling Ninja, stealthy in the ways of outwitting "The Man", usually represented by a half-asleep rent-a-cop. In large-city universities, particularly in the East/Midwest, you have old buildings with all kinds of wierd entrances and back passages. My favorite was the 1940s style freight/service elevator. Most people, other than the facilities maintenance guys, didn't even know it existed. All it took was picking the lock on the old coal bin entrance, and keeping it open with the old gum on the latch trick, traversing the maze of subterranean passages, and knowing the security code to access the elevator (traded to a janitor for a bottle of whiskey). Voila! An expressway to illicit female company a la Hogan's Heroes!

Naturally, I had no responsibility for these actions whatsoever. It was only those Mata Hari women that made me do this. Everyone knows a man's brains drop right out of his head when women attack him with excessive exposed cleavage! That's why they do that. Its like waving a red flag at a bull, and you women know that.

Its taken me years of counseling and therapy to just even be able to talk about this. The scars on my psyche left by those predatory women have taken a long time to heal. I am only bravely coming forward to share this so that other young men can learn from my pain and to heighten awareness about this problem. Maybe we can all have a protest march, or wear a colored ribbon.

Posted by: a former european at May 13, 2008 07:57 AM

An attack on my adopted South? Uh...let's not go there. I LOVE living in Georgia. Here children learn How To Behave and How to Properly Address Adults, Respect Their Parents and Chivalry Is Not Dead.

Keeping in mind that I am a California transplant.

As well as a Goldwater Rethug.

Posted by: Cricket at May 13, 2008 08:26 AM

I never snuck guys into a dorm, but I was snuck into a barracks. Field Artillery, no females in the unit, no females in the barracks. My best friend was dating the guy, and we just went up to visit. Did a not-very-good job of hiding in his locker/wardrobe (WWII era German buildings - they had something against closets) when someone came to his door.

I was alone with a GI in his barracks, too (his roommate and about a dozen others went AWOL to go see the aliens in Florida - that's No Sh*t, and some might actually remember the story [summer 1990]). He would have been more than willing, but I wasn't, and he never forced the issue. If he'd been the sort to do any forcing, my best friend (same one from the other antecdote) would likely have objected to my dating him - she knew him before I did...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at May 13, 2008 09:15 AM

I LOVE living in Georgia. Here children learn How To Behave and How to Properly Address Adults, Respect Their Parents and Chivalry Is Not Dead.

We love you too, Cricket. :)

Chivalry is Not Dead. In fact, we're planning the reconquista.

Posted by: Grim at May 13, 2008 10:24 AM

Georgia does still have chivalry.

Posted by: KJ at May 13, 2008 10:54 AM

MikeD, I gotta agree with Grim. It is asking too much. Adulthood is not a cliff. You don't go from being a child to an adult in one day. It is a progression.

We may disagree with how that progression is played out (I certainly do) but believing that you go from one extreme to another in one day (Birthday @ the age of majority) is a bridge too far.


MoSTtP,
I think the operative phrase you used was "Starting to work". While I agree that they are not at the "Don't talk to strangers" phase of sexual morality, they are closer to it than the "Use your best judgement" phase. (generally speaking)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at May 13, 2008 11:29 AM

"Everyone knows a man's brains drop right out of his head when women attack him with excessive exposed cleavage!"

Hmmmm, I always thought it was that God gave a man two heads and only enough blood to run one....
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at May 13, 2008 12:56 PM

The curse of the closed-center hydraulic system, with the rational part of the male brain being in charge of overriding control as to where the hydraulic pressure is to go...

A design flaw that has led to the downfall of many a good man.

And since the discussion has turned to how lacking in control so many of us are, poor AFE used and set out with the morning trash, =8^} it brought to mind a cover by these ladies. Light em up ladies!

Posted by: bthun at May 13, 2008 01:28 PM

Personally, I've always been partial to this version.

Posted by: DL Sly at May 13, 2008 04:18 PM

Aw...thanks.

I am currently reading my tech manuals for my 'Computer Literacy' class, cleaning some wheat I had canned 18 years ago so I can bake bread
and teaching the CLUs while reading VC.

I can multi-task!

Posted by: Cricket at May 14, 2008 11:26 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)