what was she doing there. It should be what was he thinking, didn't he know she was drunk and the answer is always no unless the female is capable of giving an intelligent answer.

remember it or not. Its rape because the victim says its rape. Unconsciousness is not implied consent.

or have a modicum of intelligence and education?

no.

Le sad.

She should move to India where they share her philosophy on rape.

..and they run out of Blondes.

...the last sentence of the article makes what I think is an interesting point:

"the point is that the drunk woman is — she’s just not held accountable for anything. The drunk guy, however, is supposed to make all these amazingly perfect decisions, and not make any mistakes"

Really, at under 21, NO ONE is supposed to be drinking... but we know that's not going to happen. Don't both genders deserve a certain amount of blame for acting irresponsibly under the influence?

I'm NOT talking about the girl that is passed out, or one who is fighting someone off. Even a drunk guy (or others in the room, if need be) should get that that's off limits. But the ambiguities of two still conscious and apparently cooperative but inebriated people make for a slightly fuzzy situation, I think. The article puts ALL sex with alcohol involved in the same category. ("Based on new standards being promulgated on campus, all consent is null and void the minute a woman becomes intoxicated.&quot

If you get into a car intoxicated and you have lost the ability to properly maintain complete control of the car and you drive into a tree, you obviously get blame for the accident. If you start making out with someone and you're intoxicated, and therefore have lost some ability to maintain proper control of the situation you have put yourself into, aren't you at least partly responsible for the consequences, regardless of which gender you are?

I mean if a woman can think about what turns out to have been undesired sex and can say "that wouldn't have happened to me if I'd had my wits about me and hadn't drunk so much" I think there is some parallel to be drawn with "I wouldn't have hit that tree if I'd had my wits about me and hadn't drunk so much." Maybe guys should have more sense than a tree, but sometimes they don't, especially when they are inebriated as well. If you can't count on others' good behavior, then maybe you should take some responsibility for intentionally giving up some of your ability to look after yourself.

Other than that, really, if they are going to essentially "criminalize" any sex between students when the woman has been drinking, does anyone think that's a realistic policy?

The entire premise of your 'reasoned' argument is utterly flawed.

First, I don't know of any situation where a girl said she was raped after having consensual sex. I know it has happened but it is far from the rule.

Second, I don't care how drunk anyone is, if a woman says no or is too inebriated to say no,; the fucking answer is NO.

Third, big difference between being so drunk someone can take advantage of you and being drunk and actively taking advantage. Jesus christ on a cheese sandwich, you can't differentiate between the two?

They're talking about a far wider range of situations than simply "if a woman says no or is too inebriated to say no" where, of course, I agree with you.

And I watched the clip. They're doing both.

You pointed directly to the last sentence of the article. "The drunk guy, however, is supposed to make all these amazingly perfect decisions, and not make any mistakes.”

When it comes to rape, no excuse. And rape is rape is rape. If it's not consensual, it's rape. Period.

Glad to hear you do agree with part of what I said.

The Loophole by Garfunkel and Oates:

WTF?

They all have utmost respect for women.

Yeah, right.