The Fake Date-Rape Drug Epidemic
Nov 19th, 2009 | 24 responses
A study of 200 students published in the British Journal of Criminology found that many wrongly blame the effects of a “bad night out” on date-rape drugs when, in fact, they just drank too much. Some are in “active denial” and fears of date-rape drugs are so pervasive that students think it happens more often than the abuse as a consequence of drugs, binge drinking, or walking alone at night.
The Telegraph headlines its story, date-rape drink spiking ‘an urban legend’:
Among young people, drink spiking stories have attractive features that could “help explain” their disproportionate loss of control after drinking alcohol, the study found.
Dr Burgess said: “Our findings suggest guarding against drink spiking has also become a way for women to negotiate how to watch out for each other in an environment where they might well lose control from alcohol consumption.”
Co-researcher Dr Sarah Moore said: “We would be very interested in finding out whether the urban myth of spiking is also the result of parents feeling unable to discuss with their adult daughters how to manage drinking and sex and representing their anxieties about this through discussion of drink spiking risks.”
Via Bruce Schneir, “Basically, the hypothesis is that perpetuating the fear of drug-rape allows parents and friends to warn young women off excessive drinking without criticizing their personal choices. The fake bogeyman lets people avoid talking about the real issues.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
24 Responses to “The Fake Date-Rape Drug Epidemic”
If a woman is too incapacitated to consent to sex, and a man has sex with her anyway, that's called rape. That's true whether she was raped after getting hammered of her own volition or after being drugged. That women need to watch out for each other while drinking (or, since the OP mentioned, doing drugs or walking alone at night) lest they “get” raped while men do not is a product of men feeling they're allowed to rape women who are incapacitated or, you know, just trying to get home. If these women need to justify that they did nothing wrong (which they did not), and the culture is too messed up for any “excuse” other than being drugged to be considered viable, well, heck, who can blame them?
Also — what's with the title of this post? If there's a rash of women not being able to tell the difference between being drugged and being too drunk (which I think is highly debatable regardless of what this story says), that does not mean that date rape is “fake”. The men doing the raping may not have been responsible for the incapacitation of their victims, but that doesn't make the rape fake, and it doesn't make it any less of an epidemic.
“If a woman is too incapacitated to consent to sex, and a man has sex with her anyway, that's called rape.”
Does it work the other way around? If a man is too drunk to consent, and a woman has sex with him anyway, is it still called rape?
If the man and the woman are both too drunk to make rational decisions, and they have sex anyway, can both be charged with rape?
“If a man is too drunk to consent, and a woman has sex with him anyway, is it still called rape?”
Yes, it most certainly is, and should be prosecuted as such as the victim wishes. What's your point? Maybe you don't realize that women commit something like 2% of all rapes (whether the victim is male or female) — this is not meant to minimize the pain or violation of the victims of women rapists, but let's be honest about where the problem is here. This question is an obvious false equivalency, and is not intellectually honest. Nice try though.
“If the man and the woman are both too drunk to make rational decisions, and they have sex anyway, can both be charged with rape?”
Again, let's try to be honest here, please? The post talks about women so incapacitated that they think they were drugged and were raped. Meaning that they were passed out or too out of it to control their bodies. Passed out people don't have sex.
It's hard to say what this is. I don't think it's extreme femininist BS-hype like what we were treated to in the States some years ago (where everything possible fell under a grossly inflated new definition of the word “rape”). Rather, it's a question of whether it's trying extra hard to invent excuses for what one has done, i.e., to evade responsibility, or just to be more hip (or less embarrassed) than to admit drinking too much.
Roro80 is right about being too incapacitated to consent.
Oh, DLS, I'd just *love* to hear what you think the “new” definition of rape shouldn't include.
Gee, you're — emotional tonight. [shaking head] Calm down.
I'm not advocating any re-definition of rape — obviously(!). Don't be bizarre just because I remarked earlier about the ridiculous extremes some radical feminists have taken in re-defining what “rape” is.
The post talks about women so incapacitated that they think they were drugged and were raped.
Well, that's not clear. The story isn't really about rape, it's about rumors.
It's not that hard to imagine someone being incapacitated enough to say “yes” when they really mean “no”–or will decide they had meant “no” the next day–without being passed out. And if both people are in that state, you obviously can't accuse both of them of rape.
IMHO people bear primary responsibility for what they imbibe and the decisions they make afterwards. Which is obviously not to green-light violent rape under any circumstances.
Absolutely right. I changed the title of the post. I threw it up in a hurry and had originally called it the fake GHB epidemic. I should have left it. For simplicity and to correct that error I just added the word drug.
No, I'm serious DLS, not “emotional” at all. What have those crazy radical feminists doing to the word “rape” that you object to? (BTW, the term “radical feminists” or “radfems” is a fairly specific group within the feminist community, and it could be confusing to those who know the terminology if you use the term as you did. No biggie, just FYI.)
Sorry, but these are questions I often ask when the issue of what is or isn't rape comes up. It's amazing how many people have never thought it through. In retrospect, it all seems rather tangential to the article in question.
Dr J — It's very possible that men who don't use date rape drugs to victimize people really don't understand what it's like to be drugged. Most young women do, due to personal experience or because most college age women know someone who has been drugged. It's not akin to having a few too many and making some bad decisions. It's more like you downed 14 shots of vodka in an hour (I know this because I've both downed 14 shots of vodka in a hour and been drugged.) I know it's hard to fathom, but most young women actually have a good deal of drinking experience, and can tell the difference. 'Cause they're not idiots. There's certainly an upswing in stupid-hammered-binge drinking among both college aged women and men, and that could be the reason for this data, but let's not make the mistake in thinking that young women are just too stupid to know the difference between being passed out and raped and just being too tipsy to make good decisions.
Thanks Joe.
Roro, those are rather broad statements, and I don't know what data you're basing them on. Obviously these researchers went out and collected a bunch of data and came to a different conclusion.
duplicate post
“I don't know what data you're basing them on”
Years of training in rape prevention and rape counceling; plus actually being a young woman with hundreds of young woman friends. Basically, after all this time and maybe a hundred studies read, if someone's gathering data and their conclusion from that data is “young women are either stupid or are lying sluts”, I can pretty much tell you that something's wrong in either the data or the way it's being interpreted. Now, it's hard to tell from the abstract linked to whether or not that's what these scientists are concluding — in fact, there's no indication of anything involving a “bad night out” at all from the abstract — but it certainly comes through in Joe's interpretation of this study. I don't seem to have access to the full study, so I can't say for sure whether this interpretation comes from those who gathered the data or from Joe, so my objection is simply to what's written in the post.
“The story isn't really about rape, it's about rumors.”
And more — perhaps evasion of responsibility, or at the least (and more likely), mistaking the facts.
That doesn't stop all kinds of characters from engaging in their related plays, however. It encourages them. [sigh]
“What have those crazy radical feminists doing to the word 'rape' that you object to?”
Are you really claiming you are a (relative) expert on the nomenclature as well as the concepts, and then you ask the question? Is this stalling for time or just a stunt hoping for trivial typographical, etc., errors in my answer? (Like wasting time asking for “studies” to which someone is already planning to dispute)
What radical feminists have done to expand the scope of the word, as McKinnon has done, needs no elaboration or qualification. (The same is true for the mentally ill intentional “detection” or “discovery” of racism and sexism and anything offending a bizarre extreme insistence on radical egalitarianism, of bogus findings of “privilege” and 'oppression,” anywhere and everywhere — truly rubber-room obscession-and-worse material, even if it may be published.)
“Is this stalling for time or just a stunt hoping for trivial typographical, etc., errors in my answer?”
Not at all, DLS, don't get so emotional about it. I'm just asking what you meant by the comment.
“needs no elaboration or qualification.”
Obviously I'm so stupid that you need to make it more clear to me. Otherwise, I'm going to just conclude that it was a fully dishonest statement with no back-up merely meant to express your dislike of feminists. Of course, it's just my stupidity and craziness that's to blame for this, but maybe throw me a bone and indulge my ignorance nonetheless. It would be much appreciated.
“anything offending a bizarre extreme insistence on radical egalitarianism”
Ah yes, that bizarre thought that all people are created equal is so radical. And those of us who think that obviously belong in a rubber-room.
What I wrote is obviously self-explanatory. Your cheap shots, that backfire and otherwise go nowhere, didn't help you (this time, either).
Fine, DLS. I'll have to conclude then that you can't name an instance in which feminists have tried to redefine rape in a way that you disagree with. The reason I asked is that I honestly can't think of a relevant situation, where feminists define “rape” in a way other than “non-consentual sexual activity involving penetration.” But hey, if it makes you feel better to try to deride me as being purposefully dense instead of just explaining what you meant, suit yourself.
“I'll have to conclude”
You already concluded what matters to you. As to the rest, grow up and don't play games.
I ask you to clarify what you meant, and you keep calling me stupid and saying “it's self-explanatory” in order to put off actually coming up with one single example of feminists' incorrect redefinition of rape, and somehow I'm the one who needs to grow up and stop playing games? One example, DLS; I can't think of any — if you can, I'll gladly concede that you were right and I was wrong. Or don't. It's been plenty fun for me to watch you flounder and avoid when you pull such random off-topic BS out of your bum and have nothing to back it up.