You already concluded what matters to you. As to the rest, grow up and don't play games.

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.

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.)

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]

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.

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.

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.

Many are in “active denial” that drinking large amounts of alcohol can leave them “incoherent and incapacitated”, the Kent University researchers concluded.

Roro80 is right about being too incapacitated to consent.