Another 'interesting' article in the Guardian: Drug Rape?

[neonsamurai]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,1542965,00.html

Strange logic

Date-rape drugs aren't as prevalent as we thought - so, of course, all these assaults must be the women's fault

Decca Aitkenhead
Friday August 5, 2005
The Guardian

Some people will have been fairly unsurprised by the "surprise results" of a report that was published this week about the prevalence of date-rape drugs. More than 1,000 women who claimed their drinks had been spiked submitted samples for analysis by the Forensic Science Service, in an attempt to verify the widespread belief that men are drugging women to make it easier to assault them. Many of the women described the classic Rohypnol experience - disorientation, sex with a stranger, intense fatigue and partial amnesia; the nightmarish narrative that rings true to many women, and has gripped their fear.

The fairytale quality of these stories, however, is what also makes some people suspicious. The crime has a hint of unreal perfection, with the drug not only making you helpless, but wiping out enough of your memory to ruin a prosecution. The trick is so ingenious, some have found it frankly implausible - though others were confident that the research would yield proof.

The results of 1,014 sample tests were certainly clear. In all but 21 of the samples, the only drugs detected were of the recreational variety, taken, presumably, by choice.

Rohypnol failed to show up in a single sample. Nearly half the samples contained alcohol, and more than a third recreational drugs. The report's conclusion was worded delicately - "Advice should be given on sensible drinking, and the risks of recreational drug use" - but the implication was blunt. Women are not being spiked by strangers. They're getting into trouble all by themselves.

I never found the Rohypnol panic entirely convincing, however vivid the testimonies. At least spiking a woman with Rohypnol does have the merit of a logical motive. But if it were half as widespread as is frequently claimed, I should know at least a dozen victims by now. In fact, as it is, if I hadn't read about Rohypnol in the press, I wouldn't have heard of it.

How the women's unshakable belief can be reconciled with the evidence I have no idea. But the results are unambiguous: for some reason, date-rape drugs just haven't caught on. It's probably because their effect can be achieved using legal alternatives - such as vodka and Red Bull - which the victim may even buy for herself. Why bother to spike someone who will happily self-medicate until so far beyond oblivion, she might just as well be doped up on Rohypnol?

If she is not the victim of her oblivion but its architect, the real question is what she has a right to expect from a man at such a moment. Drunken date rape stirs up a thick fog of doubt in many, but one clear opinion seems to have been gaining ground. It was heard again this week: the argument that any woman who gets trashed has chosen to put herself at risk. Anything that happens to her, however bad, is her responsibility. If she left her front door open all night, we'd say she was asking to be burgled, and the same rule, apparently, should apply to her body.

This equation is so appealingly crisp and cool, it's easy to mistake it for a solution. The clarity gets rid of all our confusion about what consent really means when you've been drinking all night. It makes date rape sound just like theft - a bold lunge for something you like the look of and see a chance to grab. The men who assaulted the women in this report weren't deviant or disturbed - just ordinary, opportunistic blokes.

This idea is more disturbing to me than a million men running around with Rohypnol. For the argument to make any sense, we would have to believe that sexual crime prevention was of no concern to men, and the sole responsibility of women. If we say that anything less than vigilance is culpably irresponsible in a woman, this means we think all men are rapists.

When militant feminists made this suggestion, it was taken as proof of their lunacy. Now, apparently, it is taken for granted. Girls are expected to understand that if they wind up in the pub car park, tights round their ankles and peeing on their high heels, the average man passing by cannot be expected to pass up the chance.

If that is what we really think, how weird that it is the woman we think needs help, who must teach herself to change, and learn "sensible drinking". Why isn't everyone asking what kind of man is it who would see her lying there and want to have a go?

So, the women can't blame Rohypnol for sleeping with that ugly guy who all their friends called a 'loser'? Gosh darn it! Then he must have raped her using alcohol! There are just too many things to refute in this article, but I'll just pose these questions:

1) In my experience drunken women tend to be less 'inhibited', they certainly don't become shrinking violets. If a drunken woman fancies you she'll normally let you know.

2) Do girls these days only get drunk by themselves? Are they sat alone in a bar drinking neat rum until they are near comatose? Or is it their friends don't care who their friends leave the bar with?

3) If a man gets drunk and lies in the street and somebody steals his wallet, do we say he was asking for it? Probably not, but we'd still call him a drunken idiot.

I go out in London and on occasion I get drunk, but I'm always very aware that by being drunk I'm an easy target. I'm certainly not defending men who actually do truely rape drunken women, but making it so easy for them isn't exactly great common sense.

[woof]

If you drive drunk, you are responsible for whatever happens, even if someone else runs a red light and hits you. If they get hurt, or killed, you are at fault for driving drunk. Only women can get away with being victims of themselves, aka...being drunk, and then claiming rape.

[cootewards]

There was an a piece on the news over the weekend where, in the UK (I can't recall where in the UK exactly) there were to be 1000 units made available for people, I can't remember if the article actually said women but it was implied to test their drinks.

Now if the first thing someone does when you return from the bar with a drink for them is test it for Rohypnol. Then I'm guess there's going to be a lot less people getting brought a second drink.

[Wookie]

I have always seen the whole Rohypnol thing not to ring as true as they have been making out, I was and still am part of the club scene that runs on the fule of recreational drugs, I had a lot of dealings with dealers of various sorts and was never offered Rohypnol or anything similar, I also have never heard of someone I know being a victim or a perp and that is what I found strange when the media was claiming 1 in 4 young women have been victims!

As to this article, she is just showing her gen fem roots, "shit we have been proved wrong it must find someway to keep women the victims"

What she does not mention through the whole article is about the number of men that wake up Saturday morning not remebering what happened last night and roling over to see ten ton Tess lying next to him.

According to her logic, if I get stupidly drunk (my choice) and sleep with the annoying, unatractive and very boring woman that seems to be after me at the moment, I could claim I was raped as I would have been in no way capible of giving consent with a clear mind!

Or does that only work the other way round  :twisted:

Yes drunk people get taken advantage off all the time, both men and women. The vast majority see it for what it is "I messed up last night" but the Gen Fems want to tell these young women that they were raped, as this gets them more money and at the same time backs up the "All men are rapists" Bull.

How the women's unshakable belief can be reconciled with the evidence I have no idea. But the results are unambiguous: for some reason, date-rape drugs just haven't caught on. It's probably because their effect can be achieved using legal alternatives - such as vodka and Red Bull - which the victim may even buy for herself. Why bother to spike someone who will happily self-medicate until so far beyond oblivion, she might just as well be doped up on Rohypnol?

This part shows her bias the most, She assumes that us men are sitting around thinking how we can get women that don't like us to shag us! "I wouldn't use that Rohypnol mate, it's cheaper if you just pick on a very pissed one" PLEASE!!!

I could go on about this for ever, but I will leave it there for now, this journalist needs to wake up.


Wookie

[dr e]

More than 1,000 women who claimed their drinks had been spiked submitted samples for analysis by the Forensic Science Service

What sort of samples were these?  Blood?  Urine?  Sample of the drinks?  It doesn't seem to clarify exactly what they were testing and that makes a huge difference in the results.  What were the women claiming the drinks were spiked with?  This is another bit of data that was omitted from this article that could make a huge difference in the results.

otoh the headline could have read:

"97% of women lie on Rohypnol test." :wink:

[realman]

I agree with Wookie here, be you male or female if you fool around with someone and then regret it the next morning you can't cry "rape". Now, if it is legit, rape is indeed a crime and a sleazy one at that. But the girl who lets go her inhibitions and lets her body be used like an amusement park for men then wakes up the ext morning and hates herself for it- don't try to pin that on men, she was a willing participant. It's rape only if it happens after the victim clearly says no,  the victim is incapable of saying no, or force is used. That means if she's passed out in her car and some guy lifts her skirt and has his way with her, he's a rapist (but by the same token, she's a stpuid, irresponsible, drunken idiot- she was a victim, but not an innocent one!). But if she's simply "uninhibited" ... sorry, as long as she is capable of knowing what is happening to her, is capable of communicating the word "no", and is not physically threatened or forcibly restrained... sorry, she wasn't raped.

Rape is definitely NOT acceptable.... BUT, rape is not an acceptable EXCUSE for being a drunk slut. Just because someone regrets something later doesn't mean they can pass the blame for what happened or somehow be compensated for it... personal responsibility does indeed include not letting onesself get into a situation they might later regret, when teh choice was there for the taken to simply avoid said situation.

So tired of feminists/women saying they can do whatever they want and passing all responsibility for their actions and/or later feelings on to men...

[RockyMountainMan]

The results of 1,014 sample tests were certainly clear. In all but 21 of the samples, the only drugs detected were of the recreational variety, taken, presumably, by choice.

This idea is more disturbing to me than a million men running around with Rohypnol. For the argument to make any sense, we would have to believe that sexual crime prevention was of no concern to men, and the sole responsibility of women. If we say that anything less than vigilance is culpably irresponsible in a woman, this means we think all men are rapists.

:?

I don't see how this is a matter of the culpability of a rapist, but of the credibility of the accuser.
 
If a woman claims she was drugged & raped, then tests show she wasn't telling the truth about being drugged, are we to assume she is still telling the truth about being raped?  

This article is just rehashing of the position that when a woman drinks or takes recreation drugs, she is absolved of any responsibility for her actions.  

Any excuse to treat women as if they have no maturity or agency of their own.  Apparently Mz. Aitkenhead believes women are perpetual children.

[realman]

"Apparently Mz. Aitkenhead believes women are perpetual children."

The sad part is, many seem to like it that way. Granted, they want all the righst and responsibilties of "mature responsible capable woman"- but they still want the protections of "helpless child who can't defend herself and can't be expected to know better".

[neonsamurai]

This equation is so appealingly crisp and cool, it's easy to mistake it for a solution. The clarity gets rid of all our confusion about what consent really means when you've been drinking all night. It makes date rape sound just like theft - a bold lunge for something you like the look of and see a chance to grab. The men who assaulted the women in this report weren't deviant or disturbed - just ordinary, opportunistic blokes.
This idea is more disturbing to me than a million men running around with Rohypnol. For the argument to make any sense, we would have to believe that sexual crime prevention was of no concern to men, and the sole responsibility of women. If we say that anything less than vigilance is culpably irresponsible in a woman, this means we think all men are rapists.

The bold area is the most hateful part of the article and it shows just what the writer is trying to say. Ordinary men are 'assaulting' these women. Men like you or I. We're practically in the same category as rapists.

If we say that anything less than vigilance is culpably irresponsible in a woman, this means we think all men are rapists.

I think she's already made her mind up on this one. My analogy is that not all caves in Canada contain bears, but I'm not about to start running inside waving lumps of rump steak in the air.

These women were 'helpless' because they were so drunk that a man could take advantage of them. But what if the guy is also drunk? By her reckoning he shouldn't be responsible for what happens to him either.

So if he wakes up in bed and a woman is accusing him of rape then he can say "I'm not responsible for what happened. I was drunk and I don't remember."

Whoops! What am I saying? Of course he'd be responsible! He's a man!

[cootewards]

This idea is more disturbing to me than a million men running around with Rohypnol. For the argument to make any sense, we would have to believe that sexual crime prevention was of no concern to men, and the sole responsibility of women. If we say that anything less than vigilance is culpably irresponsible in a woman, this means we think all men are rapists.

I know the original article as fucking hateful as it is was talking about women claiming they had been date raped, but isn't it just typical that when this vial creator moves to talk about sexual crime in general it's still with the women as the victim and males only represented as the perpetrators

And what really scares her is that they quickly need to come up with a cover story to allow women to absolve them selves by some other method of going out getting shitfaced and sleeping with someone they don't know or like, so as not to look silly in front of they friends

[CaptDMO]

In the US
In My Humble Opinion-
"Date rape " drugs (mickies,roofie, etc) are most likely to be used on "johns" by prostitutes for the purpose of robery. The same limited memory, dazed and confused after effects are the bonus that deter reporting to police.

Some inner city singles bars used treated coasters that had indicator ink on them. Spill a bit of drink on them and  in the presence of "date rape" drugs they'd change color. There was NO rash of reported druggings. Personally I have never heard of ONE alleged case once these coasters were involved.

One could conclude that this was due to precautionary awareness of drug dosers. One could also say this was due to irrefutable(I questioned the costers reliability) proof that a "date rape" drug was NOT involved and therefore no such claim could  be made after the fact.

What she does not mention through the whole article is about the number of men that wake up Saturday morning not remebering what happened last night and roling over to see ten ton Tess lying next to him.

In  the states thats called coyote ugly. Yeah, I've  been there!