“How does a blacked out girl remember if they were willing partners?”
In the law women are essentially treated as children. They cannot be expected to be held accountable for what they do when drunk and are allowed to say “I would not have done that if I were sober”. A man is held fully to account for every choice he makes, drunk or sober.
1. Malsua puts it most excellently:
“If both parties are drinking and the female is so drunk she can retroactively revoke consent, the male, no matter how drunk must always be held responsible?”
2. DesertRhino puts it perfectly:
“In the law women are essentially treated as children. They cannot be expected to be held accountable for what they do when drunk and are allowed to say “I would not have done that if I were sober”. A man is held fully to account for every choice he makes, drunk or sober.”
Both are far more succinct than I could ever have phrased it.
3. “Do not ever, ever think that because you’re both drinking and you both think that it’s consensual,” . . . . it is, by definition, consensual. In other words, don’t employ logic.
4. I am left wondering how the reporter knew about this dinner conversation.
Was she present at the time? (I admit I did not click on this article.)
If not, who described it to her?
If someone described it to her, is this a verbatim transcript of their description?
If not, what parts were embellished by the author?
And why? Following what journalistic principle?
5. If the journalist can dramatize the scene, let me add my own literary flourish:
“A shiver went up Hollis’ spine, as he realized that his mother named him after herself, hoping — perhaps expecting — that his nickname would be ‘Holly’.”