Something, Something, Burt Ward
Kittamaru said:
The girl, however, needs to learn better than to go get smashed like that.
Then again, I'm not much a fan of public drunkenness so... mehbe mah feelings is tainted
But either way, I'm not trying to say that her getting raped is a proper punishment; not at all. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was.
What I would remind and encourage is that the two components, while related, are separate issues. Regardless of how you or I might feel about public intoxication (I'm much more lenient, and sometimes consider certain times and places appropriate) the fact is that people have the right to get drunk without being robbed or raped or whatever. Just like however you or I might feel about idiots who raise their children to be stupid, no family deserves to be defrauded. Or just like I might point out that gun owners do have someone they can legally kill—their own selves—any time they want, that still doesn't mean they
should.
And part of what we have to remember is that the rhetorical Principle of Charity is very much institutionalized, in a straitjacket, in some of the industrial world's most vital political discussions. That is to say, while you and I, two guys having a near-beer in the pub, can drop a line like that between us, and even I will grant some leeway on the
IKWYM scale, it's a really,
really problematic formulation. The question of excessive consumption ought to be the health risks of excessive consumption.
You know that #WhyIStayed and #WhyILeft? Survivors might, but frankly only if they're up to taking this kind of hit, try a #WhatIDidWrong campaign, because it would be filled with things like:
#WhatIDidWrong — I went out with my boyfriend.
I would also pedantically note the nature of
Relationships, and in this case yes, the capital R is specific. I mean the interpersonal, one-on-one, intimate relationships. Dating. Marriage. I mean, really, as a functional question:
If she cannot get drunk with her boyfriend without placing herself at rape risk, what is the point of such relationships?
And perhaps I'm naïve, but I
do remember some stuff about love and trust and having each other's backs; but I'm also a middle-aged cynic when it comes to such relationships, so maybe society finally did away with those expectations and I never noticed.
True, excessive drinking is never wise in any variety of contexts. Rape. Mugging. Driving. Falling off the pier. But at some point we really need to set that aside in order to consider fundamental human relationships.
If, then.
If consumption of alcohol
should have any influence over the expectation of trust in friendship or mating,
then we're kidding ourselves about who our partners and spouses really are to us.
Plenty have long complained that romance and other such intimate joys are the stuff of myth; they certainly have proper reasons, though it is often a question of whether or not they have the faculties to give those points coherent voice. (And, of course, some of them are just effing idiots embittered for other reasons.)
The question in any prevention context can be fashioned as a quality of life issue. And while it's true that getting loaded isn't the best quality of life expression, the underlying human issues remain unwavering:
People have every right to harm themselves without anyone else presuming to take privilege of harm.
This is a basic human issue.
When I lived in Oregon, I learned of a practice among some of my age cohort—my college girlfriend's high school friends—called "chiefing", in which whoever passed out at the party would be punished. Obviously, these heterosexual males didn't rape each other, so they settled on
chemical burns.
I mean, come on, really? I get it, sure. There are some mild chemical burns one can cause with extended exposure to certain household goods, including a couple of conditioning shampoos that I wouldn't use, anyway, since that's how they work, chemically burning your hair into submission and then coating it with other stuff to make it feel heavier and softer. So, yeah, we're not talking flesh-removing chemical burns, but still,
really?
Maybe there is some cultural consideration owed the idea of our parents telling us who we didn't need as friends because we don't need that kind of friends, because it is largely true, at least among the males of my generation in my corner of the Universe, that some of our favorite memories were crafted with those sorts of people. Still, though,
really? I mean,
these are
friends? It certainly seems small in the terms devised to justify the custom, but at the same time it suggests a pathological need to harm other human beings, and such needs really don't serve society in any construcive manner.
Perhaps the girls chief each other, too; I never did hear the details of that, though it was strongly implied.
There are plenty of reasons to advocate against self-destructive behavior. But those are separate issues, as such. Is it fair to say, "Yeah, we get it, dude, but thanks for illustrating the dangers so neatly"?
Or, you know, don't mind me as I'm just springboarding. We might observe I can't resist taking this dive when the opportunity presents itself.