I tried to put all my thoughts on this topic into one place. As you can probably guess from the tone, I'm hoping to post this in places where I won't be preaching to the choir. Please let me know if my points are solid, if I've made any mistakes, if I've said anything untrue, does it feel persuasive, does the writing flow well, anything you want to critique. Thank you.

Consider the following. A man saying this to a woman the morning after: "I'm real sorry about last night. But remember, you gave me those drinks. That's why I ignored you when you said no, it diminished my ability to make good decisions. Even one drop of alcohol means a person can't consent to sex, remember. And I was drunk, so I couldn't consent, so it's not my fault I raped you."

Take a moment to let the outrage pass and then tell me exactly why that logic is wrong.

Because of course it is. Only slime would dare try to make such a claim. But I want to examine why it's wrong. And specifically, I think it is this idea that drinking means you can't consent to sex. I included the line about 'one drop of alcohol' because I've heard people say that, word for word, and believe it.

So then, if it's true, why is it only true for a victim's choices and not a rapist's?

Or is it simply not true at all for anyone?

Personally, I think it's that last one. Just look at it from a legal standpoint. "Cannot consent" means that someone's judgement is so diminished that they cannot reasonably be expected to know right from wrong. People in this state can't legally be held accountable for their actions. For example, a baby can't take out a loan from a bank or drive a Toyota. But this is also the reason why animals and the mentally handicapped aren't held legally responsible for a crime they commit. A seagull isn't arrested for stealing a sandwich from you. A person with severe mental retardation isn't called a rapist if they grope someone. Because they can't be expected to understand right from wrong the way an adult can. They are legally unable to consent to adult activities.

Is the same true for a drunk? You have to ask yourself that question and give an honest answer.

If a drunk steals from you, or gropes you, do you brush it off because they don't know any better?

Or do you call the cops and have them punished?

There's something else that also MUST be considered: A baby doesn't choose to be a baby. An animal doesn't choose to be an animal. A retarded person doesn't choose to be retarded. But A Drunkard Chooses To Be Drunk. A sober person chooses to pick up a bottle and bring it to their lips.

To my logic, that makes them fully responsible for whatever impaired decisions they make in that state. If you choose, for example, to spin around in circles at the top of a staircase, you might not want to fall down and break a bone, but it's no one's fault but your own if that happens.

I've talked about this topic before, and people who drink do NOT want to hear it. Our culture views drinking as a social tradition, not as public drug use. But that's what it is. If you'd be cautious about dropping acid or smoking crack in a public place around complete strangers who might take advantage of an incpapacitated person, then you have no excuse for not taking the same precautions about getting hammered. No one can pretend they don't know what alcohol does to a person. This reminds me of how smokers act surprised and offended when lawmakers infringe on their "rights" by making them not breathe their stink all over restaurant patrons. This reminds me of how people who drink and drive (or talk on the phone, or text), grumble about the laws against it; how these laws should only apply to other people because, as they all say, "I'm good at it." No, you rotten, selfish jackasses. I'll absolutely support your right to make bad decisions that affect only you. But when you imperil other people with these decisions, don't you dare act offended when someone tries to stop you.

Besides, it's already well-established that our society understands that you're still responsible for your actions if you're drunk or high. Maybe not entirely. People have told me that in certain cases legal documents will be annulled if the person who signed it was drunk. But other legal transactions we allow. Otherwise every time a drunk paid off their bar bill or taxi fare with a credit card it'd be invalid. And we hold them accountable if they commit a crime. Even if it's an accident. Even if it's an accident where they suffer most. When you see a drunk driver crashed by the side of the road with their legs all mushed up into origami, maybe you feel a bit of sympathy, but I bet you also feel, 'That's what you get for drinking and driving.'

So let's bring this back to the idea that one drop of alcohol in a woman makes her as legally inculpable for her actions as a baby or an animal. Do you really believe that? Can you honestly, truly, say that you do? Or do you get a feeling when you say it that this is nothing more than an exaggerated excuse designed to help her avoid blame?

And I say 'her' because you know as much as I do that this idea is sexist to the core. Show me one single instance where "drinking means you can't consent to sex" is applied to a man. Instead we get cases where two equally-drunk people have sex and only the man is ever accused of rape. To me, this shows plain as day that this is not about alcohol. It is about infantilizing women. 'The poor helpless little thing didn't know what she was doing. That nasty man gave her booze and took advantage of her.' I'm sorry, but I only think that applies in cases where she's legally underage. Otherwise she's an adult just as much as he is, with equal responsibility for her choices.

And look, I get it: if someone has been raped, they already hurt enough without someone blaming them for what happened. But responsibility doesn't magically go away just because you're suffering.

Can you remember being a kid and accidentally wrecking something in the house while your parents were out? Can you remember that horrified shock of having broken something? The helplessness of knowing there's no way to fix it? The heart-pounding terror that when your parents got home they were going to punish you for it? If they were good parents, they did. They didn't cave in when you said, "I already feel bad enough for breaking it!" and they punished you anyway. Because how bad you feel doesn't make consequences go away. It does feel horrible to be shamed for something you never intended to happen. But the shame is your mind's way of telling you, 'Don't let this happen again.'

Let me repeat that: shame exists because your brain is trying to teach you something. When you squirm away from that feeling of shame because it's uncomfortable, you are also depriving yourself of a chance to learn fr5om your actions. Meaning, you are increasing your chances of making the same mistake again.

I mean it. I think that this insistence that rape victims are NEVER responsible for ANY part of what happened to them is ridiculous and dangerous. I think it's incredibly dishonest to pretend that all advice to women about presenting rape is equal to slut-shaming. Let's be clear: telling a woman 'That dress is provocative; no wonder this happened' is wrong and offensive and only a thoughtless pile of shit would say such a thing. The difference between genuine victim-blaming and sensible advice is how much it asks of you and how much is it based on fact. I've seen no evidence that a woman's clothes make her a target. But there is evidence most rapists are sociopaths, and sociopaths choose their victims based on body language. You can look like a bombshell without looking like an easy mark. So yes, we do need to get rid of bad, burdensom, inaccurate, slut-shaming rape advice. But rejecting ALL advice about presenting rape because SOME of it is bad leaves you unprepared and defenseless.

Some people object to this, saying it's asking women to "live in fear" and "stay inside and be a hermit". No. It just means taking sensible precautions. The same as locking your door at night or putting a smoke detector in your home. Those things are not too much of a burden to ask someone to bear. You forsee a potential danger and prevent it. Again; adults should be expected to handle this.

Imagine this scenario: A woman (who has never researched any self-defense techniques, or how to spot the signs of an abuser) meets a man online and agrees to a date. She arranges to meet him at a bar. As she leaves for her date, she doesn't let anyone know where she's going or when she expects to be back. She accepts the drinks he offers. She doesn't keep an eye on her drink and leaves it on the bar while she goes to the bathroom. She keeps accepting drinks, because she thinks that's the polite thing to do, even though she thinks she's already past her limit. When he suggests going back to his place, she accepts instead of suggesting her place, or just flat-out declining. She does not let him know that she expects to just talk and to not have sex. At his place, when he starts touching her, she lets it go on far too long because she's afraid to speak up and seem rude. And then he rapes her.

He is responsible for his choices, absolutely, 100%. I am not excusing anything he does. But can you tell me that she is not responsible for hers? And if you don't think she is, then why? I just listed a dozen different choices she made that increased her risk. Tell me she's an intelligent, self-aware adult, yet also somehow not responsible for those choices.

(And yes, I know that most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows instead of strangers. Most of the choices I described still stand. The particulars may change, but it's all about spotting a bad situation before it happens and taking the necessary steps to prevent it. Learn how predators act. Learn how to not make yourself into appealing prey for them. Learn how to give yourself an out.)

I know full well you cannot prevent every rape. But you can still try. You can prevent SOME. And someone who does everything right and is still victimized anyway, they deserve all the compassion and help that can be given them. All victims deserve compassion. But denying them responsibility, denying them the agency of learning from their consequences, is NOT compassion. It's enabling self-destructive behavior. It's infantilizing.

Anything is better than having the attitude that women are helpless children, rendered mentally incapacitated by a single drink. Or that women shouldn't be given any information to protect themselves, and instead rapists should learn not to rape.

Reality doesn't work that way. No one is more responsible for my own safety than me. That's true of you too, whoever you are, whether you like it or not.