No, you didn't get my point. To say something that mind-bogglingly insensitive to someone who is grieving is not something I should have to tell any adult with an ounce of common sense is a fucking stupid idea.
My point was also this: Something truly horrifying has happened to someone: they've been raped. You're taking the time to talk about them getting drunk. This implies that the important thing here is not that they were raped (which is not their fault by any stretch of the imagination), but that they made a silly mistake, and very definitely implies that if they could avoid being raped if they hadn't made that silly mistake, and is very definitely a case of you wanting to wag your finger at them instead of comforting a victim.
Yeah, you didn't get my point there either.
Victim-blamers will always find a way to blame the victim. Take the Cosby situation for example, the victim-blamers decided that the focus should be on his victims going to his hotel room rather than the fact that he spiked their drinks in order to get into their pants. Victim-blamers in my experience are never content with playing the role of Captain Obvious / the personification of the 'bargaining' stage of grief and trying to boil victims in their own grief as if they weren't managing that perfectly well themselves already, many of them will even go a step further and invent more reasons to vilify the victim (viper1j is an example of that in this thread, talking about her being a 'spoiled prom queen').
IMO it's mostly this fantasy that victim-blamers like to live in that if they live their lives in as wise and careful fashion as possible that they can avoid anything bad ever happening to them.
Surely you should be able to acknowledge that a risk-free lifestyle is a) not a life and b) not possible.
Aren't you critiquing your own point here? Someone has just been raped and you're talking to them about drinking, or wearing a short dress, or those heels, or going to a guy's room, or accepting a drink a guy has bought for them, or walking home alone at night, or rejecting a guy's advances bluntly or otherwise, or going on multiple dates with a guy and now he expects for her to have sex with him, or any number of other things that they should be able to do without getting raped.
The fact of the matter is you have no idea whether Brock Turner's victim's drink(s) was spiked (not necessarily by Brock Turner, some fuckwits think it's funny to do that or say help someone "loosen up" because they're so uptight generally), and yet you've spent pages upon pages arguing that people shouldn't get blackout drunk. Other possibilities like a conflict with medication or combination with food intolerance that they're not aware of. Yet you think you've still got a sufficient insight to cast judgement on them?
Furthermore, people don't generally choose to get blackout drunk. It could be that they haven't eaten recently enough for their metabolism to work through the alcohol as well as it usually does, or them having not enough experience with alcohol and say drinking as much as they usually do on a lively night out but in a shorter period of time. The one time I got blackout drunk it was because I made the mistake of trying to vaguely keep pace with a guy whose alcohol threshold was definitely higher than mine (I learnt in hindsight). I have no memory of the rest of the evening and threw up in my sleep. Do you really need I needed some stupid fuckwit who thinks they're worldly wise to tell me that was a bad idea? Now imagine that happening to someone and they got raped, and you're talking to them about the relative parking ticket.
Facebook
Twitter