The Sexual Double Standard and Who Is to Blame

Please read the following article before proceeding

When it comes to an individuals passionate pursuits, the sexual double standard has been around for a long time. The sexual double standard has been the focus of considerable research since the 1960s and Ira Reiss, a pioneer researcher, defined the double standard as “prohibiting premarital sexual intercourse for women but allowing it for men.” This standard was evolved into the conditional double standard in which it was only permissible for a women to engage in sexual activity if she was within a committed relationship. Whereas men were permitted to have as many sexual partners as they wanted without condition.

There have been different explanations and theories as to why this double standard of sexual behaviors exists in our society. The most widespread theory is that of Evolutionary Psychology. According to this perspective, the gender differences have been rooted in mankind and developed through human evolution because they are related to reproductive capacities. This theory is rooted off the basis that because men have greater reproductive capacities, it’s quite beneficial for them to inseminate as many females as possible to maximize their offspring survival. In my opinion, the Social learning theory is much more applicable to today’s society. Basically, according to the social learning theory, women are punished for sexual promiscuity by being stigmatized and isolated, whereas men are rewarded by achieving admiration or popularity for these same behaviors.(Spercher)

Research has specifically focused on attitudes regarding the double standard and one approach involved asking participants to rate certain sexual behaviors of hypothetical men and women. The Spreadbury study surprisingly discovered that women were more likely to label other women’s sexual behaviors as promiscuous over men’s sexual behaviors especially when it came to casual sex, leading to the indication that women supported the sexual double standard.

This finding initially shocked me but upon further consideration, it actually was not that surprising. Looking back on my experiences, was I not guilty of calling the girl rumored to have slept with multiple players of the football team a hoe and agreeing with my friends that the girl attempting to talk to my boyfriend without knowing he was in a relationship was a dumb slut. These are not not things to be proud of but they did occur and in being honest with myself, I do sometimes tend to judge the sexual promiscuity of others in my sex and so do countless other  women everyday, This is truly an issue in our society because in order to prevent the opposite sex from limiting our sexual behaviors through stigmas and insults meant to shame we as women must start with ourselves.

I felt as though the article held an interesting perspective in its analysis and overview of how and why women are the main drivers of the sexual “double standard”. It also offered an explanation as to why women might feed into the double standard and broke down the dynamics of what logic may go into how females view the sexual behaviors of other females especially in regards to the guy. The questions I pose to you now are:

• Do you believe there is a double standard? And if so, who is more guilty of perpetrating it, men or women?
• Do you ever see the double standard going away on on both or either side?
• As a women, do you agree with the article’s theory of competition and rivalry being factors that spur the double standard  through slut shaming and other forms of judgement?
• As a college student, do you feel the double standard prevalent in your experiences?

What Actually Means “Feminism Today”?

Please read this article first: http://thoughtcatalog.com/lau-eugene/2014/12/why-feminism-today-disgusts-me/

In the article “Why ‘Feminism’ Today Disgusts Me” by Lau Eugene, he starts by declaring himself as a feminist but explaining that he is against what feminists today define as “feminism”. The problem with his claims is that he never actually defines what he thinks is “feminism’s” proper definition or what he understands “feminism today” is. Throughout this article, Eugene argues three different claims that disagree with what he says are the majority of feminists’ opinions today. In between the paragraphs, he repeatedly states “I am a feminist” – my guess is he does it so the reader does not forget he is a feminist, even though he expresses how he is in disagreement with the some of the feminists.

His first argument is that women have the responsibility to dress appropriately when walking late at night in order to not get raped. I understand his point when he explains that women have “to be careful and acknowledge the reality of our perverse and dangerous world,” but does this mean we have to change the way women dress? I don’t think so. Everybody has the right to express themselves how they want to – dress how they want to. I find it very unfair to blame women’s clothing choices for being raped. What about the man’s fault? HE is the one who is doing the act. No matter how “tempting” women’s clothing or lack thereof is for a man’s sexual desire – it shouldn’t be an excuse for a man to actually commit the crime of rape.

His second argument is that he does believe in equal rights for men and women, but does not believe in the complete equality between genders. This confuses me because isn’t that what feminism is all about? Eugene says “The way we think, behave, and even our genetic makeup is inherently different.” He basically says that we can’t be treated as complete equals. Well, the American Psychological Association (APA) states on their official website (apa.org) that after a review of dozens of studies, they have found that men and women are basically alike when it comes to personality, thinking ability and leadership. The APA also explains how the differences between genders are mainly because of social expectations, not biology.

I do agree with his claim about “gender roles,” though. I also find it “scary,” as Eugene says, that if parents buy “girly” gifts for their daughters, feminists will complain about that. In my opinion, it shouldn’t be frowned upon parents’ decision to buy their children toys commonly used by their children’s respective genders. Parents have no idea what their kids actually like or want, specially when they are still too young. Of course, I agree that if they notice that, for example, their daughter seems to prefers to play with her brother’s toy cars than her Barbie doll, then they should let her have a toy car.

His last argument is that feminists today, instead of advocating women’s equality to men, they use feminism as “an avenue for hate-speech against men or exalting women to a godlike status whereby anyone who has anything bad to say about a member of the female gender is automatically condemned to an eternal doom.” I agree somewhat with this claim because I do believe some feminists go to extremes and are “men-haters,” and that shouldn’t be classified as “feminism.” But in my opinion, I think this is mostly what people tend to think about feminists – that they are “men-haters”. I believe their intention is to make people acknowledge how women are as important and able as men, not advocate their superiority to men. I do completely disagree with his statement “As there are sexual predators among males who are a disgrace to us all, there are women who simply do not respect themselves enough to dress appropriately or to take precautions against such men.” A sexual predator is a person who commits violent sexual offenses… can you really equalize that with a woman who decides to wear “sexy” or “revealing” clothes? I still do not understand how people think that women who dress like that don’t respect themselves. Women do what they want – it doesn’t have to do with their self-esteem or their respect for themselves.

At the end, Eugene addresses his “haters” and says to them “to each their own.” I agree everyone has the right to be a feminist in the way they want to. I believe there is no right way to be a feminist. This leads me to think – is “feminism today” actually a thing? Eugene says how he disagrees with the majority of feminists, but how does he actually know for sure that’s what the majority of feminists think? I think every feminist has his/her own different opinions, but of course they share a common goal. But if feminists today have a variety of different opinions, what actually is “feminism today”?

As Eugene says to let him state his opinion, I stated mine and now I’d like to know yours. Do you agree or disagree with Eugene’s arguments? Why do you think he wrote “I am a feminist” between each paragraph? Do you agree with my claims? Do you believe all feminists should agree on certain aspects? Or should they have their different opinions and still be considered feminists?

SlutWalks and Whether What Women Wear Should Cause Them to Be Raped

Please read the following article from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/slutwalks-and-the-future-of-feminism/2011/06/01/AGjB9LIH_story.html 

There has alway been the age-old argument when it comes to women being raped: that what they wear can sometimes “ask” for unwanted sexual attention. Often men and sometimes women will assert that if a woman dresses provocatively or scantily that they are “asking” for male attention, and should not be surprised when they receive it. Often this dispute over the way women choose to dress themselves can be an attempt to find sympathy with the rapist, who may have believed that just because the woman was wearing less clothing than the average woman that that meant she wanted to have sex, thus changing any no she may have asserted into a yes. Many times what a woman wears directly affects the way people perceive her morals, character, and sexual activity. Men instantly single them out, believing that the only reason a woman would dress in a sexy or revealing way would be because they want to have sex or attract male attention.

The protests began after a police officer told students at Toronto’s York University in January that if women want to avoid rape, they shouldn’t dress like “sluts.”

SlutWalks seeks to change this misconception and ignorance by declaring that what a woman wears does not give anyone the right to objectify or rape her. SlutWalks allow women to dress however they want for the marches, putting forth their argument that women should have the freedom to wear whatever they want without the fear of being turned into a sexual object. This new feminist movement also seeks to reclaim the word “slut”, and not let one word define their character negatively. The movement is mainly organized by young, energetic women and usually springs up as a grassroots organization. It is popular among younger women who have had to deal with the word slut much more that women of older generations.

“Don’t tell us how to dress. Tell men not to rape.”

Not all women agree with this movement though for a number of reasons. Some women protest the use of the word slut because they see it as an irreparable term that should just be cut out of use all together. Other women protest against the women who wear racy clothing for the walks, saying that they merely serve to perpetuate pornographic stereotypes.

“I personally don’t feel the whole ‘reclaim slut’ thing. I find that the term disproportionately impacts women of color and poor women to reinforce their status as inherently dirty and second-class.”

Whether or not SlutWalks takes off as a national movement, or stays grassroots it will most likely have an impact on views both men and women take towards female attire. Do you agree that what a woman wears should not dictate how she is treated, especially sexually treated? Do you think that the SlutWalks campaign is a positive force to end the stereotype of female objectification based on their outfit? Do you think that women will ever not be judged based on what they wear?

In advertisement, are important figures more influential than super models?

In a world full of creative geniuses, in order to be successful at selling an idea or product one must reach to the target buyers in their Achilles’ heel. Please read the following articles What if all the major fashion brands ditched supermodels and hired super women instead? and ‘Super Women’ Replace Supermodels In Fashion Ads And The Results Are Epic.

Every day society is faced to advertisement. Even if an individual does not notice it, we are constantly exposed to ads that deliver the message of whether we can or cannot live with or without certain product. These advertisements picture the product very appealingly to the individual and he or she is then directly thrown into the desire of acquiring it. How do advertisements sell their idea? They hit on the buyers weak points. They present the product or idea using individuals with certain characteristics. These characteristics typically are traits any woman or men wished he or she had. By picturing the product with this “perfect individual” the public is attracted to the product.

Advertisers base their campaigns only on superficial traits that attract people. They use super models that are only known because of their flawless physical features. Buyers do not even know their names in most cases, unless it is a recognized super model. But again, to be a recognized super model you just have to fit into the perfect parameters society sets. What would happen if this advertisements substitute the super models with important figures? Would it be as effective? Or maybe even more effective?

Recently Céline, had one of the most influential writers in America, Joan Didion, pose for their sunglasses campaign. Given this, Elisa Rodriguez-Villa, was then attracted to Photoshop important woman figures in big name brands’ advertisements. About Joan Didion’s for a Cé campaign, she says “I’ve never even been able to afford a pair of socks by Céline, but all of the sudden they had my attention on so many levels”. She explains that the reason of her project is that when she recently skimming throught fashion magazines she was getting bored of seeing always the same: woman whom you did not even know their names but had the “perfect characteristics.” Rodriguez-Villa states that after seeing such an important figure, as Jian Didion, in the advertisement she was suddenly attracted to the product, an attraction she probably wouldn’t have felt if a super model was modeling it. Being this the situation, I ask you why do you think that advertisements use perfect super models to sell their products instead of actual important people whom have accomplished significant and influential things?

I would say that this is because people of such importance would be out of context posing and / or supporting these expensive brands. Take for example the photo-shopped image by Rodriguez-Villa of Malala Yousafzai with the Louis Viutton bags. Malala is an activist for female education that had lived through extreme poberty conditions and is fighting against sexism; why would she be posing besides these brands’ expensive bags? With the money needed to buy this product she could, and probably would, use it for another cause. So, do you believe if that by using important figures brands would rise their sells or people would just be confused by having to different poles in one image? Or the success of the campaign depends most likely on the product?

For more information about the Joan Didion Céline campaign visit Joan Didion Stars In Céline’s New Campaign.

Does Feminism Need a Face?

In a modern age of information and entertainment, what is the best way to support a movement? There are a multitude of options when it comes to supporting your cause. You can create a website. You can start a social media platform. You can even go the old fashioned route and post colorful flyers. But when it comes down to it, yours is not the only cause that is vying for the public’s attention. Supporting and promoting your cause is all about finding a voice that will rise above the din. One might argue that the best way to do so is to utilize a voice that is already being heard loud and clear.

If that is the case, then the question becomes who should speak up for feminism and how should he or she do it? When it comes to this issue, writer, actor and director Lena Dunham seems unafraid to take up arms. Dunham is famous for her award-winning HBO series, Girls, which takes an unadulterated, and sometimes seemingly unkind, look at the lives of modern young women. The show itself has been both praised and criticized for the way it attempts to tackle controversial issues, including but not limited to feminist issues, but as of late Dunham has been causing a ruckus with her recently released memoir, Not that Kind of Girl.

In her article “Lena Dunham and Feminism: Beware the Vitriol of Sisterhood,” (which can be found here http://time.com/3556776/lena-dunham-feminist-critics-molestation-charges/) Jessica Bennet describes the world of criticism that has rained down on Dunham due to a number of controversial scenes from the book. The criticism is not unexpected, after all anyone who voices his or her opinion as loudly and unapologetically as Dunham is bound to be faced with opposition. The source of said opposition, however, may come as a shock. Due to the inclusion of a scene involving Dunham and her sister as children, and their curiosity about the more intimate parts of their bodies, “Dunham was swiftly called a ‘predator without remorse’ – mostly by other feminists on Twitter” (Bennet).

Bennet proceeds to apply this example to a larger context, and use it comment on the disturbing trend of powerful women who give voice to their opinions only to find themselves “trashed” because they do not fit traditional molds, or present an ideal face for the cause. According to Bennet feminism has a long history of trashing its own proponents, which she defines as, “taking jabs at women who suddenly rise up, helping elevate them, but tearing them down when they become too successful.” What makes Dunham an optimal focus of trashing is her nontraditional representation of the feminist cause: she speaks loudly, and proudly about her life and personal views, and sometimes she does it in such a candid fashion that it makes people uncomfortable. She does, however, represent more than a few feminist ideals, and regardless of her methods she is undeniably utilizing her career and celebrity to draw attention to the feminist cause.

Bennet begins the article with an ominous reference to Ti-Grace Atkinson, a founder of the Feminists, a radical group of the late 1960s, who said, “Sisterhood is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.” In the case of Lena Dunham, sisterhood has definitely proved its power and ability to tear a sister down just as quickly as it has built her up. So the question stands, does feminism need a face, or perhaps as Bennet suggests with her closing line, “There is room for more women than Lena Dunham at the top,” does it require multiple faces? Are its interests being best served by utilizing a celebrity voice? And if so, who is best suited for the job? And finally, how does the pattern of “trashing” affect the feminist community?

Is hygiene a right or a privilege? Making a case for free tampons in the U.S.

Please begin by reading this article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/11/free-tampons-cost-feminine-hygiene-products

For the sake of focus, I am going to direct my attention to the issues that relate directly to the United States. However, the right of women to access of feminine hygiene products across the world is a very important issue. You can find many links in the article to organizations that are working to make a difference in the lives of millions of women.

About every five weeks or so, usually on a Sunday, I make the trip over to CVS to pick up my prescription for birth control, like so many young women do. My pharmacist is a fun, energetic retired teacher and liberal (clearly I like to socialize while waiting) who will usually make a remark that she’s so happy the Affordable Care Act has made birth control access free for so many young women. She’s right, it is an incredible thing what our health care system has been able to do for us, especially considering contraception alone is seldom the reason why most young women work with their doctors to get this prescription. But the question still stands: can we do more?

Every month, every woman at a child-bearing age will get her period (exceptions of course). This is not a health care crisis, this is just something that the female body does. It’s very natural, but in today’s active and busy society, women can’t simply sit in the red tent in the back yard and bleed out for a week. Of course not, we use our tampons and we get on with our lives. Women don’t use tampons as luxuries, but as necessities. Imagine trying to do everything you have to do in a week on your period and without access to these products? First of all, it creates an extreme risk for infection. But also, it’s just unrealistic. Until reading this article, I never thought of using a tampon as a luxury. I never recognized that it was something that some people cannot access. And I never realized how enraged I should be that my government taxes them.

Like the author of this article, I was blessed enough to live in a household where I was able to access proper feminine sanitation, but many women don’t. I was shocked to hear that welfare programs such as food stamps do not cover feminine hygiene products. How does a low income parent explain to their terrified daughter that just got her period for the first time that she won’t be able to get the sanitation she needs?

The answer is: they shouldn’t have to. I believe women should be able to go to the pharmacy monthly and pick up a package of tampons. And I believe that it should be free. I believe that it should be in the budget of schools to provide sanitary access to all young women. Personally, my school had that and I utilized it quite a few times. But in an economy where many schools can barely afford to pay their teachers livable salaries, I’m sure that providing tampons to students would not be on the top of the list. Feminine hygiene is not a privilege, it is not something that only high-income workers deserve. It’s a right, something that every woman needs to be her best.

It never dawned on me that every time I go to pick up my tampons, I’m being taxed 6.25% (Massachusetts). To that I say, how dare the government try to tax me because of my body? In fact, how dare anybody try to make money off my vagina? When did the rights to female hygiene become a for-profit business? The most important part of this article comes in the last paragraph, where the author wrote that if something similar happened to the bodies of men, it would be talked about with respect, likely federally funded, and NOT taxed. Blatant discrimination is being committed in front of us and many, myself included, did not even know it was happening.

It’s time to teach women that having your period is not shameful. Your body is not shameful. You are not bleeding because you are weak, it’s because you’re in good health. We make up more than half the nation, so why are our bodies being used for profit? And why isn’t the government doing more to make sure no girl misses a day of school because her family can’t afford hygiene products for her? These products are not optional luxuries, but necessary pieces of a woman’s health care regimen.

Please share your opinions in the comments below. Should the government be providing access to feminine hygiene products for all women? Should they be covered by food stamps and welfare programs? Is it even moral to tax them?

Women in Advertisements

This post will be based off of Jennifer Pozner’s interview of Jean Kilbourne, first run here: http://www.salon.com/2001/01/30/kilbourne/

Jean Kilbourne, advertisement critic, gave an interview to Jennifer Pozner for her piece “You’re Soaking in It” in which she sets out to prove that advertising has a profoundly negative impact on society, particularly in regard to women, through subconscious and harmful messages that the advertisers send.  Kilbourne targets an audience of women, particularly Mothers Who Think, the readers of Salon.com where the interview initially ran. She hopes that, by the end, the women are riled up enough by her argument to push for change.

One of the first claims Kilbourne makes is that, once advertisers focused on women, they co-opted feminism and the women’s movement, significantly minimizing the accomplishments of the female gender. She makes the point that advertisers were not above using a “trivializing slogan” such as “’You’ve come a long way, baby’” or “’Find your voice’” to sell cigarettes, though she uses hyperbolic, inflammatory language by saying that these ads were leading to the “enslavement” of women by equating it to women’s “liberation.” It seems like a bit of a jump, but perhaps she has a point. However, is the feminist movement something that advertisers cannot appropriate? Do they have less of a right to its exploitation than anyone else? She preaches about “endless ads that turned the women’s movement into the quest for a women’s product,” for the support of which she only offers a rhetorical question suggesting that advertisements create problems for the product to solve. But the question only states, “Was there ever such a thing as static cling before there were fabric softeners and sprays?” This does not speak to advertisements at all, really. It simply addresses the fact that products that have entered the market because a need was found and filled, then assumes that this is inherently negative because the product was essentially targeted toward a female buyer.

She also claims advertising exploits the need for interpersonal relationships, what she labels “’relationship marketing.’” Though this is a human need, she suggests that advertisements and society at large associate this need with women – apparently men don’t need other people. She goes on to argue that advertisements send the distinct message that relationships, particularly if you are a woman, are unreliable. For this claim, she discusses how ads show a man’s reluctance to make a commitment and reinforces violent behavior. She throws around strong diction such as words like “callousness” and “reluctantly” when speaking of how ads portray a man’s unwillingness to establish a relationship and makes the alarming statement that these ads “normalize the abnormal.” Much of her argument relies on a female reader’s indignation, tugging at her fears about men, which she conveniently blames on advertising rather than the history of male-female relationships. Married women with families especially, as the target audience for this piece, do not want to hear that their husbands, as men, are being told it is perfectly acceptable to be cold and not commit to the relationship. She uses the same tactics here that she claims the advertisements are – targeting women’s insecurities about their relationships by saying that it is encouraged by society in a subconscious way.

Moving to the assertion that advertisements say, essentially, the product makes the person, Kilbourne makes more sweeping generalizations. She says that advertisements tell the public that only attractive people are loved, but how do they tell us this? Because attractive people are used in advertisements? She asserts that overweight people are poorer and less likely to be hired, but where did this information come from? Is it really accurate? Especially nowadays, it seems less relevant in light of campaigns that celebrate diverse forms and body shapes including Dove’s real beauty campaign or the #EffYourBeautyStandards movement started by plus-size model Tess Holliday.

In an effort to provoke the audience, Kilbourne asserts that advertisers and corporations suggest that turning off the television or simple, honest conversations are enough to shield children from an advertisement parents deem harmful. Kilbourne takes the opportunity to maybe exaggerate through the use of a metaphor, comparing advertisements to toxic air that children are forced to breathe in and cannot avoid. She uses this last ploy to assert to these mothers that their children are being constantly harmed and the only viable solution is to turn against advertising, which is a reflection of our “toxic cultural environment.” She is trying to exploit a mother’s need to protect her child, another advertising tactic, according to Jib Fowles, who defined the fifteen appeals that advertisements use to target their consumers (link below). Is her assertion that this power advertisements have over us is not one we can overcome correct? Bringing up her daughter and her maternal fears, which address Fowles’s need to nurture, has an effective sway over the audience, which is one of mothers. Is she, in your opinion, correct to worry about her daughter growing up in such an environment? If so, do you have any advice for her, seeing as you have already gone through the stage her daughter is in already?

Kilbourne incorporates into her argument the fundamental needs of human beings that advertisements utilize and she herself is not above exploiting, despite her criticism of advertising. These needs include, but are not limited to, the need for affiliation, as Fowles calls it, or the need to love and be loved, as Kilbourne dubs it. How can she rail against the use of methods she uses as well?

While I agree on the importance of discussing women in advertising, I disagree with Kilbourne’s method of argument. At this point in time, seeing as this article was published in 2001, is Kilbourne’s argument still relevant and her conclusion still accurate, or must we reevaluate?

Jib Fowles and the 15 Appeals: http://producer.csi.edu/cdraney/archive-courses/spring05/cld_102_spring05/e-texts/15-basic-appeals.pdf

How the Greek System Singlehandedly Brainwashed America’s Young Women

About two weeks ago, Greek Row lay in a dormant silence. Rows of houses drew their blinds under the unrelenting authoritarian eye of the George Washington University administration, but also in response to a greater threat: a reporter from the New York Times.

It was early in the night when he began his work. He positioned himself, waiting. He lurked in the shadows, biding his time.

He noticed her legs first. Her tights were stretched over her slender limbs, and her weight wobbled over her 4-inch high heels as would a newborn doe. They exchanged a glance, and in her intoxicated state, she ruled him benign. She began to walk back to her dorm for a quiet night, unaware of the hooded individual that was silently stalking her. He smelled blood, and just as a lion prepares to cut down his pray, he pursued her.

The reporter’s name is Alan Schwartz, and he just published an article entitled “Sorority Anti-Rape Idea: Drinking on Own Turf.” The article describes a purview of his findings, which are minimal, and the scope of his conclusions, which are as incendiary and vast as they are assumptive. It discusses the always popular topic of Greek Life, and the danger it purportedly presents to unsuspecting women who fall into its snare.

At least, this is the perspective of some young women. Martha McKinnon, a sophomore from the University of Michigan, believes that “The whole social scene is embedded in the fraternity house, and makes us dependent on them. I find this a dangerous scenario.” Nevertheless, McKinnon notes she is an active participant in the Greek System. Perhaps this is due to the fact that these women have no other party options, as GW freshman Ashley Alessandra will tell you: “It’s what we know. We go to frats.”

Perhaps these women are a poor representation of the whole, but the fact still remains that they portray themselves as helpless victims of an unstoppable evil. In reality, fraternity parties are indeed optional, and so is drinking alcohol. If both of these things pose such an unavoidable danger to young women, then why do they still attend in droves? Furthermore, if sorority parties are a safer option, then what is keeping them from happening?

The root cause is often difficult to assess because it forces us to confront ourselves on the aforementioned issues, and blame can seldom be assigned to only one party. Nonetheless, articles such as Schwartz’s and the subsequent feminist rabble often strive to do so instead of addressing the true issue at hand.

Thusly, we must first identify the issue itself. The attached article, and several others listed by the author, lay claim that the problem is limited to fraternities. By virtue of their Greek affiliation, some sources seemingly assert, fraternities are cesspools of alcohol-fueled sexual violence. While this is representative of an ongoing stigma against Greek-affiliated organizations, it is also a patent dismissal of a greater ill; it is an inability or unwillingness to address the equal share of responsibility.

Imagine two individuals, a man and a women, have engaged in a sexual act under the influence of alcohol. Both initially consented to the act, and albeit conscious, were blacked out. Assume, for the sake of argument, that both made the conscious decision to drink until blacked out and to have sex. Despite both parties having equal share in the consequence, I have just described de facto sexual assault. Let’s take this example to the extreme, to test its bounds: Lets say that the woman in this case encouraged, either by heavy persuasion or force, her male partner to drink to excess, resulting in blackout. Next, she proceeds to drink until slightly intoxicated. The two have sex. The consequence in both scenarios is the same: a legally justified sexual assault allegation against the male. One could hardly argue that the parties have shared equal blame in the end result, but the legal ramifications rest entirely on the male. Is it by virtue of the penetrative nature of the phallic form that shifts the entirety of the blame to the male? Or is it a feigning of equal responsibility on the part of the woman?