https://www.newsweek.com/bill-cosby-released-prison-state-supreme-court-halts-any-further-prosecution-1605710

NEWS

Bill Cosby Released From Prison, State Supreme Court Halts Any Further Prosecution

BY JON JACKSON
ON 6/30/21 AT 1:02 PM EDT

Bill Cosby is set to be freed from prison after the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued an opinion to vacate his sexual assault conviction. The ruling reportedly bars any retrial in the case.

Cosby's lawyers had appealed to the court in December 2020, arguing the life of the former actor and comedian was put on trial, and he suffered unquantifiable prejudice. The Supreme Court agreed to review two aspects of the case—one on the judge's decision to let prosecutors call five additional accusers in addition to original accuser Andrea Constand, and another point regarding Cosby's argument that he made an agreement with a former prosecutor that he would not ever be charged.

The 83-year-old has been in a state prison outside of Philadelphia after a jury convicted him in 2018 of three aggravated indecent assault counts. He was deemed a "sexually violent predator" who posed an "imminent safety risk to women."

In the court's opinion released today, the justices wrote: "There is only one remedy that can completely restore Cosby to the status quo ante. He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be barred. We do not dispute that this remedy is both severe and rare. But it is warranted here, indeed compelled."

"For these reasons, Cosby's convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated, and he is discharged," the opinion added.

Meanwhile, Allison Mack got three years for her part in a white slavery
ring that targeted dozens of girls.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:52:57 -0700 (PDT), That Derek
<thatderek@yahoo.com> wrote:

>another point regarding Cosby's argument that he made an
>agreement with a former prosecutor that he would not ever
>be charged.

Someone got confused. Prosecutorial misconduct is supposed to be a fun
way to destroy the innocent, not to let the guilty go free.

Terry del Fuego <t_del_fuego@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:52:57 -0700 (PDT), That Derek <thatderek@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>another point regarding Cosby's argument that he made an
>>agreement with a former prosecutor that he would not ever
>>be charged.

>Someone got confused. Prosecutorial misconduct is supposed to be a fun
>way to destroy the innocent, not to let the guilty go free.

Do you even know what he was guilty of if the statute of limitations weren't
an issue? Which of his accusers had no choice or was compelled against
her will? These were all adult women, every single one, responsible for
their own choices, including the choice to drink or take 'ludes to relax
enough to have sex.

On 6/30/2021 1:18 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Do you even know what he was guilty of if the statute of limitations weren't
> an issue? Which of his accusers had no choice or was compelled against
> her will?

Maybe the one that they got him with, Andrea whatever? Most of the
others weren't credible to me. I also find it hard to believe that a
black man was raping white (and black) women left and right in the 60s
to the apathy of the authorities.

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 9:27:04 AM UTC-4, Travoltron wrote:

> Maybe the one that they got him with, Andrea whatever? Most of the
> others weren't credible to me. I also find it hard to believe that a
> black man was raping white (and black) women left and right in the 60s
> to the apathy of the authorities.

Maybe they weren't credible to YOU, but to my knowledge, none of the named accusers has a reputation for lying. (Doesn't a clean record in THAT area count for anything, anymore?)

When black model Beverly Johnson told her story (she was there for an audition and said she got away, while screaming at him, before he could assault her), she made it clear her drink was drugged without her knowledge. Somehow, she made it home before passing out - maybe she spat out most of her first sip - I think she said it tasted bitter. Another accuser (co-worker?) said she had a bad headache - and that's when he gave her something much more powerful than she wanted.

And, when it comes to those who knowingly took drugs for who knows what reason, it's been pointed out that "the complainant showed incredibly bad judgment, Your Honor, ” is not a legal defense. (Another example would be a woman who takes off all her clothes and then says she's changed her mind - not that I heard of any such accusers of Cosby.) If she says no - or is unconscious - it's rape.

When it comes to the white accusers of the 1960s, first, it's not as though the 1960s were just as bad for black people as, say, almost any prior decade. In other words, a black man with a lot more money, celebrity and power than some minimum-wage white woman probably COULD commit more than one rape and get away with it. (Cold-blooded rapists typically pick victims who ARE weaker in every way. Why wouldn't they?)

Besides, even today, there are many communities where even a rape victim who is BELIEVED will still get blamed for the crime! E.g., evangelical communities - especially if she's accusing a fellow church-goer. So, it should be no surprise to anyone that communities like that were even MORE common, back then - and that serial rapists would take advantage of that knowledge.

Finally, I just know that many smug people are going to say that moral here is not to let the statute of limitations run out - or even that a woman has no excuse, in the 21st century, not to report the assault to the police on the same day that it happens. I just want to ask them...would they dream of talking so insensitively about an enlisted man who was raped by a male superior officer? Is it so hard to guess the reasons HE might not report it for years? Even if he can afford to lose his job? What's the difference?

Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 9:27:04 AM UTC-4, Travoltron wrote:

>>Maybe the one that they got him with, Andrea whatever? Most of the
>>others weren't credible to me. I also find it hard to believe that a
>>black man was raping white (and black) women left and right in the 60s
>>to the apathy of the authorities.

>Maybe they weren't credible to YOU, but to my knowledge, none of the
>named accusers has a reputation for lying. (Doesn't a clean record in
>THAT area count for anything, anymore?)

Which woman wasn't in a position to walk out on her own two feet if she
had decided not to have sex? Why isn't the woman responsible for her own
choice to have sex with Cosby?

>When black model Beverly Johnson told her story (she was there for an
>audition and said she got away, while screaming at him, before he could
>assault her), she made it clear her drink was drugged without her
>knowledge. Somehow, she made it home before passing out - maybe she spat
>out most of her first sip - I think she said it tasted bitter.

Ok.

She made the accusation 4 decades later. Exactly how is Cosby supposed
to defend himself? She did nothing about suing him nor complaining to
the police at the time.

She wrote a sensational memoir for Vanity Fair. That's not presenting
evidence nor being a complaining witness under oath subject to the rules
of perjury.

>Another
>accuser (co-worker?) said she had a bad headache - and that's when he
>gave her something much more powerful than she wanted.

That was Andrea Constand. Cosby merely played a doctor on tv. You don't
ask an actor for prescription medicine. So no, I don't find it credible
that she wasn't knowingly taking the 'lude to have sex with Cosby.

>And, when it comes to those who knowingly took drugs for who knows what
>reason, it's been pointed out that "the complainant showed incredibly
>bad judgment, Your Honor, ” is not a legal defense.

It was absolutely illegal for Cosby to give women he wanted to sleep
with 'ludes so they'd be in the mood. But there's nothing credible on
the record than any one of them didn't know what she was taking or why.

These were instances Cosby couldn't be prosecuted for per statute of
limitations but the crimes were exceedingly minor.

>(Another example
>would be a woman who takes off all her clothes and then says she's
>changed her mind - not that I heard of any such accusers of Cosby.) If
>she says no - or is unconscious - it's rape. . . .

You admit that you aren't making an argument here about Cosby. Let's not
force a topic change. Big off-topic snip here

>Finally, I just know that many smug people are going to say that moral
>here is not to let the statute of limitations run out - or even that a
>woman has no excuse, in the 21st century, not to report the assault to
>the police on the same day that it happens. I just want to ask
>them...would they dream of talking so insensitively about an enlisted
>man who was raped by a male superior officer? Is it so hard to guess the
>reasons HE might not report it for years? Even if he can afford to lose
>his job? What's the difference?

There's nothing to be smug about. Cosby is hardly a moral person.
Offering sex as an exchange of career aid isn't having sex because both
parties just want to have fun and pleasure.

There is a good reason for statute of limitations: It's very difficult
to examine a witness's statement too long after the fact.

Your analogy about enlisted men who might be crime victims sucks, and
you know that it is in no way comparable to a civilian prosecution. It's
the C.O. and not JAG that makes the decision to prosecute a criminal
charge.

What does insensitivity have to do with anything? Either a crime was
committed or there wasn't. Either the woman decided to walk away without
having sex, or she decided to stay and have sex.

btw, it's every bit as illegal to ask for and take prescription medicine
that's not prescribed to you as it is to play tv doctor and "prescribe"
a bit of medicine to help her relax.

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 07:13:46 -0700 (PDT), Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>When it comes to the white accusers of the 1960s, first, it's not as though the
>1960s were just as bad for black people as, say, almost any prior decade. In
>other words, a black man with a lot more money, celebrity and power than
>some minimum-wage white woman probably COULD commit more than one
>rape and get away with it.

It's also worth noting that Cosby's entire schtick was being the safe,
non-threatening, clean funny guy who just happened to be Black but for
the most part didn't refer to it in his act, at least not on the
records that those of us of a certain age knew well. His first
self-titled sitcom even had an entire episode about how awful mere
profanity is and climaxed with Cosby the Coach's successful campaign
to get the basketball team to instead use words like "marshmallow".

That doesn't prove he's guilty, of course. But it's not difficult to
understand how someone who carefully cultivated such an image *might*
have been able to get away with [whatever] for a long time. I mean,
gosh, how could that sweet man with the funny routines about dentistry
and childhood be a rapist? Impossible!

Cosby is indeed the world's biggest hypocrite ever. It is for that
reason we hate him so much. Me included.

When I was in school in the 80s, this guy was always forced on us as
some pillar of wisdom. In sex ed we had to read essays of his and I
remember one time a teacher just played a video of one of his Fatherhood
comedy specials and called that educational.

Everything this man sold us was complete bullshit.

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:04:05 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Lenona wrote:

> Which woman wasn't in a position to walk out on her own two feet if she
> had decided not to have sex? Why isn't the woman responsible for her own
> choice to have sex with Cosby?

I didn't read all the accusations, but you don't seem to be pointing to ANY case where the woman admitted there were no drugs, force, OR threats involved. (When someone twists your arm and is strong enough to break it, it's not "consent" when you hand over your wallet - even without confirming that your arm WOULD get broken, otherwise.) Or any case where the woman said she was bribed, then consented and then didn't get a promised promotion. Which cases ARE you referring to? (Last I heard, telling an employee that she'll get fired or not get promoted unless she consents to sex is seriously illegal, whether she "consents" or not - and plenty of people can't afford to say no.) What makes you think most of the accusers wouldn't have had a case even if they had reported it immediately? (For the record, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt if there had been only one or two accusers - but DOZENS? Forget it.)

> >Another
> >accuser (co-worker?) said she had a bad headache - and that's when he
> >gave her something much more powerful than she wanted.
> That was Andrea Constand. Cosby merely played a doctor on tv. You don't
> ask an ac
tor for prescription medicine. So no, I don't find it credible
> that she wasn't knowingly taking the 'lude to have sex with Cosby.

You do, however, often trust people you KNOW personally when they tell you they have something for a headache that won't hurt you. You also trust them not to take advantage of you. Especially when they have a very wholesome reputation, as he once did. As I've said elsewhere, one reason women and girls don't always take precautions - such as refusing to be alone with a new boyfriend - is that they're often surrounded by dear brothers, male classmates, co-workers and friends who are understandably fed up with being treated like potential criminals by women everywhere - and are very vocal about it. In other words, a woman is damned if she trusts a man she knows well - and damned if she doesn't, since she'll be accused of misandry.

And, if you take a drug to lower your inhibitions but then change your mind and say no to sex (or pass out), it's still rape. That's the law. That is not off-topic. (There can be many reasons why the woman might fear serious violence if she DOES try to leave the house. Especially if more than one man is involved.)
> There is a good reason for statute of limitations: It's very difficult
> to examine a witness's statement too long after the fact.

I know, thank you. I wasn't suggesting that it's wrong.

> Your analogy about enlisted men who might be crime victims sucks, and
> you know that it is in no way comparable to a civilian prosecution. It's
> the C.O. and not JAG that makes the decision to prosecute a criminal
> charge.

I wasn't referring to the legal details. I was referring to the fact that when you're attacked by someone who is technically your boss, chances are you're not going to report it right away - and everyone should understand that. Same goes when the attacker is rich or a "pillar of the community" and you're a nobody.

> btw, it's every bit as illegal to ask for and take prescription medicine
> that's not prescribed to you as it is to play tv doctor and "prescribe"
> a bit of medicine to help her relax.

And doing something illegal doesn't make it legal for someone else to assault you.

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 12:32:57 PM UTC-4, Lenona wrote:

> I wasn't referring to the legal details. I was referring to the fact that when you're attacked by someone who is technically your boss, chances are you're not going to report it right away - and everyone should understand that. Same goes when the attacker is rich or a "pillar of the community" and you're a nobody.

Not to mention that when someone brutally forces you into sex, you will know all too well, from past media stories, that even people you thought were friends will likely try to distance themselves from you - and blame you, openly or not, since they don't want to believe it could happen to THEM. Who wants to go through that? What father wants to see his kids taunted by their evil little classmates when they find out what happened to him? What woman wants to be seen as "damaged property" for life? Who wants to go through a court case that will likely not result in conviction? (Very few rape cases DO result in conviction.)

And here's an example of what happens when a woman tries to take the attacker to court immediately, when, for all she knows, she's the only victim, but she's brave enough not to spend precious time looking for fellow accusers to help her case.

Actress Sean Young.

If you're under 30, chances are you don't know that name. Why? Because Harvey Weinstein destroyed her career decades ago. In theory, she could be seen as a heroine, but since all she accomplished was brave martyrdom, while not helping anyone, no one cares about her anymore.

No one wants to go through what she went through either.

Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:04:05 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Lenona wrote:

>>Which woman wasn't in a position to walk out on her own two feet if she
>>had decided not to have sex? Why isn't the woman responsible for her own
>>choice to have sex with Cosby?

>I didn't read all the accusations, but you don't seem to be pointing to
>ANY case where the woman admitted there were no drugs, force, OR threats
>involved. (When someone twists your arm and is strong enough to break
>it, it's not "consent" when you hand over your wallet - even without
>confirming that your arm WOULD get broken, otherwise.)

A threat of violence is an assault and is still a crime against a person.
I'm not discussing cases in which Cosby was accused of such behavior
because I don't recall reading about any in the media.

>Or any case where the woman said she was bribed, then consented and then
>didn't get a promised promotion.

That's not rape. You understand that's prostitution, right?

>Which cases ARE you referring to? (Last I heard, telling an employee
>that she'll get fired or not get promoted unless she consents to sex is
>seriously illegal, whether she "consents" or not - and plenty of people
>can't afford to say no.)

That's not rape either. That's illegal, yes, but a violation of labor laws
and not illegal as a crime. I have no idea which woman Cosby was the
employer of. I guess he could have been producer on some movies.

>What makes you think most of the accusers wouldn't have had a case even
>if they had reported it immediately? (For the record, I would have given
>him the benefit of the doubt if there had been only one or two accusers -
>but DOZENS? Forget it.)

Considering all the civil settlements in lieu of judgments against him,
then yes, I have to believe that those women were able to make their
cases. But not all violations of the law are violations of the criminal
code, and even if Cosby made the payout after admitting to or not
contesting the tort, it doesn't mean he committed a criminal act.

I made no comment to the effect that the civil judgments were unfair to
Cosby.

>>>Another accuser (co-worker?) said she had a bad headache - and that's
>>>when he gave her something much more powerful than she wanted.

>>That was Andrea Constand. Cosby merely played a doctor on tv. You don't
>>ask an actor for prescription medicine. So no, I don't find it credible
>>that she wasn't knowingly taking the 'lude to have sex with Cosby.

>You do, however, often trust people you KNOW personally when they tell
>you they have something for a headache that won't hurt you.

It didn't hurt her. If he knowingly gave her something that would have
caused her harm but told her it was something else, that's a crime.

But I don't exactly believe her.

It could have been a tort, however, that he used the difference in power
between the two of them to encourage her to act against her better
judgment. That I think is more likely to have happened. Nevertheless, as
she herself remains responsible for swallowing the 'lude and then having
sex, it's not rape.

>You also trust them not to take advantage of you.

Taking advantage of a naive young woman who wants something from you is
not rape. It's not even a crime.

>Especially when they have a very wholesome reputation, as he once did.

Again: Not Dr. Huxtable but Bill Cosby, who lacked such a wholesome
reputation in real life. At no point did television viewers get a scene
of the character leading a very young woman into a bedroom or hotel room
to put her in a compromising position.

Young women may have bad judgment. That's what happened here. I hope
nothing like this ever happened to her again because in future she chose
NOT to let it happen.

>As I've said elsewhere, one reason women and girls don't always take
>precautions - such as refusing to be alone with a new boyfriend -
>is that they're often surrounded by dear brothers, male classmates,
>co-workers and friends who are understandably fed up with being treated
>like potential criminals by women everywhere - and are very vocal about
>it. In other words, a woman is damned if she trusts a man she knows well
>- and damned if she doesn't, since she'll be accused of misandry.

Sigh.

I don't want to discuss girls. The law is different. There are
situations in which a girl might be the victim of a crime if she has sex
with a priest, teacher, or employer that is not a crime if she's over
18.

If she's an adult, then she's assumed to be responsible for her own
choices, and that includes taking drugs and choosing to have sex, even
if it's for the wrong reasons and even if she ignores obvious
consequences. Again, there may be the possibility of civil liability in
certain circumstances (like a priest counseling her about her marriage
while having sex with her) but "I regret the sex I had last night" doesn't
turn a legal act into a rape.

>And, if you take a drug to lower your inhibitions but then change your
>mind and say no to sex (or pass out), it's still rape. That's the law.

I agree.

>That is not off-topic.

I don't recall any of the accusers saying that.

>(There can be many reasons why the woman might fear serious violence
>if she DOES try to leave the house. Especially if more than one man
>is involved.)

She brought her parents to lunch with Cosby afterwards.

>>There is a good reason for statute of limitations: It's very difficult
>>to examine a witness's statement too long after the fact.

>I know, thank you. I wasn't suggesting that it's wrong.

Ok.

>>Your analogy about enlisted men who might be crime victims sucks, and
>>you know that it is in no way comparable to a civilian prosecution. It's
>>the C.O. and not JAG that makes the decision to prosecute a criminal
>>charge.

>I wasn't referring to the legal details. I was referring to the fact
>that when you're attacked by someone who is technically your boss,
>chances are you're not going to report it right away - and everyone
>should understand that. Same goes when the attacker is rich or a "pillar
>of the community" and you're a nobody.

Fair enough. In the military, there is rarely a way around the chain of
command. I agree: You're screwed.

In civilian life, yes, rape is commonly a crime of a power difference
between perpetrator and victim. But if the first victim won't complain,
then she's not doing everything in her power, even though it's less than
his, to make it less likely that there would be future victims.

>>btw, it's every bit as illegal to ask for and take prescription medicine
>>that's not prescribed to you as it is to play tv doctor and "prescribe"
>>a bit of medicine to help her relax.

>And doing something illegal doesn't make it legal for someone else to
>assault you.

I agree.

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 1:43:45 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Lenona > wrote:
> >On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:04:05 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>Lenona wrote:
>
> >>Which woman wasn't in a position to walk out on her own two feet if she
> >>had decided not to have sex? Why isn't the woman responsible for her own
> >>choice to have sex with Cosby?
>
> >I didn't read all the accusations, but you don't seem to be pointing to
> >ANY case where the woman admitted there were no drugs, force, OR threats
> >involved.

> >Or any case where the woman said she was bribed, then consented and then
> >didn't get a promised promotion.

> That's not rape. You understand that's prostitution, right?

Please read that again. Of course I understand that. I was saying you don't seem to have proof that there WERE any individual cases where a woman said she CHOSE to have sex with Cosby - as in, she said yes without any threat involved - and admitted it - but then tried to argue, in effect, that "regret equals rape." Of course, regret is not rape. But taking a Quaalude does not legally count as consent. (For all I know, taking one, depending on your metabolism, can make it difficult to talk at all. Legally, the absence of a "no" is not consent either.)

> >You also trust them not to take advantage of you.

> Taking advantage of a naive young woman who wants something from you is
> not rape. It's not even a crime.

Must I spell everything out? As in, "you trust people you know and like not to steal your wallet just because you two choose to do drugs together, you trust people to stop when you say stop, and you trust people you know not to have sex with you when you're barely conscious or there's a good chance you can't really articulate."

I WILL say that if you're drunk, but not too drunk to say no, that should not count as rape. After all, the man could just as easily regret having sex - and accuse her of rape, after just two or three drinks.

> >Especially when they have a very wholesome reputation, as he once did.
> Again: Not Dr. Huxtable but Bill Cosby, who lacked such a wholesome
> reputation in real life.

If he had a bad real-life reputation BEFORE -or during - The Cosby Show, I never heard of it. What I DID hear about was all his efforts regarding education and such - and how black people loved and admired him long before the 1980s.Surely his show wasn't the only reason he was on the cover of TIME, about a quarter century ago or more. At any rate, the accusations are from multiple decades.

> Young women may have bad judgment. That's what happened here. I hope
> nothing like this ever happened to her again because in future she chose
> NOT to let it happen.

"The complainant used incredibly bad judgment, Your Honor" would be laughable if used for the defense with regard to ANY crime. Rape should be no different. (And, given all the humiliations that come with pressing charges in a rape case, I find it hard to believe that many middle-aged women- aside from the visibly disturbed - would try to make false charges.)

And it's been said that women should watch their drinks at all times, in public. Well, can you imagine the reaction from black people, to similar advice, if there were a crime wave consisting of black people getting drugged by white people so they could beat them up more easily? Why should that be their "responsibility"?

Long ago, in Israel, there was a crime wave of rapes by strangers.

It was suggested that the solution was to put women under a curfew.

Golda Meir said: "If there is to be a curfew, let the MEN stay at home."

Oh yes, I forgot to say - leaving aside SOME teen girls (I have to wonder if ANY girl I knew in high school or college was like this ) - how many adult females who like the idea of sex with a particular celebrity CHOOSE to get intoxicated first? It's not as though most adults are afraid of sex in general. Why would anyone feel the need to do that? Unless, of course, they didn't choose.

As I implied, it's hard enough for me to imagine even teen girls doing that.. But then, as a teen, the idea of getting drunk not only scared me; I felt it was just plain vulgar. (Also, I liked solitude, so peer pressure was not a thing for me.) What's more, if I wanted to do anything, there's no way I'd be anything but sober.

From 1994:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1994-10-28-9410280005-story.html

Dear Miss Manners: Everyone seems to be utterly unaware these days that if a young lady (of any age) consents to being alone with a man, she has surrendered her right to say "no" to sex.

If you go to a man's car, hotel room, apartment, home, whatever, alone with him, sexual consent is implicit. To scream rape later should subject the accuser to ridicule.

To avoid rape (not including abduction by a total stranger or forcible entry into one's home, etc.) all one needs to do is have a chaperone or friend, or stay in safe public areas. The responsibility for a woman's virtue lies with her. Her conduct alone is responsible for the phenomenon so wrongly designated "date rape" or "acquaintance rape."

If her judgment should prove unwise, she should learn from the mistake and get on with life. The courts should not be cluttered with such nonsense.

Gentle Reader: How's that again? Chaperones? Stay in safe public areas?

You rather caught Miss Manners by surprise, and she confesses to having gone back and checked the date of the postmark on your envelope. But now that you mention it, etiquette books of the past always did contain instructions about ladies needing chaperones to see that they behaved themselves, and about their losing their right to be treated decently if they crossed any one of a number of thresholds and borders.

But Miss Manners does not write etiquette for the past, and surely we have learned something during this century. So with your kind permission, she would like to adapt the tradition you mention for future use.

What we have learned is that society was restricting the wrong people. Although it is not totally unheard of, ladies are almost never responsible for committing rapes.

Your suggestion is similar to the one now being practiced by potential victims of muggers, who lock up, stay off the streets, and stay out of parks, various neighborhoods and other areas designated as dangerous-until they have virtually interned themselves and given over free use of public areas to the criminal element.

It doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

So if we are therefore to anticipate rapes, it seems fairer to set a watch on those who might commit this crime, and to keep them out of places where they do it. Perhaps we need chaperones and off-limits areas for gentlemen.

But Miss Manners is not happy with this solution. It doesn't seem fair, either, to harbor the notion of punishing innocent people because of suspicion of the statistical likelihood of their doing something wrong. So perhaps we all need to keep working on the problem.

(end)

In article <e25e72df-b82a-4730-b06c-8648c8bc4582n@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Oh yes, I forgot to say - leaving aside SOME teen girls (I have to wonder if
> ANY girl I knew in high school or college was like this ) - how many adult
> females who like the idea of sex with a particular celebrity CHOOSE to get
> intoxicated first? It's not as though most adults are afraid of sex in
> general. Why would anyone feel the need to do that? Unless, of course, they
> didn't choose.
>
> As I implied, it's hard enough for me to imagine even teen girls doing that.
> But then, as a teen, the idea of getting drunk not only scared me; I felt it
> was just plain vulgar. (Also, I liked solitude, so peer pressure was not a
> thing for me.) What's more, if I wanted to do anything, there's no way I'd be
> anything but sober.
>
>
>
> From 1994:
>
> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1994-10-28-9410280005-story.html
>
> Dear Miss Manners: Everyone seems to be utterly unaware these days that if a
> young lady (of any age) consents to being alone with a man, she has
> surrendered her right to say "no" to sex.
>
> If you go to a man's car, hotel room, apartment, home, whatever, alone with
> him, sexual consent is implicit. To scream rape later should subject the
> accuser to ridicule.
>
> To avoid rape (not including abduction by a total stranger or forcible entry
> into one's home, etc.) all one needs to do is have a chaperone or friend, or
> stay in safe public areas. The responsibility for a woman's virtue lies with
> her. Her conduct alone is responsible for the phenomenon so wrongly
> designated "date rape" or "acquaintance rape."
>
> If her judgment should prove unwise, she should learn from the mistake and
> get on with life. The courts should not be cluttered with such nonsense.
>
> Gentle Reader: How's that again? Chaperones? Stay in safe public areas?
>
> You rather caught Miss Manners by surprise, and she confesses to having gone
> back and checked the date of the postmark on your envelope. But now that you
> mention it, etiquette books of the past always did contain instructions about
> ladies needing chaperones to see that they behaved themselves, and about
> their losing their right to be treated decently if they crossed any one of a
> number of thresholds and borders.
>
> But Miss Manners does not write etiquette for the past, and surely we have
> learned something during this century. So with your kind permission, she
> would like to adapt the tradition you mention for future use.
>
> What we have learned is that society was restricting the wrong people.
> Although it is not totally unheard of, ladies are almost never responsible
> for committing rapes.
>
> Your suggestion is similar to the one now being practiced by potential
> victims of muggers, who lock up, stay off the streets, and stay out of parks,
> various neighborhoods and other areas designated as dangerous-until they have
> virtually interned themselves and given over free use of public areas to the
> criminal element.
>
> It doesn't seem quite fair, does it?
>
> So if we are therefore to anticipate rapes, it seems fairer to set a watch on
> those who might commit this crime, and to keep them out of places where they
> do it. Perhaps we need chaperones and off-limits areas for gentlemen.
>
> But Miss Manners is not happy with this solution. It doesn't seem fair,
> either, to harbor the notion of punishing innocent people because of
> suspicion of the statistical likelihood of their doing something wrong. So perhaps we all need to keep working on the problem.
>
> (end)

Actually on topic: I recall a prime-time installment of I've Got a
Secret ca. 1964 in which a young woman's secret was that she had stood
up to, and beaten back, an attack on her in (I think) a coffee shop, at
which she had dined alone, after work. (This was a big local news
story at the time.) The panel, especially Bill Cullen and Betsy
Palmer, criticized her for having dared to go out on her own, with the
strong implication that she was primarily responsible for having been
attacked.

Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 1:43:45 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Lenona wrote:
>>>On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:04:05 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Lenona wrote:

>>>>Which woman wasn't in a position to walk out on her own two feet if she
>>>>had decided not to have sex? Why isn't the woman responsible for her own
>>>>choice to have sex with Cosby?

>>>I didn't read all the accusations, but you don't seem to be pointing to
>>>ANY case where the woman admitted there were no drugs, force, OR threats
>>>involved.

>>>Or any case where the woman said she was bribed, then consented and then
>>>didn't get a promised promotion.

>>That's not rape. You understand that's prostitution, right?

>Please read that again. Of course I understand that. I was saying you
>don't seem to have proof that there WERE any individual cases where a
>woman said she CHOSE to have sex with Cosby - as in, she said yes
>without any threat involved - and admitted it - but then tried to argue,
>in effect, that "regret equals rape." Of course, regret is not rape.

Ok. It's been a few years since there was lots of coverage and I've put
most of it out of mind. I simply recall nothing reported that anyone
ever said under oath in one of the civil proceeding that there was a
threat involved.

>But taking a Quaalude does not legally count as consent. (For all I know,
>taking one, depending on your metabolism, can make it difficult to talk
>at all. Legally, the absence of a "no" is not consent either.)

I'm not sure where you found the bright-line legal distinctions on any
of those. The law has situations in which no consent can be given --
Unconscious, in a medical or counselling session, with a minor in
specific circumstances or below the age of consent -- but there's no
legal test in which consent were given.

'ludes aren't a date-rape drug. I suspect that their major off-label use
was to enhance sexual pleasure as they induce a high and sense of
euphoria. Their on-label use was as a sleeping pill.

Rohypnol, on the other hand, decreases anxiety but can induce amnesia
similar to an alchoholic's blackout.

But there are people who deliberately take it and then have sex.

>>>You also trust them not to take advantage of you.

>>Taking advantage of a naive young woman who wants something from you is
>>not rape. It's not even a crime.

>Must I spell everything out? As in, "you trust people you know and like
>not to steal your wallet just because you two choose to do drugs
>together, you trust people to stop when you say stop, and you trust
>people you know not to have sex with you when you're barely conscious or
>there's a good chance you can't really articulate."

I cannot emphasize enough that Cosby was not her friend, just a much
older man who wanted to have sex with her. Of course he wanted to create
a scenario in which sex was inevitable. She was naive enough to believe
that he had some interest in advancing her career (if this is the same
woman I'm thinking of). I'm just not letting her off the hook for the
specific action she took that led to sex: Taking the prescription drug.
No one is that naive.

>I WILL say that if you're drunk, but not too drunk to say no, that
>should not count as rape. After all, the man could just as easily regret
>having sex - and accuse her of rape, after just two or three drinks.

How many women would not have unwanted sex (that one regrets after, not
that crossed the line into a crime) if they kept their wits about them,
didn't deliberately drink enough to get into a blackout state at a
party? Didn't take the mood-altering drugs just because they're offered?

>>>Especially when they have a very wholesome reputation, as he once did.

>>Again: Not Dr. Huxtable but Bill Cosby, who lacked such a wholesome
>>reputation in real life.

>If he had a bad real-life reputation BEFORE -or during - The Cosby
>Show, I never heard of it.

Nor did I. But if I were a young woman invited into a compromising
situation in Bill Cosby's hotel room, I would no longer be confusing him
with America's dad.

>What I DID hear about was all his efforts
>regarding education and such - and how black people loved and admired
>him long before the 1980s.Surely his show wasn't the only reason he was
>on the cover of TIME, about a quarter century ago or more. At any rate,
>the accusations are from multiple decades.

Sure. Trusted members of the community can seemingly do no wrong. At
what point does common sense and self preservation kick in that a
"mentoring session" late in the evening in a hotel room in wine is
poured isn't a business-like atmosphere at all?

>>Young women may have bad judgment. That's what happened here. I hope
>>nothing like this ever happened to her again because in future she chose
>>NOT to let it happen.

>"The complainant used incredibly bad judgment, Your Honor" would be
>laughable if used for the defense with regard to ANY crime.

I'm not commenting about Cosby here, but about her.

>Rape should
>be no different. (And, given all the humiliations that come with
>pressing charges in a rape case, I find it hard to believe that many
>middle-aged women- aside from the visibly disturbed - would try to make
>false charges.)

The middle-aged woman you raised wasn't in a position to make those
charges under oath, was she, and the accused wasn't in a position to
defend himself.

I like our system of justice, and believe that the defendant should have
rights at trial and at arrest. There's nothing to think about what she
said decades later.

>And it's been said that women should watch their drinks at all times, in
>public. Well, can you imagine the reaction from black people, to similar
>advice, if there were a crime wave consisting of black people getting
>drugged by white people so they could beat them up more easily? Why
>should that be their "responsibility"?

I uh what? Of course women should be taught to defend themselves, not to
put themselves in a position in which a stranger might slip a drug into
her drink, not walk down dark alleys at night not entirely sober, etc
etc etc. Women should never be victims, should never be victimized,
should never put themselves into compromising positions in which they
might get hurt or killed.

Let's not conflate something people should do to keep themselves out of
trouble with victim blaming.

>Long ago, in Israel, there was a crime wave of rapes by strangers.

>It was suggested that the solution was to put women under a curfew.

> Golda Meir said: "If there is to be a curfew, let the MEN stay at home."

Hah!

Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Oh yes, I forgot to say - leaving aside SOME teen girls (I have to
>wonder if ANY girl I knew in high school or college was like this ) -
>how many adult females who like the idea of sex with a particular
>celebrity CHOOSE to get intoxicated first? It's not as though most
>adults are afraid of sex in general. Why would anyone feel the need to
>do that? Unless, of course, they didn't choose.

The explanation for that is straightforward. Some women are painfully
shy in social situations. They drink more than they should. They may
regularly drink themselves into a blackout state and won't even remember
having sex which makes it all pointless.

>As I implied, it's hard enough for me to imagine even teen girls doing
>that. But then, as a teen, the idea of getting drunk not only scared me;
>I felt it was just plain vulgar. (Also, I liked solitude, so peer
>pressure was not a thing for me.) What's more, if I wanted to do
>anything, there's no way I'd be anything but sober.

As the cliche says, common sense isn't particularly common.

>From 1994:

>https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1994-10-28-9410280005-story.html

>Dear Miss Manners: Everyone seems to be utterly unaware these days that
>if a young lady (of any age) consents to being alone with a man, she has
>surrendered her right to say "no" to sex. . . .

Ouch

Is this a real letter or a joke?

A Friend wrote:

>Actually on topic: I recall a prime-time installment of I've Got a
>Secret ca. 1964 in which a young woman's secret was that she had stood
>up to, and beaten back, an attack on her in (I think) a coffee shop, at
>which she had dined alone, after work. (This was a big local news
>story at the time.) The panel, especially Bill Cullen and Betsy
>Palmer, criticized her for having dared to go out on her own, with the
>strong implication that she was primarily responsible for having been
>attacked.

In a coffee shop? No, I don't see that as equivalent to getting
black-out drunk at a party. Yes, I think she should have expected to be
perfectly safe. I suppose the reason she was attacked is because the
attacker assumed her guard was down.

Good for her.

On 07/01/2021 01:13 PM, Travoltron wrote:
> Cosby is indeed the world's biggest hypocrite ever. It is for that
> reason we hate him so much. Me included.
>
> When I was in school in the 80s, this guy was always forced on us as
> some pillar of wisdom. In sex ed we had to read essays of his and I
> remember one time a teacher just played a video of one of his Fatherhood
> comedy specials and called that educational.
>
> Everything this man sold us was complete bullshit.

Have you read any religious books lately?

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 5:33:13 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Lenona > wrote:

> >But taking a Quaalude does not legally count as consent. (For all I know,
> >taking one, depending on your metabolism, can make it difficult to talk
> >at all. Legally, the absence of a "no" is not consent either.)

> I'm not sure where you found the bright-line legal distinctions on any
> of those. The law has situations in which no consent can be given --
> Unconscious, in a medical or counselling session, with a minor in
> specific circumstances or below the age of consent -- but there's no
> legal test in which consent were given.

Maybe not, but it could just be a matter of time before nothing less than an enthusiastic "yes" will do, legally. The more society talks as though a stone-drunk or a comatose woman is "asking for it," the harder it will be to convince any jury to convict a man who "just can't help himself." Until, maybe, we get to the mindset that people have in Egypt - namely, that no matter how modestly a woman is dressed, if she's alone on the street (in broad daylight) she's fair game for harassment at the least. Terrifying. Not to mention that the way the late state senator Douglas Henry talked about the subject, I got the impression that in his mind, the only "valid" rape victim was one with choke marks, broken bones or stab wounds - otherwise, in his mind, why should any jury take her word for it? Especially if she was an unmarried non-virgin to begin with?

I mean, it's been pointed out that even modern American journalists have been guilty of implying (if unwittingly) that certain mass murderers (such as George Sodini) would never have become killers if only women hadn't repeatedly refused to date them - as in, the men just "snapped." Maybe the women refused because they SENSED they were too dangerous? How are those journalists not guilty of deflecting blame away from where it belongs, in the minds of their readers?

> I cannot emphasize enough that Cosby was not her friend, just a much
> older man who wanted to have sex with her. Of course he wanted to create
> a scenario in which sex was inevitable. She was naive enough to believe
> that he had some interest in advancing her career (if this is the same
> woman I'm thinking of). I'm just not letting her off the hook for the
> specific action she took that led to sex: Taking the prescription drug.
> No one is that naive.

I didn't say "friend." And one can still have change one's mind after taking a drug, at the last minute, and say no - or pass out - which makes it rape. But, there's still plenty of evidence (though not absolute proof) that Cosby didn't LIKE consensual sex. (How many celebrities as popular as he was have trouble getting consensual sex?)

> How many women would not have unwanted sex (that one regrets after, not
> that crossed the line into a crime) if they kept their wits about them,
> didn't deliberately drink enough to get into a blackout state at a
> party? Didn't take the mood-altering drugs just because they're offered?

I have no idea what percentage of WOMEN do that. I just think it's logical to assume that it's mostly GIRLS who do that. But, again, regret is not rape. Having penetrative sex of any kind when someone says no or who cannot legally consent due to a certain level of intoxication - or mental incapacity - IS rape - as the parents of convicted boys in Steubenville, Ohio and Glen Ridge, New Jersey found out, to their disbelief. (Needless to say, they weren't the best of parents. Teens who can't control themselves - or can't stand up to peer pressure - don't deserve to run around unsupervised, even if they ARE male.)

> Sure. Trusted members of the community can seemingly do no wrong. At
> what point does common sense and self preservation kick in that a
> "mentoring session" late in the evening in a hotel room in wine is
> poured isn't a business-like atmosphere at all?

No matter what one's mistake is, rape is never a just punishment for it, legally, socially or morally. Not to mention that EVERY victim goes over, repeatedly, in her mind, what she could have done differently. It does no good to kick her when she's down - and the people who do that, even in their own minds, are blurring the line between naïveté and criminality. As in "it can't possibly happen to ME" despite the fact that most rapes are not committed by complete strangers, and serial rapists are good at gaining victims' confidence.

> >>Young women may have bad judgment. That's what happened here. I hope
> >>nothing like this ever happened to her again because in future she chose
> >>NOT to let it happen.

Which leads to the slippery slope that I referred to - as did Miss Manners. (Yes, the writer COULD have been a troll, but the letter didn't sound that different from the way I've heard some politicians talk - not just Senator Henry. One politician, from California, I think, said "if you can't rape your wife, who CAN you rape?" So, it made sense for Miss Manners to answer that letter - if only so as to rescue at least some young men who have trouble believing in the idea of unwanted sex in the first place. Hint: whether you're a parent or a teacher, the simplest way to get a boy to take it seriously is to ask "how would you like it if a man you knew and trusted attacked you and ignored it when you screamed no?")

> I uh what? Of course women should be taught to defend themselves, not to
> put themselves in a position in which a stranger might slip a drug into
> her drink, not walk down dark alleys at night not entirely sober, etc
> etc etc. Women should never be victims, should never be victimized,
> should never put themselves into compromising positions in which they
> might get hurt or killed.
>
> Let's not conflate something people should do to keep themselves out of
> trouble with victim blaming.

It's not what you say, it's HOW you say it. Obviously, while black people are more likely to get killed by black people than by white people, they would still want to know if the KKK has moved into their county and where. That does not mean there's anything civilized about well-meaning white people condescendingly lecturing black people about staying out of certain neighborhoods or bars - the civilized thing to do is to focus on changing the attitudes that encourage KKK enrollment in the first place.

In a similar vein, when cops go on the local news before a holiday weekend to warn drivers not to break the law, they don't tell law-abiding drivers to stay off the road - it would be capitulating to criminal drivers, even if it saved a few innocent lives. Even when there are hundreds of criminal drivers, the focus desperately needs to stay in one direction. Everybody deserves to live freely, and that includes the right to travel daily, without getting killed.The fact that cops go on the news to tell people not to break the law reminds sober drivers, indirectly and POLITELY, that the danger from drunk drivers is there.

My point, of course, is that it's one thing to teach girls and women how serial rapists tend to operate - plus how entitled and awful American boys and girls alike can be, once they start going on dates, and how to recognize such signs of entitlement. (Example: a girl who doesn't believe girls should have to pay for dates, becomes self-evident by the second or third date, and can be politely dropped.) It's another matter altogether to say "don't do this, don't do that...." as if criminals rule the world and there's nothing that can be done about it.

From a 1974 Saskatoon WL newsletter (paraphrased):

How to Avoid Rape:

"Avoid nudity. Avoid clothes - any kind. Avoid childhood. Avoid old age. Avoid male relatives. Avoid marriage. To be QUITE sure, don't exist!"

Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 5:33:13 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Lenona wrote:

>>>But taking a Quaalude does not legally count as consent. (For all I know,
>>>taking one, depending on your metabolism, can make it difficult to talk
>>>at all. Legally, the absence of a "no" is not consent either.)

>>I'm not sure where you found the bright-line legal distinctions on any
>>of those. The law has situations in which no consent can be given --
>>Unconscious, in a medical or counselling session, with a minor in
>>specific circumstances or below the age of consent -- but there's no
>>legal test in which consent were given.

>Maybe not, but it could just be a matter of time before nothing less
>than an enthusiastic "yes" will do, legally.

That goes beyond the pale of what aspects of basic human relationships
should be regulated. We've heard of colleges demanded would-be lovers
obtain written consent from each other.

>The more society talks as though a stone-drunk or a comatose woman is
>"asking for it," the harder it will be to convince any jury to convict
>a man who "just can't help himself."

We'll never make idiots illegal.

>Until, maybe, we get to the mindset that people have in Egypt
>- namely, that no matter how modestly a woman is dressed, if she's alone
>on the street (in broad daylight) she's fair game for harassment at the
>least. Terrifying. Not to mention that the way the late state senator
>Douglas Henry talked about the subject, I got the impression that in his
>mind, the only "valid" rape victim was one with choke marks, broken
>bones or stab wounds - otherwise, in his mind, why should any jury take
>her word for it? Especially if she was an unmarried non-virgin to begin
>with?

>I mean, it's been pointed out that even modern American journalists have
>been guilty of implying (if unwittingly) that certain mass murderers
>(such as George Sodini) would never have become killers if only women
>hadn't repeatedly refused to date them - as in, the men just "snapped."
>Maybe the women refused because they SENSED they were too dangerous? How
>are those journalists not guilty of deflecting blame away from where it
>belongs, in the minds of their readers?

I agree. All that is crap.

>>I cannot emphasize enough that Cosby was not her friend, just a much
>>older man who wanted to have sex with her. Of course he wanted to create
>>a scenario in which sex was inevitable. She was naive enough to believe
>>that he had some interest in advancing her career (if this is the same
>>woman I'm thinking of). I'm just not letting her off the hook for the
>>specific action she took that led to sex: Taking the prescription drug.
>>No one is that naive.

>I didn't say "friend." And one can still have change one's mind after
>taking a drug, at the last minute, and say no - or pass out - which
>makes it rape.

I already agreed with you on all that.

>But, there's still plenty of evidence (though not absolute proof) that
>Cosby didn't LIKE consensual sex. (How many celebrities as popular as
>he was have trouble getting consensual sex?)

>>How many women would not have unwanted sex (that one regrets after, not
>>that crossed the line into a crime) if they kept their wits about them,
>>didn't deliberately drink enough to get into a blackout state at a
>>party? Didn't take the mood-altering drugs just because they're offered?

>I have no idea what percentage of WOMEN do that. I just think it's
>logical to assume that it's mostly GIRLS who do that. But, again, regret
>is not rape. Having penetrative sex of any kind when someone says no or
>who cannot legally consent due to a certain level of intoxication - or
>mental incapacity - IS rape - as the parents of convicted boys in
>Steubenville, Ohio and Glen Ridge, New Jersey found out, to their
>disbelief. (Needless to say, they weren't the best of parents. Teens who
>can't control themselves - or can't stand up to peer pressure - don't
>deserve to run around unsupervised, even if they ARE male.)

>>Sure. Trusted members of the community can seemingly do no wrong. At
>>what point does common sense and self preservation kick in that a
>>"mentoring session" late in the evening in a hotel room in wine is
>>poured isn't a business-like atmosphere at all?

>No matter what one's mistake is, rape is never a just punishment for it,
>legally, socially or morally. . . .

Of course I agree, but you're missing my point. You think she saw him as
Dr. Huxatable and put an unreasonable amount of trust in him. I'm
pointing out the obvious that he wasn't acting like Dr. Huxtable.

>>I uh what? Of course women should be taught to defend themselves, not to
>>put themselves in a position in which a stranger might slip a drug into
>>her drink, not walk down dark alleys at night not entirely sober, etc
>>etc etc. Women should never be victims, should never be victimized,
>>should never put themselves into compromising positions in which they
>>might get hurt or killed.

>>Let's not conflate something people should do to keep themselves out of
>>trouble with victim blaming.

>It's not what you say, it's HOW you say it. Obviously, while black
>people are more likely to get killed by black people than by white
>people, they would still want to know if the KKK has moved into their
>county and where. That does not mean there's anything civilized about
>well-meaning white people condescendingly lecturing black people about
>staying out of certain neighborhoods or bars - the civilized thing to
>do is to focus on changing the attitudes that encourage KKK enrollment
>in the first place. . . .

That I don't think women should walk alone in dark allies isn't comparable to
anything you wrote above.

I guess I don't understood why girls shouldn't be taught not to drink
too much at parties so they remain in control.

On 7/1/2021 3:18 PM, Guilty Bastard wrote:
> Have you read any religious books lately?

When I was younger. Long story short, I became atheist. Although today's
atheists embarrass me, so I no longer want to identify as such.

On 07/02/2021 02:14 PM, Travoltron wrote:
> On 7/1/2021 3:18 PM, Guilty Bastard wrote:
>> Have you read any religious books lately?
>
> When I was younger. Long story short, I became atheist. Although today's
> atheists embarrass me, so I no longer want to identify as such.

Me too, I had a conservative upbringing but much later realized I was
being told a whole lotta crappola. Now all I can say is that I don't
know anything.

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 10:39:55 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> You think she saw him as
> Dr. Huxatable and put an unreasonable amount of trust in him.

No, I don't think she confused him with his fictional character. I think she simply took him at face value, something which disgruntled men and boys have been demanding for many years, as individuals. Plus the likelihood that, since he'd been famous, deeply loved, and respected for NON-entertainment reasons for DECADES, with no indication from the media that he could behave violently or unethically, she probably figured that if he were capable of that, she'd have heard already. That's pretty logical. (Yes, it's also true that highly popular men - like athletes, whether in high school or in pro sports - often get dangerous when they hear the word "no," since they're not used to hearing it, but the media never implied beforehand that that described him either.)
> I guess I don't understood why girls shouldn't be taught not to drink
> too much at parties so they remain in control.

Again, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. When there were (rare) muggings in my neighborhood, people got robocalls that simply reported the muggings, not warnings to stay off the street at night; they could make that choice for themselves, if they wished.

Writing a list of dos and don'ts for a book is more-or-less polite, IF no one's being ordered to read it. Also, I have never heard anything admirable about fraternities OR sororities, so I chose a college that didn't have them - and that was BEFORE I heard anything about the rape statistics surrounding them.

Aside from that, I've said elsewhere that women could be taught to drink far less if society and teachers would take a much more non-partisan approach to drinking. That is, binge drinking is very bad for a man's liver and life-span, as for a woman's; whether you're male or female, you don't want to drink moonshine by accident; you don't want to drink to the point of wandering off and freezing to death in the snow, wandering into traffic, or falling onto subway tracks, and you certainly don't want to have sex with your long-term significant other in a dim light only to find out, upon sobering up, that it was the wrong person or the wrong gender, have everyone blabbing about that - and maybe even get accused of assault. Not to mention that even just having three drinks or so can result in your blurting secrets that will likely reach the ears of the worst person eventually.

Again, parents can also teach teen girls, in private, how rapists tend to target their victims - and let them draw their own conclusions. (Same goes for teaching boys that thieves steal wallets from people who are passed out.)

And, I remember reading that if you plan to drive, even an hour later, you can't have even ONE drink - because having one makes it too easy to have a second drink.

No one ever told me that getting visibly or audibly drunk - or drunk on an empty stomach - was vulgar; I just picked up that attitude from my extended family's controlled behavior.