*insert needle scratch across record*

You can read the article here.  Basically, a girl writes to Amy and relays a story about going to a frat party, getting intoxicated and being in a room alone with a boy.  She told him no, she did not want to have sex.  At some point, she realizes that he has gone against her wishes but she has a delayed reaction due to the alcohol.  They are then interrupted and must leave the room.  She asks Amy: “I guess my question is, if I wasn’t kicking and fighting him off, is it still rape?”

What is so massively offensive about Amy’s response is that she does not say, definitively, “YES.”

Instead, she says that the woman is a victim of her own bad judgment.  Then she warns against “getting drunk at a frat house” as it may result in “unwise or unwanted sexual contact.”   The problem here is that her logic reads like this: “You got drunk at a frat party.  Don’t you know that getting drunk like that often leads to unwanted sexual contact?”

Amy seems to have forgotten that there is no rape without a rapist.  She completely skipped over that little tidbit.

You don’t just get drunk and suddenly there’s some unwanted sexual contact.  There’s another party involved who is doing the unwanted sexual contact. Perhaps Amy meant to say:   if you get drunk at a frat house, your chances of unwanted sexual contact increases because rapists are more likely to target you.  But she just leaves it at “drunk at frat house = unwanted sexual contact.”  That’s unacceptable because while it may be a woman’s choice to get drunk at a frat house, that doesn’t mean she is consenting to unwanted sexual contact.

You know why rape happens, Amy?  Because there are rapists.  Not because someone got drunk.

I won’t be purchasing another Tribune or contributing to NPR while this woman still works for them or is associated with them.

Disgusted in Chicago,

RandomEsq.

p.s.  Please pass this on to your readers and encourage their voice be heard on the Tribune’s website.  I have left my comments there, as well.