Opinion
Issues of promiscuity beneath ASM
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Mark Baumgardner:
- A revolutionary papacy (April 4, 2005)
- Rhetorical lessons collected in Madison (May 5, 2005)
- Schiavo case overflowing with tragedies (March 29, 2005)
- Walker's responsibility ideal foil to Doyle (February 3, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Every semester, the Associated Students of Madison (ASM) choose several issues to lobby and campaign for, acting in their capacity as student government representatives. While some issues have, for better or worse, garnered much attention, other campaigns ASM takes on receive little or no attention from most students. This semester, ASM intends to pursue a campaign that likely fits into the latter category.
Since the beginning of the school year, several students involved with ASM have participated in an alcohol issues committee, with the purpose of expanding student input on drink specials and other alcohol issues. This semester, several other students involved with ASM intend to push an alcohol campaign, but with a much different intent; they seek the classification of alcohol as an intoxicant in Wisconsin State Statutes, as modified by Act 220.
In 1998, Act 220 modified the statutes pertaining to sexual assault, making an individual who “[h]as sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who is under the influence of an intoxicant” guilty of second-degree sexual assault under certain conditions.
Section 940.225(5)(ai) defines “intoxicant”: “‘Intoxicant’ means any controlled substance, controlled substance analog or other drug, any combination of a controlled substance, controlled substance analog or other drug or any combination of an alcohol beverage and a controlled substance, controlled substance analog or other drug. ‘Intoxicant’ does not include any alcohol beverage.”
While the statutes include the combination of alcohol and a controlled substance as an intoxicant, alcohol alone is not considered an intoxicant for the purpose of those statutes, and hence, the reason for ASM’s campaign.
Outgoing Alcohol Issues Committee chair Craig Barragry spoke with me, opposing this change in course: “The goal of this campaign is almost opposite of what we are trying to do — make alcohol less of a feared and demonized thing on campus.” Barragry explained, “It (the new campaign) is not going to prevent predators, who would commit this horrible act regardless, and it will just waste precious political capital for the students with city and state officials. Third, what is the end goal?”
Barragry expressed other concerns about the campaign saying, “I think it represents a small percentage of the students’ views on campus and probably won’t accomplish one thing … I cannot describe in words my utter disappointment in ASM.”
One could go on and on criticizing ASM for leading campaigns on issues it has little control over and ultimately little relevance toward students. However, this campaign raises other, more important issues that deserve comment.
This newspaper first reported on ASM’s campaign to include alcohol in Act 220 on Dec. 9, 2004. Coincidentally, that same issue featured a story chronicling the phenomenon of “hooking up” on this campus.
As the story correctly notes, this phenomenon represents a fundamental shift of attitudes in recent history. Long gone is the belief in reserving sexual intercourse as an act between a man and a woman for the purposes of expressing true love and procreation within the context of marriage. Instead, many individuals now use sexual activity, and often the bodies of others, as a means to the end of selfish gratification.
The same mindset of selfish gratification that drives this phenomenon of “hooking up” is paralleled with the demand for sexual activity of any kind without consequences. This university promotes contraception for that exact reason. When contraception fails, abortion and drugs inducing abortion are available elsewhere.
As we commemorate the tragic decision of Roe v. Wade and the 4,000 lives claimed daily by legalized abortion this week, we should also recognize the other impacts caused by violations of the body, including sexual assault. A person with true respect for sexuality and the dignity of another never commits assault.
Until mindsets change regarding sexuality and abortion, the destruction of marriage and sexual assault will continue. If ASM and others want to reduce sexual assault, they must first start by changing minds and attitudes.
Mark A. Baumgardner (mbaumgardner@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in electrical engineering.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
Yes, making it more criminal for people to get girls drunk and date rape them is a bad thing. You know what I think is tragic and immoral? Close minded pricks like you.
Mark's point wasn't that alcohol and date rape are ok. I got this perception when he wrote, "A person with true respect for sexuality and the dignity of another never commits assault."
He merely disagreed with how to prevent it. Making a law against it doesn't do a thing. It's a complete waste of time. I'm reminded of a quote from America: The Book. "Let's make breaking the law illegal. Just seems like a no brainer, people."
Changing hearts and minds about sexuality and morality DOES have a great impact addressing sexual assault. The connection's easy to see.
Thanks, Mark, for a column liberals and conservatives alike can appreciate.
As an individual who is not affiliated with ASM but has attended lectures on the topic addressed in this article, I would like to expand on one of the motives behind labeling alcohol as an intoxicant.
A fact few people know is that most "date rape drugs" leave the system of the victim within 8 hours of ingestion or at first urination, whichever comes first. Considering this, it is very difficult to charge someone with the additional penalties set out for drugging an individual prior to rape. Including alcohol as an intoxicant will remove this loophole. Adding alcohol to the list will not make consensual sex with a drunken individual illegal.
In addition, I feel your connection between rape victims and promiscuity is both degrading to victims and inaccurate.
ASM is retarded.
To the 3rd anonymous-
Your last comment is a complete distortion of this column. "A person with true respect for sexuality and the dignity of another never commits assault."-- That's the connection.
"In addition, I feel your connection between rape victims and promiscuity is both degrading to victims and inaccurate."
The connection is not between promiscuity and rape victims, it's between a culture of promiscuity and people who COMMIT rape. Rape victims aren't sluts.
The problem with Mark Baumgardner's column "Issue of promiscuity beneath ASM" is not that "A person with true respect for sexuality and the dignity of another never commits assault." It's that this article was based on loose and ignorant conclusions that really frame women and alcohol as the problem in sexual assault, instead of outdated social perceptions.
I think that it's wonderful that ASM is finally trying to change Wisconsin's law about alcohol not being an intoxicant in sexual assault. The issue isn't that people are being only drugged and having alcohol as an intoxicant will let them get away with this. It's that alcohol is an intoxicant (if you want any proof walk around State Street around 2:30 on a Thursday-Saturday night) and people are not always "fully operational" after alcohol. Which can lead to or assist sexual assault. Including alcohol as intoxicant on the official legal statue won't necessarily change people's minds. However it will hold them accountable so that a boy or girl who is assaulted by another boy or girl while they are drunk is able to charge their attacker with sexual assault or rape.
Secondly Mark's connection from alcohol and "hooking up" as a change in people's attitudes towards sex and abortion is weak at best. In his opinion, "many individuals now use sexual activity, and often the bodies of others, as a means to the end of selfish gratification...is paralleled with the demand for sexual activity of any kind without consequences." This insatiable desire of "hooking up" causes people to not use contraception. This means that the morning after pill (which you can shock! get at UHS) and abortion, since these evil people who use others are stupid and don't use contraception, and don't want to deal with any consequences. Yet I don't see the connection back to ASM's policy. Their policy is attempting to help victims of assault while intoxicated with alcohol and hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. Which does not allow them to avoid any consequences. Besides why should a victim of sexual assault be forced to live with the consequence of an unwanted sexual assault?
I do agree with Mark's assertion that to stop sexual assault we need to change the mindset regarding sexuality. However allowing alcohol related sexual assault to go unpunished is not the way to do this. Also not allowing women who were raped, victims of incest, or who simply cannot or do not want to have a child from having a legalized abortion will not affect sexual assault. Instead it is people with such a closed minded view of sexuality and gender relations that condone sexual assault.
The point of this column, in my view, was not that sexual assault was ok. I don't know what sort of tinfoil hat you're wearing, but would you mind pointing out where the author says women are the problem?
The connection between sexual assault and attitudes about sexuality is easy to see. You even claim to see it yourself. Part of the point of this article was that legislation is ineffective and a poor use for political capital, not that the legislation should be scrapped.