I bring this up to clarify some comments attributed to me in last week’s Morgan Hill Times in a report on the rape of a Morgan Hill adolescent by two 17-year-old boys who plied her and her friend (who passed out) with alcohol beforehand, all occurring while parents were sitting in the house, oblivious to what was going on in their own backyard. Others asked me, “Did you really say that? Surely they misquoted you!” Well, no, I was not misquoted, but it didn’t include the context of the conversation, which was a half hour long, and began with the question, “do you have anything to say about this in the context of the social host ordinance?”
First, I do not think the girls were to blame. I really question the psychological makeup of any male who has to get his targets drunk or drugged in order to have sex. Whether it’s boys who get young girls drunk, or men who drug women with “roofies” in bars, such actions show that they cannot have normal relations with a peer who can fully consent, and have to resort to trickery and tools – alcohol or drugs – to disable the female. Ewww … .
I did say that a girl’s judgment is impaired with alcohol, and loses control of the situation. The statement implied that had the girl not been intoxicated, she would have had control. That might not be true. With someone intent on taking advantage of a friend and intending to assault her, she might have not have controlled the situation in any state. However, I meant that she is certainly less likely to have an ability to defend herself if she’s intoxicated. Signals of danger are misconstrued or completely missed, and she’s further compromised with impaired motor skills.
The article mentioned the girls’ previous sexual activity, and I agree it has absolutely no bearing on this incident. The quote “If they’re having sex at this age, you can bet it hasn’t been sober” was later in the discussion with the reporter, as we discussed the sexual minefield young girls have to navigate, given our popular culture, and how alcohol adds extra dangers by impairing physical and mental coping skills.
My belief is that girls of 13 and 14 who are sexually active are not having sex because they actually want sex and enjoy orgasms. This is only true on MTV and in boys’ – and some men’s – fantasies. Having sex at this early age in our culture usually is because of a need to fill other emotional needs, such as feeling accepted, to cope with peer pressure, to prevent losing the boyfriend, or acting out because of earlier sexual abuse. Sometimes, being drunk makes coping with the all this emotional crap and the act a bit easier. However, again, I emphasize that I don’t think the girls intentionally got drunk in this case.
Some people objected to the mention of the girl’s intoxication. While the fact the girl was drunk doesn’t take away the responsibility from the boys who assaulted her, it did play a role and bears mentioning. I’m glad the reporter highlighted the role of alcohol in this incidence. Alcohol plays a role in a majority of crimes, because it loosens people’s inhibitions. For a long time, newspapers have focused only on the crime itself, and not the substance that made committing the crime possible.
Additionally, police have paid attention to the role of alcohol as well. Here, it’s unclear if the boys were drunk and it lessened their own inhibitions and they fooled themselves into thinking a girl so intoxicated “wanted it,” but it seems from police statements that it was a tool to commit a crime.
It’s unclear if the social host ordinance could have prevented this. Just one approach in the fight against underage drinking, it tries to make parents aware and responsible for what’s happening in their homes. Given that everything was discovered after the fact, it’s unlikely it would apply in this case.
That parents were in the house while all this occurred gives me cause for concern. While I can see how things can happen in homes without a parent’s knowledge, I still have an expectation that children in a home are to be protected by the adults there. So what would apply in this case that would hold the parents responsible for the activity at their house, as all involved were underaged and drinking, and two were raping?
Columnist Dina Campeau is a wife, mother of two teens and a resident of Morgan Hill. Her work for the last seven years has focused on affordable housing and homeless issues in Santa Clara County. Her column is published every Friday. Reach her at dc******@*****er.net.
