Teenagers, alcohol and consent

There’s an interview with Dellabarca: Disturbing attitudes and comments not uncommon

A 20 year-old student, Jessica Dellabarca, says it’s not uncommon for teenage boys to take advantage of drunk girls at parties or boast about it online. She says boys need to be educated about consent.

All teenagers need to be educated about complexities of ‘consent’ in relation to sexual activity, and they also need to be better informed about the risks of drinking alcohol, and associating with others who are drinking alcohol.

One of the biggest problems seems to be an inherent lack of respect for others.

Using the term ‘rape culture’ is confronting and can be counter productive to reasoned discussion but there appears to be major problems with rights and responsibilities and lack of respect for the opposite sex.

“If you don’t take advantage of a drunk girl then you’re not a true WC boy” – just heard this on RNZ.

Also from RNZ: Rape comments happen ‘every single day’ – student

Boys talking about wanting to rape drunk girls can probably be heard every day in schools around the country, young women and sex education groups say.

This follows revelations of Facebook postings by two Wellington College students who posted offensive comments about having sex with drunk unconscious girls, and that doing this was a rite of passage.

Wellington College principal Roger Moses said the school was investigating and he was “appalled and disgusted” by the posts.

Mira O’Connor, who is in year 13 at Wellington High School, said a lot of her friends have had bad experiences.

“I would say it’s quite common, and I don’t think any of us are really surprised.

“Really shocked and disappointed that they’d say this, but not surprised.”

There should be a lot of shocked and disappointed people if this is common.

Yes, it’s possible to come up with stories about false complaints and bonkers remorse.

But they are only small parts of what appears to be, still, major and entrenched attitude problems, which when mixed with alcohol can cause a lot of grief.

Teenagers will want to have sex. Teenagers will want to drink alcohol. There’s no way of stopping them wanting either.

So there has to be more done to change attitudes to how both sex and alcohol are handled.

 

99 Comments

  1. “There should be a lot of shocked and disappointed people if this is common.”

    Shocked and disappointed perhaps, but not entirely surprized. One of the many things neoliberalism – the ‘reform movement’ or Chicago School of Economics – set out to stunt or destroy was the growing social change, Peace, personal growth, ‘consciousness raising’, conservation, race & gender equity and other [so-called] “progressive” movements … the shorter working week, job-sharing, early retirement et al …

    In short, it set out to prevent us further facing-up-to-ourselves … and perhaps radically improving our life on Earth …?

    “Teenagers will want to have sex. Teenagers will want to drink alcohol. There’s no way of stopping them wanting either.”

    Adults will always want to use sex to sell to teens, thereby encouraging it. Adults will always want to market alcohol, which they did [big time in the 80s & 90s] and still do subtley to “teens” … eg RTDs … “Energy Drink” precursors … Is there no way of stopping them doing either (to their own children)?

    “So there has to be more done to change attitudes to how both sex and alcohol are handled” in the so-called ‘Free Market’ …

    • I don’t see how this is related to neoliberalism.

      Alcohol abuse and sexual abuse and male arrogance and abuse of power has been happening for a long long time.

      • “Recently, at Waitangi, Social Credit deputy leader Chris Leitch spoke of the shocking drainage of $16 million of government funds spent on debt-servicing EACH DAY – yes, DAILY! Meanwhile charities and researchers agonize about income inequality and child poverty”

        – Heather Marion Smith, Gisborne, L2Ed Northland Age, Tues 7 March.

        When you think that a change of fundamental economic policy such as Social Credit or The New Economics Party’s ‘Georgism’ could utterly transform society, its not difficult to see that Reagan-Thatcher-Roger-nomics & Ruthanasia ACTUALLY DID SO … running all the way into prevailing attitudes and social mores … pervading human relationships … including teen sexual relationships …

        The social change movements that presented the maximum threat to [present-day, then re-emerging] political and economic orthodoxy – eg for brevity, Friedman representing the military-industrial complex – arguably reached their greatest strength during the 1970s and early 1980s … Broadly speaking, neoliberalism modified them – eg feminism – or stamped them out – eg the peace movement …

        One of their most potent methods was to throw people back into purely “physical survival” and/or physical gratification modes … “You can’t afford social change and/or look at the new ‘products’ we’ve got to help you forget you ever wanted it!” …

        To exaggerate for effect … Worst case … Instead of a shorter working week, less stress and more leisure time, they gave us Asian prostitutes …

        It’s the bigger picture Pete … For instance, in the bigger picture the Maori concept of whanau-hapu-iwi are presently being threatened or overwhelmed by the Pakeha concept ‘community’ …

      • PDB

         /  March 8, 2017

        For PZ EVERYTHING bad is related to ‘Neoliberalism’ – obsessed much?

        • For PDB EVERYTHING bad is related to PZ [or Blazer] … obsessed …?

          • PDB

             /  March 8, 2017

            Don’t flatter yourself – if I didn’t bother to comment on your nonsense it would still be………nonsense.

            • Blazer

               /  March 8, 2017

              so as for nonsense,which of these is true….we are in ‘testing times’ or we have a ‘Rock Star economy’….?

            • @ PDB – “if I didn’t bother to comment on your nonsense it would still be………nonsense.”

              Try that tactic PDB … Great idea …

            • PDB

               /  March 8, 2017

              Only one was said by the National party, the other by the MSM.

              You can have a strong domestic economy and still have ‘testing times’ including globally and natural disasters etc. More thought required before posting Blazer….

            • Blazer

               /  March 8, 2017

              you said…’testing times’….how big a scroll of excuses does this govt need?Key could captain the NZ Cricket team and the way hes going English might be a prospect to coach…the Warriors.

          • Save me responding to the endless ad-homs …

            • PDB

               /  March 8, 2017

              Just writing the word ‘Neoliberalism’ for every post you make would save you plenty of time instead…….all the rest is just ‘padding’ anyhow.

            • It’s thought provoking commentary PDB …

              Exactly what you DON’T WANT on here …

              In place of our Kiwi culture they gave us The Big Red Shed, $2 Shops and “everywhere a Mega-Store” just out of walking distance …

            • PDB

               /  March 8, 2017

              PZ: “It’s thought provoking commentary PDB.Exactly what you DON’T WANT on here …”

              As noted by……yourself! Repeating the same mantra over and over whatever the subject is hardly using the brain PZ…..people who post long essays all the time in the comments section of a blog (of all places) rather than even attempt to make concise and pertinent points is really just posting for themselves.

            • Funny, isn’t it PDB, that I don’t hear you saying that to, for instance, Missy … see long comment [essay] below … or any of a number of other long commentors.

              Geeee … and would you know it … I am saying some of the same things as Missy … eg we live in a highly sexualised society … media messages … peer pressure… role models etc …

              Anyhow, this is the end of my involvement in this particular little sub-stream or ‘eddy’ of the topic …

            • PDB

               /  March 8, 2017

              Missy’s ‘long comment’ blow as of now has 8 thumbs up and no thumbs down………..says it all really. No problem with long comments where necessary, I pull them out myself on occasion, but almost every comment requiring a meandering essay – really?

  2. Kevin

     /  March 8, 2017

    Drunken consent is still consent. Ok, taking advantage of someone when they’re intoxicated is immoral and all kinds of fifty shades of wrong but it’s not rape. And in the crimes act there’s a bit which paraphrasing says “don’t assume she’s consenting just because she’s pissed.” The best advice I can give to a young guy is help her to bed and go sleep on the sofa. In the morning serve her some coffee and a good hangover breakfast of bacon and eggs. She’ll thank you for it.

    • “Ok, taking advantage of someone when they’re intoxicated ” sounds rape-ish to me.

      • David

         /  March 8, 2017

        If the person who ‘took advantage’ is also intoxicated, who exactly took advantage of who?

      • Kevin

         /  March 8, 2017

        If she’s consenting it’s still consent no matter how drunk she is – except if she’s so pissed that she’s incapable of giving proper consent – which is something for a court to decide. Then it’s rape.

        In the vast majority of rape cases consent isn’t even an issue. It’s more a matter of have the cops nabbed the right guy or not.

        • Anonymous Coward

           /  March 8, 2017

          Remind me to never let my daughter go to the pub with you.

          • Kevin

             /  March 8, 2017

            “Ok, taking advantage of someone when they’re intoxicated is immoral and all kinds of fifty shades of wrong but it’s not rape.”

            I suppose that that doesn’t count. Just take whatever you don’t like out of context.

            You wouldn’t happen to be an SJW would you?

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  March 8, 2017

              Not at all.

            • Joe Bloggs

               /  March 8, 2017

              AC simply strikes me as a concerned parent. There’s no reason to condescend by resorting to the hackneyed SJW label

        • David

           /  March 8, 2017

          “something for a court to decide. ”

          Of course, however, much of this movement is about removing the need for a court and making the accusation along enough to imprison someone.

          • Kevin

             /  March 8, 2017

            If you take it far enough then anybody who has had sex while drunk can afterwards claim rape. Take it even further and alcohol doesn’t even have to a be involved. For example you can say you were depressed at the time and not thinking straight. Take it to the extreme and you canretroactively withdrawn consent just “because”.

    • Joe Bloggs

       /  March 8, 2017

      Interesting claim that one, Kevin – “drunken consent is still consent”

      That argument was recently used almost word for word by a judge in Canada to acquit a taxi driver of charges of raping a drunk passenger.

      After a two-day trial in February, the judge acquitted Rawi last Wednesday. Lenehan said that while there was no question the woman was drunk, and noted that this was not “somebody I would want my daughter driving with, nor any other young woman”, he said his decision hinged on whether she had given her consent prior to passing out.

      “A person will be incapable of giving consent if she is unconscious or is so intoxicated by alcohol or drugs as to be incapable of understanding or perceiving the situation that presents itself,” the judge said, according to a transcript published by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. “This does not mean, however, that an intoxicated person cannot give consent to sexual activity. Clearly, a drunk can consent.”

      He said the crown failed to offer evidence suggesting the complainant could not or had not agreed to sexual activity. “A lack of memory does not equate to a lack of consent.”

      His comments – along with the acquittal – set off a firestorm of criticism.

      “When the victim was highly intoxicated, where her blood level was three times the legal limit of the level for driving, and where she was found to be unconscious in the back seat of a taxi, and where she had been turned away from a bar earlier in the evening because she was too intoxicated – clearly she was incapable of consent,” said Lucille Harper, of the Antigonish Women’s Resource Centre and Sexual Assault Services.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/07/canada-acquittal-signals-open-season-on-incapacitated-women

      Nova Scotia’s Public Prosecution Service says it’s appealing the sexual assault acquittal based on at least six grounds

      – concluding the Crown had offered no evidence of lack of consent from the complainant
      – engaging in speculation about consent rather than drawing inferences from the facts proven in the evidence
      – failing to give proper legal effect to the facts
      – offering an erroneous interpretation and application of the test for capacity to consent;
      failing to direct himself on Criminal Code provisions that deal with aggravated sexual assault
      – failing to determine whether the accused had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/sex-assault-taxi-drunk-1.4013364

      So it would seem that there are serious legal problems associated with a claim that drunken consent is still consent.

  3. David

     /  March 8, 2017

    “One of the biggest problems seems to be an inherent lack of respect for others.”

    Bollocks. The biggest problem is the lack of respect for themselves. Don’t put yourself in a situation where your ‘drunken state’ allows others to take advantage.

    • “The biggest problem is the lack of respect for themselves.”

      I agree, along with our lack of respect for them …

      Isn’t self-respect mostly learned …?

      Its not the teens who created and promote the sexist drinking culture … Its not the teens who don’t educate them better … Its not the teens, leastwise not the younger ones, who created social media and then turned it into a sexist drinking culture weapon …

  4. Auto_Immune

     /  March 8, 2017

    I attended Wellington College in the days before social media. I would say comments like that were not unheard of spoken aloud, but occured very rarely. FWIW, in all cases the guys saying these comments were outright lying or exaggerating at worst.

    Let me be clear that I never condoned this type of behaviour or comments, but the environment I studied in at WC, wasn’t conducive to calling people out on their crap (whether it happened or not).

    I don’t have a solution…. I don’t know what the Health curriculum is these days, but it certainly didn’t help in mine. I would have thought with “PC” culture prevailing amongst the younger generation, this stuff would be occuring less and people would be calling others on their crap, but evidently….

    • Anonymous Coward

       /  March 8, 2017

      I went to a boys school and there was lots of bragging and boy talk about girls. As I came from a quiet suburb far from the school I felt like I’d missed out big time, until the day in the fourth form that I finally got to join the ‘club’ that all the other boys had been in since they were 12. When I went to school the next day I told someone and spent the next week being asked by all these lothario’s what it was actually like. Same thing happened later with weed, schoolboys are so full of shit, and I got old ahead of my time by taking it at face value.

    • @ Auto Immune – “I would have thought with “PC” culture prevailing amongst the younger generation …”

      What on earth gives you the idea that PC culture prevails amongst younger people?

      Is it the Right-Wing transumption that because their teachers are all entirely infused with Leftie PC culture, and consequently it pervades our education system, teens must have assimilated it by some sort of osmosis …?

      Is it the regular news items of drunken teens fighting &/or rioting on Friday &/or Saturday nights in cities and provincial towns all over Aotearoa-NZ?

      Is it the ‘macho’ image portrayed and modelled by our rugby & rugby league sport-drinking cultures …?

      We’re surely talking about two things here, nature and nurture? Which one is lacking?

      • The compulsory school playground-jungle rules school life … Not the classroom or teachers or the school’s “culture” or the education system’s ‘ethos’ …

        The problem with school is school itself.

      • Auto_Immune

         /  March 8, 2017

        To answer your first question: You only need to look at today’s popular culture, including some social media posts, to see the evidence of PC culture amongst our young people, but like I alluded to, it clearly doesn’t stop these things from happening which is disappointing.

        I assume the rest of your post and your other comments are simply your axe to grind, which is all well and good, but fundamentally doesn’t deal with the issue in the present to near future.

        • Joe Bloggs

           /  March 8, 2017

          Auto_Immune, may I suggest that you follow this link to read how political correctness is a favourite rhetorical tactic of the right and a highly effective form of crypto-politics

          https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump

          • Auto_Immune

             /  March 8, 2017

            Interesting read. Thanks.

            To be sure, I used ‘PC’ as a catch all, to describe modern youth behaviour; much of which I approve of. I certainly didn’t (intend to) use the term as a pejorative.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  March 8, 2017

            Getting a bit off topic, but that article, long though it was seemed to paint an unusually one sided picture of PC.

            Here is a more factual historical article on it that puts the rallying cry against PC in better context:

            “The notion of political correctness came into use among Communists in the 1930s as a semi-humorous reminder that the Party’s interest is to be treated as a reality that ranks above reality itself,” writes Codevilla, Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Boston University.

            The semi-humorous reminder went something like this:

            “Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.”
            “Yes, it is. But it is politically correct.”

            The anecdote was a vital reminder in Stalin’s empire: Stray from the party’s official position and it could mean death. Whether or not something was true mattered less than whether or not it advanced the Idea (i.e. the Party’s interest).”

            http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/historical-origin-political-correctness

            • Yeah, yeah … PC and its commensurate SJWs also sprang apparently from post-WW1 communist disillusionment and the Dada movement in Germany … resulting in “the long march through institutions”, the effects of which we are only fully realising today …

              That’s about 3 or 4 generations of ‘Undercover Lefties’ infiltrating bureaucracies, public institutions and academia … and not a single whistle-blower in all that time …

              History is an interpretive art masquerading as ‘social science’ …

  5. Missy

     /  March 8, 2017

    A cop I knew said that they categorise rape complainants in three ways.

    1. Genuine Rape Victims
    2. Those outright lying for revenge
    3. Regret Sex – those that had drunken sex with someone then regretted it the next day.

    He said it is pretty easy to tell the three apart.

    This is a tricky area, on several counts.

    First up, boys boast, and often they will say outrageous things just to be accepted and seen as one of the guys, even if it is something they would never contemplate in reality.

    Second, as much as the focus of this talk is on boys, I hate to say it (and will probably have to hand in my woman card – or at least feminist card) but girls say similar things.

    Third, we live in a society that is highly sexualised. I feel a little sorry for teenagers today – I thought it was bad when I was growing up, but social media and the internet has made it worse. There are a lot of confusing messages in the media (films, music etc), from Rap stars rapping about gang banging and rape, to seeing people like Emma Watson posing almost naked and saying it is empowering. Working through the teen years and discovering sexuality is tough enough as a teen, without all the external influence. It isn’t an excuse, but when the music some of them will listen to, and the tv programmes, and the movies, seem to glorify it, they must get a little confused. Brains are still developing, along with everything that goes with that.

    Fourth, there is a lot of noise from interest groups with an agenda, and a lot of hyperbole in the language they use – words/phrases like misogynist, rape culture etc – that it becomes hard to work through the hysteria, hyperbole, and agendas to what is happening, what is truth, and what is a threat. I don’t believe for one minute that every guy who posted on Facebook about rape actually committed rape, but I also don’t believe that none of them did, but in this day and age it is difficult to work through it all, and getting the genuine cases heard becomes difficult, and for every false claim, every feminist who uses hyperbole, it becomes that much more difficult to really get to the genuine cases.

    Sorry, I think I went a bit off topic.

    • Blazer

       /  March 8, 2017

      Agree with most of what you say except for this…’He said it is pretty easy to tell the three apart.’…….if that was true,so many would not get to…court.

      • Missy

         /  March 8, 2017

        I would agree with you there, but he said there are a lot more that don’t get to court, and he also said that often the police know that someone is not guilty but often the Crown Prosecutors will go ahead with the prosecution anyway.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 8, 2017

        Don’t see your logic. Very many do not get to court.

        • Blazer

           /  March 8, 2017

          how would you know the merits or otherwise?Plenty of acquittals in court.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  March 8, 2017

            Exactly. Uniquely the legal question is not what happened but how and why usually without independent evidence. Conclusion: often unknowable.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  March 8, 2017

              This has been going on as long as sex has, I imagine.

              The idea that it should be a given that one doesn’t drink until one is incapable is not victim blaming, it’s common sense. People have been run over on railway lines because they were drunk and lay down on them. People have choked on their vomit and drowned in it. They have frozen to death, They have crashed their cars and died. It makes no sense to NOT have the message that drinking oneself into that state is a cretinous thing to do. Don’t rely on other people being there to take care of you, that’s child’s talk. Would anyone walk out into traffic and blame the driver who didn’t have time to stop ?

              Consent is a thorny issue-it does promote the idea that sex is something men do TO women, not WITH them. But because it’s obvious that it’s wanted by both people, no actual ‘consent’ needed (in most cases ?) , it should be equally obvious that when it’s obviously NOT wanted, it’s rape.

  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  March 8, 2017

    Anyone who thinks there are easy answers doesn’t understand the problem.

    Often the problem is the symptom of a bigger problem. Relationships are complex. Sex is complex. Alcohol use is complex. Young people are inexperienced at all of them together.

    Teach your children well, then let them loose, hope for the best and deal with the rest. If you can’t solve the problems of your own there’s not much chance you can do it for everyone else.

    • Blazer

       /  March 8, 2017

      not sure how you make sex…complex…AL…maybe you should write….a …book!

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 8, 2017

        I guess I could but the real thing is better.

    • Joe Bloggs

       /  March 8, 2017

      Well said Alan. There are no easy answers.

      Teaching your children well is incredibly important. Sadly it’s just one small part of a much larger jigsaw puzzle because our children don’t operate in a coccoon of family contexts. Hence letting them loose and hoping for the best.

      There are so many other influences that impact on each new generation that wrap-around teaching of what constitutes ethical and moral behaviour and mutual respect seems an impossible task.

      From what I’ve seen of domestic violence and rape cultures it seems every generation is destined to repeat our mistakes, despite the best will in the world.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  March 8, 2017

        If there were two things I would teach every child it would be kindness and intolerance of crap behaviour. They’ll go a long way towards getting you through life well.

        • Blazer

           /  March 8, 2017

          sanctimonious,pontificating advice from a NPD poster….’intolerance of crap behaviour’….WTF?

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  March 8, 2017

            Now you know why I’m intolerant of you, B.

            • Blazer

               /  March 8, 2017

              how ….unkind…Al.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 8, 2017

              That’s the point, B. If you are kind to idiots and oafs you will not have a good life.

            • Blazer

               /  March 8, 2017

              sometimes you have to be cruel….to be…kind…Al.

  7. High Flying Duck

     /  March 8, 2017

    Nice to see a reasoned discussion with good points from all sides (bar PZ who seems to think consent is political).
    As a parent it is difficult knowing your children will have to find their way through the minefield of teen issues with the constant and indelible oversight of social media to record every misstep.
    Bravado among peers can now be paraded as disgusting misogyny – which it often is – but context and the curse of lack of life inexperience must allow for leeway.
    Until words turn into actions.
    As Missy & AC both said above, many people talk in a way completely at odds to their actual behaviors. And despite how the words look or sound, they often do not reflect the actual mind of the person so much as present an image.
    It is good that it has triggered a debate, but i do hope there isn’t any knee-jerk extreme reaction against the perpetrators

    • HFD – In relation to your “consent is political” and AI’s “axe to grind”, in the curation of art mine is what’s called “the long view” … It may also apply to opinion …

      Perhaps its worth considering that consent IS political in some ways? If we hadn’t turned so hard Right in 1984, Gen X, Gen Y and Millenials might be behaving quite differently now …

      Begs the question; If we don’t change how we operate will future generations simply continue to behave the same, given all the same, plus [many] new, “market driven” nurture influences?

      • Gezza

         /  March 8, 2017

        Future generations will change the way we operate. That’s what generations do.

        • Gezza

           /  March 8, 2017

          I’ll add – it’s knowing how they will change things and what things will then be like that’s not possible to predict.

          • Very good points Gezza … with a certain implication of “live it up in the now”?

            We do have both central and local government policy-makers & planners and public policy think tanks for some inexplicable reason … in addition to markets … presumably to set some general course for the future?

            I would describe some of what we’re getting now and perhaps what markets tend to generate as being a coarse for the future instead …

      • High Flying Duck

         /  March 8, 2017

        I’m sure it was all milk and roses prior to Roger Douglas, and sexism and racism were but twinkles of the eye in the pre-Muldoon days.

        The people frolicked merrily and all was well with the world.

        Then Roger came along and invented sexism and rape and all bad things.

        You seem to me to argue that the focus on the individual that is inherent in capitalism leads to selfishness. I would argue the opposite.

        From what i see Socialism leads to the abdication of personal responsibility to the state, who are to look after all.

        My experience with a relatively large variety of people has led me to see that (with some exceptions) conservative people are far more generous (read charitable) with their money. I would suggest this is because they see it as an individuals personal responsibility to do what they can to make society better.

        The more left leaning people are generally far less generous with their own wealth but are strongly in favour of the Government “doing more”.

        Generalisations I know, but certainly true of my experience.

        I exclude from this large corporations who act as an entity and certainly need regulation to ensure they act in society’s interests. But even this is because individual responsibility is removed which removes the need for personal conscience.

        I read much of what you post, but to be honest the viewpoints you put forward are completely at odds with the experiences i have had.

        • I don’t say “milk and roses” prior to Rogernomics HFD … You assume that I am generalising … And then follow this assumption with a bunch of generalisations of your own …

          Perhaps we might mutually concede that blogging is inherently dependent on generalisations?

          Interesting to read in the Northland Age last week that the Far North, one of the country’s poorest districts, has NZ’s highest rate of volunteerism …

          Consequently I would need hard data to convince me that “conservative people are far more generous” and such data would be necessarily complicated … Rich people may ‘appear’ more generous but that depends on so many factors …

          For example, one person extracting phenomenal riches from a business like the Big Red Shed, then establish a tax-deductible Charitable Trust to disperse a tiny portion of profits as funding to ‘worthy’ community causes – after the exploitative years required to establish market dominance – cheap imports, cheap labour, eviscerate local community economies – is actually a cost-benefit data matrix of some considerable complexity … more of a forensic accounting challenge than a simple equation …

          I’d take even more convincing “that the focus on the individual that is inherent in capitalism DOES NOT LEAD to selfishness …”

          • High Flying Duck

             /  March 8, 2017

            You are right – volunteering and community involvement are intangible but very important aspects of giving.
            What i have seen would not pick up on this aspect.
            The experience of which i speak is of fairly like for like individuals in terms of financial position. But you are right that many factors come into it.

            Suffice to say I simply do not accept individualism leads to selfishness. It leads to difference and variety and being able to make choices on how to live your life and how to interact with others.

            Sometimes this leads to riches and sometimes poverty, but such is life.

            Even if equality of opportunity was upped to equality of direct income there would still be those who end up destitute and those who amass a fortune. To stop this there would need to be a level of state intervention which i personally could not abide.

  8. Blazer

     /  March 8, 2017

    there is evidence that this is certainly not the case….’My experience with a relatively large variety of people has led me to see that (with some exceptions) conservative people are far more generous (read charitable) with their money. I would suggest this is because they see it as an individuals personal responsibility to do what they can to make society better.’…I will try and round it up.

      • High Flying Duck

         /  March 8, 2017

        You need to read what i wrote again as your links are not relevant.

        For a start, I think if you look at the American left you will find it is populated by many wealthy individuals.

        I didn’t say the “rich” give more. I said the level of giving I have experienced – in NZ – was broadly predicated on whether you believed in individual responsibility (capitalist) vs abdicating this to the state (socialist).

        I agree that when wealth reaches a certain level you can become disconnected from society and therefore not wish to contribute as much, although there are many many high profile examples refuting that – Bill Gates being the flag bearer.

        • Blazer

           /  March 8, 2017

          you are splitting hairs…How did you measure and match,the extent of giving with believing in individual responsibility vs abdicating this to the state.And how did you determine that Socialists do not believe in individual responsibility other than ‘gut instinct’?

          as for relevance…the links are valid ,especially applied to this….’you seem to me to argue that the focus on the individual that is inherent in capitalism leads to selfishness. I would argue the opposite’…….so the studies contradict your viewpoint.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  March 8, 2017

            The studies say that rich people give less. You assume they are capitalists.
            And you are comparing my local experience with generalised studies of superwealthy americans.

            • Blazer

               /  March 8, 2017

              why produce a U.S Republican link to support your hypothesis?I assume rich people are Capitalists because it is a logical assumption.Name some that are not.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  March 8, 2017

              That link was in response to your two US links…

            • High Flying Duck

               /  March 8, 2017

              Charles Tips, Former academic editor
              Updated May 24, 2015
              Poor Vilfredo Pareto. He set out just over a century ago to show socialism more equitable than free enterprise and ended up becoming famous for the Pareto principle that invariably all economies end up with twenty percent owning eighty percent of the income, wealth, land, what have you.

              In other words, wealthy elites are features of socialist systems every bit as much as free-enterprise ones. There are differences though. Free-enterprise societies produce wealth more readily, so the highs are higher (the rich tend to be richer) and the lows are higher (the poor are better off; many in the lowest quintile in the US for income are above the world mean, for example). Another difference: In free-enterprise economies, those at the top tend to be from the productive class, people who create wealth and jobs, and this is good for everyone. In socialist economies, those at the top tend to be from the political class, people who appropriate wealth, and this is shitsville for everyone (well, except insiders and cronies, of course).

              With the wealth on display in the Clinton family, Harry Reid being worth as much as $80 million in the twilight of a career entirely in public service, the suburbs around our nation’s capitol having surpassed those around our technology and finance centers in wealth, we can easily see where we are headed. And how do politicians steer money their way? Gatekeeperism–you want something done, pay me. (And we naively thought we were paying them already to look out for our best interests.)

              And so you have the Castro brothers worth more than Queen Elizabeth and the late president of the Bolivarian republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, having bilked at least one billion and possibly up to two billion dollars from his nation’s economy. The commissars of the Soviet Union may not have been that wealthy by our standards, but they had the dachas and the automobiles.

              The bottom line: Wealthy elites are inevitable. We can choose free enterprise, the system in which innovators create wealth that spreads through society, unequally, yes, but outside of manipulative control for the most part. Or we can choose socialism, the system in which our leaders redirect wealth as they deem best, usually in their own political interest if not into their own pockets.
              https://www.quora.com/In-history-has-there-ever-been-a-socialist-rich-guy

            • Blazer

               /  March 8, 2017

              you appear dazed and confused….you said…’For a start, I think if you look at the American left you will find it is populated by many wealthy individuals.

              I didn’t say the “rich” give more. I said the level of giving I have experienced – in NZ – was broadly predicated on whether you believed in individual responsibility (capitalist) vs abdicating this to the state (socialist).’….
              ‘Suffice to say I simply do not accept individualism leads to selfishness. It leads to difference and variety and being able to make choices on how to live your life and how to interact with others.’


              ‘The bottom line: Wealthy elites are inevitable’….
              Chavez is dead,the Castros do not reveal their wealth,so there is alot of assumption at work.

              finally….where does ‘money’ come from…do you think?

    • High Flying Duck

       /  March 8, 2017

      “When it comes to giving to charity, Republicans in the United States on the whole are more generous than just about any other people on the planet.

      Republican states are more generous than Democratic states by a wide margin. In GOP states like Utah and Mississippi, families donate more than seven percent of their income to charity. In liberal New England states like Massachusetts, the number is less than half that.”
      http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/republicans-most-generous-people-in-the-world-democrats-not-so-much

      • Blazer

         /  March 8, 2017

        trying to selectively cherry pick will not bolster your arguement.

        • Blazer

           /  March 8, 2017

          especially from such an obviously biased Republican,anti-Democrat source.

          • Anonymous Coward

             /  March 8, 2017

            Thems be the (TAX) breaks.

      • Perhaps Republicans reap more from the inequality and iniquity in the first place HFD …?

        • Anonymous Coward

           /  March 8, 2017

          Donations are tax deductible.

          • Blazer

             /  March 8, 2017

            pity that opinions…..aren’t.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  March 8, 2017

              For that to be so they would have to cost money.

          • High Flying Duck

             /  March 8, 2017

            So you think people spend $1 on charity to get the $0.30c tax credit?

            The tax credit isn’t a font of money, it’s a % back for your generosity. Many use this to donate more.

            • Blazer

               /  March 8, 2017

              try flying higher….you have been ….shot…down.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  March 8, 2017

              I think he was shooting blanks…

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  March 8, 2017

              It’s when those dollars donated have the overall effect of putting you in a lower tax bracket where the heart of Republican generosity lies. Then you get a 30c tax break and an extra 15c on every dollar you made before you started giving some away.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  March 8, 2017

              I’m no expert on the US tax system, but I assume it is similar to here with the marginal tax rates.

              Your lower levels of income are *always* taxed at the lower rates with higher rates applying only to the income above each threshold.

              No tax under $9,226
              15% on $9,226 – $37,450
              25% on $37,451 – $90,750…and onwards.

              As such, you don’t suddenly get a huge reduction in taxes on your lower income. It is taxed the same either way.

            • Current NZ thresholds:
              Up to $14,000 – 10.5%
              Over $14,000 and up to $48,000 – 17.5%
              Over $48,000 and up to $70,000 – 30%
              Over $70,000 – 33%

              This is commonly misunderstood. If your earnings go up from $48,000 to $49,000 you are only taxed $1,000 at 30% (annual basis).

              It’s a bit more than this if you add the ACC earner levy, currently 1.39% on top of the above rates on earnings up to $122,063 (so less is deducted on anything earned over that).

              The thresholds haven’t changed for most of National’s term in government so as earnings creep up we more of our income can incur a higher rate, raising our overall rate. Cullen allowed this to happen too and eventually got hammered for it (in 2008).

            • Blazer

               /  March 8, 2017

              where did you find those tax rates?Is their a tax free threashold in NZ?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  March 8, 2017

              I was answering AC.
              Those are the first few rates for the US (Federal taxes).

        • High Flying Duck

           /  March 8, 2017

          We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. Although we may have some commonality when it comes to corporate greed and lack of accountability.

  9. An interesting series of comments about an issue that is fundamental to our human growth in NZ. The ingredients? A male and a female NZer, excess alcohol, separation from others, and a sexual encounter where the female participant is drunk. Rape is sexual penetration without consent. Consent is agreement either in words or by a series of physical signals interpreted by both sides as willingness to engage in sexual activity, and evidence to that consent.
    Problem, is a person who has consumed excess alcohol or other drugs capable of asking for and giving consent to sexual activity. I would prefer that the rule was that if you are drunk or under the influence of drugs then you can not legally give nor accept consent. This is the rule we should teach our kids as being immutable. That should be a fundamental rule of law in NZ. There should also be a law against a person to induce sexual activity from any person who has diminished responsibility by any means whatsoever.
    Rape is not gender specific.

    • Blazer

       /  March 8, 2017

      what do you suggest….compulsory breath testing…before ..sex?

      • No, Blazer, don’t be stupid. The actors in the situation are the only ones involved (normally). And they should now beforehand how their actions will be judged by a Court of Law. i know that their is no such thing as a conscience in a standing prick, however ones conscience speaks inside our brains.

  10. Alan Wilkinson

     /  March 8, 2017

    “Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker” – Ogden Nash.

    Consent can be a very tricky thing. It’s much easier to judge afterwards, especially if you weren’t there.

  11. MarMightyGood

     /  March 15, 2017

    Good to hear Wellington College hasn’t changed – still a hell hole.