Women Should Not Be Held Responsible For Their Actions After Drinking

I hate inconsistencies. I hate when an objective rule applies in one situation but not its logical equivalent. For example, it has been suggested that the death penalty is not applied equally. Some states use it more than others, and some races end up on the chair more than other races. To be consistent, we should either execute all men who performed the same crime or execute none of them. Inconsistent application sends the wrong signal to citizens that the law is not applied fairly.

You have probably noticed that there has been a steady drive in Western society to absolve women of their sexual actions after drinking. If a woman drinks, goes into a man’s bedroom, and willingly has sex with him, there is still a possibility—the argument goes—that a rape occurred. The reason is that the alcohol limited her ability to give consent in kissing a man, walking into a room with him, and opening her legs in a casual sex act which did not result in bodily injury. I’m not going to argue whether this can be rape or not, but there is an inconsistency that frustrates me.

If a woman has two cocktails, gets into her car, and accidentally kills a pedestrian, she will face a charge of vehicular manslaughter. She will go to jail.

If a woman has two cocktails, grabs a knife, and stabs a homeless man to death, she will face a murder charge. It doesn’t matter if she had one drink or ten.

If a woman has two cocktails, enters a Chuck E Cheese, and molests a young child, she will go to jail. The judge will not let her walk because she was under the influence.

Do you see the inconsistency I speak of? Under the law, a woman is held responsible for her behavior regardless of how much alcohol she consumed except for when she has a sexual encounter with a man, in which case she is absolved of absolutely all accountability.

Because women are the weaker sex and need extra protections to live a life of independence and empowerment, I propose we grant women full and complete immunity from the law after they sip fermented liquids. In the name of consistency and fairness, women must be immune to any negative action they may perform if they consume alcohol, because if she can’t consent to a sex act under the influence, how can she consent to getting behind the wheel? How can she consent to picking up a knife and thrusting it into another person? If she can’t consent on what to do with her own vagina, which she has possessed since birth, how she can consent to just about anything else that involves human agency?

It is becoming accepted in the West that a woman’s decision-making is impaired by alcohol, so it’s confusing to me why we still charge them for any crime after they drink. If a woman becomes something like a fragile child after drinking, as some would have you believe, it only makes sense that this child is given nothing more than a gentle scolding upon breaking the rules of society. The only prudent thing left to do is eliminate this primitive inconsistency, serve them as many drinks as they want, and chalk up whatever negative result follows. I’m confident that the good nature of women will prevent them from abusing this privilege, because it’s not like they are going around today having consensual sex with men and then falsely accusing men of rape afterwards.

Read Next: Say Hello To The New Definition Of Rape


  1. Drifter October 30, 2013 at 9:10 am

    hahahahahahha, the fall of America will be the hardest and most absolute in all recorded history…

    1. Richard October 31, 2013 at 1:55 pm

      Masculine republics divert into feminine democracies- Kenneth Royce author of Molon Labe

      What is the law? I guarantee you it’s not the post-modern pinko shyster garbage we are enabled with today. Bastiat, Montesquieu, et al knew this. We’re born free but in chains everywhere.

  2. bariserkan October 30, 2013 at 9:13 am

    Roosh I think your point is a little off here. getting drunk and killing someone is punishable because they break a law, not because of consent. but i agree about the absurdity of drunk sex being illegal

    1. thadde October 30, 2013 at 9:31 am

      No, you are confused. For any crime, “mens rea”, or a guilty mind is a component of a crime for roosh’s example. So if i slip a hallucogenic drug in your drink, you go crazy, and then you kill someone- you would have a legal defense. But, if you take a drug voluntarily, that is not a legal defense- you are held responsible. You are held responsible for everything you might do, unless you are a woman having sex.

      1. Marty Johnson October 30, 2013 at 10:13 am

        Some crimes do not require mens rea. For example, statutory rape. Probably the same “wimmenz are helpless creatures” thinking would extend the same strict liability to men accused of “raping” intoxicated wimmen. If he is too intoxicated to realize that little princess is too intoxicated to consent, tough, crucify him any way!

      2. Aunt Mandi February 3, 2014 at 11:55 pm

        Is anybody awake in there? Rape becomes rape when ANYONE – male or female – is not in a position to give consent to sex, or naked Twister, for that matter.

        Not 1-2 drinks, or even a pitcher. Enough of whatever – booze, roofies, or your charming convo – that s/he is conked or zonked. It’s called diminished capacity.

        Women are responsible for what they drink and how they got there. More than a few of us are alcoholics, myself included. But if shagging some blotto Brutus from the pub is illegal, so it is with women.

    2. T and A man October 30, 2013 at 10:03 am

      Yes, she broke the law, and in the example of ‘rape, it’s not her who has broken the law, but him

      He has deemed to have broken the law because he is now obliged to be accountable for her actions because she is deemed no longer able to be accountable due to her intoxication.

      Her drunkeness becomes a man’s burden.

      What this says is that women should be banned from drinking alcohol if they cannot be trusted to make a decision while under its influence.

    3. Mike Caputo October 30, 2013 at 10:04 am

      OK, but what is the essence of breaking a law? Intent. Sure, there’s manslaughter, but even there you’re talking about negligence, which you could call a failure of intent – a “should have been intending not to do”.

      For actual rape to occur, there has to be an intent on the part of the rapist to have sex without regard for the desires of the person he’s having sex with; there also has to be intent *not* to have sex on the part of said person.

      Drinking causes you to lose inhibitions only *after* you willingly choose – i.e. with intent – to imbibe. Pretty sure that’s roosh’s point: the common thread between false rape accusations and drunken violence is that the person knowingly chose to put themselves in a state in which their decision-making would be impaired. That’s true whether the ultimate result is the death of another person or an ex-post-facto unwanted sex act, or even nothing of any consequence other than acting like a moron.

      People have to be held accountable for their choices as far up the decision tree as is relevant to any outcome, because our behavior affects other people.

    4. Purple Penguin October 30, 2013 at 1:47 pm

      Breaking the law is legal if you did it against your will (under the threat of a gun for example).

      If we don’t consider acting under the influence of alcohol as acting against your will, she can’t claim rape after she regrets her last night.
      If we do consider it as acting against your will, you can stab someone without being charged.

    5. Driver July 24, 2014 at 6:50 am

      His point in the article is pretty scary because it can (and in some ways does) represent a growing trend in the U.S. (and other countries).

      Women only have to make a ‘claim’ regarding rape or even abuse and a man is locked up (or at least even removed from his home). There is no ‘equality’ when it comes to either of these instances and we are seeing it more and more everyday.

      To say women don’t have any power in this country (which is a claim by most feminists) is purely nonsense. See our court system for proof.

      Any man who tries to tell a police officer that he was abused (verbally or physically) by a woman prompts laughter or is a joke to them.

    6. Race Carrington September 16, 2014 at 8:28 pm

      well the man is breaking the law when he has drunk sex, the woman he’s doing it with isn’t breaking the law

    1. Mike Caputo October 30, 2013 at 9:51 am


    2. Ian Ironwood October 30, 2013 at 11:10 am

      This should be engraved on the heart of every Red Pill man. It is the Mystery.

    3. Luke August 29, 2018 at 5:18 pm

      That’s some poetry right there. Thank you, writers and thank you, Jack for saying that so wonderfully.

  3. Slashfund October 30, 2013 at 10:21 am

    I think you are overestimating how accountable women are held for anything, even when sober. Women can drive over guys in crosswalks, they can rob banks, they can kill their husbands, and walk free. These are anecdotes and not statistics, but women’s legal responsibility is consistently lower. The inconsistency is that their testimony in court, their votes, etc. aren’t also discounted.

    1. Luke August 29, 2018 at 5:19 pm

      Hell, I heard of a mom who drove over her newborn baby twice, the second time just to be sure… and got off Scot free due to post natal depression or some shit.

  4. Raul October 30, 2013 at 12:13 pm

    I approached a girl direct on the street and complimented on her dress today. She threatened to call cops and started shouting. It was a really crowded place and there were cops everywhere. So i decided to walk away. And then she said “bloody asshole”. I knew if i abuse her back she would create a scene and nobody is gonna hear me. She could have charged me with sexual harassment. So i kept walking. How should have i reacted?
    Was this beta?

    1. machinadeus October 30, 2013 at 1:49 pm

      The best way to react in these situations is to not react at all; so you reacted well. Don’t worry about it, move on.

    2. Brad Turner October 30, 2013 at 11:48 pm

      Daygame on the street gone horribly wrong….I’m sorry bro.

      1. Lacedric Towerwood October 31, 2013 at 1:59 pm

        These bitches is to silly to realize they destroying their own Nation.

        Women’s empowerment is like giving a Chimpanzee the keys to a Ferrari and letting him drive himself down town aka a cluster fuck.

      2. dizzkid December 2, 2013 at 2:18 am

        Your complete lack of a basic grasp on grammar tells me everything I need to know.

    3. Dirk October 31, 2013 at 2:37 am

      I don’t think strangers on the street can be charged with sexual harassment.
      Even if the plaintiff is on the rag.

      1. Luke August 29, 2018 at 5:21 pm

        Oh trust me. They’re working on it.

      1. desertman November 1, 2013 at 6:11 am

        Give 10 yrs and well start hearing guys getting arrested on pof for sending “creepy” messages.

    4. Tommy Hass October 31, 2013 at 11:40 pm

      You look at them with a look of skepticism/amusement and tell her that she is retarded and that she should go fuck yourself. THEN you walk away.

    5. Renee February 8, 2016 at 11:35 am

      That is terrible! I was raised that you respond to any compliment from anybody with a smile and a polite “thank you,” even if that’s as far as the conversation goes. It shocks me when I see females respond to compliments (and I do mean compliments–not lewd remarks from strangers, which I assume is not what you did) with rudeness.

      Are mothers not raising ladies anymore?

      1. Luke August 29, 2018 at 5:22 pm

        Far from it. Have you seen these Women’s Marches and Slut Walks?

    6. Yi-Ying Lu March 30, 2016 at 10:06 pm

      I may be going too far here, but there is inconsistency in feminism. Top freedom (which I am all for) is a feminist’s dream. But if you compliment her breasts (which I have had happen to me before, and I don’t mind) suddenly you’re ‘sexually harassing’ her, despite the fact that top freedom pushes for ‘desexualization’ of breasts??

    7. DNA(splicer) June 24, 2017 at 1:51 am

      Lol I ignore women in the streets even at my job I ignore them. The funny part is when I pass by them and ignore them they look all shocked and stare at me.

      I only engage women who engage me first. The only place I engage women is at a club or bar or a party or on rare occasions on other places if she has caught my fancy enough that I have to talk to her

  5. Stefan October 30, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    Why not forbid women from drinking alcohol. If women are unable to make decisions while under influence of alcohol they shouldn’t be allowed to drink it.
    But I guess it would discriminate against women.

    1. prepy October 31, 2013 at 11:09 am

      Perhaps. But men who drink to excess apparently aren’t raped under the influence. So it may be a genetic disposition females have to alcohol that disengages their mental faculties, making every one and everything else responsible for their actions, including branding consensual sex as rape.

      If this is the case, then it’s not discrimination, it’s a public heath threat and medical condition that demands medial treatments, doctors, drugs, research, and money.

      In addition, sympathetic men around the globe should don vomit-colored ribbons to make us all aware of how big a problem Female Alcohol Induced Chronic Immunity Disorder (FAICID) really is. I’m wearing mine now.

    2. desertman November 1, 2013 at 6:04 am

      Why not its not ladylike anyways. Women that drink look older like a british woman. The japanese have a low tolerance and they look younger longer. I dont by the old lighter skin doesnt age well. Its just a lazy excuse for them to let themselves go

  6. asdfsadf October 30, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    I think the entire rape thing comes from the ‘lack of capacity’ while drunk, like with contracts. Your basically extending it a insanity defense when someone murders someone else.

    “Contract Defenses: Capacity to Contract:

    If a person signs a contract while drunk or under the influence of drugs, can that contract be enforced? Courts are usually not very sympathetic to people who claim they were intoxicated when they signed a contract. Generally a court will only allow the contract to be avoided if the other party to the contract knew about the intoxication and took advantage of the intoxicated person, or if the person was somehow involuntarily intoxicated (e.g. someone spiked the punch). – See more at: http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/will-your-contract-be-enforced-under-the-law.html#sthash.rMWs0oW0.dpuf

  7. MGTOW October 30, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Women are too fragile to vote.

  8. JS October 30, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    Yes, feminism is ironically reverting to the Victorian values it was
    started to fight. Women must be protected by men. They are fragile
    creatures that need supervision. There was a case in England banning
    “lads mags” because it was too emotionally distressing for women store
    clerks to have to physically handle them. Women can not function in a
    “hostile work environment.” The environment around women must be kept
    calm and unthreatening. Women feel like they have to throw up when
    reading Matt Formey. Fainting will be next.

    1. j r October 30, 2013 at 9:29 pm

      Yes. It’s funny how often feminists get the vapors.

  9. Goose Gander October 30, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    Great article as always Roosh. This is 2013’s “A Modest Proposal”.

    My two cents and a small legal distinction:

    The concept of intoxication vitiating consent (or perhaps more accurately volition) is not new to law. The important conceptual difference between the established caselaw and the articles that have been circulating about intoxication and sexual assault is that intoxication is only a viable defense when the intoxication is so severe that one loses all cognitive function. In essence they need to be so drunk that they are unconscious or acting as an automaton. If you can prove this than you may be acquitted of all sorts of crimes that require conscious action (such as murder) because it is morally wrong to convict someone for an action that they had no control over. See all of the bizarre sleep walking cases for an example or better yet read HLA Hart, whose legal studies focused on culpability and volition.

    The real inconsistency that you rightly take issue with is not the mere fact that
    extreme intoxication is a viable defense, but an inconsistency in the application of the evidentiary burden and onus. When using the defense of extreme intoxication the onus is on the person being accused to prove that despite getting in your car, going into the Chuck e Cheese, or stabbing the homeless man, they were in fact acting as an automaton and therefore are not culpable. Not only is the onus squarely on the person using extreme intoxication as a “shield”, but the evidentiary burden is high. This is because when you can walk into a Chuck E Cheese, get in your car, or stab someone the presumption is that you retain a degree of volition and therefore should be culpable, even if you were in a state that might have impaired your “better judgment”.

    In the case of sexual assault the onus is reversed and the evidentiary burden so low it’s turned on its head. The person who is accused of sexual assault now has the onus to prove that the person accusing him was acting under their own volition instead of the other way around. That is inconsistency number one.

    Inconsistency number two is that the mere fact that a woman drank alcohol establishes the presumption that her degree of intoxication was so sever as to remove volition. This is completely out of step with other applications of extreme intoxication and raises serious questions around due process which undermines the legal system as a whole.

    1. Roosh_V October 30, 2013 at 6:21 pm

      Great comment. My take home from it:

      At the time of the alleged rape, was she so intoxicated that if she committed a crime, she would be exonerated? If not, she had consensual sex.

      1. G Ron October 30, 2013 at 9:28 pm

        As sharp as you are
        You should do law school. You would
        Make a good one and I’ve been to law school and know the comment above came from someone who has too. My thing is I’m so burnt out on this mountain of post modern commie bs Amerila spews I don’t care about philosophical things
        Much lately. Call it apathy. Call it cynicism. But like the great Occidental philosopher Too Short says- Man I gotta find a bitch and get my dick sucked. That’s my epistemology homies.

      2. Dirk October 31, 2013 at 2:33 am

        Masturbatory post. Stfu already.

      3. Goose Gander October 31, 2013 at 3:34 pm

        That’s it. Or to put it another way: in order to be exonerated for a crime in which one of the elements of the crime requires human agency you need to be intoxicated to the point of losing all volition (and therefore you are not culpable). Consent requires human agency and therefore is vitiated only if you are intoxicated to the point of losing your volition.

        In the sexual assault context a false equivalence is made between “bare” intoxication, (which has little impact in law on culpability) and extreme intoxication to the point of becoming an automaton (which legal defense rests on the common sense principles of fault apportionment).

        This false equivalence is the inconsistency you refer to in the original post because in both cases the impact of intoxication is applied to the same underling factual question with differing results: “did this person have control of their own agency?”

      4. Driver July 24, 2014 at 6:35 am

        Too funny. Not to mention the fact that if we’re all really striving for ‘equality’, then why doesn’t the man have to give consent to sex as well?

        Women are hilarious. They are strong and independent unless they are intoxicated……then we have to treat them like 5 year old children (the dog ate my homework – excuse).

    2. Brad Turner October 30, 2013 at 11:47 pm

      This sounds like it was written by Joshua Dressler, the criminal law professor who wrote my study guide.

      1. Goose Gander October 31, 2013 at 3:36 pm

        Yeah it’s me! (kidding and thank you for the compliment)

  10. Paul Durow October 30, 2013 at 7:39 pm


  11. Grady D October 30, 2013 at 9:20 pm

    I hate the Commie ZOG liberal crap like any other man who isn’t a he bitch.

    But as far as game-
    Why can’t you cover Nlp patterns (Milton Ericksons Phienix book would be a great read for a strong mind like yours to digest and apply to game knowledge)
    And other techniques and tricks
    To make ones game better.

  12. Han Solo October 31, 2013 at 3:31 am

    Women will be put in jail for DUI but not for FUI (fucking under the influence).

  13. Guanyanyo October 31, 2013 at 9:13 am

    Where are the all the flabby feminists rancorously ranting about against this infringement against wymyn’s rights?

  14. The New Century Man October 31, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    You hit the nail on the head. Twice.

  15. Slim Shady October 31, 2013 at 8:11 pm

    Spot on mate. You know it is good satire when a real piece supporting such absolution (but not using the women as fragile children relation) could be written by a Jezebel Hutt

  16. Tommy Hass October 31, 2013 at 11:56 pm

    I think this is much easier to refute:

    How many times do men around the world fuck fat women under the influence even though they wouldn’t go near them sober? All the time. It is laughable to suggest that anybody would consider these as cases of rape. Yet these harridans are fighting for the imrisonment of men for these “crimes”.

    Another example is the cunt who asks drunk guys for drinks at the club. Drunk guys cannot consent. Ergo: robbery.

    This isn’t satire. This is literally what these mentally deficient trolls fight for.

    Another example is when my friends talked me into giving them my keys because they wouldn’t bother waiting outside since I had to run an errand. After 10 minutes of talking I relented and gave them my keys. Congratulations: I was now the victim of both robbery and breaking and entering.

    The weirdest part is though that our supposedly male privileging culture doesn’t see this as a pathetic example of bullshit and massive discrimination against men. Even though it clearly is.

  17. Glengarry November 1, 2013 at 8:44 pm

    Excellent post and some excellent comments. Really, this is a “the femo-legal emperor is naked” moment.

  18. dizzkid December 2, 2013 at 2:14 am

    You’re a moron. Learn some basic law.

  19. pfft December 15, 2013 at 9:32 am

    This is because when a woman has sex when drunk,she is at greater risk of getting pregnant.
    Men don’t get pregnant.
    This is why they should band alcohol.
    It has no health purpose nor does smoking.
    Ugh,i will never understand this world at all.
    Striving for good health yet they sell alcohol and ciggerettes at all costs.
    Sad really :/
    Men shouldn’t drink either…Nobody should drink.

  20. pfft December 15, 2013 at 9:37 am

    Also this come into mind.
    The law LOVES a beautiful woman.
    A beautiful woman has everyone in the court like putty in her hands.
    Attractive people mostly get away with murder over ugly people.
    Im not saying that attractive people get away with murder all the time.
    Ted bundy,jodie Arias.
    Im saying they have a 99 percent chance on being let go on their looks alone.
    No man will convict an extremely beautiful woman for a crime.Only women will want her to be convicted only if she is prettier than themselves.
    Its just the way things are I guess.
    If an ugly man does something,nobody cares if he dies or not.Hes ugly.
    If a handsome man does something,women will want him to be set free and soon everyone wants him to be innocent.Stand outside saying let him free.
    Attractive people have it much better than ugly people.
    That’s the truth everywhere.

  21. MRAAlternate March 11, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    That hypothetical situation is not a rape. Stand up for what’s right – tell women they are responsible for their choices.

  22. Race Carrington October 21, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    and alcohol has no effect on men’s decision making, right?

  23. The Voice of Reason November 25, 2014 at 5:20 am

    Maybe you should spend more time becoming a better Christian instead of trying to seduce girls while they are drunk.

    Such principled talk of ‘consistency’ is quite unbecoming of a debauched drunkard.

  24. John Bull August 16, 2015 at 10:13 am

    “If a woman has two cocktails, gets into her car, and accidentally kills a pedestrian, she will face a charge of vehicular manslaughter. She will go to jail.” Unless you are my exwife–who did this during our divorce and the judge gave her everything including the car–but at least he did tell her she need to an assessment done to see if she had a drinking problem.

  25. Master Epps May 29, 2017 at 1:28 am

    Actually women shouldn’t be held responsible for anything whatsoever. They’re just always the victim no matter what the case is. If a lady fucks a 13 year old she’s still a good person. She just had a dramatic childhood.
    Women are just unaccountable little boohoo mongering bitches. Nothing’s their fault and nothing ever will be.

  26. John MacLugash August 25, 2017 at 11:35 pm

    There are no victims, only volunteers…

  27. Luke August 29, 2018 at 5:36 pm

    Keep in mind, folks. Feminism was an invention of Cultural Marxists to break up the Western Christian family. These women are brainwashed by Gender Studies to believe everything they do is right and everything men do is wrong. They are taught to hate the idea of having kids or loving their husbands, And they’re taught to LOVE the idea of slaving away for the state. You know how I know that they’re full of two faced lies? Because they don’t care what happens to men and boys. They don’t care what happens to their own sons.