Girls, with the right to drink comes the need to do it safely

fairsfair says:

11:08am | 06/10/10

Man that horse is high - get down before you fall off, hurt yourself and subsequently blame a man.

Whist these people exist in our society, we aren’t talking about the bikeway rapist here. We aren’t talking about men who premeditate a crime, spike a drink and abuse.

We are talking about average men who misinterpret the drunken advances of women to be genuine interest. Their judgement is also inhibited. There is responsibility on both sides. We are talking about young women who feel it acceptable to become so paroletic in public that they don’t remember the night before. You see it on the regular.

The author is simply trying to advise that our own safety is our own responsibility. You don’t leave your drink unattended - you most likely avoid a spiking incident. You limit yourself to a couple an hour - you most likely avoid public humiliation and/or making serious misjudgements.

When did the publication of common sense become an attack on your own personal liberties? You last sentence makes me as a woman, feel sorry for you.

Kordez says:

11:55am | 06/10/10

Your ability to express a well executed decline to a trip back to someone’s home, hotel room, car or the back alley, following the consumption of alcohol is your responsibility.

I remember a time I was wandering the streets of Sydney in the early hours of a Saturday morning. I was 18 and invincible, I came across a poorly lit parkland and shortcut to my mates place in Redfern which I could have walked around, but hey after 8 hours of drinking I didn’t care who was waiting in there for me. I was mugged, and the bastards stole my wallet and my brand spanking new Nokia 3210.
Now I wonder if I would take the safer route after less drinks. At least now I would.

Dan says:

12:32pm | 06/10/10

I agree Mel.  This sort of talk about ‘responsibility’ is invariably another way of saying that a woman ‘deserved it.’  No-one ever deserves to be sexually assaulted.  No matter how drunk you are, no matter how little clothing your wearing, no matter how dark that park is, no matter if you’re dancing the charleston at the top of a bloody flagpole.  The responsibility is wholly and solely on the attacker, because they chose to do what they did.  Why don’t they have a ‘responsibility’ not to be a rapist?

Susan says:

01:01pm | 06/10/10

Agree wholeheartedly , Mel.
The only way to stop sexual assault from happening is for people to not to commit sexual assault. Plain and simple.

Bob says:

01:53pm | 06/10/10

Exactly Kordez.

No one deserves to be mugged or is in anyway responsible for it if they walk down a dark alley in Kings Cross while blind drunk with $50 notes taped all over them either. Im exaggerating, but my point is clear.

The situation could have been avoided though by not acting like an idiot.

Bobster says:

01:54pm | 06/10/10

@ Susan, That, like most plain and simple statements, is completely useless. How do you plan to achieve this bold aim?

Less “plain and simple” approaches and we might actually make some progress on this issue.

Sadly, the resolution to this lies not only in getting rid of the bogan degenerate perpertrators, but also in getting rid of the clods who think throw away lines like that help rather than hinder.

Bobster says:

01:54pm | 06/10/10

@ Susan, That, like most plain and simple statements, is completely useless. How do you plan to achieve this bold aim?

Less “plain and simple” approaches and we might actually make some progress on this issue.

Sadly, the resolution to this lies not only in getting rid of the bogan degenerate perpertrators, but also in getting rid of the clods who think throw away lines like that help rather than hinder.

Rose says:

02:16pm | 06/10/10

Why are the two mutually exclusive?
Clearly some one who chooses to rape or assault some one else is 100%  responsible for their actions and deserves to be hit with the full force of the law. On the other hand, women need to understand that certain behaviours will put them at greater risk of being attacked. There is a level of personal responsibility on both sides, the attacker who is committing a criminal act, and the victim who, while not necessarily doing anything wrong, may have acted in a manner which reduces her ability to keep herself safe.

Kordez says:

02:18pm | 06/10/10

@Dan, it is factual to say that everyone has a responsibility to drink responsibly or pay the consequences and from a fortune of experience; poor decisiveness, incoordination, increased friendliness with those your less than likely to speak to again and vague recollection of the period during consumption are the results of a large amount of alcohol. Blend these together and you have one hell of a party and often, one dude or chick pissed enough to not know what they are doing and fail to remember it the next day (this is occasionally me.)
It is not unreasonable to believe that when anyone is this wasted they become more accepting of a compromising situation. And it is that very situation that we all should be capable of avoiding and have a responsibility of avoiding.

Take away our reasonability’s and you’ll have no freedom left mate.

Ps. I couldn’t read anywhere in Julia’s article that suggests a female deserves to get raped. Nor in any of the comments following the article.

Just Sayin' says:

03:19pm | 06/10/10

If someone steals my money, they are 100% to blame for the theft, but I’m still not going to leave $100 notes hanging out of my back pocket.  We don’t live in a perfect world.  Bad people do bad things and we need to do our best to catch them and hold them accountable.  You may not be able to ensure you are NEVER a victim, but you can do an awful lot to minimise your chances.  You’d be stupid not to.

This is entirely obvious when you discuss it in the far less emotionally charged context of theft, rather than rape, but the need to take some ownership of your safety does not change.

Miso says:

03:59pm | 06/10/10

I guess you’d go walking through a minefield, ignoring all the “No Trespassing” signs, and then blame someone else when you got blown up because you thought it was your right to walk there.

Personal responsibility. Use it. Accept it. Stop playing the victim.

Dave says:

04:20pm | 06/10/10

Is it your responsibility to be prudent, vigilant and take care of yourself? Yes.

Crime happens all the time, to everyone. No, it doesn’t excuse sexual assault. But if you put yourself in a dumb situation because you got too smashed and lost control of yourself, of course something bad is going to happen.

Like Rose below says, there is responsibility on both sides of the table - not just one.

Lorraine says:

04:36pm | 06/10/10

I agree Mel.
Having a drink in a pub is not an invitation for the attentions of some guy who thinks he is a gift to any girl who crosses his path.
It is part of the ethos of this country to blame women for the crimes that are inflicted on them.
She made me do it! She made me lose my temper! She was asking for it (even when she was saying no)! She dressed like she was looking for it! I’m sure there are many more that you can think of to add to this list of reasons why women are responsible for the crimes of men!

Jarrod says:

05:36pm | 06/10/10

I love how every argument here ignores the scenario where a (heavily inebriated) woman goes home with a guy and is all over him, then decides halfway through getting undressed while kissing him that she doesn’t want to have sex.

In other words, there are scenarios where the rapist didn’t think it was non-consensual

Rose says:

10:22pm | 06/10/10

Jarrod, in your scenario, if she says she doesn’t want sex. or pushes him away, then no it is and if he goes further, it is sexual assault or rape. Mixed messages is not an excuse for rape, you need clear consent for sex to be consentual. Again, it’s back to personal responsibility, if a bloke takes a woman back to his place and she’s under the influence, he is taking a risk by inviting potentially erratic behaviour and he ought to be prepared that he’ll get more (or less) than he thought he was signing up for.
I have taught my daughters that it is far easier to exercise caution and try and stay away from potentially dangerous situations than it is to exercise their ‘rights’ and risk their personal safety. I have tried to teach them that it’s better to NOT write yourself off completely, not to ‘pick up’ men and go off with them the very night you meet them and most importantly, that you look out for your mates and you try to have friends you can rely on to look out for you.
There is no way you can guarantee you will never be attacked, but seriously, why increase the odds!!

David C says:

08:29am | 07/10/10

“Again, it’s back to personal responsibility, if a bloke takes a woman back to his place and she’s under the influence, he is taking a risk by inviting potentially erratic behaviour and he ought to be prepared that he’ll get more (or less) than he thought he was signing up for.”
Rose a point well made

SafetyFirst says:

12:24pm | 07/10/10

I agree with fairsfair.

No one is saying that you are asking to be raped.  We’re simply saying that if people didn’t put themselves in such situations, the risk of getting assaulted would be greatly reduced. 

When I used to go out with my friends, they would often want to take a short cut down the dark alleyways, but I always insisted we stay on the main streets with lights.  They may have thought I was a party pooper, but we would agree to take the safer option.  Had we have taken the shortcut and met with foul play, people would not blame our decision, but blame the perpetrator.  However, I’m sure we would never take the shortcut again.  So in my opinion, the same goes for the situation in question. 

Ladies, choose the safer option!

dancan says:

12:17pm | 06/10/10

I knew girls who would play “who could get the most free drinks” game, they would do all of the above and lead the guy ,or guys on all night and milk them for as much as possible

Susan says:

01:03pm | 06/10/10

@duncna…. which still does not equate into sexual assault though, right?

NEFFA says:

01:16pm | 06/10/10

you’ve gotta be kidding me,  right? could you be more patronising of our men?

” the poor sod” ? boo - frikety - hoo.

The problem with this country is we have women like you who bring men up to believe that they can do no wrong and are not responsible for anything they do.

Men have as much choice in their behaviour as women do, we need to cut the crap with the ” boys will be boys ” thing, if they are drinking in a bar then they are not boys, but grown men and should behave as such.

if you take a girl home at 3am for anything more than a cup of milo, you invited this into your life so suck it up.

jade says:

08:54pm | 06/10/10

Wow, Neffa… if a guy invites a girl home with him he deserves to be accused (rightly or wrongly) of sexual assault?!?!?!  Please tell me I’ve misunderstood what you are trying to say here!

Gavin Hodge says:

05:18pm | 07/10/10

NEFFA, I will agree for argument’s sake with what you are saying. I think your last line, though, can be complimented with the following:

“if you take the offer to go to a stranger’s house at 3am for anything more than a cup of milo, you invited this into your life so suck it up.”

I’m sure you would agree that that’s fair enough, wouldn’t you NEFFA? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander (or vice-versa maybe).

Bobster says:

11:43am | 06/10/10

@ Bec

In the immortal words of Mike from the Young Ones - “Life is like a burnt steak - small, tough and the chips are always stacked against it.”

Some people are violent - always have been, always will be - so you’ve got to be on the lookout for these barbarians lest they do something to you you might not appreciate it.

When you come up with the argument that will immediately convince every unevolved moron not to rape, kill or maim, please let me know because I’ll personally pay for sky writers over every major city and town.

Until then, look after yourself and good luck.

Samuel says:

12:00pm | 06/10/10

No one anywhere is saying that any man who assaults a woman should not feel the full force of the law.

But there is a distinction that needs to be made between what happens by chance, as you have put it, and the young women who drink heavily, flirt, and go home with men they don’t know.  As I mentioned in a comment yesterday, a culture that accepts getting blind drunk and hooking up for one night stands is a culture where sexual assault will happen.

ABC says:

12:38pm | 06/10/10

Yes, Bec of course you are allowed out in public.  If you want to get maggoted then that is your right as well.

But you have to acknowledge that if you become so intoxicated to the extent that you are signficantly impaired (in terms of speech, being able to walk upright and not fall over) you have elected of your on free will to place yourself in a position where you are potentially and wilfully increasing the level of risk for yourself - either getting run over by the early morning bus, falling off your stilettos and face planting it into the concrete, or getting attacked.  You haven’t asked to be attacked - to state that what the author is saying is tantamount to that is ridiculous. 

Of course its your “right” if you wish to totter drunkenly down the street and not “expect” to be assaulted.  Theoretically, we all should be able to do such a thing and not expect any adverse result. Theoretically, I should be able to wander down the street buck naked and not “expect” or be seen to be “asking”  to be raped.  However, we do not live in a utopian world.  For every, 99 blokes who will either ignore you, help you kindly to a taxi just think “Silly bint, she’s gotten herself pissed” there will be one who will potentially seek to harm you..  However, all women (and I am one myself) should acknowledge at the very least that they are greatly reducing their capacity to spot that one man in a hundred if they have so impaired their own judgment.

I’m no saint.  I’ve been on many a drunken one night stand in the past.  However, I do acknowledge that drunk I have done things that I would never have contemplated sober, and that in my drunken state, I did significantly increase my level of risk, by swanning off into the night with a bloke I’d only just met.

Every person has a responsibility for their own safety.  There is a limit to that responsibility to be sure, which is why we have criminal offences for sexual assault, murder etc, which recognise that there are situations where that responsibility is overpowered by another.  However, women cannot and should not abrograte all responsibility for their own safety, and simply state that it is the role of the men in our society to ensure they do not engage in any postive action that will impinge on our safety.  We also have to realise that by our own actions we can increase the risk to our safety and wellbeing.  Likewise, we can mitigate that risk.  If you get completely pissed/wasted etc you are increasing your risk even if nothing happens and you get home safely.

There will always be the tiny, tiny minority of men who are shits.  But most blokes would never, ever seek to harm, assult a woman.  Don’t tar all men with the brush of the minority, it simply isn’t fair.

Defes says:

01:15pm | 06/10/10

The moment you walk out the door you are taking risks and the article is basically saying so. If you choose to intoxicate yourself in a public area you are taking a risk both from sexual predators (of both sexes) and from accidents (how many drunks have had accidents, drowned, etc). You can argue that in a perfect world these things should not happen but ultimately they do so a prudent person takes precautions which is what the author is suggesting.
Incidentally your last statement is highly offensive sexism. Telling me to “talk to my own kind” if I want violence to cease indicates you don’t see me as a person but as a negative gender/grouping….

Bobster says:

11:35am | 06/10/10

Duff,

We also have a responsibility to ourselves not to do stupid things that might get us killed, raped or glassed.

There have always been idiots who commit these crimes and, unfortunately, it’s our responsibility to steer well clear of them.

It’s not right and it’s not fair but it’s the world we live in and no amount of crying foul will get rid of the knuckle dragging morons.

I don’t think Julia suggested for a second that anyone has the right to cause harm to others - hers, pardon the pun, was a pretty sober acknowledgement of the reality of today’s society.

darren says:

11:42am | 06/10/10

@Duff - yes but what if both are drunk? as a male I find the comments from spida crude, course and wrong - but I also think responsibility goes both ways - the reality is that if I want to protect myself from a violent situation then I can make some decisions - including not hanging around a pub till 3am with a bunch of drunk individuals

Just sayin' says:

12:41pm | 06/10/10

Duff says:11:15am | 06/10/10

Yes, Julia, we all have a responsibility to drink responsibly and to take care of ourselves.  But we have even a greater responsibility not to harm others, even if they are drunk.

Duff, could you tell that to the police, who are just as likely to taser the life out of you?  Even more likely in aboriginal communities?

Baz says:

01:52pm | 06/10/10

@Just Sayin
Not getting tasered is really relatively easy . .. . in fact you have to be either an absolute idiot, drunkard, or druggie to end up tasered.

Julia Thornton says:

12:26pm | 06/10/10

I’m not related to Merle Thornton. I merely share the name.

You’re half right. I do think the right to drink in a pub is less important than having money to live on in retirement or the right to stay at work.

This latest incident about a footballer, woman and a pub - and the many others that have come before and the many more that will come - made me pose the question: why they choose drinking rights? Simple question. Nothing more.

If you know, please share.

At Work says:

12:59pm | 06/10/10

My mistake on the link Julia- I had thought you mentioned Aunt in the story.

I don’t know why they chose drinking rights- I’m a few decades and half a country away.
If however, I was to speculate: I would say- because it was a tangible, close to home and relatively painless to prove how ridiculous the law was. It was a way to push the boundary of stupid laws that framed government sanctioned segregation: much like Rosa Parks refusing to move off the bus seat for a white person.
If you can get national exposure for breaking such a ridiculous, petty law you can start a conversation about the reason that law is in place.
Regular, every day folk back then- voters and mainstream Australia (so: white Men) would have thought to themselves “What’s the big deal? A couple of women want to drink at a bar? I wouldn’t mind being able to leer at women in my bar” and so on… starting the process of toppling the bigger injustices, such as working conditions and super.
Instead of protesting and trying to change something that (ultimately) cost employers money, they protested something small to start the *process* of… well, costing people money.

But, that’s just speculation. They may have simply thought: “That bartender is soooo cute. How will I get his attention?...”

I’m still unsure as to how their protest ties into the unfortunate situation with the football players on the weekend. Apples and laptop computers to me (nope- they’re not even both fruit. Completely different ball game).

persephone says:

01:54pm | 06/10/10

So why refer to ‘Auntie Merle’ then?

If you’re just being twee - which, frankly, wouldn’t surprise me - then don’t ‘correct’ others when they make what looks like a valid assumption.

Why did they choose drinking rights?

Why do some people chose to campaign for animal rights over human rights?

Why do some people chose to campaign for the disabled and others chose to campaign against abortion?

The simple answer: people have different priorities. There are different issues they get passionate about.

I, for one, could never understand why people would spend lots of time stressing about the pothole outside their front drive. It seemed very trivial to me besides children starving in Africa.

But that’s what bugged that particular individual.

I’m sure we could all come up with a list of what rights we thought worth fighting for and what ones we thought were trivial. Trouble is, we’d all have different lists.

Bobster says:

12:33pm | 06/10/10

Your second point relies on the assumption that all young men see predatory behaviour as acceptable.

That’s why people like Spida Everitt make stupid comments and that’s why this debate always proves divisive.

Eric says:

04:04pm | 06/10/10

Your second point is the reason why so many men reject your message. If you assume we are bad, we won’t make any effort to convince you we are good.

Monica says:

05:13pm | 07/10/10

Bobster and Eric, that is not my intention, and I purposely stated so in the next paragraph.
I don’t think men need to convince anyone you’re good. I suggest that if adult/ parent men act good, we are more likely to have cultural, generational, change. I see this happening in many families. But it must occur more broadly (e.g. media representation,) and much, much,  more often.
It must occur where comments like Spida made aren’t even debatable—because they are so outrageous.
I would hate to offend the many kind men that are out there. We just need more of them.

Monica says:

06:31pm | 07/10/10

nicely explained BK.

AdamC says:

01:04pm | 06/10/10

I agree, persephone, we need to ensure that we don’t buy too much into silly gender roles. It isn’t too helpful to buy into ideas about young ladies being to loose with their virtues and the like. It’s the 21st century after all.

Everyone needs to be careful with their use of alcohol and take responsibility for their actions.

BK says:

03:28pm | 06/10/10

Some men act like tools in the pub and predictably get into a fight. Other men are minding their own business and get punched anyway. Just because criticising the second group is unfair, doesn’t mean that we cannot criticise the first group.

Duff says:

01:38pm | 06/10/10

@Tess, you sum it up fabulously.  Nice post.  But I depart here: if that is all that Julia is advocating than why the use of the phrase: “But the consequences are your responsibility.  Your safety is your responsibility”  Is the pedestrian responsible for getting hit?  The homeowner for getting robbed?  No.  Your point is that we can reduce the risk (true) but ultimately, and I think you’ll agree, it is the motorist/thief who are responsible for the crime, not the victim.  Julia I think shifts the blame to the other side of the balance sheet by phrasing it the way she does.

Macca says:

01:51pm | 06/10/10

@Tess, your post is exactly what I was trying to say but I couldn’t get it past the moderator because it (presumebly… hell, almost certainly) came across as condescending and disrespectful.

@Duff, the personal responsibility part is not the blame, its the ability to make decisions that mitigate risk

Tess says:

02:19pm | 06/10/10

@Duff.  Yes, I absolutely agree that the person who commits the crime is responsible, not the victim.  And perhaps the way Julia phrased it does put too much responsbility for the committing of the crime itself on the victim. 

I think the point of her article was really to say that with rights come responsibilties for what happens as a result of you exercising that right.  Yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is one (borderline cliched) example.  Owning a firearm, which your four year old then accidentally shoots his brother with, is another (albeit somewhat American).  Everyone, male or female, needs to balance their right to drink at the pub against the forseeable consequences of that decision.  Thanks to Spida the current spotlight is hard and bright on drunk women going home with footballers. 

My motivation for posting is mostly that I just get really, really frustrated these days at the number of people in a whole range of circumstances - not just sexual assaults, not even just criminal matters - who take no personal responsibility and then claim to be victims when a situation was entirely avoidable.  It’s so much easier to blame someone else for our own mistakes, and so lazy and immature.

BK says:

03:32pm | 06/10/10

Saying that she was reckless is a staetment about her and not him. Pointing out her mistakes does not mean or imply that he is any less culpable.

Duff says:

03:35pm | 06/10/10

@Tess - I agree.  But there is a line to be drawn because we cannot go so far and shift blame to the victims of sexual assault because they were stupid or thoughtless about the situation they put themselves in.  Half the time it is because they are young and still learning.

Likes Joining Dots says:

06:07pm | 06/10/10

@Tess
I’ll take a number and wait patiently in the agreement line.  Well said.

Eric says:

04:07pm | 06/10/10

“Rape culture”? Now there’s a misandrist myth if I ever saw one.

Anybody who implies that men have such a thing as “rape culture” will instantly receive wholehearted opposition from me. What a sexist insult that is!

Kordez says:

03:04pm | 06/10/10

@Zeta, if only all men were as gallant as you.

X says:

03:28pm | 06/10/10

Zeta - Females safety is not a males responsibility.

You can avoid personal responsibility and still be safe for a short while, until you realise there is an alien in your chest.

Pete from the sunshine state...Victoria says:

03:30pm | 06/10/10

You da MAN Zeta…film watching, a life well spent

skinman says:

04:04pm | 06/10/10

I’m confused, was Keira Knightley the alien in Alien3?
It makes sense, she’s got the teeth for it.

St. Michael says:

04:27pm | 06/10/10

@ Zeta, the feminist argument on the noble sacrifice of Vasquez suffers mainly from the fact it was Lieutenant Gorman the Incompetent who wound up blowing himself up with Vasquez, not Badass Drake.  Drake was a much earlier casualty of the conflict, death by acid splash which was indirectly caused by Vasquez I might add.  Given Lieutenant Gorman basically managed to manage the marines’ incursion into the alien hive with skill comparable to the current US army’s skill at combating terrorism in Iraq, the unescapable conclusion is that Ripley et. al. were much better off with him dead anyway.

Remember every time you misquote or wrongly state the plot of Aliens, God kills a kitten.  Please think of the kittens.

And lastly: I doubt a spare set of stockings is going to do Keira Knightley any good, mostly because her frame appears that anorexic she very well could fall through the holes.

Zeta says:

08:46am | 07/10/10

@ St. Michael - Dude, you’re right that was Gorman. I feel like a putz. I was confused by the sexual tension between Vasquez and Gorman at the beginning of the film while they’re posturing on the Sulaco and the kind of touching moment Vasquez and Gorman share before they blow themselves up.

But it’s totally not fair to hang the failure of their mission on Gorman.

Saying Gorman is responsible for failing is like saying Gen. McChrystal failed to implement COIN counter insurgency dogma in Afghanistan because he didn’t bomb them from orbit. It was realy Weyland-Yutani’s fault things turned to shit. Just like it’s really Haliburton’s fault war in the Middle East turned to shit. Aliens = The Taliban. Mind = Blown.

At Work says:

03:31pm | 06/10/10

Hear Hear!
I feel we should link arms and waive our glasses in the air to this comment.

Anyone know a good pub we can go to, girls?

fairsfair says:

03:40pm | 06/10/10

Agreed. I think that is one of the problems though Marley. Women of today are lead to believe that feminism is all about equal rights, but nobody mentiones the responsibilities anymore. Women don’t want the responsibilities, because it is at that point that the pull the “demure” card. Like in my office - A desk needs to be moved. A woman most certainly can’t be expected to shift that. It weighs about two kilos and as she has undergone appropriate WH&S induction - she should shift it with the assitance of a colleague. No - we’ll get one of “the boys” to do that. Petty example I know, but we are either equal or we are not. We can’t have our cake and eat it to. No wonder men are generally confused as to how to act around women.

Women my age are too busy in trying to keep up with the boys - and that is down to everything, including binge drinking - but they fail to realise that their are factors outside of our control that mean we cannot do this. Like liver function. Basic levels of strength. Hormones. People’s differing reactions to exact same circumstances amongst a plethora of other things.

Until we realise that there are fundamental differences between the sexes and embrace them - we are going to continue down this road of senseless bickering of the “political correctness” of genuine comment. Everyone needs to stop being so precious and taking extreme offence on behalf of others.

Chris L says:

07:04pm | 06/10/10

Fairsfair, you are awesome!

Shelly says:

10:40pm | 06/10/10

Well my first piece of advice would be not to try and have sex with drunk women. Much easier to establish if a woman wants to truly have sex if both participants are sober. It may be old fashioned but perhaps would resolve a lot of problems. I think there’s a fair bit of law on the ability of a drunk person to truly consent.

Markus says:

09:14am | 07/10/10

Agreed Bob. It is a vital point.
The catchcry of “no means no” is just so much catchier than “no means no, except in those situations where it meant yes”.

Shelly, fair enough.
Though it does become very complicated when, in most cases, both parties are equally drunk. Can both lay charges based on inability to consent?

Plus I have actually known girls who were unable to approach sex while sober due to guilt/insecurities, so made conscious decisions to get extremely drunk to ensure they were no longer inhibited. That said, a girl with that many problems should be avoided at all costs anyway!

At Work says:

02:25pm | 08/10/10

Dude. You need new friends.

I’ve had a clean out of drinking buddies over the last couple of years, and removed the women who can’t handle themselves and don’t know their own limit. Nowadays I no longer spend my rare nights out worrying whether they’re OK- nor do I get blamed if they get into trouble. It’s much more relaxing…