Top Ten Reasons To Lower The Voting Age

Here are the top ten reasons why we absolutely should lower the voting age to 16 (or less) all across the USA, yesterday:

10) "Cold cognition", the only sort of cognition actually relevant to voting, is generally fully developed by age 16 (or even earlier).  Even the relatively ageist Laurence Steinberg acknowledges that!

9) The Supreme Court ruled in 1966 that, in upholding the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a sixth-grade education (!) is implicitly sufficient for competency to vote, and remember that that was before the voting age was lowered to 18 nationally.

8) Age 16 (and even 14 for some jobs) is legally old enough to work at most non-hazardous jobs in the USA, and thus old enough to pay income taxes on the income earned from such work.

7) Age 16 is still legally old enough to be tried as an adult in court in at least some states in some circumstances.

6) "Low-information voters" (to put it nicely) can vote.

5) Alcoholics and other drug addicts can vote.

4) Psychotics and developmentally disabled adults can vote.

3) The Kardashians (and other reality TV stars) can vote.

2) Even "The Manchild Who Would Be King" himself can vote, as can the rest of his notorious crime family as well.

1) And most of all, lowering the voting age to 16 literally helped beat fascism twice in Brazil recently.  Yes, really!

And there you have it.  There is literally NO locally valid argument against lowering the voting age, that cannot also be used to disenfranchise many chronological adults over 18 as well.

Twenty-One Debunked believes we should lower the voting age in two phases.  Phase 1 would be to simply lower to 16, giving 16-17 year olds the exact same voting rights that people over 18 currently have, period.  Phase 2 would be, after successfully lowering it to 16, allowing people under 16 to vote as well, provided they have either 1) completed eighth grade or the equivalent, or 2) pass a basic history and civics test.  And just in case anyone is wondering, we believe there should be NO tests, fees, or anything else like that for anyone over 16, since voting tests have a rather dark history in the USA, to put it very mildly. 

So what are we waiting for?  Let's rock the youth vote!

UPDATE:  We forgot to add an eleventh reason, probably the biggest one of all, namely, that "maturity" should NOT a prerequisite for having a VOICE!  You may have heard, "No taxation without representation!", but verily I say unto thee, on behalf of everyone under 18 or whatever arbitrary age limit:  "Nothing about us without us!".  And last but NOT least, we want young people to establish good voting habits early, BEFORE they become too cynical and checked out to care about voting.

(Mic drop)

Operation Rovin' Eyes (Updated Re-post)

It has been a while since Twenty-One Debunked has explored in-depth solutions to the perennial and persistent scourge of drunk driving.  Today we currently build on what we have learned and what we have advocated since our founding in 2009.

We know that random breath testing (RBT) as it is practiced in much of the world, including Canada as the latest country to begin doing so in late 2018, would not pass Constitutional muster in the USA.  (Not like the federally-coerced 21 drinking age law is really constitutional either, of course, but tyranny is always whimsical, it seems.)  So to achieve anything anywhere close to true RBT here, we basically have to get much more creative.

Enter "Operation Rovin' Eyes", an idea that combines roving patrols (saturation police patrols against DUI), citizen ride-alongs, and reality TV.  Decades of research shows that roving patrols work very well at both deterring and catching impaired drivers, with OR without sobriety checkpoints (ideally with them, as a complement).  We believe that combining them with ride-alongs will further enhance the effectiveness.  Be sure to check the back roads too, and areas that are known for lots of parties and such.  And if televised, it would also make a great reality TV show as well, even better than COPS, if you could believe that.  (Australia already has their own reality TV show called "RBT", by the way.)

A good slogan would be, "Rovin' Eyes, are watching YOU!"

Another thing that can be added to this is "Operation Fish in a Barrel" or "Operation Jack in the Box", in which a police car is parked outside a bar or club, and the officer(s) watch for signs of intoxication, and wait for the drunk patrons to get to their cars.  Then there are two possible tactics.  One is to intercept the would-be drunk driver before they put the keys in the ignition, and give them a verbal warning and a free ride home.  The other is to wait until after they put the keys in the ignition, and then proceed to bust them for DUI.  GOTCHA!  Either way, they are getting these "ticking time bombs" off the road for the time being, before they get on the road.  And that would of course save countless lives.

(NOTE to non-American readers:  in some countries outside the USA, such as Canada and the UK, you can still get a DUI even if you have the keys in your pocket and you are within a certain distance from the vehicle.  This is from an American perspective.)

And of course, this idea would be an excellent complement to lowering the drinking age to 18.  Especially if it is done near state lines if and when drinking ages are ever lowered state-by-state and thus end up varying state-by-state, this will certainly help take the wind out of the sails of the very vocal opposition.

So what are we waiting for?

Roving Patrols Vs. Sobriety Checkpoints: Which Is Better?

We know that random breath testing (RBT) as it is practiced in much of the world, including Canada as the latest country to begin doing so in late 2018, would not pass Constitutional muster in the USA. (Not like the federally-coerced 21 drinking age law is really constitutional either, of course, but tyranny is always whimsical, it seems.)  So to achieve anything anywhere close to true RBT here, we basically have to get much more creative.

We thus asked Dr. Google which is more effective, roving patrols (aka saturation patrols) or stationary sobriety checkpoints:

Roving patrols (or saturation patrols) catch significantly more intoxicated drivers and cost far less per operation than stationary DUI checkpoints. [1, 2]

Comparison of Effectiveness

Arrest Rate: Roving patrols catch up to 10 times more legally intoxicated drivers than sobriety checkpoints. [1, 2]
Cost: A single DUI checkpoint costs between $8,000 and $10,000 to operate, whereas a roving patrol shift or alternative deployment can cost as little as $300. [1, 2]
Evasion: Because checkpoints are typically publicized or visible from a distance, impaired drivers frequently bypass them by using alternative back roads or navigation apps like Waze. Roving patrols actively hunt for erratic driving behavior on these exact city streets and secondary roads. [1, 2, 3]

Primary Purpose and Strategy

Checkpoints: Their main function is general deterrence and public awareness rather than high arrest counts. Proponents like traffic safety groups argue that visible roadblocks remind the public not to drink and drive. However, studies (such as those by the University of Maryland) note they often have limited impact on overall crash rates or long-term behavior changes. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Roving/Saturation Patrols: Their main function is direct enforcement and apprehension. Officers look for moving violations, weaving, speeding, or other signs of impairment. [1, 2, 3]

And Twenty-One Debunked currently believes:  why not both?  The two seem to be complementary to one another. As long as the Constitution is being properly followed, of course, we as a society really need to use every tool in our arsenal to finish the job and ultimately eradicate this impaired driving scourge for good.  At least until self-driving vehicles eventually make it all obsolete.

Are There Frats In Canada? Dr. Google Answers This Question

In light of current events, we decided to ask Dr. Google in its infinite wisdom, "are there frats in Canada?".  And here is what they replied to that question about our northern neighbor:

Yes, fraternities and sororities do exist in Canada, though they are much smaller and less common than in the United States. [1, 2]

Where They Exist

Greek-life chapters have operated at Canadian universities since the late 1800s, with some organizations having history on campuses for over a century. Major universities with active chapters include: [1, 2]

University of British Columbia (UBC): Home to the largest Greek system in Canada, featuring multiple fraternities and sororities.
University of Toronto (UofT): Features a large network of Greek-letter organizations.
University of Alberta (UofA): Hosts an active community of fraternities and sororities.
Other Universities: Chapters are also found at Western University, Wilfrid Laurier University, Carleton University, McGill University, and others. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

How Canadian Frats Differ from the U.S.

Scale and Visibility: They play a much smaller role in campus culture. Most students go through university without ever interacting with Greek life. [1]
Housing: Unlike large U.S. universities with sprawling "Greek rows" or official campus-owned fraternity houses, many Canadian chapters do not have dedicated residential houses.
Official Recognition: Some Canadian universities do not officially recognize or fund fraternities, meaning they operate independently or face restrictions during campus events like orientation week. [1, 2]
Drinking Age: Because the legal drinking age in Canada is 18 or 19 (depending on the province), the "party/alcohol" allure of a fraternity is lower compared to U.S. campuses where students under 21 rely on Greek events to socialize. [1]
Activities: Chapters primarily focus on philanthropy, community service, networking, and leadership alongside social events. [1]

You can read more about the history on the Wikipedia Fraternities and Sororities in Canada page. [1]

Which is basically what we already knew all along, of course.  Lowering the drinking age to 18, which we of course advocate as our first and foremost founding principle of Twenty-One Debunked, would indeed break the current de facto monopoly that frats have on campus nightlife at most colleges in the USA.  

So, if and when we finally do lower it to 18, get ready to have your biggest "going out of business party" ever, frats!  Except for the more academic, philanthropic, and service-oriented ones whose primary raison d'etre is something other than drinking and partying, they will be reduced to a mere footnote of college life.

Or perhaps they could be like they are Puerto Rico, where the drinking age is still 18 and Greek organizations remain a fairly significant presence there despite that, albeit with significant differences compared to the mainland.  And like in Canada, they generally don't have their own dedicated "frat houses" there.

Either way, lowering the drinking age to 18 (or even 19) would truly be a game-changing event for Greek life in the USA.

Why Is The 21 Drinking Age So Sacred?

Few laws are as uniquely sacred in the USA today as the 21 drinking age laws.  They are essentially a "third rail" of politics, even more so than truly vital things like Social Security.  And yet these laws are widely disobeyed by the vast majority of Americans at some point in their lives.  So what gives?

It clearly cannot be about saving lives, because speed limits would be even more of a matter of life and death, and yet those are never treated even remotely as sacred as the 21 drinking age.  They are openly flouted and scoffed at by most people, and the penalties and enforcement are pretty lax to this day.  The erstwhile national 55 speed limit was in fact mercilessly mocked and gradually weakened until it was ultimately jettisoned in the 1990s despite (ultimately quite accurate) warnings of "blood on the highways".  And even worse, speed limits on other streets, roads, and especially "stroads" have been raised higher as well, with very deadly consequences, and a fortiori for pedestrians and cyclists (hey, remember them?).  Speed kills, even more so than drunk driving these days, and yet, as one commenter noted a while back, we don't have "Mothers Against Fast Driving", we have the Speed Channel instead.  Likewise, distracted driving, especially by smartphones and other tech toys today, is truly at an all-time high, and people just cavalierly LOL 😂 it off for the most part. 🤡 

(It's all fun and games, of course, until they crash right into a kid on a bike, who is killed ☠️ or maimed.  Not so funny now, is it?)

And even for drunk driving, of all things, the current (rather generous by international standards) blood alcohol limit of 0.08% for people over 21, let alone lowering it to 0.05% (except in Utah, natch), seems to have far less popular support than the 21 drinking age or zero-tolerance DUI laws for people under 21.  

Furthermore, even with more and more young people delaying getting their driver's licenses until well into their 20s, the USA zero-tolerance laws all still end at 21, right when it first becomes legal to drink (!), and when many are still novice drivers.  Most peer countries, on the other hand, base their zero-tolerance laws on the number of years that one has had a license, and/or an age limit that is almost always set higher than the legal drinking age.  Puerto Rico is the ONLY place in the USA that currently does the latter (drinking age of 18, zero-tolerance law until 21).

And also, when they cut the federal alcohol taxes in 2018, ostensibly to boost the economy, there were few voices against it, and even those voices were far more muffled than to they would have been if they had had the temerity to (gasp!) even partially repeal the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984.  So the drinking age is not even entirely about alcohol per se then, even if there is clearly some neo-prohibitionist impulse involved as well.

Thus, we can conclude that the 21 drinking age is really about power and control, along with an irrational fear of young people.  Which of course dovetails quite well with being comparatively lax with the privileged age group that is currently in power, as tyranny is always whimsical.  Natch.  And now the proverbial emperor is stark naked for all to see, who choose to see.  Though truly, there are none so blind, as those who will not see.

Even the biggest safety zealots, if they are being intellectually honest, have to concede this whenever the glib "saving lives" excuse is given.  For example, we could theoretically save even more lives by making the speed limit 21 and the drinking age 55 rather than the other way around, but we don't, and never will.  Because deep down, we all know on some level that there are other important considerations as well (like, you know, liberty and justice for all?) in any free society worthy of the name.  And those who cry "pragmatism!" are really just begging the question there.

Not like the 21 drinking age is even fit for purpose in that regard, as Miron and Tetelbaum (2009), Asch and Levy (1987 and 1990), and several other studies have found that the supposed lifesaving effect of the law was merely a mirage, at least in the long run.

So what are we waiting for, then?  Let America be America Again, and lower the drinking age to 18.  If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar.  'Nuff said.

BRAVO! Federal DOJ Says They Will NOT Enforce Laws Banning 18-20 Year Old Young Adults From Having Guns Anymore

As the ever-insightful sociologist and youth-rights activist Mike Males reports, the federal Department of Justice has announced that they will NOT be enforcing any laws banning 18-20 year old young adults from having guns.  And while ideally the USA, the land of over 300 million guns, would also join the rest of the civilized world and also pass some commonsense gun control laws for everyone to help rein in our horrific gun violence problem, in the meantime, it is only fair to at the very least extend the exact same right to self-defense to 18-20 year olds that people over 21 currently enjoy.  And perhaps younger people as well.

BRAVO!  Hopefully next they will strike down the 21 drinking age as well. Yes, we are well aware that guns and alcohol don't mix, of course, but we as a society still openly let people 21+ have access to both, even if they have a known drinking problem too.

(Even the supposedly gun-grabbing Austrian painter lowered the gun age from 20 to 18 in Germany in 1938, five years after he took over.  And the drinking age was 16 for beer/wine, 18 for liquor.  So, do you really wanna be stricter than HIM, of all people?)

Let America be America Again, and lower the drinking age to 18.  As we at Twenty-One Debunked like to say, if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. ‘Nuff said.

Alberta Gets It Right (Re-Post)

The Canadian province of Alberta is basically the only place in all of North America that gets it right across the board, though some other provinces come close.  Legal age limits there are as follows:

• Alcohol:  18
• Tobacco and Vaping:  18
• Cannabis:  18
• Gambling:  18
• Guns:  18
• Voting:  18
• Run for office:  18
• General age of majority:  18
• School leaving age:  16
• Driving:  14 for learner permit, 16 for GDL, and 18 for full unrestricted license
• All other age limits:  similar to the rest of Canada and the USA overall (at or below 18)
• Curfew:  None at provincial level, only locally in a few towns here and there (usually 15)

In other words, 18 is the age of majority, and once you are an adult, you are an adult.  Period, full stop.  Some age limits can be lower than that, of course, as there is much room for nuance, but no age limit can ever be higher than that, at least not without extraordinary levels of justification.  And guess what?  The sky didn't fall in Alberta.  No seriously, it really didn't.  Alberta still has yet to get the memo about the supposedly catastrophic effects of full adult rights combined with "underdeveloped" 18-24 year old brains.

In fact, the Alberta Human Rights Act explicitly prohibits age discrimination for anyone over 18, except for senior citizen privileges for people over 55.  Anything else requires truly extraordinary justification, which in practice is about as rare as a unicorn. 

That is really how it should be everywhere, regardless of what exact age limit is chosen for age of majority (which is 18 in most of the world and most of the USA).  It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, as a child can easily understand it, but too many chronological "adults" seem to be unable to do so.  Anything else is a slippery slope, and such slopes are much, much slipperier than they appear.

And for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, while underage possession and consumption is illegal, for all three it is basically a mere ticket-level offense with no criminal record.  Unlike many US states have.  And parents are allowed to give their own underage children (but no one else) alcohol at home (within reason), as many but not all states currently do.

The driving thing is of course probably the most jarring one of all to the rest of the world, so allow us to explain.  The global outlier young age limit of 14, rivaled only by South Dakota and a few other rural states, applies ONLY to the learner permit, which is similar to an American style learner permit, with only supervised driving allowed among other restrictions.  To get a GDL (probationary) license, i.e. what Americans often call a "junior" license, you need to be at least 16 and also have had a permit for one year or more, and pass the basic road test which is harder than an American road test.  There are some restrictions to the GDL, such as no more passengers than there are seat belts, and a zero tolerance limit for both alcohol and cannabis, but no night restrictions.  And to graduate to the next level, the full unrestricted license, one must have had the GDL for at least two years regardless of age, be suspension-free for the final year of two years, and pass an advanced road test, the latter of which has since been phased out in 2023 in favor of simply making the basic road test more difficult and more like the advanced road test.  Honestly, making the American road test more difficult would probably be far more effective than any age-based restrictions ever could be.

Alberta in recent years has had one of the lowest overall traffic death rates per vehicle kilometers traveled in Canada, and lower than the USA, so they must be doing something right!

And DUI laws are quite strict there regardless of age as well.  There are swift and certain penalties of immediate but temporary administrative license suspension and vehicle impoundment for BAC as low as 0.05% (or 0.00% if GDL), in addition to any criminal penalties if above 0.08% and/or obviously impaired.  Note that the zero tolerance for GDL is regardless of age.  For DUI cannabis they are also quite strict as well, and we at Twenty-One Debunked think TOO strict since hard per se limits (let alone zero tolerance) don't really make sense for a substance with such complex pharmacokinetics and long detection times, and generally less impairing than alcohol.  At the very least, in the interest of simple justice, they really need to set the testing cutoff for positivity high enough to prevent false positives or innocent positives. 

Thus overall, Alberta is a good model for America to follow.  So what are we waiting for?

Oh, and they also have the best and largest shopping mall in the entire western hemisphere, the West Edmonton Mall.  It makes the even the vaunted Mall of America look a bit "meh" by comparison. 

"Why Has Consent Education Failed?"

In light of current events, we at Twenty-One Debunked decided to ask Dr Google, in it's infinite wisdom, "Why Has Consent Education Failed?", and this is the answer we received, verbatim:

Consent education has often fallen short because it is implemented too late, framed too narrowly as a reactive rule rather than a continuous social-emotional skill, and undermined by systemic and political barriers. [1, 2]

Late Timing and "Too Little, Too Late" Delivery

University-level overload: Many institutions rely on one-off modules or heavy orientation slideshows when students arrive on campus, which fails to overwrite years of pre-existing social conditioning, rape culture, and power dynamics. [1, 2]
Delayed introduction: Formal discussions around bodily autonomy and boundaries frequently start in middle or high school rather than early childhood, missing the crucial developmental window where social norms are first established. [1, 2, 3]

Flawed Frameworks and Oversimplification

Binary "Yes or No" limits: Programs often reduce consent to a simple, isolated verbal transaction, ignoring real-world complexities like peer pressure, intoxication, and heavy power imbalances. [1, 2]
Disconnection from everyday life: Treating consent strictly as a "disaster planning" or abstinence-adjacent tool rather than a foundational life skill (respecting physical boundaries, recognizing non-verbal cues) limits its integration into everyday behavior. [1, 2]
Lack of inclusivity: Curriculums often rely on heteronormative frameworks that fail to address the specific vulnerabilities and intersectional harassment faced by LGBTQ+ youth, students of color, and disabled individuals. [1, 2]

Political and Systemic Obstacles

Curriculum erasure and abstinence focus: Many state legislatures restrict comprehensive sex education, favoring abstinence-only or "sexual risk avoidance" models that completely omit or actively strip out consent instruction. [1, 2, 3]
Institutional protection of perpetrators: Educational frameworks focus heavily on individual accountability while structural environments—such as underfunded schools or universities prioritizing reputation—frequently protect offenders and fail to support survivors.

So after over a decade of consent education, why has that apparently not moved the needle even one iota?  Because it's basically done too little, too late. It needs to begin MUCH earlier than college, and earlier than even high school (in a general and age-appropriate way, of course), and be ongoing.  And it is all too often very poorly designed and executed, and all too often patronizing, paternalistic, and infantilizing, thus it needs to be revamped with best practices.  Is it necessary?  Absolutely.  Is it sufficient?  Sadly, no.  Rapists practically always know and understand consent at least on a rudimentary level, but they simply don't care.  It's entitlement, not ignorance (unless it is willful ignorance born of entitlement), that's the real problem here.  And of course, the culture and institutions full of apologists, enablers, and guilty bystanders that give them "social license to operate".

In other words, what typically passes for "consent education" all too often fails to play to the MUSIC of what really happens in practice much of the time.  And that needs to be fixed.

Emily Nagoski's model of consent seems to be one of the best ones out there that we could find.  In her model, consent is not a binary, but rather a spectrum from enthusiastic, to willing, to unwilling, to coerced.  The real dividing line to truly watch out for, where the slope gets slippery, is between willing and unwilling, and then it quickly goes downhill from there.

All that said, ultimately, rape and sexual assault are always and everywhere a cultural problem.  We need to change the culture to reflect enthusiastic consent as the standard:  "if it's not a HELL YEAH!, it's a HELL NO!".  Or at the very least, it must be awake, aware, AND willing consent as the bare minimum.  And furthermore, anthropological evidence has shown that it is entirely possible to have relatively "rape-free" societies as well. In such societies, which are typically matrilineal and matrifocal and where women are highly valued members of community and society, rape is NOT considered "macho" or virile behavior at all, but rather quite the opposite, and those very few men who would dare do so roundly face much ridicule and shame for it. It is basically seen as the ultimate loser, failure, and weak behavior, and it is not at all tolerated. (Nor would a "real man" feel the need to prove himself a man by "scoring" just to get proverbial notches on his belt, as true virility is self-evident.) Rapists thus have no "social license to operate" there at all. In other words, nurture seems to be far more important than nature, as male violence against women and children is a cultural problem at base.

(The late anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday had a LOT to say about this!  We should really heed her words of wisdom.)

When rape and sexual assault (and male violence against women and children in general) are seen as not only dishonorable and degenerate, but also the most unmanly thing a man could possibly do as well, that really seems to be the "Achilles' Heel" to eradicating this pandemic of sexual violence for good.

We need to take away rapists' "social license to operate", and stop enabling them.  Yesterday!

"Awake, Aware, AND Willing" is the BARE MINIMUM.

(Mic drop)

UPDATE:  We recall that 30 years ago in 1996, MADD president Katherine Prescott had noted that the drunk driving program had been largely reduced to a "hard core of alcoholics" that do not respond to public appeals, and others had noted that "the educable have been educated" already.  And one can make a similar argument about sexual violence as well.  By roughly the mid-2010s, and certainly by now, the problem has been largely reduced to a "hard core of unrepentant serial rapists" who understand consent perfectly well (certainly when it comes to their OWN orifices, of course!), but rather they simply don't care.  And they are surrounded by an entourage of apologists, enablers, and guilty bystanders, without whom they simply would NOT be able to get away with their vile misdeeds.  THAT is what truly needs to change, yesterday, and meanwhile continue to educate the youngest generations about consent long before that.

You May Not Like It, But Here's the Answer to (At Least Greatly Reducing) College Rape and Sexual Assault (Updated Re-Post)

This is an updated re-post in light of the current events involving the Cornell Seven case.

As we had noted in a previous post nearly twelve years ago, rape and sexual assault is a persistent epidemic in the USA, including (but not limited to) college campuses nationwide.  For the past nearly decade and a half, the chattering classes have been endlessly wringing their hands about it for years, but very little real progress has been made in recent years, and since the first Trump administration began, and even more so in the second term, we seem to have even regressed in that regard, the #MeToo movement notwithstanding.

Most rapes and sexual assaults, especially those involving college students on or near campus, are committed by people known to the victim, and many if not most of those involve alcohol to one degree or another, whether by the perpetrator, the victim, or both.  We should first and foremost note that the only thing that actually causes rape is the rapists themselves, period.  While alcohol (among other substances) can indeed fuel it and is often used by rapists as a weapon to weaken, incapacitate, and subsequently discredit victims (while also using it as a specious "permission slip" for the perps' own behavior), rape would simply not happen without rapists, period.  And the onus should always fall on men not to rape in the first place, instead of falling on women not to "get themselves raped".  The fact that so many people still deny such an obvious truth in 2026 (!) shows just how far we have yet to go towards eliminating or even reducing this epidemic, and those who blame or otherwise put the onus on potential or actual victims are in fact part of the problem.

(Yes, we know that rape and sexual assault really has no gender in itself and people of any gender can be perps or victims.  But the general pattern is still most commonly male-on-female assault.)

We seriously need to drain the proverbial swamp of rape culture, yesterday, and thus revoke the rapists' social license to operate.  Culturally, we need to tackle the root causes of sexual violence by rejecting the highly toxic "commodity model" of sexuality and replacing it with the "performance model" (while also avoiding the negative connotations and pitfalls of the word "performance"), and more generally rejecting the "dominator model" of society and replacing it with the "partnership model".  And for alcohol, we need to recognize that while adopting a "Prohibition-Lite" approach of any sort is most likely to backfire and would throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, its link with sexual violence still needs to be dealt with in the meantime as cultural changes can take much time to occur.

All that said, ultimately, rape and sexual assault are always and everywhere a cultural problem.  We need to change the culture to reflect enthusiastic consent as the standard:  "if it's not a HELL YEAH!, it's a HELL NO!".  Or at the very least, it must be awake, aware, AND willing consent as the bare minimum.  And furthermore, anthropological evidence has shown that it is entirely possible to have relatively "rape-free" societies as well. In such societies, which are typically matrilineal and matrifocal and where women are highly valued members of community and society, rape is NOT considered "macho" or virile behavior at all, but rather quite the opposite, and those very few men who would dare do so roundly face much ridicule and shame for it. It is basically seen as the ultimate loser, failure, and weak behavior, and it is not at all tolerated. (Nor would a "real man" feel the need to prove himself a man by "scoring" just to get proverbial notches on his belt, as true virility is self-evident.) Rapists thus have no "social license to operate" there at all. In other words, nurture seems to be far more important than nature, as male violence against women and children is a cultural problem at base.

When rape and sexual assault (and male violence against women and children in general) are seen as not only dishonorable and degenerate, but also the most unmanly thing a man could possibly do as well, that really seems to be the "Achilles' Heel" to eradicating this pandemic of sexual violence for good.

And after over a decade of consent education, why has that apparently not moved the needle even one iota?  Because it's basically done too little, too late. It needs to begin MUCH earlier than college, and earlier than even high school (in a general and age-appropriate way, of course), and be ongoing.  And it is all too often very poorly designed and executed, and all too often patronizing, paternalistic, and infantilizing, thus it needs to be revamped with best practices.  Is it necessary?  Absolutely.  Is it sufficient?  Sadly, no. Rapists practically always know and understand consent at least on a rudimentary level, but they simply don't care.  It's entitlement, not ignorance (unless it is willful ignorance born of entitlement), that's the real problem here.  And of course, the culture and institutions full of apologists, enablers, and guilty bystanders that give them "social license to operate".

We need to take away rapists' "social license to operate", and stop enabling them.  Yesterday!

So what low-hanging fruit measures can be taken in the very near term to quickly reduce or at least take the dangerous edge off of this seemingly intractable epidemic?  The reader may or may not like the answer, but here goes:

1. Lower the legal drinking age to 18, yesterday, full stop.  The 21 drinking age only makes drinking that much more dangerous than it has to be by forcing it underground, which can put young drinkers in more dangerous situations that increase the risk of sexual assault, and the law itself can be used as a cudgel to silence victims.
2. Raise the tax on alcoholic beverages, both federally as well as at the state and local level (especially in college towns), with extra levies on bulk alcohol such as kegs, cases, and handles. Studies have shown a significant inverse correlation between alcohol prices and rape in general.  (Though Australia would probably like a word, since it seems to really only correlate up to a point.)
3. Legalize cannabis for everyone 18 and older, yesterday.  Cannabis is clearly the safer choice in that regard, as it is highly unlikely to fuel violence or be used as a date-rape drug the way that alcohol all too often is.
4. Pass "Yes Means Yes" laws (aka affirmative consent laws) similar to California's.  If properly written, these laws will essentially eliminate the concept of so-called "gray area rape" by putting the onus on the initiator of sexual activity to be sure that they actually have consent before proceeding further.
5. Last but not least, hold the perpetrators accountable for a change, no matter how powerful or privileged they happen to be.  That includes enforcing both criminal laws as well as campus conduct policies to the fullest extent of the law.  Clarify the laws and close loopholes.  Stop sweeping it under the rug!  No more Brock Turners or Cornell Sevens!

As for the idea of colleges trying to influence upward the prices of cheap alcohol at parties (particularly Greek parties) that are typically $5 or $10 or so at the door for all-you-can-drink, that would probably be rather difficult to enforce in practice.  But if the drinking age was lowered to 18, most frats would likely end up having a big "going out of business party" since their modern-day speakeasy services would no longer be necessary anymore.  And those few that remain would, in practice, throw less frequent parties and/or ones with less beer (or liquor) to go around if the tax on such beverages is also hiked as well.  Natch.

Also, we as a society should seriously consider requiring at least all "recognized" frats to go coed and admit women as full members.  Hey, if the Skull and Bones secret society can do it (coed since 1992, apparently), so can frats.  And we also lift any arbitrary and sexist restrictions on sororities while we're at it.

Doing these things will go a long way towards reducing the rape and sexual assault epidemic in the near term.  Anything less would be uncivilized. So what are we waiting for?

(Mic drop)

UPDATE:  An excellent editorial in a similar vein can be found here.  Lowering the drinking age to 18 would effectively "end the fraternity monopoly" on nightlife for students under 21.

Twenty-One Debunked's Statement On The Cornell Seven Case

We at Twenty-One Debunked absolutely and wholeheartedly condemn the vile and disgusting actions of the Cornell 7 and all of their apologists, enablers, and guilty bystanders, from the other members of their Chi Phi fraternity who knew and did absolutely nothing, all the way up to and including the administration of Cornell itself who let them off relatively easy for "allegedly" drugging and raping a woman who was clearly incapacitated and could not consent. ("Allegedly" is doing a LOT of work here!)

May their names forever be MUD, the world over!  And may the victim FINALLY get (belated) justice for the atrocities that these vile monsters put her through!  Yesterday.

(Mic drop)

EDITOR'S NOTE:  All opinions expressed herein are those of mine and Twenty-One Debunked and the True Spirit of America Party, and not necessarily those of anyone else. Legally speaking, all suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.