Google+
Close
Crying Rape
Is there really a rape epidemic? Probably not.


Text  


Comments
934

Rape. Decades ago, women who were raped and reported it, particularly those raped by someone outside their race or social class, were often disbelieved and shamed. That is tragic.

But how far the pendulum has swung in the other direction! Now, the term “rape” or “sexual assault” is thrown around almost effortlessly, accusations easily made and lives easily ruined.

Advertisement

First, the pendulum shift began with feminists pushing the notion that women claiming they were raped should always be believed and never questioned. Presumption of innocence, a foundation of our culture, suddenly went out the window. Consider how quickly the public tried and found guilty the Duke lacrosse boys. Ditto for a woman alleging sexual harassment. Watch the Designing Women episode concerning the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill controversy. The show’s theme? Only a sexist Neanderthal would question Hill!

Then followed the loosened standards for arrests in rape accusations. Sure, district attorneys still require evidence of a rape to prosecute, but police are not restricted by such to make a mere arrest (so, smile for your life-ruining mug shot!).

Close on its heels came the broadening of the very definition of rape, a term on which there is now almost no consensus, thanks to the Left’s deliberate expansion of it. Prominent scholars and activists now even define rape as including any sexual activity in which the woman is not sober, claiming that consent is never truly given if one has had a few drinks. Admittedly, I am no scientist, but I am fairly certain that a statistically significant amount of sex — including very enjoyable sex — happens under the influence of alcohol. But by the liberal definition of my generation, I have been raped. Multiple times. (No word from the Left on whether men partaking in “SUI” — sex under the influence — are similarly raped by a sober woman or, if both are SUI, they both raped each other? Logic, ever so inconvenient to the gender-warriors, causes these questions to go unanswered.)

And what of drugs and the issue of consent? While conservatives will rightly and gladly continue to urge girls to abstain from promiscuity and drug use, liberals will smirk that such is ”unrealistic” and “puritanical.” All right, so what is to be done? Will the Left continue to reassure girls that there is nothing wrong with drug use or casual sex . . . while simultaneously telling them that the (inevitable) sex under those circumstances was rape?

Lastly, there is the move toward using the term “sexual assault” rather than “rape.” Why? As a conveniently vague term, “sexual assault” encompasses a variety of acts yet nonetheless sounds horrific. Instances of “sexual assault” are, naturally, far higher than those of rape, and we can count on the public to blur and forget the distinction between the two. The resulting statistics of sexual-assault instances are then alarming, leading to greater attention for the feminist-warriors and vindication of their theories.

Keep in mind: Men can now be shamed with the “sexual assault” offender label for minor acts. If a friend jokingly comes up behind a girl and slaps her butt, that is, by today’s definitions, a sexual assault. While violating a woman is an awful act, regardless of degree, there is a difference between grabbing a woman’s breasts and violent, forced penetration. As Jed Rubenfeld, a Yale Law professor, notes:

Yale has changed its code of student conduct to define sexual assault as any “nonconsensual sexual contact,” where consent must be an advance, “unambiguous” “agreement” to each “specific” touching, whether or not consented to in the past. This sounds great until you think about it. If two Yale students are kissing and one of them touches the other sexually, that person has apparently committed sexual assault (unless they stopped and negotiated in advance) even if they’ve done it before.

Rubenfeld shows how schools even distort existing law: Fullerton State University, for example, informs its students that the “California Penal Code clearly states that having sex with a person who is intoxicated is illegal and may be punishable with a prison sentence.” But California’s rape law, albeit overly broad and terribly worded, actually does not say so — it states that a rape occurred if the person was so intoxicated that consent was not possible.



Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

NRO Polls on LockerDome

Subscribe to National Review