"The most radical assertion of female empowerment would be to embrace the message: If you don’t want to be “raped,” don’t drink yourself blotto and get into bed with a guy. Keep your clothes on and go home to your own bed at night."
Curious as to why you see no male responsibility in this. It's also a low opinion of men. How about if you don't want to be accused of rape, you don't have sex with a woman unless she has clearly consented. And no an absence of a "no" does not equal consent.
THw NYT article that links to this one clearly says that most victims admit that alcohol is involved. When one or both or drunk, the lines between consent and force get very blurry. Heather is blaming the woman. Women need to watch the amount they drink, not just to be aware of potential attackers, but to avoid wandering into traffic, falling out of a window, etc ...
She is the worst, WORST, example of the problem.
I always wonder if Heather really believes much (pr even any) of what she writes. Does she see no link from college sexual assaults of women to sexual assualts of women in the military? In high schools? Blaming it on alcohol is an old story. And Heather, lawyer that she is, ought to know the caselaw that sets an accessible algebra for a rape prosecution. No, I suspect the failure here is not the drinking habits of young women but male privilege and institutional blindsight (as well as some convenient blindsight on the part of the author).
Wow. Just wow. This is a
It to think about..
As the New York Times apparently found my comment too offensive to print, I would like to note here that the repercussions of hookup sex for women are much the same as the damage caused by sexual assault: drug and alcohol abuse, suicidal ideation, PTSD, anorexia, etc. The New York Times has published articles recently, with an aura of great shock and surprise, that females and males are very different creatures both in physical and psychological construct. Women who engage in frequent episodes of casual sex are instructed that it is a display of sexual freedom. What it truly is is consenting to be treated like a piece of meat by someone who is not expected to care for you in the least. Being treated like a piece of meat takes a heavy toll and although some women can tolerate it with little ill affect, many others suffer the inevitable consequences of self-hatred. This is either taken out on one's self or on the male who eventually sends one over the edge.
I don't think anything I've ever read has ever made me so angry in my entire life. Everything you've written is based on some of the most ignorant judgements about men, women, sexuality, and rape that remind me of the cases we hear about in countries where it is the victim of sexual assault who gets punished for the crime of their rapist.
To deal with your first point of delusion: that more women applying to colleges must mean that rape is not an issue. More women applying to college is a reflection of the gradually changing social norms in our society that are finally allowing women to educate themselves so that they can fulfil their potential. That women don't apply solely to single sex colleges is a reflection of whether or not they are willing to make that sacrifice to their education. While I have fervent belief in an all girls' education, having been in it for 14 years of my life, most women will not make their college choice based on whether a school is or is not co-ed. They will make their decision based on what college environment suits them best. The reason that sexual assault is not usually an issue they factor into their decision making is the lack of exposure it has, which the student activism happening all over the country (including the 'scathing exposé' from Columbia that you so sarcastically denigrate) is finally helping to remedy.
To your second: the deception of 'one-in-five' statistic with regards to women and rape. The reason that so few women will respond that they actually have been raped is essentially a question of nomenclature. Many are unclear on the fact that under the umbrella of the term 'rape' do fall less explicit manifestations thereof. That they don't realise that it is rape is more an issue of definition than anything else: any sexual interaction to which they have not fully consented is rape. To your assumption that the case of the Columbia student was not strong. Perhaps. Perhaps evidence was lacking, although it does not seem to me that it was not. But it is certainly the investigator's job and duty to take down the details of the case objectively and comprehensively at least, so that the case might be as strong as possible.
To your view that, 'The reality on campuses is not a rape epidemic but a culture of drunken hook-ups with zero normative checks on promiscuous behavior.' The shock and disbelief that this quote sparked in me is actually what led me from the New York Times to your article. 'No normative checks on promiscuous behavious'? Are you blind? The phrase 'slut-shaming' has not gained currency without cause: for better or worse, women everywhere are judged for their sexual behaviour, promiscuous or otherwise. And to normalise 'rape' to a 'drunken hook-up' totally, utterly and absolutely ignores the fact that rape is non-consensual. Whether or not one considers that to be drunk prevents the ability to consent (a point on which I will concede I am ambivalent), a 'drunken hook-up' should in no way be conflated with rape.
In the same vein, you kindly offer us wise words of advice on how to avoid rape: "If you don’t want to be 'raped,' don’t drink yourself blotto and get into bed with a guy. Keep your clothes on and go home to your own bed at night", and propose also another solution under the vague headline of 'being strong women together'. First and foremost, no group, location, activity or event is responsible for rape. The responsibility of rape lies with one individual. The rapist. Furthermore, to 'boycott' these apparent causes of rape completely ignores and avoids the problem, and is a consequence of admitting defeat rather than dealing with the potential aggressor. No person should have to avoid any place or activity because they are afraid they will be sexually assaulted. And unfortunately, even if wanted to do that, most victims have no inkling whatsoever that this is going to happen to them. As such, there is literally no way of avoiding the situations that might put them at risk. Finally, you again miss the blinding fact that rape is non consenual. No one chooses to get raped. If they did, it would not, by definition, be rape. As such, no one is blessed with the opportunity simply to refuse to be raped, which seems to be what you are suggesting. I apologise for being so insensitive in my explanation but it does seem to be something that you have very, very critically missed, and as such I felt you might need a more basic clarification of the term.
Well written and pithy. I'm sure that
the "victim" du jure population will
hate it and scream, thereby giving it
even greater validation.
The prevalent female urge to avoid all accountability for her actions requires that men initiate sexual activities. Most experienced men know that, if you ask permission, the odds are that you won't get it. It is the man's job to take the risk. Find out afterwards whether or not you are a lover or a rapist. As a beautiful young girl once said to me, after a very satisfying sexual encounter, "You did't ask. I liked that."
The actual sex is incidental to the sexual harassment issue on campus. It's really all about female empowerment. The military are now getting the same treatment for the same reason and the long term consquences will be more dangerous. Unfortunately, that won't stop it happening as long as Americans are willing to buy the War on Women trope.
As usual, a breath of fresh air in a world musty with political correctness.
As has been noted below, men and women are a dyad and chivalry incorporates mutual regard. The point may seem banal, but without digesting it, discussions like this can devolve into exhortations described by one wag as 'obligation masculinity'. Alas, one of its big promoters is an employee of the Manhattan Institute, who ought to be fired in an effort to improve the Institute's scholarly chops. An imperfect discussion of some of the issues can be found here:
The academic establishment is powerless to deal with the real issues facing their institutions, students and faculty: out of control costs, irrelevancy of many core, politically-motivated studies programs in the 21st century, inability of many graduates to finds jobs commensurate with their (supposed)level of education, and, of course, the 800 lb gorilla still lurking in the corner, the heavy weight of student loans coming due when their liberal arts majors graduate and return home to live with mom and dad for a year or three until that part-time job as assistant night manager at Burger King comes through.
The logical solution if they cannot find answers to real problems is to manufacture fictitious problems. Then order the roundup, public humiliation and punishment of the usual suspects. And declare that all is well once again in liberal la-la land.
“Is a particular male a “serial rapist,” in your view? Out him on social media.” In the spirit of gender equality, how about college men ‘outing’ certain young ladies as easy drunks?
College men should ‘date’ non-college women. Older women (age 30+) might welcome their availability, without recriminations. After graduation, men grads might consider the comparable costs of sex on the marketplace versus in divorce court. Then they might consider vasectomy.
I applaud you for your true equity and common sense! Bravo
A good start would be teaching young women to respect men. This could be followed by teaching young women that men that are actually human beings who have feelings and emotions.
Ms. McDonald is no different from the feminists she attacks, since she wants to return a society where every man bears the full responsibility for sexual encounters while women get to be treated as hapless innocent victims.
While I do agree with the thrust of your article, I must point out nonsense when I read it:
"Forty-two percent of these supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants—an inconceivable behavior in the case of actual rape."
Unfortunately, this isn't inconceivable, and if you had ever been involved in rape counselling or specialist policing services, you'd know this.
"Out him on social media."
Again, utterly stupid. Do you really encourage the circumvention of due process in rape cases? Do you really think "outing" suspects on Twitter pre-trial will help? Incoherently stupid.
"a hint that the peer group may possess more common sense about allocating responsibility for sexual encounters gone awry than its individual members."
Again, very silly - as if "peer groups" are fantastic at judging evidence blindly and without recourse to prejudice. Rape is a crime, and should be decided by 12 good men and true, under the instructions and supervision of a judge, in a courtroom with skilled lawyers presenting the cases for each side.
Heather, you do discredit to your arguments and your point of view through your ignorance.
See the above for recent statements by Obama's sexual assault "enforcer." This is going to get very nasty, very fast.
And do any of these sexual assault bureaucrats have an explanation as to why most of the rapists stop once they graduate?
I have also scoffed at the "one in four" statistic, which was bandied about even when I was still in school (BSFS 1977). I thought the notion was outlandish, and it flabbergasted me how the university community swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, with no critical faculties brought to bear. When the Take Back The Night rallies began, I contacted students that I knew and helped to organize "We Never Took The Night" counter-demonstrations, with male students holding signs that read along these lines: We are men who like sex, and men who respect women. We are not rapists and we do not tolerate rapists. I understand that credible surveys exist that show that an unacceptably high percentage of college women have been raped, sexually assaulted, or physically and mentally coerced into intercourse. But the One in Four-to-Five is still a chimera.
What is not, however, is the number of women under the age of eighteen who have suffered the categories of sexual abuse I mentioned above. Granted, the alleged rapists are of similar age to the victims, but that does not really mitigate the trauma. I can see only one cause of this phenomenon: the simple fact that we are now entering the third generation of American children who learn about sex almost exclusively by watching pornography on the Internet, instead of learning from parents, churches, or in the public sex education classrooms (which are still a pallid joke, except for the ugly odor of leftist sexual fascism that has crept into them).
I am not hysterical about porn, and I make no lurid claims about its content. But impressionable minds that watch porn online are bombarded with provocative and pleasurable images and messages that encourage them to believe that consent to sex is automatic. This is the real root cause of the hook-up culture.
There are clear statistical parallels to the ever-decreasing age of first sexual activity, as well as the rates of unwed teenage pregnancy. Can you think of any other sociopathic phenomenon that started in black communities and then spread to white communities? So why did early and unprotected sex, aside from its pleasurable aspects? Did white parents stop teaching messages about respecting women? I don't think they did, although it is not outlandish to think that younger parents whose entire education took place after the transformation of virtually every university into a temple of leftist indoctrination might consider sexual freedom more important than sexual decency. No, the problem was that white parents simply do NOT effectively direct nor monitor their children's online activities. And what online pursuit are children likeliest to hide from parents? Porn consumption, of course.
Even the most dedicated fan of adult entertainment understands and believes the usual disclaimer porn bears, about how the kind of sex portrayed is only one part of the full spectrum of an adult relationship. But do you think that teens and preteens are reading or understanding that disclaimer? Whether or not they are having sex, these are kids; they can't have a full-spectrum adult relationship with ANYONE - but they'll settle for a girl as willing as a pornstar, or the girls will settle for being the focus of attention that makes them feel sexy. Nothing good could come of this, and lots of bad has - I wouldn't be surprised if one-third to one-half of women under thirty have been victims of sexual abuse. There's no reason to think that boys will necessarily not grow out of the hookup, porn-emulating sexual behavior in college, and my opinions do not change a single thing said in this column, which is very convincing. But for younger women, the trauma of sexual abuse comes with their very first sexual experiences, and it can color their behavior and their perceptions forever.
That mysterious malady known as rape-induced diabetes - has anyone done a study to see if the excessive consumption of pineapple juice by the alleged rapists is behind this startling phenomenon?
I am also giggling at the notion that women suffering from rape-induced diabetes put condoms on the needles before injecting insulin.
This is also what is happening to the US Air Force. No one is willing to call out the witch hunts.
This is a very interesting article and I think there are some valuable things to be said here. First of all I was always raised to know that no means no, and I am not ready means not now. And I do not find that as being a difficult thing.
There is a problem with young women drinking a lot of alcohol and finding themselves in bed with an undesirable partner, and that can go both ways. But I do think that the author is a little hard on females. I get what she is saying and there is some truth there. But having sex with someone and than regretting it is not rape. And certainly the one out of five statistic is ridiculous.
There are certainly men, and women, out there who will take what they want given the opportunity. And I think the author gives a pretty good reasoning on some ways that opportunity exists. I can only spek for myself and say I don't want to take anything from a woman. Should an intimate situation occur it is only given to me and accepted with the same spirit of trust.
Maybe that sounds naiive but it has been my practice for 30 plus years.
Proof positive of the power and reach of this lie is not the fact that it’s clung to as gospel truth, and gains a new batch of believers with each repetition, as the internet is the most effective medium in history for making things true simply due to the spread and reach of the misinformation it spreads.
No, the real power of this lie (and its ability to potentially criminalize male sexuality both preemptively - and after the fact with little to no due process rights being applied, particularly on college campuses) is the fact that even though it has been repudiated by any number of qualified sources, and can be easily impeached with the application of simple math, almost no one save for Ms. MacDonald dares speak up about it and, all due credit to her for doing so, her voice remains still somewhat a “fringe” one given the fact that her audience is relatively small compared to the legion of other voices which have either a fiscal or ideological stake in perpetuating it.
Anyone who dares speak up about this who’s male is almost always instantly painted as a “rape apologist,” “misogynist,” “likely sexual predator,” etc, risking potentially instantaneous personal and professional ruin.
This level of paranoia about a wildly over exaggerated problem, and concomitant beating of the bushes to roust, identify and prosecute “guilty parties,” is something we’ve not seen since the “Red Scare” of the 50s, with any number of self-appointed college boards and committees acting, in essence, as the sex crimes equivalent of HUAC.
So convinced are they that near to every man is but a “rapist in waiting” that, when actual bona fide rape numbers don’t bear this out, the very definition of “sexual assault” itself has been expanded to include nearly any and all interaction between a man and a woman in which the woman felt “uncomfortable,” or “unsafe” or was otherwise discomfited; all, again, relying on a burden of proof standard which would be laughed out of any courtroom.
The most dangerous part of this phenomenon is that legions of women inculcated with this ridiculous belief that they are, almost by birthright, a “victim” of one sort or another is that this mentality has now begun to seep beyond the boundaries of college campuses and into, for lack of a better term, the “real world” where any and all previously benign action, comment, gesture, etc, can easily land someone sitting behind a desk in the HR department, if not in the unemployment line itself.
Most odious about the whole affair is that much of what constitutes (or at least is alleged to be) “sexual harassment” these days has much more to do with who the identified perpetrator is than what the alleged conduct was as women now have been given the tools and, arguably, the power, to indict any man who they find to be unappealing or unattractive with some kind of sexual impropriety for doing or saying something which, had it come from someone they felt differently about, would have been seen as simple “flirting.”
This, like any number of other social issue industries has no end game. There’s nothing they can point to and say “we’ve defeated this problem,” as that was never part of their mission statement. Rather, as fewer and fewer irrefutable cases of this or that injustice can be found, the goalposts will continue to be moved so that they can continue to find “examples” of whatever problem they’re railing against to point to simply to justify their own continued existence.
The 60s and 70s were the era of tearing down walls; the boomers were great ones for tearing things down.
It seems that we need to put some of them back up.
The words of our Lord Jesus Christ:
5:27. You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
5:28. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.
5:29. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than thy whole body be cast into hell.
Scandalize thee... That is, if it be a stumblingblock, or occasion of sin to thee. By which we are taught to fly the immediate occasions of sin, though they be as dear to us, or as necessary as a hand or an eye.
5:30. And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body go into hell.
The words of Tobias after instruction by the Archangel Raphael to his wife Sara:
8:4. Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God to day, and to morrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock.
8:5. For we are the children of saints, and we must not be joined together like heathens that know not God.
Dear Heathens: The end is very near. Go to confession, pray the Rosary, and convert to Catholicism before it is too late.
Excellent, incisive article. Thanks for posting it.
I agree with 90 percent of this. Well done.
The part I disagree with:
“A return to an ethic where manhood consisted of treating women with special courtesy would be a victory for civilization, not just for college co-eds.”
No, I don't think so. MacDonald is dredging up the 1950s. Could people ever agree on a list of all the things men would have to do for women under the banner of "special courtesy"?
In our present era, most men, I believe, would resent the unequal treatment.
“The Doctrinaire Institute for Women's Policy Research” at:
The two most valuable takeaways from this came at the very end:
"If you don’t want to be “raped,” don’t drink yourself blotto and get into bed with a guy."
"...in a culture that relentlessly celebrates unconditional sexual availability, it’s going to take more than a presidential mention to persuade males not to take advantage of female sexual liberation."
An even better reason to be gay.
"A return to an ethic where manhood consisted of treating women with special courtesy would be a victory for civilization, not just for college co-eds."
It's not going to happen in an environment where young women are given every advantage and preference over their male peers. If women wanted to be treated with special courtesy, they would treat men with special respect. That's not going to happen
Haven't we all figured it out yet? Liberals LIE to forward their goals.
Liberal students at Oberlin College were responsible for anti gay, anti black "hate crimes" on campus this last spring. Now a transgendered lib student from lib land Vassar (and a member of the school's Bias Response team, no less) is responsible for leaving hate messages on the doors of Vassar students. Then there was the black Columbia University professor hanging nooses on her door. And let's not forget the gay waitress who recently lied about a christian couple supposedly leaving an anti gay slur on her restaurant receipt. Liberals are the biggest hate mongers of all.
The take away for college boys is STAY AWAY from women- they will gladly see you destroyed and imprisoned before the take ANY responsibility for what they do when they drink.
i never thought i'd be writing your magazine, my son son is a freshman at a small mid-western college, of course he's no he man but he does have.....
i've teased my son about the lack of hook up sex he and his room mates have received, pointing out that i've read in the new york times about all this hook up sex going on in colleges, and suggesting he complain to the dean about their shared deliema
well the weekend before his last final exam he went to an of campus SAE party and met a girl, they danced, dancing turned into mugging on the dance floor, always classy, and that turned into her taking him by the hand back to a bedroom.
they consummated their love on a bed covered with a bunch of other peoples coats.
he was very pleased with himself having finally lost his virginity, couldn't remember the girls name, but he got her number and they texted each other over the break.
we gave my son an amex card just in case of an emergency or if he wanted to take a girl out to dinner. when my son told me of his conquest, i told him well jokes on her you would have bought her dinner.
Yes, but if I seduce a guy, and then later feel guilty, he raped me, right?
Or better yet, wait until you are married, and then be true to your spouse and demand the same. That makes figuring out who the father of your baby is, a lot easier.
All those "liberal libidos" must drive you crazy, Heather.
The most radical assertion of female empowerment would be to embrace the message: If you don’t want to be “raped,” don’t drink yourself blotto and get into bed with a guy. Keep your clothes on and go home to your own bed at night.
See, it's all THEIR fault! If those drunken sluts would just stop crying rape when they get assaulted, we wouldn't have a problem.
If you don't want to get robbed, don't leave your doors unlocked.
in re: "Is a particular male a “serial rapist,” in your view? Out him on social media. Instead, several commenters to the Columbia magazine story refused to disclose to their friends that a member of their social circle had “raped” them because they feared their friends’ skepticism—a hint that the peer group may possess more common sense about allocating responsibility for sexual encounters gone awry than its individual members."
Am I missing something here? "Out him on social media..." seems to be a method of public accusation & shaming that, if unproven in court, could lead to some serious retaliation (as in a defamation lawsuit). There's a good chance that, indeed, "the peer group may possess more common sense" is a good speed-break on unprovable public accusations. There are several grey lines between seduction and coercion. And, sadly, there is a lot to be said (in the article above) of making intelligent choices and not placing yourself at hazard. As I have explained many times to friends & family, "It's really difficult to have an auto accident when your car is safely parked in your garage. Don't go out during a snowstorm, or other heavy weather, unless you really need to. It's just common sense to avoid hazards.
Let us not forget that chivalry is reciprocal. It is not just something a man does no matter how women act. It seems we are inclined to create a situation--be it on campus or elsewhere--where it is prudent to stay clear of women altogether. Women often signal both their "sexual empowerment" along side of a willingness to cry victim whenever it suits them. This is a crazy-making scenario.
Good luck to all of us.
I taught all 3 of my kids to wait until they get married to have sex. Yes I know I know..it's sooo archaic right?
Well so far it's worked for the most part.
My 25 year old waited until he was 23, he's now married to the same woman.
My 22 year old son is still a virgin and he's been dating a virgin for 2 years. They have plans to get married. Recently I had a talk with about "try to suppress your urge to have sex" type talk. He looked at me and said "Dad, Madison (his GF) won't let me touch her below the neck (except for hugging)even if I wanted to"
My 19 year old daughter, to my knowledge, is still a virgin also.
I'm not saying you can always control what your kids do, but teaching them from a young age to wait until marriage cannot be a bad thing.
The endless search for Victims to Protect (ie: Democrat voters) continues.
Race and gender based initiatives are being teed up specifically to attracted GOP criticism for garnering support from single issue voters and the "War on..."
It is their means to obfuscate the real issues that progressives have created or exacerbated.
Ernest Hemingway, when asked how he and his wife had decided to have Muriel, replied, "A little dinner, a little wine ..." Indeed, if women don't want to be complicit in the annihilation of their children via abortifacients and such other baby poisons, then stay sober and stay home. Boring, yes, but then no complaints about "rape," complicit as it is by female self-sacrifice to drugs and alcohol.
Dan, this has some insight into how we should be thinking when confronting the absurdity of the left, love, dad
David, I applaud your response. You sir are a gentleman and have some common sense. Your parents are proud of you I'm sure, I know I would be if you were my son.
I am by no means excusing the young foolish girls who dress and act like tramps. They have no common sense and were not raised to respect themselves.
However that does NOT mean they are ASKING to be raped.
I wonder why everything is politicized in USA. What would our response be if president would have made same comment about rape in military.
Rape is ubiquitous on this planet. Rural women in third world are raped frequently and societies always blame women. There is not much difference between that and rape in colleges and military in USA.
Stop blaming women right wingers because it is destructive to conservatism.
Don't forget the even bigger growing global crisis in sex slavery and human trafficking. They are forming new sex slave nations if the current numbers are accurate,
As Kate Fillion wrote in her book "Lip Service":
"Unwanted sex isn't rape; unavoidable sex is."
the advocacy-government complex
The sad fact is, being prudent is no fun. But there it is: that's the best protection against finding yourself in a humiliating situation.
My bone to pick with the pinko set is how seldom they mention that young men should control themselves: all the posters in the subways addressing venereal diseases (hey, that's romantic!) are addressed to the girls.
Our mother used to tell us, with cynical relish, that no man (except a fool) would want to buy a cow if he's getting the milk for free. We scoffed at that when we were starry-eyed coeds, but it seems there was a heaping helping of truth to that old saying. It's not the whole story, but it sure plays a part.
Young girls don't realize how much power they have over boys: just their fresh youthfulness is potent enough; they don't need to dress like tramps. Our grandfather reminisced about going to the streetcar stops in New Orleans when he and his friends were lads, just to see the ladies' ankles as they delicately hoisted their (1910) skirts to board the trolley. Glimpse of heaven, he said.
I can do you one better, it the code I always used, do not have sex with someone you would not want to marry. As a male that means the I have had sex with exactly two women both whom I married. Yes it would be a better world if all males adhered to their urges but liberalism, precludes that after all men and women all all the same and the have the same goals and urges and they cannot possibly arise above that , my comment to that is BS we are genetically driven our genes dictate two different response if you are male impregnate as many females as possible, as a female whom only have a limited number of offspring must find a male that will help her raise those offspring. Now I was taught as a human with I mind we are to override our genetic or in the animal urges, Unfortunately the left embraces the animal urges, That is why so many young women are confused and why so many young male only think of women as play things, you only have to look at the liberal icon Bill Clinton to see that all though I suspect that you found his behavior acceptable because he supported women issues. Like abortion, well I got new for you on that abortion only further objectifies a women in a liberal male eyes since he does not have to be responsible for his action after all you can always have an abortion. Let's face it id was not conservatives that have created this sorry state of affairs it libersm. No I do not think women should be barefoot and pregnant a woman should be free to do what she dame well please and if she does, she should accept responsibility for her choices the same is true for a man, but let us all remember we all have a brain and if we think about what we are doing before we do it it would be a rather different world. Jessica i have one last caveat for you and I do understand the statement, a younger brother one told but Mark you have to remember you think about things before you fo them, that is a true statement and I sure as h#!! wish the rest of the world would.
If you don’t want to be “raped,” don’t drink yourself blotto and get into bed with a guy. Keep your clothes on and go home to your own bed at night.
This is perfect advice, and rarely followed in such cases. I've a corrollary bit to add: nearly every such school is adamantly anti-gun as regards effective personal defense tools. Lower the age for handgun ownership/concealed carry to 18 (hey, male and female can join the military and fight overseas armed, they can drive vote, enter contracts, do almost anything else adults can.. yet in this regard they are "children". Nonsense. ). THEN, in cases of legitimate rape (a despicable violent crime) women not desiring such attention can then defend themselves, and such rapes would all but disappear (contrast Denver, Colorado's two colleges, one allowing carry the other prohibiting all guns on campus, and their relative offense rates. The non-carry campus recently lost a court case and now allows carry.. and the rates there did what the rates at the other campus did.. dropped drastically). Now, in cases where a female (I hesitate to call such "women" as that intimates a level of maturity obviously lacking) decides to let herself be used by some male, the "warmup" to the incident would necessarily involve the removal of said weapon, thus precluding its use in what gives every indication of being mutually consensualbehaviour. Everyone would have to step up a few notches in personal responsibility, the rigged and phoney statistics would get corrected, and those who still wish to misbehave can and may, whilst those who do NOT want to so involve themselves intimately with others have a means of emphatically saing NO.
Further, overpaid and underskilled government "workers" will no longer be able to milk an imaginary "issue" at high cost to we who fund such insanities on all to regular a basis.
Methinks the resident kinyun is merely out stumping for votes... votes of the "wimmin" he has so throughly otherwise alienated. Politics as usual, the ruling power brokers bilking we who fund all to buy more votes to keep them in their positios of power.
It's not often that I agree w/ our current President. And it's not often that I disagree w/ Ms. Mac Donald. But in this instance I feel compelled to do both. The notion that "chivalry is dead" is ridiculous. Men, if you can't treat women decently and with respect, then stay away from them. Find a Playboy or Penthouse magazine, take it back to your dorm room, and content yourself. For those of you who find yourselves in the company of a woman, remember that raging hormones are no excuse for criminal behavior. If she says "No", then she means "No". Don't assume that she means otherwise. Doing so only confirms the fact that you probably don't have the intellect to be in college in the first place. I, no more than Ms. Mac Donald, believe that the federal government should be meddling in college campus issues. But, unfortunately, we bring such meddling on ourselves due to our own stupidity. So show some commonsense and intelligence. Doing so will keep you out of trouble. And it will keep our federal beauracracy out of our lives.
One more elmenet of Communist propaganda dividing Americans as revealed by Oleg Kalugin, KGB Chief.
Substitute the words military personnel for the words college students and this story would remain accurate.
The most radical assertion of male empowerment would be to embrace the message: If you don't want to be "accused of rape," don't drink yourself blotto and get into bed with a girl. Keep your clothes on and go home to your own bed at night.