Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Campus Rape Culture?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Heather MacDonald has an excellent article in The City Journal entitled "The Campus Rape Myth." It's a detailed look at the supposedly widespread phenomena of campus rape.

While I'm pretty familiar with the absurd statistics that feminists use to support their claims that rape on campus by acquaintances is commonplace, I didn't realize the obvious implication: that campuses waste oodles of money in the attempt to offer support for mostly non-existent campus rape victims. In other words, the phones of campus rape crisis lines are mostly silent.

While I was disappointed by MacDonald's final suggestion that postponing sex until marriage might be the proper alternative to indiscriminate sex, her general point in the article -- that women must take responsibility for their sex lives, including the compromising positions in which they often place themselves -- is completely right.

In fact, the article made me think that the topic might be worth teaching in my Intro Ethics course, particularly since the course covers various philosophers' views of sex, friendship, and pleasure. I'd definitely like to connect some of those older views with a modern debate about student life!251924960

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003396.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
-- that women must take responsibility for their sex lives, including the compromising positions in which they often place themselves --

The problem being that too often these 'compromising positions' are used to excuse subjective, judgmental attacks on rape victims.

Was she "asking for it," or did she "dress like a slut" or other such nonsense? No is no. Frankly, I think it rather sad that women are told that they create their own victimization by rights violators. Rape is, simply, a fundamental violation of essential freedoms.

Nobody should be blamed for the immoral actions which others undertake against them, regardless of circumstance.

I dress nicely and carry a wallet. Was I 'asking for it' when I got mugged? Hardly. I paid attention in class and was socially reserved in high school. Was I 'asking for it' when other students beat and belittled me? No.

All rapists are vile, worthless sacks of crap whom I would gladly kick out the airlock. Obviously, this is not a dictatorship of Dr. Radiaki, or a more well funded space program would surely exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No is no.

That really hasn't been my experience, and no, I'm not a rapist. In dating, I find women to rarely be that clear or deliberate in their communication. While it would be nice, in a way, if they were that explicit, they simply are not, by and large, so "no" means everything from "no" to "not yet" to "maybe this afternoon" to "absolutely and hurry up about it." Context is key and non-verbal communication is easily twice as important as verbal in these circumstances.

Further, there are a great many circumstances where a drunk girl brings a drunk guy back to her room, takes his clothes off and remembers being raped the next morning. This is not a case of "blaming the victim." Acknowledging the the complexity of this issue and separating the different circumstances which can occur is absolutely necessary if you wish to avoid completely diminishing the seriousness of an actual rape. To lump these divergent circumstances together would be on par with equivocating a debtor who does not pay a loan back to the bank with the armed robber who knocks it off. While there may be similarities in the effects for the bank, the moral condemnation cannot be the same and ought to certainly be shared. The bank made a bad decision regarding creditworthiness. They were not "victimized" by the debtor, even if they lost the same amount of money as in a robbery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem being that too often these 'compromising positions' are used to excuse subjective, judgmental attacks on rape victims.

Was she "asking for it," or did she "dress like a slut" or other such nonsense? No is no. Frankly, I think it rather sad that women are told that they create their own victimization by rights violators. Rape is, simply, a fundamental violation of essential freedoms.

Nobody should be blamed for the immoral actions which others undertake against them, regardless of circumstance.

And I don't think anyone here is advocating that the responsibility for a rape be placed on the rape victim. Everyone has a right to their own lives and their own bodies, and no one has the right to violate that.

What I believe, and I think this is in tune with Objectivist ethics, is that whilst a woman is not responsible for being raped, her actions beforehand can still be morally judged. I'm not advocating that we all go about morally judging these people, because we all know how difficult it is to assess someone else's situation; what I am advocating is that a woman should be looking after herself, and that she should not be putting herself into a situation where she will be in danger.

I know here, in London, we have a drinking culture. Go out on a Friday night into central London, or any night in the suburbs, around Lewisham or Penge, or any of the more scummy areas, and you will see people staggering around, drunk out of their minds. These are not people taking care of their lives, regarding their life as their basic, fundamental value, from which all other values depend upon. They show reckless disregard for what could happen to them, stumbling around blindly.

One may end up getting raped, either rat-arsed or stone sober. A sequence of events can come about which you didn't expect. Your drink may be spiked, or you may be led down a blind alley. A previously friendly stranger may suddenly pull a knife on you. A friend may even do it. But to deliberatly pull oneself into situations where one knows that they are only increasing the chances of getting raped, is just plain immoral. To get so drunk you cannot look after yourself, and to not even have any provision (say, a girl friend to take you home, or even a trusted guardian to pick you up) should you be stranded, is just plain idiocy.

The moral responsibility for a rape lies on the rapist. A woman does not invite a man to rape her - that is a contradiction in terms. But if, knowing she could make a choice between exposing herself to being a victim, and not, she chooses to go the dangerous path, then she should accept that she is not making a moral decision, and recognise it for what it is: a dangerous route, and she should be prepared to deal with whomever lies at the end of that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the emergency phones on campus at my college were never used. I worked with the police department for 5 years during the hours of 11 p.m. and 2 in the morning. During that time we never heard a single call about rape or anything of the sort. If it's happening, it's not being reported or not on campus. If it is happening it's more then likely in one of the numerous Frat houses here who openly admit to spiking womans drinks with date rape drugs. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the emergency phones on campus at my college were never used. I worked with the police department for 5 years during the hours of 11 p.m. and 2 in the morning. During that time we never heard a single call about rape or anything of the sort. If it's happening, it's not being reported or not on campus. If it is happening it's more then likely in one of the numerous Frat houses here who openly admit to spiking womans drinks with date rape drugs. :D

I don't know about statistics being good or bad but I do know that on my campus it was a huge problem and many women were assaulted. I do not agree that it is wise to minimize the dangers to women on a college campus. I personally know a few women who were either outright raped or assaulted in some other way (ie something less than intercourse). I know that within the first term I was on campus one of my rugby teammates was drugged at a party and had to go to the hospital because she nearly stopped breathing. I know that there are incredible obstacles to reporting and pursuing action against these sorts of things as well, and part of the problem is the attitude towards girls that "put themselves in bad situations". And to top it all off, my school got rid of the woman who was the best resource for assaulted students because she was too vocal about the problem. We can't have these ugly facts tarnishing the school's reputation! I didn't always agree with this woman, especially with regards to her politics, but I had a lot of respect for the work she did and the fact that she spent an enormous amount of her time and energy to help the students. In fact, she even helped my male friend who was falsely accused of rape to protect himself against character assassination.

I do agree that the actions of a woman prior to a rape or sexual assault are not immune to moral judgment. I absolutely believe that women should take responsibility and respect themselves and it angers me when they don't. But we need to always remember that the final responsibility for rape always lies with the rapist. And we also need to remember that telling women they were asking for it can be a very dangerous path to go down as people have incredibly divergent opinions of what constitutes "asking for it". Thankfully I myself have never been a victim. I tended to avoid the party scene and I'm somewhat personally intimidating so I suppose I wasn't much of a target. But there were a couple terms where I worked very late at a cafe and had to walk home around 3 AM right past a frat house. I was very ill at least one of those terms and would have found it hard to defend myself if someone gave me a problem (anyone who's ever had mono understands how that might be tough). Was I "asking for it"? I think all of you would say no, but some people would say yes. What were you thinking, walking home alone at 3 AM! How dare you presume yourself safe on your own campus, your home? You may think it's silly, but I know people who think this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moral responsibility for a rape lies on the rapist. A woman does not invite a man to rape her - that is a contradiction in terms. But if, knowing she could make a choice between exposing herself to being a victim, and not, she chooses to go the dangerous path, then she should accept that she is not making a moral decision, and recognize it for what it is: a dangerous route, and she should be prepared to deal with whomever lies at the end of that route.

True, and I don't think anyone here would argue that any actions outside of immediately life threatening situations shouldn't be judged on moral grounds. However, what I think is most frustrating is an inequality with how such moral judgments are made. Women are responsible for the situations they find themselves in to a greater degree than men. A seemingly friendly guy offers you a ride home? Accept, and you are putting yourself at risk to be raped. Tut tut, perhaps you should have thought more carefully about how you dressed and who you talked to.

Now imagine a similar situation, applied to a man. New friend offers you a ride home? The chances of rape are astronomically small. However, the chances of robbery and/or assault are not. In this situation would we see sanctimonious articles urging men to drink less at parties and be paranoid about every chance encounter with a stranger ? No, we would not. In fact, it is very likely that such a man would not be blamed at all, rather such activities would most likely be attributed to chance.

Moral condemnation in these sorts of situation seems to inevitably come down harder on women, especially if they weren't careful to wear their iron plated chastity suits and drink non-alcoholic champagne. This seems to me an untenable inequality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moral condemnation in these sorts of situation seems to inevitably come down harder on women, especially if they weren't careful to wear their iron plated chastity suits and drink non-alcoholic champagne. This seems to me an untenable inequality.

And you'd be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, and I don't think anyone here would argue that any actions outside of immediately life threatening situations shouldn't be judged on moral grounds. However, what I think is most frustrating is an inequality with how such moral judgments are made. Women are responsible for the situations they find themselves in to a greater degree than men. A seemingly friendly guy offers you a ride home? Accept, and you are putting yourself at risk to be raped. Tut tut, perhaps you should have thought more carefully about how you dressed and who you talked to.

Now imagine a similar situation, applied to a man. New friend offers you a ride home? The chances of rape are astronomically small. However, the chances of robbery and/or assault are not. In this situation would we see sanctimonious articles urging men to drink less at parties and be paranoid about every chance encounter with a stranger ? No, we would not. In fact, it is very likely that such a man would not be blamed at all, rather such activities would most likely be attributed to chance.

Moral condemnation in these sorts of situation seems to inevitably come down harder on women, especially if they weren't careful to wear their iron plated chastity suits and drink non-alcoholic champagne. This seems to me an untenable inequality.

I am not certain what it is you are arguing here. Is it that we should never form moral judgments in the negative regarding a woman who was raped or that we should judge each case based on its own particulars? In other words, are you opposed to moral judgement or just over-generalization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That really hasn't been my experience, and no, I'm not a rapist. In dating, I find women to rarely be that clear or deliberate in their communication. While it would be nice, in a way, if they were that explicit, they simply are not, by and large, so "no" means everything from "no" to "not yet" to "maybe this afternoon" to "absolutely and hurry up about it." Context is key and non-verbal communication is easily twice as important as verbal in these circumstances.

Both of you are right in a way.

There is this sometimes ambiguous "no" that some women give as an answer to weather or not she welcomes his sexual advances and a man may need to look for other clues to know what she means.

But there is also a definate and a clearly understandable message of NO (verbal and non-verbal) when, for example, the advances have started (even in progress) and for whatever reason are not welcome (or not welcome anymore): maybe she miscommunicated, maybe she changed her mind, maybe something is off physically with her. Rape is when a man ignores the second, which is never ambiguous. A withdrawal of consent can happen at any time - on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not certain what it is you are arguing here. Is it that we should never form moral judgments in the negative regarding a woman who was raped or that we should judge each case based on its own particulars?

I find it very difficult to conceive of a situation where a moral judgment in a rape situation would fall on the negative, but I concede that such is possible, and preferable to over-simplification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now imagine a similar situation, applied to a man. New friend offers you a ride home? The chances of rape are astronomically small. However, the chances of robbery and/or assault are not. In this situation would we see sanctimonious articles urging men to drink less at parties and be paranoid about every chance encounter with a stranger ? No, we would not. In fact, it is very likely that such a man would not be blamed at all, rather such activities would most likely be attributed to chance.

Well, speaking as someone who responds to robberies and assaults like you describe above, it is very commonplace for police officers to question the judgement of the victim for placing himself in vulnerable positions like that with new 'friends'. So applied to a man, the same thing results; he is judged for how much his actions contributed to the situation into which he put himself. The robbers, like the rapists, are still charged, but the judgement of the man is still questioned just like that of the woman's. Again, no one is excusing the robber/rapist for violating a person's rights, but neither are they excusing the victim for demonstrating poor judgement by failing to take prudent safeguards in protection of their own life and property. A violator's guilt does not imply a victim's innocence.

Speaking for myself, I just don't have 'new friends' just like that, that I go take a ride with or drink with, etc. etc. I want to know more about a person before I include them into the relatively small group of people I identify as my friends. Why? Trust. Character. Sense of life. Because I am, to a large degree, responsible for those I choose to associate with because I know people out there will abuse you, take advantage of you, and do all sorts of nasty things to new 'friends'.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it very difficult to conceive of a situation where a moral judgment in a rape situation would fall on the negative, but I concede that such is possible, and preferable to over-simplification.

They happen all the time. A girl I was dating years ago called one evening extremely upset because someone on her small campus had allegedly been raped. I told her to wait for the details before continuing to be concerned for her own safety. She was a little angry with me for being insensitive.

The details were that a young lady had a lot to drink and so did a young man. She invited him to her room where she by her own admission helped take off his close and helped him to put on a condom. During the intercourse which followed, she thought to herself during it that she did not wish to have sex, though she was unable to say anything. Emotionally unable, I mean. The next morning she reported the "rape." While no conviction occurred, the college did see fit expel the man from school.

Was he responsible for the situation? In part, but so was she. These date rape situations are rarely as cut and dry as feminists would like to pretend. They are sticky messy situations where a breakdown of communication occurs and mistakes are made. And most often, the campus anti-rape culture has made it such that drunk guys must bare the burden of responsibility for both their own decisions as well as the woman's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...