what a silly discussion this is. no one condones rape. as for the legal aspect, voluntary self-intoxication is sufficient only to preclude specific-intent crimes – rape being one of them. therefore, a defendant’s intoxication, if proven to have caused the alleged rape, does in fact preclude a rape conviction; the lesser charge would be sexual assault of some kind. for comparison, acts committed under the influence of involuntary intoxication – someone slips you a mickey – are reviewed under the jurisdiction’s standard for insanity – generally, some version of “i wouldn’t have done it but for the intoxication, your honor,” in which case (if proven) they are found not guilty. these are well-established and reasonable legal doctrines applied routinely every day in thousands of American courts, all for the purpose of deterring and punishing rapists. there is no ambiguity as to where society and its legal framework stands with respect to the crime of rape. in fact, a woman’s past is only fair game – under “rape shield laws” – to prove a specific relationship with the defendant, or if the prosecutor raises the issue. her present behavior is admissible only to prove or disprove consent. every benefit is given to the woman in question, as is reasonable and good.
but the deeper question is constantly evaded by jackson and her friends. the question is whether girls’ behavior might somehow contribute to the increase in frequency of legitimate rape claims. i don’t see how that could be answered in the negative, when everyone has at least the experience of going to the mall and witnessing how 12 year old girls dress like strippers, or youtube videos of teenage girls, to say nothing of comparing the behavior of one’s daughters with that of the behavior of their own sisters or female friends when they were young. plainly, something has changed, and it is not male behavior, which, as the legal doctrines cited above attest, has always been well-known and consequently well-controlled to the extent of the law. male boorishness and sexual aggression has for a very long time been the subject of much scrutiny and control in our society, and it would be futile to deny this.
but it should not be surprising that along with, and probably prior to, the emergence of a new set of more sexually provocative female expectations in dress and behavior ought to be preceded or attended by its public ideologues providing strenuous advocacy and defense of such changes. it should not be surprising either that these ideologues – whether themselves adherents to the new ethos or not conforming in practice but simply in imagination – should employ rhetorial redirectio and evasion such as demonstrated here by jackson and mylai, among others. the most bizarre thing about it though is the character of the victory of the revolution they seek to defend. where are the more than social and more than occasional consequences for female behavior? after all, it’s not as though women are somehow complete moral beings upon birth – they too are educated according to social norms. but who suffers in a legal way, with the coercion of the state, for wearing outfits only slightly less revealing than bikinis to a bar where everyone’s consuming huge amounts of alcohol? i mean, what exactly are you guys trying to defend against here – even the merest shred of denunciation, from someone like Heather McDonald, who probably writes for a magazine with a circulation in the low thousands, and occasionally writes for websites like pajamas – not exactly media juggernauts? i don’t get it – do you guys really think that women’s behavior has absolutely no affect on the way others treat them? it’s almost unbelieveable that you can’t at least agree that showing a Lot of skin, doing body shots – i mean, have you guys even been to campus bars in the last ten years? you can’t possibly believe that all this doesn’t result in a net increase in rapes, due to things which are at least partly within the control of the victim? is that really such an enormous claim to make? honestly, i really think you’ve chosen the wrong pursuit – you’re really not very good even petty moral philosophers. please, choose another hobby.
