The opening from Peter Hitchens: How the Left censored blindingly obvious truth about rape sets up a dangerous link between commonality of crimes and how victims of those crimes should be viewed.
Women who get drunk are more likely to be raped than women who do not get drunk.
No, this does not excuse rape. Men who take advantage of women by raping them, drunk or sober, should be severely punished for this wicked, treacherous action, however stupid the victim may have been.
But it does mean that a rape victim who was drunk deserves less sympathy.
This conclusion is nonsensical even if Hitchens' claim weren't contradicted by a UK study of rape reports where 31% of rape victims were listed as potentially consuming alcohol prior to the rape.
Commonality in who gets targeted for violence does not equal victim causality or victim responsibility. If it does then Hitchens' assessment must be applied anytime we can find a pattern of victimization.
It's undeniable that parents who take their children to church are more likely to have their children molested by abusive priests or pastors than are children who are never allowed to go to church. By Hitchens' logic we should therefore be suspicious of all parents who take their children to church.
To see how well Hitchens logic holds up, I'm going to take part of what he has to say about drinking and rape then modify it to church attendance and rape.
Someone called Bridget Prentice, a one-time teacher who now has the banana republic title of Justice Minister, actually said last week that ‘a [parent of a] victim of rape [committed against a child by a priest or pastor] is not in any way culpable due to [church attendance]’.
This is flatly untrue and she must know it is. Of course [parents are] culpable, just as she would be culpable if she crashed a car and injured someone while [visiting shut ins], or stepped out into the traffic while [walking to church] and was run over.
[Going to church] is not something that happens to you. It is something you do.
So anything criminal that happens to children or to adults while they are in church is something they do according to Hitchens' logic.
But Hitchens isn't asking his readers to be logical. He's giving his readers an excuse to feel like good people as they heap disdain on certain rape victims. That undermines his statement that he is not excusing rape.
Simple, isn’t it? You can hate rape and want it punished, while still recognising that a woman who, say, goes back to a man’s home after several Bacardi Breezers was being a bit dim.
So every man who invites a woman with alcohol in her system into his home will rape her if that woman doesn't consent to whatever he wants to do to her.
If we must believe this as we form opinions about rape victims and we agree with Hitchens that too many rapists are getting away with their crimes then the UK should start sting operations where men are arrested for attempted rape as soon as they say to an undercover agent, "Want to go back to my place?"
I doubt those who accuse women of being dim would think this solution to be a smart one even though this solution is grounded in the exact same belief system which makes most rape victims unsympathetic to Hitchens.
Hat tip: Melissa at Shakesville.
Labels: Violence Against Women