The Rape Myth
From the Telegraph:
Twice this week the rape laws have been called into question. First, Amnesty International expressed its shock at the findings of a poll suggesting that many people believe that if a woman flirts, fails to say no clearly, wears sexy clothes or drinks too much, she is partly or totally responsible if she is raped.I'm shocked too, mostly because it demonstrates that the duplicitous egalitarian ethic of radical feminists is disintegrating faster than I'd hoped. The reason many people believe a woman is at least partly responsible for her own victimization is because in many cases she is. In no other circumstance is it argued that a victim of a crime must be considered wholly innocent of any responsibility whatsoever, regardless of actions - just ask your insurance company if you don't believe me. A woman who gets drunk and who goes to the bedroom of a man she doesn't know deserves no more sympathy or understanding from society than the man who leaves his unlocked car running with the key in the ignition or the woman who leaves her purse unattended at an airport.
Now, the fact that more than one person can have responsibility doesn't make the thief any less of a thief, or a genuine rapist any less of a rapist. (I use the term "genuine" because a good deal of "date rape" cases is not a rape or crime of any kind but a case of he-said-she-said, which is not a basis for a system of justice. At this rate people are going to get a contract signed with written permission before having sex.) Responsibility is not a zero-sum game.
I have to confess that I don't understand this ceaseless quest for victimhood. Being raped doesn't confer some mystical moral superiority on a woman, it just makes her a victim. And unfortunately, in too many cases, it also makes her an idiot.
I'm also curious what basis moral relativists like feminists have in condemning rape in the first place. If a rapist deems that slaking his desire for lust, or violence, to be what is defined as good for him, who is a moral relativist then to condemn it? And on another note, to the subset of moral relativists who are communists, socialists, and other leftists, who believe that no one person can have a claim on any property, then how can a woman object if a rapist decides to make use of that which belongs to him?