Back to the kitchen, Julie!

Julie

Thanks for the post. "Lie down with strippers wake up with pleas" might be the funniest headline writtne this month. Ann did not even need to be strident and offensive to make her point, although it still might be enought to give English Professors at Harvard the vapors.

The did not like the nature comments and they will likely not like the nuture somments either. What to do!

So Julie, do you think mandatory burkas might take care of the problem? That way men won’t be so tempted!

Oh, come on, Phil. If you were to go to a bad neighborhood and leave your keys in the ignition of your car, wouldn’t you be tempting someone to steal it? To be sure, it’d still be a crime if someone were to take it without your permission, but would it be wrong to point out that you had behaved stupidly? That’s not "blaming the victim"; it’s just common sense.

I am a survivor of sexual assault. At the time, he insinuated that it was "my fault." What’s worse, I believed him for many years. I was only 13, still a child in so many ways. I was completely sober, and dressed modestly. My only "mistake" was in telling him no when he was much larger and stronger than I.

I agree that both young men and young women need to have some common sense. Every time I see something about Natalee Holloway on the news, I wish I could ask her, "What were you thinking, getting drunk and leaving a bar by yourself?"

Yes, her behavior set up the perfect circumstances for a crime. Still, that doesn’t excuse the actions of whoever kidnapped, raped, and/or murdered her! Rape is rape, no matter what. She should have had more common sense, yes, but she didn’t deserve what happened to her.

While certain women’s actions may seem a bit shortsighted at best, I worry that this would lead us far down the road of blaming the victim. Blame is a horribly powerful force for rape victims as it is; most rape victims, even the most blameless, already blame themselves to some extent. How far will you blame the women? Will you blame me?

(By the way, my university posts signs in all the public restrooms about how to avoid becoming a victim of sexual assault. It makes a particular point to stress the dangers of alcohol and drugs.)

I’m all in favor of tempting . . . it’s just that I also like to have the control . . . Don’t play with fire--but by all means use it!

For Helena: Kitchens can be great places for using fire . . . of all sorts.

You know, when I first started reading Coulter’s article I thought to myself "Wow. She finally got something right." She had mentioned that people are afraid to say things are wrong because they could be construed as "hypocrites" (something she feels was produced by liberalism . . . erg . . .). She talked about how men need to start being more careful as well as women. She was, in my opinion, on a roll.



Then, toward the end, the informal fallacies of argument just started jumping out at me. I screamed like a little girl (as I usually do) and attempted not to look, but it was like one of those really, really, really fat people you see in the mall and just can’t help but stare at. I had to see more so I continued to scroll down and read the remainder of the article. She used so many of them . . .



The hasty generalization:



Every woman who has had an abortion feels compelled to defend abortion for all women; every man who’s ever been at a party with strippers thinks he has to defend all men who watch strippers; and every Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton feels the need to defend duplicity, adultery, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, kicking the can of global Islamo-fascism down the road for eight years and so on.



The misrepresentation of differing viewpoints (also hasty generalizations as well), such as:



But we’re all rotten sinners, incapable of redemption on our own. The liberal answer to sin is to say: I can never pay this back, so my argument will be I didn’t do anything wrong.



And outrageous exaggerations, like:



The liberal charge of "hypocrisy" has so permeated the public consciousness that no one is willing to condemn any behavior anymore, no matter how seedy.






Sure, she had some good points. Some really good points. But to make some many claims about "no one" willing to do something or "every" Clinton voter wishing to defend things like rape is nothing short of sensationalism. You are all (for the most part) very, very smart people on this blog. Why do you read this trash? Why do you fill your heads with poor logic? Everytime I see someone talking about how great any of these types of columnists are, I want to throw up (it doesn’t matter if that columnist is from "The Nation" or from "RealClearPolitics"). I find articles like these, where there are some really good points, frustrating because they make those good points so friggin’ hard to pay attention to.

Yes, her behavior set up the perfect circumstances for a crime. Still, that doesn’t excuse the actions of whoever kidnapped, raped, and/or murdered her! Rape is rape, no matter what. She should have had more common sense, yes, but she didn’t deserve what happened to her.

You’re absolutely right--nobody deserves to have such a thing happen to them, and nobody here is suggesting that. Nor is anyone suggesting that a rape victim’s attire or behavior--no matter how imprudent--absolves the rapist from guilt. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to discourage young women from putting themselves into dangerous situations.

You’re absolutely right--nobody deserves to have such a thing happen to them, and nobody here is suggesting that. Nor is anyone suggesting that a rape victim’s attire or behavior--no matter how imprudent--absolves the rapist from guilt. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to discourage young women from putting themselves into dangerous situations.

You mean ban stripping? Or ensure women who have few or zero alternate opportunities for employment can be provided for by the state?

How do you discourage women, from taking up such well paid employment? Shouldn’t the market dictate?

The notion of Ann Coulter talking about "that Christ fellow" ... yukky.

Emily’s story, however horrible (and it is), is clearly not within the parameters of what we are discussing here. That kind of rape or sexual assault is in a whole different category. Clearly, she did nothing to compromise herself or her safety and she was brutally assaulted anyway. But no matter how stupid a woman acts, I agree that the penalty for her actions should never be rape or death. Who argues the opposite point but crazies? It is not even reasonable to insinuate that the logic of Coulter’s argument leads to that conclusion. I think what she wants (and I know that I want) to stress is that it is irresponsible to continuously stress to women that rape is rape no matter what AS IF that was enough. It is irresponsible to say that WITHOUT following up with the very sensible point that she has to be careful to avoid situations that can be dangerous. It is silly to expect that men will behave like gentlemen when women act like dogs in heat. It is not really any consolation to a woman who has been raped that the rapist goes to jail. That just protects future victims--it doesn’t do much to make her whole again. Further, it doesn’t speak at all to the dignity of the woman and the respect that she ought to have for herself that should prevent her from acting like a dog even if all men could be trusted. Similarly, it is irresponsible to tell men they are guilty of "date rape" if there is any doubt at all about the woman’s consent and then cheer him on as he engages (in shockingly public ways) in behavior that is--to say the very least--ungentlemanly. When you cheer on the behavior of studs and sluts, this is the result you get. Duh . . . Schools need to take take their "in loco parentis" responsibilities more seriously--as Prof. Knippenberg has argued before on this weblog. What’s wrong with single sex dorms, curfews, house mothers, and rules? Obviously the inmates don’t do a very good job of running the asylum. As for banning stripping--why not? One could at least make a very good case for expelling students caught with strippers or students caught stripping. What "right" do they have to sully the reputation of their school?

Following the logic of John Moser, there are similarities between bad neigbourhood and frat house. Why not change the frat house into better neighbourhood, instead blaming everything on short skirts.

Just for the record, I love wearing short skirts. They make me feel pretty, sexy, happy. Why should I be deprived of this innocent pleasure, because some guy feels that my sexy looks mean consent for sex. Nine times out of ten they don’t. I do not want to look like a nun or be sober all the time when I am around guys. Why should I be denied safe, nonsexual fun with the opposite sex?

Virginia-who asked you to dress like a nun? But it’s probably a good idea not to get too drunk when you’re looking that hot if you’re out somewhere where your safety can be compromised. Is this really a complicated point?

Seems we have a number of posters determine not to understand the point. Fingers in ears singing lalala etc

Matt Mingus:

The left would never sensationalize would they? Consider Libby leak (that was not charged), Club Gitmo, Abu Gharib, Cheney hunting accident, Haliburton, WMD’s in Iraq (which has since been proven), Bush lying and spying, "bungled Iraq," illegal immigrants, Exxon executive retirement package, and the list goes on and on.

Sure Coulter goes overboard at times, but it is her attempt at humor. Sometimes that humor is very appropriate because it hit the nail on the head.

To all:

This case has very little ground to stand on. This is a harassment case plain and simple. Harassment of the lacrosse players that is!

I don’t think people have their fingers in ears singing lalala...

It is just pointless to debate people that do not understand where the other is coming from and only want to reinforce their theory - not have an open minded discussion.

The posters that stated Date Rape is a Crime were intended to give victims assistance to understand that it was not their fault - as many do. Many children that are assaulted also beleive that it was somehow their fault.

Assurances that it is not the victim’s fault are very important. The message to women on how to better defend themselves is important and is taught by society. Crying that the fact that people are trying to help victims understand that it isn’t their fault is somehow "instead of" the fact that in society we need to educate women how not to put themselves in harms way is ridiculous. Both are being done.

Why the scare quotes around "rape"?

Whatever happened to escort services and services providing strippers traveling with protection? I have had two friends who have made a good living waiting in the car for a party stripper. One was over six feet tall , 280 pounds and he carried a sap. The ladies would "introduce" him by pointing to the car when the man or men answered the door. There was never any problem. If this rape happened at Duke, and she worked for a service,the victim ought to be suing the service for sending her out on her own like that.

For the record, both my friends quit because they got disgusted with the "profession," and even though they felt protective of the girls they did not want to be involved.

prudence -
I hope you mean that if this rape did happen that the victim should be suing the service that sent her IN ADDITION to the criminal prosecution of those that engaged in the actual crime.

nick

yeah, of course

Nick - good points.

Matt - some good points, but you’re being far too charitable with Ms. Coulter.

A few things:

Everyone makes mistakes, especially young people, but the outpouring of support for the victims and their families is obscuring what ought to be a flashing neon warning for potential future victims.

So, if I’m reading this right, Ann is saying that there’s a problem with "the outpouring of support for the victims and their families." Should there be a reduction in this support? Good advice on how to recognize and avoid dangerous situations is always helpful, but as for "warnings" I think the emphasis should be on those who opt to commit acts of sexual violence, not on those who might get more than they bargained for in a particular situation.

What’s strange to me is how, so often on the rape issue, the Right - those who are so well known for concern with victim’s rights, a fixation on law-and-order, and endorsing punitive measures wherever possible - is able to sympathize with the perpetrator. Let’s see it from the perspective of the Guy Who Just Couldn’t Resist when he saw her in that bikini, or whatever. The emphasis on fault shifts from the actions of the perpetrator to the actions of the victim. What did the victim do wrong?

But these statements would roll off the tongue more easily in a world that so much as tacitly acknowledged that all these messy turns of fate followed behavior that your mother could have told you was tacky.

No, Ann, what they followed was some person forcibly touching or inserting a body part into another person when the other person didn’t want that to occur. I don’t see what "fate" has to do with it.

Ann’s bigger "point" about liberals not wanting to judge is just silly. So, wearing tight clothes or hardly any clothes and boozing it up is tacky. It’s immoral to get naked for cash, fine. But how does that in any way excuse rape? Try as you might to say that the victim is not being blamed, there’s a message coming through of "she was asking for it," by virtue of her drunken behavior or her job.

Craig - thank you for saying a few things a little more forcibly than I did. Julie’s characterization of women acting as sluts or dogs in heat only goes to reinforce the mentality that the victim is in someway to blame.

Also - to Emily, I completely understand what you are saying in your post. I have also been a victim that blamed myself in my younger years. It is unacceptable to try to shift the conversation of the heinous acts of sexual violence to the victim. It only reinforces the "blame the victim" attitude that some people might have and unfortunately that so many victims have lived with.

Throw the book at "the guy who couldn’t resist". I have no problem with that. I have said (repeatedly) that the penalty for stupid behavior surely ought not to be rape or death. Victims of this kind of rape do not "deserve" what they get. And the victims of false accusations do not deserve what they get either. But pardon me if it is impossible for me to summon up the same kind of sympathy for them that I have for a rape victim like Emily or a victim of child molestation. To equate these things is to diminish the impact these more horrible crimes have on the public mind. The equation of forcible rape and child molestation with date rape and other kinds of assault where there are at least some vagueries surrounding the question of consent probably has something to do with the terribly inadequate punishments we now seem to hand out for crimes of rape and molestation.

Let me also say that if it is impossible for us to point out that many (not all, but many) women who have been date raped have behaved in a stupid way then what is the point at all in a public discussion of these kinds of true-crime dramas? If young women cannot learn from these stories that they need to think before they act (and young men cannot learn the same) then the only reason we discuss them at all is for their voyeuristic value.

Julie - this is where you and I see things very differently. I was a victim of child molestation. I don’t excuse the actions of a date rapist (even if the victim was dressed in a provacative way) any more than I excuse the actions of the person who did this to me. He had plenty of excuses - even to blame me at the age of 11.

A very sad statistic that I have seen is that when one opens up to people and tells them about what happened to them, one is astounded at the number of people that have similar stories.

I spoke with one young woman about such issues - and she said "how do they seek us out, how do they know?" This was in relation to a boyfriend that she was with that was my ex, that physically and verbally abused both of us.

The sad thing is that many people who become victims of sexual or physical abuse at an early age have also become victims in their adult years. They are mixed up, searching for acceptance and vulnerable.

Julie - I’m very glad that you have not had to experience such things. I cannot begin to tell you how it affects one in every day opinions. Some become more promiscuous, some become more paranoid, it is different for every woman that has been a victim. But the argument should never turn on the victim. This is my beleif and these different life experiences may be why we look for the same justice, but can’t seem to understand the other’s point of view.

Nick,
I’m sorry to hear about your experiences, too. Such things should never happen to anyone.

Julie, We’re not accusing you of not wanting to punish rapists or child molesters. I think we’re just trying to say that women who have been assaulted/molested/raped tend to blame themselves to begin with. Young women need to be encouraged to act sensibly, but young men also need to be told that there is never any excuse for rape. Never. Dwelling on what women like the alleged victim of the Duke rape did looks very much like blaming the victim... and victims of sexual assault have plenty of self-blame already.

Victims of date rape, perhaps more so than other sexual assault victims, blame themselves. After all, they say, I brought it on myself -- I went out with him, I got in his car, I let him kiss me, etc... The "Date rape is a crime" posters are designed to remind women that there is no excuse for rape, that it isn’t the victim’s fault that someone did this to her. Yes, we need to encourage women to be aware of their safety. But in so doing, we need to be very, very careful that it doesn’t turn into a game of blame-the-victim.

Interesting post.

I have little sympathy for a bunch of guys who hired a stripper.

I’ve read the back and forth here, and the benefit of the doubt goes to the stripper every time. Most especially in an undiluted capitalist system like the US, where economic need forces people into economic niches that probably shouldn’t even exist.

I have an 11 year old daughter, and although I do want her to behave responsibly, I also see no reason why she should bracket her behaviour because other people want to break the law.

Start down that road, and the end game is a Burka. Rapists in ultra conservative countries probably consider that women with an exposed ankle, or a painted toe, or an outgoing personality are "asking for it". It’s simply a question of degree.

It is fascinating how conservatives seem to reserve all their concern and sympathy for the powerful in any given situation. I bet there is a an equation to express the likely side of an argument a conservative will end up on, simply based on the relative power of the parties involved.

Bunch of strong guys/single stripper

richest most powerful country in the world/impoverished, sanctions trashed iraq

US agricultural lobby/starving developed world farmers.

tax cuts for the upper 10%/20% living in poverty

coal and gas lobby/renewable energy sector

richest most powerful country in the world/a few hundred neolithic sheep herders imprisoned without trial

Hmmpf ... there is a pattern.

Brain, you could make that pattern fit into any political/economic system you want.

Rape and power know no one system, bud.

Lastly, Brian, you truly undermine your credibility when you type such tripe as you did with the ending of your last post.

Lastly, Brian, you truly undermine your credibility when you type such tripe as you did with the ending of your last post.

Interesting ....

If there is no room to even question the behavior of women (not to blame them for the result but to question the wisdom of their actions) it only guarantees that more and more women will be raped. All in the name of what? Not making them feel bad about behavior that very often ought to make them feel bad? It is preposterous.

The wheels are hopefully finally coming off ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eDJ3cuXKV4&eurl=

Julie, you know your point, accepting personal responsiblity for one’s own actions, has been proven when they roll out the old tired burka canard and attempt to wrap it up with an I hate America flourish.

What this post is NOT about:

Are rape victims to blame for being rape victims?

What this post IS about:

Should we not be trying to protect our daughters from putting themselves in places where the risk of rape is great?P>I’ll tell you, it would never cross my mind, even for an instant, to ask a judge to sentence a rapist to one single day less in custody because his victim was "only a stripper."

You nailed it Uncle Guido.

What this post IS about:

Nah ... I don’t by that. The entire tone is judgemental and angry at the victim.

Look at the initial blurb, it’s a thinly vieled excuse to have a go at feminists. To such a degree, that the author has to slip in a furtive disclaimer right at the opening.

Methinks the lady doth protest to much.

Julie, I say this in all deference to your biological rights as a women. This comment should in no way be construed as limiting, or seeking to limit, in any way whatever, the rights of women to say any crazy thing the like.

It is also understood, that dismissive and lightly insulting comments are to be understood in a context outside the reproductive cycle. That is to say, conservative women are as crazy as conservative men, that their biology does not enter into it in anway.

No, it is not wrong to admonish those that put themselves into harms way.

Not only is it not wrong, it is demanded if we are truly caring for the person.

That is not blaming the victim, but making people realize that when you put yourself into risky situations, you just might not get the better result.

Nah ... I don’t by that Comment 36 by Brian Coughlan

Did you mean I don’t

buy

that Brian?

touche’

I should never have started this … lets stops this now before NLT degenerates into the free republic comments forum.

I will henceforth no longer comment, even in jest, on the harmless and inevitable errors of spelling, grammar and punctuation that creep into posts made in haste by eager and trembling fingers.

Julie said:

"The equation of forcible rape and child molestation with date rape and other kinds of assault where there are at least some vagueries [sic - vague situations, perhaps?] surrounding the question of consent..."

Look, the fact that you apparently don’t consider date rape to be forcible rape is kind of incredible. Especially in light of the fact that you said "I’m all in favor of tempting...it’s just that I also like to have the control..." Well, women who are date-raped think (albeit incorrectly) that they are in control, that no one would sexually assault them, or that the "studs" (as you put it) are under control. Date rape is simply forcible rape that occurs on a date. What’s also coming through your posts is that you seem to think a woman is a "slut" if she dares to wear sexy clothes and drink alcohol at a party, or if she strips. I’ve always thought that "slut" described a woman who would sleep indiscriminately with any man - for free - who suggested it. Is your definition more expansive than that? Also, while you may not be suggesting that all women wear burkas, the fact remains that different men find different things sexy and tempting. It would indeed be interesting to see where, and how, you would draw the line between reasonable party dresses and dangerous party dresses. Phil’s point was solid - by some standards (and let’s not pretend that Muslims have a monopoly on sexual repression) the only way that a woman could be sure she wasn’t dressing stupidly/foolishly/dangerously was to wear only burkas or Amish attire (provided the bonnet isn’t too enticing!). Rather than fretting over whether a woman is jeopardizing her safety by wearing a below-the-knee skirt or above-the-knee skirt, having two drinks or three, it seems much saner to put full emphasis on the standard that if a woman doesn’t want a man to touch her, he must not do so. Saying that women who are/act like "sluts" and "dogs" shouldn’t be surprised if/when they are raped, saying that we should be "making them feel bad about behavior that very often ought to make them feel bad," because if they engage in that behavior, then they could be raped, that sets up a scenario that is nearly indistinguishable from saying that the rape of certain women is an unofficial punishment for what they’ve done. Personally, I consider forcible sexual penetration to be the true behavior that ought to make someone feel bad - him. I agree with Emily that stuff like the Coulter article, and all the talk cheering her on does indeed "lead us far down the road of blaming the victim."

Finally, it’s hard to choose just one thing, but maybe what’s funniest about Coulter’s piece is the quote that Matt pulled:

"The liberal charge of "hypocrisy" has so permeated the public consciousness that no one is willing to condemn any behavior anymore, no matter how seedy."

But, umm..., wasn’t Ann prompted to launch this pre-emptive attack on liberals (well, at least she’s not talking about having us executed again!) because they focus so much on condemning rape? So, a woman stripping is "seedy," but part of a lacrosse team sexually assaulting her (if that is actually what occurred) is not behavior worthy of condemnation? [Just for the record, though, to be clear, I have no opinion on the Duke case one way or the other - hopefully all the facts will be revealed and justice will win out; rape should be punished, as should fraudulent accusations]

In 2006, Coulter’s mother might very well advise her that (a) her verbal behavior is tacky, and more importantly (b) she might well be playing with fire. There might very well be a person out there reading her incendiary words and plotting some kind of illegal, and ill-advised response.

If my scenario is at all reasonable, should we advise Coulter to stop writing as she does? Should we advise her to stop tormenting her readers, because their responses are understandable, given her behavior?

Probably not, because we would never want a world in which her freedom to speak and write (however hideous and disgusting the message) is restricted by the image of what some jerk might do to her.

The same is true of a stripper, or a child, or a woman with the bad taste to look attractive. The same is true of Julie, and her cheerleading for the disgusting Coulter. We must, must, must not legitimize the breakers of the law, and the fear-mongers. They must be held accountable for their actions, and not the victims. Shame on Coulter, and shame on Julie for sticking their toes in that door.

Ah yes, once again it’s Ann Coulter spewing vitriol - this time at the ’drunken sluts’!! Kinda funny, coming from a woman who openly acknowledges her love of booze and seemingly can’t be photographed in anything other than a miniskirt.

I have always been unabashedly anti-murder, anti-rape and anti-false accusation

Well, maybe that’s so, if you’re only talking about the rape of people:

The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man’s dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and RAPE THE PLANET — it’s yours. That’s our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars—that’s the Biblical view. - Jewish World Review, 10/13/2000

Julie, I have a job that takes me all over my city, and I have to say that I see plenty of 5-year-olds in the crime-ridden neighborhoods. People live there and there are schools there, even! Have these kids not been blessed by God with the common sense you attributed to them, or what’s the deal? Also, why did you put the word rape in the Quotes of Disdain? Do you know something about the Duke case that no one else does? What’s also funny is your correlation, intended or not, of Fraternity Row with a crime infested neighborhood.

That’s our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars—that’s the Biblical view

Oh ... this is where it comes from then? To dominate and subjugate is biblical??!!!!

Thomas Paine was the right ... the Bible is one messed up freak show of a horror story.

You guys won’t be reasoned with, you march out your burkas, like they are the slam dunk that will end all debate and finally prove to the world that you are indeed the master of reasoning. Yet, your arguments on this subject and many others are as mean spirited as you insist that Ann Coulter is.

You know, I saw a documentary about atheism recently. In it a guy is interviewed who has a go, not at the fundamentalist Christians, but at the moderates. His point was that the moderates enable the fundamentalist by mainstreaming an essentially irrational belief system.

Fundamentalists are at least internally consistent as regards biblical injunctions to kill the unbelievers, and stone adulterers and the like. Moderates however want to compartmentalise their lives, on the one hand supporting an utterly irrational and dangerous belief system, and on the other, living the rest of their lives rationally, based on empirical reality.

I thought that was harsh, but this exchange has opened my eyes and I’m actually swinging round to that view.

I thought that was harsh, but this exchange has opened my eyes and I’m actually swinging round to that view.

Harsh! Check the thread Bryan, look at your comments, and put them into context with the others and you’ll have a good grasp that you’ve been the harsh one here.

But, of course you were only being sarcastic and its the rest of the world that has lost its sense of humor.

Harsh! Check the thread Bryan, look at your comments, and put them into context with the others and you’ll have a good grasp that you’ve been the harsh one here.

Yes that is certainly true. I have been harsh. However, when consenting grown ups argue about something, it, more often than not, is harsh.

If I have been harsh, or even hurtful in defence of the right of people to behave, dress and work as they like without fear of rape, attack or lectures from the morally bankrupt, well ... I’m pretty ok with that. Most especially when those people represent the most powerless in society.

Isn’t there a "least of these" clause in that christianity thing you have the hots for?

If you can’t handle the heat ...

Admonishing those that put themselves into risky situations isn’t wrong at all.

Moreover, you are doing a disservice to the person by not admonishing them.

How many times do I have to take a report about a young girl being raped because she decided to sneak out of her house, late a night, wearing skimpy clothes, meeting guys she barely knows, more than likely on knows there first names, goes drinking and smoking dope?

That may sound like I am blaming the victim. I am not. However, the victim put herself into a very, very risky situation where the outcome will more than likely lead to rape. I’ve seen 13 year old girls do this. These girls get in way over there head, being naive, yet wanting to be adult and sophisticated.

Should I just say nothing to her about her actions?

says Dale:"That may sound like I am blaming the victim. I am not. However, the victim put herself into a very, very risky situation where the outcome will more than likely lead to rape. I’ve seen 13 year old girls do this.

Gee, Dale, that doesn’t sound at all like you are blaming the victim. Not one bit. Where were you , when you have "seen" 13 year-old girls do this, by the way, good buddy? Where were you?

I am sick of this: "I’m not blaming the victim, but here I go, blaming the victim: a 13 year-old girl. The people who allow you to get away with this kind of crap are just as guilty as you are of blaming the victim. And everyone else can see through the veil. You ARE blaming the victim. That is easier than confronting the rapist in yourself. It is easier than asking your lacrosse-playing, football-playing, leering, teen-spying, hazing, bullying, hood-using, picture-taking, Abu Ghraib denying, elephant-walking, good-ole-boying, winking, pinching, wife-appeasing, hooker-paying, girl-ogling, little-girl denigrating, boys-will-be boys back slapping, red-neck late-night victimizing brothers-in-stupidity to change their primitive right-wing entitled-to-the-way-my-Dad-had-it-neo-Confederate crap.

Blame the 13-year-old girl. Then, let’s talk about manliness, you bunch of hypocrites. What kind of a man allows children and women and victims bear the brunt of sexual assault? What kind of man makes snide jokes, or plays along with Julie’s stupid "fire in the kitchen" double entendres? I spit on this. I spit on it.

Dale - "Moreover, you are doing a disservice to the person by not admonishing them."

I sincerely hope that you mean this in the context of warning young women and girls to be careful and not put themselves in harm’s way in general.

I sincerely hope you aren’t admonishing a victim of sexual assult for their actions. (the way they dressed, walking in a dark parking garage alone, etc.)

They have already blamed themselves far more than your "admonishments" will serve. By "admonishing" a victim, you only make the situation worse and you make them less likely to file charges against the real criminal. You also harm their already fragile mental status.

FMG, you’ve missed the point, no one has advocated a shoot the victim strategy here. You’ve gone nuchlyeer in comment 49 and it is time for a chill pill, a very serious one.

Relax - No, actually, FMG said what needs to be said. Some try to hide behind "not blaming the victim" when that is exactly what they are doing - they may not realize it, but they are.

Look at Julie’s comment #31 - she reasons that not questioning the behavior of the women (victims) will only result in more rapes. So where is the line drawn? What one wears, leaving a drink unattended, trusting a date to know when the line has been drawn, not having the proper lock on the window?

I reject this reasoning. The fault lies with the criminal that forced themselves upon another person.

Young women and girls should be warned and advised to not put themselves in harms way. But they should never be made to feel like it was their fault.

Julie: Yes, date rape is a crime. But why do you hang out in that crime infested neighborhood?

Julie again: I’m all in favor of tempting . . . it’s just that I also like to have the control . . . Don’t play with fire--but by all means use it!

Julie again: The equation of forcible rape and child molestation with date rape and other kinds of assault where there are at least some vagueries surrounding the question of consent probably has something to do with the terribly inadequate punishments we now seem to hand out for crimes of rape and molestation.

Dale (48): How many times do I have to take a report about a young girl being raped because she decided to sneak out of her house, late a night, wearing skimpy clothes, meeting guys she barely knows, more than likely on knows there first names, goes drinking and smoking dope?

Coulter: But these girls go out alone, late at night, drunk off their butts, and there’s nary a peep about the dangers of drunk women on their own in public. It’s their "right."

Coulter again: all these messy turns of fate followed behavior that your mother could have told you was tacky.

Coulter again: Every woman who has had an abortion feels compelled to defend abortion for all women;

This stuff is vile and toxic, and you can couch it all in pragmatics, and upside-down concern for the victim, but it is victim-blaming, and I am not over-reacting. Indeed, by treating it as worthy of civilized discourse, I am under-reacting.

By the way, I wasn’t advocating an admonishing during the initial investigation, nor in any subsequent investigation, but afterwards, long afterwards, make the point be known that the person put themselves at risk.

At some point, people need to understand that their decisions can hurt themselves or kill themselves.

Good buddy, I have taken the reports, that is how I have seen them. I didn’t castigate them. I did tell them that they put themselves at risk by such behavior, emphasizing that the victim didn’t deserve to be raped or victimized. That is being real. That is being honest. That is not blaming the victim.

But hey, what do I know, I mean, seriously, it is a good thing for children to be sneaking out their homes late a night, hookin’ up with people they barely know, and getting high or drunk.

And, this logic applies to much more than just rape.

By the way, if the have come to me, they are going to file charges or, at the very least, an informatin report will be filed.

One last thing, just so I am clear on this ...

I don’t just come out and say, "Hey, you were wrong going out late at night wearing a short skirt, thong underwear, mesh top, with bra"

Nope, I do ask why the person was out late at night, especially if that person is underage, we do have a curfew. I ask if that person realizes that such actions are dangerous. I ask if the person knew the attackers, how known, and the like. And so on ...

The questions are relevant for the report and, hopefully, will spark a little light bulb to turn on inside their head.

No, you have to be tactful about this.

I realize that wasn’t stated in the posts above, but, truly, so what?

I mean, I would be slammed the same no matter what.

Again, people need to realize that their actions, their decisions can affect whether they get hurt or die in the near term or long term.

I don’t believe in the cult of victimization. That truly hurts more than helps.

Remember how upset everyone was (Julie) about pedophiles? You wanted to hang them from the highest tree, and understandably, though even then, you were blaming psychologists for the problem, instead of generating any constructive solutions.

Well, why don’t we suggest that, while pedophilia is horrible, the parents of the child victims shouldn’t parade their children around in such skimpy outfits? We’re not blaming them, but hey, why make the children look so cute, and appealing?

Don’t you know those pedophiles are out there? Don’t you know they live in your neighborhood, and that they are probably someone related to you? Why aren’t you more diligent?

The reason we don’t do that is because we acknowledge such blaming as abhorent, and because we acknowledge that we might well become such victims because the universe is full of random acts of violence, and evil, as well as luck and goodness.

Most of us, anyway, want to live in a world where pedophiles are not given the power to make us feel guilty for living a normal life -- even if it is not everyone’s normal life. We don’t want to live our lives as though pedophiles, or rapists, or killers, or thieves have the right to make us feel less than worthy. Nor do good Christian have such a right.

Dale - it is absolutely not a good thing for 13 year olds to sneak out and hook up with people they barely know. All young girls and boys should be warned of the "evils" that exist in society. They should be taught not to give out personal info via the internet, they should be taught the "buddy system" when walking home or to an event, they should be taught that an adult that pays them extra attention and makes any advance that makes them uncomfortable should be reported. They should be taught that they should not drink, take drugs, engage in sexual relations until they are old enough to raise a child, et. al.

I just don’t see a benefit in reprimanding a victim that has already experienced something so horrible - if it was due to their decisions, that horrible experience points that out much more than admonishments.

FMG, Under-reacting? Every quote you’ve cited you’ve managed to come to a dubious interpretation that satisfies your line of reasoning but you’ve managed to be unreasonable to the nthdegree. Under-reacting? I think not.

You know, I think FMG is right. In fact, tomorrow I’m going to lodge a complaint with our Study Abroad program. You see, they advise students who visit foreign countries not to go out alone at night. Don’t they realize that they’re blaming the victim?

For that matter, our personnel department has been advising us to shred our pay stubs so as to reduce the risk of identity theft. How dare they try to excuse the identity thieves! Gosh darn it, it’s time we stood up for our right to tell other people our PIN numbers!

John, you are so rarely a disingenous goof, that when it happens it’s really obvious.

We are not suggesting that people shouldn’t be given good advice. What we are allergic to is the kind of "happy gotcha!!" tone of the comment below, one of your initial posts.

it’d still be a crime if someone were to take it without your permission, but would it be wrong to point out that you had behaved stupidly

John, you are so rarely a disingenous goof, that when it happens it’s really obvious.

We are not suggesting that people shouldn’t be given good advice. What we are allergic to is the kind of "happy gotcha!!" tone of the comment below, one of your initial posts.

it’d still be a crime if someone were to take it without your permission, but would it be wrong to point out that you had behaved stupidly

John - Of course, we should provide the innocent with the tools they need to prevent becoming a victim. But this after-the-fact moralistic hindsight, this "happy gotcha" tone ( a great phrase), this implication that it takes two to tango, is what I find reprehensible.

And this on the blog where lefties are accused of "loving" terrorists because we suggest that the US might reduce future growth in terrorism by following international law, and by taking the moral high ground. In that context, I am called a terrorist lover, but here, where I defend an American citizen’s right to live a normal life, and to be protected and vindicated without being blamed, I am overreacting.

John, the problem with your cute little examples about leaving your car unlocked in a bad neighborhood or advising students abroad not to venture out at night is that they are not gender specific, and this blame-the-victim-for-rape issue is very much about gender. Apparently it’s fine for a man to get drunk on a date or walk home alone or wear a tight shirt, but a woman can’t do those things because if she does, she’s tempting fate (by tempting rapists and perverts). Seriously, if some young college guy was raped by a male friend, would all of you be asking, "Well, what was he wearing? How much did he have to drink?"

See, what seems to be implied here (by Dale, John, Julie, etc.) is that men have every right to cut up, get drunk, be wild, whatever, but women have to tone that stuff down just a bit, because if they don’t, they’re kinda asking for it.

Dale said, "One last thing, just so I am clear on this ...

I don’t just come out and say, "Hey, you were wrong going out late at night wearing a short skirt, thong underwear, mesh top, with bra"

I’ll take your word for it. Better that you ride Ann Coulter’s and Julie’s wake, and blame the child victim here on this blog, where you are safe from the outrage and retribution that such a "manly" accusation would deserve.

Wouldn’t want to get that 13-year-old mad at you, would you? Or, maybe her mother? It is much safer here, among people who agree with you.

Seriously, if some young college guy was raped by a male friend, would all of you be asking, "Well, what was he wearing? How much did he have to drink?"

If male-on-male rape were widespread in this country (and as far as I am aware it is not, outside of prisons--child molestation being another matter entirely) we well might. We take precautions against an occurrence based on its likelihood, do we not?

And this on the blog where lefties are accused of "loving" terrorists because we suggest that the US might reduce future growth in terrorism by following international law, and by taking the moral high ground. In that context, I am called a terrorist lover, but here, where I defend an American citizen’s right to live a normal life, and to be protected and vindicated without being blamed, I am overreacting.

As you well know, I have never accused anyone here of being a "terrorist lover." But if we’re discussing any behavior that we want to discourage, we ought to be thinking along two lines--first and foremost, punishing the perpetrator, but also at least exploring the possibility of changing our own behavior so as to deter future occurrences. The objection to the claim that "the US might reduce future growth in terrorism by following international law" is not that we shouldn’t be thinking of how to alter our behavior, but rather your laughable implication that people like Osama bin Laden are motivated first and foremost by concern for international law. Nobody seriously believes that we shouldn’t be thinking about the underlying causes of terrorism, and at least taking those into consideration when formulating our foreign policy. But if, at the end of the day, we believe that our national interest demands that we pursue certain policies, even though they involve a risk of inciting terrorism against us, then we have made a rational choice. That doesn’t make the terrorists any less to blame, of course, but the fact remains that we have taken a calculated risk.

Likewise, a woman may choose to enter a certain profession like, say, stripping, because it’s fairly easy money. I hope she has been told that there are certain dangers that go along with it, and that this knowledge figures into her decision. But if she decides to become a stripper anyway, and is raped, we don’t claim that the rapist is not ultimately to blame.

As for the "happy gotcha" thing, if this is really just a debate over my tone, then I have nothing more to say--except that my initial comment came in response to this:

So Julie, do you think mandatory burkas might take care of the problem? That way men won’t be so tempted!

Ha-ha! Gotcha, Julie!

"I just don’t see a benefit in reprimanding a victim that has already experienced something so horrible - if it was due to their decisions, that horrible experience points that out much more than admonishments."

Point taken and noted.

think that Ann would have taken a whole other approach, and Julie Ponzi wouldn’t have written "rape" in quotes, if the accused were a team of black basketball players and the stripper was a white college student??

If there’s absolutely no implication or slightest hint that strippers or "girls gone wild" are asking for it, that rape is the price they pay for their tacky behavior or immoral vocation, that rape is merely a standard hazard of the job, like dog-bites are for a postman, then I fail to see what Coulter said that was remotely revelatory, or even needed saying. In her first paragraph Coulter opines about the lessons that won’t be learned, but I think most strippers know the risks involved in stripping, and I suspect that all but the Radar O’Reillys of the lacrosse team decided that the remote possibility of the stripper falsely accusing them was worth the risk in order to see a naked woman [Did you know that men have only enjoyed looking at naked women since the 1960s - yeah...the 1960s!!!] Couldn’t she have simply said this: "Women who strip in private homes for a living or routinely get drunk and pass out at frat parties are probably at greater risk of being raped than librarians and nuns." - and left it at that? But she didn’t leave it at that. The...ahem...essay was filled with nothing but scorn towards particular victims of rape (well, them and Democrats, liberals, and of course, Clinton). She puts all of her energy into excoriating the behavior of strippers and "girls gone wild" and the first thing she has to say after assuring us that no one "deserves to die" or "be raped" is "But..."!! Ann has something to say, but she just doesn’t wanto to spit it out. If a group of Straussians isn’t getting a sense of the subtext here, then you must REALLY struggle to understand the esoteric teachings of any of the canonical thinkers you admire. Perhaps Phil’s first comment/question effectively functioned as a gotcha, but I personally would like to hear Julie’s answer to his question. Presumably Julie is aware that Ann Coulter (a woman) has said that "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact." In a subsequent comment Julie said "As for banning stripping - why not?" and advocated ending co-ed dorms. Further, we got "It is silly to expect that men will behave like gentlemen when women act like dogs in heat. It is not really any consolation to a woman who has been raped that the rapist goes to jail. That just protects future victims--it doesn’t do much to make her whole again." [Again, here’s a beyond-charitable description of the men’s behavior followed by a description of the woman as a dog. Note that they’re just not "gentlemen," but still human. The worst they get is "ungentlemanly" The women ? Dogs. Fact is, Julie, most men CAN watch a woman undress and keep control of themselves. Hands on their beverages and zippers up - amazingly, that’s what strip clubs expect! As for her speculation on whether imprisonment of the rapist provides consolation to the raped woman, I would be willing to bet that Julie’s viewpoint on the healing powers of perpetrator imprisonment is much different if the issue is a non-sexual violent crime. It’s also interesting that the woman who was raped is apparently in no need of, nor would want, protection from the rapist]. She’s not calling for burkas, but her attitude on these issues would not be much at odds with a Taliban women’s behavior guide.

The attitudes I see on display here are like the remaining vestiges of "old-fashioned" - or should I say Wild West? - attitudes that had no conception of date rape, marital rape (which has only been a crime in every state since 1993!), or the rape of a stripper or a prostitute. By definition, it was thought, these women - strippers, call girls, wives, women who’d been treated to a nice dinner - weren’t really eligible to make credible rape accusations.

I presume you’ve all read Coulter’s piece at least once (her writing asks a lot of a reader!!). Now tell the truth - when you came to her last line, which was:

"The Christian answer is: I can never pay this back, but luckily that Christ fellow has already paid my debt."

What "debt" (sin) came to mind - that of stripping/drunk girls in mini-skirts running amok (or MAYBE someone getting an abortion, watching a stripper, or Bill Clinton messing around with Monica?), OR a group of guys gang-raping a stripper they hired? And that’s the problem with Coulter’s message here.

Does anyone else think that Ann would have taken a whole other approach, and Julie Ponzi wouldn’t have written "rape" in quotes, if the accused were a team of black basketball players and the stripper was a white college student??

Hmm, I don’t know. But does anyone think that Jesse Jackson would be in Durham demanding justice for the accuser?

think that Ann would have taken a whole other approach, and Julie Ponzi wouldn’t have written "rape" in quotes, if the accused were a team of black basketball players and the stripper was a white college student?? Comment 67

How soon we forget the Kobe Bryant case?

But enough sniping.

One of my responsibilities, as a prosecutor, is Drug Court. We try (with tremendous success) to teach drug addicts to take personal responsibility for their circumstances and to remove themselves from situations in which they can be victimized and to victimize others.

I have heard many speeches from parents and siblings. They speak of hearing the phone ringing at 3:00 in the morning and assuming the police are calling to tell them their loved one is dead of an overdose or an attack. Have we been wrong to chastise these people for the errors of their ways? Have we been wrong to chastise them for exposing (no pun intended) themselves to danger? Have we been wrong literally to force them to remove themselves from their circumstances and find a better life?

Guido- Of course you are not wrong to try, although "chastising" has a dubious effect on the average person, as well as the average substance abuser.

A good bit of the problem here, is not "what" is being proposed by Julie and coulter and friends, but rather "how" it is being proposed.

First problem: Timing. The time to care about risky behavior is before, and not after the subject is victimized. Prevention efforts (a favorite of liberals, and the shoe-scraper of conservatives) yield much greater cost-benefit ratios than do treatment efforts, and they have the added benefit, when successful, of actually preventing the problem. Chasitsement, of course, depends on the problem already having occurred.

Second problem: Tone. There is a message conveyed here that the writers would never make such stupid mistakes as the victim has. I have tried to point out (and no one has addressed my point) that Coulter is playing with fire, and Julie is explicitly playing with fire; teasing, sending mixed messages, flirting, and irritating. We are on a continuum of risky behaviors, from living in a violent society, to keeping handguns in the home, to driving on the highways, to eating meat, to smoking cigarettes, to putting off an exercise program, to deliberately taunting readers.

To take the paternalistic route, and suggest that we know how to run a woman’s life better than she does, is ridiculous.

Here is a prediction: Someday, I will die of something, probably unromantic, like clogged arteries, or asthma-related.. Someday, some of you will die of something. When that happens, I predict that we will NOT read Julie, or any surviving bloggers suggesting that the deceased is partly to blame: Should have exercised more, should have smoked less, should have eaten less red meat. Why do you suppose that is?

Gee . . . what I liked best about Coulter’s article (and what distinguishes it from the other articles like it that I have seen from fellow Conservatives) is that she has very little sympathy for the accused--i.e., the guys. I thought that was refreshing. Even if the charges prove false (as it seems they will) I don’t feel terribly sorry for those guys either. In fact, I think they were the ones asking for it. No one has commented on that part of the conversation. I wonder why?! I thought the best part of Coulter’s argument is that in some perverse and wierd way, the old "double standard" on morality is finally losing some visible ground. But blaming the guys who put themselves in sticky situations (presuming they are innocent) is not sufficient. BOTH guys and girls should be told to comport themselves with more dignity. It is shocking that people have such guilty consciences (for it’s hard to see another explanation for their violent reactions to my points) that they can’t accept that simple proposition. None of us is without sin. There’s precious little time and little use in throwing stones. But warning of the behavior before something happens (my point in all of this contrary to accusations) is useful and examples like the one at Duke are helpful illustrations for young people. But I think Ann is right that people fear the charge of hypocrisy more than anything else. I, on the other hand, embrace it. I’d rather be a hypocrite (which is just another way of admitting your weakness) than commit the far more tragic sin of lying to myself. I think that’s why Ann cited that "Christ-fellow" as she did. Though it was a bit flippant for my taste.

Good grief, Julie, Where to start? First of all, you are asking us to applaud you and Ann for having little sympathy for rapists? You want recognition for that? Apparently, Ann does: I have always been unabashedly anti-murder, anti-rape and anti-false accusation -- and I don’t care who knows about it!" Does that imply some kind of development on your part? If so, at what primitive level did your moral journey begin?

Second (in order of my ability to contain myself, and not in importance) to by hypocritical (that is, under-critical) is the OPPOSITE of admitting your weaknesses! To be under-critical of one’s own stand, and one’s own lack of integrity is to be a hypocrite. Hypocrites act the opposite of their prescriptions and proscriptions. Hypocrites pretend to love their fellow humans, and then act hatefully toward them, all the while being under-critical of their own violations of their own proclamations and judgments.

As an example, you SAY that your intent all along is to warn potential victims ahead of time, but the actual timing of your Coulter-inspired echolalia speaks otherwise. You are riding the bandwagon of blame.

Actually, what I said is that I have little sympathy for them EVEN IF they are innocent. Also, if you can’t admit that you’ve ever been a hypocrite all that makes you is a liar or a fool.

Or.... chock full of integrity!

Oh . . . I guess conservative aren’t the only ones guilty of self-righteousness. I stand corrected.

Deciding to strip or wear sexy clothes and get drunk at a party are different than leaving the keys in your car in a bad neighborhood. There’s no serious benefit (such as money, feeling good about one’s appearance, ease of socializing, having fun, attracting people you’re interested in) to leaving your car available. Also, in some cases, a partying girl might have a good idea of who she will be partying with, whereas leaving your car available leaves it available to anyone who is in the neighborhood while your car is there - and nearly all of these people could be total strangers to you. There’s a long list of pros and cons with the stripping, wearing, and drinking options, but really, there are only cons to leaving your car keys in the ignition. For starters, you couldn’t pay for your college education in your spare time by leaving the keys in the ignition of your car.

Similarly, I see no possible benefit from giving your PIN number out to anyone you don’t know and trust, or NOT shredding your pay stub (if you would otherwise leave it somehow accessible to ID thieves). That’s all cons, no pros. Again, quite different in practice than the stripping and wearing sexy clothes to parties. Again, you couldn’t pay your college tuition in your spare time by engaging in the non-activity of not shredding your pay stubs, or by sharing your PIN number with strangers.

The Study Abroad example is more complicated, but still not a good comparison. Students that engage in that are typically considered to be existing in a realm where the school is taking some responsibility for their well-being. There might be some fun and adventure for a person in the group to venture out alone, but it certainly seems like the possible cons in that situation would outweigh the possible pros, esp. since there are usually friends within such groups who want to explore together. Women who opt to strip and/or wear sexy clothes when they’re boozing it up at a party are usually not operating under the authority of others who take at least partial responsibility for their well-being.

Actually, my Dad used to see all kind of benefits to leaving the keys to his car in the ignition. For one thing, it kept him from losing his keys. Not wasting time looking for his keys left him more time for his business and for keeping his mind on his business and for making money for my college education. For another thing, in the winter he could keep his car warm while he ran inside a store or into the office. But then he had his car stolen. And yes, while the guy who stole his car should have been prosecuted (if they had ever found him) plenty of people told him he was pretty stupid to leave his keys in the car (including me). Also, the guys in this Duke case were at a school function so the "Study Abroad" analogy is a good one. They did a pretty stupid thing too--assuming that it was only stupid and not criminal. But we keep forgetting that Coulter’s piece was intended to condemn their behavior as much as it condemned the stripper’s.

The Duke Boys were hardly at a "school function." They were at a private house off-campus that two of the team members rented. So you think Duke organized the strip show? Come on now, you’re being obtuse...

Poor choice of words--but it still stands. It was a function of and for the Lacrosse team. Whether they organized it privately or not, they represented themselves as part of Duke. They were seen and are seen as representatives of Duke. It is obtuse to suggest otherwise unless you’ve missed all the headlines. Regardless of what happens in the criminal trial, I think Duke would be justified in expelling them (all of them, not just the accused) for sullying the reputation of the school. And had this happened 50 years ago, I have no doubt that that’s exactly what would have happened.

What a bunch of garbage from Coulter:

"Every woman who has had an abortion feels compelled to defend abortion for all women; every man who’s ever been at a party with strippers thinks he has to defend all men who watch strippers..."

Every woman? Hardly. I’ve met a couple of women who had abortions and who now are openly working to prevent others from doing the same. I also know half a dozen or so who think it was a sound decision but do not wish to devote their lives to the issue one way or the other, or have it define their entire life. They don’t defend abortion for all women nor do they want to prevent other women from having them.

As for the men who’ve watched strippers, I think that plenty of them end up joining or leading some right-wing neo-Puritan group that would like to ban stripping and implement cleavage restrictions on women’s clothing sold in stores. All the while, of course, indulging in their private stash of strippers or hookers, or both.

Coulter’s cheap, generalizing smear of Islam and ignorant "defense" (as the saying goes, with "friends" like these...) of Judaism were just as obnoxious as her "flippant," cynical endorsement of Christianity, too.