General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Wall Street Journal thinks that rape is not a crime or that women are criminals for being raped. [View all]Recursion
(56,582 posts)to a thought experiment.
Yes, our mores and laws about sex are the product of centuries of prejudices and -ism's that we don't like. Yes, there is an assumption built in to our culture that a man "wants sex" while a woman "doesn't", which adds some difficult edge cases to an already difficult problem (yes, we probably should figure out what to do in a situation where two people are both too drunk to consent and both feel victimized afterwards -- let me know when one of those cases makes its way into a court).
But you're insisting, insisting, that your "philosophical questions" be answered before any attempt at stopping the arterial bleed that we actually know is happening right now, namely the sexual assault of women by men facilitated by alcohol.
As I said downthread, when 1 in 4 -- or even 1 in 400 -- college-age men express the fears of sexual assault that college-age women do, I'll be right there with you. Until then, maybe the philosophical musings are better kept to a different thread. This is a writer in a national newspaper who is blaming women who got drunk for the fact that they got raped. And this is in the historical context of that exact line being used to silence rape victims for decades now.
You can make philosophical arguments in a vacuum. That's why they're seductive and, ultimately, why they tend not to work. You can't make a policy or ethics argument (I suppose this is "ethics" in the literal sense; "about human activities and practices" in a vacuum. Taranto is making the same argument that was used for years and years and years to keep women from seeking justice for rape.
Let me put it this way: let's say someone talking about the current voting-rights restrictions in North Carolina makes an argument based on the principle of States' Rights. It's quite possibly a thoughtful argument, and it may even have merit, but it's still the exact argument Bull Connor made, and no amount of gymnastics on anyone's part can get around that. Ideas have histories, and we do well to remember that, and the history of Taranto's idea is very, very dark.
Does he have a right to make that argument? Sure. Is it a good idea? I'm going to go with no. If you can't find a way to express your idea that doesn't hurt people, you should probably re-examine your idea.