Conservatives Gone Wild
The Michigan Review’s David Miliken is concerned that the Sexual Assault and Prevention Awareness Center on campus isn’t doing enough to educate those college floozies about the consequences of their slutty get-ups. “A person has the right to wear whatever she wants, but a person cannot just shrug off personal responsibility in the name of low-cut tops and mini-skirts,” he writes.
SAPAC should take the straight forward role of presenting the consequences of sexual assault for both the attacker and the victim. What is the prison sentence for violent sexual assault? How many years of therapy do victims often go through? What does it mean to be a registered sex offender? Answers to these questions might give might give new students a better idea of college freedom means.
See, it’s all roughly equivalent. Prison, being raped — both consequences of using one’s college freedom unwisely, whether it’s by attacking a fellow student or stepping out in an above-the-knee skirt. And here we thought conservatives were against moral relativism.
I invoke the Clinton Rule of “one free grope” to get my jollies!
posted by Dave on October 4th, 2005 at 12:51 pmIsn’t that the Schwarzenegger rule?
posted by FAA on October 4th, 2005 at 2:59 pmWhy not? It’s all about the bipartisanship, man.
posted by Dave on October 4th, 2005 at 3:00 pmSo, if an action can have multiple consequences, then the act of enumerating these consequences implies they are all morally equivalent?
Bull.
posted by Max on October 4th, 2005 at 6:44 pmIt’s two different actions. I think we can all agree that prison is a fair consequence of committing sexual assault, but being sexually assaulted is not a fair consequence of drinking or wearing a certain outfit (inasmuch as it has anything to do with these things.) And grouping these actions together in the context of exploring one’s “college freedom” does in fact imply that they’re comparable.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 4th, 2005 at 7:10 pmIf I assert action A increases the probability of action B, this does not imply A is equivalent to B. Pointing out that a correlation exists does not imply such outcomes are a “fair consequence.”
Of course such assertions of causality may be factually false, but that is not the issue we are discussing.
posted by Max on October 4th, 2005 at 8:44 pmI find writers for the Michigan Review very bitch-slap-able. Dude should quit his job, otherwise it’s partially his fault.
Oh, and what AAiO said.
posted by Anonymous on October 4th, 2005 at 9:23 pmThe implication is that committing sexual assault and drinking or wearing a miniskirt are both misuses of freedom, similar enough to be mentioned together.
What this writer is advocating is the equivalent of suggesting that the university should try to prevent anti-Asian attacks like the one that allegedly occurred recently by telling racist students that the consequence of committing a crime like this could be criminal charges, and telling Asian students that the consequences of walking around late at night near drunk people could be ethnic slurs and things thrown at them. Avoiding drunk people late at night isn’t a bad idea, but I have a hard time seeing anyone issuing such a warning to possible hate crime victims.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 4th, 2005 at 9:24 pmand, heh. Although I like the Review a lot of the time. At least they make some attempt at campus and local issues.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 4th, 2005 at 9:25 pmYour anti-Asian example is not analogous. You claimed the author of the review story was asserting moral equivalence. Your example avoids this point. Arguing by analogy is always questionable. Having said that …
Let’s say we know that a bar is frequented by an anti-Asian crowd. Informing people of this fact and stating that visiting this bar increases the likelihood of being attacked does not imply visiting a bar and racist attacks are morally equivalent. Nor does it imply that the attacks are in any way justifiable, or that visitors deserved being attacked. All it asserts is that such attacks are, to some extent, predictable.
posted by Max on October 4th, 2005 at 10:00 pmIt’s nice to see the “Hey she was asking for it” defense is still being thrown out. If the person thinks that men can’t control their hormones or whatever enough then in essence he is insulting men.
posted by Kozzie on October 4th, 2005 at 11:13 pmMr. Miliken should be taken out and subjected to the Amadou Diallo treatment, and then informed that he is cute, and should not therefore go out in public unless he wants more of the same. Perhaps then he will understand what it is he so self-righteously claims as truth.
posted by eric on October 4th, 2005 at 11:58 pmMax, Informing people of the potential consequences if they join an anti-Asian fraternity and in the same breath mention the danger to Asians of frequenting parties at fraternities that might have an anti-asian bias, and then further saying both are misuses of college freedom, does imply that they are morally equivalent. It puts the blame on both the Asians for not staying away from people who hate them and the Asian-haters for practicing their hatred.
Really, by the Review’s argument, shouldn’t women just stay away from all men, rather than just when they are wearing skirts and/or drinking? They would then be practicing personal responsibility by removing the chance that they will be raped by men.
posted by Anna on October 5th, 2005 at 9:02 amEric, you’re pretty close… I was thinking David Millikan should be sodomized with a splintery old baseball bat, and then told it was because of his inappropriately sexy khakis. Although, in the end he may be able to say he was right… Had the batter only been informed of the legal consequences of such an action beforehand they may not have dug said bat out of the basement… Or not.
posted by FAA on October 5th, 2005 at 9:57 amRe: keeping women away from men… I’m doing my part!
posted by Dave on October 5th, 2005 at 11:12 amAnd here we thought conservatives were against moral relativism.
And for personal responsibility. And against implying that all men are potential rapists, because that starts to sound like “feminist anti-man hysteria”.
posted by Becky on October 5th, 2005 at 4:32 pm