My article “Legalize Rape” met with widespread misinterpretation. Most of its critics did not read past the title, which is typical, but others did not understand its mix of satire and real reasoning.
The point of the article is this: we are applying heavy penalties for rape at a time when rape is no longer as serious of a crime.
In the 1880s, a woman raped had lost her virtue and was seriously damaged as to her prospects for marriage. In the current era, few expect women to be virgins at marriage — although virginity at marriage leads to the happiest and most solid marriages — and women have sex with dozens of men in their lifetimes.
As a result, rape is no longer the capital crime it once was. It is now a variant of assault, like what happens when a man gets beat up in a bar fight. We barely even prosecute those anymore because they come down to he said/she said situations.
Imagine this scenario:
That is what most rape cases look like now. Two people, in a situation where people often have casual sex, and the question of consent rears its ugly head.
Feminists, being the ideological blockheads they are, have been screaming for years to reduce rape from a crime requiring violent submission of the victim to an issue of mere choice. But the violence has a purpose: it provides a trail of evidence.
Evidence, you see, is how civilized societies determine culpability. With the definition of rape as a mere revocation or unclear consent, there is no trail of evidence. Under the feminist rule, a man accused would be a man convicted, every time.
That is an obvious injustice.
The equal injustice however occurs in cases of actual rape. We tell young women not to fight back, and so at the end of the night, we have no more evidence than we would from casual sex. A rape kit reveals if she has had sex, and with whom if DNA is present, and if there is vaginal tearing. But this is common in any vigorous sex which, especially if the partners are drunk, is relatively common. No justice there.
One option is to go to the military standard which says that drunk people cannot consent to sex. If you have sex with a drunk person and they claim rape, the charge will stick, so do not have sex with drunk people. In theory, that is fine, but in reality you usually have two drunk and/or drugged people in the courtroom. Should we convict them both?
This is a sick comedy where 18th century morals are used to justify destroying a man’s life for a crime without evidence.
This is why we should legalize rape, if our citizens are so foolish as to insist that casual sex remain accepted.
Make it a property crime. She has gone to the club to have sex; that fact is undisputed. She either revoked consent or he never achieved it; either way, it is not a case of her virtue and marriageability being destroyed, but that she had sex with the wrong man.
She is thus entitled to some monetary compensation equal to the value of what is lost. But it is no longer virtue being lost, more like a few hours of time. Pay her at the day rate.
Yes, that is cold and many of you are outraged. But your outrage is a sham. It is the outrage of someone who has been living in denial. This is the face of casual sex: sex is cheap and consent is cheap, and so rape should not be an expensive and life-destroying crime.
This outrages feminists who are secret authoritarians who desire any power they can have, believing that having external power will assuage their internal void of soul. Not so, ladies.
An exception can be made for attack rape, you know, the old-fashioned kind where a guy wearing a balaclava waits in the dark and launches himself from a bush at some woman as she walks home, then beats her senseless and takes her with violence. That is what most people think of when they say “rape,” but that crime has been confused with the more modern pitfall of “hazy consent,” which should be a far lesser crime.
I am certain that those who misinterpreted the original article will have trouble with this one as well. After all, I have crossed a major taboo line which is that in a society dedicated to equality, exceptions must be normed and thus one always argues from the perspective of the victim if one wants to win votes or court cases. This however is also the pathway to our doom.
It’s time to be honest about the relationship between casual sex and hazy consent. It is not a life-ending crime. It is a minor one, on the level of a fistfight in a bar or a car crash, and yet we treat it like a sacred crime when the behavior of the victims is anything but sacred.
A society dedicated to victimhood will wage war on those who are strong because it presumes they are victimizers. It is time to turn that illusion around, starting with revocation of the sacred status accorded to hazy consent.