How concerned should college women be about the
date rape drug and drug-assisted sexual assault? The American
Enterprise Institute’s Caroline Kitchens argues
persuasively that the answer is not very. In a recent
video for AEI’s “Factual Feminist,” Kitchens explains:
In 2005, forensic scientists in the United Kingdom tested blood
and urine for various drugs in more than 1,000 cases where
drug-facilitated sexual assault was suspected. The scientists found
that alcohol was the most commonly used substance, and it was
usually consumed voluntarily. Only 21 of the cases—about 2%– could
be classified as potential drug-facilitated sexual assault cases.
But even in these cases, the researchers warned that they couldn’t
determine whether or not the drugs were taken voluntarily. Numerous
other studies from around the world have come to the same
conclusion.
The evidence provided by Kitchens is so strong that
even Salon’s Jenny Kutner accepted the
argument:
Research has shown that women do overestimate their
vulnerability to date-rape drugs, likely because it’s an easy
quasi-myth for a culture squeamish about female sexual agency to
perpetuate.
I know what you’re thinking: Robby, that’s impossible.
Salon would never miss an opportunity to criticize a
non-liberal opinion in unfair and insulting terms. Don’t
worry—the world is not coming to an end. After noting that Kitchens
is correct about date rape drugs being a trivial concern in the
campus sexual assault debate, Kutner nevertheless accuses her of
“rape apologia”:
While [Kitchens] acknowledges that sexual assaults still occur
even without the help of date-rape drugs, Kitchens
essentially blames these assaults on the victims’ intoxication —
not, you know, on the perpetrators. “Most commonly,
victims of drug-facilitated sexual assault are severely
intoxicated, often from their own volition,” she says. “Paranoia
over the date rape drug causes us to misplace our anxieties. And
feminists should be concerned that women are modifying their
behavior on their girls’ nights out in order to protect themselves
from some vague unprobable [sic] threat.”
Kitchens essentially does nothing of the
sort. At all. She merely takes note of the indisputable fact that
heavy alcohol use is the common denominator in rape cases and
that women are not typically coerced into drinking alcohol.
Of course rapists are ultimately responsible for rape. Kitchens
never implied otherwise. It’s not even possible to imply otherwise;
it’s tautological. Yes, rapists are the ones raping. The evidence,
however, suggests that rapists do not force drugs on unsuspecting
victims. Instead, it seems to me, rapists prey on victims who
become blackout drunk of their own accord. Women who think they
must vigorously guard their drinks at all times have misplaced
fears—the drink itself is the actual date rape drug, if
consumed excessively.
Since excessive drinking—and by excessive, I mean rapid,
incapacitating, blackout drinking—is the big factor in sexual
assault, if we want to reduce sexual assault, we should try to come
up with policies that might curb excessive drinking. In a recent
article, I explained why
lowering the drinking age might have that effect.
To be clear: I’m not positive that strategy would work, and as
Harvard University’s Jeffrey Miron
told me, there is no evidence that it would, even though it’s
plausible to think it might. But because I genuinely want to lower
campus rape rates, I would like to be able to have a civil
discussion about it.
Civil discussion will never be possible, however, as long as
the Salon-types are hurling the rape
apologist smear left and right, at anyone who has ever
breathed a word of disagreement with far-left progressive feminism.
Insulting people is just too much fun for them.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1tJvqMI
via IFTTT