What with Lena Dunham’s autobiography, Bill Cosby, the purported gang-rape at the UVA frat, and the Jian Ghomeshi scandal here in Canada, there sure are a lot of sex assault scandals in the air these days. Granted a few of them have turned out to be bogus, more due to the feverish imagination of an overeager MSM propagandist than to any actual evidence, but still where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
Whenever I think of the crime of rape, I remember what a late friend of mine told me. He was a retired Toronto police sergeant who worked mostly in the sixties, seventies and early eighties. He said that a significant percentage of sexual assault complaints were determined after closer examination to be bogus, and an overwhelming majority of these had a common theme.
What he had in mind was this: in a typical courtship, there is a push-pull dynamic going on. While both parties want to consummate the relationship, the woman has to push the man away at least a few times to make sure that he knows that she isn’t ‘easy’. The man must play hot and cold as well, lest his date think that he is a clingy beta-male weakling. While this is how most courtships progress, there are exceptions.
One exception can occur when the man is an alpha male with much greater sexual marketplace value than the woman. In cases like this, the woman is so smitten that she drops all her typical defense mechanisms. As a result, instead of the usual convoluted zigzag path between first glance and consummation, it is a straight line to the bedroom… or backseat… or dark alley… or… you get the idea. An excellent illustration of this from literature is the sex scene found in Tom Wolfe’s great novel, “I am Charlotte Simmons.”
Unfortunately, in these cases, the interests of the man and woman diverge after climax. The alpha male player thinks, how fast can I ditch this chick? While the woman thinks, oh, my God, I surrendered ‘my everything’ to him and he just tossed me aside like a used Kleenex: I feel used; I feel abused; I feel like I was raped; maybe I was raped; maybe I’ll charge him with rape. That will teach him. The brute! The Kobe Bryant incident is the classic example.
As my late friend pointed out, police skepticism is needed to sort these cases out from actual sex crimes. Usually, after questioning, female accusers tend to back off from their accusations. They weren’t really malicious. They just wanted to teach a cad a lesson. When feminists, who don’t want ‘the victim to be put on trial’, discourage detectives and defense attorneys from asking pointed questions, men can be sent to prison for engaging in consensual sex acts.
This also illustrates why feminists are so insistent that women be allowed to determine whether an act of intercourse was rape after the fact. While most men think that such a demand is an outrageous perversion of justice, here is the reason why it is made: a woman can determine whether she has been used by a man only after the sex act is over.
For a man to avoid this pitfall, I am reminded of a story told by a professor at Claremont McKenna College at the recent National Review Caribbean cruise. In a panel discussion on higher education, he told the audience of a male student who confided to him that he felt that, at with regard to the campus sexual assault policy, “the system was out to get him”. The professor gave his student this advice (I paraphrase), “Your instincts are correct. The deck is stacked against you, but there is an easy way you can avoid harm to yourself. Always act like a gentleman around women.”
I thought this was good advice, but also illuminated the larger problem: what is really happening here is a demonstration that the New Morality that the left has been pushing since the sixties isn’t working. Men and women are fundamentally different, with different interests and desires. Therefore, ‘free love’ can’t work. Sexual relations between men and women are best regulated by Traditional Morality, which has evolved by trial and error over countless millennia. It is an unwritten code of behavior that reached a state of near perfection in western societies in the early twentieth century.
If social conservatives were smart, they would seize on these rape panics as teachable moments. If they were smart. They are not. Rather, they try to refight the gay marriage debate, a battle long lost because the Left carefully chose the ground upon which that battle was fought. Thanks to the favourable terrain they chose, the proponents of gay marriage come across as heirs to the civil rights tradition of the sixties, and social conservatives, who champion religious freedom, come across as religious fanatics who assert their need to discriminate against their fellow man because of their barbaric beliefs.
On such battleground, you lose. It would be much better for social conservatives to explain to Low Information Voters what the Left’s real intentions really are, and attack the New Morality boosters for their obvious and epic screw-ups. Fighting battles like this is like picking low-hanging fruit. It’s easy. You just got to do it.