Christ on a fruitcake, really? Yes, really. Those are the only logical meanings one can draw from their writer, one James Taranto. According to a recent editorial, if a woman has had a drink or two, she is equally “at fault” for being raped.
You see, to Mr. Taranto, rape isn’t the fault of the rapist. He compares rape to an accident involving two drunken drivers: two people committing equally criminal acts. And this shows what a misogynistic f***wit he is.
Rape is a violent crime, with a perpetrator and a victim. It is not a crime committed by two criminals (like his flawed drunken driving analogy): in the case of rape, the rapist assaults the victim, who either does not consent or is not capable of consenting. The victim is not, repeat NOT committing a criminal act. Having a drink is not a crime.
Mark this well: if someone cannot legally consent, the answer is no. That is common law, understood for business dealings, elections, and other interactions: drunk people cannot legally enter into so much as a car loan or a poker game. And if you steal a drunk’s wallet, you are still a thief. If you break into a drunk’s house and beat the s*** out of them, you are still assaulting them.
But if you rape a drunk, that is somehow different, according to this guy:
Wrong. Just ask the two scumbuckets from Steubenville who are doing time for raping a drunk girl. Ask anyone busted for drugging a girl and then raping her. These. Are. Crimes. Using a penis as a weapon does not excuse the criminal. Getting her drunk first doesn’t either.
The Wall Street Journal apparently thinks otherwise. And hey, a dick wrote that editorial, and bunch of dicks decided to print it, so maybe they are all thinking with the wrong head. But only a person who thinks solely with his dick would say that rape is not a crime.
Mr. Blunt and Cranky