George Will Vilified for Questioning Campus “Rape Culture”

According to Vice President Joe Biden twenty percent of college women will be sexually assaulted over the course of their college life. Walk onto any college campus, and one out of every five women you see either has been or likely will be the victim of rape during her college years.

Can you believe it? Well, if not, you aren’t the only one who’s skeptical. George Will recently landed himself in a hotbed of controversy by daring to question the accuracy of these statistics. In the aftermath of the public outcry, his column was canceled by the St Louis Post-Dispatch. Will’s column will continue to be syndicated nation-wide. In some respects it was encouraging to see that the campaign to vilify Will accomplished so little. It’s still unfortunate that pressuring conservatives to shut up now seems to many like the obvious way to deal with uncomfortable views.

Was he right to suggest that campus rape is, if not a non-issue, at least far less rampant than suggested? Will offers some useful analysis on the statistics, but if those don’t convince you, think about it this way. If young women really believed they stood a twenty percent chance of being raped, would their parents continue sending them off to college? Or would they opt for a safer and more sensible online college experience? If indeed they were determined to brave the four-year college, the sensible thing would be to petition universities to issue concealed carry permits, while offering classes in defensive firearm use. I suspect that would prove quite an effective deterrent for your average drunken frat boy.

This will never happen, of course. Feminist activists respond to these types of suggestions with endless posturing about “blaming the victim” and the necessity of “re-educating men not to rape.” This is in itself a clear sign of their unseriousness. People in grave danger do not consent to wait on the moral maturation of their attackers. They protect themselves.

The fact that women are not arming themselves or fleeing college campuses probably qualifies as fairly strong evidence that they are not being raped in anything like the suggested numbers … assuming of course that we understand rape in a traditional way. Nevertheless, it’s equally obvious that campus cultures are not healthy, especially when it comes to sex.

In speaking of “rape culture” feminists follow their usual habit of presuming that the vast majority of problems between the sexes arise as a result of men’s violent and predatory tendencies. More realistically, it can be quite hard to figure out who has wronged whom when young people are invited to have sex freely with anyone, conditional only on their partner’s immediate “consent.” But I think it’s probably fair to say that people are both doing wrong, and being wronged, and that both sexes could do with a good dose of re-education on this mysterious thing called “chastity.”

First of all, I should clarify that chastity is not the same as celibacy. It is simply virtue as applied to sex. The person who has sex appropriately, at the right times and in the right ways and for the right reasons, is chaste. For some people, that might imply never having sex at all, and contrary to popular opinion, this is not life-threatening. Not everyone, however, is called to a life of celibacy. Everyone ought to be chaste.

For young men, instruction in chastity might begin with some discussion of sex and commitment. Few young men are rapists, but many have been taught to regard casual sex as unproblematic. They should come to understand that “good” sex always involves love and commitment. Consensual sex is not rape, but merely consensual sex (which is not accompanied by commitment or real concern) is always predatory, and should be seen as a genuine wrong to another person. I appreciated Matt Walsh’s recent reflection on this topic, especially because it’s a point that conservatives (in their understandable eagerness to defend boys from unjust charges of “rape”) sometimes miss.

For young men, I would sum up the point this way. Suppose you’re thinking about having sex, and you find yourself wondering, “if she accused me of rape, how strong a case could she make, and is she the kind of girl who would do that?”

Just don’t. Nobody ever began a loving, intimate encounter with those kinds of concerns.

Young women need to start by understanding two things. First, sex will affect them on many levels, physical, emotional and spiritual. This is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of moral health to be emotionally affected by things that are objectively morally significant. But that being the case, it’s important to protect themselves and make reasonable choices. As my colleague Amy Otto recently observed, “sex positivity” is no protection from the negative consequences of bad sex. The best plan is to stay sober and stay clothed, especially around people who are intoxicated or likely to take liberties. One of the worst ideas feminists ever had was to urge girls to “empower” themselves through behavior that was all but guaranteed to hurt them.

The second thing women should understand is that men are not (as feminists often imply) naturally violent or brutish per se. However, their sensibilities are shaped to a considerable degree by the behavior of women. This is another basic fact of the world that “sex positivity” cannot change. In a culture that sanctions sexual promiscuity, men are effectively trained to view women as objects of sexual pleasure. The effects of that training are liable to overflow into other areas of life; what happens at the Friday-night party really doesn’t stay at the Friday-night party.

I suspect that this fact helps to explain claims that campus cultures are rife with “micro-aggression” towards female students. Some of it, perhaps, is mere paranoia. But it’s really the case that men who have learned to see their female classmates as material for enjoyable one-night stands, are indeed inclined to treat them less respectfully. This is one major reason why women, far more than men, have always been inclined to shower scorn on promiscuous members of their own sex. We understand instinctively that all of us stand to lose from this assault on men’s better nature.

It’s unfortunate that feminists, by speaking of “rape culture,” continue to blame men for a problem that can really only be solved by both sexes together. Of course, blaming men is a long-standing liberal strategy, but in this case it is hurting young men and young women alike. Until they can attain some real understanding of what sex means and is for, college students will continue to get hurt by their sexually depraved campus culture. Until that reality is acknowledged, all the blather about “no means no” or “zero tolerance” for sexual crime is just so much empty posturing.

Rachel Lu


Rachel Lu, a Catholic convert, teaches philosophy at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota where she lives with her husband and four boys. Dr. Lu earned her Ph.D. in philosophy at Cornell University. Follow her on Twitter at rclu.

  • “Rape Culture”
    “Blaming Men”
    “Women are Victims”
    “Violent, Aggressive Men”
    “Women Objects of Sexual Pleasure”

    Etc..Etc..Etc.. Blah Blah Blah…

    Can’t you see where all this is going?

    Can’t you see the purpose of all this?

    Can’t you see the timing of all this?

    It’s all about…..

    Because of all of the above:

    VOTE For Hillary.

    It has NOTHING to do with “campus” or whatever.

    • Catholic & loving it

      It’s sickening how the media (msnBS, cnn, etc) has already crowned Hillary Clinton as our next President. The majority of the voters don’t care (or want to be bothered) about her record on Benghazi, her FAILED career as Secretary of State & as NY Senator (she voted for Iraq War btw). The only thing many of the voters in USA (who gladly re-elected Obama) care & know about is how she’ll be the first Woman president. Nothing else matters to them. Why do we need another Clinton in the White House? She already ran for it in 2008, Obama beat her & she still wants to run. We shouldn’t want a political dynasties in America. One Clinton is enough. One Kennedy is enough. One Bush is enough. It’s not healthy for democracy.

      • John O’Neill

        Hilary will be the next president because elections no longer matter. Stalin was said to have stated that it does not matter who votes, what is more important is who counts the votes. In most American big cities the Democrats control the vote count. In the last election nearly 99% of the votes in Democrat Philadelphia went for the democrat candidate, no surprise there. The Democrats control over ninety percent of the American media, over ninety five percent of the American institutions of higher learning, the wealthy ruling class who have been promised their tax deductions and foundations, and a large segment of the mainline Christian churches. In most American big cities, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles , Baltimore, Atlanta etc and etc no Republican has been elected in over a half century. Let us face it we have Stalinesque elections in the Neo American State. Hilary is the next Caesar of the American Empire, no doubt about it.

    • Catholic & loving it

      Another thing about Hillary Clinton she has accused us USA Catholics, serious Christian Protestants & conservatives of launching a so-called “War on Women” & the media feminazis bought it. When the real War on Women is being launched by Islamists (that the liberals always defend) & Islamic groups like Boko Haram that actually kill & rape girls & attack women’s dignity. If Hillary Clinton cares so much about women, why doesn’t she move to African Islamic countries or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan & help fight for women over there? That’s right she cares more about her own power than women. If she was serious on advocating for women, she would have denounced Islam as a threat when she was the Secretary of State & she would have promoted Christianity (the religion that gave us the biggest recognition of women’s dignity, more than any other).

      • Bucky Inky

        I had not heard that Boko Haram had killed (or raped) any girl students. I have heard that they have killed many boy students. I guess this is why we don’t trouble with #BringBackOurBoys.

        • Catholic & loving it

          They FORCE people to convert to Islam. If they capture a Christian woman/girl, she has to options: Death OR forced conversion to Islam through marriage to their sleazy nasty Muslim militants. They have ravaged, captured & destroyed Christian school & villages. Deaths & rapes have occurred. They hate both Christian boys & girls. Christianity has its roots & origins in the East (way before Islam) & yet they want Death to the West (they associate Xty with the West). The mainstream media largely ignored covering them for a long time until recently; nobody used to care until now, but only on the useless Twitter. I had known about those sons of guns since way before the twitter “campaign” & the recent media coverage.

  • Objectivetruth

    Great article, Rachel.

    ” But it’s really the case that men who have learned to see their female classmates as material for enjoyable one-night stands, are indeed inclined to treat them less respectfully.”

    Young women are showing up on their first day on campus with their IPads, toothbrushes and ….oh yea….their oral contraception and condoms. Provocatively dressed, all the wrong signals are being sent to eighteen year old young men. These male students, of course, need to be taught to be virtuous, chivalrous gentlemen. But when their female dormmates are presenting themselves on Friday nights as a buffet of fornication, gasoline and fire meet. Campuses need to go back to single sex dorms. Alcohol taken off of campus. An atmosphere of virtue and maturity instilled by the university. Granted, the horse has left the barn on this and only wishful thinking. But when anywhere from $30-60k per year is being dropped on these institutions, parents need to think about why they’re sending their kids to college.

    • The Truth

      Women have become “men” with vagina’s. Becoming “equal” seems to mean becoming lustful.

      • Vinnie

        “Feminism” = becoming men.
        When will real women figure this out?

        • Catholic & loving it

          True Feminism is shown in the beautiful Virgin Mary, our Lady. Radical “Feminism” (the only feminism left today on college campuses) ridicule women’s virginity & men’s duty to protect women. The true purpose of “Feminism” today (especially on college campuses) is to be Anti-Christian, promote promiscuity & shame men from following Virtue. Sickening. The sooner parents quit wasting money sending kids to public universities (as well as privy Ivy League ones) & the so-called “Catholic” universities, the better. The money not being spent on them will speak; universities will notice. We should work on making authentic Catholic (& also some non-Catholic Christian) universities more affordable. Boycott universities. Who needs the crapload of student debts anyway? A truly Catholic classic education (even if self-taught), apprenticeships, & trade schools are way better than spending craploads of money on liberal breeding grounds (Harvard, Princeton, UCLA, U of this State, U of that State, etc.). Time to let our money speak to liberal progressives, secularists & feminazis.

    • David

      Except whatever female students may wear or how they act should have no bearing on the moral responsibility of males to not be rapists.

      • Paul Primavera

        But it DOES make a difference, David. Dress like a whore and you get treated like a whore. Dress like a lady and you get treated like a lady.
        Women should take pride in themselves in having been created in God’s image and likeness and dress and behave accordingly. So should men. The same rules apply to everyone everywhere. God does not discriminate. Act like a baboon and get treated like a baboon. Act like a member of the Body of Christ and get treated like a member of the body of Christ.
        Only liberals want things differently.

        • Louise

          Paul, I’m a practising Catholic who dresses modestly, doesn’t drink, etc and I was raped. Does that mean I’m a baboon? Am I not a member of the body of Christ because I wasn’t treated like one? Is anyone who suffers mistreatment not a member of the body of Christ because bad things never happen to good Catholics? To be honest, that sounds like the prosperity gospel – if you’re but rich, God j is must not love you. Only that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches about God or about suffering.

      • Freethinker01

        Sure…in a utopia that is true, and we should teach men to never commit assault.

        But this is the real world, and when women knowingly become sexual temptresses, they increase their risk of becoming victims.

      • Elizabeth Jarzombek

        If I park my car on a dark street in a bad part of town,keep the doors unlocked and leave my cell phone on the seat I’m making an announcement that my phone is available to everyone. Ultimately whoever steals my phone is to blame but I sure send a message with my actions that someone else can have it.

  • Art Deco

    I think G.K. Chesterton once said that ‘ere you remove a fence, you need to explore why someone put it there. The people who acted to end the in loco parentis aspect of college administration ca. 1966 should have given that some thought.

    What’s not being said in this discussion is as follows: higher education is pathological and residential colleges are pathological all the way down. State and federal legislation ought to give institutions of higher education a choice: demolish your dormitories and student apartments and Greek houses, re-constitute yourself as men’s colleges or women’s colleges, or segregate your residences and put armed guards in the vestibules of each (with criminal and civil penalties for everyone between that guard and the chairman of the board of trustees if those guards are delinquent).

    In a sensible society, those enrolled in higher education would with few exceptions consist of commuters pursuing certificates and degrees which could be completed in four academic years and completed without the distribution-credits filler. You live with your family or you move to some city, get a job in the local area, and study 60% time. Collecting post-adolescents in one place with excess quanta of liquor and discretionary time and insufficient quanta of supervision is begging for trouble.

    As for the soi-disant feminists, their shtick is ever the same: women have options; men have obligations.

    In the White Album, Joan Didion took a look up and down at the novel feminist discourse of the era and saw a flight from adult responsibility; others can see a flight from authentic introspection and moral choice conjoined to socially-sanctioned aggression. There is nothing salutary about any dimension of it.

    • RufusChoate

      Splendidly Brilliant Post… Bravo well played.

    • JoAnne Braley

      I agree. I attended a convent school for a number of years. When I transferred to a University, I became very popular, and really didn’t study as much as I should. My grades went from A’s to maybe one A, B’s, and a C. Well, I made the mistake of dating an older man who had fought in Korea. After six months of dating, he raped me because he didn’t believe I was a virgin. When he found out I was, he tried to cover it with a story about marrying me after graduation. It ruined my life. My girls told me they were laughed at if still virgins, especially in college and after. So, there’s the change in culture. I’m so upset with the way the USA is going I stay home quite a bit. Taking God out, the Ten Commandments, anything religious, TV’s showing women in mortal combat, flying around in the air and killing, showing the complete sacred sex union on the big screen for recreation, instead of creation. It’s too much for me. I’m thinking now we are getting the South American young people to replace those aborted. Sent by Our Lady of Guadalupe

      • Catholic & loving it

        Ms. JoAnne, God bless your beautiful heart. The Anti-Bullying campaigns today in colleges & universities are very vehemently pro-homosexual, but the real victims in many cases in those schools are those (both guys & girls) that chose to be faithful to Christian virtue & remain virgins until marriage. The university campus society & culture ridicule them for their virginity sadly. But these so-called Anti-Bullying campaigns never protect them; instead they throw them under the bus. God hears the cries of His suffering people though. The day will come when Evil shall be no more.

        • asmondius

          ‘The Anti-Bullying campaigns today in colleges & universities .are very vehemently pro-homosexual……’ The same is true in the lower schools as well, perhaps even more so.

    • tamsin

      I look forward to continued disruptive innovation in Higher Education. It is an apple cart that needs to be upset for many, many, many reasons.

    • Catholic & loving it

      Instead of following your reasonable advice, these universities (who have the worst budgets) go ahead & build new more groovy dormitory or “residential” buildings. University students in America are spoiled & parents need to wake up. I recently visited a dorm building in a public university & they had LGTB banners & flags posted on almost every hallway & condoms & birth control crap available on the downstairs office. (And a student told me that when they wanted to place little white crosses on a hallway bulletin board for Easter, they were denied by some student activities board of the dorm building.) The moral depravity & corruption & overall incompetency of the Higher Ed university system will collapse. It’s only a matter of when. It’s unsustainable.

      • asmondius

        Most colleges have one or more homosexual-related organizations, most of whom seem to think it is vitally important to put on a ‘drag show’ every year in order to mock the true nature of men and women. This sadly occurs at many supposedly ‘Catholic’ institutions as well.

  • Fred

    When our institutions of “higher learning” and culture kick Christ to the curb who do you think enjoys filling the vacuum left behind, secular administrators, or worse? For many who have been timid in their faith you have to ask yourself before sending your precious children off to these bastions of the secular state – have I prepared my child or have I sent them into a den of snakes defenseless, or should I have sent them to a school that better reflects your family values. From one convert to another, thanks for discussing this vilification Rachel, great article.

  • Toby Brace

    Let me preface this by saying I’m generally a liberal Democrat (mainly for economic and not moral reasons. I believe a big part of our Christian mission is helping “the least of these” Matt 25) Helping the poor should be paramount for Christians, weather they “deserve it” or not – I just can’t believe Jesus could get behind cutting social programs for the poor so the wealthy could keep more money. I subscribe to Crisis because A) I find the articles well written and researched even when I disagree and B) I am an Episcopalian and I am exploring a conversion to Catholicism because I believe in a traditional, conservative view of Liturgical practice and a theology my Church has regrettably left behind. Now before anyone vilifies me, let me say that a wholeheartedly agree with this article and George Will. It may be 20 years since I’ve been in College, but a 20% “rape” rate is laughably absurd. However it certainly illustrates the borne fruit of the “empowerment of woman” and the erstwhile “sexual revolution”. Young girls are constantly fed this evil by a culture and society that teaches them it’s ok and even desirable to act promiscuously. Men are conditioned to believe they are less masculine if they don’t act on this. Just add liquor and you have a lethal cocktail. This leads to guilt and shame, especially on the Woman’s part. All of a sudden the “empowerment” puts women in compromising positions, sacrifices their honor and self-respect and often leads to allegations, made public or not, of “Rape” that feminists prey on to try to further their cause for more “empowerment”. It all ends in a vicious, evil cycle desecrating the temple of the Holy Spirit, destroying the reputation of both male and female alike, perpetuating guilt, shame and sin and driving people further away from our Lord – because on top of everything else working against young “adults” coming into the Church, now they feel unworthy. I wont even bring wax on how many evenings of feminist “empowerment” have resulted in the death of the unborn. We need to somehow resurrect the idea that true empowerment of women is for them to value themselves, their bodies and their minds and to convince both sexes that women are to be loved and cherished as mothers and sisters and not thought of as objects of exploitable pleasure. However, as long as feminist culture insists that men and women should treat sex equally and feel the same way about sex and both posses the same aggressive attitudes towards pleasure seeking one night stands and the like we are going to continue in this downward cultural and moral spiral and the evil one will continue to have fresh young souls to prey upon…and when the morning after reality hits that “sexual empowerment” is a deception created in hell and what has just happened is regrettable and shameful, clandestine cries of “against my will” will continue to abound. To close, my heart and my prayers go out to all women and their families who are truly victims of the demonic act of rape…but 20%? That is a tragic injustice to those who have truly been victimized.

    • Vinnie

      “I just can’t believe Jesus could get behind cutting social programs for the poor so the wealthy could keep more money.”

      I don’t think that Jesus cared or cares anything at all about government social programs. I believe He cares about the soul of the individual. That means you and me, personally, taking care of the poor. A portion of that you can do indirectly by donating money or directly by getting involved yourself. You, the person, must have the money to be able to do that. What you do with your wealth, among other things, is what determines where your conscience is and where your soul goes. You don’t need an inefficient and subtly corrupt government for that, or even an efficient and non-corrupt one. What would society be like if the many followed what Jesus wants for their soul? What would it be like if the many are planted on rocks? These days, we got a rock.

      Keep searching in faith and truth, through prayer and learning and your faith will increase and bear even more fruit.

      • Toby Brace

        I certainly agree that it is our personal responsibility as Christians (as well as the Church’s of course) to take care of the poor. However, we must also “render unto Caesar” as inefficient and corrupt as he (meaning government) may be. When I ask myself what fits our Lord’s mission and will best, I inevitably come up with helping the “least of these”. Government is a necessary evil, just as it was in Apostolic times (and they were under forced occupation). As such, I prefer to see said government help the poor rather than do things that benefit the wealthy. I was in no way trying to say that government should be the sole or even primary source of charity..indeed, that responsibility primarily lies with us as the Body and Bride of Christ.

        • fredx2

          The problem comes when the government helping the wealthy actually leads to more employment, more jobs and more money for the workers. It is this kind of “help to the wealthy” that actually helps the poor. Not all the time, of course, but that should be the standard. So, in some cases, if you oppose helping the wealthy, you might just be hurting the poor as well. Now obviously no one is for the government giving help to the wealthy for no good reason. And it depends on what you mean by “help to the wealthy” – tax breaks to start a new business that will employ people? My only point is that it is more complex than is sometimes assumed.

          • Watosh

            One hears this frequently, and who benefits directly from this, the very wealthy. Whether it is true or not, this justifies the accumulation of great wealth. Now look at the empirical evidence, In the past twenty years the very rich have gotten their hands on an immense amount of the nation’s wealth, and during this times the number of unemployed and underemployed has not seen great improvement. The very rich find they can get more return on money they spend on buying influence with congress. favorable tax rulings that gain them billions is a better return then investing in new business that carries greater risks. One good source of fortunes is in the financial sector. Sharp operators with large funds at their disposal can make fortunes on making shrewd gambles, few of which involve creating physical goods and add to the economic scene. But if something is repeated enough times it becomes the truth and this is something that does get repeated because it has a certain plausibility, but it is quite simplistic economic reasoning. The thing many overlook is that if you have the top people in a corporation and the rich investors, who take a lion’s share of the value of products made by the corporation at the expense of the workers, the workers will not have enough money to buy the corporation’s products, or as economists say, they can’t clear the market. In which case sales drop, production is cut and jobs are cut. As Barnum said, and this is after all America, so periodically one hears that money gained by the rich means more jobs.

        • TERRY

          I would suggest giving to charitable organizations. Mine of choice is the Edmundite Missions in Selma, Alabama. The mission was founded in 1937 with the specific aim of helping the African-American community down there and they still do that. It took guts to found a mission like that in Alabama in 1937.

          They are very efficient – you get a thank you note and a SASE when you send them a donation. IMO they give you the maximum bang for your charitable buck.

          • DE-173

            Give, and give until it hurts. The duty of charity and it’s personal. You don’t get to outsource it by voting for politicians making unachievable promises to end poverty. The poor you will always have with you. Teach them to fish.

        • Dave

          Yes, government is a necessary evil, but WHY is it necessary? Mainly to prevent anarchy (i.e. deter crime and defend property rights, etc) and defend the state against other states…in other words, to provide conditions for human freedom and flourishing.

          However, redistributing money to the poor does not even seem helpful to me. Mostly, the poor need the help and support of a local human community. Welfare and similar programs actually work AGAINST this need being satisfied. Most people, whether justified or not, figure that after a third or more of their money is taken away due to taxation, that their duty to help those unfortunate is satisfied.

          Give people real responsibility for their local community and you would see more business owners and community leaders reaching out to help. The problem right now is the COMPLETE lack of subsidiarity. The federal government does everything, whether or not it is better done at a (much) more local level.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            As Talleyrand observed, “Governing has never been anything other than postponing by a thousand subterfuges the moment when the mob will hang you from the lamp-post, and every act of government is nothing but a way of not losing control of the people.”

            Will the force of law, backed by bayonets, be enough to keep the underclass in check? If we want to curtail welfare spending, are we ready for a repetition of les journées de juin 1848, following the closure of les Ateliers Nationaux? Then, the Liberals secured a victory over the Radical Republicans, but at the cost of 1,500 dead in the streets and thousands of summary executions of prisoners. The Assembly, one recalls, welcomed the surrender of the last barricade with cries of “Long Live the Republic!” What they got, inevitably, was Napoléon III; as Marx observed of this, history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

            Nowadays, when governments depend for their legitimacy on media coverage and the cult of personality, it is pretty generally recognised that welfare cheques, drug-dealing and cheap alcohol are indispensible guarantees of the political order.

            • Dave

              For reasons such as you describe, due to the brainwashing of the masses and expectations they have learned to have (i.e that the federal government has to do everything) it may not be feasible to do this right now. I am not advocating that it not be done at all, but that it should be done at a much more local level.

            • Art Deco

              As Talleyrand observed, “Governing has never been anything other than
              postponing by a thousand subterfuges the moment when the mob will hang
              you from the lamp-post, and every act of government is nothing but a way
              of not losing control of the people.”

              I know you like that quote. Did it occur to you that he was living an working in somewhat unsettled circumstances? It’s cock-and-bull, for the most part.

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                Art Deco

                Circumstances are always “unsettled.”

                As Carl Schmitt never tired of pointing out, the political condition arises from the struggle of groups; internal order is imposed to pursue external conflict. To view the state as the settled and orderly administration of a territory, concerned with the organization of its affairs according to law, is to see only the stabilized results of conflict. It is also to ignore the fact that the state stands in a relation of enmity to other states, that it holds its territory by means of armed force and that, on this basis of a monopoly of force, it can make claims to be the lawful government of that territory. The peaceful, legalistic, liberal bourgeoisie is sitting on a volcano and ignoring the fact. Their world depends on a relative stabilization of conflict within the state, and on the state’s ability to keep at bay other potentially hostile states.

          • No, government is not a necessary evil. Government is good, when it is small enough. The problem is that the American government is way overstepping its bounds.
            And keep in mind. The money that rich people worked hard to earn is theirs. Nobody has any right to take it away from them and distribute it to the poor. If the owner wishes to do so, he has the right but not even government has the right to touch it! Our founding fathers understood the concept very well when they stated in the opening clause of the declaration of independence. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The concept of liberty, doesn’t simply mean that one has the right to go and do whatever he wants, but he also has the right to own things. The government is simply there to make sure that in the pursuing of their life liberty and happiness, men do not infringe upon the rights of others. This alone is the purpose of government. And when they begin to do more they are out out of their jurisdiction.
            The point of that is, you can argue for days over whether what the government is doing is ‘helping’ but the real issue is, does the government have the right to do what it does? Because if it doesn’t than it doesn’t matter how beneficial those things may be if they are brought about by wrong means.

    • fredx2

      Well said. Very well said.

    • TERRY

      Thumbs up. Yours is a welcome new voice.

    • Objectivetruth

      Our Lady of Fatima told the children that most souls in hell are there for sexual sins.

    • HigherCalling

      Well said, but perhaps not altogether consistent.

      “…I’m generally a liberal Democrat (mainly for economic and not moral reasons).”
      Economics is a moral issue. This is what both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans (and others) get wrong. Liberalism (which is inherent in both major political parties) demands separating economics and morality. Only Catholic Teaching recognizes the necessary link. The economy and morality are not separate issues. Until that is understood and dealt with accordingly, the economy will never produce the results you (and all decent people) desire.

      “Helping the poor should be paramount for Christians…”
      The paramount concern for Christians should be the defense and protection of Life and Family. Helping the poor is certainly a concern, but it is not, and should not be, the paramount concern. This is the proper (and nonnegotiable) ordering of concerns in Catholic Social Teaching. The greatest help for the poor (and for peace, etc) demands first getting the issues of Life and Family correct. Until this is understood and dealt with accordingly, effective care for the poor will never reach the ends that you (and all decent people) desire.

      Your take on the decline in sexual morality is well-stated, but can that decline be uncoupled from the ideology and social policies of a political party that works daily and proudly in direct and open opposition to teachings that are designed to uphold true sexual morality?

      • Vinnie

        Agree. I only addressed the aspect of the poor because it’s what Toby mentioned. Without life there is no body of Christ on earth.

    • DE-173

      “Let me preface this by saying I’m generally a liberal Democrat (mainly for economic and not moral reasons. )”

      Actually, liberal Democrats are drawn from two basic pools. The economically “challenged” who believe the government is Santa Claus, and the economically shrewd who understand that government can be a rich source of subsidies, grants, favorable legislation, loopholes, etc.

      • Art Deco

        The skeezy rent-seeker element may be influential, but Tim Geithner’s buds are a tiny demographic segment. Partisan Democrats are drawn from the following pools:

        1. Salaried bourgeois in the word merchant sector and the helping professions (teaching. law, media, ‘mental health’, ‘social work’).

        2. Alienated or eccentric communal populations (blacks, chicanos, Jews &c.) and subcultures (sexual deviants).

        3. Working-class women (and, sometimes, bourgeois women) with a certain self-concept and personal history (sometimes borne of unhappy experience, commonly generating such experience).

        4. Post-adolescents (generally bourgois) who have yet to immerse themselves in all aspects of adult life (or any of them).

        5. A miscellany who’ve experienced periods of long-term unemployment.

        6. Labor meatheads and their clientele, especially in the public sector.

        Lots of people are in more than one category.

        Among the influentials, certain sectors are notable: media companies, law firms, casino banking, and higher education.

        • DE-173

          “Tim Geithner’s buds”
          Good one.

    • Flannery64

      Toby, you may be in the minority here when it comes to supporting our national commitment to fellow citizens in need — as if Jesus didn’t support the Temple tax or similar programs to help the poor of his day just because he wanted individuals to help too (!). Your view is in accord with traditional Catholic social teaching, and fully at one with the teaching of Pope Francis.

    • Catholic & loving it

      Toby, the Communion of Saints shall rejoice when you enter into full communion with the Catholic Church (the Bride & Mystical Body of Christ). I think you’ll feel right at home in the Catholic Church, which has done & continues to do so much for the Poor worldwide (more than anybody else). In this Church, following & teaching true orthodox Christian morality & theology has always gone hand in with fervent commitment with serving the Poor in a Christ like way. (You’ll see this over & over when you read the lives of the Saints throughout ages & when you read the various Church documents, papal encyclicals & Church Doctors/Fathers.) Toby, are you aware of the Anglican Ordinariates within the Catholic Church? Are you also aware of the Eastern Catholic Churches in Communion with Rome (St. Peter’s successor)? You might have an Anglican-Use parish, Maronite parish, Byzantine Catholic parish in addition to a Roman-Rite parish in your local area. You’ll find Catholic worship to be in its fullness, true & diverse. In short, come on in, brother! (I recommend you watching “Coming Home with Marcus Grodi” for converts & seekers, it’s on EWTN & online.) And yes, as a Catholic, I don’t think our Lord Jesus would cut Food Stamps when people need then. He would probably cut corporate bailouts & war spending before He even touched things that the poor in America simply cannot afford to go by without (social safety nets).

      • Toby Brace

        I want to deeply thank you for these encouraging sentiments. I in fact do watch quite a bit of EWTN and have probably seen every “Journey Home” episode ever involving an Anglican! The closest Anglican Rite Church is about 4 hours away from me, and if one was closer I would certainly have been there already. My situation is a bit complicated as I am (or rather was) in the process of accepting a call to Anglican Holy Orders and due to enter the Seminary in the Fall of 2015. It was actually the in depth study of Church tradition and the early Fathers as well as deep reflection and prayer about the state of the Bride & Mystical Body of Christ that has brought me to the Vatican’s doorstep. It is undeniable that Jesus founded ONE Church and wished it to remain as ONE. It is undeniable he gave authority to Peter and his Apostles. Tradition and Church teaching must therefore carry as much sway as Holy Scripture given the fact that Jesus did not leave us a book but a Magisterium, the Church wrote and compiled Holy Scripture and the Church existed for 300 plus years without it. I was a “cradle” Episcopalian and always drawn to the faith because of the beauty of the Liturgy and its basic adherence to some traditional Catholic teachings, mainly the Real Presence, Apostolic Succession, similarity in Liturgical practice, etc . This, of course, is no longer the case and has not been for some time (and may never have been – perhaps I was seeing through rose colored glasses). Episcopalians can no longer be called “Catholic Lite”, as was once said in jest.
        For now I continue to pray, study and fulfil my duties in the Episcopal Church while I attend (almost) Daily Mass at a Catholic Parish (without receiving the Sacrament of Holy Communion). I do wish I was getting a but more encouragement and guidance from the Catholic church I attend, but they seem to be very hands-off about my desire to convert. Please pray for me. Thank you again for the encouragement. May the Lord be with you….Maybe one day soon I’ll get to meet Marcus Grodi – I think I’ll have quite a story to tell.

    • Elizabeth Jarzombek

      I’m so glad you agree with the premise of this article. But let’s take a look at one of those gigantic government programs that is supposed to “help” the poor-Welfare. Let’s say you have this poor family and they qualify for benefits. Soon the dad realizes that he doesn’t need to support the children he created since the government is doing it. So he leaves the family for “freedom”. His daughter becomes a sexually active teenager, looking to fill the hole left by dad. She gets pregnant and the family signs up for more welfare. One of the man’s sons tries to fill the hole left by dad by overeroticizing the males in his life and becomes a homosexual. The other son follows in his father’s footsteps, buying the mantra of “sex without responsibility” and fathers several children out of wedlock. All of THOSE women then sign up for benefits for those new souls.

      • Toby Brace

        I appreciate everyone’s comments (well, the ones not filled with vitriol) and I enjoy the discourse. As I originally inferred, I’m not going to be in agreement with much of “Crisis” political stances in terms of economic policy, but I enjoy the site and exploring a place where the liturgically and theologically conservative and traditionally minded Catholic community comes together and shares viewpoints. My ultimate decision to abandon a call to Episcopal(ian) Holy Orders and “come home to Rome” is being largely influenced by sites like this, Catholic Answers, Journey Home, EWTN, Church Militant, Video Sancto, etc. and I am prayerfully grateful for them and the feedback I receive when I choose to post an opinion. If/When I do begin an RCIA, it certainly wont be to join the “Church of Nice”, as Michael Voris puts it, so it is a comfort to know there is a vocal body of Catholics adhering to more Traditional Church teaching and practice.
        Now, to your point: I am a Christian first and foremost. A taxpaying American citizen concerned about our deficit comes in a very distant second. I believe Jesus commanded us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help the poor, minister to those in need. I don’t believe He put conditions on it. The idea that we shouldn’t, for example, help that welfare mother because she is abusing the system doesn’t fit in with any theology I’ve ever learned. Luke 3:11, the story of the rich young man in Matthew, the plethora of others (the 446 times the poor are mentioned in Holy Scripture) – I just can’t find any justification for NOT helping or for not wanting any organization, including our Government, to help. If people abuse the system (and I realize they do), so be it. “Feed My sheep” was not followed by “unless they keep having children” or “unless they are lazy” or any other phrase people wish to plug in when they don’t support social programs. As I have stated before, it is primarily our INDIVIDUAL responsibility and the Church’s responsibility to facilitate helping those in need. But the fact is our Government exists, taxes us and chooses where it will spend the money. My preference would be that it go to help the needy. What we do for the least of these, we do for Him. I can’t find any theological viewpoint or any Church social teaching that stands in opposition to this, hence my “progressive” or dare I say “Socialist” economic leanings. I don’t believe if we cut social programs tomorrow everyone would just pull themselves up by their boot straps. I do a great deal of work with the poor and I’ve never heard about or seen an instance where someone got pregnant so they could get extra Food Stamps. We have a crisis amongst the economically and culturally disadvantaged in this country and it needs to be addressed, certainly through more than just giving “hand-outs” or “entitlements” or charity. More needs to be done in terms of education, teaching core family values and basic Christian morality, job training, the list goes on ad infinitum. However, the solution is not to stop giving to people in need. It’s not to stop feeding the hungry or housing the homeless and its not to cut the Government money that goes to fund those programs.
        I ask, as you fine readers line up to bash me, please include some theology, scripture, Church teachings in your response(s). My concern is what Jesus would have us do, not how to best strengthen our GDP.

        • Elizabeth Jarzombek

          You’ve made some good points. However I believe the welfare issue falls somewhere under the “give a man a fish/teach a man to fish” scenario. Welfare can be a life line (I was even on it for a while myself!) but it needs desperate reform. It was never intended for multi-generational use. And you say no one gets pregnant on purpose just to get benefits? I know a few postpartum nurses who see it happen on a weekly basis.

    • Elizabeth Jarzombek

      I hope you won’t let all of us who disagree with you make you backstroke across the Tiber. I have several friends who believe as you do and are very active in the faith at our parish.

  • redfish

    One thing that feminists are right about is that men need to be able to have self-control. The only problem is that for years, feminists have attacked the idea that this is a virtue — saying men needed to be “more like women” and let their emotions out all the time; that teaching men not to cry was repressive. They were also on the bandwagon of saying that if people didn’t let out their sexual desires all the time, they’d be sexually repressed, too, and molest children, claiming that’s what caused abuse scandals in the Church. And, of course, rape “is about power and not sex”, so this “sex positive” message was to have no influence on bad behavior.

    That shouldn’t negate the importance of modesty and pudicity, though.

    By the way, a 2013 study showed that girls were just as likely to be sexually coercive as boys, just that, for obvious reasons, it was less likely for a girl to be able to rape a boy: But in the category of ‘coercive and attempted rape’, 25% were female, and girls outnumbered boys in the category of ‘foresexual contact’.

  • R. K. Ich

    Great article! There is no excuse for rape, but I have to wonder how a culture that is fed the continual lie that “sex is the ultimate good regardless of commitment or marriage” (in ads, movies, tv, internet, school, etc) doesn’t artificially heighten the sense of unfulfilled living (among men and women). If young people are bombarded with the message that the good life is wrapped up in their libido, wouldn’t that tend to aggravate the number of sexual assaults?

    This is why the message of the dignity and joy of sex between man and woman in the context of marriage will always trump the navel-gazing, emptiness of pleasure equals fulfillment philosophy. Not too much unlike the oppressive misogynistic cultures abroad our culture hypocritically gasps in horror over, we eagerly recommend objectification and reducing the other to a means to personal pleasure — just with the courtesy of it being mutual.


    In the mid 90s there was a movie entitled ‘The American President’. Michael Douglas played the part, and he did a terrific job, as would be expected. Naturally he was the good guy democrat – slightly flawed, but a really terrific guy way down deep.

    Richard Dreyfus played the Snodley (Snidely?) Whiplash type republican (BOOO!!!) and if he had had a mustache to twirl he would have done so with great and evil glee. It was that kind of movie.

    Where is this leading? At the end of the flick the prez gave a speech and in that speech he made one remark that I have mentioned many times OVER THE YEARS and no one has taken me up on it which is the way of the world but let me get to the point.(Finally)

    “America is a serious place. We have serious problems and we need serious people to deal with them.”

    Is that a campaign slogan or what? Stop and ask yourself how many times we could have used that over the last 5 years.

    • samharker

      Didn’t he suggest everyone join the ACLU in the same discourse?

      • TERRY

        yes he did. Your point?

        Mine was to suggest that we could use that phrase toward our own nefarious ends.

        • samharker


          • TERRY

            I LOVE one word answers.


  • hombre111

    When I was a campus minister, we had to deal with something called “sex week” every year, which pushed “safe sex.” Put on by the university equivalent of Planned Parenthood, it was quite a show, loudspeakers blaring music, with tables on the sidewalk leading to the student union, featuring one table giving away free condoms. The grand finale was a giant pinata shaped like a penis. A girl broke the thing, and packages of condoms and candy flew all over the place. We responded on the “free speech area” on the lawn beside their displays, with our own effort abut the importance of chastity, etc.. We tried to coordinate with the other campus ministries, but for some reason, they were unwilling. But we must have had some effect because the sex week kids went to the authorities and complained about our presence.

  • M

    “According to Vice President Joe Biden twenty percent of college women will be sexually assaulted over the course of their college life. ”
    Remember that “sexual assault” is not necessarily the same thing as rape (the actual incidence of completed campus rape is more like 3 or 4%.) . “Sexual assault” can include inappropriate touching such as groping. I would be surprised if the percentage was as low as 20%. I personally have experienced a number of such incidents (sexual assaults of the groping and touching sort), both in college and at work, and I found them shaming, uncomfortable, frightening, and distressing. I did not “bring them on myself.” I was always modestly dressed, “stayed sober and stayed clothed,” and was not promiscuous. I suspect I was an easy target for bullies because I was raised to be timid and unassertive to the point of being avoidant. I was taught that was what femininity was about. I always tried to remove myself from the situation without causing conflict, which just left the offender to move on to other young women and cost me much angst and several opportunities. I found George Wills’ comments incredibly insensitive and stupid. No, nothing I experienced gave me “coveted status”. I went home and cried. I quit my first job, in spite of the fact that it offered amazing opportunities, because I was a pretty, unassertive 22-year-old girl alone in an office all day with three sexually aggressive middle-aged men. I raise my daughters as feminists. They’re stunningly beautiful teenagers now, but men treat them with more respect than they treated me, partly because times have changed and partly because it’s very obvious from their demeanors that my girls just wouldn’t tolerate that sort of treatment. They radiate self-confidence and know how to set clear limits.

    • asmondius

      These days the assault is sadly not limited to the opposite sex.


    The term ‘sexual assault’ is way too general. Someone has to define it to be taken seriously.

    Will Joe Biden take the trouble to do that? I doubt it.

    Will ANYONE on the left take the trouble to define the term?

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      Juries seem to understand “an offer or attempt to invade the person of another to gratify lewdness” well enough, with suitable examples, grabbing, jostling, groping &c

    • asmondius

      Joe was struggling to remember ‘sexual’.

  • Rubia

    Met a documentary filmmaker on the train. His research showed that all college rape is coming from 3 per cent of the usually older college men who ply their victims with alcohol then lead them upstairs where they take advantage of the usually younger women.

    • asmondius

      Some grad students and even faculty view incoming female freshman as a new box of chocalates.

  • cestusdei

    Another way that liberals silence the truth.

  • Scott W.

    These campus emergency phones cropped up everywhere in the ’90s during the feminist hysteria and “take back the night” campaigns. It’s a modern monument celebrating a woman’s right to stagger drunk through the quad at 2am and not be molested. Perhaps they should be crafted in the form of a golden calf.

    • Art Deco

      They had the phones on the campus of the University of Chicago ca. 1981. I had a conversation with a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University ca. 1984 wherein she complained that the administration would not install the phones and would not allow the security guards to be armed because they did not wish to admit that it was an urban campus to touring prospects. The concern on that campus was robbery and its correlates, not rape specifically. The perpetrators of concern were local hoodlums, not male students.

      • Scott W.

        I can see that in a high-crime big city area for sure. However, at my small-town state college, these things only appeared after lots of feminist agitation.

  • Anniem

    This is a shameful commentary.

    • Scott W.

      What is? The tired feminist saw that “women have the problem, men are the problem.”? I agree it is shameful.

  • Pingback: LAF/Beautiful Womanhood » George Will Vilified for Questioning Campus “Rape Culture”()

  • DE-173

    “his column was canceled by the St Louis Post-Dispatch.”
    Normally these sorts of things are merely pretexts for decisions made for other reasons.

    • Scott W.

      I can believe that. The pretext being, “our newspaper is a dying medium, but we are determined to ride our ideological Titanic all the way to the bottom.”

      • Art Deco

        Hugh Hewitt interviewed the editorial page editor of that paper. The man’s bounced around a great deal from paper to paper over the last 20-odd years, changing jobs about once every three years. Bar a sojourn in Arizona, he’s lived all his life in the country’s midsection (in an arc which runs from Chicago to Denver, with an appendage into the Dakotas). He would appear to be about 40 years old, and, surprisingly for someone that age in a salaried supervisory position, he has no B.A. degree. His social and political viewpoint appears to be eclectic and not the issue of much reflection or research. He attends a liberal protestant church, his view of abortion is a hash, he barely recognizes the name Alger Hiss, and he cannot remember who he voted for in 1992 and 1996 or if he voted at all. For someone deeply implicated in the discussion of public affairs, there’s a surprising amount of empty space between his ears.

  • cschell

    I am cringing at this article’s lack of self awareness. It is publications such as this that perpetuate rape culture. the 20% statistic is underestimated if anything. Yes, rape culture is real, and sadly it continues to overlap largely with christian culture. You would make more progress contemplating the religious environment that college age men grew up in that makes them able to rationalize religion and violence. As someone who went to a midwestern college in a female body I will tell you that some of the most disrespectful men I encountered were from christian, middle class families. Cornell University has a horrible reputation for sexual assault so I’m not sure were you made your observations Dr. Lu. Your not helping women my age by continuing to blame them for assault. I hope in the years to come you will grow and mature in your understanding of gender violence and of our society that condones it.

    • asmondius

      ‘…rape culture is real, and sadly it continues to overlap largely with christian culture.’
      It’s not the religious background of the offenders that is operative here, it’s the current culture’s worship of objectivation, moral relativism, unbounded self-satisfaction and casual sex that many of them have picked up in the government schools, from popular media, internet porn, etc.. That’s the ‘modern’ culture,, actually devoid of religion, many people crave today. To blame Christianity is absurd.

      • cschell

        I’m not blaming all of christianity, I’m blaming aspects christianity and the purity culture that accompanies it. Much of christianity is just as obsessed with objectification as what you call the “secular culture” they just call it another word, virginity. This article is blaming “loose” men and women for crimes committed against them when society should be rejecting the notion that what a man or woman does with their body effects their value and right to be protected under the law. The concept of virginity (chastity) is harmful to both men and women but women often feel the negative effects more strongly due to both the christian purity culture (their is also a Muslim, Hindu, Jewish purity culture, etc) and the commercial world that objectifies women. These are not separate entities but two sides of a system that comprises rape culture. Until we can let go of the concept of virginity (which objectively does not exist) rape will still be allowed to exist in our society for the purpose of keeping women second class citizens.

        • cschell

          P.S. You should also think about how commercial Christian purity culture is. These are the same thing. Also note that all the female models are thin, long haired and almost completely white (read, commercial standards of beauty), hmmmmm…..

  • pdxcatholic

    Another brave article by Ms. Lu! I recently watched the film “The Accused” with my 25-year-old son. It sparked a frank discussion about the horror of rape (gang rape in particular) in the context of the “sexual revolution,” which seems to posit that a woman should be able to conduct herself anyway she so chooses without suffering any unwanted consequences. In other words, to remain a child.

  • Tony

    Let’s suppose you are a good looking nineteen year old boy. You go to a gay bar. You know it is a gay bar. You know that all the guys are checking you out. You get a kick out of it even though you are not gay. You get plastered. You wake up the next morning with a sore bottom. Don’t come to me complaining that you were raped, or I’ll give you a kick where it will hurt more than usual.

    If you go to somebody’s bedroom and take off your clothes, don’t come complaining to us; what in the name of all that’s holy did you think you were doing? What did you think the bedroom was for? Why did you take your clothes off? Is your excuse that you were drunk and didn’t know what you were doing? Probably the other person was drunk too. Is that supposed to make it all right? Don’t get so drunk that you lose all control. Nobody can get inside your brain — nobody can tell whether you will remember what you are doing or not. Grow up.

    Ah, the products of the Sexual Revolution — animals in a jungle. Feminists, there is no such thing as half a jungle, or a jungle on the even days and a Victorian tea room on the odd days. We raise ladies and gentlemen who respect the holiness of sex, or we raise beasts in a jungle. Everything in between is just a slide on the way to the jungle. You wanted a “safe” jungle. Can’t have it; it is a contradiction in terms. Ultimately you have to choose between chastity, even when some people will fall short of it, or a moral, emotional, and cultural jungle. Cosmopolitan used to be a family magazine, eighty years ago. Now it is a magazine for female savages, much loved by feminists, those true haters of women.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      Rape does not mean intercourse against the complainer’s will; it means intercourse without her consent.

      If she is so drunk as to be incapable of giving or withholding consent, the crime is rape, just as it is theft to take the wallet of someone lying dead drunk in the street (or on one’s sofa)

      • asmondius

        What if only the male is drunk? What if both parties are drunk?

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          To be so drunk as to be incapable of giving or withholding consent, the woman would have to be virtually comatose. How a man in that condition could commit rape is far from obvious.

          In any event, if she is bereft of the power of consenting, the man’s condition is immaterial

  • Tony

    There was no “rape culture” in the town where my mother grew up, because there was no “fornication culture.” There were no predatory beasts in the jungle, because there was no jungle, just the ordinary struggles of mostly decent men and women to make something of a life together.

  • Thomas J. Hennigan

    I notice that the writer who is said to be a Catholic convert never mentions the fact that the Church teaches that nobody is allowed to have sex or perform other acts such as petting, passionate kisisng, masturbation etc. which may be perfectly legitimate for married people, because sex is only allowed in marriage. It would seem to me that just telling young people that sex must be loving and respctful of the partner etc. and not telling them the whole truth about Catholic teaching regarding sexuality is not a service to their real good.. As Pope Paul VI clearly taught in Humanae Vitae, the unitive and creative dimension of sexual intercourse cannot be separated, In other words sex is about babies being norn. In fact unmarried Catholics are obliged to live chastity in the same way as those committed to celibacy, the difference being that they obviously can have romantic relationships with members of the other sex with the intention of discerning if the Lord is calling them to be united to that person for life in the Sacrament of Matrimonoy. The same Pope prophetically foresaw the nefarious resuslts of the use of contraceptives back in 1968. I see no reason for giving young people a toned down version of the true nature of chastity and also the importance of modesty as a safeguard to chastity. Young men need to be taught to control themselves, which is not yet virtue and respect girls. Everyyone knows that in order to get a degree and achieve professional success one needs to make many sacrifices and impose a great deal of discipline on oneself. The same can be said of achieving excellence in sport or music, but hwen it comes to controllling one’s instincts and living God’s plan for chastty they are not taught about the necessary discipline and the fruits of the virtue of chastity which is the splendor of charity, whicih is the central virtue of Christianity?

    • asmondius

      ‘Young men need to be taught to control themselves, which is not yet virtue and respect girls.’
      The practice of co-ed dorms, etc. certainly incriminates the educational institutions as well.

  • Calvin Sanders

    Protecting your loved ones from this incident would really be tough. As a parent, I find it very hard to secure the safety of my children. I am a father of two lovely daughters. Both go to high school. I can’t be with them every single time. Me and my wife go to work everyday. It’s hard to be certain about their whereabouts and situation. Good thing I discovered this amazing application installed on my children’s phones. It has a panic button that my children will press in case of an emergency. As simple as that it will automatically be connected to a 24/7 Response center and if needed, your call can be escalated to the nearest 911 Station. Me, along with my wife and close friends as my children’s safety network, will be notified also through text message or a conference call. I worry less. This can help you too. Just visit their site to know more about this:!/page_home

  • NiNi

    You’re conflating sexual assault with rape, if by rape you mean penetrative sex. Here is the actual study that is the source of the 1/5 statistic.

  • Jennifer

    Hi Rachel. I think you oversimplify the reaction against Wills here. The outrage against Wills stemmed from the fact that he suggested that being a victim of rape was a privileged status on college campus. In addition to being completely insane, this view is false and damaging to both young women on campus and real rape victims. He should apologize for having suggested that. I agree with everything else you say here.

    • Art Deco

      No Jennifer, he said what’s true: claiming a sexual assault confers privileges it should not, privileges manifested in the Star chamber proceedings that the accused are dragged through. He should not apologize. You need to understand better.

      • Scott W.

        I think you have coined a useful phrase: “Star Chamber culture” on campuses.

        I seem to remember years back Harvard had a policy in which faculty, staff or students accused of sexual harassment not only had no right to face their accusers, often they didn’t even know the nature of the charge. My understanding is they have since cleaned up their act somewhat and actually allow (gasp!) due process to some muted protests of feminists.

        I’ve told the story here about a friend of mine who got hauled before an ad hoc committee of faculty who threatened his academic advancement if he didn’t go to sensitivity training because he didn’t join a standing ovation when one of the faculty announced he was going transgender. Some chuckleheads insisted details were being left out of the story, but the fact is the story is entirely believable given my direct experience of star-chamber mentality when my wife was hounded out of a faculty job at a small college.

        • asmondius

          It has become just as atrocious in the Federal Government sector, as well as in many corporate settings.

  • Paul Primavera


    I have never understood liberals who promote a culture of libertine hedonistic licentiousness and then complain when the inevitable happens.

    • David

      What exactly is your point here? Whilst we may condemn a “culture of libertine hedonistic licentiousness”, it still doesn’t alter the fact that rape is wrong. Because, you know, telling people they make willingly have sex with anyone isn’t the same as saying that anyone may have sex with them against their consent. And it’s far from “inevitable”. Frankly, I find a great deal of the comments in this thread to be utterly depressing.

      • Paul Primavera

        Read the article, David. 20% of women on college campus are NOT being raped. Vice President Biden again opened up his big mouth and shoved his foot in it. Furthermore, if the incidence of rape is increasing at colleges (entirely debatable), then I have this advice for college women:
        Stop wearing short shorts and mini-skirts and spandex leggings
        Start wearing modest clothes
        Stop behaving like baboons in heat
        Start carrying around a loaded weapon to shoot the genitals off the first man who tries to rape you.

        Christian modesty, and a firm 2nd Amendment self-defense will straighten out this issue rather quickly. But godless liberal progressive Democrats will always oppose both.
        Act like a mindless baboon rutting in heat and expect the inevitable every time.

        • M

          Biden never claimed that 20% of women on college campuses are being “raped”. He said they are being “sexually assaulted.” The author of the article got confused and conflated the terms “rape” and “sexual assault”, which is why the article doesn’t make a lot of sense.

          • Paul Primavera

            A licentious and hedonistic culture – a society of godless liberal progressivism that views every sexual perversion from sodomy to lesbianism to adultery to fornication as normal, and every murderous violation of God’s Commandments from abortion to euthanasia as a civil right – will of necessity beget a culture of sexual assault. If women (and men) on campus do not want to be sexually assaulted, then they need to repent of their adultery, their fornication, their lesbianism, their sodomy, their abortions. A society that objectifies women for sexual gratification of course will have MORE and NOT less sexual assault. The problem is SIN. Stop the sin and there won’t be punishment for sin. Have we learned nothing from the ancient Canaanite practice of dancing before Ashtoreth Poles and sacrificing babies to Molech? Do you really think that God will have mercy on a wicked and perverse generation that has rejected Him under the Dictatorship of Relativism? Really now! What a godless liberal progressive Democrat nation we live in! God had a solution for that. God had Sennecharib deport Israel and Nebuchadnezzar deport Judah for doing what we do, and God’s mercy towards unborn babies is justice towards us, and neither have changed in 3000 years.

  • Angela Rose Guerra

    Safety is a must! we must protect ourselves from sex offenders, they can be anywhere or anytime. We can never predict when they will attack us. Protecting ourselves from sex offenders is our own duty… I am suggesting you to use this application

  • “For young men, I would sum up the point this way. Suppose you’re thinking about having sex, and you find yourself wondering, “if she accused me of rape, how strong a case could she make, and is she the kind of girl who would do that?””

    And yet that’s the message I got in high school, and the answer was always “Either get married to the girl or break up with her, but don’t have sex outside of marriage”.

  • Jhonnie Walker

    “SafeKidZone”. It’s a mobile service that would alert you and your kids,family and friends if you are near atthe area. You will be able to view the information and the threat level calculation for anylocation. What I love the most about the service is the panic button installed on my kids’cell phone that in just a press of it, their trusted friends and family members will be notifiedthat they are in danger. If it’s a life threatening emergency, the incident will be routed tothe nearest 911. I really love this cell phone-based personal security I have for my kids andit’s very easy to use especially for the young ones. You will find more interesting featureson this service so if you want to check out, this is their site

  • Freethinker01

    “People in grave danger do not consent to wait on the moral maturation of their attackers. They protect themselves.”

    Excellent observation. Encouraging people to do whatever they want to do and to believe they their actions will be free from consequence is foolish and gets a lot of people hurt.

  • Pingback: Religious Liberty -

  • Jdonnell

    Rather smug, and including unsupported claims. Women “not arming themselves”? Fact? More women are carrying pepper spray (guns, too. see than ever, incl. many on college campuses. Date rape may differ from what most people see traditionally as rape, and some of it perhaps may come as a result of women thinking that to show their equality by trying to drink as much as the dopey men they are with. That does not excuse anything.

  • Shawna Mathieu

    Have you seen the little Tumblr meme “Not all men”? See, feminists seem to get angry when a guy says, “I know lots of guys have done horrible things to women. Not all guys do, so don’t paint us all with the same brush”. This somehow diminishes and minimizes women’s experiences with rape and abuse. So the guy gets his comment thrown in his face and is told, “If you REALLY were different, you’d have done things to eradicate rape culture. As there’s still a rape culture, obviously you weren’t sincere.” They also get told that they’re saying “not all men” are saying it for praise and attention-getting. So, a man who rapes is bad – and men who say they don’t do that are also bad, What men are supposed to do, it seems, is agree vigorously with women decrying rape culture, apologize profusely and feel guilty for “allowing” fellow Y chromosome bearers to hurt women, express their solidarity by denigrating other men, and then keeping quiet. Oh, and even though it LOOKS like sexism, it’s not – it’s taking back power from the patriarchy.

  • Mickey

    Ms. Lu, you are a smart lady and I always enjoy reading your insightful columns.

  • Dave W

    Has the base question been asked/answered regarding the definition of “sexual assault” in those studies? Now, any amount is bad … but there can be a significant difference is a groping vs a rape? Both could be assault in the minds of a victim.