I recall doing a double-take as I walked through the meeting room block in the
Montclair State College Student Center and beheld a poster for an upcoming Women’s
Center event. The topic was rape and how to protect oneself. And at the bottom,
in the block letters typical for these machine-produced posters was the phrase,
in large letters: RAP SESSION TO FOLLOW. Oh no, I thought! How long is it going
to be before some wag neatly fills in the space with an official-looking “E”?
Only a day or so later I was passing that way again, and what did I see this
time? You guessed it. “Rape Session to Follow.” Well, they were
asking for it.
But are rape victims “asking for it”? Feminists never let such an
opinion go unchallenged, for it seems a revolting instance of “blaming
the victim.” It is supposed to be merely one more disgusting example of
the age-old Judeo-Christian depiction of poor naïve men, innocent as the
driven snow, seduced by wily women and their beguiling charms. Surely, it is
argued, women have the right to dress as they please. It’s the problem
of the men to keep themselves under control. And if they don’t, it is
their fault pure and simple! Book him, Dano.
But this way of characterizing the problem seems to me inadequate. And it is
not because I blame women as witches and bitches. No, forgive me, guys, but
in most ways I should judge women superior to men. Ashley Montague was right.
No, the problem is that feminists are, on this issue, overestimating men, trusting
them too much! Or perhaps one ought to say women are underestimating the bestial
nature of males. I mean, look at the Middle East. Why are women held captive
in those Iron Maidens, the burkas and chadors? You only know there’s a
female inside because men don’t wear these garments—these tents.
Men make women wear them in order to protect them from the casual lust of other
men, whom, and whose lusts, they know all too well. They know it does not take
much to enflame their kind with dangerous, aggressive passion. Men don’t
require women to hide in these shapeless garbage bags to nullify their siren-like
power to provoke otherwise innocent males. Hell no! They make them wear them
so as to prevent lustful creatures like themselves from seeing the fetching
contours of the female. I am saying that males have a heavy dose of the sexual
predator in them, stemming from the old days when their apish ancestors used
to sneak up on any available female bending over at the watering hole.
Some years ago there was actually debate in New York City over whether to make
it legal for women to go topless on the subway! If you don’t think this
move would have raised the rape rate, you are not living in the real world.
A man thus aroused to violent action would still be guilty (and I mean real
guilty: I want these bastards executed.). But you could not maintain that the
half-naked gal had not made herself into an “attractive nuisance.”
That would take oblivious naiveté on the same scale as Obama wanting
to negotiate with Islamo-Fascists in Iran.
And it is nearly as naïve to think it takes anything as blatant as public
nudity to get sexual predators going.
Some rape victims, I am proposing, have endangered themselves by underestimating
the degree to which males have evolved past being chimps in pants. I am, I guess,
“blaming” women for giving men too much of a break! Thinking too
highly of them! “Gee, officer, if I’d realized it was a bull, I
wouldn’t have waved that red flag!” Come on, women, take a second
look at these guys, but “dress for success,” succeeding in not leaving
yourselves open to the loathsome attentions of Neanderthals.
So says Zarathustra.
Robert M. Price