Leah627
Facebook
A recent editorial in the Daily Princetonian, Princeton University’s official daily newspaper, indicates that, although rape-apologist discourse is perhaps not pervasive on most campuses (or even at Princeton, necessarily), support for victim blaming still exists. Let’s take a look.
This Monday, Iulia Neagu, a freshman at Princeton, wrote a bold opinion piece questioning the legitimacy behind a friend’s recent charge of sexual assault against another student. Neagu’s public treatise on the legitimacy of rape accusations likely puts the aforementioned “friend” and victim in an uncomfortable space of public recognition. And if I had just experienced an encounter that I had perceived as sexual assault, regardless of its “legitimacy,” no real friend of mine would question my honesty, sobriety, or culpability in a public setting, if at all. But beyond Neagu’s qualities as a friend, let’s examine her reasoning. Why would a female freshman student call out one of her “friends” as a perpetrator or complacent participant in her traumatic sexual encounter, when she could instead act to support her?
Neagu describes a friend’s assault as one reminiscent of “the somewhat cliché play “Sex on a Saturday Night” from freshman week.” These plays (which most freshman are asked or required to attend during their orientation) usually present the following scenario: girl goes to a frat party, gets drunk, and has sex with a guy there without giving consent (or doesn’t remember if she said “Yes,” or said “NO” but was too drunk to insist, or some variation of this basic lack of consent). According to most university policies and state law, a person in such a state of inebriation that strips away their control or awareness of the situation cannot give consent. Sex without consent constitutes sexual violence. It’s true that alcohol complicates situations: different levels of inebriation and incapacity to react constitute different treatment. No matter the situation or accusation at hand, however, the case should be treated with sensitivity and seriousness.
But according to Neagu, this is not the case. Rather, Neagu insists that her friend
“knew what would happen if she started drinking. We all know that the more people drink, the less likely they are to make wise decisions. It is common sense. Therefore, the girl willingly got herself into a state in which she could not act rationally.”
According to Neagu,
“this . . .is equivalent to agreeing to anything that might happen to her while in this state. In the case of our girl, this happened to be sex with a stranger.”
This reasoning is, to put it bluntly, complete bull****. Does Neagu wish to ban women from getting drunk on college campuses? Should women not drink, because if they enjoy themselves in the same way as their male peers do on a Saturday night they might get raped? This faulty logic is akin to other victim-blaming excuses that lead us down a slippery slope to rape apology. Take the “short skirt” trope, for example. Far too often, I’ve heard “She was wearing a short skirt and a thong, so she must have wanted it.” Or, “if she didn’t want to have sex, why would she have come showing that much skin?” Neagu could, with the same logic, just as easily argue that people shouldn’t drive cars. By getting into a car, you’re “agreeing to anything that might happen to you while in this state.” Sure, you could get hit, but that’s your own fault for getting into a car. Reasonable? I think not.
Women should not have to censor themselves for fear of sexual violence. It’s never a victim’s fault that he or she got raped because they were “drinking too much,” “wore too little clothing,” or “went to some guy’s room past midnight.” It should be the responsibility of both parties to ensure they have the other person’s consent. If a student wants to go to a party, get drunk, wear a short skirt, go to someone’s room, and STOP at any point, she should have the prerogative to do so without being derided or labeled a “tease.”
Neagu’s editorial oozes with other specious claims, such as her assertion that “We live in times when sexual discrimination has, more or less, disappeared from our society.” Really? I would love to see Neagu back that claim up, and as much as I might like her declaration be true, it’s pretty far fetched.
I hope that Neagu’s opinion piece is an exception to the student body at Princeton, and not an accurate representation of the campus culture toward rape at Princeton or anywhere else. Neagu gets at least one thing right when she states “matters like this can be painful and even tragic for those involved.” In a perfect world we would focus on rape prevention; sadly, it’s not always possible to intervene before the damage has been done. Let’s try to reduce the pain and tragedy at hand for Neagu’s friend and others in her situation by trusting and supporting, and not suspecting, victims when it’s too late to take preventative measures.
