US Weekly published blips from Bristol Palin's new biography: "The 20-year-old single mom reveals that, while drunk for the very first time, she lost her virginity to Levi Johnston during a camping trip. Palin says she woke up alone in her tent, with no recollection as to what happened. Johnston, meanwhile, 'talked with his friends on the other side of the canvas.'"
So, of course, some people assume that means Bristol Palin was raped. "[W]hen you claim someone had sex with you without your knowledge while you’re passed out drunk, that’s called rape."
Never mind that Levi has denied it. See here. We fully understand that a male's denials when confronted with a rape claim don't matter "Of course he'd deny it!" the sexual grievance industry harrumphs. I wouldn't be surprised if rape feminists insist that a denial only furnishes additional proof of guilt.
No, the rape allegation will only "confirm" for most people what they already "know" about Levi -- that he's a selfish, undeservedly privileged male who took advantage of a helpless child for his own sexual gratification.
The rape "allegation," such as it is, in Bristol's book should be rejected out of hand.
First, even if Bristol's version were correct, there is no indication about her state at the time she had sex, only that she couldn't remember it later. Nor do we know what state Levi was in. Or who was the initiator. If they were both too drunk to know what they were doing, why is he the "rapist" and why is she the "victim"?
Second, and far more important, Bristol's book is told with the intent to make money. Bristol's is a kind of fame that is manufactured, not earned. It requires the fuel of shocking salaciousness to keep it running. A rape claim fits the bill.
Bristol obviously was not willing to report to the police that she'd been raped, where the claim could be investigated, and where, if charges were lodged, Levi at least would be afforded those limited due process rights still afforded to men and boys accused of rape. Until Bristol is willing to allow Levi to fully defend himself in a real court, as opposed to the court of public opinion where every rape allegation is instantly believed, this should not be news. Her "claim" is no more worthy of belief than are the self-selecting rape polls used by the U.S. government to "prove" rape is rampant on our college campuses (where, by the way, it isn't "one-in-four" but more like one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven -- see here).
How should we regard a several-year-old, unsubstantiated, "she said/he said" rape allegation? Well, let's hear what someone who's spent much of her life dealing with rape issues had to say about a similar case:
". . . the problem is we just don't know and there's no way to determine. . . .. I'm the mother of a son and a daughter. And I would hate like heck for my daughter ever to be in a position where she faces an unwanted sexual advance. . . . .. But I'm also the mother of a son. And you and I both witnessed, for instance, in the Duke case, a number of young men whose lives were — for all intends and purposes . . .ruined by a false accusation."
That was feminist advocate Susan Estrich last year, discussing the sex claim against Al Gore.
The same analysis applies here.
No comments:
Post a Comment