Conza

“Rape or ‘Rape’”? by Murray N. Rothbard

• “…It is true, very true, that rape is coercion, and that rape is a crime, regardless of the sexual or virtuous status of the victim, that is, whether she is a nun, a monogamous wife and mother, a swinging single, or a hooker. But the virtuo-status of the rape victim is relevant to important considerations: (1) the credibility of the victim as witness, and (2) the degree of punishment to be levied upon the criminal.
  
  By its very nature, rape – in contrast to mugging or simple assault – almost always takes place without witnesses. If PATTY BALDWIN charges that Willie Kennedy Smith raped her, are we to believe her? Remember that criminal convictions can only take place if the charge is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and hence the credibility of the victim must be vital to reaching a verdict. Take two hypothetical cases: A: a virtuous nun or married lady charges Willie Kennedy Smith with rape; or B: a bar-hopping party girl, picked up at 3:00 A.M. agrees to go on for drinks and other frisky activities to the Kennedy compound, and then, after some cuddling, charges rape. Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that Female A’s charge is more credible than Female B’s? Especially, if I might revert to PATTY BALDWIN, when the girl seems to have made off with a valuable Kennedy urn at the same time as the supposed rape?
  
  A separate and also relevant point occurs when the judge or jury is handing down punishment for a crime. Punishment differs in proportion to the severity of the crime, and most of us agree that someone clubbing a victim and making off with his gold watch deserves a more severe punishment than a kid stealing a grape from a fruit-store. Is it then unreasonable to assert that coercion taking place after lots of drinks, a 4:00 A.M. return for drinks and hi-jinks at the fellow’s home, and consensual cuddling is less reprehensible than attacking and raping a stranger on the street? Note that I am not saying that “leading the guy on” justifies or exculpates later coercion and rape; but it should mitigate the severity of the crime and the ensuing punishment. Which is why most people have the sound instinct that “date rape,” while reprehensible and indeed criminal, does not reach the deeply reviled status of “stranger rape.”

“Racism or Sexism: Which Way?” by Murray N. Rothbard

• “…The correct and libertarian line to take on rape and Simonson would be as follows: Yes, Simonson is right that our sexually drenched atmosphere can inspire lustful impulses in  males. But,  part of  the necessary process of growing up  is learning how to curb one’s aggressive impulses, to learn self-control (to use an Old Culture word.) He  who can’t or won’t practice such self-control and becomes a criminal aggressor or rapist deserves to be  socked with  the full majesty  of  the law. Simonson’s implication that women should go back  to the veil and the hoopskirt in order to make life easier  for young  proto-rapists  simply won’t  wash. Why  should everyone else’s  life  be  made  gray  and  miserable  for  the sake of  coddling proto-rapists?  Self-control is  their  responsibility,  not  that  of  females  who should  be  able to  dress and act as sexily as they please,  without fear of aggression wreaked upon them. If we really wanted to be Old Culture, we could give our young proto-rapists  the  stern injunction to  go  and take a cold  shower…”