The Privilege Of Being A Sexual Assault Victim

Conservatives really, really think women are all faking sexual assault for the "social benefits" of victimhood or something.  The latest proponent of "those bitches is clearly lying" is George F. Will.

In a column for the Washington Post, Will argues that universities are basing their definition of sexual assault on a "Washington" education, which is leading to inflated statistics.

“They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous ('micro-aggressions,' often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate," he wrote.

Will offers an anecdote from a student at Swarthmore College, in which a woman reported a rape after a former sexual partner wouldn't take no for an answer. Will implies that because the incident occurred "with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months," she wasn't sexually assaulted.

"I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep," the woman wrote about the encounter.

"Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped," Will wrote about the Swarthmore student. "Now the Obama administration is riding to the rescue of 'sexual assault' victims. It vows to excavate equities from the ambiguities of the hookup culture, this cocktail of hormones, alcohol and the faux sophistication of today’s prolonged adolescence of especially privileged young adults."

So, it's not sexual assault because the dirty, skanky whore said yes to the guy earlier.  Just because she said no this time, well, whore.  So it doesn't matter, the privileged bitch.  She'll get hers, right fellas?

The conservative columnist then disputed certain aspects of the definition of sexual assault.

"Combine this with capacious definitions of sexual assault that can include not only forcible sexual penetration but also nonconsensual touching. Then add the doctrine that the consent of a female who has been drinking might not protect a male from being found guilty of rape," he wrote. "Then comes costly litigation against institutions that have denied due process to males they accuse of what society considers serious felonies."

Will then links sexual assault to other attempts to "create victim-free campuses."

"Meanwhile, the newest campus idea for preventing victimizations — an idea certain to multiply claims of them — is 'trigger warnings.' They would be placed on assigned readings or announced before lectures. Otherwise, traumas could be triggered in students whose tender sensibilities would be lacerated by unexpected encounters with racism, sexism, violence (dammit, Hamlet, put down that sword!) or any other facet of reality that might violate a student’s entitlement to serenity," he wrote. "This entitlement has already bred campus speech codes that punish unpopular speech."

Because as we all know, the real victims here are bros who shouldn't have to put up with all this whining about rape while they're busy doing keg stands and trying to bang sorority sluts.  You know, guys like Elliot Rodger.

We've come around to conservatives declaring that trying to protect people from sexual assault on college campuses violates the free speech rights of people who are busy assaulting people on college campuses. 

This is what you get for voting Democrat ladies, or something.  Jesus, Conservatives are broken, broken bastards.