equal justice

One Standard for All: Consent, Risk, and the Cornell Fraternity Case

Standard

They love to claim the mantle of common sense, decency and American values, they accuse the ‘other side’ of being corrupting, full of a spirit of bitterness and destructive of civilization. But the reality is they’re just partisans with a lens, who judge everything by the assumed identity of those involved, and this recent Cornell sexual assault case no exception.

First of all, the incident at Chi Phi fraternity house, on October 19–20, 2024, is murkier than a rape case where an totally unwilling person is preyed upon in the street. There were drugs and alcohol involved—and maybe some consent as well. (Update: Details remain disputed) Initially the young woman seemed in denial, after one participant had sent a text apologizing, admitting she was “super clouded” and distinguishing “I really liked being with you and Matt” while saying they should have left out the other men. So, under the New York law (which is very likely to soon change) voluntary intoxication has meant a higher burden of proof—and is why local prosecutors decided (correctly) not to press charges. Something can be immoral, evil even, but not illegal.

Second, it is clear she didn’t consent to all that happened and what happened beyond what she consented to was an assault. Her initial comments suggested it and the later confirm it: “My reputation is destroyed and I’m utterly ashamed. All I do is sleep and cry all day.” That is her distress and realization, once out of the stupor of the day after, and a result of something less than consensual—where she was incapacitated.

Risky Behavior and Impulse Control

Living in a college town it is not unusual for the music to thump at the fraternities and off campus party houses. Getting wasted on the weekends is tradition—as bad as it may be—and I am certain these events are full of regrettable choices. When I see how these young women dress, putting feminine sexuality on full display, clearly intoxicated, and then surrounded by young men full of hormones and desire? This is a match on tinder type of situation. As much as it has been preached in the orientation process, that expressed consent is non-negotiable, the lack of impulse control of youth with a boatload of alcohol on top of that—means bad choices will be made.

What’s funny, however, is when the cultural conservatives, who see deterrence as a way to stop everything from terrorism to theft—do not want to discourage this kind of rape the same as we DUI. They try to argue her responsibility and yet deny that young men have any responsibility whatsoever. This is not the perspective of those seeking justice for all people. This is a reaction of ugly and entitled people who believe ‘liberal’ women deserve to be raped—for rejecting them (in the case of incel men) or for their being free in ways these prudes disapprove.

It’s the same spirit of those in the ‘woke’ left claiming Charlie Kirk being shot was karma because of his pro-2nd Amendment stance: “Oh, he got what was coming to him for his promotion of hate!”

Civilization was not built by those who will decide who is or is not the victim based on tribal alignments. Both right and left, at the extreme, only ever see the criminal justice system as being another means to punish ideological enemies. Equal treatment and protection of all vulnerable gives way to a scorekeeping based on gender, religion and race. We don’t need to deter the young men from ‘gang banging’ a young woman unable to consent because she probably votes for Kamala Harris. The same right that which tells us about racial minorities who lack the impulse control will say “boys will be boys” if they believe it’s one of their own.

Justice is about having one standard for all people. It does not excuse behavior based on circumstances. Are we going to say that shoplifting isn’t a crime because merchants who do not keep their items for sale behind a locked case are asking for it? If a display is an invitation, considered implied consent, then maybe we should decriminalize theft in cases where items weren’t properly secured—requiring proof of the cut chain before we consider a bike to be stolen? Or we could simply be consistent and say that violators (all, not some) should have controlled their urges and prosecute according to the law rather than our biased feelings.

Pornification of Sex

What’s more disturbing is the hidden sexual culture undercurrents of this Cornell case—the obvious of two men with one woman is bad enough. But this idea that she wanted the large group of random men to take their turn on her? This is an attitude that is built on the pornography consumption rather the accurate understanding of average female desires or physiology. I’m sorry—while this is a trope of adult content—normal women don’t consent to seven hours of sex. Paid sex workers do this sort of thing because it is a job. However, this seems to have built an expectation with the consumers.

Pornification of sex is widespread. No pun intended. Where we see everything through the lens of our own pleasure rather than in a context of procreation. She’s a commodity, a consumable, rather than a commitment to love or cherish for life. We have normalized deviance, acts degrading of women, and it’s why we’re now indifferent to sexual assault—we have been desensitized by an industry which exploits our vulnerability and fosters carnal appetites. Women are objectified in this media and young men programmed to only think of themselves. And it is why we want to treat a group of intelligent college age males as being incapable—because we have debased ourselves in private.

One way to remove their shame is to blame-shift. Even (or especially) conservative men refuse to take personal responsibility. They believe they would be completely pure if not for exposure to this constant temptation or if the women of their fantasies simply made themselves available—they feel entitled and angry towards women. This is, incidentally, why they see pink haired feminists as being full of contempt for attractive women. That is projection. It is them mere externalizing their own inner condition and thinking this ability to see the sins of others means they are superior when it’s just a distraction or a lack of self-awareness.

Rebuilding a Culture of Respect

As the father of a 14-year-old boy I’ve now realized that respect for others, women in particular, is something that must be taught—taught by parents. Yes, some might be a bit more empathetic and able to put on the shoes of someone else. Male aggression is something that must be tempered, passion channeled in positive directions, or else you have idle hands doing that Devil’s work.

As the father of a toddler daughter, knowing her teenage years and young adulthood will be here faster than I’m ready for, I want her to be her own first layer of protection. She needs to understand that many men are not well-trained or good. Modesty is a form of self-respect. Keeping ourselves out of risky circumstances can spare us a world of pain and shame. She needs to understand that not all men are gentlemen who will protect her—many men are have an entitled attitude and seething, deeply resentful of women for their standards that excluded them, and will use intoxication to excuse evil.

Truly conservative men, in the West, should follow the self-sacrificial example of Christ who showed compassion for the weak and not judgment. If a man wants respect, as a deserving person, then he doesn’t make any excuses. He asks for her permission rather than just take what he wants. He protects himself from risk by not putting temptation in front of himself and avoids the potential rape allegation. He protects all women simply as a manifestation of his good character without expecting anything in return.

Nice-guy syndrome, or those who will bend over backwards to please a women hoping for sexual favors in return, is a lacking self-respect. The manosphere is just the male version of grievance culture, men who lack impulse control and want to live as animals doing whatever their hormones tell them to do, while then also lamenting the collapse of civilization because women don’t simply respect them for their merely existing. They do not believe they need consent because in their twisted mind every woman is just a whore. It’s male vice dressed as a strength—men who do not value themselves or can’t fill a protective role of a truly good man and, therefore, they’re resentful.

A gentleman does not decide who deserves respect or not based on appearance. They are the self-controlled agents of civilization in all circumstances. He’s self-governed, he is concerned about morality and ethics, not just the legal limits or what he can possibly get away with. He’s not entitled. Not petty or lacking compassion. He will not touch a woman without a marriage license. It does not matter to him what the ‘other side’ has done, he is consistently what he is without making any excuses. If there was one man like this who existed in that Cornell frat he would have protected the young woman.

Ignorance is Not an Excuse

If a group of brown skinned men assaulted a young woman for wearing a short skirt we would make the correct moral judgement. A woman who is basically unconscious is not able to give consent. It doesn’t matter what you think about her style of dress nor if she voluntarily consumed intoxicants or not. If consent laws don’t currently cover this then they most certainly should be updated. My own daughter won’t be ignorant of risks and yet my son will likewise understand that he is responsible, being a civilized man, for his own actions.

If it’s wrong to take a bike because it’s out unchained then it’s wrong to see her spread legs as permission. That said, there should be a different statute applied to such cases of two intoxicated parties. Yes, it is rape, it is rape and requires punishment so a young man thinks about this as the consequences if he takes substance that supercharges his already lacking impulse control. However I don’t think we should say it is the same as a case where everyone is sober. But the true conservative doesn’t exploit the vulnerable in any circumstance. Barbarians don’t need to have consent. Good men do not let their circumstances dictate their response.

Character Over Symbolism — Rejecting Trump as a Political Messiah

Standard

I’ll make a confession. Before Paula White-Cain ever said it, I described Donald Trump as a type of Christ. I believed the judgments against him were largely vindictive and politically motivated rather than a genuine pursuit of truth and justice.

In my defense, I didn’t mean it the same way Paula White does. George Floyd can also be seen as a type of Christ—a man who died under tragic circumstances and became a powerful symbol of what many perceive as lingering racial injustice. Samson in the Old Testament was another flawed type of Christ: a strong but deeply imperfect man who ultimately brought the house down on his people’s enemies. The religious leaders of his day even declared it better that one man should die than the whole nation perish—the exact same justification used against Jesus.

Then there’s Jesus Barabbas, a man whose name literally means “son of the father.” The frenzied mob chose to free a violent revolutionary instead of Jesus of Nazareth.  He serves as a dark type: a chaotic figure the crowd preferred over the true son of God and Prince of Peace.

When I first called Trump a type of Christ, it was out of sympathy and frustration with lawfare. I opposed the clear double standards—Joe Biden openly bragging about his quid pro quo, James Comey giving Hillary Clinton a free pass, while Trump faced relentless legal pursuit. My support was rooted in a belief in equal justice under the law, not personal adoration. I never saw him as a good man, let alone an example to follow. I had accepted him as a necessary monster to fight other monsters.

But I’m now regretting even that loose analogy. Trump’s character has troubled me from the beginning. His style of politics often mirrored the very things I criticized on the left. The “we’re electing a commander-in-chief, not a pastor” argument never fully sat right with me. (More so now that Jerry Falwell Jr., the Evangeli-con leader who had coined this way to rationalize around Trump’s shortcomings, has since been disgraced in a lurid sexual scandal). Being burned by a man I quietly endorsed has forced me to reevaluate my own judgment.

Character is not just one factor among many—character is everything. The danger of electing a monster to fight other monsters is that the beast will eventually turn on you. Perhaps it’s better to “waste” a vote on someone of stronger character than on a “lesser evil” who may overachieve?

Trump won his reelection largely because his opponents cried wolf too many times. Decades of calling anyone to the right of Mao a “fascist,” coupled with the very weak evidence for Russian collusion compared to credible questions about Biden family corruption, made it easy for many to dismiss all criticism of Trump as just another partisan witch hunt. The perception of unfair treatment caused many people to rally around him, ignoring his serious character flaws.

I call it the “George Floyd effect,” where symbolic value of an individual and grievances shared by a demographic group cause people in that group to overlook glaring character issues. Trump also cleverly positioned himself this way with the line, “They’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you—and I’m just standing in their way.”

Yet Trump has increasingly imagined himself as a Jesus-like figure. He once questioned why he would need to ask for forgiveness if he doesn’t make mistakes—which is a stark departure from Christian teaching that all continually fall short of God’s glory. And the recent meme he posted of himself with healing hands, dressed in robes as a Christ-like figure (which he since has insisted was meant to show him as a doctor), crosses into very dangerous territory.  It’s blasphemous.

Only Trump could get away with saying he was portraying a doctor and that those who believe their eyes shouldn’t be trusted.

Anyhow, I’m old enough to remember Barack Obama being called the Antichrist or accused of thinking he was a god for far less. (See: pillars at DNC) The same voices who condemned Obama’s allegedly messianic imagery are now defending or downplaying Trump’s behavior.

I didn’t leave the MAGA coalition.

It left me.

To balance the record: Trump can also be seen as a type of Hitler in troubling ways. He is a populist with grandiose tendencies, quick to attack others while being extremely thin-skinned. He blames foreigners for America’s problems and has also sparred publicly with the Pope—much like Hitler clashed with the Vatican. Both men also survived assassination attempts in ways some called lucky or God’s hand of protection.

In the end, I regret using Christ-like language for any politician. The temptation to turn our flawed political leaders into sacred symbols—whether as redeemers or villains—ultimately does us more harm than good. Politics already pulls us toward idolatry. We should resist it by judging leaders on character first, not on how well they embody our grievances.