Let's have her kidnapped from a shopping center, where she was distributing leaflets to Save Darfur, and viciously raped by three prison escapees. Hypothetically, is her rape worse than, say, the rape of a stripper in a house full of college athletes? And should she have her name and face published on the front page of the paper along with the faces of the three men accused? On some visceral level, it does seem worse. She's an innocent, after all. But aren't all rape victims innocent? My point: The rules, once changed, change for all. Whether a stripper, a virgin, a mother, a sister, a harlot or a nun, a rape victim is a victim is a victim. By the time a woman charging rape gets to court, she's had to relive the horror of her experience dozens of times in interviews with cops, investigators, doctors, nurses and social workers - only to face defense lawyers in public court who can ask her the most personal questions imaginable. Add to that the public humiliation, both for the woman and her family, of being exposed through the usual sensitivity of the media mob. Then ask yourself if the goal of gender equity outweighs the societal benefit that accrues from the exercise of empathy and decency toward a victim of such intimate violence. Whether this stripper is truly a rape victim remains to be seen, but the principle that she deserves to be protected from public scorn remains clear. If the Duke lacrosse players are innocent - and I sincerely hope they are - we'll throw them a parade. |