Oh dear can Ivy League kids be dumb. Today, IvyGate points us to an editorial in the Daily Princetonian, in which a freshman tries that age old argument: When a drunk girl gets sexually assaulted, it's sorta her fault!
A kid named Iulia Neagu (from Bucharest!) elucidates her brave opinion as such:
Therefore, the girl willingly got herself into a state in which she could not act rationally. This, in my opinion, is equivalent to agreeing to anything that might happen to her while in this state. In the case of our girl, this happened to be sex with a stranger.
Which, yeah, is just the same old dumb shit that controversy-hungry college kids have been writing in heavy-worded op-eds for years. Mostly we're just worried that this Neagu girl really hates drinking (bolding ours):
We live in times when sexual discrimination has, more or less, disappeared from our society. Yet it still prevails when talking about a ubiquitous thing like sex. If both people were drunk and if the girl has the right to make the accusation of rape, then why shouldn't the boy enjoy the same privileges? If a culprit is required, then both of them should be guilty or there should be no culprit at all.
Ah yes. No sexual discrimination to blame. It's entirely alcohol. I'm not too up on my Romanian sociology, but their gender-equal utopia sounds pretty great!
Why is this stuff still getting published in Ivy League student newspapers, in 2010?