She's cautioning women. The fact that the two victims had every right to do what they were doing when they were attacked (if the woman in the Duke case was actually attacked) does not mean doing it was smart or responsible or reasonable under the circumstances. It's really not a difficult concept and one most adults understand. And of course Riley doesn't absolve the perpetrators (if there were any in the Duke case) of blame.

false assumption to make.

if you party with people you do not trust, say Hells Angels bikers or prostitutes, do not be surprized if they rob you of your wallet when you are drunk or asleep.

simple as that.

if women prefer to be with men they cannot trust, just because the men are hot looking jocks, who is to blame but the women?

lots of good men are passed over as the women drive on the way to these jocks houses.

I would not go to a prostitute, because I do not want a disease. I would also not go one month long jaunts with career criminals I do not know, because I could become their victim.

I would be a victim, but I would also be culpable becauseI knew the risks going in.

sorry chickies, doesn't work both ways.

start dating good men with integrity and brains and generous hearts, we are not all repulsive.

No one ever said gender inequality was fair. No, those people do not "deserve" in any way to be raped. However, making the series of poor choices they did is the equal of walking down a busy road in the dark in black clothes. No one deserves to die being run over by a semi truck in the dark. However, by staying in one's living room instead of walking on the road in aforementioned black sweats, one takes significantly less risk.

Yes, men absolutely must take responsibility for their actions. In a perfect world, they would. Until that perfect world arrives, women need to be a whole lot more cautious.

I remember talking in college 20 years ago about a frat party rape of a 16 year old that took place in my small-town liberal arts college. Scandal rocked the campus, and we talked of nothing else for months. At the time, I remember taking the line of "What the hell was a 16-year-old girl doing at a frat party anyway?" That particular fraternity was notorious. I knew a whole lot of women who wouldn't set a foot in there during the day, let alone at night at a party.

A guy I still respect to this day for making me stop in my tracks and think, said "Stupid people have rights too."

Yes, they do. People who do stupid things and end up in stupid places DO have rights. Those things should not happen. People should take responsibility. However... the person in black sweats on the road is still just as dead, even though they shouldn't be.

I imagine I'll be having this very conversation some day with my daughter who is now only 6. I can't imagine that I'll say something along the lines of "It's ok honey, go ahead and drink and get stupid with a bunch of guys. You'll be fine because they'll be perfect gentlemen, and if they're not, well, it's against the law and they'll be in a lot of trouble." No, I'll be trying in every way that I can to caution her against getting in that situation in the first place.

By that logic, the men hardly even need to be there, just show up once the woman is suitably unable to give consent, thanks to her own "bad" behavior.

The opinion journal piece sorely misses the point - if a man does not get explicit consent from a woman, he is guilty of rape. If a woman is in no shape to give consent, then a man must not have sex with her. If a woman says yes, then changes her mind and says no, then the man must stop. Common sense, we all say. But then why is there so much date rape?

Sure, people criticize this by saying, "so what, I need a signed permission slip?" It may seem unromantic, but if every sexual encounter was preceded by such explicit clarification (and an understanding that lack of ability to clarify means lack of consent), that would go a long way towards solving the problem.

I cannot begin to explain how infuriated I was upon reading Naomi Schaefer Riley's op-ed.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Apparently, men have a presumed consent to women's bodies. Just look at the way rape is prosecuted in this country. A man doesn't need to show he asked and received approval for sex. The woman must demonstrate that she:

1. Was demurely dressed

2. Said no verbally and repeatedly

3. Was not walking alone in a "bad neighborhood"

4. Was not drinking

5. Was not sexually promiscuous

6. Fought against the rape even if it meant risking her life

7. Reported the crime immediately

When a robber breaks into someone's house, we don't ask the homeowner to prove they used a deadbolt lock, had a security system, owned a guard dog and had the good sense not to live in a bad neighborhood. The intruder is considered an intruder by virtue of not being invited.

Apparently women's bodies don't have the same value as a studio apartment.

And then there are people like KMR and brightstar who think all the onus is on the woman and that men can't make bad choices. They can't control themselves, the poor dears.

There's no such thing as a rape victim to him, because women choose to be around men other than him. Once you set foot into a frat house, apparently you cease to exist as a human being and become a set of orifices. And you'll notice how, once again, this all comes back to how women reject brighstar BECAUSE THEY CAN TELL HE HATES THEM.

His "women ask for it" argument is pure rapist logic. If he hasn't assaulted anyone yet, it's only because he's trying to figure out a way to get away with it (i.e., where to dump the body).

Brighstar: you are not a nice guy, nor have you ever been. You're a woman-hating sociopath, and women with any survival instinct will naturally avoid you.