A recent sexual assault case in Indiana deserves attention because of its legal argument. Indiana University student Aaron Farrer is suing the university and key administrators over Title IX’s gender discrimination against males. In this case, the female admittedly initiated sex with the male, but the male was expelled and female protected. Farrer’s 76-page complaint states that the defendants violated Title IX “by creating a gender biased, hostile environment against males, like Farrer, based in part on IU’s pattern and practice of disciplining male students who accept physical contact initiated by female students, but failing to discipline female students who engage in the same conduct.” This legal argument is worth watching as pushback continues to grow against Title IX. It is an argument whose time has come – as Title IX has become the primary political and legal tool of the feminist movement.

Unfortunately the newspaper gets the facts wrong by the end of the article, publishing the 1-in-5 rape statistic instead of the actual Bureau of Justice Statistics number, 0.03-in-5 (6.1 per 1,000 students). Responses to the IndyStar may be needed. Another article, published a few years ago, is worth reviewing because of its report on neuroscience studies that show that rape accusations are more often than not murky and made up, rather than clear and accurate. Unfortunately, the article uses this evidence to make a case for not prosecuting rapes rather than rapes that may be falsely made (to any degree). And the article perpetuates many of the same fallacies concerning “rape events,” attacking the seriousness with which police interrogate rape accusations.

What is interesting in the IndyStar report is that several of the 85 or more comments argue that some of the best (and ironically least forgettable) sexual experiences for a young person may happen while under the influence. The argument runs like this: Two people have the right to have any sexual pleasures they choose, and the state has no right poking its nose into their privacy. So when both parties are drunk and are having sex, a society has no reason to choose sides between two drunk lovers and make the male the responsible party. Indeed, we’ve just spent the last thirty years getting out of the bedrooms of gays and lesbians. And yet strangely enough, society has returned to focus on the bedroom again – this time by infantilizing college students with in loco parentis. There are at least two reasons why a progressive liberal society still wants to get into the private lives of young lovers.

The first is obviously regressive in thinking, with a perverse return to romantic chivalry – to defend the “honor” of “ladies,” so that a female should never be taken advantage of, while white knights must “suck it up” and be responsible for all situations. Of course, this approach is backwards and does not achieve equality because it is fundamentally sexist in its attack on males. In a modern liberal society, such chivalric tendencies are so ridiculously undemocratic that it should not be worth mentioning, but the problem is that feminists and their male social justice warriors have blurred this issue so badly that we must openly resist them. That is, feminist ideology plays directly into what it claims to hate about “oppressive masculinity” – namely that men have all the power and are responsible for all sexual transactions. It follows then that all men are culpable for all sexual misconduct.

Second is ideological feminism. To use sex as politics is the gold standard for feminists. And even though the sex lives of young females and males today are defined by such elements as “jungle juice” and “hookup culture,” feminists have found a gold mine to dig – lots of bad behavior that can be pegged on males. Feminists seize on such bacchanalian scenes for political opportunities to punish males, leaving females unscathed. Feminists operate on the double standard that what’s good for the female is punishable for the male. Using irrational guilt trips and scary consequences, feminist political power seeks to create a society free of unwanted men, not a society free for all.