Camille Paglia On Date Rape Analysis

Camille Paglia, a humanities professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia and cultural critic for the San Francisco Examiner, wrote an article entitled “On Date Rape” to share her opinion on the stance of women when it comes to dating culture and rape. Paglia claims her generation was the one that “broke the rules” and paved way for “freedoms” for women, but insinuates that women now do not want to take responsibility for the risks that follow these “freedoms” (142). In her discussion of the topic, she exhibits a myriad of fallacious statements and weaknesses, which conceivably challenges her position as a feminist. Her conclusions question her credibility and sensitivity to the issue and do not make a convincing argument. Throughout

In the second paragraph, she says, “You can be overpowered”, telling women that whenever you are alone with a man, there is a possibility that he can hurt you, instilling fear and warning women to be careful (144). From this statement, Paglia claims that all men are stronger than women and are able to subdue a woman at any given moment, so women should watch themselves. Also, in the fourth paragraph, where she is also making a false analogy of rape to car keys and personally attacking women by calling them “idiots”, Paglia is making the assertion that it would be the woman’s fault if she were raped because she got drunk and would not be in the right state of consciousness to prevent an assault (145). While this is another instance of victim blaming, she is also appealing to fear by implying that any instance of getting drunk at a frat party or getting drunk in general could result in rape. The implicit threats to the audience are used to emotionally persuade the audience into taking Paglia’s side in her argument of personal responsibility. As she goes on in her article, she develops more fallacies and her arguments continue to be illogical and

She discusses the consequences of dating leading to rape from a woman’s standpoint throughout the piece, but never makes any effort to consider a man’s part in the equation. She faults the woman in not “reading the signals” leading to her becoming “overpowered and raped” but does not affix any blame on the man at all for the act (145). Paglia tries to manipulate the audience into thinking that a woman getting raped is negligence on her part. She suggests all women should be aware of rape signals and that the signs should be obvious; that a woman should be able to prevent it, whereas the man who rapes the woman has no fault at all. Paglia depicts women now as powerless and risk-taking and ultimately attacks them for being “idiots” for allowing themselves to get raped (145). By insinuating that independence comes with a price, she attempts to convince women that when facing precarious situations, it will be wise to follow in her footsteps as she has “been very vigilant [and has been] constantly reading the signals” to prevent rape (145). In the end, Paglia has rendered her arguments invalid and unreasonable by making one-sided claims without any attempt at opposition, ultimately serving as an article riddled with