There are some really hard truths that we, as a society, have tried our absolute best not to acknowledge. The reasons are many, but many of these reasons involve the fact that the truths in question run afoul of modern sacred cows.
However, thanks to the Cornell Case, one of those cows is being led to the slaughterhouse for processing.
As you may or may not know, the Cornell Case covers an event that happened in 2024 when a woman (Jane Doe) was allegedly drugged and raped by a group of frat boys during a party. The case has become the focus of online discourse, with the TikTok crowd arguing Doe is innocent of all charges because she's a woman and women can do no wrong (see TikTok's Lindsay Clancy commentary), and everyone else who sees the evidence given by Doe herself that shows an entirely different story.
As June Lapine (better known by her online persona of "shoe0nhead") noted in her commentary about the case, no one on TikTok who is arguing in favor of Doe seems to have actually read any of the official documentation of the case.
*Warning: Language*
tldr-
— shoe (@shoe0nhead) October 1, 2026
whats crazy is if you actually read the case she verbally consented to everything that occurred
she said no to some things (like anal, 4some) so they DID NOT DO those things. she said yes to some things (like 3some & KETAMINE DICK) so they DID those things. consent was… pic.twitter.com/skvylbdF6m
As you can see by the documentation, consent was given at multiple points along the way, and when consent wasn't given, the men did not force their will on her. This is a very important piece of information, because the accusation of "drugged and raped" encounters some very high hurdles. In fact, according to Doe’s own statement, she did more ketamine after becoming “extremely uncomfortable” with how the night was unfolding, thinking she might pass out and that, if the men then had sex with her while she was unconscious, they could be charged with rape. She later made the accusation after she was rejected from attending a party at that same frat house.
This gives us another layer of this issue that needs to be talked about. If the evidence of the case is legitimate, then it appears that Doe believed she could very easily be removed from all accountability and responsibility for her own choices.
Before I continue with my commentary, I want to tag in Camilla Paglia, who spoke about this very kind of thing in 2017. As Paglia says, real cases of rape should be prosecuted, but this type of situation, where a woman has sexual encounters with men, puts herself into that situation, and it's infantilizing for women to say that they bear no responsibility for the outcome.
"If you go to a fraternity-house party, with the chaos going on in the living-room area, and a young man says to you, “Would you like to go up to my room?” I’m sorry — you are consenting to sex. He is right to think you have consented to go up there. You can change your mind, and of course it’s not right for anyone to impose themselves sexually on another person. Naturally. But women must realize they are now free. The sexual revolution has been won. Why are we coddling young women, saying, “Go on being children, because Mommy and Daddy will be there to pick up the pieces for you afterward”?"
The interviewer at the time kept trying to checkmate Paglia by saying it's "almost impossible for women to have the strength to come forward," but Paglia was having none of it.
"Lord, are we going to go on like this, making endless excuses for middle-class girls — confused, unsure of what they want? Perhaps the sexual revolution should be reversed. Because what we’re showing is that perhaps coeducation is a bad idea. Maybe today’s young women are not prepared for coeducation."
The eternally-validated Camille Paglia on the Cornell case.
— Suffragent (@Suffragent_) October 1, 2026
"The sexual revolution must be undone because middle-class women can't handle it. They cannot take responsibility for their own actions."
pic.twitter.com/FEXSjUd7M0
Paglia's point is not one that goes over well with modern sentiments around women, but it's an aforementioned hard truth. A woman who walks into a situation where drinking and drugs are available in abundance, where bedrooms and private spaces are just a few steps away, and young men are horny and looking for sexual gratification, has put herself into a situation where the likelihood of a sexual encounter skyrockets. If the woman consumes substances that lower her sexual inhibitions and agrees to go into a bedroom with one of these young males, that likelihood goes through the roof.
Contributing editor of City Journal and Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Heather MacDonald, says many women purposefully consume substances to lower their sexual inhibitions so they can compete with the male libido and open themselves up to these sexual encounters.
“After drunken orgy sex, females have regrets. And they translate their regret into rape, but that doesn’t make it so.”
— Cabot Phillips (@cabot_phillips) October 2, 2026
-Heather Mac Donald on the Cornell 7 pic.twitter.com/T7YxQsGXV9
As MacDonald notes, once sober and clear-headed, the results of that lack of inhibition turn into regret, and that regret becomes the idea that she was raped, but that's not the reality.
The reality is that promiscuous sex often leads to regret, but modernity has sold it to women as empowering. To be promiscuous, says the zeitgeist, is to be free, strong, and independent. However, it also tells women they aren't accountable for decisions they make in high-emotional states or in situations where their common sense is inhibited. It doesn't matter if she got there by her own free will; that she took that shot of tequila, that she smoked, snorted, or injected that drug willingly, that she agreed to follow a man up to his bedroom, or that she invited penetration.
She's not responsible. He is. Men are expected to bear the brunt of every decision made by a woman, and if that woman who welcomed his desires regrets it later, then every decision she made is on him.
As Paglia said, this is infantilization of the highest order. The sexual revolution gave women sexual agency, but not any of the responsibility. This is how we wind up with the ridiculous idea that regret for actions willingly taken and unwilling sex are the same.
From where I'm standing, it seems to me that the sexual revolution didn't free women sexually. It threw them into the lion's pit. It made many women believe that walking into a sexual situation with zero attachments, commitments, or even love and care is somehow the highest expression of agency, and then left them with all the regret and depression of a woman who is used, discarded, and scorned.
Paglia's thought was, I think, right. The sexual revolution was a massive mistake.
