Article has it's ideological blinders on so heavily that it almost doesn't understand it's own subject matter — a problem so typical of our times.

Both Paglia and Kipniss have a a lot of empathy for people who were raped. But you can have empathy while also encouraging people to take a certain amount of responsibility in order to protect themselves. This comes with the territory of being alive. It does not make people into 'prey' and feminists would be shocked to learn that this is a state of being for men too.

Near the beginning the author states: 'In hazarding that men alone aren’t responsible for sexual assault, or what the book jacket dubs “mutually drunken sex,” Kipnis is..' An assaulted passed out drunk person is absolutely a rape victim. Mutually drunk hookups are just that, yet are increasingly treated as rape. Kipnis makes this distinction. The author's acrobatics in conflating these two things is incredibly dishonest sophistry, masquerading as self-evident moralizing.