I find this post from my colleague Robert Kuttner, in which he posits this theory of what might have happened in the hotel room of former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn bizarre:
There's a knock on the door, a young woman enters. Strauss-Kahn expecting his hooker du jour to emerge naked from his toilette, and despite her protests he doesn't believe that she's not there to service him. This could be the parsimonious explanation for otherwise almost inexplicable behavior. On the other hand, image the defense trying to use it in his trial. “You see, your honor, my client was expecting a prostitute and didn’t believe it was just the housekeeper.”
One other detail that calls Strauss-Kahn's judgment into question: McCormick's and Schmicks? Really? This place, suggested by a friend for a meeting, was the site of my only mediocre and overpriced meal in New York. And he's supposed to be the ultimate French cosmopolitan? Maybe this is even exculpatory. A sophisticated diner confusing a chain restaurant with a decent New York eatery is almost capable of mistaking a housekeeper for a hooker.
Kuttner writes that this "would help explain—not excuse—his behavior," but this sounds uncomfortably close to rationalizing.
I'm not going to comment on Strauss-Khan's guilt, but just so we're clear, there is no way in which this hypothetical, twisted Abbott and Costello routine exonerates him from a charge of rape. The identity or occupation of the victim is no more evidence of Strauss-Khan's innocence or guilt than his own. Even if the victim were a sex worker, that would not justify Strauss-Khan continuing to assault her despite her refusing to give consent. The matter would be no different if this were an issue of mistaken identity. Sex workers do not relinquish their right not to be sexually assaulted merely because they have sex for money. A sex worker's right of consent is as inviolate as anyone else's. You cannot accidentally rape someone, no matter how bad your taste in food--or jokes--happens to be.
