35 Things I'm Thankful For - Part 3.

This is part 3 of my series on the 35 things I'm thankful for.  Part 1 is here, and part 2 is here.

15.  My mentors. I know I'm spoiled in my life generally, and I'm extra spoiled in my PhD. Some students in the world can't find a single mentor besides their supervisor; I entered my PhD with six in the corridor upstairs from my office. Over time, my mentors have changed in nature and number. I was devastated when I got the news that Kevin Boyle had passed (that link is to my favorite obituary for him). I was not only losing a mentor, but a friend, and his loss still motivates and saddens me today. Shortly thereafter, two others went to part-time status and then some went on maternity leave. One took on extra administrative responsibilities. My ability to jump into their office whenever I needed a pep talk or career advice has, at times, been limited. Even as their availability changed, their impact did not. I also found new mentors, people who create space in their professional lives for me. Each new mentor eventually becomes a friend - and sometimes my friends become mentors. Their generosity of spirit allows me to develop and to pass on the lessons they give me.  Sometimes I feel I should be further in my development and without a need for mentors anymore; but then I realize that even if I was able to live without them, I wouldn't want to. The give-and-take of a good discussion over my PhD inspires me to go deeper. The constant reminder that I'm entitled to say "no" is sometimes both a necessity and a godsend. They have seen me at my worst as an academic and a writer, and yet they always encourage me to be my best. I am, forever, indebted to their care and attention.

14.  My legs. I broke one last year and it still hurts, particularly when it's cold or when I'm sick (like now, when I'm both cold and sick).  But they work. The broken one healed; the non-broken one compensated in the meantime.  They propel me. They let me feel the sensation of running and bicycling, and walking with friends through a muddy path. Legs are pretty great and I don't think we give them enough credit. Or perhaps that was just me.

13. Post-it notes. I also love whoever invented them (though I understand that it was neither Romy nor Michelle). They're so pretty and they make my life seem so much more organized.

12. Earplugs. For a while, I couldn't find earbuds that worked with my ears, but a pound store (like a dollar store, but in British pounds) near my home had these awesome ones with little jelly ends that fit snuggly inside my years. Now I can listen to Frightened Rabbit and Taylor Swift one right after the other and no one judges me. Well, until now. And while I like being exposed to new music, I'm so glad I don't need to listen to the favorite songs of every random guy on the underground.

11. Crayons.  I particularly like Crayola's box of 64 (though I'm devastated to learn, via wikipedia, that some of my favorite colours were retired!). I can't find the 64 box here in the UK so I keep myself busy with a box of 8. Crayons are brilliant (with almost all the definitions of that word applying). When I'm stumped on my PhD or in need of a break, I find colouring or drawing gives me the mental break necessary to engage with my PhD again from a fresh start. It's also one of those fun words where the more you look at it, the more certain you are it can't be a real word. But it is.

What my crayon box looks like.
Image from Crayola.

10. Martin Luther King, Jr., J.F.K., R.F.K., Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Susan B. Anthony. Jane Austin, J.D. Salinger, Harper Lee, and Elizabeth Barrett Browning. Khalil Gilbran. Pablo Neruda. Leonard Cohen, Bob Dylan, and Bruce Springsteen. Maya Angelou and Gloria Steinem. They inspire me and challenge me. At times in my life when I've felt I had few friends, they were my friends. When I feel disconnected from life, they connect me again. They also make me sound smart when I'm at a party. Or at least they did back when I liked being pretentious.

9.  New Year's Eve. I have an awesome group of friends I spend most New Year's Eve with. This year, though, one is on a Navy warship, one is playing doctor (well, being a doctor), one is living in another country, and then there's me and my PhD-related income levels that make travel home during the holidays unlikely at best. We've had to postpone NYE this year, but it's coming up. This one day of the year reminds me of the love I am the recipient of the rest of the time; it also lets me make resolutions I'll quickly break, and gives me a sense of newness that motivates small changes in my life.

8.  Wine. I can live without wine. I have been to Muslim states where it's unavailable or prohibitively expensive, so I know I can do it. And I've applied to go to Muslim states again in the near-ish future, so I may have to do it. But I just think life is better with wine than without.

7.  Time. I wish we had more of it, but the concept of it and the uses of it are pretty nice.

6.  My girlfriends. I'm sure that with all the love I've been foisting on my guy friends, they've probably felt neglected on my blog. And girls already get a bad rep as friends. When we're young, women are taught by society that gossiping is a way to make friends. This leads to an age-old lie often told that women make bad friends. We're not as accepting as men. We're not as trustworthy or laid back or fun or interesting. All we talk about are boys and each other and hair and make up. I hate when I hear that same old trope about how girls are the worst, and you can never trust a girl friend, and they'll stab you in the back, and blah blah blah.  Have I been stabbed in the back by supposed friends? Absolutely. Both times I've been cheated on, a friend was involved. Nothing like feeling absolutely sucker punched in the gut when you discover not one but two people you trusted had betrayed you. But that's two women out of the hundreds I have been close friends with.

While my junior high and high school circles of friends changed almost as quickly as the seasons and brought drama and back-stabbing, and gossip and fights, my grown-up girl friends have filled my life with love, poetry, artwork, prayers, hugs, long emails when I'm far from home, extended phone calls, cocktails and wine, conversations about the meaning of life, career advice, proof-reading skills, nights out, nights in, and a shared love of romantic comedies we completely recognize are not true to life. They have held my hair when I'm sick, made me soup when I had a broken leg, hugged me when I cried over a broken heart, helped me pack for my grandmother's funeral, lent me hundreds of books, and given me pep talks before every board meeting or interview I've had. They laugh at my ridiculously embarrassing stories - getting my suitcase caught in the turnstiles at a tube station; tripping and falling into the lap of a stranger; or the time I tried to stay warm at a football game and ended up cutting off the circulation in my legs (long story; high school; that's all you get) - and ultimately they get me to laugh, too. They are my cheerleaders and my confidants.

I have an ever-growing set of presents that remind me of these faithful, wonderful, and loving girl friends. Their flowers, teddy bears, fun dresses, jewelry, books, handbags, and music allow me to stay connected when facebook, the internet, and the phone just don't seem to work as well as we expect. They bless my life with happiness. If I had to endure a few years of gossip and drama, or a few moments of heartbreaking betrayal to find the gems that decorate my life, then the payoff was well worth the cost.

35 Things I'm Thankful For - Part 2

Here's part 2 of my 4-part series on 35 things I'm thankful for, in honour of my 35th birthday. (Part 1 is here.)

24.  Facebook. No one in my family knows how to make an international phone call except my sister and one uncle. Literally, no one else.  A certain parent of mine gets confused because there are too many numbers. It doesn't matter how many times I say "you can just input those numbers," they don't believe me. My parents don't even answer the phone when I call because my number shows up in their cell phones as a US number with an area code of 447.  My parents have apparently been convinced -- for five years! -- that my number is that of a telemarketer.  There is no 447 area code in the US.  There's a 440, which is by their house so they would answer it anyhow, and 441 is Bermuda (442 and 443 are apparently also US codes). But no 447. This hasn't deterred them from ignoring my calls for multiple years.

And when I say my number starts +44, none of my US friends know what the + means.  Okay, "none" might be an exaggeration; but "most" wouldn't be.

Facebook lets me connect with my family and friends in a way I just couldn't when I was living overseas in the pre-fb days (yes, my students, I remember life before facebook).  I've reconnected with old friends, stayed in touch with new ones, and even have about 12 facebook friends I've never met.  I wish they'd stop messing with their privacy settings, and I really, really wish the messages didn't now show when someone has read the message.  But, on the whole, I'm grateful for facebook and facebook-like technologies.

Oh, and it's a really good way to waste some time when I need a mental break.

23. Butternut squash. You can use it in so many recipes! And it's soooo good.  My other thankful-for foods: avocados; asparagus; artichokes; chocolate; and ice cold water. Okay, water's not really a food but I love the non-taste of ice cold water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cucurbita_moschata_Butternut.png

22. Chai tea lattes from Starbucks. Seriously. When I feel lost, or upset, or just far from home, sitting and sipping this drink - with alterations suggested to me by a barista I once dated - makes me happy.

21.  My friend R, who once told me that if I couldn't name the restaurant a guy had taken me to on a first date, I wasn't in love. That advice - and strangely a dozen other little things he said to me in the brief period when our friendship involved actual face-to-face contact - stays with me. He's an under-appreciated man.

20.  This video.

And this one.

And the woman who shared them for me to find on my facebook feed.

I think the human experience is amazing. We subdivide and sub-subdivide and are always trying to define ourselves based on meaningless factors like age, race, gender, language, accent, disability, in some bizarre attempt to find those who are most like us, to define ourselves and others as acceptable or unacceptable.  Yet, the human experience transcends these issues. It's the moment when you've embarrassed yourself so completely that looking at someone makes you cringe; and knowing that later in life you'll probably laugh at yourself (and sometimes that later in life happens within the hour when you run home to your housemate). It's the first time you see someone who takes your breath away. It's the first time you had to break someone's heart. It's the song that makes you cry when you're not even fully sure of the words. It's the first time you've failed and weren't sure how you were going to get back up. Then getting back up. It's your first funeral; the weird sensation of seeing someone you knew, whose last conversation you remember, just laying there, made up by someone else's hands. It is the knowledge a loved one will die. It's holding the hand of your grandmother as she forgets who you are and her eyes glaze over and she starts talking about the dance you supposedly went to last weekend when you were both 18. It's hoping that someday your grandchild will hold your hand when you do the same.

This video shows us how our human experience is more common than we want to recognize. If we just let ourselves experience what we should - our commonality - we'd find a lot more friends and far fewer strangers.

Oh - and the woman who shared these?  Pretty. Fricking. Awesome.  I've known her since we were children.

19.  My own human experience. I remember doing a speech in first year undergrad and looking into the eyes of the most beautiful man I have ever seen in my life - still today - and actually catching my breath and thinking "wait, oh no - what was I was saying?"  I don't know if anyone noticed that moment. I recovered relatively quickly and it wasn't reflected on my evaluations, but that moment... seared into my brain. So are these: My first kiss was with Eddie B. when I was about 5 years old. We didn't know what we were doing; we just followed what we saw on television. I used to cheer with Heather and Krissy when the local boys played football until we got tired of standing on the sidelines and decided to play with them. One time, they picked me up and carried me backwards so my team lost. That seemed massively unfair but today it just makes me laugh. Sitting next to Vince in Mr. Ingersoll's history class. The moment I knew I was taking Brian to senior year homecoming; he didn't know it yet, but I had made up my mind. Calling a girl the b-word after a parade, while we were still wearing our flag corps outfits. She smacked me and before I could respond my friend Mo grabbed me and carried me away. My first kiss with each of the two men I've loved. Taking my first Japanese bath, and walking out to a room full of people clapping for me. Teaching myself how to drive stick shift on an island in Malaysia. Sitting at a table in Copenhagen surrounded by people speaking to each other in any one of a six languages, coming from a dozen countries, and thinking "this is what home feels like." My JD and LLM graduations. Standing on the northern most point of Cyprus. Drinking beers - and tequila shots, and fruity cocktails - at Panini's with a series of great friends. The first conversation I had with AV. Making homemade pasta in Jo's kitchen. Carrying my grandmother's casket. Without meaning to, my cousins, my sister and I all wore red heels, and I remember the sensation as mine sunk into the ground, feeling the casket's weight change with each movement any of us made. Hugging my sister before she left for Iraq. And then again when she left for the Mediterranean. Walking into Aya Sofia.

18.  Language and our capcity to use it. I am in awe of my friends, with their multiple languages and dozens of accents. I love that when we talk, and really connect, sometimes I forget that they have an accent. Or that I do. But I also enjoy the moments when our accents make us laugh, when an entire room will turn to me and expect me to translate for my flatmate -- who speaks English as her native language.

17. Balloons. They currently decorate both our ceiling and our floor and they make my house a more colourful experience.

16. Gerbera daisies.

http://frimminjimbits.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/gerbera-daisies.html

And forget-me-nots.

http://jv-foodie.typepad.com/foodie/2009/04/forgetmenots.html

35 Things I'm Thankful For - Part 1

I turned 35 this weekend.  In honour of that exciting day, I'll be doing a series of posts that will eventually result in my sharing 35 things I'm thankful for.  I started these several days before my birthday, but I was spoiled by amazing friends and as a result, I didn't finish typing them in.  So it's a little late, but they are coming in the next few days.

35.  My stuffed blue bear that Eddie M. gave me for my 8th birthday.  When I was young, I changed his name to match the name of whichever guy I had a crush on.  At some point, though, I felt that was giving the bear a complex, so around 10, I named him Blue Bear, and he has been with me ever since.  He's traveled around the world and even though he's spent too much of the last year packed away, Blue Bear is one of my most treasured possessions and a nice reminder that I'm never really far from home.

34.  The two men in my life that I've loved. When I think of the others I've tried to make it wok with, I realize how special these men were in my life. I feel lucky that they are who I've spent my time loving. I'm grateful for the lessons these relationships have given me.

33.  My mistakes. Sometimes, I've judged people too harshly at first, but through mutual recognition of our strengths and weaknesses, we've established great friendships. Sometimes, my mistakes have included over-extending myself and not protecting my own time and space. This has taught me how to do that now (well, sort of).  These mistakes though, have often resulted in great memories and have often provided me with a greater appreciation of my own strengths and weaknesses. I have become resilient through them.

32.  That I'm not a corporate lawyer anymore.  Well, mostly not a corporate lawyer anymore.  I have friends who love it and I deeply respect them, but corporate law was never for me. It's not why I went to law school; it's not who I am at the heart of it; and ultimately, it made me miserable even after I left it.  Human rights is what I was meant to do.  When I think of what else I could be doing with my life - things that would pay better, or give me an easier life in closer proximity to my family - I realize that I would probably be miserable doing anything other than what I am. I realize this might sound like corporate law was a "mistake," but it wasn't. It was a period of time I needed to go through, and it taught me a lot of valuable skills. I'm just glad I didn't need to do it for very long before I really found myself again. This is being true to myself, and if I had never done corporate law, I might never have realized that and always wondered about the path I didn't take.

31.   The men in my life I've never hooked up with. I've already written a full letter to them, but I'll add an addendum here. Since it's the 200th anniversary of Pride and Prejudice today, I have heard a lot about how Mr. Darcy isn't real. Until this year, I've thought this true as well and lamented it with all the other women Jane Austin influenced.  But, I've come to realize that (a) I probably wouldn't actually want to marry William Darcy because he's a bit of a twat at points (even though in the end his good elements come clearly through) and (b) if you want a good Mr. Darcy substitute without the initial snobbery, pride and vanity, you can apparently find them in Central Asia! This year, I've been spoiled by men in this region. It's caused a great deal of feminist introspection by one of my flatmates and me and we've come to realize how much we appreciate that these guys who, in so many ways, embody the patriarchal societies in which they've been raised (sorry guys but it's kind of true).  Yet, their regular displays of chivalry are really appreciated in our house.  The other day, we spent at least a half-hour discussing how this could be and came to the conclusion that it's because when they are kind to us in "traditional ways," it's never out of condescension or pride, but out of respect and love. They'll carry our bags for us not because they think we're helpless and unable to do it, but because they like serving and respecting us in this manner.  They insist on walking me home not because they're actually worried about my getting robbed or assaulted (as I've pointed out numerous times, I've lived in my village for about 4 years without every coming to harm), but because they like serving and respecting us in this way.  They are true sweet gentlemen, who are quiet and humble.  And no - I'm not dating them; I'm just really impressed with these men and am lucky to have them in my life. So this is my advertisement for Central Asia. Women, if you want to meet a modern Mr. Darcy, go find a human rights activist from this area of the world. They're pretty freaking awesome.

30. My friend Julie, who first convinced me to go overseas.  Every day, I thank God for her and her influence. I love my life and can't believe I get to live it, but I also know that if I hadn't met Julie, I might not be where I am today. She is, truly, a gift from God.

29.  My teachers. Throughout my life, I've been blessed by great teachers. They have included or been my parents, my family, my friends, my colleagues, my cheerleaders, and my biggest supporters. They have challenged me and changed me, and they taught me how to do well what I love to do now.

28.  My hometown. While I mean Cleveland generally, I also mean my actual suburb specifically.  It was diverse and interesting and somehow still like a small town. The town has amazing people who taught me to look past differences and to serve both humbly and greatly.  And while my high school class had more than 350, we had relatively few problems of bullying and a real camaraderie that still lasts today. My classmates and neighbours still impress me daily with their commitment to service and to making the world a better, brighter place to live.

27. Great Lakes Brewery.  There's nothing like a GLB to make me feel like I'm at home.  If only they delivered to the UK.

26.  My time in Japan. I hate telling people now where I lived in Japan, getting their shocked and sympathetic looks when I say "Fukushima." I hate how they hesitate before asking me "So, um, when did you live there?" as if they're afraid I'm about to contaminate them with all my radioactivity.  I hate the way they clearly want to pry but they don't want to seem like they're prying.  That said, I loved my time there.  I loved the way the people in that town always reached out to help one another, and me. I loved the craziness of my daily life there, the way my students ran up to talk to me, the way some of my teachers tried to avoid talking to me, and how simply going to the post office or grocery store became an exercise in cross-cultural communication. Japan gave me a greater appreciation for the daily strength and challenges of those who are illiterate in any society, and it gave me a greater sense of who I am and what I'm capable of. Plus, it's still a fun party trick to bust out a little Japanese after a beer or two.

25. My passports. They're like little portable reminders of the cool places I've been.  And how awesome is it that a little set of papers can give you access to so many cultures, ideas, people, and unimaginable experiences?  Postcards are nice and picture books are interesting, but my passports... they let me engage with so much. 

My most embarrassing law school story

Disclaimer: If you're a sensitive type, prone to fainting at words like "sex", you might want to go somewhere else for now.  Also, individuals who haven't seen me since I was 12-16 might be scarred by what you are about to read.  And people under 18 shouldn't read.

This blog used to be titled 'Occasional Musings / Occasionally Amusing' but that was too long.  And lately, it's been more-than-occasional musings, and very little that's been amusing. I almost thought about changing the title to "Rape and other things that annoy me" but I think that would really limit my future posts.

So, today, in response to the demand from my friend, Pam, I will tell you my most embarrassing story from law school.  I alluded to it yesterday. And while it's on rape, it's not ranting about the subject (unlike today's earlier piece).

To date, I'm still quite proud of the fact that during law school - which is a postgraduate degree in the US - I was the President of the Christian Legal Society and a member of the Law Review, but still managed to get my name on a plaque at the local law school bar.

Unfortunately, I also developed a really bad Starbucks habit during law school. I had a slight addiction to their chai tea lattes, which unfortunately made me a little jittery and prone to saying inappropriate things.

In my second year, I took evidence alongside about 70 other people.  Most of my 2L class was there, with a small smattering of 3Ls. I sat in a cluster of close friends. Down the row from me was the only ordained minister in our class, two seats over was my co-President of the Christian Legal Society, next to me, and in the rows surrounding me were all good friends that regularly made law school more enjoyable.  Now, I won't ever discuss my current / recent love life, but this story happened about a decade ago and this fact is relevant:  it was well-known in my law school that for religious reasons I was a virgin (no I will not be answering any questions raised by that statement; only that moment in time is relevant and so that is the only moment in time to be discussed). 

Shortly before the day in question, I had started dating a new guy whom I was quite excited about (it still didn't last past three dates, but I really thought it would).  Since there were 70 other people in the class, I sat down, opened my laptop, and figured I'd spend the first few minutes of class reading his latest email to me. What was the likelihood this professor would call on me?  While she knew me by name, I sat off to the side of class and usually voluntarily participated so I didn't need to be called on on an impromptu basis.

I had the class book open, but it wasn't on the page with the relevant problem questions. As class started, I was dreamily reading the email from the boy, when I heard,

"Tara, why don't you tell us the answer to question 1."

I couldn't remember what the question was - though, obviously, I had diligently prepared all the questions the night before - so I had to quickly flip to the right page and skim the question. I could feel her eyes and felt the second hand on the clock as I tried to catch up to where I should have been already. The question was about a woman who had sex with two guys in one night; once was consensual but she was alleging the other was not. She had gone to the hospital, where photographs documented extensive bruising in her vaginal area and semen was extracted.  The alleged rapist admitted to having sex with her, but said it was consensual. The defendant wanted to introduce evidence of the woman's other sexual encounter from that night. The question was whether the judge should let him.

I'm clearly an unapologetic feminist and I have documented my position on the issue of consent. I also understood the concept of slut shaming, though I don't know that we had that term back then.  I hate the idea that a woman's sexual history can ever be introduced as some way of justifying an assault.  I find the entire thing ridiculous, but simply saying that without a legal basis is inappropriate in a law school class.  Instead, I said this:

"The judge should not admit the evidence. Under Federal Rule 412,* evidence of a victim's sexual history with someone other than the defendant can only be introduced in order to prove the source of the semen or physical evidence. Even then, it can only be introduced if the probative value outweighs the prejudice to the jury. In this case, the defendant acknowledges he had sex with the victim so there is no benefit to the evidence."

I was ready for her to move on.  Silly me

"Okay, Tara, but what about the bruising?"
"Um, what about it?"
"Can't the evidence be used to show the bruising was from someone else?"
"Well, yes, but in this case given the competing claims center on consent only, the probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial effect of a jury hearing about multiple sexual exchanges in a single night."

She asked a follow up question, which I stumbled through. I hadn't thought about the bruising issue, but in law school you're rarely supposed to change your position. The professors can go in for the kill at that point.

And then she asked another question - again about the bruising.  I was flustered at this point.  I wasn't expecting to answer questions in the first place. I had barely skimmed the question and wasn't ready for the follow-up, had forgotten to consider the bruising, and really thought this professor would have moved on by then as she wasn't particularly known for hard-line Socratic Method.

Oh, and did I mention I had finished about 3/4 of my morning venti chai tea latte?

And then I blurted it out:

"I don't know, Professor [last name], some people just like rough sex."

As soon as it was out of my mouth, I wanted it back.  All 70 students howled.  I looked down the row to see the minister laughing so hard that tears came out as he pounded the desk.  My co-president fell out of his chair. Literally, fell out of the chair. We didn't have chairs that were easy to fall out of -- they slid back and forth on a little metal rod and you were almost always hitting another chair next to you when you were getting in and out.  But he fell out. Onto his knees. Between two other chairs.

And the professor froze.  Not for very long, but long enough I knew I would have problems looking at her for the next 2 years.  Her hand was mid-air, her finger pointed at me from when she had finished the question.  Before the laughter could even die down, she regained her composure, pivoted, and said, "Um, okay, so..." and called on the next student -- someone sitting on the exact opposite side of the room -- for better clarification and a more legally constructed answer than "some people like rough sex."

Upon leaving the classroom, I was asked several dozen questions about how exactly I knew that and what I exactly I liked. I was also teased relentlessly about my "great legal reasoning" and "clear thinking."  A few of the feminists in the room tried to comfort me with, "oh, don't worry -- everyone was thinking it; you just had the guts to say it."  But it was pretty clear that it wasn't guts, it was stupidity. And no one else was thinking it.

For two years, I was known as the virgin with a penchant for rough sex.  However that works.





* I don't remember if this was the right rule number back when I was taking class.  It probably was.  If it's not, does it really matter?

It's actually not that hard (no pun intended)

Disclaimer: there's some graphic imagery used here so if you're a delicate thing who doesn't like to have honest discussions of sex and rape, then don't read. Similarly, if you're under the age of 18, read only with your parents' consent. This post is for grown-ups. 

My friend Mary asked my opinion on this disturbing story, in which "[a] California appeals court overturned the rape conviction of a man accused of pretending to be a woman's boyfriend when he snuck into her bedroom and had sex with her, concluding that the law doesn't protect unmarried women in such cases."

The court found that the law from 1872 only addressed women who have sex with someone impersonating their husbands, not boyfriends or other non-married partners.

The case will be retried, but I am overall disgusted with this case.  First, if the linked story's video telling of the story is accurate, there are two additional reasons this episode constitutes sex.  The first is he had sex with a sleeping woman!  She "woke up to the sensation of having sex."  So she didn't consent. You can't consent if you're asleep.  That's part of the whole consent thing. You have to be conscious and able to make a decision.

This is the theory that will be retried now that the original conviction has been overturned.

But even without this theory, the story says that at some point, the victim started fighting with the man and he continued to have sex with her.  That's rape.  A woman has a right to withdraw her consent.  A guy doesn't get to "finish up" just because a woman started to fool around or even have sex with him. Once she says no, she says no. Everything after that is against her will and is forced.

And this brings me to one of my favorite ranty subjects: the apparent need of the GOP to continually treat women as less than human beings.   Tennessee state legislator Douglas Henry reportedly once said:

"Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse."

Thank you Senator Henry for encompassing all that is wrong with the GOP's understanding of rape in a single sentence!

First, did a 21st Century legislator in the US actually use the phrase "chaste woman"?  Cause I think the Egyptian military, the Iraqi judiciary, and certain Afghan governors are recruiting if you'd like to join them in their hunt for all non-virgins ripe for the raping. Er, I mean, sexing because apparently you can't rape a non-virgin, right Senator?

I do have to wonder if the Senator could tell us when a lesbian stops being chaste?  I mean, if chasteness is all about whether one's hymen is in tact, and one can presumably be fingered and engage in lots of other types of sexual contact without breaking the hymen, does this mean lesbians, unlike their heterosexual partners, have more leeway for sex with their non-married (thanks to people like you) partner while still retaining their chaste-ness?  On the other hand, a 14 year old girl whose hymen is broken on a bicycle or while horseback riding can presumably be attacked by any guy on the street and it's totally fine? 

And does this mean that heterosexual women have to stick to oral sex in advance of marriage just to stay chastey enough to not be rape-worthy?

Second, apparently rape only happens to women?  Senator, you're an idiot. This doesn't deserve espousing, other than to point to Jerry Sandusky and say that what he did was rape. It was also gross sexual imposition of a minor and child abuse. But it was also rape.

And third, apparently you can't rape a spouse under the Douglas Henry / Phyllis Schlafly idea that marrying someone is an automatic consent for them to put whatever they want from their body into or on whatever they want in your body regardless of what occurred in the time immediately before or during.  Found out your husband was cheating on you and contracted HIV/AIDS? Oh well. You married the a$$hole, so you consented to the sex he then forces on you. Your husband beat you immediately before having sex with you and you said no? Well, that's kind of your fault because 20 years before you said "I do." Found out your husband had a whole second family in another city? Doesn't matter - he wants sex and you've consented to it. Found out your husband is actually a super secret spy sent from the future to destroy America and you're trying to escape for your life? Well, you can but only after he's finished sexing you all he wants.

The only thing missing from Henry's declaration is a suggestion that certain types of women deserve to be raped because of how they dress or how much alcohol they have.

Okay, now that the sarcasm is out of my system... Rape is actually not that complicated of a concept. It's having sex with someone without their consent.  Legislators sometimes want to make it more complicated than that - and sometimes they need to make it more complicated so that judges and juries understand that, actually, it is rape even if it's not a penis that's inserted, and an unconscious person can't consent, and your wife isn't a cattle, and, oh yeah, it's not consent if you're impersonating the person they would consent to have sex with.

But ultimately, rape isn't complicated. Did both parties to a sexual encounter consent? If yes, then it's not rape. If no, then it is rape.

That pretty much covers it.

Please note that I did not say "sex" but a "sexual encounter" because it can be rape if it's oral, anal or vaginal, with a penis or a hand or a pencil or a stick.  (This suddenly feels like a really graphic Dr. Seuss book for me. I suddenly want to say things like "It can happen in a car, it can happen at a bar." Both of which are true, but still...)  It's all rape.

So again, did they consent?  If someone can't consent, they didn't consent. This covers drunk women (if they can't sign a legally binding contract; they can't agree to have sex with you), unconscious women, sleeping women, minors, and those for whom a mental or physical disability means they cannot express valid consent.

Consent is a person specific thing.  Just like in contract law, if I agree to purchase 100 widgets from Fred Smith, that doesn't mean I'm bound to purchase 100 widgets from every Fred Smith or from every widget seller.  If a woman (or man) is consenting, it's about entering into an agreement between her (or him) and the specific people they are consenting to have sex with.

If a woman consents to have sex with someone else, that's not consent for you. This covers the whole "chaste" woman issue, but also the "pretending to be your boyfriend" issue.

And no, the theory that it would have been their wish if they were conscious is never a defense, village idiot from Steubenville.

Quite frankly, I don't understand any one who thinks there's some other standard or defense or that some women 'are asking for it." Let alone that that "asking for it" can be found in someone's drunkenness.

By suggesting any other standard, you are saying women do not have the same right as men to act as adults. As an adult, I have a right to drink. I'm over both 18 and 21, the drinking ages in the UK or US. I am entitled to go to a bar with as many men as I want and drink as often as I want and as much as I want.

How do I know this?  Because my male counterparts get to do it.

If they stumble down on the way home and get robbed, no one says they were "asking for it."  They might not be surprised by the depravity of humankind towards one another, but the perpetrator will be arrested and prosecuted and the victim will be entitled to compensation.

If they want to drink until they can't say a single coherent word, their friends are expected to take them home and put them to bed. Without forcing their penis in the drunk guy's mouth or anus.

As a grown-up, I'm entitled to the same respect. Anything less and you are saying that women are inherently unequal from their male counterparts. And I don't mean biologically different; I mean you think women are essentially mentally incompetent to the point of being no different from an animal.

Because I get why we don't prosecute bulls for having sex with cows without their consent. For starters, we can't understand either the bulls or the cows to know whether or not they consent. And we're not really convinced that they understand each other or understand the concept of consent. We don't know if they can consent, much less how they would communicate that consent both to the bull and to us so we could take measures to stop it or prosecute it. Oh, and we're eventually going to kill the bull and/or cow anyhow (sorry Rachel), so prosecuting the bull seems like a waste of time and money.  (And where are we going to put them? They're already kept in fenced-in areas!) 

I, on the other hand, am not a cow.  I am a human being.  I have the capacity to give consent and the capacity to be understood by other human beings as to whether I give consent or not.  Even in countries where I don't speak the language, I have the capacity to give or not give consent.  When the taxi driver in Istanbul ended our 10-15 minute ride with "you, me, hotel" and a rubbing together of his index fingers, I was able to say no.  And get out of the car.  I also could have said yes.  But I didn't.

And he was never confused by whether I was consenting or not. I laughed at him, shook my head, said no and got out of the car. While he looked disappointed, he never seemed to think my "no" was actually "yes."  He never thought my laughing at him meant "I'm actually meaning yes when I say no."  And when I got out of his car, he didn't feel entitled to chase me into public and have sex with me anyhow.  Because he understood that I wasn't consenting even though we could only speak about 60 common words.

So why do we still treat women as if they don't have that capacity? As if they can't consent or can't communicate that consent in a way that is understood by the listener?

And tell me Tennessee, how friggin hard is it to stop voting for someone who treats your daughters like cattle?  Because it's guys like this that feed into the culture that says what happened in Steubenville is okay.

On Steubenville

Because I'm not based in the US, I didn't realize that as I was posting yesterday on the false he-said / she-said discourse surrounding rape cases that Anonymous was leaking disturbing video in the "Steubenville rape case." Actually, I didn't even know there was a Steubenville rape case, despite the NYTimes profile on it last month.  But, now I'm unfortunately all caught up.

Now, quick explanation of Ohio for my non-Ohio friends. Ohio friends can skip it.

Yes, this is in Ohio. Yes, it's even in NE Ohio. But google maps tells me it's a 2 hour 13 minute drive if you take the toll road. Ohio is large and vast and has a lot of different types of cities and towns to it, and Steubenville is nothing like my hometown. Steubenville's that little red dot on the map. To get to my home, go to the top right hand corner of the state, and then go in two counties (the non-square things delineated by the lines), and then keep going a little bit more.

It's in the tri-state area of Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. According to google maps, within 12 minutes you can drive from Ohio through West Virginia and into Pennsylvania; it's closer to a large city in Pennsylvania than it is to any of the large cities in Ohio.

To my recollection, I've never been to Steubenville. I don't know the people involved.

That said, Steubenville is in the Ohio Valley, which I'm very familiar with.  And it comes across as essentially the exact kind of town you hear about all across Ohio. And unfortunately, the very disturbing rape that occurred there - and even the shocking responses of others present - could have happened in almost any city in Ohio, just like it could happen in France, India, or the UK.

As was noted yesterday, rape is global.  And so is the rush of defenders to say that a woman was asking for it.

That's what Walter Madison, the alleged rapists's defense counsel, is doing. Now, I don't blame Mr. Madison for what he is doing; it's his job and the only way justice works is if you have robust, trained advocates on both sides of a case. But, I found this statement in the NYTimes post pretty disgusting:

He said that online photographs and posts could ultimately be “a gift” for his client’s case because the girl, before that night in August, had posted provocative comments and photographs on her Twitter page over time. He added that those online posts demonstrated that she was sexually active and showed that she was “clearly engaged in at-risk behavior.”

Ahhhhh.  That "at-risk behavior" we women are so fond of demonstrating. Like drinking or flirting or even engaging in consensual sex.

Now, here's the thing.  It sounds like Mr. Madison, who complains about the case being tried in the media, is actually attempting to try this case in the media.

Or he's watched one too many Law & Order episodes and is going to attempt to skirt the rules of evidence, and risk contempt of court, by introducing a line of questioning for which he will be repeatedly objected to and sustained (if the prosecutor and judge are worth their salt).

Since I don't know Mr. Madison, but he went to a good law school, has been licensed since 1999, practices in the same area as my brother, and has a coherent, professional looking website, I'm gonna guess it's not the latter. He's trying this in the media.

Here's a quick Ohio law lesson for the non-lawyers:* the Ohio Revised Code prohibits the introduction of evidence regarding a rape victim's sexual history. This is actually what it says:

Evidence of specific instances of the victim’s sexual activity, opinion evidence of the victim’s sexual activity, and reputation evidence of the victim’s sexual activity shall not be admitted under this section unless it involves evidence of the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease, or the victim’s past sexual activity with the offender, and only to the extent that the court finds that the evidence is material to a fact at issue in the case and that its inflammatory or prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative value.

...

Prior to taking testimony or receiving evidence of any sexual activity of the victim or the defendant in a proceeding under this section, the court shall resolve the admissibility of the proposed evidence in a hearing in chambers...

These standards are similar in the federal courts as well.  So unless the victim has facebook posts or tweets saying "Omg, I love it when someone sexually assaults me when I'm unconscious!" or "I consent to all future sexual activity, regardless of where it comes from!" or "I can't wait until tonight's party when I'm planning to have lots and lots of sex with these two football players!" I don't really see how her online activity will be relevant and admissible.

It disturbs me that still today we have to have discussions of whether a woman's otherwise promiscuous behavior - if the online evidence even suggests she was - somehow constitutes consent. And it disturbs me that Mr. Madison would suggest this in public, in a newspaper interview. He should know better. Not just because he probably took the law of evidence and criminal law in school (both are at least now required courses at his alma mater),** but because he's clearly a well educated, intelligent, and accomplished lawyer.

The more I read on this tragic situation, the more disturbed I am by the actions of the others - the non-accused - in this story.  It starts with Mr. Madison, who is trying to slut shame a girl who was drunk and apparently repeatedly rape. A victim who found out she was raped by reading a newspaper. A victim who then had to be subjected to seeing what happened to her via instagram and tweets. I'm disturbed because you can mount a defense to rape without blaming the victim (and if you can't, your defendant is guilty).

I'm also disturbed by other people in this story, but my disgust with them has been pretty well outlined in the stories I linked above. Still, a few thoughts:

Reno Saccoccia, the football coach, reportedly didn't bench players because, according to the NYT, "they did not think they had done anything wrong." What?? Since when do we allow 17 year old boys to decide whether they should suffer consequences?  When did we stop teaching them morality? And he told the grandmother of one of the accused that the guy was "just in the wrong place at the wrong time"? What does that even mean?  Did he mean to do it a half hour earlier when she simply couldn't consent but wasn't resembling a corpse? Did he accidentally slip his penis into an unconscious woman's vagina?  That "wrong place wrong time" crap only works if the theories some are espousing - that this is a systematic practice and involves a large number of perpetrators from the football team - is actually true.  Then, you could say, "Well, he did actually rape someone, but the only reason he's accused instead of someone else is because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time."

And then there's one of his nineteen coaches (for high school football?!), Nate Hubbard, who seemed to suggest this was a mass conspiracy of people trying to ruin football for the city.  Because, you know, clearly the girl must be lying. She'd have to explain away her behavior and obviously the only way to do that is to claim rape??

Seriously, with the attitudes of these two men, the actions of their charges - and former charges - becomes slightly more understandable. If the men around you don't act like men - if they aren't grown ups who understand things like laws and consequences and how to respect other human beings - it's not a wonder that the children they are responsible for educating get a warped sense of both women and their own entitlement.

If nothing else, this story made me want to go home and hug every high school administrator and coach in my hometown. Yes, they wanted our athletes to do well; yes, they cared about encouraging and protecting them from having their lives ruined. But they would never have attempted this. There were consequences for screwing up.

And then, of course, there's perhaps the biggest a--hole in the entire story:  Michael Nodianos, the guy who was named as the one in the video. The one who jokes continuously about how dead and raped the victim was.  I know, how is it that the biggest a--hole in a story about rape is not the alleged rapists themselves?  But, Nodianos, unlike potentially the other guys in the video, is actually a legal adult. He should've been a leader here. He should've been a man.  But he wasn't.  He was the most juvenile person in the video - and instead, apparently, was left to receive lectures about how to treat women by guys younger than him. And more importantly, how disturbingly psychopathic does he sound in that video?  Clearly he had no empathy, but he also didn't have any remorse when he was called out.

Now, this is not to excuse the actions of the other guys in the video, but at least they were still minors. We don't expect them to be men yet, and I can imagine it would've been a weird situation for them. They should've manned up - hell, a five year old knows to stand up for people who are being wrongly treated - but at least they weren't engaged in the mocking that Nodianos was. I seriously hope OSU reviews this and kicks him out; I also hopes the Ohio Attorney General looks into filing charges of aiding and abetting rape and kidnapping.

Which brings me to the final people I'm disappointed in: the Ohio Attorney General's office, who are prosecuting the crime. Yes, these are two 16 year olds and I generally think we shouldn't prosecute 16 year olds as adults. But, I also think this crime was particularly horrific - even moreso than a 17 year old kid getting scared while robbing a liquor store and shooting the owner. Perhaps more relevant, though, is that it feels like these guys are getting a different treatment than they would if they weren't football stars or if they weren't from a small town like Steubenville. 

So to the Ohio Attorney General's office, I have to ask: if these were were basketball players from any high school in inner-city Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, or from a school like Euclid or Garfield Heights, would you still be trying them as minors?  I seriously doubt it.

Let's treat these boys like the average criminals they are. If they were 16 and from an urban area, if they were part of a gang instead of a football team, these guys would likely be tried as an adult. So unless someone from the OAG can pony up a good reason for why these kids are different, then I think it's shameful that they dropped the adult charges in favor of juvenile ones.


*Disclaimer: This is a discussion and commentary. It is not legal advice. I am not a criminal lawyer and do not practice criminal law. Nothing in this blog or this blogpost should be construed as legal advice. Nothing associated with this post or the blog creates an attorney-client relationship and (this should be obvious) nothing you share on or through this blog is protected by attorney-client privilege. If you need legal advice, seek a lawyer.

** My brother and I just had a debate via email as to whether evidence and criminal law would cover the "rape shield" standard. I know we did in my fed rules of evidence - it resulted in one of my more embarrassing stories from law school. I may choose to share that story at some point in the future, but that will wait.

---

UPDATE:  I actually forgot someone I wanted to call out by name. In the Cleveland Plain Dealer article on this case, Rachel Dissell cites the school's superintendent Mike McVey as saying, he "plans to address the current allegations and the way the students responded only 'if it interferes with the learning process.' When told of the taunting surrounding the case on social media, he said that technology is a 'gray area.' But the kids should know 'what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. . .. We’re not going to be witch-hunting everyone down,' he said."

Seriously??  What is wrong with the adults in this town??  How can you be responsible for the safety of all your students - including all your female students - and say, "Oh, our kids should know not to rape and taunt people, so even though it's happening and we know about it, we're just not going to talk about it."  Talk about an ostrich! 

Once again, thank you to my home town administrators for not being complete and utter wastes of space. You actually did better than that - but sadly, Mike McVey and the others in Steubenville are worse than wastes of space. They are horrific examples for their students as both citizens and human beings. 

So to the my hometown administrators: thank you that when specific complaints were made about our students' behavior in public, you addressed in. You told us about it. And you made sure we understood the consequences, both in school and in society.  It's probably why all the other suburbs were kicked out of a certain high-end establishment while we continued to enjoy our prom there.

My "sensible gun regulation" expectations

A pro-gun rights friend messaged to ask me what I would want from gun control in the US. First, I want to be clear: I don't want to control the guns. For that, I point to this little meme:

Now that that's out of the way...  Let me say that what I want from gun regulation is this:  creating barriers for criminals attempting to access weapons that increase their likelihood of success in pursuing criminal activity while protecting those who like or enjoy owning and using guns for non-criminal reasons. 

Everyone in my immediate family except me - and ironically my Navy officer sister - has a concealed carry permit. Navy sister gets guns, though, and according to the Navy is an expert shooter of some weapon. I don't remember which one. I just know her uniform has a little bar with an 'E' and when I asked her she told me and she told me the weapon. I thought it was cool. I forgot the weapon.

But I digress. My family - and a large number of friends - have CCW permits. They have all taken CCW classes. They've all gone to the shooting range and practiced firing weapons. 

I was brought up around guns. My brother was given one for his 14th birthday. (It led to a fantastic story I tell about the first time I brought a boyfriend home, but I won't share that here because my brother will kill me.) My neighbour had a gun and he used to take my brother skeet shooting when they were younger.  My grandfather had a gun. I imagine my great-grandfather had a couple. I am pretty sure that most of my extended family have one or more guns in their houses. 

So I'm not intrinsically afraid of guns. They aren't unfamiliar to me. I don't think people who own or like guns are simply crazy or stupid or lacking in intelligence or social skills. The things that make them happy just happen to be different from what makes me happy. They like having weapons and firing them and being with them, and ostensibly cleaning them and making them look pretty. Whatever. I don't get it (though sometimes I do think it might be fun to shoot things). 

These friends and family also aren't in the habit of killing people, selling drugs, or whatever. So if it makes them happy, that's cool. Let them do it. But with reasonable limitations that are aimed at the criminal elements in our society.

Here are my six proposals I'd like to see in gun legislation. Some of it's standard; some of it perhaps isn't. Some of it's well thought out; some of it's merely sketched out.

(1) A ban on the sale of high capacity magazines.

(2) Testing and registration for gun licenses. This wouldn't be some astronomical test. It would be similar to a driving license. The state can't arbitrarily deny you a permit, but you have to show (a) you can see clearly and pass a visual test; and (b) you know how to use a gun, how to carry it, and the rules of gun safety. If you commit criminal activities with your gun, you lose your license. Whether this loss is temporary or permanent will depend on the crime. If your criminal activity is using a weapon without a permit, it might incur a one year loss of rights; if it's premeditated murder, a politlcal assassination, mass murder or a shooting spree, you should lose the right for life.  

The licensing would be done on a state-by-state basis and licenses would have the same effect as a driver's license. A license in one state would let you buy a gun and transport it to another. But there would be some basic expectations of all states in their licensing standards (like visual tests, and needing to prove you know how to load and unload a gun and how to carry it, etc.). These requirements probably wouldn't be much different than the current standards for concealed carry permits.

Also, similar to a car, you could own a gun without a license; you just can't operate a gun without a license. So people can collect antique guns but not use them unless they are given a license. To make this effective, you would need to show your gun license when purchasing ammunition. Selling ammunition to a person without a gun license would be treated similar to selling alcohol or tobacco to a minor.

Operating a gun without a license would be a crime. There would be exemptions for use in non-criminal activity on private property. So if someone wants to take their 8 year old kid out on their fam and teach them how to shoot, they can and it won't incur liability. If a 17 year old unlicensed kid goes and robs someone with that same gun used to teach the 8 year old, though, they incur the liability for both the armed robbery but also for operating a gun without a license. 

(3) Gun sales would need to be registered. The obligation to register the sale would fall on the seller who would provide a copy of the background check they received. Failure to do so would be a crime and the seller would incur some level of liability for criminal activity conducted with a gun that was sold without this registration.

(4) A closing of the loophole on background checks. Private sales would need a background check and the sale would need to be registered. Like #3, failure to do so would be a crime and the seller would incur some level of liability for criminal activity conducted with a gun that was sold without registration.

The criminal liability incurred for these last two provisions might be in the form of a penalty or jail time, depending on the crime committed and the history of the people involved in purchase and sale of the weapon. If a gun is stolen, personal owners (as opposed to stores) have something like 72 hours to one week to report the gun stolen and not incur liability for its use.

These provisions are an attempt to temper a lot of the internal black-market, private sale loopholes and to encourage people not to skirt the obligations of a background check and registration of a sale. Right now, investigations show people are willing to make private sales even when they know someone wouldn't pass a background check. They essentially know they are assisting someone in future criminal conduct, but it's not actually a crime. When there are sales to criminals who couldn't pass the background check, it should just be the criminal who is responsible but those who intentionally able the criminal as well.

(5) Companies involved in the regular sale of guns would have to undertake semi-annual or quarterly inventory requirements, with reporting to the ATF. This is just to tell the ATF if any guns have been stolen, and to ensure the company is complying with its registration requirements for the guns it does sell. Systematic problems that remain uncorrected or unaddressed may result in suspension of the company's license to sell.

This will be the costliest aspect for big companies that sell weapons, but right now they have no oversight and the ATF can't force inventories or reporting. Once a company gets registered, gun trace evidence can't be used in determining the company's licensing provisions. The company doesn't have to tell anyone if a gun is stolen, even though the very nature of gun theft suggests it will be used in the future for criminal activity. We need some common sense way that is not overly burdensome to ensure companies have some oversight in who they sell to and under what conditions.

(6)  A national non-mandatory buy-back of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The government could pay for the assault weapons / magazines, or provide tax deductions for turning them in, or provide something like gifts cards, food-stamp cards or prepaid debit cards. To offset the cost of the program, the guns collected could then be melted down and sold at auction, or sold to state or federal law enforcement / military units. The program wouldn't need to run for that many years - maybe 5 - so we wouldn't be setting up a permanent governmental structure or agency. Just a short-term program, possibly run by the ATF or the FBI.

I disagree with those who say it would be unconstitutional to force people to turn in their assault weapons and high capacity magazines. I can only see it being unconstitutional if we didn't compensate them for the property loss or provide a means of appealing if they have just objections. This isn't a violation of a 2nd Amendment unless the 2nd Amendment itself protections the right to own and purchase high capacity magazines and assault weapons. The '08 Supreme Court decision doesn't suggest this is the case. But, the 5th Amendment taking clause protects the right to property, and guns are a type of property. So any mandatory return of assault weapons, etc., would simply need due process and adequate compensation.

But that's actually an academic point here, because I don't think we need a mandatory buy-back as long as we have the other steps in place. I also think a mandatory buy-back would create too many problems and would cause too much of an uproar in the gun-owning community. So it's unnecessary and divisive. Why would I push for that? We can accomplish the real goals I see of gun control - reducing criminal access while protecting the rights of those who want to shoot things for a non-criminal purpose - with the other steps and a voluntary buy-back.

So that's what I would want to see. Six steps. Nothing massive. Nothing to take guns away from those who want to responsibly use them to non-criminally shoot things on private property. It's aimed solely at the criminals. I don't think there's anything on here that is particularly radical or threatens the average gun owner.

Will this stop all gun violence? No.

Would it have even stopped the Sandy Hook shooting?  Probably not. But the guy (I'm refusing to name him because we should be remembering the victims and not the perpetrator) might not have been able to kill all 27 people besides himself. Nancy Lanza? Yes, she was sleeping.  Some of the 26 students and teachers? Yes. Even with a six-shooter, he could have shot 5-6 people quickly, depending on whether he reloaded after shooting the window to get into the school. Of course, he'd have to have been a good shot to be effective in killing all of them. With a musket, he could have killed one.  But all 26?  That probably wouldn't have happened with the above proposals. 

And if it would have saved the lives of Victoria Soto, Daniel Barden, or James Mattioli that would have been worth it, wouldn't it?

Victoria Soto

James Mattioli, 6 years old

Daniel Barden, 7

Rape, Women and the False "He-Said, She-Said" Connundrum of Justice

Quick disclaimer: Scientific words are used for body parts here. 

If you're not grown-up enough to have this conversation, then go somewhere else.  

Part of what I love about my life is the large number of strong feminists in it, including many male feminists. (I know there's a discussion as to whether men can be feminists. I'm just asserting here without analysis that they can be. Deal with it.) And I love men.  Not just the men I've never hooked up with. Men in general.  But particularly feminist men. 

If you are a man (or a woman), you should join my amazing brother by doing your local Walk A Mile in Her Shoes, which raises money to combat rape, sexual violence, and the gender-based violence. My brother and my 13 month old nephew are walking - shoes, I've been told, will be decided later but I'm hoping my nephew busts something like these out (dear bro, you can buy them here).  

I appreciate that my brother and sister-in-law - one of the coolest sets of feminist parents I could imagine - are starting early in raising my nephew as a feminist. I love that he will grow up doing this walk with his father, whose previous career life involved prosecuting domestic violence and rape cases. I love that his mother and aunts all have jobs that keep them active in the community and ensure that my nephew will never grow up thinking a woman's job can only be a small subset of the world. I won't have to worry that my nephew will think having a female professor or boss is President is "insanity" or unbiblical. I won't have to worry that he'll think it's acceptable to hit a woman because she pissed him off, she broke a golf club, she got into a car accident, or she cheated on him.

And I don't have to worry that my nephew will think "some girls rape easy."

He will be raised to understand that unless a girl says yes, she hasn't consented. He'll know that a girl being drunk isn't an excuse, and neither is the fact that her shoulder, or stomach, or even her breasts and vagina are showing. He'll know that the fact she walks outside in public alone doesn't mean she wants his hand, his eyes or his penis on her. I expect my nephew will know to stand up to other men who say and do these things, even if it means losing friends and even it means that sometimes the conversations get awkward or uncomfortable.

Because that's what it means to be an upstanding man.

I know he will know this because I know his father and mother, his aunts, his uncle, and his grandparents all know this and will reinforce it for him. Again and again and again. The thing about young boys is they grow up to be young men, so if you let them know early and often the expectations of them as men, they will generally embrace those expectations and live up to them. 

The other thing I know my nephew will know that is too often our general society gets wrong:  

Simply because there is no external eye-witness to a rape, it doesn't mean rape comes down to "he-said, she-said."

A facebook conversation prompted this post, so a little background. There's a brilliant commentary by Owen Jones at the Independent reminding Europeans that while their outrage over the Delhi rape case is justified, the problem isn't Indian, or even developing state / patriarchal society specific. The problem of how women are treated in India is replicated in Europe and the US: 

Take a look at France, that prosperous bastion of European civilisation. In 1999, two then-teenagers – named only as Nina and Stephanie – were raped almost every day for six months. Young men would queue up to rape them, patiently waiting for their friends to finish in secluded basements. After a three-week trial this year, 10 of the 14 accused left the courtroom as free men; the other four were granted lenient sentences of one year at most. 

...

All rape is violence by definition, but particularly horrifying incidents take place here, too. Exactly a year ago, one woman was raped by 21-year-old Mustafa Yussuf in central Manchester; shortly afterwards a passer-by – who the rape survivor thought was coming to help – raped her again as she lay on the floor. Or take 63-year-old Marie Reid, raped and savagely murdered earlier this year by an 18-year-old boy she had treated like a “grandson”. 

It’s important to clarify that most rapes – in India or elsewhere – are not carried out by strangers waiting in alleys to pounce on women. It is mostly by people known to the rape survivor or victim; often someone they trust. It is a concept that the law itself took a long time to recognise, which is why – until 1991 – it was legal to rape your wife.

It was the first story - of France - that prompted a quick discourse on the constraints of justice in prosecuting rape. A male friend noted that (in French) that in that case the rape wasn't sufficiently proven and that the interests of justice require the burden be placed on the prosecution and witness to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the rape occurred. 

This is the common explanation trotted out whenever a particularly horrific rape case catches the media's attention and the judge or jury subsequently acquits the accused. There just "wasn't enough evidence." They "couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt." It's just "sometime's a matter of he-said / she-said and a jury can't go on that alone."

My first reaction to this line is "bullshit." But I've promised my mother to swear less in public - and on facebook - and I don't think "bullshit" is a sufficiently established argument to justify my position.  So let me clarify a little further.

First, we allow eye-witness testimony in cases involving murder and robbery as well as rape. Sometimes, this witness identification is the only testimony available and it results in a conviction. When this happens no one dismisses the testimony as a matter of "he said / (s)he said."  We accept it and filter it and the issue of the credibility of the witnesses is assessed by both how they tell the story and their own general credibility. (But no one attempts to argue a shop keeper is not a credible eyewitness because the shop keeper was once robbed before, or once sold beer to someone who looked like the guy who later robbed him.) 

Yet, eye-witness accounts in situations of armed robbery or murder are probably less likely to be accurate than those involving sexual assault. Since rape predominantly involves cases where the victim and perpetrator know each other, the impact of trauma on the ability of a witness to identify the perpetrators is reduced. The same is true for other social biases that can affect eyewitness testimony.

We don't dismiss eye-witness accounts all together because we recognize that it can have validity and we simply need to use it better. We continue to develop and advocate for rules that allow us to balance the interests of justice so that judges and juries understand the factors that can affect eye-witness accounts. But again, though, these issues of the doubtfulness of eye-witness accounts aren't major considerations in most rape cases. If a friend I know rapes me, the distance, lighting, and his race are unlikely to impact the accuracy of my identification. 

This doesn't mean that even in rape cases, eye-witness testimony becomes fool-proof. We do need to be careful about its use. I recognize that. In my home state of Ohio, Clarence Elkins was once convicted for rape and murder based principally on the eyewitness testimony of his six year old niece. Now, that eye-witness testimony ended up being wrong (a fact the amazing faculty and students associated with the Ohio Innocence Project - including several of my friends - helped bring to light), but a lot of that relates to how the eye-witness testimony was collected and the age of the witness.

So, yes, eye-witness testimony has its limits. Yes, that includes in cases of rape. Yes, there needs to be reform to the use of eye-witness testimony.  BUT, we would never argue that when the guy who runs the local 7-11 says he was robbed by that guy and indicates to the defendant, and the defendant says "it wasn't me"* that it's just a matter of "he said / he said."  We evaluate the testimony. We hear experts who explain how testimony can be effected by trauma. And finally, we assess the credibility of the witnesses.

The difference between eye-witness testimony in rape and armed robberies is, actually, a matter of social bias against the victims. We are taught - through movies, TV shows, and yes, sometimes real cases - that women "make up" rape to "punish" men who have spurned them or hurt them or whatever. We are taught that women sometimes change their minds afterwards and claim rape, or do it when they end up pregnant at an inconvenient time. 

We are taught women are emotional and therefore unreliable when it comes to issues of their sexuality and sexual health. And finally, we're that that if they aren't virgins, they must be whores. If they've had sex once, they probably wanted it. 

If they don't want it, women shouldn't dress provocatively, walk alone, go to clubs, or do any number of other things that some guy once decided meant a woman "wants it" and actually wants it from anybody any time. That apparently includes getting married. If a woman fails to take these steps, they're probably at fault. They should've known better.

This is what our society tells us. Regularly.

On the other hand, our boys will be boys attitude suggests men should and do consistently pursue sex and that shouldn't cost them their lives or freedom. We are taught to sympathize with the rapist because they look like sweet young boys we probably knew back home. Do we really want to ruin their lives because of a little confusion as to whether her "no" was "no" or "oh, baby, no, no, no, yes, yes, yes!" 

This brings me back to Roger Rivard's assertion that "some girls rape easy." This is reflective of the idea that men should be pursuing sex but sometimes it just get a little confusing for them as to what a woman wants. It is, once again, the assumption that the woman is at fault. It's not just that she's promiscuous but that she's emotional and unclear about what she wants from her partner. She wants to be a good girl, but she also doesn't want to be. She therefore must've gotten herself into a situation where she is unclear for the guy and he just accidentally ends up raping her.  And isn't it just terrible that his life would be ruined like that?

Most of consciously reject some or all of these proposition to an extent, but their social prominence unconsciously gnaws at us when we consider how to prove rape. It's why we don't give sufficient credence to eye-witness testimony in rape cases. It's why psychological testimony regarding the way trauma affects the giving of evidence is rarely fully introduced at trial.  

And it's why we distinguish between the viability of sole eye-witness testimony in the armed robbery of a grocery store versus the continuous rape of 2 girls by 14 boys.

Because when it's rape, someone pointing the finger isn't sufficient. Particularly when it's just some emotional girl who didn't do enough to protect herself or fight back.

In that case, it's just "he said / she said" and how in the world could we ever have justice if we convicted on that basis alone?