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.

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?

Does God "intend" rape?

I was - and remain - outraged at the suggestion by  US Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who in a debate said this:

"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

I expressed my outrage on facebook, linking to an article and providing this highly witty comment (I'll admit that I do say lots of things on facebook - where I've met almost every single one of my 1300+ friends in real life, that I wouldn't actually say if I was posting it on this blog as a first-instance): "Seriously? If you think rape is a gift from God, (a) you don't understand the Bible, and (b) you don't understand how to be a politician. So, either way, you should've just stayed home and STFU." 

A Christian friend challenged me and said that what Mourdock said was Biblically accurate. I disagreed, pointing out that evil is the antithesis of God and therefore God cannot intend for it to happen.  First, the friend said, that Mourdock wasn't saying the rape was intended, but just the conception. This is nonsense to me.  You cannot intend the conception of a child through rape without intending the rape itself.  For God's intention to be for conception through rape to occur, then God must intend the rape.  My friend again said Mourdock's position was biblical - that God is sovereign and therefore intends all that happens in the world, including things we perceive as evil.

The challenges came with a reference to Genesis 50:20, in which Joseph - yes, the one of the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat - was addressing his brothers, who had thrown him into a pit to die. Joseph was rescued from the pit and through a series of circular twists and turns ended up in a position of great power in Egypt. After his father's death, Joseph's brothers wrote to him begging forgiveness.  According to Genesis 50, starting at verse 19, They went to him and "threw themselves down before him. 'We are your slaves,' they said. But Joseph said to them, 'Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children. And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them."

When I've previously studied this passage, I have always thought of it as a foreshadowing of the type of forgiveness lavished on mankind for our own sinfulness.  It resembles the crucifixion of Christ and the forgiveness that is redeemed through that. 

My friend must make similar connections because he also pointed to the crucifixion of Christ as evidence that God sometimes "intends" what we would call evil to happen.  My friend said, in part, "Genesis 50:20 says God INTENDED. It doesn't say that God fixed the problem that Joseph's brothers caused. God also INTENDED for Jesus to be murdered. It was foreordained before the foundation of the world. Man is not sovereign, God is."  He then challenged me - and others I had tagged into the conversation who are trained ministers or who work in ministries - to explain how we could say God doesn't intend for rape to happen with this one, very clear verse. 

Now, I will set aside the idea that Jesus was "murdered" - because I think that's such a rare and unique thing that any comparison to what happens to us human beings is out of line.  But also no where in the Bible is the word "intended" used in context of Jesus's crucifixion.  How do I know this?  Because after this friend's challenge, I went through every instance of the Bible - using the New International Version as my text - to determine what it meant in Genesis 50:20 that God "intended" what happened to Joseph.  My friend wanted a Biblically based discussion and I wanted to know the actual answer - was I wrong? Did God intend rapes?  What does it mean when we say God "intends" something?  I started writing this initially as a facebook comment, but realized that that was insane and it is way too long to even try to be included on facebook.  So even though I don't intend for this blog to be all about my religious beliefs, I am going to use this space now for a little biblically exegesis on the question of "Does God intend rape?"

When I read the very verse that was pointed to - Genesis 50:20 - I did so only after praying for a while and thinking about what my assumptions were. Because even though I'm relatively certain the inverse is not true, when this friend raises an issue of Biblical interpretation, I do tend to sit and pray about it to determine what I feel the Holy Spirit is telling me.  And on this, when I opened Bible Gateway and read the verse, I felt an immediate sense that the two "intendeds" were not the same, and that within the God "intended" was a Romans 8:28 understanding, not that God required it or ordered it, but rather than he used it and utilized it.  I then went and read the entire passage in context and felt this even more clearly.  Then I took the NIV Study Bible from my shelf to see what it says and it says this as the note to this verse: "God intended it for good. Their act, out of personal animosity toward a brother, had been used by God to save life -- the life of the Israelites, the Egyptians and all the nations that came to Egypt to buy food in the face of a famine that threatened the known world. At the same time, God showed by these events that his purpose for the nations is life and that this purpose would be effected through the descendants of Abraham."  Within the note, I see that the learned scholars who put together the study Bible also found a difference in the "intended" of mankind and the "intended" of God. 

But I was having difficult pinning down exactly what that difference was that I felt - at least with just one verse.  I was still unsatisfied and went back to Bible Gateway and did a search for "intended."  Many of the results appeared irrelevant (i.e., Numbers 35:23; Deuteronomy 19:19; 1 Samuel 14:4), and I initially dismissed them.  But I did come back to them as I was writing this very long comment.  And when I thought about what they say about "intended."  What does the word mean?  It is clear it is the thing that is desired but not necessarily the thing that is to come.  Intended does not mean ordered; it means a desired outcome.  Numbers 35:23 is in the context of handling problems and crimes within the community. It starts at 22 and continues through 25: "But if without enmity someone suddenly pushes another or throws something at them unintentionally or, without seeing them, drops on them a stone heavy enough to kill them, and they die, then since that other person was not an enemy and no harm was intended, the assembly must judge between the accused and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send the accused back to the city of refuge to which they fled. The accused must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil." So clearly in this context, "intended" means something desired or planned with a desire of its realization. Because something occurred that was not intended to occur, it is not as abominable as the very same result with a different planning or desire.

Deuteronomy 19:19 comes in the context of the settlement of disputes within the community.  The Word says "If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime . . . [t]he judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother." Clearly, in this context, "intended" is not "ordained" or "ordered."  It could be said that "intended" here means to have a desire and to take actions to realize that desire, or to "plan" based on contingent factors, perhaps while taking actual steps to realize that plan.  We know this first because it was by a human and second because the very thing desired is not the thing the witness receives. 

And in 1 Samuel 14:4, it says "On each side of the pass that Jonathan intended to cross to reach the Philistine outpost was a cliff; one was called Bozez and the other Seneh."  But then it goes on to discuss the conversation between Jonathan and his armor-bearer. In it, Jonathan says "we will cross over toward them and let them see us. If they say to us, 'wait there until we come to you,' we will stay where we are and not go up to them. But if they say, 'come up to us,' we will climb up, because that will be our sign that the Lord has given them into our hands.'"  So even though Jonathan intended - or desired and took actions to ensure - to cross over the cliff, He did not fully do it until He had received a signal from God.  Had he not received that, Jonathan would have stayed on the other side of the cliff.  His intention was not an order.  This has a similar understanding in 1 Samuel 20:33 "Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David." 

When just the previews came up, I thought there might be an outlier. 2 Chronicles 32:2-3: "When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to wage war against Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him."  When you read it in context, though, it is clear that Sennacherib had not yet gotten to Jerusalem and was not yet waging war.  He was fighting in other places and so Hezekiah and the men of Jerusalem took actions to make it harder for Sennacherib to wage war. Before Sennacherib was able to really wage the war he intended against Jerusalem - he had laid seige but had not waged war - Hezekiah and Isaiah son of Amoz prayed to heaven. "And the Lord sent an angel, who annihilated all the fighting men and the commanders and officers in the camp of the Assyrian king."  So, again intended was not ordered or required or forced into happening, but was akin to desiring while taking steps to realize those desires.

And Acts 12:4, "Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover." The "him" was Peter, but of course the Angel of the Lord came and broke the chains the night before Herod intended for the trial. And 2 Corinthians 1:17 "Was I fickle when I intended to do this? Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say both 'yes, yes' and 'no, no'?" Again, intended means planned or an expressed desire. Similarly, Acts 20:7 and John 6:15 and John 12:7 discuss intentions as plans that humans make.

The reason I originally thought these verses did not apply was that they referred to men and not God.  And again, when I read Genesis 50:20, I felt an immediate difference in the purpose of the words when used to describe Joseph's brothers and when used to describe God. So I started off initially looking just for verses that related to times when God "intended" things.

Hosea 2:9: "'Therefore I will take away my grain when it ripens, and my new wine when it is ready. I will take back my wool and my linen, intended to cover her naked body."  Hosea is a bit confusing, and it was more confusing when I went to the introductory note and found that one of the debates over Hosea comes in Chapters 1-3 as to whether the story of Gomer is literal or allegorical. So I was a little concerned that this particular verse again wasn't about God's intentions. But Hosea 1:10-2:1 is an introduction to the section titled 'Israel Punished and Restored' and it says this: "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called sons of the living God.' The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited and they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for great was the ay of Jazeel. Say to your brothers, 'My people,' and of your sisters, 'My loved one.'  And then it goes on to talking about the rebuke of Israel.  So, Hosea 2:9 comes in that context of rebuking of Israel's ways.  And after discussing Israel as an adulterer, Hosea 2:7-8 says "She will chase after her lovers but not catch them; she will look for them but not find them. Then she will say, 'I will go back to my husband as at first, for then I was better off than now.' She has not acknowledged that I was the one who gave her the grain, the new wine and the oil, who lavished on her the silver and gold-- which they used for Baal."  Now clearly the reference to Baal means that this is about Israel's turning away from God and then attempting to turn back not out of love for God but out of dissatisfaction with the other things she had found. Perhaps a bit of boredom but also a bit of 'eh, this isn't really working out for me, so I might as well try it again with that other guy.'  And that's where Hosea 2:9 comes in, with the relevant "I will take back my wool and my linen, intended to cover her nakedness."  So God had intended for Israel to be protected and covered, and yet in response to her wickedness, he was not going to give her that protection. He had planned and desired for her protection, but in response to the daily goings on, he was withdrawing that protection and was not following through on his own intentions.

Jeremiah 18:5-10: "Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, 'Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?' declares the Lord. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if a another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." So in this chapter, it is clear that the word "intended" is not used as a synonym for "ordered" or "required" or "forced."  The good God provides is contingent upon the choices of man.  And the destruction God could order is contingent upon the choices of man.  According to these verses, God allows for his relationship with mankind - with Israel specifically in this chapter - to develop with some give-and-take, some back-and-forth between them.  God does not force a particular avenue on man and may intend or desire or plan the realization of one thing but ultimately responds to human actions with another.

And Romans 2:1-6: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forebearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God 'will repay each person according to what they have done.'"  Again, the word "intended" here is clearly not a synonym for ordered or forced.  Rather it is referring to the way in which God uses things for His good purposes. There is an interplay between God's desires and the free will of mankind. 

Romans 7:7-12: "What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "you shall not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but the commandment cam, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." So, again, intended is used here as the thing from God that is supposed to bring about good but that we can allow to bring about evil.  It is the good that was desired by and planned by God but not the evil that resulted.

2 Corinthians 7:8-9:  Paul was writing to the church at Corinth, discussing previous communications they had had (at least the letter in 1 Corinthians) and their response to his rebuke for their wayward actions. "Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it -- I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while -- yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us."  Again, God intended for something and used things around to realize it, but he did not force them to repent.  

That's every instance in which the word "intended" is used in the Bible. 17 uses of the word in 16 verses, starting with Genesis 50:20 and ending with 2 Corinthians 7:9. Ten verses referring to human intentions and 7 referring to times in which God "intended" something (as noted above, Genesis 50:20 includes the word "intended" as something from both man and God). I also looked up the word "intend" and "intention" to see if there was anything that would add to what is outlined above - either changing my beliefs or altering them. I found nothing. And after prayerfully considering what they mean, these are my conclusions:

When man intends something, it is a planning and desire to bring it about, that may or may not be successful.  Man's intentions can be for good or for evil.  They may or may not come into being, and they won't know what occurs until after it is done.  When God intends something, though, it is only for good.  It is also not an ordering or a forcing, but the word "intended" throughout the Bible is used as an expression for His wish for goodness.  His actions, however, work in conjunction in a give-and-take with mankind.  He responds to our responses to Him and His callings.

Taking it back to Joseph, God did not require or force Joseph's brothers to throw him in a pit to die.  It's not even clear that God wanted that.  It is clear, however, that God's intention for good was to use any evil done against Joseph to realize a greater plan.

Now, I have to address an additional two points.  First, I realize that this very discussion elicits a distinction between Calvinist and Arminian beliefs within Christian doctrine.  For those unfamiliar with Christian splits, consider the difference between Calvins and Arminians to be similar to the difference between Shiia and Sunnis: the basic tenants and scriptures are the same, but their interpretation over the years has led to some doctrinal splits on what exactly is meant by God's word. Calvinists believe in predestination; Arminians do not. My friend is a Calvinist and I am an Arminian.  But I am an Arminian because when I go through the Bible, I see all sorts of verses like those outlined above that point me regularly to the position that God is good and gives us free will. Our relationship with Him is one that involves His calling us to goodness, but not forcing us on a path, and responding regularly to what do.  It's a relationship of give-and-take, not one of forcefulness and pain.

So does God intend rape?  I again answer, unequivocally, no. 

Rape is, by its nature, a forceful imposition and a denial of choice or consent. It is the stripping away of love and security. It is the opposite of God. And God does not intend the opposite of himself. God intends evil things to be used for good - this is the promise of Romans 8:28 ("And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.") - but that is substantially and unalterably different from God intending the evil thing itself. Evil exists in this world.  God gives us free will and a knowledge of sin, but that does not mean that God intends for sinfulness and evil to exist or to occur. 

I believe that God can use even the most evil of evils - rape, murder, oppression, genocide - for good, but I don't think that means He ever wanted, desired or intended for those things to happen. I have known women who set up counseling centers and grief or crisis hotlines as a response to their sexual assault. I've known war veterans who come back and reinvest in their community in reaction to losing a friend overseas. And I've known a few hundred human rights activists who have responded to evil in their lives with compassion and a dedication to fighting for the underdogs of our world. These are the good that comes out of evil. 

But, that does not mean that every consequence of evil is intended and good, and no where in the Bible have I found any support that the consequences of evil are always good.  So sometimes, I think, a child conceived will be a good that comes out of it, but not every child conceived is something God intends to come about - either before or during or after the rape. And we should not assume to know the thoughts of God for each individual case; there does not seem to be a blanket rule on this issue - at least no where that I've found in the Bible.

Now, I have a final question to be posed to those who would simultaneously agree with Mourdock's assertion that God intends rape - and the conception that sometimes occurs thereafter - but who still fight against abortion.  This is a serious question, not just a rhetorical one to win the argument: how do you reconcile a belief that God intends the evil of rape while still fighting against abortion as some special evil that needs to be eliminated?  If you believe God is sovereign over all - and therefore anything that is done is something God intends to do be done - would that not also include abortion?  Would God's sovereignty not also include sovereignty over when abortion occurs and why and in what circumstances and by whom?  Why must you fight against abortion if it is part of God's intention and sovereignty?

Why the "rape exception" is not about "punishing the child"

This week, I listened to the GOP - and my GOP friends - defend a prohibition on abortion even in cases of rape or incest (and some, even in the case of threat to the life or health of the mother). Often, this defense involves, "Why would you punish the child just because of how it was conceived?"  I want to respond to that here, publicly, because it says a lot about the worldviews of people when it comes to abortion.

The reason people believe there should be exception in the case of rape - even if you outlaw (most) other abortions - has nothing to do with the child.  It has everything to do with the mother. And this is where the worldview comes in.  If you believe that a woman's life and health and viability all become irrelevant at the time of pregnancy - that it all must become secondary to the needs and desires of a child - then of course you think that abortion shouldn't be allowed in the case of rape.

But if you believe that women are autonomous human beings who are in the best position to understand their own physical and mental health, then you have to recognize an exception for rape and incest. The reason for a rape or incest exception is because of the toll that can be had on a woman who has to carry a fetus to term.  It is about recognizing that the woman is in the best place to understand that toll on her and about ensuring she gets to control and decide what is necessary to help her recover from the rape.

I don't think a lot of men really understand the mental or physical consequences of rape. It's clear that people like Todd Akin don't, but even other men who think of themselves as compassionate and understanding don't really fully understand it.  So, I want to explain some of the consequences that I've seen in people I've known.

Below are the consequences I have found most common amongst my friends, colleagues and mentorees who have confided in me - sometimes immediately after, sometimes years after. They were not true for every one of my friends, but they were the ones that were most frequently true.  To respect their privacy, I am not using identifying details and I won't use any details that were discussed by only one rape victims; these are the details that have been consistent in their stories.

I want to be clear that while people may want to make gradations of what constitutes a 'serious' mental or physical reaction and what doesn't, such attempts are simultaneously useless and insulting.  There's no such thing as an 'easy' trigger reaction to PTSD. We would never tell a soldier the PTSD from war is "easy" because we think we should get to 'rate' PTSD responses.  Women respond differently to rape and sexual assaults, and each reaction from a woman is "normal" and severe.  There is help available for women around the world (various links are for various countries based on where my most frequent traffic comes from, with general links at 'for' 'women' and 'world'), but it is a process.

• Nightly replaying of the rape while they sleep. I can't call it a nightmare because that suggests something your mind has created or conjured up; this isn't their brain playing tricks on them. This is their brain reliving the actual rape. For months, they don't sleep soundly.  The sleep deprivation clouds their brains, and that makes them feel more crazy.
• Unlike a nightmare, which you can shake off within minutes of waking up, the nightly replaying of a real-life rape stays with the victim throughout the day. It plays in your head throughout the day. You end up not feeling safe and on edge. The entire day.  Then you go to sleep, and it happens again.
• When you see someone from across the street that resembles the man who raped you, you react.  This reaction can vary depending on the person, and even with a single person depending on the day. There's no "degree" of acceptability to these reactions, and all are equally bad even if from an external perspective there seem to be degrees. It is a trigger. It is the long-lasting presence of the rape that no one on the outside can see but that you can feel each time you see someone with a similar build, a similar haircut, a similar skin tone, a similar eye color. It can involve freezing while your heart quickens and you have difficulty breathing while you wait to know it's not him, or it can involve freezing and being unable to move even long after you know it's not him. It can render you speechless or it can result in screaming. You can regain your composure somewhat quickly, or you can end up crying hysterically in a bathroom, calling me to calm you down, or to come get you. It's not physical and mental strength you need. That's not what's preventing you from continuing your walk down the street, from breathing normally, or from getting up and leaving the bathroom. What you need is for the fear to stop. It's for you to know that you can continue on your day and not face a man who will again throw you against a wall, or a bed, or the floor, and violate your bodily integrity without your consent. It's to know you won't have to come face to face with him and have him act like everything's normal.
• You sit through a movie with your friends not knowing there's a rape scene coming up, or sit through a comedy show not knowing rape would be laughed at.  You're in shock listening to details you feel come from your most shameful**, horrific moment of your life while everyone else finds it entertainment. You fake not feeling well, excuse yourself, go home and lie on the floor in the fetal position.  You decide whether you need to call off work for the next day. Maybe you do; maybe you don't, but that night will be another sleepless one. (**Please note this this is a feeling and not a reality. If you are the victim of rape, you do not need to feel shame. Your attacker(s) is the one who should be ashamed.)
• The first time you go on a date with a guy you like, you are fine and having fun until he touches something on your face or your hand.  It triggers a memory - because it is PTSD you're suffering from - and you suddenly look at your would-be boyfriend or lover and realize you're pretty sure he's a rapist.  Not because of anything he's done but because you're pretty sure most men are rapist. Or maybe you realize in the intellectual side of your brain that that's not true, but you also realize you don't trust any man anymore.  You don't have normal relationships with them and you suspect they are all simply assholes.
• You might not tell anyone at first.  Particularly if you know - or are fairly certain - that telling will result in negative attention and reactions at work, in your classroom, or by your friends and family.  Yet, by not telling, you are forced to interact with your rapist - your boss, your teacher, your colleague / coworker / classmate - every day.  Each time he looks at you, you know what he's thinking and you feel the power he has exercised over you.  And he acts so naturally that you start to think you might be crazy - or maybe it really was your fault.  Because how could he act so normally around you after what he did to you? You shrink and he stands taller. 
• If - if - you tell the police, or the doctors and nurses, or a psychologist, you get a sympathetic ear. It gives you hope that others will be understanding. Until you meet with the prosecutor who will handle the case. He tells you there's nothing that can be done; it's your word against his and no jury will convict. He's very sorry, but your pain isn't real enough to warrant the effort. What was the most horrific crime you could imagine won't be recognized by anyone. And you feel embarrassed that you hoped someone would believe you. You feel ashamed because they didn't. And then you start to doubt yourself again.  Maybe you are crazy?  Maybe you should "just get over it"?  But how do you "just get over it" when the person who did this to you is still out there?  Still threatening to do this to other women?
• If - if - you've told people, only some will understand. Many - even your close friends and family - will question what you did to "cause" it. Many women - even your close friends and family - will assume it couldn't have happened to them, and therefore they feel safe and smug. They expect you to take responsibility for something you know somewhere inside of you you are not responsible for.  But that expectation seeps into your brain and you are starting to wonder what were you responsible for?
• If - if - you've told people, most will understand your shock and its effects for about a week to a month, maybe two.  At two months, people stop understanding the PTSD.  They stop understanding the fear.  They stop understanding the nightmares, or the way in which you discuss the issue.  You are left feeling alone, misunderstood, and at times you are made to feel crazy that this is still an issue.  Let me be clear: if this is something you're going through, you are not crazy.
• And most of these reactions leave you feeling a little less of yourself, if not a growing hatred of yourself.

How long those symptoms lasted depended for my friends. Some only suffered for a few weeks or months; some suffered for years.  The constant fear, the constant PTSD, the constant crying, the depression, and the feelings that you are crazy. The self-loathing and hatred that comes when you think maybe you were responsible, and then afterwards again for ever thinking that maybe you were responsible.  There's no real way to put into words what it really feels like.  I've described above symptoms of a deeper trauma.  That trauma is significant and real and long-term.

Now add to that trauma a daily physical consequence and it becomes so much more.  I tried to think of an equivalency for a war PTSD victim, but I can't.  The closest I could come up with is having a war victim with a lost limb and then telling them you're not willing to give them a prosthesis for almost a year later because you don't feel their entitled to it.  It's not a perfect analogy though, and that's because there really isn't an analogy to rape.  It's a unique form of torture (and it is actually used as torture around the world).

The reason for a rape / incest exception has nothing to do with punishment; it has everything to do with empowering the victim to choose for herself what she can handle mentally and physically, what she is able to deal with on a daily basis as the consequence of her rape.  Those who would suggest women can just give the baby up for adoption at the end don't understand that those 9 months of pregnancy may cause an irreparable delay in the woman's healing process.  It may cause more psychological damage as she faces each day the consequences, and with each kick of the baby remembers what his hands felt like on her skin.

Whether a woman is in a place to psychologically and physically handle the stress of pregnancy - and the minute-by-minute reminder of what happened to her - is a personal issue. It's a singular experience and cannot be the subject of a blanket determination. It is not for someone else to decide whether she's "mentally healthy" enough to deal with this repercussion.  It is not for a bureaucrat, or even her doctor, to say what she can and should handle as a consequence of her rape.

People who talk about abortions in the case of rape and incest as an issue of "punishing the child" don't fully understand what rape does to a woman, or the need for women to regain a semblance of control over their own autonomy and personal dignity.

Perhaps those individuals who oppose a rape exception will never understand the reality of rape victims, and I don't fault them for not understanding what it means. I fault them for assuming they understand what it means, and for assuming that simply because carrying a baby to term is right for one rape victim, then it should be right for all rape victims.

I don't usually screen my posts before putting them up, but on this one I did ask a few friends for their thoughts on an earlier draft.  Since I'm not a rape victim, I wanted to give a voice for others, not a voice to them, so I asked friends who either were survivors or who I knew were sensitive to the issues to comment. One of my friends wrote back and agreed to let me include the following from her email: 

"Forget the 9 months (not really, but for the purpose of my point) - If every time I see someone who resembles him I freak out, I would be terrified to see him in my child and whether I'd be able to handle that. I'm sure I'd love the child, but I'd be so scared that seeing the child would cause flashbacks and fear. I'd be terrified he would find out about the child and want to have contact - thus, meaning contact with me. I'd be terrified of how I and my child would feel if I didn't let him meet his child and was therefore taking my child's "father" away."

My friend will, insha'allah, one day make a wonderful mother, but I can't imagine the pain and dread, the long-term psychological toll, that would have played out had her rape resulted in a pregnancy. She doesn't believe in having an abortion otherwise, but said she would likely have one in this case because of the toll that such a pregnancy would have on her.  It's not about the child - it's not a punishment to the child - it's about her.  It's about what she could and could not handle.

There is no "right" way to handle this for a rape victim.  Some rape victims would find the idea of aborting a fetus conceived through rape repugnant. Some would find the idea of carrying to term too damaging. Both are acceptable decisions if they are the decisions of the rape victim, and that victim understands her decision is appropriate for her and her alone. Because ultimately, that's why people support an exception for rape and incest: it's an attempt to give a little power back to the woman to make decisions that are best for her mental and physical health.  It's a recognition of a woman as an autonomous individual entitled to human dignity, including mental health, and the right to control, influence and make medical decisions for herself.

Suggesting that abortion following a rape is about punishment - of anyone, father or baby - rather than about a woman making the best choices for herself in the face of unimaginable pain... that's cruel. It's inhuman.  It's degrading. 

And it shows you have no respect for a woman as an autonomous human being; you only respect her for what she carries in her womb.