Day of Blogs

“Was it worth it?,” the Day of Blogs prompt asks.

Well, it was exhausting, that’s for sure. Getting something up every 30 minutes while trying to write somewhat legitimate posts is difficult as hell. Especially when I’m used to taking at least an hour to write a post that length. At least. Really, it’s tough. Particularly when you factor in the need for basic bodily functions like eating, using the bathroom and blinking. You should try it sometime. But I’m proud that I was able to do what I did. I was actually somewhat surprised at how mentally draining this was, and with that in mind I’m pleased that I accomplished so much and managed to write a substantial amount of quality material.

But was it worth it? Well, assuming that my sponsors don’t get pissed the fuck off at me, absolutely yes! The sidebar says that I’ve raised $394. I’ve also got a $50 echeck donation pending that won’t show up on the meter until it clears. That means a total of $444 was raised for RAINN today. $444! Not bad for something I decided to do on a whim this Monday and was worried would fail miserably. Not bad at all when I set my original goal at $200. You wonderful people smashed that, and you rule! [And just in case someone who wanted to donate didn't get the chance, I'm leaving the "event" open through Monday.]

Thanks so much also to everyone who stopped by to read and comment, especially those of you who stuck around for a while, including James who I just got to know today, and especially especially Anna (psst, the title of the post is a Beatles reference) who has been keeping me company for hours.

Love you folks.  Now I’m going to bed.

From the Cara’s Classic Posts vault comes probably the most personal post I’ve ever written, in addition to being the one that was the most emotionally draining, and also the most emotionally rewarding. It’s not the best post I’ve ever written, and there are some things I wish I had expressed differently, but it’s one that is and probably always will be dear to my heart.

Rape survivors who have told their stories online, unless their rape fit some archetypal, bloody vision of rape, have probably run into the “real rape” phenomenon. This is the one where by calling your experience rape, it’s “demeaning cases of ‘real rape.’” Of course, those who make this argument have a vested interest in keeping the definition of rape narrow and attacking those who speak about their experiences with what actually is real rape. In On ‘Real Rape’ and Rape Apologists, I respond to those who attacked me personally for my comments about an alleged assault committed by Johnny Vegas, who said that my experience, and the experiences of slews of other people just doesn’t count.

I don’t care what the law is. I never said that penetrating a woman against her will with a finger fits the legal definition of rape. In some sane places, it does. In many others, it does not. I don’t give a shit. In many places, a man who has nonconsensual sex with his wife has not legally raped her. But he still raped her. In many places, a man who has sex with a woman who is unconscious has not legally raped her. But he still raped her. In most places, a woman does not have to say “yes” to give consent, but simply fail to say “no.” A situation where she did not say “no” but does not want sex and did not agree to it is still rape. No matter what the law says. Rape is the nonconsensual sexual penetration of another person. It’s not that fucking difficult to grasp.

I still think that Vegas’ ass should be in jail. But I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to presume that rape charges would be thrown out. I never said that they wouldn’t be. If actually taken to court, the highest charges that he could possibly be convicted on would be those falling under sexual assault that is not rape.

But if Vegas penetrated the woman with his finger, he still raped her.

I don’t know why people can’t understand that. I don’t know why people look to the law as some kind of fucking gospel and assume that it is always right. The law is not always right. That’s why we still elect legislative bodies and expect them to do the job of passing and amending legislation — because we have not yet reached a place where laws are timeless and perfect. And I doubt with all my might that we ever will. I can only assume that they’re arguing with me on legal terms because they don’t have anything else. Nope, Vegas will not and probably cannot be tried on rape charges. I never argued otherwise. What the hell is your point?

In any case, in addition to all of those who left wonderfully supportive comments, and as I note in the post, RAINN is also on my side. Something that small — a simple definition on their website — meant a lot.

Read the full post here.

I don’t know folks, I don’t think I’m gonna make it.  My body is saying “Cara, you need to sleeeeep.”  The FAQ tells me to not feel bad if I need to drop out because doing a blogathon is very physically taxing, especially if you’ve never done it before.  You can say that again.

But I do feel bad.  Especially since it seems like most people are still in.  I don’t want to be the wuss who drops out first.  Grr.  Oh, and then there’s the sponsors.  Hello sponsors?  You’re not going to be pissed, right?  Right? Maybe?

John knows what I’m going through:

This piece on Roman Polanski is one of the most disgusting things I’ve read in some time.

Sorting out the Roman Polanski saga is not easy. His rape case is not only 31 years old, it is rife with sordid exaggerations, rumour-mongering, intrigue and complex moral issues that can, and do, cloud the facts.

The writer then goes on to say that well yeah, Polanski totally did ply a young girl with alcohol and drugs and “have sex” with her. So what exactly is clouded, exaggerated and whatever the fuck else he wants to call it, I’m not sure. The only thing I can conclude is that while the writer totally doesn’t condone rape, oh no he certainly does not, he just doesn’t think it’s fair to treat Polanski like the convicted rapist that he is.

The film contains many vintage clips of him being interviewed. In fresh interviews, others speak on his behalf, or at least about the case.

Besides key lawyers in the case, as well as friends in the filmmaking community, that roster includes Samantha (Gailey) Geimer, the rape victim. She makes it clear she believes that both she and Polanski got a life sentence for what happened between them.

The film never excuses Polanski’s shameful behaviour. Always intrigued by young women, he did have sex with an under-age girl, taking his fascination to illegal extremes. Samantha Gailey, then a child, should never have been drugged and seduced by an adult Polanski.

The film, however, also reveals astonishing facts about the apparent miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the celebrity judge in the case, the late Laurence J. Rittenband. Obsessed with gaining publicity for himself, Rittenband manipulated hearings, the plea bargain and the subsequent punishment cycle. He turned Polanski into a victim, even in the eyes of the prosecuting attorney.

“What happened between them?” The film never excuses Polanski’s behavior, so the writer feels the need to take it upon himself apparently. “Intrigued by young women?” “Sex with an under-age girl?” “Fascination?” The child was “drugged and seduced?”

Who the fuck decided that it was right for this man to be able to have a single drop of ink published on the subject of sexual assault?

When someone rapes you, that’s not an event that happens between the two of you — that is an act of violence that is enacted on your body. Polanski was not “intrigued by young women” — he was a rapist asshole who drugged and assaulted a young teenage girl. He didn’t have sex with her — he raped her, which is why his ass went to jail. The victim said that she said no. And in any case, it doesn’t matter because she was drugged and 13. You cannot “seduce” a 13-year-old girl, you sick fuck, let alone one whom you have drugged and who explicitly said “no.”

But nah, Polanski shouldn’t be treated like some horrid criminal, even though he raped a young woman and then willfully became a fugitive. After all, it’s not like he committed a real crime.  Sure he shouldn’t have done it, but I guess that he just took advantage of the situation, right?

Because Anna apparently still desperately needs a Beatles education, some key tracks:

I Feel Fine:

Ticket to Ride:

Read the rest of this entry »

A recent Washington Post article exposed the dismally low rate of rape convictions in Britain — a measly 6% of rapes reported in Britain and Wales resulted in a conviction. Even worse, there was what many dubbed a “postcode lottery” — where you lived severely affected whether or not your rapist would ever be brought to trial and/or convicted. But the government has promised to make changes and increase the conviction rates:

The government has been working to provide specially trained police officers, teams of experts and prosecutors across the country, said Coaker. The focus now was on ensuring that the same procedures were followed by every force.

“Every force has a responsibility to ensure that every single officer who comes into contact with a rape victim is supportive and believes the victim,” he said.

[. . .]

Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates said police had made “significant advances” in the way rape was investigated but admitted more needed to be done.

“Rape is a uniquely difficult crime to investigate,” said Yates, who is the Association of Chief Police Officers’ spokesman on the issue.

“But the fact that it’s difficult means we need to up our game and redouble our efforts to ensure victims can have confidence in the way they are approached by those working in the criminal justice system.”

So what do you think?  While obviously withholding my judgement until I can see the results, it does sound somewhat promising to me.  Namely, I appreciate that while noting that rape is a unique crime which poses challenges for investigation, Yates didn’t just stop there as they so often do with a whine, as though it’s an excuse.  In fact, Yates is absolutely right — the fact that rape cases pose unique challenges isn’t a reason to just throw up your hands and say fuck it, it’s a reason to work your ass off at figuring out how to do it properly.  There are problems at every level when it comes to rape and the judicial system — but while judges and juries need serious sexual violence education, police are the front line.  They take the reports, they conduct the investigations.  Police can’t necessarily help a victim to win a case, but they can easily help hir lose it.

Of course, the question is whether these are just very positive-sounding words or something that will be backed up with real action.  I do of course hope for the latter, but I won’t be holding my breath until I see the evidence. 

This is The Beatles (with an “a”). They were a band. Yes, a British one. They were popular throughout the 60s and released their final album in 1969.

This is a photograph of what we would call “early Beatles.”  From top left, clockwise, we have: Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, John Lennon and George Harrison.  But we usually just call them John, Paul, George and Ringo — in that order.

Read the rest of this entry »

This post Why We Can’t Afford to Dismiss Nick Eriksen is the one I wrote for this year’s Blog Against Sexual Violence.  There’s a lot in here, deconstructing a slew of rape myths.  At the risk of sounding egotistical, I had trouble picking an excerpt because there were a lot of points that I found to be important.  This is what I chose, on defining the “crime” of rape — not the physical act, but what it does:

The crime of rape itself is not the physical pain, though this is commonly an aspect. The crime of rape itself is not about a lack of physical pleasure, though this is also very often true. A woman who does not feel physical pain or who does feel physical pleasure during a rape has still been harmed.

The crime of rape is the imposition on another person’s body. The crime of rape is taking away another person’s right to make their own decisions, deciding what will and will not happen to their bodies. The crime of rape is failing to respect personal boundaries and enacting your will on another. The trauma of rape isn’t necessarily the physical pain; the trauma of rape is temporarily losing control of your own body and your own life. And as rape intends, many victims fail to realize that the control is temporary. The crime and trauma of rape is the assertion that a person’s autonomy can mean absolutely nothing to others and can be taken away. The crime of rape is its inherent intent to own another person.

You can read the full post here. Really, I do strongly recommend this one.

A post request from Kristen:

Or the importance of listening and accepting a rape victims story as a separate issue from placing legal responsibility on the perpetrator. Wouldn’t it be nice if a victim could tell hir story without everyone leaping to talk about the guilt or innocence of the perpetrator? Even for like 15 seconds?

Ah, wouldn’t it be nice indeed? I write an awful lot about the legal system and its treatment of rape survivors, because those are the stories that make the news. But I’d have to say that “why didn’t you report?” and “rape victims should always report” crap is one of my biggest pet peeves.

Honestly, I used to be that person. “Rape victims should always report because otherwise the rapist goes free and the rapist will just rape again.” You know, the victim has a responsibility to prevent further rapes — it’s on hirshoulders somehow. Of course, this was before being raped myself and oops, not reporting. (Hey, I also used to buy into the “you made the decision to have sex” anti-choice argument as well — what can I say, I was a stupid young teen.)

There are a few problems with this. The first is that it takes the responsibility off the rapist — after all, the rapist is an irresponsible subhuman piece of scum who just can’t help but raping, not an autonomous human being who makes hir own decisions. No. The rapist may be a piece of scum who doesn’t give a shit about other people, but the rapist still makes the decision to rape. Any time we start arguing that someone other than the rapist is responsible for the rapist’s decision to rape, we’re getting way, way too far into victim-blaming territory. And blaming a rape victim not only for hir own rape but for the rape of other people? Do we see how fucked up this is?

The second is the simple fact that victims don’t owe you anything. Victims do not owe society. They do not have a responsibility or a debt to pay. The only responsibility a victim has is for hirself — and I will never, ever begrudge a rape survivor for doing what sie needs to do in order to feel safe and stable.

I’ve been subject to the why didn’t you report? attacks. And that shit is both infuriating and painful. Firstly, it’s none of your goddamn business why I didn’t report. Secondly, I’ll tell you because I know that a lot of other survivors are in the same boat. I didn’t report because I didn’t understand what rape was — and after being traumatized for many years, finally understood “oh shit, well that’s why.” And if I did know? I probably wouldn’t have reported then either. My rape didn’t fit the definition of what most consider to be “rape” or even “date rape.” He was much more powerful than me, and my entire small town would have taken his side. There was no evidence, and after all, he was my boyfriend. I didn’t report because it was not safe for me to report. It still wouldn’t be today.

What survivors need is to be listened to. And telling survivors what they should and should not have done is not listening. Asking “Well did you report?” can sound just as interrogating and hurtful as “What were you wearing?” And why does it so greatly matter to you? Because you want to see the perpetrator brought to justice? Or because you want to exist on some sort of moral high ground. Even if it’s the former, you need to reconsider your priorities.

Maybe it’s the late hour, but I don’t know how else to say it other than shut the fuck up and listen.  And if you need to say something?  Try “how are you?” or “is there anything I can do for you?” or “I’m here for you if you need me.”

For my last post of July 26, moving into July 27, what song could possibly be more appropriate?

(And George falls over in 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . .)

In a recent post on machismo, Brownfemipower, insightful as always, tells us this short story:

One man I know has been working passionatly to help Latinas. But after a Latina was raped, this man, the only man (and only person, really) working to bring justice to this woman said, she is devistated–and her husband, her poor husband–can you imagine what this proud man is going through?

I wanted to scream, to cry when I heard his words. Why is a man’s pride considered to be the same thing as a woman’s bodily integrity, mental health and freedom?

You should read the whole post, but this part particulary stuck out at me — how even the advocates can lose the plot. These ideas are so deeply ingrained in us, the higher value of men, the ownership of women, that even the rape of a woman can turn into a story about a man. Even by those who know better.

Certainly, being very close with someone who has been raped, and I imagine particularly a spouse, is very painful and stressful. That is why RAINN offers support to these people in addition to the survivors themselves. They also have tips on their website on how while it’s appropriate to feel pain and anger, it’s not appropriate to make it all about them.  Because they’re not the same experience.  They don’t begin to compare.  

I understand the reaction.  I do.  The culture we live in feeds, expects this mentality.  But a man does not rape another man’s wife — he rapes that a woman.  And the only man who ought to lose any sense of pride in that scenario is the rapist.  And I can’t help but feel that this “pride” business, rather than concern and hurt for the woman, maybe even a sense of helplessness, is directly related to the concept of women as property, and therefore a part of the rape culture that spawned the violence.

Debi, previously of Burning Words, recently started a blog called Medical and Obstetric Rape Awareness Group.  She partially introduces the blog as follows:

For the majority of women, their time in hospital is at least comfortable, with each procedure and process being explained to them and their consent being sought for all actions.  Unfortunately, for some women, that is not the case, and they can leave hospital with their new baby, or having undergone a gynaecological procedure, feeling violated, traumatised, and in shock.  It is acknowledged that occasionally things will go wrong, emergencies will develop, and actions will be taken quickly by the staff without much time to talk anything through with the patient.  That, however is no excuse for some of the incidents I have read about (women giving birth being slapped by medical staff, for example), and it does not negate the medical staff’s responsibility for obtaining informed consent from the woman, as far as that is possible.

Debi recently shared her story of violation at the hands of a doctor and was ruthlessly attacked and insulted by another blogger for the mere suggestion that rape might be a proper word to describe the forcible penetration she endured for no valid reason.  What was particularly interesting about it is the way that it paralleled how those of us who have shared sexual violence stories have often be treated online.

Debi acknowledges that the use of the word “rape” in this context is controversial.  But I also think that she makes some excellent points regarding consent.  After all, since when are anti-sexual violence advocates in the business of arguing that motives behind an assault matter?  Why would we call one man who forcibly penetrates a woman with an object without her consent a rapist, and yet call another an inconsiderate doctor?  I can’t think of a good answer.  And do we have any business telling a woman who defines her experience as rape that she should not?

These are interesting and important questions that I’m not sure I entirely have answers to just yet.  It’s worth giving a look and a think.

More Cara’s Classic Posts!  I know I’m excited — aren’t you?

This one is piggy-backing off of the post here, It’s not sex, it’s rape.  As you could probably tell from that post, I believe that language matters and that the ways in which we discuss sexual violence help to shape how we see sexual violence (and yes, vice versa).  In this post, On sexual assault and language, I delve into the topic more deeply, explaining some of the reasons why I feel language is important and some of the reasons why people resist using the right words to describe sexual violence.  An excerpt:

Rape scares people when they think they know what it means — a guy jumping out of the bushes, beating the shit out of a woman, penetrating her vaginally with his penis and then running away. When you explain that this scenario not describe most actual rapes, many if not most rapes do not involve physical violence beyond the rape itself, most victims know their attackers, and most rapists don’t run away, either because they can’t even comprehend that they’ve done something wrong or they’re just so (usually correctly) sure that they won’t get caught . . . then people get really uncomfortable.

I think that there is more than one reason for this. It’s possible that I’ve left something out, but here are the four main explanations, as I see them:

The first is that we’ve been taught about how this version of rape isn’t nearly as bad as the jumping out of the bushes kind — but something in our conscience tells us that indeed it is just as wrong, and possibly worse, since an intimate partner, friend or family member who rapes is performing an ultimate betrayal. The second is that we’ve been taught about how this version of rape isn’t nearly as bad, and some people are determined to defend their understanding of the world, to excuse the way that they’ve blamed rape victims, not feel like an asshole, etc. The third is that the person (usually but not always a woman) is likely to realize that by this definition, they themselves have been raped. And since it is a natural human response to avoid pain, they don’t want it to be true. The fourth is that the person (almost always, but with a few exceptions, a man) might realize that by an honest definition of rape, they themselves are rapists. And this makes them feel very angry.

Read the full post here.

Those of you reading these as I go along are probably getting an inside glimpse into how my writing looks before it has been edited 40 million times.  I am an obsessive editor.  Really, obsessive.  I’ll edit a blog post for over an hour, reading the damn thing more than a dozen times.  What can I say, I’m a perfectionist.  But here, I obviously don’t have the time for that.  Nope, I’ve got to send it straight off into the world after maybe one or two read throughs.  Hell, I’ve hardly got enough time to write the damn things.  As I’ve gone back reading the posts later, I’ve noticed plenty of typos or missing words that I’ve had to go in and fix.  As I get more tired — this Coke doesn’t seem to be helping (the first time I typed Coke, I didn’t capitalize it, so I changed it worried that people might thing I was snorting lines over here.  I’m not, but I imagine that would help me stay awake) — the typos are probably just going to get worse.  As I get increasingly silly.  I might end up sounding drunk, but I swear I’m not.  So I guess we’ll just see where this goes and how many posts actually about sexual violence I’m able to churn out.  Hopefully another couple thoughtful pieces, eh?

I’m opening up the floor to requests. Leave them in the comments.  A Beatles video you want to see?  A post you want me to write?  A question that you want me to answer, either intelligent or weird?  You name it, you got it.  (Within limits.  If you want me to write a post about whale anatomy, you’re going to have to kiss my ass or donate a hell of a lot of money.)

And now that we are officially at the halfway mark, we are getting to the Cara’s Classic Posts portion of our programing.  In addition to the Cara Starts To Get a Little Silly portion.  The Classic Posts are of course of my egotistical choosing, posts about sexual assault that I like a lot, in which I think that I said something pretty smart, and that other people seemed to like, too.

So here’s a start, with a post I frequently reference, Why ask men to stop raping when women can just barricade themselves in their homes? An excerpt:

Chung refers to “responsible life choices.” Of course, she’s talking about women, as though we wake up in the morning and choose to be raped. No one talks about men making the responsible life choice to not rape. When you do, they throw a fit and want to know why we should tell men not to rape because they’re men and they’re not going to rape. But though huge numbers of women are raped, a significant majority are not. And we feel perfectly fine telling them what they should do to avoid the ever-present threat of rape by the men whose feelings we’re afraid to hurt.

Here are the facts. When someone actually bothers to do a responsible study about how alcohol affects rape, they do indeed find that a large number of victims were intoxicated at the time of the assault. They also find that in most cases where alcohol was involved, both parties were drinking. And in cases where only the victim or the perpetrator was drinking, the rapist was more than twice as likely as the victim to be intoxicated (pdf).

But I’ll just keep on holding my breath for that article titled “Alcohol tied to risk of being a rapist.” I’ll wait for the simply rational advice that men shouldn’t drink because there’s a relatively small chance that drinking will cause them to rape someone. Can’t you see it right around the corner? A time when a woman makes a rape allegation and people accusingly ask the man well were you drinking?

You can read the full post here.

The Day of Blogs has a bunch of writing prompts for us to use when we run out of ideas on what to write about.  Because not everyone . . . actually it seems not most people . . . has undertaken the same challenge that I have to try to write mostly about the issue their charity of choice works on.  And because I know that my brain needs a break.

So anyway, one of the alphabet prompts it D for Diet — you know, favorite foods.

As it is now time for dinner and I haven’t eaten a whole lot today because I’ve been busy blogging like a crazy blogging machine, I’m rather hungry.  And I’m going to have pizza.  Because not only is pizza easy, I also love pizza.  Seriously, I could live off of the stuff.  And I probably would if it wasn’t for all of those pesky health issues that come along with eating pizza exclusively.  Stupid health issues.

So, you know that you’re an obsessive Beatles fan and very American when . . . the very mention of the Daily Mail gets Paperback Writer stuck in your head. No seriously, it happens pretty much anytime I see that paper’s damn name. I think there’s something wrong with me. Although, thinking of the Beatles tends to make me feel much better about the fact that I’ve just read something out of the Daily Mail.

Here’s the video.

I feel how the Beatles look here. But then again, I’ve got an excuse and am not a fancy-schmance rock star filming my fancy-schmance video as a super-smart scheme to not have to go on the television circuit every time I release a new single. What a buncha whiners. I also just want to note that John had figured out the “ought to wear glasses” thing by this point, but not the “round granny glasses work infinitely better than any other” thing quite yet. Psssst, John — switch with Ringo!

Because this story happens to be published in the Daily Mail, I’d really love to believe that it’s sensationalized bullshit. After all, Fox News is seemingly more reliable. The bad news is that I actually do believe it:

Police allegedly marched a rape victim who had been found crying in the street at 1am to a cab firm, and then made her pay the fare home.

[. . .]

The woman reported the incident, which took place on 4 July, the next day but investigators fear important forensic evidence may have been lost.

A senior source said: ‘It should have been clear that she may have been sexually assaulted. To top it off, they put her in a cab with another strange man.’

Police think the woman may have been raped by an unlicensed taxi driver who dumped her in the street.

The Met insisted the officers who were asked to help the woman were unaware she may have been raped.

Right, because who might have guessed that a woman found slumped in the street, crying and wearing nothing but a tee-shirt might have been sexually assaulted? Or you know, maybe have thought to ask?

Then we see this comment from Lisa of West Yorkshire:

The lady was obviously very drunk if she couldn’t say “excuse me officer, but I’ve been assaulted and I need help”. Sadly nowadays - as others have said - semi naked drunk people are very commonly found on the streets at 1am. It’s not their fault that the majority of semi-naked women in “distress” on the streets are just disgusting drunks, not victims of any crime.

Well with attitudes like that running around, it’s easy to see how something like this could have happened. One almost has to wonder if Lisa even really does bother distinguishing those “disgusting drunks” and “victims of any crime” in her mind, especially since she’s assuming that this woman was drinking. I wouldn’t be surprised if the officers felt similarly — and I doubt that their jobs are even remotely at risk.

Well look at that — it turns out that this week, that atrocious “tight jeans” rape ruling has finally been overturned.  The ludicrous, demeaning and all around insulting ruling said that a woman could not have been raped because the jeans she was wearing were too tight for the rapist to remove himself.  In other words, the judges believed that the woman must have helped the rapist to remove the jeans, therefore what took place could not have been rape. And the argument has been used to gain acquittals numerous times since.

Julie Bindel writes a great piece at The Guardian about the prevalent attitudes towards rape that still exist today — the kind that I’ve spent my whole day (and a decent part of the last 16 months) writing about.  Seeing this in a mainstream paper is nothing but good.

But I’ve noticed a trend whenever the infamous “tight jeans” ruling is referenced — though it’s derided as ridiculous, misogynistic and so on, I’m not certain that I’ve seen anyone, on feminist blogs let alone in a mainstream newspaper, explain precisely why the ruling is so incorrect.  Maybe we just assume that everyone knows.  I’d love to believe that, but I think it’s a sadly faulty belief.  It’s also important to get through to people, because it’s a mentality that I see a lot of places, particularly lately when discussing oral rape and how it “doesn’t exist.”  So, allow me to explain.

Read the rest of this entry »

If there’s one thing that pisses me the fuck off, it’s watching the media use ridiculously apologetic and incorrect euphemisms for rape.  Like here:

The teenage victim of a rapist who took advantage of her after she passed out drunk was still unconscious when taken to hospital.

That fact was revealed yesterday in a court exhibit presented to Justice Sandy Park in the prosecution of Calgarian Amir Nawaz.

In the agreed statement of facts, Nawaz admitted taking advantage of a 15-year-old girl after she passed out at a southeast residence.

[. . .]

In the statement, drafted by Crown prosecutor Grant Schorn and signed by Nawaz and his lawyer, Jack Kelly, the city man admitted having sex with the victim.

It said the girl, who can’t be identified, smoked an entire marijuana cigarette and poured herself two half-glasses of booze before becoming ill, losing consciousness and falling to the floor.

The victim, who had never consumed marijuana or alcohol before, was carried to an upstairs bedroom and placed on a bed, the statement said.

Concerned about her friend’s well-being, the other girl went upstairs 15 minutes later and caught Nawaz in the act.

“(The victim) was unconscious and lying on the bed, naked from the waist down,” the agreed statement said.

“Nawaz had his pants off and was having sex with the unconscious (teen).”

Now, let us look at the facts.  The word “rape” is used in the headline — the only time it’s used.  The rapist has pleaded guilty.  The article states that the victim was unconscious at the time of the assault.

Based on these facts, there is absolutely no reason in the world to call this anything other than rape.  It was rape.  Of course, I’m used to seeing descriptions of someone “having sex” with an unconscious victim.  Even though the very nature of the unconsciousness makes consent impossible.

Read the rest of this entry »

Recently, Renegade Evolution put up a post about a Law and Order: SVU episode, expressing her horror:

Det. Benson went undercover in a women’s prison where a guard was raping prisoners. In the course of the episode, while undercover, Benson is handcuffed, taken to a basement, repeatedly threatend, beaten severely, and almost forced to perform oral sex on a guard. This is prime time non-cable television, and they show her getting beaten with a nightstick, shoved to her knees, there is a sound of a zipper, then the male guard character shoves his crotch in her face. He says “if you bite me, I’ll kill you.”

I don’t watch SVU, because I got tired of the only show on television that really deals with sexual violence sensationalizing and misconstruing it in the way that the show did back when I did watch.  But this post got me thinking about representations of sexual violence on television and in movies.  I’ve always had a problem with them.  On a purely emotional level, they’re difficult to watch.  But in my experience, rape scenes also tend to a.) glamorize and eroticize sexual violence, b.) portray sexual violence as something other than sexual violence, c.) portray sexual violence as outrageously violent in other ways, making it true to some cases but not the majority or d.) some combination of the above.

Read the rest of this entry »

*pants*

The good news is that the day is going very quickly — I can’t believe it’s already 5:30.  The bad news is that I’ve hardly had a moment to think, let alone try to work on the fact that I can’t get the laptop my dad loaned to me for the day so that I could move around the apartment to connect to the wireless network.

The REALLY good news is that we’re now up to a whopping $354 in contributions!  You folks rock!  Should I change the goal amount again?  Hmm, I’m thinking about it.  Again, thanks to everyone who has donated. And thanks so much to everyone who has been reading and commeting.  I’ve been reading all of the comments and really appreciate the support — I just haven’t managed to get a second to respond to them!

While I try to catch my breath, here’s an old favorite: Don’t Write a Poem About Rape.

In the SAFER post, I mentioned community-based models of justice for sexual assault survivors.  I personally do dream of a day when we live in a world where we can trust our criminal justice system to be accountable to society, non-discriminatory, and non-threatening and non-punitive to marginalized communities and those who have committed non-violent crimes.  We’re not there.  And while I’d love to get there, I’m not sure that we will in my lifetime.  We also need to recognize that while all sexual assault survivors are affected by the drastic shortcomings of our current legal system, some are more affected than others — particularly people of color, low-income, gay, lesbian and transgender individuals.

And that means that in the meantime, we need to look at other models.  INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence is an amazing organization, and probably the most well-known of those who work within a social justice, community accountability framework to bring about change and end violence.  And thanks to Nora at SAFER, I now also know about Safe OUTside the System, run by the Audre Lorde Project.  Both are worth our time, attention, support and willingness to listen and learn.  If you know of more organizations that do similar work, please leave that information in the comments.

Brownfemipower at La Chola has posted a video of asshole radio host “Jon Justice” molesting a paper mâché doll made to represent human rights activist and advocate for migrant families Isabel Garcia. BFP says:

I want people to see this for what it is–a white man feeling like he can control, humiliate, and imply sexual violence against a brown woman–all while be recorded for public broadcast. It’s about a white man controlling a woman who pissed him off, by mocking her race, by implying sexual control over her through the use of racist imagery and language.

The video below the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Activists in Bahrain are stepping up their efforts to criminalize spousal rape, which currently holds no penalties.

Rights activists in Bahrain have accelerated their efforts to penalise ‘spousal rape’ by launching a new campaign to promote the implementation of a family law to regulate judgments at Shariah Courts.

Presidents of the Women’s Union Mariam Al Ruwai told Khaleej Times yesterday that the law was the ultimate solution to protect women from many types of abuses and discriminations they faced at courts.

[. . .]

Women’s rights activist Afaf Al Jamri highlighted the need for the implementation of a family law to bring justice to such women. She said many women had to tolerate physical violence at the hand of their husbands because of the wrong interpretation of Islamic regulations, mainly Hadith (sayings of the Holy Prophet peace be upon him). She stressed the need to focus on the Holy Quran as its verses could not be misinterpreted.

Those same misinterpretations are used by the government to excuse rape:

Scholar and judge at the Shariah Courts Shaikh Mohsin Al Asfoor told Khaleej Times that men had a right to establish physical contact with their wives as the word ‘rape’ doesn’t apply in relations between married couples. He said Shariah courts did not penalise men for forced sex, however they press abuse charges and not rape when one suffers physical injuries.

“Shariah courts have dismissed many cases filed by women against their husbands for forced or unwilling sex, especially by females who had signed the marriage contracts but were waiting for the formal marriage ceremony, because the religion allows a man to establish physical contact with his wife as per his wish,” Shaikh Al Asfoor explained.

Nice.

Those who like to argue “cultural relativism” with regards to crimes like rape seem to simply ignore the fact that local activists on the ground are aggitating for change.  And of course, things really aren’t so differnet even in countries where a woman can press charges against her husband for rape (or vice versa).  Survivors rarely come forward and when they do, they are rarely believed.  It’s hard enough to get a conviction in a case where the two parties have had any consensual sex in the past, let alone when we’re looking at a married couple.  Not only does consent once mean consent always to some people, but to too many (hi Phyllis Schlafly!), marriage still means ownership.  Until we manage to change both of those things, we’re all going to be fighting an uphill battle.

Highlighting yet another of my all-time favorite bloggers: Marcella Chester.  Those of you who read me regularly will know that I have sung her praises before, and will continue to do so.  Marcella blogs about sexual violence at Abyss2Hope.  She also spends what I’m sure is a huge amount of time putting together the Carnival Against Sexual Violence every two weeks.

It is my opinion that Marcella is brilliant.  She writes eloquently and calmly on sexual violence, spending great deals of her time smacking down rape apologists with arguments that I myself regularly steal.  Because they’re good.  She is able to vocalize that which I know but can’t put into words — she teaches me and others how to.  I believe that I have learned more about the epidemic of rape apologism and fighting it from Marcella than from any other person.

We were lucky enough to have her guest-blog for us over at Feministe, and today she put up her last post there.  It was brilliant as per usual, and contained a reproduction of an old post giving advice to rape survivors.  Just a snippet:

Making sexual decisions for someone else is rape. The creation of “pure” motives is nothing more than the selfish rationalizations of a rapist. If that rape victim says nothing afterwards that is not a sign that the rape victim consented or approved anymore than if a hospitalized rape victim were quietly raped by a doctor, nurse or other hospital employee and then says nothing afterwards.

A repeat of a quiet rape is another rape and is not a sexual relationship. Because of the trauma rape victims have experienced and the muddiness that can come from that trauma many rape victims may question their perceptions. Their rapists have a clear motivation for trying to distort reality and they have the benefit of not being traumatized.

Go read the full post and be sure to check out Marcella’s blog.

A Calgary court recently ruled, essentially, that one does not have the right to not be raped if they willingly consumed alcohol . . . even if one is only 14-years-old and given said alcohol by an adult man for the purposes of raping her.

Having sex with a drunken 14-year-old he had plied with alcohol was not a criminal offence by former Calgary man, a judge ruled yesterday.

Justice Peter McIntyre said there was insufficient evidence the girl didn’t consent to having sex with Trevor Byron Niebergall.

But McIntyre did find Niebergall guilty of sexual assault for placing his genitals on the girl’s face after she passed out — an act the offender captured on his cellphone camera and showed to co-workers.

McIntyre said the fact the teenage complainant didn’t remember her sexual encounter with Niebergall at a December 2005 New Year’s Eve party did not mean she hadn’t consented.

He noted one witness said she appeared to have the capacity to consent when she and Niebergall went to a washroom in his brother’s apartment, where they had sex. And the Queen’s Bench judge said the girl willingly consumed large amounts of alcohol supplied by Niebergall even after he made lewd sexual comments.

Yup, that’s the argument. Entirely. The girl willingly drank, so tough shit. And no, I’m not even doing what amounts to extremely easy interpretation here. The judge made it even more explicit. (emphasis mine)

Read the rest of this entry »

Check it out, folks! Thanks to your generous contributions, including two which came in today, we’re now up to $284 raised for RAINN!

You know, when I first decided to do this, I had a total stress-out moment, worried that the whole thing was going to be an embarrassing flop and I wouldn’t end up raising anything. But will you take a look at that? We’ve passed my original $200 goal, then passed the new goal I set yesterday for $250. I’ve just reset the goal again to $300, because we’re sooo close. Only $16 away. We can do that, right? If you were thinking of donating, now would be the time! Don’t you want to be the person who pushes us over the $300 mark? You know you do!

Thanks again to everyone who has donated so far, and to everyone who has stopped in to read and provide their support. Hey, this is already a quarter of the way over. That wasn’t so bad! Only three more of those and we’re gold . . .

Damn, this posting something every 30 minutes business is tough work.  Who wudda thunk?

For the sake of my sanity, keeping me happy, and my desire to make myself some lunch and eat, it here is a gratuitous Beatles video!  Sorry it’s a little blurry, but it’s the best I could find, and it’s a good one!  I love this video for three main reasons: John being a majorly sarcastic ham (as per usual), George alternately looking like he’s bored as hell and like he wants to murder Paul in his sleep (as per usual) and Paul being overly-enthusiastic and seemingly oblivious to the fact that John is mocking him and George is hating him (as per usual).  And come on now, they do a mean twist, don’t they?  Enjoy!

Last week, Australian World Youth Day Coordinator Bishop Anthony Fisher made comments about a family whose daughter committed suicide after facing long-term depression because of rape she suffered at the hands of a Catholic priest.  Responding to their claims that the church has purposely held up compensation claims, Fisher’s remarks speak for themselves:

Bishop Anthony Fisher was responding to questions about the report on ABC’s Lateline which featured Anthony Foster, and his daughters.

But today Bishop Fisher was dismissive.

“All I’ve seen is the reports in the newspapers today,” he told reporters this morning.

“Happily, I think most of Australia was enjoying [and] delighting in the beauty and goodness of these young people and the hope for us doing these sorts of things better in the future, as we saw last night, rather than dwelling crankily - as a few people are doing - on old wounds.”

He went on to say Cardinal Pell and the Catholic Church were doing all they could to deal appropriately with sexual abuse claims.

Oh yeah, cleary they’re handling those sexual abuse claims very appropriately, by calling victims in their families a bunch of cranky whiners who dwell on old wounds over a little thing like rape.  Particularly, calling the family of a victim who killed herself because of one of those rapes a bunch of cranky wound-dwellers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Having previously criticized the incredibly graphic coverage of this case, I won’t repeat it.  Let it suffice to say that the woman who was raped, tortured and attempted to be murdered by Robert Williams was put through a living hell.  And he has now been sentenced to 422 years.

As someone who does not believe in the death penalty and who also never wanted this guy to again see the light of day, I’m happy with the outcome.  And yet, I cannot help but feel sad that it has to come to this for sexual violence to be taken seriously.  While 422 years wouldn’t normally be an appropriate sentence, it’s obscene that a woman has to be tortured in every way possible before peple start giving a shit and feeling appalled.

And while I agree that the woman’s strength and composure throughout the ordeal is commednable, I do have to wonder if things would have played out differently if she was not perceived to have survived because of her intelligence, if she wasn’t a Columbia University graduate student, if she didn’t display the “grace” that jurors witnessed, and if Williams was not a black man, an ex-con and homeless.  It’s sad that I have to wonder.  But I do.

One of my favorite blogs is the SAFER Blog.  SAFER stands for Students Active For Ending Rape, and the organization is dedicated to preventing sexual violence on college campuses and empowering college students to hold their colleges accountable for the sexual assault that takes place in their on and off campus communities.

SAFER is dedicated to models in which communities hold their members accountable for their actions by appropriately removing or sanctioning them, as opposed to simply hoping that the legal system will work it all out (when it rarely does).  They also maintain the SAFER Policies Database, where users can search for their school’s sexual assault policy, compare it to other models, and use this information to agitate for positive change.

Really, you ought to check out their blog, because it’s not just your standard organization-related blog.  They tackle the issues, and are lucky enough to have two of my favorite writers Ashley and Nora on their team.

Oh, and also, they’ve got some badass shirts.

This entire fucking comment pissed me off and made me want to gouge out my (or someone else’s . . .) eyes. But the worst part is this:

Acquiaintance [sic] nonviolent rapes with prior sexual history between accused and accuser are nearly impossible to win, though they sometimes are won. Think about it: All of the physical evidence, and much of the circumstantial evidence, supports BOTH the victim’s story AND the accused’s story. The “non rape event” is not only theoretically common, but has actually occurred already.

Question, Mr. Spends His Whole Overly-Long Comment Lamenting How Rape Victims Are Treated Poorly While Simultaneously Approving of That Treatment: why is the circumstantial evidence in a “non-violent rape” (all rape is violent, even if the victim isn’t so much as held down) more compelling when the two parties have previously had consensual sex, as you have argued, versus when they did not?  Because the only explanation I can see for why you consider it less believable for a person to rape a another person with whom they’ve already had consensual sex than one with whom they have not is if you assume that consent once means consent always.

And it fucking doesn’t.  Circumstancial evidence supporting a “non rape event” only exists when there is a strong argument that the accusor provided consent.  And “well, they consented before” is not a strong argument.  Never is, never has been, never will be.

A New York City Transit campaign aimed to prevent sexual assault on the subway was recently shelved for fears that it would actually provoke more attacks. The above ad was run in the Boston Transit System, and NYC was considering a similar campaign.

The New York Post reports that Boston saw a significant increase in reported assaults after they ran the ad — but logically believe that this is simply due to an increased rate in reporting by women who now understand that what has been done to them is crime. Some argue that the tagline may be a problem — as though assailants will take the “expose” line literally, or be titillated by it.

But personally, with 10% of women surveyed reporting having been sexually abused on the subway, and 63% reporting sexual harassment, I think you have to wonder if the city might be more concerned with making it look like the subway is safe rather than actually making it safe. After all, to the uninformed, an increased rate of sexual assault reporting can look like some awful bad news.

In my first post here, I said “I believe that sexual violence is perhaps the most harmful, blatant, and yet insidious manifestations of patriarchal power.”

I of course do believe this. Sexual violence is an epidemic specifically targeting women. And men make up a huge, vast majority of those who commit rape and sexual assault. But it’s important to remember that men can also be raped and sexually assaulted — and sadly, they are. According to RAINN, 1 in 10 rape survivors is male. Three percent of men have experienced rape or attempted rape in their lifetimes. These numbers pale in comparison to the numbers of women who are sexually assaulted, but that hardly makes them insignificant. We also have to remember that women are indeed capable of sexual assault and rape.

About a month ago, James Landrith bravely wrote his story about being raped by a woman while he was passed out. It’s an important read. It also inspired Renee at Womanist Musings to write a post on the topic of rape committed against men.

Whether or not I agree with Renee’s conclusion that rape may have little to do with gender depends on how you look at the statement.  I don’t believe that rape has little to do with gender — I think that gendered socialization makes men much more likely to rape and women much more likely to be raped by them for a reason.  I do believe that it has very little do with sex, both sex as an act, and sex as a biological indicator.

There is nothing innate in the male body or brain that causes them to be more likely to rape. There is nothing innate in the female body or brain that causes them be more likely to not rape.  A person doesn’t rape or not rape because he/she has a penis, and doesn’t rape or not rape because he/she has a vagina.  If I did believe that who rapes is biologically determined, I wouldn’t do the work that I do, and I’d be letting rapists off very easy.

I’ve never raped anyone, and it is not because I’m a woman.  It is because I have never chosen to rape.  Choice is always the deciding factor.

Why?

Because women still have a need to send in postcards like this one.

Because this still qualifies as a “secret.”

Because too many people still need to hear it.

Because even many of the ones who don’t need to hear it still don’t know to call this “rape.”

Via SAFER, I absolutely love these posters from the Date Safe project, aimed at sexual assault prevention in teens.  There are two main reasons: 1. they are aimed at educating on how to not commit sexual assault rather than how to “avoid” being sexually assaulted and 2. they use the concept of affirmative/enthusiastic consent — in other words, consent means a “yes” rather than the absence of a “no.”

Read the rest of this entry »

One of my favorite features of charity websites is the part where they tell you how your donations can help.  Here is what RAINN’s website tells us about what your contribution can do:

National Sexual Assault Hotline
$42 = pay for telecom costs for 12 hotline calls.
$135 = distribute training info to 90 local affiliates.
$720 = operate the hotline for 8 hours.

National Sexual Assault Online Hotline
$28 = pay for 4 hours of training for a hotline volunteer.
$90 = operate the Online Hotline for 30 minutes.
$625 = provide 25 hours of hotline volunteers tech support.

Public Education
$30 = provide sexual assault prevention tips to 1,500 college students.
$71 = print posters that will be viewed by 10,000 students in college dorms.
$348 = provide sexual assault information kits to 58 reporters.

Public Policy
$160 = pay for one day of research/analysis of sexual violence statistical trends.
$240 = provide DNA briefings to 4 Congressional offices.
$900 = produce a DNA policy briefing for media and legislators.

Looking at these numbers, I find it somewhat daunting just how much it costs to run the hotline and provide these services.  But they tell me just how important contributions are and how badly a great organization like RAINN can use our help.

Thank you again to everyone who has contributed so far.  We’ve passed my original goal, which makes me very happy, and we’re 93% of the way to the modestly higher one that I set after that point.  You can donate by using the widget in the sidebar or by going to my ChipIn page.

So far, we’ve raised enough for 2 days of research/analysis of sexual violence statistical trends, or enough posters to be viewed by 30,000 college students, or telecom costs for 72 hot line calls, or to run the online hotline for over an hour.  And that does make a difference.

When wondering what the hell I’m going to write about for 24 hours (still working on it), one of the things I considered I ought to write about first is why I’m doing this crazy thing, and why I’m doing it for RAINN.

I came up with many answers for this. I strongly considered two different charities before making a decision: RAINN and the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families (the group fighting the SD abortion ban initiative). In the end it came down to two things. 1. SD Campaign for Healthy Families is a 501(c)(4) charity, which made it ineligible and 2. I do an awful lot of work surrounding reproductive rights every week.

Now, I do actually believe that sexual violence is a reproductive justice issue (there’s a post!). But those who regularly read my blog will know from my sheer frequency of writing about the topic and the passion with which I do so that it’s an issue very dear to my heart. The question is why, and I have no simple answer.

The most obvious answer is my own history with sexual violence. Would I still have passion for the issue otherwise? I certainly hope so, and since I don’t think about my own experiences every time I write on the topic, I believe so too. But I’d be lying if I said that I was certain it would be as dramatically as important to me as it is now. A second answer is that I’m a feminist, and I believe that sexual violence is perhaps the most harmful, blatant, and yet insidious manifestations of patriarchal power. Further, I truly believe that we can (and must) find a way to end it.

I remember when I first heard the “one in three” statistic: one in three women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime (note: some say one in four. RAINN says one in six will experience rape or attempted rape). I was in high school, and I undertook the practice of thinking about this whenever I was in groups with more than one woman. And all I could conclude was that it was true, even taking myself out of the mix. One in three.  This was, of course, simply from my knowledge of the women at hand — meaning that there were certainly more. It also of course wasn’t taking into account the women who would later be sexually assaulted. At the time, I was best friends with two other girls. And I vividly remember the moment (it was math class, 11th grade) when I realized that all three of us were survivors of sexual violence. All three of us.

In the end, I decided that the easiest and best answer is this one:

Yoko Ono’s Imagine Peace Tower is a tribute to John Lennon, a “wishing well” from which a very strong vertical light emerges. Anyone can send in wishes, and the wish can be for anything. Anything? That doesn’t make it come true, but what a freeing thought all the same. Hell, I could wish that John Lennon had never been murdered, indeed one of my happiest dreams. But no, that was not the wish that came to mind. I haven’t submitted my wish yet, because I hope to do it in person in a couple of months. But still, and despite the wishes being private, I will share mine with you now:

a world without sexual violence

The Day of Blogs 2008 will start at 9am EST on Saturday July 26.

I will be blogging about sexual violence to raise money for the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN).  You can help by donating through the widget in the righthand sidebar or visiting my ChipIn page.

For more, see this post at The Curvature.  See you at 9!