Recently in Sexual Assault Category

Clearly, they're just ASKING to be raped.

Here at Feministing, we've seen our fair share of victim-blaming articles. But this one takes the asshole, rape-apologist cake.

Trigger Warning

Peter Hitchens (yes, they're related) writes that a rape victim that was drunk "deserves less sympathy."

Wait, it gets worse. As Melissa at Shakesville points out, Hitchens makes flat out false statements like "women who get drunk are more likely to be raped than women who do not get drunk," and that rape is "the inevitable result of the collapse of sexual morality." (You know, because rape never happened before free love, per-marital sex, feminism, etc)

But here's the real kicker:

Of course she is culpable, just as she would be culpable if she crashed a car and injured someone while drunk, or stepped out into the traffic while drunk and was run over.

Getting drunk is not something that happens to you. It is something you do.

Melissa's response:

At this point, as you can see, Hitchens has totally lost the plot. Indeed, "getting drunk" is not something that happens to you--but getting raped is. Comparing getting behind the wheel of a car and getting held down and forcibly penetrated without consent is patently ludicrous, not to mention about as divorced from the actual experience of being raped as I can imagine. Essentially, Hitchens' argument is that women should be responsible for their choices, without ever acknowledging that rape isn't a fucking choice.

Hitchens can't seem to get his head around the idea that rapists rape women, rather than women magically "getting themselves" raped. There's so much more to say, but really, it's impossible to unpack all of the idiocy in this article (including the charming accompanying art above). So I'll leave that you, lovely readers, in comments.

Sometimes, there are no words.

Via The Curvature.

Community blogger MaraJ3791 covered this a couple of days ago, and thankfully some good news has come out of this heinousness.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) attempts to mitigate violent crimes in the UK by giving victims reparations. But in their most recent case, a 25-year old woman who was raped was told the £11,000 she was to be given was actually going to be reduced by 25% because she was drinking on the night she was assaulted. She received a letter saying that, "the evidence shows that your excessive consumption of alcohol was a contributing factor in the incident."

"It was just so cruel and unthinking and so wrong because there is nothing you can do to prevent yourself being raped. It is not illegal to go out and have a drink, it is illegal to rape somebody," said the survivor.

The good news is that after some pushing, the decision has been overturned. But unfortunately, this is too little too late for others. The CICA also acknowledged that they had already cut reparations for 14 other rape victims this year, but refused to review the past cases to potentially right their wrong.

"If an applicant accepts our decision then that case is finalised and closed," the CICA said. "If they wish to ask for a review they must do this themselves, in writing."

The fact that these people can be so smug after admitting guilty to blatant injustice through victim-blaming is beyond me. Let the CICA know that they should take responsibility for their shameful actions and give the 14 women their reviews; they certainly shouldn't have ask for it.

Please check out this excellent op-ed from the Sunday Times about the lack of justice for women violently sexually assaulted in indigenous communities.

Some tidbits,

ONE in three American Indian women will be raped in their lifetimes, statistics gathered by the United States Department of Justice show.

The situation is unfair to Indian victims of all crimes -- burglary, arson, assault, etc. But the problem is greatest in the realm of sexual violence because rapes and other sexual assaults on American Indian women are overwhelmingly interracial. More than 80 percent of Indian victims identify their attacker as non-Indian. (Sexual violence against white and African-American women, in contrast, is primarily intraracial.) And American Indian women who live on tribal lands are more than twice as likely to be raped or sexually assaulted as other women in the United States, Justice Department statistics show.

Rapes against American Indian women are also exceedingly violent; weapons are used at rates three times that for all other reported rapes.

They pretty much say it all.

Babies have been sold on the black market for a long time and in highly impoverished areas it often seems like a good idea when you stand to gain thousands of dollars. But inevitably, when you are selling not only the product (a baby) but also hijacking the means of production (a woman's body), illegally, gender based human rights violations are pretty much inevitable.

Call it bizarre business, but the fact is that it is booming. It could be described as a baby factory where women who suffer disability in child bearing source babies. The proprietors are clever enough, as the homes are registered as non governmental organizations(NGOs). In the homes, the operators simply source teenage girls who are pregnant and not interested in keeping the babies. In some cases, some who are desperate to make money are lured into the business. They are taken into the homes where there are men ready to make sure that the girls become pregnant.

I find this last line particularly disturbing. How exactly do they make sure the girls become pregnant? How exactly does one "become" pregnant? Are they forced into having sex perhaps?

And to ascertain that the girls are healthy, HIV and AIDs tests are conducted on the girls before being admitted. The girls stay there until they give birth. Once they are through with this assignment, they are allowed sometime before they leave the homes. Depending on their ability to negotiate, the NGOs, according to our source, pay about N50,000 for the baby. In most cases, the girls do not see the babies they carried for nine months, as there is a ready market for them.

Wow, just wow. The police have been raiding homes and arresting the girls, such as this example where neighbors were complaining that the young women were being held hostage against their will. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me-arrest the girls. Also, Nigeria doesn't have the best track record in taking care of their mother's to be.

Reader Castro tipped us off to this awful and incredibly flip Time article about a sexual assault that occurred decades ago:

But the story got even better when newspaper suspicions proved true and McKinney was forced to admit she was none other than Joyce McKinney, the former Miss Wyoming who 30 years ago fled Britain to escape charges of kidnapping a Mormon missionary and forcibly having sex with him.

(Emphasis mine.) That's right. The genders are reversed from the way we normally read this sort of bungled news story. But that doesn't make it any less appalling. (Renee at Womanist Musings had a great post on this awhile back.)

In fact, let's just count up this article's offenses:

• Defines an act of sexual assault as a "sex scandal." The headline should read "Cloner dogged by sexual assault." A sex scandal is what John Edwards is experiencing right now, in the wake of his consensual affair. It is distinct from sexual assault, which is what Time is talking about in this article.
• Uses the phrase "had sex with" in lieu of "raped" or "assaulted." (We've discussed this before...)
• Perpetuates the totally false idea that because the victim did not try to escape, that means the act was consensual. (Cara has written about this a lot.)
• Names the victim.

Ugh. Write the Time editors here, and ask them to seriously reevaluate how they write about rape -- regardless of the victim's gender.

I'd say that's a good idea. Via BBC News:

Gamma-butyrolactone and 1,4 butanediol are available in cleaning fluids and industrial solvents, but when swallowed together they turn into GHB.

Scientific advisors have suggested these were increasingly becoming "a legal substitute" for GHB and may have been used in sexual attacks.

The chemical industry will be consulted before any change to the law is made.

GHB is already banned in the UK due to the prevalence of its usage for sexual assault but the separate chemicals are not as of yet. A number of kids were hospitalized last year when the ingredients were found in the toy "Aquadots" and - like little kids tend to do with toys - they ate them.

Picture via BBC.

Girls Gone Wild crew supervisor Matthew O'Sullivan, 37, was arrested for sexually assaulting a 20 year-old woman on the "party bus" while the show was filming in Long Island, New York.

[Trigger Warning]

At O'Sullivan's arraignment yesterday, Suffolk County prosecutors said he and the victim started touching and kissing, which she had no problem with.

But things took a tawdry turn when he allegedly pulled down her shorts and underwear as he put his hands around her throat to keep her from running out.

The young woman was able to break free when her friends came on the bus. The pals yanked back a curtain and saw her struggling with O'Sullivan, prosecutors said.

The friends called 911 and the victim was able to flag down a passing police car...

Seriously, when is someone going to shut this fucking operation down? How many more women have to be assaulted by Joe Francis and Co. before something is done? And yeah, I realize that you can't put them out of business because of the actions of a few of their employees, but it's clear that this company breeds and condones violence against women.

Via Gothamist.

The Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released a report yesterday afternoon on the prevalence of sexual violence in juvenile detention centers. An estimated 4,072 accounts of sexual violence were reported during 2005 and 2006:

An estimated 36 percent of the allegations of sexual violence in juvenile facilities were youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts, such as rape and forcible sodomy; 21 percent were youth-on-youth abusive sexual contacts, such as unwanted touching or grabbing with the intention to exploit sexually.

About 32 percent of all allegations of sexual violence reported in state juvenile systems and local or private juvenile facilities involved staff sexual misconduct, defined as any act of a sexual nature directed toward a youth, either consensual or nonconsensual; 11 percent involved staff sexual harassment, including repeated comments or demeaning references of a sexual nature to a youth.

Victims of substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence were more likely to be male (73 percent) than victims of staff-on-youth violence (49 percent). Females were more likely to be victims of staff sexual violence than victims of youth-on-youth sexual violence (51 percent versus 27 percent).

Check out the entire report.

Yesterday the House held a hearing on sexual assault in the military, a topic we've written on repeatedly. Not just the insanely and disturbingly high rates of sexual assault, but the effect is has on female vets.

Rep. Louise Slaughter reintroduced the Military Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Act, which would establish an Office of Victims Advocate within the Department of Defense and hopefully improve efforts to respond to cases of sexual violence and harassment in the military.

At the hearing, sexual assault survivor Ingrid Torres testified. What an incredibly brave woman:

"The road after sexual assault is a long and challenging one. As is typical of violent crime, I suffer from PTSD, violent nightmares, and depression. I still wake in the night, he still comes after me in my dreams... Because of the impending courts martial, I was advised not to talk openly about the case, which caused rumors and misconceptions to run rampant. There was no escaping it and no making it better. The hostility grew with my silence...Ultimately, our society still publicly and privately tries the victims in sexual assault cases. Rape is the only crime where the victim has to prove their innocence."

RH Reality Check has more.

In other congressional news, yesterday the House passed the Paycheck Fairness Act. Bush has vowed to veto the legislation. Because he likes making $1 to your 76 cents, dammit.

Not only does this headline from 10News in San Diego victim-blame in the worst (and perhaps most common) way, the article itself is no dream either. Not once are the words 'rapist' or 'men' mentioned. Check out the lede, for example:

San Diego police are investigating a rising number of rapes involving young women who go on drinking binges, becoming too intoxicated to fight back or say "no," it was reported Tuesday.

What's so hard about instead writing, "San Diego police are investigating a rising number of rapes involving men who attack intoxicated women." It's shorter, more accurate, and doesn't blame women for being raped. It's like magic! I guess I won't be holding my breath.

via Scott, this is a truly disgusting story out of my home state:

A fellow student-athlete at Iowa alleged she was sexually assaulted by two football players on October 14, 2007. Within 36 hours of the assault the victim reported the incident to the highest levels of the Iowa Athletic department. Including athletic director Gary Barta, head football coach Kirk Ferentz, associate athletic director Fred Mims, and a faculty member. According to the victim's mother all of these individuals encouraged the victim to allow them to handle an on campus investigation rather than reporting the assault to authorities.

Left to handle the investigation, the mother states Iowa officials did nothing for over three weeks. In fact, one of the alleged perpetrators even moved in three doors down from the victim, and the victim says she was constantly harassed by the men and received no protection from university officials. Ultimately, she contacted the local police on November 5, over three weeks after the assault. This finally prompted an action from Iowa. On November 13, Coach Ferentz announced that the two players charged with sexual assault were suspended. Although he did not disclose why the two men were suspended. This was almost a month after he became aware of the sexual assault allegations.

Scott pointed out to me that this Iowa case sounds a lot like U.S. v. Morrison. In that case -- which went all the way to the Supreme Court -- Christy Bronzkala, a student at Virginia Tech was raped by two football players. The college punished one of the athletes but not the other, and when a state grand jury failed to charge either man with a crime, Bronzkala sued under the Violence Against Women Act. (VAWA initially had a clause that said women could sue their abusers/attackers in federal court. That provision was struck down when Bronzkala lost her case.)

Looking back, the thing that is most striking to me now about U.S. v. Morrison is what a sadly typical tale it is. I mean, just yesterday the SAFER Blog posted on a Clemson football player who -- despite accusations that he punched his girlfriend and threw her down the stairs -- will remain on the team. It becomes so painfully clear, after reading story after story like this, that in 9 cases out of 10, college authorities value their athletes more than the women on their campus.

UPDATE: In a previous version of this post that MovableType must have gobbled up, I also linked to our posts on the DeAnza rape case, and some of Cara's great blogging on this issue -- and put in a plug that you should totally go sponsor her for her blogathon fundraiser to benefit RAINN.

Yesterday the Washington Post had a piece on the backlog of untested rape kits in the U.S.

Rape kits can help identify unknown assailants by matching DNA profiles obtained from evidence to profiles in the FBI's national DNA database. The kits can confirm the presence of a known suspect's DNA, corroborate a victim's version of events or exonerate innocent suspects.

Most states are not required to notify victims if their evidence has not been tested, so people usually have no idea whether their kits have been processed. Many victims assume that silence from the police means that their kit did not yield helpful information. A much-delayed National Institute of Justice report on the state of the rape-kit backlog is due to be submitted to Congress in the fall; experts on the crime expect it to show that a significant backlog remains.

(What's in a rape kit? The Denver Post did this graphic to explain.) This is an issue that many, many local newspapers have covered, stating the backlog numbers in the local community and (usually) highlighting one survivor's frustration with the system. But there's been little national action on this issue in several years.

It's not only the processing of rape kits that's at issue -- it's access. Some women have been denied them altogether. Take this story from last year about a Howard University student who was repeatedly denied rape kits at several DC hospitals.

I'd really like to know more about how rape-kit processing works. Is there a queue, where every new kit is just added to the line? Or is this a situation where uninsured and other women at a disadvantage in the medical system get shunted to wait in line, while others can jump ahead and have their kits processed right away? Does it matter what sort of attorney you have prosecuting your rape case? I'd love to hear from someone who knows more about this.

In the meantime, take action! The Post had some great suggestions for how Congress can start fixing this situation. Write your Senators and Representatives ask Congress to:

• Require that states that receive grants to use at least 30 percent of the money to pay for testing backlogged rape kits


• Build in accountability by requiring that states report how many rape kits are tested annually


• Lift restrictions against states using the grants to pay private labs for DNA testing; crime lab directors across the country have cited this as a reason that they have not applied for or been able to fully spend their grant money


• Remove an amendment that would require states to expand their DNA databases to include all felons and certain arrestees. Adding people who have not been convicted of any crime to DNA databases raises civil rights and civil liberties concerns, adding unnecessary controversy to the program.

Sexualized violence comes with the territory of war. It is an age old tactic and also a byproduct of the pressure of war and the insistence on overt misogyny. So it is no surprise that according to the AP 15 percent of women that have served have experienced some form of sexual trauma. That shouldn't make it any less revolting.

Of the women veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who have walked into a VA facility, 15 percent have screened positive for military sexual trauma, The Associated Press has learned. That means they indicated that while on active duty they were sexually assaulted, raped, or were sexually harassed, receiving repeated unsolicited verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature.

Rape is clearly not only a weapon of war, but a byproduct of it creating an internal dysfunction within the military industrial complex.

via AP and ThinkProgess.

And sign this petition. Tomorrow is the three-year anniversary of LaVena Johnson's death (on July 19), which was ruled a suicide but was, in all likelihood, a rape and murder.

Phillip Barron has been working incredibly hard to bring attention to her case. And you may have read about LaVena recently on Feministing, or from Cara, Megan at Jezebel, Gina at What About Our Daughters, and Kate at Broadsheet,.

Retired Army Col. Ann Wright explains what we all want investigated:

From the day their daughter's body was returned to them, the parents had grave suspicions about the Army's investigation into Lavena's death and the characterization of her death as suicide. In charge of a communications facility, Lavena was able to call home daily. In those calls she gave no indication of emotional problems or being upset. In a letter to her parents, Lavena's commanding officer Captain David Woods wrote: "Lavena was clearly happy and seemed in very good health both physically and emotionally."

In viewing his daughter's body at the funeral home, Dr. Johnson was concerned about the bruising on her face. He was puzzled by the discrepancy in the autopsy report on the location of the gunshot wound. As a US Army veteran and a 25-year US Army civilian employee who had counseled veterans, he was mystified how the exit wound of an M-16 shot could be so small. The hole in Lavena's head appeared to be more the size of a pistol shot rather than an M-16 round. He questioned why the exit hole was on the left side of her head, when she was right handed. But the gluing of military uniform white gloves onto Lavena's hands hiding burns on one of her hands is what deepened Dr. Johnson's concerns that the Army's investigation into the death of his daughter was flawed.

They glued the white gloves onto her hands to hide burns. A literal cover-up. It's so clear that this and other details of LaVena's case don't add up to suicide. And it's sadly not exactly far-fetched that she was sexually assaulted: A full one-third of women veterans report rape or attempted rape during their time in the military. So it's important to keep the pressure on Congress and the military to open an investigation into her death. For LaVena, yes. Absolutely. But also for other military women whose rapes and murders have been covered up. Wright writes,

The military has characterized each of the deaths of women who were first sexually assaulted as deaths from "non-combat related injuries," and then added "suicide." Yet, the families of the women whom the military has declared to have committed suicide, strongly dispute the findings and are calling for further investigations into the deaths of their daughters. Specific US Army units and certain US military bases in Iraq have an inordinate number of women soldiers who have died of "non-combat related injuries," with several identified as "suicides."

Please sign that petition today. There may also be a legal fund established in the near future. We'll keep you posted.

Ok, so I know we haven't blogged about the latest McCain rape joke news. In case you missed it, McCain allegedly told this joke in 1986:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, "Where is that marvelous ape?"

Classy, huh? McCain's spokesperson at the time denied it, though the reporter who recorded the joke, Norma Coile, said, "I'm not sure exactly what the wording was of the joke, but something was said. Some joke involving a rape and ape was said. Enough women repeated it to me at the time and the McCain campaign had a non-denial denial."

Yes, the "joke" is appalling. But I think the McCain campaign's response to the joke resurfacing was even worse. A spokesperson defended McCain's humor this way:

"He's long said that he's said and done things in the past that he regrets," Rogers said. "You've just got to move on and be yourself -- that's what people want. They want somebody who's authentic, and this kind of stuff is a good example of McCain being McCain."

I think there are enough examples that we can conclude this is true. Just McCain being McCain.

This is horrible. An 11-year-old girl in Milwaukee was sexually assaulted by "as many as 20 men" and boys (ranging in age from 13 to 40) -- the last of whom was recently sentenced.

Seventeen-year-old Terrell Jefferson was the 14th person punished for his role in the Labor Day 2006 assault. Authorities said as many as 20 men and boys engaged in sex acts with the girl over several hours. A 16-year-old girl was accused of helping get the younger girl to take part. [...]

A number of women in the girl's neighborhood said the males involved were good people who made bad decisions.

"Five years? Ten years? That's ridiculous," said LaToya Bell, 22, sitting on a porch with four others who nodded in agreement. "They (are) getting time for nothing. That girl, she knew what she was doing."

She was 11 years old. I have no words. Go read Gina at What About Our Daughters (who has been following the case) and Renee at Womanist Musings.

An 18-year old girl from Auckland has accused four players of the England rugby union team of raping her, and the team has gone into victim-blaming overdrive.

But what has since followed that night at the Hilton is a mountain of suspicion about the woman's intent and an insane thought from the football union's chief, Francis Baron, that this has all been a "sting". Yes, a plot by the "bitter" All Blacks to bring down English rugby.

...The British paper The Independent said those insiders believed the allegations of rape after the first Test in Auckland were "designed to destabilise" England. "If there had been any substance in the case it should have been dealt with," a Twickenham official said. "The whole episode has been unsatisfactory, but you have to remember that New Zealand are still bitter with us over their exit from the World Cup." (Emphasis mine)

Ri-ight. It's amazing how this young woman has been completely erased and dehumanized - she's just part of a larger plan to bring down a team, she was a willing participant, a groupie, a liar. I'm just so sick of it.

Jessica Halloran, who penned the above article about the case, notes that in the past decade, all English soccer players who have had sexual assault allegations made against them have had the charges dropped. And for the past 28 years, "not one professional footballer from any major Australian football code has been convicted of sexual assault." And something tells me it's not because they're all innocent.

Here's a charming one. Via Jezebel, we find out that the attorney for 26 year-old Kelsey Peterson - a 6th grade math teacher who plead guilty to raping her 12-year-old student - is blaming the victim by using racist stereotypes:

"I resent the term 'child.' You're baby-fying this kid. This kid is a Latino machismo teenager."

You know, so he was asking for it. Just disgusting.

I don't even really understand what this shirt is all about. But it's being sold on Amazon. And it's grossing me out.

Thanks to Anique for the heads up.

So I watched this segment on 60 Minutes this weekend (which was a rerun of an old episode) about African Americans using genetic genealogy to find out about their family history. Unsurprisingly, a lot of people are finding out that they have white relatives. The whole segment is super interesting but it killed me that not once did anyone talk about the rape of black women and how that figured in to this genealogy. Wtf, 60 Minutes?

This petition was inspired by the R. Kelly verdict from last week, read and pass along.

Statement of Black Men Against the Exploitation of Black Women

Six years have gone by since we first heard the allegations that R. Kelly had filmed himself having sex with an underage girl. During that time we have seen the videotape being hawked on street corners in Black communities, as if the dehumanization of one of our own was not at stake. We have seen entertainers rally around him and watched his career reach new heights despite the grave possibility that he had molested and urinated on a 13-year old girl. We saw African Americans purchase millions of his records despite the long history of such charges swirling around the singer. Worst of all, we have witnessed the sad vision of Black people cheering his acquittal with a fervor usually reserved for community heroes and shaken our heads at the stunning lack of outrage over the verdict in the broader Black community.

Over these years, justice has been delayed and it has been denied. Perhaps a jury can accept R. Kelly’s absurd defense and find “reasonable doubt� despite the fact that the film was shot in his home and featured a man who was identical to him. Perhaps they doubted that the young woman in the courtroom was, in fact, the same person featured in the ten year old video. But there is no doubt about this: some young Black woman was filmed being degraded and exploited by a much older Black man, some daughter of our community was left unprotected, and somewhere another Black woman is being molested, abused or raped and our callous handling of this case will make it that much more difficult for her to come forward and be believed. And each of us is responsible for it.

Keep reading and sign petition here.

Thanks to Kara for the heads up.

At Thursday's meeting of the UN Security Council along with Condoleeza Rice, a resolution was adopted declaring rape and sexual violence as a “war tactic” that aims to “humiliate, dominate, instil fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group.”

We all know that this has been a long, long time coming, but nonetheless a sigh of relief to see the UN and other groups begin to recognize and document rape as a weapon of war.

Now we need the international community to adopt international law of rape as a war crime; let's hope this speeds the process. Check out the full resolution here.

A controversy has been raging over at Jezebel over a post on the new HBO documentary about the Roman Polanski statutory rape case. (For more on the case, the Smoking Gun has the grand-jury testimony. Potential trigger warning.) Slut Machine (right) and Jessica (left) posted an IM conversation they had about the film. Here's a snippet:

It's true that age of consent laws are imperfect. But there's a vast difference between a 17-year-old girl having consensual sex, and a 43-year-old man giving a 13-year-old girl champagne and Quaaludes and then raping her. And I use the word rape because she did not consent. When the district attorney asked the girl why she did not resist Polanski, she replied, "Because I was afraid of him." (For more on how damaging it is to conflate fear and consent in sexual assault cases, read this post by Cara.)

Slut Machine posted a response yesterday, writing, "Just because we have vaginas, doesn't mean we're all victims." She continued:

I hinted at this a bit in my post about that Roman Polanski documentary, but people really took it the wrong way, saying that I was a rape apologist or something, which is just silly. I think what it comes down to is maybe the divide between second and third wave feminism. Or actually, maybe it's that some people don't accept that feminism isn't monolithic, and that we can (and do) have different views about a number of things, from porno to age of consent, with the one basic truth being that "women are people too." Of course I'm not a rape apologist. But I'm a child influenced by riot grrrl and the sex-positivity movement, so maybe things I say can come off as harsh, and perhaps get misinterpreted by those who don't place as much importance on those things. (Or maybe people placed too much importance on an IM conversation, which is always a more casual form of communication.)

I don't see this as a sex-positive/anti-porn divide. Or a second-wave/third-wave divide. I really don't. And like I said earlier, I'm open to debates about age of consent. I (like many Jezebel commenters, I'd guess) am a sex-positive, third-wave feminist who was mostly upset about the post because it failed to strongly state that 13-year-old + drugged + no consent = RAPE. Just because the victim later said the legal process was tougher on her than the actual incident does not mean it wasn't rape. Just because she was an aspiring actress who'd tried drugs before doesn't mean it wasn't rape. Just because her mom probably shouldn't have left her alone with a lecherous dude doesn't mean it wasn't rape. (Oh, and an IM conversation is more than a casual back-and-forth when it's screen-grabbed and posted on a highly-trafficked blog.)

To a certain extent, I get where Slut Machine is coming from when she nods to the fact that she wants to steer clear of defining all sexually active teen girls as victims. I hear that. The attitude that teenage girls shouldn't be interested in sex -- that they should be demure and never assert their sexuality -- is an attitude we repeatedly rail against when we talk about abstinence-only programs. And I absolutely, 100% get where Kathleen Hanna is coming from when she sings, "I believe in the radical possibilities of pleasure, babe." But with a non-consensual incident, all that goes out the window. Because we're no longer talking about sex. We're talking about rape.

(This raises some similar themes as my back-and-forth with Moe over "gray rape." Part 1 is here, Part 2 is here.)

This was the headline to a recent CNN update on the R. Kelly trial. This possible "vixen" was as young as 13 years old at the time of the taping. Check out this gem by Kelly's defense attorney:

He juxtaposed that image with the female in the video, who takes money from the man before having sex with him. 'The woman on that tape is getting paid,' he said. 'The woman is a prostitute, not a victim.'

Disgusting.

Just lovely.

This week, Newsweek covered a new HBO documentary on film director Roman Polanski, in which the infamous case where he was charged with drugging and raping a 13-year old girl is discussed. Interesting language Newsweek decided to use to describe the crime:

There was champagne and a Quaalude for refreshments before a trip to the bedroom. When Samantha's mother found out, she called the police. Polanski never denied he'd had sex with her but maintained it was consensual. Samantha said it was not. She also told detectives she'd been drunk before. And she'd had sex before. (Emphasis mine)

Not surprisingly, the general language of the piece has a similar tone, describing the case as Polanksi being charged for "having sex with" a 13-year old. The article ends with:

This deft and subtle film is a fitting tribute to a man—like him or not—whose life deserves more than tabloid headlines.

It absolutely drives me insane how Polanski and other high profile sex offenders like accused Woody Allen are treated like martyrs for having to endure the tabloids for heinous crimes, and labeled as these brilliant, tragic and fascinating men. Is it just me or is there something really disturbing about this?

RH Reality Check has a great piece up about Jackson Katz, an educator and activist who works on gender violence issues.

Katz says, "As a culture, Americans first must take the step in acknowledging that violence against women is not a women's issue, but a men's issue...The first problem I have with labeling gender issues as women's issues is that it gives men an excuse to not pay attention. This is also the problem with calling them gender issues, because the majority of the people in the status quo see gender issues as women's issues."

I'm especially interested in Katz's ideas about how the messages that women get about rape (don't go out at night, don't drink) are risk-reducing rather than prevention - and how those messages completely take men out of the equation.

"These programs focus on how women can reduce their chances of being sexually assaulted. I agree that women benefit from these education programs, but let us not mistake this for prevention...If a woman has done everything in her power to reduce her risk, then a man who has the proclivity for abuse or need for power will just move on to another woman or target," he says.

I highly recommend reading the whole piece - there's even a section where Katz explains how passive sentence construction in the media coverage of violence against women perpetuates the notion that rape is something that just happens to women, rather than something that's perpetrated by another person.

Valena Beety is an attorney and a board member of Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER), an organization that works to empower students and hold colleges accountable for sexual assault in on- and off-campus communities.

Melanie Ross thought Daniel Day, her college classmate, was fun and a decent date - until they were having sex and she told him he was hurting her. She asked him to stop - and he didn’t. After that, Ross broke up with Day, and avoided him.

Unfortunately, because of events a month later, Ross is now suing Day for civil sexual battery.

Her lawsuit against Day is now on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, in part because of the victim-blaming actions of the trial court judge. Judge Phillip Brown, despite a Georgia rape shield law, compelled Ross to disclose every person she had ever dated, or engaged in any sexual activity with, including their names, dates of interaction, and contact information. This evidence was supposedly to show “consent;� the actual purpose was to humiliate the victim and discourage her and other victims from pursuing these cases. Under Georgia state law, and federal law, a victim’s sexual history with third parties is supposed to be irrelevant. The result of this case is that any victim who brings a civil claim for sexual battery in Georgia must be prepared to discuss all of her previous sexual partners. The judge ultimately found Ross was not raped in part because, as all that testimony showed, she was not a virgin.

The trial court judge not only dismissed Ross’ claims - he ordered her to pay $150,000 for the court costs of her attacker. The judge found there was no evidence to support her claims of rape, in large part because Ross did not remember anything from the encounter: “There’s no witnesses in there. There was no evidence. It’s a closed door. And there’s no possibility that there could be any proof that there was rape...�

This was after the judge had dismissed the evidence: Ross could have received lacerations and redness documented in a rape kit from shaving, and “[b]ruises can come with a bump into furniture or from other causes.� As far as the claim that Day gave Ross a rape drug, defense counsel responded, “neither Day, nor anyone else for that matter, would have to use any type of drug to convince Plaintiff to participate in sexual conduct.�

The judge found that since Ross and Day had previously had a sexual relationship, Ross should have known her claims were “frivolous... there was no reasonable belief that a court would accept Plaintiff’s claims...�

The nightmare of this case, for Melanie Ross and for all future rape victims in Georgia, is that she was forced to discuss in elaborate detail her sexual past, and then she had her claims dismissed in part because she wasn’t a virgin. Moreover, not only did Ross lose her case, the judge fined her $150,000 for bringing it in the first place - a fee sure to dissuade other victims from coming forward with their own claims. This case is currently being appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which can choose to hear it or not - let’s hope they right this wrong before it hurts more victims.

NOTE: As noted by some of the comments in response to my posting on a Georgia state court case, I want to confirm that Daniel Day was charged with sexual battery, a civil charge, rather than criminal rape. Day was not charged with criminal rape, and has furthermore not been found guilty of civil sexual battery.

Starting next year, survivors of sexual assault will be able to undergo anonymous rape kits.

Starting next year across the country, rape victims too afraid or too ashamed to go to police can undergo an emergency-room forensic rape exam, and the evidence gathered will be kept on file in a sealed envelope in case they decide to press charges.

The new federal requirement that states pay for "Jane Doe rape kits" is aimed at removing one of the biggest obstacles to prosecuting rape cases: Some women are so traumatized they don't come forward until it is too late to collect hair, semen or other samples.

Some hospitals already offer anonymous rape kits, but most states refuse to cover the cost of the exam (approximately $800) unless the survivor files a police report.

Beginning in 2009, states will have to pay for Jane Doe rape kits to continue receiving funding under the federal Violence Against Women Act, which provides tax dollars for women's shelters and law enforcement training. States will decide how many locations will offer anonymous rape exams and how long the evidence should be kept.

Awesome.

Thanks to Thomas for the link.

Can we please stop calling every attempt at analyzing pop culture "outrage"? Kthx, moving on.

Annalee Newitz's piece from the San Francisco Bay Guardian last week embarks on the task of justifying the violence and misogyny in Grand Theft Auto 4.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is lobbying to get the video game rated "adults only" (effectively killing it in the US market, where major console manufacturers won't support AO games) because there's one scene in the game where you have the option to drive drunk. Apparently none of the good ladies of MADD have ever played GTA, since if they had they might have discovered that when you try to drive drunk, the video game informs you that you should take a cab. If you do drive, the cops immediately chase you down. Which is exactly the sort of move you'd expect from this sly, fun game, which hit stores last week.

I actually stand at a different point than MADD and I don't necessarily support the censorship of the game, I don't really think censorship works. The more ratings and labels you put on something, the edgier and sexier it becomes. Censorship doesn't change the fact that violence and misogynist sex scenes make up the bulk of edgy popular culture or that violence is a serious problem for youth today and so is the sexualization of women, along with violence against women.

On some level, I do agree with proponents of GTA 4. Several of my friends have said, "but it is just fun." I don't deny that advances in video game technology are in fact mind-blowing and down right incredible and the they are fun. Hello, I am a blogger, I get the nerd new-cool-fun-fangled-technology thing.

What I can't get down with is justifying blatant misogyny by calling it art.

If GTA4 were a movie, it would have been directed by Martin Scorsese or David O. Russell, and we'd all be ooohing and aaahhing over its dark, ironic vision of immigrant life in a world at war with itself. But because GTA4 is a video game, where players are in the driver's seat, so to speak, it freaks people out. Earlier installments of GTA-inspired feminist and cultural-conservative outrage (you have the option to kill prostitutes!), and concern over moral turpitude from Hillary Clinton (you can beat cops to death! Or anybody!).

I think it is really problematic to lump all criticisms of GTA4 together. I believe at some point, I was written about along with a conservative writer (shudder to think) and that is not giving the full range of view points space to air their concerns. I am pretty sure if a movie had prostitute killing in it, I would write about it, but that is besides the point. GTA4 is not a movie, it is bigger than a movie. In fact, movies switched around their release dates for the release of GTA4. In the first week out it has grossed 500 million dollars. Furthermore, it is played, repeatedly and it is a role playing game, where you are the person engaging in violent acts. It is a fantasy, your fantasy. Perhaps there is a moment of identification like this with movies, but it is different then actually acting something out yourself.

Phyllis Schlafly, who is set to receive an honorary degree from Washington University this week has reiterated her support of marital rape. (Because, sorry, if you think that women who have gotten married have don't have a right to refuse sex - you are supporting rape.)

In an interview with Washington University's student newspaper, Schlafly held her anti-woman ground:

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

Find out how can you can contact Washington University about this honorary degree nonsense here.

Via Right Wing Watch.

(Trigger warning.) In 2003, 21 year-old Ramona Moore - a student at Hunter College in New York - told her mother she was going to Burger King down the street and would be right back. She never came home.

Moore was held in a basement a few blocks away where she was raped and tortured for four days before her captors beat her to death. The police, who Moore's mother begged for help, did nothing to find her.

Sean Gardiner at The Village Voice has a huge piece not only on the police's mishandling of Moore's disappearance - but also how it has sparked a historic racial bias case against the city.

Moore's mother Elle Carmichael is bringing forward a a civil-rights lawsuit claiming that the NYPD has a "practice of not making a prompt investigation of missing-persons claims of African-Americans, while making a prompt investigation for white individuals."

Not exactly shocking news, of course, but the case would be the first of its kind.

To prove racial bias, Carmichael's team would have to "show it's happened in a pattern of instances," says NYU law professor Paul Chevigny. And the only way Chevigny can think of to do so would be to take a large sample of missing-persons cases, identify the race of the people involved, and then determine whether there really is a pattern.

Carmichael's lawyer, Robert Barsch, is apparently attempting to do just that. He tells the Voice that he has heard from a number of black people who have also had their attempts to have police open up missing-persons investigations ignored. And he plans to point to the [Svetlana] Aronov case as a prime example of the flip side of that coin. After all, the NYPD tried harder to find Aronov's dog than they did Romona Moore. (Link added)

Tried harder to find a dog. "If this was a white kid, they would never had done this," Carmichael told Gardiner.

"I had to say to the detectives one day: 'You know, I feel the same emotions and pain as a white person.' "

Read more about Moore and the case against the NYPD at What About Our Daughters? and The Feminist Underground.

Several readers wrote in to tell us about this horrific "piece of flair" that you can send to friends on Facebook through this application. Now, users can create their own buttons so I'm going to assume that the creators of this application didn't make this - a user did. But that's not excuse. Contact the developers of