Category Archives: Children

Overvaluing “Purity:” The Consequences When Rape Happens

Leave a reply

Istock girl praying

A few weeks ago, Elizabeth Smart made a brave statement about the unintended consequences of the religiously-based preoccupation with “sexual purity” for females prior to marriage. Smart’s point was simple: Because virginity and “purity” were so valued within her conservative, religious culture growing up, she felt “worthless, dirty and filthy” after her virginity had been taken from her- even as a victim of abduction and rape. She felt so damaged, in fact, that the idea of escape from her captors or even being rescued seemed meaningless. Her culture had taught her that to be “defiled” sexually made her used and undesirable. She had nothing to return to.

In fairness, might family members or religious leaders in that situation encourage a girl to believe differently about herself because of the circumstances of her “loss?” Probably. But not necessarily. In extremely strict cultures- usually but not always religiously based- a loss of virginity renders a girl unable to marry within expected circumstances and therefore cursed and worthless regardless of whether she consented to the act. This is thankfully fading in most places, but not completely. I dealt with parents of victims as recently as the mid 2000′s who were more concerned about the “technical status” of their girl’s virginity than any other aspect of her recovery or our criminal case.

But particularly where religiously-based obsessions with female premarital sexual activity are present, even efforts to relieve a rape victim of the purity burden will fall short. As long as the focus is on the the genitalia itself rather than on the girl possessing it, shame will fall like a stone when some arbitrary, bodily status is altered regardless of intent. Or consent.

Adherents to the importance of premarital “purity” (usually for girls) claim practical as well as religious reasons for stressing it. Some, like the issue of STD’s, are at least fair and considerable. Others, like the believed psychological consequences of promiscuity, are far more questionable. Still others, like the “cultural realities” put forth as a warning to girls (i.e., how society judges and devalues them when they are perceived to be promiscuous) might seem valid. But ultimately it’s only because of the myths and judgment that those giving the warnings are reinforcing to begin with. Whatever the motivations of those obsessed with sexual purity, an undeniable consequence to the indoctrinated will be a profound sense of loss, failure and even hopelessness when whatever the standard set fails to be met.

The issue has implications beyond sexual violence. Risk is a natural part of youth. Whether one believes that sexual activity before marriage or between teenagers is good, bad or simply dependent on circumstances, the fact is that it happens. Young people act recklessly and impulsively; some of this is explainable neuro-biologically. They make mistakes, they find themselves in situations that spin out of control, etc, etc. A conscious choice or something far less volitional may result in an irreversible, “status change” regarding a girl’s “purity” before God or whatever other institution. Are the consequences to her psychological wellbeing and sense of self truly worth reinforcing this arbitrary ideal?

Not being religiously observant in this manner, I cannot claim an unbiased view or an objective answer. I find any religious preoccupation with “purity” to be more harmful than helpful, not to mention sadly distracting from concepts like charity, humility and service to others. In particular I find things like purity balls- staged events where girls as young as 7 pledge their purity to their fathers until they are given in marriage to another man- to be rank and offensive if not worse. I don’t believe more than a tiny percentage of families engaged in the practice intend harm to their daughters. Regardless, as a longtime student of predatory behavior and environments that nurture and protect offenders, I find the practice disturbing, other objections aside.

Feminist writers like Jessica Valenti have written much more comprehensively on the subject and I recommend her work in particular. But I can say with confidence that an obsession with sexual purity can and usually will bear a dark consequence at the worse possible time: An added psychological wound when one or several others have just been borne.

Elizabeth, Rehtaeh, and Audrie: With the Tools Against Them, the World Was Not Enough

Leave a reply

Lizzy 2RehtaehAudire

 

 

 

 

I’ve been avoiding writing about Rehaeh Parsons and Audrie Pott, the two teenage girls who committed suicide recently following sexual attacks, bullying and non-responses (or worse) from their communities. Not because I don’t think their cases are important, but because the first time I delved into the world of a kind, loving and otherwise typical adolescent who was driven to suicide because of sexual violence and a negative response from her community, it nearly broke my heart. Her name was Elizabeth Seeberg, and she was 19. Rehtaeh was 17. Audrie, God keep her, was only 15.  

Elizabeth was from Illinois, Rehtaeh from Nova Scotia, and Audrie from California. While they lived different lives, they had some observable characteristics in common, and these things are not unimportant. They underscore the horror these women experienced- less, possibly, from the attacks- then from the response that eventually drove them into the cold embrace of death. 

All three were objectively beautiful in terms of Western ideals. All three appear to have had (and I know personally that Elizabeth had), loving families and supportive caregivers. They were physically healthy and active. They had the resources of middle class incomes and the relative freedom to pursue their dreams in dynamic and democratic societies. Outside of the context of their victimization, in terms of their stations in life and potential, it could be argued that they had the world itself before them. And yet they’re dead, all three of them, by their own hands.

The world was not enough.

That shouldn’t be surprising, because nothing is enough when you’re violated in the most fundamental way imaginable and then face the often greater nightmare of public humiliation, shame and rejection in its wake. Those things have always been reality for sexual violence survivors of course, particularly in non-stranger cases (the vast majority that occur). But it was modern technology- the kind that all three grew up with and that could have been listed among their assets as emerging citizens of the new age- that made their ordeals seem so horribly infinite.

“Infinite” is the carefully chosen and correct term for what Audrie and Rehtaeh in particular faced. The evermore nimble, powerful, and globally connected computers we still refer to as “cell phones” make the projection of our every memorialized moment as effortless as the practiced dance of slender, trained fingers over a tiny glass screen. In Elizabeth’s case, text messaging warned her that the colossus, Notre Dame football, was not to be trifled with. In Audrie’s case, her violators allegedly wrote on her body in permanent marker and then photographed their work with such a device. In Rehtaeh’s case she was allegedly photographed unawares while being raped; as it was happening, an accomplice shouted “take a picture!”

A picture. Once a delicate amalgam of chemicals on special paper, it’s now merely another manifestation of electronic communication, ready instantly for a worldwide web of limitless vectors and endless, light-speed traveled avenues. For Audrie and Rehtaeh, trapped without locks in the incubators of dread that their own bedrooms became, the predicable questions were surely asked: My God, who will see this? How many times will it be traded, forwarded, posted, mocked? 

We might as well ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Combine that with the judgment both girls know the viewers would surely deliver to them as the photograph’s subjects.

And then there stood the abyss, before them both.

Technology will not go backward and sexual violence will not be eradicated anytime soon. The sole option is moving forward in technology’s relentless grasp so that sexual violence, when it occurs, won’t be mocked foolishly in cyberspace to the detriment of its victims. Lizzy, Audrie and Rehtaeh were wounded by users, not the tools at their disposal. But because the tools are so much more powerful, because they allow the cruel, the vindictive, or simply the ignorant to cause so much more damage than ever before, we have an absolute duty to address cruelty, vindictiveness and especially ignorance more than ever before.

If we don’t, we can expect the roll of the dead to grow even faster than the sickening rate in which we’re seeing it now. 

Rape Denial In Action: Bullying Jody Raphael for Telling the Truth

8 Replies

A couple of weeks ago I endorsed an important and well-written, well researched book on sexual violence by law professor Jody Raphael, a nationally prominent researcher, anti-violence advocate, lecturer and attorney. The very point of Raphael’s book, Rape Is Rape: How Denial, Distortion, and Victim Blaming Are Fueling a Hidden Acquaintance Rape Crisis, is how powerful interest groups nationwide are making a large problem worse by intimidating victims and challenging their credibility, downplaying rates of sexual assault, and protecting their own institutional environments. The book has been met with well-deserved praise by those of us in the anti-sexual violence movement who know how meticulously well researched and accurate it is.

Raphael has been challenged, though, not through honest discourse or documented findings, but through rank intimidation and an organized smear campaign. She discusses, among many other topics, the tragic inaction (and worse) of officials involved in the Sandusky/Penn State crisis. This caught the attention of a group of Paterno supporters in the Penn State community who decided they didn’t like Raphael’s illumination of the subject to the extent it threatened their hero-worship. What followed was a organized campaign to rate her book negatively on the Amazon book selling site in an attempt to make it less visible to to potential book buyers. On a message board (no longer visible) on the site “BlueWhiteIllustrated,” a poster wrote: ”I and others have been posting negative comments on the Amazon site where the book is being sold. As a result, the rating for the book has dropped from 5 stars to 2. Please go to the site and add your comments. Let’s drop the rating to 1 star. BTW, Ms. Raphael is a law professor – hard to believe.”

As a result, and since that campaign began, there are 41 negative reviews of her book, just about everyone of them related to the Penn State issue. As friend and colleague Katie Feifer of Counterquo put it so eloquently, “Seldom do real life events so quickly prove the key point that an author makes in her book.”

Raphael has experienced other forms of harassment and intimidation in the wake of her book’s release as well; thankfully she has the strength, dedication and courage to face them all down. But what she’s experienced in an effort to expose the truth about a preventable national shame and tragedy should sound a louder alarm. The problem is, in fact, even worse than we thought.

 

The Real Horror of Kermit Gosnell: Evil Finds A Way

Leave a reply

iStock_fetusKermit Gosnell, if the charges against him are true, is the ultimate child abuser.

I cannot run from this.

It’s not an easy task to write about his case from the standpoint of an advocate for children who is also legally pro-choice. But to be in my position and not write about this case is, to me, an act of cowardice. I’m a former child abuse prosecutor and an advocate for the most defenseless among us. Abortion opponents would- and have- challenged me on how I cannot see a child in the womb as the most defenseless human being imaginable. My response, at least for now, is that I draw the line at the generally accepted notion of “viability” and accept it as sound public policy. Personally, I view every abortion as a tragedy. But I would never support (absent what I consider reasonable restrictions) a legal ban on the practice; among other things I lack the moral authority to block a woman from making basic reproductive decisions I’ll never have to face.

But if Gosnell delivered live human beings and then murdered them with scissors, all of this in a fetid, filthy and sometimes lethal atmosphere, he is evil incarnate. Of course, most on both sides of the abortion debate would readily agree with that statement. But they also see very different implications for what it means.

To many abortion opponents, Gosnell’s hellish work is simply the inevitable consequence of an abhorrent practice that devalues life and richly rewards the dealing out of death. To supporters of legal abortion, Gosnell was allowed to flourish exactly because of the increasingly truculent and organized attack on reproductive rights. Women have found ways to end pregnancy for millennia; legal restrictions against that effort only push it into the shadows where compassion and basic competence give way to recklessness, greed, and torture.

I can’t embrace fully the more extreme pro-choice view that the best way to avoid evil within the practice of abortion is to simply allow it to occur with few if any restrictions well into a second trimester. The combination of desperation and the shadows of illegality attracts horrors, yes. But as well, there’s the stubborn fact that, the later an abortion is contemplated, the more morality gets muddled as much as legality. There may be decent medical providers willing to perform such tasks for what they at least sincerely believe are the right reasons. But there will be others drawn to the practice for far worse ones.

Still, what I know of criminality and the nature of predatory people is what ultimately leads me to side, generally, with pro-choice elements on what allowed Gosnell to operate. The primarily religious based anti-abortion movement believes that the practice itself is inherently evil and that therefore associated horrors are inevitable. I do not; right or wrong, I part ways with the religious to the extent that they believe the basic practice of abortion, no matter how well-intentioned, well-orchestrated, or reasonably regulated, eventually produces the kind of callousness within many of its practitioners that leads to the charges Gosnell now faces.

What I believe is that the desperation of women denied other options is what attracts- not produces- men like Gosnell. This is how predators work. Despite the insistence that abortion invites the perversion of the soul, that’s not what I believe happens. Rather, in most cases and far more terrifyingly, I believe evil souls are usually perverted from the beginning, and then search for opportunities.

Gosnell is on trial for being, among other things, a perversion of a doctor who mislead, mistreated, maimed and killed mostly young women and babies. If the charges are true, he is probably every bit the monster he is feared to be. Not a reluctant practitioner of a dark art for the sake of women who had no where else to go, but simply a deeply evil creature who feasted on misery and murder, collecting its products in jars because it amused him.

If so, in my mind, he was not coarsened and “made” evil by what he practiced. He is more likely an opportunist with original intentions. He simply found the perfect environment in which to indulge them.

Needed Wisdom on Rape from a Former Judge

2 Replies

Prof_Bobby_Prof_J1_midsz“We were insulted by the word “date” rape. “Date” rape does not exist. It’s a misnomer; It’s like saying “car-jack.” Car-jack is robbery. Rape is rape. That’s it.”

-former judge Robert Holdman on his time as Chief Trial Counsel, Child Abuse and Sex Unit, Bronx District Attorneys Office, Bronx, New York

A colleague and mentor, former New York State Supreme Court Justice Robert Holdman, was invited to participate in a Huffpost Live broadcast on the Steubenville rape case as the trial was being heard. He was joined by Alexander Abad Santos of the Atlantic Wire, and also Zerlina Maxwell and Jaclyn Friedman. Friedman and Maxwell in particular are well-known warriors in the fight against rape culture, and I’ve had the honor of working with and learning from Jaclyn personally. The broadcast is an excellent discussion of the Steubenville dynamics and the larger problem beyond it. It’s still well worth watching even as the case fades slowly away from the news cycle.

What made Holdman’s comments so important is that they came from the perspective of a former trial judge. While most U.S. judges are honorable professionals worthy of the power of the robe, the judiciary is still a place where we don’t see enough understanding of the dynamics and reality of sexual violence. This is particularly true with non-stranger sexual violence, the kind women and men experience far more than any other.

Every criminal defendant deserves a full and robust defense, and also a judge who is sensitive to the circumstances of an individual facing the power of the government, regardless of the charges. Holdman would surely agree, and his comments rightfully included the responsibility of judges to be neutral and fair to defendants facing criminal prosecution. Being a good trial judge doesn’t mean- from my perspective or any other- assuming guilt in any criminal case or anything close to it. But an ignorance of the reality of sexual violence, particularly between individuals who know each other, and an over-reliance on the myth and innuendo so pervasive in our culture regarding rape and sexual assault, lead far too many judges to render irrational and unjust decisions in these types of cases.

Important professional opportunities have taken Holdman- for now- from his duties as a trial judge. Still, I hope the messages he has conveyed reach the men and women who make the crucial decisions that shape sexual violence cases nationwide and beyond. I also hope he finds his way back to the bench as his career progresses; his kind of clarity on this subject needs to be as common on the judicial bench as it needs to be everywhere else.