Category Archives: Sexual Assault

Cathy Young Wants Feminists to Describe Rape As “Ugly Sexual Encounters.” Don’t Let Her.

It might be irony, the way it’s commonly portrayed. Or it might just be rank hypocrisy. Whatever it is, Cathy Young, in her May 20, 2015, post embodies it.

The caption under the istock photo the Washington Post chose to accompany this vacuous and alarmist piece was the following: “We need to stop prosecuting bad behavior as rape.”

Really? As if a non-stranger rape prosecution tidal wave has formed, blocking all other efforts to seek justice at the courthouse?

No, that’s not happening, but thankfully we have Cathy Young showing us the way to avoid such abominations, what with her two anecdotes about regretted sexual encounters and literally nothing else. What’s funny, though, is that Cathy herself admits fully that she 1) didn’t view the negative sexual encounters she describes as a crime, and 2) she didn’t report them as such.

Welcome, Cathy, to reality. That’s what pretty much all women and men do, and by the way? It’s what the vast majority of victims do when the “encounters” actually are, objectively and by any statutory definition, rape. And this wasn’t just when you were young, Cathy. It’s still true now. And it probably will be for a very long time.

I’m sure Cathy would point out though, that what prompted her breathless piece was the idea that legions of women like her, armed now with 2015-era “feminist” notions of victimhood, are poised to suddenly push open the floodgates of litigation to incorrectly and unjustly imprison men who simply used “seductiveness” to turn a “no” into a “yes.” Ms. Young would have us believe that a few reasonable initiatives regarding consent, and a renewed movement against an age-old scourge have somehow eviscerated fair judgment in the average person and created a monster of inaccurate reports and false victims.

Garbage.

In fact, rapists now, just as rapists when Cathy Young was in her teens or twenties, rely on myths, shame, and fear in order to keep their victims silenced. In terms of what Ms. Young has brought to the issue, this means being 1) silently obedient to Cathy Young’s interpretation of their experiences, and 2) repentantly observant of the Washington Post’s clever istock choice of an obviously whoring slut searching for her pumps under a man’s bed.

The message? If you believe you’ve been raped, you’re probably wrong, and you probably did something to either bring it on or otherwise allow for it to happen.

So blame feminism. Blame the “liberal media.” Blame yourselves, certainly.

Just never blame the rapist. In Cathy Young’s world, there are far fewer of them than there are hysterical and litigious versions of you.

 

 

 

 

 

What’s to Blame for Josh Duggar? Institutionalism, not Christianity

What we know: Josh Duggar’s admission is great fodder against Duggar Family Values, which include anti-gay stances as well as assertions that “non-traditional” values endanger children.

What we don’t know: What created the awful urges in Josh to begin with. Those opposed to what this powerful family both believes and attempts to influence politically are triumphantly declaring things like home-schooling and hyper-religiosity to be petri dishes for the kind of sexual deviance Josh displayed as a teenager.

They’re probably wrong.

As deliciously tempting as it is for some on my side of the political spectrum to demonize the Duggars and their way of life as some sort of catalyst for awful behavior, there’s little psychological evidence to support that. In fact, Josh’s deviance was most likely not (in and of itself) the product of home schooling or any other religious dogma or tradition the Duggars took part in. Sexual deviance, as far we know at this point, does not generate that way. More likely, Josh was (or is) deviant for reasons we don’t understand, but that are probably innate (“nature”) and/or the product of his environment (“nurture”), but in a different way than we normally observe.

I am no soothsayer, but what I’ve come to understand after a career of dealing with this pathology is that it is simply everywhere. The conservative numbers (1 in 3 girls and about 1 in 6 boys) remain replicable, reliable and constant. Sexual abuse happens everywhere: Among the religious and non-religious. Among the rich, the poor, the city dweller, the farmer, etc., etc., etc. The sexual abuse of children, whether by teenagers like Josh Duggar or by more mature adults, happens continuously and universally.

Therefore, the question better asked is not “what made this happen?” but “what allowed it to flourish and continue in that particular situation?” In the case of the world of “19 and Counting,” we should look, as always, to an institution.

In Josh Duggar’s world, the institution of dogmatic, insular Christianity provided him two things: First, It made it easier for him not only to offend, but to get away with offending. Second, it did so in a manner that leaves him today free of legal consequences, still married, and still employable. Here’s how:

Whatever Josh was (or is), he grew up in a male-dominated world where “the father is the head of the family as Christ is the head of the Church.” Firstly, his was an environment that exalted a Christian-based order that, among other things, clamped down on any opposition or suggestion of “rebellion.” This very likely discouraged his victims from reporting his actions to other family members or anyone who might have made a difference. Rebellion, after all, can be perceived as anything that upsets the proverbial apple cart. This was a fact probably not lost on Josh himself as he chose his victims.

Secondly, this same Christian-based worldview necessitated, as it does with any religiously based orthodoxy, an “in-house” solution to conflict or deviant behavior within the environment. Why? Because it reinforces the idea that the religion itself has within it the answer to every problem- there is never a need to consult outside sources which are doubtlessly less pure and enlightened.

But even more dangerous is the insistence on handling matters of “conflict” within the religious environment so that the outside world will not perceive flaws or weaknesses within its structure. The Duggars likely perceive themselves, as many do in their circumstances, as holdouts against a world moving in a direction they neither trust nor respect. The last thing they want that outside world to perceive is a weakness within their structure.

It’s important to understand how these things explain (but do not excuse) the Duggar’s response to a heartbreaking and haunting problem, and why offenders like Josh Duggar can flourish in environments otherwise mortally opposed to behavior like his. But it’s equally important to understand what they don’t explain.

They don’t explain Josh’s deviance to begin with. That’s a question we dare not breezily discard with the easy answer of demonizing religion. Or culture. Or anything else. Because as far as we know, deviance poisons all of these equally.

What Harvard Law Professors can Learn From Stanford Undergrads

Last July, Harvard University adapted both a new policy on sexual harassment and a new set of investigatory procedures to respond to it. Not surprisingly, both policy and procedures are designed to ensure compliance (and general harmony) with Title IX of the U.S. Code. IX prohibits discrimination and ensures access to educational programs that receive federal funding.

Sexual violence and harassment implicates Title IX in that federally-funded schools must preserve educational environments that are as free as humanly possible from these things. That’s the bottom line. Harvard is pursuing that bottom line surely in the interest of doing what’s right as well as in preserving an important funding stream. Good on them.

Regardless, a few months ago, 28 Harvard Law School professors signed a statement published in the Boston Globe expressing “strong objections” to the new policy and procedures. Indeed, the principal author has stated her belief that current federal efforts in this area will be looked back on as a “moment of madness.”

My legal betters seem to have objections in two major areas: First, they bemoan what they see as a lack of due process protections for students accused of violating school policy based on Title IX protections. They see an adjudication system “overwhelmingly stacked” against accused students. Second, they believe Harvard has gone too far in defining offending conduct under their Title IX-based disciplinary policy, apparently believing it threatens things like “individual relationship autonomy.”

I’ve carefully reviewed the new procedures, and while I can’t go point by point in this space as to why they are basically reasonable, suffice to say I don’t see anything that should raise an alarm as if Harvard has decided to do away with anything resembling American legal tradition in favor of a politically-correct mob. Regardless, reasonable minds can differ on whether an adjudication system for student misconduct provides enough procedural safeguards. Fine.

It’s their second area of objection (the new definition of impermissible sexual harassment) that I find somewhere between mystifying and dangerously naïve. They apparently object- at least in some way- to Harvard’s new prohibitions against sexual conduct with a person “so impaired or incapacitated as to be incapable of requesting or inviting the conduct…provided the Respondent knew or should have known about…” such a condition.

That’s right. To a united legal mind of 28 in arguably America’s finest law school, this clear prohibition is somehow problematic because of “complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students.”

With due deference to this brilliant group, they seem to know precious little about 1) sexual violence as it plays out when intoxicants are a weapon of offenders, and 2) the reality of how victims perceive their own victimization in most cases.

It’s a fact that intoxicants, particularly but not exclusively alcohol, are often used by sexually predatory people to disable victims, ensure destruction of their credibility, create confusion and doubt due to memory loss, etc., and also because a sad majority of people (like the Harvard Law 28) are blind to this kind of behavior, believing it instead to be some kind of misunderstanding. Predators depend on this naivety when it comes to what they do. They always have.

But it’s a far more crucial fact that the vast majority of women (and men) who are clearly sexually violated- particularly when voluntarily intoxicated themselves- never report sexual assault in the first place, let alone cases of what is likely college-age confusion or awkwardness.

Why? Because in the great majority of cases, the truly victimized do exactly what thinkers like the HL28 want them to do: Blame “confusion.” Blame college inexperience. Respect “relationship autonomy.” But above all, blame yourself.

So might a new (and utterly reasonable) definition of sexual harassment lead to a floodgate of aggrieved people “crying rape?” Will “madness” from the government then subject legions of inoffensive young men to academic ruin?

No. Both notions are silly. Yet I’m amazed at how many otherwise brilliant people believe them.

The HL28 could learn something from a recent and brilliant op-ed by two undergrads at Stanford, describing very similar efforts that will be undertaken at that equally august institution. Contrasted to the hand-wringing of the HL28, it’s genius.

Far More than “He-said, She-said” in Latest NFL Rape Case

The rape charges filed earlier this month in Indianapolis against Colts special teams player Joshua McNary are, sadly, only the latest accusations of violence against women- sexual violence, in this case- against members of the National Football League.

McNary appeared in court for an initial hearing last week and pleaded not guilty, his attorney emphatically denying the charges. This is, of course, appropriate and generally a good defense attorney’s job when the case appears to be one that will likely 1) attract media and public speculation and 2) go to the mats in a jury trial.

Like most, I know only what’s been reported and would take no firm stance about McNary’s guilt or how the case will likely play out. I do know, as I’ve stated repeatedly in this space and many others, that very few rape allegations are false at their core, and that rape is grossly underreported, not something tossed around for vengeance, vanity or money, despite the endless droning of the paranoid and/or finger-wagging set. Regardless, that’s as far as I’d go with any factual speculation.

At least one quoted expert though, former prosecutor and current defense attorney Jack Crawford, grossly oversimplified, by all accounts so far at least, what’s likely to be seen in evidence.

In short, he referred to it as a “he-said, she- said” case, a term I’ve come to despise at the same time I’ve simply gotten used to it. It implies, of course, that the criminal charges rest only on the word of the complainant, the word of whom will be challenged by the defendant, leaving the jury in a position of deciding which one to believe. Although a popular characterization of many sexual assault cases, “he-said, she-said” is literally never accurate. I was taught many things by my mentor and former boss Victor Vieth, and among the most important was that corroboration, in some form, is always possible to find and then translate into evidence if the investigators and prosecution team are diligent and creative enough.

Rarely does corroborating evidence constitute a smoking gun, of course; far more often it’s just a simple fact that can be independently proven, and then offered as evidence when it’s shown to support the prosecution’s theory of the case. In tandem with many others, though, it can help a justice-minded but aggressive prosecutor build and then prove a case that a lesser attorney would probably just avoid. Indeed, prosecutors in my experience are often more likely to falsely tag cases as “he-said, she-said” (and thus un-triable) than many on the defense side.

What’s particularly silly about Crawford’s characterization, though, is how inapposite it appears to be in this particular case. The victim here reported within hours of being assaulted. This allowed physical evidence to be taken and an acute examination to be done, both of which will likely favor the prosecution. The quick report also allowed detectives to find McNary and preserve evidence from both the crime scene and his body before either could be disturbed; this evidence also looks promising for the prosecution. Interestingly, McNary appears to have preserved bedding himself for the responders, telling them when they arrived that he expected them. It’s hard to say how that will be used by either side, but it arguably shows consciousness of guilt on McNary’s part.

Crawford certainly isn’t all wrong. He’s correct that the case will not be an easy one for the prosecution to prove. He’s right that intoxication on the part of both parties will complicate matters and likely cut against the credibility of the complainant. He’s probably also right that consent, ultimately, is what the jury will have to decide, since sexual intercourse between the two will be easily established if not outright admitted by the defense.

But he’s wrong to suggest that this case comes down to nothing but the testimony and credibility of the two people at the center of it. A creative, diligent prosecution team, backed with a good investigation, has a better shot at proving this case than Crawford suggests. I’m willing to bet that’s the case, in Marion County, Indiana.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bob Jones University: Another Religious Institutional Failure Where Predators Are Concerned

In 1991, as a senior at UNC Charlotte, I held the position of governor of a statewide student legislature in North Carolina. At some point during my tenure, I had the opportunity to meet and briefly work with my counterpart who was the leader of a similar group in South Carolina. It was a relationship I should have been excited to forge. But I didn’t expect to like him, and for one foolish reason: He attended Bob Jones University.

Bob Jones, in Greeneville, South Carolina, is among the most conservative Christian and strict, biblically-based institutions of higher learning in the country. I had no issue with its basic principles, but BJU had been known for going far beyond most other Bible-based schools. Among a few other things I found distasteful, it did not admit black students until 1971 and banned interracial dating until 2000. So I assumed my counterpart would be smug, judgmental, and perhaps even bigoted.

I could not have been more wrong. He was, and remains, deeply religiously conservative. He is also among the warmest, most thoughtful, and most decent people I’ve ever met. He now lives in Maine with his wife and children, loves sailing, works as a medical professional, and continues to live a devout Christian life.

My point is that Bob Jones is hardly a place that produces uniformly bad people. In fact it produces mostly decent and honorable people, regardless of whether I agree with their politics or religious thinking.

But Bob Jones, like all formal institutions featuring strict religious dogma, an authoritarian structure and a generally insular environment, is especially vulnerable to exploitation by predatory people who infiltrate its community. This doesn’t mean BJU and places like it are more infested with predators than more liberal institutions. Predators are everywhere. But they tend to seek out and/or remain in favorable environments. As sad and unfair as it is, strict religious institutions are often excellent ones for predatory people, simply because predators can utilize aspects of them in mockery of what they’re designed for. Dogma, structure, and some distrust of outsiders are not in and of themselves bad things. Constricting things perhaps. The wrong choice for many, perhaps. But not destructive in essence.

What is destructive, however, is when religious dogma is perverted to “blame and shame” victims. When an authoritarian structure allows those in power to abuse relatively helpless adherents. And when a mistrust of outsiders is used to discourage reporting to civil authorities or even seeking professional help. Every institution with these attributes runs the risk of both infiltration by predators and then the unwitting nurturing of them once they’re inside.

It’s not what the institutions want; BJU’s leadership doubtlessly wanted its students harmed no more than the Vatican intended for there to be widespread abuse by a small but prolific percentage of its priests and nuns. Regardless, vulnerability remains because danger is always present, meaning that predatory people (who as far we know tend to appear for reasons we don’t in every imaginable situation) are always looking for places to hunt and hide. The one thing religious institutions can do to mitigate their inherent risks is to value the members of the institution more than the institution itself.

This means being utterly transparent about policies to prevent abuse, and allowing an honest assessment of how much it’s happening. It means making it publicly known that it will cooperate with civil authorities and seek help from professionals outside of its sphere of influence, even if that means risking exposure to a less Godly and sometimes unfair world outside the gates.

But like the Vatican (and many other religious institutions seeking to keep their reputations and authority intact), Bob Jones appears to have failed at this task, with a report released last week outlining widespread discouragement of reporting and in some cases startling victim-blaming by university officials. In many cases this treatment grossly exacerbated the harm done, and drove some victims not only away from BJU but from Christianity itself.

Again, this is the last thing BJU has ever wanted. But it’s what the institution has reaped, at least in some measure, and at least in part because of its brand mattering more than its students.