Marsha Blackburn & VAWA. Would it Protect Too Many Women?

Marsha Blackburn represents an odd shaped district in Western Tennessee. She's a Republican and considered to be among the most conservative women in the House of Representatives. I'm anything but a Republican, but when it comes to anti-violence issues and law and order, I find common ground with many in the GOP. John Ashcroft, the US Attorney General under George Bush, was not someone with whom I agreed on most issues, but his efforts to protect children from online exploitation in particular (at a time when Internet and computer facilitated abuse was exploding) was a welcome focus as far as I was concerned.Blackburn was an original supporter of the re-issue of the Violence Against Women Act in May of last year. VAWA has, since 1994, provided billions of dollars in funds for various aspects of the response to sexual and intimate partner violence. It's also led to changes in Federal and state laws that have made it easier to hold offenders accountable and spare victims some of the worst indignities and unfairness of the system.The liberal online publication Think Progress flat out insists that Blackburn opposed the Senate version of the bill (which finally passed last week) because it seeks to provide specific, targeted protection to women who are gay and lesbian, Native American women on reservations, and undocumented aliens. I haven't heard Blackburn admit to that in those words, but her own reasoning for voting against the latest iteration of VAWA doesn't leave much room for an alternative explanation.When questioned on MSNBC about why she voted against the latest iteration, Blackburn first asserts that whatever was in the Senate version would "dilute" the efforts of previous versions. She mentions the importance of shelters for domestic and sexual violence and also child advocacy centers (CAC's are generally funded by non-VAWA grant programs) and decries the law becoming "an anti-violence act" instead of something she considers more "targeted and focused."Targeted and focused on whom? is the question begged.After a few seconds of universally agreed upon loftiness about the issue, she's directed back to what she didn't like in the final version she voted against. It's then she utters the already infamous statement about not liking how it was expanded "to include other different groups."These "other different groups" are groups of women. Females of her species that, in fact, have been traditionally victimized at far greater rates than whatever "groups" of women Rep. Blackburn appears to find worth protecting. Native women are notoriously underserved and overrepresented as victims of domestic and sexual violence. Those who are thrust into the shadows by their legal status (undocumented persons) or for cultural and religious reasons (Lesbian, Gay, Transgendered and Bi-Sexual) are far too often terrorized into silence and grossly under-supported when they do seek help.The interviewer didn't press the Congresswoman further to identify the groups she was referring to, and instead let her end the segment with diversionary politic-speak about how she's sponsored this and attended that in her home district (again referring largely to Child Advocacy Centers which are a great idea but not the focus of VAWA).  Glaringly obvious, though, is the path the bill took and the emergence of religious and conservative opposition to the provisions designed to address under-served populations. Being a part of that opposition, Blackburn should better explain why.Conservative opposition to government spending programs regardless of their intent and scope is nothing new and nothing shameful. But Blackburn's issue isn't the money as she supported the original House version. Maybe her concerns include VAWA's effect on the jurisdictional boundaries of Indian tribunals as it did for Eric Cantor. That's about as charitable a characterization as can made with regard to that "group," and if so she should attempt an argument. As for other women often relegated to the margins of society like the undocumented or LGBT?  Perhaps she thinks there isn't a need for additional focus against violence toward them. If so, she is startlingly ignorant. But I'm not betting on that. I'll bet on bigotry instead; the sad but apparent fact that Blackburn values some women over others, period. I'll stand by that until proven incorrect. 

Comments on the Jordan Johnson Rape Case: The Way We Still Think

Below are a handful of comments from one single Montana Missoulian news story on the Jordan Johnson rape case which concluded with an acquittal this week. The overwhelming majority of commenters sided with the defendant based on the type of ignorance, myth and misinformation seen below. In one case a survivor of rape while in college claimed that "Jane Doe" (complainant) wasn't a valid victim because Doe's reactions weren't the same as those she had.If this sample of the commenting, news-reading public was reflective of the jury pool that decided the case, the prosecution never had a chance.“If he had man handled her the way she says, she would have had clear bruising on her torso, and if it penetrated her where she said, the rape kit would definitely have shown massive trauma. The facts just don't add up.”“If a girl doesn't want to risk getting raped, then don't put yourself in a dicey situation. She knew he was possibly drunk, then picked him up and hung out by themselves. What would THAT tell any guy?” “Bottom line: Two stupid people” “I must have missed something. I would like to know how you can claim rape when you have two male roommates, whom you should trust, next door and you don't scream. They must be making the walls in rental houses more sound proff than they used to. When I was in college my roommates would have had their water glass plastered against the wall so they wouldn't miss the action.” “If a woman/girl does not want to 'invite' trouble, you do NOT make a conscious effort to pick up a drunk guy and then take him back to your place to be together. Any guy would definitely call that a direct invitation to do more, not too mention nobody knows what their prior history is either. There's always been PLENTY of ditzy, stupid, girls trying to 'bag' the hot sports jock as well. Lesson to be learned: some people have to STOP putting themselves in bad situations in the first place. Both of these idiots made the same bad decision under a jointly dumb circumstance. He wasn't her boyfriend, they weren't dating, he was clearly cheating, and she didn't care that he was intoxicated. Case closed.” “I think these people [advocates, medical personnel, police] "pushed" her into bringing this to court. What started out as a young lady feeling "jilted" or "used" telling a small fib, quickly snowballed. These "advocates" had an agenda. They believed that football players got special treatment, and felt "privileged". They wanted to put a stop to that.” “I am a 64 year old grandma I would not want my grandaughter raped and I would not want my grandson falsely accused of rape. I can say from my perspective he did not commit rape according to Montana law. He did commit stupidity. Please let this young man go and make something of his life. Ms Doe just own up and take responsibility.” “Based on the testimony that I have read thus far, I would characterize the events of that evening as a "BAD DATE" for both parties.” “I hope this is a lesson for all you guys out there. Make the gals sign a contract before going on too bigger and better things. Don't complicate your life.”Indeed, "gals." Maybe a contract will stop you from being raped. Maybe "better behavior."Failing that, if you are raped, your body had better showcase it in terms of "massive trauma" that we all know always manifests itself. And you'd better react the way the world around you damn well believes you should. If you don't, we'll call you stupid, jilted, bitter, foolish, greedy, crazy. A liar.Yeah, that's right. You're better off keeping quiet.

Courage: An Army Rape Survivor Speaks Out

An important blog called My Duty to Speak exists to give military sexual violence survivors a forum to share their experiences. The one shared most recently is particularly haunting. An unrelated hazing incident after the attack added further trauma. But nothing equals the apparent confession the attacker made during an "amnesty day" in front of drill sergeants who took no action. Incidents like this underpin, among other things, an alarming suicide rate. Good on this person for possessing the courage to come forward and speak up.

The Onion & Quvenzhané Wallis: Perspective from Scott Mendelson

I've been a fan of the Onion since I knew it existed. I follow the magazine on Twitter, but missed the now notorious tweet that referred to a 9 year-old child as a "cunt." When I became aware of it, I wanted to write about it with indignation and righteous anger. The Onion has apologized and promised to tighten restrictions on who can send tweets under its avatar. Regardless, I was infuriated and hoped everyone else was.And then I read Mendelson's take on the controversy in the Huffington Post. He makes provocative points, among them the one that frankly shut me up:"What exactly is the right age to be called a cunt in public, be it overtly or through insinuation? What exactly is the right age to start being judged on their attractiveness or fashion choices?"Like many people, I've been ready to condemn the Onion for releasing a vicious tweet about a child. But like almost as many, I've failed to see how drawing a distinction in terms of the age of the target, while understandable on its face, really doesn't make that much of a difference.It was wrong. Utterly. But so is the society we've set up, in terms of what it would likely tolerate- and will tolerate- to be stated about the young, lovely and talented Ms. Wallis when she is old enough to objectify mercilessly without shocking the conscience. 

From Margaret Atwood, Author of The Handmaid's Tale

"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."

From A Former Prosecutor To A UNC Student Prosecutor: An Open Letter

Ms. Elizabeth IrelandStudent Attorney General, Graduate and Professional SchoolsThe University of North Carolina at Chapel HillDear Ms. Ireland:First, I commend you on the tough work you do in order to help maintain an atmosphere of integrity, civility and safety at UNC Chapel Hill, my own alma mater in terms of the law degree that has graciously shaped my professional life. Your job is not an easy one, and I’d guess it seems even less so in light of your apparent (now publicized) decision to bring charges against Landen Gambill for a violation of UNC Honor Code IIC, 1.c.  Second, I have no intention of questioning your decision based on the evidence you have before you, simply because I do not have it before me. No prosecutor should be taken to task by an outsider who lacks the same access to information that she has.I do, however, have your Code before me, the one I presume you are sworn to uphold and from which you form specific charges addressing clearly proscribed conduct. You have charged Ms. Gambill with: “Disruptive or intimidating behavior that willfully abuses, disparages, or otherwise interferes with another” regarding that person’s opportunities broadly as a member of the UNC community. Again, without making assumptions about what you know, this appears to be in response to Ms. Gambill’s public reflections on the abuse she reported against an intimate partner last year; presumably you suspect that Ms. Gambill's actions amount to violative behavior toward another student. Yet a close friend of Ms. Gambill’s claims confidently (I’ve seen nothing to contradict her) that 1) Gambill has never publicly named the man she alleges assaulted her, and 2) the bulk of her protestations involve not what he did but how she was treated by the Honor Court process itself.I can only assume you either know something I don’t, or that you believe with the appropriate level of certainty that Landen Gambill is yet responsible for the Honor Code violation you’ve drawn up. In any event, I’d ask you to consider two things: First, prosecutorial decisions shouldn’t be made in a vacuum. Even if you believe Gambill has somehow “abused, disparaged or otherwise interfered” with her former partner to an extent that somehow violates your Code, is she really an appropriate person to target? Admittedly, I have a bias: I believe Gambill told the truth to the Honor Court last year and that she was seriously if unintentionally mishandled. But even if I was less convinced on either issue, I fail to see how your resources and goodwill are well spent with this prosecution. Understanding that you are rightfully independent of the administration in terms of your charging decisions, this one seems only to be drawing more negative attention to a university that, by all appearances, would be well advised to focus less on students struggling to heal and more on those who are harming them. Second, just as I’d ask you to consider your case against Gambill in the context of other factors, I’d ask you to carefully consider the entire section under which you’ve charged her. The governing language of IIC 1.c is found in IIC: “It shall be the responsibility of every student...to refrain from conduct that impairs or may impair the right of all members of the University community to learn and thrive in a safe and respectful environment; or the capacity of University and associated personnel to perform their duties, manage resources, protect the safety and welfare of members of the University community, and maintain the integrity of the University.” Landen Gambill is a credible victim of both devastating abuse and a flawed system of adjudication now rightfully removed from consideration of her type of complaint. The abuse she alleges on your campus is exactly the kind of behavior that impairs rights, threatens safety, mocks respect, and curtails profoundly the capacity of everyone at UNC to learn and grow to her highest potential. By her efforts to seek redress, both personal and in terms of the University response, it is Gambill who is seeking to uphold integrity here, Ms. Ireland. Punishing her on dubious or hyper-technical grounds renders your process absurd, cruel, and feckless.

Suzzan Blac: Where Art Is War

TRIGGER WARNING: The images created by artist Suzzan Blac are remarkably disturbing. For survivors of sexual violence in particular, they may be very difficult to view. Nevertheless, they are exquisitely created and hauntingly compelling. Ms. Blac, a survivor herself, uses oil paint to create surreal but remarkably lifelike images depicting women and children used in pornography, abuse and sexual torture. For me, her most brilliant achievement with a brush are the expressions in the faces she creates. The look in the eyes of her subjects- some victims and some predators- is truer to form than anything I've ever seen depicted. She is well worth discovering.

UNC Chapel Hill, Where Rape Could Be Like A Football Game

In 2007, alumna Annie Clark says she was given this analogy by a university administrator when she inquired about utilizing the school’s Honor Court to pursue charges against the man who raped her.  “If you look back on the game, and you’re the quarterback and you’re in charge, is there anything you would do differently?” I’m not a sports fan, but this is perhaps the most reprehensible and flawed comparison a person (let alone an administrator) could make to help a victim make sense of a life-altering sexual assault. It suggests, in essence, that she was an equally aware and equally equipped competitor for the conquest of her vagina. Had she made different calls, perhaps it would not have been compromised. Alas, he made the right calls, and won. The game is over and no one is at fault. Move on.  Current junior Landen Gambill was challenged by a fellow student serving on the Honor Court when she pressed charges against a boyfriend who had repeatedly sexually abused her. According to Gambill, the adjudicator asked during the trial, “Landen, as a woman, I know that if that had happened to me, I would’ve broken up with him the first time it happened. Will you explain to me why you didn’t?”Gambill’s credibility was also challenged because of suffering she endured due to her victimization; It was suggested she couldn't be believed because of clinical depression and a suicide attempt. Alas, neither those circumstances nor her hesitance to leave the boyfriend in a suitably prompt manner have any relevance to whether she was violated and the school’s honor code breached.  These examples of ignorance and coarseness, unfortunately part of the federal civil rights complaint against UNC, do not make the offenders bad people, or UNC a bad place. I earned a JD there, and while I despised the process of law school, I appreciated the experience of being at a truly great university, set in an idyllic but progressive college town.  The issue is the lack of knowledge student judicial officers and faculty advisors have with regard to the dynamics of sexual violence and how to fairly adjudicate sex cases. The typical circumstances surrounding college related sexual assault are particularly challenging. Most attacks involve alcohol consumption on the part of both parties. Almost all are perpetrated by offenders who know their victims and have identified them exactly because they’ll be vulnerable to myths and ignorance if they do report.  I’m not sure if it was this awareness that eventually led UNC to end the practice of adjudicating sexual assault cases through their Honor Court, but I’m glad they’ve done so. Professionals have a difficult enough time with these issues and more training is badly needed. It’s not realistic to expect student-based tribunals to handle them appropriately. There are student victims who would prefer to take their cases to the university’s disciplinary system for a number of reasons; it’s equally appalling when victims are questioned for not wanting to call “real police” after being assaulted, as if that choice is easy or holds any guarantee of a favorable outcome. Still, I think the negatives of asking students to adjudicate acts of violence against a school’s honor code outweigh the positives.  UNC’s reform of its Honor Court responsibilities is only one of the steps it apparently needs to take if the complaint is accurate, however. More disturbing are allegations that administrators pressured a dean of students to alter or falsify the number of on-campus sexual assaults for federally mandated reporting purposes. Colleges nationwide, fearful of their institutions being injured by unpleasant facts, are notorious for practices like that. UNC is shamed if it is doing so also. Further, administrators, faculty and campus leaders from the top down need to do better when responding to victimized students. A Start By Believing campaign would be a good first step as a replacement for asinine and hurtful football analogies.  No reforms will eliminate sexual violence at UNC or any other college. But real reduction is possible if the entire university community unites to create an environment where sexual violence is faced honestly and responded to compassionately. It shouldn't take a civil rights complaint to bring that about.

Sovereign Grace Ministries: Lawsuit Alleges Yet Another Institutional, Child Abuse Cover-Up

Sovereign Grace Ministries, known by some as SGM, is a family of churches, now based in Kentucky, adhering to extremely strict Biblical interpretations. Among them (according to critics who are themselves strict Christians but critical of the group) are both the authority of pastors and the primacy of men as leaders in religious and home life. They are being sued by several plaintiffs not far from where I grew up; the allegations are that former church leaders committed hands-on sexual and physical abuse, and also that they failed to respond to allegations appropriately, encouraged victims to forgive and submit to abusers, and engaged in a cover-up of various forms of abuse for decades.If the allegations are true, they should come as no surprise. Religious institutions of every stripe, particularly insular and ultra-strict ones, are far too often havens for predators. It's not that strict doctrine creates predators or "warps" otherwise decent people. Instead, the unbending control over adherents, distrust of civil authority and concern for the reputation of the institution allow for abusers who appear within the group (as they do within every group) to flourish. More disturbing still, these practices attract other abusers, drawn as most are to friendly environments.If critics are fair in their take on what went wrong at SGM for so long, then the leadership needs desperately to examine not only its common sense policies for protecting its children, but its far deeper spiritual underpinnings and doctrine. One of the plaintiffs alleges she was being physically and sexually abused by her father. When she alerted church leaders to her father's behavior, their response was, according to the suit, to tell her father of her allegations rather than a child protection agency. This apparently led to even more profound abuse. A reasonable conclusion for such a response is that the men she sought help from viewed her either as rebellious and lying, or truthful but bound to obey her father regardless. Perhaps they thought bringing her complaints to his attention would spur a "reconciliation" in the place they viewed most proper, meaning the father's home, where his word was family law and his authority could not be questioned- certainly not by a female child.I am not an apologist for strict Biblical interpretation, and certainly won't seek to explain the extreme lengths to which SGM seems to take it. I disagree with their belief that only men can lead spiritually or that wives are most godly when submitting to the will of their husbands, however benevolent. Regardless, it isn't their beliefs that are at issue; it's what those beliefs and practices may have unwittingly but effectively created within their midst. If the current leaders of SGM are to be believed, they find child abuse as abhorrent as anyone, and I have no reason to doubt them. Perhaps, (assuming they believe even some of the allegations) they are horrified to learn that child abuse could not only occur but grow cancer-like within an organization as faith-based and earnest for God's will as theirs. Or perhaps they knew more than they'll ever admit, but allowed their belief in their mission and the importance of their own "brand" to justify cover-up and continued victimization. But even if the most generous interpretation of what SGM's leadership believes now is true (that they abhor child abuse and are willing to work with civil authority to prevent and respond to it) they still have deep soul-searching to do that can and should shake some of their most core apparent beliefs. It is arguable, I suppose, as to whether a strict, doctrinal religious system involving male dominance and imposing pastoral authority can nevertheless effectively confront and deal with the inexorable fact of child abuse occurring from time to time within its midst. What is less arguable is that notions of male dominance, submission to authority and guarded insularity are insidious and time-honored siren songs to predators. These are the thorny questions SGM will have to answer as it moves forward. It will not be the first or last religious institution to do so.   

Rep. Phil Gingrey Wades Into the Todd Akin Comment Mess. And Intellectually Drowns

Phil Gingrey is, by any objective measure, an accomplished man. In addition to being a six-term Congressman from the influential and economically powerful Atlanta northwest suburbs, he has also been an obstetrician/gynecologist for almost 40 years. So his willingness to speak so recklessly and baselessly on a subject that may have cost a former colleague an election seems odd regardless of the safety of his seat and the friendliness of his audience.There were two parts to Gingrey’s remarks on Akin’s fateful gaffe. His first statement attempted to explain what Akin meant by the use of the term “legitimate,” as if no one theretofore had any idea. Eager to be helpful to no one, though, Gingrey offered that Akin was probably referring to that all too common situation where an embarrassed and frightened 15 year-old girl becomes pregnant and insists she was raped in order to cover for her shameful behavior. For two reasons, this grotesque addition of detail to Akin's already offensive and roundly rejected comments was disastrous: First, we already knew what Akin meant; his message, loud and clear, was that (in his view) too many women and girls are “crying rape” in order to obtain abortions, since many otherwise anti-choice voters find abortion more tolerable when pregnancy is the result of sexual assault. Second, Gingrey's specific example is no more reality-based than Akin’s more vague intimation that rape is regularly fabricated by devilish and/or desperate women who find themselves pregnant. Rape is reported falsely by women very rarely. There is zero reason to believe it is reported falsely specifically to obtain abortions in any more than minuscule numbers.  For Gingrey to supplement Akin’s already asinine comments with a reference to them only adds insult to injury. Gingrey’s second statement was simply, utterly, nonsensical, and there is no need for a medical degree to see why.  In it, he claims that Akin was “partly right” in asserting his “shut the whole thing down” characterization of the female reproductive system during a rape. Stress and adrenaline, the good doctor reminded us, can prevent ovulation; hence the advice to couples struggling to become pregnant to focus on stress reduction and relaxation. Pray tell though, Dr. Gingrey: What in God’s name does that fact- stress and a lack of relaxation over time- have anything to do with a trauma response that might occur during the unexpected and unplanned for “legitimate” sexual attack of a woman? Even Gingrey seemed to realize the foolishness of this comparison as the words tumbled from his mouth. He acknowledged in the next breath that ovulation occurring some hours before a traumatic event would make subsequent conception during experienced trauma irrelevant to any prior state of relaxation (and thus presumably Akin’s comments that much more stupid). Not deterred, though, Gingrey still ended with the now nakedly baseless assertion that Akin’s comments were “torn apart” by the media. Indeed, as if anything emerged from either Akin’s original comments or Dr. Gingrey’s support of them that was unfairly challenged. However mind-boggling Rep. Gingrey's "logic" or willingness to speak it might seem, the underlying instinct of Gingrey, Akin and their ilk to do so is less mysterious. Religiosity appears to demand from them explanations consistent with their beliefs regardless of scientific fact. So perhaps their belief in an attentive and just God begs the idea that an evil act will not produce the miracle of conception. It is, I suppose, a pleasant idea. But it’s an idea that is contrary to scientific fact. And rather than acknowledging its observable failure, men like Akin and Gingrey are instead willing to fuel it with another deeply offensive myth that only serves to further demonize the very women they claim to serve. Perhaps Akin, a non-physician, at least had ignorance as a defense to his career-ending remarks. What is Phil Gingrey’s excuse? 

Steubenville: A Modest Proposal. Or A Moral Requiem

Every town, indeed every settlement, hosts its demons. Towns generally spring up where wealth can be created. Some of that wealth is inevitably dispersed from fools and victims to the hands of those more clever and ruthless. The rituals of corruption between gathered humans are themselves as human as laughter and tears. There are no exceptions.But if accounts can be trusted, it seems that Steubenville, Ohio, blessed with extractable fossil fuel and its position on the railroad between Pittsburgh and Chicago in the American industrial ascent, hosted more than its share of demons in the 20th century. It was dubbed “Sin City” at one point as mafia elements thrived with prostitution and gambling, abetted by local industry and town leadership.Now the 20th century is history and Steubenville is struggling against decay and decline. So why pick on it? Because it’s clear that a natural desire to remain relevant, and elements of the corruption that once defined Steubenville have now morphed into a cocktail of denial and tolerance for sexual assault by its last vestige of greatness: Big Red Football.The events of August 11th and 12th, 2012, namely the abduction, gang-rape and desecration of an unconscious teenager at a series of parties attended by members of the Steubenville High School football team, are now national news. They might have been anyway as (thankfully) awareness of the occurrence of sexual violence within the protection of institutions is increasing.But for Big Red Football, the attention has been focused more readily because of the reluctance of witnesses to come forward and the disturbing abrogation of responsibility from the team’s coaching staff. The police chief has publicly stated his frustration at the lack of cooperation from potential witnesses, party-goers who might have important information or digital evidence. Other townsfolk have spoken to national media only anonymously for fear of retribution for standing up to the institution that is the SHS football program.As for the coaching staff, the reaction of the head coach, Reno Saccoccia, is perhaps the most telling in terms of its harkening to Steubenville’s mob-run past. According to the New York Times, Saccoccia was asked why he didn’t bench or otherwise discipline several players (other than the two charged) who were then known to have posted frightening comments and photos about the crime on social media sites, some as it was happening. Saccoccia’s response? “You made me mad now. You’re gonna get yours. And if you don’t get yours, someone close to you will.” Beautifully put, Coach. Indeed, a low level button-man in a movie couldn’t have put it better.An assistant coach, Nate Hubbard, provided the time-honored if baseless assertion that the victim must have made up the rape allegation because she had “come home” drunk (she was actually dumped there) and “had to make up something.” Actually, the victim at first didn't know what had happened to her. She was clued in by social media postings that added a further level of trauma to her and her family.In any event, there is no natural instinct to fabricate rape, let alone against a leviathan like Big Red.  Legions of young women (and I’d wager a surprising number of young men) are used sexually by sports heroes in every locale and on every level in our society. The vast majority do not report these interactions as crimes when they clearly are. What the victimized do instead is blame themselves. The victim at the center of this case had the wherewithal to come forward, and does so at her peril. Steubenville may not seem like much, but its most venerable institution remains supreme in the eyes of many who share her environment.If Coach Saccoccia and everyone in power had a grounded sense of right and wrong and a vision for a better future, they would impose on themselves a NCAA style “death penalty.” They would take the 2013 season off to re-commit themselves to healthy athletics rather than the continued parade of entitled violence and privilege done within their midst.It would be a grand gesture toward a better and more secure future for Steubenville, its athletes, and its young- even unborn- potential victims. And it will never happen.  

On Faith, Risk, and "Couch Surfing"

Joseph and Mary: The original "couchsurfers."That's neither a joke nor necessarily Biblically incorrect. Joseph desperately needed shelter when he and his intensely pregnant wife arrived in a chilly and overcrowded desert town for a Roman census call. An inn-keeper had an idea.As a rabbi, Jesus became a couchsurfer as well, treading through ancient Palestine with his crew, finding comfort, wine, and conversation, bearing witness to sinners and holy people alike. So given the blessings of adequate space, how could a modern Christian's home be anything other than a glowing respite for weary fellow travelers?Enter Couchsurfing.org, (CS) active in 97,000 cities worldwide. Members create a detailed profile with photos describing themselves and their living space, then offer hospitality to other members passing through. It's at heart a wonderful idea; one that a cynical and aging former prosecutor shouldn't douse with cold water. But after a patient review of their safety tips and policies, I didn't come away with confidence in CS's ability to reasonably predict a safe outcome in any offline meeting.CS does prominently address safety, and importantly emphasizes risk-minimization and informed choices rather than meaningless and impossible "assurances." Life is risk and there are no guarantees. I'm sure the vast majority of CS made connections are positive. But they simultaneously claim a "close-knit" community where "vouching" helps allay concerns, and roughly 5 million members.Their safety video focuses on the joyful leap of discovery and innate good in people rather than the serious and still highly fallible business of self-protection when agreeing to lose consciousness in a stranger's home a half a world away. Instead, members discuss how they can communicate with their presumed hosts both online and in person before finally committing to unrolling a sleeping bag. It's stressed that personal interaction can often lead to the comforting conclusion that the host is "nice." You talk to them, and you can tell.Except you can't. I imagine CS boasts a very short list of reported crimes- either to them or to authorities in whatever part of the globe- against hosts or travelers as evidence of a sound safety record. But a lack of reporting, even to them, hardly means a lack of occurrences, some frightening or worse.Now enter faith because of how I became familiar with CS. A dear friend is a PhD and Christian missionary. He shared an article by a woman whose family opens their home to couchsurfers and others as "reverse missionaries." They provide warm hospitality and, to willing ears, Jesus' message. Again, it's a wonderful idea.But I am frightened for her family, sadly, by statements like this: "It really is God who is our booking agent. We know He is guiding the right people to us." This is all she offers for how she measures risk and makes decisions. She relates that early in their experience as hosts, a young Slovenian couple arrived with their toddler and it was then they "knew they had nothing to fear." Much is made of the participation their young children have in the interaction with guests as well. I assume these children appear in her CS profile, probably also in photographs.I'd love dearly to believe that God is actively protecting them on this gracious adventure. Perhaps He is, or perhaps they are content with His stewardship come what may. But I have seen, tragically, how people of faith and Christians in particular are targeted by predators who are remarkably adept at appearing to be of a similar mind. A belief in providence and forgiveness are great gifts. They are also beacons of opportunity for human things empty of anything but blunt and vicious self-satisfaction.It's been said that religion provides the right to martyr oneself, but not one's children. I mean no disrespect to this apparently loving and decent couple, and admittedly the article was not intended as a practical "how to" for anyone. But it is solely the choices she and her husband make that seal the fates of their children, one of whom is eight.That fact haunts me. That, and the dark reality I can't shake of whom the dead-eyed often hunt: Those whose eyes sparkle with faith, hope, and trust. 

Savannah Dietrich: "I was in so much pain, death seemed like a friendly thought to me."

Savannah Dietrich may not fancy herself a poet. And yet the sentiment she uttered in a Kentucky juvenile courtroom, in a victim impact statement about how sexual violence threatened her life, is darkly, beautifully, and naturally poetic. "Death seemed like a friendly thought."Savannah is 17, and her name would not be published in this space if she and her family did not want the facts of her case to be made public. She is, as it happens, a remarkably courageous young woman who was sexually assaulted at age 16 by two male friends, both of whom pled guilty  and received extremely light sentences for what they admittedly did to her. Initially threatened with contempt of court after tweeting the names of her attackers despite a juvenile court order (in reaction to the lenient dispositions they received), she has since testified in a sentencing hearing as to the effect this assault (and then publication by the attackers of semi-nude photos) had on her.If you've ever been in a place, either in adolescence or long afterward, where death- the simple, final escape from mental anguish- has seemed like a kindness, then you understand the place Savannah found herself in after being violated and then exposed through social media. You understand how the path of your life can narrow insidiously into a blind and numb corridor that seems to lead to only one exit. You can appreciate the exhaustion that results from the ceaseless, gnawing sense of hopelessness and despair. You can see how it's less Shakespearean bravado or vainglory that prompts the final process of suicide, and more just the feeling that you just can't take another step. And it's because you know now too well how each step just leads in the same, meaningless direction. It's a journey you can't walk anymore. And so just maybe, you decide not to go any further.It's true that a lack of perspective, naturally a part of adolescence, makes these dark temptations even worse; this is exactly why teenagers with suicidal ideation need steady attention, care and support.Regardless, pain is pain, and Savannah found herself drowning in it because of the actions of two  boys who found it acceptable to violate her sexually, memorialize it with photographs, and then distribute those photographs to others. They both admitted their guilt, and now bemoan their "bad judgment." I have no desire to demonize these two boys or suggest that they are lost and unreclaimable as decent adults and non-violent men. But I will insist that the actions they took against Savannah in August of 2011 went far beyond "bad judgment" and fully through to sexual violence and evil. They stuck their fingers in her vagina while she lay unconscious. They photographed her and then distributed the photos to friends. This goes far beyond "bad judgment." It raises serious questions about psychological makeup and self-control.For these offenses, they will endure community service and sex offender treatment, with a chance to expunge the findings at age 21. Hopefully, this relatively early detection of the two of them as offenders (and thanks only to the wherewithal and courage of Savannah Dietrich) will result in actual soul-searching and reform as adulthood races toward them.In the meantime, Savannah continues to suffer, although hopefully less acutely as time and the blessed reclaiming of her power and dignity sinks in. I am deeply thankful that she didn't answer the "friendly" voice that may have whispered, or shouted, or just plainly, demonically, spoken to her in her darkest moments. It's a voice that speaks in every language, confidently, expertly, and with greased rationality, to its latest hearer.Savannah was able to silence it. God bless and keep her. 

Viciousness and Ignorance From the Bench Doesn't Mean One is Removed From the Bench

The verbatim (from the Latin "word for word") record that is made in most felony level criminal cases in the US can haunt everyone involved, including the judge. In the case of a remarkably vicious rapist named Matin Gurel from Orange County, California, a judge was apparently and justly haunted by remarks he made at a sentencing that spared the rapist a decade in prison.Gurel had threatened to mutilate his victim's face, and to burn her vagina with a heated screwdriver. The Orange County District Attorney's Office asked for 16 years. The judge, a man still on the bench named Derek G. Johnson, gave him six. His reasoning, in his words: "I’m not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something. If someone doesn’t want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage in inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case. That tells me that the victim in this case, although she wasn’t necessarily willing, she didn’t put up a fight."Judge Johnson, we can agree on one thing. You are most definitely not a gynecologist. Nor are you fit to sit in legal judgment of a parking ticket. The California Commission on Judicial Performance was right to publicly admonish you, but their sanction falls far short of what you deserve, which is banishment from the honor of the robe and the power that comes with it. 

Nonsense at the Good Men Project: "Nice Guys Commit Rape Too"

Alyssa Royse, apparently a sex educator and feminist dedicated to empowering women, is nevertheless dead wrong in everything from the title of this article to her contentions within it. Briefly, she has a male friend whom she believes to be a genuinely decent guy. He confided in her that he had been accused of rape, and then admitted that he had penetrated his victim sexually while she was unconscious. To be fair, Royse labels this as rape and never backs down on that characterization. But (as far as I can tell simply because she feels she "knows" the rapist) she then launches into a grandiose examination of mixed signals, societal imperatives, nuances and subtleties etc, in order to explain how this "nice guy" did such a bad thing.I quote the brilliant sex offender treatment-provider and victim advocate Nikki Vallierie, PhD: "Nice is a behavior, not a trait."Royse takes pains to avoid victim-blaming by repeatedly acknowledging her friend committed rape. But she then describes how she had seen the victim aggressively flirting with him, sending "signals" that clearly indicated a desire for sex. But both Royce and her friend must understand that no signals can be sent from a human body that is unconscious. And whatever signals went out before, they are vitiated by that lack of consciousness.It sounds simple. It is simple. But not enough for Royse, who bemoans the fog of alcohol and the necessity of nuance and innuendo that pervade sexuality in our culture. She remarks (baselessly) that 50% of men are probably committing these same "accidental rapes" because of the terrible tangle that is the modern hook-up culture.I'll end with the comment I posted to her piece, as I think it says what's most relavant:Ms. Royse, while I appreciate what you have tried to accomplish both with this piece and by moderating this discussion, I believe you are terribly misinformed and being dangerously misleading. To the extent that readers are rushing to accept both your (or others) inaccurate portrayals of the reality of sexual violence, there is potential harm being done. Briefly: -You have continued to insist, because of the “countless hours” you’ve apparently spent with him, that your friend (the original subject of this piece) is a “sweet” guy. A nice guy. And you know this because….? Nice is a behavior, Ms. Royse. It is not a trait. Nice is what this man does- apparently to you as well- but it is hardly what he is. Sexually penetrating an unconscious person is rape (as you fairly point out) but it is not the kind of thing that is in any way difficult to avoid or easy to fall into. One doesn’t mistake a lack of consciousness. It is often accompanied by urinating on oneself, vomiting, or at least closed eyes, somniferous breathing, and an utter lack of cooperation/participation in the act. My guess? He was horrified not by his “mistake” but by her accusation. Since the vast majority of women who are violated even more clearly than his victim do not report, he was acting rationally in believing that he could rape her and get away with it. He probably has before. He probably will again, despite your protestations regarding his character to the contrary. -I beg you to google one name: David Lisak. Dr. Lisak is a ground-breaking researcher in this area who has determined with far more scientific discipline how undetected rapists like your friend actually work. -I’m sorry, but the issues at work here are far less complicated than you are attempting to make them. And forgive me, but when you attempt to make them more complicated you are putting more women (and some men) in danger. That’s right- that’s my contention. What you’re doing here is creating an elaborate cocktail party conversation with many willing participants about a highly misunderstood and controversial issue. But instead of clearing the air, you’re darkening it. In so doing, you are in fact being an apologist for the relatively few but highly prolific rapists out there who depend on a well-intended but foolish obfuscation of their crystal-clear intent. Please refrain.

Techno Protection From Rape Drugs In Mixed Drinks: Mixed Feelings

It's an interesting idea. A drinking cup that changes color when (apparently) any one of a number of common rape drugs are added to the drink. To the extent it foils the plans of would-be rapists who use drugs, or chills the practice at all, it sounds positive. But a few things should be kept in mind:-Most acquaintance-rape (by far the most common) is accomplished through the use of alcohol alone.-There's a real possibility that this product, if it becomes common enough, will create yet another "rule" that, if victims break it (i.e. by not using the cup or being attacked despite its use, as in an alcohol-only situation) they'll be judged for not using it or not using it correctly.-It may not be easy to use the drinkware properly in a dark bar, or after consuming alcohol regularly. It could create false sense of security.Might be a step in the right direction. But there are potential unintended consequences.

From MaleSurivor.Org: Ugly Stereotypes Regarding Men, Their Past, And Violence

Friend and colleague Chris Anderson, executive director of MaleSurvivor, wrote an important piece at the Good Men Project about stereotypes and male violence. Chris, as usual, was brave and candid regarding his own experiences and background.Many people mistakenly believe that men who have been sexually abused are more likely grow up sexually abusing others. This is an inaccurate and damaging myth that seems valid simply because the great majority (as Anna Salter discusses brilliantly) of convicted sex offenders claim childhood abuse when they are before a judge, a probation officer, or a corrections specialist evaluating them for a program. Research on the subject puts the percentages much lower, around 30%. The difference between what is claimed and then later revealed to be false (often using just the threat of a polygraph in a treatment program) is simple to explain: Offenders often fabricate abuse histories because doing so makes them seem less culpable. Claiming to have been victimized gets them easier sentences and more sympathy from decision makers in the system.In general, the idea that the sexual abuse of a child somehow serves to "turn" that child into a future abuser is baseless. What is true is that many victims who are not responded to or treated appropriately do abuse people- themselves. They self-medicate with alcohol and other intoxicants. They avoid their more deeply painful and psychological issues by turning to pathological pursuits like workaholism, high-risk lifestyles and reckless behaviors. Tragically, childhood or adolescent victims without proper intervention are at greater risk to be re-victimized later in life. But they are no more likely to abuse children than anyone else, and in fact usually grow up to be more aware and more protective of children in their care because of their experiences.What is truly frightening, as Salter and other top experts will admit, is that we really don't yet know where the urge to harm a child sexually comes from. All we really know at this time is that it usually emerges somewhere in adolescence, and seems to last (for most offenders) through the several decades of adulthood.This is not a comforting reality. Many well-intentioned people, wanting to believe in a "just" or at least ordered universe and loving God, cling to the idea that the seemingly inhuman among us are just tragically, unrecognizably wounded because their own experiences. The problem with this general hypothesis, though, (aside from its simple inaccuracy, at least where sexual abuse is concerned) is that it feeds a more pernicious myth; namely that those victimized are forever "tainted" and more likely to abuse others. Even where non-sexual abuse is concerned, it's horribly wrong to assume that a child victim of or witness to physical or domestic violence is less capable of refraining from violence because of their childhood experiences.The article that Chris Anderson comments on (from Erika Christakis in Time Magazine) argues reasonably that men are the perpetrators of the great majority of violent, homicidal acts confronted in society. One of her suggestions is to treat violence as a public health issue, so that child victims of violence can be treated, and their situations intervened upon with greater effectiveness in terms of their own future wellbeing.  This is something neither myself nor Chris Anderson would disagree with.My only hesitance with what she puts forth is the possible and unfair implication that violence, and particularly sexual violence, is something unerringly attributable to past victimization and maleness. Where physical, domestic violence is concerned, it's true that a correlation between childhood victimization for boys and later perpetration has been established. But even an established correlation does not suggest that male victims of childhood violence are destined somehow to beat their partners and children in adulthood. And where sexual violence is concerned, the connection simply doesn't appear to exist.The lesson?  While we work toward eliminating sexual and family violence, we cannot unfairly assume the victims we encounter are destined by their victimization to repeat it. 

Lizzy Seeberg and Notre Dame's Phenomenal Year: Why One Alumnus Can't Cheer For Them

Melinda Henneberger, the sharp Washington Post columnist of "She The People," won't be cheering for her alma mater when they meet the University of Alabama in the college football championship game on January 7th. The reason is simple: Two of the athletes who will take the field and have contributed to ND's success this fall are suspects in sexual violence cases. Neither was charged, for reasons both Ms. Henneberger and myself believe were unrelated to the reality of what happened.I'm not a sports fan. But I like Notre Dame as I identify still as Catholic and have dear friends who are deeply decent, honorable alumni of this phenomenal, rightfully venerated institution. But along with Henneberger, my enthusiasm for their recent come-back has been stunted by the ugliness of what I know and what I can piece together from it. ND has made its choices, and has achieved what college football success it will from them. What consequences will or should follow, I am not nearly qualified to predict. 

The 11 Year-Old "Spider" in Texas, Luring Her Rapists

So she was described by a defense attorney in the trial of one of the roughly 20 men charged with gang rape against an 11 year-old girl in Liberty, Texas in 2010. Describing her as having lured the attackers on cross-examination, the lawyer in question, Steve Taylor, proved he's not only a child victim blamer but also a terrible cross-examiner. Let the lawyer jokes continue; it's richly deserved.Media note: The article linked above from the Houston Chronicle says, in a photo caption, that the defendants in the case are charged with "having sex" with an 11 year-old girl. That isn't possible in Texas or any U.S. state. The act is rape, not sex. The Chron should know better.

Accusations Against Elmo Creator Kevin Clash: Hard to Face, But Less Hard to Believe

The suspicion, backlash and contempt that's been unleashed against both of the men who have accused Sesame Street's Kevin Clash did not surprise me. Nor did the compounding of baseless gossip-column nonsense against Sheldon Stephens- Clash's first victim- when he reaffirmed his allegations against Clash around November 18th, a day or two before the second victim came forward on November 20th.For most, the blind defense of Mr. Clash and the knee-jerk rejection of the claims of the young men he is alleged to have sexually abused are a result of ignorance. Simply put, most people don't understand the dynamics behind the sexual abuse of adolescents. Given that the subject of the complaints is a celebrity, and one whose inspiring personal story and universally loved character are involved, the rejection of the victims as money-hungry celebrity hunters just gets more tempting.But ignorance shouldn't stand unchallenged, regardless of an Internet onslaught that seeks to bury the truth in an avalanche of self-perpetuating nonsense. A few points worth mentioning:-The first victim to come forward (Stephens, whose name I only print because it's in the public sphere) announced his allegation on November 12th. A $125,000 settlement appears to have followed between Clash and Stephens, the result of which was conditioned on an official recantation of Stephens' allegation, so that he acknowledged only a sexual relationship when Stephens was at least 18. He then, around November 19th, reaffirmed that Clash had abused him as a minor. The Internet has since roiled with accusations of Stephens as a "flip-flopper" and someone who "can't make up his mind" about what happened to him.In fact, recantation and reaffirmation are extremely common in child sexual abuse cases. Studies I've seen put the rate of recantation around 25% (my personal experience reflected a higher rate even into adulthood). Of the many reasons for recanting valid allegations, unwanted attention and a backlash for accusing a famous and beloved figure are two that should be easy to understand. Of those who do recant, about half eventually reaffirm once the initial shock and backlash can be digested. Stephens was offered a settlement to take back the actionable facts, but has since reaffirmed and wants to undo it.-Stephens has a criminal record, another fact leveled against him as the story develops. But adolescents and young adults with the kinds of tough upbringings, emotional difficulties and other stressors that often lead them into criminality are exactly the kinds of victims predators look for and find. Kids or young adults who commit crimes suffer credibility deficits; they are less likely to be believed. Even if Clash wasn't specifically looking for a troubled kid easy to victimize, he was most likely to find someone like that on the chat rooms he was apparently visiting in search of younger sexual partners.-Neither of Clash's victims ever went to the police, another "gotcha" moment for those who don't want to believe them. But a very small percentage of victims- in both child and adult cases- ever tell authorities, let alone close in time to the abuse. In theory and apparently in cyber-space, "calling the cops" is as natural as ringing a fire alarm. In reality, doing so is remarkably daunting and frightening. Many victims figure they're powerless regardless of what they allege. Some don't even know if they've been legally victimized. Many blame themselves and feel they have no right to press charges. Most are terrified of everything that the criminal justice system is for almost everyone- a process both intimidating and unknown. And when sex is involved, particularly with older children who will both feel and be seen as more blameworthy for their "participation" in their victimization, the urge to tell authorities usually shuts down.I can't say with certainty that Clash is legally responsible for anything. But we know that he at least acknowledges a sexual relationship with a much younger individual, and that another young man has come forward with similar allegations. I have no desire to see Clash unjustly accused or punished. But neither should those accusing him suffer unjustly because of ignorance and cynicism.