Most of you (who have televisions) know more than I do about the Kobe Bryant case.
What I pay attention to and know is brief; there was a sexual encounter, it devolved into the “he said/she said” of consensual sex versus rape, with what little physical evidence has made it to the media that gets my attention decidedly ambivalent.
I have all kinds of responses to this: The come from three places – from my own life as a pretty sexually active young man in high school, college, and afterwards; from a painful pair of experiences I had back then; and most important of all, as a man with three sons who do talk to me and who I am responsible for equipping to navigate the treacherous world.
And finally, there is an issue that comes up under this that transcends the issue of sexual politics and comes out in areas that I feel are broadly important – which is really why I want to write about this.I was fortunate (or not, depending on your point of view) to come of age in the late 60’s and early 70’s first in West Los Angeles, then in Santa Cruz. There wasn’t a lot of parental supervision, and we pretty much got to do what we wanted. Much of it, unsurprisingly, revolved around sex. We had thrown the old rules of courtship out the window, and hadn’t yet made up any new ones.
So there was a lot of room for bad behavior, and really no standards against which to judge it.
My own story is relatively minor: A woman who I knew slightly came to me in an emotionally fragile state, and while my memory today is clear that it was she who initiated things, matters came to a head when she, nude, slammed me in the jaw and ran out my door, clutching her clothes. I sat up that night, realizing that while what I’d done wasn’t vile – barely – it was certainly wrong; and that while she’d been the aggressor, a gentle man – a responsible man – would have pushed her away and made a date for a future time when she might be more self-posessed. To this day, I’m grateful to her for hitting me (she’s one of the very few people who have raised a hand to me about whom I would say that).
In the other issue, I was a witness, then a participant in cleaning up the mess: Two students got onto an elevator and Something Happened. He denied it, she asserted it, and the disciplinary codes at the time gave a fair amount of room to decide what to do. He was my friend, and I didn’t believe him capable of what he was charged with; I wound up as his defender, and got him off with a relatively minor sanction. Of course, it later turned out that the charges were true.
So it’s a complex world, with rules we often reject where we understand them. And past performance is obviously no guarantee of good behavior.
Do I think that men have sexually abused women through most of history and gotten away with it? Absolutely yes. Do I think that the rules today are totally stacked in favor of the accuser, and that innocent men suffer unjustly? Equally absolutely yes. I don’t yet know how we navigate this. I think we have a complex of half abandoned structures that once regulated our behavior, and half-emerged new ones that someday will. And now we’re in the valley, just pushing forward as best we can. There are so many issues where the balance between men and women had not yet hit an equilibrium; I could do an entire blog on it, but this isn’t that blog.
When Biggest Guy was of an age that he was likely to be sexually active – when he had a car and was out on his own away from adult supervision, he and I had a series of long talks about the risks involved. One that I had been particularly concerned about was AIDS; his and his brothers’ godfather died of it when he was about nine, and was old enough to have some idea of what was going on. I wanted to make sure that the sex=death fear wasn’t there for him, but that the had a healthy respect for the risks. To me the greatest risks weren’t AIDS (actually a low risk in his population subgroup), but the old-fashioned ones of pregnancy and emotional damage. I recently had much the same talk with Middle Guy.
But when Biggest Guy went away to Virginia and then started school, we had the most serious talk. I explained it to him simply; the rules were stacked against him. It wasn’t right or fair but that’s what it was and that, simply, if he wasn’t a true gentleman, the consequences for him might be much worse than a sore jaw. He got it and so far, from what I hear and see, he’s on his way to walking through this first minefield.
I’m still holding my breath.
And on the bigger issue; TG and I were playing with a toddler girl during Dave & Deborah’s wedding; the little girl was at that appallingly cute age when walking it itself a form of self-expression, and when round pink cheeks (usually flecked with the remains of a snack) frame a smile of total exuberance. The girl’s mom and I had chatted and she knew I had older boys. “Do you wish you’d had a girl?” And before I could consciously think, I replied “Well, she’d shoot damn well, that’s for sure.”
It’s a difficult thing to say, but I think that women have a duty to resist. I’m very aware of the risks. But it’s not to distinguish themselves as victims of violence, rather than someone who “says yes and then changed her mind,” but for the same simple reason that I think we all have a duty to resist. Because it raises the price of being a predator. In matters of sex, men who transgressed were once at risk from the woman’s kin or from the community if in fact their transgression was public enough and the victim someone who mattered. In matters of violence, it was the norm to resist, and the negative consequences of those actions is in part what kept bad behavior in check.
Today we are taught to passively get through it, and then go seek counseling.
Men who are basically guilty of not being gentlemen are labelled as predators, and the predators – sexual and otherwise – continue to flourish, because we’ve built an ecology that suits them just fine.
I think we can change that, one sock to the jaw at a time.
The problem in the Kobe Bryant case is less that the cards are stacked against the alleged aggressor or the alleged victim. Rather these cases rely heavily on perceived credibility and subjective judgments about subjective states of mind, rather than clear physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. This credibility issue will usually go to the notoriously subjective notion of “consent”. A relatively modest perceived shift in state of mind can mean the difference between guilt or innocence concerning a crime of the highest gravity. That is why the sexual and psychological history of both parties is, and should be, regarded as extremely relevant.
Even if the “game” is played “fairly” – ie, the process is balanced to support as much the accused’s interests in a fair trial as the accuser’s interest in justice – the nature of the evidence is such that the process will inevitably result in a high number of both false convictions and false acquittals.
That is the real problem. Rape victims can only obtain justice at the cost of a high number of false convictions. Conversely, the rights of the defendant can only be upheld at the cost of substantial false acquittals.
The Hobbesian choice between relatively greater vindication of the interests of rape victims or relatively greater defense of the rights of the wrongly accused arises because of the largely private and subjective nature of the consensual or non-consensual act.
Gabriel,
I think that’s part of AL’s point. If Kobe had a knife in his side (it was room service that the accuser brought up to his room, right?) then 1) the rape probably wouldn’t have occurred, and 2) there would be physical evidence of a struggle.
In Bryant’s case (although I haven’t followed closely), it seems as though there could have been both a rape and consensual sex: Bryant could simply have undressed the victim and had sex with her, taking her non-resistence as consent, wheras she may have simply complied out of fear of violence.
Who’s (internal, subjective) version should govern, when both sides might in fact agree on the (external, objective) facts? Is rape defined by the man’s understanding of the event, or the woman’s (or a fictional “reasonable person’s”)?
I don’t have a good answer.
But in AL’s world, if women fought back more often, there would be less need to make judicial judgments since innocent men would know better (When she starts hitting you, its time to stop) and truly guilty men would be more likely to get shot/stabbed/otherwise injured. In addition, there might be more physical evidence (bruises, broken bones, bullet holes, etc) to show a struggle.
Overall, a better result for all concerned. I’m not sure if AL is right that fighting is the right choice all or even most of the time, but I’m certainly a supporter of the right to fight back.
A.L., I largely agree with your analysis (although I thought that you were going to address a different issue from your lede). Rape is a topic of utmost gravity, and it is a travesty of justice that it too often comes down to a he said/she said issue. Gabriel’s analysis above is also accurate, but I think your conclusion takes a few steps towards answering the problem of justice. Targets of rape have a duty to society, as well as to themselves, to prevent the rape, if possible, or make the result sufficiently unambiguous that the justice system is capable of delivering justice.
The direction I thought you might have taken deals with a different issue, where the question of rape is not central. Prior to his arrest, Kobe Bryant had a reputation that was squeaky clean and a relaxed and charismatic public persona. There weren’t the bad-boy stories that typify far too many professional basketball players–Kobe was generally considered to be a good role model. And then he cheated on his wife.
This is something I take very seriously. No matter what the resolution of the rape trial is, Kobe has put another dent in the public perception of marriage by betraying his vows. He had a responsibility as a man to remain faithful to his wife, and a responsibility to his fans to live up to his own reputation. He failed at both. While I don’t think what happened in that hotel room can be known with any certainty, this offense is not in question.
I have no sons, much less three, but if I did, I’d tell them that a man is only as good as his word, and marriage vows are among the most solemn words a man ever speaks. It’s a different lesson than the one you drew, but no less important. After all, if Kobe had kept his vows, he probably wouldn’t be on trial for rape.
My problem with the resistance principle is that potential rape victims are unlikely, when faced with violence, to act on the basis of furthering the establishment of some broader rules or norms of social behavior. Nor should they be so concerned.
Gabriel –
Most people, when confronted with violence will react as they have been conditioned to. A substantial part of martial arts training is ‘conditioning’ you to a patterned set of reactions – and to be blunt, someone who grew up in a culture where fighting is the norm probably has better, deeper-seated ones than I do.
Today, we condition people not to react, to comply and hope for the best. I think we ought to condition them differently, and there are some interesting studies which suggest that for the individual victim, it may be the best course of action as well.
A.L.
I am a rape survivor who’s been through rape counseling, and then served as a peer counselor for other rape survivors (I refuse to use the term victim once the rape is over, if the person raped actually lived). With that background, I can offer anecdotal evidence in support of A.L.’s assertion that conditioning to resist instead of comply results in a better short and long-term outcome for the survivor.
Women I’ve met and spoken to who did not go quietly – regardless of prior martial arts or self-defense training (or lack thereof) – almost always seemed to have an easier time reclaiming their self-respect by declining the veil of shame that our society still wants to cast over a rape survivor and returning their daily lives to at least a semblance of normalcy. Fighting back and failing to prevent rape from happening anyway definitely brings in a whole ‘nother set of issues to be dealt with, but it’s a damn sight better than starting from a place of perceived helplessness or powerlessness.
A.L. I agree with you on this one, at least in principle. The one comment that you made that at least for me requires some clarification is this – In matters of sex, men who transgressed were once at risk from the woman’s kin or from the community if in fact their transgression was public enough and the victim someone who mattered.
To my mind, every woman matters. The reason why it ought to have mattered back then is the same reason that it matters now. Responsibility and Respect. It used to be that young men were ‘allowed’ to sow their ‘wild oats’, but society looked askance at a young lady who chose the same opportunities. There is nothing ‘free’ about ‘love’ (ie: sex) or anything else. What you have told your sons is the same thing I have told mine. It’s the same mine field only the mines have gotten ‘smarter’.
Cap. –
I was simply reflecting historic reality back then; a village girl or a housemaid was sadly – and wrongly – beneath defending.
That was wrong then and it’s wrong now.
And thank you, inkgrrl, for bringing up something that I hadn’t thought to mention (or really to think about) which is the difference between fighting – even if you lose – and meekly submitting – on the long term self image of the one attacked.
A.L.
On the question of “conditioning,” my martial arts instructor always said:
You don’t rise to the occasion. You fall back on your training.
You were smart to talk to your sons. There are a lot of unbalanced girls/women out there, borderline personality disorder sufferers who make men suffer. I get nervous everytime I’m in a courthouse elevator alone with a woman.
Not just rape cases, but also restraining order cases, “stalking” cases, and just about any other charge to put the hurt on a guy that treated her rudely, cheated on her, or just broke up with her.
What Gabriel Gonzalez said is true: because of the subjectivity of juries in rape cases where consent is a defense, some of the guilty will go free and some of the innocent will be convicted.
I was talking with a high school classmate of mine who was a detective in the sexual assault unit for many years and just went back to robberies, etc.
He said that the worst of the job had been dealing with the false and frivolous cases that had (obviously, but subjectively) been brought as revenge or for some other reason like covering up the complainant’s own misdeeds.
The frightening thing is that judges have wide latitude to admit or keep out evidence and to “shade” a case to a jury. I hope Kobe gets a fair trial; I expect he will because of the attention. But “rape shield” laws and various therapist-patient privileges are always being used by prosecutors to keep the truth about a complainant from the jury.
So watch out, boys.
Thanks for the post and the comments. As the soon-to-be father of a boy, I’m thinking about this already. And AL, your post included “It wasn’t right or fair but that’s what it was.” That can be applied to so many things on this topic, and one I hope my son understands.
At the beginning of the KB story, something has been nagging at the back of my mind and I’m having trouble saying it without probably offending people. While watching the news one evening and seeing the story, I could almost picture my mother (Depression & WWII-era) clucking and saying “That’s not how I would have raised you” to the girl. Her point to the girls were always “‘No’ may supposed to mean no, but don’t put yourself in a situation where you have to say ‘no’.” Easier said than done, obviously. But I wonder how much of the older generation’s approach to things, branded hypocritical and simplistic starting in the ’60s, reflect more of an understanding of human nature than some are willing to admit?
Again, I know this is coming out wrong and is not meant to blame the victim…
I don’t suggest bringing back the duenna.
But I do suggest that any time a man is alone with a woman–whatever the reason–the situation allows for either rape or false claims of rape.
The claims might be from the woman in question, or a third party who wants to start trouble.
It is said that Billy Graham, mindful of this, was never, ever alone in a room with a woman not in his family. He always made sure there was a door open to another room, another person in the room.
Excessive? Probably. But, given the number of people who would have liked to see him brought low, prudent. They never had any opportunity.
Those of us less famous might keep such things in mind.
The Bryant situation was perfect for one kind or another of misbehavior.
I’ve always believed I had a duty to resist if attacked, whether by a rapist or by a terrorist.
I’ve often wondered how things would have turned out if the first intended victim of the Scarborough Rapist had beaten the scumbag to a pulp. Seven other rape victims would have been spared and three murder victims would be alive today. Of course, this being Canada, if anyone had done such a thing she might have been charged with assault… which raises the question of how one’s local authorities view resistance. Some are supportive, some are not.
I remember the revulsion I felt when a (female!) police officer visited my jr.high class (long ago) and suggested that we should not resist if attacked.
An interesting book on this subject is the sadly out-of-print Her Wits About Her: Self-Defense Success Stories by Women.
And as for the imaginary daughter: at least in A.L.’s country she would have the opportunity to learn to shoot, and the right to shoot to protect herself.
Is it possible that, IF Kobe is found not guilty, he may turn around and sue the accuser and her family, depending on what actual evidence turns up at the trial? It’s hard to say at this point, we haven’t seen everything.
To resist or not resist in the event of sexual assault is a judgement call that can only be made by the victim in the individual set of circumstances. Sometimes, as in the case of severe intoxication, it is not even possible. It is difficult to judge what drove the victim’s response, especially when they were raised in cultures other than western. That being said, kudos to AL for teaching his boys the only practical lesson that will protect them. BE A GENTLEMAN. I say this from the position of having investigated many acqaintance rape cases. Most of the “he said, she said” variety are not prosecutable, anyway, which makes the Kobe situation rarer than you might think, in the sense that charges were brought at all. Investigators who work with the population subgroup most commonly involved in these types of cases are usually the most skeptical. I have seen cases of women who reported an assault because the guy did not call the next day. Sort of a post-sex withdrawal of consent due to poor manners. A gentleman shouldn’t sleep with someone he does not intend to call the next day. A gentleman will not even try to have sex with someone who is so intoxicated she might not remember what she said the next day. Because the one thing she will remember is that she had sex. If the rest is fuzzy, her imagination and the desire to be a victim rather than a promiscuous woman may color her recollection. Yes, I believe parents should make a point of raising gentleman. For the protection of their sons as well as their positive contributions to the world. As for daughters, Parents should also offer the lessons of good character, beginning with acknowledging that there are consequences for high risk behavior such as drinking heavily, accepting drinks from people you dont know, having sex with someone you barely know, walking alone after dark in a dangerous or lightly trafficed area just to name a few. BTW, whatever happened that night in Colorado; Kobe got caught being something other than a gentleman, and the young lady is having to face a public disection of her youthful past. They will both pay a high price for their individual mistakes in judgement, whatever the court decides. Parents should be paying attention.
Richard,
It’s not just Billy Graham who kept the door open when counseling a woman–it’s been standard procedure for most ministers for many years, including my father and my grandfather. Both made sure that there was an open door and a third party nearby whenever they talked privately with female parishoners. I remember my mother occasionally called to this duty when no one else was available.
Ministers have two problems in this regard–first, there are certain people who fall in love with their pastors, and counseling is often done with people who are upset and emotionally unstable. The same transference phenomena that occurs with psychiatrists is probably in play here. Second, given the importance of their reputations for probity, they are especially vulnerable targets for the angry and disturbed.
I’ve made a point of following the open door rule in business, and, when the situation warranted, even in my personal life. I also taught my son the same practice. It’s not just for ministers . . .
As you say, it’s probably excessive. But it is prudent.
I think it’s only in the last few years that we’ve started to realize just how bad an idea it’s been to condition everyone to go passive in the face of violent attack. From the “Just don’t pay any attention” advice given to victims of bullies to the “Sit tight and don’t do anything stupid [i.e. active]” position we’re told to have in case of hijacking, the philosophy has been to not resist, to not take action, and to let the experts – the police, the SWAT team – deal with the problem.
Of course, there isn’t always a sanctioned expert nearby. Which means that this is tantamount to telling people they shouldn’t prevent crime by resisting attack; instead, they should just let it happen, then try to put the pieces back together afterward. This is especially heinous advice in the case of rape, considering how ugly “just letting it happen” can get – but it’s a corrosive attitude in general. It makes people into passive victims, it makes them afraid to be anything else for fear of disapproval or worse from the authorities, and it gives a whiff of disrepute to heroic conduct in the face of danger.
Airline passengers have displayed an admirably belligerent attitude toward hijackers since 9/11. I am honestly surprised that we haven’t heard disapproving voices telling us that we shouldn’t try to resist in such situations, it’s too dangerous, etc. It could be that this social norm is changing, and that we’ll see changes in other areas as well.
> The same transference phenomena that
> occurs with psychiatrists is probably
> in play here.
I have read that sometimes young girls that have been molested blame someone the know and trust, or someone they know is innocent, for the crime. It may make a strange sort of sense when you can follow the convoluted logic a disturbed person can exhibit. My daughter is a pre-teen. My wife may ask me to ‘watch the girls’ for an hour or so when she has to run an errand, and my girl has a friend over. Sometimes I am asked to take a young girl home by ourselves. I generally resist these suggestions.
> It makes people into passive victims, it
> makes them afraid to be anything else
> for fear of disapproval or worse from
> the authorities,
The law doesn’t accept the responsibility of protecting you from any particular crime, they just do general crime suppresion. However they (the entire law apparatus) has been making it illegal, practically speaking, to defend yourself. Sure I will, but will the dangers make me wait too long until it is not possible, during an attack? I once was accosted late at night by a group of kids who were either really stupid or drunk. I had my hand on my gun when I determined that they simply were asking directions. But I waited so long, if they had mischief in mind I would have been their meat.
> I remember the revulsion I felt when
> a (female!) police officer visited my
> jr.high class (long ago) and suggested
> that we should not resist if attacked
“A NATION OF COWARDS” by Jeffrey R. Snyder, http://jim.com/cowards.htm, addresses this topic very clearly. This is a ‘must read’ classic.
> It is difficult to judge what drove the
> victim’s response, especially when they
> were raised in cultures other than
> western.
And there are many sub-cultures in the USA that think and feel and respond differently than ‘white-bread’ America. I am a professional who doesn’t look any differently than my colleagues in our office, yet my background and innate responses are vastly different.
> There is nothing ‘free’ about ‘love’
> (ie: sex) or anything else.
Sex isn’t a playground toy. It isn’t safe recreation, socially, physically, emotionally, financially or ethically.
rape stories