"Rape is the only crime in which the victim becomes the accused"

This is sickening, and infuriating.

Until last week, Norfolk, Virginia police classified sexual assault claims to be “unfounded” — or not valid — by default. According to the Virginian-Pilot, a 22-year-old woman’s case prompted Norfolk police chief Mike Goldsmith to update the policy so that officers must now assume rape victims are telling the truth.

Well, gee! Welcome to the 21st century, Norfolk! It's only thirteen years in!

Seriously, how wrongheaded, and how harmful to victims, could this police department possibly be? It is possible to hold two separate concepts in mind at once regarding a rape accuation: both that the victim is telling the truth, and the crime must be investigated to narrow the focus down to one particular person, who will then have our law's presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

In other words: the rape did occur, but the identity of the attacker must be proven in a court of law.

That's not so hard, is it? It's only hard if, as do many men (and apparently many police departments), you automatically default to the knee-jerk, woman-blaming trope of "the slut is lying" or "the slut asked for it."

It's time, and past time, that this ridiculous idea be put to rest.

"Restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men"

The obvious is that which is never seen until someone expresses it simply.   ~Khalil Gibran

This should be posted in every police department in the country.

And please don't feed me that shit about "women taking precautions." We need to work towards a world where women don't have to take precautions, and rapists are prosecuted.

This should be everyone's goal.

Culture Change 101

This sort of training should be mandatory at every college (and high school, for that matter) in America.

Instead of teaching women not to walk alone at night or to carry Mace, some colleges are trying something much harder -- changing college men.

"The fact of the matter is that prevention comes down to, largely, males. Because males are primarily the ones perpetrating these crimes," said Lauren Pilnick, sexual violence education coordinator at Minnesota State University, Mankato.

Amen, sistah.

Unbelievable

I cannot believe this.

Coach, 40, Weds 16-Year-Old Student
Anguished Parents Sign Consent Forms, Saying They Had No Choice

This is frakking statutory rape. Or just plain rape, without the statutory. Unfortunately, at the age of sixteen and up, statutory rape laws tend to be vague. In Arizona, with the scenario here described, the coach could have been arrested (the official charge would be "sexual conduct with a minor"). (This is an interesting, if very lengthy, PDF document describing the various state laws.) As far as I can tell, in North Carolina, the state of residence, the creepophile coach can't be charged. However, as a last resort, I suppose, the parents could have thrown the girl in the car, driven to the nearest airport, and taken her out of the country for two years.

At the very least, they could have refused to sign the consent forms, no matter how much she sulked. "No choice"? My lovely rounded tush.

Of course, I'm sure emotions were running high, especially with the relationship holding the lure of the forbidden. Nevertheless, if the parents had held firm, I think there would be a good chance in two years (or less) the girl would have come to her senses. Also, if in that time the parents had continued publicizing the all-around nastiness of a 40-year-old man professing interest in a teenager, perhaps the social stigma would have driven the coach away.

Ugh. The more I think about it, the more icked out I get.

When is Adoption an Option?

To continue with my thoughts from yesterday...

Yes, if I was raped and impregnated, I would have an abortion. Years ago, in discussing this hypothetical situation, my answer probably would have been "give the baby up for adoption." However, I do not feel now this would be a viable option, for the following reasons.

1) The idea of the pregnancy in and of itself is repulsive to me. Why should I be forced to house and gestate a parasite placed in me via a criminal, humiliating, degrading procedure? The act of getting pregnant is nothing I contributed to--it's simply my female body, unfortunately, doing what female bodies have done for thousands of years. This doesn't mean my rational self has to give in to it.

2) Pregnancy is not a cakewalk, and babies are bloody expensive. Of course, the adoptive parents would pay for the delivery fees and at least some of the prenatal care. But what if there's some sort of complication (gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, etc.)? Why should I put myself through that?

3) Why should I take the risk that in eighteen or twenty years, the child will come bouncing back into my life, demanding to estabish a relationship? Look, I didn't want anything to do with you before you were born, and I sure as hell don't now.

No, adoption would not be for me.

I'm sure some will say, "As a Christian, you have to choose life." As I noted below, I'm willing to take the heat for the choices I make.

Because I'm choosing my life, not an unwanted parasite.

When is a Life a Life?

I think it's time for me to tackle the subject every woman who calls herself a feminist must discuss sooner or later.

Abortion.

Here's my take on it.

First of all, I must say it's highly unlikely that I'll ever need an abortion, due to the fact that I had myself sterilized a little over ten years ago. So if I was to become pregnant, it would be something akin to the Second Immaculate Conception. Nevertheless, I think this is one situation where you'll never know what you'll do until it actually happens. For instance, if I became pregnant as a result of rape, I believe that, calling myself a Christian or no, I would still make a beeline for the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic. I dislike children enough that the idea of a normal child growing inside me is sufficient to give me the heebie-jeebies, much less a rapist's child.

This is despite the fact that I do believe God values life highly, being the Originator of it. Psalm 139:13-15 expresses this very well.

"You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body, and knit them together in my mother's womb. Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! It is amazing to think about. Your workmanship is marvelous--and how well I know it. You were there while I was being formed in utter seclusion! You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your Book."

I read this, and I believe it. I believe God would be displeased if I had an abortion, since after all, it's not the child's fault how it was conceived. I believe some punishment would be in order, from God in the future and my congregation at present.

Yet, knowing all this, I would still not have that rapist's child, and would be prepared to accept the consequences of my choice.

To look at it purely from a scientific point of view, a first trimester fetus is not human, because it has no functioning brain. Yes, its heart is beating, but since we do not use a mere heartbeat as a determination of life when someone dies ("brain death" is legally death, no matter if the heart is still functioning), I cannot see how we can use it at the beginning.

This article from Religious Tolerance supports that view. I find the comments by a medical ethicist very interesting.

"So when does life begin?," she answered: "If we’re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that’s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn't happen with an embryo."

As far as the question of "being alive," well, bacteria and viruses are alive, in the most basic sense. Yet no one complains when we have an infection and down those nasty antibiotics, because the living human being is more important than the living bacteria.

So, taking all this into consideration, in the narrow circumstances I mentioned: yes, I would have an abortion.

If you think that makes me a hypocrite...well, that's fine. You have to live with your choices, just as I do. However, under no circumstances do I think your choice supersedes mine, or you have any right to dictate it.

I believe I'll leave that subject for my next post.