Yesterday, International Women’s Day, Amnesty International released two reports on sexual violence against women and judicial response to this violence. The report Breaking the silence: Sexual justice in Cambodia focuses on how police corruption intimidates, frightens, and harms victims in Cambodia who attempt to come forward, usually with one’s chances of justice falling along class lines. I haven’t yet had the time to read the entire 60 page report (pdf), but regardless wanted to draw attention to the shameful situation, and the parts of the report I have been able to examine.

Demanding cash bribes from victims and/or their families before agreeing to an investigation is the most common act of corruption on behalf of police. In addition to this being a generally horrific request, the fact is that many Cambodians simply do not have the funds to pay the bribe, or must endure extreme hardship to do so. From the actual report:

A clear majority of interviewees told Amnesty International that they had paid bribes to the police, or had been asked to pay bribes but did not have any money. In 21 of the 30 cases victims reported that police had “investigated” the incident. Sixteen of these responded that they knew they had had to pay bribes to ensure an investigation. Typically, they were asked for between five and 10 USD to initiate an investigation, which almost none of them could afford.

In some cases, police will offer to take other forms of “payment” in exchange for starting an investigation — such as one case Amnesty International found, where a police officer told the mother of a victim that he would investigate the rape, if only she complied with his rape of her first:

Two perpetrators raped Mom five times in 2006, when she was 11 years old. Her mother went to the district police, where the police chief asked her for a 10 USD bribe to pay for “the investigation and stationery”. When she did not have the money he requested, the police chief asked her to meet him at a hotel room, suggesting that sex in lieu of money would facilitate the investigation of the rape of her daughter.

Some police officers interviewed by Amnesty International argue that the requests for bribes are the result of underfunding. While this may be to blame for some of the behavior on behalf of police, it doesn’t explain nor justify a climate in which sanctioned rape via coercion and duress by police officers is seen as a valid exchange for an investigation into a different rape. Further, even insofar as it is true, this underfunding nonetheless causes appalling and terrifying treatment towards survivors (emphasis mine):

Police officers who wished to remain anonymous told Amnesty International that their experience in working directly with victims and criminal investigations confirmed this bleak situation. They complained they had no available budget to conduct investigations, and therefore either had to ask the complainant to provide funds; not conduct an investigation; or pay with their own money. Clearly, the prevalence of corruption in the police force takes place in a context of inadequate resources allocation.

Police told Amnesty International that a lack of budget blocked them from acting in ways that ensures the well-being of the victim. For instance, when victims and suspected perpetrators were transported to court for initial questioning, police officers said they typically transport them in the same car, often sitting together in the back seat. Police officers also explained that families of victims and perpetrators were generally also required to split the transportation cost.

Even when families can pay for an investigation, nothing akin to justice is usually actually done. Indeed, rather than a court process with the potential for incarceration for the perpetrator, most rape cases are handled through a mediation process, with a monetary payment to the victim (or victim’s family) as the best outcome:

Extra-judicial settlements are widely used in rape cases; several high-ranking officials believe it is the most common “solution”. In Khmer, the term samroh-samruol is used for this mediation process, which is typically initiated and facilitated by police at the commune or district levels. The police act as a mediator between the families of the victim and the perpetrator, and seek to secure a monetary settlement from the perpetrator or his family to the victim or her family, on the condition that the victim withdraws any criminal complaint. The mediator receives part of the settlement. Around half of the interviewees had experienced such intervention.

Partly accepted as alternative justice, and by some perceived as “the best option available,” extra-judicial settlements are not recognized as a legitimate form of remedy in Cambodian law. Nevertheless, they continue and the authorities recognize that they are widespread.

…

Although the samroh-samruol is an intervention that is sometimes perceived as providing some “closure” for the victim, several of its characteristics indicate that it may perpetuate the stigma facing victims of rape. One source also said that some victims do not want to receive money, as such a transfer would make them look “cheap,” or as indicated in the case referred to on page 25, would lead the police to perceive the rape as consensual sex. Several of the victims who had received, or agreed to receive, money expressed fear or anger that the perpetrator remained at large and that he could repeat the offence against other women or girls.

Now, my personal reaction to the idea of sitting in a mediation session with my rapist is simply that I can imagine few things more horrifying and triggering. But at the same time, I know that all victims have different needs, and think that alternative avenues should be open for victims to explore, should they want them. I also understand that different cultures have different methods of dealing with crime, and I am entirely open in general to the idea of community solutions to violence that do not involve the prison system.

But all of that said, this is not a community-based solution, but an illegal government practice that seemingly involves a lot of exploitation. Further, it’s unclear that the victims going through the process actually desire to, rather than simply perceiving it as their only option for their perpetrator to be held accountable at all. And importantly, these kinds of solutions are absolutely useless if they do not require real accountability from the perpetrator and address the roots of violence, but only allow him an easy out and opportunity to offend again.

But the police corruption is often worse, still. As in so many parts of the world (including the good ol’ U.S. of A.), it can extend to outright violence, usually against the most vulnerable targets. In addition to the coercive sexual violence against poor women, referenced above, police are also quite likely to be the original perpetrators of sexual violence against sex workers. When sex workers are raped by non-police, they are thus also extremely reluctant to seek out help from law enforcement (emphasis mine):

Amnesty International interviewed two sex workers who reported that uniformed police officers had raped them. In both instances, the victims had been rounded up in raids on sex workers and first encountered the perpetrator while in police custody.

Police had arrested Thavy together with four other sex workers in a Phnom Penh park in November 2009. They were taken to the nearest police station, where a few officers, who appeared to be drunk, beat the detainees with their batons on the ankles and forced them to clean the toilet. A uniformed policeman who did not work at this particular station was also there. After a couple of hours at the station, he approached Thavy and forced her to go with him to a guesthouse in another part of town, where he raped her.

…

Sex workers are particularly vulnerable in their relations with police, which translates into a very low reporting rate of rape, regardless of whether the perpetrator(s) was a policeman or not. All five sex workers interviewed by Amnesty International had been raped numerous times, but none of them had ever gone to the police. Four had concluded that the police pose a danger to them, not a means of protection or assistance. One had not even known that she could have reported the incident to police.

The nauseating icing on this giant, repulsive cake, is that rates of rape in Cambodia also appear to generally be rising.

The report has its flaws. First of all, it seems to wholly ignore the experiences of trans* and intersex victims, as well as victims who are men and boys — in part because this is the general framework usually used when discussing sexual violence, and in part because, as the report notes, data on sexual violence in Cambodia is so generally scarce. Further, while Amnesty International offers its own long list of recommendations at the end of the report, it doesn’t seem to reference any specific Cambodian organizations by name, and discusses their work only in terms of limitations. And while I think AI is a fabulous organization, one which I have financially supported myself on numerous occasions, I’d still much rather that support and recognition go to established, on the ground activists who have the best understanding of their own situation. If you know of any such organizations, please pass along the information, as I’d be more than happy to highlight their work here.

Those substantial limitations in mind, however, the information contained in the report is immensely valuable, as is likely the publicity it will generate. I urge you to give it a closer look yourself, and to help spread the word.

Trigger Warning for rape apologism and graphic descriptions of sexual violence

In Sydney, a U.S. sailor has been acquitted on charges of raping a sex worker who told him to stop — even though he admitted, in court, to using a “lock down maneuver” to pin her to the bed.

A New South Wales District Court jury cleared Petty Officer Timothy Davis, 25, of a charge of sexual intercourse without consent, with the aggravating factor of causing the woman actual bodily harm. The charge carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison.

Davis was one of 3,000 Marines and Navy personnel on shore leave in Sydney after the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu and guided missile destroyer USS Halsey arrived in the port in October, 2008.

The woman told the court she had protected, consensual sex with Davis at the brothel where she worked, but said he became aggressive when she told him his time was up and forced her to have unprotected sex. The jury was shown police photographs of scratches on the woman.

Davis denied forcing the woman to have sex, but admitted in court that he used a “lock down maneuver” to pin her to the bed when she said she wanted to stop. He told the court he backed off when she kicked him, though he said he muffled her mouth with his hand when she began to scream after he demanded his money back.

Could we possibly be reading this correctly? Let’s try another source:

She said he “ripped” off his condom, telling her he had paid for sex and he was going to finish it off “like a real man”.

The slight woman said he pushed her head into the pillow, started suffocating her, and had unprotected sex for 30 seconds.

The jury was shown police photos depicting scratches on the woman, who described Petty Officer Davis as an “animal” during an angry outburst at the trial.

In his evidence, the sailor – who agreed his weight was more than double the woman’s – admitted using a “lock down manoeuvre” to pin her down to the bed when she said she wanted to stop.

He said he told her he was going to “finish”, but when she kicked him away, he backed off with his hands in the air.

So, she told him to stop. And even only as far as he admits, instead of stopping as he was told, he pinned her to the bed and told her he was going to continue anyway. I repeat: against her wishes. After she told him to stop.

Which means that as far as any reasonable definition goes — hell, even working off an antiquated and misogynistic definition of rape that requires physical violence to be present — he confessed to raping her.

And yet, despite his clear admission of rape, he simultaneously claimed that it wasn’t rape — as we know, men will frequently admit to behavior that classifies as rape so long as the word rape is not actually used. The fact that he would do so in a court of law, though, is particularly shocking, exposes some extremely concerning cognitive dissonance, and most appalling of all, displays a clear belief by his defense attorney that such a tactic would succeed, and that the jury would accept that cognitive dissonance right along with him.

That belief was, of course, ultimately validated by the jury. But why? Because the victim was a sex worker, and many people believe that sex workers have no right to bodily autonomy, and therefore cannot be raped? Because she had consented to the sex up to that point, and many people believe that women who have consented to sex generally have no right to bodily autonomy, and therefore cannot revoke or renegotiate consent once it is given? Because the rape may have “only” lasted a few moments, and how could a rape — of a sex worker! who had previously consented! — possibly “count” as real rape? Because Davis is a member of the U.S. military, and therefore he doesn’t look how most people expect a rapist to look?

My best guess is that all of these forms of misogynistic prejudice played a role, most likely in the order I’ve listed them. Yet again, even a blatant confession in a court of law is not enough to earn a conviction from a jury pulled from a culture that thinks men are never to blame, and women always are.

After all, the men and their feelings are the only ones that matter:

Davis made no comment to reporters following the verdict, but his attorney, Sam Macedone, said Davis was very happy with the outcome.

“He is glad it’s over,” Macedone said. “It has been very stressful for him.”

Yes, clearly too few of us spend enough time thinking about the toll that rape accusations take on rapists.

link via $pread

Trigger Warning

Every single time I argue that a rape apologist defense attorney has hit a new low, I speak too soon. This time, the evidence that there was still further to sink just came at a particularly rapid speed, and with a particularly hard impact.

Outside Charleston, West Virginia, a defense attorney defended a now-convicted serial rapist who specifically targeted prostitutes by repeatedly proclaiming the victims “whores,” and explicitly stating that their bodies and rights did not have the same value as those of non-sex working women:

Ed ReBrook, Gravely’s defense attorney, called no witnesses. But he summed up his case in a dramatic closing argument to jurors during which he called the victims “tramps” and “whores.”

“You cannot rape the willing,” ReBrook said. “They got in those automobiles with the intention of having sex for money.

“I would be horrified if any of the women in my life were raped, but I’m talking about decent, honorable women,” ReBrook said, and then dramatically raised his voice. “Not whores who have sex with many, many men for money.”

Assistant Prosecutor Fred Giggenbach immediately asked Kanawha Circuit Judge Tod Kaufman to stop ReBrook, but he did not.

“They are whores,” ReBrook persisted. “That is a perfectly usable word in the English language.

“Finding this man guilty of rape lessens the dignity of every other woman,” ReBrook said. “What they have done is turn sex into something disgusting.

“They are not like your wife, your girlfriend or your daughter,” he said. “They are street tramps. And what happened to them was, at least in part, their fault.

“If stupidity was a crime, my client would be a three-time loser,” ReBrook told the jury. “He may be guilty of assault, but he is not guilty of sexual assault.”

I had to read all of this over several times, feeling more and more nauseated upon each read, just to verify that yes, this article is recent, and no, it is not written on some kind of horrifically unfunny “spoof” site.

The idea that a woman who has sex for money is physically and emotionally incapable of being raped is absolutely nothing new. It has been around since the dawn of rape itself. The idea that a woman’s inherent human worth is tied to her sexual purity, and that any woman who has sex willingly — hell, who has sex willingly or not — has therefore given up her human right to say “no” in the future, is a basic staple of misogyny. It is used against all women, each and every one of us. But it is quite logically used most harshly, regularly, and despicably against sex workers — some of the very most despised women in a world that determines a woman’s value based on what she does or doesn’t do with her genitals.

Ed ReBrook specifically called the victims “whores” and “street tramps” in order to shame them. He used those names because they’re misogynistic, because they would hurt, because they resonate with so many people and seem synonymous with “worthless.” He did so because he knew that even in the face of the open admission that Thomas Gravely did that of which he was accused, the “you can’t rape the willing” defense is a pervasive one, and many people, like apparently himself, see a sex worker as permanently willing to have sex, no matter how violent, no matter if she says no, no matter if there is a knife at her throat. He did so, because as he proudly and publicly proclaimed, he doesn’t see these victims as fully human, but as something else, something lesser. He did so because he doesn’t see rape as violence, but as sex, and believes that sex can only harm a woman “honorable” to not ever have it. He did so because women are not their own people with their own thoughts, feelings, desires and dreams, but because they only exist in relation to their worth to men, as “[a] wife … girlfriend … daughter” — because rape is a crime not if it harms a woman, but if it “shames” a man.

Ed ReBrook made this argument without shame because he is shameless, because he is a misogynistic rape apologist to the extreme, who really shouldn’t be allowed in the same room as any woman. You can argue at me until you’re blue in the face that maybe Ed ReBrook didn’t “mean” those words above, that he was “just doing his job.” But you do not say those words unless on some level, you think it is acceptable for anyone to say them. And you do not think it is acceptable for them to be said, if you do not at some level believe them.

But the part of this that hit me the hardest personally wasn’t the childish and despicable name-calling. And it wasn’t the “what happened to them was, at least in part, their fault,” because though it’s not usually so explicit, I see this argument made so regularly and I’ve covered it so many times that I’m sadly almost numb to it. What hit the hardest was the phrase “Finding this man guilty of rape lessens the dignity of every other woman.”

I’m used to seeing the argument that “calling this rape is an insult to victims of ‘real’ rape,” though I feel the twinge of pain every time I do. The argument that calling rape what it is is an affront to all women and their dignity, though, is an even more frightening and misogynistic extension of that idea, yet again disingenuously made under the guise of actually standing up for women (the “good” ones).

To refer to rape as rape and to convict a man of committing it is not an insult to my dignity, either as a rape victim or as a woman. Rather, it is an important affirmation that my gender does not affect my very worth as a person. It is a means of sending the far too frequently ignored message that all women have rights. Giving other women their dignity does not decrease mine, it increases it, by narrowing the possibility that mine can so easily be snatched away by those who think that women are sub-human. To call rape what it is builds every single woman up, by making the world closer to a place where violations of their bodies will be taken seriously.

And any person who does not see it that way, any person who sees the simple admission that sex workers, too, have rights, can be raped, and in fact are, as an insult to women is valuing women not as people, but as genitals, as sexual objects. Any person who thinks that it lessens any other woman’s dignity to allow a sex working woman to have hers is saying that a woman must “earn” and “prove” her dignity in ways that men are never forced to. Any person who sees this relief of a verdict as an affront to herself or the women in his life is the one truly denying women their dignity, by holding onto a world where women are not seen as deserving and worthy enough to be automatically afforded it by the very act of being. They are stealing the dignity of all women by creating a world where an acknowledgment of the pervasive rape against women is not based upon what a man does, but about who a woman is.

Rape shield laws exist in the United States to prevent a defense attorney from questioning an alleged rape victim about her (or his) previous sexual history. And they exist for a damn good reason — because a sexual assault victim’s sexual history has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she was actually raped. The only reason, in fact, that an alleged victim’s sexual history would be “useful” to the defense in a rape trial is the hope that a jury’s prejudices about a woman’s previous sexual history will cause them to declare her unrapeable.

And so, exceptions to rape shield laws are very rarely made. And you can bet than when an exception is made, it’s very regularly for a bigoted reason. Suddenly, an alleged victim’s sexual history is deemed relevant after all, because this victim is black, a gay man, a drug addict, a transgender person, a person with a disability, an immigrant, etc. … (and/) or a sex worker. The last one is what a defense team in Philadelphia is counting on in their plea for a court to ignore the rape shield law.

Lawyers defending a Philadelphia man accused of carjacking a couple in the city, then murdering the man in Bensalem and raping the woman, have asked a Bucks County judge to allow them to reveal to the jury that the alleged rape victim was a prostitute.

Omar Shariff Cash, 29, will stand trial in November for the slaying of Edgar Rosas-Gutierrez, 32, and the rape of a 41-year-old woman, whose name is being withheld.

Prosecutors have called Cash a “cold-blooded killer” and are seeking the death penalty.

Cash denies the charges. During a pretrial hearing in Doylestown Thursday, Cash’s public defenders asked county Judge Theodore Fritsch permission to tell the jury about the victim’s prior sexual conduct and reputation.

The attorneys said the woman told police she’d had sex with two other men in the hours before Cash allegedly raped her.

Cash’s lawyers said the Rosas-Gutierrez, whom the woman previously identified as her boyfriend, actually was her driver who had taken her to appointments with customers before the alleged crime.

Although evidence of a victim’s prior sexual activity usually is not admitted in court under the Pennsylvania rape shield law, public defender Suzette Adler argued the victim’s sexual activities on the day of the alleged rape are relevant, since they could explain some of her injuries.

There is so much to cover here, it’s hard to know when to begin. Let us start by saying that while rape does not always leave injuries behind by any stretch of the imagination, consensual sex does even less frequently.

But let us examine this defense further. Cash, of course, is claiming that he is innocent on all charges. If he really expected a jury to believe this, then the question would be not whether or not the woman was actually raped, but whether she was raped by him. And so, to take the defense at face value, it would seem they’re arguing that yes, a man is dead — and Cash didn’t do it — but also that the woman who was with him is lying about being raped because, well … I’m guessing because lying is just what women do. Especially women who allegedly have sex for money.

That quite clearly makes no sense whatsoever, either as a scenario or a defense. To argue both that Cash is innocent, but also that if he did it, it really wasn’t that bad, is talking out both sides of your mouth and pretty much akin to telling a jury that yeah, they probably should think that he did it.

What makes a whole lot more sense to me is that Cash likely doesn’t have a real defense or expect anyone to buy that he’s innocent, but is also trying to mitigate his chances of receiving the death penalty (which, for the record, I think ought to be abolished) by convincing the jury that his crime wasn’t heinous enough to deserve it. And what better way to do that than to convince them that the woman he raped was the kind of woman they’re likely to see as worthless and as deserving of no sexual autonomy? And to further convince them that the man he murdered was some sort of pimp?

If it’s true, if the woman is actually a sex worker, the point is to play off of that stigma, to paint her as unrapeable. If she’s not actually a sex worker, they’re trying to attach that stigma to her anyway, just because they know from experience that it works.

And it is proven from experience that it works. It’s hardly shocking to me that this trial is taking place in Philadelphia, not because Philadelphia is an awful, terrible place, but because precedent has been set there. Philadelphia is home to the notorious Judge Deni, a judge who determined that an alleged gang rape victim could not charge her attackers with rape because of her job as a prostitute, and instead felt that the rape was a “theft of services.” It’s unsurprising that they’re at least giving it a shot. And yes, I do think that those, such as Judge Deni, who have given legitimacy to the myth of sex workers as unrapeable, and to propagating the myth as a valid defense tactic, hold some of the responsibility here.

Here’s to hoping that for once justice and fairness trumps misogyny, and the judge dismisses the motion. This woman has been through far more than enough already.

This story comes straight out of the WTF files.  A 14-year-old girl was allegedly kidnapped, sexually assaulted numerous times, and forced to perform at a strip club.  Everyone involved agrees that the girl, who again is 14, did indeed perform there.  There is absolutely no debate about that particular aspect at all, in fact.  And yet, somehow the strip club is now suing the 14-year-old and her parents.

A strip club in Texas that hired a 14-year-old as an exotic dancer says it was swindled and is suing the seventh-grader and her parents.

The girl allegedly exposed her breasts while working at Cheetah Club in Corpus Christi, a violation of state law. Alan Yaffe, the club’s attorney, said the club didn’t know the girl was a minor and disputed the alleged sequence of events that led the teenager to work there in the first place.

“She came (into the club) with 6-inch stiletto heels and a miniskirt and looked just like a model from a Miss America’s contest,” Yaffe said.

Authorities say Leslie Campbell, 48, kidnapped the girl in San Antonio in March, took her to Corpus Christi and sexually assaulted her over the course of a week. He then allegedly gave her a false identification and forced her to strip at the club.

Yaffe called the story bogus, and the club is suing Campbell, the girl and her parents for unspecified damage in a lawsuit filed last week. It also wants a judge to declare that the club didn’t intend to hire a minor.

“There was no real kidnapping,” Yaffe told the San Antonio Express-News. “We’re the victims here, sir. My clients are the victims.”

The club and their lawyers, of course, are claiming that the girl looked “very mature” and so the club couldn’t possibly have known.  Even state officials are refuting that claim by stating that the girl clearly looks to be her actual age.  This, of course, is very likely true.

What seems to be missing though is the fact that even if she looked 25, it’s still the club’s responsibility to ensure that they do not have minors working in their clubs.  When did “she looked older” become an excuse?  (And when did “look at what she was wearing!” become the same as “she looked older”?  Nice attempt at slut-shaming, though.)  It’s not an excuse.  Just like “I thought that we were following the fire safety code” and “it seemed like we paid our taxes” aren’t excuses either.  Except, you know, this version involves an exploited child.

And then there are those exceedingly relevant charges of kidnapping, assault and forced work at the club.  What’s most interesting of all is that Leslie Campbell, the man alleged to have kidnapped and assaulted the girl and forced her to work at the club, is also being sued.  It would seem that if the club actually did have the grounds to sue anyone (and I don’t think they do — again, they’re the ones who illegally “hired” the girl), he would be the correct person.  And yet, they also deny the sequence of events that led to the girl being hired by the club!

So, really, Cheetah Club, what is it?  Did the girl seek “employment” at your establishment of her own free will, thus making her subject to your lawsuit, or did Campbell actually force her to work there, thus making him the one to blame?  You can’t have it both ways.

Unless, of course, you think that a kidnapped, assaulted and essentially enslaved girl is actually to blame for her the crimes committed against her.  Which is precisely what this whole thing reeked of from the very start.

A reader sent me this disgusting little story about a father and son who were running some sort of rape trade business together.  The two men were roping women into working for them by saying they’d be providing massages, and then held the women captive so that they could sell the right to rape them — not “have sex with,” people, since we’re talking about women who had no choice in the matter — to other men.  The two men were holding three different women captive; when they attempted to do the same to a fourth woman, she managed to call the police.

When detectives arrived at the motel, Charles, Timothy Lee and the three other women were not there. They later came to pick up the 20-year-old woman and were arrested by detectives, according to the statement. After the arrest, one of the women told police that she had been with Charles and Timothy Lee for the past few years and had not been allowed to leave.

Detectives said they believed Charles, Timothy and the three women had been in the Nashville area for the past few weeks.

In addition to the sex trafficking charges, Charles Lee was booked on charges of tampering with evidence, for purposely breaking a cellphone that was believed to be used in the business.

Horrible story, and probably an extreme example of how misogynistic attitudes are passed down from generation to generation.  That said, I didn’t really have a whole lot to add by the way of analysis.  Until I came across this little tidbit at the end of the article:

Charles, Timothy Lee and the three women were all booked for misdemeanor marijuana possession, the statement said. Both the men are being held on bail.

Seriously?  These women have been held against their will for years and raped by god only knows how many men, and quite likely abused in other ways as well.  Finally, it looks as though the worst part of their nightmare just might be coming to an end, when police decide to add insult to injury with a criminal charge on their record.

First of all, it seems to me exceedingly unlikely that when you’re being held captive so that men can buy the right to rape you, you have a choice in the matter of whether or not illegal substances are in your possession.  And it strikes me as incredibly bizarre and offensive that anyone would see it otherwise.

Secondly, I ultimately don’t really care whether or not the women were in possession of marijuana by their own choice.  Because even if somehow they were, this would still be wildly unacceptable.  These women were victims of a severe crime.  To use the investigation of said crime as an excuse to charge the victims with a crime, one that does no harm to anyone, is absolutely ludicrous.  And it’s yet another example of police managing to take a situation that you’d think couldn’t get any more awful, and just making it that little bit worse.

It’s also not a one-off occurrence, either.  Women who have been trafficked are in fact routinely booked on prostitution charges themselves.  Sex workers who report a robbery, rape or other assault are also often booked on prostitution charges — being one of many reasons why most of these women don’t report.  And if police can’t get them on the prostitution charges, they’ll often go for a different ridiculous charge such as this one.  Just because they can.  Just because they’re looking for an excuse to harm these women and their futures further.   Because they don’t see these women as human and worthy of their protection.

No, there’s actually nothing about this that is unusual.  But acting as though it’s therefore not worth speaking up about is part of what allows it to continue.

Thanks to Kymberly for the link.

When I first read the news at Feministe that a full one-quarter of people surveyed in England and Wales said that a woman is fully or partly to blame for a rape if she wore sexy clothing, my first response was, as it should have been, complete and total dismay.  It wasn’t surprise — no, I got over that a long time ago — but still, sadness, and the feeling that also always shows up, which says that maybe we really never will overcome this kind of victim-blaming.

But then I saw the actual chart, reproduced below, which shows the responses for each individual scenario given, and I changed my mind.  I suddenly got optimistic.

(click image to enlarge)

Now, I need to be entirely clear that I’m not optimistic because I think this is good news.  It’s not.  It’s horrible news, and we should be furious about it.  I want you to get angry, and get angry right now, if you somehow aren’t already.  In fact, if you somehow end this post not pissed off at the findings, I’ve done something terribly wrong.  That so many people still blame rape victims for the behavior of their rapists is utterly appalling, unforgivable, and needs to be changed immediately.

But the reason I’m optimistic is because looking at that chart, I believe that those minds can indeed be changed.

Allow me to explain.  I don’t know if it’s just my brain, or the way that the human brain is wired in general, but when I see a chart, my mind is instantly drawn to the highest numbers.  The highest numbers are, thankfully, housed in the “Should never be held responsible” column.  The numbers are 72 and 84.  And they represent “if she is out in public wearing sexy or revealing clothing” and “If she is out walking alone at night,” respectively.  These same questions also have the very lowest values in the “Should be held responsible” column.

And something struck me about this immediately.  It hit me that these two specific examples given are the two that have been most widely debunked in the media.  And they’re the two that the feminist movement, individual feminists, and other social justice/anti-violence/gender equality-minded people have seemed to focus on first, and hammered home hardest since their movements began.  It strikes me that we, and those before us, have worked so desperately on these two.

When reaching for an example to use to satirize rape apologists, what do we pull out?  The short skirt, and walking in “that part of town.”  We pull them out because they’re the most recognizable.  And they’re the most recognizable because they’ve been worked on so ardently.

Take a look at the next highest number on the chart.  It’s 62, in the “Should never be held responsible” column, and corresponds to “If she is drunk.”  Now, that number, like the rest, is way too low.  Way, way too low.  But for the amount of times that I hear this rape apologist excuse made day in and day out, that drunk women really wanted it, and shouldn’t have been so drunk, and really said yes but are now using their drunkenness as a way to get out of a bad decision . . . it’s also a remarkable achievement.  And you know what else?  It seems to me to be the point most commonly hammered home by feminists today.

What I’m sayings is that for all of the anti-feminist backlash, and for all of the very real problems and horrific attitudes that still promote rape culture and are still much too prevalent, our movement is working.  Think about which feminist arguments are made most commonly against rape apologism in the media.  And look at the chart.  There’s a real and clear correlation there.  And while of course, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, I have a really hard time believing it to be a coincidence.

What if we apply the same fervor that has been applied to the movement to not blame rape victims who were out alone at night, or dressed in revealing clothing, or drinking, and apply it also to the more “controversial” areas where we still see the most blame — and work on convincing people similarly that prostitutes are not to blame for their own rapes, either?  Or that a lack of a “clear no” is not the same as a clear yes, and that enthusiastic consent needs to be the model?

I know that it won’t help rape victims right now.  I know that at this moment, it especially doesn’t help those victims, like sex workers and others who are deemed unrapeable and most to blame just based on who they are, the color of their skin, their gender identity, or their sexual orientation.  Right now, it likely doesn’t ease the pain or stigma of what those women who didn’t say no, or didn’t say no forcefully “enough” for some rape apologist out there, are feeling.  Saying that if we work hard enough, we can make sure that future women who are victims of sexual violence have less stigma and blame attached to them might not mean a whole lot to some of those women.  As one of those women, in fact, who falls into a category where most people apparently still think that I am to blame, I fully understand how it can be cold comfort that at least other rape victims who were wearing revealing clothing get a very slightly easier time.  And I certainly don’t want to minimize what these results mean for women as we speak.

But still, I think that all of this counts for something.  That at least some women are seen by fewer people as to blame for what was not their fault?  That we can likely do the same for more women, and even more for the previous group?  That hell, maybe we could even prevent more sexual violence in the process?  That matters.

And I’m not saying that no one is doing the work I outlined above already.  Organizations like SWOP and many others fight for sex worker rights every day, including the right to be free of violence and not blamed for it when it occurs.  Feminists write about these things too.  And I see feminists all the time arguing for models of enthusiastic consent — I do it here several times a week — and a new anthology (which yes, I am in) is entirely dedicated to the concept.  We’re working on it, certainly.

We need to keep working.  We need to work harder.  Melissa at Shakesville says:

Sometimes it really feels like there aren’t enough teaspoons in the world for this shit.

But there are. We’ve just got to get people to pick ‘em up.

She’s right.  Maybe I’m in a pie in the sky kind of mood, unlikely though it may be.  I don’t know.  But I see the chart, and after feeling hopeless all I can do is believe that yes, we can do this.  We just have to keep picking up the spoons, and get new people to pick up the spoons, and get ourselves bigger spoons.  And far too slowly but still surely, we’ll see the numbers change.

From contributing editor Mark Binelli’s otherwise decent Rolling Stone article Motor City Breakdown, about the dying automobile industry in Detroit:

At the show, the traditional rituals are still taking place. If you’ve never been to an auto show, the main ritual involves adults climbing in and out of vehicles they will not be allowed to drive, which always seems deeply unsatisfying. (For related reasons, I’ve never liked strip clubs.)

Well then.

What is with those women being so rude and short-sighted as to not allow Mark Binelli to fuck them?  I mean, they’re on display — like cars, so . . .

Just about every two issues, I find myself writing a letter, which always goes unpublished, castigating Rolling Stone for claiming to be so incredibly progressive while failing to reflect said values when it comes to many marginalized and oppressed groups.  Usually these letters are about the magazine’s regular unabashed sexism — though I’ve also written in letters about Matt Taibbi’s favorite insult “cocksucker,” and most recently I wrote in with regards to the decision to use the slur “tranny” to refer to transgender Real World cast member Katelynn.

This time, I’m not even sure what to say.  But considering the fact that in the same issue, the entirety of what they had to print on Chris Brown assaulting Rihanna was 200 words about how Brown can revive his career (seriously), it’s pretty damn much “fuck you guys, you can take that $11 40 year subscription I’ve been going off of forever and shove it up your asses, because I can surely find less insulting ways than this to read the latest tiny piece of Beatles-related news and see random photographs of Sir Paul.”

If you’ve got something better, send it to letters@rollingstone.com.

I love how this headline at CNN reads “Operation Frees Dozens of Child Prostitutes” rather than “Over 500 Prostitutes Arrested Under Guise of Saving Children.”

In the three-day operation, which began Thursday night, the FBI, along with local and state law enforcement agencies, took the 46 girls and one boy — all of them U.S. citizens ages 13 to 17 — into protective custody.

“Operation Cross Country II” involved efforts in 29 cities and resulted in the arrest of 73 pimps and 518 adult prostitutes, the FBI said.

Those arrested could face federal or state charges, depending on their alleged activities.

Nice, eh?  I mean, yes, excellent — 47 children were rescued from a rape trade.  Surely, that’s a good thing and worth the huge sums of money spent.  But is it necessarily worth over 500 female adults being laden with these serious charges, and ultimately I’m sure being subjected to intense public humiliation, for doing nothing more than attempting to make the best living they know how?

And far more importantly and far less fraught than that question: why do we assume that in order to do one, we must do the other?

The article above is a few months old. But it is indeed still relevant. Because the number of arrests eventually climbed to over 600, though the number of children rescued remained static. And because the operation continues, and on Friday, yet more arrests were made.

The Boston Globe has a chilling description of those arrests:

A guest at the Boston Marriott Long Wharf said she and her mother were on their way to their room after checking in shortly after midnight yesterday when they encountered a raucous scene in a sixth-floor hallway as some 17 FBI agents and plainclothes officers were struggling to arrest two kicking and screaming young women.

“It was a huge scene,” said the guest, who asked not to be identified, adding that it was frightening to have to walk by a gauntlet of investigators to get to their room as one of the women screamed at the top of her lungs, then rolled around on the floor hyperventilating.

[. . .]

The goal of the sweeps, being conducted in over 30 cities, is to target pimps, rescue juveniles, and gather intelligence, according to law enforcement officials.

The Boston sting led to the arrests of five women, ages 19 to 33, who allegedly showed up at the Marriott after agreeing to provide sex for up to $300 an hour to undercover officers. The officers had responded to advertisements posted on the Craigslist website, according to Boston police reports.

The first three women to show up were arrested outside the hotel, but police arrested the other two women in a hallway around 12:30 a.m. when one shoved the other in an apparent dispute over who should collect the $300 fee for promised sexual services, according to the police report.

Really, can someone explain to me how that is targeting pimps and rescuing juveniles, as they so claim?  Does one usually book the services of a sex worker, only to have her pimp show up in her place? Where they just thinking that maybe the women in question might be underage and if they weren’t, hey they get to make some arrests anyway?

Or really, is this just exactly what it looks like: an effort to round up, shame and give permanent records to adult women, under the much more palatable pretense of saving children?

As SWOP-Chicago says on their blog:

To target child prostitution and trafficking is one thing. To scapegoat sex workers and crackdown on prostitution in the name of preventing trafficking is a horse of a different color. It’s a waste of money and it’s a waste of tax-payer resources. And if you really care about “rescuing” sex workers, why the fuck are you giving them felony records?

Indeed.  Even if you’re one of those people who thinks that prostitution is never, or extremely rarely, made under the circumstances of free choice — or think that making the decision to be a sex worker when comparing it against other poor options doesn’t count as a free choice, even when working at Wal-Mart seemingly does — how is this in any way helpful?  How will this help those women who do want to get out of the business, or may want to get out someday?  The scarlet letter of a criminal conviction for prostitution is going to serve them well?

Of course it’s fucking not.  Because this isn’t about helping women.  That would just be paternalism, but this is straight up misogyny.  This is about enforcing standards of morality around how women “should” behave, and outing and humiliating those women who don’t live up to those standards for whatever reason, whether it be choice or desperate circumstances.  It’s about deciding that if they don’t live up to some stupid, sexist social requirement, they deserve incarceration and to never be able to find other employment.

And it’s about saying that legally, women are not allowed to use their own bodies as they so please.  Not “men aren’t allowed to use women’s bodies at their will,” because no clients were arrested here.  It’s about saying that women cannot make choices about their bodies.

And if they do make a choice?  Even if it’s not a choice, and another person or circumstance forces them into it?  They’re going to jail.

Read more at Bound, Not Gagged.

In case anyone didn’t see this over at Feministe . . .

Just a few days ago, I put up a post about a woman who was doused with a flammable liquid outside of a strip club, her place of employment, and set on fire.  There are two suspects in this horrific attack, named Nathaniel Petrillo and Rianne Theriault-Odom.  In the comments here and elsewhere, there was a great out pouring of support for her.

The new details that have come in since then are few but significant.  The woman’s name has been released as Roberta Busby.  As of yesterday, she was reported to be in critical but stable condition.  This is a relief and excellent news.  Her attackers, however, still have not been found and arrested.  You can view images of the suspects here. If you know anything, please immediately call the LAPD at 213-485-2531 (or 877-LAPD-24-7 for after-hours and weekend calls).

Perhaps most importantly of all, many of you have asked how you can help Roberta financially with her medical bills.  I’ve yet to find anything on that specifically, but after some serious searching, I did find information on an account that has been set up for donations for her children.  Remember that Roberta is obviously out of work at the moment, has likely lost her previous livelihood entirely, and that any financial contribution will be a huge help in reducing the overall financial burden she is facing.

According to local CBS affiliate KCAL 9, here is how you can send donations:

If you would like to help the children of dancer Roberta Busby, who was recently set on fire outside the club where she works, bring a check in to any Washington Mutual branch, made out to “Rodrigo Busby For The Benefit Of The Children Of Roberta Busby” or send a check to

3835 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., #256
Westlake Village, CA 91362

Please give if you can, and pass on the information about how to help regardless.  If anyone happens to have any additional information, please let me know.  And keep up those well-wishes, prayers or whatever it is you’re doing in the hopes that Roberta is going to pull through.