According to the Washington Post, in Britain, where people apparently are willing to tolerate millions of CCTV cameras because they are “good for safety,” the rape conviction is shockingly low. I’d say a decline from roughly 30% in the 1970s to just over 5% today is pretty depressing, and also pretty telling. (Compare that with rates in the United States, which hover around 15% of reported cases resulting in conviction.) I would be be really interested to see an estimate on the number of rape cases which are actually reported in Britain, although I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it’s low, just like it is here.

The Washington Post article raised a couple of issues of interest for me, as a reader.

The first was to wonder what in the heck is being done with all of the miles of CCTV footage being collected in Britain. I mean, the presence of CCTV is justified by arguing that it makes it easier to track down criminals, and that it enables the prosecution and successful conviction of crimes in Britain. CCTVs are everywhere, and they are mute, all-seeing witnesses which happen to be much more reliable than people, thanks to the fact that they record information immutably and without judgment.

Now, obviously, every single rape in Britain isn’t caught on CCTV, but it does seem like actually using that footage might have some positive benefit on the conviction rate. This seems to be a common trend with security footage; the cameras are put in place to intimidate people, and so forth, but the footage is never actually used, which makes me wonder what the point is. It also gives me further fuel for opposition to the use of CCTV and other camera security systems.

Also, I was really interested in the cultural issues discussed in the article, like the results of a survey which found that “as many as one in two young men believe there are some circumstances when it’s okay to force a woman to have sex,” which was pretty mindboggling to me. Or an account of a recent case in which a 28 year old man raped a 10 year old girl and got two years in prison for it…because she dressed suggestively. Please, if you could, tell me how a 10 year old girl can dress suggestively, how a 10 year old girl can be “asking for it.”

But I’m not so sure that Britons have different attitudes about rape than we do. The article was obviously meant to be an analysis of British culture, not American culture, so there were no convenient compare and contrast sidebars, but it would be interesting to compare and contrast results of surveys and other methods of data collection in the two countries. I mean, I read this article and think “good lord, how I do not want to be a woman in Britain,” but I wonder how much better things are here.

After all, date rape is probably the biggest issue in both countries. Now, California happens to have pretty specific laws about forced sexuality, including a law which pretty much explicitly states that no means no, whereas the article didn’t delve that deeply into the law, leaving me with kind of an incomplete picture. I think that California’s laws have made it much easier to prosecute date and acquaintance rape, whereas it may well be that while British law enforcement would like to see more convictions, their hands may be tied by the law. As the article informed me, prosecutors can’t even meet with rape victims in Britain before the case comes to trial, which seems like a pretty big obstacle to getting a solid case in place.

Also, sexism and a double standard around sexuality is obviously present in both nations. I know plenty of Americans who think that there are circumstances in which a woman is “asking for it,” so that attitude is hardly restricted to Britain, especially when it comes to drunk young women trying to have a good time at parties or out on the town. In Britain’s case, it seems like sexism may have paralyzed the legal system, but I would argue that our own legal system’s approach to rape isn’t perfect, either. Depending on where you are and who you are, it can be very difficult to get someone to even take a report, let alone bring the case to trial.

I don’t think there’s an easy solution to fixing low conviction rates for rapes, but this article certainly gave me some food for thought, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see that it spurs some reforms in the British legal system’s approach to rape cases. I sure hope so.

Ok, can I just say how awesome it is that the Republican dominated California supreme court gave the thumbs up to gay marriage? Sure, it was four to three, but still, I am excited beyond words that the court affirmed the constitutional right to marry for California gays and lesbians. It is not every day that the stodgy halls of the legal community strike a blow for civil rights, after all.

I was going to write about it yesterday, but I was too hot to move, let alone use the keyboard. I don’t know what the deal was, but it was seriously, seriously hot yesterday. I had all these grand plans of doing the laundry and going to the library, but instead I lay around the house in a desperate torpor, pushing cats away when they got too close because they were like little furry furnaces. And even the cats seemed to lack the will to move; Loki stayed in one position for nine hours, which may be a Loki world record.

One thing in the 172 page decision that I was really pleased about was the comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage. The fact of the matter is that interracial marriage was one illegal in California, not that long ago, and as the decision rightly pointed out, history is not always the best measurement to use when considering whether or not something is constitutional. Overturning the ban on interracial marriage was a good thing for California to do, and I believe that overturning the ban on same-sex marriage is also a very good thing for us to do.

I also loved the repeated mentions in the decision about the right to have one’s relationship recognized and respected, and I especially enjoyed the little gibe which suggested that we should ban all marriage in the interests of equality. Perhaps I’m just a California hippie, but I seriously do believe that families come in a wide variety of configurations, and I would never presume to dictate which configuration is acceptable and which isn’t.

There was also a nice little bit about the fact that same-sex marriage in no way detracts from opposite-sex marriage, and that no religious organizations or officials are going to be forced to adjust their beliefs; if you don’t want to officiate at a gay marriage, then don’t, basically. The goal is not to cheapen opposite-sex marriage, and I’m sorry that some people feel that way, because the goal is to recognize and respect partnerships between couples of the same sex.

Of course, this means that there is now going to be a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage on the November ballot; and good on the governor for coming out strongly in opposition to any such thing. I’m hoping that this ends up backfiring on the conservatives, because I suspect we’re going to see record liberal turnout at this election, with voters fired up by the prolonged popularity contest and pissed at the conservatives. I swear to Pete, if that amendment gets on the ballot and passes, I am going to be seriously disappointed in my fellow Californians.

Apparently, the 2004 weddings in San Francisco were a major factor in the decision to support same-sex marriage in California, which is awesome. I think that as an act of protest, the decision to offer marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in San Francisco was brilliant, and I hope to see a lot more of the same happening in the near future. Nice of them to overturn the ban just in time for a stack of June weddings.

As Andrew Sullivan pointed out in The Daily Dish, if thousands of same-sex couples marry in California between 15 June (when the decision takes effect) and November, any proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage would result in the simultaneous annulment of thousands of marriages. For those who claim to value the sanctity of marriage, I hope this creates room for pause; I imagine that straights would be pretty infuriated if their marriages were annulled at the polls, don’t you think?

I was talking with a friend recently, and somehow the topic of fantasies came up. This person expressed a sense of deep personal discomfort with certain fantasies, and I got a sense of shame and misery from this individual about having those fantasies, and we had an exchange that went something like this:

Me: Ok, I get that you feel like such and such a fantasy is “wrong,” because the behaviour involved is morally questionable, but I don’t think you should beat yourself up over it.

Person: But, its wrong, I shouldn’t feel that way, and it makes me feel like a bad person.

Me: Right, but here’s the thing. Unlike an actual bad person, you would never do the thing that you are fantasizing about. Because you recognize that it is a bad thing, and you understand the difference between fantasy and reality.

Our whole exchange was very interesting, and obviously I’m not going to delve into it, but it got me thinking about one of the reasons I really love Savage Love, Dan Savage’s advice column. (Dan Savage himself, alas, is extremely fat-phobic, but I can separate one dislikable aspect of a person from their more redeeming traits.) Savage explicitly and frequently expounds on the difference between fantasy and reality, and I think it’s a good difference to underline.

There’s a huge difference between doing something and thinking about doing something. For example, I occasionally fantasize about ruthlessly slaughtering my neighbors, but obviously that’s not something I would ever do, because I recognize that it is, you know, not very nice. But I don’t think that imagining the act is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I would argue that working out elaborate schemes in my mind while I seethe in bed trying to sleep allows me to express my irritation and anger, thereby defusing it.

America is all about repression, and the mind is a dangerous thing to repress. People in this country wig out about fantasies like the citizens of 1984 fret about thoughtcrime. I just don’t think that the world of the imagination is or should be subject to the same rules which govern actual, physical behavior. Imagination is a wonderful thing, after all.

And, in some cases, I think that there are ways to realize certain fantasies with consenting people in a healthy, safe, and sane way. There are whole communities of people out there who love to do just that, and many of the people in those communities are gentle, loving, caring people who simply have a few unusual extracurricular pursuits.

It makes me sad that we live in a society where people are taught to feel ashamed of themselves when they think in ways which are nonconventional. Obviously, I am not condoning actual atrocities, but I don’t think that trying to repress fantasies is very productive, or healthy. I also certainly wouldn’t condone any acts which were nonconsensual, but I am not opposed to the illusion of nonconsensuality in a carefully negotiated and controlled scene with mentally capable adults.

The boundaries of what we consider to be sexual deviance seem to be constantly changing, but there’s a common thread of treating people who are perceived as deviants like animals. I find this attitude extremely counterproductive, because it suggests that there is no sane, healthy, safe way to express desires and fantasies.

In a world where people were more open about their fantasies, maybe they would understand the difference between fantasy and reality more clearly. If you’ve ever looked at Japanese comic books within the larger context of Japanese society, you can see that people are perfectly capable of expressing some pretty astounding fantasies without actually acting on them. And for those who do want, in some small way, to act out such fantasies, there are healthy outlets for doing so, because it’s a culture where the concept of fantasy is accepted, allowing people to negotiate their own boundaries and to seek out like-minded individuals.

Personally, I’d rather see that than the inevitably explosive results of repression.

Not that I was really, seriously considering voting for McCain before, but I’m definitely not voting for him now. Cristina Page has written a damning article on McCain’s positions about sexuality and reproductive health, and I think that anyone with functioning genitalia should go read it. I noticed this article featured on Feministing, but I felt a deep and compelling need to expand on my views, rather than just commenting briefly, because this sort of thing drives me absolutely batty: reproductive health is a really important election issue, and I am tired to seeing it ignored.

Basically, I think that a candidate’s stance on sexuality and reproductive health is crucial, because it tells me whether the candidate will lead with the head, or the heart. A politician who leads with the head makes and promotes sensible policy, even on issues that politician may be morally opposed to. A politician who leads with the heart, on the other hand, refuses to be sensible about moral issues outside of his or her control. Banning abortion doesn’t mean it won’t happen anymore. It just means that it will be harder and more dangerous to get. Promoting abstinence-only education doesn’t mean all Americans will stay virgins until marriage; it just means that people won’t understand the risks of STDs and pregnancy. Trying to run sex toy purveyors out of town doesn’t make people less kinky; it just means that there will be a run on back massagers at the drug store. You can’t legislate morality, and to assume that such a thing is possible is not only insane, but foolish.

I don’t think that candidates need to be all crazy and sexually liberated, with insanely progressive ideas on sexuality, but I do think that they need to have a tolerant attitude about sexuality and alternative lifestyles, because whether they like it or not, people are going to engage in a wide variety of sexual activities. An oft-misattributed quote says “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” and I believe that politicians would do well to keep this in mind. America’s supposed to be all about diversity and the land of the free, right? And I think that intolerance is not a good trait to have in someone who will be making major decisions which will have an impact on the health and lives of millions of Americans. Candidates who oppose funding for contraceptives and women’s health programs, for example, have a direct impact on my life, and on the lives of a lot of you, dear readers.

And the fact that a woman has sex before she gets married doesn’t mean that she should be deprived of healthcare. A teen’s decision to be sexually active doesn’t mean that he or she should be exposed to sexually transmitted diseases. A man’s choice to love another man shouldn’t deprive him of the rights of marriage, to be able to make health decisions for his partner in the event of incapacitation, to adopt children. You don’t have to be into these things to give the people who engage in them some basic respect, as fellow human beings. I, for example, am not really a fan of scat play, but I wouldn’t necessarily vote for a ban on it, or refuse to offer medical treatment (if I was a doctor) to someone with a scat play-related infection because of my personal dislike for this activity, because I accept the fact that people are incredibly diverse, and as long as all parties are consenting and of sound mind, what people do in their private lives is not my affair.

Making judgments on the basis of morality is a very tricky endeavor, and I’m not certain that I am qualified to do it. I don’t think that anyone else is, either, and because morality is so personalized and individual, I certainly wouldn’t want to see legislation based in moral values.

A candidate who supports abstinence-only education is not a candidate who is thinking with clear eyes about the health of all Americans. A candidate who wants to revoke sexual education funding in Africa because condoms are given out in addition to advice about abstinence is a heartless, cold individual. A candidate who thinks that teenaged girls who made a mistake should be forced to have children is insane. This is a selfish, short-sighted view which is also costly.

It’s fine to promote abstinence until marriage, but I think you need to accept that this doesn’t work for everyone. And once you’re married, surely you should have access to family planning tools and to a responsible doctor who cares about your health, right? It’s fine to be personally opposed to homosexuality, but you must realize that gay couples are propping up the economy in many communities, while actively contributing to the places they live in with generous donations of time, skills, and funds. I could up with countless other illustrations of why morality-based legislation bothers me, but I’ll stop. Suffice it to say that I don’t think this sort of legislation looks at the big picture.

The issue of reproductive freedoms is part of a larger framework. Personally, I think that the sex lives of the candidates are private, and of no interest to me. If such and such a candidate is into BDSM, good for him or her. If another frequents brothels, whatever. I don’t care. And I would appreciate the same respect from the candidates; I strongly dislike the idea of the government meddling in my bedroom, and you should too. If it’s ok to legislate who people love, and when, and how, when will we move on to legislating what people are allowed to eat? What kinds of professions they have? How they raise their children?

By judging some practices as morally acceptable and others as reprehensible, the candidates are crossing a bit of a dangerous line. Under the crazy morality of much of the religious right, most Americans are people of questionable morality, and I’m not a big fan of that idea. By making judgment calls like this, politicians are splitting Americans into two classes, right and wrong, and things are rarely that black and white. I’m fine with voting for a candidate who thinks that certain personal activities are in poor taste, or even reprehensible; everyone has a right to his or her own opinions. But I don’t want to vote for a candidate who is going to impose his or her views about right and wrong onto my own life, and onto the lives of others, with far-reaching legislation which could potentially have a severe impact on people’s lives. Today, sexuality, tomorrow, who knows?

How can you be opposed to funding sexual education which includes discussions about contraception and abortion when you agitate to cut welfare, the program that pays for knocked-up teens who are victims of poor sex ed programs? How can you demand that a fetus has basic rights when you deny those rights to the child as soon as it is born? How dare a politician impose personal values and morals onto the American people?

Don’t fool yourself. The issue of sexuality and reproductive health is far more wide-reaching than it appears, and you should oppose candidates with unclear stances on the issue, let alone candidates who actively support insane morality-based legislation about sexual education programs, health funding, and so forth. Because if they want to legislate your sex life, there are probably other aspects of your existence that they want to control as well.

So, the Chronicle has a section for weird news that they call “Bondage.” And every time I see it, I kind of cringe. I’ve been debating whether or not to talk about my dislike of the “Bondage” column for various reasons, but today I decided why not, what the hell, might as well go for it.

So, the thing that really bothers me is the implication that bondage is weird, aberrant, or amusing. Especially in a city like San Francisco, which has a huge progressive and leather community, the idea of using the term in this way kind of surprises me. When I first saw it, I actually thought that the Chronicle was starting a kinky news service, and I thought that would be pretty awesome. Well, they do have a kinky columnist now, but the “Bondage” column has been around a lot longer than Violet Blue’s column has, and Ms. Blue has had some problems with her content, like the Chronicle refusing to link to naughty websites in the context of her column.

So, why does it bother me that “Bondage” is belittled by the Chronicle in the form of an amusing news column? Surely there are far more important things for me to worry about, right? Well, first of all, let’s talk about what bondage is, because it means a lot of things to a lot of different people. For me, bondage is part of a larger alt-sex and, yes, kinky community, to which I belong. I’m not sure that I have explicitly stated that anywhere on this website, because I hesitate dragging personal details about my life into this site (ruminative “reflections” columns aside). I’m not going to go into the gory details of my sex life, and I suggest that if you are really clueless in matters of kink, you read through some of my “further readings in sexuality” which can be found on my links page. In the strictest sense, bondage, to me, is about confinement, sensation, and pushing limits in a safe, sane, and consensual environment. It’s also about satiny rope on bare skin, the play of leather on flesh, and many other things. But for the sake of my squeamish readers, I’ll pick this up in another post.

I have hesitated to come out about my membership in the kink community for many of the same reasons I dislike the “Bondage” column. The moment that I admit my alliance with alternative sexuality, you, dear reader, are jumping to conclusions about me. Perhaps it’s merely an “aha! I suspected it all along,” but it might unfortunately be something much darker as well.

I know that kinksters read this blog, because contrary to popular belief we don’t actually spend all of our time tying each other up and leading each other around fetish parties like dogs. Indeed, many kinksters have wide and varied interests, and we all live very different lifestyles. Some of us might look decidedly vanilla at casual glance, while others among us have obviously embraced their roles in the fetish community.

Unfortunately, many people have very…interesting views about alternative sexuality and lifestyles. Sadly, this makes for a lot of prejudice against us. I know people who have been outed at work and fired, been rudely turned down when they ask people on dates, and others who have struggled with a variety of issues relating to their sexuality. In a way, I liken kinksters to gays and lesbians.

Straight vanilla people can generally fearlessly walk up to someone in a coffeehouse and say “hey, that looks like an interesting book, would you like to go out for coffee?”

Gays and lesbians can’t do that, for fear of being greeted with hate speech and rejection. And kinksters, likewise, struggle, because we have to struggle with when, exactly, we bring up our own sexuality. It would hardly be fair for me to ask a vanilla boy out on a date, go through an extended courtship, and then discover that we aren’t compatible at all. On the other hand, that innocuous looking cutie in Headlands leaning over a laptop might be into the same kinds of things I am, but I can’t peer over his shoulder to check and see if Twisted Monk is on his RSS feeds.

Heterosexuals with mundane tastes can live in confidence that they will be accepted by society. Kinksters struggle through their teenage years, with most of us thrashing around until we realize that there is a community and a place for us. And then we have to find medical professionals who won’t chastise us for the way we live, employers who won’t be seized with panic at the thought of what we might have been doing over the weekend, and come out to our friends. Have my experiences been mirrored by all members of the kink community? Of course not, but I would imagine that my words strike chords with many.

Just like I cringe when I hear a gay joke and people laugh at it, I twitch when I hear bondage reduced to humor. Can bondage be funny? Oh, yes, beautifully yes, and humor is very much a part of my sexuality. But it should not, in my mind, be used as a header for a weird news column, because that implies that bondage is weird. Which, certainly, it can be, but it perpetuates a stereotype, like “all tattooed people are scary aberrant freaks of nature bent on the destruction of society” or “all vanilla people only know one sex position.” Why not call the “Bondage” column “Monogamy,” because I have a feeling that monogamy is far more rare and weird than bondage.

It is only through outreach and education that we will find common ground with all people, and distancing ourselves out of discomfort and fear is not the way. Just as I encourage people to treat modified individuals with respect, curiosity, and love, I invite my readers to do the same with the kinksters in their lives. Instead of greeting revelations like “I really enjoy dressing up as a pony and being whipped around a racetrack” with horror, why not talk about the broader cultural world of pony play? Or ask about what it’s like? People don’t come up with personal revelations just to have them sink heavily to the bottom of a conversation like stones, after all.

“Write about ‘the gays,’” Brendan says, so I will write about the gays.

It came to me while I was sitting on the toilet today that all this talk of a “great homosexual conspiracy” which will destroy the fabric of our society is, in fact, complete hogwash. Indeed, I realized, as I rummaged for the toilet paper, which had fallen behind the hot water heater again, “the gays” (and lesbians) may in fact SAVE AMERICA. And possibly the world. Or at least the economy, and the children. Most of this applies to wealthier members of the “gay conspiracy,” not “the gays” in general, but I think you get my drift.

See, here’s the thing about many gay couples, especially in my former base of San Francisco. Many of them tend to be upwardly mobile, well heeled people who want to live in nice neighborhoods. Nice neighborhoods have high property taxes. High property taxes pay for schools along with other cool things like fire trucks. These couples also want to have safe, pleasant places to live with clean streets. And they want to be able to visit safe, pleasant places as well, meaning that they invest time and energy in making their cities clean and awesome to be in.

Some couples also have a lot of disposable income, since they aren’t, you know, raising children. While sensible people save and invest, it is possible to have one’s cake and eat it, too, pumping money into a tired economy. Numerous luxury companies make products which are aimed at the gay community with this very thought in mind. Since many couples also embrace liberal ideals like “buy local,” they spend this money in local stores, rejuvenating the local economy and paying hefty sales tax. This is good for the community in general, not just a single well heeled neighborhood.

Indeed, these aforementioned liberal ideals are important. All that disposable income often goes to support progressive causes, and gay couples don’t spend all their time lobbying for gay marriage and gloryholes on every street corner. They also write their representatives about issues like global warming, lobby for the abolishment of child labor, and participate in community cleanup days. Environmental stewardship isn’t limited to heteros, and neither is caring about children, animals, and the evils of capitalism. They also do things like becoming lawyers, senators, chefs, artists, and everything else in between.

They also adopt unwanted children! When our facist state lets them. This sort of dismisses the Christian idea that being gay is not ok because you don’t have children. After all, I know plenty of het couples without kids, and I don’t see them being picketed when they try to live their lives. Sometimes they also adopt pets, which is a pretty excellent thing in a country which kills millions of cats and dogs every year because no one wants them. And, of course, a lot of those children are the unwanted castings of good Christian girls who couldn’t bear the thought of destroying a precious little fetus.

Also, everyone knows that the gays design the best sex toys, which I think would argue for general societal improvement.

I am constantly amazed by the fact that I live in a society where people seriously think that the sexuality of other people is their business. Many of the same points above apply, of course, to heterosexual couples, which suggests that sexual orientation has less to do with how you behave in society than other things, like personal ethics and values. I’m not quite sure why people get so worked up about “the gays” and their dastardly doings, when they could be doing more important things like volunteering at the library, watering the garden, and soliciting gay prostitutes while they lead major churches. Live and let live, I say!

According to this earth shattering study, sexualisation in culture is harmful for young women. Released under the auspices of the American Psychological Association, the study claims that sexual images in film, advertisements, video games, and other media are harming girls. I really cannot imagine where they get this impression.

As my readers know, I am not a terribly prudish person, and it takes a fair amount to offend me, sexually. But even I have been disturbed by the recent trend of dressing young girls like streetwalkers. Not just underage girls, like 14-17 years old, although I find that a bit unnerving, but really, really young girls: the other day, I saw an eight year old dressed in clothing I wouldn’t be caught dead in…right along with her slutty mommy figure.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with being a slut, or with having open sexual practices. But I think this is something that could be more appropriately explored at an older age. I am uncomfortable with the sexualisation of young girls because to me, they’re just that: young girls. Yes, there was an era in human history when very young women were married to older men, raising families, and running households…but I don’t think that needs to be the case today. Most young humans are not at a stage of development where sexual activity is appropriate when they are eight, or nine, or ten…and it is especially inappropriate with someone who is much older.

I am rather prudish, I realize, about May/December romance. When I see a 17 year old and a 27 year old, I don’t think ah, love, I think exploitation! child abuse! danger! danger!. I think many others think along these lines as well, because as a culture, we have agreed that young women and men should be allowed to grow up and explore themselves, not be forced into a socially dictated behaviour, which is why it deeply saddens me to see young women and girls tarting themselves up to meet social expectations. Young girls, especially, are prey to these sorts of relationships because they have been taught by society that they are sex objects, not people with individual wishes, dreams, hopes, and fears.

And not just tarting themselves up with designer clothing…starving their bodies, denying their natural intelligence, and being frustrated by the wonderful and amazing people that they are. Not everyone can be a supermodel, it’s true: but not everyone should be. People are not sex objects, and young women should not feel like they are sex objects. As a media culture, we owe it to our children to raise them more neutrally, but as individuals we should also be taking steps to encourage the growth and development of the people around us, showing them through actions that they do not need to be sex dolls, rather than just parroting words that seem meaningless when surrounded with media that tells them otherwise. It’s fucked up that women use their sexuality to get attention, and that society encourages this, because it undermines our position as, you know, humans.

We cannot ban sexualised advertising, nor should we, because it sets a dangerous precedent…but we can tell people that they are appreciated for who they are. We can date people that we find attractive, whether or not our friends agree with us. We can seek out things that we find beautiful, and bring them back to show the rest of the group, expanding everyone’s horizons. We can reject social norms of beauty and sexbotdom, and perhaps some day I will see eight years exploring chemistry, not buying “slut” thongs.

Apparently, if you happen to work as a stripper and an on-duty police officer ejaculates on you, you “got what [you] wanted,” because you’re “an overtly sexual person.”

This case disgusts me on so many levels that I do not know where to begin. What’s amazing is that everyone including the jury members agrees that the cop, in fact, did jizz all over some woman that he was stalking, and that he fingered her. The evidence clearly suggests that the police officer was out of line…running plates that belonged to strippers at the club, following her outside of city limits, disabling his GPS so that the station couldn’t tell that he was outside of jurisdiction…and finally, sexually abusing a women who was simply driving home from work.

Only, work happens to be in a strip club, which means that she was a slut who was asking for it. Strippers, you see, are always ready to go, all the time, and usually drunk and hopped on drugs too, so it doesn’t really matter, even if they don’t seem too into it.

This reporting of a blatant abuse of power horrifies me, and it makes me wonder how many other cases just like this go unreported and untried by anyone…this brief sampling from Maxim, of all sources, starts to give you an idea. Cops have a sort of sacred place in our society, because we see them as upholding justice and human rights, as trustworthy authority figures who can do no wrong. Or at least some of us do. Cops, though, are people too, fucked up, evil, nasty people. And that, dear readers, is a very sad thing.

I agree with the prosecutor in the case, who said that “Dancer or not, sexually promiscuous nor not, she had the right not to consent.” I also concur with her sorrow about the outcome of the case, because it is important for cops to learn that they are not above the law: had the man not been a cop, he would be in jail for sexual assault right now. But instead he walks free and smug, ready to abuse another woman.

Good job, American justice system!

[sexual assault]

Once again, my least favourite holiday is rapidly descending upon us, like a giant squid on the verge of attacking an innocent sailing ship. Already, every business I go into is decorated with nauseating pink and white, and every one of my coupled friends seems to be urgently feeling the need to behave in a fatuous and utterly repulsive fashion while I stomp, muttering through my days. Love is in the air, they say, and spring has sprung.

I say spring this, monkeyhumpers.

So that’s why I was pleased to see this article in the Chronicle today, talking about teen dating abuse. I wouldn’t have minded a discussion of dating abuse in general, actually, but I suppose this is a good start: while everyone is blathering on about the wonders of love, the Chronicle is pointing out that love can indeed be a battlefield at times: a vicious one, in which people are severely hurt.

Domestic violence and sexual abuse are serious issues in the United States. Most of us know someone who has been a victim of abuse, assuming we haven’t been abused ourselves. Yet we live in a repressive sort of society where these issues are buried under the carpet and no one wants to address them, especially when surrounded with the miracle of love.

I have always been a firm believer that there is no excuse for domestic violence, ever, and reading this article threw me back to middle and high school, when teachers and students alike ignored the very serious problems that were going on all around them. Most victims of abuse drift in a world of alternate reality, afraid to discuss what happened to them or to seek help. Despite being covered in bruises, their friends accept vapid excuses about falling down stairs or bumping into cabinets.

People were afraid to talk about what was happening to them. A valid fear of rejection, mockery, or being dismissed.

I was having a discussion last night with Peaches and Cap’n Raspberry where we were talking about the prevalence of rape in American society, including the FBI statistic about one in four American women expecting to be raped in her lifetime.

“That’s insane,” the Cap’n said,” why are we not doing anything about this, as a society?”

“Well,” I said, “most rape victims are afraid to come forward about what happened to them, and don’t want to deal with the trauma of a trial.”

“The trial can be as traumatic as the rape itself, in a way,” Peaches chimed in.

“Right, but I mean, we could do something, as individuals, about rape.”

“Really? Are you sure about that?”

“Hell yeah,” he said, “I would be furious if I knew one of my friends had been raped. I’d be exacting vengeance.”

“Well,” I said, “some of your female friends have been, and they didn’t tell you.”

“But why not,” he said.

“Because the majority of rapes in America are acquaintance rapes,” I said. “It’s someone you know, a friend, someone you think you can trust. Sometimes someone very close, a best friend. And when you’re raped, you are afraid to go to your friends, because you know they won’t believe you. ‘Oh,’ they’ll say, ’so-and-so is a great guy, he would never do that.’ And you learn to just not say anything at all.”

“But that’s bullshit,” he said, “I would do something.”

“Really,” I said. “Let’s say I came to you and said X  raped me.”

There was a long and awkward pause.

“Yeah,” I said. “Not so easy now, is it?”

“But…but that’s…I mean, he would never do that, I mean, he’s incapable!”

“Right, and that’s why women don’t tell people when they are raped, because of exactly that response.”

“But I would believe you,” he protested. “I would. I mean, if you came to me and said ‘Y raped me,’ I’d be breaking some kneecaps!”

I shook my head at him sadly.

“You see,” Peaches said, “this is why women don’t talk about it, because most people have exactly that response, that ‘this person is a great guy, he would never do that’ response, and they refuse to believe reality. Rapists can be charming, sensitive, loving people who are well liked and respected by their friends. Rapists can be trusted and adored, and women don’t want to get into the trauma of a he-said/she-said battle, so it’s easier to just…not say anything at all, you know. Just…try to get over it.”

So there you go, readers. Just try to get over it.

No, seriously.

If someone around you is being hurt, step forward to support them. If that means going against your “friends,” do it, because friends support each other in need. Watch each other’s backs, don’t stab them.

If you know someone who looks like he or she might be a victim of sexual assault or domestic violence, talk to them about it. Make it clear that you care about them, and want to help them seek assistance, if that’s what they want. Maybe they don’t…maybe they just want someone they know to be there for them. But for the love of Pete, don’t ignore it, brush it away, or pretend that it’s not happening. It is happening, and it is a harsh and miserable reality.

Abuse can take many forms, including verbal and physical. When you see someone behaving wrongly, speak out. When you see a girl verbally abusing her boyfriend, talk to him about it. When you see a man being rough with a woman, seek her out later and make sure that she is ok. Love should only hurt when you want it to.

Most areas have domestic abuse and sexual assault hotlines. They are free to call, and counselors are happy to talk with victims about anything and everything. They can help you make plans to escape, if you need it, along with children and pets. They can help you file suit or get a restraining order. If you aren’t yet ready to do this, a counselor is always there to just talk with you.

Do not stand by, for those who remain silent are part of the problem.

The national rape hotline is: 1.800.656.HOPE

The national domestic violence hotline is: 1.800.799.SAFE

Either can transfer people in need to a local hotline: if you are a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault, you can talk confidentially to counselors. If you know someone who is a victim, counselors can show you some ways to help them.

[sexual assault]
[domestic violence]

In 1803, popular mythology has it, Edward Jenner noticed that milkmaids were less likely to get smallpox. He hypothesized that this might be because they had been exposed to cowpox, a related disease, and had developed immunity to the deadly scourge of smallpox. He tested his theory by inoculating patients with cowpox: lo and behold, he had discovered a safe inoculation to protect people from smallpox. He called the inoculation a “vaccine,” derived from the Latin word for cow, and it was such a breakthrough for medical science that we now use the term generally to refer to all inoculations.

176 years later, the international health community proudly announced that smallpox had been eradicated, thanks to dedicated efforts all over the world to vaccinate citizens at risk. Today, the spectre of smallpox still haunts us, although vaccinations for it are not required.

The global eradication effort was supported at home in the United States, as part of a historical record of heavy vaccination. When vaccines for horrible diseases like polio and measles were developed, states required children to be vaccinated: most Americans, at least, are of the position that these diseases are fully preventable, and there’s no good reason not to vaccinate for them. Schools require children to show proof of vaccinations before they can enroll, as do colleges—I remember a frantic hunt for a rare vaccine when I went to [liberal arts college] because it wasn’t required by California law, so I’d never received it. I’m all for vaccines: I’m vaccinated, and so are the cats, because to get a preventable disease would be a great tragedy. I’m also all for the development of new vaccines.

In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine in women. The vaccine is touted as a “cervival cancer vaccine,” which it technically is not. Gardasil protects against several strains of the human papilloma virus, which has been directly linked with cervical cancer. But studies support the assertion that the strains Gardasil vaccinates against are those which cause cervical cancer, so in theory, vaccination with Gardasil will prevent cervical cancer. Pretty neat, eh?

So guess which state was the first to require the use of Gardasil in young women, to premptively prevent HPV infection and cervical cancer? Was it progressive, free wheeling California, with one of the best women’s health programs in the nation? No. Was it radical Vermont? Guess again.

Texas is the first state to require use of Gardasil, unless families object due to religious convictions. Texans, apparently, are more concerned about young women’s health than Californians. Perish the thought.

Arguments against the requirement are fierce, but the caveat that families can refuse to participate has defused any really bitter fighting. I hope that all families comply: even Christian women in upstanding marriages can get HPV and cervical cancer: it’s not just something that happens to harlots. I hope the requirement is followed in other states, and that they also follow suit to make it available to people of low income. When I researched the possibility of taking Gardasil in San Francisco, I discovered that the three shot series would cost me over $150. While cervical cancer would cost me significantly more, the fact is that I don’t have $150 now, so I have to take my chances with cervical cancer later. Bummer.

The development of Gardasil was a great thing for women’s health, and I hope that it will be followed with other medical advances. Hopefully, with time the vaccine will become accessible to all, not just the wealthy, and we can say that cervical cancer has been eliminated as well.

[Gardasil]