Let's Correct A Common Mistake

10/17/03

I recently got an angry email from someone who took issue with my stand on Kobe Bryant. The writer was also angry that, in a different article, I said that a woman who cuddles with a man in her underwear is committing a specific sexual act, and that by itself does not signify consent to any further sexual acts.

"You are doing women a great disservice," the email read. "Women need to know that every act has consequences."

The emailer has confused safe behavior with legal behavior. This mistake has been common during Kobe Bryant's trial, and has been common throughout the history of sexual assault. The behavior of a sexual assault victim is scrutinized and criticized with a bitterness and venom that the victim of no other crime could even imagine. And peope like the emailer just don't seem to grasp how inherently unfair and un-American that is.

Just as an intellectual exercise, let's reverse roles. Let's see what we could do if we scrutinize Kobe Bryant's behavior with the same critical eye that his victim has been subjected to.

1. Why was Kobe hanging out with his buddies? He's a family man; he should have been home with them.
2. What was he doing, letting all those girls flock around? He's married; he's off the market.
3. Why was he flirting with a woman who was not his wife?
4. Why was he kissing someone who was not his wife?
5. What was he doing in a hotel room with a woman who was not his wife?
6. So then he gets accused of rape. "What did he expect?"

See how easy it is? See how the damning questions lead up to an almost inevitable conclusion? See how all blame is placed on his actions? See how easily you could say, "He needs to learn that his actions have consequences!"

Now, there are easy answers to these questions. As an adult in a free society, Kobe Bryant has a right to do whatever he wants. He has a right to hang out with his teammates. He has a right to flirt with girls. And while it's not particularly moral, cheating on his wife is not illegal. And while it's not a particularly smart move, he can take a woman up to his room.

That series of damning questions, all leading to an "inevitable" conclusion, don't even address the question of consent. And consent is all that matters. Irresponsible behavior is not a substitute for consent. Immoral behavior is not a substitute for consent. Dumb behavior is not a substitute for consent.

Consent is all that matters.

Now let's look at the victim's side, and apply the same perspective to her.

As an adult in a free society, she has the right to do whatever she wants. She has a right to hang out with big-name athletes. She has a right to flirt with them, to kiss one of them if they're willing. And while it's not a particularly smart move, she has the right to go up to an athlete's room. Overly-trusting behavior is not a substitute for consent. Immoral behavior is not a substitute for consent.

I've heard the question dozens of times. "After all, what was she doing in his room?" As if that means everything, with an arch emphasis on "after all." Well, "after all," it's irrelevant what she was doing in his room, just as it is irrelevant what he was doing hanging out with his teammates. Consent is the only thing that matters.

This is an issue that we have been fighting for years. "After all," some idiot says, "what was she doing, wearing those clothes?" "After all," someone sneers, "what was she doing, walking alone at that time of night?" Another one is, "After all, why did she get in the car with them?" I sometimes wonder why they don't follow their line of reasoning all the way back to the beginning. "After all," they could say, "why did she even get out of bed that morning?"

The emailer took pains to inform me that she is a woman, as if that lends extra weight to her argument. Unfortunately, I could have guessed it anyway. In a neighborhood, on a college campus, and especially on cable news programs, it's very common for a small number of women to be the most vocal, most confident, most nasty condemners of the victim. For some reason, they think their gender gives them special permission, pretending to be unaware of the immense pain and damage they are causing.

It's fear, of course. The thinking is, "If I can think of something she did, if I can convince myself I wouldn't have done it, then I'll feel like it won't happen to me."

So I need to send a message to the e-mailer, and to others like her:

It doesn't work that way.

That won't make you safe.