I just deleted my second attempt at a post this evening. I am finding it very difficult to properly articulate my feelings on the Kobe Bryant case and rape in general. It seems all those women studies classes finally caught up with me, as much as I want to rant on the inequity the law shows the accused in rape cases the greater historical inequity comes to mind. Women, who are by in the large the victims of rape (pedophilia aside) were subjected to centuries of unfair treatment by the Western judicial system. They were not only burdened with the horrific experience itself but also the guilt of being the cause of rape. They were the ones who were guilty, not the actual rapists themselves. I wish that wasn't so but history is already been written so the best thing I can do is learn from it. The problem is that many haven't learned from the past. I can't say that all rape cases favor the victim; in fact many do place an unreasonable burden on the accuser. See the idea of innocent until proven guilty is unfair from the outset to the victim. However, it works more often then not so I am willing to stick by it.

What constitutes rape? Instead of saying what it is, let me clarify what it is not.

Having a sexual liaison and then feeling guilty about it is not rape. A woman going to a bar with the intention of getting picked up, drinking too much and going home with a sketchy guy, who went to the bar with the same intention is not rape. Telling your sexual partner "you need to go home" and then deciding the next day that phrase is code for "No, stop it. You are raping me” is not rape. Giving your partner a "look" which is somehow signifies stop is not rape. Telling your partner to "put it half way in" and then he goes past that marker is not rape.

Those examples are not rape. And even if the law is not on my side, common sense sure as hell is. Even before the recent bombshells I believed Kobe Bryant was probably innocent. He is most definitely an idiot but most likely not a rapist. The recent legal proceedings were to determine if enough evidence existed to hold the case over for trial. While I am not a legal expert, that annoying habit to use common sense has led me to believe that there is virtually no evidence to warrant a trial. It is his word against hers and with all things being even that should not meet the burden of proof. Both sides have produced evidence, which seems to heavily favor the defense, yet putting it aside due to its inflammatory nature leads to one conclusion his word against hers. That is not enough for me. And it shouldn't be enough for you.


I am tempted to delete this post once again because even now it fails to truly encapsulate my viewpoint. What it comes down to is fairness, and whether trying to wipe away the sins of the past justifies committing equally despicable acts today.

Go to hell