In debating the high-profile felony sexual-assault case against Kobe Bryant over the past months, media commentators have been largely been preoccupied with one single issue of social consequence: What does this mean for the Nutellas and the Nikes? But what about the bigger-picture story beyond the lost corporate endorsements of nut butter and sneakers? This case is still controversial. But the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (23)Page 1 of 1 pagesPaula Kaman should be congratulated. This is a great article with an exciting, pro-sex, truly feminist point of view.
Entering someone’s hotel room is not consent and the freedom to choose whether and when to have sex at any time seems like an obvious right. This article is fantastic & hopeful and well put.
Posted by Risa Mickenberg on Sep 24, 2003 at 12:46 PM Five dollars and the whole bank account are not analogous to consenting to sex and then changing her mind once intercourse has commenced. Let’s get real here. There is a point of no return here, and that is only common sense. Consent certainly may be withdrawn up to the point of penetration. After that, all bets are off.
Posted by Michael Nattenberg on Sep 24, 2003 at 2:02 PM “Get Real” is a current expression, it seems. This scenario is so old. All the heavy “Liberation” rhetoric distorts the real issue. Going to someone’s room means nothing. Saying “no” when the libidial act has begun is tantamount to trying stop a charging bull from goring one by saying “no.” All the rhetoric ignores the fact that Nature has strongly programmed males of all species to complete the libidinal act once its begun.
And, in espiocrat circles, the “honey trap” is as old as history. You lure your target until he begins to act, then “catch him out,” and yell, “RAPE!”
Of course, none of these questions will be asked in court or by media. The hype is so thick these days, one can barely see anything clearly.Wake up everyone. The polar ice caps are melting; the oceans are warming beyond ability to support plankton growth; species extinction is expanding too greatly to count, tho’ African lion populations have been verified as falling nealy 80% since 1960, etc. Kobe was a perfect “mark,” and the “HUAH!” culture goes on and on and on.
Posted by ryokan on Sep 24, 2003 at 6:09 PM Tough issue. No real apples to apples analogy exists since no one thinks of their bank account the same way as their sex life.
I agree that no matter if a woman goes to a man’s rooms that doesn’t constitute agreement to have sex. But to wait until penetration occurs then say no and claim rape is a distortion of power, which is truly the real issue.
I’m sure the vast majority of women aren’t interetsted in a simple power grab, but rather an equality of agreement and consent. But we all know in the real world some women will use the power in such a way as to ruin a man’s life with a rape conviction.
Isn’t here some concept in law about better to let the guilty go free than convict the innocent?
Seems like it will be easy to convict many an innocent man now if all a woman has to do is say she said no, even after initial concensual penetration.
Good luck all you single folks out there.
Posted by Chris Stevens on Sep 25, 2003 at 3:21 AM I can’t believe what I’m reading in these comments! Since when is changing your mind a “power grab”? People who may think they want to have sex and subsequently decide that they don’t want to after all are not being manipulative or making a machiavellian attempt to ruin someone else’s life—they’re just being human. (And hello—even though no one ever seems to talk about it, men change their minds about sex, too, sometimes.)
The notion that men are such libidinous beasts that they are incapable of listening to a partner’s wishes once a certain act has begun is as insulting to men as the notion that a woman is consenting to sex by “leading someone on.”
Posted by Lisa Jervis on Sep 25, 2003 at 9:11 PM I’ve always wondered at the claim my fellow males make about being unable to turn it off, so to speak. Lisa’s right. It is insulting to suggest we have no control over our bodily desires. Personally, the word ‘no’ has always been a cold shower to me.
Posted by ray on Sep 26, 2003 at 5:59 PM Its not really penetration that defines the place beyond which one “cant” say no. Of course you should be able to say no at any point….BUT, the fact is that a lot of the date rape cases Ive come across include a good deal of rough treatment….that often isnt seen as abusive until a bit later….at which point guilt becomes involved, etc. Its not an easy question and like sexual harrasement, its open for manipulation…...which isnt to say the new rulings arent good because I think they are….just that one needs to be careful about the deep ambivilances and complexities of the sex act.
Posted by steppling on Sep 27, 2003 at 12:43 PM So if penetration occurs and she says stop YOUR HURTING ME I have every right to ignore and continue?? Hows that right? I’ve recently had one of many past and future sex education discussions with my ten year old son. He knows about biology and where babies come from, He knows about safe sex and condoms etc and I’ll never stop talking to him about that but the most recent topic has been about consent. I told him that even though he may ignore, disagree, or forget everything else I’ve told him about sex the most important thing to remember first and above all other things is that if a women ever says no….EVER…. you stop what your doing at once. “Jonah you dont want to end up in jail or even worse hurt someone you care about” He says “ok pop, I understand” He’s ten years old and he understands. Wheres the beef????? Fuck this discussion about power and consent and men trying to justifie the fact they are too weak to control themselves…thats bullshit. No means NO the first time, anytime, every time period! To make the discussion about anything other than that is to muddy the waters and make unacceptable behaviour ok.
Posted by Shawn P Murphy on Sep 27, 2003 at 7:54 PM I congratulate Shawn on his very intelligent comments. I totally agree with him. As I read through all of the comments, I just kept thinking, why would any man want to keep having sex with a woman after she had said ‘no’? What is a turn on about that? It doesn’t matter when she says no either! NO MEANS NO!! How many times do we have to say this and read this? It is not a complicated issue. If a man continues to have sex with a woman after she has said no, then he is raping her.
Posted by Marcy on Sep 28, 2003 at 2:53 AM So people in the comments section think this isuue isn’t possibly about a power grab?
How about if after the act a woman decides she didn’t want sex and says she said no? Is that rape? How does a man prove she didn’t say no until after?
And to think no woman is vindictive enought to do that is ludicrous.
Far be it from me to defend him, but if you check the facts of the Mike Tysaon case you’ll see he went to prison for the rape of a girl who had made the exact same accusation prior with another guy.
Check it out don’t just take my word for it. Desiree Washington was her name. She had accused a high school classmate of rape after she had tearfully admitted to her father she had sex with the star quarterback. And ultimately in court she recanted and the kid got off.
By the way, what Tyson appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear his case, was the fact that the information concerning her prior history of false accusation was not allowed at trial.
I’m not condemning women or rape shield laws, but get real. If I was on the jury and knew the woman had cried wolf before I would certainly think differently of her truthfulness.
If that makes me a slug. okay I accept the slight.
And furthermore, who ever said a man can’t stop once the ‘act’ starts? I didn’t.
Posted by Chris Stevens on Sep 30, 2003 at 7:40 AM ok, no means no. even after penetration. now, what protects innocent men from being falsely accused by some of the evil bitches out there? you see, that is where the real problem lies. with rape the are tell-tale signs (evidence) that can be used against an attacker to PROVE rape or sexual assault,such as bruises(most common), lacerations, torn clothes, and bodily fluids.
with “date” rape, all it takes is the accusation from the female, and the male’s fate is sealed. women proclaim equality yet want special treatment when it comes to sex. are women really that fragile and frail? that doesnt seem equal. i dont hear too much coming, of men who are strung along by some money hungry bitches, going to court over not getting promised sex. why do we instill the idea on the male population, that no means no, even in the heat of the moment,even after penetration? why isnt the woman warned instead that if you go on a date with some guy and he spends money on your dinner, entertainment, transportation, and perhaps gifts, theres a good chance that if you go back to his place or invite him to yours after the date, he will expect SOMETHING IN RETURN. it is impossible to be raped (date raped or real raped) when you alone at home. it wasnt long ago that a woman would have been called loose or a tramp for going to a mans place after a certain time of night, and it would have been said that she got what she deserved.
Posted by doug hast on Sep 30, 2003 at 8:25 AM Guilty or innocent? Depends on how much money you have and what color your skin is.
Posted by neil on Sep 30, 2003 at 9:38 AM Doug….you had me in your clutches for just a second. Yes this is a difficult issue and no one should claim to have all the answers but to bring up equality and compare it to men sueing for unfullfilled promises of sex is ridiculous. come on. No means no for lots of things. No dont kill me, no dont rip me off, no dont hurt me etc. how about no you turn me off or no your being too rough?? As far as men being ” strung along by some money hungry bitch” it also wasnt long ago when lots of men had enough restraint to not fuck every women in sight. I prefer to get to know a girl before I sleep with her. Thats what protects me from being falsely accused by some “evil bitches out there”.
Posted by Shawn P. Murphy on Sep 30, 2003 at 11:46 AM Shawn, i TOTALLY agree with some of what you said. No, to any self respecting guy, DOES mean no.No applies to all of the things that you said. as far as the “no, you turn me off”, it should never have gotten that far, did the girl just suddenly come out of a trance to realize shes in his room at midnight and hes trying to kiss her? the “no, youre being too rough”, should end there, after that its simply violence and that is rape, sexual assault, do we need ANOTHER name for it? there should then be some evidence of struggle, providing she doesnt just lie there and bear the pain while thinking of the money, movie rights, and/or possible marring of someones good name,then there should be those rape signs. clearly, ANY woman who did not want to be raped should/would fight.
and shawn, let me tell you, you dont even have to really know someone to be falsely accused by them. i, as well, prefer to get to know sex partners prior to having sex with them, yet i WAS falsely accused of a sex crime along with eight other men only 1 of whom i was aquainted with. I had nothing AT ALL to do with anything sexual. other than having met that little bitch in the company of my aquaintance, i had no interaction with her whatsoever. From what i understand, several of the accused did not even know each other.Now, where i’m from shit gets around, so even though i’m no big time ball player or movie star, everyone seemed to know the scoop and had formed their own opinion WAY before the trial. Something like a sex crime can be quite damaging regardless the outcome of a trial.So be on your toes and dont be naive to the fact that there are some fucked up people in the world who will just make up shit for fucked up reasons
Posted by doug hast on Sep 30, 2003 at 2:10 PM You go to the dentist. After the usual preamble and inspection he explains that you have a serious absess and need to have a tooth removed. You understand his explanation and agree. He begins. However, and perhaps because you remember you left the oven on and must get home immediately, or maybe because you want a second opinion, or simply because you lose your nerve and are scared, you change your mind and tell him to stop.
Now tell me, in a simple yes or no: Do you think he should?
Posted by Johnny Goodyear on Oct 6, 2003 at 5:41 PM J. Goodyear, yes he should.
But have you ever tried to get an order cancelled from a car dealer? It’s amazing the shit they put you through so they don’t lose the sale. If you have the patience, eventually they’ll crack open that granite desk drawer so they can refund your money or tear up the order.
Hey, maybe rape and buying a car from a dealer are much the same.
Posted by neil on Oct 7, 2003 at 1:40 PM There should indeed be harsh penalties for real criminal rape, but this nonsense like the law change in Illinois simply goes too far: make no mistake this type of thing ~is~ a feminist power grab.
To boil down my take on why to a quippy soundbite, it is a legal affirmation of the “woman’s prerogative,” which is wholy biased and not seldom vindictive: it is not the man’s fault if his partner is not mentaly prepared to decide to have sex after the fact… “she should have thought of that sooner.”
Furthermore, if a woman ~LETS~ things progress to that level of intensity where stopping becomes “a gray issue” before she changes her mind… again, “she should have thought of that sooner.”
(If I could make LET blink I would)
Lastly, with all this talk of womans rights concerning rape, where is the man’s right to protection from a false and unreasonable criminal complaint? Filing such a complaint should be a crime itself.
There was a time when feminism did have noble goals and battles to win, but now those days are done… this is gender warmongering.
Posted by Walter on Oct 13, 2003 at 2:46 AM Good points, Walter.
I’m am tired of the assumption that men are all sex-crazed and can’t control their carnal appitites. This goes in favor of the “I couldn’t stop” argument.
But, in actuality, all men aren’t like that. We don’t think about sex every 8 seconds like that commercial says we do. Maybe in puberty, but what teenage boy doesn’t? I think one of the reasons we obsess about sex so much in this country is because we don’t have a healthy outlook on it. “It’s dirty” and we make it taboo to speak about.
Like any appetite, there should be self-control (my conservative stance). Yet, stopping once started takes a GREAT deal of effort. So the question here is where the consent ended.To throw another angle out, if women use the defense of a crime of passion, then a man could use the same defense in cases of consent. Provided that they have little control of their passions.
Posted by neil on Oct 13, 2003 at 3:04 AM Look, It’s simple, this girl is a nut-case, she had slept with several people within the same week, and her “evidence” of rape is injuries that she had when she does finally go to the police. How is it that Kobe can be the only one to cause this? Shouldn’t this be something that is allowed to make an educated decision? Honestly, rape is wrong, and i dont condone it, but thats not what this is. Allowing this to be called rape allows anyone that wakes up and feels moral guilt about having sex the night before to call it rape, is that fair? Do all women have a right to call all sex rape even if they were all for it the night before? And let’s talk about the endorsements that he has lost and will lose as a result of these CHARGES despite whether or not there is a conviction. No one has been told her name, and maybe that if for the best, I don’t think it should be released so that people can have her killed or beat up. But why is his name released? How come his name is allowed to be dragged through the mud when he is innocent until proven guilty. These charges ruin Kobe’s clean image whether he is convicted or not, and I think that is fucked up. This girl is psycho, and she needs to face those facts. What if some 10 dollar whore turns tricks all day everyday and then gets a client with a big pocket book? do you think that they would hesitate to cry rape after the fact? It’s a cry for attention, and guess what, she got it.
Posted by Jens on Oct 17, 2003 at 8:42 PM holy fucking WOW!!! I love the ” I dont condone rape” crowd. Sounds like a statement from a rapist.
Am I the only guy out there who takes the time to TALK to a women BEFORE I fuck her???? Perhaps if Kobe had taken a few more moments to get to know this chick he would’nt be in so much trouble.
I cant believe some of the harsh language thats been used to describe women on this post. Are you guys kidding me?? Money hungry, evil bitches, five dollar whore etc. oh and dont forget nut-case. really???
Does stopping once a certain threshold is crossed REALLY take ALOT of effort?? The word NO and sex are not compatable. NO is an automatic turn-off. NO is a limp dick and a cold shower. Why cant men just admit that they have ALOT more control over themselves?? Is this one of those guys secrets that we’re supposed to keep from women??
What about homosexual sex? If a man tells another man NO in the middle of the act is that a MALE POWER GRAB??? Geeze some of the things guys come up with to excuse there poor choices.
What about the morning after accuser???
Everyone talks about protection and stops at condoms. Perhaps another way of protecting yourself is to use a little forethought. Friday night is a few days away and I would like to get laid this weekend. A few personal rules I will follow…...
1) Dont fuck someone you dont know. She/he could be one of those five dollar, evil bitch whores everyone loves to talk about.
2) Keep drinking to a minimum. If you wouldnt drive drunk dont fuck drunk. Your asking for trouble.
3) Be ok with not scoring. Going home alone is better than going to jail.
4) Most important of all…Dont ever, ever, ever fuck someone who’s been drinking. YOU always look better when SHE’S drunk.Pretty simple huh…..If you dont use a condom and you get HIV who do you blame??? If you drive drunk and kill someone who do you blame????? If you fuck someone you dont know and they claim rape WHO CAN YOU BLAME?????????????
PROTECT YOURSELF OR PERISH!!!!!!!!
Posted by Shawn P. Murphy on Oct 21, 2003 at 10:35 PM Shawn and many others make great points, and I think we can all do without the “evil bitches” remarks, no matter how much/little truth they may be grounded in.
However, I don’t think it’s taking the side of the “rapist” to suggest there’s more to this than meets the eye. I believe we would all agree on two things:
1) Rape is wrong, period. No means no, we all know this to be true.
2) No one except Kobe Bryant and this woman REALLY knows what went on in that room.
Here’s my biggest issue with all of this, his celebrity. That changes everything. I’m not saying necessarily that this woman is out for money, but how many of us SERIOUSLY believe this would be an “incident” if he wasn’t a famous athlete with more cash than a mint? Yes, no means no, but the fact of the matter is that this woman willingly went with Bryant to his room, shacked up, and supposedly told him no, or to stop, or whatever. Again, none of us were there, hard to say.
But here’s what’s easy to say: if she WAS raped, then the bastard should have his nuts cut off and thrown away, period. But what if she wasn’t? Innocent or not, in the court of public opinion, it’s all the same: Bryant is already convicted. But the name of this woman? Again, the ridiculous double-standard, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mentality of 60s-era feminism will not allow the “victim’s” name to be made public. Real nice, huh?
Yes, to suggest a male OR female can’t stop when told no is preposterous. I’m with Shawn, the only thing “no” ever did/does for me is to throw cold water on things. But it takes two to tangle, and this woman seems to want to avow herself of any responsibility, and also eat her Nutella, too.
Posted by Gary on Oct 23, 2003 at 9:55 PM If there is a kobe bryant movie in the making let me know because he and I lookalike. I was born to play the role
Posted by jermaine simpkins on Feb 20, 2004 at 10:20 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Posted by t on Oct 20, 2003 at 7:08 PM 
Also by Paula Kamen
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
