[kittenb]

It just makes me so fucking crazed when people like O'Reilly do things like this and then mask it in "But I am just trying to protect the womenfolk." It bullshit!

[faerietails]

Re: 20/20 chacha, that's ridiculous! I had actually meant to watch that because I wanted to see how badly they were going to screw up, but then I ended up having a Big Love season 1 marathon instead.

Ah, the link I posted doesn't work. Here's the article:

TOPEKA, Kan. - An abortion doctor plans to ask for an investigation of the state attorney general and Bill O'Reilly over comments by the Fox television host that he got information from Kansas abortion records, the doctor's attorneys said Saturday.

Dr. George Tiller said he will ask the Kansas Supreme Court on Monday to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and take possession of the records of 90 patients from two clinics.

Attorney General Phill Kline obtained the records recently after a two-year battle that prompted privacy concerns. He has said he sought the records to review them for evidence of possible crimes including rape and illegal abortions.

During a Friday night broadcast of "The O'Reilly Factor," the conservative host said a "source inside" told the show that Tiller performs late-term abortions when a patient is depressed, which O'Reilly deemed "executing babies."

O'Reilly also said his show has evidence that Tiller's clinic and another unnamed clinic have broken Kansas law by failing to report potential rapes with victims ages 10 to 15.

A spokeswoman for Kline, who received redacted copies of the records Oct. 24, said Saturday he doesn't know how O'Reilly obtained the information.

"We don't know anything about Mr. O'Reilly's inside source," spokeswoman Sherriene Jones said. "I assumed he was talking about somebody on the inside of the abortion clinics."

Kline, an abortion opponent and Republican in a tight race with Democrat Paul Morrison, was interviewed by O'Reilly during the segment.

"Our information says that on almost every medical sheet — and obviously we have a source inside here — it says, 'depression,'" O'Reilly told Kline during the broadcast. "I don't know whether you have that information or not — I don't know — but that's what it says."

Pedro Irigonegaray, who represents Tiller and the clinics, said it was "preposterous" that the information would come from an insider at one of the clinics.

"This has been our concern from the beginning, that if he ended up with these records, that just this type of event would occur. Our worst nightmare has happened," Irigonegaray said. "Women in America deserve better than this."

It wasn't clear Saturday whether O'Reilly's source had broken state or federal laws by divulging patient information or whether O'Reilly or his staff had viewed any records themselves. A request to Fox in Washington to interview O'Reilly or someone associated with his show wasn't answered Saturday.

Kline, one of the nation's foremost abortion opponents, has said the targets of his investigation are rapists, sex offenders with child victims, and doctors involved in illegal abortions. Those could include doctors performing illegal late-term abortions or those failing to report abuse of a child.

The clinics had argued that giving the attorney general access to the records would invade patients' privacy.

Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson subpoenaed the records at Kline's request in September 2004, concluding there was probable cause to believe they contained evidence of crimes. The documents Kline received were edited so that individual patients could not be identified.

I hate O'Reilly.

[kittenb]

Wow, so much going on here, I don't know where to start.

Maddy, good god, who funded that study? The False Memory Syndrome Foundation? It really, truly sounds like them. I wish the researchers could see the backwards logic in what they are proposing. First of all, yes, when I was raped as a child, I was not as visibly traumatized then as I was when I was in therapy as a young adult. But I did not have the emotional sophistication to process the trauma so I just pushed it down. The visible signs came out when someone was willing to listen to me and see what I was hiding. That was when I learned the launguage and was able to start a long-delayed freak out! Does that mean that I wasn't traumatized when I was 7? No it just means I was not free to express it. We are called survivors for a reason; sometimes survive is all we can do!

veitia & thingsarenice - yes, the false reports of rape number about 1-2% according to the FBI. Just because cases are not respected by the local law enforcers does not declare them false. I read somewhere that the FBI states that more people falsely report themselves as dead than as having been raped.

As for prostitutes and their legal protection from rape, under the law, they have the right to say no. However, thoes who enforce the law have a fucked up way of doing their jobs when it comes to sex workers. Most of society considers prostitutes "unrapeable." There have been times that sex workers have reported crimes against them and then they themselves have been arrested for solicitaion. In the hospital rooms they often get less quality care then other rape victims. If they can get any care at all.

With regards to spousal rape (wives are often included in the so-called "unrapeble" list) only in 1993 was it a law across America that spousal rape is a crime. However, in 33 states it is still considered a lesser crime. (I got all my stats here from Wikipedia.) I know that in Illinois, the reporting time and statute of limitations was much shorter and stricter than for other cases of rape until this year.

Oh, just so I am not missunderstood, when I say "unrapeable," I mean people whom society tend to belive do not have the right to say no to sex. We talk about it in my job all the time.

[bustygirl]

Venetia, it's because no one wants those poor, poor men to be victimized by us big, bad women.

To me, rape has always been partially men's way of badly dealing with the tremendous power women have over them. Because only those who feel small and powerless inside will go to such ridiculous lengths to cover it.

On the surface, there are lots of other reasons, but I've always thought that was something close to the core.

[chachaheels]

I've come to the same conclusion about rape laws too. After all, they do stem from a society that, until very recently, only saw women as chattel (that's why it took until the 1980's before a law protecting married women from rape got on the books--technically husbands "own" their wives). Good to know there's a law stating it's a crime, but you still have to actually look at the law books to see how that law's been interpreted when women have actually pressed charges against husbands or boyfriends who've raped them.

I looked and looked for a similar law protecting prostitutes, and one does not seem to exist in Canada. Hence, if you buy a prostitute, you buy someone to rape, legally--I think the law still sees this the transaction as a proof of consent. There's no consideration for any realities such as the fact that a lot of women are forced into prostitution, which would of course make the whole concept of "consent" questionable in that kind of transaction.
(There are a lot of countries who are already so long past this outdated and unfair idea about prostitutes and rape--Swedish law, for example, very clearly sees being forced into prostitution as a kind of rape in itself).
As long as we're all working on this "property" idea as a foundation for whatever rape laws exist, I don't think the legal definition of "consent" can ever be clear; so the laws are really unsufficient.

On another topic--last Friday night I caught a few minutes of 20/20 (a really bad show--unbelievable what they call journalism) because they were making a huge deal about how they had a "special" show devoted to "Privilege": who has it, and how they're keeping YOU out! They made a big deal about exploring privilege to wealth, to beauty, to celebrity, to colour (but that was grudgingly done--the idea that white men are privileged was so discomfiting to John Stossel that he went out of his way to find a black scholar who would pipe up that white privilege was not the real problem--the real problem was that black people don't want to take responsibility for lifting up their own lives!). Anyway, the show was supposed to examine all kinds of privilege and bias in our society--but towards the last twenty minutes of the 2 hour long epic show, no one was talking about the privilege granted to gender. How men have more privilege than women.
I stopped watching it...and I wonder if anyone had seen it.

How fucked up would it have been if it spent 2 whole hours exploring this idea as if they were serious, but they carefully left out the one form (the form in which more study and writing about privilege and bias has taken place than in any other area they supposedly covered)? It's like shrieking that discrimination exists on every level, but at least sexism's been eliminated.

[faerietails]

O'Reilly abortion report riles Kansas MD

[venetia]

According to this website Canada outlawed spousal rape in 1983 (I just had to google it, it was too freaky - turns out Canada got that law at around the same time as NZ). It seems bizarre that it was ever legal. Rape laws seem way too much like property laws sometimes.

Gah, which reminds me - why is it that with rape people are so quick to point out that there are some false reports of rape, yet if I tell someone my friend's car got broken into on the weekend they're not all "ooh are you sure, sometimes people make false reports to claim insurance!"

[chachaheels]

I'm not sure if it varies from state to state or province to province, but a lot of laws surrounding rape in general vary across states and provinces. That drunken "consent" case raised a lot of ire in Canada, but the judge was never taken to task for it, and the perpetrator was still "not guilty". Of course it set a precedent.

I remember when I was a kid that one state in the US had actually passed a law making it illegal for a man to rape his wife. At the time, no such law existed in Canada; I'm not certain such a law has been passed since then, but it is so controversial as a concept (holy sexism) that I think it would have been big news if it had. To me, it would be so wrong if a law like this weren't on every lawbook in any nation, but a lot of people think the idea of such a law is ridiculous, and see "rape" as something that can never happen to a wife by her husband.
Also, I'm not sure if prostitutes are protected from rape either. When I was in highschool, they weren't.

Another couple of examples of the legal "grey" around the idea of consent: the law is pretty specific, though, in whose consent matters, and whose does not.

[venetia]

AIR the definition vis a vis whether drunk or unconscious women can give consent varies from state to state in the US?

[chachaheels]

I truly think our definition of "rape" has to be expanded far beyond just a sexual act without "consent", a legality which leaves a lot of women at a huge disadvantage, as Erinjane illustrates. There was actually a case here in Canada a few years ago where a man who raped a hugely drunk woman was declared innocent because the woman was drunk, so, technically I guess, she was seen as "consenting" in some way.

As it stands, there is no room to consider the crime of rape as something that takes place by coersion (the way it does with children, where molesters try to seduce them and earn their trust before raping them). There is also no room to see things such as sexual harassment as rape, a situation where a person is under a great deal of pressure not to say no (though there are many other countries where sexual harassment actually is defined as rape).

We really are not given much recourse, legally, when this crime is committed.

[katiebelle2882]

i think they are talking about once penetration occurs, then you cant go back on it. which i dont think is cool, but it would make proving it impossible almost.

i dont think yourr lines were blurry erinjane. you consented to fooling around, not sex. you should never feel as though you led him on bc you clearly said NO. thats all you need.

thingsarenice-yeah i cant imagine its very high. i think the problem with saying no after penetration might be vindictive girls who maybe got dumped, or cheated on, or something else after they had sex bc of this law that says you can say no after penetration. i mean, i think you should be able to say stop at any point in intercourse if you arent comfortable, but from a legal perspective maybe thats the idea. i dont know. those lines are very blurry.


check this article out. this is what i live to see

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/43849/

[thingsarenice]

From what I know, the amount of false reports for rape is about the same as the amount of false reports for any other crime--1-2%. Just throwing that out there.

[erinjane]

But it also depends on what counts as consent. Some people would say I consented because I took my pants off. But I would say I never consented. I consented to 'fooling around' but as soon as he began trying to have sex with me I vocally said no. The lines are very blurry.

[katiebelle2882]

the problem with saying no after sex has started means it makes it very very hard to prove rape through DNA evidence. while theoretically, you should be able to say no whenever (i mean hello what happens if he starts doing weird shit!) but many many people could be put in jail bc of women who pull shit like this bc someone didnt return their phone calls or something. i know most feminists dont want to think that ever happens, but i know more then 3 women who did that.

that being said, given that rape is the most underreported crime, its probably not as big an issue as a woman who sincerely wants it to stop and the men say f-off. scary. very very scary.

[erinjane]

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/10198629/detail.html

Christ, this is scary.

[katiebelle2882]

this is not really feminist necessarily, but the tribe that is detailed here is the same one that cecelia fire thunder was the president of. honestly, how can we live with ourselves when stuff like this is happening to the people whose country this REALLY is?


http://www.silvrdrach.homestead.com/Schwar...006_Oct_15.html

[girlbomb]

Did you ladies see this series about trafficking Korean sex workers in the Bay Area? It's a doozy. Provides a nice link to myredbook.com, which is a site johns use to compare things like anal tightness among sex providers and which "crackwhore" strolls where. Empowering!

[thingsarenice]

Um, the hell? Isn't it kind of common sense that someone is going to feel crappy after talking about a bad memory as opposed to a good memory? So yeah, remembering something can be traumatic, but only if the thing a person is remembering is awful, ie: rape, assault, death of a loved one, etc. So then... how is the memory of something being traumatic not make the occurence itself traumatic? I'm confused. My head may explode if I think about that for much longer.

[maddy29]

what's amazing to me, as someone who works in research, is how the hell he gets funding! i mean, who pays for this? This is clearly not good, credible research. My group does research on adherence to HIV medication, and also recovering after major mental illness like schizophrenia (yes, people DO get better and live normal lives), and it's SO HARD to get grant money. So how the heck does this guy get money? very weird.


more OT- i was in this study of sexual abuse survivors and now they are churning out all this "data" and their "conclusions" and it's pissing me the fuck off, because it's really clear that they are putting in their own biases-saying that sexual abuse itself may not be traumatic, but that remebering it IS traumatic. um, what? then they say things like "the people who found it traumatic at the time had ALL talked to therapists about their memories." uh, yeah, that's what therapists are for-but they're putting in there this whole "Therapists create memories" or some such shit. I ihave to write them a letter because it's pissing me off. They keep mentioning mein the articles as "only one woman" said such and such, so i konw they are using me, and they are saying that i'm the minority, etc. Well ya know what? you only interviewed 25 people, k?

sorry for the rant, i think i need to get on that letter. it's clancy and mcnally, from harvard, if anyone is interested.......pisses me off that they're taking my experience and using it to say that being raped by grampa at age 7 IS NOT Traumatic. GRRR!

[stargazer]

chacha~it is the same old boring, repetitive research that keeps some of these academics in their jobs. it's called self-importance. nothing groundbreaking. and his argument can be easily torn apart.