In
the September 3, 2016 edition of the Tacoma
News Tribune, there was an article from WA Post reporter Caitlin Gibson
about the controversy in the aftermath of making the movie, “Birth of a Nation.”
Gabrielle Union wrote a blistering editorial after she learned of her co-star
Nate Parker’s rape trial seventeen years ago. Nate was acquitted of all charges
and his female accuser eventually committed suicide four years ago. This
situation hit a nerve for Ms. Union, who was a rape victim herself twenty-four
years ago when she was forced into the back stockroom at a Payless Shoe Store. Because
of her experience and doubtless sensitivity to the issue, Gabrielle wants to
spark, as she sees it, a national conversation about misogyny,
hyper-masculinity and the embodiment a rape culture that is in overdrive in
American society. The center point of her argument rests on what constitutes “consent.”
This is a good point in which to begin this discussion because it might seem so
clear from a moral or gender standpoint, but maybe a bit murkier or less well
defined as a matter of law.
Let’s
be clear from the onset, and I will say this without fear of equivocation or
disagreement, “rape is not a sexual act.” It is perhaps the ultimate power trip
in which sexual means are fueled by violence and brutality to humiliate and
degrade another human being [female in this case]- relegating them to the level
of a non-person with no sense of value or self-worth. I have even heard a woman
refer to the act or experience of it leaving an empty space in your soul; and
that may very well be literally true. Any man that would do such a thing, leave
such a permanent scarring of someone’s being is not fit to called ‘human’ but
rather some ravenous, vicious animal hunting for some defenseless prey; but I digress.
Now, returning back to this notion of giving ‘consent,’ does it have to be
explicit or implicit? What about extenuating circumstances such as does the consumption
of alcohol or drugs lead to impairment or disability where one is not truly
aware of the consequences of participation in acts of a sexual nature, and
consent in not given a conscious, voluntary act but rather, it is coerced in
some manner?
One
of the arguments that Nate Parker used in his rape trial is that the victim
didn’t say, “No” [or stop]. I suppose his attorney was trying to use her
silence as “implied consent” which would not make it ‘rape’ technically
speaking. The thing is, though, a non-verbal “no” does not automatically imply “yes”
either. Also, just because a woman comes to a man’s room at 2 o’clock in the
morning or agrees to meet with him alone in his dorm room that she is, as the
colloquial expression, “asking for it.”Another point to consider is whether
prior consensual sexual contact (intercourse) with one’s accuser prejudices a
rape conviction in the present circumstance. I think Gabrielle Union as well as
other victims of rape or sexual assault should join forces and try to get this
issue on the front burner, but I am not so optimistic that it will become much
of a priority in the bastions of male-dominated power systems. Unfortunately,
gender-bias is America’s dirty little secret that no one wants to seriously talk
about, so it is conveniently swept under the rug.
I
don’t know what the answer is or who should begin the conversation, or where it
should start. On this matter, First Lady Michelle Obama or Miss ‘O’ might have
some ideas. In the meantime it is an uphill battle for women to get some
justice, or like in the movie, Magnificent
Seven, the gunslinger portrayed by Denzel Washington asked the lady who hired
him if she wanted revenge-she said she wanted righteousness but she would settle for
revenge [instead]. Just ask Gretchen Carlson about that one; ok, I digress
again. But this does go to a deeper
social issue that is more than oversexed men but how women are “commodified” as
sexual objects or things for a man’s enjoyment or pleasure and when he is
finished, she is tossed away like a thing discarded and disposable. Even within
the marriage some women are nothing more than “Stepford wives” and talk about
bizarre- I remember a case that went to trial many years ago, I think it might
have occurred in that state of Oregon, but at any rate it went something like
this: A wife sued her husband for rape but the judge ruled that a husband
cannot be criminally liable for rape because she cannot refuse conjugal
obligation rights to her husband. Of course the judge was a man, but since “rape”
is not a sexual act in the strictest sense, the wife should have sued for
domestic battery of aggravated assault with sexual motivations.
As with
bringing any suit before the Court, as the Plaintiff the burden rests with such
a person to prove with the introduction of evidence that convinces the
trier-of-fact (judge and/or jury) that what you claim satisfies the
requirements of the law for a guilty verdict, conviction, and incarceration and
other criminal penalty or sanction. I just had this thought about all the women
coming out of the woodwork accusing Bill Cosby of rape, most nearly forty years
later. I wonder what would have happened if the first one or two victims would
not have remained silent because their inaction allowed a serial sexual
offender (predator) to victimize other women. Yes, this is a conversation that
should be happening but when you make that call who is going to be on the other
end of the line, and will they be willing to listen?
Robert
Randle
776
Commerce St #701
Tacoma,
WA 98402
September
17, 2016
