Honor Code Violations

I hesitate to write anything on this subject again; it did not go well on my Facebook page.

It started with this article about Brigham Young University (BYU) and the students challenging the school's honor code. The claim was made that it unfairly targeted female victims of sexual assault. People were very angry, because sexual assault is a dreadful crime, and they insisted that school policy further victimized the women. How? Because if they were in violation of the school's Honor Code when the assault occurred, they would still face censure for any rules they, themselves, broke.

(You can read the entire Honor Code here.)

I sincerely thought that this was a misunderstanding of the policy at best, and knee jerk reaction at worst. It should be possible to clear up this misunderstanding easily, I thought. I posted the article and said so - "It's not about gender bias or shaming. It's about breaking contracts."

I mean, to me it's obvious that if you know that a policy exists, you agree to that policy in writing, and you sign your name to a contract saying that you will follow those rules or accept censure, there's very, very little room - no, strike that, there's no room - to complain if you're censured for breaking the rules. Simple. right?

A few people saw it that way. They said things like, "I agree that if a student agreed to attend this school knowing that they have such a code, that they should not feel like they get a pass if they're the victim of any sort of crime."

Most pounced on me and quite roundly accused me of condoning rape, of saying that women "asked for it" or "deserved it," and voiced the opinion that I only thought this because I was brainwashed and controlled by my religion.

This was a typical response: " There is NEVER a good reason for punishing the victim of rape."

I could not quite get across that no one was punished because they were raped, they were punished because they broke rules, even when I said things like, "They're referred (to the disciplinary committee) if there's something to show that a rule's been broken - no different than if a male student was pulled over for DUI, off campus." I spent the better part of two days answering every response, and people STILL accused me of condoning rape.

It's been months, and I am still astonished that anyone could take the statement, "Contracts are enforceable" and turn it into, "Women deserve to be raped." That is just such a huge, ridiculous, illogical leap that, if you'd told me before this that people would make it, I would have told you that you were wrong.

And I said "it's about contracts" repeatedly: "It makes no sense to say, "I agree to these rules," but then disagree with them if they negatively impact you. I wouldn't get a free pass on an honor code violation if I was a victim of any non-sexual crime, so why should I get one if the crime is sexual? The students are not being held responsible for their assaults, but simply for breaking the school rules" "As an example, the woman in the article who said, "I'm being honest here. I was doing drugs. But you're not going to censure me for that, are you?" If I was being asked, the answer would be, "Um, yes, I am. It's breaking the law, AND violating the code of conduct to which you agreed.""

Someone responded by telling me that someone was raped "because she was out past 10pm."

NO. To be clear, the women were NOT raped because of what time they were out. They were raped because they were alone with a rapist.

I didn't even bother to point out that, if you read the article, you saw that some of these women were groped, through their clothes; although that is sexual assault, and both immoral and illegal, it is not rape. I went ahead and let people assign the word "rape" to ANY assault.

It's bad enough to have acquaintances, people who don't know me very well, tell me that I believe that certain women deserve to be raped, but many of the people insisting that it was OBVIOUS that this was what I thought were people who've known me for 20 or 30 years, or more. That was quite painful. You've known me for most of your life, and you honestly think it's possible that I hold this opinion? What about my conduct or speech has ever given that impression, even for a moment? I don't even joke about this.

I realized that many people were obviously having a discussion about whether or not rape was OK, and I said, repeatedly, "This is not about rape. It's about contracts." I was told, "No. It's about rape." So, what if this were about men who were robbed when they were out after curfew, because someone was sure that they'd never report it? I was told that such comparisons are wrong, because rape was a violent crime, and therefore in a different category. OK, what if these men were beaten when they were out after curfew, instead? Do we say that you get a pass if you're the victim of a violent crime, but not a non violent one? Do you get preferential treatment if you're a woman? Both those options seem ridiculous and ill advised.

One friend finally understood what I was saying the next day, after protracted conversation, when I said, "First, here's what they did wrong: 1: choose a university whose rules they intended to ignore. 2. Sign a pledge stating that they would uphold the rules (or accept the consequences). 3. Break the rules. 4. Complain that they shouldn't be penalized for breaking the rules. Now, I'm not a sports fan, but that looks like more than three strikes, you're out.

But let's assume that nobody did anything morally wrong. Allow me to illustrate that point with an example starring: my husband.

Now, I think my husband is a pretty great guy. That's why I'm married to him. He has a job. His job has a dress code. It used to be just things like the kind of footwear they allow. Now, they have uniforms. If he did not wear his uniform, the first time, he'd be written up. A second time, he might be demoted or docked pay. A third time, and he could kiss the job goodbye.

It's not that his regular clothes are immoral or dangerous. It's not that he'd be unable to do his job in street clothes, or that he's a danger or distraction to others. It's not as if he turns into a violent pervert if he wears his Star Wars T-shirts. It's just that his employer has a policy. His employment is contingent on following those policies, regardless of his opinion about any of them. (The policy has also changed several times in the years he's been working for his employer.)

If he lost his job because he just couldn't be bothered to put on the uniform, I'd kick his butt into next week. If your employer mandates that everyone wear a Carmen Miranda fruit hat on Tuesdays, you wear one. You don't refuse to wear the hat, then file a lawsuit, and get the Vegetable Growers of America to back your suit, on the grounds that fruit hats perpetuate the idea that fruit is fun and vegetables are icky, and are therefore discriminatory."

The friend then said, "It sounds like the story you heard was "women are trying to use their status as victims to get out of responsibility for their actions.""

YES! YES! I have used THOUSANDS of words to say just that! I responded, "What I heard was "Women expect to get a pass on any rules they broke, because they were raped while breaking them, and rape is worse than whatever they did." My belief is, "Rule breakers should expect consequences, even if somebody else did something worse." Sex, gender, whatever is irrelevant. "

Most people wanted to discuss whether the rules were good ones, and whether rape was bad. We were having THREE separate conversations in one; and, many people really had no interest in understanding me.

One close friend severed all contact with me after this Facebook discussion. This friend is SURE that I was excusing violence and victimization. I can't talk to people if we're obviously having different discussions. And if you won't even have the conversation, well, I can't help you.

So, I'm going to have all three discussions here, separately. We've already had Discussion 1: Contracts Are, and Should Be, Enforceable.

So, let's go on to Discussion 2: Is Rape Ever OK?

This should be quick: NO. (But then again, I thought that the contract discussion was quick and self explanatory, so I'll say more.)

I said on Facebook: " My opinion on rape has always been, and I've said online, to my kids, and anywhere else, all of my life, that if a woman you've previously had sex with is drunk, naked and alone, but says "no," then you're a cretin if you so much as push the issue or ask again."

I'll admit that there is wiggle room in a marriage for a little wheedling. "No" might get the response, "Oh, come on, the kids are at your mom's! We never get this kind of privacy!" But in or out of a marriage, sexual activity is NEVER NEVER NEVER a given, an inevitability, an obligation. Never. You're allowed to be hurt, frustrated, unhappy with an answer of "no," but you still have to honor the other person's wishes.

I can't quite believe that it isn't an absolute given that I feel this way. But now you know - that's what I think.

People have a right to refuse even non-sexual body contact if they don't want it. Cases of safety, medical care and child rearing are the only times it's OK to touch someone who doesn't want it (screaming, "No bath!" doesn't mean that I won't bathe a child who needs it), and it's legally OK to refuse medical care!

Now let's have Discussion 3: Are the Honor Code Rules Good Ones? Honestly, I think this is where many people got bogged down. Having decided that they disagree with the Honor Code, they could not see any way they would ever be OK with its enforcement.

First, see my analogy about my husband's employer's dress code. I truly do not care if the rules are good or bad. If the school wanted to say that everyone must wear purple on Tuesdays, and must turn counterclockwise three times every time they enter or leave a classroom, those rules are enforceable. If you don't like the rules, don't attend the school. This is not public school, where attendance is mandated by law.

I said, " If I am mugged, neither the law nor popular opinion will consider it my fault. If, however, I was alone, at night, in certain neighborhoods or situations, wearing expensive jewelry, carrying large amounts of cash, people will feel - and rightly - that I did not take all of the precautions, or display all of the awareness, that I could/should have. That's the second consideration.

We routinely warn people to avoid the situations named above, or to lock their cars and hide their valuables, or to lock their doors at home. When we travel, those warnings go up. If someone is robbed, the thieves will still be to blame, and will still be prosecuted, but everyone from law enforcement to casual friends will remind the victims that they should have taken precautions in the past, and should definitely take them in the future."

"Of course, I'm also ticked off that society went from leaving our doors unlocked to locking them to also locking the windows to whole house security systems (in ONE lifetime!). We SHOULD be able to expect people to stay the heck out of our houses, belongings, etc. without them. But, when my house was robbed, one of the first things the police asked was, "Were your doors and windows locked?" And you can bet I would have kicked myself had the answer been "No. I trust in the goodness of my fellow humans.""

"If you (the rhetorical, as well as individual "you") don't like the rules at BYU, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. I mean, are campuses that are OK with all night alcohol and sex situations in short supply, somehow? There's only 3 BYU campuses (and the admissions are highly competitive). Surely someone who thinks the rules are Draconian is best served by going elsewhere."

"I mean, at its core, the point is that each person is responsible for their own actions, and accepts the consequences when they take any action. Just as we're not responsible for others, we also can't forgo the consequences of what we do.

The only reason this has people freaking out is because there's questions of sex, religion and violence pushing everyone's buttons. If I made the above statement in almost any other situation, people would say, "Sure. Of course. That's obvious.""

"To me, the BYU rules say, "You have to be more careful here than you did at home. You are away from family, familiar places and your safety net. The lines have to be adjusted accordingly. Even if you might not have a problem, the person next to you might.""

"I know that there are those who disagree with BYU's honor code. I've even had people tell me that following such rules "ruins" the students' chances of "living a normal life." People who feel this way should choose another school."

"Often, non-LDS people respond to hearing those things (included in the Honor Code) by saying, "They got suspended/kicked out/disciplined for that? That's normal behavior on any other university campus!" And THAT is why most people should attend schools that are NOT BYU."

"I have active, temple recommend holding LDS friends who say that they would not attend BYU or encourage their kids to attend, because they disagree with the honor code. That's OK; it's a valid opinion. But anyone who HAS chosen to attend does NOT get, in my opinion, to say, "Oh, wait, I've now decided that I don't like these rules, so I shouldn't be subject to them." Universities are supposed to prepare students to be productive citizens. Is there any civic law that will say, "oh, OK, you're exempt," if you say that you're philosophically opposed to the law or policy? Sorry, officer, I think that speed limits are wrong, so you can't ticket me."

I think everyone also ignored the fact that there are many, many possible outcomes when you're investigated for an Honor Code violation. From the official BYU website: " An appropriate action will be selected from the following: No Action, Counsel and Education, Referral (to a responsible person or agency—e.g., reconciliation process), Warning, Probation, Suspension Withheld, Suspension, and Dismissal."

That's right - you might face NO action, or a simple warning. There's EIGHT possible outcomes. They're not kicking you out of school if you were 5 minutes past curfew. (The complete article can be read here.)

Having had a couple of months to mull it over, I think that what upsets people most is the BYU dress code. This also doesn't really register with me, because, with a few exceptions, it's how all LDS people are counseled to dress. It's not unique to BYU. I tend to forget how any kind of clothing standards tend to cause people to freak out.

All LDS Church members are told to avoid tank tops (or spaghetti straps) or strapless clothes, bare midriff, bare backs and the like. Shorts should reach the knee. Women's swimsuits should be one piece. The school's is a bit stricter; in church during almost any week, you can find women and girls wearing leggings under skirts that are shorter than knee length, but BYU doesn't allow that.

It also is a code for ALL people, not just women. Men need knee length shorts. They are not allowed tank tops, sleeveless tops, or to wander around topless (except for places like the  swimming pool). They are not allowed beards, including goatees, soul patches, or simple scruff. (If you are a member of a religion that mandates facial hair, you are granted an exemption from that requirement.) My son favors scruff, and when he attended BYU-Idaho, they would not let him take his ID photo or sign in to his student housing until he shaved it off. Was he annoyed? Sure. He griped. But he complied, because those are the rules. He also left his cherished sword and knife collection home, because they violate the school's weapons policy. His weapons aren't considered immoral in any way - LDS Scout leaders gave him some of those knives - but they violate campus policy; so, they stayed home. Again, he griped, but he complied.

"But why have these rules?" people ask. I don't; I don't think that any organization needs to defend its dress code or other policies to me, personally. But, in this case, aside from the normal modesty standards we're all asked to maintain, they have a dress code for the same reason any business, school, company or team has a dress code: this is the image they want the public to see. This is how they want their school represented. (If you don't like it, go elsewhere.)

Asking for modesty seems to freak some people out. They are just sure it's about repression, shame, and subjugating women. They just cannot seem to wrap their heads around ANY other POSSIBLE reason for clothing standards, and I find that really puzzling. If it was about subjugating women, why are there clothing standards for men? Is anyone going to make the statement that the school, or the church, thinks that men should be the victims of crime if they're bearded and wearing a tank top? Then why assume that they're making those judgments about women? It's illogical.

I have gotten some truly infuriating answers when I've asked people questions like that. With some frequency, I get answers like, "It's easier for men. They can be considered fashionable and attractive in clothing like that ("that" meaning that it covers most of their body), but women can't." EXCUSE ME? That is an enormously anti-woman sentiment! Do you sincerely want to tell me that women cannot be "attractive" or "fashionable" unless they are in skimpy clothing? You don't see the rampant sexism in that statement? Do we want a university, of all places, to say, "Ladies, in order to be fashionable and attractive, you're going to need to show some skin"? There is no way that I'm OK with any form of that sentiment.

And if the sexism weren't bad enough, I'm also appalled that being "fashionable" is seen as a worthwhile goal. Don't think for yourselves, folks - do whatever's popular right this minute! Sure, what's popular will change in the weeks, months, and years ahead, but you're expected to change your opinion, and your appearance, to conform! I have so little use for trends of any kind, and certainly not for appearance oriented trends. I have the same basic "style" I had as a child. I never did big hair and parachute pants, despite being a teen and 20-something in the 80s. Am I aware that people make negative judgments about that? Yes. Do I care? No. And do not tell me that it is the job of a university to encourage the following of fashion; I find that thought incompatible with the idea of "higher learning."

Do I find fashion and its followers implicitly immoral? No. I just find following fashions to be superficial at best and elitist at worst. Neither of those things is desirable to me.

I also have a really difficult time with sentiments often quoted in popular media. After a celebrity was recently criticized after she posted nude selfies on her social media, she said, "I'm not going to dilute my sexuality and my power because it makes you uncomfortable." Honey, attention seeking is not power. And if you think that your power and your sexuality are tied to your appearance, opinions about you, what the public sees, exposure, or how much attention or validation you get, I feel very sorry for you. You obviously do not understand either power or sexuality.

I was deeply delighted by what actress Gwendolyn Christie said to TIME Magazine about her role as Captain Phasma in Star Wars, and in particular, about her costume (which, if you don't know, was unisex armor that included a full helmet with face shield): “What I found interesting about the character was when they showed me the costume, obviously it looks incredible, and I got excited by that. But it is rare that women get to play a character and below the neck they are really covered up to the extent that you cannot really see the flesh outlines of their body. This excited me for two reasons. It excited me because I realized that every gesture I made would have to indicate something, would have to say something about the character. So the way I stood, the way that I gestured with my arm, where I put the weight in my hips that would all say something about the character. Because [producer] Kathleen Kennedy said to me, ‘Have you ever Googled female heroines?’ And I said I hadn’t, and she did the Google search and showed me. There were a lot of very conventional images of women in fairly revealing outfits, or at least outfits that showed the outlines of their body. And it felt to me that there was a character where we should respond to her due to her actions and what she represented rather than a more conventional delineated flesh outline. And that felt like a step forward in terms of the kind of characters women play in films in our entertainment industry. It felt really progressive to me. And consequently I’m very proud to play this part because yeah, you look at her and she looks badass. But also it means something much deeper and it represents something of proper progressive thought, and it’s in a package that we all love. That’s why I’m so over the moon to be part of this wonderful thing because it’s actually doing something positive and progressive.”

YES. YES. YES. We should "respond to her due to her actions," not according to how she looked! That's the point! That's what I would expect anyone who considers themselves a feminist to think. About the whole brouhaha over BYU's honor code, I wrote, "And, I consider my position that it doesn't matter if the offenders are male, female, minor offenders, major offenders, sexual offenders, carjackers or term paper salesmen to be very feminist. The whole point is to assess by action and ability, not biology."

I wish I could find again and link to a blog I read several months ago. The writer, a woman, said that she had spent her life thinking that modest clothing, and in particular, modest swimsuits, indicated that a person was unattractive, out of shape, or suffering from low self esteem. Consequently, she wore "the tiniest bikini" she could find when she went to the beach or pool. She said that she was constantly comparing her body to those of other women at the pool, either positively or negatively. (And, by the way, the frequently used terminology about whether someone "has the body to wear that" makes me just see red. It's objectifying and demeaning. Whether or not you wear revealing clothing should NOT be determined by whether anyone else thinks you are attractive.).

Then, one day, she found herself enchanted by a little family. They looked so happy, and seemed to be having so much fun. The couple seemed very in love. Then, the writer realized two things simultaneously - 1. she had not compared this woman's body to hers at all, or even thought about whether she was attractive at all, and 2. the woman was the only woman at the pool in a modest one piece swimsuit. "I had noticed her life and her personality, not her body parts. Then, I realized that that was what modesty was about - letting people see my life and my personality, instead of noticing my body or my clothes." YES, YES, YES! That's what modesty is about! It is not about shame!

LDS people are fairly unique in our belief that God has a body, that we are literally made "in His image." That's another reason to dress modestly, avoid tattoos and abstain from alcohol and illegal drug use - to give respect to something that is the image of God.

Another reason for modest clothing is to preserve intimacy. According to dictionary.com, "intimacy" means: "a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship; a close association with or deep understanding of; an act or expression serving as a token of familiarity, affection, or the like; the quality of being warm or familiar." Putting your body parts on unnecessary display erodes intimacy, as your personal body was never meant to be for public consumption. It belongs to you, your partner and your babies, not to anyone with whom you might come in contact.

Even our sexual organs have non-sexual uses, so it makes no sense to me to assume that everything about your physical self is sexual in nature, and that's what you're doing when you insist that the dress code is about sexuality. Many, many things are physical, but not sexual.

Thinking that clothing standards are about sexuality is so foreign to me that I honestly do not consider that possible interpretation until someone (rather forcefully) points it out. In short, I forget that people think that way. Therefore, I'm at a loss to understand the rage that people direct towards the BYU dress code.

In general, I tend to assume that the most reasonable point is between extremes, and on a continuum of "nudist" to "burka," the LDS Church clothing policy falls smack in the middle.

In an effort to use an analogy to explain myself, think of it this way: I have a bank account. There's nothing immoral about it, or about my money. I am not ashamed of having or using a bank account, and I'm not ashamed by what's in it. It's important to me (and to my family). That is exactly why the only people who have access to it are my husband and myself. Even those I love and trust do not have access to my bank account. It would be too easy to do me and my family harm, even unintentionally, if I allowed other people access to it. That is exactly how I feel about my body. That is how I think everyone should feel about their body.

"But fear of being censured for minor infractions is keeping women from reporting assaults!" people have said to me. I understand, and sympathize, with many of the obstacles to reporting and prosecuting a rape. I understand fear of having to tell the story over and over, the frequent lack of physical evidence, fear that you won't be believed, fear that your attacker will retaliate. But if you would rather let a rapist go free, to rape someone else, than receive a curfew or dress code warning, I'm afraid that you aren't very mature, or displaying good judgment. And if your infraction was bigger - say, drug or alcohol use - you would undoubtedly be happier at another university, and should consider a transfer.

I don't mind if anyone disagrees with me. I do, though, mind very much when people try to tell me what I think, instead of asking me, and listening to (and believing) what I have to say.

And I don't mind if you take exception to the BYU rules. However, those rules are not about shame, blame or subjugation. And if your first instinct is to tell me that that statement is wrong, that I am mistaken or misled about that, don't be too upset if I tell you that you are wrong about what you think, or that I know better than you do what your opinion (or that of your family, religious philosophy, employer, club affiliation or anything else) is.

Phrases That Irritate

Today, we're going to talk about phrases that really annoy me. I hear them frequently, and I take exception to them, every time.

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

We've all heard that one. Maybe we've even said it. It's not true. Remember, first, that everyone who "does" - every surgeon, painter, musician, teacher, parent - learned from someone. Sometimes it's by watching another's example, or by examining their work, or by formal instruction. Sometimes, they learn how to be better at what they do, and sometimes, they learn what to avoid, but none would be who they are without teachers.

People who choose to teach professionally truly love what they do. They wouldn't bother otherwise.

When Tom Hanks thanked his high school acting teacher while accepting an Academy Award, it was an amazing moment.

More recently, Kristin Chenoweth graciously shared her stage, and her applause, with a teacher. The video went viral.

Teachers do, every day.

"It's perfectly natural. How can you say that something natural is wrong?"

Almost three years ago, I wrote this in a blog post: "I'm tired of hearing about what is 'normal.' Cancer is normal. It's afflicted humans (and animals) throughout history. All disease, filth, decay and death is normal. Does that mean that we elevate it to the status of desirable?"

Behaviorally, selfishness, greed and violence are natural. Birth defects and mental illness are naturally occurring, most times dictated in utero by body chemistry. They are not dictated by a person's choices or actions. Yet, no one would ever say to a schizophrenic, "Well, you wouldn't have the voices in your head unless you were supposed to embrace them." I want to know if things are beneficial, not whether or not they're natural.

The blog post I just quoted was about bullying, but a family member and I recently had this same conversation about monogamy. (She believes that monogamy is completely unnatural, but extremely desirable and beneficial.) There are many other areas in which it applies equally. "Natural" or "normal" is many times immaterial.

"Since I don't have a uterus (or vagina), I don't get to have an opinion."

I've seen this frequently lately, and I've seen people applaud it. I can't imagine why. This is a sibling sentiment to, "Not in my back yard." It says, "As long as it doesn't affect me personally, I don't care." That's appalling. When people are indifferent to the suffering of others, we decry the idea that it's OK not to care as long as you yourself aren't affected. So why would it be OK in this case, or any case?

More to the point: I do not have a penis, and I never will, but I have very clear ideas about what someone who has one should, and should not, do with it. There are definite rules about when and where its owner should use it. There are acts that it should never participate in.

Chief among these "don'ts" are rape and pedophilia. Virtually everyone agrees that these things are wrong, whether they personally have a penis or not. This consensus is generally accepted to be a good thing. One reason for this is that those acts affect another person besides the owner of the offending penis, people who do not always get a choice in what that penis does.

The above statement is usually used in discussions about either birth control or abortion. These things also affect more than one person. Birth control is only necessary when a man and a woman engage in sexual activity with each other. One plus one equals two people. Abortion is only an issue when a pregnancy has resulted; one plus one plus one equals three people. (This, of course, leaves out siblings, grandparents, and extended family and society at large - the same kinds of people who are affected by sexual assault.) I do not think that the man's opinion, or the opinion of other family or citizens, outweighs the woman's in these decisions, but I think that they certainly do - or should - factor in. Then there's the fact that, with an abortion, the child will be the individual most affected, and we cannot ask them to weigh in. This is true whether you believe that the fetus is a full fledged person, or whether you think that it is potential only. It exists.

I do use birth control, but that is a joint decision that my husband and I make together. I do think that there are circumstances in which abortion would be acceptable, but I think that those circumstances are few and far between.

I also think that, even in circumstances in which abortion would be acceptable or understandable, it is not necessarily the only correct choice. Amanda Berry has reason, if ever anyone had one, not to want to bear a rapist's child. Yet she, and her family, consider the existence of her daughter to be the one good thing that resulted from Amanda's captivity. Bearing and raising such a child is not easy, but I am sure that Amanda feels that it's worth it. Jaycee Dugard's biggest fear in reuniting with her family after 18 years in captivity was whether or not they'd accept her daughters, because "I would never leave my children." They are hers, regardless of the genetic contribution of a man who is both a rapist and a pedophile.

I know many adoptive parents; they, too, are glad that someone did for them what they could not do for themselves, and carried and delivered their child (or children).

"He's a good father and a good provider. Isn't that enough?"

No. It isn't. Honestly. It's a good start, but it is not everything needed to be a good husband. A good dad, maybe, but that's a different job description. That's like saying, "Bob is a great mechanic, so he's obviously an excellent automobile designer (or manufacturer or assembly line worker or driver)." They might be related fields, but they are not the same.

"Love is all you need."

I wrote an entire post about this. It's like a politician's promise - it sounds good, but it fails to hold water.

Tune in next time for more Phrases That Irritate. There are more out there.

A Study in Contrasts

Ariel Castro's formal sentencing hearing was today. Castro plead guilty to 937 charges stemming from the kidnap, imprisonment, rape, beating, starving and forced miscarriages of three young women, in order to avoid the death penalty. He'll serve a life sentence plus 1,000 years, without the chance of parole.

Imagine drawing the public defender short straw and ending up with this guy as a client.

I'm pretty sure that his public defender hates him, because he didn't stop Castro from speaking in public. The things that come out of that man's mouth are just beyond belief.

I'm not going to pass judgment on whether Castro was or was not molested as a child, as he claims, or whether or not he has a pornography addiction, as he also claims. I will say that it is an unconscionable slap in the face to every victim of childhood abuse, everywhere, to claim that his actions are the result of this. I personally can introduce him to a significant number of people, male and female, who lived through such horrors, at the hands of family members and at the hands of strangers, and they have all become compassionate, productive people. They try their hardest to shield others from horror, not to inflict it. Whether you know it or not, you probably know some of these people as well. They might be a teacher, a store clerk, a doctor, the parent of your children's friends, and if they didn't tell you, you'd never know what they lived through. Never, ever would they say, "I am not responsible for my behavior because of what happened to me," never.

Castro obviously needs some significant instruction in how to behave like a human being, as well as some instruction in the English language.

Mr. Castro,

Perhaps your schooling wasn't the best. Perhaps you don't own a dictionary. Let me explain something about "consensual" sex to you. It can only be consensual if both parties have the choice to be anywhere they choose, doing anything that they choose, with any companion that they choose, and with those infinite choices in front of them, they choose to have sex with one another. Women held against their will cannot engage in consensual sex. They cannot "ask" you to have sex with them, no matter what words you have programmed them to utter or actions you have programmed them to take. Unless they are free to go anywhere they choose and do anything they choose and then they come to you, the words and actions they exhibit in captivity are only examples of self preservation. They are not examples of how those women actually feel about you.

The same is true for the actions taken to end the lives of the unborn babies these women were carrying. It makes no difference how many times you say that Michelle chose, or you chose together. Even if we take your word for the fact that Michelle expressed an opinion on how to kill her children, and I doubt that she did, those words and actions were examples of her trying to minimize her own pain and maximize her own chances for survival. That, again, is a survival instinct, not any example that she agreed with you or agreed to her treatment.

And how amazing is Michelle Knight? To nullify Castro's claim that mistreatment guarantees predatory behavior, we need look no further than the walls of his own home. Michelle, Gina DeJesus and Amanda Berry all protected one another and the child in their home. Michelle literally saved the baby girl's life at her birth. It would have been so easy to give up, to wish for death, to turn against each other or to attempt suicide, but those women rose above their circumstances. They shielded one another. They have a strength that Castro never had and never will. Two of them were teens when they were taken, the other was barely old enough to legally buy beer, and yet their strength dwarfs that of a man decades their senior.

Gina and Amanda chose not to speak in court, not to give Castro another moment of their time and attention. That is a strong choice, worthy of praise. Michelle chose to walk into a room with him and force him, for once, to hear what she had to say, to take the upper hand. That is a strong choice, worthy of praise. Amazing, amazing women!

Ariel, when you say, "When I picked up the first victim, I didn't even plan it that day," how do you think we, the ordinary people hearing you, are going to respond? Do you think we'll say, "Oh, you didn't plan it? No problem then"? Even if you didn't plan it, you did it! Then, you had 10 years and almost 9 months to reverse that action, to do something to make it better, and you didn't! You kept her, because what you wanted was more important than her life! Instead, you took two more young women and subjected them to the same hell! Do you imagine that anyone will say, "Oh, as long as that first kidnapping was an impulse action, it's OK"? And why should we care if you planned it "that day" or any other day? Why would that matter? I would have far, far more respect for someone who did plan to kidnap and/or rape someone, but then decided not to, than I have for you and your, "I didn't plan it, but I spent more than a decade carrying it out" sorry excuse. You do not get to claim that your actions every single day for almost 4,000 days in a row are the result of a "problem" with "impulse control."

How do you imagine, for even a moment, that whether the young women were virgins before you took them would have any bearing at all on the situation? Do you imagine that normal people will say, "Oh, well, if they weren't virgins, they deserved to be kidnapped, held against their will, subjected to threats, raped or anything else that anyone might do to them"? It wouldn't matter if they had been prostitutes before you took them! What you did is wrong because it is wrong, period. It is not wrong to do to virgins but understandable to do to anyone who's had sex before. And let's not forget, no one has any incentive to believe a word that you say. You have demonstrated that you are dishonest to the core.

The truly astonishing part about these kinds of statements is that this is Castro's one chance to make us feel some understanding for him, to demonstrate some mitigating circumstance, and this is what he comes up with. I cannot imagine how much worse his behavior is when the world is not watching. Gina was so terrified that, even after Amanda, her daughter and Michelle had all embraced their rescuers, Gina hesitated to leave the bedroom where she was kept. There is a special place in hell for people who treat others that way.

Ariel, I don't want to hear that you didn't harm them because "Gina looks normal" on TV. Look in the mirror. You look normal, but you are not. If looks alone could tell us what a person will do, or has been through, the world would be a very different place. You, for instance, would not have spent years inflicting this kind of pain on others. We would all see you for what you are, from a distance. You should thank heaven that looks cannot tell us what's inside a person. That fact saved you from extreme violence against you.

To say that, "I feel that the FBI let these girls down" is a statement of staggering arrogance. The FBI didn't kidnap them. The FBI didn't chain them, beat them, pull a gun on them, keep them in the dark. YOU did that. To further say that, "It's possible that it would have ended right there" if you were questioned truly speaks to the rot in your soul. To know that it's only "possible" that you would cease inflicting pain and imprisoning others if you feared that something bad would happen to YOU is evidence of depravity.

As for your assertion that, "I'm not a violent person. I simply kept them there without them being able to leave," you can test out that thinking in prison. Your captors won't beat or threaten you - it's against the law. They won't chain you to a bed, a post, the floor or any other part of your room; that, too, is illegal. You'll have an actual toilet, not the plastic bucket you gave these women. You'll be fed three times a day, not the one time a day you fed the women. You will be allowed to experience light, even the outdoors. You'll have access to books, a TV, exercise equipment, even classes. Your jailers will not force you to have sex with them - again, that's illegal. They will simply prevent you from leaving. We'll see if you think that's a small thing after you've experienced 9 to 11 years of that. But wait - there's more! That will now be your reality for the rest of your life. Not such a bad deal, is it? I mean, it's not like your jailers are violent.

What a contrast - the strength and resilience of the women, and the lack of conscience of Castro.

I won't think about you very often in the years to come, Ariel. I will think very, very often about Michelle, Amanda and Gina.

Ladies, Michelle, Amanda and Gina, living well is truly the best revenge. Your lives now can be what YOU want them to be. So can the life of a little girl who can now grow up in the sunshine. You are heroes, ladies, all of you. You make the rest of us proud to be women, proud to be human, proud to be witnesses to your strength. Bravo.

He Said, She Said

We've all read the headlines, the articles, heard the commentators - we know what happened in Steubenville and what the verdict was. A 16 year old girl, passed out, was assaulted by classmates. They took photos and video. They were convicted in juvenile court and will serve time in a juvenile facility.

Most of the coverage, positive and negative, focuses on the depiction of the boys and the responses to that coverage.

Naturally, I think about the girl. The Internet truly is forever. Some day, when she's a grandparent and hasn't thought about the assault for years, the photos will resurface, and those around her will react. Because they're human, some will react with compassion, and some won't. Life is never easy, but we shouldn't make it unnecessarily hard on others.

I really don't care what she was wearing, or how much she'd had to drink. I belong to a religion that forbids alcohol and advises a far more modest clothing standard than is the norm, so I'm not a big fan of teenage drinking, binge drinking, passing out from alcohol consumption or skimpy clothes (and to me, average clothes such as tank tops qualify as "skimpy"). Still, none of that is material. It's like the temperature, or time of day, or the month - it exists, it's a fact, but it shouldn't make any difference. None of it is a green light to commit a crime, or even be disrespectful. If a male was passed out, would we say, "Well, of course we took his keys and address from his wallet and robbed his home"? If a person's property isn't considered forfeit after they've been drinking, or even after they've exercised questionable judgement, why should someone's body be?

It doesn't matter if she was promiscuous, virginal or anywhere inbetween. I don't care if she was naked and had just had sex with every guy in the room - if she doesn't want anything to do with you, right now, THAT'S HER RIGHT. A person can say "no" at any time, even after saying "yes," and it should be honored each time. You don't have to like it, but you do have to honor it.

It also should go without saying that if someone is unconscious, they cannot give consent, and that's an automatic NO. Do we really have to spell this out? Several people who witnessed parts of the assault said that they were unaware that it constituted rape (or assault). I can almost - almost - cut them slack for being kids, and therefore not as mature and clear thinking as adults, or for thinking, "Well, nobody else thinks it's a big deal, so I must be wrong," but only almost. If a person is unconscious, the answer to any question except "Should I save this person from any imminent harm?" is NO. If what you're doing won't make them happy when they're awake, don't do it.

Much has been said about the fact that several journalists bemoaned the ruin of the promising lives and careers of the young men. At the risk of bringing wrath down on myself, I will say, yes, it's a shame. To be a teenager and be convicted of a serious crime means that their lives will be radically altered. They will spend time in the equivalent of jail. They will have to register as sex offenders. Their lives will be very different than they would have been had this not happened.

The shame, however, lies with the young men themselves. It is not a shame that the crime was reported, that they were prosecuted or that they were convicted. It is a shame that they consciously chose, repeatedly, over a prolonged period, to treat another human being as though she was not, in fact, human, as if she and her thoughts and desires did not matter. It is a shame that they thought that calculated, criminal activity was fun. It is a shame that others thought the same thing. It is a shame that they continued, after sobering up and presumably having time to consider what they'd done, to think it was funny, recreational and no big deal. It's a shame that they thought that they were more important than the girl is. It's a shame that they don't seem informed enough to know that any sexually oriented act can be rape. Rape is not limited to a single sex act. Bluntly, it is rape even if there's no chance that she'll get pregnant.

It is a shame that they still don't seem to realize that they ruined their own futures. No outside force did it for them.

So, yes, that loss of potential is a shame, but not in the same way it would be if, say, they'd been injured in an accident. It's a shame that they had it and didn't value it and tossed it aside.

Also, consider the fact that they'll be out of the facility by, at the latest, their 21st birthdays. If they've done anything even halfway productive and earned a diploma or GED, they can then go to college, get an education, choose a career, have a family. They probably won't play college or pro ball, but that doesn't mean that their lives will be miserable and poverty riddled. Let's keep some perspective.