If you haven’t heard, Kobe Bryant’s accuser has spent the last day (and will spend Thursday as well) testifying about her sexual history in a Colorado courtroom. The purpose, we’re told, is to allow a judge to determine whether she should be forced to testify about her sex life during the trial.

My initial thought was, “How ridiculous. Why should this even be a consideration? (Not to mention, how horrible for this woman to have to share her sexual history with a courtroom full of strangers).” But then, I thought about it and realized that the alternative was for attorneys and so-called “expert” witnesses to discuss this woman’s sexual history without her input. Not that I think that this redeems this woman’s predicament. After all, forcing this woman to testify during the pre-trial phase isn’t exactly emancipating (at least, I wouldn’t suspect that to be the case). As far as I know, Kobe’s sexual history isn’t in question (his basketball savvy isn’t either, for the record).

In many ways, I feel like this woman is in an unenviable predicament. She’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. I don’t even know the issue at hand any longer is that of whether or not she was raped. The question, in many ways, seems to be about her credibility and her sexual history — not about Kobe (whom, if you weren’t aware, is actually the defendant in this case). That is extremely troubling. What does it say about our justice system when we have to determine whether the plaintiff is guilty until proven innocent before we determine whether the defendant is innocent or guilty?

Laura Nathan-Garner