Many historians have alleged that Adolf Hitler had a Jewish grandparent. His self-hatred toward that aspect of identity might begin to explain why he masterminded the deaths of six million Jews. But what about the other six million people that died in Nazi Germany?

Tonight, Cinemax is airing The Hidden Fuhrer: Debating the Enigma of Hitler’s Sexuality, which suggests that Hitler was a closet queer and that he put sexual “misfits” to death as a response to his self-loathing homophobia.

The facts, however, seem to be sketchy at best. Whether Hitler was actually a closet queer is something we’ll probably never know. This, however, begs the question of why this documentary is being aired. Is it to raise questions and encourage people to question why Hitler masterminded the Holocaust? To figure out what drives tyrants to prevent these types of scenarios from happening again? Or so that historians have something to study and debate about?

What should we take from this? There are those who keep telling us to remember to never forget and to never forget to remember the Holocaust. Is this just another means of doing so? Perhaps. There is, after all, a tendency to privilege discussion of the Holocaust over discussions of other genocides. Some even go so far as to say that referring to mass killings such as those that befell Native Americans or Rwandans as “genocide” trivializes the Holocaust. But most of the people who say that are referring to the six million Jews who were killed in the Holocaust — not the other six million people.

But there is something unique about The Hidden Fuhrer. It begins to try to explain those other six million deaths. The suggestion that Hitler was a closet queer may not have the facts to back it up, but it raises questions about the persecution of other groups, which Holocaust studies and museums given little attention to.

Laura Nathan-Garner

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:

• Follow us on Twitter: @inthefray
• Comment on stories or like us on Facebook
• Subscribe to our free email newsletter
• Send us your writing, photography, or artwork
• Republish our Creative Commons-licensed content

Fierce, a magazine which I frequently write for, has been featuring a full-page advertisement that apparently has some readers in a tizzy to such an extent that many readers have cancelled their subscriptions to the magazine. But I can’t quite make sense of why some readers are up in arms. This isn’t another Details saga. This advertisement is more along the lines of art that would grace the pages of Adbusters. Not only is it a smart advertisement, but it’s one that speaks to issues that could potentially affect — and thus should concern — readers of this feminist publication.

At the top of the page, in large font of the same type used by Victoria’s Secret in their ads and catalogues, the advertisement reads, “IT’S NO SECRET.” Below that stands an attractive female model wearing fancy red lingerie. If you, like me, read the ad initially from top to bottom, you would probably think you were in fact looking at a Victoria’s Secret ad. That is, until your eyes get to the middle of the page, where you notice the model pulling down the top part of her bra to expose a scar — the result of a mastectomy.

The smaller print says it all: “Society is obsessed with breasts. But what are we doing about breast cancer? Instead of just thinking about breasts, you can help save them.” And then readers see the logo and URL for The Breast Cancer Fund at the bottom of the page.

So why are readers backlashing against this ad? Maybe they’re devout Victoria’s Secret shoppers, disappointed by the advertisement’s parody of Victoria’s Secret advertisements. Or maybe they’re not comfortable with frank discussions of the body in a public forum. Perhaps they’re in denial and just want to think about breasts in relation to sex and are turned off, even disgusted, by the sight of a young, attractive model exposing her physical imperfections (though Fierce never claims to be the female answer to Playboy by any means). Or maybe they’re in denial, preferring to play the game of “pretend the problem isn’t there, and it will disappear.” Whatever it is, it’s both disturbing and peculiar that a group of readers who are predominately female would be offended by an advertisement that spoke directly to a disease that affects women in particular.

To see a copy of the advertisement to decide for yourself, check out the inside cover of the spring issue of Fierce, now available at your local Borders or Barnes & Noble.

Laura Nathan-Garner

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:

• Follow us on Twitter: @inthefray
• Comment on stories or like us on Facebook
• Subscribe to our free email newsletter
• Send us your writing, photography, or artwork
• Republish our Creative Commons-licensed content

In a story I wrote recently, I revised the phrase “as American as apple pie and baseball.” To better reflect Americans’ lackluster sentiment about baseball and the most fashionable tenet of our contemporary political culture, I coined the phrase, “as American as apple pie and the war on terrorism.” But the MoveOn political action committee, which is supporting war on terrorism opponent John Kerry’s run for the White House, is attempting to change the face of America, and in the process, restore the old similes used to characterize American identity in this election year.

That is, MoveOn.org is sponsoring bake sales across the country this Saturday in an effort to distinguish the fundraising tactics of the Democrats (little money raised the old-fashioned way) and those of Republicans (big money). Sure, there is something a bit humorous about this fundraising strategy. I’ll admit that it reminds me a bit of the kids in student council holding bake sales to raise money for various projects in middle school. But why did we quit holding bake sales once we came of a certain age and develop more “sophisticated” fundraising strategies? Many, whose parents would no longer do the baking for them, didn’t have the time or interest to learn how to become Betty Crocker. But I suspect that much of the reason we outgrow bake sales as a fundraising strategy is the minimal amount of profit compared to the amount of time it takes to bake and stand around selling our products. That being said, you’re probably thinking, “and that’s exactly why this is a waste of time for raising funds to help Kerry defeat an extremely well-funded Bush campaign …”

But I’m not sure that that is the case. When I received the email about the MoveOn Bake Sale yesterday afternoon, I skeptically checked to see if there were any bake sales in my area. There were none. I then checked again a few minutes later and 10 bake sales within 10 miles of my zip code had been organized. Some of them already had close to 40 volunteers for baking and selling. Some are scheduled for individuals’ homes; one is scheduled to be held at a local grocery store; another is scheduled to be held at one of the largest and most popular book stores in the city; and one is scheduled to be held at a popular restaurant. And there will likely be hundreds more like these held across the country. At the end of the day when the profits are totaled, I suspect that these bake sales will raise more than those we held in middle school. But even if they don’t, I don’t think fundraising itself is actually the point.

Rather the purpose seems to be to restore a spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship to Americans regardless of whether they’re CEOs or people who are just barely getting by in today’s economy. And in the process, the bake sales serve to forge a sense of local community among bake sale volunteers and like-minded customers at any given bake sale. And by scheduling these bake sales to occur on the same day across the country, this project unifies Americans committed to unseating Bush and alters the sense of hopelessness that many have in the face of the corporate stronghold on the political process. Is this a winning strategy? Only time will tell with regard to the presidential election. But as a strategy to bring communities together and change the face of America one apple pie at a time, it seems like a promising project.

On a related note, I encourage you to check out the National Women’s Law Center report on the setbacks to women’s rights in the U.S. during the past three-and-a-half years. You may be aware of some of the setbacks, but due to a dearth of media coverage on the subject, some of the findings just might blow your mind (as they did mine).

Laura Nathan-Garner

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:

• Follow us on Twitter: @inthefray
• Comment on stories or like us on Facebook
• Subscribe to our free email newsletter
• Send us your writing, photography, or artwork
• Republish our Creative Commons-licensed content

I’ve always found it peculiar how people tend to praise statues and paintings of “healthy” — even plump — female subjects for their beauty, and yet beyond the museums, these same people  deem women whose body forms are similar to those artforms unattractive, fat, or a slew of other adjectives. How is it, I wondered, that we concoct this disjuncture between what we consider beautiful art and what we consider beautiful in the world around us (not that this isn’t art in some ways)?

Apparently, the residents of a small town in Tennessee are attempting to do away with this disjuncture. But now I’m left wondering whether it is best to acknowlege that we should be able to distinguish our opinions on bodies in art from our opinions on bodies in “the real world.”

In response to complaints about the classical-style, nude female statues at G & L Garden Center, the center covered the statues with two-piece sarongs. Apparently, doing so doesn’t just conceal the art. It also adds another layer to the art as the clothes alter the representation that people see and think about. Now many customers try to peek underneath the sarongs — which almost seems to suggest that people consider the statues to be no different than human bodies. Which, of course, begs the question: why do we continue to differentiate between artistic representations of the human body and the body itself?

Laura Nathan-Garner

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:

• Follow us on Twitter: @inthefray
• Comment on stories or like us on Facebook
• Subscribe to our free email newsletter
• Send us your writing, photography, or artwork
• Republish our Creative Commons-licensed content

When I was perusing the Internet yesterday, something caught my eye. I don’t recall the exact phrase used on the BUST magazine homepage, but the terms “Lynne Cheney,” “erotic,” and “bisexual” were definitely in the mix. Both intrigued and skeptical, I clicked on the link, which took me to the following story:

Marcia Ellen Beevre
is BellaOnline’s Gay Lesbian Host

Sisters — A Book By Lynne Cheney

If you look around hard enough on the Web you find some humorous stuff. Everyone knows that our Vice President, Dick Cheney, has a lesbian daughter, Mary, about whom he rarely speaks openly even though the poor girl has to work for his re-election committee. But did you know that Dick’s wife Lynne, wrote a sizzling western novel called “Sisters” which is filled with hot, steamy stuff like lesbian love, prostitution and rape, and supports a sweeping pro-feminist agenda?

The protagonist, Sophie Dymond, is obviously bisexual as she makes love to her deceased sister’s former boyfriend (outside of marriage I might add), and doesn’t shy away from sex with women either.

Some excerpts:

The women who embraced in the wagon were Adam and Eve crossing a dark cathedral stage — no, Eve and Eve, loving one another as they would not be able to once they ate of the fruit and knew themselves as they truly were. She felt curiously moved, curiously envious of them. She had never to this moment thought Eden a particularly attractive paradise, based as it was on naiveté, but she saw that the women in the cart had a passionate, loving intimacy forever closed to her. How strong it made them. What comfort it gave.

The young woman was heavily powdered, but quite attractive, a curvesome creature, rounded at bosom and cheek. When she smiled, even her teeth seemed puffed and rounded, like tiny ivory pillows.

Let us go away together, away from the anger and imperatives of men. We shall find ourselves a secluded bower where they dare not venture. There will be only the two of us, and we shall linger through long afternoons of sweet retirement. In the evenings I shall read to you while you work your cross-stitch in the firelight. And then we shall go to bed, our bed, my dearest girl.

“Sisters” was penned in 1981. It’s hard to find a copy today, but Amazon says they will give it a shot for you if you want a copy. It’s been said the Repubos are buying them up to keep the 2nd lady from having to admit to this embarrassment. The Canadian publisher was going to issue a second printing this year, but when the Mrs. got wind of it she called it to a screeching halt.

Like most of the indiscretions of the Bush administration that they don’t want you to know about, “Sisters” will be kept from public scrutiny wherever possible. Odd. Don’t they think we know that Repubos enjoy sex too? Even lesbian sex? Like most women, thoughts about gay sex have obviously crossed this author’s mind.

So apparently, Lynne Cheney can write, and apparently, over 20 years ago, she published an erotic book. And we’re supposed to care … Not that I can deny my own intrigue. After all, I did click on the link, though the link title was not nearly descriptive enough for me to know that the article would merely offer a look at Cheney’s past.

Sure, I suppose that the fact that Cheney penned this book draws into question the Bush administration’s sexual agenda. It does demonstrate that, yes, people from all walks of life think about sex — and all varieties of sex, at that. But does it prove that she supports same-sex marriages or actually engaging in some seemingly taboo practices? Not necessarily. Is one’s fictional writing always equivalent to the writer’s version of reality?

Whatever the case is, I find both this story about Cheney’s book and the attempts by Cheney and Republicans to hide her authorship of Sisters from the public’s knowledge to be symptomatic of “politics as usual.” Of course, Cheney has a past. Strom Thurmond had a child with a black woman. Bill Clinton smoked pot. President Bush was a wildchild and an alcoholic until he “saw the light” on his 40th birthday. He may have even gone AWOL during his time in the service. Newt Gingrich had an affair. Hillary Rodham Clinton used to be a Republican during the 1960s, and many a politician has reversed his or her stance on certain policies. Guess what? Each and every one of us has a few skeletons I’m sure we’d prefer that the entire world not find out about.

Is this productive politically? I think not. Instead of unearthing tales about each other’s distant pasts, perhaps it’s more fruitful for the media, politicians, and people like us to acknowledge that people do change. None of us are born into the person we’ll be at the age of 60. Rather, the experiences that we have throughout our lives allow us to accumulate knowledge, form opinions, learn new things, have new experiences, and alter those opinions and perspectives.

So perhaps instead of simply noting that certain political figures have pasts that contradict what they preach, we should ask why they changed. What experiences did people like Lynne Cheney have that caused them to alter their beliefs? How is Bush able to justify sending thousands of young men and women to Iraq when he went AWOL during his military stint? What was it that caused Bush to “see the light” and find God when he turned 40?

We may not like the answers we learn; we may not agree with what those politicians did in the past or are advocating in the present. But by questioning the causes of these so-called flip-flops, perhaps we can begin to understand the similarities between political leaders and ourselves and make better, more informed policies based on the changes and reversals that enlightenment produces. Maybe then we could finally begin to do politics based on leadership abilities, life experience, and knowledge rather than mudslinging about one’s past, which almost no one in the political spectrum is immune to. At least not if they’re human.

Laura Nathan-Garner

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:

• Follow us on Twitter: @inthefray
• Comment on stories or like us on Facebook
• Subscribe to our free email newsletter
• Send us your writing, photography, or artwork
• Republish our Creative Commons-licensed content

While I was at a coffee shop last week, I overheard the guy at the next table say, “I would vote for a potted ficus before I’d vote for Bush.” I couldn’t help but laugh. The idea of a plant running the country humored me, but my laugh was also a bit nervous. Is this what we’ve been reduced to?

The number of times I’ve heard the phrase “anybody but Bush” is peculiarly telling — not just about the concerns of people about the Bush administration but also about democracy more generally. We’re no longer concerned with voting for the candidate who we think can best lead the country, best represent our individual (and collective) interests, and best help sustain democracy. These are desperate times, and they call for desperate measures.

But in the midst of this despair, however, we seem to be missing a prime opportunity to reconsider what democracy is supposed to mean, how it is supposed to be structured, the best ways to make it more representative, whether direct democracy might be better than indirect democracy. No one ever said democracy was supposed to be perfect, but it is supposed to represent the interest of the people and protect the interests of the minority from harm by the majority (though FoxNews might beg to differ). But is that happening as we speak?

A few weeks ago, I attended the premiere of the film, Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove made George Bush presidential, and it frightened me — beyond belief. I learned things that perhaps I would prefer not to know about the workings of Karl Rove’s mind and his pseudo-fascist tendencies, but what frightened me more was that there are lots of people who don’t know and don’t care about the ways that Rove has ruined countless people’s careers, started insidious rumors that caught on because no one bothered to question his sources. A few days later, I saw Chisolm ’72: Unbought and Unbossed, a documentary about Shirley Chisolm’s run for the White House. I want to say that the inspiring story director Shola Lynch told about Chisolm made me walk out of the theater feeling hopeful, but I wouldn’t want to lie. Instead, it unsettled me. The first black woman to run for president, Chisolm ran on a platform that was for equality — in the most genuine sense of the word — and refused to engage in partisan politics. She spoke her mind and stood by it. But she received little to no respect from her running mates and fellow Congresspeople during her tenure as Brooklyn’s representative in the House. Granted, that was the 1970s and early 1980s. I’d like to think we’d come a long way since then, that democracy had become more representative, that it was the norm — rather than the exception — that politicans sincerely cared about the interests of their constituents more than their own political careers. But despite the increasing number of minorities in the U.S. government today, I’m not sure that the system itself is more representative or more democratic.  

And I’m undecided as to whether it has the potential to be more democratic or less so in this upcoming election. I’ve been told by a friend who works at a democratic polling firm in Washington, D.C., and read in other places that there is a high likelihood that there will be a tie in the electoral college this year, leaving the Republican House of Representatives to decide the election. Given the intense partisanship that seems to have taken hold of the government — and even the electorate, I would put money on it that Bush would be re-elected in this situation. In that world, is it the will of the people who elected those representatives or the will of the representatives deciding the election? Maybe a little of both? Whatever it is, the prospect of this has put me in a quandry about whether I think the structure of the U.S. government is democratic and representative and that democracy will thus prevail even if the election is ultimately decided by the House of Representatives or whether the electoral college — originally intended to guarantee equal representation to individual states based on the number of constituents they hold and thus equalize the playing field — should be done away with in the name of direct democracy.

In one of his essays in his book, Step Across This Line (which I highly recommend), Salman Rushdie talks about how the most democratic thing to have done to resolve the 2000 election would to have been to have Bush and Gore split the four-year term between them or have Bush and Gore essentially have a co-presidency where one was the president and the other was the vice-president since, after all, the electorate was so evenly divided about who should lead the country. It might sound ridiculous — even unfathomable — to us. But might that be the case simply because we have locked into our minds what constitutes democracy — i.e., the structure of the system itself — without considering the people who are part of that system as citizens and representatives? Is it unwise to center this election around Bush and Kerry? Whatever happened to we the people? Ralph Ellison wrote numerous essays in which he theorized about the limits of democracy and the ways in which people could hold democracy more accountable to the people. And every time, he suggested that change could only come from testing the limits of democracy. When we’re talking about “anybody but Bush” and potted ficuses sufficing as the next president, are we in fact testing democracy, or are we simply settling for something less becaues it seems more feasible? Maybe this is a good time to begin reopening the democracy debate — and maybe through that process, we’ll even find something resembling democracy …

Laura Nathan-Garner

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:

• Follow us on Twitter: @inthefray
• Comment on stories or like us on Facebook
• Subscribe to our free email newsletter
• Send us your writing, photography, or artwork
• Republish our Creative Commons-licensed content

After September 11, the CIA and the State Department were eager to hire Arabic-speaking people. It seemed as if suddenly, the U.S. had discovered there were people in the world who didn’t speak English and that the only way to figure out what they were up to was to speak their language. The government’s intentions certainly weren’t benign, given that Arabs were being profiled around the world, even at home in the U.S. But at least they encouraged Americans to learn to speak other languages, even learn about other people (though what they learned wasn’t necessarily unbiased or entirely accurate).

Since then, some U.S. leaders have retreated: Don’t learn Arabic. Don’t study the Middle East. Heaven forbid, you learn about an area of the world that has produced numerous religions and cultures — and where the U.S. has played a significant role (for better or worse)  in the politics and daily lives of the people in this region. As Joel Benin writes,

A band of neoconservative pundits with close ties to Israel have mounted a campaign against American scholars who study the Middle East. Martin Kramer, an Israeli-American and former director of the Dayan Center for Middle East Studies at Tel-Aviv University, has led the way in blaming these scholars for failing to warn the American public about the dangers of radical Islam, claiming they bear some of the responsibility for what befell us on September 11.

From what we’ve been told since immediately after 9/11, the events of that day weren’t prevented thanks to intelligence shortcomings — or at least the failure of the Bush administration to heed the warnings of intelligence officials, as Richard Clarke suggests. There apparently weren’t enough Arabic-speaking people working for the CIA, or at least the hate and passion with which the CIA began recruiting people based on their abilities to speak Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages indicates that this was the case (trust me, I had more than one Arabic-speaking friend get recruited by the CIA during the fall of 2001 and the spring of 2002).

Playing this blame game has reached a magnitude of unspeakable naivete and self-righteousness. Did the U.S. government and its intelligence operatives seriously think they could avoid speaking a language that was spoken by so many people throughout the world?

As much as I hate to say it, I suppose so. Apparently, some U.S. leaders have decided that the answer to the problem of the failure of Middle East scholars to warn the government that there were some crazy men who happened to be Muslim and who also wanted to harm the U.S. is to closely monitor the activities of university programs studying the Middle East and Middle Eastern languages.

Last year, Congress refused to give in to the demands of a group of politicians and lobbyists who sought to reduce the appropriation for Title VI of the Higher Education Act, which provides federal funding to universities to support study of less commonly taught languages, such as Arabic, Turkish and Persian. But, as Benin indicates, proponents of the previously rejected legislation aren’t giving up — and this time, Congress is taking them more seriously. The House has already approved legislation to establish a political review board “to discourage universities and scholars from tolerating bad thoughts,” and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions is now taking up the issue.

What exactly does this legislation do? Says Benin,

H.R. 3077 calls for establishing an International Higher Education Advisory Board with broad investigative powers ‘to study, monitor, apprise, and evaluate’ activities of area studies centers supported by Title VI. The board is charged with ensuring that government-funded academic programs ‘reflect diverse perspectives and represent the full range of views’ on international affairs. ‘Diverse perspectives,’ in this context, is code for limiting criticism of U.S. Middle East policy and of Israel.

Under the proposed legislation, three advisory board members would be appointed by the Secretary of Education; two of them from government agencies with national security responsibilities. The leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate each would appoint two more … The advisory board could investigate scholars and area studies centers, applying whatever criteria it pleases. The criteria almost certainly would be political. The whole point of the legislation is to impose political restraints on activities of Middle East centers.

But if failure to understand our differences and refusal to acknowledge the existence, cultures, histories and harm done to others contributes to so many conflicts — both big and small, local and global — is ignoring them altogether really the solution to the world’s problems? Or is it merely a quick-fix solution to the problems of a select few egos who are most concerned with their own credibility and authority?

Laura Nathan-Garner

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:

• Follow us on Twitter: @inthefray
• Comment on stories or like us on Facebook
• Subscribe to our free email newsletter
• Send us your writing, photography, or artwork
• Republish our Creative Commons-licensed content

Apparently, Janet Jackson still has CBS running scared. It seems that after her Superbowl incident, the network didn’t want to take any risks with Jackson, who appeared on Late Night with David Letterman today. The irony, however, is that this time, the network wasn’t concerned about the cleavage and naval area being shown on television. Instead, CBS bleeped out the term “Jesus,” which Jackson said in response to Letterman’s question about the Superbowl incident.

Growing up Jewish, I sometimes found myself in an awkward position in school when we sang deeply religious songs or when the principal led the entire (public) school in prayer, explicitly referrring to Christ. That is, in my opinion, completely different from someone using the term “Jesus” in a context that wasn’t related to religion (at least not consciously).

Did CBS bleep out “Jesus” because it was a use of the Lord’s name in vain? Were they afraid of getting sued by non-Christians at a time when the pledge of allegiance is under attack for the phrase “one nation under God”?

If it’s the former, then there’s a slight irony that a reference to Jesus has been silenced at a time when the growing conservative tide that has backlashed against everything from Janet’s nipple to same-sex marriage has been articulated largely on the basis of religious convictions. Perhaps they don’t want someone like Jackson, who has become the beacon of sexual chaos in the U.S., to be associated with the term.

If it’s the latter, then perhaps one’s got to wonder whether secularists have taken things one step too far. Jackson wasn’t saying the term in a State-sponsored event. The fact that she wasn’t using the term in a religious context seems to suggest that no one’s freedom of belief or expression was violated (except maybe Jackson’s).

On a somewhat related note, were you aware that section 215 of the Patriot Act states “third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosque records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it’s trying to protect against terrorism?” Would the real Joseph McCarthy please stand up?

Laura Nathan-Garner

Many opponents of gay marriage argue that if gays are allowed to marry, then that will create sexual chaos and justify polygamy, pedaphilia, and petaphilia. Yes, petaphilia (though you may be more familiar with the term bestiality).  For a fun and insightful read, check out this article from The Village Voice.

Laura Nathan-Garner

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