Love, Actually?

This week, there was much blogospheric activity surrounding a recent Modern Love column, I Fell for a Man Who Wore an Electronic Ankle Bracelet. In the piece (read it, really), a young woman writes about her ex-boyfriend, whom she dated for three years. A few weeks into their relationship, she found out he was on leave from Harvard because another student had accused him of rape. She eventually got the law involved, he pled out, and he wound up condemned to house arrest and counseling. She didn't like who he became during counseling—inhibited, solemn, uneasy—so they eventually broke up.

It's a classic story of boy meets girl, boy reveals checkered past to girl, girl forgives boy, law isn't quite so forgiving. Or something. In any case, what's been getting people so worked up? For one thing, there are passages like this:

But for me the experience had fundamentally altered my previously programmed reaction to stories of alcohol-fueled date rape on college campuses. No longer was my response autopilot compassion for the girl. No longer would I assume the guilt of intoxicated boys in the company of intoxicated girls everywhere.

And this one:

Yet what alarmed me was not some sinister side of him I never saw but a passivity and retreat that I saw far too much of. In the end, I found it harder to love an emasculated boyfriend than one accused of rape.

Unsurprisingly people aren't thrilled with the New York Times publishing this girl's perspective, which occasionally comes across as hostile to the girl that accused the boyfriend of rape. The author doesn't believe that the rape happened: Her boyfriend told her they were both drunk and had sex; the plea he copped to said the girl told him to leave, but he forced his way into the room, her bed, and her.

Amanda at Pandagon writes:

Cross claims to have read everything about the case she could get her hands on, so it’s entirely unlikely that she isn’t aware that the victim was too drunk to fight him off effectively, that she tried to fight him off, and that he tossed the victim around. He forced himself on a drunk woman, which is way different than “they had sex”, a phrasing that implies that the woman was willfully involved.

So it's the word of what he told his girlfriend against the word of the girl/what he pled to. A lot of commenters at Pandagon dis the "he said, she said" approach to evaluating this situation. Really now, he pled to the charges. Well, I'm very hesitant to take any plea as undisputeduted truth. After seeing Capturing the Friedmans (mandatory viewing), I'll never underestimate the amount of tactical decision-making and personal crap that go into accepting a plea. While it's wholly possible everything happened exactly as he said, I don't think its place on the record gives it fact status.

So is the author deluded, as so many commenters say, or is she reasonable in saying that she knows the guy well enough to believe him? Here's an idea I'd like to throw out (if not actually advocate): She's wrong, but she's wrong because she's operating under the assumption that only bad people commit rape. That's the conventional wisdom, right? People who rape are bad people who are part of the rape culture and get off on disempowering women. Maybe that's true, I don't know, but I don't quite see why someone who's a generally good-if-imperfect person couldn't fuck up and rape someone. I mean, normal people do bad things all the time, right? They gossip and scheme and insult people and hit people who provoke them and do dishonest deals that make them more money and screw oinnocentsents. Non-hideous people prioritize their own immediate pleasure over the good of others.

So can this be what rape is about? Could it be that a drunk guy gets one "no, I don't want to" and little further resistance and just decides to go ahead? I don't see why not. To be clear, yes, this is rape. It is criminal assault and he needs to be penalized for that. Even if he was drunk, even if she wasn't very firm in her resistance. If she didn't consent he is guilty of something harmful and explicitly illegal. But I don't know that that's an indication that he is someone who gets off on dehumanizing women or is even likely to rape again.

It's clear the sex offender label has itself become nearly meaningless. Some 13-year-old who grabbed a girl's boobs may now have to register as a sex offender for life. Really, do people need to be warned that when he was 13, he assaulted someone in a not-especially-harmful way? And then there's that kid who's going to jail for ten years for getting a blow job from a girl two years his junior. I think he has to register, too. Great. Shouldn't this label and all the stigma that goes with it be reserved for people who are likely to be repeat offenders?

God, this post has been long and incoherent enough. I think it's time to stop. If you're a first time reader who got here via a search, please realize this blog is primarily written for myself and interested friends, so take it slow. All opinions represented here may or may not be mine. They're just what was running through my head while I was writing. I also ask that you please do not copy and paste sections of this post to another blog. Allow me to censor myself by deleting this post later on, if I deem it to offensive. Thanks.