Thu, November 6, 2003

I finally got around to reading ARCC Joe Mulder's column on Kobe Bryant. (Forgive me, I get busy.) In it, he makes some fantastic points about the Kobe case and the practice in general of trying criminal cases in the court of public opinion. It reminded me of a partial column I had thrown together many weeks ago about the same subject. (Forgive me, I get busy.) (So busy I've been known to pad my columns using cut-n-paste.)

It's frustrating that Kobe's fans are showing up at Lakers games with signs protesting his innocence. It's more than a little alarming that there's such a tendency to jump to conclusions about someone's personal life just because he's a well adored public figure. Especially when all we know about his private life is that he's a confessed adulterer. But the signs are really only the tip of the iceberg, and that's where it gets really scary.

Just now, I was thinking about this column and how to construct a defensible argument for the points I'm interested in making. I was reminded of the allegations against Paula Poundstone a few years back. When child abuse charges were leveled against Poundstone, I was saddened but also a little defensive. Reflecting on this was frustrating at first because I was trying to make the point that Kobe's fans have no reason to come to his defense since they don't know what really happened. But then I realized the difference. It's a small one, but it's my website, so it counts. Poundstone was accused of abusing her foster children, and I had read numerous sincere columns that she had written on the back page of "Mother Jones" magazine about her foster kids and how great they were and how much she loved them. So, I had some basis for my opinion that it was highly unlikely for her to cause them any harm. (We all know celebrities are often tortured and irrational people, so it's perfectly possible that she wrote those things and still did what her accusers said she did. I just didn't believe it.) At least my opinion was based on some prior information about that part of her life. And I was sad and defensive, not just blindly defensive.

Anyway, the reason the half-column began in the first place was because hand-made signs of misdirected support did not constitute the first response we saw from Kobe's fans. No, the first thing that they (and by "they" I mean "a very small percentage of them, but a representation of the group nonetheless") did was to publish personal information which allegedly identified his accuser, and then attempt to slander her character. She had been to the hospital after experimenting with drugs at a party. She had tried out for American Idol. Obviously she was unstable and looking for attention. But that doesn't prove she's a conniving slut. (Just because in Monica Lewinsky those things added up to an entrapment scenario against an unwitting philanderer doesn't mean it's always true, people!)

It's a tricky situation; when both sides acknowledge sexual activity, it's his word against hers whether it was consensual or not. But being a hot 19-year-old and (consequently?) having fun with drugs or wanting Simon Cowell's approbation doesn't necessarily make her a liar. Just as having a wife and a Sprite contract doesn't necessarily make him virtuous. As Joe says, we don't know. We'll never know. Even if twelve of Kobe's peers decide which sequence of events they believe, we won't have any definitive proof if that's correct.

What's at the heart of the issue is "No means no." The only oversight in Joe's column (and it's a small one, and I understand why he made it), is the implication that "No" only means "No" for girls. He writes, "any woman has every right to end any sexual encounter at absolutely any time, no matter what the circumstances." And he's damn right, too. I'm sure he means any "person" has every right. I know him; I'm sure he does. It's easy to overlook that distinction because we all know that no guy in his right mind is going to terminate a sexual encounter, no matter what the circumstances. Even if he really, really should. Lord knows I know that. But it's important to point it out, because the focus of the argument is the double standard as far as men and women are concerned. If a guy has a lot of sexual partners, he's a stud; if a girl does, she's a slut. The argument Joe overheard, that the young woman was asking for it by wearing revealing clothing, or being in the hotel room in the first place, is downright wrong. Just implying to Kobe that you want to have sex with him does not equate consensual sex. Even if she said, "Let's have sex," and then changed her mind when the moment was upon her, it's his responsibility to accept that. He has a right to be disappointed – angry, even – but he doesn't have the righ to have sex with her against her will. (And, for the record, since we'll never know what really happened, if she changed her mind after it was all over, that's called "regretting a bad decision" and you can't sue someone for that.)

So part of the problem is that he's a guy. And part of the problem is that she's 19 and she's attractive. Hot teenage girls are everyone's fantasy and that means everyone thinks of them as sex objects. Over time, that kind of perspective will necessarily paint them as willing sexual participants. Add to that the fact that our current culture introduces sex to children at an earlier age, and everyone just assumes that any young, attractive girl who wears attractive clothes is Christina Aguilera. Even if she's a perfect angel and she just wants to dress nice. It's not her decision how short the Gap cuts its skirts. The deck is certainly stacked against her.

Plus we know him, and we don't know her. People have built a relationship with Kobe over time, even if that relationship consists only of watching him sell soda and admiring his athletic skills. Whereas nobody has heard of this girl before, so every passing speculation upon her character has as much ring of truth to it as anything else. There's no filter through which to judge what's true and what's not. And it's unlikely that, other than character assassination, any real evidence will be presented in the trial. Both parties have acknowledged that it happened – aside from a signed affidavit, what physical evidence could come to light which supports either story? As Joe says, we'll never know.

The public loves its celebrities and doesn't want to admit that they do wrong. And juries, however impartial they may try to be, are members of the public. Lord knows OJ knows it.

POLL:

Informal Poll

Kobe Bryant?

Dumb
100%
Awesome
0%

3 votes

THE LATEST FROM POOP READING:

© onebee · all rights reserved