23 March 2013

I have something to say about rape

So I've noticed in the news lately that there have been a lot of articles about rape and sexual harassment cases, whether it be rapists being acquitted easily or victims being blamed or important people trivializing rape. My aim in writing the below is to make people on polarized ends of the opinion scale when it comes to rape realize the complexity of the relationship between the law and society's opinions, both of which are legitimate in their own right. I'd like for people to consider both sides of these cases and try to reconcile them so that we are not over-virginizing or condemning victims in these situations, incite more discussion and create a potentially fairer (or at least less contested) way for such cases to be handled in the future.

I'm not talking about stranger-rape or assault-rape or roofie-ing which is generally agreed upon to be outright disgusting and wrong and power-motivated, but rather the fuzzy-lined acquaintance type rape which seems to be coming up in the media more frequently lately. I'm also not going to talk about stupid politicians saying brainless things because that's not worth my time and I'm pretty sure most educated people know when their politicians are being idiots.

There are some things I'd like for people to realize about the justice system:

1) Rape is not necessarily sex without 'consent' in the regular sense. If a drunk girl throws herself at you, it is obvious that she "wants the D" (as one twitter user so eloquently put it), but it is considered rape in the eyes of the law if you then have sex with her, because she is in no state to give proper consent. If she sobers up and is fine with what she did, then okay. But if she regrets her actions and feels you took advantage of her drunken state (which you did), then from a courtroom's perspective you are a rapist. Plain and simple.


[apologies for assuming rapist is male and victim is female, this was in response to a particular case I read, obviously also applies for all combinations of genders]


2) Similarly for underage partners, the issue of one person taking advantage of another is the one that the law punishes, not the actual act of sex itself. A 13 year old cannot be held accountable for their deluded idea of what they want because they aren't old or mature enough to rationalize those decisions yet (note this is the same line of logic which allows underage offenders to have lighter sentences and have their own juvenile prisons, so if you believe minors should have sexual freedom then you are also saying you want all minors to be tried as adults in court). Statutory rape is not rape in the sense of having sex with someone against their will but the act of taking advantage of someone who cannot make legal decisions for themselves (and as an older person one should take responsibility of the situation). A lot of people are irked by the idea that if they turn 18/16 half a year before their significant other they are somehow in violation of the law if they are having sex, but it honestly can't be helped if you think about it since it's the law's job to put concrete boundaries on things and there has to be a line somewhere (if you think it's creepy for a 65 year old man to have sex with a 15 year old then you have proven that point to yourself already).

3) If a girl is wearing provocative clothing, you can't just say she wasn't raped. Someone likened this to walking around the street waving hundred dollar bills around and expecting not to get robbed. Yes, obviously there is risk, but in that case as well, is the thief innocent? There is only risk because we live in a society where people do things like cheat and steal. In an ideal world (which is what the law aims to propel), people should be able to walk around with hundred dollar bills hanging off them without the fear of being mugged. That's just a baseline of trust. In the rape scenario, the act of wearing short skirts is not a green light for rapists. You should ask a dude if you can borrow a hundred bucks from him just like you should always make sure your partner is willing, even if they happen to be wearing provocative clothing.

4) Perhaps the most important point in that it's the counterpoint: The justice system is not perfect, and it certainly does not dish out all the judgment. Society itself judges: this is why rape cases are so complex and have had so much coverage lately, because of the polarized opinions surrounding each case. In response to the points above:

4-1) In terms of victim blaming: a lot of people believe that nobody should get drunk enough to lose control of their senses like this , so since they gave up that control when they decided to drink those 12 consecutive shots, they should be responsible for their actions. Being drunk is not an excuse -- when it comes to cheating on your significant other, when it comes to accidentally killing someone, and of course when creating disorder on the streets at 3am in the middle of the night, so why is it okay to let rape victims off the hook if they were drunk? People should be responsible for their own drinking and know their own limits.That's also a common perspective.

4-3) As clearly demonstrated, people are more likely to blame victims if they were wearing provocative clothing, and though the law protects the ideal world, it's obvious that we don't live in one. So, if you do choose to wear such short dresses, you are basically accepting the risk of backlash from the community if you do get raped, though you are protected by the law. Just like you risk getting robbed if you flash your money, though it doesn't mean the thief is innocent, and you will probably not be punished for it by a judge, people are still going to talk about your stupidity in throwing your money around even if that's not what you intended by it. After all, what are you trying to achieve by wearing such clothing? Obviously to be more attractive to potential mates, says society (however I'd like to reiterate the point that attracting potential mates does not mean attracting every mate -- obviously she should still have freedom of choice in who she decides to sleep with, right?).

Society has an amazing capacity to criticize people who get by the law but they whom see as at least partially accountable. This really needs to be taken into account when people decide to do the things they do and expect only to be judged by the law. After all, why do you think there are so many memes about rape and girls "asking for it" online? People want to stop rape culture and rape humor but the fact is it exists and we should probably question why rather than trying to just block it off without reviewing where it came from.

I honestly think that in a lot of rape cases, it is not a cut-and-dry and only the rapist is accountable. A series of events unfolded prior to the act where there was possibly miscommunication of some sort, or alcohol involved, or any variety of things -- the reason that people blame the victim is not because they are horrible people, but because it is true that victim could have decreased their chances of being taken advantage of in some cases.

Though it is never okay for someone to have sex with someone without their outright consent, the amount of rape and trauma could be decreased if both parties watched their actions and understood what was at risk before doing anything. People often blame society for teaching "don't get raped" instead of "don't rape", but it doesn't make much sense to simply flip it and only teach "don't rape" either --honestly if we taught both wouldn't the number of cases of rape decrease even more? People should watch their own safety and watch out for potentially bad situations as well as make sure they don't hurt anyone. We shouldn't have to live in fear, but it's unrealistic to believe naively that we can walk outside and there is no danger anywhere and we can do whatever we want without risk. Everyone has to pull their weight for a better world.

20 March 2013

thoughts about photography

So I was sniffing around my old photobucket account earlier tonight and came across some of the photos I took during china camp in 2006-2007. It's funny because I can remember all the little things that happened in and around those times, just by looking at those pictures. And it made me rethink something --

Last semester, I took a class CB30: History of Photography (taught be Robin Kelsey, he's a boss and it's a super interesting class and if you're at Harvard and interested in art history you should totally take it), and before that I never really considered how much of an impact photography had on the world. Well, first and foremost the class changed that notion for me at least haha. Photography was pretty much the only visual arts subfield I'd never dabbled in properly at all (I didn't count tourist shots, or "bellybutton photography" as we call it in CB30, as real photography). I also developed a notion sometime during my childhood that I didn't like being in photos because they were usually fake and posed, and I didn't like taking photos because for me it took away from the experience of actually being there in the moment and doing the action, since you had to be either focused on the camera or on the real sight in front of you. Also, there are certain scenes that cameras just can't capture -- I've always found that shots of sunsets for eg in particular, though beautiful, lose some of the essence of being there watching one in person.

And yet, here I was looking at photos which were 5 or 6 years old and reliving those moments, memories triggered only by images. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't give past experience a second thought if not for the reminder of photos. The capturing of "the decisive moment" encapsulates a moment in time, forever frozen though real life moves on and forgets. But when we take a look at the film again, it's almost as if that moment is brought back to life in our memory. In fact our memory is flawed, but the evidence on paper (or pixels as it may be these days) is difficult to deny -- these are how we validate our experiences and know they happened for real. That explains why so many celebratory events are shot, because people like to know that there was a time where they achieved something, and they want hard evidence for that past just their unreliable memories.

Man I'm not even sure if I can find myself in this picture but yay swords

How awkward can I be? Oh let me count the ways ... derp hi

Before coming to college, one of my uncles brought me a camera as a gift. I had no clue how to use it (and to be honest am still quite fumblesome with it), but wanted to use it as much as I could so it wouldn't be wasted too much. Actually when I first got it my thought was "ah... but I don't take photos of anything". Last summer though, I put it to use (though I'm sure a lot of my friends were irked by a constant lens in their face) and took a total of 1300+ photos in the span of 5 days (I used it less outside of road trip, but I'd say my extensive use during this period more than made up for it). It's been kind of nice having more photos of events to remember in the future. I guess the fact that I'm no longer an awkward 13 year old blob with too-thick and unshaped eyebrows also helps somewhat.

I guess I've come to appreciate photography more as an important technology in human history as well as a valuable part of chronicling my own life as well. Yeah I'll finally admit it, I used to be a snob that thought people who take photos weren't fully appreciating the moment they were living in then, but now I kind of understand its importance since you can look back at them and relive those moments. They might not be as clear or all-encompassing as actually being there, but sometimes a nostalgic reminder is nice.

"Take a photo, it lasts longer."



Of course, none of this is to say that I would condone taking 50 pictures of the sunset while watching it through your viewfinder over taking 2 or 3 and then putting your camera away to really watch the sun go down and feel the sky change above you either.

11 March 2013

"Tell me about yourself"

WHO I AM is a 6 letter phrase that begins to try to encompass a person. It's really not enough, is it? How can I, with all my extremities and quirks, likes or dislikes or fence-sat opinions, changing all the time in response to experience, be encompassed in such a short phrase?

I -- it stands tall and straight and perfect, in line with a one dimensional utopia that does not exist in our real lives. How can I, with all my dreams, both practical and naive, and with all my failures pushing me along to the next hurdle, even begin to be described by such a flawless, clean line? I am not a straight contour, deliberately drawn and sure in its placement. I cannot be described by its articulate serifs, or its loud capitalization.

I am not I, and yet neither am I i.
Though it is quieter and broken, a more tentative spot placed carefully over a halted body, and though it is grammatically incorrect and falls short of everyone's expectation, i am more than this --

I am not perfect but I am not small.

It is difficult to describe who I am when asked to tell someone about myself, because it requires that I construct my very essence on a canvas of silence, empty and expecting.

No: I am not a construction built from the ground up; I am rather a whole pile of things, with things that do not suit me thrown away -- I am a sculpture at the center of a marble block, not some perfect statue that has fallen from the sky -- I am a collection of history that I did not decide, with memories that have stuck with me but also others that have washed away -- I am the negative space that has been cut out of a magazine, not the planned collage that someone has put together deliberately and thoughtfully.

I can spend all day telling you about people I am not, and things that do not apply to me, but I cannot say with definition what that implies about who I am. Understanding myself seems like something that is probably important to be able to do, but for me the suggested lines that are drawn against the things I decide not to include in my life are just as good a description as any.

Just like my messy desk, I can tell you of the possessions I do not own, but I do not necessarily know exactly what I have sitting on top of it either. Trying to describe oneself to someone is kind of like that, don't you think? You may remember the big things, but if it were only those on your desk that giant mountain might collapse without the things in between to support the structure. It's a combination of those big and small things that construct our personalities too.
-- is not necessarily easy to say; 
though a crooked "I" with a body that peeps awkwardly above its head sometimes is a better description than just 

"I" 

-- I know what I am not, so I guess that's a good place to start.