Robert Blake may be happy, but Marv Albert is bummin'. The numerous references to his comeback have brought his story back into the media limelight.

Blake's joy will be short-lived, I suspect.

Luke publishes a lot of stuff he probably shouldn't. And just because it's already on the net is no excuse. Like my mother (and probably everyone else's, too) used to say: Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's blatant sexism to name the accused in a sex crimes case and not the accuser. You may say that naming the accuser causes her great shame and causes those who love and try to protect her great shame. Well, accusing someone of rape causes the man great shame and those who love him great shame.

Not naming the women (and victims of sex crimes are usually women) is blatant sexism. I thought the moood in this modern era was to make things equal.

I'm echoing the thoughts of talkshow host Dennis Prager.

Kevin makes an excellent point that Kobe's personal information (address, email, etc) aren't being distributed like the accuser's. True. But it was Kobe who was named and his reputation dragged through the mud while the conventional news media, as always, gave the accuser a free pass. That's not right. I don't like it that the accuser's personal info is now all over the web (helped in small part by my link) but it is the understandable backlash to a feminist news media that treats men and women differently.

I do not know how the news of Kobe's arrest made it into the media, but I suspect that feminists had nothing to do with it. If charges are filed, as in this case, then normally as part of the judicial process a trial will follow and so it would have become known eventually. So I do not agree that this making of an accusation and a decision to file charges constitutes 'dragging the name of the accused through the mud'. Of course, barring any special provision for privacy (perhaps this is done for certain cases, e.g. rape), the same is true for the accuser -- her name will become known. So in this sense I can see Prager's -- and Luke's -- point. Luke has already acknowledged the discrepancy regarding personal contact information. Lastly, one of the links Luke has posted on his site refers to the accuser as a "bitch", which is derogatory and, it seems to me, not appropriate, and also seems either based on the supposition she is not telling the truth about what happened, or designed to make others think she is not, all before any judicial finding. So one could reasonably ask: Whose name is really being 'dragged through the mud'?

Feminism has something to do with this to the extent that feminism has cheapened the word "rape." It used to evoke horror. Now, according to Ms Magazine, rape is any sex a woman comes to regret.

"Bitch" is a disgusting way to refer to the accuser. It's not the way I speak.

Both the accuser and acused are inevitably being dragged through the mud. One party however has far more to lose - Kobe - he stands to lose tens of millions of dollars. If he is found not guilty, what will happen to his accuser? Nothing comparable to what he has suffered.

Feminist news media, yeah that's the problem here....

It bears repeating -- the accuser has done nothing except file a police report ands talk to the DA. She has made no public statements, done no dragging through any mud. As for standing behind her allegation, that happens in court.

These claims to some high-minded principle behind publishing her contact info and ripping into her are worse than ludicrous.

I admit untrue allegations of rape, including, as Luke (or Ms Magazine) puts it, "any sex a woman comes to regret", is a problem, and I do not mean to downplay the harm an accused may suffer in such cases. But I am not so sure this is all that related to "feminism". There is one thing I don't understand, and that is, assuming the sex was consensual, and later the woman regretted it, why go public with a rape allegation? Assuming only the two of them knew about it, how would it become public knowledge, i.e. requiring a charge of rape to sort of salvage the woman's public honor? I see problems with this. It seems it could all be kept private. A financial motivation is a more reasonable argument here, but this does not explain the prevalence of this that Luke implies (i.e. not everyone so falsely accused is an NBA millionaire). It seems these cases ('he said, she said') are fraught with difficulty; even a finding of "not guilty", or a decision to not proceed to trial (as often happens, e.g. when the prosecutor decides he has little chance of proving rape beyond a reasonable doubt), does not necessarily mean innocence, and on the other hand may not do much to remove the stain on the reputation of the accused, which no doubt will persist in the minds of some, even if he was, in fact, totally innocent. In any event, the outcome of this case remains to be seen, as does what harm Bryant will suffer. And not to be flip, but perhaps he should have thought about all of this before he decided to commit rape or adultery.

Again, I do not agree with the 'dragging through the mud' language or analogy.

Also, I understand that the language used in one of the links he posted was not Luke's.

"Now, according to Ms Magazine, rape is any sex a woman comes to regret."

Could you please cite the specific passage where Ms. says that?

I agree that shield laws are unbalanced justice. Unfortunately, they are a double edged sword, giving some sense of safety to victims of rape that they will not be raped in the media again, but unfairly opening the accused to attacks. Shield laws should be for both victim and accuser. The most disgusting behavior in all of this is from press-hungry prosecutors who go public and turn the justice system into a wretched version of Larry King Live - as if that wasn't wretched enough.

The result is that this allows guys like Luke to be blatantly sexist and gently hateful about the woman and still be right on some level, just as it allows some "feminists" to argue the guilt of the system in supporting the rich, powerful and male unfairly. The human need to judge others is horrifying. Rocks & glass houses are as popular as ever.

Luke, for G-d's sake don't invoke the name of Dennis Prager. That's like saying the other side should be let off the hook because of what Gloria Allred says. Stick to your own views, they are far more intelligent and nuanced that those of Dennis Prager.

As for the issue at hand, the reason there is anonymity is the same reason there is anonymity in all sex-related cases, such as those involving molestation-- if people knew their privacy wouldn't be protected, they might not come forward to get scum off the street. Why is it that Right-Wingers are all for "victim's rights" if the victim is a cop, a man, or some other group that doesn't include women or minorities?

Yes, I feel for Kobe because my gut instinct is that something may have happened, but that something is a matter of morality not legality. And I understand how it's true that feminists have cheapened the word 'rape'. But what I don't understand is how you can't understand that it's a serious offense to file a false report, and that Kobe does have a lot to lose, but at the same time the justice system has built-in protections for him. It's not a small thing to accuse someone, through the legal system, of rape. Doing in the Enquirer, etc, is a different story.

I do not have the date and verse of the Ms. Magazine quote as yet but it is a famous one.

David Poland wrote: "The result is that this allows guys like Luke to be blatantly sexist and gently hateful about the woman and still be right on some level, just as it allows some "feminists" to argue the guilt of the system in supporting the rich, powerful and male unfairly. The human need to judge others is horrifying."

Where was I sexist? Where was I hateful? And what is horrifying about the human need to judge others? It is a fundamental need otherwise we place ourselves in danger, contaminate our souls by hanging around bad sorts, etc... We're judging by choosing to spend our time writing on this site. Discrimination and judgment are not always wrong.

Ted writes: "As for the issue at hand, the reason there is anonymity is the same reason there is anonymity in all sex-related cases, such as those involving molestation-- if people knew their privacy wouldn't be protected, they might not come forward to get scum off the street."

Why not give anonymity to all victims of crimes so that more of them will come forward? Your argument does not hold up.

Anonymity for minors is a separate question and that makes sense to me. Molestation in legal definition involves minors, right?

I'm glad EH picked up that I quote many people on lukeford.net who use words and propound theories with which I profoundly disagree.

Kevin: "Feminist news media, yeah that's the problem here."

Oh, so why the double standard then? Name the accused but not the accuser, who is almost always female? News organizations usually know the name of the accuser but they never name her.

Kevin: "It bears repeating -- the accuser has done nothing except file a police report ands talk to the DA. She has made no public statements, done no dragging through any mud."

Well, she's certainly had tons of leaks from her side into the news media.

"These claims to some high-minded principle behind publishing her contact info and ripping into her are worse than ludicrous."

She chose to make herself a public figure by filing a charge against a star. If she wanted to avoid publicity, she should not have filed a criminal charge and simply learned from the experience - that you do not go to a man's hotel room alone unless you're up to having sex with him.

Her past gives plenty of reasons for people to question and criticize her. It was her choice to try to commit suicide two months, to try to get on American Idol.

She may have indeed been raped. None of this takes away from her charge, but it is grist for the mill when you choose to publicly accuse a public figure.

I think personal attacks on her are disgusting, even though I've quoted one, and I think posting her home address and phone number is disgusting, even though I linked to it.

"She chose to make herself a public figure by filing a charge against a star. If she wanted to avoid publicity, she should not have filed a criminal charge and simply learned from the experience - that you do not go to a man's hotel room alone unless you're up to having sex with him."

Now, if this woman was raped - and I have no reason to believe of disbelieve her at this point - that is a horrible, immoral, sexist, hateful comment. Actually, it is all those things even if she is lying. It is a tacit endorsement of everything that is wrong with the criminal system.

Not believing in shield laws does not make you a bad guy. But you wave the anti-feminist flag around in a way that makes you every bit as bad as the most extreme feminists.

You have effectively branded yourself as the insensitive, empowered, white, financially secure, male that arch-feminists would accuse you of being. Forget about blaming the victim... in your world, she is guilty even if what she is saying is true.

If you flip your logic, Kobe should not of allowed her in his room unless he was "up to" being accused of rape, falsely or not.

It seems that moral outrage only extends as far as the tip on your penis, Luke.

Also - Judgment is not inherently wrong. I am, obviously, judging you right now. But you turn the classic trick... you use the example of self-preservation while using this as an excuse for judging people who really have no effect on your life. People who have decided their "truth" about this matter at this point are idiots. The media is behaving like idiots. The prosecutor is behaving like an idiot. They are all rushing to judgment - no Cochran reference intended - on either side. The problem is that these are human beings... not statistics, not billboard photos, not newspaper stories. And it is far too easy to start treating them like icon symbols on a socio-political Monopoly board instead of human beings. Shome on us all for that.

Luke, pick a date or an era when you and Prager think "the media" became "feminist." This so-called double standard of not naming victims of sex crimes will have existed before that. Another name for it is simple decency. To understand the reasons why victims of sex crimes might need a bit more careful handling than the victim of a burglary, just look at the websites you chose to link to. It's pretty clear that if she had made an allegation against Kobe of any crime not involving sex, her privacy wouldn't be being invaded and I doubt you would care a whit about double standards. Yes she could be lying -- and none of this web and media fascination will get to the bottom of that, or is even really trying.

>>>>> Why is it that Right-Wingers are all for "victim's rights" if the victim is a cop, a man, or some other group that doesn't include women or minorities?

Kevin writes: "Luke, pick a date or an era when you and Prager think "the media" became "feminist." This so-called double standard of not naming victims of sex crimes will have existed before that."

The media became feminist when feminism swept academia and popular culture - the 1970s.

Prior to that, there were all sorts of double standards in society, including the one of not naming accusers of sex crimes.

Since feminism, there's been a concerted effort to remove all discrimination based on sex. So why not in this instance?

I don't mind maintaining this double standard in a more chivalrous age where it is understood that men and women are different. Today when men's clubs are forced to open themselves to women, and women are to have as many sporting opportunities in college as men, who need sports more, then let's get rid of this double standard. I challenge people to name reasons for keeping the names of alleged rape victims private?

Kevin, there have been a ton of cases when persons not party to sexual cases have had their private info thrown all over the web. See that article from a couple of weeks ago in the LA Times or NY Times about a critic of Washington State police posting their home addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers on his website.

So give me specific arguments about what is decent in naming the accused by not the accuser in sex crimes only?

Kevin, did you visit binaryreport.com? If so, how many times? Why was it ok for you to visit it, but not ok for others to visit it?

So give me specific arguments about what is decent in naming the accused by not the accuser in sex crimes only?

Luke, I think the reason actually goes back to the more chivalric time you mention. Rape and other sex crimes are different from other crimes because of the mark of shame they confer on the victim. If you are robbed, you won't have any new trouble in finding a mate. If you are raped, you might find it far more difficult. It is a simple fact that even though no one would like to admit it, many people will judge a woman (or man!) who has been raped differently. It is wrong to judge people based on that, but it seems hard to stop.

What do you think about homosexual rape? I know of a case of a man who was raped by 2 homosexuals. The shame and stigma that he felt was pretty strong, and he did not pursue the case legally because he didn't want it to get out that he had been raped. It taints you. If you were raped by a man, would you fight to keep that private?

Anyway you make some good points, and I am not trying to debate you but to actually illuminate this subject. Personally I think that most rape cases between people with a prior sexual relationship (even one that was started minutes before) are not well-suited to the legal system, and hence these problems.

Luke, I'd like to believe that your passion here is because you're a purist about equal treatment of men and women, but I'm sorry I don't. All I've said above about the choices people and media have made in covering the Kobe episode -- and the feminist media canard -- is going to have to stand as my humble opinion. As you mentioned about your site, I link to many commentators and reports that I disagree with. Usually I don't take the time to join in the fray, but this pushed my button. You and I disagree on this one -- and probably lots of others, though I really have no idea -- and so be it. For now I'm returning to regular scheduled programming -- or life, as the case may be.

The "mark of shame" on the victim has much to do with continuing to keep secret the names of rape victims, as if they have more to be ashamed of than a victim of a burglary. It stems from an outdated notion that a woman's virginity is the greatest asset she's got.

Regarding Ted's remark:
> -- he's got a point. One of my problems with feminists (and I'm not a feminist, but a humanist) is their infantilization of women. Ted's remark calls to mind my thoughts when the William Kennedy Smith rape trial was in progress: that nobody should be raped, certainly not -- but that a woman has a responsibility to act intelligently as far as her safety goes. If you go to the Kennedy compound late at night with one of the boys, what do you think is on the agenda, checkers in the library? Come on. Again, I'm not saying anybody should be raped, or that it's not horrible when someone is. Just that women need to fight the infantilism of the feminists and expect to look after their own safety by being reasonable and sensible about where they go and with whom.

Kevin, your site laobserved.com is a tremendous contribution to LA media watching. Thank you for it.

Kevin: "Luke, I'd like to believe that your passion here is because you're a purist about equal treatment of men and women, but I'm sorry I don't."

I am not here to try to get you to change your mind either about me or the issue. I know that's impossible.

I am not a purist on male-female equality. I am only seizing on this equality thing because it is what liberals and feminists have pushed down our throats in the past 30 years vis-a-vis men and women (forcing open mens clubs to women, etc). I'm simply calling liberals out on their own putative values.

That's why you get so upset. I politely inquire if there is any rationality behind your strong feelings and I find there is not. It is all just a cry for women as victims.

Liberalism is felt through, not thought through. Feminism is feeling. You guys are not primarily concerned that men and women, white and black, are treated equally. You just want to cry for women and minorities and put your feelings into law.

I subscribe to Orthodox Judaism where women and men are treated differently. I believe men and women are inherently different. In general, I believe they should be treated equally in secular law.

Ted, I agree with you and I agree with chivalry. It's the chivalrous thing to take extra care of women, to open doors for them, etc. I long for those values.

Liberalism is felt through, not thought through.

Liberalism is a deeply varied and rich philosophy, the roots of which are the ideas of equality, justice, and equal protection. Of course, many people who subscribe to this cannot see the forest for the trees and latch onto victimology.

But is this any difference from those Conservatives who claim to uphold the values of conservatism (respect for tradition, common-sense,
clear moral values) and actually end up just being killjoys and rejectionists?

It always lowers my opinion of someone when they can't see the inherent goodness in various important schools of thought. Luke seems to be at least willing to tolerate the existance other ideas, however I don't think you've really thought them through. Liberalism may not be your cup of tea, but by reducing it to its most ignorant practicioners, you only expose the narrowness of your own understanding.

Thanks to Kevin for this forum and a great blog. Ford's blog is great too, if a lot harder to follow.

I want some public opinion about this, and it's difficult to sample without speculation. We know Kobe didn't grab the woman from behind a tree in the parking lot at midnight. It's almost unthinkable that he savaged and terrorized her in his room (since he casually ordered room service a few hours later). It's a safe (though terribly sad) bet that she came to his room expecting parcheesi and friendly talk, and got something between clumsy seduction and regrettable intercourse instead.

Kobe's humiliated in front of millions, as are his wife and child. Millions of dollars of income are lost to him and his dozens of employees. He may soon be listed as a sexual predator, and will perhaps do hard time.

It was a bad move from Kobe. And perhaps it's a product of his coddled lifestyle, and the letdown of his first career failure (having only 3 NBA championships in a row).

But is the woman at all responsible for these events, having gone to his room on her own accord? Does naiveté ever become negligence?

Are there any 19-year-old women in YOUR life who would be uncertain about what a 24-year-old man has waiting in his hotel room?

Whoops, Alkon already said that. But still.

Ted, I meant liberalism today. There aren't many deep, rich and varied liberal thinkers today. That's why no liberal has succeeded big in talk radio. In talk radio, you have to defend your ideas rationally. Liberals are incapable of defending their ideas rationally or they would be succeeding in the one medium dedicated to argument.

have you ever actually listened to talk radio?!

Paglia calls Limbaugh a principled thinker, and that's not the sort of description she offers lightly.

On C-span last year, Coulter said the substantial majority of NPR listeners are conservative. I wrote to her website asking for the source, and so far haven't heard back. But I'm inclined to believe it. She also noted that C-span had set up separate lines for republicans & democrats because if they didn't, the Dem callers would be drowned out statistically.

I think the same thing is happening to the web. There's a *reason* the first superstar blogger, organically selected, is Reynolds of the right. There's an acceptance of disputation that some lefties find either distasteful or unproductive. I think Layne's Maxim silences the 'emotion-driven' liberals described by Ford.

If you have good numbers on who listens to NPR, please post them.

David Poland:"The problem is that these are human beings... not statistics, not billboard photos, not newspaper stories. And it is far too easy to start treating them like icon symbols on a socio-political Monopoly board instead of human beings. Shome on us all for that."

Great point. It's so easy for us to spew out our opinions. What if this nineteen year-old were your sister, niece, or daughter? Would you still think her information splashed over the internet was funny or good for hits?

I was watching an episode of the old "Batman" TV series once and heard the Caped Crusader say something like this: 'Of what use is a plan if not as a blueprint for courageous action?'

Luke writes: "...I think posting her home address and phone number is disgusting, even though I linked to it."

One could ask: What good are beliefs and principles if you do not act according to them? While it is true you did not put the information up yourself, by linking to it you help to publicize and disseminate it, so it seems there is little difference in practical effect.

Justagirl: "What if this nineteen year-old were your sister, niece, or daughter? Would you still think her information splashed over the internet was funny or good for hits?"

I was asked this question Tuesday night by Mark Glaser of ojr.org.

First of all, I think posting the home address and home phone number was disgusting and I'm embarrassed that I linked to it (though I'm fine with linking to her name and picture).

I don't think whoring for hits morally justifies anything.

If it were my sister or friend, I'd automatically take her side, and hope that her privacy would be respected. But I wouldn't expect the rest of society or its media should bend to my emotions. I do not think laws and practices should bend to the emotions of a select few. If my sister were convicted of murder, I would hope she wouldn't get the death penalty, even though I strongly support the death penalty.

Most journalists hope to God that they will never receive the same scrutiny that they give their subjects.

Howard Kurtz, media journalist for the Washington Post, writes 7/23/03: "Everyone in the small Colorado town knows who she is. So at some point is it unfair for her to hide behind the shield of anonymity while sending out her friends to trash Kobe? Just a thought."

EH wondered: "What good are beliefs and principles if you do not act according to them? While it is true you did not put the information up yourself, by linking to it you help to publicize and disseminate it, so it seems there is little difference in practical effect."

I linked to the page that had good and bad. It was bad to put her home address on there, even though the media is camps outside her home anyway. It was good to list her name. Kevin Roderick passionately disagrees with me about many things I write, yet he links to me. The same principle holds true for me and what I link to.

I also choose not to link to many stories and sites that are offensive to me, idiotic or simply nonsense. I've left L.A. sites out of the passive links on the right, and every day I choose which stories to post or not post. I opted not to send my readers to the anonymous, unsubstantiated site that posted what it alleged to be the woman's contact data. Those who did link to it made an affirmative decision to do so -- an editorial decision, if you prefer. It reflects their standards, which is fine. They're just not mine.

Damn! This is like a 12 round heavy weight title fight. And the winner is... Luke by split decision. Keep in mind though Luke, that if the alleged victim is telling the truth (a big if in my mind), the decision to prosecute is, properly speaking, not in her hands. As a cog in the wheel of the law, she would have a moral obligation to tell her story to a jury for the sake of those other 19 year old concierges. True, she could realistically kill the whole thing by refusing to testify, which still begs the question of releasing her name. On balance, it does seem to me there's more to be gained than lost by full disclosure. Now in a civil case, I can't think of any reason for the media not to publicize.

Kevin: "I opted not to send my readers to the anonymous, unsubstantiated site that posted what it alleged to be the woman's contact data."

So you have it both ways Kevin. You attack the site as unsubstantiated. You attack the site for being accurate with the personal information so that people are sending death threats.

The site listed pretty conclusive evidence and links for most of its data.

As far as it being anonymous, I'm sure you link to some blogs that are anonymous.

The site in question will rise or fall longterm not on the extent to which it meets the elaborate ethics codes of institutional journalism, of which Roderick has been a part for many decades, but on the accuracy and usefulness of its data.

I was asked by an ojr.org columnist if online journalists should meet the same ethical standards as regular journalists. I say no. I don't care much for the term "journalism." It's a way to put prestige and cachet on a profession that is an open door to a back alley filled with urine (Hunter S Thompson).

I believe in two ethical commands for reporters - do not make things up and do not plagiarize.

This plain old "obstruction of justice". leykis needs to be preosecuted.

I think that the news media needs to take a serious look at why they do not refer to the accuser as the ALLEDGED victim. She may well be the victim of a rape when all the facts are presented and the case is brought to adjudication but until then she is the ALLEDGED victim , just as Kobe Bryant is the ALLEDGED aggressor.Constantly referring to the VICTIM and the PERPETRATOR prejudges the case and perpetuates the myth that all women are completely innocent non-participants and all men are bad, bad, bad.In my mind this diminishes the potential for both parties to have a fair hearing.

Regarding Kobe.....

He is a star that makes money off the backs of the public. By being a public figure, he accepts the good with the bad. The good includes money, fame, celebrity, etc. The bad includes being in the news for everything you do. He IS A PUBLIC figure, this comes with the territory. If his accuser gets "outed", why aren't we seeing Leykis publish Kobe's personal information? If he's concerned about equality, he would do that, He's concerned about ratings, pure and simple. His moral stance is hypocrisy. He's all about 15 minutes of fame. Well, he's had about 14:59. Back into his hole he goes, where he belongs.

were is the site were i can see kobes acusser

You know and I know that Kobe did not rape this woman
and this woman deserves her name in the public for
falsely accusing Kobe of this ridiculous charge.

It is interesting in the name of 9/11 everything can be done to allow complete disclosure, why not be able to slander on an equal basis. Only if the trial occurs and the victim is not successful in her prosecution would her name come out.

I approve of her name coming out and hope those with high moral values agree we have a right to face our accuser even in the press. No, we do not belong in Iraq, no 9/1l does not justify anything we do, but for the moment at least this 19 year old will have to face the music for either a stupid move to go to a man's room after working hours or to have trusted a guy to be like her 17 year-old boyfriends from the hood in Colorado.

Remember Rumsfeld from Viet Nam, Cheney, and how Nixon left office as a Republican in disgrace. Why no mention of these. WMD maybe, dead people for sure.

Imminent threat, Iran has nukes, N. Korea did and now we wonder how close Iraq was. Right, reasonable order of attention.

Where are the twenty eight pages our commander and chief withdrew from the 9/11 investigation?

Thanks for letting me vent. Appreciate your moral view I as an immoral, stupid Mid-Westerner, who is not aligned with either party only views this world from here and tries to understand how this much bias can exist in a God driven compassionate conservative administration.

Joel

Joel, bless you my son. You did the best you could.

So, does anybody have Kobe's home address?

Her name should be in the press - also her prior police reports should be released as well. Will we never have equal treatment under the law?

Looks like a He said, She said case...Too bad a common question polygraph test can't be administered.

I feel very sorry for Kobe, more for his family. What was Kobe thinking he was there for a surgical procedure, not a fling in the sack with a 19 year old. The Concierge said she was simply doing her job.
But if you're just giving a tour of the facility that you work for, how/why would you end up back at a guests room? Certainly this young woman wasn't expecting just conversation. I think there could be more to this than meets the eye.

Luke as with Fords world wide repairs are needs daily likewise your approval I do not need.

"that you do not go to a man's hotel room alone unless you're up to having sex with him."

This woman has been reported in numerous places to have gone to his room to fulfill a request of Kobe Bryant's; as Kobe Bryant as a guest of the hotel. Where I grew up this was called customer service. This woman was fulfilling what she thought were the obligations of her job. Should she have said, "Gee, there's a man in that room and while he is married and famous, I shouldn't go to his room to see what it is he needs from me, as a representative of this hotel, because I might get raped?" Is that how women are to behave should they work in a place that just might have some sexual content linked to it? This was a luxury spa for pete's sake! Not the local dump that charges by the hour!

Nowhere does anyone, in the posts on the web or in articles, argue that men should be held responsible for their behavior. The implication thru out most of the coverage is that Kobe was just being a man. What about his promise of fidelity to his wife? What about his responsibility to act as a role model of a man for his daughter? What about his obligation as a human being to consider the consequences of HIS actions?

All I've been reading is that if a woman is in the unfortunate position of beig alone with a man, anywhere in fact, that she WILL BE raped. Is this really who we should think? Are you all saying that men are so not in control of their faculties that they can't help but rape? The reverse is being said about this woman. That her passed emotional problems means that she can't help but be lying or imagining or something psychotic. Basically, she can't control herself. Is that the take away from this?

The truth is that women have to be shielded because historically, even a woman who has been brutally raped, where the evidence is beyond doubt, she will have been considered the cause of it. Systematic rape is used in war situations as an act to humiliate not just the woman but the MEN in her family and community. Now why would a man be humiliated by an act the woman had no control over? That is because society from time immemorial has chosen to overlook the man's responsibility to control his actions. In Serbia, women have been raped and they do not tell anyone because they fear being expelled from their community, divorced by their husbands or beaten. Can you imagine in this day & age that a woman raped by the enemy as she is herded into a prison camp is considered to be responsible for the rape? Now this is an extreme example but there are vestiges of this archaic thinking all over our society.

We protect rape victims, perhaps misguidely, based on historical attitudes and the belief that the reputation of a woman who is raped has been besmirched.

Society needs to start shaming men for their archaic, and in most cultures, religiously supported views as women as instigators of male violence whether it is a beating or rape.

Rape is NOT about sex. It is about a man taking what he feels is his due. It is about control and power. I would not be surprised if Kobe actually believes that his alleged victim did consent. MANY rapists (including pedophiles) believe their victims enjoyed the encounter.

Now men, pls imagine yourself having been raped. It has happened and probably way more often than you would think. Why haven't we heard about it other than what happens in prision? Because it would be embarrassing to admit that a man was raped by another man.

I know men never really, except in war zones or prison, have to consciously think about their physical safety so why should a woman, as in the example of the Kennedy-Smtih case, not be able to forget for a moment and decide to enjoy the company or the reflected glow of a Kennedy? Why should this woman believe that EVERY Kennedy is a sexual predator? Does anyone see the crude and ridiculous logic in that? What about the prejudice this thought is perpetuating? Kennedy men are incapable of consensual sex?

Are you all saying that if a woman is in a situation that might lead to sex that if she says no the man has the right to force himself on her? Someone answer that question for me.

Something happened in that hotel room but this was a place of work for this woman. This hotel room probably did not loom large in her mind as a den of sexual possibilities. They are all extensions of her workplace so Kobe was most likely the one who saw this room as the loci for his next sexual encounter. Do you see the different thoughts each of these people had when they met each other than nigt?

This tale will in the end be about power, money and the media. There will be no resolution as to what actually happened.

WE ALL HAVE TO STOP AND LISTEN. FIRST OF ALL MAYBE HIS WIFE AND HIM WERE GOING THRU A LITTLE PROBLEM. MAYBE HE JUST HAVENT BEEN GETTING IT. I DO NOT BELIEVE HE RAPED THAT GIRL. SHE WAS WILLING. YOU MEAN THE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR DID NOT HEAR HER SCREAMS? WHAT ABOUT THE BODY GUARD?I JUST DONT BELIEVE THAT GIRL. KOBE IS A GENTLEMAN HE WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

Rapeshield:

Why do you presume the woman ever clearly said "no?" Juries shouldn't be asked to imagine body language of two people alone in a room, though this case may well compel them to do so.

According to the LAT timeline published the day the charges were announced, the concierge went off duty at 11 and went (alone) to Kobe's room sometime thereafter.

Of course men should be held accountable for their actions. Kobe has already suffered in deeply meaningful ways; if he turns out to be COMPLETELY innocent, I would expect his accuser to suffer the penalties which threaten him now.

The law should work to make us all perfectly safe at all times. Are you saying the woman's conduct had no influence of the outcome of that evening? Paglia used to put it like this: If you drive to a bad neighborhood, set your wallet on the fender and walk away for an hour, it will probably be STOLEN when you come back. The thief should be punished. But in the real world, your loss is not something I want to worry our police and court with.

Men who rape as Kobe stands accused of doing deserve punishment. But we in society who are asked to protect women can demand that they take reasonable steps to protect themselves. Naivete is not such a step.

Again I ask, are there any 19-year-old women in your life who would go alone to the hotel room of a 24-year-old male without considering the outcomes? Again, Paglia's advice to young women is that staying home to do your nails is always an option.

I bet people who say "Rape is not about sex" have never been raped.

"I bet people who say "Rape is not about sex" have never been raped."

Would you say that if you were raped? Think about it. And b4 you say anything, do some research. Also, think really hard. Are you saying that men just can't help themselves and they rape only because they want sex? Why not go to a prostitute if you want sex that bad? Why jump a woman or when she says no, push her back and take what you want? Are you really saying that is about sex? Are you saying that rape in prisons is about sex? Really? If there are so many in prison willing to give it up cuz they can't have sex w/a woman, why would they physically need to rape someone who does not want to have sex with a man?

Also, can somebody pls answer my question? Are you all saying, that if a woman is alone with a man, she should expect to be raped? Cuz bottomline that is what I am reading.

As for what went on in that room, if the girl wanted money, don't ya think she would have called the guy up and said, "Honey you pay me or I am going to scream rape."? Hmmmm, pls think about this. She can't settle now cuz Kobe would look guilty if he did. She won't make money or become famous because who would hire her? She can't write a book, because what would she write about 1 event, whether it was consensual or not, and who would want to read it? She basically has nothing to win by going public. NOTHING at all.

As for Camille Paglia. . .well, as much as I admire the woman - she reinforces my belief that an old fashioned education grounded in the classics, and the moderns well, with an emphasis on critical thinking is the best education one can get, she can basically talk about anything - but aside for my respect for intellect, I do not believe her with respect to her idea that men are just acting like men when they rape. I admit dressing provocatively will tell men you are interested but pls how do you explain little girls and grandmothers getting raped? Explain that to me b4 you drop references to the idea that one is asking for it. Also explain how it is that rape is used in war time to subdue and humiliate the opponent. Explain how a poor mother of five in a jungle with no food should find herself raped. Was she asking for it as she pulled her children behind her back to protect them? As she pushed them away and said "RUN!!!" Ask yourself how you get from that to where we are now.

Also about the line rape is any sex you regret. I do not believe Ms. Magazine said that. It happens to be a line that some feminists have used to DISCOUNT the idea that sex as a result of drunken encounters is really rape. Roiphe and others have said women can not yell rape just because they regret it. I also believe good ol' Camille may have used the line to DENIGRATE women who feel guilty in the morning and then say it is rape. Andrea Dworkin on the other hand, a woman I dislike, says ANY kind of sex is rape. So we do have the extremes to contend with.

As is usually the case, the truth lies somewhere around the middle.

NOW GET OUT YOU ALL AND ENJOY THE SUN!!!

Thank you, Rapeshield, for your smart and eloquent comments, I hope they get through...

I support Kobe 100%. I am sorry for his dilemma, and I am praying for him and his family. I will offer no comments on guilt or innocence. However, it is my sincere hope that justice is served and that all parties involved are pleased to let the courts handle the matter . If you read this Kobe "I wish to say please be strong and learn from your mistake. Such a lesson can only make you a better person,husband,and father . You are still my hero even though I was a bit distraught at first. Please allow your present dilemma to cause you to find the strength that is deep witin, you as you will need this to cope.I wish you success in the future, and look forward to watching you in next year's post season and championship."

I support Kobe 100%. I am sorry for his dilemma, and I am praying for him and his family. I will offer no comments on guilt or innocence. However, it is my sincere hope that justice is served and that all parties involved are pleased to let the courts handle the matter . If you read this Kobe "I wish to say please be strong and learn from your mistake. Such a lesson can only make you a better person,husband,and father . You are still my hero even though I was a bit distraught at first. Please allow your present dilemma to cause you to find the strength that is deep witin, you as you will need this to cope.I wish you success in the future, and look forward to watching you in next year's post season and championship."

I have another question. This one is separate from the issue of rape except for the fact that it is pretty clear they found DNA evidence on the girl to suggest that Kobe had contact with the alleged victim.

Now in this day & age, with a very wealthy married man who is extremely famous, doesn't ANYONE see how incredibly stupid Kobe is? Either that he is so damn arrogant that he thinks nothing will happen to him.

He knew nothing about this woman when he had whatever he had with her. Doesn't anyone consider that fact? He is no Joe Schmoe from around the corner. He is different than the rest of us. His fame and wealth make it that he has to be careful in ways many of us don't consider. There are many things people will do for money and for way less than what Kobe is worth so he must understand that in his position his kind of money means he must be careful. How could he not know this?

First there's the issue of pregnancy. Doesn't Kobe care that some golddigger is going to pop up 9 months from now holding his baby and DEMANDING support? Assuming nothing like this situation had happened, what will his wife think when she finds out he has been stepping out on him and was NOT even using a condom? He had to pay his wife off with a $4 million diamond ring which he bought just days after he admitted in public he did something with this girl.

The next question is safe sex and respect for his wife's body. Let's skip whether it is immoral to cheat on your spouse - that is something else all together and for all we know, Kobe and his wife may have an understanding that he can cheat on her as long it is not something serious like a relationship, some people are cool with their spouses doing this.

So the issue at hand is that Kobe is having unprotected sex and he is a married man. Not only does he not have respect for his own body but he totally disrespected the safety of his wife. If he had unprotected sex he has potentially exposed not just himself but his wife to STDs. AIDS is not the only disease out there - there's herpes - uncurable, hepatitis - almost uncurable - chlamydia - can leave a woman incapable of having children, VD - can do serious, serious damage to the body, genital warts - increases the risk of ovarian cancer in women, etc, etc, etc You get the picture.

So here is a supposedly "nice" guy who cares so little about his wife that he would expose her to all these nasty little surprises. If you are going to step out on spouse or partner, why not think of their well being as well?

Obviously, Kobe truly at heart is just another spoiled, coddled superstar athlete who is NEVER shamed by anyone for his gross misbehavior. Has noone ever said to the man, "Hey you have a gorgeous young wife at home (who by the way he supposedly loved enough to go against his parents' wishes to marry, parents he did not talk to for a long time after the wedding), at least use a condom when you screw around?" Does anybody care about all the other people who could be hurt by this incident, not just emotionally but physically, as in getting a dreaded disease?

Noone asks these questions. Why not? Because our society does not ever shame a man for his sexual behavior. All that ever happens is a tsk, tsk and then we go on our way.

But god forbid it was a woman. She's a slut, she's a pig, she's a golddigger. Look at the alleged victim. Let's for one minute forget the bombshell charges she has made. Why should her past be exhumed as it has been but Kobe's is still maintained as pristine? There is definitely a double standard at work here.

I am working on a web site with all of Kobes info. We have already found 2 house address listed to him, One in Huntington Beach and one in PA. If you would like to help email me, its only fair, as a Lakers fan I would have liked this info a long time ago

read a good article about the media aspects, naming names, etc.

http://www.fresnobee.com/sports/story/7199506p-8127952c.html

Another very good article about naming names, but this time a man has filed rape charges against a priest, yet the press is not clamoring to find out his name.

Boston Globe http://www.globe.com/dailyglobe2/208/metro/Rape_double_standard+.shtml

Other articles

MSNBC, friend says signs of attack were visible a week after the "event" but someone else says she bragged at a party about what happened. http://msnbc.com/news/943742.asp?0sl=-23

Africana, Headline: Views: Anybody Can Commit Rape. Anybody.
http://www.africana.com/articles/daily/bw20030723kobejen.asp

More from Africana http://www.africana.com/articles/daily/bw20030714kobe.asp

http://www.africana.com/articles/daily/bw20030723kobejen.asp

Just for the heck of it, some foreign paper's coverage, all in English

The Guardian, UK http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1006949,00.html

The Straits Times, Singapore, reports the alleged victim had physical bruises quoted from a MALE friend
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/sports/story/0,4386,201658,00.html

Didja see that TheSmokingGun.com found some relevant episodes in Leykis' life? That's a wonderful site.

KOBE IS GUILTY AS SIN NO MATTER WHAT THE DRAG UP ON HIS ACCUSER. GUILTY AS OJ KOBE. YOUR OVER WITH.

Dave Saxe of the Journal Broadcast Group in Knoxville, Tennessee...takes one to know one...

This thread exhuasted itself a long time ago. Comments closed.