Believe her - even if she's saying #NotMe instead of #MeToo

It is outstanding that we are having conversations about sexual assault, harassment, power imbalances, consent, rape culture, privilege, and many of the complex issues that go into improving relations between people regardless of who they are. The conversations are long overdue. It is crucial that we are beginning to understand that sexual assault can encompass a lot more than a stranger-rape with a weapon. We must listen to the stories of those who have experienced sexual misconduct, and believe their assessments. As I've written before, we must also allow people to grow and learn things about their conduct that they might not have realized when eyeball deep in the culture that has evolved so much. Finally, we must believe the stories of those who continue to insist that they were not victimized.

In a Vanity Fair piece she wrote four years ago, Monica Lewinsky discusses how she was victimized in the aftermath of the publicity surrounding her affair with Bill Clinton. I had not thought about her situation in those terms when I read the piece, and I was ashamed to recognize my complicity in her humiliation. It is clear that in the writing of that piece, she sees two distinct phases in the Clinton situation: the relationship itself, and the aftermath. I think it's pretty undeniable that her treatment in the aftermath was unforgivable and anti-feminist.

This piece, written in 1998, is painfully true about feminists' complicated but ultimately regrettable relationship with Bill Clinton. The author was prescient about Hillary Clinton's eventual run for president. We really should have demanded that Bill Clinton acknowledge his shitty past behavior, apologized, and contributed a bunch of money to a relevant and reputable organization. I believe both Clintons have grown since his presidency, and I think both ought to publicly acknowledge that. There is no doubt, in retrospect, that Bill Clinton was a very very big part of the culture that we've learned to condemn.

Recently, Ms. Lewinsky wrote a new piece reflecting on her experience in the age of #MeToo. It deeply provokes thought about the wider implications of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal and its effect on the nation, as well as its role in the expanding discussion of sexual misconduct. Ms. Lewinsky also reflects on her involvement with Bill Clinton in light of the expanded discussion abuse of power as a manner of sexual assault. I'm sure there are already thousands of comments in every type of media saying ugly things about her, and probably, I hope, there are a lot of supportive comments as well.

I appreciate Ms. Lewinsky's story. It's an extremely important part of the conversation, and I firmly believe that her story is hers, and only hers, to tell. And my story is mine.

Around the same time that the scandal was coming out, I engaged in one of the classically imbalanced relationships: Student/teacher (about twenty years my senior).

#IAmComplicit

"A product of its time" is not an excuse, but it is a reason. I am embarrassed about some ways I've contributed to the culture. I can only apologize.

The Facts of Life, my very, very favorite show, a show that I believe was hugely ahead of its time regarding its commentary on many social issues of the time, a show that can do just about no wrong in my eyes, is guilty of minimizing sexual assault and contributing to rape culture.

In Part 1 of the 2-Part fourth season finale "Graduation" (1983), Roy the delivery man makes an appearance. His unrequited crush on Jo is a running joke for a couple of seasons (the entire storyline is problematic and will be discussed elsewhere). In this episode, Roy arrives announcing that he has a graduation present for Jo. What is it?

Following Jo's assault, the other girls proceed to make jokes about and to make fun of Jo for "kissing" Roy! Jo tells them that it's not a laughing matter, but no one makes the connection to the last time Jo was sexually assaulted or to the time Natalie was the victim of an attempted rape.

The phrase "a product of its time" is meaningful. It is certainly not an excuse for sexual assault. It is hard to explain what I am trying to say without sounding like a rape apologist.

I liked restroom equality before it was cool

In a law school class in the spring of 2013, I mentioned in passing that I thought that there shouldn't be gender-segregated restrooms. There was an understated gasp, and one classmate confronted me after class, suggesting that the notion was absurd. "Tell that to a sexual assault victim!" he declared. Ignoring his presumption that I was not one, I tried to respond by explaining that the specter of the sexual assault in the bathroom is a myth and the assumption that a gender-neutral mixed restroom will automatically lead to sexual assaults is grossly insulting to men. He brushed me off as though I'd suggested that Earth is flat, coming just short of actively mocking me, and I lost a little respect for him.

Conservative states continue to use dubious justification try to introduce legislation to keep penises and vaginas in separate restrooms, despite the fact that the number of assaults by trans women in women's restrooms remains at zero and the sky has not fallen in places like Colorado, which prohibits discrimination against trans people in employment, housing, and places of public accommodation.

I stand by my trans sisters and brothers in their continued effort to be able to pee in whichever segregated restroom matches their gender identity. Even more than that, though, I desperately want to get away from the notion that restrooms must be segregated into penis/male/masculine and vagina/female/feminine in the first place. Most discussions start with taking that notion for granted, and I refuse to accept it.

Many religions have strict mandates about behavior of men and women and whether and under what circumstances they can even be in the same space. It is not uncommon for progressives to criticize such rigid mandates regarding gender, while expecting tolerance of those who choose to practice such religious mandates and also being aware that "choice" is itself a loaded word that is meaningless in certain environments.

What does this have to do with piss and shit? I'm here to tell you that the thing that makes you cringe when thinking about a mixed-gender restroom is the same thing that drives religions and cultures of varying extremism to impose gender-based requirements and expectations on their members.

Heh. Members.

Look, it shouldn't even be controversial for a single-use restroom to be non-gender designated. Most of us have gender neutral restrooms in our homes. I bet more than half of randomly-selected responders would admit to having used an other-gender-designated single-use restroom because of a long line or an 'out of order' sign, or because they really really had to go.

I would very much like to understand what it is that opponents are really afraid of when I suggest that the default for a large restroom should be gender-neutral mixed use. Picture a restroom at a baseball stadium with fifteen or so stalls and a wall of urinals or a piss-trough. And I would also advocate a proportional number of single-use rooms to accommodate those with religious objections, PTSD, or people who just can't bring themselves to accept a mixed-use room.

Think of the porta-potty setup at your average music festival, where there is either one line or several, non-gender designated, and men and women use the same stalls. It would be exactly like that except in a room and with plumbing. When porta-potties are gross, it's usually not about the fact that there were men/women/other all using the same ones, but that you're not flushing and you have limited access to sinks.

The bathroom debate is only one symptom of the real problem, which is the fact that we are so OK with early and insistent grouping of "boys" and "girls" based on their genitalia and with a whole giant host of assumptions attached. Sure, if procreation is a consideration for a particular relationship, then the individuals in that relationship should talk about what is biologically possible, but that's really no different from what every relationship should do. It is my opinion that failure to communicate regarding a future with children is a huge reason that relationships end, but that's another blog.

I'm glad the dialogue is happening. The gender binary has frustrated me for a long time and I'm glad that my voice is finally in the discussion. I don't have much expectation of my vision occurring any time soon, but still, I feel vindicated.

An Open Letter to Peyton Manning

Dear Peyton,

Yesterday, I wrote a blog post defending you with respect to the expanding coverage of your 1996 incident with trainer Jamie Naughright.

It continues to not sit right with me that people take this incident and its aftermath to dismiss every other part of your reputation. However, by now you must know that you made mistakes throughout the handling of the incident, and the only thing you can do is own up and apologize.

I understand that you were probably motivated by nothing but immaturity and very stupid judgment when the incident occurred. I understand that you then followed the advice of your coaches and other parties, believing that they properly knew how the system worked. I understand that an adolescent can easily think that the goal should only be to avoid punishment rather than to reflect on the incident and consider what the right thing to do is.

In 2000, when the Manning book was published, I understand how you thought - and maybe were told - that as long as you didn't mention her name, that describing your version of the incident would not be in violation of the previous settlement agreement. Maybe you thought that since readers of the book would likely be your fans, no one would dig out the briefly described incident and resurrect it.

Of course, someone sent the relevant pages to Ms. Naughright's office. If that was you, surely by now, you know that was very stupid. If it was someone else with your knowledge and encouragement, you know that was stupid too. If you have no idea how that came about, you should probably say so.

Ms. Naughright went back to court in 2005 after you apparently made some more comments about her in an ESPN story about you. I can't find any clips of those comments; the ones that I have seen show other people talking vaguely about you and the incident. If you did bring it up again, surely you know that was very stupid. If you didn't, you should probably say so.

I suspect that for the last nineteen or twenty years you probably haven't had much of an opportunity to think for yourself. But advice from your family and agents and lawyers and handlers to refuse to apologize for the incident is not sustainable. Much of the outrage directed at you as more people learn about the story is not necessarily about the original incident, but about the refusal to acknowledge it.

I understand that you perceive the incident differently from the way Ms. Naughright does, and perhaps you think you've already done enough by issuing the initial apology letter and acknowledging the incident as "crude." I understand that you were in the midst of a different, less enlightened environment in the 90s when the culture forgave and even encouraged such behavior toward non-athletes. I can see how a person who otherwise has no blemishes on his record is in no hurry to dig up the one that exists.

But that's the only choice you have now. Part of moving toward an environment that is welcoming and open to all of us is accepting responsibility for our indiscretions, regardless of the age, regardless of the motive.

Hold a press conference. Make a public statement that in 1996, you did a very stupid thing that you regret. Acknowledge or sincerely deny any subsequent involvement you had in resurrecting the incident. Be humble. Never say "but." Contact me. I'll write the speech for you.

Now's the time where, regardless of what you think about the situation, you have exactly one path to restore your credibility. You look as bad as you can possibly look right now; owning up and accepting responsibility is the only way to proceed if you want anything but a checkered legacy.

In Peyton Manning's Defense: An unpopular post

A few weeks ago, during the standard Broncos-Patriots trash-talk before the AFC Championship, I learned that while a student at the University of Tennessee in 1996, Peyton Manning had an inappropriate incident with a female trainer. Since the Broncos have won the Super Bowl, I’ve seen the story more, usually the New York Post's version with the headline, “Peyton Manning’s Squeaky-Clean Image Is Built on Lies.”

I’ve read quite a bit about this story, and while the incident was undoubtedly completely inappropriate and offensive, I’m afraid I can’t join the mob that wants to string him up by his testicles and declare him an enemy of women everywhere in 2016. I am not a sexual assault apologist, nor do I have any particular affection for Peyton Manning even though I’m a Broncos fan (I’m actually more excited about Brock Osweiler getting to have a shot outside of Peyton’s shadow). And for whatever it’s worth, I also thought the uproar about Cam Newton’s actions after the Super Bowl was unwarranted; to me he was acting exactly like a very disappointed young man who was frustrated that he didn’t perform at his best on the biggest stage of his life.

And I say all this as a person who did some really terrible shit when I was in my 20s.