Knowledge is power.

By the time two individuals reach the point where they're joyously, frantically, gratefully or athletically (or any combination of those qualifiers) sharing bodily fluids, a number of mental, emotional and physical processes have preceded "la chose". (As in - porté, portée sur la chose.)

Example: for a vast majority of men, receiving a blow job from a skilled, gifted and enthusiastic practitioner of the art is a dream come true. However, it matters to most of them whether the person who bestows this pleasure upon them is female or male. Why? It shouldn't be a factor, if sex if purely physical.

The model of an ideal sexual contract would involve explicit consent from both individuals and the only criteria required to ascertain its fulfillment would be the responses to: "Did you come?" and/or "Was it good for you?".

Life is rarely that simple or uncomplicated. Sexual activity means a multitude of things for different people at various points in their lives.

Individuals who withhold information about their gender, their age, their health condition, and a range of factors which could determine whether someone consents to sex with them are acting selfishly, irresponsibly, unethically and in some situations, committing a crime - fraud or sexual assault.

Since most countries overtly or covertly support sexist and gynophobic institutions, whether traditions or religious organizations, women are more likely to be exploited by a sexual predator or opportunistic men.

A few years ago, in order to raise students awareness of the real threat that sexually transmitted infections represented to their reproductive health, a pro-condom campaign was launched in secondary and post-secondary schools by educators. The theme was: "Men lie."

Implicit was the rest of the observation ... "because they want sex and they'll try to get it any way they can." Which is not a fair statement, because not all men will lie about the things that would make a woman think twice or three times about initiating sex or consenting to it.

Knowledge is power. Often childhood survivors of emotional and physical trauma find it difficult to trust, yet may eroticize power imbalance because it is a familiar scenario.

Sharing information creates a level playing field and helps to establish some ground rules. And that foundation can produce some powerfully satisfying interactions, that can be recreative or procreative, carnal or comforting, raunchy or romantic.

Otis Redding sang "Try a little tenderness" - how about trying a little honesty?

Is it the legal system, lawyers and judges or the media and reporters who are sexist?

An item in the Toronto Star presents a variety of perspectives on:

Justice Douglas Cunningham's decision regarding the testimony of MPP Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton) trickled out this week in stages. By week's end, it had become a sort of Rorschach Test on women's lib, a la 2009.

The Progressive Conservative MPP had testified in the influence-peddling trial of Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien. In his decision this month dismissing the charges, Cunningham said that he assigned "little weight" to MacLeod's "imprecise" recollections.

Were those who attacked the judge for the sexism of his remarks too quick to react, too eager to separate some choice words from the context of all that was said about the credibility of witnesses in this case?

And then, this:

A [Stamford CT] hotel being sued by a woman raped at gunpoint in its parking garage is claiming she was careless, negligent and "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities," according to court documents.

The victim's attorneys also argue the hotel has inadvertently identified her to acquaintances by asking them to testify.

The Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa, along with the firms in charge of managing the hotel and its parking garage, made the claim as part of a list of special defenses filed in state Superior Court in Stamford last month. Such defenses allow defendants in civil suits to argue they are not responsible for damages even if the plaintiff's story is true.

Antonia Zerbisias makes the connection with this case and that of a woman who filed a suit against Carleton University for similar reasons. When I did an internet search about the Stamford case, I found a discussion on this board which was quite illuminating. Although the participants approached the issues from divergent perspectives, all agreed that she had been the target and the victim of a heinous crime. Her assailant was tried, found guilty and is now in prison serving his sentence.

But the civil suits are a different kettle of fish, as both victims are seeking compensation for the harm they suffered. Their lawyers are trying to make a case that their clients would not have been victimized if not for the negligence and/or lack of due diligence on the part of Marriott and Carleton University respectively, in the matter of providing adequate security on their premises.

In response, these two corporations are counter-attacking in order to protect their assets and to avoid paying out thousands of dollars. The tactics deployed by their lawyers is to claim that the victims themselves can be held accountable for their plight, simply because they chose to be in a location where violent sexual predators happened to find them as they prowled for potential victims.

Sad to say, the legal system is based on this type of adversarial confrontation and thus once more, a judge will determine the outcome of these cases, based on the argumentative skills of the lawyers for the parties involved.

This year I will be making a charitable donation to the National Association for Women and the Law. Without feminist law scholars and professional practitioners who dedicate themselves to reforming the legal system, Canada would still have laws not that different from those being enacted in Afghanistan. The judeo-christian traditions that justified such laws would certainly not outrage groups like the REALwomen and various conservative, rightwing, and fundamentalist religious astro-turf interests who lobbied the Harper government to cut funding to N.A.W.L. in 2006.

How much progress have we made, with respect to values that inform the legal system, since that moment in 1979 when judges of Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada concluded that “any inequality between the sexes in this area is not created by legislation but by nature” ?

More fundamentalist religious child abuse.

Some readers incorrectly accused Dr Dawg of promoting the view that the Catholic Church holds the patent on child abuse by its clergy. This article from Haaretz should disabuse them of that notion.

Inside the grand ballroom of the Midtown Hilton in Manhattan, Agudath Israel of America's annual dinner was unfolding according to plan. Men and women dressed in traditional yet elegant clothes dined on salmon and listened to Senator Charles Schumer and Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledge their fealty.

Outside, a storm was brewing. A dozen protesters stood in front of the Hilton's parking garage and waved signs that said "Agudah: Stop protecting pedophiles." Most attendees waved off the protesters or ignored them with a look of distaste.

But Agudath board of trustees member Israel Lefkowitz rolled down his car window to chastise the protesters. "I am against sexual harassment for all the children," Lefkowitz said. "But you don't do this in public."

The angry exchange outside the annual dinner May 15 for Agudath Israel, a national ultra-Orthodox umbrella group, encapsulates the escalating battle within the Orthodox community over sexual abuse of children by rabbis, yeshiva teachers and other religious authority figures.

On one side, a band of loosely organized victims of sexual abuse and their supporters are crying out for community leaders to take a tougher stand against pedophilia. On the other side, many powerful leaders regard any public airing of sexual abuse allegations in the Orthodox community as hillul Hashem, a desecration of God's name.

One of the protesters, Mark Appel, yelled at Lefkowitz in his car: "Your children are being molested, and you know that [names of officials from Agudath] are not doing anything about it."

Why such explosive, public display of anger expressed by the members of a community that traditionally avoids drawing attention to itself?

The protesters' ire was aimed at Agudah's opposition to a bill now before the state Legislature that would extend the statute of limitations for civil and criminal claims of child sexual abuse and create a one-time, one-year "window" during which victims of crimes committed beyond the statute of limitations could file civil claims against their alleged abusers and the institutions that harbored them. ...

Agudah's official position is that it supports lengthening the statute of limitations, but opposes the one-year window because it could allow plaintiffs to file decades-old claims.

"Reasonable people can disagree on this," Agudah spokesman Rabbi Avi Shafran said inside the dinner hall. "We have no problem with extending the statute of limitations, we have no problem with anything preventative, we only have problems with the so-called 'window' provision."

Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, the Novominsker Rebbe and Rosh Agudath Israel of America, took a harsher tone in his dinner address, chiding "the bloggers and the picketers, presumptuous promoters" for the notion that "they know better [than Agudah's Council of Torah Sages] what is good for the Jews." Perlow called child sexual abuse "a serious issue." He acknowledged a need "for correcting the past - and for addressing the future, creating means to guide against wrongdoing to children."

The protesters find Agudah's statements short on specifics. They accused Agudah of a conflict of interest. The organization is named as a defendant in sex-abuse lawsuits involving Rabbi Yehuda Kolko, accused of molesting dozens of students, including boys at an Agudah-run summer camp, and would likely face more lawsuits if the window legislation passes.

Different fundamentalist, ultra-orthodox religious institution. Same hypocrisy? Same impunity? Discuss. As always, your comments are welcome.

The photograph was found at this blogsite.

Expediency trumps accountability and compassion.

There was a demonstration outside Saint-Paul University today. Theology, canon law, pastoral studies and other related academic disciplines are taught there. Saint-Paul is part of the University of Ottawa.

Placards carried by the protesters claimed that the respected learning institution had become a sanctioned refuge for a Roman Catholic priest who was charged, and found guilty of sexual assault on an eight year old girl and making inappropriate gestures towards another.

Montreal Simon blogged about this here. This priest, who was awarded a scholarship by the Montreal diocese has become a lightning rod for the unresolved and contentious relationship the Roman Catholic Church has with adult survivors who suffered sexual abuse as children at the hands of priests. The attitude and actions of clergy who hold high positions in the Church does much to trivialize the harm, injury and trauma done to families whose trust in the justice system was often betrayed (and their children re-victimized), and little to advance healing.

With their characteristic arrogance, the Fathers of the Church persevere in believing that they have the power to forgive the criminal transgressions of priests (in the rare cases where they are forced to acknowledge the facts before them) and to chose the form of rehabilitation that they deem suitable. And so they continue to evade responsibility for the systemic sexual violence that the Church tolerates.

These members of the higher clergy - bishops, arch-bishops, cardinals, theological scholars, even the Pope - are wrong. Only the victims - girls and boys then, adults now - have the the moral and spiritual authority to forgive their abusers.

Note: Saint-Paul is affiliated to the University of Ottawa and thus retains some autonomy, such as its Catholic ascendancy.