NEWSBYRUTH FERTIG

In reporting a story on "an alarming new trend called 'scooping,'" KTLA newscasters led with this question: "A middle school prank or a case of blatant sexual assault?"

KTLA defines scooping as, "when male students reach around a girl's shoulder, grabbing her breasts or reaching under her skirt to touch her private parts." The Urban Dictionary concurs with this definition, more or less.

Now, let's move on to the definition of sexual assault. The National Center for Victims of Crime states: "Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent."

And finally, the definition of prank, from Dictionary.com: "A mischievous trick or practical joke."

So, we have a cut and dry case here: scooping is not a prank; scooping is sexual assault. It boggles the mind that "scooping" could be framed as an act even remotely in need of interpretation. I realize the news often uses the gimmick of asking whether a controversial topic is one thing or its shocking opposite, but in this case it's absolutely clear that the "schoolboy prank" argument has no merit (and in fact, no one in the video or accompanying article treats it as anything less than a serious crime). It's irresponsible and regressive to headline the story in a way that trivializes sexual assault.

Utah lawmakers have just passed a bill that would charge a woman with criminal homicide for obtaining an illegal abortion or inducing a miscarriage, whether intentionally or through "reckless" behavior.

There are a few narrowly defined exceptions, including failure to comply with medical advice, refusal to submit to a physician's recommended treatment, and negligence (which in legal terms is apparently a less serious crime than recklessness). Otherwise, the law holds women accountable for criminal homicide if they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly "cause the death of another human being, including an unborn child at any stage of its development," outside the parameters of legal abortion.

The bill was ostensibly a response to a recent Utah case in which a 17-year-old, 7 months pregnant girl was protected from prosecution after she paid a man $150 to beat her in a failed attempt to induce miscarriage. At that time, Utah -- like most other states -- did not hold women criminally liable for seeking illegal abortion, but instead punished those who performed them. It seems Utah lawmakers found it unjust that this desperate girl was not sent to prison. Yet in their efforts to close the supposed loophole, they have now opened up a gaping hole, into which many women who had no desire for an abortion are liable to fall.

As various advocacy groups have pointed out, the terms of the bill are so subjective that a woman could theoretically be charged for criminal homicide if she: fails to wear a seat-belt, gets in a car accident and suffers a miscarriage; uses legal or illegal drugs and the baby is stillborn; carries multiples as a result of fertility treatment, and one or more of the babies die; or remains with a partner whom she knows to be abusive, and she suffers a miscarriage after he beats her particularly violently.

As Utah's ACLU wrote in a letter to Utah's governor in protest of the law, "

Ewww. Just, ewww.

American Apparel has introduced a "best bottom contest" on their website. Contestants submit photos of their American Apparel-(barely)clad asses for the chance to become official "butt models," while simultaneously creating for AA its newest low-cost, high-exploitation advertising campaign. I'm not going to provide a link to the site because I refuse to make it easier for them to get traffic, but feel free to Google it if: a.) you're a feminist seeking masochistic revulsion or b.) you get off on hyper-sexual disembodied butts arranged in neat 5 X 6 grids.

Now, American Apparel is not technically a porn peddler -- it purports to sell clothing. But American Apparel's marketing machine doesn't sell clothes; it sells the lack thereof. It exploits human bodies, mostly young female bodies, posed sex-kitten-like, lips pouted, eyes disturbingly vacant, ass or crotch thrust outward, with lots of exposed skin photographed way too close-up.

Though the butt contest invites both men and women to model American Apparel underwear, it has emphasized female submissions, and the resultant two sets of photos couldn't be more different. The mens' prominently feature the merchandise, in run-of-the-mill underwear ad style. Meanwhile, the focus in the women's photos is on the dearth of coverage provided by their undergarments --  the women's butts ARE the merchandise. As of this writing, there have been 88 men's submissions and 1,103 women's. Predictably, because men aren't taught to publicly flaunt their sexuality for the world's consumption.

Oh, did I mention that you can rate the butts? (Click on the charmingly tongue-in-cheek "Start Scoring" button to jump right in.) Because sexual empowerment is all about measuring your worth by other people's standards.

I realize countless companies lean on the "sex sells" strategy, but American

On February 2nd, the United Nations appointed Swedish politician Margot Wallström as the Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, a newly created position with a two-year mandate to provide leadership on UN efforts to address conflict-related sexual violence.

One of her responsibilities will be to coordinate implementation of the four Security Council resolutions that specifically address war's impact on women and women's necessary role in peace-building:

1325 (2000), often called the "resolution on women, peace and security," called for the protection of women and girls from gender-based violence during conflict, an increase in women's participation in conflict resolution and peace processes, and the inclusion of a gender perspective in peace-building and UN peacekeeping operations.

1820 (2008) demanded an immediate and complete halt to all acts of sexual violence against civilians in conflict zones. (Yeah, I know, that one hasn't quite made an impact yet.)

1888 (2009) was widely hailed for providing concrete building blocks to implementing the previous resolutions. It mandated that peacekeeping missions protect women and girls from sexual violence in conflict, and it created Wallström's new position.

1889 (2009) reaffirmed and recommitted the Security Council to the first three resolutions and called for the development of monitoring guidelines to track their implementation.

Last week I had the privilege of watching some truly amazing documentaries at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival. "12th & Delaware," directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady ("The Boys of Baraka," "Jesus Camp"), explores the battle raging on a Fort Pierce, Florida corner where an abortion clinic and a pro-life pregnancy center sit across the street from each other.

Just before daybreak, a single pro-life protester awaits the arrival of an abortion provider to the clinic. When she sees him coming -- covered in a white sheet, sitting in the passenger seat of a bright yellow Mustang -- she lets loose a steady stream of supplications and accusations that continues until the car is safely inside the garage. "You don't have to do this." "Think of your grandchildren." "Shame on you." Throughout the film, we will see different permutations of this opening scene over and over again: protesters openly accosting clinic workers and clients, who hide behind jackets, curtains, and security cameras, their safety and privacy compromised.

Inside the abortion clinic, the covered up clients become real women, each with a different story and different reasons for being there. Some feel they're too young to have a baby, others too old, others too financially unstable. As they consult with the clinic counselor, the women often agonize over their decision to end their pregnancies, even when certain it is the right decision to make.

Across the street at the pregnancy center, we find similarly conflicted women facing a different ordeal: hearing from the center counselor that their risk of breast cancer and infertility increases after having an abortion, seeing ultrasound images on top of which technicians type "hi mommy," receiving teary-eyed looks and stony silences when they express an inclination to abort. These women often come in to the center accidentally, mistaking it for the abortion clinic at which they had an appointment. The staff at the pregnancy center attempts to undermine the women's resolve to abort instead of redirecting them across the street.

As part of the Department of Justice's initiative to improve public safety in tribal communities, Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced sweeping reforms, including a directive for U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to "work closely with law enforcement to pay particular attention to violence against women in Indian Country and make these crimes a priority."

Native American women face appallingly high levels of violence. More than one in three Native women will be raped in her lifetime. Native women are 2.5 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than other women in the United States. They experience more intimate partner violence than any other U.S. ethnic group, and murder rates of Native women are also many times higher than the national average.

Kathryn Tucker has a four part series in Indian Country Today that addresses intimate partner violence against Native women, its causes and strategies for its prevention. She cites the societal upheaval, economic marginalization, and historical trauma wrought by conquest and colonization as the root of the problem. Furthermore, a lack of culturally sensitive law enforcement officers and culturally appropriate legal and support services can make getting help challenging.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International blames "a complex maze of tribal, state and federal jurisdictions" for allowing "perpetrators to rape with impunity." Depending on the crime, federal, state or tribal officials have jurisdiction on tribal lands, and their lack of cooperation has often meant that cases are dropped or unreported. The vast majority of reported sexual assaults are perpetrated by non-Native men, many of whom ostensibly see Native women as easy targets for this reason.

On Monday, Australia's Daily Telegraph reported that a woman had been the victim of an "online sexual assault" while playing the Playstation game, Home.

The story broke after her roommate complained on the game's online forum: "This morning I learned that my roommate was sexually assaulted near the Festive Tree ... She would move and the harasser would follow. Each time trying to get behind her and use the crouch gesture ... The harasser was warned multiple times and laughed at the thought that someone might report him for his actions, which was eventually done." The woman's roommate went on to suggest that Playstation institute everything from virtual restraining orders to Home Jails to "automatic tomato guns" to deal with virtual assaults. In the meantime, the victim left the game and was not sure whether she would ever want to return.

Now, I am no expert on virtual gaming, but what I do know is that many people have become really wrapped up in these virtual worlds. That's why there's that one game called Second Life, after all.

In these virtual worlds, people make real money (don't ask me how) and have real sex, insofar as going through the motions of virtual sex can stimulate the same arousal and, erm, come to the same satisfying conclusion that physical sex can. If, through their virtual interactions, people can feel sexual emotions without having actual sex, then why shouldn't it follow that virtual assaults can leave people feeling violated without having actually been sexually assaulted?

I don't want to imply that virtual assault is the same thing as sexual assault by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't think it was wise for the woman's roommate to refer to it as such. However, I would argue that it is a form of sexual harrassment, which can be incredible distressing for its victims. And let's not forget that the virtual world is full, like the real world, of people who actually have been raped, and online assault, though it may do no direct physical damage, can act as a trigger for flashbacks, panic attacks, and assorted traumatic thoughts and emotions.

Since when does entertaining the idea of a sexual scenario equate to giving sexual consent?

It seems that in the wise world of a U.K. prosecutor and his judge, not only does maybe mean yes, but yes once means yes always. The duo were at the trial of an alleged rape victim who claimed she had gone to the house of someone she met online, wanting to have sex with only him, but that he and five other men had proceeded to gang rape her. When the prosecutor revealed that the alleged victim had once had online discussions about engaging in group sex, the judge cleared all six men of their rape and conspiracy to rape charges -- before hearing any actual evidence.

The prosecutor had said, "There is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers, where to use her words her 'morals go out the window.' This material does paint a wholly different light as far as this case is concerned." And why in the world is that? The prosecutor said the woman entertained ideas of group sex, not that she agreed to real-life group sex. (The press covering the story never even made entirely clear whether these discussions were with the men in question or with others, as though that part is just incidental.)

The online conversations may be relevant to the case and worthy of further examination, if they involved the men in question. Still, those online conversations do not constitute consent -- and by extension, eliminate the possibility of rape -- in any way, shape, or form. Consent only counts when it is actively given at the time of sex. But perhaps in this prosecutor's mind, and apparently the judge's as well, any woman dirty enough to entertain the idea of group sex has already given tacit consent to any and all sex with any and all strangers at any and all times. In the judge's estimation, "her credibility was shot to pieces."

Maybe these two men have wafted so far up into the lofty heights of jurisprudence that they've lost sight of the common sense truths upon which the law and justice are based. Namely, people have all manner of wild and crazy sexual fantasies. Sometimes, people take their fantasies one step further by discussing the possibility of acting upon them. Sometimes sharing a fantasy can be titillating in and of itself -- people don't necessarily want or need to physically execute a fantasy in order to get pleasure from it. Sometimes, people discuss a sexual scenario, decide they're up for it, and then go for it! Other times, they decide they're up for it ... and then change their minds! Sometimes, people agree to engage in a sex act on one occasion but don't want to engage in similar acts on other occasions.

And sometimes these very same people are raped.

How convenient would it be for rapists if they got a free pass any time they could show that their victims once thought about or engaged in "similar" sex acts consensually. I estimate this would give them license to rape, oh, the entire female population.

Photo Credit: Steve Punter

The report's title says it all: "Interacting Like a Body: Objectification Can Lead Women to Narrow Their Presence in Social Interactions." Translation: the "male gaze" silences women.

Tamar Saguy wanted to find out how women's behavior is affected by the perception that their bodies are being watched. So her team recruited 207 undergrads, both men and women, for a little experiment. Each participant was told that he or she had been assigned a partner, either male or a female. The participants were also randomly assigned a "communication condition" that determined how they would interact with their partners (who didn't really exist).

In one "communication condition" set-up, a video camera showed the participant from the neck down; in another, a video camera showed only the participant's face; and in a third, an audio device recorded only the participant's voice. The participants were given two minutes to introduce themselves to their partners, using prompts like "four things you like doing the most" and "your biggest fear." They believed that their partners were watching the footage and/or listening to the audio in another room via a closed-circuit system.

The participants' responses were timed and then compared, to see how people's gender, their interaction partners' supposed gender, and their "communication conditions" affect behavior during social interactions.

The results are not so much surprising as they are deeply disheartening. When women communicated with (supposed) women, they talked about as much as men speaking to either sex. But when they thought they were speaking with men, the women's talking abruptly dropped off. This phenomenon was heightened when the women believed the men were looking at them in addition to listening to their words.

Food, shelter, water and medical care -- these are critical, universal needs following any disaster. If they're not provided, a humanitarian crisis ensues. Right now, relief workers are struggling to provide aid to the people of Haiti, and the situation remains dire for everyone. But women and children are particularly vulnerable after disasters, and they have distinct needs that must be addressed.

As women's rights group MADRE points out, "Women are often the hardest hit when disaster strikes because they were at a deficit even before the catastrophe." Haiti is the poorest country and has the highest rate of both infant and maternal mortality in the Western hemisphere. The UNFPA reports that seven out of ten women in Haiti have experienced violence, and that 37% of those incidents were sexual. According to a 2008 Amnesty International report, "Haiti is also gripped by shocking levels of violence against girls."

In this time of heightened stress, lawlessness, and homelessness, women and children face an increased threat of violence. Women will find it even harder to support themselves and the children, elderly, and infirm who are disproportionately in their care. Pregnant women and new mothers will be especially vulnerable; their access to reproductive health care will be even more limited in the wake of this disaster.

The Women's Refugee Commission has identified ten critical needs for those displaced by the earthquake in Haiti. Many of them address risks faced specifically or disproportionately by women and children.

There are hundreds of organizations contributing to the relief effort in Haiti. I've provide a roundup of just a few that focus specifically on women's issues after the jump: