r. kelly is not worth this many pixels, but...

i was listening to the radio this morning and heard some pretty crazy stuff re: this r. kelly trial.

i'm about to give far too much voice to this than i ever wanted to, but after hearing some of the ridiculousness coming from the mouths of grown folks who ought to know better, i wanted to at least list a few things:

one.
i was VERY grateful for the caller who mentioned that she had been molested for several years as an adolescent, and spoke to the "normalization" of the behavior that occurs. when someone is manipulating you, or you're coerced into doing traumatic things with someone you have been conditioned to love and trust, you tell yourself it's normal to get through it. in the worst cases where the abuse starts around school age (or before) and continues nearly indefinitely, it most certainly becomes a normal part of life; it's embedded in the earliest memories one has.

she also mentioned that although she's now well into her 20s, it was only fairly recently that she came to understand that it wasn't her fault.

it's probably very difficult to understand for someone not trained in human psychology or who has been through it, but it's a very true and real thing.


two.
this is reason #402,385 why HEALTHY sexuality/sensuality and all that goes with that (safer sex, self esteem, positive touch, needs/desires/urges...) needs to be discussed thoroughly and often with children and adolescents.

it's also another good reason to end the silence around sexual abuse/child molestation. a few of those callers were yelping like hit dogs (or, ladies that doth protest too much, for you non-southerners). and since victims will often blame themselves first, cries of "it was her fault she put herself in that situation..." are common. which brings me to my final point...


three.
the ridiculousness of blaming the victim / "bad girl" syndrome.

look. the whole notion that this girl "had a choice", "looked like she knew what she was doing", etc. just doesn't fly. i was so glad when one of the hosts made the distinction of saying, "she knew what she was doing physically..."

hear me: arruh was the adult*. he had the burden of responsibility, trust, and discretion. just because you KNOW she's up for the task doesn't mean you go there. we're not talking about two 14-15 yr olds, or even a 14 year old and an 18 year old. this was a child and a grown ass man. apples and oranges.

...and even if she was a "bad girl" (which is laden with its own nonsense), why's she bad enough to allow a golden shower at 14? what kind of love, affection, attention, and validation is she missing? do we know whether or not she was ever abused sexually? no one seems to be asking about that. just easier to label her a hot-in-the-ass slut and move on, i guess.

that's all. i'm just sick of having my stomach turn whenever i hear blk folks chime in on these kinds of situations.



*i use this term loosely. word 'round the campfire is that he might be fixated at some point in adolescence and/or childhood himself (for the record, i've always thought michael jackson was, too). r. may not be a pedophile (who is distinguished, if i remember correctly, by an actual sexual attraction to children for their own sake), per se. instead, he may see these younger girls as his peers. doesn't make it right, just another angle.