Letter to Houston Chronicle

Chronicle debating old-ladies issues

To the Editor of the Houston Chronicle

James Campbell's piece (Sunday, May 6, 2006) on the pipe attack story was a huge disappointment. Yes, the attack in Spring TX can teach us a lot, but not unless we are willing to think outside the box.

In my opinion, it is now time to rethink media policies about the names of sexual assault victims in general. In addition, we need to redefine sexual assault. James Campbell's headline shouts "sexual assault." Other Chronicle headlines bark "pipe attack." Which was this? It's really, really time to think outside the box on these policies.

In my opinion, it is now arcane to think reporting the name of the victim of sexual assault serves any real purpose. Many victims of such attacks are testifying about it themselves at public rallies and gatherings around the country. In feminist circles, such victims achieve at times the status of war veterans.

The old laws and media policies are rooted in the suspicion that a woman looses her value by being raped, hence we should be nice. What an old talisman!

The victim of the pipe attack is not really much different than Frida Kahlo, the wife of prominent Mexican muralist Diego Rivera. She was impaled in the vagina are during a city bus accident. There has never been any need to hush this up. No one says she was sexually assaulted.

Likewise, the victim in the pipe attack in Spring TX will lose nothing by the publication of his name. On the contrary, many readers like myself already feel strongly sympathetic with him and would love to be able to put a face and a name to the man. This isn't cheap voyeurism. It's love and compassion.

Yours truly,

Tim Campbell

(Not for publication. I made these comments to James Campbell, the Readers' rep by phone last week. He chose to ignore my whole theme in his article. Lou Gelfand, the Readers' rep at the Minneapolis StarTribune treated readers with more respect.)

"Campbell, James" Chronicle's readers rep wrote:

Mr. Campbell,Great name. The charge against the suspects is aggravated sexual assault, not aggravated pipe assault. Had police charged the suspects with felony aggravated assault, I would not have used sexual assault. I also think not using the victim´s name protects him from further embarrassment outside of his community. If he goes off to college and meets someone in another and says his name a person from another state might remember that he was the victim in a brutal attack and began spreading that news around campus. Yes, people in the immediate community know him, but I don´t see the value of spreading his name beyond the general knowledge in his community.James Campbell

To sodomize v to impale anally

TO SODOMIZE V TO IMPALE ANALLY
Members of the Media:

Please consider and discuss the following comments about the verb “to sodomize" which is in the news a lot these days in the Houston area because of the pipe attack on the young man from Spring, Texas.

1. The media often use “sodomize" to mean everything from impaling someone annaly to sucking a child’s peepee.
2. Sodomy is often used as a synonym or euphemism or pejorism for homosexuality.
3. Sodomy often denotes anal or oral sex but connotes mostly homosexual anal or oral sex.
4. Sodomy is sometimes used to include bestiality.

By contrast, no one ever says Monica Lewinsky “sodomized” Bill Clinton or vice-versa.

By contrast, no one ever says Frida Kahlo, wife of Mexican muralist Diego Rivera, was sexually assaulted or sodomized by the city bus accident that left her impaled in the vaginal area.

Conclusion: When the media says the Spring youth was sodomized, they are using a hugely vague and problematic term. They/you are assuming the youths who did this had sexual intent. What data supports that? Did they jerk off simultaneously? Is there semen residue? Did they shout sexual insults. No. All of that seems lacking. Shouldn’t a good defense attorney raise all these issues in defense of these attackers? Shouldn’t reporters withhold judgement?

Sidebar: The media people, particularly the print reporters, are the wordsmiths. They, not the police, are responsible for the words they choose in telling their stories. A reporter can cite the legal charge in one place without slipping into vague and unjustified language elsewhere in the story. It is clear this was a pipe attack. It is not clear this was sexual assault. When the media says “sodomy” here, they bias the report. They add to the bad name of oral and anal sex and they add to gay hate.

Second Sidebar: I believe this pipe attack was done to humiliate the victim, not for sexual gratification. When the media withhold the victim’s name, they participate in the humiliation of the victim. They/you act like you believe the victim was humiliated. I don’t. I feel nothing but love and compassion for this victim.

The saddest thing about this story is that two teenaged thugs kicked a pipe up another teenager's ass because it was the worst thing they could think of to do. Now, the police and the media want to punish them in kind and the worst thing they can think of is pinning a brutal homosexual rape on them. In this, the police and the media are as primitive as the original hate mongers.

Tim Campbell