The stranger in the bushes myth is the idea that most rapes are perpetrated by sketchy nutjobs who jump out of their hiding place, drag a woman into a dark alley or a thicket of bushes, hold a knife to her throat, and brutally rape her as she screams. The reality is that you're more likely to be raped by someone you know, inside a house or apartment.
1) It helps women feel safe
It seems so easy to prevent getting raped by the mythical Stranger in the Bushes. Don't walk alone at night, don't wear a short skirt, stay sober, walk defensively, know how to defend against a violent attacker, carry pepper spray and you'll be fine! Sadly, there's no kick or punch that can defend against subtle coercion.
On the flipside, it opens the floodgates for victim-blaming. And there's always victim-blaming. even if a woman is attacked by the Stranger, someone is bound to say "well you shouldn't have . . ." or "but you were . . ." or "why on Earth would you . . ." And if you can blame a woman for being raped by a guy she barely knew simply by walking in the wrong place or wearing the wrong clothing, you can definitely blame a woman for being raped by someone she's actually met before. She should have "known" he was a rapist and avoided him. Because clearly, rapists are always easy to spot and women aren't expected to give people the benefit of the doubt- oh wait!
2) It's the most clear-cut, blameless example
A woman who's raped by the Stranger in the Bushes has never met the guy, so there was no way for her to give any "sign" that she was into him and wanted it, nor is there any reason why she'd want to "get back at him" with a false rape accusation. It's the "least" consensual form of rape, the only situation where a woman is most definitely raped. Even if you do blame her for wearing a short skirt, you'd call it rape - not unwanted sex, not "regret sex," not a drunken mistake, not anything other than rape.
3) It allows for "othering" among men
The Stranger in the Bushes is cold, psychotic, evil, violent human being. The lowest of the low, a criminal comparable to a serial killer due to the nature of his work. Because of this, a guy can easily say he's not a rapist because he's not "that kind of guy."
Just the term "rapist" conjures up an image of a sleeze ball hiding in the bushes with a knife, not a guy acting as though he is entitled to sex because he's in a relationship with the woman in question, or because he bought her dinner; nor does the word conjure up a socially awkward guy who thinks that unwanted touching and constant nagging for sex is the normal way to get laid; nor does the word "rapist" conjure up a guy who thinks that because a woman wears X and does Y, that means she definitely wants to screw him, and thus acts accordingly without actually asking to confirm. You get the point. The truth us, there are many rape situations that don't involve a crazy, knife-wielding psychopath, but you never consider them rape because they don't fit the Stranger in the Bushes mold. You wouldn't consider a guy to be a real rapist if he is well dressed, intelligent,, well spoken, seemingly sane, and well liked.
4) It keeps women in line
Don't party too late, you might get raped. Don't drink or do drugs, you might get raped. Dress modestly or you might get raped. We use rape as a tool to make women afraid to do things that may be toeing a moral line. The Stranger in the Bushes myth also dismisses all date rapes and intimate partner rapes as not "real rape," giving validity to the idea that a woman is an object that belongs to her male partner (or date).
Of course, the Stranger in the Bushes scenario happens. We hear about it on the news, especially when it's the same guy going after multiple women. We only hear about other forms of rape when they're perpetrated by high profile individuals such as athletes and politicians, and of course, articles covering the allegations are sure to mention what the woman was wearing, her sexual track record, and whether or not she may be a sex worker - coupled with a description of how "good" the man is. How innocent he is. How much good he does for the community. How much women like him and his friends, family, and colleagues adore him. How he swears the allegations are not true and he will go to any length to prove that she's just a lying tramp. After all, it's not like that guy to jump out of the bushes and rape a woman.
Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rape. Show all posts
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Friday, September 16, 2011
A Call for Social Amnesty
Too often we're quick to chide victims of rape for putting themselves in unsafe situations. "She should have known better," people remark. Believe me, I'm sure she knows that too. Hindsight is 20/20, and after being a victim of sexual assault, it's common for the victim to kick herself for every decision she made that night that may or may not have led to her assault. I shouldn't have gone to that party, I shouldn't have hung out with that guy, I shouldn't have gone to his apartment, I should have gone home instead of crash at his place, I shouldn't have worn that top, I shouldn't have worn those panties, I shouldn't have accepted those drinks, I shouldn't have danced like that, the list goes on and on. She doesn't need a slap on the wrist, she's already slapping herself.
A rape victim doesn't need to be scolded for her decisions. It's unnecessary and makes her feel worse about what has happened to her. Because of this, I propose social amnesty for rape victims. What does that mean? Think about it as similar to a university's medical amnesty policy. Usually if a student is caught violating the alcohol policy, he or she gets in trouble. However, if that student seeks medical attention in the case of extreme intoxication, that student as well as those with them at the time do not get in trouble. This is to make sure that people who are really sick get the medical attention they need. Similarly, social amnesty means that if a woman is raped, any "stupid" decision she made that night - any decision that, had nothing happened her, might have warranted a scolding of "are you stupid?? never do that again, you could have been raped!!" - is overlooked and her peers focus instead on making sure she gets the help and support she needs - support she may not even try to seek out if she's afraid people will blame her for what happened, or afraid of getting in trouble with her friends and family for putting herself in that situation.
A rape victim doesn't need to be scolded for her decisions. It's unnecessary and makes her feel worse about what has happened to her. Because of this, I propose social amnesty for rape victims. What does that mean? Think about it as similar to a university's medical amnesty policy. Usually if a student is caught violating the alcohol policy, he or she gets in trouble. However, if that student seeks medical attention in the case of extreme intoxication, that student as well as those with them at the time do not get in trouble. This is to make sure that people who are really sick get the medical attention they need. Similarly, social amnesty means that if a woman is raped, any "stupid" decision she made that night - any decision that, had nothing happened her, might have warranted a scolding of "are you stupid?? never do that again, you could have been raped!!" - is overlooked and her peers focus instead on making sure she gets the help and support she needs - support she may not even try to seek out if she's afraid people will blame her for what happened, or afraid of getting in trouble with her friends and family for putting herself in that situation.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
"Women DO Lie!"
Today I found this article highlighting the problem of women lying about rape. Not a new sentiment, it's something that's become increasingly prevalent since the Duke case. It's the reason a former friend of mine basically disowned me, he thought I must be lying and abusing the legal system because my situation didn't follow the classic formula for a sexual assault case. I hate articles like these, and my first reaction is usually unintelligible rage followed by feeling totally depressed.
It's really hard to articulate why articles and blogs like that piss me off, but I'm going to try. First, I have to point out that the person writing the above article is the mother of a boy who was accused of rape. Of COURSE she's going to think he's innocent, of COURSE she's going to instinctively think the girl is just a lying psycho bitch, because there's no way her son could do something about this, she raised him better. The reality is, an abuser is hard to spot, and most people who commit abuse pass themselves off as perfect angels, fine upstanding citizens, men who would never hurt women either. And it's easy to pretend to be a "feminist's dream," we're kidding ourselves if we think misogyny is always obvious.
Not that I think the boy mentioned in the article was guilty. I have no idea. I'm not an idiot, I know false rape accusations do happen, every crime can be falsely reported. BUT it doesn't matter, even if there are cases where a man is falsely convicted of rape, that's no reason to start demonizing every woman who says she was raped.
Once again we've become a culture of extremes. It seems people either think the victim should always be believed, or that the legal system needs to take the man's side and be very skeptical of every accusation, because women are evil lying bitches who shouldn't be taken seriously.
And I will say, for the record, that I am sympathetic to men who have been falsely accused. As in, they've done nothing at all. It does make me angry when false accusations are made because they chip away at the validity of real rape reports. The more false rape accusations are made, the less people will believe real victims. The more women know about the growing cultural skepticism surrounding rape, the less likely they will be to report sexual assault should it happen to them. Skepticism may result in victims of rape or sexual assault being unfairly labeled as liars and losing their support networks.
It also saddens me that this whole "too many women lie about rape" mentality is causing people to demonize feminism as a whole, especially its work regarding rape prevention. It's a shame that people think female empowerment is to blame for every evil crime committed by a woman.
It's really hard to articulate why articles and blogs like that piss me off, but I'm going to try. First, I have to point out that the person writing the above article is the mother of a boy who was accused of rape. Of COURSE she's going to think he's innocent, of COURSE she's going to instinctively think the girl is just a lying psycho bitch, because there's no way her son could do something about this, she raised him better. The reality is, an abuser is hard to spot, and most people who commit abuse pass themselves off as perfect angels, fine upstanding citizens, men who would never hurt women either. And it's easy to pretend to be a "feminist's dream," we're kidding ourselves if we think misogyny is always obvious.
Not that I think the boy mentioned in the article was guilty. I have no idea. I'm not an idiot, I know false rape accusations do happen, every crime can be falsely reported. BUT it doesn't matter, even if there are cases where a man is falsely convicted of rape, that's no reason to start demonizing every woman who says she was raped.
Once again we've become a culture of extremes. It seems people either think the victim should always be believed, or that the legal system needs to take the man's side and be very skeptical of every accusation, because women are evil lying bitches who shouldn't be taken seriously.
And I will say, for the record, that I am sympathetic to men who have been falsely accused. As in, they've done nothing at all. It does make me angry when false accusations are made because they chip away at the validity of real rape reports. The more false rape accusations are made, the less people will believe real victims. The more women know about the growing cultural skepticism surrounding rape, the less likely they will be to report sexual assault should it happen to them. Skepticism may result in victims of rape or sexual assault being unfairly labeled as liars and losing their support networks.
It also saddens me that this whole "too many women lie about rape" mentality is causing people to demonize feminism as a whole, especially its work regarding rape prevention. It's a shame that people think female empowerment is to blame for every evil crime committed by a woman.
Monday, April 4, 2011
On Covering Up
In an episode of 18 Kids and Counting - or was that 17 Kids? I forget - anyway, on an episode of the Duggars' TV show, Michelle Duggar preached the importance of women covering up and keeping her boys from seeing scantily clad women. In another episode, when the kids did get to watch TV, one of the kids felt the need to cover up the cleavage of a woman on the screen. Why? Because men shouldn't be tempted, and it's women's job to prevent such temptation.
To put it simply, men expecting women to cover up just so they don't see thigh and chest skin is just as problematic as men expecting women to wear skimpy clothing so they DO see skin. In both cases, women are expected to dress in accordance with what men want, rather than what they want.
I'm not opposed to skimpy clothing, or more modest apparel, but I do advocate that women choose the way they want to wear based on their own morals and beliefs, rather than cater to those of men. For example, while I am content with wearing shorts and tank tops in the summer when it's warm and I want to stay as cool as possible outside, after my experiences with rape and sexual assault I have thought of adopting a more modest way of dressing just as a way to avoid rape in the future. I know it's silly, because I was hardly scantily clad when the events took place, but sometimes I feel desperate for a way to feel safe again. Other women view sexy clothing as a means of empowerment. Whether either way of dressing is empowering, or which is more empowering than the other, is a topic of much debate, and I'm not going to get into it now.
This expectation to cover up still regards women as sex objects, only in this case they're regarded as inherently sexual and need to de-sexualize themselves so men don't get turned on. It puts the burden of preventing "bad" things on women, treating them like the moral gatekeepers of all things sexual. It also assumes that men can't control themselves - Michelle Duggar said boys need to learn self-control, and the only way this can happen is if women don't tempt them. Well that's silly, anyone can learn self-control without temptation, that's like learning healthy eating habits in an environment free of any bad foods. True self-control is being able to actually see cleavage without acting on the arousal that may come with it. But I guess that's too hard, men don't want the work of learning such willpower, they'd rather leave all that stuff up to women.
If anything, this should be an insult to men - I remember being really insulted when my school decided that the only way to prevent obesity was to remove junk food from the school cafeteria. We couldn't be trusted access to soda and chocolate, so they had to take it out of our hands. I, being a responsible consumer for the most part, and nowhere near in danger of becoming obese, was outraged. I didn't care if I didn't need soda, on the days where I felt myself about to doze off in class, being able to guzzle down a Coke to keep me awake for the rest of the day helped a lot.
This "boys will be boys" attitude, or the idea that men can't handle even the sight of cleavage without losing control, is a huge aspect of rape culture. With this discourse, we can easily dismiss most rape cases by saying "well, she tempted him, what did she expect?" It supports the "rape schedule," or set of safety rules imposed on women, putting the burden of rape prevention on them rather than teach men not to rape. We hold women accountable for what happens to them, rather than hold men accountable for what they do to women. Of course, men must love this system, they can do almost anything to women as long as they can pin it on the woman for somehow "asking for it." Now you must see why rape victims feel compelled to cover up, so they don't "attract" any more violence, and if they do, they're less likely to be blamed for what happened.
To put it simply, men expecting women to cover up just so they don't see thigh and chest skin is just as problematic as men expecting women to wear skimpy clothing so they DO see skin. In both cases, women are expected to dress in accordance with what men want, rather than what they want.
I'm not opposed to skimpy clothing, or more modest apparel, but I do advocate that women choose the way they want to wear based on their own morals and beliefs, rather than cater to those of men. For example, while I am content with wearing shorts and tank tops in the summer when it's warm and I want to stay as cool as possible outside, after my experiences with rape and sexual assault I have thought of adopting a more modest way of dressing just as a way to avoid rape in the future. I know it's silly, because I was hardly scantily clad when the events took place, but sometimes I feel desperate for a way to feel safe again. Other women view sexy clothing as a means of empowerment. Whether either way of dressing is empowering, or which is more empowering than the other, is a topic of much debate, and I'm not going to get into it now.
This expectation to cover up still regards women as sex objects, only in this case they're regarded as inherently sexual and need to de-sexualize themselves so men don't get turned on. It puts the burden of preventing "bad" things on women, treating them like the moral gatekeepers of all things sexual. It also assumes that men can't control themselves - Michelle Duggar said boys need to learn self-control, and the only way this can happen is if women don't tempt them. Well that's silly, anyone can learn self-control without temptation, that's like learning healthy eating habits in an environment free of any bad foods. True self-control is being able to actually see cleavage without acting on the arousal that may come with it. But I guess that's too hard, men don't want the work of learning such willpower, they'd rather leave all that stuff up to women.
If anything, this should be an insult to men - I remember being really insulted when my school decided that the only way to prevent obesity was to remove junk food from the school cafeteria. We couldn't be trusted access to soda and chocolate, so they had to take it out of our hands. I, being a responsible consumer for the most part, and nowhere near in danger of becoming obese, was outraged. I didn't care if I didn't need soda, on the days where I felt myself about to doze off in class, being able to guzzle down a Coke to keep me awake for the rest of the day helped a lot.
This "boys will be boys" attitude, or the idea that men can't handle even the sight of cleavage without losing control, is a huge aspect of rape culture. With this discourse, we can easily dismiss most rape cases by saying "well, she tempted him, what did she expect?" It supports the "rape schedule," or set of safety rules imposed on women, putting the burden of rape prevention on them rather than teach men not to rape. We hold women accountable for what happens to them, rather than hold men accountable for what they do to women. Of course, men must love this system, they can do almost anything to women as long as they can pin it on the woman for somehow "asking for it." Now you must see why rape victims feel compelled to cover up, so they don't "attract" any more violence, and if they do, they're less likely to be blamed for what happened.
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Rhetoric of Rape Culture
I'll admit it, I'm addicted to Secret Life of the American Teenager. Have been since the show's premiere in July, 2008 - almost three years ago. In the first episode, Amy admits to her friends that she had sex. She also explains that she didn't know what was going on, and didn't even know it was sex until it was over. Yet in the many seasons of the show since its premiere, no one has called it rape.
Technically, Amy was raped. She didn't know what was going on, so while she may have been making out with Ricky, clearly she didn't consent to sex. And she didn't think to tell him to stop because she didn't know they were even having sex. Because she didn't even know what Ricky was doing, she wasn't in a position to give consent. Not to mention the fact that, depending on what state she was in, it was probably statutory rape as well.
And yet, no one says she was raped. She doesn't say she was raped, her friends don't say she was raped. The only thing people occasionally say is that Ricky "took advantage" of her. But for the most part, she is vilified for having sex, despite her lack of consent.
"Taking advantage of someone" is one of the few phrases we as a culture often use as a softer way of discussing sexual assault. Make no mistake, taking advantage of someone - whether its their intoxication, their age, their naivete, or their lack of ability to make an informed decision regarding what's going on - is sexual assault, and when it involves penetration, it's rape. But we don't use those words. "Sexual assault" and "rape" are so strong, so severe. Instead, we use phrases like "unwanted sex" when discussing rape; "he took advantage of me" or "that guy groped me" when discussing sexual assault.
Perhaps a contributing factor is our fear of universalizing rape. If we call all instanced of unwanted sex "rape," we're admitting that rape is more common than we want it to be, and that more men are rapists than we're comfortable with. Instead, we socially categorize rape as an overtly violent act, where a creepy man jumps out of the bushes and forcefully rapes an innocent jogger (or a not-so-innocent girl walking home from the bar), or where a physically and verbally abusive boyfriend holds his girlfriend down and savagely rapes her - in both instances, the rapist is violently forceful, and the woman screams, unable to fight him off.
What our culture rarely recognizes as rape is the whispered coercion that takes place in the next dorm, or the friend whose boyfriend had sex with her when she told him she just wanted to make out. We don't call it rape when a woman complies with a pushy partner because she feels she has no other viable option. When consent is unclear, we call it "gray rape" - because it's not considered "real" rape unless it fits the violent, dramatic image the word conjures up for us.
Another problem is that women who don't give in are often demonized by our rape culture. If a woman fools around with a guy, but stops short of sex because she's not comfortable actually having him inside her, or even if she just wears a short skirt and flirts with a guy without intending to sleep with him, she's a "tease." If a woman doesn't put out because she's waiting for marriage, or a certain level of commitment, or until she's more comfortable with her partner, she's "holding out" on him, "using sex" as a tool to get what she wants. If a woman consents but then asks her partner to stop because she feels uncomfortable or she's in pain, or if she says she wants to have sex later that night but ends up changing her mind, she's a liar and can't be trusted. If a woman doesn't want to have sex after her partner buys her a fancy meal, or works hard all day to bring home the bacon, or goes down on her, or does any other seemingly selfless task to make her happy, she's ungrateful. Some might even call women like those above selfish, for putting their own comfort levels or moral standards ahead of the men who want sexual gratification.
The commodification of sex and women's bodies is a huge aspect of rape culture. Our society still treats sex as something one person does for another - typically something a woman does for a man, and something done for his pleasure rather than a mutually pleasurable experience. Sex is seen as something that is traded for goods or favors, or a way to pay someone back for their generosity. There's the idea that dating is a legal form of prostitution - women are "bought" with drinks, dates, and jewelry, and in return give the guy their time, their company, and their bodies. When we reduce sex to a commodity rather than an activity, something given rather than shared, we in turn see nothing wrong of demanding sex when it is arguably owed or earned; or "taking" it without asking.
We may have liberated women from the kitchen, but there is an overwhelmingly persistent cultural myth that a woman's place is in the bedroom, and her role in her romantic and sexual relationships is that of a pleaser. Perhaps this is why people who support the purity movement prevent their daughters from dating at all, because sex is seen as an inevitable part of dating, and a mandatory aspect of a romantic relationship. I remember when I was struggling with vaginismus, a condition that makes vaginal intercourse very painful, and for that reason my relationships with men contained very little sexual intimacy - and someone insisted that sex had to be a part of a relationship, and if I wasn't willing to have sex I shouldn't be in a relationship with anyone.
Now I get that sex is part of a healthy relationship, as long as the parties involved are emotionally ready to handle it of course. It's a little silly to say every high school couple that isn't having sex doesn't have a health relationship, and it's also silly to assume that of people who choose to wait until marriage or until they've been romantically involved long enough. Also, a healthy sexual relationship means respect - respecting someone when they say "no," for any reason, even if that reason seems silly, and a truly loving partner would make sure their significant other is comfortable during the experience. The mere presence of sex in a relationship is hardly an indicator of health, especially when it's done out of obligation or coercion.
Technically, Amy was raped. She didn't know what was going on, so while she may have been making out with Ricky, clearly she didn't consent to sex. And she didn't think to tell him to stop because she didn't know they were even having sex. Because she didn't even know what Ricky was doing, she wasn't in a position to give consent. Not to mention the fact that, depending on what state she was in, it was probably statutory rape as well.
And yet, no one says she was raped. She doesn't say she was raped, her friends don't say she was raped. The only thing people occasionally say is that Ricky "took advantage" of her. But for the most part, she is vilified for having sex, despite her lack of consent.
"Taking advantage of someone" is one of the few phrases we as a culture often use as a softer way of discussing sexual assault. Make no mistake, taking advantage of someone - whether its their intoxication, their age, their naivete, or their lack of ability to make an informed decision regarding what's going on - is sexual assault, and when it involves penetration, it's rape. But we don't use those words. "Sexual assault" and "rape" are so strong, so severe. Instead, we use phrases like "unwanted sex" when discussing rape; "he took advantage of me" or "that guy groped me" when discussing sexual assault.
Perhaps a contributing factor is our fear of universalizing rape. If we call all instanced of unwanted sex "rape," we're admitting that rape is more common than we want it to be, and that more men are rapists than we're comfortable with. Instead, we socially categorize rape as an overtly violent act, where a creepy man jumps out of the bushes and forcefully rapes an innocent jogger (or a not-so-innocent girl walking home from the bar), or where a physically and verbally abusive boyfriend holds his girlfriend down and savagely rapes her - in both instances, the rapist is violently forceful, and the woman screams, unable to fight him off.
What our culture rarely recognizes as rape is the whispered coercion that takes place in the next dorm, or the friend whose boyfriend had sex with her when she told him she just wanted to make out. We don't call it rape when a woman complies with a pushy partner because she feels she has no other viable option. When consent is unclear, we call it "gray rape" - because it's not considered "real" rape unless it fits the violent, dramatic image the word conjures up for us.
Another problem is that women who don't give in are often demonized by our rape culture. If a woman fools around with a guy, but stops short of sex because she's not comfortable actually having him inside her, or even if she just wears a short skirt and flirts with a guy without intending to sleep with him, she's a "tease." If a woman doesn't put out because she's waiting for marriage, or a certain level of commitment, or until she's more comfortable with her partner, she's "holding out" on him, "using sex" as a tool to get what she wants. If a woman consents but then asks her partner to stop because she feels uncomfortable or she's in pain, or if she says she wants to have sex later that night but ends up changing her mind, she's a liar and can't be trusted. If a woman doesn't want to have sex after her partner buys her a fancy meal, or works hard all day to bring home the bacon, or goes down on her, or does any other seemingly selfless task to make her happy, she's ungrateful. Some might even call women like those above selfish, for putting their own comfort levels or moral standards ahead of the men who want sexual gratification.
The commodification of sex and women's bodies is a huge aspect of rape culture. Our society still treats sex as something one person does for another - typically something a woman does for a man, and something done for his pleasure rather than a mutually pleasurable experience. Sex is seen as something that is traded for goods or favors, or a way to pay someone back for their generosity. There's the idea that dating is a legal form of prostitution - women are "bought" with drinks, dates, and jewelry, and in return give the guy their time, their company, and their bodies. When we reduce sex to a commodity rather than an activity, something given rather than shared, we in turn see nothing wrong of demanding sex when it is arguably owed or earned; or "taking" it without asking.
We may have liberated women from the kitchen, but there is an overwhelmingly persistent cultural myth that a woman's place is in the bedroom, and her role in her romantic and sexual relationships is that of a pleaser. Perhaps this is why people who support the purity movement prevent their daughters from dating at all, because sex is seen as an inevitable part of dating, and a mandatory aspect of a romantic relationship. I remember when I was struggling with vaginismus, a condition that makes vaginal intercourse very painful, and for that reason my relationships with men contained very little sexual intimacy - and someone insisted that sex had to be a part of a relationship, and if I wasn't willing to have sex I shouldn't be in a relationship with anyone.
Now I get that sex is part of a healthy relationship, as long as the parties involved are emotionally ready to handle it of course. It's a little silly to say every high school couple that isn't having sex doesn't have a health relationship, and it's also silly to assume that of people who choose to wait until marriage or until they've been romantically involved long enough. Also, a healthy sexual relationship means respect - respecting someone when they say "no," for any reason, even if that reason seems silly, and a truly loving partner would make sure their significant other is comfortable during the experience. The mere presence of sex in a relationship is hardly an indicator of health, especially when it's done out of obligation or coercion.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Victim Blaming In The Courts Is Alive and Well
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/judge-appears-to-blame-victim-in-sexual-assault-case/article1918444/
Man, I gotta stop thinking Canada is some liberal, egalitarian wonderland. A judge convicted a man of rape, but didn't sentence him to jail because the victim was sending him "signals."
Ahh yes, because that's how women communicate consent, signals! Clearly if a woman looks nice, not only is she trying to attract a man, she's trying to get him to have sex with her too. Now of course, that is sometimes the intent, but it shouldn't be the assumed intent.
One of the big problems with using "signals" to determine consent is we assume women do everything with the intention of attracting men. If I wear a skirt, it's to "show off" my legs to all the guys, and allow the guys who sit on stoops and leer at women all day a better view of my crotch. It couldn't be because I want to look good and be stay cool on a hot day. I remember someone asking me as I touched up my makeup before a school play rehearsal "who's the makeup for, Allison?" as if the only reason I was wearing only makeup was to attract someone.
We can't win when it comes to getting dressed - if we look good, we're supposedly inviting creepy guys to stare at us and make lewd comments, and we can't complain because that's what we were asking for when we put on a tank top instead of a sweatshirt. BUT if we don't look nice when we're out and about, people look at us, unable to hide the grossed out, judgmental expressions on their faces like we're disgusting excuses for women, because we're not putting enough effort into giving other people (read: men) something nice to look at.
When we go out into the public sphere to party - go to clubs, bars, parties, etc. - it's assumed we go out to meet guys and turn them on. And a lot of women play into this in the name of "empowerment," but again, just because that's usually the intention doesn't mean it should be assumed about everyone. And even if a woman is trying to attract someone, doesn't mean her attempts should be taken as consent to any intimate act with anyone.
Sadly, to this judge, they do.
The assumption that all women act the way they do with the sole purpose of attracting men ignores the women who do things for their own happiness and entertainment. It's hard to encourage such empowered behavior when it's barely ever acknowledged as normal.
Going back to an earlier post, one reason men read signals as consent is that women aren't taught to speak directly. Instead, we're socialized to be passive, subtle, and indirect in communicating with others, both men and women. When women learn to speak in code and nonverbal cues beginning in adolescence, it's no surprise when men try to all nonverbal cues as communicating something more, and when they take one thing to mean something else (for example, hearing "No" and interpreting it as "Well, I shouldn't . . ." or "Not yet, gotta try harder big boy" instead of "Put that thing away, it's not happening. Seriously."
And not to blame women for what happens to them, but it doesn't exactly help our cause when so many women say "no" and then eventually give in. Guys shouldn't be coercing women to have sex, and they should be taught that manufactured consent isn't real consent and is a form of rape, but the guys who do use those tactics typically get away with them and learn that it's okay to keep doing it. If a guy gets used to girls giving in like that, he doesn't react well to rejection.
Again, I digress. The common explanation for victim blaming is that society sees rape as a punishment for women who defy traditional restrictions on women, that they deserve to be raped if they wear revealing clothing or drink alcohol. That may be the case for some people, but most victim blaming may have a different, more modern cause. When women are taught to communicate through actions and signals rather than speak directly, that vague way of communication ends up being misinterpreted and real meanings, if an action has a hidden meaning at all, is lost in translation. Men's egos and what they are taught about sex often leads them to fill in the blanks with wishful thinking rather than reality or common sense. Sadly, women are still not being empowered to stand their ground and fight off unwanted contact, which only further normalizes rape.
Man, I gotta stop thinking Canada is some liberal, egalitarian wonderland. A judge convicted a man of rape, but didn't sentence him to jail because the victim was sending him "signals."
Ahh yes, because that's how women communicate consent, signals! Clearly if a woman looks nice, not only is she trying to attract a man, she's trying to get him to have sex with her too. Now of course, that is sometimes the intent, but it shouldn't be the assumed intent.
One of the big problems with using "signals" to determine consent is we assume women do everything with the intention of attracting men. If I wear a skirt, it's to "show off" my legs to all the guys, and allow the guys who sit on stoops and leer at women all day a better view of my crotch. It couldn't be because I want to look good and be stay cool on a hot day. I remember someone asking me as I touched up my makeup before a school play rehearsal "who's the makeup for, Allison?" as if the only reason I was wearing only makeup was to attract someone.
We can't win when it comes to getting dressed - if we look good, we're supposedly inviting creepy guys to stare at us and make lewd comments, and we can't complain because that's what we were asking for when we put on a tank top instead of a sweatshirt. BUT if we don't look nice when we're out and about, people look at us, unable to hide the grossed out, judgmental expressions on their faces like we're disgusting excuses for women, because we're not putting enough effort into giving other people (read: men) something nice to look at.
When we go out into the public sphere to party - go to clubs, bars, parties, etc. - it's assumed we go out to meet guys and turn them on. And a lot of women play into this in the name of "empowerment," but again, just because that's usually the intention doesn't mean it should be assumed about everyone. And even if a woman is trying to attract someone, doesn't mean her attempts should be taken as consent to any intimate act with anyone.
Sadly, to this judge, they do.
The assumption that all women act the way they do with the sole purpose of attracting men ignores the women who do things for their own happiness and entertainment. It's hard to encourage such empowered behavior when it's barely ever acknowledged as normal.
Going back to an earlier post, one reason men read signals as consent is that women aren't taught to speak directly. Instead, we're socialized to be passive, subtle, and indirect in communicating with others, both men and women. When women learn to speak in code and nonverbal cues beginning in adolescence, it's no surprise when men try to all nonverbal cues as communicating something more, and when they take one thing to mean something else (for example, hearing "No" and interpreting it as "Well, I shouldn't . . ." or "Not yet, gotta try harder big boy" instead of "Put that thing away, it's not happening. Seriously."
And not to blame women for what happens to them, but it doesn't exactly help our cause when so many women say "no" and then eventually give in. Guys shouldn't be coercing women to have sex, and they should be taught that manufactured consent isn't real consent and is a form of rape, but the guys who do use those tactics typically get away with them and learn that it's okay to keep doing it. If a guy gets used to girls giving in like that, he doesn't react well to rejection.
Again, I digress. The common explanation for victim blaming is that society sees rape as a punishment for women who defy traditional restrictions on women, that they deserve to be raped if they wear revealing clothing or drink alcohol. That may be the case for some people, but most victim blaming may have a different, more modern cause. When women are taught to communicate through actions and signals rather than speak directly, that vague way of communication ends up being misinterpreted and real meanings, if an action has a hidden meaning at all, is lost in translation. Men's egos and what they are taught about sex often leads them to fill in the blanks with wishful thinking rather than reality or common sense. Sadly, women are still not being empowered to stand their ground and fight off unwanted contact, which only further normalizes rape.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Thoughts on Abstinence
My dad said to wait until marriage. My mom said to wait until college. Me? I just wanted to wait until I was in love.
One big target of feminism is the purity movement: abstinence-only classes, lies about sex, purity balls, slut-shaming, all that bad stuff.
But in our fight for a sex-positive society, people tend to get confused and think we're all against abstinence and pushing girls to become sexual.
Make no mistake, that's not the case.
I, for one, am not a virgin, but I see nothing wrong with the choice to abstain from sex, and our society should be just as accepting of abstinence as it is of sex.
My only issue with abstinence is when it's done for the wrong reasons. Whether a person becomes sexually active should be a personal decision. If a girl decides not to have sex, it should be because of her own values, not because the men in her life - father, priest, teachers, politicians, or future husband - expect it of her. My problem with purity balls is that a girl is basically giving her personal autonomy over to her father, rather than maintaining it.
Conversely, if a girl decides to have sex, it's because she's ready, and it's in accordance with her own personal values, be them secular or spiritual (there's a difference between blind adherence to religious dogma and sincerely believing that sex is sacred and should be saved for certain situations, be it marriage or just a committed, loving relationship) - NOT because her boyfriend wants it and she feels obligated to please him.
Whether a woman chooses to be sexual should also have no impact on her value as a human being. The problem is, many see women as valuable only if they are sexual - look sexy, act sexy, and put out for their male partners - and most others only value women who are pure and virginal. In either case, reduction of a woman to her sexuality is based on her willingness to obey and please a man, be it her older authority figures who expect her to save her flower for marriage, or her same-age male peers who expect sexual gratification from her, is detrimental to her personal autonomy.
If a woman makes the decision on her own, and has the gall to claim ownership over her own body, well, that's a different story - she's either a whore or a frigid bitch, depending on who she's refusing to submit her autonomy to.
Gay women can't win either way in the virgin-whore dichotomy because either way, they're not pleasing men. They're pissing off their male authority figures by simply being lesbians, and they're frustrating their male peers by not having sex with them - the only way they can be accepted by their horny male peers is if they're a) hot and b) willing to make out in front of guys, make lesbian pornography, or engage in threesomes. Otherwise, they're scorned because they're seen as worthless.
The problem with this current society is that a woman can't win. Why? Because she can't please everyone, and pleasing everyone is what women are supposedly here for. If they give their bodies over to their fathers, male religious figures, and future husbands and promise to be pure until marriage, they're prudes in the eyes of anyone who expects sex or has simply has different sexual values. If a woman chooses to have sex before marriage, she's a slut in the eyes of those who expect the former behavior. If a woman refuses to have sex in any one instance because she simply doesn't want to, she's a bitch in the eyes of the man she rejects; but if she gives into the pressure and has sex unwillingly, she has no self respect.
The phrase self-respect is thrown around a lot when discussing sex, specifically abstinence. This is particularly true in urban areas where misogyny runs rampant and women are reduced to sexual objects in a culture fueled by hip-hip and rap, infamous for their sexist and degrading themes. In such a culture, using self-respect as a means of female empowerment sounds great - the problem is, it's assumed that every girl who has sex is doing it because of low self-esteem rather than making a personal choice of her own free will. Not always the case. It's sometimes hard to decipher a woman's motive to do anything these days - is she dressing that way because she thinks she should, or because she wants to? Did she have sex because she wanted to, or because the pressure got to her?
And really, can you blame any girl for succumbing to pressure? Why not blame the guy who coerced her in the first place? Why not focus more on hammering home ideas such as "no means no" and "silence is not consent," rather than tell girls to just say no? Saying no isn't enough in a world where, to many guys, no means "I shouldn't" rather than "I don't want to," and that a no can easily be turned into a yes with enough persuasion. Saying "no" would be enough if guys knew to take it seriously.
In general, it takes ovaries of steel for a woman, much less a teenage girl, to rise above society's expectations of her.
I'm also not implying that two people should stay together if they have different values regarding sex. If a girl wants to wait until marriage to have sex, she should either date someone who's also waiting, or a guy who isn't necessarily waiting, but willing to abstain from sex as long as he's with her. If someone wants sex to be a part of the relationship, they should date others who want the same thing.
Abstinence is a perfectly legitimate choice if made for personal reasons. The purity movement would be fine in the eyes of feminists if all it did was promote acceptance of the choice to remain abstinent until marriage, but it's not about choice. The purity movement is one side of the spectrum of sexualization, reducing a woman's value to her virginity, and her willingness to sacrifice her sexual autonomy to the male authority figures in her life, and demonizes women who claim their bodies for themselves.
One big target of feminism is the purity movement: abstinence-only classes, lies about sex, purity balls, slut-shaming, all that bad stuff.
But in our fight for a sex-positive society, people tend to get confused and think we're all against abstinence and pushing girls to become sexual.
Make no mistake, that's not the case.
I, for one, am not a virgin, but I see nothing wrong with the choice to abstain from sex, and our society should be just as accepting of abstinence as it is of sex.
My only issue with abstinence is when it's done for the wrong reasons. Whether a person becomes sexually active should be a personal decision. If a girl decides not to have sex, it should be because of her own values, not because the men in her life - father, priest, teachers, politicians, or future husband - expect it of her. My problem with purity balls is that a girl is basically giving her personal autonomy over to her father, rather than maintaining it.
Conversely, if a girl decides to have sex, it's because she's ready, and it's in accordance with her own personal values, be them secular or spiritual (there's a difference between blind adherence to religious dogma and sincerely believing that sex is sacred and should be saved for certain situations, be it marriage or just a committed, loving relationship) - NOT because her boyfriend wants it and she feels obligated to please him.
Whether a woman chooses to be sexual should also have no impact on her value as a human being. The problem is, many see women as valuable only if they are sexual - look sexy, act sexy, and put out for their male partners - and most others only value women who are pure and virginal. In either case, reduction of a woman to her sexuality is based on her willingness to obey and please a man, be it her older authority figures who expect her to save her flower for marriage, or her same-age male peers who expect sexual gratification from her, is detrimental to her personal autonomy.
If a woman makes the decision on her own, and has the gall to claim ownership over her own body, well, that's a different story - she's either a whore or a frigid bitch, depending on who she's refusing to submit her autonomy to.
Gay women can't win either way in the virgin-whore dichotomy because either way, they're not pleasing men. They're pissing off their male authority figures by simply being lesbians, and they're frustrating their male peers by not having sex with them - the only way they can be accepted by their horny male peers is if they're a) hot and b) willing to make out in front of guys, make lesbian pornography, or engage in threesomes. Otherwise, they're scorned because they're seen as worthless.
The problem with this current society is that a woman can't win. Why? Because she can't please everyone, and pleasing everyone is what women are supposedly here for. If they give their bodies over to their fathers, male religious figures, and future husbands and promise to be pure until marriage, they're prudes in the eyes of anyone who expects sex or has simply has different sexual values. If a woman chooses to have sex before marriage, she's a slut in the eyes of those who expect the former behavior. If a woman refuses to have sex in any one instance because she simply doesn't want to, she's a bitch in the eyes of the man she rejects; but if she gives into the pressure and has sex unwillingly, she has no self respect.
The phrase self-respect is thrown around a lot when discussing sex, specifically abstinence. This is particularly true in urban areas where misogyny runs rampant and women are reduced to sexual objects in a culture fueled by hip-hip and rap, infamous for their sexist and degrading themes. In such a culture, using self-respect as a means of female empowerment sounds great - the problem is, it's assumed that every girl who has sex is doing it because of low self-esteem rather than making a personal choice of her own free will. Not always the case. It's sometimes hard to decipher a woman's motive to do anything these days - is she dressing that way because she thinks she should, or because she wants to? Did she have sex because she wanted to, or because the pressure got to her?
And really, can you blame any girl for succumbing to pressure? Why not blame the guy who coerced her in the first place? Why not focus more on hammering home ideas such as "no means no" and "silence is not consent," rather than tell girls to just say no? Saying no isn't enough in a world where, to many guys, no means "I shouldn't" rather than "I don't want to," and that a no can easily be turned into a yes with enough persuasion. Saying "no" would be enough if guys knew to take it seriously.
In general, it takes ovaries of steel for a woman, much less a teenage girl, to rise above society's expectations of her.
I'm also not implying that two people should stay together if they have different values regarding sex. If a girl wants to wait until marriage to have sex, she should either date someone who's also waiting, or a guy who isn't necessarily waiting, but willing to abstain from sex as long as he's with her. If someone wants sex to be a part of the relationship, they should date others who want the same thing.
Abstinence is a perfectly legitimate choice if made for personal reasons. The purity movement would be fine in the eyes of feminists if all it did was promote acceptance of the choice to remain abstinent until marriage, but it's not about choice. The purity movement is one side of the spectrum of sexualization, reducing a woman's value to her virginity, and her willingness to sacrifice her sexual autonomy to the male authority figures in her life, and demonizes women who claim their bodies for themselves.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Asking For It - The Ethics & Erotics of Sexual Consent [Clip] - Coming S...
I just posted something on this, and while I don't want to use my blog as a showcase for other people's words and works, this is something I think everyone should see.
"You Know You Want It"
I've dated my share of sexist men. One joked that no means yes, and yes means "take me now." I wasted 5 months of my life on a guy who truly believed that every woman secretly has a rape fantasy.
There's a myth that all women want to have sex, and that the only reason they say no is because they aren't supposed to. Men who buy into this think they're doing women a favor, liberating them, by trying to push past the original "no." We live in a society where refusal to have sex is not taken seriously.
Sure, it's praised by some groups. Women who succeed in saying "no" are put on a pedestal, revered for their purity, the sacrifice of their human desires to satisfy a male god, their male religious leaders, their fathers, and future husbands.
But most boyfriends have another view of the word "no." To them, "no" isn't genuine. A woman saying no to sex is like a dieter saying no to desert, she wants it but refuses out of obligation.
To many men, "no" is malleable. Changeable. Getting from no to yes is possible, and all in the sales pitch. Convince her she wants it, assure her there will be no consequences, and when that doesn't work, just keep pushing her boundaries until you're in.
But as long as she said no and resisted, she gets the credit.
When "no" isn't taken seriously, rape becomes a confusing and hotly contested subject. When we disregard the word "no," we instead look to actions to determine whether she "really" wanted it.
And of course, this is part of a greater issue where it's assumed women don't say what they mean. Not surprising when we're told to act a certain way, and not speak our minds, ask for what we want, or confront people directly. Not only does this lead young girls to make assumptions about what people really mean in terms of actions or words aimed at them (as discussed in Rachel Simmons's book The Curse of the Good Girl), men also learn that they must also make assumptions about what women mean, and try to speak the vague, unauthentic, and often passive aggressive language women are trained to speak through adolescence and into adulthood.
In this world where women often say one thing out of obligation when they really mean or want to say something else, it's not surprising that a refusal to have sex isn't taken seriously. It's also not surprising that women are believed to be untrustworthy, therefore reports of rape are often examined as though the victim is the one on trial. The question isn't whether he crashed the gates after being refused entry, but whether her lack of consent was legitimate. She said "no," but did she mean it? In order to investigate this further, we look to nonverbal cues and behavioral patterns to figure out what words often fail to prove.
Because of this, one way to eradicate rape culture is to reform the way women are socially trained to interact with each other. If women are actively encouraged to speak openly and honestly, without fear of losing friends or ruining their relationships with men, their words will have more legitimacy and power. And to further ensure that "no" is always taken to mean "I really don't want to have sex" instead of "I really shouldn't have sex," sexual restraints on women have got to go. Rather than idealizing women who have sex or women who do not, we must create a world where women can make their own choices of whether they do or don't want to have sex, independent of what's expected of them. Only then will "no" be taken seriously.
There's a myth that all women want to have sex, and that the only reason they say no is because they aren't supposed to. Men who buy into this think they're doing women a favor, liberating them, by trying to push past the original "no." We live in a society where refusal to have sex is not taken seriously.
Sure, it's praised by some groups. Women who succeed in saying "no" are put on a pedestal, revered for their purity, the sacrifice of their human desires to satisfy a male god, their male religious leaders, their fathers, and future husbands.
But most boyfriends have another view of the word "no." To them, "no" isn't genuine. A woman saying no to sex is like a dieter saying no to desert, she wants it but refuses out of obligation.
To many men, "no" is malleable. Changeable. Getting from no to yes is possible, and all in the sales pitch. Convince her she wants it, assure her there will be no consequences, and when that doesn't work, just keep pushing her boundaries until you're in.
But as long as she said no and resisted, she gets the credit.
When "no" isn't taken seriously, rape becomes a confusing and hotly contested subject. When we disregard the word "no," we instead look to actions to determine whether she "really" wanted it.
And of course, this is part of a greater issue where it's assumed women don't say what they mean. Not surprising when we're told to act a certain way, and not speak our minds, ask for what we want, or confront people directly. Not only does this lead young girls to make assumptions about what people really mean in terms of actions or words aimed at them (as discussed in Rachel Simmons's book The Curse of the Good Girl), men also learn that they must also make assumptions about what women mean, and try to speak the vague, unauthentic, and often passive aggressive language women are trained to speak through adolescence and into adulthood.
In this world where women often say one thing out of obligation when they really mean or want to say something else, it's not surprising that a refusal to have sex isn't taken seriously. It's also not surprising that women are believed to be untrustworthy, therefore reports of rape are often examined as though the victim is the one on trial. The question isn't whether he crashed the gates after being refused entry, but whether her lack of consent was legitimate. She said "no," but did she mean it? In order to investigate this further, we look to nonverbal cues and behavioral patterns to figure out what words often fail to prove.
Because of this, one way to eradicate rape culture is to reform the way women are socially trained to interact with each other. If women are actively encouraged to speak openly and honestly, without fear of losing friends or ruining their relationships with men, their words will have more legitimacy and power. And to further ensure that "no" is always taken to mean "I really don't want to have sex" instead of "I really shouldn't have sex," sexual restraints on women have got to go. Rather than idealizing women who have sex or women who do not, we must create a world where women can make their own choices of whether they do or don't want to have sex, independent of what's expected of them. Only then will "no" be taken seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)