Why I Don’t Care If You Wouldn’t Have Existed

Content Notice for not-very-detailed mentions of abortion, sexual assault, genocide, Nazis, and sexual harassment.

One of the most odious yet versatile arguments is one where the person in question offers their own existence as a justification for the objective value of something or other.

Forced birthers use it — “My mom was poor / raped / abused / young / unhappy with being pregnant, are you saying that I should’ve been aborted and not exist today?”

Status-quo warriors use it in their passionate defense of sexual harassment — “My dad once wolf-whistled at and complimented a woman’s tits on the street. That woman later became my mother. Without what you sensitive SJW snowflakes call ‘harassment’, I wouldn’t have been born.”

Using this twist of logic, it’s a very easy way to basically frame the other person in the argument for the theoretical murder of the concept of you. Too bad it doesn’t hold much water as an actual argument. Continue reading “Why I Don’t Care If You Wouldn’t Have Existed”

Why I Don’t Care If You Wouldn’t Have Existed
{advertisement}

Muddled Messaging on Consent: Arousal as Consent

Content Notice for Explicit Discussion of Sexual Assault, Rape, and Menstruation

Combating messages about consent signaled via media is important, since those are often the only messages people receive when they are forming their sexual identities as children and adolescents. Even the lesser problematic media around tends to not do so well. Take, for instance, the ex sex scene in the 2008 Apatow Frat Pack comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

The movie, as a whole, was rather funny and cute and not horribly or especially problematic, especially for its genre. Despite that, it managed to include a rather dicey message on consent in that scene. Yes, it’s a silly movie. A comedy. Allegedly humorous. I laughed at several scenes all four times I saw it. And it’s still harmful bullshit. Continue reading “Muddled Messaging on Consent: Arousal as Consent”

Muddled Messaging on Consent: Arousal as Consent

Why I Don’t Care About Consent Education’s Effect on Rape Rates

Content Notice for Sexual Assault

As was recently brought up by Emily Nagoski on The Dirty Normal in response to that tea/consent analogy, among many other excellent points, there is no evidence that consent education actually prevents sexual violence. It may well be that consent education may not work to directly prevent rape.

It will be a while before we have the adequate numbers from enough studies to know whether or not this is true. Regardless of the outcome, I honestly think that doesn’t matter for one reason alone: Consent education isn’t for rapists in the first place. Continue reading “Why I Don’t Care About Consent Education’s Effect on Rape Rates”

Why I Don’t Care About Consent Education’s Effect on Rape Rates

Standards of Evidence: Sharia vs. Rape Deniers vs. US Courts

Content Notice for Discussion of Rape and Sexual Assault. Also note that for purposes of comparison, the only crimes being discussed are male-on-female. There is shamefully little-to-nothing in Sharia regarding men and boys who are sexually violated and rape deniers rarely take the issue of male-on-male or female-on-male rape into consideration.

Conclusion: You just might be a hypocritical misogynist if your standards of evidence for rape are more stringent than those of certain iterations of traditional Sharia. Thank goodness for the American justice system which, flawed as it is, has not such victim-blaming standards.

Continue reading “Standards of Evidence: Sharia vs. Rape Deniers vs. US Courts”

Standards of Evidence: Sharia vs. Rape Deniers vs. US Courts

A Roundup of “Anti-Rape” Products

Content Notice for Sexual Violence. For a more serious take, Miri said it quite well.

Despite all the fuss being made over the so-called “anti-rape nail polish” that recently won a grant, there have been many products allegedly designed to prevent rape and sexual assault on the market over the years.

Continue reading “A Roundup of “Anti-Rape” Products”

A Roundup of “Anti-Rape” Products

Throwback Thursday: Stop Telling Me to Stop Saying “I Have a Boyfriend”

This Throwback Thursday entry is brought to you by the fact that the original article to which it was responding, Stop Saying “I Have a Boyfriend”, has been making the rounds again. The original title for this piece is I’ll Stop Citing a Boyfriend When My Consent Starts Mattering; it was published on September 10, 2013. I have shortened it and added in the sentence about cause and effect.

Before I started dating, I listened to a lot of men. One of their biggest complaints was that women aren’t straightforward enough. “Why don’t women just say no?” they lamented. “I waste all this time pursuing women because I don’t know for sure that they don’t want me.”

I have always believed in honesty and directness, so it seemed absurd to me that all these women weren’t just saying “no” when “no” was what they meant. Sentiments like those found in this article could’ve been snatched from my lips in those days.

I think the solution is simple — we simply stop using excuses. If a man is coming on to you […], respond with something like this: “I’m not interested.” Don’t apologize and don’t excuse yourself. If they question your response (which is likely), persist — “No, I said I’m not interested.”

Just be honest and all will work out, right?

Continue reading “Throwback Thursday: Stop Telling Me to Stop Saying “I Have a Boyfriend””

Throwback Thursday: Stop Telling Me to Stop Saying “I Have a Boyfriend”

I’ll Stop Citing a Boyfriend When My Consent Starts Mattering

Before I started dating, I knew and listened to a lot of men. One of their biggest complaints was that women aren’t honest or straightforward enough. “Why don’t women just say no?” they lamented. “I waste all this time pursuing women who don’t want me because I don’t know for sure that they don’t want me!”

It sounded right to me. I believe in honesty, straightforwardness, and directness. I believe in telling people the truth and communicating how you feel as clearly as possible. It seemed absurd to me that all these women weren’t just saying no when no was what they meant. Sentiments like those found in this article, which was posted to xoJane and made the rounds yesterday, could’ve been snatched from my lips in those days.

I think the solution is simple — we simply stop using excuses. If a man is coming on to you (and you are not interested — if you are, go for it, girl!), respond with something like this: “I’m not interested.” Don’t apologize and don’t excuse yourself. If they question your response (which is likely), persist — “No, I said I’m not interested.”

Just be honest and all will work out better, right?

no__9gag__by_hujikari-d51hu4l

You guessed it: wrong. It’s not always so simple for all women.

In my experience, many men take any kind of response from a woman they’re hitting on, any kind of reaction at all, to be good. The theory that all publicity is good publicity is not lost on those kind. By saying “no” to a man like that, a woman is acknowledging his presence and the fact that he is hitting on her, which, alone, is a win for him. He could take it as a challenge, a reason to engage and pursue, an opportunity to debate the woman as to his merits as a man.

Other men take it further and believe that a no is merely a yes in disguise. A “no” will mean escalation, often into the physical: cornering, following/stalking, groping, and so on. Still other men take it even further, interpreting the “no” as a challenge to their manhood and a personal insult to them. Reactions range from insults (“you’re not even that hot! no wonder you’re single, turning down a good dude like me!”) to threats (“I’ll show you what a real man is!”) to physical violence (grabbing, pushing, shoving) to various forms of sexual assault (so-called “corrective rape” is an extreme, LGBT-specific example of this).

All that for daring to express a lack of interest in a particular male someone.

The alternative? Lying in a way that those types of men understand. Men with such sexist views will be more likely to leave a woman alone, or at least not harm her, if she tells him that she’s “taken” by another man. It’s similar to street harassment: a woman is far less likely to be hassled by men on the street if she’s accompanied by one or more men. Obviously, not all men are like that, but women often have no way of knowing if a man is that kind of man until after that fact, and some of us are not okay taking that chance.

honesty_by_alyde

Honesty is only the best policy when it’s a two-way street, when your word is fully accepted as honest by the other person. In the case of some men with some women, such is hardly the reality of the situation. Feminist theory is all fine and well until, say, there’s a man much larger and stronger than you trying to grab your shoulders and force you to kiss him.

The idea that a woman should only be left alone if she is “taken” or “spoken for” (terms that make my brain twitch) completely removes the level of respect that should be expected toward that woman.

It completely removes the agency of the woman, her ability to speak for herself and make her own decisions regarding when and where the conversation begins or ends. It is basically a real-life example of feminist theory at work–women (along with women’s choices, desires, etc.) being considered supplemental to or secondary to men, be it the man with whom she is interacting or the man to whom she “belongs” (see the theory of Simone de Beauvoir, the story of Adam and Eve, etc.).

And the worst part of the whole situation is that we’re doing this to ourselves.

It’s gross, and it’s messed up, but alas, this is the world in which we live — which is why that last line makes my brain twitch. Some of us aren’t “doing it to ourselves,” we’re making choices based on reality. I’d love to quote Simone de Beauvoir to some sexist who can’t take no for an answer, but unless it’s online, to do so often represents far from the safest choice.

It disgusts me to my core that I have to use my partner as a shield against men who can’t take no for an answer. It upsets me that those men don’t respect my consent, my agency, and my ownership of my body. It infuriates me that my word is not taken seriously. Every time I use such an excuse, I’m angry. Unfortunately, in the end, my anger is safer for me than some man’s.

I’ll Stop Citing a Boyfriend When My Consent Starts Mattering

Steubenville & the Cult of Consequence-Free Forgiveness

The verdict is finally in: guilty (or, at least, the juvenile court’s version of guilty).

There are some implications of the Steubenville trial that are abundantly clear to those who were paying attention: that the hero-worship of high school football players is out of hand, that rape culture exists, that rape apologists are depressingly common, that I’ll never watch or link to CNN ever again.

Other facets of the reactions to the verdict reveal an odd sense of unease surrounding the punishment of sexual assault. Steubenville is not the first context in which a conviction of sexual assault has been met with lamentations over the “ruining” of the rapists’ lives, or where communities have rallied in support not of the victim(s) of sexual assault, but of the rapist(s). In this case, the main factors in this galling outpouring of sympathy include the youth, grade point average, and sports participation of the perpetrators.

Do we really live in a society where being young, earning As, and possessing physical prowess exonerates all manner of crimes?

4084735105_0dfd9dcea7_z

The answer is not so simple as that. We live in a society where rape culture teaches the myth that rape is easy to accidentally commit, that it’s a mistake anyone could make. Pair that with the over-emphasis on forgiveness in American society, a clear result of its Christian legacy, and you get people uncomfortable with the idea of anything approximating consequences for perpetrators of sexual assault. In their minds, since forgiveness is better than limiting the perceived potential of the rapists, why not have them simply confess and be absolved — and, as just anyone could do something similar, that rape is a crime is questionable in the first place.

This unholy marriage of rape culture with the cult of forgiveness means that some people forget that actions should, and do, have consequences for very good reason. Certainly, there are issues with the American criminal justice system (alternatively, the prison-industrial complex). No doubt, forgiveness on the part of victims of horrendous crimes is sometimes helpful to them in their healing process. None of that erases the need to hold people accountable for their actions, and in the case of Steubenville, there is no dearth of documentation proving that a great wrong did not simply occur, but was actively committed by people sure that their actions would never be taken to task. How else to explain the lack of shame, the creation and sharing of evidence proving the crime, the sheer arrogance expressed in said evidence?

Though punishment is not always a deterrent at all, let alone the best deterrent, allowing for the forgiveness narrative to allow people who commit staggeringly heinous crimes to walk away does not exactly send the right message to those who believe themselves to be above the law, or even basic respect for others’ humanity, agency, and bodily autonomy. Most people behave with common decency because they are commonly decent, but they’re not the ones about whom we have to worry.

Here’s hoping that the difference in outcome between similar cases in the past and what happened last night will send a clear message: that violating others’ bodily autonomy is not okay no matter who you might be.

Steubenville & the Cult of Consequence-Free Forgiveness