Home

rape culture

The No-Sex Class: A Chilling Confirmation From Slavery Apologists Before the American Civil War

Sun, 2010-02-07 22:52 — figleaf

Well here’s an interesting tidbit on maintenance of the two-sphere model of gender that I stumbled across on a coffee-shop “library.” The book is called Unruly Women: The Politics of Social and Sexual Control in the Old South. In a coffee-shop setting I’ve only been able to read the introduction but the rest of the book looks interesting as well.

Here’s an eye-opening couple of paragraphs from the introduction though.

To link female honor to purity would have proven sexually inconvenient for southern white men, however, had they not bifurcated the sexuality of white and black women. The creation of Jezebel provided the rationale for allowing sexual relations between white men and black women. Southern proslavery ideologue William Harper made no apology for the sexual degrading of black women by white men. He simply extended his theory that “slavery anticipates the benefits of of civilization and retards the evils of civilization” into the realm of sexual relations.

By regarding black women as a “class of women who set little value on chastity,” he argued that slavery protected black women by saving them from the alternative of being cast out of society in the manner “justly and necessarily applied to promiscuous free women.”

Harper further argued that the sexual access to enslaved women discouraged white men from debauching “pure” white women and provided them with “easy gratification” for their “hot passions” without violating the code of southern honor. Finally, he reasoned, such sexual access made white men “less liable to those extraordinary fascinations, with which worthless [white] women sometimes entangle their victims.”

Source: Introduction, pg #9

What’s really boggling is that Harper, like Aquinas, Augustine, and countless others who’ve endorsed this view of heterosexuality imagined they could endorse this outlook and still go to Heaven when they died.

This would sound more shocking if virtually the same sentiments didn’t turn up in the Middle Ages and even earlier: a relatively small number of “jezebels:” prostitutes, slaves, and occasionally even boys are sacrificed at the alter of, well, unalterable male lust in order to… what? To preserve the nigh-unto-asexually disinterested sexual “purity” of “true womanhood.

One can only imagine how actual true women felt about it… all of them obviously — both the “bad,” “debauched,” or “fallen” ones were overborn sexually, and the “pure,” “true,” and “virtuous” who were allowed no sexual expression at all.

Anyway, it’s a totally horrifying but also very tidy encapsulation of the dominant paradigm of women as the obligatory no-sex class and men as the compulsive sex class.

Anyway, knowing nothing else about the book (though I’ll see if I can get back to the coffee shop to read more of it) the very quick skim I was able to give it looks like a seriously interesting look at a usually seriously overlooked population and the dynamics women of all social and economic classes were subject to before, during, and after the Civil War.

On the very off-hand chance anyone else has read more of it feel free to let me know what you think in comments.

Jessica Valenti Asks an Elementary Question About Men, Alcohol, and Sexual Assault

Sat, 2009-12-19 00:30 — figleaf

Jessica Valenti of Feministing says

Where is the article directed at young men in college giving the advice on how not to rape their peers? Where are the warnings to men not to drink, since in so many campus rapes, it is the perpetrator who has been drinking?

Read the quote in context here.

I gotta say this is the really, really, really critical part of any solution for ending sexual assault. Because a heck of a lot of the time it’s not just the victim who’s ability to make competent decisions is compromised by intoxication: chances are extraordinarily high that his or her assailant is also compromised.

That doesn’t mean, by the way, that the only solution is to curtail drinking in men. (It’s a solution, yes, but not the only one. Or the most realistic one. Or even necessarily the best.)

Without recognizing the problem and clearly preparing, warning, and otherwise setting expectations for men and their “wingman” type companions, male and female, when they drink? It’s not going to go away.

That wouldn’t be the end of it, no. Not all sexual assault or violence is drug or alcohol-related. But it would be a good first approximation of an 80/20 benefit. And any increase in awareness of drunken bogosity will bring intentional bogosity into much sharper focus.

Update: I should have done the footwork when I was composing this last night but as Heather points out in comments, below, this isn’t a brand new idea. Resources include

I’m off looking for more links about mitigating sexual assault by intoxicated assailants. If you know of any please leave them in comments.

Polanski Defenders, Hollywood, and the Use of Unwanted Sex as Currency

Thu, 2009-10-15 16:37 — figleaf

Jill (formerly Twisty) of I Blame The Patriarchy takes on the peculiar cast of characters defending convicted rapist Roman Polanski has an aura of childlike naivete. She says the answer is that basically all the nominal progressives who called for him to be left alone are all just really bad people and we’ve just been too dumb to notice. Taking aim at Whoopie Goldberg

Wait! No! Not Whoopi, the affable Center Square who’s black enough to be hep, but not so black that she scares the honkys?

...

Possibly Whoopi views Polanski’s violent crime in this seriously fucked-up way because in Hollywood — patriarchy’s primary misogyny propaganda unit — rape is nothing but a plot device

She said it here.

I think that’s going both a little too hard but also way too easy on them.

Instead I think it’s because in Hollywood people use, um, “leveraged” sex as even more of a medium of currency than most other places do. It’s not just about the “casting couch” thing but an outright demonstration of a combination of power, fealty, and “committment” to a person or project. Where it’s sort of a given that giving a producer a blowjob when it’s known you like giving them or even just don’t mind isn’t nearly as valuable as giving one when it’s the last thing on earth you want to do.

And so by that way of thinking, which I’m guessing Goldberg just sees as the cost of doing business, what Polanski did to a 13-year-old was just “over the line” and not “rape-rape.”

And I’m just thinking that unusual suspects are standing up for him not so much because they like the system or look forward to being on the receiving end themselves but because to acknowledge it in Polanski’s case would mean having to confront what they themselves have submitted to, or at least steeled themselves for in case they had to, as their own “cost of doing business” in Hollywood.

And by the way, that’s not to excuse the “rape as a plot device” business they grunt out on a daily basis. Quite the opposite. You see a lot of the same sordid plot devices in regular print and comic publishing, but you don’t see that “if you want it you’ve got to show me how badly you want it” sort of thing that goes on in Hollywood.

Bottom line: it’s not so much “rape-rape” culture as a culture of sexual harassment on an industrial scale. For an insider to stand up to it requires acknowledging that he or she has participated in, and possibly “benefited” career-wise from it, as aggressor or victim or both.

%@!#%W

For the record I think sex is just great. And while I’m not a fan I’m not opposed to fee-for-service sex. I seriously have it in for sex as leverage or obligation of any kind, though.

One Effect of Respect

Mon, 2008-05-12 12:18 — figleaf

Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, quotes an Inside Higher Ed article and then ads her own interpretation

Overall, UNH has found that the number of unwanted sexual experiences on campus declined significantly from 1988 to 2000, during which time the university established a crisis center and put a number of prevention programs in place. However, there has been little change since 2000 — prompting a need for more creative, broad-based responses, said Victoria Banyard, an associate professor of psychology and a co-author.

I find this interesting, because the reduction in the rape rate that’s been national and somewhat continuous ever since feminists made rape a big issue shows that the primary criticism feminists have—that ours is a “rape culture”, i.e. that rape is a product of a culture that is tolerant or even approving of it—was right, and when you change the culture, you change the rate of rape.

The traditional, conservative explanation for rape is that it’s built into men’s biology, and therefore the only way to slow it or stop it is to put the onus on women to avoid being a temptation or to keep yourself out of harm’s way. Obviously, the facts do not support this contention, because if anything, women are more and more flouting the rules that have always been put on us with the ostensible purpose of stopping rape and the practical effect of limiting women’s freedom of movement. ... Turns out the feminists were right after all—the best way to stop rape is for men to stop raping, not for women to try to get men to stop raping. Men, it turns out, were equal to the task, largely defeating man-hating anti-feminist nay-sayers who portray men as brutes whose dominance can’t be challenged, much less stopped. [emphasis here is mine —fl]

Read the quote here.

Is it working everywhere? Um, no. Is it working at all? Well *something’s changing (after following this link scroll down to official replies) Is it working overall? Well, if rates have held steady for eight years after falling quite a lot, and if the secondary assault on Melissa Bruen at U-Conn could still happen, then… we need to be doing something else that… probably also involves creating expectations for them/us/me/men to rise to rather than allowing anti-feminists to set them as low as possible.

And just one again what’s wrong with those people who go around saying men are just so “Great Race, the Romans” superior we can’t tell the difference between, for instance, “yes” and an alcohol coma?

What "Rape Culture" Means, At Least To Me

Tue, 2008-04-15 11:37 — figleaf

Ok. So you know how I knew I’d been part of rape culture?

It wasn’t that almost the first porn I’d been exposed to, and masturbated vigorously to by the way, was the serial-rape Victorian fantasy “A Man With a Maid.” No, that would have been to obvious and besides, that was “just” about “seduction by other means.” (Yeah, right.) Although that’s certainly about as rape-culture as it gets.


Photo by Flickr user Bicycle Bob.
Used under a Creative
Commons license.

And it wasn’t that I liked to play tie-up games with some of my earliest partners… especially since at least one of those partners was seriously into setting up these elaborate, generally bodice-ripper-y roleplaying scenarios. Although that’s certainly about as rape-culture as it gets.

And it wasn’t even that the first time I ever heard the suggestion that someone my age would want sex with someone else my age (4th or 5th grade) when one kid at the next desk over whispered to me “I’d like to rape [so and so.]” Even though, later, when I asked him what the heck that meant anyway, he said, confidently, it meant “make someone fall in love with you.” Although that’s certainly about as rape-culture as it gets.

Because while all that was going on I firmly believed that only the most heinous punishments should be reserved for rapists. Castrations? Sure. Eyes burned out with rusty, salt-encrusted tongs? Why not. Penis nailed to a stump, the stump set on fire, and leaving them with nothing but a hatchet? I didn’t make that one up but I agreed vigorously when it was proposed as “letting them off easy.”

And if I could feel that way about it (all without knowing anyone who had disclosed that she’d been raped) then how could I possibly be part of rape culture?

And then?

And then…

And then in 1981, when I was 26, in a first-year journalism class, I interviewed a campus rape crisis counsellor who brought me up to date (I’d been a peer crisis/sex-ed counsellor ten years earlier but a heck of a lot of thought and action went into issues during that time. And then, partly due to outreach efforts and partly due feminist advocacy for rape prevention policies, women I knew started coming forward with their stories.

And the more I started seeing it as a crime and not sex, and the more I started associating it with real people who’d suffered real violence?

The less I wanted to concoct ever newer, ever more lurid punishments and…

And the more I just wanted it to stop. By any means necessary, sure, but by only those means necessary.

In other words, when rape stopped being a fantasy, ideas about what might constitute deterrent punishment stopped being a fantasy as well.**

Also, when it stopped being a fantasy I started recognizing exactly what kind of crime it is… that it is about power and not about sex. People keep saying “but it is about sex…” but if you’ve spent much time around bullies and their victims (whoo boy!) you begin to notice the seemingly psychic way they’re able to key in to and even thrive on exploiting the worst fears and biggest vulnerabilities. If it’s fat they use that even though they or their friends my be no less fat. Is it “not from around here?” Then it doesn’t matter that other kids are even newer. Unless that’s their vulnerability too they’ll be victimized for something else. The point being that bullying is about power, and the power wielded is about what you fear and what you value or, to be more precise, what your assailant believes is what you fear or value. And if this isn’t too controverted by more recent clinical research, I’m pretty sure that if sexual transgression wasn’t the worst thing society, and individuals in it, could imagine then I’m also pretty sure there’d be a lot less of it and a lot more of… whatever personal transgression we instead most feared and hated.

So that’s what I hear when someone says “it’s a crime of power, not sex.” And it’s how I answer when someone, inevitably says “but it is about sex.” Yes, it’s about the power of sex as leverage, about sex as “the worst thing.” Just as, incidentally, and perhaps tellingly, talk of castration with rusty razors or execution by drawing and quartering and burnt entrails and all that after-the-fact-ery is also about the power of “the worst.”

Anyway, I’m not saying I’m not still part of rape culture because can one ever really escape one’s culture? Completely? I dunno. I do know, though, that bleating little “not me” mea culpas aren’t much help. Instead to the extent it’s possible I can still work the numbers, spread the word, check in with partners to make sure we’re both role-playing, ask strangers first “do you want help,” and otherwise whether or not one ever makes it through to never stop moving towards the exits till you’re through.

And seriously, it does have to stop or be stopped. By the most effective means. Stopping it doesn’t have to be dramatic, as long as it stops. And stopping it doesn’t have to be violent, as long as it stops. An stopping it doesn’t even have to be emotionally satisfying, as long as it stops. It’s just time. People keep getting hurt.

[** Speaking of lurid fantasies, how ‘bout that “let’s send ‘em to prison and let ‘em find out how they like gettin’ raped” fantasy that perpetually spills from the mouths of lightweight comedians and shock jocks? Hmm. How about “that only punishes the first rapist and rewards all the rest?” And how about “that only ratifies rape as a punishment and makes all other discussion just haggling about who ‘deserves it’ or not?” —-fl]

[Oh yeah, and just to be clear? It’s ok to still have fantasies as long as one’s fantasies are distinguished from reality. Playing pirates, or even “jack-booted thugs,” or adult diaper play... or even disproportionate-punishment play is almost always more enjoyable when there’s no plausible threat of the real thing happening to anyone around you. —fl]

Power utilities: no meaning no and nobody deserves to be abused

Wed, 2007-11-14 23:59 — figleaf

So I just found a new blog by Alisa of Kink in Exile. She works for a non-governmental organization (a.k.a. NGO) somewhere in southeast Asia. She’s also a BDSM masochist. Which, she makes pretty clear, can be problematic in areas where for women no isn’t respected, where it doesn’t mean no.

Figleaf mentioned the sexual freedom created by the feminist idea of “no means no” in two of his posts and this intrigues me. Of course growing up in the world of 3rd wave feminism I took the idea of “no means no” and “no one asks to be abused” as a matter of course. However, what Figleaf points out is that these ideas give me the power to say yes. He articulates something I have been struggling with since moving to Asia.

You see, I noticed that I am a lot less sexual here; a lot less open to sexuality in general and a lot less desiring of sexual attention in specific. No can mean a lot of things here, but it does not, in general, mean “no, please stop this is not ok with me.” I don’t feel safe here and so energy I would otherwise spend on cultivating relationships I divert toward responding to, and coping with harassment. Furthermore, I don’t feel respected the way I do in the west. I don’t feel like all of my choices will be respected – only the socially acceptable ones. As Figleaf points out I have to think about what I am willing to say yes to because I do not later get the option of saying “No. Enough.”

I may wind up quoting too much of the post. You can see it in one place, though, here.

It’s a pretty big deal. Not to say there isn’t still a lot more work to do — not only elsewhere in the world as where Alisa must deal not only with the local culture but also an international/business/NGO culture where the work of learning to respect not just women but feminism hasn’t been much of a priority — but it’s pretty vivid hearing ideas I can only promote in the abstract returned to me in tangible detail. And it’s not just an affirmation of anything I’ve said. In earlier post on rape she talks about another critical feminist principle: “nobody asks to be abused.”

I live in a particularly fucked up place on a generally fucked up planet. I am surrounded by women who are more scared than any western woman I have ever met. They don’t walk alone, don’t sit with men, don’t wear tanktops, don’t drink in public. This is the virgin/whore paradigm taken to the nth degree – we are virgins and the whore should rightfully get raped.

I mentioned to a friend the other day that being sex positive in a culture where rape is so common was getting hard. He told me being sex positive was “extremely risky.” You know what, it is, but that is not what I needed to hear. As Calico pointed out, I am not empowered because I didn’t get raped. Rape is not ok, why is this a question?

Not getting raped should not be a full time job and I am sick and fucking tired of it being just that.

Being a good girl does not protect you from being raped.

Walking in pairs does not protect you from being raped.

Saying no to a drink does not protect you from being raped.

Wearing a burqa does not protect you from being raped.

And why would this “feminist staple” be any business of the vast, vast majority of men who, after all (and as Alisa clearly says) have no interest in raping anyone? I’m darn glad you asked (emphasis mine.)

Pay attention because this one is important – sex is a good thing, and good sex does not lead to rape.

And if you think this isn’t your problem because you’re male you’re wrong. Do you realize the impact on your sex life? Do you realize the affect that a woman in America getting raped every 2 minutes has on the woman you’re dating? Do you really think men can’t get raped? Do you really think that your sex life can be as fulfilling as possible when half of us are taught fear before we know what we’re supposed to be afraid of?

Makes a lot of sense, right? Here’s a woman who enjoys sadomasochistic sex violent enough to give the nice people at Kink.com pause, and all around her are guys wanking to, well, clips from kink.com because they’re not doing anything to make the world safe enough for potential partners like her, like others in their own countries or towns, maybe in their buildings, and maybe right next to them perishing away in the same bed!

Contrary to what neo-conservative feminists may believe I engage in kinky sex, SM, non-monogamy, or even heteronormative intercourse not in spite of women’s liberation, but because of it. Knowing that when I say “no” it will be respected allows me to say yes to all the things I am interested in without fear. It opens a whole new world of possibilities that were not possible under the virgin/whore paradigm, or if they were came with too high a price. And that is fundamentally the difference between sex in my tribe and sex in exile…when my “no” isn’t respected I am not willing to say “yes.”

“When my ‘no’ isn’t respected I am not willing to say ‘yes.’” Think about that. Hard.

And men ask what’s in feminism for them? How about honesty in your relationships? How about respect. How about enthusiasm? How about trust? How about acceptance of your lust. How about fulfillment of your hopes, dreams, and wildest fantasies?

And yes, this is one of those much-maligned “sex blogs” and so yes, I couch my arguments when I can purely in terms of sex, but I want to be clear that anything and everything men are willing in good faith to put into feminism they will get out of it more honesty, respect, enthusiasm, trust, acceptance in every part of their relationships, and not just in bed. But yeah, in bed too.

You a man who doesn’t want to go there? There’s probably a box cleanup tissues on the nightstand, table, or bathroom counter near you. How’s that been going for you? Want to live like that the rest of your life?

Me neither. And neither does Alisa. And neither do your partners. Whatever perqs we men might think we’re getting just don’t pencil out so well.

—-

Her whole blogs pretty interesting. Check it out if you get a chance.

Syndicate content