Category Archives: Rape culture

When is it ok to make a rape joke?

The whole Penny Arcade “dickwolves” thing has got me thinking about rape jokes.  One camp says that rape jokes are never funny, and others believe there is maybe some wiggle room depending on context.  I see the value in humor that is edgy or even offensive.  That’s why I don’t think I can belong to the first camp.  Still, there should be some guidelines for understanding how and when rape jokes should be used and some sort of criteria to help comedians decide whether a rape joke is a “good” one or a really terrible one.

That led to this flowchart.  I made it quickly, so it’s far from a finished product.  Love to know what you guys think.

A Society of Guilty Bystanders

We are familiar with the concept of “innocent bystanders”; these are the people who accidentally get injured in cross-fires or explosions. And we are familiar with those who “stand idly by”; they are the people who turn away and knowingly allow atrocities to happen. It’s considered a tragedy when innocent bystanders get hurt and it is repugnant when bystanders stand idly by. But these days, we have a different breed of bystander: the guilty bystander, the absolute worst of them all.

The guilty bystander is worse than the idle bystander because the guilty bystander does not turn their head and ignore atrocity; the guilty bystander watches it happen, records it on his/her phone, and uploads it to Youtube. For example, take a recent story from Vancouver in which a 16 year-old girl was drugged and gang raped at a rave, while onlookers took photos that they then posted to Facebook.  (Some of them are even refusing to take the photos down, despite threats of being charged with disseminating child pornography from the police.) Last year 15 year-old high school girl was gang-raped in the parking lot of her school during a homecoming dance, while a crowd watched, laughed, and took pictures. I do not know exactly how often this is happening, but it’s at least two times too many.

The idea of the watching, laughing, jeering bystander is nothing new; it’s an unfortunate, cowardly, human response. The 21st century addition to this offense, however – which pushes into a whole new category of evil – is that these guilty bystanders are actively participating by recording the rape, and disseminating it to the internet for others to enjoy. By adding those photos to Facebook, the guilty bystanders invited their friends to view them and add comments, all of which were of the slut-shaming variety (e.g. “Straight up WHORE,” a “complete slut”). Discussing why people would look at a photo of a gang-rape and direct their disgust at the victim is a whole other story. Now these photos have been unleashed into cyberspace and there is no way to destroy or delete them all, meaning that the victim will be forced to relive the event, and the subsequent bullying, over and over again each time a photo resurfaces.

So why the hell are people committing such disgusting acts? Why don’t people interfere and stop the rape? Why has the default response changed from “standing idly by” to recording the event with voyeuristic excitement? I really don’t know, but I do have one idea: reality tv.

We are a nation of voyeurs. We are now accustomed to viewing the misfortune of others as entertainment. We also know the rules of reality tv production – the film crew must not interfere, not even when a child (like we have seen on Jon & Kate Plus Eight or Teen Mom) is about to get injured. It’s supposed to preserve the “reality” of the show, but what this expectation has done, in fact, is create a new “reality” in which one does not interfere, not even when someone is getting hurt.

There is no hard data or scientific evidence that media messages categorically change and/or influence behavior; there’s only common sense. And perhaps it’s only common sense that a generation of young people raised on reality tv have gotten some very backwards messages about what is entertainment and what is reality. No wonder they can’t tell the difference between when you are supposed to watch and when you are supposed to intervene.

There was recently a story about a flight attendent who removed a baby from its parent’s custody on a flight because the parents were slapping it. I think the story confused most of us – we weren’t sure if the flight attendant was supposed to be a hero, or if she overstepped her bounds. We are a society that doesn’t have a clear idea of what is abuse and what isn’t, what is violence and what isn’t. (The infamous “Snookie punch” vs. when Amber hit Gary on Teen Mom?) And reality tv, unfortunately, is a part of that.

Now, I obviously have no data or “proof” that reality tv is the cause of disgusting displays like this. I am not trying to claim that I do, or that the issue is simple enough to be boiled down to just one cause. Still, as I sit here fuming with anger and disgust for my fellow members of the human race, it’s the best explanation I can come up with.

We may never be able to eradicate rape from society or cure the impulse to rape in rapists. But it is not a mental illness that causes bystanders to assume that an obviously intoxicated 15 year-old wants to be raped by multiple people in public; it’s a social illness. We CAN teach people to intervene in situations of public gang-rape or other types of violence and/or abuse. We can, at the very least, teach people to recognize public gang-rape ofor what it isn’t: guilty pleasure entertainment.

Interview with a Misogynist

Remember when I wrote an angry rant about how some men think it’s appropriate to use online dating sites as platforms to debate feminism? Well, it happened again.

I recently saw a blog post where someone had taken screen shots of a very racist exchange on OkCupid, and I decided to respond and do the same. Below is the entire exchange, from start to finish.

It seems like this guy messaged me because he wanted to debate abortion rights, but it quickly shifted into a conversation about feminism, the difference between “good women” and “cunts,” and under what circumstances women “owe” men sex.

At first you can see that my responses are snarky. As this conversation progressed, however, I realized that this was an interesting opportunity to interview someone who was very obviously a misogynist. At certain points I was worried that he might catch on to what I was doing and get frustrated that I wasn’t fighting back, but luckily he didn’t seem to. At a certain point, I had had enough and ended the conversation with a “Smile! You’re on candid feminist camera!”

It was interesting to see how he was sensitive to accusations of being “pro-rape” and also (sortof) went back on his original statements when I pushed him to consider them more closely.

I’m curious to see what you think of this exchange.

Fair warning: Bad grammar, foul language and very foul ideas ahead.

A final note: I suppose I could have taken the time to Photoshop his OkC username out and blur his picture …. but there are 21 screenshots and that would be a lot of work. Also, he called me a cunt, so I didn’t.

Here I asked him to differentiate between women and “cunts.”

Kudos to Emerson College for their exemplary Sexual Assault pamphlet!

I’ve barely been in school a week and I already have been having trouble finding time to blog. I forgot how much work this whole “school” thing would be – crazy, I know. Anyway, there is one thing I’ve been meaning to do and that is give Emerson College, my new alma matter, a pat on the back for their EXEMPLARY Sexual Assault pamphlet distributed during orientation.

I’m sure most of us are familiar with the usual women-focused, victim-blaming approach taken by most colleges and universities. The standard “ways to prevent rape” include: not leaving your drink unattended, not walking alone at night, not dressing provocatively, not drinking excessively, etc. These “prevention methods” are all directed at women, putting the onus of their own protection ON THEM, suggesting that if anything happens, it was their own fault for not being smart and following the rules.

The worst example of this kind of language is probably one published by Valdosta State. It includes some “tips” like these (actual language):

  • Women are always trying to be sympathetic: STOP IT, it may get you raped, or killed.
  • If he’s driving, find the right time, and stick your fingers in his eyes. He must watch the road, so choose an unsuspecting time, and gouge him. It maybe your ONLY defense. While he is in shock, GET OUT. (This sounds gross, but the alternative is your fault if you do not act.)
  • If you don’t have a cell phone, shame on you.

It’s “tips” like these that spurred Feminally to write the now famous list that turns victim-blaming on its head by giving “tips” to would-be rapists telling them not to drug people to control their behavior, etc: Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work! It may sound like a joke, but it draws serious attention to the fact that sexual assault prevention is usually directed towards the would-be victims and not the would-be rapists. But to my unexpected and pleasant surprise, at least one college was listening!

Behold: The exemplary Emerson College Sexual Assault pamphlet.

I knew we were already off to a good start by glancing at the cover, which reads: “Sexual Assault: Information for Men and Women.”

The first page is a letter to all Emerson students giving some stats about rape, and explaining what acquaintance/date rape is and that it is not tolerated at the college. The next page has this at the top:

RAPE IS A CRIME OF VIOLENCE: It is motivated by the desire to control and dominate, not by sexual desire.

Then there is a list of FACTS ABOUT SEXUAL ASSAULT, which explain that acquaintance rape is rape, that men can also be victims of sexual assault, that it’s okay to say no without giving an explanation, and that “No one wants to be raped.”

It then gives some legal information, and some more detail about acquaintance rape. Then – oh then – the cream filling!

The following is quoted directly from the pamphlet:

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO PREVENT SEXUAL ASSAULTS IN SOCIAL SITUATIONS:

Certain contributing factors repeatedly surface in acquantaince rape situations: ineffective communication, the use of drugs and alcohol, and sex role stereotypes. Understanding some of these factors can help prevent sexual assaults.

This pamphlet offers men and women ways to understand both their role in intimate relationships and the issue of sexual assault in a college environment. Mena dn women need to understand their right to be free from harm, and the legal consequences that may fall upon persons who compel sexual relations by force or threat of force.

If by force or threats, you compel a person to have sex against his or her will, even if you know the person and have had sex with him or her before you are committing a rape - even if you think he or she has been teasing and leading you on, even if you have heard that women say “no” but mean yes, even if you think it’s “manly” to use force to get your way.

Being turned down by sexual relations is not necessarily a rejection of you personally. A person who says “no” to sexual relations is expressing his or her unwillingness to participate in a specific act at a specific time.

Accept a person’s decision. “No” means no. Don’t read in other meanings. Don’t continue after the person says “no.”

Don’t assume that just because a person flirts or dresses in a manner you consider sexy that he or she wants to engage in sexual relations.

Don’t assume that previous permission for sexual relations means a person is under continuing obligation to have sex with you.

Don’t assume your date wants the same degree of intimacy you do.

Don’t assume that spending money on a date entitles you to sex.

Don’t force anyone either verbally or physically to have sex with you.

Don’t allow others to attempt forced sex with another person.

The pamphlet then follows with a list of things you can do to minimize the risk of being sexually assaulted that contain tips like “be assertive,” “trust your intuition,” “think ahead about how you will get home,” and “avoid excessive use of alcohol and drugs.” But the point is, they came SECOND, and that they don’t claim to be “ways to prevent sexual assault.” They are only things you can do to “minimize risk.” The first list is about “prevention.”

The pamphlet then goes on to give information about what you can do if you have been assaulted and includes a directory of resources, police departments, organizations, crisis hotlines, etc.

This pamphlet is a model of what sexual assault prevention should look like. I hope other colleges and universities will stand up and take note. Needless to say, I am proud to call myself an Emerson student.

When is it okay to look?

My last post about Cami Secret and cleavage led to some discussion with male friends about the question: “When is it okay to look?” And I think it’s a valid question. To a certain extent, we all look. (There’s a reason I work out in the co-ed section at my gym.) But where is the line between looking and leering? What separates the pervs and creeps from the rest of us? And what about those times you have trouble looking away?

The thesaurus has PLENTY of words to describe different sorts of “looking.” There’s “behold,” “admire,” “contemplate,” “observe,” “regard,” “view,” and “notice.” There’s also “gaze,” “gawk,” “leer,” “ogle,” “peep,” “stare,” and “watch.” Clearly, there are lots of different ways to look at someone. Some are kosher, and some not so much. It should be pretty obvious which kinds are cool and which are not. It goes right back the manners you learned as a kid – staring is rude, peeping is pervy, and watching is, well, scary because it sounds a lot like stalking. Leering and ogling? That’s sexual harassment.

“So what if a girl walks by wearing a low-cut shirt with a supa-short mini skirt? Is it okay to look?”

It’s only natural that you might glance at someone who’s outfit catches your attention, but you can still make a conscious effort not to look in any of the disrespectful or creepy ways listed above. No matter how a woman chooses to dress, she deserves to be treated respectfully. No, really. Suck it up.

“What if I can’t help but be turned on by someone?”

Okay, it’s true. Sometimes we can’t help be be attracted to someone, and when that’s the case, we might want to look. But think about the way you look at sexy people you know and respect. Is it different from how you look at those you don’t know and/or don’t respect? When you like and respect someone you’re attracted to, you find ways of looking that are appropriate and respectful. So maybe you might try treating everyone that way – as if you respect them. (Aka as if they were human beings and not objects.)

“But what about when women wear crazy cleavage shirts at the office and it’s distracting?”

I agree that in certain situations, certain kinds of dress can be distracting. There is such a thing as dressing inappropriately, but even when people do dress inappropriately it doesn’t give you license to treat them disrespectfully. No really. Suck it up.

“But what if I can’t look away?”

There may be situations where it’s hard to look away. Like, wardrobe malfunctions. If someone is about to fall out of their clothes, that’s hard not to look at. It’s like rubbernecking at a car accident. But this isn’t just a boob thing. Men’s gym shorts? HELLO THERE I CAN SEE YOUR PENIS. It’s not even always a sexual thing. How hard is it not to look when someone’s fly is down or they have a big stain on their shirt? Again, just pretend the person is someone you like and respect. Treat them the way you would treat someone you care about in the same situation. Not knowing someone does not give you license to look in one of those pervy or disrespectful ways. Try to avert your eyes, or better yet, let them know what’s going on and spare them some future embarrassment.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that we all “look” to some degree, but there are different ways and degrees of looking. Some are respectful and some are not. When in doubt, ask yourself, “Would I look at my friend this way?” Treat everyone the way you treat those you respect and you’ll be okay.

Remember that no one has the right to be leered, ogled, or stared at just because of what they’re wearing. You never have the right to lean over a woman’s desk (like in the Cami Secret ad) to look down her shirt. You never have the right to use a mirror to see up someone’s skirt, or look in their windows while they change. You do not have the right to cat-call or stand there with your mouth open and drool. No one is entitled to anyone else’s body. This goes for everyone, and there is no loophole allowing you to leer or stare at people of the gender you’re not attracted to either. And for god’s sake, you absolutely do NOT have the right to touch someone, or touch yourself while looking at someone, just because they turn you on.

Participating in society is about practicing self control. We are not animals. No really. Suck it up.

When encouraging personal responsibility is NOT blaming the victim

Nadja Benaissa, a German pop star, is currently on trial for infecting one man with HIV and putting two others at risk. She found out she had HIV in 1999 when she was 16. According to the charges, she had unprotected sex on five occasions between 2000 and 2004 with three men and did not tell them she was infected. One of them now has HIV. Benaissa is a member of the pop group No Angels, and before her arrest the fact that Benaissa was HIV positive was not publicly known. Even though Benaissa admitted that she made a mistake by having unprotected sex without disclosing her HIV status, some folks don’t think she’s the only one at fault.

Carolin Vierneisel, a representative from Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe, a German AIDS service organization, told Time Magazine: “When it comes to consensual sex, whether protected or unprotected, we talk about shared responsibility,” she says. “The criminalisation of HIV transmission, as shown in this case, doesn’t support HIV prevention efforts. On the contrary, it fosters the stigmatisation of HIV positive people.”

Katy Kelleher touches on this in her piece at Jezebel, and asks “Should Benaissa really be responsible when her partner consented to having unprotected sex?” She quotes Gisela Freidrichsen, a German journalist, who wrote: “I always wonder why there are allegations against a woman when a man doesn’t use a condom.”

For those of us familiar with feminism, rape crisis counseling, and Law and Order SVU, “blaming the victim” is bad, bad, bad. We always talk about blaming the victim in the context of rape and sexual assault. With sexual assault, there are victims and attackers, and the blame should always lie with attackers. But with STD transmission, there usually aren’t “attackers.” Except maybe in a few, extremely rare cases, people do not intentionally spread HIV in order to harm others. The majority of people who spread STDs aren’t aware they have one. For those that are aware they have an STD, they may fail to disclose their status for a number of reasons, not the least of which is shame resulting from social stigmatization of STDs. In Benaissa’s case, public disclosure could have had repercussions for her career as a pop singer. But even people like Benaissa, who did not take adequate steps to protect her partners, are themselves victims. They too were infected with HIV, possibly by someone who was similarly withholding that vital information.

With rape and sexual assault, victims (or survivors) are not in control of the situation. But when you’re talking about consensual sex, the onus usually falls on the individual to protect him or herself. Safer sex products, like condoms, are not that hard to get a hold of. A lot of people work very hard to make sure that condoms are available and affordable. Many health providers will give them out for free. I recognize that there is a bit of a gender imbalance here, since most condoms are “male” condoms and hetero women have a bit less control over whether their partner will wear one. But women can still buy and carry male condoms, use the female condom, and choose not to have unprotected sex — a decision everyone SHOULD be able to make and that all partners SHOULD respect.

One cannot really take precautions to keep one’s self safe from rape and sexual assault because assault can happen anywhere, at anytime, with anyone no matter what you are or aren’t wearing, how much you were or weren’t drinking, or whether you were or weren’t in a “safe” neighborhood. But one CAN take precautions to keep one’s self safe from STDs and since we can, we each shoulder the responsibility to protect ourselves.

This is not to say that those who knowingly transmit STDs are off the hook. I think most of us would agree that they are under a moral obligation to inform their partners before having unprotected sex. But should a moral obligation necessarily become a legal obligation? As far as I know, there is no criminal law in the U.S. or Germany that obligates one to inform all sexual partners of his or her HIV status. (If I’m wrong, please correct me.) Would the moral obligation still apply if they are using protection? Would a criminal law?

HIV and STD transmission turns victimhood on its head. When perpetrators are victims and the victims are in control of their own choices, we cannot be afraid to emphasize personal responsibility for fear of blaming the victim. It’s a lot easier for you to commit to using protection than it is for someone else to disclose their HIV status. Prosecuting those who fail to disclose will not do anything to help fight the spread of STDs, but encouraging personal responsibility sure will.

Trigger warning: this blog post may make Susannah Breslin look really f***ing dumb

Yesterday, Susannah Breslin of True/Slant wrote a post about trigger warnings, and how they are “dumb.” She gets off to a good start by insulting Feministing and feminism in general with all the usual, unimaginative “man-hating” bullshit. Then…

In any case, I’ve noticed as of late a new addition to their bloggy style, which is the inclusion of the phrase, often IN ALL CAPS or TOTALLY BOLDED, which announces incoming SCARY content with a “TRIGGER WARNING.” WTF is a “trigger warning”? Yeah, I had to look that one up myself. Thankfully: Google.

According to Yahoo! Answers (which, BTW, is a great place to turn if you’re worried that having sex while pregnant could result in a pregnant fetus), a trigger warning is: “A warning placed in the title of an e-mail or post to let possible readers know that the content might trigger (or upset) them.” This seems different than the more widely used “spoiler alert,” which is used if you’ve seen a movie that other fanbois haven’t, and you want to reveal the ending, but you don’t want all your fanbois to freak the fuck out.

After some in-depth research (like, half an hour, maybe?), I was able to conclude that, for whatever reason, the feminists are all over their TRIGGER WARNINGS, applying them like a Southern cook applies Pam cooking spray to an overused nonstick frying pan. It’s almost impressive, really. I guess the idea is that blog posts are TOTALLY SCARY, and if you are EASILY UPSET, if you see a TRIGGER WARNING coming, you can look away REALLY FAST, or click elsewhere, so you won’t, you know, FREAK THE FUCK OUT. (Read the rest)

So let us review for a second. Susannah Breslin didn’t know what a trigger warning was, so she asked Yahoo! Answers. She then explains it as if it were equivalent to a “spoiler alert,” omitting its actual purpose — to warn survivors of rape and sexual assault with PTSD that a post may trigger a flashback or panic attack because it discusses rape or includes rape imagery.

Way to go, Breslin. Way to be a total asshole to rape survivors.

A fair few of feminist bloggers have already commented on this, so I will share some of my favorite responses.

Feministing: Susannah Breslin, the writer who called feminism “cultural roadkill” has now taken it upon herself to mock the shit out of a very serious term: trigger warnings. You know, because it’s souncool and passe to care about rape victims.

Feministe: You know what is much less easy than just skipping over trigger warnings? Writing a whole post about how feminists are just angry and we hate men and and haha rape victims are just easily upset, those babies.

Now, we know that Susannah Breslin and feminism are not the best of friends. Fine. We will go on with our man-hating selves, and you, S, can go on harping on the feminists who type two words in a tiny effort to make life a little bit easier on sexual assault survivors (you know, those people who are “easily upset” and might “freak the fuck out”). Definitely keep using your platform to focus on the really good and important stuff, like telling rape survivors to quit being such whiney titty-babies. I think Gandhi said that once.

Seriously. What an asshole.

Romancing rape culture

There is nothing like getting lost in a good book.  For the past few days I have been immersed in Diana Gabaldon’s The Outlander, an engrossing story about a WWII nurse who falls through an enchanted craig and finds herself in the 18th Century Scottish Highlands.  I had reached the halfway point when certain events began to make me very uncomfortable.  And then it hit me; I was reading rape culture.

It all started when the Jaime, the strapping young lad, beat Claire, our protagonist and his new bride.  Jaime, who had up until then been portrayed as a fair, sensitive, and considerate man, beat Claire as punishment for making a mistake that put others in danger.  Now, to be fair, his behavior is probably accurate for an 18th Century clansman.  However, Claire is a woman of the 20th Century, and she is steadfast opposed to wife-beating.  She vows never to forgive her husband, but she forgives him the next day essentially saying, “Well, I see your point.”

Later, Claire and Jaime get into an argument.  Unable to comprehend or accept Claire’s autonomy, Jaime responds with sexual violence, stating that she is his woman and he’ll have her whenever he damn pleases.  And then he rapes her.  Brutally.  As Gabaldon takes you through the graphic rape, I get the feeling that I’m supposed to be turned on.  But instead my feminist insides were raging in a putrid turmoil.  I felt sick.

The next morning the couple wakes up cute and happy.  Apparently it had been some great sex, despite the pain, bleeding, and bruises.  Then Jaime wants to have sex again, and Claire responds “No way, I’m way too sore.”  His response? Too bad. And then he rapes her again.  But he is gentler than usual, so apparently, it’s okay.  And after all this violence and rape, Claire finally realizes that she loves him. So much so that presented with the chance to return to her own time (spoiler alert) she chooses to stay with Jaime, her lover, her protector, and her rapist.  WTF?

As a point of interest, I have absolutely no problem with S&M or rape fantasies in erotica or porn — assuming that everyone involved is aware of what is going on and consents to reading/watching/participating.  As I was reading this, I felt at odds with myself.  The scenes were very reminiscent of S&M scenes, and in that light, I can respect the fact that both Claire and Jaime could enjoy the experience of power play and sexual violence.  But it didn’t feel right.  Claire did not consent.  This was a story about love, and there is something very twisted about slipping rape fantasies into a romance and passing it off as love.

If Diana Gabaldon’s goal was to get us off using rape fantasies, she should have labeled her book “rape fantasy erotica,” not romance.  That way, her readers could choose to consent to reading it.  But by disguising it, she has played us false. Her message, unintended as it might be, is that passionate love is inextricably linked to rape and violence, or perhaps that sexual violence is an expression of true love.

Rape culture is one in which books-for-women-by-women feature strong, masculine heroes who are lovable, respectable and sexy, even though they beat and rape women.  How many women will walk away from The Outlander under the impression that rape is what brings passion to a relationship?  How many will go forth looking for a dashing hero just like Jaime?  And even more upsetting, how many will find one?