An example I just ran into today of how POV is, or can be everything when it comes to gender politics. In a video talking about the alleged “empathy gap” between men and women, the presenter offered the fact that when human beings are hurt by violence, the media treats the sexes differently: when it’s all male, they use the term “people”, but when the people are female that fact is headlined.
As I have always viewed it, that disses women, because it equates “people” with males, reinforcing the idea tha men are the norm, but females are different, “other” - males represent normalcy, humanity itself, (I refuse to refer to humanity as “man”- and anyone who thinks things like that don’t have an effect, you are completely wrong.) women are weirdos ( I hope you get my drift here, don’t dissect my language) This would be just another example of how English establishes male as the norm. An actor is “one who acts” but an actress is “a female one who acts”
Okay… But the presenter (an English professor, a woman) had the reverse view: her perception was that by calling men “people” but specifying females, it was dismissive and unconcerned with the males, her point being that females get special protection and care in our society and nobody give a damn about men.
Now, her fundamental thesis, that women are given special treatment and protection while men are expected to just deal, is valid and certainly something to discuss, but I am specifically concerned with her example as I have just described because it was fascinating to me how the same set of facts produces completely opposite reactions. Which is true? Could both be?
Becquse of course we are not a hive mind, whatever we are doing and saying, there is no central bunch of men or women plotting, we are all just absorbing what we live with and then filtering it through our experiences.
Women MAY lie about sexual assault, and often it’s to protect their sleezball husband or intimate partner. Look, for the tiny amount of times that “lying” actually occurs, it fucking pales in comparison to women who are abused and dead by the hand of the person who was supposedly the love of their life.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:
Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.
Which means what, in your estimation? How should these statistics guide our actions? If you feel, as many do, that accusations of sexual assault should be held apart from the rest of our criminal justice system and be treated as (accused perpetrator) is guilty unless and until proven innocent, I strongly disagree.
By the way, somewhere up thread, I don’t remember Who said it right off hand, but somebody suggested essentially letting the accuser come up with the punishment or something like that, to which I reply: no. That’s really not how it works and that’s not a good way for it to work. Victims of any crime are not the right people to look to for justice. We need Impartial parties, not passionately invested parties.
Of course, laws vary from state to state, but in my state the statute reads:
(3) through (11) don’t seem to apply, since the alleged victim was conscious, wasn’t suffering from a mental disease or defect and so far as I know there were no public servants, mental health providers or clergymen involved.
That leaves (1) and (2). But since there’s no mention of “physical force or violence” or of threatening to use force or violence, it falls outside the legal definition.
In other words, it’s not sexual assault, according to the statute.
I agree. Rape is rape regardless of the throws of passion or not. Once I was with a woman in the cowgirl position. Just as she was about to orgasm, I looked her right in the eye and says “stop.” She didn’t stop. Now she’s in prison, and will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life.
Rape is rape, regardless of the throws of passion. If consent is withdrawn so should the act withdraw.
Just to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion, let me try to outline how I view my own sexual consent.
When I was in my late 20s and had never been kissed, let alone laid, and was going rather out of my mind with sexual frustration, I started to realize that if I continued to wait until I was perfectly sure of what I wanted, I would die a virgin. I don’t have the sort of mind that can be perfectly sure of anything.
In any situation, including sexual ones, I experience countervailing impulses of desire and aversion, and must choose which to follow and which to ignore. In other words, even when I choose to do something, there is a part of me that doesn’t want to.
If I were fully open about these feelings in sexual situations, only a rapist would enjoy having sex with me. To have healthy sex with a decent person, I must conceal my aversion and communicate only my desire.
Therefore, it would be ridiculous for me to expect my partner to genuinely “make sure” that I am consenting. It’s hard enough for me to make up my own mind; the last thing I want is her second-guessing me out of some misguided scruple. The responsibility must fall on me.
But you perfectly describe what many people, including many women, feel all the time. So this fantasy of establishing a firm, unequivocal yes is just that.
I think about a third of the time it starts with her asking like “You up for something?” and I’m like “Mweh, not really”.
“And what of I do this and theen this?” and sex ensues.
Often a little pushing is just fine.
But it is a difficult line and I, from my side, like to be careful. Too careful and timid sometimes.
That kind of dynamic seems common in heterosexual relationships, and I think it’s usually quite healthy. The man is cautious because he knows he can hurt the woman if he’s not careful; the woman feels more free to push boundaries because she knows it would be very difficult to hurt him.
Okay, so this is a sarcastic post. But is your last line about consent being withdrawn sarcastic or not? Should someone stop doing the act if consent is revoked, or not?
Look, sex is, for all intents and purposes, adult playtime. We do, say, act ways that we never would in other circumstances. The best you can do is learn to read your partner. And if you are with someone for the first time or simply early on, then be clearer in your communication as part of your process of learning to read someone, and if there’s any question, default to the less radical of options available.
Right, and this is all fine – if someone’s reaction to the hypothetical is to be slightly annoyed and explain to their partner what they’d prefer them to do next time, then that’s fine. And if someone’s reaction to the hypothetical is to feel traumatized and report it to the police, that reaction is fine as well.
