Consent and coming out

(cross-posted from Feministe)

Knowing your preferences and your limits is an important part of having a satisfying sex life. For most of my life as a sexually active person, I could have talked about these ideas, but it wasn't until more recently that I was finally able to practice what I often preached.

This is tied to the fact that I came out (selectively) as queer in 2009.

Coming out was not easy for me. I starting coming out to myself late in my first year at college, but I distinctly remember looking myself in the mirror and seeing "QUEER" stamped across my forehead. For a while, thinking of myself in that way was so difficult that I shoved myself back in the closet, determining that what had just happened must have been a weird symptom of stress or something. In the meantime, I was in a long distance relationship with a boyfriend I'd been with since high school. We'd see each other about once a month and we almost always had sex when we were together.

Fast forward one school year and I had come around to certain things about myself.
I was definitely queer. I came out to my boyfriend right away as bisexual (which is no longer a label I use). He was supportive and we stayed together because this did not appear to change our relationship. There was a problem, however. I still was not terribly interested in sex with my boyfriend.

This was something I didn't realize fully until I had a new partner, but I had never been very interested in the sex I had had with men in the past. My boyfriend and I did have sex, and it was something I had convinced myself (dishonestly) that I wanted. I had bought into the idea that I was supposed to want to have sex with my boyfriend, even when I could tell that I was not truly interested. The sex was not terrible or selfish on his part, but my interest only seemed to hold for a very brief time. This created a situation in which I rarely initiated sex. It also meant that enthusiastic consent was not something that was practiced in our relationship.

I knew my boyfriend wanted sex because he almost always made the first move. While he did not often check in with me during sex, something that may have given some indication of my lack of interest, he was good at asking me if I wanted sex before we did anything. I always said I did, whether or not it was really true, but I was aware that this wasn't the kind of consent that should take place in these situations. I knew about enthusiastic consent and I often spoke to people about the idea. I just couldn't bring myself to amend the situation with my boyfriend. It would be messy to explain that what had become a common practice did not actually fit with my personal definition of consent.

Our relationship ended a few months later for reasons unrelated to sex. I don't want it to sound like my ex was a bad guy. He did practice affirmative consent (having sex when I said, yes, I wanted to), but it didn't change the fact that I just wasn't into having sex with him and he didn't seem to notice.

Once that relationship was over, I had the time to come to terms with my queerness. I quickly realized that while I had thought that I had enjoyed sex with men before, I had not been completely honest with myself. It was a bit shocking to realize that the sex I had had in the past didn't fit my personal ideas about proper consent, but in a way it makes sense. If you can't be honest with yourself about your desires, then it's hard to be honest about what you want sexually, and not being honest about what you want makes consent very tricky. Once I was able to be true to my desires, I found myself wanting sex more often and being able to enjoy it on new levels. This gave me the freedom to navigate new rules of consent.

I've been with my current partner for almost a year now and something that I am incredibly pleased with is how effortlessly we've been able to have awesome, feminism-informed sex, and how easy it was to communicate my ideas about consent. We practice enthusiastic, affirmative consent with ease and for the first time in my life I can consider myself truly satisfied.

Woman doesn't consent, but jury finds consent anyway

**Trigger warning: Sexual assault**

A St. Louis Circuit Court jury decided against a woman who brought a lawsuit against the company responsible for a "Girls Gone Wild" video that she appeared in years ago without her knowledge. This woman claimed that she had not given consent to appear in the video.

A jury on Thursday rejected a young woman's claim that the producers of a "Girls Gone Wild" video damaged her reputation by showing her tank top being pulled down by another person in a Laclede's Landing bar.


A St. Louis Circuit Court jury deliberated 90 minutes before ruling against the woman, 26, on the third day of the trial. Lawyers on both sides argued the key issue was consent, with her side saying she absolutely refused to give it and the defense claiming she silently approved by taking part in the party.

The defense's argument about the woman's consent is absurd and makes the fact that this woman lost this lawsuit extremely troubling. It is classic victim-blaming to claim that because a woman made the decision to be in a certain situation that she also made the decision to be sexually assaulted by a franchise that clearly has some messed up ideas about consent (like it not being necessary at all, or is ok if it includes pressure). It's shocking to me that this held up in court.

But Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, told a reporter later that an 11-member majority decided that Doe had in effect consented by being in the bar and dancing for the photographer. In a trial such as this one, agreement by nine of 12 jurors is enough for a verdict.


"Through her actions, she gave implied consent," O'Brien said. "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."

And she knew she had not given any kind of acceptable consent to have her top pulled down or to appear in a video.


h/t

When someone says no, you have to listen.

As someone who works with preschool children, I'm often very deliberate about the things I say. I make sure every rhyme is pointed out, every letter that corresponds to someone's first name is traced, every opportunity for something new is used.

I've increasingly become very deliberate about the words I use when talking about behavior as well. I find myself repeating things like "When someone says no, you have to listen" and "Ask before you touch your friend." Sometimes my language is prompted by the language they use - if someone is complaining about hitting, then we talk about nice touching.

I do it because I want this language embedded in their vocabulary. I explicitly use no in this context because I want them to feel comfortable saying no (especially to their friends) and that when someone says no, it's respected.

I want them to know that you can't just touch another person's body without asking. One of my rules is that a kid has to ask before sitting in my lap. Partially, it's selfish. My legs get tired and fall asleep with too many kid bodies on them. But there's also that idea that my lap is mine alone and I make the decision if I want someone to sit there. If a kid walks up and sits down without asking, I make them stand up and ask me if they can sit there. Sometimes I say yes; everyone's happy (unless there's another kid competing for the lap. Long story). Sometimes I say no and suggest that they can sit right in front of me.

I'd like to think that these things stick with them, that they'll remember that they have to listen to another person's no. The unfortunate part about early childcare is that a lot of times, these kids won't remember us. I don't remember my preschool teachers. That's why it's so important that these basic concepts of bodily sovereignty are maintained from year to year.

I only hope that my no and respect for a no is remembered and thought of when they hear no again.

Touch, Children and Consent

I've mentioned before that I work in a preschool. It's incredibly fun and I love my specialized focus of teaching my 3-5 year olds the necessary literacy skills they'll need to be successful readers in kindergarten (Psst: If you live in Minnesota, love working with and teaching kids, and need a short-term [1-2 years] job for next school year, email me and I'll give you more information about my non-profit).

However, once I'm with my kids, it's like my body is not my own anymore. More specifically, my lap for sitting, my hands for holding and rarely my hair for pulling. This is usually the extent of it, but occasionally kids will ask me what my breasts are or touch my butt from behind without notice. It usually doesn't bother me (except the one time when a kid had messy hands from lunch and wiped them all over the back of my jeans).

Today while reading The Lorax, one of my students began putting her hands near my collarbone, resting them on my skin for a moment then moving them to my other side. She said she was checking for my heartbeat. Another boy stuck his hand out and put it squarely on my breasts, saying, "No, this is where her heartbeat is." I suggested they try checking for their own heartbeat underneath their chins, modeling how to do it. His touch obviously wasn't sexual, but there's still something jarring about being touched, especially in some areas, without notice or consent. I don't want to stigmatize a particular area of their bodies as sexual, dirty, shameful or something they shouldn't be touching without the larger context and conversations of age-appropriate bodily education.* But they know the rules - hands to yourself, you must ask a friend first before touching, and you have to listen when a friend says no.

Awhile back we got a new girl in the class. She had no troubles adjusting to the class and got along well with the other children. On her first day, one of the boys suggested they be boyfriend and girlfriend. They held hands a bit during story time (with several warnings about the hands to yourself rule) and he tried to kiss her on the cheek after. She clearly didn't like this and I had to tell him to respect her no, even if he didn't like it. The class rules say that we have to listen to everyone's no, but I felt like I should have included that a girl's no must especially be listened to. It turns out she didn't even want to be his "girlfriend," but felt a little pressured. I told her that it's ok to say no if you don't want something. Again - these are 4 year olds.

But it must be said early and often if the message is to be understood.

Sometimes I wonder how I would do my job if I had difficulties with being touched without asking or were triggered by such actions.

Yet at the same time, I have to consider my own actions. Sometimes I touch kids without expressly asking. In the case of some kids, it helps if I rub their back during storytime. They listen better; they keep their hands to themselves, and I imagine it makes them feel loved. At first I finished that sentence with safe - I imagine it makes them feel safe- but I don't think I can say that for all kids. We want preschool to be a safe enviornment and actively work to destress kids in order to make them feel comfortable enough to learn. Some kids like having their back rubbed or scratched and I suppose I just think most kids like it.

And then I read Rebecca from City of Ladies and Thomas from Yes Means Yes** and step back to evaluate my own actions. Am I touching kids who would rather I not touch them? Perhaps. There are some things I'm very explicit about - I always ask a child if they would like to give me a hug and accept the occasional "no." I don't take pictures of children without their consent. But it seems that I must adjust my actions to include all touching if I am truly to respect their own decisions about their bodies.

It only takes a quick "Can I rub your back?" and all bases are covered. How many difficulties in this world would be avoided if only we checked in and made sure we had consent first?





*Since this came up a bit in one of my prior posts about preschool children and the language they use to describe their bodies, I'll state this clearly: I believe in age appropriate bodily education and will implement this in the classroom. That doesn't mean, as one anonymous commenter suggested, "feminists teaching [preschool children] about their bodies or sexuality." Age appropriate bodily education includes proper, anatomical names for body parts (arms, legs, brain, arm bones, vagina, penis, toes, etc) and recognizing what their bodies are telling them (hunger, sickness, anger, happiness). I'm not indoctrinating kids into feminism when I say that I use age appropriate bodily education; I'm teaching them that sometimes that funny feeling in their stomach means they're hungry, angry, sick or have to poop.

**My own thinking on the topic of children and bodily respect has been influenced by Thomas' post "If She's Not Having Fun You Have To Stop." It has been useful in shaping the way I interact and help police my student's actions.

Coffee and consent

From Until Someone Wakes Up, a play written by Hamline University professor Carolyn Levy and a group of Macalester College students:

Waiter: Would you like some coffee?
Woman: Yes, please.
Waiter: Just say when. (Starts to pour.)
Woman: There. (He keeps pouring.) That's fine. (He pours.) Stop! (She grabs the pot; there is coffee everywhere.)
Waiter: Yes, ma'am.
Woman: Well, why didn't you stop pouring?
Waiter: Oh, I wasn't sure you meant it.
Woman: Look, of course I meant it! I have coffee all over my lap! You nearly burned me!
Waiter: Forgive me, ma'am, but you certainly looked thirsty. I thought you wanted more.
Woman: But -
Waiter: And you must admit, you did let me start to pour.



via Telling: A Memoir of Rape and Recovery by Patricia Weaver Francisco

Don't confuse the ladies during sex by talking!

A little misogyny-soaked advice from Esquire for you today on the question of penis-vagina insertion during hetero sex:

However, Robert J. Rubel, author of the indispensable Master/Slave Relations: Handbook of Theory and Practice, as well as 2007's Squirms, Screams and Squirts: Going from Great Sex to Extraordinary Sex (because the title A Dance to the Music of Time was already taken), disagrees. He confirms your fear about implied incompetence and calls you a "submissive man," a charge you'll have to just sit there and take, I'm afraid. "I've never had a woman guide me in initially," he scoffs, before defining the core problem. "Here's the core problem: Anything that you do to pull the woman back into her head will destroy the moment. Don't ask her anything, don't do anything that she has to think about, don't confuse her." He's absolutely right. I was about to say something about the futility of rules with regard to the passionate acts of willing adults, but I've already forgotten the question.

I'm sorry if Rubel and Stacey Grenrock Woods, the column's author, think that a little back-and-forth on how someone wants to have sex is unnecessary and emasculating, but let's give women a little respect here. We CAN do more than one thing at once, people. Women can handle a simple question while getting it on. In fact, let's aim for two+ questions - "Would you like to have sex?" and "Does this feel good?" are good ones to start off with.

If you're not interested in hearing about my sex life, you can stop reading here (Hi, Mom!). Personally, sometimes I'm a little worried that my partner is going to get it right and I like to make sure that everything is going according to plan. There have been times when I've had to redirect partners who, due to not looking or lack of skill, etc, ventured beyond and aimed for the wrong hole. In situations like that, I'd sure appreciate a little communication to avoid unintentional anal sex. That's the type of thing I'd like to talk about before hand or at least prior to insertion.

So Rubel and Woods, you're both waaaay off target. I don't care how many poorly named books or advice columns you've penned. Good communication is essential for any sexual experience.

Consent is not puberty

What's problematic about this pair of statements?

CNN's headline was: "Evangelist: 'Puberty' is age of sexual consent"

In an interview on Saturday, [Tony Alamo] had said that for girls having sex, "consent is puberty."

CNN assumes that he means reaching puberty enables girls to make sexual consent decisions. If you look at what that statement actually says - "consent is puberty - then he's implying that the age of puberty is the same thing as consent. Maybe the context of the statement clarifies what Alamo means, but as it stands, the literal meaning of that sentence is that anyone at the age of puberty gives sexual consent. Not that they have the ability to, but that they automatically do.

For someone accused of child abuse and pornography, the semantics make a huge difference.

Feminists have Teeth - the movie

Now on DVD, Teeth is a movie about a high school girl who finds out she has vagina dentata - teeth in her vag. The synopsis on the website says:

High school student Dawn works hard at suppressing her budding sexuality by being the local chastity group's most active participant. Her task is made even more difficult by her bad boy stepbrother Brad's increasingly provocative behavior at home. A stranger to her own body, innocent Dawn discovers she has a toothed vagina when she becomes the object of violence. As she struggles to comprehend her anatomical uniqueness, Dawn experiences both the pitfalls and the power of being a living example of the vagina dentata myth.

This movie is so fascinating because it exposes a cultural, rarely spoken but widely known, fear of vaginas and subverts that to give power to vaginas and women, as possessors of vaginas. Toothed vaginas are sometimes "subtly" hidden in films (Pirates of the Caribbean 2, anybody? That Kraken is a huuuuge toothed vagina), but this might be the first time anyone's addressed vagina dentata directly in a film.

I'm going to talk about different aspects of the plot now, so if you plan on seeing it and don't want it to be ruined, stop reading.

The film makes it clear that Dawn has never explored her own sexuality, much less seen what her own vag looks like. As a vocal member of her local chastity group, she rails against sex before marriage and wears a promise ring for her future husband. When she fantasizes about the boy she likes, it's in wedding gear - don't worry, no masturbation for her, though.

The cultural fear of vaginas is so widespread and intrenched that none of the high school health textbooks show vaginas - they just have big stickers over those pages, while the male reproductive system is clearly displayed. Students question it and try tearing the stickers off (hoorah!), but this scene points to a larger issue of women not knowing fundamental facts about their bodies - a point Cara neatly touched on recently over at The Curvature.

When Dawn is sexually assaulted, it's by a fellow member of the chastity group who "fell" once before. His reasoning for raping her? "I haven't jerked off since Easter!" and "You're still pure!" However, his lame excuses for rape are no match for her vagina teeth, and we get a nice genital shot - post attack. Not for those who don't like gore, I must say.

The vagina dentata doesn't attack anything that enters her vagina, only non-consensual and harmful entry - it, at first, is a knee-jerk reflex, although she does seem to be able to attack at will later on in the movie. The mythology presented in the movie says that a hero must do battle with the woman to break her power. After the rape and gyno visit (both which end in bloodshed), Dawn goes to Ryan's house (a boy who likes her) because she has no idea where to go. She is obviously shaken and unnerved, and he takes her presences as an opportunity for sex. Dawn takes a bath and when she comes out, he has candles lit and music playing. At some point, he gives her some sort of pill and wine and she ends up passing out. When she comes to, Ryan's playing with her breast and they end up having sex. Here's a bit of their conversation:

Dawn: You can't.
Ryan: Do you want me to stop?
Dawn: No.
Ryan: Good. (whatthefuck?)
Dawn: But they'll get you.
Ryan: Who?
Dawn: The teeth.
Ryan: Come on.
Dawn: Seriously.
Ryan: No, no, look. I'm conquering them. See? Yeah, I'm the hero. (bullshit, bullshit bullshit!)

Can we point out the issues here? First off, since he drugged her, it's sexual assault. Second, there was no positive affirmation of consent, however, she does say she doesn't want him to stop. However, since she's been drugged, she can't legally give her consent. Third, can we stroke his male ego just a little more? Conquering? Hero? I just threw up in my mouth a little.

The conquering hero does meet the teeth, however. The next morning, they're having sex again (completely consensual this time!) and Ryan answers his phone during sex. He brags about sleeping with Dawn while he's inside of her - bad move on his part. Ryan loses his "conquering hero" status and his junk when Dawn's teeth take offense to the mid-sex phone call and bragging.

Here, the film subverts the myth and the need for a hero to conquer the vagina, because even the hero falls victim to the teeth. It's not that the vagina needs a hero to conquer it, it's that all sex needs to be consensual. Get that? CONSENSUAL. It's the literal actualization of my dad's favorite phrase for high school boyfriends - abuse it and you lose it. I'm glad the film blows apart the concept of a vag-conquering hero, since frankly, I don't need one and I doubt anyone else does either.

I won't ruin the whole movie for everyone, but let's just say that Dawn is baaaaadass and by the end of the film, she comes to fully embrace her vagina dentata and its abilities.

By the way, does anyone else feel like this movie poster is too "teen-sex comedy" and less "get my consent or I'll chomp off whatever's inside me"?

Seriously, I wish I had teeth in my vagina. Soooo bad. Now I'm just waiting for a movie about menstruation saving the world.

Legal Shenanigans: How to Blame That Lying Whore

As a pre-law student and a feminist, the antics of defense attorneys in rape trials is always of particular interest. I've been sitting on these stories for about a week now, formulating my response. Without further ado, a glimpse inside how the American legal system dispenses justice to those lying sluts and the poor slandered men:

1. Ask trick questions

From abyss2hope:

''Did you have sexual intercourse with Mr. Vanderbeek?'' [defense attorney Maureen] Coggins asked the alleged victim. She replied that she had not.

Coggins then asked that the charges be dismissed. Greth denied the motion. Coggins then asked that the alleged victim take the stand again for a clarification. The alleged victim then testified that she had engaged in sexual intercourse, but that it was not consensual.

First of all, rape is not sexual intercourse. I would hope that a defense attorney would be aware of this fact. Doubtless, Coggins was aiming for a dismissal regardless of the answer. If she had said yes, then the term "sexual intercourse" implies consent. When she said no, that implies—falsely and only to someone with no legal training or common sense—that no penetration took place (which is doubly absurd, because many forms of sexual abuse do not require vaginal penetration). The only dismissal that I think would be appropriate in this instance is the dismissal of Coggins from her job.

2. Ban the use of the word "rape"

If I thought that the above was horrible, I was sorely mistaken when I discovered via Jezebel and Shakesville that if you have a vagina, and someone sticks a penis in it without your permission, you are not allowed to call that "rape" in a courtroom lest you bias the poor stupid jurors:

It's the only way Tory Bowen knows to honestly describe what happened to her.

She was raped.

But a judge prohibited her from uttering the word "rape" in front of a jury. The term "sexual assault" also was taboo, and Bowen could not refer to herself as a victim or use the word "assailant" to describe the man who allegedly raped her.

The defendant's presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial trumps Bowen's right of free speech, said the Lincoln, Neb., judge who issued the order.

This boggles the mind. How else are you supposed to describe the crime committed against you on the stand? This kind of shit is akin to an assault case in which the witness is forced to say that he "accepted a fist offered to my face" instead of "the defendant punched me". Witnesses and victims are supposed to testify honestly and completely to the best of their abilities. Banning the use of the only word that describes what happened is absolutely ludicrous, and not only implies that the defendant had consensual sex, but also that the witness is lying. Which brings me to my next point:

3. Force victims to perjure themselves to protect rapists

Using "sexual intercourse" to describe rape is completely inaccurate because it misses an extremely relevant point: the lack of consent. Defense attorneys are not required to use the term "rape", so why are prosecuting attorneys finding that they must use a term that implies no crime took place?

Simple: because in the minds of rape apologist judges, no crime took place. The only crime is that some disgusting whore is out to ruin a poor upstanding boy's life for her shame over giving it up too soon. The best way to make sure that the jurors understand the horrible crime that is being perpetuated against the innocent victim of a liar is to require the "liar" to use a term that implies consent, which then implies that she filed a false report.

Of course, to anyone with half a brain, this method of victim blaming is called perjury and is extremely and blatantly illegal. Like I said above, if defense lawyers and judges are not willing to conduct trials without a working knowledge of the nuances of the English language and the crime they are discussing, they should be disbarred.

4. Load the jury pool

Via The Curvature's coverage of how a defense attorney selected his jurors:

“Would you take into consideration that none of these young women, when they were removed from the situation, called 911?” he asked a potential juror. Parrinello asked other potential jurors if they would consider that there were “no eyewitnesses” and “no DNA” and that none of the alleged victims had gone to the hospital to have what’s called a “rape kit” examination for signs of assault and evidence.

[District attorney] Tantillo, meanwhile, asked potential jurors if they would consider that the girls might have been too scared to immediately report what had happened to them or even confused.

Parrinello later asked the panel of potential jurors: “Does anybody know what’s so confusing about whether or not you’ve been raped?”

Hey, I might be new to this legal game, but I'm pretty certain you can be disbarred for loading the jury in a case against a Muslim with jurors that are blatantly and unashamedly racist. The same principle should, but doesn't, apply to rape trials: you don't load the jury pool with jurors that have ignorant assumptions about rape and rape victims.

5. Question the testimony with medieval assumptions about intercourse and scare the jury

Parrinello is expected to crack away at the alleged victims’ credibility, drawing attention to the fact that three of them had consensual sexual relations with Wido before the alleged attacks. “How do you know any of them said ‘no’?” he said.

The defense attorney pointed out that the women were slow in notifying authorities and said there is no DNA evidence or eyewitnesses, “no credible evidence.” He asked the jury: “Is this a rush to judgment? Is this a slanted prosecution? Is this a Duke lacrosse prosecution?”

A good defense attorney would attempt to prove that the sexual encounter in question was consensual. Parrinello, however, goes for the tried and true, "once consensual, always consensual" tactic. I remain completely unaware of any sort of legal statute that states once I have sex with someone, I am not allowed to withdraw or withhold consent for the rest of my natural life. The assumption Parrinello makes here harkens back to a not-so-distant past in which men owned their wives because they had consummated their marriage. Since marriage is not a precursor to sex today, apparently a man does not have to buy a shiny bobble before he claims ownership over her body forevermore. All he has to do is get her to consent to sex once!

If the jury was not taken in by the throwback reference to the fact that women are property, they must be scared into submission by reference to the Duke lacrosse prosecution. To this day, I am not entirely certain that the Duke lacrosse players were innocent or guilty. As Cara over at The Curvature says, the Duke case has become the new "women are lying whores!" rallying cry. What a reference like this does is circumvent the question of the accused's innocence or guilt. It plays upon the jury's hesitance to wrap their minds around the fact that such a popular, attractive, white athlete could commit such a crime. It also asks, "are you willing to ruin this guy's life just because he probably raped someone?" After all, sports before justice. A man's right to rape and play sports is always more important than a woman's right to say no and seek justice.

6. Just plain harass and verbally abuse the victims

If all of the above fails—which it probably will not—the defense attorney can just become a pedantic asshat to make sure that all rape victims know what awaits them lest they seek justice (via MPN Now):

While the prosecution witness — one of Wido’s three alleged rape victims — was still seated, the argument began, with Parrinello at one point highlighting previous testimony that she had willingly performed a sexual act on Wido in the weeks before the alleged rape — only Parrinello used crude, street language to describe the act, drawing out both Tantillo and the judge, William Kocher.

“What Mr. Parrinello just did was outrageous in the presence of this witness!” Tantillo shouted, calling it “abusive,” “harassing,” and “disgusting.”

Parrinello fired back, “You know that’s what happened — I’m not making it up… I have a right of free speech.”

Parrinello then briskly approached the judge, coming within a few feet of his bench and pointing his finger while defending his actions. A security guard rushed to Parrinello’s side.

“I want him away from me,” Parrinello told the judge of the guard. Then Parrinello pointed at the guard, face to face, and hollered, “You’re not to get near me.”

Parrinello then told the judge: “He’s not going to intimidate me. If he does it again, we’re going to have a big problem: I’ll have him arrested.”

Judge Kocher ordered the defense attorney not to “make such editorial comments” and asked him several times if he understood. Repeatedly, Parrinello told the judge that no, he did not.

Amid the fiery exchange of words, the alleged rape victim began to wipe tears from her eyes, eventually breaking into sobs. The young woman was led out of the courtroom by Sarah Utter, the victim and witness advocate from the D.A.’s office.

The best way to shut those uppity women up is to be a violent loud jerk and reduce her to tears. Threatening judges and guards is also highly effective. Nothing feels better to a woman reliving her rape through testimony than a defense attorney that describes you and the situation as vulgarly as possible, and then lambastes from his arrogant soapbox about his right to be an abusive moron. Which, of course, would be:

7. Defend your antics with the highly ironic appeal to the First Amendment

I hope you caught that bolded passage in the quote above. Parrinello thinks that he has more of a right to the First Amendment than the victim. Oh the appalling irony! Why is it that when I see someone invoke the First Amendment, they are nearly always white men defending their right to be pedantic abusive asshats? I have a shocking idea: how about we use the First Amendment to protect the victims from perjury instead of defending an egomanic defense attorney?

And so, there you have it, the reason why only 16% of rapes are reported to the police, 8% of reported rapes are deemed unfounded (not false, but not prosecutable), less than half of those arrested for rape see trial, 54% of rape trials end in dismissal or acquittal, 21% of convicted rapists never serve time, and 24% of the convicted receive less than 11 months behind bars (statistics from Rochester University).

Considering that only 2-3% of reports are fabricated—a statistic no different from the false reporting rate of other crimes—there is a very large chance, almost an inevitability, that if you rape a woman she won't report it. If she reports it, it probably won't see trial. If it goes to trial, you probably won't get convicted. If you get convicted, you probably won't serve any time at all, or less than 11 months. Which means that in the eyes of the law, a convicted rapist is less guilty than a robber, a burglar, a drug addict, a drug dealer, and anyone who misuses a weapon for whatever reason; all of which receive more time on average than a convicted rapist.

This is how the justice system treats a rape victim: it looks for any and all excuse to discredit her and drag her name through the mud. In the end, if she perseveres, defies the odds, and gets a conviction, she probably could be rubbing elbows with her rapist in less than a year's time.

In this patriarchy, raping a woman is more excusable than stealing a television. Which leads me to conclude that not only has the justice system, by its actions, defined women as property, that they also think of them as particularly useless property at that. Considering that women/property may be raped without much of a fuss from the legal system, I do not think it illogical of me to say: the legal system regards women as property and it also implies by the reality of the extremely low rape conviction that the purpose of a woman is to be abused at will.

(Cross-posted)

More on Johnny Vegas

Johnny Vegas update:

Apparently the comedian has threatened The Guardian with legal action over its article about his on-stage sexual assault. The original story by Mary O'Hara has been removed from the website, along with a follow up article also condemning Vegas. Apparently the UK has pretty strict libel laws, so there's a chance Vegas could make a libel case. Cara at The Curvature makes a good point that in everything she's read, there's no dispute over the assault itself, but over whether he penetrated the victim.

Does the guy have to be convicted of sexual assault before it's allowed to be identified as such? I know journalists have to be careful about describing supposed crimes, but O'Hara was in the audience. If she saw him sexually assault the girl, shouldn't she be able to say so? I don't really feel like using "allegedly" here works, because she witnessed it, along with everyone else in the club. I'm guessing the issue is with the fact that it was printed in a newspaper as opposed to her testifying in court or something.

Steve Bennett at Chortle, a UK comedy website, was at the gig and didn't perceive any molestation (at least from where he was sitting). He, at several points, tries to explain Vegas' behavior.

"The fact it was Johnny Vegas rather than another comic is important. This wasn’t a swaggering lothario using his charm to seduce a woman, but an overweight, desperate loser trying to do the same, and failing miserably. Again, that’s not enough to excuse him if the woman did feel assaulted, but it may explain his motivation."

Somehow I don't think being an "overweight, desperate loser" is credible motivation for sexually assaulting a person. If Vegas met the victim in a bar and sexually assaulted her there, it would still be considered sexual assault and his image as an "overweight, desperate loser" wouldn't be an excuse for his motivation.

Bennett makes a point that lots of people all over the internet (including me) have been discussing what occurred on stage. He says "offense is in the eye of the beholder" and that most people writing about what happened didn't actually see the show. While I think it's important to be knowledgeable on what is being discussed, such as seeing a movie before reviewing it, I do think people can, and should, speak out when a person's rights have been violated. After all, if no one in the audience who did see what happened stopped it or called it out as sexual assault, it's important that someone does.

"Until the young woman herself comes forward, we will never know whether Vegas did go too far, or whether she took it in the spirit it was intended...

The unavoidably conclusion is that, except from the woman herself, everyone there – let alone everyone who wasn’t - just doesn’t know whether Vegas strayed into the criminal."

Thoughts on this last part? I personally think it was a criminal act because he didn't obtain her consent. He can intend for it to be comedy, but that doesn't mean it's not sexual assault. As for if she wasn't offended by it, is it still sexual assault? I say yes. Often times victims are raped but don't identify it as such due to various reasons. Doesn't mean they weren't raped, though.

EDIT 5/12/08:

Here's a video of Vegas on Jonathon Ross' BCC talk show. It's from May 9 and Vegas talks a bit about the incident at the show, then quickly moves on to insulting other women. Lots of fun. It's the second half of the interview - Ross introduces the controversy a bit at the end of the first section, and actually makes some insightful comments about how Vegas' act is based on doing unpredictable things, and if someone has a reputation of being edgy, they have to keep doing more outrageous things to keep their rep. I wouldn't call sexually assaulting a woman on stage "edgy," however.

Thanks to Amberwolf for the link.

Rape, Power, Fear, and What To Do About It

My other rape post seemed to miss the mark with some of the early readers who seemed very attached to the idea that when women do certain things, or dress/act in certain ways (aka being stupid), they should expect certain consequences (among those, I'm assuming, is rape). What I was trying to get across in that post was the fact that just because women make certain choices, some of which might be considered "stupid," doesn't mean that they should have to be faced with a consequence/punishment like rape.

No comments from non-feminists on any of the rape-related posts on Female Impersonator have addressed the problems that a) rape is about power, and b) women shouldn't have to live in a society that faces them with "consequences" such as rape when they decide to dress/act in certain ways. I would like to briefly address those two issues.

Rape is about power, power in the sense that the rapist gets what they want at the expense of another person's body. It does not have to be physically threatening. A weapon needn't be involved. It does not have to happen in a dark alley. It does not even have to be perpetrated by a stranger. Even rape that happens between two people who have sex on a regular basis is about power: the power of the rapist to have their desires met and put above those of the person being raped.

On that second point, the problem with American society is that women are afraid. We are not stupid. It is not that we don't realize that doing certain things or acting/dressing in certain ways will increase our chance of drawing attention from the wrong kinds of guys, the problem is that it shouldn't be that way. Why must women be the ones taking the precautions against rape? Those sorts of attitudes seem to be backwards. Since a large number of reported rapes (I hesitate to say "the majority" because I have no statistics to back this up at the moment) are perpetrated by men against women, it seems bizarre to me to tell women to take all the responsibility for preventing this crime that so many men are committing.

The problem with rape is that it is a topic that is not discussed enough in our society, and silence will only allow rape to continue. I believe that education on the topic would be a great way to start toward solving this problem. Rape was never discussed in my high school sex education class, except for in a movie maybe, but it was not very clear. Why is that? Sex ed is something that nearly everyone has to take, why not introduce discussions about rape? Defining rape, talking about social circumstances that have proved to be fruitful for rape, discussing where to get extra information about rape and where to get help, and ways to prevent rape. It seems to me like a productive idea that is sorely missing from this sort of public discourse, even though many people would likely benefit from this sort of exposure.

When it comes to preventing rape, I would like to put one idea out there: affirmative consent. Because rape can, and often does happen between friends and even spouses, this is a great place to start when it comes to rape prevention, and it is something that every sexually active reader of this blog can practice and talk about with their friends.

Affirmative consent means that without a "yes," consent has not been granted for sexual intercourse (or otherwise). Sexual intercourse without consent is rape. There are, to be sure, many ideas when it comes to consent, and some would argue that as long as a woman doesn't try to physically stop a man from initiating intercourse, consent has been granted. Or that unless the woman screams, "No!" consent has been granted. These arguments overlook the possibility that women who are being raped are often in situations in which they lose their voice. They may feel threatened, either physically, or by fear of social repercussion, to keep their mouth shut, but that does not necessarily mean that they want sex.

The only way to be 100% sure that your sexual experience is consensual is to ask your partner if they want to have sex and have them answer "yes." And if at any point in time during intercourse, you get the feeling that your partner is not enjoying it, ask. Watching NO! The Rape Documentary helped put into words some of my own feelings about consent: "Yes means yes. Everything else means no." That means that if you are not sure if your partner wants to have sex, ask them. Clarify. Clarify. Clarify.

The real reasoning behind this post was an extremely aggravating instant messenger conversation I had with one of the blog's readers. I explained to them my ideas about affirmative consent, in a few less words than is stated above, and I got this response: in your opinion. that is your problem, you just think that everbody else is going to accept your world veiw, but you are to idealistic.

I have no idea where they got the impression that I thought anyone would necessarily accept my "world view" (which was actually only about rape and consent), and I don't know why thinking that people should be made aware of and try practicing affirmative consent as a means of being sure that their sex is consensual is idealistic. But whatever. That did provoke this post.

For more on affirmative consent, check out Girly Thoughts.