Oh, Cosmo

Nov. 12th, 2010 02:25 am
slythwolf: Some unlucky soul has an incomplete Pai Sho set. ((default))
So occasionally I find myself in need of something to read while on the pot, and occasionally whatever Discworld book I am currently rereading is in the bedroom with a sleeping Nigel. On these occasions sometimes I pick up the lastest femininity propaganda magazine that has arrived in my mailbox. (For those of you just tuning in, I signed up for some scam a few years back and made all these payments on a shit-ton of magazine subscriptions and I imagine they will end in two or three years.)

Therein I read bullshit like the following quote from Tim, 21, on the subject of women's breasts:

"I like the way boobs jiggle when I play with them. It's like they're alive or something."


Boobs are alive. This is because, rather than being inanimate objects (although I can see how you might be confused about that), they are part of women's actual human bodies. Much like how your toes, earlobes, elbows, kneecaps, and tongue are alive.

Meanwhile, in another part of the magazine, a woman wrote in to ask how she could refuse consent to sexual activity with her boyfriend without hurting his feelings, stating that she usually just allowed him to fuck her because she didn't want to upset him; instead of saying, "Compliance is not consent, and you have no obligation to engage in any form of sexual activity unless you want to at that moment and with that partner; his whiny little fee-fees are his own goddamn responsibility," the author of the advice column urged the woman to see her doctor in case there was a physical reason she was not becoming aroused after her boyfriend had started to rape her. (THAT'S RIGHT I SAID RAPE; IF SHE DOESN'T WANT TO BUT SHE SAYS YES BECAUSE OF THE EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION HE DISHES OUT WHEN SHE SAYS NO, THAT IS RAPE.)

The magazine also contains this helpful advice: "If you're a B-cup or larger, use a hand to push one breast up toward your mouth and let him watch you lick a nip."

I tried this in the interests of SCIENCE. My G-cups cannot reach and I almost gave myself a neck cramp. Why is this sexy?

Then they made fun of Kat Von D. and shamed her for having tattoos that they don't think will look good when she's old. These assholes do know the art and artistry of tattoos is her life's work, right? And guess what, bodies age AND THAT'S OKAY.

I really need to get to sleep. Fucking work.


Apr. 23rd, 2010 06:30 pm
slythwolf: Some unlucky soul has an incomplete Pai Sho set. (Default)
I was going to write a post about another Cosmo article (the "best orgasm tricks" whatever one), but you know, I'm just not feeling it. I don't want to put my energy into it right now.

Talking points:

- No, Cosmo, women don't "take longer to orgasm" because our "anatomy is more complicated"; in fact, in masturbation, women take the same amount of time to orgasm as men. In heterosexual sex, women "take longer" to orgasm because dudes don't give a fuck how to make us come. Once there is a boner in the equation, it is all about the boner. And because the reason there is this overarching cultural narrative about the clitoris being So Fucking Hard To Find is that dudes do not bother learning how to find it. (Dear dudes: it is the sticky-out bump a little ways above the opening of the vagina, the top meeting point of the labia minora. You're welcome.)

- No, in fact, it should not be my or any woman's priority to avoid wilting a dick or two by actually having the temerity to ask for what we want and enjoy in bed. Indeed, the careful nonconfrontational model of communicating this information does not reliably communicate it. Anyway, if some dude is really that freaked out by a woman actually knowing what she enjoys well enough to tell him, he's not going to wind up good in bed no matter what the fuck I try to do about it. And in fact (as I have explained before but cannot be arsed to go and find) dudes' dicks wilting at the thought that a woman might conceivably not like something they want to do to "with" her is both a result and a keystone of the rape culture. This shit is the stated reason dudes don't like actually asking for consent, so they just proceed as if everything is groovy and wind up raping people.

Anyway. My ass has to raid ICC tonight. Have a pleasant evening.
slythwolf: (BULLSHIT)
And everyone was surprised. Heh.

But no, okay, here is the thing: somehow, within the last few months and without my doing anything to precipitate it, Cosmopolitan started coming to my mailbox once a month. Last month I sat down and "annotated" the entire issue (little comments in the margins about "Why the fuck would I want to bring some dude a beer when he can get it himself?" and so on). This month I am going to rip apart a very stupid cover article.

The cover says:

His Burning Sex Need
Satisfy the Craving Your Man Won't Admit to You

If someone "won't admit" a sex-related "craving", the respectful and non-rapey thing to do is to proceed as though zie doesn't have that craving. Assuming that someone has a craving zie won't admit is pretty much the same as pretending "no" means "yes".

So then I turn to the article, to see if it fails as hard as I think it will. And it does, but in a different way than the cover does.

"The New Male Sex Need", the article is entitled. A cursory skimming of the article shows that the "new" male "need" is power. Make your man feel like a superhero by...submitting to him sexually. (No, really, they actually frame it as a superhero thing.) There is a sidebar warning that "stress, anxiety, and low self-esteem cause up to 20 percent of...erectile dysfunction", so I guess you wimmins had better submit to make the men feel all Big And Bad so they can get it up! (Bonerz are totally the most important thing ever.)

Remember, ladies, the only way a man can feel good about himself is if he's putting his penis in someone on a regular basis, preferably in "[p]ositions that put him in physical control". And after you tell him about how much he turns other women on (which you can totally know, because of the ladybrain hive mind) and that you think it would be really hot if you were a damsel in distress, he rescued you, and then you rewarded him with sex.

All men, the article assures us, "[crave] that sense of power in bed", even if they're "too embarrassed to admit it". And this of course goes back to the cover fail. Because if someone tells me fifteen times in a row that he isn't into that, and I frame that as his being too embarrassed, I am projecting consent where no consent exists.

Plus, you know, the part where of course all men crave sexual power over women, obvs, I mean, it's not like that kind of shit is an artificial construction of the patriarchy or anything. And it's certainly never dangerous to women for men to be in physical control during sex! It's not like that's one of the ways they manage to rape us or anything! I mean, it's not as if his being physically in control of my body and what is happening would make it possible for him to, say, ignore me if I told him to stop or that I didn't want him to do some additional thing!

Also you should grip the sheets or your male partner's upper arms during sex to show him how intense the pleasure is that he is giving you. I almost forgot about this part. Dear Cosmo, fail. If the pleasure I'm feeling is intense enough for me to be gripping stuff involuntarily, I sure as hell don't need you to tell me to do it, and if it's not? Well then by doing so I would be A) faking pleasure I don't actually feel B) as a performance for the purpose of male enjoyment instead of allowing my sexuality to be what it is and exist for me and C) encouraging a repeat and/or continuation of something that doesn't work for me.

In conclusion: fail.
slythwolf: (BULLSHIT)
Trigger warning.

Your warning for dub-con triggers me. Being made to remember the fact that some people think there is such a thing as "dubious consent" triggers me. Because what is "dubious consent" as it is written about in fanfic?

The exact circumstances of my rape.

"Dubious consent" is no consent. It's a situation where the victim has said no, or has not said yes, or has said yes after coercion, but is aroused anyway.

When I was raped, I was aroused. I was aroused by the stuff that happened before the rape, the stuff I did consent to. But I DID NOT want penetration to happen. And I was not asked. My arousal was taken as consent.

I feel like I'm not saying this well but possibly that is because I am kind of freaking out trying to write the post.

I don't know, I don't--I know this will alienate a lot of people, I know there are a loooooot of people who have a big problem with anybody saying "your kink is wrong!" But if you like dub-con? YOUR KINK IS WRONG. You are getting off to something THAT HAPPENED TO ME AND WAS NOT OKAY.

It has happened to many, many other people and every time it happens is not okay.

I wanted--to make a long and involved post about this but it turns out it really is that cut-and-dried. "Dub-con" is rape. Your kink is wrong. It disgusts and frightens me that people want to get off to one of the worst things that has happened to me in my life.
slythwolf: Some unlucky soul has an incomplete Pai Sho set. (Default)
"Oh shit--when you say stuff to journalists, they print it!"

Dear fuckneck,

No, the n-word was not remotely the only offensive thing you said in that interview. See also the other racist shit you said, all the shit you said about women, your admission of sexually assaulting Perez Hilton to "out-fag him", and your extremely disturbing desire to rape every man who ever has sex with a woman before you do.

Seriously, just stop talking. Shut up and go away.

No love,
Wolf A. Woman, Slytherin
slythwolf: Some unlucky soul has an incomplete Pai Sho set. (Default)
No, I do not think it's funny if some dude likes his tires better than his wife, okay? No, that is not cute or hilarious. Ahahaha because Bridgestone tires are so awesome! No. Fail.


And YES, it was a fucking rape joke, are you FUCKING KIDDING ME, if the guy honestly thought he heard "your tires or your wife" then he thought the other dude WANTED TO RAPE HIS WIFE, HOW DO YOU NOT GET THAT.

Pop quiz. This commercial was NOT hilarious because:

A) the dude thinks it's fine and dandy to toss his wife to a stranger so he can keep his tires
B) his throwing her out of the vehicle in these circumstances implies that she belongs to him, and is his to pass out to other dudes to rape whenever he pleases
C) lol women are useless what you really need is a good set of tires amirite
D) this shit is part of a systemic set of messages that we receive in the patriarchy about women, women's humanity, women's value, and women's purpose in society (hint: fuckholes) that is deeply misogynist and contributes to women's oppression

Your insistence that this commercial was not a rape joke and was not offensive is:

A) bullshit
B) triggering
C) fucking misogynistic
D) mansplaining

The Wolf is:

A) in a better position than you to know what is and is not offensive to women, being one herself
B) a human being entitled to respect and consideration when she has just been fucking triggered by your bullshit denial of rape culture
C) fucking pissed off at you and tired of laughing this shit off so as not to cause a scene
D) despairing and disappointed in the guild because she thought, fuck, at least a mostly-female knitting-based guild would be free of this shit
E) definitely getting in on the women-only raid as soon as fucking possible
F) pissed that the dudes seem to be running the high level progression of the guild
G) suspicious that there may be stereotypes involved about girls not being serious gamers

You guys, I need puppy videos or, like, I don't know, good fanfic or something. This shit happened over two hours ago and I am still buzzing with adrenaline. Halp. I'm gonna do what I can with ice cream, but--halp.
slythwolf: Some unlucky soul has an incomplete Pai Sho set. (Default)
When last I got so disgusted with this tripe that I had to take, like, a two-and-a-half-month break from it, Edward was being an abusive douchebag, Bella had no personality and did not seem like she was attracted to him at all, and incidentally she was also casually ablist. Shall we see if anything changes in chapter 5? (No, I don't think it will either, but I have to get through this shit: I said I would.)

In the beginning of chapter 5, Bella is so distracted by Edward's bullshit PUA-like I-like-you-I-hate-you routine that she doesn't realize she's late to class. Then she feels guilty about turning down the lesser, not-Edward boys for the dance and seems relieved that they have "forgiven" her.

I tell you, these books are toxic shit. Not wanting to date someone: not actually a transgression that requires forgiveness. Dating every boy who shows interest in her: not actually the duty of any girl. This kind of crap is the bread and butter of the rape culture. It denies girls' and women's human right to decide for themselves with whom they will become romantically involved. The feeling that we did something wrong when we didn't agree to date whatever unappealing boy very easily turns into our agreement to date boys we don't want to because we would feel bad refusing. And everyone and everything around us tells us this is right and just: oh, he's such a nice guy, why don't you like him, you're making a mistake, he'd treat you like gold, you should give him a chance, maybe you'd come to be attracted to him later, blah blah blah. And the men reinforce this with their stubborn belief that they are entitled to argue with us when we say we're not interested or that it's not working out and we want to break up. Because if my reasons for not wanting to be with you are not good enough for you, you can convince me to do what you want.

No. Fail.

Anyway, these other characters don't even have any reason to be that upset that Bella turned them down, considering she made enough excuses that each one kind of thinks she still wants to date him, it's just that she had other plans that day.

Now, I am not about to blame and shame a female character for "leading guys on" or whatever.

But this portrayal is bad, bad news, because it just plays into the stereotype of women as wishy-washy and being unable to say what we mean and/or give anyone a clear signal about whether we're interested or not, like, "oh I don't want to go to the dance I am doing other shit that day" is Hot Girl Code for "I don't like you". Now, I don't expect there to be a lot of guys reading these books, don't get me wrong. Guys aren't taught to be interested in these kinds of stories the way girls are. But: girls are reading the shit and girls are being taught that giving boys completely unclear signals totally works. Which it doesn't. Even giving boys clear signals doesn't work sometimes, they will still hear whatever they want to hear.

I gave a boy unclear signals in the summer of 1999. I went on a couple pretty unsuccessful dates with him, told him I had a great time even though it was meh and I was meh about him. Came back from Australia and he showed up on my doorstep with welcome-back balloons and flowers. I had to tell him I was in a relationship with someone else.

I'm glad he wasn't the kind of dude who hears what he wants to hear even when you're emphatically not saying it, because the truth is, I did feel bad about hurting his feelings, but he didn't start stalking me. Which some guys would have done, and you don't know until it's too late.

But then, I don't know, sometimes giving them the clear negative right off the bat will just mean the stalking starts then instead of a little later; you can't win.

Wow, that was a pretty big tangent. Anyway.

Okay, let's talk about the rain thing. I can't remember if I've done this yet or not; everyone else has, so I'll just give you the basics.

It does not actually rain constantly in the Pacific Northwest. It's not even constantly overcast.

What it is, to my understanding, is that the region is basically a temperate rainforest, which means there are little frequent bursts of light rain. It will rain pretty much every day, but not all day. I think they do have more overcast days than, like, the global average, or the national average, or something, but I'm fairly sure I remember reading somewhere that we have more overcast days in Michigan than they do in Washington. And it is not remotely always overcast in Michigan.

Anyway, if these people are used to it raining all the time--why wouldn't they just go to the beach in the rain? Kids, I have been to the beach in the rain, and it is not that bad.

What month is this taking place in? That's what I can't remember. Are we ever told? It's 75 degrees in Phoenix when Bella leaves, which sounds like spring or fall to me, but she's on about how it's sunny all the time there--well, Stephenie Meyer, I have the Weather Channel website open in front of me right now, and it is actually not sunny all the time in Phoenix. 11-13 sunny days on average in March, when the average high temp is 76. In November, when the average high is 75, 14-15 sunny days which means it is less than fully sunny half the time.

Now, in November and March in Seattle, I'll grant you, during those particular months it is usually cloudy. The average highs are 52 and 55 respectively, though, not "the high 40s", although I will buy that it's extra cold that week; that happens. But! It only rains about half the days in both those months. And it's ridiculous for Meyer to write these characters wanting to go to the beach to swim, or whatever, during these months while living at that latitude. Going to the beach in late fall and early spring is fun, okay, I've done it, but unless you're close to the tropics, you don't actually think you're going to be doing traditional beach activities with bathing suits and stuff. You put on a sweater and a windbreaker and you build a bonfire.

Bella, it's admirable that you want to be polite about Mike's beach trip, okay, the polite thing to do is to be excited about an engagement you have agreed to, but you do it either because you are excited or because it's polite, not to make up for not accepting another invitation. Because guess what? You had no obligation to accept that other invitation, so there's nothing to make up for. You certainly don't have to make up for "disappointing" some boy because, as I have already explained, it's not your duty to live up to his romantic expecations.


I can tell I'm not going to get very far in the book this time. I am literally four paragraphs into the chapter.

Oh, now she's doing the insecure I'm-not-sure-if-he-likes-me-he's-acting-like-he-likes-me-but-that's-impossible-I-suck thing. Now, this is realistic, I'll give you that. But the way Meyer writes it, again, makes Bella sound like a poorly-programmed teenage-girl-emulating robot. "Maybe it was just a very convincing dream that I'd confused with reality. That seemed more probable than that I really appealed to him on any level."

No. Actual teenage girl sounds like: "I wasn't sure what to think. Had he been acting like he liked me? Or was I just imagining it? Maybe I was projecting a tone that wasn't there. Was there a tone? Was he really looking at me the way I thought he was looking at me or was it wishful thinking? I didn't know. I was hoping this trip to Seattle was supposed to be a date, but maybe it was just a friend thing. But then he kept saying he didn't want to be my friend. Was that supposed to be his subtle way of saying he wanted to be more than friends? No. No. I couldn't get my hopes up, that was a sure way to guarantee he was just going to stand me up and laugh at me."

Although, to be perfectly honest, that's what you sound like when you're thinking about a boy who isn't deliberately jerking you around to keep you off-balance and compliant.

Edward does the finger-beckon thing. I think we are supposed to find it cute and/or sexy; I find it nauseating. If you want to sit with someone at lunch, YOU ASK THEM TO SIT WITH YOU, you don't just finger-beckon them out of the line and expect them to jump to obey.

Which Bella does.

And then Edward, completely unnecessarily, when she gets there, is all, "Why don't you sit with me today?"

THANKS, EDWARD, IT WAS ALREADY BLATANTLY OBVIOUS WHAT YOU WANTED. Unless! Are we actually supposed to believe it would have been reasonable to do the finger-beckon and then be like, "I want to talk to you about this quick thing--okay, go away now"? That would have been even MORE bullshit; if you have a quick thing to talk to someone about, YOU go to THEM.

Also, the way he says it? RUDE. "Would you like to sit with me," "Won't you sit down," "Please have a seat," "Won't you join me," not smugly "Why don't you sit with me today?" Like, "I'm doing you an enormous favor picking you out of the screaming throngs of fangirls, let me pat you on the head and expect you to be pathetically grateful for my attention."

Which Bella is.

Hey, by the way, Edward is inhumanly beautiful. In case you forgot.

He is also a smarmy douchebag who likes to make incomprehensible comments, smugly refuse to clarify them, and pretend this is polite behavior.

Then he jokes about isolating her from her friends and not letting her hang out with them anymore. I'm not even kidding. Kids, if someone wants to keep you away from your friends, that is abusive behavior. Even if someone romantically interested in you doesn't like or get along with your friends, the reasonable thing to do is still to respect your right to have time with them without hir. Even if they do get along, you still get to have time with your friends without hir. That is the respectful thing to do and how someone who trusts you and does not want to control you will behave.

Now he's doing the I'm-warning-you-stay-away-I'm-bad-news-hey-come-over-here thing again. Guys who are not actually vampires do this in real life. They do it so they can treat you like absolute shit and then contend that you don't "get" to get angry about it because they warned you it would happen.

It is a huge red flag. I do not expect a, what, seventeen-year-old to necessarily know that, especially in this culture, but I do expect an author not to write it as a sign of True Love or something. You don't romanticize abusive douchebag behavior in your writing. It's irresponsible. It contributes to the culture's normalization of that behavior, which in turn contributes to the horrible physical and psychological violence men perpetrate against their intimate partners every day.

At least Bella calls him on the smug-mysterious-pronouncements thing.

You know, let me talk about the whole Edward-can't-read-Bella's-mind thing. I could get behind that as a reason to be attracted to someone, if you were constantly bombarded by all these thought-voices and you found this one person who was a little bit of peace from that. But that's not how it's presented at all. Edward loves being able to read people's minds. He has spent most of the book so far using it to his own advantage and for his own amusement. He's fascinated by Bella because he can't read her mind, but it also seems to really piss him off. It seems to me that it's a manifestation of the whole men-don't-understand-you-crazy-incomprehensible-wimmins thing. Bella is the only girl he has ever met who is actually "feminine" in that way, and he hates it about her but he names it "love" instead.

Dudes are always doing this. They complain and complain and complain about all the stereotypical shit they hate about women, and then they say "oh but I love women" when what they mean is they love controlling us and being able to fuck us.

Meanwhile Edward both wants and doesn't want Bella to figure out that he's a vampire. This is actually kind of poignant, or could have been if it was handled better: he wants to be able to tell her what he is, so there can be no secrets between them, and he wants to be accepted and loved for who and what he is, but he also wants her to know so she can run away and he won't have to worry that he will accidentally hurt her or bring danger to her that she would avoid by not being around him; and he doesn't want her to find out because he's afraid she won't accept it.

Poignant. But still abusive. If you think you're bad for someone, and that you're only going to wind up hurting them, what you don't do if you're a decent person is keep pulling them in and pushing them away until they are utterly dependent on you, the better to play your sick little game of Russian roulette and see how long you can go without doing something completely unforgivable.

Meanwhile, RPattz is absolutely right. Edward totally hates himself. He is extremely messed up. And Bella is doing the oh-you-poor-hurt-thing routine, as we the readers are also expected to; let's fix this poor broken fucked-up abusive man with the power of Love!

And we are learning that "anxious, on edge... and, more than anything else, fascinated" is how you feel when you meet the person you're destined to be with. When in real life it's usually a sign you should run far, far away. "This guys makes my stomach drop into my toes and gives me fear-adrenaline but he's so hot" is not actually good news.

There is nervous excitement when a healthy attraction is new. That is a pretty standard thing. But it doesn't manifest as anxiety and edginess. It manifests as tingly butterflies and the inability to stop grinning and hugging yourself. It doesn't ever cross your mind to worry that you might not be safe with this person. You feel comfortable together, despite the nervous butterflies, and when you're together you can't stop laughing.

Meyer tries to give us the safe thing here. She tries to make us believe Bella feels safe with Edward, but she fails. You don't feel anxious and on edge around someone who makes you feel safe. Anxious and on edge is the opposite of feeling safe. And you can't tell me that Bella is anxious but not afraid. Anxiety is fear. It's fear you can't name, and that you can't see what it's pointing at. But it's still fear.

What Bella actually thinks, the way I read it, is not that Edward would never hurt her, but that he would never hurt her on purpose. But he might not be able to help it. Because he's dangerous.

And I mean physically hurt her, not emotionally. It is true that even in healthy relationships people accidentally hurt each other emotionally, and there are apologies and forgiveness and the relationship can recover.

And it's possible to accidentally physically hurt someone: I once tried to throw a magazine to Nigel while he was sitting on the couch and it hit him in the balls. That was an accident, and accidents happen. Sometimes he sits on my hair. It's not a big deal.

But what's not okay: knowing you might hurt someone, believing you are not in control of your own behavior and that you will not be able to help hurting somone, and sticking around them anyway, waiting for it to happen. Explaining to them that if they know what's good for them, they will stay away, and placing the responsibility for not getting hurt on their shoulders instead of making sure you don't hurt anybody. Trying to claim that you don't intend to hurt them but not actually taking any steps against it.

If you actually don't intend to do something, and you know it's a possibility? You take steps against it. Like: I don't intend to sleep through my alarm. So I set two of them.

Meanwhile Bella and Edward are sitting in awkward silence in the cafeteria for the entire rest of the period. Then he tries to get her to cut class with him. To do what, exactly? It is just never explained. For all we know, he spends the class period sitting at that table spinning Bella's Snapple lid. (We are not told the lemonade is Snapple. What other lemonade comes in the kind of container that has a screw-on lid?)

Now the kids are testing their own blood in biology class. NO. THIS WOULD NOT HAPPEN. Do you know how paranoid the public school system is about AIDS? Seriously. Anyone even scrapes a knee in gym class, they break out the biohazard stuff. AIDS being the stated reason. This has been going on at least since I was in middle school.

And the whole "oh you should know your blood type in case you want to donate blood"--no, okay, fail. First of all, they put your blood type on your birth certificate, and second of all, when you donate blood they tell you what it is anyway.

Also I cannot, just cannot, deal with Bella being a teenage girl who can't handle the sight of blood. No. Hell no. No way. I would buy it from a younger girl; I would buy it from a boy. But women? Women cannot get through puberty without getting tough about blood. HELLO WE BLEED FROM OUR CUNTS ON A REGULAR BASIS.

If the problem was the needles, that I would believe. Blood? No.

The nurse wants to put ice on Bella's forehead? What the hell for? Someone explain this to me. Ice is to bring down swelling; Bella hasn't hit her head (today). She doesn't have a fever or anything, but you don't put ice on the forehead for a fever anyway. Is this just "vaguely medical-sounding task so Bella and Edward can be alone"? Because I'm sure with a little tiny bit of research SMeyer could have found something actually plausible. Maybe Edward could have said, she didn't eat anything at lunch, and the nurse could have gone to get her an apple or something.

Anyway are there schools that actually have nurses? Is this a real thing in the world or just something that happens in books and on TV? No school I have ever attended had a school nurse. If you didn't feel good, the office might let you call a parent, and if the parent agreed to come and get you, you went home. Any medical attention you might require was your family's responsibility, unless something happened that required the school to call an ambulance.

Now Edward saying Mike "loathes" him is supposed to be another indication that Edward can read minds. Hi, bad foreshadowing! Bella professes not to believe that Edward could know that, but then she thinks, oh, maybe he does. MAYBE? YOU THINK? POSSIBLY HE ACTUALLY KNOWS THE KIDS HE GOES TO SCHOOL WITH BETTER THAN THE NEW KID IN TOWN DOES?

Yes, context suggests that Mike hates Edward because of Bella. But Bella is assuming that. How do we know the loathing wasn't already there?

Meanwhile Edward likes to run down his car battery in the school parking lot. Hey, SMeyer, most kids that go hang out in their cars during class aren't there to listen to music. It's called a clambake. Look it up.

Now Edward contends that people can't smell blood, which is a total lie. OF COURSE WE CAN. Dear Bella, blood doesn't smell like rust and salt, it smells like BLOOD.

I'm starting to dislike this Mike guy. You don't talk about a party in front of someone who isn't invited, that's just rude. And I'm pretty sure he's doing it on purpose to be rude, like, nyah, Edward, I have a date with her and you don't.

Dudes take note: women do not actually find it flattering when you treat us as commodities to compete over and show off.

Now Edward is helping Bella without being asked, then mocking her for needing his help. Well, not actually mocking her, but looking at her sarcastically for being sick.

Meanwhile, hey, as far as I know, the school receptionist can't legally excuse you from class. Maybe the nurse could, but I would still think parents would have to be called. It's certainly not cool to be sending a weakened high school girl off campus with some boy without letting parents know about it and having some way to be sure that, say, he's not taking her off into the woods somewhere to rape her.

What would have happened in real life: Bella goes to gym class, explains that she is not feeling well, sits on bleachers for entire period. If Edward tried to say, can I take this more-vulnerable-than-usual girl away in my car to parts unknown, receptionist's response would have been, I DON'T THINK SO MISTER DON'T THINK I DON'T SEE THROUGH YOUR LITTLE GAME.

Oh now Bella is going to invite Edward to SOMEONE ELSE'S PARTY even though she knows the host doesn't want him there! Not cool, Bella.

If Edward was really this old-fashioned gentleman from the time period he grew up in, he'd be like, "Oh no I couldn't possibly impose, I haven't been invited." I mean, he does eventually say he wasn't invited, but he should have gently corrected Bella when she assumes she can invite him TO SOMEONE ELSE'S PARTY. "Oh dear, I meant to say I haven't been invited by the host," possibly.


She turns toward her truck and he GRABS HER JACKET TO HOLD HER BACK and gets OUTRAGED that she dared not to go the direction he was expecting omfg! I can't let you DRIVE, you silly little woman, you're coming with ME.


Too much to hope, I suppose, that the receptionist sees this out the window and goes HOLY SHIT THIS IS BAD BAD BADNESS and at least calls the cops or something?

Now Bella is trying to figure out: can I get away from this situation, or is it safer to just comply? Edward confirms: I will just drag you back if you try to run. There is no escape.

She gets in the car.

Do not expect the books to ever acknowledge that this was FUCKING SCARY ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR on Edward's part, or that in fact THIS BEHAVIOR HAPPENS IN REAL LIFE AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE HE WANTS TO PROTECT YOU. Because I know women who have been dragged places against their will by men, who have realized there was no way out of the situation and decided not to make it worse for themselves. They did not get a nice ride home listening to Clair de Lune. They got sexually assaulted.

And in this scene? Edward has not sexually assaulted Bella, BUT HE HAS ASSAULTED HER.

Listen: if you're physically stronger than someone else to a huge degree and you know and they know you could force them to do anything you wanted, and you're a decent person, you are very careful about making sure that you don't do anything or ask them to do anything they don't want to do. Because a decent person knows it's not okay to coerce people into things.

Anyway. I think that's a good place to stop this time. I was trying to get through a whole chapter, but it just keeps going on and on.

Read This

Dec. 2nd, 2009 05:44 pm
slythwolf: Some unlucky soul has an incomplete Pai Sho set. (Default)
TRIGGER WARNING: [livejournal.com profile] pocochina has an excellent post on Huckabee's pardons of violent rapists.
slythwolf: Some unlucky soul has an incomplete Pai Sho set. (Default)
I have been stewing on this for a long time and I am stewing on it still as I post this. It is taking me some effort to get it together in my head so bear with me.

If we say "her rape", or if I say "my rape", I think maybe it's associating the rape too much with the victim. It is not her rape, it doesn't belong to her, it almost--I don't know--it feels like it's taking responsibility away from the rapist, letting the rapist off the hook in a way.

So that I should, maybe, not be saying "my rape", but "his rape of me". It is not my rape; it's his. He did it. I didn't choose it and I will not own it. You know?
slythwolf: (BULLSHIT)
Fuck off, everyone who ever makes noises about poor Roman Polanski has been punished enough because there are a bunch of countries he hasn't been able to travel to for 30 years.


Fuck you and your privileged bullshit. The vast majority of human beings will never travel to any of these countries. The vast majority of human beings will never travel at all. They are too fucking poor.

I myself am privileged to have been to two countries apart from the one in which I live. Roman Polanski has been to many more countries than I can ever hope to travel to. OMG! There are places he can't go!

That list of places ought to include "everywhere outside of the prison in which he is serving his well-deserved sentence for raping a child", but I digress.

Even apart from the fact that Roman Polanski, far from being "forced" into "exile", chose to flee the country--which was a crime, in addition to being by way of him choosing to move out--the very idea that not being able to travel to every country in the world is sufficient punishment for raping a child is a grave fucking insult to the vast majority of people.

OMG! He has had to live like a slightly less rich person than he actually is! Perish the fucking thought!

My god, we can't have people being forced (*cough*choosing*cough*) to live as if they're poor, I mean, it's not like the billions of poor people already are forced to live that way, or is it that y'all are saying poor people aren't really people? I'm having trouble with this. Is this supposed to be that old argument about poor people being morally inferior and deserving everything we get? Because it's a pretty round-about way of saying it, but I can get there from here if I try. Roman Polanski raped a child --> has to live like he's poorer than he is --> poor people have it even worse than Roman Polanski --> poor people must really be evil douchebags.

But! But! But! the masses cry.

But! Her mom was a bitch!

Who the fuck cares? My mom can be a bitch sometimes too, doesn't mean my rapist had a right to rape me.

But! She was thirteen and that's practically old enough!

A) No it isn't and B) she didn't consent anyway.

But! He didn't know how old she was!

A) It was his responsibility as a grown fucking adult to make sure anyone he wanted to fuck was old enough to consent and B) he for goddamn sure knew she wasn't consenting, the reason being, he heard her when she kept saying "no".

But! It's been so long!

True, it has been kind of a long time, you're right about that. So what we should do is, any time anyone does anything really really evil and sick, we should regard it as perfectly okay as long as that person can avoid paying any consequences for their actions for a certain number of years afterward. For instance, the Nazis that never got caught at Nuremburg, those guys--if they're still alive--can totally come to my poker night now! They're decent guys, and it was a long time ago, right? Oh wait.

Now, some crimes do have a statute of limitations, but I'm pretty sure that applies in cases where the cops couldn't figure out who did it and/or didn't have enough evidence to prosecute within a certain window. This guy was not only convicted, he was convicted because he pled guilty.

Then he ran away because he's not only a child rapist, he's a fucking coward. Yeah, I said it.

But! (Yes, there is another but. I got distracted by that one.) But! The victim doesn't want to have to deal with all this bullshit anymore!

Well, yeah. Obviously. But the bullshit in question may in fact be the media scrutiny she and her family will be under for who knows how long now, the fact that half the press is talking about her the way rape victims are always talked about, and indeed everyone saying Roman Polanski is such a great and talented guy who made a little slip one time by accidentally deciding to rape a child which really isn't that bad anyway because [see above re: how rape victims are always talked about].

I think I have to stop ranting about this for a while. I'm pretty worked up. If any of you are entertaining the idea that maybe I'd never heard of Roman Polanski until very recently, and maybe I didn't know what the hell he had done until about half an hour ago, you would be right.

It doesn't actually take very long to figure out that someone who raped a child ought to receive just punishment, it turns out.
slythwolf: (BULLSHIT)
This just in: raping children is not okay.

Dear Roman Polanski,

Next time, don't rape a child. If you find yourself in a situation where it might be possible to rape a child, don't do it. That would solve your problem.

Meanwhile, get your ass back to the U.S., hear your sentence, and serve it. Pay the consequences of your actions like a grown fucking adult.

No love,
Wolf A. Woman, Slytherin

Dear "free Roman Polanski" petition signing douchebags,

Fuck you.

Each and every one of you now owes the world an explanation as to how many movies you have to make and/or how critically acclaimed they have to be and/or how many awards you have to win before you are allowed to rape one child, free and clear. You also owe the world an explanation as to how many additional children Roman Polanski's Oscar entitles him to rape.

If that's not the message you meant to send, you owe the world a sincere apology for signing such an offensive fucking petition in the first place.

No love,
Wolf A. Woman, Slytherin
slythwolf: (BULLSHIT)
Okay, I am a little bit more coherent about this than I was last night, so I'm going to try to post about it.

This is the same old shit, folks. Man rapes woman to scare her into doing/punish her for failing to do what he told her; media responds, "Well, she should have done what she was told. Maybe next time she'll know better."

The part I find most appalling is that the rapist admits he raped the victim, but is pleading not guilty anyway, on the basis that he seems to think he has some legal right to rape a woman if he claims to be doing it for her own good. Newsflash, douchebag: "Yeah, I raped her, but I was only doing it to prove a point" is not a defense.

At least I fucking hope it isn't.

We'll see what happens in the trial. If this fucker gets acquitted, I don't even know. I may have to throw in the feminism towel, because that will be proof that, seriously, we are not fucking getting anywhere.

In conclusion: men hate us.

Some of you may have noticed I have not posted about Michael Jackson's death. I'm not going to. I didn't know the man, I don't know if he raped those children or not, I never really listened to his music, I didn't see the Thriller video until (brace yourselves) last year--it's none of my goddamn business. This is all you get.
slythwolf: (BULLSHIT)
Let's talk about Bill Clinton.

Now, I'm sure other feminists are already talking about it this way, especially other radfems--or, rather, that they were when it happened, because not a lot of people are talking about it at all anymore, although there were some references to it during the election, especially regarding how much responsibility Hillary Clinton was supposed to have taken for her husband's actions. But when it happened, I was in high school, I was a teenage girl, I was steeped in pop culture and the patriarchy and my parents, independents, might as well have just called themselves Democrats for how fiercely they defended Bill Clinton and, whenever it happens to come up again, still do.

It's none of our business, we have always said at my house. And this is because it is always framed as "Bill cheated on his wife". That part of it is none of our business, because we ain't married to him.

But let's talk about it a little differently.

Let's talk about how, when a man exposes his penis to a woman who didn't consent to it, our culture calls that "sexual harassment" and pretends it's not really a big deal when A) it's sexual assault and B) both sexual assault and sexual harassment are a big deal. If someone sexually assaults someone else, that's our business; that person should go to jail. Bill Clinton should have gone to jail; still should, if the statute of limitations isn't up, which I would imagine it isn't, although I'm not sure how much the concept of "double jeopardy" applies to impeachment trials, or what legal deals were actually made.

He was good at his job, we say; yeah, the man was a decent President, especially compared to what came after. My mother will tell you, the White House was his house, the Oval Office was like his living room. And that's just plain rationalization.

Anybody who watched the fucking West Wing knows that the Residence was his house; the rest of the building merely adjoined it. Because it was his office it's now a part of his house? What if it had been in the chief of staff's office; was that his house too? The press room? The lobby?

And what you do still hear about it are the Monica Lewinsky jokes. The jokes about her being fat, the jokes about her being ugly; the fact that I personally think she's neither is irrelevant, because this is just how the culture writes her off as a slut. (In addition to explicitly writing her off as a slut, obviously.) If she's "fat" and "ugly", obviously, she was begging for it, because nobody would fuck a "fat" "ugly" woman who had another option, and the man was the President of the United States.

Let's talk about it another way.

Monica Lewinsky was an intern. If she had been senior staff or junior staff or even one of the assistants it would have been bad enough, but holy shit, an intern? I guess since White House interns the case could be made that she wasn't technically a government employee. Still, Jesus Christ, imagine the CEO of General Motors (to pick a company name completely out of my ass) has a sexual relationship with an intern at their headquarters. It's completely unethical; it's a gross perversion of the power dynamics our system runs on (not that I'm too keen on those anyway), and I bet you could count on one hand the number of reasonably sized companies where it isn't explicitly against company policy.

Only Ms. Lewinsky can define her experience and consent's role in it. But I'll tell you, even if there was no overt coercion involved, to my mind being somebody's boss's boss's boss's fucking boss is coercion enough.

He would have had to seek her out. Had to. Interns don't work in the Oval Office; they don't work anywhere near it. And when you're young and starry-eyed and trying to do good in the world and this man, this incredibly powerful man whom you idolize comes to you, takes advantage of that youth and that hero-worship, well, I'm a radical feminist, I think you can imagine what I call that.

And the shit Michelle Obama slung about how Hillary Clinton "can't control her man" is a post in itself. I'm not even fucking getting into it; the women's fault, always the women's fault, if your husband's sexually assaulting people you should have put out more, should have been better in bed, I don't even fucking know, I just get so tired.
slythwolf: (BULLSHIT)
Dear women of the Intertoobs,

Stop complaining about/asking why Anna Faris would particpate in the scene. That shit is if not explicit victim blaming one step from it.

Ask yourselves this: Why aren't you asking why/complaining about Seth Rogen's participation in the scene?

Can we start holding men accountable? Or is it still too early in history for that?

In frustration,
Wolf A. Woman, Slytherin
slythwolf: Some unlucky soul has an incomplete Pai Sho set. (Default)
You will hear "experts" claim that "many" or "most" women have "rape" fantasies. They are either lying (in service of propping up the patriarchy and rape culture, and justifying the men who have actual rape fantasies or indeed are actual rapists) or don't know what the fuck they're talking about (because they believe the other "experts").

Women will tell you they have "rape" fantasies themselves, and this is because the vast majority of people do not understand what rape is.

These fantasies are not about rape.

In the fantasy, he is charming, he is attractive. When he holds you down, it doesn't hurt any more than you want it to, because you're not really trying to escape. The things he does to you are things you enjoy, even if you feel guilty for enjoying them; you want this to be happening. He knows just what you want him to do without having to ask you. If you say no, it's because you know you're supposed to. That is not rape. It's a fantasy about not having to ask for pleasure, or about not bearing the shame the patriarchy places on women who feel sexual desire. It's imaginary, and you know it's imaginary; you know this could never happen in real life and that's what you enjoy about it.

In real rape, even if he's charming and attractive, he's still scary. When he holds you down, he uses as much force as is necessary to keep you still, which might be enough to break bones. If he does things to you that you may have enjoyed in another situation, the experience is so traumatic you may have trouble enjoying those things again for a very long time; he probably does at least some things to you that you would never have enjoyed; you do not want this to be happening. He doesn't care what you want. If you say no, it's in desperation, it's a plea, it's because you hope he will stop or that someone will hear you and help you but nobody comes. That is rape. It's a violent crime of power, domination, humiliation, it's terrifying torture. It's real, and you know it's real; you know this happens in real life all the time and that's why it's so frightening.

Nobody fantasizes about that but rapists and rape apologists.

The women who fantasize about "rape" are fantasizing about sex. They are fantasizing about sex they enjoy with someone to whom they are attracted. That issues of consent even come into these fantasies is an artifact of the patriarchy; for hundreds, possibly thousands, of years women have not been permitted the agency to consent to sex until they are married (while within marriage women have historically not been permitted the agency to say no). So that, when women fantasize about "rape", they are fantasizing about sex they want but are not allowed to have.

The patriarchy defines rape as something women feel compelled to protest against, in order to look virtuous to others, but secretly enjoy. That is why these fantasies are called "rape" fantasies. That is not what rape is. Nobody secretly enjoys being raped. There are, however, an awful lot of people who secretly enjoy raping, and it's in their interest to convince the rest of us that being raped could potentially be fun, because then nobody will stop them.

The argument of women's "rape" fantasies is used to excuse the reality of men's rape fantasies. If some women secretly want to be "raped", the argument goes, then it's okay for men to want to rape them; and from this follows the tacit implication that if a man rapes a woman, how was he to know--indeed, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, who are you to say--that she didn't want it to happen, and if she wanted it to happen, by definition it cannot be rape. So what is she complaining about?

I like Twisty's phrase "global accords governing fair use of women". That's what it comes down to. The patriarchy has decreed that women are to be used as fuckdolls, and because this would be a repellent idea to any right-thinking human being, the patriarchy has to indoctrinate us all with these little insidious ideas that will convince us that, yeah, okay, we guess she might have enjoyed it; sure, maybe it doesn't make sense for her to have been wearing that skirt because we all know what women who wear short skirts are after; and anyway, rape is just surprise sex so you should just lie back and enjoy it.

Because of global accords governing fair use of women, rape and sex are considered to be basically the same thing. In fact, rape is considered to be a more "honest" form of sex--women exist for men to use sexually, and men who profess to care what the woman in question thinks about this idea are considered to be weak--less than manly, unwilling to take what is theirs by right--or lying--deceiving women in order to acquire sex, a commodity which women naturally possess and to which men naturally deserve access.

There will be readers who will think I am wrong about this. There will be readers who claim society at large expects men to care about consent. Those readers are willfully ignoring reality in order to insulate themselves from the harsh truth about the patriarchy. Consider, for example, the popular response to a married man who has an affair. If his wife had kept him sexually satisfied, he wouldn't have "needed" to cheat. Men deserve sex, and it's women's duty to provide it.

Because of global accords governing fair use of women, there are two possible views of women's sexuality: the madonna and the whore. Either women are madonnas who don't enjoy sex at all but will suffer it virtuously as a duty they owe to a specific man, and are therefore always sexually available to that man, or women are whores who enjoy sex so much that they are ecstatic about anything any man chooses to do to them, and are therefore always sexually available to any man who happens to come along.

The idea of women's widespread "rape" fantasies is a strange progression of the madonna/whore model. In this new model, women pretend to be madonnas in order to appear virtuous and good, but are secretly whores, and so will profess not to enjoy being raped because they are ashamed that they actually enjoy it. This model, like the other, does not allow for the reality of women as adult human beings with the attendant range of sexual feeling and the right to determine whether to participate in any given sexual activity with any given partner at any given moment, and is really only different from the previous model in that it allows men to justify the rape of any woman anywhere, whereas in the madonna/whore model a man could only justify the rape of his wife (a madonna) or a single woman who was not a virgin (a whore). Now men can justify raping the wives of other men, as well as women and girls who are virgins, on the basis that women secretly want and love to be raped. Meanwhile women cannot justify consenting to sex with anyone, on the basis that if they do, they then owe it to everyone; and even if they never consent to sex, they still are not safe from rape, because the idea that all women are whores pretending to be madonnas--the idea of the "rape" fantasy--is gaining ground.

It's a dangerous idea. It supports the belief that no means yes. It supports the belief that a woman's protests might be token ones, that it's sometimes okay to ignore them. And when everyone believes that no sometimes means yes, everyone agrees that no one can be held responsible for ignoring no.
slythwolf: (BULLSHIT)
13-year-old girl killed herself after her 39-year-old flying instructor raped her. (Hat tip Twisty.)

Only the headline of the article? Says 'raped'.

Even after her tragic death, she is not believed. The patriarchy won't allow it. Her 18-year-old other rapist "boyfriend" asserts (not having actually been there) that the flying instructor "didn't" rape her, therefore she must not have been raped. The flying instructor "had sex with" her.

There exists no possible set of circumstances in which a 39-year-old man can "have sex with" a 13-year-old girl. He was three times her age, he was her teacher, it was rape.

Believe her. Believe her with me.

What seems like ages ago, I made a post about what feminism means to me. In the post I mentioned that when a woman tells me something, and a man tells me something different, I believe the woman, because the patriarchy doesn't. This was what I meant.

The anonymouse whose question prompted the post asked if it wasn't setting a "bad example", to believe women even when they might be lying--if I shouldn't just try to be scrupulously fair, make sure who is telling the truth. The anonymouse didn't get it.

I believe women because the patriarchy doesn't. If I am the one person in the world who believes a woman when she stands up to tell what a man did to her I am glad, I am proud to believe her. It is not only my duty, but my honor to believe in women's truths.

But don't women lie about rape? I hear the masses cry. Yes, women lie about rape. Approximately 2% of the time, just like every other crime, reports of rape are false.

If it's the price I have to pay, so that someone believes women that other 98% of the time, that I will believe those 2% who are lying, I will pay that price. If 2% of the time I have to look like a fool, so be it. I am glad to pay that price. If one in fifty women I believe is laughing at me behind her hand, let her laugh. When the call comes for someone to look stupid and gullible a thousand times in a row so that one woman is believed by someone, somewhere, I know enough to take one smart pace forward. I know enough to stand up for the women no one believes as I hope they in turn will believe me.

Someone has to believe us.
slythwolf: (BULLSHIT)
My rapist commented on my InsaneJournal mirror recently. This is what I decided to do about it; it's rough, rough, rough, first draft as it's coming out of my head, and you know, I think I'm going to leave it that way. Raw.

If you're reading this
the thing is I want you to know
that it is not okay
for you to come here and get so deep into my words
the words that are mine

It's just like it was, really
I said okay to one thing
you took it a step further
because the thing is
all those years ago I gave you the link
to my OpenDiary
not this journal

And so if you're reading this
what I want to make you know
is that you're not welcome

(just because a woman leaves something open
because she doesn't want to live in fear, in hiding
it doesn't mean you can just waltz inside)

If you're reading this I want you to know
that when you say
"I don't think we should be friends"
you should know I'm way ahead of you

When you say "I'm married now"
as if it matters
I think, was it because she didn't know
wasn't sure
like I wasn't sure
that fear, that panic is to be listened to
or did you even give her the chance
you didn't give me?

(does she know what fear feels like?
because the thing is, the thing you men don't understand,
we feel it every day and don't recognize it
because we are taught from birth
that it isn't nice to be mean to the nice man)

If you're reading this
then at least you have the chance to learn
that you have no right to come here
and try to explain yourself

You were "confused", it was "real"
is there a reason I should care?
you gave up that right
when I asked you why you didn't want to stay with me
and you said
"think whatever you have to"
when I wanted to understand what had happened
and you left me in the dark
and you can't come back six years
(six long years)
later and try to tell me you're a good person
because I have spent six years
(six long years)
figuring out just what it was you did to me

(just because a woman leaves something open
because she doesn't know how to say no
it doesn't mean you can just waltz inside)

And so if you're reading this
the most important thing you can know
is that this place is mine and not yours

It is not your place to come here
and lord over me that you are married
because you think I couldn't possibly be
and it is not your place to come here
and school me
on whether you used me or not
and of course you don't think so
you have to live with yourself
so you can't know what you are

If you're reading this
the thing is I want you to know
that you are a fucking rapist
now get the fuck out.
slythwolf: (BULLSHIT)
South Korean 18-year-old fucking rapist rapes seven-year-old fellow human being; South Korean court system fines the rapist's parents1; BBC thinks it is somehow relevant that rapist has ADHD.

No, seriously, I mean, WTF. They tell us the rapist has ADHD in the second fucking sentence in the article. They just throw it in there like it makes sense somehow, and then they go on about how this person clearly needed more supervision or something because...I...guess somehow if you have ADHD and people don't provide you with enough of the right kind of structure, you will go around raping children? Do they expect us to believe that ADHD somehow prevents a person from understanding the difference between right and wrong?2

I have had (undiagnosed! untreated!) ADHD for twenty-six fucking years, nine of them almost completely unsupervised, and I have somehow managed not to rape a single human being, adult or otherwise. I have also not raped any animals, in case that doesn't go without saying.

Apparently the rapist claims he was imitating something he saw in porn. Nobody has therefore started talking about holding porn responsible for its bad influence on people--except us radical feminists, bless our hearts, but we were already saying this stuff--and with the way they've mentioned the rapist's ADHD already, right off the bat like that, it's almost as if they're implying that people with ADHD don't understand that just because people rape seven-year-old children in porn3, that doesn't mean it's okay to do it in real life.4

In reality, it's not people with ADHD who don't understand that porn is an unrealistic and unhealthy model for sexual activity.5 It's most people, and it's got nothing to do with ADHD, it's because we live in a patriarchy where the messages we get about men forcibly dominating everyone they fucking want to are perfectly in line with everything fucking else in the culture. And let's be honest with each other, the only reason this fucking rapist out of all the fucking rapists in the world is getting his ten years in prison is that the sovereign human being he attacked and violently violated was seven years old and therefore still the property of her father--if she had been seventeen years old, if we were hearing about this at all, it would be all about what a lying slut she was and how she had asked for it by being such a brazen hussy as to step outside her door in broad daylight. It is certainly not the rapist's ADHD's fault that we live in a rape culture where women are considered to be men's property6 and there exists the bizarre notion that, in some circumstances, rape--or "forced sex" as its proponents erroneously call it--can actually be justified.

So: badly done, BBC News, badly done indeed, and next time why don't you tell us about the fucking rapist's weak ankles or his color blindness or that he, like, is bad with computers, because that would be no less relevant than his ADHD.

1. Because, you see, in a patriarchy, your parents own you until you reach the legal age of majority; just like how you're responsible if your dog bites someone, apparently you're responsible if your kid rapes someone. I...don't know.
2. There exist conditions which do prevent people from understanding the difference between right and wrong, but ADHD is not one of them.
3. I can only assume the rapist was watching child porn of some kind.
4. In point of fact, it isn't okay to do it in porn, either, but you can't get some people to admit that.
5. Because, if you didn't know, 70-some per cent of actual-people (as opposed to cartoon or, I guess, written fiction and, like, that guy that sculpts nude-disembodied-female-lower-body furniture) porn is actual rape, and you can't tell the difference between that and the consensual stuff because porn is modeled on rape anyway, much like romance novels and 99.9% of the messages we get about love and sex in this society in general.
6. Their fathers' property until they reach puberty; then the collective property of all men everywhere as public fuck-toilets until they marry, especially if they have the audacity to engage in any form of sexual activity before marriage as if they had the right as sovereign human beings to determine how to use their own bodies; then the exclusive property of their husbands until they die, or get divorced--at which point the woman becomes a public fuck-toilet again, with the added fun bonus that her ex-husband is still entitled to do anything he pleases to her, up to and including murdering her, in punishment for the audacity of running away from her rightful owner.
slythwolf: (BULLSHIT)
But this is how it is coming out.

I should have known when he tried to pressure me to drink with him, even though I had told him repeatedly that I didn't drink because I wasn't old enough (and he wasn't either but he knew the bartender and so I guess that's supposed to have made it okay), I should have known when I told him I didn't do other things he would keep pressuring for that too. It should have been obvious: this person does not respect your right to make your own decisions, particularly about what does and does not go into your body.

Arousal does not equal consent. If a woman is attracted to you, and gets turned on, and then you strip her naked and you put your cock in her and she lies there trembling and frozen and doesn't say anything, it isn't just because she's a nervous virgin, it's because she'd told you and told you and told you she wasn't ready and she wasn't going to and she was so paralyzed she couldn't have spoken to tell you yes or no and she didn't know which it would have been anyway but you didn't ask and I don't know what the law says where you are but to my mind if you don't ask that makes it rape. If you don't make sure she's okay, that she wants to do it, that's rape.

If she doesn't know it's rape at the time, because she is porn-addled and she thinks arousal DOES equal consent, it is still rape.

Even up there I said, I should have known. It wasn't my responsibility to know. And I blame myself anyway. The patriarchy is inside my head.

I know this is not what some people would call rape. I know there are a lot of people who will say, but you didn't push him off you, or, but he didn't hold you down. I couldn't have moved anyway.

And I know there are a lot of people who will say, but you went to his apartment, you went there to stay for a week, what did you expect, what could you have expected him to expect to happen? And I know people will say that because there is a voice inside me saying it.

And there is a voice inside me saying "but you said yes" but the thing is, the thing is, I said yes to cunnilingus.

It is rape when, when a man tells you he wants you to put it in your mouth, and you don't want to, you can't say no because you're afraid of what he will think, afraid he won't like you, so you open wide, that is rape.

It is rape and a bad sign anyway when he gets on top of you and tells you he is putting lube on you because otherwise the "girl" (yes, the bastard called me a girl, I was older than him) will dry out if you use a condom, which is only true--you learn from later experience--if the woman isn't having any fun.

It's rape from the beginning to the end, when he is in you, and he is moving and you are still, and your eyes are wide, and you are frozen, and it is still rape when he finishes and throws the condom away and expects you to fall asleep, naked, next to him, in his cold air-conditioned apartment under his thin sheet, and keeps rolling away from you in the night so you can't even get body heat, and when you wake up at seven the next morning and put on your pajamas and go and huddle on the couch to watch Designing Women, it was still rape, it still has been rape the night before what happened just because you went to stay with someone you thought understood you, you thought you could trust, and when he comes out to see where you've gone when he finally wakes up, he is a rapist.

Even if you don't know it yet, he still is.

Even if when you do begin to realize it it takes you over a year to say it: he is a rapist. What he did to me was rape. It wasn't a gray area, it wasn't dubious consent.

He told me ahead of time that he didn't believe in sleeping with someone until you were in a relationship. So naturally when he raped me I assumed that meant we were boyfriend and girlfriend. Then two weeks later he tells me he never meant it that way, that he doesn't believe in long distance relationships. If that's not emotional coercion I don't know what the fuck is. Tell me what he thinks I want to hear to get me into his bed and then do whatever the fuck he wants while I'm there.

And this is the thing, is that I thought at the time while it was happening that if I did anything to reject him he would think I didn't want a relationship. Do you see how he set me up for that one? Yeah. Nice. And so that's what's running through my head at the time, is, I'm not so sure this is the greatest idea, but hell, I can't move anyway and if I could and I made him stop he wouldn't want to date me anymore.

Important safety tip: if she feels like she has to, for any reason, it's rape. If she doesn't feel like she can say no and walk away from the situation with no less of anything than she went in, it's rape.

If she spent the previous three months telling you she wasn't ready for sex and then when she's staying at your place you get her naked and she's not moving but she's not stopping you either, newsflash, idiot, it's because she's freaked out and quite possibly in shock and you are a fucking rapist.


slythwolf: Some unlucky soul has an incomplete Pai Sho set. (Default)

October 2012



RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios