Okay, One Question
I do disagree (as Fire Fly asserted) that we’re privileging one form of rape (and victim) over another — in a culture where there’s no shame in women liking sex, where sex is no longer considered by reasonable, good-acting people of any gender, or by the larger culture, to be a commodity that women are responsible for controlling and men are responsible for “getting,” rapists of any kind or gender — strangers, dates, family, spouses, whatever — will be much easier to identify and prosecute. Imagine if the law assumed you could easily tell if a woman was having a good time! If juries had no more reason to expect a woman to lie because she “had regrets”! There will always be rapists, because there will always be sociopaths. But there doesn’t have to be a culture of rape, and that’s what we’re trying to address in this book.
Do all rapes happen in the context of situations where people are nearing the point of having sex?
Definitely not, but unfortunately the apologies for rape she lists here are things I here every single time I have a discussion with a mixed group of people. So whether or not it does, it seems like a lot of people are approaching it like it does. I agree with the quoted post that addressing that is an important part of dismantling rape culture.
Plucked the question right from my typing fingers! And it’s just weird–or maybe “weird” is not quite the word I want here–how quickly Jaclyn goes from “we’re not privileging” to speaking of rape strictly in terms of women being raped by men. Not that women aren’t raped by men, not that that’s trivial or unworthy of discussion, but you know? It contradicts the argument. The anthology as described in that comment (I’ll reserve judgment for the finished work, naturally) very clearly IS confining itself to some rapes committed by some rapists in some situations. Why argue otherwise? That would be like arguing that a primer on feminism is intended for . . . ooh. Ah. Never mind.
An ancillary problem I am having with this: I do not believe that the men who wonder whether an act is or is not rape are sincere. I do not believe they are really that stupid. As I think I’ve said elsewhere, just because antifeminists come up with a derailing concept like “gray rape” does not mean feminists have to lend it any credibility by addressing it as if it were serious. It’s only seriously intended to chip away at the idea that really bothers these guys, which is that any human being they feel like fucking might in fact retain the right not to oblige them.
Yes, whatsername; it is an important part but it isn’t the whole. And some types of rape — the ones that ironically don’t fall under the premise of this anthology — aren’t acknowledged. And if they are acknowledged, the situations are not called rape.
Ilyka, absolutely. I think the word “ironic” works here too. I also agree that people not knowing when they are or are not raping is bullshit.
Stop making sense
Not like my opinion matters, but I agree, not all rape is done in “the context of situations where people are nearing the point of having sex”.
Seems to me that’s just a way to dumb it down and tackle the issue in easier terms; some people must like to think of rape being initiated by those they are close to and not a complete stranger. Could also make it easier in their eyes to tackle the issue – be careful with those you’re close with and you’ll be just fine.
Not to mention there could be an unintentional quip against males there – that they can’t control their sex drive and are more likely to rape those they are dating and close to romantically. Not saying this is totally off the mark in some cases, but still, seems a bit over the top to me. I can understand the coercion factor there when the woman isn’t all “yes yes yes do me now”.
and when talking about types of rape, it’s not as simple as ‘white women’s experiences’ vs. ‘women of color’s experience,’ (which i hope this discussion will not later be recalled as, not saying that anyone here is reducing it to this). i think your question immedietly points to all those who’s experiences with sexual assault fall outside the narrow definitions put forth in the call for submissions as well as the comments. why doesn’t “rape culture” here include rapes perpetrated by soldiers or cops, or perpetrated against prisoners, detainees, sex workers, undocumented immigrants….?
yes, often females are socialized to abide by the “no means maybe” rule of expressing desire (this has been my experience in middle class midwest american suburbs). rapes that result from social codes encouraging men to push and coerce women into sex do not make up a rape culture all by themselves. the commodification of women’s bodies and sex that occurs in these rapes is not the only way that women’s bodies are commodified.
why is it necessary to narrow the definition of rape? so that privileged women can eliminate “rape culture” as it exists in their realitys and claim it as a feminist victory, while ignoring rape culture as it exists in so many other contexts? same shit, different day!
“Yes, whatsername; it is an important part but it isn’t the whole. And some types of rape — the ones that ironically don’t fall under the premise of this anthology — aren’t acknowledged. And if they are acknowledged, the situations are not called rape.”
Totally agree, I chose the word “part” purposefully.
And certainly one could take a narrow view of the topic (only situations that could lead to pleasure) and it would exclude many, many instances, but I didn’t really take from the call for submissions post that they were taking it that direction.
How did you take it? What sorts of situations you are talking about?
nods…
at least indirectly, i tend to think that a robust imagination of what real sexual pleasure looks like would start to make the cultural identification of rape in all situations. one would hope that a doctrine of full and enthusiastic consent could shine light on just why it’s wrong that a guard have “sex” with a prisoner, or the field overseer with an undocumented woman…
but it is telling that the call for submissions defines rape culture too narrowly. this is a tack worth taking, but not at the cost of other priorities. a pox on false dichotomies and zero sum games…there was no reason for them to put their thesis in opposition to other efforts, except to make them sound daring and *sell* more books.
/puke
“Do all rapes happen in the context of situations where people are nearing the point of having sex?”
No. And in some ways I am tired of the pro-sex movement because it seems like we will create a different culture where women are still insulted because now they’re “frigid” and not “liberated”. For asexuals and other people, who do not have sex for whateve reason, or are practicing a period of celibacy (I am celibate in-between serious relationships) then where do we fit into this context?
I’ve been reading various blog responses after the announcement at Feministing and processing my feelings on the entire matter. In some ways, the entire heteronormative aspect of the book bothers me (women do rape women, such as in the Megan Williams case) and women do rape men. I understand the overall need to fight and rally against our rape culture that is perpetuated by men, but so many things still don’t sit well with me. Some people have expressed them, but then I am an introvert and I still need to sit on this. Sylvia here, Blackamazon, and others have expressed some of my thoughts but I hope to come to my own conclusions on this as well.
The two most recent cases calling rape “theft of services” (Pennsylvania) or “child experimentation with sex” (Aurukun, Queensland, Australia) wouldn’t necessarily benefit from this type of analysis. In fact, you can say for the latter case that such an analysis was used to justify a 10-year-old being gangraped by someone as old as 26. If people want to justify sexual assault, the least likely reason for doing so is under the banner of “they didn’t say no/they said yes.” Not saying that it’s not a reason, but it’s definitely not a universal one. You may say and indicate yes when raped at gunpoint; you may say and indicate yes when you’re a child surrounded by a group of older men. You may do so and indicate it very enthusiastically! But it’s still rape.
I’m having the same problem with this that I had with the earlier kerfluffle. Yes, of course, there’s important work to be done regarding coercion and consent. It’s a valuable topic, and I reallytrulyhonestly do think that moving to a (social, not legislative) model of enthusiastic consent would help reduce the incidence of certain types of rape and make other types much easier to name, prosecute and deal with. Sure.
Doing that, however, is a pretty different thing from “ending rape culture” or “stopping rape.” One is narrowly focused, the other isn’t. If you want to make an anthology that does the former, more power to you! Great! Congratulations! … just don’t do that and say that it’s doing the latter.
Really, that’s all I want. I want books (and movements) that say “these are my priorities, these are my readers, these are my goals,” and… mean them. Not positioning themselves as The Answer To Everything That’s Wrong With The World These Days, but saying “here is my solution to this specific problem, and here’s how it fits in with the bigger picture of Everything That’s Wrong With The World These Days.”
I could go further and talk about how the continued pattern of universalizing from certain voices/perspectives has the overall effect of a) silencing certain voices that need to be heard, b) centering groups and phenomena that may not be most appropriately centered, and c) being fucking annoying. Or about how specificity of language is a pitifully poor goal in light of the Bigger Picture, and how real action would require moving beyond simply naming and recognizing limitations and into actively working to fill those gaps and lay that base. Or hell, even how the framing of the book (and the discourse surrounding it) encourages false dichotomies and divisions, and doesn’t actually help with the Big Picture.
.. but really, I’d just settle for some more specificity.
Oh Mags. Why settle?
Oh, thank you. Yes. Damn, every time I think I’m done thinking about this it turns out I’m not done.
Because that’s the thing: It’s just Back to the ’60s all over again. Dworkin was made, not born, and that whole “you’re frigid,” “you’re just repressed, baby,” “all the cool chicks are doin’ it” attitude is part of what made her. We’re not even talking ancient history here. So then to see the same old show-some-enthusiasm-ladies crap clumsily reframed as “flying in the face of conventional feminist wisdom”–ugh, shut up! You’re not unconventional, you’re SS,DD!
[attempts to calm down]
To say the least! And that’s the tip of the iceberg. Like BA said, whole classes of women rendered unrapeable. No. This is not just slightly off or slightly wacky thinking at work here–this is a truckload of ahistorical stupid.
Really, that’s all I want. I want books (and movements) that say “these are my priorities, these are my readers, these are my goals,” and… mean them. Not positioning themselves as The Answer To Everything That’s Wrong With The World These Days, but saying “here is my solution to this specific problem, and here’s how it fits in with the bigger picture of Everything That’s Wrong With The World These Days.”
FUCKING A!!!!
RIGHT ON…
I have an issue with the ideas that a) there will always be rapists and b) there is anything genuinely solution-y about enhancing prosecutional opportunities.
For one thing, it aggravates me how much denial there is about prison being any kind of helpful antidote to rape. Yes it is a problem that rape cases have low conviction rates (from what I understand), but if that changed, it would not cure rapists. Unless all rape convictions resulted in life sentences or death sentences – and I am not okay with that – then it’s exchanging some people’s safety (those who did not get raped while the rapist was in prison) for others (those who will get raped when the rapist finishes his/her sentence). I just…what sense does that make? How does it help someone who got raped after the rapist got out if other people did not get raped while he/she was in?
And if you are going to use terms and concepts like “rape culture” and ending it, what sense does it make to simutaneously proclaim that rape will always exist no matter what? Either you believe that there are causes for rape and thus things that can and should shift because of that, or you believe it is a naturally occuring phenomenon that can at best be contained and controlled. By some. In some circumstances.
And the whole commodity thing…I feel fuzzy about this but it’s nagging at me…it’s like, where does, exactly, rape of people in the sex industry come in?
“…in a culture where there’s no shame in women liking sex, where sex is no longer considered…to be a commodity that women are responsible for controlling and men are responsible for “getting”…”
In exchanges of money for sex, speaking from the hetero viewpoint expressed above, women are a) imagined to be shame-free about the sex they’re “having”/providing b) defined by their accessiblity, not controlling-ness, around sex. So the more freewheeling sex of a professional encounter should be a talisman against rape. Rape should just not happen to women who are not ashamed of the sex they’re having, and who the men perceive to be enthusiastically consenting.
Except…
And doesn’t the call for submissions also mention something about performance? Only they use that word as a positive when it comes to sex?
That jumped out at me. Really, you would use a word like performance as something to strive for in sex? Okay, you want to say you meant it in the way people perform jointly when they do some kind of dance. Except – dance *performances* are about choreography, not spontaneity and mutual creation. When dancing does not involve choreography but just involves two people doing their thing, it is not called a performance.
And look, I do not pretend to be a less cynical, bitter person on this subject than I am – but REALLY? You don’t think that sex is already a performance for a lot of women a lot of the time? That’s something we need to work TOWARDS?
And if you don’t mean it “in that way,” then it’s lazy writing and lazy thinking to use that word.
And again back to women in the sex industry – this is not the only thing involved when men pay for sex, but it is a thing that is involved: men are invested in the person they hire convincing them that they, the sex providers, are “really into it.” Even if/though they know that it is their money buying this performance, and even if/as they simultaneously get off on the understanding that she’s really NOT into it and they have to power to make her act like it anyway for their enjoyment and that’s also the high of it – this equation alone undercuts my understanding of the premise of this book. With things how they presently are – the widely accepted and expected performative nature of sex, in and out of the sex industry – how is the fantasy of men suddenly being able to tell the difference between unresponsiveness and enthusiasm relevant at all? Unresponsiveness now just means that you’re bad at it, bad at the performance. And it is easy enough to go find someone else who will shout “yes!”
And that still doesn’t explain why the happy hooker gets raped. Although it does seem, to me, to reaffirm the idea that she can’t be.
It has been said that this book is not about blaming people who get raped, but about trying to end a specific definition of “rape culture.” But rape culture is not built on the good girl/dirty whore stereotype that supposedly plagues unliberated people to this day. I believe Blackamazon also talked about how this idea ignores completely the hypersexualization – the lack of any good girl/whore dichotomy at all – ascribed to all kinds of women. If I’m not fighting the I’m-not-supposed-to-like-sex battle, then how does it help me if that battle is won by somebody else? Never mind that I don’t agree with how “winning” is defined.
This all feels disjointed to me and maybe I am being as fuzzy as the call for submissions, who knows. Just needed to blurt it all out there.
And if you don’t mean it “in that way,” then it’s lazy writing and lazy thinking to use that word.
Joan wins the Internets, again.
This is a whole other dreaded side pet issue of mine, too: the abysmal writing practices of the top-tier blogosphere getting the chance to ossify into book form. You do NOT externalize the burden of explaining what you mean onto the readers, unless you mean to deliberately, in which case you’re not doing expository writing, you’re attempting literature. And the skill bar is WAY higher for literature.
I fear the day when Seal Press releases a new book that consists of someone else’s book reprinted in its entirety, with the sole new text being the “author’s” added “Heh. Indeed.” Or “Dostoyevsky nails it here.”
I second that. Is there some sort of committee for this sort of thing? Do they take nominations?
I am happily wiling to give Joan Kelly teh interweb
“I fear the day when Seal Press releases a new book that consists of someone else’s book reprinted in its entirety, with the sole new text being the “author’s” added “Heh. Indeed.” Or “Dostoyevsky nails it here.””
Dude that fucking killed me.
And, you are all kind but even in my still-getting-over-the-flu state, I am pretty sure I recall reading other people expressing that sentiment first, on this subject. But hey, who am I to stand in the way of an award during these desperate times…So first and foremost I would like to thank my – wait why is the orchestra music suddenly drowing me out?
*cuts the music and hands you the microphone*
You got ten minutes. :-p
>>there was no reason for them to put their thesis in opposition to other efforts, except to make them sound daring and *sell* more books.>>
bingo. it was the “angle,” as they say. “high concept,” if you will.
>>Dworkin was made, not born, and that whole “you’re frigid,” “you’re just repressed, baby,” “all the cool chicks are doin’ it” attitude is part of what made her. We’re not even talking ancient history here. So then to see the same old show-some-enthusiasm-ladies crap clumsily reframed as “flying in the face of conventional feminist wisdom”–ugh, shut up! You’re not unconventional, you’re SS,DD!>>
YES.
And, it drives me up the fucking wall, because all this time some of us have been going, “no, ’sex positive feminism’ has -nothing to do with this-, try Dorothy Allison, where are you getting this ‘you must be a hawt het shallow chick who thinks it’s all about her orgasm and it stops there’ from?”
and then: “Oh. I guess -that’s- where they’re getting this from…”
well, as I’ve said in other contexts: for every “straw” ___, there is at least one animate scarecrow lurching about.
still v. annoying, though.
>>For asexuals and other people, who do not have sex for whateve reason, or are practicing a period of celibacy (I am celibate in-between serious relationships) then where do we fit into this context?>>
see, to me, “pro-sex” or whatever you want to call it…you fit in just fine. I mean it’s…yeah, the whole thing, a bit:
“After the Revolution you will all eat strawberries and cream, and you will -like- strawberries and cream!”
…which, well, No. that was never what it was supposed to be all about.
then again, “pro-choice,” as has been noted (by bfp, most recently), hell, “freedom,” as has been noted…well, an awful lot of people in this world who ought to know better still can’t or won’t conceive of choices that wouldn’t be their own. -throws up hands-
>> If I’m not fighting the I’m-not-supposed-to-like-sex battle, then how does it help me if that battle is won by somebody else? Never mind that I don’t agree with how “winning” is defined.>>
yes, that.
I mean, I get the sort of kind of idea about “yes means yes,” sure (and no, it’s not new, that was part of the backlash to the backlash to the backlash, there is nothing new under the sun, and it is irritating when it gets marketed as such); but for me where it starts is: woman, -and- men, everyone, okay, becoming much more aware of their own subjective feelings, which means, yep, getting in touch with one’s -own- body, first of all. And then, boundaries, and communication, when it comes to relationships. THAT is where it starts. It’s not -only- about sex, see, and it isn’t about giving a reactionary “fuck you” to either the Forces Of Repression or the Forces Of Compulsory Sexbotism (I use the Twistyism ironically, as I loathe it, but anyway).
You want feminism? Okay: start here: “my body belongs to me.”
What does that really MEAN, dear? Think carefully.
>>This is a whole other dreaded side pet issue of mine, too: the abysmal writing practices of the top-tier blogosphere getting the chance to ossify into book form. You do NOT externalize the burden of explaining what you mean onto the readers, unless you mean to deliberately, in which case you’re not doing expository writing, you’re attempting literature. And the skill bar is WAY higher for literature.>>
yr just jellus :O