This essay first appeared on Cliterati on February 24th; I have modified it slightly for time references and to fit the format of this blog.
I’ve written on numerous occasions about the way Western culture has returned in many ways to the Victorian Era; we have seen a return of that time’s extreme sexual prudishness, its affection for polysyllabic euphemisms, its dedication to prohibition of drugs and sexual activities and its “white man’s burden” colonialism, and the popular Victorian myths about the “innocence” of children (including adolescents), “white slavery” and the moral superiority of women over men have returned as powerfully as if they had not lain dormant for most of the 20th century. But while I am not alone in decrying all of these things, I have until recently felt relatively isolated in my resistance to one of the most damaging and perfidious of all Victorian revivals: the belief that rape is a “fate worse than death”.
Before we go any further, let me assure you that I know whereof I speak: I have been raped several times, and the first instance (in May of 1995) was rape by even the strictest, most unforgiving and most legalistic standard. It was a terrifying experience, but it did not destroy me and was not the worst thing ever to happen to me; in fact, it wasn’t even the worst thing to happen to me that year. Yet nearly every time someone finds out about it for the first time, he or she acts as though it happened last night, as though this one kind of trauma had the unique ability to cause permanent and irremediable damage. The dominant cultural narrative is that both men and women can get over just about any personal tragedy – financial ruin, the loss of a limb or a loved one, persecution by governmental authorities, etc – except rape, which if it doesn’t leave a woman a psychological wreck is supposed to at least cast a dark pall over the rest of her life.
Consider for a few moments the incredible misogyny of this doctrine: first of all, it is nothing but a thinly-disguised version of the notion that all of a woman’s value, importance and identity resides in her sexual “purity”, and if that is defiled she is permanently “ruined”; the same belief also underlies the expression “selling herself” (meaning sale of sex, as if it were her entire being). It portrays women as passive, fragile creatures out of Victorian melodrama, delicate flowers completely at the mercy of a brutal universe (and therefore in need of protection by some authority outside themselves). It perpetuates the myth that sex is for women a horrible, dirty, dangerous ordeal that must be sanctified by magical rituals in order to be endured (preferably while lying on one’s back and thinking of England), and worst of all it portrays the penis as some sort of semi-divine instrument capable of destroying a helpless woman’s entire life at the whim of the man to whom it is attached. Yet it is not only religious fundamentalists who promulgate this absurd mythology, but elected officials and even feminists; it is so pervasive, in fact, that a rape victim who fails to behave according to the approved script may not be believed.
For many years, I felt as though I was one of a tiny minority of women who understood all this, but lately I’ve seen more and more writers dare to broach the subject. Last July in The New Inquiry Charlotte Shane wrote,
…Though some feminists regard “rape equals devastation” as sacred fact, the notion that a man can ruin me with his penis strikes me as the most complete expression of vintage misogyny available. Common sense instructs us that it is far more “dangerous” to insist to young women that they will be broken by an unwanted sex act than it is to propose they might have a happy, healthy, and sexually pleasant future ahead of them in spite of a sexual assault…When we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that a rape could be anything less than a tsunami of emotional and mental destruction for a woman, we establish a fantasy of absolute male sexual power and absolute female vulnerability. We are, in essence, honoring the timeless belief that a woman’s worth, self-respect, and ability to function within society are dictated exclusively by the sexual use of her body…
Then last month in The Telegraph, Katy Brand covered similar ground:
Let me start with a trio of quotes from three famous feminists…First, Camille Paglia: “Rape is an outrage…but the hysteria around rape is equally outrageous. The whole system is now designed to make you (i.e. the victim) feel you are maimed and mutilated forever.” And…Fay Weldon…“rape is not the worst thing that can ever happen to a woman, if you are safe, alive and unmarked afterwards.” And finally Germaine Greer, “it is not women who have decided that rape is so heinous but men. The only weapon that counts in rape is the penis, which is conceptualized as devastating.” Obviously none of these women were seeking to trivialise rape with their comments, they were mainly arguing against this apparent belief in society that following a rape, a woman will never, ever truly recover – that her life will be over, that she may never feel joy again nor be able to have a functioning sexual relationship for the rest of her days. And that is quite a thing to tell someone after they have been the victim of a crime. If you tell women this over and over again, we will start to believe it, and then we will start to live as if it is true…
Brand’s article was inspired by Eve Ensler’s One Billion Rising project, which encourages people – women and men both – to dance in the street as a demonstration against rape and against the “rape is eternal” narrative. As Brand put it, “It’s defiant and powerful, both to the accepted wisdom about how rape victims might behave after what they have suffered, and also a good two fingers up at anyone who wishes to crush a woman’s life force using violence and enforced sex.” Now, I can’t say that I think One Billion Rising is effective activism, because it takes a lot more than flashy demonstrations to effect the kind of change necessary to reduce the rape rate (especially when we as a society aren’t even headed in the right direction, though that’s a discussion for another day). However, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, and encouraging women to “rise above” the fear of rape (and its aftereffects) is an excellent idea even if this particular project can’t accomplish it. There are a number of feminists who had much harsher words for Ensler’s creation; they seem to feel it “trivializes” rape, and most of them seemed offended by the very idea of a statement on the subject that was neither bitter nor angry nor lugubrious. One such critic even compared rape to the Holocaust, which I think any reasonable person can agree is a bit much. Hyperbole, calculated outrage and dismissal of the experiences and opinions of real women who have been there may serve to advance a political agenda, but for real rape victims they do far more harm than good.
Just put this on FB. Not well written as its 3 am and i’m rushed. but you get the gist. Have you written something about this case? annie
Needing to vent about a case going on now. Some of you know about it, some don’t. WHY I SUPPORT TRACY ELISE (+ THE 39 PHOENIX GODDESS TEMPLE DEFENDANTS in Arizona. Today, the court deemed Tracy “incompetent” to go to trial for “prostituion related charges.” She will be sent to psych ward and forced to take psychiatric drugs for about 15 months until she’s “competent.” This means no speedy trail. Its already been a year and half! She hasn’t been found guilty of anything. Any of us would end up in psyc ward with all she’s gone through. I liken her plight to the suffragettes, the iron jawed ladies, who fought for the vote for women. Everyone thought they were crazy to fight. Tracy Elise had/has a beautiful vision. She isn’t perfect. Who is? She is indeed extremely religious and many of us aren’t as religious. But there is a lot of blaming the victim from what I have gathered. Please remember, Tracy didn’t hurt anyone (before the raid.) There are no victims! The other defendants perhaps werne’t aware of the risks they were taking for doing “full body healings.” But who really can be, when the rules are constantly changing? Suffragettes in jail that were treated badly by more conservative feminists, as being too radical. But really it was the suffering of the women who risked it all, ended up in jail, that eventually won us all the vote.They tried to stop those women from being so outspoken. Tracy Elise is on the forefront of the fight for OUR rights to do “full body healings”, to own our bodies, to love with touch as a profession, etc. Just like anal sex was made legal by the people who fought that battle in court, so now WE can not get arrested anymore for it. They used to arrest people for making pornography all the time. And put them in jail. (Ie: Harry Reems who just passed away.) It makes me so sad that people don’t remember the original good intentions of the Phoenix Goddess Temple and Tracy’s vision. Everyone involved in the PGT case is a victim of the bad laws, abolitionists, moralists, mean spirited people who hate the mix of sexuality and religion, the weekly paper that wrote a sensationalist article, police who pointed their guns at these nice folks, the court system that doesn’t have speedy trials… . A whole bunch of members of the sex worker community say Tracy is “too religious, or appropriating religions of colonized countries”, the Tantra community members say Tracy was busted for “prostitution,” and “tantra isn’t prostitution.” , etc. Perhaps its my jewish roots, or my activism, but I’m very concerned that if Tracy goes down, they will come for a whole bunch of us. My heart goes out to all the PGT defendants. I do hope that Tracy will be in a nicer place there. But worry about her being forced to take drugs. But then, maybe we don’t know exactly what that means yet. If its really in her best interest, or not. Arizona is indeed a dangerous place. I feel that if we, in the community of tantra people, sexual healers, sex educators, BDSM folks, sex workers, etc. criticise Tracy Elise then we are in a way colluding with the people who broke up a community of very nice folks who were all very well intentioned, and colluding with the people who created this GAG ORDER and system which turned everyone against each other. Then we are contributing to the problem, which is exactly what the “sex negative society” or call it “patriarchal system” wants us to do. Forgive me for venting. I hope I dont offend anyone, especially the other defendants. I just find this development of forced drugging and slower trial date very scary and upsetting. And also I have long been frustrated that our communities can’t find common ground with Tracy (and there is so much common ground)– but prefer to criticize and blame. This was written quickly. HOpe I’m not creating more “evidence” or stepping on toes. I just want the USA to be a safer more loving, sex positive place for all. Don’t you? In most countries, these charges aging PGT would be all be unquestionably legal and even supported.
Thank you for sharing this news, Annie. I did write about it once before, in “Size Matters“, wherein I stated that even though I can find fault with the Goddess Temple’s practices, “I could make similar statements about a lot of religious beliefs, just as I’m sure others find fault with mine; I have no right to tell others what they can or can’t believe, nor do I have the power to look into their hearts to divine whether those beliefs are sincere.” I also disagreed with atheist critics who were saying that “the law has no exception for religions” and pointed out a number of examples.
This is nothing but persecution, pure and simple, and I think it’s utterly disgraceful that sex workers are not standing behind Tracy Elise; it’s the same “divide and conquer” principle I wrote about in “Whorearchy“. Until sex workers stand up for ALL members of our community, as gay activists did for each other, this will never stop.
I am more than outraged. The Phoenix authorities are violating so many Amendments to the Constitution, (I, IV, V, VI, VIII, XIV), the ACLU should be all over this. But somehow, I suspect that they aren’t. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised, when they have a sheriff who seems to have studied the Constitution under Heinrich Himmler.
Annie, does Tracy have any sort of a defense fund going? If so I’d like to contriute.
Wow.
Was the official diagnoses “Sluggish Schizophrenia,” by any chance?
This is really important, which is why it’s important to use paragraph breaks.
Actually-Tracy was found by six doctors who found her competent and the first 2 doctors found her incompetent within one hour because she was heavily concerned about the radiation that the foot monitor they made her wear for months was causing her harm
Over-all no medication was found to be needed for her -so it was not a case of her being incompetent.
I am rather apprehensive in coming forward as one of the 39 codefendants you spoke about Annie. However, I feel I should also clear some of the air on this matter. I stand in agreement with you on this subject, and believe it is nobodies right to come after someone else’s spiritual beliefs. I was held for 72 days in custody, charged with zero evidence with over six felonies against me and assigned an attorney who told me directly that he did not have the time to deal with my case because he had other paying clients and the state only paid him $300 to defend me. My bail at one point was $100,000 cash only and I went 17 days before I was told my charges. And another 21 before I met my attorney.
I suffer from a brain tumor and was refused my medications and health care.
I watched an elderly woman die from weeks of brutality from the staff.
In the end, my child was taken by Cps and I was told to plea out or by the time things went to trial the state would have permanently severed my rights.
I ultimately plead guilty to something I was innocent of.
This is the system in Arizona.
I remember when I was a kid – watching some Western on TV …
A cowboy’s wife had been kidnapped by a tribe of Indians and the cowboy was hell bent on finding and rescuing her. He met up with a band of other cowboys on the trail and one of the older guys told him … “Son, if the Injuns got her … she’s worse than dead by now.”
Sounds an awful lot like “The Searchers,” considered one of the great western films starring John Wayne. Of course, Wayne is unrepentedly racist in the picture (Living among the ‘Injuns’? “That ain’t livin’!” he blurts at one point).
YOU ARE RIGHT! It was “The Searchers” now that you mention it. And wasn’t there TWO girls kidnapped?
I am a big John Wayne fan – in fact, his movie “The Green Berets” is probably the one movie that inspired me the most to join the military. I remember thinking while watching it … “Hmmm, this guy knows what to do with his life – he’s helping people!”
Of course – the military was NOTHING like the Green Berets but then again it was nothing like Walter Cronkite reported either. I found the truth to be in between. However, Waynes character in that movie was basically a grunt and I found he captured the spirit of grunts almost perfectly. Had he gone the extra mile and threw in a few “F” words (as they do) – he’d have nailed it.
Yes, there were two girls kidnapped, but one was killed early in the proceedings (and to tie this back to the subject at hand, it’s implied that she was raped beforehand to boot). And the second girl Wayne’s character wanted to find so he could kill her, for being ‘defiled’ so to speak.
TQM,
“Shane” and “The Searchers” (Holley’s “That’ll be the day” is attributed to “The Searchers”) are probably the two greatest westerns made. “Stagecoach” I’d give third. The racism of JWs character in “The Searchers” was pertinent and descriptive of how he would feel about the taking, his anger and his fear, especially when it involved saving Natalie Wood. John Ford westerns were generally always fair to NAs without making them the protagonist, as his westerns were still about the anglos. Ford also created a great ensemble with McLaglen, Johnson, Carey, Bond, O’Hara, Fonda, et al, and Monument Valley as background.
“Hondo”, directed by John Farrow, with JW as a “half-breed” though is my favorite. NAs were portrayed as both dishonorable and honorable. Human. Not noble savage or degenerate primitive, just human.
Best JW film, TQM. But you knew that. Can’t beat the pairing with Maureen O’Hara, or McLaglen.
This was SO powerful, and eye opening. Thank you so much for sharing this.
You’re very welcome.
I have never been, but now am an adamant opponent of, hysteria. Hysteria gets people lynched, raped, killed, brutalized, jailed, and always causes more harm than good, as well as a loss of personal freedoms for society at large.
Unfortunately this sensitive and sensible message about rape *from those who have experienced it* will never be the dominant voice in today’s culture.
You do realize from where the term “hysteria”?
In Jim Crow days it wasn’t hysteria, it was lies and CYA that got black males lynched for defiling white women’s flowers. Oh, wait, those white women weren’t lying because women don’t lie about rape, or almost rape, or sexual harrassment. Only 2%; so only 2% of those black males hanged for defiling white women were hanged innocent. I feel so much better about lynching.
OK, maybe the males were hysterical…
You have just expressed the reason many black women feel uncomfortable with feminist claims that women “almost never” lie about rape; they know the history of their people in the United States, and they know how many black men were lynched using false rape accusations. And no, I don’t accept that women have changed since then (any more than men have); if human nature changes at all, it’s an achingly-slow process that takes millennia, not decades.
I agree with you as for change over time. There is nothing that people won’t lie about for altruism, or real or perceived self-interest, or childish selfishness. Women are people.
Yeah, knowing about lynching puts the lie to “almost never”.
Hahaha. I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or making fun of me.
Here here! I would, however, like to make one objection. Victorian colonialism was one hell of a lot more effective and decent than what is being practiced (or malpracticed) today, at least in those colonial holdings that were governed by the British, the Americans, and (mostly) the French. There are many legitimate objections to colonialism, but that does not excuse conflating it with the internationalist idiocy of the modern era. The 19th century British, Americans, and French had no patience for terrorism, famine as a tool of statecraft, tribal extermination or other forms of near genocide, or slave trading. They knew such practices were wrong (admittedly sometimes because they had paid a terrible price to quit them) and they were ready to spend blood and treasure to end them.
The U.N. and its progressivist fans, on the other hand, have the moral stature of duckweed.
Are you serious? The 19th century Britons starved the Irish as a “tool of statecraft”; the Great Famine only happened because the Britons took all of the other food out of the country. The US still had legal slavery for most of the 19th century, and throughout the 19th century was trying to exterminate the indigenous people of the Americas. I don’t know much about France during that time but a fast google search showed me that they had a policy of assimilationism, and did not abolish slavery until 1905. You are therefore entirely incorrect.
You’re forgetting the Germans and the Belgians. Belgians were the worst. The French accepted color, but their colonies were only slightly better administered than the Germans and the Belgians.
America was the least of the colonial powers if you can forgive TR and the UFC. Really, our colonial reach was over some islands, the largest being the Philippines, Hawaiian Islands, and Cuba; by continent, Central America. We were pikers compared to all the others. Sand Pebbles was a movie.
I asked a Hindu friend about the British empire. He gave it applause and a Bronx cheer: it made India from warring factions, it created a country; it gave them the greatest railroad; it gave them “Rule by Law” and their form of Democracy; it also gave a great sucking sound as wealth left India for the UK.
“The 19th century British, Americans, and French had no patience for terrorism, famine as a tool of statecraft, tribal extermination or other forms of near genocide, or slave trading.” You sweep too broadly. The British used tribe against tribe, following the Roman practice, as did the French; and famine? the Potato Famine in Ireland in the 1840s? the British did nothing but use it to their advantage, and I neglect Swift’s 1729 “A Modest Proposal” where Swift satirically showed how the British had made it clear as to how they disposed of the Irish.
I’ll give you slave trading, as driven by the British in 1807, followed by the Americans in 1808 (the American bill preceded that of the British by 23 days but took affect later, I just learned that hoorah), and France in 1818. As for slavery itself, Mexico beats the previous three by 13 years for the best of the three. Britain in 1833, France in 1858, the USA after that terrible war. The ex-Portuguese colony of Brazil did it in 1868, but with a 20 year transition to protect those black children. The Islamic countries needed the mid-20th Century mark to end slavery. Effects of colonialism I’m sure.
I’m a generalist and like broad brushes, but colonialism and slavery needs a narrow sash brush. (Especially when the early colonialism of Asian and Islamic countries is taken into account; Europeans didn’t create colonialism but they did do it well.)
“The U.N. and its progressivist fans, on the other hand, have the moral stature of duckweed.” You insult duckweed, and I write that without being a political supporter, nor having any financial interest in, duckweed.
i remember two jobs ive had when i was in my teens.the first was a salesgirl job,where i had to put up with an awful boss and hysterical girls crying over the fact that the dress they liked didnt fit them.the other was a waitress in a bar(in greece they have no problem hiring minors in places where alcohol is served,in fact they have no problem serving minors anyway).there the boss was decent.the customers were sometimes disrespectful but lots of that desrespect came from being groped,getting cat calls(that i dont really find disrespectful), try to get me to give them my number by flirting in a rather vulgar way(they were drunk,of course).so many people kept telling me that i should have stayed a salesgirl.but i found the hysterical girls to be a worse headache than lecherous guys and besides the boss was decent now.they didnt get it.do you think it is the same mentality?that the worst kind of disrespect is sexual disrespect for a woman comes from the mindset that rape is a worse fate than even death?
i also find this mentality to be very dangerousfor rape victims.if you have everyone telling you that you cant ever recover from what happened to you,of course your life is gonna be miserable.i have seen mothers who lost their children for gods sake being told that its gonna become easier with time but we act as if rape is the end of the world?
If you look at the male side of violation, and yeah we can be violated, anal rape is the worst, but being beaten to a bloody pulp or near is also very damaging, but the latter can be talked about because most men and women can have sympathy even empathy. Still, the memory lasts and affects self-worth.
Tell a woman you’ve been raped, after she quits laughing (however silently) about it she’ll move on to a more suitable man. If you’ve been beaten to a bloody pulp, it’s a crap shoot on whether the woman will stay with you or leave. You aren’t a capable protector.
These violations have different meanings and import for men and women. We need to recognize what they mean for both, accept what they mean for both, and not to embrace permanent victimhood for either. At this juncture, only one has permanent victimhood, the other just a butt for a punch line.
Maggie, You are pretty smart about these things. Perhaps you can answer this question. Why will none of the feminist and anti-rape groups speak out against rape in prisons and youth facilities? Is it because there is no money in it. Or because many of the victims (men, trans, sex workers) are not popular with feminists? Or is it something else?
The great weakness of modern American feminism (I can’t really speak for elsewhere) is that they are almost exclusively concerned with a) big, headline-grabbing issues (like women in the military) and b) the concerns of upper-middle class white women who went to ‘good’ colleges. Any concern they express for the poor, the working class, or the third world is purely secondary.
Congrats CSP, I think you hit that one over the fence.
The thing that baffles ME about the feminists is the way they have battled so hard to get women in combat, and don’t appear to have given any thought to the obvious next step, which is some young guy or guys successfully bringing suit because THEY have to register for selective service and their sisters don’t.
Has anyone here seen the issue addressed by any feminists?
Csps,
No, but it won’t be without qualifications and goal-post moving. It will likely be something about not all women should serve, not all women qualify, there are jobs women can do but they shouldn’t be forced to do others, and some form of Victorian era begging about women. The current wave of feminism isn’t about gender equality. BTW, words have gender, humans have sexes (which can take into account hetero, bi, homo, and trans) but I’m stuck with this crap of “gender”.
Personally, I’m against selective service registration with a voluntary military. It’s very easy to start selective service, we did it in WWII, it doesn’t need to be on-going.
I have seen a small number (Camille Paglia for one, if I remember correctly) of first generat feminists discuss this back in the days of the ERA ratification. Their general comment was maybe if the powerbrokers’ daughters were on the line, they might try harder to keep us out of a war.
The selective service I and every other man had to sign up for when we turned eighteen is nonsense, a bit of show to make us feel that we were “doing something” about communism. It’s Cold War silliness. It didn’t make America any safer then, and it doesn’t make America any safer now.
I suppose that adding women to the meaningless show would be fairer than sticking it to only one sex, in the same way as it would be fairer for the NYPD to subject as many whites to “stop & frisk” as they do blacks, but really, the only truly fair thing is to get rid of it.
Selective service goes back far before the fear of Communism; they are not to blame in this case, if they were ever to blame for anything.
I have no idea how to take “if they were ever to blame for anything”. Communist regimes have been only second to the Nazis in brutality in the 20th Century. Sontag called it “fascism (though Nazism would have been better, but she likely conflates the two) with a human face”; the cudgel hurts the same.
The Draft was instituted first by Lincoln.
I’m not talking about actually drafting people into military service. I’m talking about the silliness where every man at age eighteen has to go sign a piece of paper, but isn’t actually drafted. It was a compromise between those who wanted the draft and those who did not. Sometimes compromise is great, but this was just dumb.
And this was done because, you know, the commies.
I think CSP Schofield is pretty much dead on. Anything that doesn’t affect middle-class white women is pretty much off the radar of mainstream feminism. Also, their interest in rape is largely political; that’s why the definition keeps expanding and the proposed “solutions” aren’t anything of the kind.
I think “middle-class white women” is one step too low. “White women of privilege” I see as better, with privilege meaning very good or best schools, and an economic level above just middle-class. I’m not trying to nit-pick you, I think the only reason the vanguard of feminism considers middle-class is for numbers not affinity. They have no real affinity for poor, lower, or middle-class women other than their own self-elevation.
I think this was clearly shown in the Clinton admin, where the accusing women varied from lower to middle class (one was an actress in the “Highlander” series), but were denigrated by feminism (with Carville supplying the best verbiage) as big-haired trailer-trash because they dared to attack their boy, who seemingly had this predilection for big-hair…
As for rape-definitions, they’re defining up for power.
“Why will none of the feminist and anti-rape groups speak out against rape in prisons and youth facilities?” Because it is so often and so much males getting what they deserve for being part of the rape-culture. Just a butt for a punch line in feminist stand-up comedy.
Rape is rape, unless it isn’t male on female. If it’s male on male, female on female, or the rare female on male, it just isn’t real rape except for lip-service. After the lip-service it can be ignored.
[…] Sprinkle wrote in defense of Tracy Elise and the 39 other Tantric workers arrested in a prostitution sting on The Phoenix Goddess Temple in […]
It wasn’t men or religion that decided that rape was a soul destroying experience, it was feminists. It was an extension of the all heterosexual sex is rape theory. Being ravished was an expected part of the courtship ritual, and as long as a man married a woman afterwards rape wasn’t even treated as a crime. It was rape of a married woman that mattered because she could potentially fall pregnant with the rapists baby, as well as having had sex with a man other than her husband.
Frankly, I don’t buy this notion that woman aren’t believed if they don’t behave a certain way, that certainly not true of any criminal justice system I have worked in, and I doubt it’s true of America either.
In most reported rapes cases in the UK the accuser withdraws her evidence, the circumstances do not amount to rape, the case is discontinued by the by the CPS or thrown out by a judge because there is no case to answer (the accuser is provably lying). Very few cases get to trial but of those that do the conviction rate is above 50%. Most reported rape cases are ambiguous consent, drunken consent or fraudulent obtained consent cases that should never have been reported in the first place. However, it has the knock on effect and genuine rape victims (by which I mean those who were raped, as opposed to those who are unsure whether they were raped) think they won’t be believed when there is a very high probability that they will. The only person likely to express disbelief is the defence lawyer, that is of course if there isn’t a guilty plea.
Hi, Stefi,
Had to read your post twice. I think you are likely right that feminists have raised rape to “soul destroying” for a woman, a permanent state of victimhood one can never escape, so long as its heterosexual not lesbian. The latter wasn’t patriarchal, heterosexual male dominance, so has no political/sexual meaning anymore than lesbian DV.
However, rape, as well loss of female virginity, has had a connotation of “damaged goods” for millennia, enforced rigorously and viciously by both sexes. Both threatened by a sexually-active women, forced or not. Yeah, this in terms of rape: “It was rape of a married woman that mattered because she could potentially fall pregnant with the rapists baby, as well as having had sex with a man other than her husband.” Which also made her a threat to other women, she was an adulteress even if forced. She survived it rather than dying for her purity. Impure women are dangerous…
“by which I mean those who were raped, as opposed to those who are unsure whether they were raped”, I assume that means those that were rape-raped (Whoopi Goldberg, who was just saying, and a very discredited Republican). I may be callous here but rape is like art, we know it when we see it. When we aren’t sure, or worse troubled calling it such, it may not be either.
Finally, the drinking part drives me nuts. A women who drinks has no agency, a man drinking has nothing but agency. I thought women like sex…
…because it empowered them to embrace their sexuality and their drive. But then no woman owns her vagina, as I’ve learned lately, it’s owned by the group and must be employed as accepted by the group (privileged white women).
I’m glad my penis is mine, any guy that said I didn’t own my penis but was part of the penis dialogue would be, well, laughed at? Or a feminist?
Hi Ariel,
“However, rape, as well loss of female virginity, has had a connotation of “damaged goods” for millennia, enforced rigorously and viciously by both sexes. ”
That’s the point. The act of rape wasn’t a big deal, the consequence was. If the rapist married his victim; “no harm, no foul”. If the victim was married, as long as she wasn’t pregnant, the matter could be resolved by the rape by the crime being avenged, for example the virtue of Sicilian women raped by the French was restored in the Sicilian Vespers by the emasculation and murder of every Frenchmen.
“I assume that means those that were rape-raped ”
It means those who were clearly raped, as opposed to the women who do not recall whether they consented, did nothing to indicate they did not consent or consented but want to respectively withdraw it, as in drunken consent. It’s a myth that a woman can’t give drunken consent.
Hi, Stefi,
So not raped-raped is the actually common sense definition, rather than I woke up the next morning with regret. I thought as much, but always like Whoopi’s defense of Polanski because of her hypocrisy.
“It’s a myth that a woman can’t give drunken consent.” Women have agency only if they’re cold sober, well-rested, and have other women to advise them. Men on the other hand always have agency, no matter what. So women can’t give consent after .08 or, egads, .15.
With gender feminists, I see them trying to mix Lara Croft and some Victorian woman fainting over harsh words, whichever works when needed.
Are you people nuts! Maggie, you write as if all instances of rape are date rape, or a stupid, drunk girl passing out and being assaulted by a stupid, drunk boy, or a woman being groped by her boss. The rapes that are devastating are the ones involving violence. The trauma that comes from raped and beaten, or raped and being cut, is difficult to overcome. The rape that is devastating is not about sex, its about domination and sadism on the part of the rapist. I think there are two kinds of rape. Date rape is relatively easy to get over; being assaulted by a stranger weilding a knife is hard to overcome.
No, I write as if I was raped by THREE FUCKING COPS WITH A GODDAMNED GUN TO MY HEAD. “Hard to overcome” is not FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE. Rape, even by monsters, is NOT A GODDAMNED DEATH SENTENCE. It’s not the END OF THE FUCKING WORLD. And don’t tell me it’s NOT ABOUT GODDAMNED SEX unless you committed one that wasn’t, or suffered one where you could tell the motive. If a man has a GODDAMNED ERECTION, and makes the same noises and expressions as any other man in sex, it’s about GODDAMNED SEX even if it uses restraint and violence. People who claim “rape is not about sex” are naive children who think that all sex is good, so therefore bad sex ≠ sex. That’s bullshit; just because sex is violent and unwanted doesn’t make it not sex; just ask anyone who’s ever become pregnant from it. And people who recognize that a woman can get over the loss of a child, but refuse to accept that she can get over a rape, know absolutely nothing about women.
Rant over; please don’t anyone else respond to this comment (mine, I mean) because it will just get me wound up again and I have too much shit to do to comment in this thread all day.
And domination and sadism are, of course, never tied to the sexual urges at all. And power never has a sexual charge.
In some other world, some other species, possibly, but this isn’t the way humans in this world behave. Sex and power are deeply intertwined in the human psyche. Sex and violence are.
I think the thing going on here is that mainstream feminism wants to redefine “sex” so that only morally sound, fully consensual sex counts. If you define “sex” that way, by definition rape cannot be about sex …
I would put money on it that the violent, cruel, sadistic rapist is getting off. Maybe not physically so — not all rapes involve the rapist taking physical pleasure of the victim — but mentally speaking, I’d guarantee it.
I think there is also pressure to define rape as “not really sexual” to try to undermine the idea that rape happens solely because of male sexual desperation and uncontrollable urges.
Male sexual desperation can indeed drive a man to doing wrong, just as hunger can, but I don’t think it fully explains the vast majority of rape. Many rapists could get consensual sex easily; some in fact are getting such. There’s something else going on there. But it most clearly IS at least partly to do with sex.
Rape is a horrible, evil, vicious thing to do to anybody. And women can get past it. Women do. Those statements are not at odds.
Much of our society acts as if you must either treat rape as something which transforms a woman into a ruined being in every case or you have to consider it a minor inconvenience, no big deal.
No. Rape is a big deal. Rape is evil. Rape is something nobody should do, and nobody should have to experience. It is punished harshly, and it should be. And rape is not a way to ruin a woman forever. As with many things in life, it isn’t a switch but a dial.
I actually think that this idea that a woman is never a whole person again encourages rapists. Not ‘my girlfriend is seventeen and a half and I am one day past eighteen’ rape or ‘I said yes but I should have said no’ rape, but real rape-rape, the kind where there is no consent at all. Not drunken, not immature, not ANY consent. Think about the mind of a man who does that to a woman. A mind like that is going to find the idea that he can ruin a woman forever to be a huge turn-on.
“I don’t just get to fuck her when she doesn’t want it; I don’t just get to make her do something she doesn’t want to do and see her cry; I get to ruin her FOREVER!!”
This can motivate a sadistic person whether or not it’s actually true.
Part of the problem is that in our patriarchal society, where there are men who, for some unknown reason, believe that woman are chattel, any form of sex between a man and a woman outside of marriage is called 1) fornication, 2) adultery, 3) rape. this means that a lot of actions are considered rape that should not be considered such–like 17 year-old Tommy and 16 year-old Susie having sex. In the same way, some acts of rape, like a husband beating the hell out of his unwilling wife and sodomizing her, were not included in the category of rape until the recent past. It is this duality that is causing the problems, including the concept of automatic ruination/no big deal conundrum. Unfortunately, since I am not omniscient, I don’t have an answer for this problem.
That lack of omniscience is a malady I share, and it’s a real bitch.
“in our patriarchal society” change the word to “matriarchal” and you’d have the same issues. Your latter two especially, unless you want to maintain married women embrace adultery for both, and that feminists (gender types) haven’t taken the definition of rape to the absurd. One of the main reasons why 18 yo Johnny is more likely to be charged with rape for sex with 15 yo Alice, and only now is it even likely that 18 yo Alice will be charged with rape for sex with 15 yo Johnny. I changed the ages because 16 is the age of consent in most states, many have proximity rules, so the example was poor. I changed the names to protect the innocent.
The duality that is the problem is not recognizing that this isn’t a “gender” problem but a human one. DV is done by both sexes, child abuse is done by both sexes, rape is done by both sexes, every evil done is done by both sexes. Pizzey realized this after setting up the first DV shelter in Britain and was showered with death threats.
BTW: DV is about equal in initiation; child abuse, including murder, is predominately women (1.76 the last I looked, I’ll wait for the excuses); rape is overwhelmingly men if you take into account prison rape, it goes down a bit if you include lesbian rape, female heterosexual rape, and statutory rape by females.
I will agree with you that forced sex in marriage is wrong. I will not agree with you if you believe a married woman should not take into account her husband’s stronger sex drive and work for a middle ground. Like all aspects of marriage.
[…] Slut shamed to death. Not just Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons and Audrie Potts but other victims all over the world who we’ll never hear about. Most of the women we do hear about are middle class, cis, white and very young. They usually have caring, confident parents who can publicise their stories, hire lawyers and contact media. But girls whose parents can’t speak English as a first language, who are seen as promiscuous or troubled, whose parents and community don’t value them, whose culture might condone shaming them even more than ours does- who speaks for them when they are raped, bullied, and failed by the authorities? Many girls and women are bullied but don’t reveal what the ‘reason’ for the bullying was. Most don’t kill themselves and so they’ll never make the headlines. Perhaps the saddest thing is that while feminism and even mainstream culture view rape as the worst thing that can happen to women, these girls didn’t kill themselves because they were raped, molested or exploited. They killed themselves because of the bullying and slut shaming. For Rehtaeh- and many others- the slut shaming was worse than the gang rape. Rape isn’t always the worst thing or the fate that is worse than death. […]
[…] Slut shamed to death. Not just Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons and Audrie Potts but other victims all over the world who we’ll never hear about. Most of the women we do hear about are middle class, cis, white and very young. They usually have caring, confident parents who can publicise their stories, hire lawyers and contact media. But girls whose parents can’t speak English as a first language, who are seen as promiscuous or troubled, whose parents and community don’t value them, whose culture might condone shaming them even more than ours does- who speaks for them when they are raped, bullied, and failed by the authorities? Many girls and women are bullied but don’t reveal what the ‘reason’ for the bullying was. Most don’t kill themselves and so they’ll never make the headlines. Perhaps the saddest thing is that while feminism and even mainstream culture view rape as the worst thing that can happen to women, these girls didn’t kill themselves because they were raped, molested or exploited. They killed themselves because of the bullying and slut shaming. For Rehtaeh- and many others- the slut shaming was worse than the gang rape. Rape isn’t always the worst thing or the fate that is worse than death. […]