So much for that "accidental" sexual assault...

Well, what do you know? A study shows what we've been saying all along! Rapists know when someone isn't consenting.

Why do they always get it wrong?

A relative of mine linked to this article on Facebook. Now, while I'm always glad when people are as upset with the sexual objectification of other people as I am, there are several problems with the views expressed in this article.

First off, I really, really dislike putting it in terms of "send[ing] out really bad signals to adult men about young girls being appropriate sexual objects, objects of sexual desire for young men". It nurses the myth that men can't control themselves and sexual assault happens because women dress like sluts*. The truth, of course, is that men know full fucking well that they should stay away from children (and women who haven't consented) regardless of "signals".

Remember: if the witnesses to a rape aren't male, then they are inadmissible

Came across this on the curvature. Cara's words on it are well-thought out, as I always find her posts to be, so I don't have much more to add to it, other than the criminal case itself.

There are Islamist societies where, when it comes to rape, a man must have been a witness or it is inadmissible in court, meaning a man can rape a woman in the presence of other women and get away with it. But that's hardly anything unknown. All over the media we see Muslim=misogynist, regardless of the accuracy, etc. This, one would think, should be in contrast to the West, shouldn't it? Here in the West, if there's a witness to a crime, we take that witness seriously, regardless of gender, right? Except not.

man boobz: misogyny, the men's rights movement and more: The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys

man boobz: misogyny, the men's rights movement and more: The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys: "I'm walkin' here! Pierce Harlan of the False Rape Society has broken past the limits of mere logic, arguing that the fact that a small num..."

How feminists "expand the definition" of sexual assault

I hear and read this phrase a lot from pseudo-feminists (people, especially women, who call themselves feminists and use that as an excuse to criticize and disagree with just about everything feminism stands for), anti-feminists (same as pseudo-feminists, but they don't claim to be feminists), men's rights activists (anti-feminists who claim that men, not women, are oppressed), turncoats (they used to identify as feminists, and perhaps still do, and used to pretend to support feminist theory and philosophy, but are now pseudo-feminists, anti-feminists, or men's rights activists). First of all, let's be clear: I am in no way purporting that the continued expansion of the definition of sexual assault couldn't lead us down a dangerous road. If, for example, sexual assault included all anal sex (which, by the way, is a hell of a lot more likely to come from religious Right-wing fanatics than from feminists), or, in a rather mangled quote misattributed to feminist Catharine McKinnon (it was Andrea Dworkin), that all consensual sex between a woman and man is rape (and that wasn't what she meant), there is cause for concern.

About that "rape by deception"

*Trigger warning for sexual assault scenario

Last I wrote about it, I'll admit, I was angry, and what I said about that particular case I still stand by, but what if the case actually had been as we had initially thought? A few posts ago, I listed some "gray rape" scenarios and explained why each was either clearly rape or clearly sex. Rape by deception generally actually refers to instances such as a man turning out the lights and pretending to be woman's husband before sleeping with her, something I listed as rape for obvious reasons, which I won't explain here. If you want the explanation, visit my "gray rape" post. Another example of rape by deception would be a police officer telling a person ze caught that ze will let hir off if ze has 'sex' with hir, and the officer then did not let hir off. That's rape for other reasons too, obviously. So what about what we believed this case to be? Claims went from "She specifically said she wanted a long-term relationship with only a Jewish man, and he said he was Jewish" to "They were in the heat of the moment and she asked if he was Jewish and he said yes" to "She didn't even ask if he was Jewish or not; she just assumed because his nickname was considered Jewish". Not in any particular order, and there were all sorts of in between, but since these are the ones that stood out to me, these are what I will tackle.

Reverse Sexism

...doesn't exist but what if it did? Inspired by an essay where a woman described how, hey, she wouldn't mind a wife of her own! Men don't seem to get sexism, but I'm sure they might if the roles were reversed. A lot of people seemed to like this on deviantart (with the exception of that MRA I mentioned in my first post), so I'm posting it here.

*Trigger warning for simulated sexual assault apologia

       I am a modern woman. What do I want? First, let’s start with language. When using a singular pronoun of unknown gender, I want it to be written in the feminine (for example, she, her, hers). When referring to the human race, I want it called womankind, women, and woman because words like humanity, people, humankind, and humans are unnecessary after all. However, I want certain objects to have male pronouns such as ships and cars, and we shall call our home countries the “fatherland”, unless that country wants the world to know how powerful it is, in which case it will be appropriately termed "motherland".
       If we must be gender inclusive, we will always put the feminine before the masculine, such as “her or him,” “she or he,” “her or his.” Animal names shall also be in the feminine and we will only use the male version when referring to the gender (example; a lion is a male lioness).

How Gray is "Gray Rape" Really?

Originally posted on my deviantart account.

*Trigger warning for rape apologism

*Trigger warning for described rape scenarios

I recently came across a Cosmopolitan article (on the net, since I don't read Cosmo) that discussed a "new kind of rape" it calls "gray rape." I shit you not. Now, I was lead there from Cara on The Curvature, and she was just as infuriated as I was when I read the article. Admittedly, this discussion took place in 2007, but I still find it a relevant topic to discuss right here, right now. Why? Because people still don't get it. I recently had a conversation in which the person I was talking to said, "But you have to admit that there is a gray area." I have to admit no such thing. Because there isn't. People may not be black and white, but actions can be and often are. Rape is black and white. It either happened or it didn't. If it did, then only the perpetrator is to blame. If it didn't, then only the false accuser is to blame. Period. No gray.

Gray rape is supposedly "sex that falls somewhere between consent and denial and is even more confusing than date rape because often both parties wake up unsure of who wanted what." From this, you would expect the stories to be of a nature where two strangers woke up not knowing each other and couldn't remember what happened the night before and one of them wonders if it was rape (and even then it wouldn't be "gray rape" since if one later remembered that they hadn't said yes, it would still have been rape). But no. As Cara stated, "victims of gray rape didn't only all fail to say yes, but also all actually say no", which they did. I read the article, and there was nothing gray about any of these scenarios, and that includes the one that they didn't even bother to list as gray rape but rather as a confusing experience. By they, I really mean "she," Laura Sessions Stepp, according to whom these assaults wouldn't happen if only women didn't partake in the hook-up culture.

Lolicon as an "Art Form"

Cross-posted on my deviantart account. I'm not linking to the argument itself.

*Trigger warning for sexual assault apologism and defense

There are few people who get my ire up more than sexual assault apologists, and defenders of the abomination that is lolicon (and shotacon) are exactly that. I'm posting an argument I had on deviantart.com concerning the subject where this pedophile tried to defend it as an "art form". I've said most of what I want to say on the subject in this argument. 1, as I call him here, was a lolicon 'artist' himself, surprise, surprise. One of his pieces of 'art' depicted the young adolescent girls with the title, "So easy, a cave man could do them" and another with the title, "Lolicon Dating: get them now because in a few short years they'll realize you have to spend money on them first". For easier reading, since this is light text on a black background, my comments will again be in magenta.

1: If you don't like an artform then don't look at it. I don't like yaoso I avoid it, I don't like how museums have neaked dude taking a sh*t or sitting nude on a rock and I avoid it. I don't make useless complaints about it.



2: But lolicon could potentially harm someone. If a person got too much into lolicon, it could lead to lusting after little girls in real life. I don't support getting rid of it, either, but I can understand the point.

Case in Point: the Everyday Misogynist

My boyfriend told me about this conversation that occurred on facebook. In the interest of protecting people, even people who disgust me, I will use initials rather than people's names here and only the first letter of any city described. I will not include parts of the conversation that are irrelevant to what I want I want to discuss here, nor comments that reveal too much personal information. This is a prime example of the closet misogynist. Notice how he begins, and what is actually revealed. Notice that the comments reveal that he, in fact, is a straight conservative white middle class male who believes that if we are equal under the law, we must be in society. He believes that he is no more privileged than anyone else and that no one is less privileged than he is. He uses words like "scream" to describe the rightful protests demanding equality. People were being polite to him, I think. I don't intend to be. Once again, my commentary will be in magenta.

AE: is brainstorming for a speech for international women's day at the beginning of March.

PH: When is international men's day?

He couldn't just, you know, not comment?

AE: Every day... P
 

PH: No, really? Why is there a day for women and not men? Are we not all equal? I personally don't think there should be a day for either.

Because women are oppressed for being women, and men are not oppressed for being men. No, we are not all equal, yet. Ah, of course you don't think there should be a day for either, and that would have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you're a privileged male, now would it?

How Privileged We Women Are!

I, from time to time, find myself at an MRA ("men's rights activists" or "morally ridiculous assholes", take your pick) website, and most of what I find is either loltastic and useless or frightening. However, I did come across a little tidbit. In response to the ALAS! male privilege checklist, Masculist Advice posted another list (among others) to counter it, found on some MRA forum or other. I haven't looked at the other so-called female privilege checklists, but this one defines ridiculous. I'm posting it below, along with my commentary, which is in magenta. My boyfriend made a suggestion to aid in my commentary for 11).

1) Career wise, I can complain about harassment and not be laughed at or have my gender called into question by both genders.
Having the harassment minimized by the harasser and other co-workers alike, regardless of gender, and being accused of ulterior motives is so much better.

2) I can skip a few years of employment and then return, demanding the same raises that others have had who remained employed. If my demand is not met, I can accuse the company of discrimination.
I can totally decide to do this even when I don’t have children, and I will never be fired or conveniently laid off for it.