Category Archives: rape culture

Ozy’s Thoughts On Pickup Artistry

[Content note: some discussion of rape later in the post.]

I’m actually less anti-pickup than most sex-positive feminists: I think a lot of pickup tactics probably do work. DHVs (the jargon term for “having cool traits”) work. Congruence (the jargon term for “not passing yourself off as something you’re not”) works. Peacocking (the jargon term for “really awesome clothes”) works. (At least, my ex-girlfriend once said that if Mystery wanted to fuck her, all he’d have to do is not say something so dumb that it outweighed his being a skinny pretty pale gothy dude in eyeliner.)

Even the stuff that probably doesn’t work is decent as a Dumbo’s Magic Feather. If you believe the neg hit works, you’ll go hit on more girls. As long as it doesn’t actively turn off women, you’ll believe it’s the neg hit, rather than the neg hit improving your willingness to hit on women.

I think my biggest complaint is that pick-up artists in general are extremely dishonest about what their systems prove– namely, they believe they have a General Theory of What Women Are Attracted To. However, most pickup artists admit they target twentysomething, conventionally attractive women. In addition, the most common forms of game are “night game” (nightclubs) and “day game” (talking to strange women going about their everyday activities); women who like nightclubs and strangers talking to them on the street are almost certainly more extraverted than average, and probably different on several other personality metrics. Not to mention the filtering effects of PUA techniques themselves: some evidence suggests a correlation between women being attracted to people who use PUA techniques and women being sexist.

You don’t have a general theory of women’s sexuality; you have a general theory of the sexuality of Sexist Outgoing Twentysomething Conventionally Attractive Women Who Like Nightclubs And/Or Street Harassment. Which is fine! That’s what you’re aiming for! But generalizing from that sample to all women is about as plausible as me saying that all women are attracted to dudes who make out with each other because that gets you laid at YaoiCon.

Pickup artists’ ideas of what women like have to stay remotely within the bounds of the plausible; if a tactic gets a drink thrown on you every time, you will eventually stop doing it. On the other hand, as regards men’s preferences they may go on the most wild flights of fancy in the world. Thus we get claims like “[the ugliness of older women] is why you will see older women in porn work the penis like a piston with their mouths and hands– hard, firm, and unrelenting tactile stimulation is the only way they can get a guy off,” which is pretty much the most gloriously self-refuting sentence of all time.

(Seriously, did you think I could get through a whole post about pick-up artistry without picking on Heartiste at least once?)

It gets worse when they start trying to explain why their tactics work, because they will inevitably explain it with Evolution, despite not knowing the first thing about evolution. I’m not even asking that they know gender theory. But seriously, basic anthropology (gatherers provide most of the calories in most cultures, hence no such thing as beta male provider) and biology (r/K selection is on a species level, not an individual level, and hasn’t been a popular theory for twenty years anyway; there’s no such thing as an alpha wolf) are not that hard.

My other major beef with pickup artistry, other than it actively making people have dumb beliefs about gender, is that some pickup artists recommend raping women. This is… a pretty huge beef, to be fair.

I feel like to a certain degree that’s a natural consequence of specifically trying to figure out the best method to fuck the most women possible. After all, raping women is a very effective method of getting your dick wet.

Obviously, I’m not saying that everyone who wants to get laid more will inevitably end up justifying rape. What I am saying is that adopting a particular narrow view– where your goal is to collect notches on your bedpost rather than to engage in mutually satisfactory sexual and/or romantic relationships– is likely to lead some people to think “hey, if I just ignored those stupid women saying ‘no’ I’d get WAY more notches.”

About these ads

On Consent Paranoia

Ozy, having sex: “Do you want this? Are you sure you want this? Really sure? I don’t want to pressure you into anything you don’t want! I’m totally okay with not doing this thing! I just want to do what you want. I’ll be really happy regardless of what we do. Are you sure you want this? Sure you’re sure?”

Part of my consent paranoia might be that I have an anxiety disorder and anyway tend towards scrupulosity, but I feel like consent paranoia is relatively common among people who take good consent seriously. Obviously, we all stop when our partner says “no” or “stop” or “not feeling it” or “ow that hurts” or “safeword,” because not doing that is rape and if you do you are a rapist.

But a lot of times people don’t really want sex, but don’t say no for whatever reason. In my case, I know it from personal experience: I’ve had sex I didn’t really want because I wasn’t sure how to say no, or because I didn’t want my partner to be upset, or because I thought it would be bad or unfair of me to object. And you know what? Having sex you don’t want to have sucks! It’s generally unpleasant and awful for everyone.

So I get paranoid and start asking repeatedly whether my partners are absolutely sure that they want to have sex or try a particular sex act. Absolutely positively sure? You don’t have to! I don’t want to pressure you!

I imagine this gets very annoying to my sexual partners.

Worse, I get so concerned about pressuring people that I don’t ask for what I want because what if I ask for something and they feel like they have to give it to me? There are a lot of problems with this logic. First, I want people I’m fucking to ask for what they want and am continually frustrated by sex partners with no preferences whatsoever. (“I dunno, I just like sex. Sexy sex.”) Therefore people I’m fucking almost certainly want me to express my desires. Second, if my partners can’t say no to something because I asked for it, our relationship has problems that cannot be solved by not asking for things.

So this is a bit of a problem.

Ultimately, consent paranoia– in addition to being incredibly annoying to oneself and others– is disrespectful of my partner’s bodily autonomy. I do not get to decide what kind of sex they want; they do. If they say “I want this,” it isn’t my job to audit whether they really do.

I mean, good consent is still a thing. I can make saying “no” as pleasant an experience as possible (stopping as soon as my partner says “no,” not questioning their “no,” continuing to be affectionate and loving and affirming). I can check in if my partner seems to show signs of withdrawing or not being into it. I can ask my partner about their limits and respect those limits. I can be totally cool with my partner changing their mind. If my partner has issues with saying “no” to sex, we can talk about that and figure out how to cope with it.

But ultimately, they are the ones who have to say no, they are the ones who have to respond with “yeah, not feeling it” after a check-in, they are the ones who have to say what their limits are or whether they’ve changed their mind, and they are the ones who have to say “sometimes I have trouble saying ‘no,’ can you…?”

There’s a part of me that wants to Save Everyone, Everyone In The World. It’s hard to admit that I can do everything right and shit can still go wrong. It’s really hard to accept that some things are out of my control. I have to trust my partners, and sometimes that feels like jumping off a building without a bungee cord.

So basically guys if you’re having sex with me please say “no” when you don’t want something it will give me much less panic.

Steelmanning PIV-Critical Feminism

For those of you don’t know: steelmanning is coming up with better versions of your opponents’ arguments, and PIV-critical feminism is the kind of feminism that comes up with graphics like this: 


[Assuming the following are all true: PIV = sex, oral + PIV = sex, digital + oral + PIV = sex. What is the value of oral? What is the value of digital? They are both zero. If sex = PIV and PIV = female risk and sex = pleasure, them female risk = pleasure.]

PIV is thought of in our society as “real sex.” To pick an example: it regularly happens that I will be naked with a dude, my hands down his pants, when he asks “do you want to have sex?” (which rather makes me wonder what he thought we were doing before). The question “do you want to have sex or just get a blowjob?” makes sense, rather than being an inquiry along the lines of “would you like food or just a pizza?” You lose your virginity the first time you have PIV sex, rather than the first time you share orgasms with someone or have oral sex. Vaginal orgasms are treated by a lot of sex advice as the end-all be-all rather than one more enjoyable activity partners can share. Premature ejaculation is an Enormous Problem rather than an opportunity to explore other sex acts. Et cetera. 

Because of this, PIV is to a degree mandatory. Imagine the general public’s reaction to a woman who chooses not to give blowjobs versus a woman who chooses not to have PIV. Don’t get me wrong, ladies who don’t want to give blowjobs would still be characterized as prudish and unreasonable. But women who don’t want to have PIV? Are their relationships even real? Are they secretly asexual? What’s wrong with her?

(Note: I wrote the rest of this blog post with “uterus-owner” and “penis-owner,” and then with “cis woman” and “cis man,” and it was so clunky I cried on the inside, so now I’m going with the cissexist version. This is all your fault, rest of the trans community, for not giving me a good set of nouns for the different sexes.)

Mandatory PIV is misogynistic because PIV is kind of a shit deal for women. Women are more likely than men to contract STIs from PIV and less likely to have or notice symptoms so they can be treated promptly. Women get pregnant, which even in the modern US leads to a death rate of 11 in 100,000 pregnant women, and historically led to a death rate as high as 1 in 100. Most forms of birth control are solely the woman’s responsibility: they can be expensive and often have physical and mental side effects. (Yes, women’s control of birth control does mean that dudes are at a higher risk of reproductive coercion, but that doesn’t change that side effects are shit. I had vaginal bleeding for three months straight when I was on the pill. Mrer.)

And for what benefit? About three-quarters of women don’t orgasm from intercourse alone. (While I was Googling this, I found this article. Headline: Female Orgasm Eludes Majority Of Women. Study: 70% of women don’t orgasm during intercourse, but 85-90% do orgasm. While 10-15% of women being nonorgasmic is deplorable, it’s only the majority if you think “female orgasm” means “female orgasm during PIV.” Talk about mandatory PIV.) While of course you can enjoy PIV without orgasming, a significant part of that 70% are not particularly enjoying themselves– and besides it’s a bit shitty to have Real Sex be something that reliably results in orgasms for men but not for women.

PIV is more likely to be painful for women than for men. There is no male equivalent of having your cervix bumped, or a too-large cock stretching your pussy out too far, or sex without lube, or being painfully jackhammered, or post-PIV vaginal soreness. Psychologically, being receptive often feels more vulnerable for people than being penetrative does, which can be unpleasant, particularly if you don’t trust your partner (although as with every generalization about How Brains Work During Sex there are a lot a lot a lot of exceptions).

The way PIV itself is constructed is centered around male pleasure rather than female pleasure. A woman is ready for PIV when her vagina is wet, which is at best an unreliable indicator of how turned on she is; clit boners are typically not considered in mainstream sex advice. Many people talk about how hot a tight vagina is, even though vaginal tightness happens when a woman is insufficiently aroused by the sex to relax her vaginal muscles. (Or when she uses her Kegel muscles. Yay Kegels.) PIV typically ends when the man ejaculates; I know I’m not the only person who feels guilty about ending PIV before my partner ejaculates, even when my pussy’s sore and I’m not enjoying the sex anymore. On the other hand, if the guy comes before the woman’s finished, it is generally considered highly emasculating to pull out a dildo and finish up.

The flaw with a lot of PIV-critical feminism, I think, is that they ignore that the problems with PIV are not inherent to PIV itself but to the way we construct PIV. PIV is legitimately enjoyable to a lot of women– whether because they orgasm from it, they don’t orgasm from it but it still feels good, or they enjoy their partner’s pleasure. (Boyfriends, if you read this and decide not to have PIV with me I will be Very Sad.) It is incredibly shitty to those women to say “no, you don’t get to have PIV because these women over here don’t enjoy it but feel like they have to have it anyway.” I mean, the obvious solution here is that people who don’t like PIV shouldn’t have to have it, and people who do should.

So. Here is my list of solutions:

1) If you don’t want PIV, you shouldn’t have PIV. (Although it is wise to communicate this to people you might have sex with early on, in case they prioritize PIV highly in their sex lives.) Anyone who gives you shit about it is a rapey asshole and I hope they fall in love with a Joss Whedon character.
2) If you’re staring at the ceiling going “when will this be over?”, you can stop the PIV, even if your partner hasn’t come yet. While it is usually a good idea to make sure your partner orgasms too, you can give him a blowjob or a handjob or kiss and pet him while he masturbates. (And of course it is not mandatory that you make sure your partner comes if you don’t want to. Consent!)   
3) Orgasms from non-PIV sources are just as valid as PIV orgasms. Orgasms from PIV assisted with a vibrator or a finger are just as valid as unassisted PIV orgasms. STOP CREATING ORGASM HIERARCHIES. ALL ORGASMS ARE EQUAL IN THE EYES OF GOD.
4) If you aren’t enjoying yourself during PIV, you should feel free to talk to your partner about this and figure out ways you can make it more enjoyable.
5) Male birth control! Please!
6) Sex without PIV is still “real” sex. Oral sex is real sex. Manual sex is real sex. Dry-humping is real sex. Kink is real sex. As long as your relationship or sex life is making you happy, you should feel free to select any of those you want and refuse any of those you don’t want, because ultimately it is up to you and your partner to do what makes you happy. 

Evidence-Based Rape/Abuse Avoidance

I’m going to have to put Disclaimers on this post, because people are terrible. Absolutely nothing you do ever makes being raped your fault; rape and abuse are 100% the fault of rapists, not of survivors. If someone is using this, or anything else I write, to victim-blame survivors, they are doing it wrong. Got it? Okay.

If you were socialized female, you probably got a lot of advice about how not to be raped. Don’t wear slutty clothes. Don’t get drunk. Keep an eye on your drink. Don’t walk around late at night, especially not alone or in a “bad neighborhood.” Keep a rape whistle with you. Hold your keys between your fingers so you can stab a rapist in the eye. Don’t wear a ponytail (apparently rapists will use it to hold your hair back while they rape you). Yell “fire” instead of “rape” if you’re raped (???). Et cetera.

This advice is terrible for a lot of reasons. A lot of it is based less on empirical evidence and more on patriarchal theories about what sort of women get raped (drunk sluts) and why they get raped (dude was so horny he couldn’t help himself). It limits women’s ability to participate in routine activities like going to a bar, walking home from the bus stop at night, or wandering around shirtless after Rocky Horror. (Maybe that last one’s just me.) It concentrates on preventing stranger rape, which is only a third of all rapes. Much of the advice requires women to be constantly afraid. A lot of the advice involves making yourself less vulnerable to rape, which is less “rape prevention” and more “how to make sure they rape the other girl.” And, once again, there is no evidence that most of it actually works.

(This is all much better than the advice I got about how to prevent abusive relationships, which was mostly “don’t date a guy who hits you.” In other news, you can cure obesity by losing weight and poverty by earning more money.)

The standard feminist advice is what I’d call the Schrodinger’s Rapist/creepiness advice: “if you get a weird vibe from a dude, you don’t have to talk to him. Dudes, this is how you can prevent women getting a weird vibe from you.” This is actually much better advice than the standard advice, since it at least acknowledges that the key variable in whether a rape happens is the presence of a rapist. Also, people do not have to spend time with people they don’t want to spend time with, and “I get a weird vibe from you” is a perfectly legitimate reason not to want to talk to someone (although don’t be an asshole about it). However, I think it still suffers from some fatal flaws.

—”Schrodinger’s Rapist” is really poorly named, because the initial blogpost focuses on interactions between men and women in public. I mean, sure, in a dark alley “fuck dude’s gonna rape me” is a worry, but if a strange dude approaches me while I’m presenting female and on a bus, my concern is not that he’s Schrodinger’s Rapist, it’s that he’s Schrodinger’s Dude Who Lectures Me For Thirty Minutes About How Reading Instead Of Talking To Him Means I’m An Elitist Bitch.

Anyway, fatal flaws with the “creepiness” model. It assumes that rape and abuse are things women have to fear from men, as opposed to things that people have to fear from people; this is unfair to men, as well as giving abusive and rapey women a free pass. It assumes that people have a gut feeling about who’s creepy or a threat (hi, anxiety issues, I’m scared of everyone, your model does not work for me). It assumes that people’s gut feelings are fair and accurate, instead of influenced by classist, racist, ableist, and transmisogynistic social forces.

Fortunately, we can solve this problem, because as it happens people have been doing empirical research about the traits of abusers and rapists for like two decades! (Of course, not all rapists or abusers show all or, indeed, any of those traits, and some people show these traits and are not rapists or abusers. Nothing can zero out your risk of being raped or abused; it can only reduce it. And what level of risk you accept is ultimately your decision: whatever level of risk you’re comfortable with is right for you. I’m just providing information here.)

  • Disrespect of boundaries. If you say “no” to something and they don’t listen that is a GIANT RED FLAG OF REDNESS AND FLAGGINESS. Same for pushing boundaries. 
  • Misogyny (for women assessing men), particularly anger at and desire to control/dominate women. Even something like appreciating sexist humor is correlated with likelihood to rape and is a (minor) red flag.
  • Hypermasculinity (again, for women assessing men).  
  • Antisociality and lack of empathy.
  • Impulsiveness.   
  • Rape- or abuse-justifying beliefs.
  • Gaslighting, even if relatively minor.
  • Excessive jealousy or anger.
  • Constantly criticizing you or putting you down.
  • Tries to get you to quit your hobbies or stop talking to your friends or family.
  • Conversely, seems way too good to be true.
  • Blames their previous relationships’ failure on their partners.
  • History of committing abuse or rape. (I mean, duh?)

I feel like listing them out most of the red flags are… really really obvious? Stay away from absurdly horrible people, they are more likely to abuse or rape you! It is totally valid to be like “that person criticizes me a lot and doesn’t quite grasp the concept of ‘no,’ I am not going to spend time with them anymore.”

[ETA: a lot of people in the comments are like "where are the citations?" I was totally hoping I could get away without citations, but I cannot pull anything on you people. The answer is: I know this because I spent like a month reading hundreds of articles about rapist and abuser psychology and I am way too lazy to dig up all the articles I read. :P David Lisak, My Favorite Researcher In The Entire World, is a good place to start if you want to do your own research though.]

Intro To Rape Culture, Or, Ozy Fangirls David Lisak

My boyfriend is confused about the concept of rape culture, which means I need to explain what rape culture is. Again.

For what it’s worth I don’t think it’s necessarily good to use the word “rape culture,” because people who aren’t feminists tend to respond to the word by saying “…but rape is illegal in our culture, everyone hates rape!” and then wander off assuming that feminists are rape-obsessed and probably hate sex.

The Problem

According to very respectable national research done by the American government, about 18% of women and 6% of men are raped over the course of their lifetimes. According to peer-reviewed psychological research, between 6% and 13% of men have committed rape. (As far as I’m aware no one has done similar research on female rapists.) That is a lot of rape.

Rape is also a really big problem. For instance, let’s take PTSD rate as a proxy for severity of trauma. Rape survivors have a higher PTSD rate than combat veterans, which suggests that being raped is actually more traumatizing than fucking combat.

Rape culture is the term for “the cultural forces that make the rape rate so fucking high.”

Why Rapists Rape

Nearly all the evidence about why (male) rapists rape is correlational– “huh, rapists seem to have Trait Y more than the general population, let’s try to reduce that.” (This blog post is a pretty good summary of the research. Yes, I could really replace this entire blog post with “go read the Yes Means Yes archives.”)

Rapists are more misogynistic than non-rapists (angrier at women, more likely to want to control them); therefore we stigmatize the hell out of misogyny, particularly those forms (like the treatment of women as machines that you get sexual gratification from) that seem likely to lead to rape. Rapists tend to have “toxic masculinity” traits such as lack of empathy, impulsiveness, and antisociality; therefore we advocate for a wider definition of masculinity. (I am not aware of research on how these apply to female or queer rapists because people tend to totally ignore female and queer rapists.)

Rapists are more likely to have rape-supportive beliefs, like “if a girl is raped when she’s drunk it’s at least a little her fault for letting things get out of hand” and “guys don’t intend to force sex on a girl, but sometimes they get a little carried away” and (presumably, there has not been research on this one) “if a man gets hard he’s consenting.” That is why we’re against victim-blaming: not just because it’s horrible to survivors (which, Jesus, isn’t that enough of a reason?), but because rapists believe victim-blaming ideas and it is reasonable to believe this is a causative factor in rape.

Rapists tend to test boundaries to see what people will assert them and what people will give in. There’s this whole idea that women need to be polite and kind and not make a fuss when their boundaries are violated, until they’re raped, at which point it’s “why didn’t you fight back? Why didn’t you say no loud enough?” (The linked Fugitivus post, btw, was my click moment about rape culture.) A lot of people also seem to have difficulty with the concept that men get boundaries at all. Therefore, feminists need to assert that boundaries matter and they matter everywhere– not just during sex, but during kissing and hugs and cuddling and tickling and conversation and what food you fucking eat. And that if someone does not respect your boundaries, they are not a good person and it is perfectly reasonable to be pissed.

Rapists tend to believe that their behavior is normal: that most men commit rape, or want to. That’s why we’re against things that normalize rape, including most rape jokes. Because Pat Not-A-Rapist thinks the joke is funny because haha it’s so absurd that anyone would think they and their friends are rapists, and Robin Rapist thinks it’s funny because that’s how they think the world actually works.

After a Rape

I have a friend who was raped fairly recently at our nice liberal-arts college full of hairy-legged feminists and dirty hippies. (I have her permission to tell this story.) She reflected that the worst part wasn’t the rape– it was that she can’t be friends with anyone who’s friends with her rapist anymore. They might invite him over to hang out and, well, if she told anyone that she was raped– even just to say “so please don’t invite my rapist over while we’re hanging out”– it would instantly spread everywhere and turn into a referendum about whether she was a lying whore.

See, everyone believes that rapists are evil! Rapists are horrible monsters. They probably have fangs or something. It’s just that people don’t like considering their friends horrible evil monsters. So a lot of people are going to hear “your friend raped me” and respond with “it was probably a misunderstanding” or “you just regretted it the next day” or “you’re a lying whore.”

This means that a lot of rapists experience no negative consequences for their rape whatsoever. It means that repeat rapists– who commit most rapes– continue to have access to a social group where they can rape people. It means that rape survivors don’t get the support they need.

This is why feminists are dicks about affirmative consent (other than the boundary stuff above). Because if the norm is “you don’t have sex with someone who doesn’t obviously want to have sex,” people cannot be like “well my friend probably just misunderstood the situation” and justify the commission of rape. Because we are the 95%, we are capable of telling when our partner does and does not want sex, we are not rapists, and we should not be giving social cover to rapists.

–A related but distinct kind of social cover for rapists, which I would be remiss to end the post without mentioning, is that of prison rape. A lot of people seem to accept that rape is a reasonable punishment for crime, which makes it harder to get political will to end prison rape. Some people even seem to believe that rape is a reasonable punishment for rape, which you would think would lead to this weird recursive thing where rapists are raped by people who are now rapists and have to be raped, and so on and so forth ad infinitem.

(I’m kind of dodging the justice system issue here, because I’m not a legal expert, and because while our justice system often treats rape survivors horribly it’s hard to imagine a justice system that simultaneously protects the mental health of the survivor and the rights of the accused. Anyway, we are not going to lock up ten percent or so of the male population. The solution to rape culture has to be a cultural change, not a legal change.)

Because it is apparently necessary that I link to every post on Yes Means Yes, I want to signal-boost this as a really good case study of rape culture in a particular community– namely, the BDSM community. The BDSM community is a really interesting group to look at because it’s about sex, so a lot of the dynamics that are hidden in other communities are out in the open.

So What Do I Do?

  • Don’t rape people. Okay, this shit is obvious, but I feel like it needs to be said anyway.
  • Respect people’s “no.” All the time. For everything. Without fussing about it.
  • Don’t say “no” when you don’t mean “no.” Again, I can’t believe I have to say this, but apparently some people are going about saying “no” when they don’t mean it and then everyone else is like “women! Sometimes they say no, but they don’t mean no, therefore I am totally justified in having sex with people who have said no!” So seriously, if you pull that shit, stop ruining it for everyone else. (You can do rape play if you want, but use a safeword.)
  • “Ask before touching people” is a really really good social norm. So is “ask before sex.” (I know this is stigmatized in some social groups– which is horrible and rape-culturey itself. But it’s still a good thing to do.)
  • Make it clear that you are part of the vast majority of people who are not rapists and that violating people’s consent, victim-blaming, misogyny, and so on are Not Okay. You do not have to lecture people about rape culture– I mean, I do, but that’s less anti-rape activism and more being a boring one-trick pony. But you can be like “dude not cool” when someone talks about how funny prison rape is or about getting women drunk to have sex with them.
  • Check in and, if necessary, rescue people if it looks like something skeezy or abusive is happening. (Examples of “skeezy or abusive”: person looks creeped out; one person is getting another person very drunk; someone has said “no” and the other person is trying to get them to do a thing anyway)
  • Believe survivors. I know, I know, some unknown (but small!) percentage of accusations of rape are false rape accusations. But like. It is not that hard to not invite a survivor and the person they accused to the same party, or to keep an eye on people accused of rape to see if they seem to be repeating it, or to provide support to a survivor, or to bluntly talk to someone about their behavior. And if someone has been accused of rape multiple times or has a history of being a gigantic boundary-violating creeper… seriously, you don’t have to be “innocent until proven guilty” on being friends with someone. Not being invited to parties is not a goddamned death sentence.

I mean. Nearly everything on this list is stuff that people I know– even people who aren’t super-aware of rape culture– do anyway, because they’re not douchebags and they’re not rapists. Because… really if there’s one takeaway point here, it’s that we are not rapists, we don’t approve of rape, and we need to stop fucking acting like we do.

Against Kink-Critical Feminism

Cliff Pervocracy wrote a thing about kink-critical feminism (she disagrees with it!) and I felt like adding in my own two cents.

The primary claims of kink-critical feminism, as far as I can tell, are that kink is primarily caused by societal structures of domination and that because of this it reinforces those structures. Both of those ideas are, in fact, totally wrong!

Obviously, sometimes kink is caused by an eroticization of societal structures of domination. I think that sexuality is primarily a result of environmental influences, and those include, you know, being in a racist and sexist society. I think that in a hypothetical non-racist non-sexist society we probably wouldn’t have people who are into race play or sissification. If you find the radical feminist argument that society eroticizes sexual violence to be persuasive, as I do, then of course some people are going to be into consensually enacted portrayals of sexual violence. Furthermore, you could argue that societal structures of domination sometimes indirectly cause kinkiness: for instance, I know some survivors attribute their kinkiness to eroticization of their rape, and in a hypothetical less-fucked-up society we would have fewer rapes.

But just as I find it difficult to understand how sissification would be unrelated to patriarchy, I find it equally difficult to understand how patriarchy leads to people pretending to be show ponies.

I’m a masochist because some weird part of my brain is messed up such that I enjoy pain; there’s no power-exchange aspect to it. I don’t know, maybe my brain releases more endorphins than most people’s. I would be very interested in an explanation of how the patriarchy caused that. (Note to kink-critical feminists: before you say that my masochism is immoral because people cannot consent to assault, I will point out that yes they can. It’s called boxing.)

Similarly, if you happen to know people who enjoy pain (or be such a person yourself), it makes sense that you’d get off on giving them pain, in much the same way as you’d get off on giving them oral sex. People generally like giving their partners sexual pleasure.

Psychological studies have shown that people tend to be more attracted to someone after they’ve gone through a scary experience, presumably because their brain attributes the increased heart rate and fast breathing to “that person is hot!” rather than “that was scary.” A lot of kink plays around with fear and other heightened emotions, i.e., the ones that actual peer-reviewed studies have shown to be sexually arousing. Just saying.

Or hell maybe there are personal psychological reasons. There’s the famous cliche of the sub with the high-powered job who just wants a chance to relax and have someone tell them what to do. (I presume a stereotype of doms who have no control over their own lives may or may not be accurate but didn’t gain ground because it’s terribly insulting to doms.) Not everything is caused by the patriarchy, you know.

At the same time, even kink that is obviously related to patriarchy is not necessarily anti-feminist, because there is a difference between “caused by patriarchy” and “perpetuating patriarchy.” Kink causes patriarchy in much the same way as my muddy shoes cause rainstorms.

And, look, just being caused by the patriarchy doesn’t make something immoral, otherwise the list of immoral things would include girls liking pink, stay-at-home parenthood, Hull House, and the feminist movement itself. You have to show that a thing actually hurts actual people in order for it to count as unethical. Which is a task that kink-critical feminists have yet to do.

Tumblr Is Terrible At Rape Statistics

Okay so this has been passed around Tumblr as proof that only 0.6% of rape allegations are false. (The report mentioned in the article is here.)

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE STATISTICS SAY. YOU PEOPLE ARE TERRIBLE AT STATISTICS.

In the period of the review, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 35 for falsely accusing someone for rape. 35 is, in fact, 0.6% of 5,651. (The domestic violence numbers were starker: 111,891 prosecutions for DV and 6 for falsely accusing someone of DV, which is a percentage so small my calculator writes it in scientific notation.)

Obviously, being prosecuted for something and actually doing that thing are not the same thing. For instance, someone might retract an actually true accusation of domestic violence because they entered the honeymoon phase of an abusive relationship, and that would be classified as perverting the course of justice. On the other hand, someone might falsely accuse someone else of rape and end up sending that person to prison, and that would not be classified as perverting the course of justice.

In short, this data is completely consistent with the “women lie about rape all the time and the justice system believes them” theory. I mean. That’s a wrong theory, obviously. (18% of women and 6% of men in the US are raped over the course of their lifetime, according to anonymous surveys they have no reason to lie on; in order for a substantial number of rape accusations to be false you’d have to assume a ludicrously high rate of non-reporting.) It’s just that it isn’t disproven by this set of data.

It is very hard to precisely measure the exact number of false accusations of rape, because you end up stumbling on issues like “what counts as a false accusation?” The FBI stats count unfounded rape allegations, which in some jurisdictions might mean “the victim didn’t fight hard enough” or “the victim and the rapist had fucked before.” A lot of studies use police assessments of whether the accusation was false, which has… pretty much the same problem as “unfounded.” Lisak, who is my favorite person in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to the point that occasionally I realize I am not Lisak and then feel like crying, classified as false 5.9% of rape accusations at one particular university, but that is hardly particularly good evidence for the non-university justice system.

So! We don’t actually know how many false rape accusations there are. Stop saying that we know. That is all.

Prudes’ Progress: Rape Fantasies

[Part of the Response to the Prudes' Progress series. This is one of the more Vaguely Inspired By The Prudes' Progress posts. I want to make it clear here that my viewpoints are not Lisa Millbank's and that, in fact, if I understand her writing correctly she will probably disagree with me strongly.]

Trigger warning for extensive discussion of people with sexual fantasies of rape perpetration. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Continue reading →

Prudes’ Progress: Why Not Instrumental Sexuality?

[Part of the Response to Prudes' Progress series, mostly a response to this bit. Trigger warning for rape.]

Sex-positive feminists have this weird tendency to say “anything between consenting adults is okay!” That’s really dumb. Five minutes’ thought will reveal that consenting adults can have all kinds of unethical sex.

For instance: it is not ethical to cheat on your partner or have sex with someone who’s cheating on their partner. It is not ethical to bring a child into the world when you can’t make sure that it’s properly taken care of (whether through adoption or parenthood). Reproductive coercion is not ethical. (In fact, reproductive coercion is abusive behavior.) Lying to obtain sex is not ethical. Having sex with someone when you have reason to believe they will regret it (for instance, because they believe premarital sex is immoral or because they’re not ready to have sex yet) is not ethical. Not giving a fuck about your partner enjoying themselves* is not ethical. Obviously, reproductive coercion and rape are far worse than having sex with someone who might regret it or not caring about your partner enjoying themselves, but these are all Bad.

I think instrumental sexuality is a mindset that often leads to behavior that hurts other people and yourself, and is therefore generally bad, even if the sex is consensual. I would call it bad in the same way hate is bad. A lot of people hate people and don’t hurt anyone, which makes it a bit difficult to call hate strictly immoral; in fact, some people find their hate empowering and enjoyable and generally happiness-maximizing. Certainly it is unreasonable to expect everyone to not hate anyone. Still, if you have a choice between hate and not hate it is generally a good idea to pick not hate, and if you have a choice between instrumental sexuality and not instrumental sexuality it is generally a good idea to pick the latter.

(Disclaimer Time: I’m not talking about mutually enjoyable BDSM that simulates instrumental sexuality here– I’m going to talk about that later, but suffice it to say that playacting disrespect and objectification is not the same as disrespecting and objectifying someone, as every good dom knows.)

Partially, this is because instrumental sexuality tends to lead to assorted kinds of asshole behavior. If you treat other people as a means to your orgasm, it’s very easy to be like “well, they consented, whether they’re happy about it afterwards is their own business.” Or “well, they consented, I don’t really have to care about whether they liked it.” Or “well, they consented, never mind I had to ask them half a dozen times first.” Yay, you get the coveted Not A Rapist Award,** go you.

And partially because I’ve noticed– in both my case and the cases of people I’ve talked to– that sex is actually the most fun when we have it with someone we like and want to be happy. Sex we’re having for validation, or as a conquest, or because everyone else is doing it, or out of a sense of duty or obligation, or to prove something to ourselves, or because we’d feel like a loser if we didn’t, or out of desperation, or because it’s something you’re supposed to do– that is, instrumental sex… well, it’s just less good sex.*** I’m a utilitarian. I want there to be more good sex in the world!

This is not, of course, to say only relationship sex or sex where you’re in love with your partner is good sex. You can like someone and want them to be happy and want to fuck them if you met them two hours ago! You can certainly like someone and want them to be happy and not be in love with them or want to date them. Conversely, you can be in love with someone or in a relationship of long standing with them and have all the instrumental sex.

*Please note that I mean “enjoying themself” in the broadest possible sense– for instance, someone can enjoy giving their partner pleasure, or playing a particular role, or exploring the limits of what their body can take, or whatever. Talk about what you want out of sex ahead of time! This message brought to you by Sex-Positivity.
**Except the third person, who gets the Possibly A Rapist Depending On The Exact Circumstances And What Definition of Rape We’re Going By Award. ***Every time I make a generalization about sex I get at least three people in the comments telling me that they are, in fact, completely the opposite of my generalization. So this footnote is to say that if you have sex for those reasons and it works for you and you aren’t hurting anyone else, great, knock yourself out. I dunno how much you’ll get out of the rest of the series though.

Prudes’ Progress: Objectification!

[Part of the Response to the Prude's Progress series, particularly this section. Trigger warning for talking about abuse.]

I was challenged recently about my use of “objectification” as a concept, which made me realize that I wasn’t entirely certain about what it meant, which is very bad because I keep using it. So let’s talk about that.

I think “objectification” refers to a cluster-in-thingspace of behavior typically but not always directed against members of marginalized groups. “Treating people like things” is a way of describing that cluster, but kind of a vague way to describe it. I mean, if I’m driving and I treat a pedestrian walking across the street as an obstacle I ought to avoid without considering their agency and personhood, am I objectifying them?

Millbank describes ten things that make up objectification, based on the work of philosophers Martha Nussbaum and Rae Langton:

  1. Instrumentality: coercing or conditioning a woman to act as a tool for men’s purposes
  2. Denial of autonomy: taking away a woman’s autonomy and self-determination
  3. Inertness: restricting a woman’s agency and activity
  4. Fungibility: objectifying a woman (the rest of these activities) in such a way that they become interchangeable with other objectified women
  5. Violability: violating a woman’s boundary-integrity and enabling boundary violation
  6. Ownership: two completely separate issues here (though not quite treated as separate in Nussbaum’s paper); most importantly, human slavery is widespread in trafficking and other forms; also, and incomparably with human slavery, many women are treated as if men have authority over them
  7. Denial of subjectivity: not taking into account a person’s experiences and feelings, and treatment which suppresses, denies or makes them doubt their experiences and feelings
  8. Reduction to body: conditioning which restrains a person’s consciousness to their body or body parts
  9. Reduction to appearance: treating a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses, as well as conditioning which makes people judgethemselves primarily on their appearance
  10. Silencing: removing or suppressing a person’s capacity to speak, creating a context such that their speech is systematically misinterpreted/misunderstood/non-valued or conditioning them to think their speech isn’t worthwhile

The reason I think objectification is a useful concept is that those ten things tend to show up together (although of course each one can act independently). In general, if you act as though you have authority over your partner’s body (ownership), you might decide you deserve sex even when your partner doesn’t want it (violability) or that your partner shouldn’t wear short skirts because it makes you feel jealous (denial of autonomy). Raping someone is both instrumentality (treating another person as a vehicle for your orgasm) and violability (violating another’s boundaries). If you think women are only of worth if they’re sexually attractive (reduction to appearance), then you can treat equally attractive women as interchangeable (fungibility). If you gaslight someone (denial of subjectivity), you reduce their ability to speak up about their experiences (silencing). Et cetera.

What do all those things have in common? Shit, I’m not sure. It definitely seems to be A Thing, though, and I don’t need the concept to be perfectly defined in order to use it as a tool to understand the world. Are those ten the only things that could play into objectification? Probably not; the list seems pretty complete to me, but there’s probably something I’m missing.

(“Oy, Ozy, you’re a utilitarian, what if objectifying someone increases the amount of utility in the world?” To which I say: fuck yeah rule utilitarian. In general, objectifying people is bad, so we can create the “no objectifying people” rule.)

It’s not an accident that describing the traits of objectification in a really obvious way ends up sounding like it describes an abusive relationship. I think one of the key insights of radical feminism was that abuse and rape are the far end of a continuum of behavior (this is the insight that usually gets mangled into “damn feminists, think everything is rape!”). Obviously, gaslighting in an interpersonal relationship is not the same thing as sending rape threats to female bloggers is not the same thing as ignoring an insight when it comes from a woman and applauding it when it comes from a man is not the same thing as a woman not speaking up because she assumes her ideas are less relevant than the men’s, but they are all in a sense silencing a woman.

It’s important, I think, to understand objectification as a thing done “by systems and to classes” (to quote Millbank). You don‘t have to say “have vaginal intercourse or I’ll leave you,” if your partner believes that vaginal intercourse is a necessary component of having a relationship, that a relationship isn’t “real” unless you have “real sex” which is of course vaginal intercourse, and that it is bad and unreasonable to ask not to have it. They might not even recognize that not having vaginal intercourse is an option. This is, of course, violability, denial of autonomy, and ownership (plus probably half the other things on the list depending on how exactly the person enacts “vaginal intercourse is mandatory”)– but you’re not denying your partner’s autonomy. You may, in fact, fully respect your partner’s right to say no to vaginal intercourse. Even if there is not a specific objectifier, they are being objectified.    

(NOTE: Not having vaginal intercourse is totally an option. You never have to engage in any sex acts you don’t want to. Vaginal intercourse is fairly popular and refusing to have it may limit the number of people who want to have sex with you, but the tradeoff is always yours to make.)

Of course, it is in the vast majority of cases individually more harmful to be objectified by a person than to be objectified by a vast social system. But the social system is the bigger problem– it affects more people, and it is one of the causes of the individual coercion. (After all, if you believe vaginal intercourse is a mandatory part of a relationship and your partner refuses it, well, they’re being unreasonable, aren’t they?)