Rape Culture and the Myth of “Female Sexual Advantage”
| May 17th, 2005[This is a comment left by Shiloh on a previous thread. I’ve edited it a bit to make it “stand-alone,” rather than quoting other posts. The post title was suggested by Kim (basement variety). –Amp]
I will agree that sexual power is about one’s “value” in the world of dating and relationship. What [some people] seem to be missing, however, is that the higher a woman’s sexual power, the lower her value as a person. Female sexual power, by definition, is dehumanizing. Female sexual power silences women.
First example - when I was fourteen, I took a summer class in typing at the local high school, because it wasn’t offered at my jr. high. One day, as I’m halfway to school, crossing this big field, a guy I’d met precisely twice before grabbed me and started kissing me and feeling me up. He informed me that he was a star wrestler, and that I was going to be his girlfriend. I informed him that my tastes ran to skinny bespectacled geeks who read a lot, and I had no interest what-so-ever in being his girlfriend, thank you very much. He insisted that I only said this because of a “poor self-image,” that he was going to make me popular and happy, etc. etc., ad nauseum.
No matter what I said, this guy “translated” it to fit his preconceived notions. “No” meant “yes.” “Not interested” became “interested but won’t admit it.” “You’re not my type” becaome “she’s just shy.” Many feminists argue that pornography “silences women.” This is what they mean. The woman is only allowed to say what the man wants to hear - even if what she actually says is completely different. Pornography that plays with the rape myth tells the story of a woman who says no, but ultimately means yes. That is what this guy was doing to me. He was insisting that whatever I said meant what he wanted it to mean.
Another real life example of how a woman’s sexual power silences her. I was not one of the “popular kids,” partly because I had little interest in being one, but one of my good friends was exactly what you describe when you are discussing a woman with a lot of sexual power. She was a cute, feminine blonde, popular, intelligent, cheerleader, upper middle class, dressed conservatively but was perceived as sexy. The guys I hung out with - who, like me, were NOT socially powerful - said she was the most beautiful girl in the school. What did all this sexual power get her?
Well, in 10th grade it got her raped by most of the guys on the football team. She was dating one of them, he slipped her something stronger than she was used to, then passed her around to his buddies. When she told people about it, most of her friends basically said she got what she deserved - if you’re going to be beautiful, them’s the hazards. Mind you, she did not disagree - she accepted that this is just the way the world is. When I pointed out that being pretty is no excuse for rape, she said I was probably right, but what can you do about it?
Nothing. There is nothing a beautiful woman can do about it. From her perspective, and in her experience, woman’s “sexual power” means that she does NOT get to choose her mate. If she was not interested in the most “alpha” guy around - tough. If said alpha guy laid claim to her, she was stuck, because he viewed her as his property, and any guy hanging around too close would be chased off. In high school, at any rate, if said alpha male was on a sports team, not only would he monitor her activities - his buddies would monitor her activities. If she was interested in another guy, she had no chance of talking to him or getting to know him.
Of course, once you get past high school (and college, in some cases, but she deliberately went to a college that did NOT have any sports teams), this male control is less blatantly obvious. But it’s often still there. Look at Kathleen Parker’s story (on the web). J*** R*****’s harrassment of his ex-wife’s family. Paul Corey. Eric Bleicken. A dear friend’s husband, who called everyone on her side of the family (including me, a non-relative) to tell them what a whore she was when she left him - this despite the fact that his adultery had so destroyed her reproductive system she had to have a hysterectomy and ovariectomy at 27.
Another friend, whose husband used to rape her when she was unconscious from the drugs they were using to help her sleep - this despite the fact that she was undergoing radiation treatments for her cancer and despite the fact that she was in constant pain and his rapes only exacerbated it. Yes, she’s blonde, long-legged, charming, and popular. What did all this “sexual power” get her? Abuse, plain and simple.
Most of the kids at my second high school were upper middle class. I used to hang out with actors, artists, engineers in the aerospace industry, millionaires who owned their own company. I’ve talked to the “beautiful people” of both sexes. Men who are beautiful complain that “she dumped me because I shaved my head” or “I never know whether she likes me for my self or for my looks or for my cash.” Women who are beautiful worry about being raped, about being abused, about ending up in a marriage to someone who will try to completely control them.
Again, men have access to sexual power, too - more access, through more channels, than women do. And the risk of sexual power for men is minimal. For women, sexual power is often outright dangerous. For women, sexual power is as disempowering as it is empowering. A woman weilding sexual power is easily silenced.
[…]
Rape exists primarily because a man decides that his version of reality is more important than the woman’s - he decides he gets to tell her what reality is. Whatever his motives (sex, power, anger), a rapist’s reality is that the woman’s sexiness somehow justifies his treatment of her. Everytime a male non-rapist treats a woman as a sex object, rather than a person, he is supporting the rapist perspective.
Arguing that a woman’s sexual power in any way “evens things out” between the sexes is to miss the point entirely. A woman’s sexual power is used to justify rape; a woman’s sexual power is used to silence her; a woman’s sexual power is used to dehumanize her. The fact that some women manage to use their sexual power in some instances to their benefit doesn’t change any of this.
May 17th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
*clap clap* I don’t think I’m a great beauty but I’m pretty enough and there’s no doubt that it’s exacerbated the problem of men who just refuse to get it when they are being turned down.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Real power is as collaborative as it is competitive, but power that is controlled by others is always competitive. Women’s sexual power in a Patriarchy is like working class economic opportunity in a highly class consious society. The stricter the class structure, the less economic power the average worker holds. Likewise the stronger the patriarchy, the less sexual power women in general have.
As a result of all this, women’s sexual power is also used to break the bonds of sisterhood, crippling our abilty to capitalise on our social power.
So, on that note:
Samantha, I’ll see your Ani DiFranco and raise you a Dar Williams:
“You point, you have a word for every woman you can lay your eyes on,
This comment was written by Jenny.Like you own them just because you bought the time,
And you turn to me, you say you hope I’m not threatened,
Oh — I’m not that petty, as cool as I am, I thought youd know this already,
I will not be afraid of women, I will not be afraid of women.”
Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
Right on, Jenny. Women are encouraged to internalize their oppression, and direct it outwards also against other women. So, with rape that manifests as treating rape survivors shabbily, or thinking that the rape survivor somehow didn’t do “enough”, since she was raped, or that she somehow brought her rape on herself. It’s all a way of saying “I’m the special one….I’m not like those other women…I wouldn’t have been raped.”
It translates into other arenas too, like the “lavender menace” of the women’s movement in the seventies—the abandoning of lesbian sisters, or the enforcement of beauty standards and harsh treatment of women who don’t/refuse to meet them. The act of trashing other women masks an anger at the their own treatment.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
I follow the argument until here (from the original post):
I understand the point if it is an unwanted and aggresive advance, but what if there is a consensual sex act involved in which the woman is the sex-object to the man (say nothing more than a one night stand) and the woman sees it as something more? What if the role is reversed (one night stand to the woman and something more to the man)? My view would be that the act of consent to the act implies that both people have entered an agreement (even though they may not end up agreeing on what happens afterwards — lets assume there is a cordial departure) in which they are treating each other as “people” and not objects. The scenario is a gross oversimplification, but I am curious to hear a viewpoint on the subject.
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
A one night stand is not necessarily objectifying someone. The point is respecting women as people. I can see a sexy woman and think, “Man I’d like to have massive amounts of hot monkey-sex with her” without forgetting that she’s a person, so that were I to ask that woman if she wanted some hot monkey-sex and she refused I could say, “cool” and leave it at that.
The thing is with sexual power, besides, and I’m sure that this has been brought up in the other posts as well, is what sexual power amounts to is manipulation, which is really just a latching on to real power of men. A hot blonde who marries a rich CEO solely for his money does so because she has given up hope of earning that sort of money herself. And such a state of affairs skews the perspective of the powerful to think that the best they can offer a woman they’re attracted to is the chance to latch onto their power. (as illustrated so well by Shiloh’s story of the wrestler)
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Ted,
I see your point, but life doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Taken outside the context of a patriarchal society, treating someone as only a sex object may not be sexist (although it still seems a little inhumane to me) but within the context of the world we live in it is.
The differences between a single act of sexism, acting in a sexist manner, and being an outright sexist is generaly a matter of aggregate actions and specific circumstances. This is true of society as well as individuals, thus the theory behind labeling “hate crimes” as such. An act a vandalism or an insult may just be an insult, or it may not. Circumstances and history matter, and not just individual circumstances and history. A burning cross is rarely just a burning cross, and the convention of referring to female students as co-eds is insulting even if that isn’t the intention.
Besides, there is a difference between treating someone as a sex object and treating someone as a sexy person that you respect because you are a decent person, but still wish to interact with only for sex. A one night stand in which all parties involved are cordial and honest would fit into the latter catagory IMHO.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Great post, Amp and Shiloh.
“Sexual power” is such a misnomer, isn’t it? It’s sad how language gets distorted by the prevailing power relations. Normally, we don’t attribute a power to a person unless we assume that they can wield that power to get what they want.
This comment was written by Lindsay Beyerstein.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Ted,
The issue, to me, is how the partners treat each other, not necessarily what they think of each other. Maybe one partner, meaning no malice, sees the other partner as primarily a source of sex, rather than as a person interesting in his or her own right. My question then is, did the person objectifying still treat the objectified partner with care? Did they make sure the other person agreed to the various acts? Did they do their best to give no impression that this act of sex was intended to lead to bigger and better things?
Say I tell a guy I don’t believe in sex outside of marriage. If he then tries to pressure or seduce me into a one night stand, then he’s objectifying me, no matter how “considerate” a lover he may be. I’ve told him that sex means more to me than it does to him, and he ought to respect that and not try to make me conform to his views on sex. But if I tell him casual sex is okay with me, and do not tell him that I think he’s special and hope we can have a long term realationship, and he wants a one night stand, then going on the information he’s got, if he pushes for a one night stand he isn’t objectifying me.
I’m really wary of anything that requires either partner to mind read. I personally don’t think you can have many one night stands (and certainly not many with strangers) without objectifying people, but I know plenty of people who’re happy to have one night stands without feeling objectified. Who am I to say? But I do believe that with any new partner, however long you hope or intend to hang out with them, people need to be extremely careful to make sure the partner wants what they’re being offered.
I personally think the polite and considerate thing to do is to say, up front, “Hey, all I want is sex; not looking for a long term relationship and don’t want any misunderstandings.” Some people who don’t want just a one night stand might go for it anyway, because they hope it’ll work out differently. Sometimes it does work out differently. I’ve known people whose relationship started out just that way - they originally had sex, a series of fairly isolated one night stands, just for the sex. But because of their careers they ended up running across each other a lot and it became something more. It happens.
One concern I would have with someone wanting a one night stand is if they end up with someone who freezes up. Some women do freeze up when they feel sexually pressured, especially, in my experience, if they were sexually abused as a child. They cannot escape the situation, even if the guy is not being particularly violent or even terribly aggressive, because they’ve dropped back into that experience they had as a kid where they were pinned down. That’s one reason I cannot understand why people protest to the idea of the more aggressive partner asking “Can I do this?” “Is it okay if we do that?” and waiting for a “Yes” before moving on.
If asking the question would so “wreck the mood” that sex would be “ruined,” then maybe the mood should be wrecked. If this couple is so irresponsible that they cannot literally name what they are doing, even euphemistically, without one of them calling a halt, then how can they be responsible enough to consider STDs, pregnancy, or birth control? I just don’t get that.
And I’ve wandered, I’m afraid. In terms of “supporting the rapist perspective,” anyhow, I think if someone makes sure to be honest about his intentions and to ask permission to do whatever, he is at least treating his partner as a person, whatever he may be doing to her in his head, so he’s not supporting the rapist perspective even though he may be guilty of objectifying a wee tad. I’m not sure it’s possible to never objectify someone you’re attracted to, particularly early in the relationship, because of course you want them to be what you want them to be. The issue is whether you expect them to conform to your fantasies, or whether you work hard to treat them as a real person, even if they don’t turn out to be what you hoped.
This comment was written by shiloh.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
Not that the rest of the thread is chopped liver, but I really, really like this part. One of the major recurring themes in every thread everywhere about rape seems to be the perception that consent needs to be given only once. After that, it’s tacit. Unfortunately, most of us know where that leaves women. :(
The idea of asking permission to do specific things up to/during sex got such a huge ribbing in Chapter #560,003 of the Mainstream Media P.C. Backlash Follies, and I’ve never understood why. Are people just so brainwashed by those Olympic Marathon sex scenes in beach novels, bodice rippers, and what have you– that they believe in their souls that every act in bed is going to turn out just perfect without any discussion if we’re just “worthy” enough ? “Compatible” enough ? Whatever ?
Ugh. No, thanks.
This comment was written by alsis38.9.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
I’ve always been puzzled by the myth of the sexual encounter without dialogue. I don’t know who does that — but I’ve always shared plenty of words with all of my partners about what I wanted to do and what they wanted to do. I do a lot of S/M, but I’m talking about vanilla sex, too. In fact, some of that talk is pretty hot.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:10 pm
In the midst of an otherwise unexceptionably sensible post I read, and literally winced:
Again, men have access to sexual power, too - more access, through more channels, than women do…
I am a fifty-year-old unhappily-married man without a lot of money. I find the notion of renting a prostitute grotesquely depressing (”Can’t Buy Me Love” and all that.) Also I have a positive irreversible disinclination to rape anyone - I bathe, too. Whatever anyone means by “sexual power” I have absolutely none of it. I’ll guess there are tens of millions of losers like me in this country; how can women have less than I, we do? Have you ever read James Tiptree’s story “The Women Men Don’t See”? That’s how - we don’t exist.
This comment was written by johnny uxor.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Okay, so everyone answered my example but not really my question. Clearly that was my fault as my example was not a very good one. Thinking, thinking…
I guess what I really wanted to know is if a male non-rapist objectifies women and perpetuates and confirms the rape culture, what is a woman doing if she does the same thing to a man. I suppose that she would also be perpetuating and confirming the rape culture, but it seems to me that this would go against the original argument. That being that the rape culture is instilled in her by the teachings of her submissive gender roles before she has an opportunity to establish a sexual identity (as well as other facets that were also raised). Now I’m sure many more men objectify women than men, but I’m certain that this practice in women is not isolated to a few individuals.
I don’t wish to deny the rape culture arguement because I think it is compelling in certain circumstances, but I’m not sure that certain type of objectification (most notably using others for consensual sex) are part of the argument. Maybe it boils down to a general disregard for the ethics of treating others with dignity under all circumstances and refraining from activities in which you do not have the will to follow that ethic? Then again, maybe I’m fussing about something that was not the intention of the author.
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Well I’m not sure if that statement is true but what I meant to type was:
I’m sure more men objectify women than women objectify men, but…
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:15 pm
I think if a woman objectifys a man she is confirming the rape culture in the sense that she’s treating sex as a commodity rather than an actitivity meant to bring mutual pleasure. I’m paraphasing someone else here, but in a rape culture sex is something that a woman has (or is) and that a man gets (from her). A woman who “sells herself” sexually (whether money is literally exchanged or not), or who condemns women for being promiscuous while praising promiscuous men, or who condemns the woman who is raped rather than the rapist, is in that sense endorsing the rape culture.
I don’t mean that the men or women who endorse rape that way mean to endorse rape at all - that’s just how it works. Assumptions people believe to be benign, aren’t. The rape culture puts the responsibility for the rape on the woman, even though in the actual event, it is the man who has all the power. He has the power; she gets the blame. One of my problems with the whole “women should learn self defense” argument is that most rapes are acquantance rapes, and most self-defense courses are aimed at stranger rape. I was a fairly good “street fighter”, in the sense that I could hold my own with guys bigger than me so long as we were both upright and I had some room to manuver. I used to take on bullies bigger than me and win. But in a date rape situation, you start out pinned down.
By the time a lot of women realize the guy isn’t going to take “no” for an answer, they’re in close quarters and he’s probably got her down. Street fighting the woman can make use of skill, tactics, deflection - but if you’re down and wrestling, your options are way more limited. Strength is far more of a factor; strength may be the only factor, and the average male is stronger than the average female. The woman often has no choice, no options, no power - but she gets all the blame.
I would say that, whenever someone points at the one who had the least power and gives them the most responsibility for what happened, they’re endorsing the rape culture. That may be so broad a generalization it’s meaningless, I dunno. But to me, what defines the rape culture is that practice of blaming the one who is powerless to prevent someone doing something to them that causes them pain. It’s blaming the victim for her own pain. It’s giving responsibility to someone who literally can’t exercise that responsibility when it comes down to brass tacks. And you bet women do it. Absolutely.
Objectification is a big part of it, but it’s not the whole story, IMHO. It’s not just dehumanizing someone - it’s also making them responsible for any pain they might feel through being dehumanized. In my experience, even women who “misuse” their sexual power don’t go that far, because they can’t. Society blames them when they misuse their power and the guy gets hurt. Why do some guys argue that “men may rape, but what about the damage gold diggers do in a divorce”? Because ultimately, the woman is responsible for the rape, and the woman is responsible for using her sexuality against the man. Ultimately, the woman is responsible, even when she’s doing what guys do without condemnation (objectifying, or using someone sexually).
Not quite sure what you were asking, Ted, to be honest. This is what you got me thinking on, anyhow, for what it’s worth.
This comment was written by shiloh.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
::wonders if she can get the quoting right this time::
Ted wrote:
Ted, I agree. To me, the issue isn’t so much objectification per se as it is the cultural reduction of what it even means to be a woman to it being All About The Sex.
The aspect of objectification that I perceive as part and parcel of the rape culture (sorry, I know you don’t care much for the term) is the aspect that connects to a male sense of entitlement over women’s sexuality–a sense of entitlement which is often reflected in the belief that (female) reciprocation is somehow (male) attraction’s rightful due.
I do think that this is a particular form of objectification that we instill in our boys far more than we do in our girls as they are growing up. Women are not taught from birth to expect that just because they find someone attractive, that attraction necessarily should or ought to be reciprocated. Men, I think, are rather taught to expect that, and I think that we saw evidence of that expectation in the entire “women are obviously the privileged sex, because they can refuse a man’s advances - OMG The POWAH!” line of argument.
Although many people (especially the straight women) in that discussion tried to point out that to straight women, men are the more attractive and pretty and desirable sex, that women don’t like losing out in the sexual sweepstakes any more than men do, that desirable men absolutely have the power to reject an unwanted woman’s advances, and so on and so forth, none of it ever seemed to register very much.
My feeling was that the reason it didn’t really seem to register much was that the fact that men can refuse women is, well, so what? It’s a no-brainer. It’s okay. For a woman to refuse a man, on the other hand, reaps an “OMG The POWAH!” response because our society has constructed womanhood itself to be overwhelmingly about women’s sexual availability to men.
It’s not particularly notable for a person to fail to reciprocate sexual attraction, you see. It’s only particularly worthy of note when a woman does it.
Because what the hell else are women supposed to be for?
So yeah. It’s not the Gaze in and of itself that I consider so very problematic. It’s a Gaze that also carries with it an assumption of ownership, of entitlement and reduction. And sadly, I do think that it’s a type of objectification that we teach our boys at a very young age.
This comment was written by Elkins.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
Johnny:
::sigh::
Yeah, I hear you, Johnny. That’s rather how I felt wading through the pages and pages of the reverse argument on the previous thread. As if “women” had been weirdly redefined to mean “that small subset of women who I think are hawt, but who don’t want me back.” And sorry that your circumstances aren’t happy ones.
People have a certain degree of personal power over those whose attraction to them is not reciprocated. Unscrupulous people who are so inclined can sometimes use that leverage to manipulate others into doing stuff they want. That is a form of “sexual power,” I suppose, but as you point out, it’s hardly one that everyone of either gender shares equally. In fact, I really can’t see how it’s dependent on gender at all.
I think, though, that what Shiloh meant by the line that made you wince was encapsulated in the sentences following it:
The point here, I think, was that to whatever extent the “power” of the femme fatale really exists outside of movies and television, it is more than mitigated by the host of cultural constructs designed to keep women “in their place.” Rape is one such construct. Community pillorying is another.
Desirable men who seek to use their sexual attractiveness to their own personal advantage aren’t taking half the same risks, nor does our society revel in quite the same way at the idea of such men being violently–even brutally–thwarted. The idea that rape is something akin to “just punishment” for sexually manipulative women, on the other hand, is incredibly, horrifically, depressingly prevalent (as, for that matter, is the assumption that any attractive woman must be consciously sexually manipulative).
This comment was written by Elkins.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
As Elkins just commented, I think this whole belief of women being all powerful sex-goddesses does go back to Hollywood’s and the entertainment industry’s glorification of the femme fatale and the sexy black widow, and our culture’s lack of putting little or no responsibility on men for sexually based crimes committed against women. It’s “her fault for being too sexual and seductive–she manipulated him with her body,” blah, bullshit, bullshit, blah! The “men are weak against their own sexual impulses and sexy women” cultural syndrome strikes again!
Some guys see movies with the femme fatale, ultra-sexy woman getting whatever she wants from men in a movie or show, and say and think something along the lines of, “hey–look at all the stuff that hot chick is doing to those guys! Yeah women totally have all the power in sex!” How about Hollywood and the entertainment industry show what happens in real life to most women who try to be the femme fatale and sexy black widow? A couple of pictures of dead streetwalkers, murdered by their johns from the police archives? Reports of teenage girls who thought they were having a good time getting into a bar with fake ids, hanging out with “cooler” older men, and end up being enslaved in prostitution by those same “cooler” older guys?
I especially love “oh she wouldn’t give me the time of day, but I said she was sexy, so women MUST have all the sexual power” argument, which really shows how adult or not some guys are.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Our popular culture reinforces the notion that women have sexual power by establishing and promotiong those kinds of sexual stereotypes of the desperate man. Mainstream pornography runs up on these stereotypes and provides a fantasy of male power. But the “fantasy” merely reflects the reality. The whole system is just self-justifying.
Being seen as a sex object does nothing to empower women. It confines them and dehumanizes them. No, there is nothing inheriently wrong with sex. I’ll actually go as far as to say there is nothing inheriently wrong with pornography. What’s wrong are our cultural attitudes towards sex and the attitudes promoted in pornography.
I think I have a somewhat unique position in men, in that growing I didn’t raid my fathers porno stash like all my friends were doing in middle school. I was heterosexual, but my attraction to fat women meant that mainstream pornography meant nothing to me. I had no interest in it. I don’t think I really sat down and watched a real porn film until just a couple months ago. This gave me a different perspective in seeing how it affected the men I was growing up. Trust me, these attitudes that plague men and dehumanize women aren’t inherient. They are absolutely learned. I see these boys go from having female friends they liked and respected transform into sexually obsessive misogonists. I was there for the lockerroom talk. It horrified me to see the change in my friends. In people who in all other ways were still good and smart people. And the change happened as they became more and more interested in porn. They became adversarial towards girls. They were crassly insulting, but it was also minimalizing themselves. I don’t think we can say that men, in the position of sexual power, are any better for it. No when that power is so often used in such dehumanizing ways. The whole system is awful for everyone, as far as I’m concerned, and its in everyone’s interest to change things. The trouble being that these attitudes are given undue value. Boys will boys, they tell us. Everyone looks the other way and meanwhile women are being abused and demoralized. Men are being made bitter and resentful. Sitting back and calling this parity does no justice.
This comment was written by BStu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
johnny uxor said,
Well, I would argue that, at minimum, “sexual power” means the ability to attract some small portion of the opposite sex. By that standard, unhappily married or no, you did at least have enough “sexual power” to get married in the first place. My sister, and any number of her friends, never even weilded that much sexual power. Nor have many men, of course.
I would argue that considerable sexual power, in the sense of being able to attract numerous partners of the preferred sex, is not available to many people, male or female. But, as Elkins points out, my main point is that, for women, possessing much sexual power at all is problematic. A man is not endagered by his own sexual power, while a woman’s sexual power makes her a prime target for preditors.
And, of course, a woman’s sexual power tends to be limited to the physical - to physical beauty. Men can more easily develop sexual power in other ways - although a lot of those “other ways” are, again, things most people probably won’t have access to; prestige, riches, etc. I never meant to say all women (or all men) have access to sexual power. I’m sorry if I was unclear.
Elkins said;
Interesting that we went opposite directions in our response to Ted - I broadened the issue beyond objectification; you defined that objectification more precisely. And correctly, I think. I would add that men’s “right” to a woman’s sexuality is limited only by other men - she’s off limits only if she “belongs” to someone else. Some guys also accept that women who are virgins are off limits (or used to back when I was dating), except they defined virginity very differently than I did.
I defined virginity as a person’s choice - as an internal thing, as an expression of self-control or direction. The guys I’ve known who chose to be virgins defined it much the same way - as a personal choice, as a deliberate approach. But most guys define women’s virginity as a physical attribute. I’ve only had one friend tell me about being stranger raped (everyone else was raped by someone they knew) - she was grabbed and raped in the classic “dark alley” scenario, except she passed out and doesn’t remember the actual event. She’s also the only one reported her rape to the police (although two friends reported incest to social workers), because she was found by somone before she came to.
She was a virgin when she was raped, and her boyfriend at the time argued that, “since she’d been popped”, she should start having sex with him. His response certainly didn’t help her trauma any, but I get the impression it’s typical. While she by no means chose to lose her virginity, he acted as if she was now available. She was “on the market” through no choice of her own.
A lot of guys consider a woman’s virginity a personal insult - like the t-shirt that says, “To all you virgins; thanks for nothing.” But at the same time, they don’t quite recognize a woman’s virginity as a personal choice. I understand a lot of girls are reluctant to accuse someone of rape because doing so will expose the fact that they aren’t virgins, and then it’ll be “open season” on them. If a woman feels empowered by her own virginity, that’s great - but I don’t think guys really see her as owning her own body somehow. If they honored a woman’s choice to be a virgin, she wouldn’t be considered available just because she’d been raped.
I don’t know what guys are respecting when they quit pressuring a virgin for sex, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t her right to own her own sexuality.
Elkins said:
That assumption really irks me - particularly when it comes to teenage girls (and, more rarely, when it comes to children, but I’ll skip that for now). I had a friend who wore pants so tight to school she wouldn’t drink anything all day because couldn’t use the bathroom - she had to lie down to zip her pants up. But she was deeply offended by the idea that she was advertising herself sexually - she dressed that way because she believed it was attractive, but what she wanted was friendly attention, not sex. She was always furious when guys assumed she wanted sex - her attitude was, “If I want sex, I’ll let you know.” She was completely oblivious to the idea that her clothes might be sending a different message - and to be honest, so was I. I thought she was stupid to wear clothes that tight, but I never connecting it to guys making assumptions about her. I think a lot of teen girls really haven’t processed that connection.
Then again, I’m still irritated by the fact that guys can pull off their shirts on a hot day and most people won’t think twice - but if a woman wears a halter top, “she’s advertising.” I hate heat, and sulk about this every summer.
This comment was written by shiloh.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
The thing about the “power of sex appeal” is that it is almost completely in the eye of the beholder. It’s not a case of a woman being sexy, like it would be if she were being smart or strong or creative, it’s a case of some man or men finding her sexy. The power is not hers; it is dependent on them, and therefore can be used against her. Unlike various traits that are there for one’s own benefit, such as intelligence, sex appeal benefits the people who find one sexually appealing. A woman’s attractiveness might influence the amount and type of sexual activity she engages in, but has no real effect on how much she is capable of enjoying that activity, the way a person’s intelligence would affect how much of a concept he or she is capable of understanding. Rather, attractiveness affects other people, it affects how much they want a sexual relationship with somebody. And sadly, the world is all too full of assholes who think what they want is more important than what another person wants.
So they try to control the woman who has what they want (namely herself). And here we have a problem. By posessing this thing, attractiveness, which is supposed to be so wonderful, we become targets; they try to control us, to subvert our wishes when they don’t coincide with their desires. On the other hand, if we downplay our attractiveness in order to avoid such attention, they are still controlling us, denying us the use of what should be our power by threatening to use it against us.
So what is the solution? Get power of other types; get power that they can’t turn against us. Get strength, get knowledge, get courage, get determination. Strength to oppose them, knowledge to learn how to best use that strength and to assess risk, courage to stand up to them, determination to refuse to let them win. Guard against both overconfidence and despair. Take a self-defense course. Consider what forms this sort of harrassment might take, and how you would respond to it. If you have to defend yourself physically, don’t half-ass it. If you take someone to court for rape or other abuse, the defense lawyer will make all sorts of attacks on your character. Don’t let it get to you. And always remember that being raped or harrassed is never your fault; don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
BTW, my favorite way to deal with the type of guy who thinks his desires override someone else’s wishes, is to ask him, shouldn’t he be hitting on women he actually finds attractive? When he protests that he does find you attractive, or is interested in you, tell him, obviously he doesn’t/isn’t, because if he did, he wouldn’t be treating you like trash, like your feelings are secondary to his. ‘Cause that’s how you treat an enemy, someone you hate, not a potential lover.
Or just tell him that you don’t sleep with/date guys who treat you like what you want doesn’t matter.
Anyway, discretion might be the better part of valor sometimes, but it seems to me that downplaying your attractiveness to avoid their attention is letting them control you in order to avoid the risk of them trying to control you. These people may exist, but it’s my world too, and my solution is to shine so brightly that they can’t touch me for fear of getting burned. It’s my body and my right. No arguments from the cro-magnon crowd will be tolerated.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
May 17th, 2005 at 11:13 pm
I think in all circumstances, it seems like societies come up with some argument that claims that men and women are equal in power, just in different ways. In Victorian times, there was the doctrine of “seperate spheres:” men have power in politics, business, law, etc. Women have power over the domestic domain, and are angels of the house. See? They’re really equal!
Now we have the argument that men have power in politics, business, law, etc. but women have power in sexual relations. See? They’re really equal!
I’m not sure if this is true, but I’ve read reviews of Marjane Satrapi’s new Embroideries that suggests that, even in the Islamic Republic of Iran, a far more patriarchal society than ours, Satrapi thinks it’s an open question whether men or women are more powerful. Because in Iran, men have power in politics, business, law, etc. but women have power in their sexual and emotional relations with men. See? They’re reallly equal!
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 12:03 am
I’m never keen or apathetic upon hearing stories of sexual abuse or rape, but for some reason, this particular story just tears my heart out. It’s yet another example of condoning rape, via playing up or down the circumstances that surround it, or are affected by it. Yet another way of blaming the victim, and reinforcing the idea that she’s simply a piece of meat - regardless whether someone see’s her as prime-rib, ground beef or spam. In the end, it’s all just more bullshit justification from people who wish to remain entrenched in a culture dominated by men that live in terror of losing the privileges they supposedly don’t have.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 1:10 am
Kyra Writes:
I spent all of high school a-sexualizing myself as much as I could, and while I still think that it was a better choice than trying to “compete” with the popular girls, I really regret letting sexism, and my own fear, dictate so severely how I presented myself, and how I perceived myself.
At the time I thought that I was hiding my body because I thought the whole popularity contest was bunk, and because I couldn’t hope to compete with the popular girls anyway. Looking back, and considering how other things that happened to me when I was entering puberty affected me (including breasts at age 10 and a persistent peeping tom a couple of years later) I realize that that isn’t the whole truth.
My sexuality became a weapon to be wielded against me almost before I knew what it was. It’s strange now to look back and realize that the boys and men who tried to control me through my own sexuality were able to do so because my sexuality was powerful; so completely had their derogatory actions convinced me that I was nearly undesirable, despite my fantasies.
Which is why the whole “women have the power ’cause you get to say no” argument just pisses me off. I didn’t have the power to say stop! to the budding mysigonists who whistled and yelled and me as I walked down the street (and don’t even try to convince me that they were trying to be flattering - not with what I was wearing and how much I weighed) and I didn’t have the opportunity to turn anyone down. How can I have so much power, all of which comes from my being able to say no, if I never got to do so? But of course, its not about me, because if it was, being able to say no wouldn’t be considered a special power.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 3:01 am
Interesting discussion. I just wanted to throw in another element that perhaps is an even clearer example of how ambiguous that definition of “sexual power is” (for those who haven’t realised that already, that is). The amount of children who are victims of sexual molestation or abuse, of all degrees, within the family or from non-related acquaintances. Is that sexual ‘power’? Of course not.
Before puberty, children do not even realise they can have sexual appeal until they’ve been objectified, molested, or abused. Which is the worst way of realising anything about sexuality, having it forced on you, before you even care or know about it. People who molest or abuse children sexually claim that it’s the children who are just irresistible, it’s the children who hold this power over them, they just “can’t help it”. (Much like a stalker thinks it’s the person he stalks that holds this irresistible power over his perverted behaviour.)
Almost everybody, except the abusers and molesters, will recognise that is wrong, abnormal, sick, and that the “can’t help it” excuse is a perverse attempt at justification for an objectification and projection that is entirely in the abuser’s head.
But so often, when it comes to women, the fact that, unlike children, they’re adult individuals with a developed sexuality and personality must mean, paradoxically… not that they have a right to be considered as such and their own preferences and person respected!, but that they must be the source of any sexual response, they must have provoked it, so that’s their power on the person having that sexual response, and this person’s responsibility is diminished, because they’re so overpowered by that sex appeal that she, obviously, knows about…
Of course when the sexual response is simple attraction that does not objectify and does respect the ‘target’ of attraction as a person, not an object, nothing wrong with it, it’s what happens when people feel attraction to someone else, requited or not. But when it is not like that, then there’s this shifting of the cause/effect, of the source/target elements of that attraction, of the responsibility factor. Nevermind the rapist, even the arrogant jerk who thinks that a woman he has set his eyes on is just expected to be her girlfriend and/or sleep with him and why would she even refuse his sexual advances, he uses the very same justifications for his behaviour as paedophiles do for theirs, only to him it’s not as perverse as that, because hey, she’s a grown woman and she is sexually attractive and probably even sexually active, she obviously not just wants it, but wants me, because I’m a man and she’s a sexy woman. I’m just powerless, I can’t help it!
He believes that the difference between children and grown women, younger or older, is that the latter must be responsible in some way for his sexual reactions (which he’s not responsible for, he just can’t control them); but he acts as if the woman is even less of a person with her own rights than a child, and as if he himself is even less responsible of his own actions than a child…
Don’t know if I’ve explained it well, it’s such an obvious thing, I guess, but it does strike me as recurring in these ‘women have all this sexual power’ refrains, of the likes we’ve seen in previous threads… The very same behaviour that these guys would consider abusive to any other subject, is justified with women being irresistible.
This comment was written by noodles.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 4:42 am
Thanks for the responses to my enquiry. I think I understand the point of veiw now. My concern was that if women often objectify men (but not as frequently as men do to women) isn’t this contrary to the idea of the rape culture. I now understand that I was looking at the question from the wrong perspective. While the frequency of the objectification might be due to the pervasive rape culture, the act of objectification itself is more of a moral fault on the part of the individual. When men or women participate in such an act it perpetuates the rape culture insofar as they are imposing objectification on the other party. This is more dangerous when it happens to women because it perpetuates the idea that it is her fault that such a thing has happened to her (due to her “sexual power”) and reduces her percieved or real control over that power as it relates to men or society in general. Hope that makes sense
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 5:15 am
No matter what I said, this guy “translated”? it to fit his preconceived notions. “No”? meant “yes.”? “Not interested”? became “interested but won’t admit it.”? “You’re not my type”? becaome “she’s just shy.”?
I had problems with a guy like this last year. He was the president of a student society I joined, and right from the start he singled me out. At first, it was kinda nice to have someone talking to me and asking me to social events, as I just got to university, but as time went on he became very presurizing. I had a boyfriend, but he “wasn’t good enough for me”, according to P and I’d “be much better off with him”. Refusing him brought accusations of “hating him” and deliberately making him fallin love with me just so I could hurt him. He’d cry and say it was because he was ugly/I didn’t like “nice guys” (hah!)
I tried to stay friends with him at first, because we had a lot of friends in common and went to the same social events. Eventually I had to stop this, as he became increasingly upset with me, and even dragged his friends into the game. Once after popping into an event on my way back from a friends concert, I was accused of “deliberately wearing a backless top to torment him with what he couldn’t have”. When I broke up with my boyfriend, and went out with someone who was not P, he said I was dating the new guy just to show P how worthless I considered him, and that any other guy was better than him (the idea I might want to date someone because I liked them was not considered). He’s left uni now, and all contact between us has ceased which is rather a relief.
During all this, he had a bizzare image of me in his head - he’d tell me I shouldn’t wear make-up because that wasn’t the sort of girl I was (I’m a make-up artist in my spare time, I’m obseessed with make-up and how it chances a person’s look). He’d tell me not to wear slutty clothes (in summer! when high necked tops and long skirts make so much more sense!), or that I was doing it just to attract him. He believed I was some sweet angel virgin type, and even when I gave him a descrption of my social life he honestly believed I was acting against my character just to maliciously hurt him. He’d ask me “why do you keep hurting me, you know we should be together, I know how you really feel about me”
It was really hard to realise what he was doing was wrong, since he always painted himself as the victim of my feminine attractions - I felt so guilty! I’d taken a nice boy and hurt him terribly -and not even realised how much I was upsetting him just by being myself. It got for him becoming really unacceptable (telling my friend he was only friends with her to find out stuff about me, sleeping with another friend of mine, constantly comparing her unfavourably to me to her face, getting upset when i held hands with my boyfriend in front of him, becuase I was flauting my happiness to make him upset, forbidding me to bring my boyfriend to socials etc.) for me to realise that it wasn’t my fault - that he just needed to grow up and realise sometimes girls just don’t want to sleep with you *shock* there is no need to obsess over them when they don’t.
This was all compounded by another guy this year, who asked me out, was turned down so he first ran around telling people I was a slut and then got really drunk, pinned me down in the kitchen and tried to force me. Ask him now - it was my fault. I’d flirted with him, I’d turned him down, I’d dressed in the sexy dress. How was he expected to control himself? I’d led him on…
They link together in my head really strongly because they both did the exact same thing when I turned them down for a date “but… why not? I think we’d be really good together” and then proceeded to guilt me with how upset I was making them, and how I’d really made them belive made them believe I wanted them. And the really sda thing? It worked! I’m now worried I give guys the wrong impression just saying hello to them, terrified I am leading people on if I smile at them, horrified I may be upsetting someone by not fully considering the effect my actions may have on them.
Men, especially repressed private school types, can be complete bastards when it comes to realising sometimes what they want isn’t the overriding control on the universe.
This comment was written by VK.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 6:06 am
>>Interesting discussion. I just wanted to throw in another element that perhaps is an even clearer example of how ambiguous that definition of “sexual power is”? (for those who haven’t realised that already, that is). The amount of children who are victims of sexual molestation or abuse, of all degrees, within the family or from non-related acquaintances. Is that sexual ‘power’? Of course not. >>
Right. Possessing something–in this case, I suppose, a sexualized body–is not the same as having power over the people who want it. As even someone was willing to admit, it can be incredibly dangerous, particularly when you have no recognized sovreignity. I mean, look at the people who were in possession of this country before we moved in. Did they have power over us because we wanted their land?
It’s also incredibly troubling–and I know that a bunch of other posters have gotten at this point, too–to see that ownership of one’s own body as an advantage, a _disparity_. It’s a basic right, and one possessed in theory by both the man and the woman involved.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 6:23 am
I mean, look at the people who were in possession of this country before we moved in. Did they have power over us because we wanted their land?
That is a really interesting angle. I’d never thought of that in that way.
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 7:41 am
piny, that is a most excellent point. Paula Gunn Allen and other Native American feminists have been making that comparison all along; that the theft and rape of the land is parallel to the rape of women, and of acts of brutality and genocide against whole peoples. Other feminists of color have been making note of this, and so have ecofeminists. White ecofeminists influenced by Wicca, Paganism, or other Traditional European Religion (pre-Christian) have been saying this.
That’s why feminist critique of imperialism, colonialism, “Manifest Destiny”, ecological destruction, etc. is so important, and why internal critiques within feminism, like recognizing and challenging white privilege and class privilege is so salient. “Rape culture” doesn’t just involve the Female Body, but the Peoples who come from the Female Body, and the land which sustains us. The motivation to rape any and all of the above stems from the same sense of entitlement, of greed and control.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 7:51 am
Whatever anyone means by “sexual power”? I have absolutely none of it. I’ll guess there are tens of millions of losers like me in this country; how can women have less than I, we do?
Wouldn’t you guess that there are “tens of millions” of fifty-year-old women who aren’t married, can’t or won’t see a prostitute, and aren’t inclined to physically force themselves on anyone? Or do you really believe that merely having a vulva guarantees an easy path through life? If so, you’re turning your resentment into delusion.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 7:58 am
I would further say that it stems from objectification; putting a false and arbitrary “value” on an “object” while at the same time stripping away autonomy or integrity.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 7:59 am
Noodles, despite having just talked about being objectified when I was emotionally and socially still a child (if developmentally already into womanhood) I actually had not made that connection, so thanks and good point.
Ted, yeah, that sums a lot of it up for me, and the same ideas hold true for a lot of other types of discrimination as well.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 8:11 am
I’ve written and deleted comments 4 times over the course of this 3-thread discussion. I keep getting bogged down with all my emotional baggage. Memories of the loneliness, desire, despair, misunderstanding, and resentment have really come to the forefront of my consciousness and prevented me from focusing on the general issues. I spent the better part of 2 decades being pretty screwed up, knowing I was screwed up, but not being to improve my thinking much. I dealt with it by mostly remaining celebate because being a jerk felt worse. I can relate to many of the men’s issues, but a fair number of the women’s as well. I’ve had several Aha moments.
So rather than contibute a perspective, I wish to thank Amp & the commenters for a really thought-provoking, soul-searching discussion. I mean it, you are smart & perceptive group. I wish they had blogs when I was 18, perhaps I would have come around sooner. I hope many others have a better perspective as a result fo this discussion too, especially the younger men.
This comment was written by Ron O.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 8:12 am
Does anyone think that some women fall for the idea that they have real sexual power? I’m reminded of this anti-feminist piece I found via Mouse Words a few months ago.
I wonder why it does not occur to Ms. Chunko (her real name!) that real power is independence. Real power is buying your own drinks and having complete control over your own self. This woman is just lazy and will be very unhappy when she no longer find herself ‘powerful’ as an older woman.
I have had male friends tell me that women have the power because they can get laid whenever they want. To them, it isn’t about being able to say no, it is about being able to say yes. And I suppose it is easier for women to get laid, but there are more repercussions for us. Our reputation, for one.
Then, as others have pointed out, there’s the idea that we should be obligated to say yes. Men have this pressure too, but I think it’s usually greater for women. Like VK, I have allowed myself to feel guilty for not reciprocating a guy’s feelings. I have no problem telling off the good looking, high status guys. For me, the unattractive ones are able to play on my sympathies until it’s too late and I realize I let them manipulate me.
I think what it comes down to is this: Perhaps attractive women have it better than unattractive women. Not in every situation, but (to repeat myself) the ‘net benefit’ is greater. But no woman has the luxury of having her sex appeal not matter. And that’s what sucks. That’s what I think real power would be.
Part of my reasoning for the above statement comes from other feminists. I have been told how easy I have it because I don’t “have to” watch my weight. I’ve been told about discrimination against those who are overweight or not pretty. So please, correct me if I’m wrong.
Also, you don’t have to be attractive to be raped. But I’m not going down that road or else I’ll write a novel.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 8:15 am
VK, I had a similar experience in college, but alas, I dated the jerk. He built up this whole image of me (quiet, “ladylike”, less smart) based on my appearance, and never amended it in the nearly 4 years we dated. He would berate me when I didn’t live up to his idea of me, and, yeah, he didn’t take no for an answer in bed, even if I was ill. Whenever I asked anything of him (sex, a ride to the emergency room), he would get insulted and sulky.
Sadly, he’s far from the only guy who thinking I ought to be someone I’m not just because of my physical appearance, although I stopped putting up with it after boyfriend #1. I have gotten reactions of shock - shock! - when I have done something assertive in front of men like this solely because I am shorter than average. And a tall and curvy friend of mine has gotten the same sort of reaction when she has been quiet or uninterested in flirting. What sort of mental model leaves you so unarmed for reality? I guess one for a society where there really is no need to see women as actual persons with thoughts and desires of their own.
This comment was written by RP.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 8:24 am
Yeah, I’ve heard that one too. These are guys who don’t realize that your average standard-issue bout of vaginal intercourse isn’t an orgasm-fest for most women (and don’t hear you when you attempt to explain this to them). And these are also guys who are deaf when you list all the times that you’ve been turned down for sex.
This comment was written by RP.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 8:49 am
Isn’t Rachel Chunko a pseudonym for a male college student?
I have had male friends tell me that women have the power because they can get laid whenever they want.
Your male friends can get laid whenever they want, too. Anybody who is willing to set their standards low enough can get a warm body to lie on, if that’s all they’re after.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 8:52 am
Going all the way back to the original story about the teenage gang rape and cover-up by adults:
One of the things I was able to recognize really early on was that part of what messed me up about being a victim of voyerism was never seeing the other kid (and he was a kid, younger than me, actually) get into trouble. I can’t imagine what kind of a message that sends to the victim and the perpertrator when the crime has escalated to rape, and such an obvious case of rape.
After I told my parents what he was doing the first time, the kid stopped. But then he started again months later, and in the meantime, I had seen no evidence of him being punished. Obviously, he was very young himself and couldn’t be held accountable in the same way even a kid my age should have been, but still, we both needed to be taught that what he was doing was wrong. When I finally told my parents he had started again, after months of it going on, they were shocked that I had waited so long and asked me, almost angrily, why I had done so. I essentially responded with “What difference did it make the first time?” At which point they finally told me that the whole incident had been taken very seriously indeed, to the point of the kid going to the doctor to see if he need further counseling. (Why no one wondered at any point during all this if I could use some counseling myself, I have no idea.)
The idea that adults would not only fail to see the need to punish teenage rapists, but go so far as to cover up the incident, is just appalling and goes a long way towards explaining why so many women and girls still feel the need to conform to sexist ideas.
This comment was written by Jenny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 9:21 am
Shiloh:
Sometimes I agree that it makes sense to view virginity as a choice. Sometimes, though, I think it makes more sense to consider it an accident of circumstance.
After all, for someone who would very much like to have sex, but who has not been successful at attracting a suitable partner, the “choice” to remain a virgin is not really much of a choice at all, is it? I mean, if your options are to (a) hire a prostitute, (b) lose your virginity to a partner who may not be a safe partner, or (c) grit your teeth and have sex with someone who repulses you…well, yeah, I guess you’re still making a “choice.” But not, to my mind, in any terribly meaningful sense of that term.
Holy Christ, what a thing to say to a rape survivor. Yeesh.
Agree with Kim here: it’s not that rape stories aren’t always horrifying, but that’s a truly stomach-churning anecdote.
No. Far too many men don’t. Then, of course, traditionally a woman’s virginity doesn’t belong to her at all. It belongs to her father, and thereafter to whomever her father gives or sells her to.
Ever had a guy refuse to have sex with you the instant they found out you were a virgin, even though they had previously seemed a willing and eager partner, because they didn’t want the “responsibility” of taking your maidenly virtue, or some other such patriarchal bullshit?
But. Anyway. Let me put my personal baggage back in the overhead compartment, shall I? Point is, I think that the entire virginity issue can cut both ways. Either way it cuts, though, it comes down to exactly the same perception: a woman’s virginity isn’t her own. It belongs to men, and it is men who determine whether she “should” keep it or not. Her own ideas or preferences on the issue just don’t matter.
This comment was written by Elkins.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 9:30 am
Holy Crap! I need to know where you went to school and where you live now because if it is anywhere near my daughters I am getting them out of there.
What awful stories. I am so glad I went to a boarding school for disadvantaged children. We did not even have half those problems and many of the kids at my school had been sexually molested as children, beat by their parents or were living on the street before The Chocolate Man took us in.
This comment was written by jstevenson.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Redneck Feminist:
Yeah. Thanks for saying it, though, because although I suppose that I could be seen as one of those responsible for that implication in this discussion, it had sort of been bothering me too.
There’s a nice little lose-lose dynamic built into the way we view the intersection between sexual power and rape, though. If an attractive woman is raped, she must have been “asking for it.” If an unattractive woman is raped, then she must be lying about it to gain “prestige” or “status” or somesuch by claiming a sexual connection with her higher-status rapist - the whole “she’s lying, ’cause why would the football star bother to rape a dog like that?” line.
Which I seem to remember was the one that got whipped out in the original story that prompted these threads. Those “normal” popular boys surely wouldn’t have orally raped that disabled girl! She must have offered herself to them in the hopes of gaining social status!
Blechh.
This comment was written by Elkins.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 9:56 am
The other one that has always struck me as bizarre, with regards to unattractive women is ‘She should be happy someone wanted her’, in essence turning the rape into some sort of public service.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 10:03 am
Kim (basement variety!) wrote:
Mine, too. I’ve had a lot of friends tell me their rape stories over the years, and all of the stories make me angry and sad, but that one really breaks my heart - it’s like she not only had to go through the horror of stranger rape and dealing with the cops (who fortunately believed her) and all, but she ALSO had to go through what is practically a date rape the next week! What a profound betrayal.
Precisely. Thanks for summarizing it so succinctly. The rape culture does not really justify rapists or sexual abusers of any stripe - it doesn’t make what they do right - but it does excuse them from any responsibility. It provides excuses, so they can more easily fake themselves out. It teaches them that they have the right to abuse, yes, but I think the fact that so many men recognize what’s being done is wrong tells us that the rape culture does not truly confuse people about what’s right or wrong.
IMHO, guys who act this way would not react with such anger and ridicule when flatly challenged if they didn’t know, in their heart of hearts, that what they’re doing is wrong. I would hazard a guess that the rape culture exists in the first place to justify what some men have done, and that it is perpetuated most strongly by men who need to excuse their own selfishness.
VK wrote:
Rape culture, to me, is when people hold the woman responsible for the man’s choices - particularly, it seems, when the man is being most childish or most selfish.
La Lubu writes:
If you read the documents of the time, there were also parallels in the way the powers-that-be would characterize the Indians; as helpless and weak and unable to make their own decisions, just as women were helpless and weak and unable to make their own decisions. The solution, in both cases, was for some white man to make the choices for them. American black slavery followed the same rules - the people being dominated “needed” someone to dominate them, for their own health and happiness.
And, of course, when any of these groups denied this need and fought for autonomy, then the oppressed group was “in the wrong” and deserving of punishment they “brought on themselves.” No power; all the responsibility.
Redneck feminist (drumgurl) wrote:
I think it depends a lot on the personality of the attractive woman. An attractive woman who is also kind of low key and tends to “go with the flow” is at a great disadvantage, I think, because she’s more easily abused and attracts more abusers. OTOH, an attractive woman who is pretty forceful and/or selfish can get considerable mileage out of her attractiveness. The lady you quoted (if she’s real at all) is powerful more because she’s manipulative than because she’s beautiful, would be my guess.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned in the sexual power discussion is the fact that self-confidence can be attractive. Everyone, I believe, is more attractive when they’re relaxed and at ease, and self-confident people are relaxed in more situations, so they come across as more attractive. They are also, if women, more likely to “accentuate the positive,” so if they are moderately attractive (physically speaking), they’ll make use of that, learning the skills and tricks of makeup and costume. Manipulative women are quite likely to accentuate their appearance, because they want power and that’s one way to get it.
Manipulative men do the same, I’m sure, but they usually have more ways to exercise power so they probably don’t expend as much energy on attracting the opposite sex. And, there’s less a manipulative man can *do* to improve his physical attractiveness - he may exercise and chose his clothes with care, but he doesn’t need such a broad selection of clothes and he’s not likely to spend hours every day applying make-up and doing that routine. What would be “seriously paying attention to his looks” with a guy would be considered “the bare minimum/just getting started” for a woman.
This comment was written by shiloh.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 10:14 am
Elkins said:
Yeah, I should have clarified, but heaven knows I’m wordy enough as it is. I was discussing virginity when it is chosen, not when it’s an accident of circumstances. If a guy choses virginity (or celibacy, or restored virginity, or whatever you want to call avoiding sex during a specific period of your life), it’s his choice. People may think he’s nuts, and if he’s a teenager he may get teased (although I’ve never known a teenage male virgin who’d admit to it in public), but that’s about the extent of it. But when a woman choses virginity, she gets grief for “not putting out,” or for being a tease, or heaven knows what.
And if the woman is raped or simply is not a virgin when she decides to take a sabbatical from sex, guys treat this as a positive affront. Way back before the Internet there were these sex activity surveys (they’re still around, I’m sure), and guys would quite literally put their girlfriend through it “as a joke,” but then expect her to do with them anything she’d done with anyone else. The fact that she’d done it with anybody made it part of their “rights” over her.
Yeah. That.
This comment was written by shiloh.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 10:24 am
This happens among adults, too. I can’t remember ever hearing a story about being harassed on a train or a bus or on the street and seeing someone step in to tell the harasser to stop it.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 10:26 am
Right. Both groups have been compared to children.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 10:33 am
Wow. This thread is amazing. Painful to read, but amazing.
BStu, I think you’re spot on about pornography. I keep going back and forth on whether porn is “okay” or not, and after something I read last night, I was forced to see that the stuff I’d been reading that I thought was weird but harmless was actually brutally misogynist. Part of what’s creepy about porn is the ever-recurring insistence that one cannot refrain from acting on impulse. We’re getting trained to treat sexist and misogynist behavior as inescapable and the basis of our sexuality.
The thing that’s getting me most about this discussion is the way men seem to regard their own suffering as an excuse to completely ignore anyone else’s feelings — particularly women’s feelings — rather than learning from their suffering to feel compassion for the suffering of others. I have to admit I’ve been guilty of this more times than I can count. Women, by contrast, seem to be trained to ignore their own suffering and pay more attention to that of others.
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 11:13 am
Yet, oftentimes when we no longer ignore it, we are told we are being uncivil because of our anger and tone.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 11:32 am
Kim (basement variety!) said:
I finally read I Never Called It Rape last year, and she discusses that some fraternities have what’s called a rude hogger award - given to the frat member who has sex with the woman they’ve voted most ugly. I have not the least doubt, having run across the concept in less structured groups, that the frat member who gets the award considers his act some form of public service, even if it involved force.
A somewhat off topic comment on the issue of feeling entitled - my sister went to the Boston Conservatory of Music for a while, and she lived next door to a frat. When hubby, brother and I meant to commiserate with her for this fact, she said it really wasn’t so bad - she said that the Conservatory frats were much less obnoxious than the frats around Colorado University. Her theory, and I suspect she’s right, is that the guys at CU frats considered themselves richer and more important than everyone else, which justified their more obnoxious behavior. But most people at the Conservatory and in that neighborhood were tolerably well off - without this class contrast, the frat boys were better behaved.
Studies indicate that guys also rate women who send “lower middle class” signals as less attractive - but also read “lower middle class” women as being sluts and sexually available. So less attractive women end up targeted as well. My friend who loved her tight pants ran up against that, I think. At her first high school she was apparently quite popular, and guys respected her. I’m fairly certain that her high school tended toward “lower-to-middle middle class” students (it was in the same system as my first high school and had that reputation), and her signals were mostly lower middle with a few upper middle mixed in. At our second high school, most of the students and pretty much all the “cool” students were upper middle class.
At our second high school, not only was she not as popular - when she did go on dates, the guys just assumed she’d “put out.” At her first high school, she didn’t face that problem - I think because the guys she was with “spoke the same language” when it came to unconscious things like clothes and how you stand and the words you choose in casual speech. But at the second high school, all of a sudden she was rated “low class” and thus “easy.”
She once told me I needed to quit giving her grief about he