Category: rape

Walking like a slut

Yesterday I participated in the London SlutWalk. To concisely summarise my experience of the day, it was fucking awesome.

I arrived at the assembly point at the top of Piccadilly in a foul mood, having been rained on and repeatedly betrayed by London Transport. As soon as I found the SlutWalkers, with hundreds of heart-shaped red balloons, my mood lifted and, in solipsistic pathetic fallacy, the sun emerged.

The turnout was large. The Torygraph estimated ‘hundreds’, the organisers 5000, and the Socialist Worker will likely declare a hundred thousand glorious comrades. I was right at the back, and would easily agree with the organisers that a reasonable number of thousands of people turned up.

It was a ragtag bunch. Old and young, people of all genders and races. We were all there for the same reason: we rejected the notion that a person is in any way to blame for their rape.

As we marched down Piccadilly, heartland of the capitalist plutocracy which feeds patriarchy and commodification of sex, we shouted a chant which summarised the purpose of the day:

‘Wherever we go, however we dress, no means no and yes means yes’.

It really is that simple to me. It really was that simple to my fellow SlutWalkers.

The mood was bright, jubilant, fun; positive and accepting. Here was a band of folk who did not judge and saw no reason to be afraid of their own clothes and sexual behaviour. Every banner reinforced the message: ‘RAPISTS! STOP RAPING!’; ‘A DRESS IS NOT CONSENT’; my personal favourite, the Flight Of The Conchords-inspired ‘A KISS IS NOT A CONTRACT’. This was not a day for reclaiming the word ‘slut’. Even the mainstream media seemed to get the message. We were marching against rape. We were marching against victim-blaming.

My mother called me today to express how proud she was of all of us.

Later, as we headed to the pub, feet sore from high heels, I was reminded of why we needed to have such a march. Being in the company of thousands who agreed that clothes were not an invitation, I had temporarily forgotten that the world was not yet on our side.

A leery, beery man took my friend’s SlutWalk outfit as an invitation to harass.

I shouted at him, loudly, copiously, swearily.

I sometimes wonder if all street harassment should be greeted with an angry assertion that this is not acceptable.

In all, though, it was a wonderful day, and clearly still needed. We must remain visible and vocal. We are chipping away at rape culture. Sluts and allies are everywhere, and we will be unstoppable.

Anti-social sluts

This may be one of the worst things you will ever read: “These are the most anti-social sluts on earth“. It is hosted by the source of 40% of evil in the world, the Torygraph, and written by a man called Brendan O’Neill, who, judging by the article, is a weeping syphilitic chode.

The article is ostensibly a critique of SlutWalks, wherein women and allies march against the notion that a person is in any way responsible for their own rape. O’Neill”s article is, in fact, nothing more than a seething pile of misogyny and rape apologism. O’Neill’s main thesis is that women who wear a short skirt and don’t immediately fuck a man are anti-social. Really.

The high-minded feminists who make up SlutWalk’s supporters and cheerleaders seem to want to opt out of this everyday social interaction, to dress as sluttishly as they like while also being surrounded by some magic forcefield, legally enforced perhaps, which protects them from any unwanted male gaze or whistle. They are prudes disguised as sluts, self-styled victims pretending to be vixens, astonishingly anti-social creatures who imagine it is possible to parade through society dressed outrageously without any member of that society ever making a comment about or to them. This is the highly individuated politics of fear – fear of men, fear of unplanned-for banter, fear of sexual licence – dressed up as radical feminism. But to update an old saying: no slut is an island.

He actually said that. He actually said that.

There is much to unpack in that short segment–the conclusion of the article–alone. First of all is the argument that women are “asking for it” if dressed in a certain way. Secondly, that O’Neill clearly has no idea what radical feminism is. Thirdly, that O’Neill also cannot comprehend why a woman would possibly be afraid of strange men harassing them (this is, apparently, nothing more than “unplanned-for banter”).

Most of all, that women who wish to live a life free from harassment are somehow anti-social. They are the “mean bitches“, one of the roles for women who refuse to inhabit rape culture and do not follow the rules.

Not only does O’Neill believe women are asking for it, he also believes that harassment is absolutely fine and dandy as long as you don’t stick your dick in the woman.

Yet that is what some SlutWalkers seem to be demanding: effectively the right to dress provocatively without ever being looked at, commented on, whistled at or spoken to by a member of the opposite sex. Unless such interaction is clearly solicited, of course.

O’Neill’s attitude towards women is rampantly obnoxious and hideous. It is hard to believe, from his writing, that when he refers to “cocky, swaggering men”, he is not casting himself in this role. He smirks smugly at the top of the page; his face says “come on, love, it’s just a bit of light-hearted banter”.

O’Neill wishes for a world in which a woman’s mode of attire is the same as a baboon’s swollen arse: an invitation to leer, to grab, to blow beery breath down the back of her neck and vomit in her tits. He is angry that such a world does not exist, and that some women believe that such contact should only be available with explicit, enthusiastic consent.

O’Neill does not stop for one moment to wonder why this is considered unacceptable by some. Instead, he frames women who want sexual contact with consent to be anti-social. This is a strangely socialist perspective for a Torygraph article. O’Neill believes cunt to be a commodity which should be distributed fairly, and that obnoxious oglers deserve a share. From each, according to her sluttiness. To each, according to his desires.

As more women realise that street harassment is wrong and become empowered to enthusiastically consent to sex and sexual contact, men who do not respect boundaries and rape apologists become more reviled. No wonder O’Neill is frightened. He and his leery ilk are becoming less and less able to express their entitlement over women, and so write angry Torygraph articles or post misogynistic comments beneath them.

They cannot blame themselves. They lack the self awareness to blame themselves. And so they hit out at the mean bitches.

Rape apologism and this sense of entitlement require challenging.

O’Neill’s article neatly demonstrates why a SlutWalk is so necessary and timely.

Apparently all men are rapists

To round off a week of Tories talking bollocks about rape, meet Roger Helmer MEP.

In this post, Roger decides to defend Ken Clarke’s comments regarding rape.

Now, Roger has some rather unconventional views, regarding climate change to be a myth and a hatred of the EU, despite being a member of European Parliament. Roger is also very firmly on the right of the Conservative Party, considering Ken Clarke to be a little bit too soft and fluffy to his liking.

Here, then, is his take on rape.

The first is the classic “stranger-rape”, where a masked individual emerges from the bushes, hits his victim over the head with a blunt instrument, drags her into the undergrowth and rapes her, and the leaves her unconscious, careless whether she lives or dies.

The second is “date rape”.  Imagine that a woman voluntarily goes to her boyfriend’s apartment, voluntarily goes into the bedroom, voluntarily undresses and gets into bed, perhaps anticipating sex, or naïvely expecting merely a cuddle.  But at the last minute she gets cold feet and says “Stop!”.  The young man, in the heat of the moment, is unable to restrain himself and carries on.

In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished.  But whereas in the first case, I’d again be quite happy to hang the guy, I think that most right-thinking people would expect a much lighter sentence in the second case.  Rape is always wrong, but not always equally culpable.

There is rather a lot to be angry about in this hundred-odd words. First of all, it becomes apparent that at least part of Roger’s disdain for Ken Clarke is that rapists are not hanged. Secondly, he uses the tired old defence of declaring that all “right-thinking” individuals must agree with him. Thirdly, he repeats the rape culture mantra that rape comes in differing degrees, that some rapes are not “properly rape”.

And then, there is the fact that Roger Helmer MEP believes that all men are rapists.

According to Roger, men are unable to restrain themselves when confronted with a partially-clothed woman in their vicinity and will immediately commit a serious crime because they just can’t help it. I have said it before, and I will say it again: this view is hugely insulting to men.

I have shared a bed with men before. None of them have raped me. I have been near men in a state of undress. None of them have raped me. I have cuddled men. None of them have raped me.

This is because not all men are rapists.

The vast majority of men know that when a person says STOP, that means stop, and that getting into bed with a person does not mean an instant ride on the Shag Express. Most people do not feel this sense of entitlement.

This is because not all men are rapists, despite what Roger Helmer MEP seems to think.

Roger disagrees with this notion:

My two scenarios also give the lie to one of the popular over-simplifications trotted out by the feminist tendency in these cases: “Rape is always about power and control and domination, never about sex”.  In the first case, that may well be true.  In the second case, it is clearly not true.

Sometimes rape is entirely due to succumbing to the forces of the sexy Jezebel who is right there, according to Roger Helmer MEP. Men are just walking dicks, and if there is a convenient hole nearby, according to Roger Helmer MEP, they have no choice but to throw themselves into it.

All men are rapists if there is a woman nearby, according to Roger Helmer MEP.

What are the implications of this?

Let me make another point which will certainly get me vilified, but which I think is important to make: while in the first case, the blame is squarely on the perpetrator and does not attach to the victim, in the second case the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind.

Women! Being raped is your fault if you established “reasonable expectations”, such as being in a bed with a person you presumably share a bed with frequently. The poor mite couldn’t help himself.

Reasonable expectations.

I have reasonable expectations that politicians should not further rape culture. I have reasonable expectations that politicians should not engage in victim blaming. I have reasonable expectations that politicians should not believe that 50% of the population are rapists waiting to happen.

I am therefore, according to Roger Helmer MEP, thoroughly entitled to violate him in some respect for failing to meet my reasonable expectations.

Fortunately for Roger, I think that line of argument is utter bollocks.

The Conservative Party is doing a fine job of conserving rape culture

This week, it would appear that members of the Tory party are scrambling to imitate  apocryphal lemming behaviour, seemingly running at full pelt towards the edge of a cliff. Lansley and his unpopular attempt to murder the NHS aside, this week has been mostly all about rape.  

First, the wild-eyed fundie Nadine Dorries excelled herself. Talking on TV about her jawdroppingly sexist plans for abstinence education for girls, Dorries managed to dig the hole even further:

“A lot of girls, when sex abuse takes place, don’t realise until later that that was a wrong thing to do … Society is so over-sexualised that I don’t think people realise that if we did empower this message into girls, imbued this message in schools, we’d probably have less sex abuse.”

On Planet Dorries, sex abuse is caused by girls not saying no.

There is a curious logical somersault here, the idea that rape can be prevented entirely by saying “no”, although it plays in perfect harmony with the popular notion that rape is only rape when the victim (always a woman, apparently) says “no”. No no, no rape. Dorries has taken this to its logical extreme: that uttering the n-word will magically vanquish all rape.

Dorries fails to provide any evidence for her assertion. No meta-analysis, not even one measly cross-sectional cohort study. A cynic may doubt such evidence exists. A person with the ability to think may doubt such evidence exists.

The second Tory to say something stupid about rape was Justice Secretary Ken Clarke. Clarke floated a policy which would halve the sentences of convicted rapists who entered an early guilty plea. This idea was met with some outrage, and Clarke defended the policy by distinguishing “serious rape” from “date rape”, declaring that a “serious rape” would never end with a 15-month jail sentence. Clarke also seemed to misunderstand the nature of statutory rape.

First of all, it is highly worrying that the person who is in charge of justice in this country seems to misunderstand a serious crime: legally, a “date rape” is a rape, as is statutory rape. Secondly, it is utterly offensive that a person who is in charge of justice in this country repeats the tired old line than only some rapes are serious. It smacks of Whoopi Goldberg’s infamous comment about “rape-rape” regarding Polanski. It smacks of Assange’s lawyer using the term “sex by surprise”. It smacks of rape culture.

Rape culture is the system of beliefs which perpetuates rape. Dorries and Clarke demonstrate many facets of rape culture in their remarks.

Dorries’s assertion, that teaching girls to keep their legs shut will prevent abuse, engages in a hefty chunk of victim blaming, as this post from a survivor highlights:

Now, thanks to Dorries comments I have to contend with the idea that somehow I provoked my attacker. Was it the neon pink board shorts I wore non-stop that summer? Maybe it was the provocative way my hair frizzed in the heat? What did I do to make myself a sexual being that I could have changed? Why did I allow myself to be abused?

Furthermore, Dorries perpetuates the myth that rape and abuse are things that happen exclusively to girls. Abstinence education for girls would have no effect on stopping the systematic abuse of young boys in by their priests, even if saying “no” could magically stop a young girl from being raped.

Clarke feeds into the myth that some rapes are less serious than others, buying into the notion that “serious rape” is that stranger in a balaclava who leaps out of a bush, despite the fact that this accounts for relatively few rapes. The more common kinds of rape, those by friends, acquaintances, partners, are, according to Clarke and many other proponents of rape culture, less serious, less like rape.

The reaction to Clarke’s comments focused largely, from much of the right-wing press and commentators, not on his comments but on an authoritarian ideal: that 15 months in prison is not enough for “sickos” or “monsters”. The othering of these “sickos”, of course, tends to refer to those who perpetrate Clarke’s “serious” rapes. They are not normal, apparently. They are different from the “normal” guys who engage in boys-will-be-boys behaviour.

The Conservative Party has been doing very little conserving of late, instead focusing on systematically violently dismantling the welfare state in a series of radical policies. It is hardly surprising, then, that the thing they choose to conserve is rape culture.