Category: rape

The age of consent: a woefully inadequate concept (and why Peter Tatchell is wrong)

The case of the missing schoolgirl, Megan Stammers, who disappeared with her teacher, has been resolved, with the young woman having been found safely. Unfortunately, some people have used this story to promote their own causes. Last night, Peter Tatchell tweeted this, deciding apropos of nothing that the whole thing must have been consensual on Ms Stammers’s part:

Now, one of Tatchell’s pet causes is to lower the age of consent to 14. He has written volumes on the matter. While he might disclaim the living fuck out of everything he has said, there is still something that sits awkwardly with me with his vocal advocation of this. A man Peter Tatchell’s age should have no interest whatsoever in what 14 year olds are doing (or not doing) in their bedrooms.

The thing is, while he claims the people he wants to see protected are the young people- a 16 year old should not be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year old- he conveniently forgets to mention that this very seldom happens, and usually only when other abusive shit is going on. Put simply, the law is there to protect young people (usually girls) from older men. When two underage people have consensual sex, there might be a few checks on their welfare, but it’s phenomenally unlikely that anyone will be prosecuted. The prosecutions come when one person is significantly older than the other.

The age of consent is a complicated business, and I find it woefully nonsensical that there’s a magic number of years that happen and then suddenly you’re capable of consenting to sex with anyone of any age older than this figure. Whether it’s 14, 16 or 25, there’s always going to be some people who are more vulnerable to abuse than others. People mature at different rates.

What’s more helpful to examine is the interplay of power differences. Where there is a significant age gap–where one partner is 40 and the other 15 or 16–the extra arbitrary year probably isn’t going to make a blind bit of difference. The problem here is that one person is more than twice the age of the other, with far greater social and legal power. When the older partner is a man, further kyriarchal power differences creep in. If the older partner has a social role which puts them in a greater position of power–such as a teacher–then it becomes even more problematic.

It is these power differences that lead to abuse, not the age. Relationships of this sort will not always be abusive, but there’s so much of a problem with power here that they’re definitely causes for concern.

In fact, the notion of an arbitrary age of consent can lead to problems in and of itself. When girls hit whatever the age of consent is, there’s a certain patriarchal assumption that they’re now “fair game” (TV Tropes calls this the “Jail Bait Wait“; click at your peril): here, there is very real protection for young women, as it seems the only thing protecting them from the creeps banging down their door is the fact the creeps don’t want to be labelled paedophiles. Youth and innocence are fetishised under patriarchy, and therefore the legal boundaries currently do serve as a form of protection, albeit fairly inadequate. Shifting the age of consent down would serve to open up more young women to these predatory creeps who subscribe to patriarchal beliefs.

Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita provides an excellent exposition of some of the attitudes which allow abuse to happen. We find ourselves liking Humbert Humbert, and rooting for him. At times, we might find ourselves tutting at how difficult and unpleasant Lolita is being, before catching ourselves and remembering that SHE’S A YOUNG GIRL BEING ABUSED BY HER STEPFATHER. It’s a book everyone should read and experience, because it shows you just how easily you can fall into rape culture thinking (also, it is absolutely beautifully written).

Legal protections on the whole are not very good, and what we really need is a vast shift in culture away from retributive justice and towards community accountability. This allows us to respect the agency of young people while still keeping an eye out for causes for concern. And of course, the set of attitudes that allow abuse to happen must disappear.

And that’s a long way off, so what we’re currently lumbered with is an arbitrary number. Maybe it should change; maybe it shouldn’t. The people who should decide this are the ones who are affected by this legal situation: those under the age of consent, and those close to it. At the moment, all I’m hearing is rumblings from Tatchell, when it’s none of his fucking business. He is completely unaffected by this law, unless he intends on having sex with some 14 year olds, in which case he’s completely on the wrong end of the power difference to get a lick of support from anyone. And for him to use a high-profile case to promote his cause is unpleasant. Maybe Megan Stammers went freely. Maybe she was abducted. It is not for us, or Peter Tatchell to decide.

 

Why I can’t support @SlutwalkLondon any more

I’ve always supported the aims of the Slutwalk movement: sticking two fingers up at rape apologism.

The thing is, the London Slutwalk Twitter account has gone miles off message. Their anti-rape campaigning, it seems, only extends to clothing. If you happened to have been raped by a powerful man, on the other hand, they don’t give a shit.

Yesterday they tweeted a statement about Julian Assange. It featured the standard foil-hattery about the extradition to the US, and ended with a suggestion that he should stand trial–but in the UK.

Now, this is all well and good if you don’t care much for rape survivors. Imagine if you have been raped, and your rapist skips the country. You are told you can only get justice if you go to a country far away, and face a legal system with which you are not familiar, with a trial in a language you don’t speak (but your rapist does).

How is this in any way standing up for people who have experienced rape?

I can’t support Slutwalk London when they continue to engage in coded rape apologism. Rather than destroying rape culture, they are actively contributing to it. They’ve made it clear their support does not extend to all women, all survivors. And I will never support movements which stand for this.

ETA: Slutwalk Britain have disowned Slutwalk London. This is a positive step; I’m glad to see these views aren’t thoroughly entrenched across the whole Slutwalk movement.

Update 28/9/12: Slutwalk Toronto–who started the Slutwalk movement–have responded to Slutwalk London’s comments, finding them unacceptable.

No matter who Assange is, his political involvement and status should never be used to discredit or cast doubt upon his victims or protect him from being accountable. Suggesting otherwise goes against what we believe SlutWalk is.

Update 30/09/12: One of Slutwalk London has taken responsibility for the comment, saying:

The recent views expressed regarding the extradition of Julian Assange were my own rather than those of SlutWalk London. I apologise for using this platform to express these views and hope they do not deter from the purpose of SlutWalk, which is to send the message that there is never any excuse for rape and to demand protection and justice for all rape survivors. – Anastasia Richardson

This late in the game, it smacks of desperate backpedalling to save face. I’ve asked Anastasia if she sees how she (probably unwittingly) perpetuated rape culture. I’ll let you know if I get a reply.

 

 

ACAB forever: how the police cover up to make us forget

Two stories of police bastardry have come to light in the last few days. First, a police officer who wilfully failed to investigate rape cases properly (who I previously wrote about here) is in court for misconduct for this behaviour. His behaviour went on for three years, and only came to light long after the fact. Secondly–and this is a huge one–the Hillsborough report has revealed the true extent of how badly the police fucked up.

41 of the 96 people who died in the disaster could have lived were it not for the behaviour of the police and emergency services. The police then went on to cover this up, defaming the dead and smearing Liverpool fans as violent drunks who were to blame for the tragedy. It wasn’t true. It was never true, but the police colluded with the media and the coroner and the original inquest to make a concerted effort for people to believe it. It took 23 years for the truth to finally come out.

This pattern–the act, the cover-up, the truth only emerging long after the damage has been done–is seen repeatedly in police behaviour. Jean Charles de Menezes. Ian Tomlinson. Stephen Lawrence. They fuck up. Sometimes they kill. Sometimes they are negligent. Either way, they work as hard as possible to ensure that the truth never sees the light of day. Sometimes it can take decades to find out what really happened.

In a lot of cases, we’ll probably never know. These are the collusions and cover-ups we know about.

It serves a powerful function. It stops us from seeing the true, vicious face of the police, makes us forget that we cannot trust them. Even if the truth eventually emerges, it is long after the fact, and many handwave this away by saying “they’re not like that any more”.

They are still like that, but it will take years to see this, and then people will assume that surely, by now, they must have moved on. But they probably will not. There is too much trust in the police, which is repeatedly betrayed then hidden by spin and lies.

Don’t trust the police. While some of them may be decent human beings, many are not. And even the good ones are complicit in this culture of secrecy.

Washed-up nobody continues to perpetuate rape culture

Trigger warning: this post quotes some horrific rape apologism and discusses rape

Remember that rape apologist who was once on the telly who said some awful things about rape, including how he likes to do “stealth raids” on his wife when she’s asleep? Steve Brookstein. Come on, you must remember him. He showed up in the comments on my post about him, remember? He was also on telly once, or something? Yeah, I know, he’s instantly forgettable, but unfortunately hasn’t fucked off yet.

Anyway, Steve’s retained a fridge-buzz of Twitter misogyny in the last week, continuing to say awful things about rape. He blamed men’s hormones for making them rape (but that didn’t make them rapists, somehow). He promised to write a blog clarifying his position (because he’s totally not a rape apologist, somehow). He engaged in survivor-blaming (women too drunk to consent “offer it up”, somehow). He suggested that instead of spiked drinks, maybe women were “easy lays” (which is probably OK on some planet, somewhere, somehow). Then he got all confused about how drunk “too drunk is”, called some people Nazis and reiterated his promise of a blog clarifying why he totally wasn’t a rape apologist, somehow. Then he deleted all his tweets, so big thanks to the eagle-eyed @AGBear who managed to screencap it all.

Today, the much-vaunted blog has arrived. Has Brookstein managed to explain how it was all a big misunderstanding and that he really does understand how sexual consent works, and there was [insert some sort of explanation for his behaviour that I honestly can’t even conceptualise]? By that last bit of the sentence, you’ve probably guessed the answer. Steve Brookstein is a big massive rape apologist.

It opens somewhat promisingly:

Say NO to drunken sex – and I’m talking to the guys!

I was going to call this “This blog could save a young man’s life.” but anyway…

Has Brookstein realised that people shouldn’t be having sex where one or both of you is too drunk to be able to establish consent? No. No he hasn’t. See, poor Steve regrets talking about Julian Assange and Ched Evans (one is wanted for rape, the other convicted and imprisoned for rape) and everyone’s been all mean to him. Also, he thinks poor little St Julian is having problems:

Assange is already getting abuse with his image being tarnished forever and he is only wanted for questioning.

Yeah. Steve had probably best read up on the Assange case from someone who knows what they’re talking about rather than the foil-hatters, too.

The main thrust of Steve’s argument is that the law on rape changed recently, to reflect a new condition that the perpetrator does not reasonably believe that the survivor has not consented. Under this, rapes where the survivor was drunk can be prosecuted more easily. Steve thinks this is pretty unfair, because how can anyone possibly know about these changes to the law? His heart goes out to Ched Evans:

If Ched Evans had sex with this girl just 18 months earlier the judge would have advised the jury to come back with a NOT GUILTY verdict.

See, poor Ched, according to Steve, is a victim of redefining rape:

“Easier to convict men”? That’s not making it easier to catch a rapist, that is redefining the crime. That is a change to the definition of rape.  I expected to see something in this piece on this change in the law of consensual sex.  Considering that it could result in a man going to prison for 5 years. Sorry Ched, you should have read the new CPS guidelines!

Now, if you think this sounds a bit like an argument a weeping syphilitic chode might make, you’re right. Steve Brookstein even quotes that certain weeping syphilitic chode in his blog. O’Neill was wrong, and so’s Steve.

Anyway, Steve continues being an aggressive bulldozer of wrong for several hundred words, with a little diversion to point out that in a high-profile scenario, he’d seen a video and the survivor didn’t look “that drunk”. Also, he keeps suggesting that drunk women have some sort of hold over men who are literally unable to control their penises, and goes on about tedious shit about how active consent would require signing contracts (spoiler alert: it doesn’t). Only at one point does he manage to say anything even approaching right:

When men have had “NO MEANS NO!” drilled into them are you surprised a guy thinks “yes!” is ok?

Unfortunately, Steve thinks this means we shouldn’t be too hard on men who rape women who are too drunk to consent. It’s a half-decent point, though. We do need to re-evaluate our model of consent. And a lot of us have, to enthusiastic consent. Look for an enthusiastic yes, rather than an absence of a no, or a slurred “yeah, whatever”.

And this is what Steve and his ilk–unfortunately, there’s many who think like him–simply cannot wrap their heads around. And it’s this that should be taught to everyone. Seeking enthusiastic consent helps you stop being a rapist and makes you a good fuck. The “no means no” message needs to go.

Of course, this doesn’t absolve anyone who hasn’t done this from wrongdoing. It’s something everyone should be doing anyway. It’s the difference between borrowing and stealing, to use a terrible analogy. It’s not redefining rape to say that this should happen. It’s ensuring rape doesn’t happen at all.

But the Steve Brooksteins of the world don’t get this. Maybe they’re rapists, maybe they’re just shit in bed. Either way, they continue to aggressively push their agenda, lashing out whenever anyone offers an alternative. They cling to tropes and an ambivalent faith in the justice system (rape is only rape when it’s been convicted, except sometimes even then it’s not rape). These ideas need undoing. The myths are not true. What the legal system says is rape, and what rape actually is are two different things. The majority of rape happens without any engagement with the legal system, and conviction and punishment (retributive justice) is not the way to deal with rape and rape culture.

What we need is a revolutionary change in the way we think. Many of us are already there, already talking about and practising techniques that make rape harder to perpetrate. It’s the Steve Brooksteins of the world that are holding us back by continuing to perpetuate the culture that allows rape to happen. They’re complicit, every single one of them.

And we’ll talk louder, make it harder and harder for them to push their archaic ideologies. One day, there will be a world without rape, and they’ll be silent. They’ll either be convinced, or ignored for their vile, minority opinions.

Guess who’s a weeping syphilitic chode? That’s right, it’s still Brendan O’Neill

Trigger warning for rape apologism

I confess to having experienced moments of levity in the last few days. This was, I now understand, because I’d forgotten that Brendan O’Neill exists and is still a weeping syphilitic chode.

It’s taken him a while to articulate an opinion on the George Galloway/Julian Assange shit of the last few weeks, and that’s probably because he is so much of an oozing poxy micropenis that he’s had trouble working out what he thinks, because both figures are popular with the stereotypical left-wing person, and there’s nothing Chode of Chode Hall likes more than to shout about how much he hates left-wing people.

I’m surprised it took him so concoct who the real enemy is here. It’s the feminists, of course. Not real feminists, but the imaginary ones that hide in Brendan’s cupboard and eat his favourite crisps in the night but Brendan’s mummy won’t believe they’re real and she thinks he’s eating the crisps and she won’t let him sleep in her bed and that makes Brendan sad.

His line is thoroughly, tediously unoriginal and anyone with a passing familiarity with rape culture tropes will recognise it. Apparently the feminists are trying to redefine rape.

He argues this by, erm, redefining rape.

So it is quite wrong to say “sex without consent is rape”. It is more accurate to say that “sex pursued in defiance of a lack of consent is rape”.

According to the nasty little weeping syphilitic chode, pointing out that not establishing consent during sex can be rape is hard on the poor little men who can’t be arsed to establish consent and we’re lumping them in with criminals, because what really matters is the intention to do it.

And that’s just plain wrong. If you’re going to fuck someone, you have a responsibility to check everyone’s consenting. It’s what makes you a good shag (nobody’s as unsurprised as me that Brendan O’Neill has outed himself as a terrible lover). It’s pretty fucking easy to not rape someone if you make a modicum of effort.

In this particular offering, Brendan O’Neill displays an obsession with the justice system which is prevalent in thinking about rape, and thoroughly unhelpful for the most part. Rape is, after all, far more than just a legal situation: after all, the majority of rape survivors do not ever engage with the legal system as it’s not really set up to deal with rape particularly effectively. When talking about rape, we need to separate the act from the crime, as it is so much more than an abstract legal concept.

A lot of people get this. Many others don’t, and, of course, some of them will purposely miss the point like this weeping syphilitic chode. Sex without consent is rape. And that’s not a radical redefinition of anything.

 

 

Republican says more stupid shit: are we missing the point when we respond?

Another Republican politician has said something remarkably stupid and offensive about rape and abortion. This time, the blandly-named Paul Ryan has referred to rape as “a method of conception“, clarifying that rape isn’t really a pressing concern for him, as he’s more interested in prodding around in uteruses. Obviously, there’s been a bit of outrage and a few people calling for his resignation, but really, that seems to be missing the point.

The US is embroiled in an all-out war on choice. It is carefully stage-managed, and, as I noted the last time some Republican said some stupid shit, fits in with a complete rejection of women’s bodily autonomy, which also allows rapes to happen. It’s not enough to seize upon some specific words someone has said and call for their individual resignation from politics/public life/the human race.

It’s a systemic set of beliefs we’re fighting, not just some awful people saying some stupid shit. It’s  culturally ingrained that women shouldn’t have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. Sometimes it manifests in the anti-choice rhetoric, the desire to force women into a chronic medical condition to keep the population up. Other times, it manifests as a society which facilitates rape by repeating myths about blame and attempts to redefine rape to benefit rapists. And these beliefs can be articulated at the same time because it’s all part of the same myth: women shouldn’t control their bodies.

And so we need to highlight this system every time the opportunity arises. Rather than cry out for the Akins and Ryans (and, indeed, even the Dorrieses) of this world to go and fuck themselves, we need to point out how unoriginal they are, how they are merely replicating cultural lies.

It’s that we need to attack if we are ever going to win, not the individuals.

Failed pop star explains why rape culture works for him

Trigger warning: this post quotes rape apologism and descriptions of behaviour which does not appear consensual

Angry readers, cast your minds back to 2004, and try to remember a brief blip on the pop cultural horizon. Recall the glorious supernova that was Steve Brookstein, a bright-burning star sadly lost to us. Drawing a blank? Don’t worry. Even Wikipedia describes his career as “very brief“, and I exaggerated somewhat over his success. He won a TV talent show, which I’d happened to watch, and managed to forget about him before the credits had even stopped rolling.

Until last night, when suddenly and unexpectedly he crawled into my Twitter replies. I have no reason to believe it’s not the real him, as it’s an established Twitter account and who the hell would impersonate a washed-up cruise-ship singer? Anyway, he came from nowhere, with rape apologism followed by misogyny.

link

To clarify he was a definitely full-on misogynist rather than merely a rape apologist, Brookstein continued to make some very triggering about the possibility of emotional abuse and blackmail forcing survivors into spending time with their rapists.

link

That night, he continued to make some truly frightening misogynistic remarks to a number of people, demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of consent, all the while suggesting that it was somehow pathological to care about consent.

link
link

Brookstein’s profound lack of understanding of consent was made particularly clear by this tweet, where he suggested even a “no” was not sufficient, and only physical violence could be taken as a signal of a lack of consent:

link

Along with the deep misogyny is Brookstein’s pervasive believe that he is Doing It Right. Apparently, while feminists are unfuckable, &C &C, Steve Brookstein is doing exceptionally well because he’s been married three times.

link

That bit signals the break, the point where you should have a laugh, because it’s about to get really dark. Why is Steve Brookstein so vehemently defending rape and rape culture?

Because Steve Brookstein is quite possibly a rapist.

link

Yes. Steve Brookstein thinks it’s perfectly fine to have sex with someone who is not conscious, particularly if that someone is a spouse.

I’ve said many times before that rape culture and repeating rape culture myths only really helps rapists. Brookstein dismisses consent because it allows him to do something his partner may not be comfortable with (and probably wouldn’t be comfortable with him announcing to a social networking site in the middle of the night). This is what rape culture is for. 

It’s time, I hope, for Steve Brookstein to disappear back into obscurity. He failed pop music and now he’s failing at the basics of being a decent human being.

__

Accessibility note: The lovely @KinkShaman has transcribed the screencaps:

//1

A screenshot of a twitter conversation between myself (@stavvers) and Brookstein (@stevebrookstein)

Brookstein: “@stavvers Did the woman Assange ‘rape’ [sic] see him again on a date? That would be strange behaviour for a rape victim. No?”

Me: “@stevebrookstein No it wouldn’t. Apparently you’ve never heard of emotionally abusive environments.”

Brookstein: “@stavvers here we go.. Poor women. Boo friggin hoo.”

//2

A screenshot of a tweet from Brookstein: “@stavvers any women [sic] who doesn’t get what she wants can claim “emotionally abusive environment” load of bollocks.”

//3

A tweet from Brookstein: “@magiczebras so if your boyfriend touches you when you’re sleeping in bed together is that sexual harassment? You are crazy people.”

//4

A tweet from Brookstein: “@GemieMac the idea is that you get them in the mood… but according to nutjobs on here that is “emotionally abusive behaviour”

//5

A conversation between Brookstein and twitter user Charlie Baker (@Girlpantsx).

Brookstein (to the timeline in general): “This assange [sic] rape allegation has blown my mind. Soon men are going to have to get women to sign consent papers before every session.”

Baker: “@stevebrookstein Or they could just understand that no means no?”

Brookstein: “@girlpantsx no doesn’t aways mean no. It can mean “I want to but I shouldn’t.” A kick in the balls means no.

//6

A tweet from Brookstein addressing a number of twitter users: “@opinionatedpavs @GemieMac @BolliBolshevik @Inbetween_Girl good luck getting men. Talk to me when you are on your third marriage. #kids”

//7

A tweet from Brookstein: “@blunt_knives commonsense tells me my wife would expect the occasional stealth raid at night. [smiley face]”

Dear George Galloway

Trigger warning: This post links to descriptions of rape

Dear George Galloway,

Let me start by saying I admire your unending capacity to be a premium-grade tosser. Whether it’s getting snuggly with all-round fuckbags like Saddam Hussein and Assad, or whether it’s you claiming that gay people executed in Iran have committed “sex crimes”, I am perpetually impressed by your ability to fart around like an arseweasel and not have found yourself with an icepick lodged firmly in your occipital lobes.

Anyway, given your previous track record, I can’t say I was surprised when I noticed you defending Julian Assange. You’re both egomaniacal wankers in a similar manner, and you’d probably be well placed to form a comedy duo in a sitcom. By sitcom, of course I mean “gulag”.

The thing is, Gorgeous George, you seem to have got some facts twisted in chumming up to St Julian. You said “if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don’t constitute rape.” Now, while I fully appreciate your right to defend anyone you like and forge links with Ecuador’s future propaganda minister, there’s a few minor factual inaccuracies in what you’re saying.

Let’s start with the small stuff, that you’re coming across of something of a shitbadger by repeating tired old toss about this magical way of “verifying” rape allegations with some sort of “objective proof”. That isn’t how it works, and it’s kind of creepy that you think people should film their sexual encounters all the time. I mean, I know you don’t mind arsing around in a leotard pretending to be a cat, but really, George, exhibitionism isn’t for everyone. The fact of the matter is, decent people know there’s no such thing as this mythical “objective proof”.

And that’s precisely because of things people like you are saying, George. See, the allegations definitely do constitute rape. Let’s have a little look at what your pal Julian is accused of:

  • On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
  • On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
  • On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
  • On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
  • It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.”

So, the first point outlines pinning a woman down in order to force her into sexual activity. The second is tricking a woman into sexual activity to which she had not consented. The third is non-consensual–albeit non-penetrative–sexual activity. The fourth is having sex with a woman who is completely unable to consent. The fifth is exactly the same as the second.

You’ll notice, George, that the recurring theme throughout all of this is that the women were not consenting. There’s a word for sex without consent. Rape.

I find it rather concerning that you dismiss this as merely, as you put it, “bad sexual etiquette”. Bad sexual etiquette is not saying “thank you” before leaving. What Julian Assange is accused of is far more than that. It’s rape, George. It’s rape.

And it’s precisely due to arse-gargling ballfarters like you that this imaginary “objective proof” can’t work. Because there’s always scum like you who refuses to call a rape a rape. You’ll cloud the issues with rancid squid-ink because… actually, I have no idea how this state of affairs could possibly benefit you unless you’re a rapist. Would you explain to me why you so fervently pretend that none of this is rape?

Looking forward to hearing from you!

With contempt,

Stavvers xoxo

P.S. Apologies for the quality of my profanity. It tends towards the surreal when I’m furious.

P.P.S. I retract my remark towards the end of my letter comparing you to a squid. I like squids.

Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment is smarter than it seems

Trigger warning: this post quotes some horrible rape apologism and anti-choice rhetoric

Republican Senate nominee Todd Akin seems to be going for gold in the Offensively Stupid Shit Said By Politicians Awards. In one short sentence he has managed to say something so awful it’s almost impossible to work out where to start. When talking about abortion in the case of rape, he said:

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing [pregnancy] down.”

In the order it appears in the sentence, we have the rape culture myth that some rapes aren’t actually rapes, anti-choice rhetoric and a huge honking misunderstanding of how biology works. I’m not convinced he would have come across as more profoundly misogynistic had he just flat-out said “By the way, I hate women.”

The thing is, while it appears at face value as some completely ill-informed woman-hating, what Akin is actually doing may be much, much smarter than that. It could be a very well-constructed way of dragging discourse into a more misogynistic direction.

In the US, the war on choice is going strong, and a rather common battleground is the discussion surrounding “abortion only in the case of rape”. This position does not represent a fully pro-choice perspective, but it’s quite common among moderates and is frequently brought out in debates in a bid to get the anti-choice camp to concede some ground. Akin’s comment is his way of shutting down this particular avenue.

At the same time, rape culture thrives on the belief that rape is a stranger in a balaclava leaping out in a bush and violently taking the virginity of a good girl, and that’s all there is to it. There’s “rape rape” and there’s the stuff that isn’t really rape, which is perpetrated by powerful men like Polanski, Assange and Strauss-Kahn, and survived by sluts who were asking for it somehow. It’s a very pervasive belief, and one which benefits an awful lot of rapists.

What Akin has rather effectively done is say something which is difficult to argue against concisely without giving way on one of these two points. One can throw around statistics about just how many pregnancies are the result of rape, or one can argue that there’s no such thing as a “non-legitimate” rape, but it’s very difficult to do both at once.

What obfuscates matters even further is the very tempting distractor of the anti-reality terrible science. It’s a low-hanging fruit wherein it’s very tempting to say “THAT’S NOT HOW IT WORKS, FUCKNUGGET” without drawing attention to everything else that is wrong with the statement. Because that’s not how human biology works, and it’s gratifying to see that everybody is aware of this (except Akin, who didn’t even bother drawing attention to it in his non-apology).

In fact, Akin’s non-apology allows him to further elaborate upon his anti-choice, pro-rape culture position; while claiming he “misspoke”, he doesn’t acknowledge why there’s no such thing as a “legitimate rape”, and further espouses his view that women shouldn’t have control of their bodies.

The interesting thing is, his comment does lay bare how neatly the anti-choice position slots into rape culture. At their crux, both issues are about a complete disrespect for women’s bodily autonomy. People who want to force women through pregnancy and childbirth are less likely to be fazed by other violations. Again, though, this is a difficult position to argue concisely, particularly when the dominant cultural narrative is so heavily set against  bodily autonomy.

Far from being another Republican saying something else silly, Akin’s rhetoric may prove to be more dangerous than expected.

__

Thanks to @JamesGraham for a brilliant Twitter conversation which helped me collect my thoughts on this issue.

Julian Assange has imprisoned himself indefinitely without trial

The latest development in the Julian Assange soap opera: Assange has been granted asylum by Ecuador to avoid answering tricky questions in Sweden about some rapes he probably perpetrated. This would be all well and good if he could magically teleport to Ecuador from their London embassy, but unfortunately for him those pesky laws of physics prevent that.

So Assange is stuck indefinitely in a poky little building in Knightsbridge. If he so much as sets foot outside, he’ll be arrested and extradited to Sweden. In his bid to avoid accountability and due process, he has chosen to imprison himself.

Obviously, I find this profoundly weird and more than a little silly, given that Sweden is probably the safest place for him if he fears extradition to the US. Even if he goes to Sweden, answers the charges, then is brought to trial, found guilty, and imprisoned there, he would still be in a better position. He would have a fixed sentence, rather than the indefinite time he will spend in the Ecuador embassy. He will be able to go outside to exercise in a Swedish prison, while he cannot while living in the embassy. And he’ll still have a bed and a TV and internet access. That’s the worst case scenario.

But he has made his choice, and continues to pretend that he will totally be extradited to the USA from Sweden, despite the USA never having asked for anything of the sort. He continues to make the whole saga about him, poisoning Wikileaks with his egomania.

And so I think the best possible course of action now is to ignore him. Let him fade into obscurity, living out his days in a tiny room somewhere in West London. He feeds on attention, let us starve him. Let him become a mild annoyance to Ecuadorian diplomats and nothing else. Let him become a nobody, a nothing. He chose this.