Hooksexup @ Cannes by Mike D'Angelo
Two hours and twenty minutes of Brad Pitt in the morning. /film/
|
 |
Rebel Girl by John Freeman
Atu Utami proves that, in Indonesia, chick lit is political. /books/
|
|
Instant Love by Jami Attenberg
"There's no one left online but a handful of men, one whose profile name is MastaGangsta. I don't need a master. I just need someone who will show up." /fiction/
|
|
Scanner by Ada Calhoun
Aren't you glad to live in a world where morning-TV anchors say, "Oh, balls! I love balls!"? /regulars/
|
|
The Screengrab by Bilge Ebiri
As soon as a man starts talking about Anouk Aimee, he gets 75% more French. /film/
|
|
Horoscopes by Neal Medlyn
Your week in sex. /regulars/
|
|
Bad Sex With Jonathan Goldstein by Jonathan Goldstein
Marathon man. /regulars/
|
|
Slovakian Idols by Jano Horak
"See a female colossus . . . her mountainous torso, skyscraper limbs, giant desires!" /photography/
|
|
Divine Wrong by The Rev. Astrid Storm
The Da Vinci Code: a sexy Albino, some architectural trivia and a good Bush administration analogy. /film/
|
|
Film Reviews by Bilge Ebiri, Logan Hill and Peter Smith
Subculturama: Mouth to Mouth (crazy partiers); Is It Really So Strange? (Latino Morrissey fans). Plus, Date DVD. /film/
|
|
The Third-Wave-Feminist Mystique by Ada Calhoun
What was Abu Ghraib guard Jennifer Scala thinking when she brought the book Cunt into the courtroom?
|
|
Sex Advice from . . . Israeli Soldiers by Marisa S. Katz
Q: My girlfriend's higher rank bothers me. What can we do?
A: Have a threesome with someone of lower rank than both of you. /regulars/
|
|
Miss Information by Erin Bradley
This week: How do I end my nine-year relationship? /advice/
|
|
Offertory by Amy Hempel
"I said, 'I'll show you what he did to me,' and he said, 'But you can't show me, I'm not a woman. You have to tell me.'" /fiction/
|
|
A Thin Line Between Love and Hate by Sarah Hepola
You don't have to like Tori Spelling to love So Notorious. /tv/
|
|
|
 |
Reader Feedback on "Dialogues on Rape"
I got half-way through reading this list of responses before I felt obligated to add my voice. College-educated and raised by a single mother, I work in a factory. I have seen first-hand how rare I am that I value any equality I share with women. I have learned to be disgusted & ashamed to be a man by members of my own gender. Many of my peers on this page have NO idea how misogynistic the 'average' moderately-educated man is. These otherwise hardworking, funny, friendly, NORMAL men really are out to find the most inebriated woman in the bar so they have somewhere tight to put their penes. How I wish it wasn't so, but my daughter will know the rules AND know her alcohol limit (under supervision) before she's legal age. Because life isn't fair and it won't be any time soon; suck it up or be drowned.
--wbm
03/20 |
Makes me wonder: is it possible to make a sexual mistake? Can you engage in drunken (or not) sexual behavior that you regret in the morning and not be turned into either an aggressor or a victim, a slut or an asshole? (I'm not talking about when someone says "No", however)
--FR
03/20 |
Why are the authors so willing to give men a pass when it comes to having some responsibility for "doing what's right"? Why are people so quick to presume that men just can't stop thinking about "putting their penis in something tight", and this is supposed to take complete control of their faculties and excuses their unwillingness to give a thought to what might be best for BOTH parties involved?!? I am a straight male, thankyou very much, and this sort of mentality disgusts me. Personally I see much evidence that what is being discussed here is simply another aspect of wider cultural shifts which have gone in an increasingly backwards and patriarchal direction in the USA ever since the "Reagan Revolution" and the rise of religious fundamentalism. Going back to the kind of sexuality that Madonna in the '80s represented (let's call this "Cosmo sexuality"), that female "power" was primarily wrapped up in their ability to hold sex over the heads of men while pursuing objectification and an opulent lifestyle funded by sex-starved, simple-minded grunt-men, it really to me has all the hallmarks of cultural regression. Men clearly need to be held up to a higher standard, and women should not immediately lose their right to safety simply because they got drunk for some reason. Yeah drinking can certainly complicate the issue (which is way more complex than some boolean drunk/not-drunk value-judgement), but most of all it in NO way excuses opportunist male troglodytes abusing them without a second-thought, any more than its excusable to kick a homeless person or your old dog just because they're too weak to fight back!
--pjk
03/16 |
One thing this article and the commentary made me see is that there is not enough discussion and study of the other half of the equation: what is going on in the mind of the man who commits rape? Do we honestly believe that the male sex drive is so strong that it overrides morality and common sense? Or is it just that we don't want to attack the male sense of entitlement that makes a guy think that, somehow, this woman owes him something? One of the panelists said that rapists are just "ordinary guys." In that case, we need to examine seriously how we define "ordinary guy." Are we investing any effort into teaching the next generation of men that they don't have a right to sex from women, that they don't have to overcome female resistance to get sex? How hard is it to teach to err on the side of caution and respect for another person's autonomy? Even seduction and dominance need not be excluded from the sexual menu, if there is a clear way of indicating consent, as in BDSM sub-culture.
--pst
03/14 |
I think it's telling that the prediction made at the beginning of this article has come to pass. If you voice a question against the common wisdom on rape, you are shouted down. That said, as a man, I am becoming truly grieved by the way in which nearly all discussion of rape characterize me as "just lookin' to put my dick somewhere!" with no greater or more complex moral and emotional involvement than that. The issue of date and acquaintance rape can be as convoluted for young men as young women. For instance, this summer I got exceedingly drunk with a friend who was visiting me. At the end of the night, we began to fool around, and we nearly had sex. The only reason that we didn’t was that I was just slightly less drunk and realized it was a bad idea. In the morning she didn’t remember any of it. Although sex was her idea—and I was by no means sober myself—many would have considered it rape. I’m not trying to defend date rape, but I’m sick of being reduced to my penis.
--PAL
03/12 |
As much as I do not get that drunk at parties because it is stupid on many levels and, I recognize, potentially dangerous, getting really drunk and passing out is not illegal. Rape is illegal. Nothing excuses or predicates it, various of the public and the court system notwithfuckingstanding. It is the men's motivation and behavior that should be questioned. The motivations, I imagine, are misogynist shit concepts like fair game, sneaky yay for me, entitlement, and what does she expect? Dishonorable, irresponsible, shameful notions. As for the frisson of differing notions of consent and sex, I believe that one may pre-emptively begin a kiss. AND NO FURTHER. Anyone disappointed and waiting for a forceful seduction might muster up their own fucking courage and know that their disappointment is probably lesser than the "disappointment" of being raped. No and stop mean no and stop unless explicitly pre-arranged. That's boring and not the way the world works? Too fucking bad. The way the world currently works is not exactly very "interesting." Coming from a background of abuse, scapegoating, and being blamed or not believed when bad things happened to me "because of who I was," I dealt with the whole "it's your fault, you shit, lock yourself away" mentality, without ever being raped. I am very glad I was not.
--cdp
03/12 |
I am particularly creeped out by whichever one of the writers claimed that women should not go out and get drunk around a bunch of men, or else don't act surprised when we get raped or date raped. I'd like an explanation of how this is not a profoundly sexist equation - that men are able to get drunk to their hearts' content, but women aren't. We fought for how long to get the vote... and yet we're still not free to have a few fucking beers in this country with only the same consequences as men? Which is to say - hangovers, legal problems if we drive drunk, awkward consensual hook ups. Instead, we're supposed to take it as a natural given that men will rape us if/when we are vulnerable enough for them to pull it off. This article should have been titled "Dialogues on the Inherent Sociopathy of Men and Why You Can Still Always Blame the Woman." Thanks, Hooksexup.
--JK
03/12 |
Just a clarification: Camille Paglia was not framing date rape as a victimology. She was following through on her central thesis that puts men and women in biologically, culturally, and historically separate categories. Her comments about frat parties were meant to foreground the fact that often possess a sexually predatory nature that will present itself in certain settings. Paglia believes that while rape is reprehensible, it is natural for men to sexually take advantage of women if given the chance. Also, Paglia is certainly a feminist in the sense of equality, equity, and affirmative social action in order to level the playing field for men and women. She is not a second-wave feminist in that she believes that women and men are separate entities with specific stereotypical characteristics that do not hold up against the idea of gender as a purely social construct.
--STO
03/12 |
The sexual double standard that still exists is one reason why there is still a problem with rape trials. As a man, I find it appalling that women sitting on juries can be harsher on a female victim who sowed her wild oats before getting raped. In some ways it is like women like to keep each other down. --BW in Laguna Beach, CA
--B69
03/12 |
I think that a lot of what was said here was both horrifying and offensive. I'm a 42 year old bisexual woman and community college instructor, hardly prudish, who was, like countless other women, acquaintance-raped by what I thought was a friend in college. I was *not* performing some sort of "tee-hee" dance with my rapist; I didn't have any feelings of attraction for him, and I don't drink alcohol (I was, however, in a fraternity house where alcohol was present). The simple fact is, the male/macho, female/acquiescing social contract being what it was then and still is, this person felt he had a 'right' to force himself on me, and because we were friends, disclosing or physically resisting the attack would have forced me: first, to have been able to get my mind around what was going on at the moment (horrific betrayal by a supposed friend); second, my sence of violation and anger, and third, the social consequences of all of it (did I send him to jail? sunder my circle of friends in the process?). At nineteen, in a foreign environment, thousands of miles from my family, I didn't possess the psychological tools to do any of those things, and suffered in silence. The panelists' assertion that some sort of coercion/seduction, or the mystery of dubious consent, is integral to providing the necessary frisson for the promise of sex to be exciting does not mesh with my experience nor that of my contemporaries. Furthermore, it smells suspiciously like "she asked for it". You know that old cliche about us (women) knowing five minutes after meeting someone whether we'd ever sleep with them? We may not make the decision to take the plunge right away, but twenty-four years of experience, and that of my female friends, bears this out. And if Focault is the panelists' name-drop du jour on the topic as far as 'validation' goes, personally, I think he's full of crap. Sincerely,
--DAD
03/10 |
The dialogue was interesting, but... Being able to handle the "dirty, secret and hidden" is the purview of the autonomous individual. In conditions of secrecy and an imbalance of power, abuse always thrives. If you think that women have achieved full autonomy and don't need some protection, or that children have rights that render protection unneccessary, or that men are not also victims of rape and the dirty feelings of shame that ensue...well, you and Foucault can pool resources to buy the bridge I'm selling. If you view adult sexuality as a seething ocean: powerful, beautiful, dangerous--then one doesn't just jump in not knowing how or where to swim. Also, the reason potential victims are generally advised to beware of crime is because of the nature of our justice system; we can't convict people before they've done something wrong. Until everyone respects the autonomy of others, all one can do is provide disincentives to crimes, punish those who commit them, educate potential victims, and support existing ones. In the article, an advance was made towards expecting male responsibility for their actions, but then it was abandoned in favor of the men just want to "insert their penis into a close-fitting environment" generalization. Because of course only male wants are uncontrollable. How about instead of "no means no",simply use "when in doubt, leave it out"?
--aed
03/10 |
Very interesting, thought-provoking piece. Many kudos, nods and clicks, a few well, on the other hand ... I'll give the one of the latter that is bursting most to be said. Pardon the lack of conceptual concision. [quote from article] Women hate women. We all secretly think we're men. Maybe that's why we have to work so hard at acting like "women" — like, "We don't know what we want, hee hee. Protect me." I think some women hate the women we think are "not like us," being "stereotypical," women who generate grumbling about "women," women we think, and men and marketers think, we can group, who are not us, be it so or not. I don't think we think we're men necessarily; we think we're people first, and think we are, and that our behavior can't be predicated on our reduced to gender. When it's us individually, we see that; when people piss us off, we often see the group first, especially if it's a group the conceptions and status of which one might want to differentiate oneself from, as in the "I'm not like those rapist guys," and Pink is not like those "stupid girls". Same tendency for same and different reasons, and different implications. I think that the "universal," the ability to totally abstract oneself as an individual, to talk about oneself and humanity at the same time, is often seen as male territory, or played or interpreted as such. So we identify with many aspects of it because it is universal, because of a sensed commonality, an implicit understanding, that is probably part wanting to be like guys are abstracted as a group to be freed from many things, reading men talking about the universal, an actual universal ... Guys "get to be people" more. Someone might want to be a guy guy, or want to be people. But women already are people, and part of the distancing is distancing from an abstracted group that every person fits into differently and partially anyway, and that there are concrete reasons to sometimes wish to distance oneself from. And because the group isn't homogeneous and people can't be reduced, no one person being that abstract norm or partial but ambitious archetype, it can be difficult to play the roles.
--cdp
03/10 |
send feedback on "Dialogues on Rape"
back to "Dialogues on Rape" |
|
|
