I can't say that I am at all surprised by this decision. After all, this is precisely why Bush and Co. have been trying to stack the judiciary with folks like Robert and Alito. Moreover, I was out there protesting Roberts during his hearings because I knew, despite what well-meaning folks tried to tell me, he was no moderate.
Of course, my sentiments are best expressed by Ruth Ginsburg:
'Today's decision is alarming,'' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling ''refuses to take ... seriously'' previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.
Ginsburg said the latest decision ''tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.''
The most troubling part of this ban is that it will undoubtedly result in the death of women, whose lives are no longer as important as the fetus they are carrying.
I think that what troubles me even more about this decision is drive to "draw a bright line between abortion and infanticide."...
What hubris of this administration (and the SCOTUS majority) to think they alone have the ability to draw such bright ethical lines on matters that are inherently fuzzy and hence why they lead to such impassioned ethical debates. Ethical deliberation is not intended to answer "easy" questions, it's intended for the very difficult questions, such as a pregnant woman having to consider a late-term abortion to protect her own life.
bean of a bird and a bottle laments, "Oh Justice Kennedy, How You Have Failed Us"
The Supreme Court today upheld the late-term abortion ban Congress passed after the Court struck down a similar ban a few years ago. Congress, if you remember, passed the bill after making findings that a late term (aka partial birth) abortion was never medically necessary. Which is BS. Of course. Anyone with half a brain knows that.
But apparently not Justice Kennedy, who provided the crucial fifth vote to uphold the ban and who wrote the friggin’ majority opinion. Given that he’s now the swing vote on the court (since O’Connor stepped down), this does not bode well for women’s rights under the Roberts SCOTUS.
Jaymi at the Feminist Pulse points out that not only is this a loss for womens' rights today, but
This is truly frightning, especially when we don't even have an effective safe-sex ed program in schools. Bush's abstinence only bull shit has been proven by independent researchers to be completely ineffective at preventing pregnancy. Duh.
Feminist Nation has a partial list of other bloggers covering this.
Lauren at Faux Real Tho! rounds up more roundups, noting in passing,
The one thing I find hopelessly cruel — other than the obvious things that everyone else has noted — is that the type of abortion banned was the one that allowed a family to say goodbye to and bury a very wanted child, often named, who was assigned a birth certificate. It was one way of allowing women to view and hold their dead babies after delivery, one avenue of emotional healing after having gone through the majority of a pregnancy and then given the dire news that the pregnancy wasn’t viable.
I can’t imagine making it so far through and then having to deal with the disappointment.
Oh, so about that abstinence-only education business: yeah, this just in, it doesn't work. As Amanda of Sexual Evolution puts it, ...Shock!
...a federally funded study of “abstinence only” sex education programs found that they are not effective in reducing sexual activity or increasing age at first sexual activity amongst young people. The study, by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., followed participants from four abstinence-only programs as well as young people from the same communities who were not receiving structured sex education. It is by far the largest study that has been done on the topic, looking at more than two thousand students in cities and in rural communities and conducting long-term follow up research. The four programs studied were chosen because they were supposed to be the “all-star” programs. The federal government spends $176 million funding abstinence-only sex education programs annually (and approximately, oh, PRACTICALLY NOTHING on comprehensive sexuality education). Put it all together into once sentence and this is what you get:
A federally funded study has demonstrated that the government is spending $176 million annually on abstinence education programs that are ineffective while refusing to seriously fund other, potentially more effective comprehensive programs.
Debra Haffner of Sexuality and Religion not only has been saying that Abstinence Only Programs Don't Work since 1997, she is willing to challenge their proponents on their own claimed turf:.
The press releases from organizations that support abstinence-only education are trying to find the best spin on the story. One said that it doesn't matter that the programs aren't effective because they offer the right moral message.
But, they don't. As our "Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Sex Education" says we have a Scriptural and theological commitment to truth-telling. And programs that lie or deny young people life saving information about their sexuality are wrong.
DCup of Politits waxes nostalgic about Sex Advice from My Mother (yes, this one also could've gone in that first section):
It boiled down to this.....(brace yourself)....don't do it.
My mother, staunch Democrat that she is, has missed a great opportunity to reach out to the other side of the political spectrum on the sex issue. All this time she's been working at the hello desk at the casino and she could have been raking in the dough teaching no-sex ed for the Bush Administration. Ah, another missed opportunity to create a financial legacy that I could have shared with my siblings.
Well, fuck. Actually, don't fuck. Because that's the message that the absolutely useless abstinence-only sex education programs have been spreading to hormonally pumped American teens...
Written on the Body's Jane Doe notes that in general, Repression does not feel good.
I’m always been tempted to analyze, or perhaps pathologize, this new fad called abstinence. There’s a lot going on there. Authority figures telling people not to have sex isn’t a new occurrence- the Christian Church has spent most of its history trying to do just that. And sex-denying propaganda has always been targeted mostly at women because:
a) they are the purer sex and therefore by default in charge of taming the wild, and never liable, sex drive of the male sex.
b) because they get to bear the children that may or may result from fornication and god forbid we may not know who the father is.
...and now here we are in the 21st century with Maxim, Girls Gone Wild and the Abstinence movement. Living in a culture that can no longer deny women enjoy sex and in which they don’t have to risk get pregnant every time they have sex (I’m speaking specifically of Western culture here) we’ve seen methods of sexual control split into a schizophrenic monster....You’re either having sex or not, you’re a virgin or a whore, now god dammit make up your mind so we can judge you either way.
And sure enough, the judging continues apace, as evinced through some of the other major stories of the past few weeks or so.
As noted by Pam's House Blend along with, well, pretty much everyone by now, Don Imus passed some rather bone-crushingly ignorant racist and misogynist judgment on the Rutgers' womens' basketball team. He got judged in his turn, but is that the end of it? The Anxious Black Woman connects NBC's firing of Imus with the near-simultaneous dropping of the Duke lacrosse case, and asks a question that takes on multiple resonances, How Innocent Are They?
How "innocent" are the Lacrosse players? I don't know about the three particular guys who were charged, but...we know that they specifically hired two black women to strip at their party. Hmmm, were they hoping to recreate the hypersexual "video ho" broadcast all over Viacom-owned TV right in their living room? We also know that at least one instance of violence occurred - the hurling of the racial epithet...for which a 911 call was made and a next-door neighbor verified hearing.
None of these occurrences prove "rape" or "sexual assualt," but they do prove that the party guests are not "innocent," that they're not "good people." They were racists who were interested in demeaning a racial category of womanhood, and when they felt they didn't get their money's worth, so to speak, they sought to berate them verbally...
Please Professor Black Woman has more thoughts on the notion of the "Good Person" in this context:
Amidst a storm of people calling for his dismissal, Imus went on Al Sharpton's radio show and apologized with the simple phrase "I'm a good person." Sharpton's rejoinder, "You can be the best person in the world and still need to be fired." On his own show he said "I said a terrible thing but I'm a good person."
Here is the problem with "I'm a good person."...It excuses the violence perpetrated by the average American citizen because they are not wearing a hood, a tat, or a t-shirt that affiliates them with a known hate group. Yet it is the every day violence, of the "good people," in this world that makes it unsafe and encourages the "less good people" to enact violence on the bodies of the Other.
TransGriot dryly notes that Dissing Black Female Athletes Is Nothing New:
Before Title IX mandated increased funding for women's athletics in 1972, the African-American community was long a proponent of allowing women to compete in athletics. The YMCA's, YWCA's, sports clubs and HBCU's ensured equal funding for boys and girls sports in our communities and in many cases to insure excellence insisted that the girls play by the tougher men's rules...
So when the ripple effect from Title XI began to take hold in the late 70's our community was positioned to take advantage of it.
But with that success came negativity. The L-word was (and still is) hurled at many women athletes. The WNBA was so sensitive to it in the early days that despite a fan base that is 10% GLBT peeps, they still market their athletes by heavily playing up their femininity. They are seen glammed up, you'll read articles on WNBA.com concerning which WNBA players have the rep for being fashionistas or they inform the public when players miss the season due to pregnancy.
Black women athletes face additional challenges. If they perform at high levels they are quickly accused of cheating by the white male dominated sports reporting world and the court of public opinion which is shaped by their blustering comments...
while Black Amazon, Having Read the Fine Print, explains patiently, machete in hand, that yeah, actually racist and sexist slurs predate rap, too, or, Hip Hop Didn't Do That Shit:
...Privilege results in lazy ass motherfuckers who have no desire to deal with the responsibility of their "rights". It is expected you'll be unchallenged un shaped and allowed to do whatever.
Hip Hop didn't do that.
...Hiphop doesn't make Our female allies slow out the fucking gate to stand up, or that gay bashing white boys are pitted against grandstanding DA's and leave a lone black woman the face of all evil?
Or a dried out tired media using any opportunity to scare up flagging sales?
Or one white man using rash misogynistic racist language to speak in barely coded terms to his audience and getting caught cause he went after a high profile Cinderella team...
...Hip Hop didn't do that shit it just gave it a beat and a hook
A Womyn's Ecdysis writes of LAX...DUKE Depression:
I mean, SERIOUSLY, do people honestly think that women with "questionable" histories who dress in "sheer red negligee" go around saying they were gang raped for shits and giggles? Because it is SO much fun to be publicly humiliated and Wikipedia-ed as a result of reporting a sexual assault?...
...How much more does a lifetime of circumstances, a lifetime of choices that we do not approve of, taint our ability to see truth? She's a stripper. Single mother. Black. Student at a less prestigious school. She supposedly stripped less than 2 weeks after the alleged rape. If she was really raped, she wouldn't go back and do that sort of thing again. Or, SHE MIGHT HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS AND NEED TO FEED HER CHILDREN.
...In the future, these men will always be, perhaps unjustly, linked to the case and they will forever have to prove they were indeed "innocent" of the charges, and that the "fantastic lies" were indeed fantastically told.
But, my primary concern is not of the first class smear affairs. My focus is on the young women who will forever have those three children that lived through this and the murky mystery of what truly happened that night...
troubleinchina of Trouble! The Whole Shebang! is also good and fed up with the mainstream media's assbackward labelling of "victim" and "criminal," respectively, as she fisks a New York Post article, "Attack of the Killer Lesbians" (no really, that's the real headline, too):
I love this article. I do. Because it's written like an exact "How To Belittle The Experiences Of Women and Gay People Who Talk About Harassment" Primer.
April 12, 2007 -- One of them was "slightly pretty," so the freelance film director decided to say hi.
Next thing he knew, he was encircled, beaten and knifed in the gut right there on a Greenwich Village sidewalk - by seven bloodthirsty young lesbians.
It came out of nowhere! It did! He was just walking along, minding his own business, when those lesbians (must make sure we know they're young and lesbian) just attacked him for being friendly! That's totally how this happened!...A simple hello! Defenseless and terrified! The slightly pretty one just came at him for no reason!
Hmm... That just strikes me as a bit odd. But then, I didn't grow up in the city. And I understand girls are now meaner, and these were young lesbians, so maybe they're part of that. Damn. Poor guy.
Oh. Wait. There was a video tape of this attack.
The women, in turn, claim they were defending themselves against a violent, anti-gay bigot, and counter that Buckle provoked them as he sat outside the IFC Center movie theater trying to talk pedestrians into buying his latest movie. When they rebuffed his advances - telling him he wasn't their type - he began calling them "f- - -ing dykes," they say. He then spat on them, threw a cigarette at them, and even grabbed one of them by the throat -which, like much of the melee, was caught on an IFC video security camera.
Right... that's just "saying hello" in ... some other language? Like Klingon?...
Diary of a Goldfish eyeballs still another example of media's sexist/sensationalistic slant, in The Violent Femmes:
However, six killings in two months involving mostly black male children in our capital city and our Communities Minister Ruth Kelly insists this problem is about isolated individuals. Six isolated individuals dying in similar circumstances in the same city within a space of weeks. Meanwhile, what about white female children? One killing in the last few years, a slight drop in rates of crime among young women, but a few very nasty, highly publicised incidents. Naturally, it's a outrage.
BBC news: Violent girls making the headline.
The article is one of those standard finger-wagging exercises. Women or girls are perceived to have begun to indulge in a previously male-dominated vice. The causes of this vice must be gender-specific, something wrong with girls, as opposed to something wrong with the concerned individuals or society in general. Just as many imply that those boys in London are killing one another because they are black, not because of anything in themselves or in the culture they occupy – or, far more likely, a deadly combination of both.
But this article really did take the biscuit, the link to it posing the question: Is violence among teenage girls misguided feminism?
As per "violent girls," well, we do have ways of dealing with them. Some girls more than others, speaking of racism...well, the Shaquanda Cotton case is more or less a closed book for now--if you missed it, you can get a pretty full rundown on the fourteen year old girl who was sent to jail for seven years for pushing a hall monitor over at The Anti-Essentialist Conundrum, including the denouement: that is, after serving a year, there was a strong recent push to get her freed, and she was indeed released to her mother.
That same weekend, however, another school called the cops on a six year old girl who was having a tantrum: like Cotton, she just happened to be black. I'm just going to go ahead and include my own piece on this, God bless the child.
The last Carnival covered the Kathy Sierra saga in detail; this one keeps going and going, not least because Kos said something really, really stupid about it. Wampum has a good roundup of reactions to this. A pretty representative sample is at Pacific Views: Newsflash: Rape and Death Threats Not Funny.
Get a thicker skin. Hunker down. Learn to defend yourself. Don't antagonize people. Don't crave acceptance so much. Be more confrontational. She was asking for it. Yeah, whatever. As many of the responses to this have noted, this doesn't happen to men. Not like this. They do not routinely get threatened with rape. They don't get as many threats. Nobody's been telling them since they were little children that there are an awful lot of things they have to do to keep themselves from being physically violated in public, in private, in churches, in schools, at work, in buildings late at night, when walking down the street, while walking in the woods, when going to the park, in parking lots, at parties, at concerts, when you're alone, when going on dates, while going out with friends of the opposite sex, in bars, when taking cabs, in your own home, in nightclubs, at sporting events, while jogging, when wearing the clothes all the perfect fashion models and actresses wear, when your blouse is too low, when your skirt is too high, when your clothes are too tight, when you're wearing sexy shoes, when you've got on too much makeup, when you look good, when you're wearing shorts, while breaking up, if you're too nice, if you're too bitchy, if you flirt too much, if you draw too much attention to yourself, when visiting an ex, on becoming a public figure, when getting into a male-dominated field, while near construction sites, near waterfronts, at amusement parks, when getting into your car, et-frakking-cetera.
...And unless that woman happens to have powerful friends, she's probably going to be told to get a tougher skin. It's just a joke. A fark. Nobody really means anything by it. Until they do.
Like say, for instance, when some guy who's been exhibiting stalking behavior one fine day decides to go on the worst shooting rampage in U.S. history.
brownfemipower has a few words inspired by Emily Jane Hilscher:
Why is our need to disown this man from our culture more important than our need to remember, honor and mourn those who were brutalized? What would be different if our first reaction was to talk about a fallen sister’s laugh, the way she learned to crawl when she was only four months old, how she was a horrible speller, or how she had sex for the first time (and boy did she love it!) while at Virginia Tech?
How would things be different?
Would we hug our daughters, mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers, best friends, lovers, a whole lot closer? Would we try to remember a time when violence against women wasn’t so fucking normal? Would we get ill, physically ill, realizing that we have no memories of that time, and that our mothers, grandmothers, great grandmothers don’t either? Would we commit to letting our love for the women in our lives guide us toward a world free from violence? Towards a world where “only” and “just” are cause for outrage and horror?
And some are taking action. In response to yet another passel of (college) journalists who think feminist concern about womens' safety is just the funniest thing ever, soapbox spinster has been dedicating the last two weeks or so's worth of posts and other activism to calling them out. The latest update:
First off, yesterday afternoon, sometime between a meeting I had with Fab Dolan and the Town Hall meeting at 7, the USC and the Gazette both released press releases with official, for-real-this-time apologies:
...The USC has also claimed accountability and USC President Fab Dolan has officially apologized. He also notes that reforms will be in place by September 1st (aka before the Gazette can publish another issue)...
and Sylvia of the Anti-Essentialist Conundrum has a new project: AfroSpear is Ready to Strike!
After the galvanization of support and discussion surrounding Shaquanda Cotton and her release, many bloggers of African descent discussed how to maintain this network of support and internet action. As the conversations brewed, we noted the difficulties of finding many black and African voices who focused on political subjects. So the trickles and traces began flowing into common areas until we formed a stream of voices on the internet tubes, a stream of individual bloggers and communities that call themselves the Afrosphere.
In the advent of Don Imus, where the mainstream media have essentially seized upon a miniscule soundbyte of “black culture” — mainstream rap music — and have attempted to use it as the be-all and end-all of our existence, I’m realizing swiftly that an Afrosphere is necessary.
...As a result, in addition to maintaining my little haven The Anti-Essentialist Conundrum, I am joining the ranks of a new collaborative think tank. Along with four others — Maxjulian/Lubangakene of thefreeslave, Asabagna, Aulelia of Charcoal Ink, and Field Negro — we will combine our voices on this blog and share ideas and information to illustrate the range and depth of thought and community among the various types and cultures of people of African descent...
To end this section a somewhat lighter or, well, not that, more schadenfreudische? curious? note, Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild infamy got ordered to jail for a bit (as zuzu at feministe put it, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy). Off of which, Plains Feminist has the scoop on the disconcertion that happens when feminist activism dovetails momentarily with that of the Religious Right:
What's different about GGW is that they manipulate women by getting them drunk and by taking them, one at a time, onto the tour bus. Once there, without their friends to support them, they can be intimidated and coerced into the soft porn we see advertised on cable. They can also be raped. If they are drunk or underage - both happen regularly - they cannot legally consent, anyway. And all of this has happened on the tour buses... GGW poses a danger to women. And, further, Joe Francis and his cronies get rich off of their films, while the women who are filmed get t-shirts or caps.
And so I did everything I could to stop them from coming here...
I was feeling pretty good about this effort: I knew that others were also making phone calls, and I also knew that people would likely have a strong reaction once they read the links I'd sent. But the next day, there was an interesting shift in the "movement." My original email had been forwarded, and I ended up on a distribution list of some religious folks. Here is a portion of an email call to action I received:
I am more than willing to go to the Lava and pray... An effective method maybe to emulate the red LIFE tape we use at the abortion clinics, only use blue tape and write the word "PURE " Silent prayer meetings versus vocal protests have a lot more power in this type of confrontational situation…
I believe that when men, especially, come to events like this and act in prayer and purity, it is extremely powerful against the forces of darkness...
Tensions also flared between factions of feminists. This round was sparked by a workshop proposed for UK-based Ladyfest Leeds, on Feminism, Censorship, and Pornography. The description reads, in part:
As the Home Office prepares to pass new laws over the ownership of extreme adult pornography, Ladyfest Leeds will be holding a panel debate looking at whether this form of censorship contributes to women's liberation or oppression.
We will be bringing together a range of participants to debate whether there is a need for this change in the law, and to look at the key issues involved surrounding pornography and feminism. Key questions include:
* Is this the start of a more sinister invasion of people’s privacy or is it essential to ensure a safer future for women (and others)
* Should the possession of extreme pornography be illegal?
* What role does pornography play in backing up institutionalised sexism and sexist beliefs?
* Can queer/feminist porn inform this debate? Is it a liberating/subversive force or is it still embedded within patriarchal images of the woman?
* Is reclaiming the sex industry a necessary step in achieving gender equality?
* Can women be anything but commodities/objects in sexual images? What about the objectification of men?
We want to hear your views! It will be a lively and informative debate, and ALL viewpoints and perspectives on this often controversial topic are welcome...
Anti-porn activist Charliegrrl read the notice and asks, "When is Feminism not Feminism?"
I was browsing through the workshops of Ladyfest Leeds, to find a workshop entitled Feminism, Censorship and Pornography. Here we go I thought… So I did a bit of digging to find that the workshop is being held by two women who both have signed the petition against the criminalisation of the possession of extreme violent porn. The workshop is about criticising the recent legislation to criminalise the possession of extreme violent porn, and considering if this contributes towards women’s liberation or women’s repression..?
A few of us objected. Why do we need to discuss if criminalising the possession of rape and murder of women is a good or bad thing for women? Of course it’s a good thing. Oh but of course, criticising the workshop is censorship and that’s baaaaaad…
**The blurb to advertise the workshop was going to be this…
How many feminists fantasise about rape play? Is “pornography the theory, rape the practice”? How many of us are turned on by the idea of restraint and pain? Is SM just a space for abuse? What does pornography mean to feminists in contemporary society? How has porn affected OUR lives and sexual experiences?
In our 90 minute workshop, we will be hosting an open discussion exploring issues surrounding feminism, pornography and censorship. As the Home Office prepares to pass new laws over the ownership of extreme adult pornography, we question whether this form of censorship contributes to women’s liberation or repression. And we want to hear your views! We hope to host a lively and informative debate, and welcome ALL viewpoints and perspectives on this often controversial topic.
‘Rape Play’? What the fuck!!!
They have since seen sense after complaints and edited this blurb to omit ‘rape play’ and amended the line-up to include anti-porn discussion. I’m still not convinced. ..
One of the workshop's organizers, verte, replied, which response is on her blog, rocket fuel:
...Ladyfest pretty much fits into a third wave feminist mould and therefore is inclusive of all strands of feminism, including pro-porn, anti-censorship and pro-SM feminism, and less concerned that there are binary right/wrongs on single issues. On past occasions, however, we have been called 'sick psychos' and received cat calls asking us if we've been raped, which I was then forced to reveal to 150 people in order to dislodge some entirely incorrect assumptions. This abuse came from anti-porn feminists. I think they sometimes breed shame in other women at feminist events, especially when it comes to sexual expression, and it's therefore important that there are speakers to counteract these views and, I hope, find new, more moderate solutions. I still have hopes that the workshop may prove a productive forum for discussion on pornography. It's why I set set it up in the first place. At Feminist Fightback, I read, some radical feminists boycotted the event because ENS Women included the International Union of Sex Workers on the agenda. It's all too ironic that they cite the abuse of women on porn sets as a reason for the criminalisation of the possession of 'extreme' porn, and then attempt to prevent these women having rights and seeking solidarity with and support from other feminists...
Sparkle Matrix responds to verte (among others) with "Let us draw the line...so bite me I'm a nun"
Keen-sighted people may notice that women are routinely raped and beaten both in real life and in pornography. That nudging up to 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime. That woman’s humiliation and degradation are viewed as “entertainment” for masturbation. Cannot we just leave it out for a couple of days a year at a Feminist function where we can celebrate our femaleness - try to remember that many women do not have CHOICES are NOT willing participants and do NOT become aroused by sexual abuse.
If you are having a reaction to this - then ask why? What are you so in need of protecting? Why are you so angry about your own “freedom” rather than the emotional safety and comfort of women as a group including partaking at a feminist event? You are not — then you have no right to call yourself “feminist”
Incurable Hippie also calls out members of Informed Consent (a UK-based BDSM board), among others criticizing Charliegrrl, as Bullies Defending the Patriarchy:
I *know* the pro-BDSM arguments and they are very loaded, and are packaged in a way to make it look really bad to oppose them. If you oppose them you are censoring people, or oppressing valid alternative sexualities, or anti-sex (that good old!), or anti-free will! There is also lots of talk about allowing women to choose to work in the empowering sex industry.
...I am not currently up for writing these arguments out myself, because I know what I'd say, I know what pro-porners would say in response, and I'm sick and tired of having the same discussions and rows, which lead nowhere and frustrate me intensely. My energy is needed elsewhere!
However, as a brilliant sum-up of a lot of the issues involved in BDSM sex, 'rape play', pornography, prostitution, lesbian S&M and abusive sex, I must send you on to read, How Orgasm Politics has Hijacked the Women's Movement" by Sheila Jeffreys.
Just because it makes you have an orgasm, doesn't make it ok.
Think about *why* you might have an orgasm that way.
Put it in a political and gendered context. Think.
antiprincess of I Shame the Matriarchy responds to incurablehippie:
well, yes ma'am!
as a switch who mostly bottoms, I'm used to doing what I'm told and respecting authoritah and all.
So, off I go to think. some more. on why I'm such a reactionary gender traitor and unenlightened lumpenfraulein and wrecker of the Movement and selfish selfish pervert, off to contemplate how best to do penance for all those selfish selfish orgasms I've so gleefully and heedlessly flung all over the Feminist Landscape, crushing the tender buds of Revolution with every spasm...
Seriously, I gave it serious thought. as usual. All night. Why am I like this? why am I so sick and defective and bad? Where did I go wrong?
and I came up with the usual answers: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.
What makes Incurable Hippie think I haven't thought about it? I've been thinking about it for coming up on twenty five years now. politically, gendered-ly, psychologically, morally, legally, name-your-adverb-ly - I still don't know. That's a lot of sleep lost to tossing and turning in the name of getting right with Feminism.
I know I feel a lot more functional, and make better, more healthy choices, when I'm not obsessing about what a bad person I am. And part of that is accepting what makes me tick, sexually speaking.
So, yeah, I thought about it, and I think I'm still a pervert.
oh-annalouise uses a comment from the same Incurable Hippie thread as a jumping-off point:
Here's the one that really set my teeth on edge:
"Their so called consent is not solid. Let me see, paranoid schizofrenic women, bipolar disorder women, histerical personality disorder, postraumatic stress personality disorder from rape or chid abuse, 90% of them are heavy drug users, mentally retarded women, autistic women. Almost all well known US porn stars fall in one or more of those cathegories. Many are also in codependent relatioships, sometimes abusive. So much for consenting adults. "
Let's move on, for a sec, from how totally fucked up it is to imply that survivors of sexual assault are therefore, for the rest of their lives, unable to give meaningful consent. Let's even move on from the women who pose for Kink.com.
Let's talk about women in the sex industry who's exploitation and coercion is an indisputable fact. Let's talk about trafficked women and underage girls and what it does to truly oppressed, truly exploited women to use this kind of rhetoric...
continue to part three
go back to part one