I just wanted to flag this outstanding essay by Georgetown Law Professor Robin West: "Sex, Law, and Consent" (published in The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice, Franklin Miller & Alan Wertheimer, eds.). It's about a decade old now, but it is incredibly resonant with ongoing debates, and deserves to be recirculated.
The thrust of the piece is a defense of "consent" as a demarcation between criminal and non-criminal sexual acts, coupled with a critique of "consent" as automatically delineating the difference between "good" (non-harmful, valorous, laudatory) and "bad" sex. West's argument is framed as a critique of certain radical feminist and queer theorists who have attacked the importance of consent -- either because it understates the background coercive conditions and inequalities of power which often render "consent" constructed or empty (RadFem) or because it nullifies the radical transgressive power of sexuality which is hot precisely because it plays upon these inequalities of power (queer theoretics).
West suggests that both of these critiques are ill-advised because they don't take sufficient account of the subjective experience of harm that is distinctive to nonconsensual sex (i.e., rape). There is, West suggests, a difference between agreeing to an exploitative contract and being robbed -- both might be problems, and the former may actually in aggregate contribute more to the broader spectrum of injustice than the latter, but nonetheless the subjective experience of signing a contract under exploitative conditions is not the same as being held up at gunpoint, and people don't experience it as such, and people don't expect the state to respond to them in the same way. The way we stop exploitative contracting isn't by expanding the definition of theft and robbery to encompass it. That they both represent wrongs doesn't mean they should be collapsed into the same category of social injustice.
Yet at the same time, West argues, that sex may be consensual (and therefore, in her view, not properly subjected to criminal sanction) should not exhaust our moral vocabulary when speaking of sex. Sex can be fully consensual and yet still harmful. Sex can be fully consensual and desired and yet still harmful. Ironically, we're more likely to speak of the harms of consensual sex in the case where it is mutually desired, as when we're lecturing a teenager that sure, they might want to have sex, but there's always the risk of an unexpected pregnancy or a disease that can derail a promising career or trap one in a life trajectory one very much does not desire. Yet this all obscures a different but still important case of consensual but undesired sex. Even here, West is appropriately circumspect -- we consent to things we don't desire all the time (West gives the example of consenting to see a movie one does not actually wish to see, because one's partner or children wish to). This isn't necessarily a terrible thing in isolation, but it can be, if it becomes pervasive or occupies the entirety of one's sexual being (if one's entire life of movie-watching is one that is wholly about what others desire, with no regard to what you yourself would like to see, that's a pretty crappy cinematic life irrespective of whether all the choices are "consensual"). In those cases, one is being harmed in a very real way -- internalizing (as West points out, quite literally) the notion that one's body is solely for others pleasure and that one's own desires are immaterial -- even though it's also a very distinctive way from that which comes through nonconsensual sex.
The point, then, is to avoid the Charybdis of calling it all rape, because consent is an effectively meaningless concept (or, on the other side, all sexy transgressive power play because consent is a fictive projection of repressed sexual desire) and the Scylla of saying that none of it matters because it was all consensual. As we move from the unambiguously criminal actions of a Harvey Weinstein to the more complex case of an Aziz Ansari, the failure to make these distinctions becomes more and more of an obstacle to pushing the conversation forward. People read about the Ansari case and say "you want to throw him in jail for that?" or "was it really non-consensual?" But that's a product of a crimped imagination whereby a broad range of moral questions get collapsed into a legal (criminal) question which gets collapsed into a "consensual" question -- and there's much more to be said than that. What happened to Grace, in her telling, may not be something that should result in Ansari being incarcerated, but it also isn't the equivalent of Grace agreeing to see a movie she has no interest in because her partner wants to watch it (let alone the equivalent of an actively desired encounter which, in the aftermath, turns out to have negative consequences).
Anyway, when I started writing this post I meant it to be a single paragraph of consisting of "read West's essay", and I've gone on much longer than that. So I'll just let it rest here -- but you should definitely read her piece.
Showing posts with label Sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexuality. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
2016's Opening Roundup
It's a new year, and so it deserves to be kicked off with a roundup!
* * *
Jeannie Suk and Jake Gersen have posted a draft of their forthcoming article "The Sex Bureaucracy" (forthcoming this summer in the California Law Review). I saw them workshop this paper at Berkeley last fall, and it is certainly going to provoke discussion (I think it raises some important points, though there is a lot I disagree with).
The Supreme Court may be about to eviscerate tribal court civil jurisdiction over non-Indians who engage in consensual relations with the tribe or its members. This is unnerving for a host of reasons. First, I thought that the issue was settled by relatively recent precedent (the Tribe's attorney, Neal Katyal, is right that the Supreme Court's "tribal exhaustion" cases make zero sense if civil jurisdiction doesn't exist). Second, it threatens to reverse decades of hard-won progress in the courts to recognize and respect Indian sovereignty. And third, the argument forwarded by several Justices that tribal courts pose an inherent due process risk to non-tribal members because the juries will be comprised of Indians is flatly outrageous, especially given the existence of the Indian Civil Rights Act. As Justice Breyer observes, this is no different from a citizen of Alabama getting an all-Mississippian jury in Mississippi state court, and just as with diversity jurisdiction generally (which is authorized by Congress but not a due process right) if Congress identifies a problem Congress is free to step in and regulate.
Israel has finally withdrawn its nomination for Dani Dayon to serve as Ambassador to Brazil. Brazil was set to publicly reject the appointment of the former settler leader, and the entire spectacle was yet another unforced diplomatic error by the increasingly hapless Netanyahu foreign policy machine.
An Israeli soldier who passed on confidential IDF information to terrorists (in this case, those of the "price tag" variety) has been sentenced to four years in prison. If only we could do the same to the right-wing MKs who did the exact same thing (Agricultural Minister Uri "If a person who transfers information about IDF movements is a spy, then I am a spy" Ariel, I'm looking at you).
Zeynep Tufekci has a touching editorial in the New York Times about "Why the Postal Service Makes America Great." This hits me where I live. First, I'm never prouder of being an American than when talking with immigrants about how wondrous they are about America. Immigrants, of course, are people who almost by definition made incredible sacrifices (social, financial, sometimes physical) to come here because they believe in their bones in the American dream. They have an excitement about America that is infectious and exhilarating. But separately, I too have long been in awe of the U.S. postal system. It is nothing short of amazing that I can address a letter to anyone in the country, no matter what far-flung flyspeck village they might live in, and have it delivered to them in a timely and reliable fashion.
Binjamin Arazi offers up the progressive case for Israel. It's quite good -- most posts in this vein quickly become smarmy declarations about how good the gays have it or how Israel is "the only democracy in the middle east!" This one, by contrast, puts the focus where I do: on progressive understandings of oppression and liberation (here applied to Jews). Still perhaps a little smarmy, but definitely below median (and who am I to judge on that front, anyway?).
* * *
Jeannie Suk and Jake Gersen have posted a draft of their forthcoming article "The Sex Bureaucracy" (forthcoming this summer in the California Law Review). I saw them workshop this paper at Berkeley last fall, and it is certainly going to provoke discussion (I think it raises some important points, though there is a lot I disagree with).
The Supreme Court may be about to eviscerate tribal court civil jurisdiction over non-Indians who engage in consensual relations with the tribe or its members. This is unnerving for a host of reasons. First, I thought that the issue was settled by relatively recent precedent (the Tribe's attorney, Neal Katyal, is right that the Supreme Court's "tribal exhaustion" cases make zero sense if civil jurisdiction doesn't exist). Second, it threatens to reverse decades of hard-won progress in the courts to recognize and respect Indian sovereignty. And third, the argument forwarded by several Justices that tribal courts pose an inherent due process risk to non-tribal members because the juries will be comprised of Indians is flatly outrageous, especially given the existence of the Indian Civil Rights Act. As Justice Breyer observes, this is no different from a citizen of Alabama getting an all-Mississippian jury in Mississippi state court, and just as with diversity jurisdiction generally (which is authorized by Congress but not a due process right) if Congress identifies a problem Congress is free to step in and regulate.
Israel has finally withdrawn its nomination for Dani Dayon to serve as Ambassador to Brazil. Brazil was set to publicly reject the appointment of the former settler leader, and the entire spectacle was yet another unforced diplomatic error by the increasingly hapless Netanyahu foreign policy machine.
An Israeli soldier who passed on confidential IDF information to terrorists (in this case, those of the "price tag" variety) has been sentenced to four years in prison. If only we could do the same to the right-wing MKs who did the exact same thing (Agricultural Minister Uri "If a person who transfers information about IDF movements is a spy, then I am a spy" Ariel, I'm looking at you).
Zeynep Tufekci has a touching editorial in the New York Times about "Why the Postal Service Makes America Great." This hits me where I live. First, I'm never prouder of being an American than when talking with immigrants about how wondrous they are about America. Immigrants, of course, are people who almost by definition made incredible sacrifices (social, financial, sometimes physical) to come here because they believe in their bones in the American dream. They have an excitement about America that is infectious and exhilarating. But separately, I too have long been in awe of the U.S. postal system. It is nothing short of amazing that I can address a letter to anyone in the country, no matter what far-flung flyspeck village they might live in, and have it delivered to them in a timely and reliable fashion.
Binjamin Arazi offers up the progressive case for Israel. It's quite good -- most posts in this vein quickly become smarmy declarations about how good the gays have it or how Israel is "the only democracy in the middle east!" This one, by contrast, puts the focus where I do: on progressive understandings of oppression and liberation (here applied to Jews). Still perhaps a little smarmy, but definitely below median (and who am I to judge on that front, anyway?).
Friday, October 25, 2013
Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume IV: Sex
"Every generation," the saying goes, "thinks it invented sex." Wrong. The Jews invented sex -- at least, the dirty, perverted, sexy sex whose kinky hotness is erotically destroying civilization as we know it. From "The Secret Sex Life of the Jews" [http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/10/19/secret-sex-life-of-the-jews/]:
That being said, you can't deny that she has a point. Jews are overwhelmingly liberal on issues of sex and sexuality. Seventy percent support gay marriage. Ninety percent support legalized abortion in most cases. Ninety four percent of Jews reported having premarital sex. Shameful, I know. And as this exclusive behind the scenes footage of a typical Bar Mitzvah demonstrates, dirty, filthy sex lies at the very center of what it means to be a Jew:
No class of men appears to be quite as sex-obsessed as the Orthodox Jews and the rabbinate. If you compare the religious texts of the various world religions, you will find that all of them—with the single exception of Judaism—maintain a high moral tone throughout. They don’t keep harping on about breasts and penises, prostitutes and semen. Judaism does.This is ridiculous of course -- anyone who thinks suicide will save them from the endless march of Jewish sexy sex obviously has never heard of autoerotic asphyxiation (thanks Hebrew school!).
[...]
Jews certainly have sex on the brain. And they have transmitted their obsession to the rest of society. We have all become infected, to a certain degree, with the sex virus.
[...]
Of one thing we can be reasonably certain: any society that attracts large numbers of Jews can expect within a few years to enter a spiral of decadence. Moral anarchy sets in. Sexual promiscuity throws open its Pandora’s box of evils. We saw it in Weimar Germany.
We see it gathering pace in America today. We see it above all in Israel, a society of fanatical settlers and rabid right-wing rabbis: a country surely doomed to implode from within, sooner or later, under the pressure of its own moral and military excesses.
I cannot help feeling that a great storm is brewing and that only a military coup or revolution can now save America. Save it from what? From the spiritual cancer that is consuming it from within, and from the iniquitous wars into which it is being lured— Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and soon perhaps Iran—on behalf of a foreign nation and its disinfo agents in America.
Unless a miracle soon occurs and some charismatic leader comes to our rescue, an unimaginably bleak future surely awaits us: a future in which the only consolations left to us will be mindless entertainment, drugs, alcohol, sexual intoxication — and suicide.
That being said, you can't deny that she has a point. Jews are overwhelmingly liberal on issues of sex and sexuality. Seventy percent support gay marriage. Ninety percent support legalized abortion in most cases. Ninety four percent of Jews reported having premarital sex. Shameful, I know. And as this exclusive behind the scenes footage of a typical Bar Mitzvah demonstrates, dirty, filthy sex lies at the very center of what it means to be a Jew:
Monday, October 29, 2012
Project Lemonade
Sharia law meets abstinence-only education:
(Actually, the study -- at least as reported in Jezebel which, in fairness, is a considerable caveat -- doesn't seem to have a great answer for why the rate for Hindus is so much lower than the rate for Muslims. As for its Jewish findings -- well, it's good to be a Chosen One sometimes).
. A new study in the American Sociological Review found that evangelical virginity-pledgers could learn a thing or two from Muslims and Hindus, who are the most likely to actually abstain from premarital and extramarital sex instead of just lying about what went down in the basement over the weekend. What's their secret? Really pretty "True Love Waits" t-shirts? Nope: legal and religious coercion, gender segregation, and never showing any lady skin, ever.So rather than complaining about how Islamic law is taking over, why not get on that action to actually make a tent on premarital sex rates?
[...]
Those looking for casual sex partners online should try "advanced search"ing for Chosen Ones: a whopping 94 percent of Jews who participated in the study reported having premarital sex, followed by 79 percent of Christians, 65 percent of Buddhists, 43 percent of Muslims and 19 percent of Hindus.
(Actually, the study -- at least as reported in Jezebel which, in fairness, is a considerable caveat -- doesn't seem to have a great answer for why the rate for Hindus is so much lower than the rate for Muslims. As for its Jewish findings -- well, it's good to be a Chosen One sometimes).
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Rectal Dysfunction
Not actually symmetrical, but still, LOL:
As far as I know, rectal health has little to do with sexual dysfunction except for geographic proximity (well, and I suppose depending on what sort of sex you're into). But the stress test certainly does, and in any event, it's funny, and these ultrasound laws are obnoxious and patronizing, so, you know, goose and gander.
Over in the [Virginia] state senate, Sen. Jill Vogel (R) has introduced a bill that would require all women seeking an abortion “to have an ultrasound image taken to determine the gestational age of the fetus.” Piqued by the unnecessary intrusion into a woman’s doctor-patient relationship, state Sen. Janet Howell (D) sought to level the playing field.
“If pregnant women should have to get an ultrasound before having an abortion, men should have to undergo additional medical procedures before getting a prescription for erectile dysfunction,” she noted, and introduced an amendment to Vogel’s bill requiring that men “undergo a digital rectal exam” for pills like Viagra:On Monday Howell expressed her disdain for legislation requiring the ultrasound by proposing an amendment she described as a simple matter of fairness. Her amendment said that before being treated for erectile dysfunction, a man would have to undergo a digital rectal exam and a cardiac stress test.
As far as I know, rectal health has little to do with sexual dysfunction except for geographic proximity (well, and I suppose depending on what sort of sex you're into). But the stress test certainly does, and in any event, it's funny, and these ultrasound laws are obnoxious and patronizing, so, you know, goose and gander.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
New Rule Roundup
Not eating lunch today was a mistake.
* * *
In the wake of the NHL barring Detroit Red Wings fans from throwing Octopuses onto the ice after goals, Down Goes Brown offers up some other new hockey rules.
Obviously this legal interpretation isn't going anywhere, but still amusing: Florida accidentally outlaws sex. Kind of like how Texas accidentally barred marriage.
TNC on how all Black people are scary Black people.
Interesting documentary on an Israeli doctor working to save the life of a Palestinian child in the midst of Cast Lead. Apparently it is getting rave reviews.
Hamas is willing to accept a Palestinian state on 1967 borders, but will never recognize Israel, because that would imply giving up the right to a Palestinian state ... beyond 1967 borders.
I do approve of Tolkien permanently transforming elves from midgets to lithe giants.
* * *
In the wake of the NHL barring Detroit Red Wings fans from throwing Octopuses onto the ice after goals, Down Goes Brown offers up some other new hockey rules.
Obviously this legal interpretation isn't going anywhere, but still amusing: Florida accidentally outlaws sex. Kind of like how Texas accidentally barred marriage.
TNC on how all Black people are scary Black people.
Interesting documentary on an Israeli doctor working to save the life of a Palestinian child in the midst of Cast Lead. Apparently it is getting rave reviews.
Hamas is willing to accept a Palestinian state on 1967 borders, but will never recognize Israel, because that would imply giving up the right to a Palestinian state ... beyond 1967 borders.
I do approve of Tolkien permanently transforming elves from midgets to lithe giants.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
College is a Tough Time To Be Straight
The Texas state house has passed a bill requiring all state universities with "alternative" sexuality centers to provide equal funding to "traditional values" sexuality centers.
I find this ... more than a little strange, and I think the problem is a series of bad analogies. This is a somewhat a theme in the field, as we found out when Robert George forgot there was a difference between holding gay rights positions and actually being gay.*
Here, I just don't know what parallel these het-friendly centers would serve. One college conservative who had pushed for the legislation (after admitting that his real hope was eliminating these centers altogether) complained that while folks can freely strut about campus saying homosexuality is okay, if he wears a t-shirt accusing it of being immoral, suddenly there is a whole big controversy. Double-standard! Except ... not -- if I walked around asserting that heterosexuality was immoral, would there not be quite a bit of outcry? If public reactions to brutally caricatured claims by radical feminists is any indication, the answer is a pretty emphatic yes. It's all in where you put the baseline -- and the ability to assume heterosexuality is so entrenched as to not even contemplate the possibility of a "to-the-bottom" critique of it is the linchpin of heterosexual privilege that proves the asymmetry between the two orientation's social standings.
More generally, the purpose these centers serve is to function as a secure place for a community which often experiences severe alienation and hostility on college campuses. Is there any sort of analogue for heterosexual students? The Texas Observer deservedly mocks the whole concept:
There's no parallel straight sexuality centers because there is no analogous experience that they face. There is a political inequality, to be sure -- the position that LGBT individuals are equal human beings is getting official representation, and opponents of that view are not. But that doesn't track onto cognizable parallel between the life experiences of being gay versus straight.
There is one area where I think it does make sense to talk about a "straight sexuality" center, but I doubt it is what the Texas House has in mind. The broader moral commitment behind any center focusing on human sexuality is to encourage healthy, respectful sexual expression, and affirm the choices people make within those confines. That's something that's useful to people of all sexual proclivities, gay or straight, "traditional" or not. but I doubt the Texas House wants heterosexual students to feel comfortable expressing their sexuality in diverse ways either.
Now let's be clear: If someone wants to stay abstinent, they should feel perfectly comfortable doing so -- and if they don't feel comfortable, then they should be given the support they need to feel comfortable about it. But that's not separate from the commitment to supporting sexually active students; it's concurrent with it. They flow from the same principles. And I think any sexuality center worth its salt knows that.
* Side note: I picked out a Robert George article, The Concept of Public Morality, 45 Am. J. Jur. 17 (2000), to see whether, frankly, he was any good. After all, he has a pretty decent reputation as a jurisprudence guy, and while "What is Marriage" was utter tripe (the answer, apparently, is 90% naturalistic fallacy and 10% bad empirical claims), I thought that might not be his best work.
The article I read was decent, albeit not mind-blowing. In terms of philosophical approach we are radically separate, but I could appreciate his skill as an advocate on some of the more abstract questions (such as the trouble with the public/private distinction). In terms of specific applications, though, I think he's got very little going for him, and I was particularly distressed by what struck me as a marked authoritarian streak (I'm not the only one -- he quoted another writer making the same claim about him, one he said he hoped was at least partially tongue-in-cheek).
I find this ... more than a little strange, and I think the problem is a series of bad analogies. This is a somewhat a theme in the field, as we found out when Robert George forgot there was a difference between holding gay rights positions and actually being gay.*
Here, I just don't know what parallel these het-friendly centers would serve. One college conservative who had pushed for the legislation (after admitting that his real hope was eliminating these centers altogether) complained that while folks can freely strut about campus saying homosexuality is okay, if he wears a t-shirt accusing it of being immoral, suddenly there is a whole big controversy. Double-standard! Except ... not -- if I walked around asserting that heterosexuality was immoral, would there not be quite a bit of outcry? If public reactions to brutally caricatured claims by radical feminists is any indication, the answer is a pretty emphatic yes. It's all in where you put the baseline -- and the ability to assume heterosexuality is so entrenched as to not even contemplate the possibility of a "to-the-bottom" critique of it is the linchpin of heterosexual privilege that proves the asymmetry between the two orientation's social standings.
More generally, the purpose these centers serve is to function as a secure place for a community which often experiences severe alienation and hostility on college campuses. Is there any sort of analogue for heterosexual students? The Texas Observer deservedly mocks the whole concept:
Imagine the plight of the heterosexual student stepping on to a college campus for the first time. How will he fit in? Should he tell his new roommate about his alternative hetero lifestyle? Will he be bullied, just like he was in high school, where he was mercilessly teased for being a sexual deviant? Where does a straight person turn?
There's no parallel straight sexuality centers because there is no analogous experience that they face. There is a political inequality, to be sure -- the position that LGBT individuals are equal human beings is getting official representation, and opponents of that view are not. But that doesn't track onto cognizable parallel between the life experiences of being gay versus straight.
There is one area where I think it does make sense to talk about a "straight sexuality" center, but I doubt it is what the Texas House has in mind. The broader moral commitment behind any center focusing on human sexuality is to encourage healthy, respectful sexual expression, and affirm the choices people make within those confines. That's something that's useful to people of all sexual proclivities, gay or straight, "traditional" or not. but I doubt the Texas House wants heterosexual students to feel comfortable expressing their sexuality in diverse ways either.
Now let's be clear: If someone wants to stay abstinent, they should feel perfectly comfortable doing so -- and if they don't feel comfortable, then they should be given the support they need to feel comfortable about it. But that's not separate from the commitment to supporting sexually active students; it's concurrent with it. They flow from the same principles. And I think any sexuality center worth its salt knows that.
* Side note: I picked out a Robert George article, The Concept of Public Morality, 45 Am. J. Jur. 17 (2000), to see whether, frankly, he was any good. After all, he has a pretty decent reputation as a jurisprudence guy, and while "What is Marriage" was utter tripe (the answer, apparently, is 90% naturalistic fallacy and 10% bad empirical claims), I thought that might not be his best work.
The article I read was decent, albeit not mind-blowing. In terms of philosophical approach we are radically separate, but I could appreciate his skill as an advocate on some of the more abstract questions (such as the trouble with the public/private distinction). In terms of specific applications, though, I think he's got very little going for him, and I was particularly distressed by what struck me as a marked authoritarian streak (I'm not the only one -- he quoted another writer making the same claim about him, one he said he hoped was at least partially tongue-in-cheek).
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Dropped Letter
Here's a correction you never want to write:
Ouch.
This blog post originally stated that one in three black men who have sex with me is HIV positive. In fact, the statistic applies to black men who have sex with men.
Ouch.
Monday, October 04, 2010
The Social Script of Objectifying Men
I find the story of the Duke "fuck list" to be very interesting, in a perverse sort of way. I admit my first reaction was very similar to the one I had after the Larry Craig scandal broke -- that is, how many women are looking at the list and saying "been there!" I feel like this list shows up in every other issue of Maxim, no?
These things seem to only become "problems" when the victims are men. What makes this list so shocking is that it makes men into women -- that is, casts them in the social script typically reserved for women. They stand passive and naked, judged solely on the amount of sexual pleasure they gave to this woman, and (horrors upon horrors!) some of them didn't make the grade. At the risk of hyperbole, that never happens in the American public sphere. And while I certainly understand why it would be disconcerting to be cast into that spotlight, once we get past the gender-inversion, it's hardly uncommon.
My second thought was that there is simply no winning position for women in this sort of scenario, whereas for guys there's at least something of a mixed bag. There are basically three roles one can play: the list writer, at the top of list, or at the bottom. If you're the guy whose at the bottom, well, yeah, that sucks pretty unambiguously. If you're a guy at the top, though, that's a little awkward, but also kind of a badge of pride. And if you're the guy who wrote the list -- well, you'll probably be seen as a cad. But you're also a stud who banged 13 ladies (hells to the yeah!). Again, at least a mixed blessing. By contrast, a female writer of this list is a slut, a woman who tops this list is a slut, and a woman who is at the nadir is either a frigid bitch or an untalented slut. Yeah, that's no-win.
Finally, I'm curious about the social meaning of this designation for the guys involved. As a society we have basically no experience with this sort of naked sexual objectification of the male body. It just doesn't happen. So if this list becomes a top 10 google hit for these guys in the future, what's the likely result? We don't know if we're supposed to be sympathetic, or high-five them, or shun them, or mock them, or what (for women in analogous situations of course, the answer is shame and shun). I think our collective confusion will result in it being effectively ignored.
This, I think, goes back to my old post, Second Thing We Do, Objectify All The Men. Because men aren't in a situation where, as a class, their moral subjectivity is unrecognized, recognition of their objectivity is considerably less threatening.
This doesn't mean that this list didn't cause a lot of pain and embarrassment, or that we shouldn't be attentive to it. But it does illuminate some deeper issues of sexual inequality that are clearly, I think, more intense (and more ignored) when the victims are women.
One of the things I've noticed about dominant social views on sexuality is that men really believe that a zone of sexual inviolability surrounds them and get really angry when it's penetrated. They want, at all times, to be in complete control of any sexual event or happenstance that involves them--but they don't seem to believe that women deserve the same courtesy. So when there is even the slightest risk of breaching a man's sexual perimeters (e.g., a gay man coming on to you in the bathroom), we erect all sorts of social and legal barriers to block it. Some jurisdictions seem to allow or at least condone violent assaults by heterosexual men being hit on by a gay man at a bar. And as Senator Craig's case shows, even something as tenuous as possibly signaling a sexual proposition of another man in a public place can get you arrested. Stacking that sort of treatment up against the yawning silence we give to the massive amount of street harassment women (especially urban women) face is mind-blowing.
These things seem to only become "problems" when the victims are men. What makes this list so shocking is that it makes men into women -- that is, casts them in the social script typically reserved for women. They stand passive and naked, judged solely on the amount of sexual pleasure they gave to this woman, and (horrors upon horrors!) some of them didn't make the grade. At the risk of hyperbole, that never happens in the American public sphere. And while I certainly understand why it would be disconcerting to be cast into that spotlight, once we get past the gender-inversion, it's hardly uncommon.
My second thought was that there is simply no winning position for women in this sort of scenario, whereas for guys there's at least something of a mixed bag. There are basically three roles one can play: the list writer, at the top of list, or at the bottom. If you're the guy whose at the bottom, well, yeah, that sucks pretty unambiguously. If you're a guy at the top, though, that's a little awkward, but also kind of a badge of pride. And if you're the guy who wrote the list -- well, you'll probably be seen as a cad. But you're also a stud who banged 13 ladies (hells to the yeah!). Again, at least a mixed blessing. By contrast, a female writer of this list is a slut, a woman who tops this list is a slut, and a woman who is at the nadir is either a frigid bitch or an untalented slut. Yeah, that's no-win.
Finally, I'm curious about the social meaning of this designation for the guys involved. As a society we have basically no experience with this sort of naked sexual objectification of the male body. It just doesn't happen. So if this list becomes a top 10 google hit for these guys in the future, what's the likely result? We don't know if we're supposed to be sympathetic, or high-five them, or shun them, or mock them, or what (for women in analogous situations of course, the answer is shame and shun). I think our collective confusion will result in it being effectively ignored.
This, I think, goes back to my old post, Second Thing We Do, Objectify All The Men. Because men aren't in a situation where, as a class, their moral subjectivity is unrecognized, recognition of their objectivity is considerably less threatening.
This doesn't mean that this list didn't cause a lot of pain and embarrassment, or that we shouldn't be attentive to it. But it does illuminate some deeper issues of sexual inequality that are clearly, I think, more intense (and more ignored) when the victims are women.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Two and Two
I forgot to mention the most fascinating part of my trip thus far. We checked into our room in Las Vegas, and the coffee table is all wobbly. It turns out that the pillar was not securely attached to the base, like it had been jarred loose.
Closer inspection revealed one more oddity nearby -- one half of a broken pair of handcuffs.
Hmmm .... delightful.
Closer inspection revealed one more oddity nearby -- one half of a broken pair of handcuffs.
Hmmm .... delightful.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Wild Fantasies
The Onion makes my life: "Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Paves Way For Gay Sex Right On Battlefield, Opponents Fantasize."
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Quote of the Confirmation Day
Michael Kinsley:
Inquiring minds want to know.
Now that the sex lives of Supreme Court justices have become grist for commentators, we are finally free to discuss a question formerly only whispered about in the shadows: Why does Justice Antonin Scalia, by common consent the leading intellectual force on the Court, have nine children? Is this normal? Or should I say "normal," as some people choose to define it? Can he represent the views of ordinary Americans when he practices such a minority lifestyle? After all, having nine children is far more unusual in this country than, say, being a lesbian.
[...]
Speculation is already rampant about why Scalia chose nine children over a more conventional lifestyle. Is he a sex maniac? That suspicion naturally arises. But perhaps once he started, he just never got around to stopping. Or maybe he just likes children. In recent days, Scalia’s friends have rushed to his defense, going out of their way to portray him as a model of sexual restraint. "Every Friday a bunch of us used to go down to this bar to pick up women," one of his college roommates recalls. "We’d always ask Nino if he wanted to join us, but he always said he was too busy studying. Frankly, we thought he was gay."
Inquiring minds want to know.
Why Now?
I'm not sure how I feel about Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) resigning after admitting an affair today. The fact that Souder is an abstinence-only crusader adds some irony, the fact that he shot a video promoting abstinence with his mistress adds yet more. But while I am pleased that for once a Republican actually has to leave politics due to sexual shenanigans (a Democratic affair, Bill Clinton excepted, seems to be death-on-sight), how is it that Souder has to resign while Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is still around?
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Back in the Swing Roundup
Go to school, read a book, be a lawyer/
Hell yeah, man, I'm all for the cause.
* * *
New study reveals parents believe all teens but their own to be hyper-sexual (their own teens are entirely asexual).
Fox News is annoyed that President Obama didn't gratuitously insult American Jews (the Jewish community appreciated the gesture). I know exactly how committed the conservative Christian movement is to fully including Jews in the fabric of America.
Statements of Avrom Krengel (chair of the South African Zionist Federation) and Richard Goldstone after their recent meeting.
Lebanon delays asking Hezbollah to disarm.
The Judeosphere predicts a fall into obscurity for Walt & Mearsheimer (the latter's work on neo-realism will not soon be forgotten, but hopefully his ill-considered forays into the study of domestic lobbying and Mideast politics will be).
More evidence of the Catholic Church shuffling around predator priests.
Phoebe Maltz on literature and anti-Semitism.
Hell yeah, man, I'm all for the cause.
* * *
New study reveals parents believe all teens but their own to be hyper-sexual (their own teens are entirely asexual).
Fox News is annoyed that President Obama didn't gratuitously insult American Jews (the Jewish community appreciated the gesture). I know exactly how committed the conservative Christian movement is to fully including Jews in the fabric of America.
Statements of Avrom Krengel (chair of the South African Zionist Federation) and Richard Goldstone after their recent meeting.
Lebanon delays asking Hezbollah to disarm.
The Judeosphere predicts a fall into obscurity for Walt & Mearsheimer (the latter's work on neo-realism will not soon be forgotten, but hopefully his ill-considered forays into the study of domestic lobbying and Mideast politics will be).
More evidence of the Catholic Church shuffling around predator priests.
Phoebe Maltz on literature and anti-Semitism.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
We Went Through This Once With Marmaduke
It's not that I can see an interpretation of today's Non Sequitur that's really filthy and inappropriate. It's that I can't see any other conceivable punchline.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
It's Like a Bad Parody of Dilbert's Marketing Department
I'm sorry, but I just had to laugh when I read Robert George's description of the Catholic Church's position on gay marriage: namely, that the church "opposes the re-definition of marriage to eliminate the requirement of sexual complementarity."
Not only is the guy reaching hard to euphemize (which is a good sign, as it signals that the bare language of "excluding gay people" isn't tolerable anymore), but it is virtually impossible to parse. I think the intuitive definition of being sexually complementary is sharing a mutual attraction and compatible desires vis-a-vis giving and receiving sexual pleasure. But here, it looks like that is being replaced with juvenile "tab A in slot B" or "entrance, not exit!" argumentation. It is testament to the increased potency of the pro-equality argument that opponents now have to work so hard to obfuscate what they're actually doing.
It's really simple. Right now, marriage is open only to heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples are excluded, for no real reason other than irrational prejudice and/or animus. That's incompatible with American norms of equality. And eventually, it will fall.
Not only is the guy reaching hard to euphemize (which is a good sign, as it signals that the bare language of "excluding gay people" isn't tolerable anymore), but it is virtually impossible to parse. I think the intuitive definition of being sexually complementary is sharing a mutual attraction and compatible desires vis-a-vis giving and receiving sexual pleasure. But here, it looks like that is being replaced with juvenile "tab A in slot B" or "entrance, not exit!" argumentation. It is testament to the increased potency of the pro-equality argument that opponents now have to work so hard to obfuscate what they're actually doing.
It's really simple. Right now, marriage is open only to heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples are excluded, for no real reason other than irrational prejudice and/or animus. That's incompatible with American norms of equality. And eventually, it will fall.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Divorced Virgin
This story about a women who divorced after five years of marriage, still a virgin throughout it all (she had waited until marriage, and then found that she and her husband could not have intercourse) is quite compelling reading. But it also bolsters my sense that abstinence until marriage fundamentally is not a good policy, and in fact is really short-sighted.
To be clear: Anybody who chooses to be abstinent has the right to that choice, for as long as they choose to make it, without any shame or judgment from me (or anyone else). But the case for an over-arching normative commitment to abstinence seems to rest on extremely shaky ground. Start with the fact that it seems to nearly always diverge into slut-shaming -- indeed, it's difficult to see how an argument that abstaining is morally preferable to partaking could avoid such an insinuation. But beyond that, abstinence seems to rest on this mythos that sex is easy and comes naturally, and that there is no such thing as sexual compatibility (or lack there of). Neither of these things are true.
Good sex takes practice, and while there's certainly no shame in learning the ropes (so to speak) with a single partner, I think many people are deluded into thinking that first time is going to be absolutely perfect, and if it isn't, something is wrong with them. Not really -- the odds are much higher that y'all simply don't know what you're doing; with practice and experience, things usually (hopefully) improve.
That being said, some folks simply aren't sexually compatible with each other. There can be physiological issues, but there also can be pairings where one partner really likes or wants something that the other is uncomfortable with. This is the sort of thing that I imagine is worth knowing prior to tying the knot. I think it is qualitatively better when newlyweds already know that they share enough sexual proclivities in common that they can have a good sex life, and I think it is qualitatively better when each partner in a relationship knows themselves well enough and has enough experience to know what their own proclivities are. Simply assuming that because all the other pieces fit, this one will too, is a recipe for unhappiness. At the very least, it's a pretty substantial roll of the dice.
What we should be teaching young people, I think (and alas, it will never happen), is simply this: It is not shameful to feel pleasure. What you do with your own body is your own business. What you do with a partner's body is yours and their business, and we should teach people to treat their partners with respect and view the act of being with a partner as predicated on that respect and mutual reciprocity. If you decide you don't want sex, that's fine, and if you decide you do want it (and have a willing partner), that's fine too, and if you change your mind at any point in the process, that's fine as well. The decisions you make in this arena should be based on your own desires and the safety of others, not an aversion to social shaming or stigma.
To be clear: Anybody who chooses to be abstinent has the right to that choice, for as long as they choose to make it, without any shame or judgment from me (or anyone else). But the case for an over-arching normative commitment to abstinence seems to rest on extremely shaky ground. Start with the fact that it seems to nearly always diverge into slut-shaming -- indeed, it's difficult to see how an argument that abstaining is morally preferable to partaking could avoid such an insinuation. But beyond that, abstinence seems to rest on this mythos that sex is easy and comes naturally, and that there is no such thing as sexual compatibility (or lack there of). Neither of these things are true.
Good sex takes practice, and while there's certainly no shame in learning the ropes (so to speak) with a single partner, I think many people are deluded into thinking that first time is going to be absolutely perfect, and if it isn't, something is wrong with them. Not really -- the odds are much higher that y'all simply don't know what you're doing; with practice and experience, things usually (hopefully) improve.
That being said, some folks simply aren't sexually compatible with each other. There can be physiological issues, but there also can be pairings where one partner really likes or wants something that the other is uncomfortable with. This is the sort of thing that I imagine is worth knowing prior to tying the knot. I think it is qualitatively better when newlyweds already know that they share enough sexual proclivities in common that they can have a good sex life, and I think it is qualitatively better when each partner in a relationship knows themselves well enough and has enough experience to know what their own proclivities are. Simply assuming that because all the other pieces fit, this one will too, is a recipe for unhappiness. At the very least, it's a pretty substantial roll of the dice.
What we should be teaching young people, I think (and alas, it will never happen), is simply this: It is not shameful to feel pleasure. What you do with your own body is your own business. What you do with a partner's body is yours and their business, and we should teach people to treat their partners with respect and view the act of being with a partner as predicated on that respect and mutual reciprocity. If you decide you don't want sex, that's fine, and if you decide you do want it (and have a willing partner), that's fine too, and if you change your mind at any point in the process, that's fine as well. The decisions you make in this arena should be based on your own desires and the safety of others, not an aversion to social shaming or stigma.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Good News, Jews!
I guess we get to screw all we want! In response to an ACLU suit over Mississippi's religiously inflected "abstinence only" programs, state Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant had this to say:
Not sharing those beliefs, I guess we're in the clear. Par-ty!
Of course, as the linked post indicates, the other group that seems to be free to go at it like woodchucks are men (Christian or otherwise). It's women who have to protect their "no-no square" (I wish I was making that phrase up); men ought to catch what they can.
Via.
"I was so disappointed that the ACLU has decided that we don’t need to tell young women in the state of Mississippi about our faith; we don’t need to explain to them that abstinence, we believe, is related to our faithful Christianity beliefs."
Not sharing those beliefs, I guess we're in the clear. Par-ty!
Of course, as the linked post indicates, the other group that seems to be free to go at it like woodchucks are men (Christian or otherwise). It's women who have to protect their "no-no square" (I wish I was making that phrase up); men ought to catch what they can.
Via.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Bragging Rights
A conservative, "family values" state representative from California has resigned after being caught tape bragging to a colleague about the not one but two affairs he's currently carrying on.
What. A. Moron.
What. A. Moron.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
