Ugh.

This is my favorite part of the article: “many blasted the teen as no “innocent� and insisted she looks much older than her 15 years, espeically dressed provacatiively with a top that left little to the imagination.�

And that the minister had been “criticizing all involved, including the teen,�

Of course girls who wear skimpy tops and dance deserve to be assaulted like that, with their head banging on the floor. It pisses me off because it is so darn obvious that she had no control over the situation.

Disgusting.

Disgusting.

Jesus fucking Christ!

That was crazy! I have a lot of mixed feelings about it. On the one hand,
she didn't seem to be opposed to what was going on, but on the other, do
we really want simulated statutory rape ON STAGE?! I don't.

initially I thought, well maybe it's bad but not terrible if it's a member of his backup dancers who knew this would be part of the 'dance' and who consented to be a part of such an act

but yeah... then I read the article and it became quite apparent that this girl wasn't part of his dance troupe, and didn't know that this would be the nature of the 'dance' and so clearly could not have constented to participate in it... and by the way she's 15

the way he just threw her around for show where clearly she had no control and was even injured is just disgusting

As disturbing as the entire video is, what really gets me is that in the end he just walks offstage, and some other guy walks over to help the girl off stage. It just seemed to add to his "use" of her; once he was through, he was through...

“On the one hand, she didn't seem to be opposed to what was going on�
But how would she express her opposition?? She kept screaming “Oh my god!�. I am sure she must have been really overwhelmed. She is only 15 and looks small compared to the guy, and all the cameras are on her. What would you do really? I am not sure that I would have done anything different.

Ugh, I already disliked him after his whole "conflict diamonds do not exist" statement, and now I have another reason never to listen to his crap.

You know we live in a twisted world when two adult actors exchanging a peck on the cheek results in a call for their arrest, while a singer simulating a violent rape of a child results in people calling out the GIRL for being oh so slutty (how dare she have a developed and attractive body).

I'm just curious, how would you all feel if she'd been 18?

I was a very promiscuous 15 year old girl - in fact had my first daughter at 15 - and I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing at the time it happened and regretted it a bit in retrospect.

What it comes down to I think is a few things:

Would this behavior (his OR hers) been acceptable if she had been 18?

Is 15 an age of consent in Trinidad (and what constitues sexual assault, etc.)?

Is his behvior criminal or just disgusting?

I am more disturbed that the girl was able to get into an adult club and that she either got around her parent's rules or that her parents weren't paying enough attention because frankly this is the kind of thing you see in adult night clubs.

"Is his behvior criminal or just disgusting?"

Actually, being touched sexually in a way you don't want is always criminal, at least in the United Stats.

"because frankly this is the kind of thing you see in adult night clubs."

Really? I /worked/ in a night-club and I never saw a man forcibly dry-humping a woman. If I had seen something like a man doing that or so much as repeatedly making rude comments, my job as a bouncer would have been to kick his ass out on the street...

Bottom line is, doesn't matter how promiscuous you are, 18 or 15, he was the one taking control, no vice versa. If she didn't want it (and from both the video and her comments it appears she didn't) it's both disgusting AND criminal.

I know people are going to scream racism for me saying this, but my experiences with reggae and other West Indian parties is that dancing for many men in that culture is basically just simulated sex. They come up to you and grind on you and when you step back they laugh at you and imply you're immature. This had actually happened to me several times, to the extent that I won't even bother attending my friends and co-workers parties.One time I pointed out to a man that I wasn't interested in him grinding on me, saying I was married.He just laughed and said he was too and kept it up till I stepped away. There seems to be a sad lack of respect for women in general.

I think important things to keep in mind, LM, is that sometimes some of us females /like/ grinding sometimes, and so I don't consider that type of dancing inherently sexist.

Of course it's wrong for people to try and pressure you into doing something if you don't want to, but that basic premise happens oodles in white, middle-class culture as well...

I am not sure that I would have done anything different.

That is to say, sojourner you would have been up there in the first place?

Not to "defend" Akon but did HE know she was 15 at the time? I've seen the video and I know he based it under the pretense that there was a "contest" to win a trip to Africa (which turned out to be totally bogus) and she volunteered to get onstage and "dance" in order for a shot to win. False pretenses aside, she got on stage of her own volition first in order to *possibly* degrade herself for a trip she thought she could win. I don't recall anyone asking the women who got on stage their ages and so it was assumed that all the women who did participate were of age and it wasn't found out until later that she was 15. If I'm off about this let me know but from all the reports I've read that's how it happened.

The sad fact is we can't arrest men for acting like dicks and treating women like sexual objects, all of the women got on stage of their own free will, which as feminists we have to let slide.

So now the question is do we need to ID all young women for raunchy concerts? Or should they have taken the time to ID all the women who got on stage instead of assuming they were of age?

Mind you I don't like Akon one bit (sans his yodeling for the Gwen Stefani song, but that could have been anybody) and he's an asshole for getting these women onstage under a lie and maybe she was the first to go up and didn't realize what dancing with Akon entailed (check out his molestation of Tara Reid at another concert if you can find it, what he did onstage is this guys MO).

Actually, being touched sexually in a way you don't want is always criminal, at least in the United Stats.

-- ACS

"The sad fact is we can't arrest men for acting like dicks and treating women like sexual objects"

UltraMagnus, I don't think you understand what people are generally upset over. The unwanted touching (to a pretty significant, definitely sexual extent) IS a criminal act. It may be worse in ways because she was also a young, confused girl. But even if she was of legal age it is STILL a criminal act.

I do not know about all the laws of Trinidad, but in the U.S. we recognize harassing women as criminal (i.e. saying rude things or touching) and direct unwanted sexual touching is considered sexual assault.

"I wish this were the case (that it was specifically illegal, rather than -- as it frequently is -- just handled as simple "assault"), but, practically, it's really not. "

Well of course we've got problems with are court systems. I'm just talking about laws. It is absolutely illegal, and if someone cares enough to try and bring a case to court, they have every right to bring it under "sexual assault". I'm just speaking as someone trained to assist survivors of sexual violence in finding resources and making decisions (if they choose to) on what to do legally.

UM, while I agree it was their choice to get up on stage and dance, and he couldn't have known her age, neither of those things, for me, changes the reprehensibility of his conduct.

Those women were induced to dance under false pretenses. First off, this might be a little controversial, but I don't think there's anything inherently "bad" about a woman dancing on stage -- hell, every now and then I just plain feel like shaking my stuff, and I don't think that makes me a bad feminist. I think that to the extent men disrespect and objectify me for it, that is THEIR responsibility and THEIR wrongdoing, NOT MINE. Just as no woman is responsible for a man's actions if she's walking around, hell, buck naked, no woman is responsible for a man treating her like shit just because she had the audacity to dance and enjoy herself.

Also, these women were promised a trip to Africa. I have to say, catch me in the right mood, and I might just dance to try to win a trip to Africa. I mean, how fucking cool would that be? A free trip to Africa? Hell yes, that would be awesome. Akon LIED to these women and told them they were competing for a desirable prize. Then when the contest was over -- Surprise! He lied.

And anyway, even IF these women had been told that the prize for dancing was getting to "dance" with Akon -- dancing and being THROWN around on the stage are two very different things. That was one of the most violent "dances" I've ever seen. I've been to male revues where the women sometimes get called up for the privilege of being on stage with the guys, and it's a thousand million times gentler -- even though it's OVERTLY meant to be sexy, and that's SPECIFICALLY why the women are there. Just watching that video I got a headache. She was being tossed around like a rag doll. She was clinging to him for dear life. I imagine she was terrified and just thinking "please God, let this stop soon." She had no way to get away, no way to get him to slow down or let her go -- as far as I'm concerned, this pretty much WAS a rape. So in my mind it doesn't matter WHAT age she was.

Ninapendamaishi,

I really do get why people are upset and I honestly believe this girl probably had no idea what she was getting into and even if he'd known she was 14 he probably would have done it anyways.

That being said no one, not even the girl's father, seems to want to press charges, which makes this whole thing a moot point for me. If I'd actually bought anything of Akon's I'd be with Samhita in deleting it, but I really own only one song he's on.

I think this goes with Samhita's earlier post about dancing to misogynist rap music, we as women (especially black women) just need to stop supporting it, period.

"I think this goes with Samhita's earlier post about dancing to misogynist rap music, we as women (especially black women) just need to stop supporting it, period. "

I understand this is a bit debateable, but i don't have a particular problem with that point.

I guess I interpreted your post above to sort of be saying that because this girl was willing to dance in a club dance contest she sort of deserved what came next, but if that's not how you meant it I apologize.

That being said, I dance to hip-hop too. Sure, I wish the lyrics weren't misogynistic, but I'm not the one in charge and making the music, and the beats are why you dance to it. (More practically, I guess I don't think you're more likely to get a widespread boycott of misogynistic hip-hop (to the point where /that/ would change the industry, anymore than you are likely to get lots of artists who are more respectful of women signed with big lables in the near future... it's sort of a chicken and the egg phenomenon if you ask me)

Ninapendamaishi,

You are partially right, I was being kind of an asshole with the girl, I have no idea if she knew what was entailed when it came to the dancing contest, however I can almost guarantee you it would entail some sort of material that your average feminist would find degrading (bending over and making your ass bounce, for instance) and in hindsight she got caught up with Akon grinding into her. But had this girl been of age, would we even be watching this footage? It just seems to me it's the age that's upsetting people because like I said, he did the exact same thing to Tara Reid a few months back and I don't recall seeing anyone here upset about it, but then again she's a fully grown woman.

That being said, I dance to hip-hop too. Sure, I wish the lyrics weren't misogynistic, but I'm not the one in charge and making the music, and the beats are why you dance to it. (More practically, I guess I don't think you're more likely to get a widespread boycott of misogynistic hip-hop (to the point where /that/ would change the industry, anymore than you are likely to get lots of artists who are more respectful of women signed with big lables in the near future... it's sort of a chicken and the egg phenomenon if you ask me)

Then what's the point of even trying at all? If women continue to buy into this music and ignore what the overall message is then the powers that be will continue to sell it. As I pointed out in the other post, already "bitch" and "ho" have become synonymous with "woman" when in the beginning they (the rappers) kept saying that they weren't talking about ALL women just the bitches and the hos. We let that go and look what happened.

And I'm not sure what you mean by the chicken or the egg. Are you saying you can't tell which came first?

In the beginning of hip-hop there was none of this truly hateful language towards women, that didn't start to the 90s with the rise of gangster rap and later especially in the late 90s when southern crunk, other wise known as "strip hop" (because it was predominantly made/played for the strip clubs in southern black cities like Atlanta)and I don't want to sound like a broken record but I'll say it again: black women especially let them get away with this. We turned our heads in the other direction and now we have an entire generation of men who think it's okay and funny to call women bitches and that women should just accept it.

Even though hip-hop is mostly bought by surburban white teens I still believe that black women can put a stop to this but it requires us giving up something that we like to do (dance) and that's just not going to happen. Like you said, a lot of women just like the beats, I was one of those women, but there comes a point where you can no longer ignore the lyrics.

I have been in several gay clubs and you know what they don't play? Homophobic hip-hop, no matter how good the "beats" are. Not that the gay community matters to those in power at rap record labels but I bet you if women stopped going to clubs that play this music en masse someone would have to take notice.

Maybe you're right and that's just a pipe dream, but if that's the case then we really have no right to complain about the system that we are supporting.

That's a really interesting comparison, UM--to the gay clubs, I mean. I'd never thought of that before. Thanks.

For me, there's always a somewhat, but not very, moveable line between what I can stomach and what I can't. I can't listen to most misogynist crap because it viscerally disgusts me; there's some stuff I love, usually by the Rolling Stones (except "Under my Thumb" and "Midnight Rambler," which even I will have nothing to do with), which can be good enough that I'll move the line for it. But it's not a thought-out policy. What you say is very interesting to me.

(hey, first time posting!)

The comments in the article about how she didn't look that innocent and the top she was wearing reminded me of the Wales statutory rape story from last week.

I think this is fucked up regardless of her age. I agree with LF that she clearly had no control over the situation, he was over her, moving violently so that she couldn't get away and carrying her around the stage (not to mention just leaving her on the floor when he was done). If she did not consent to that type of "dance" before hand in very clear language (and she said she didn't), I consider it to be sexual assault. If some guy in a dance club asks me to dance and I say yes, that is NOT an invitation to throw me on the floor and start violently dry humping me. AT ALL. I think pretty much everyone can agree with that. What's the difference if the guy is famous or not? (oh wait, I think I just answered my own question)

"Even though hip-hop is mostly bought by surburban white teens I still believe that black women can put a stop to this but it requires us giving up something that we like to do (dance) and that's just not going to happen."

Why would it require giving up dance? Why not keep dancing but dance to something else?

For example, some of my favorite dance music doesn't have misogynist lyrics because it doesn't have lyrics at all!

Trust me, a whole lot of techno and other electronica tracks don't pose any "the lyrics are misogynist but...", "I can't hear the lyrics well enough in this club to tell if they're misogynist but...", or "I don't know Arabic/French/Mandarin/Mongolian/Punjabi/Spanish/etc. enough to know if the lyrics are misogynist but...", dilemmas. ;)

"I can almost guarantee you it would entail some sort of material that your average feminist would find degrading (bending over and making your ass bounce, for instance) "

And see... I don't find that inherently degrading. I make my ass bounce on dance floors. It's sexual yes, but not necessarily degrading. Everybody (men and women)like a little exhibitioinism now and then. But it's still /my/ sexuality and /my/ ass, and when someone crosses that line (e.g. by telling me what to do or manhandling me) or disrespects me (i.e. by calling insults) /that/ is the point where I'm gonna be pissed, and to me it becomes degrading.

Why would it require giving up dance? Why not keep dancing but dance to something else?

Mina, that's what I meant. My mistake. Whenever misogynist music comes on I stop dancing, then again, that's when I'm at clubs that plays a mix of music including hip-hop. Usually my girlfriends go dance at gay clubs.

I don't find that inherently degrading. I make my ass bounce on dance floors. It's sexual yes, but not necessarily degrading.

Ninapendamaishi, that's your prerogative but are you trying to win something? I'm not going to get into this debate because it can go on forever but I will say this: maybe you dance at different kinds of straight clubs than I do but I've never seen men do the kind of exhibitionism that women engage in (two dude's kissing? baring their dicks? I think not). Usually the straight guys just stand there.

Props to you for finding a club where straight guys can actually dance;) (only slightly joking)

"baring their dicks?"

How about baring their chests? (Because I really can't recall seeing chicks bearing their genitals in clubs). I happen to be one of those feminists who think female chests are over-sexualized in our culture (there are plenty of cultures where women baring chests is fairly normal). Also, I don't know about you, but I definitely salivate over certain guys baring chests.

"two dude's kissing?"

Well, I'm not advocating for pretending to be lesbian when you're not. I think that's insulting and trivializing to lesbians.

No, what I mean is that guys do posture, and they do show off their bodies, and they do certain things to draw attention to themselves. All I'm saying is that I think this is sort of a universal human thing people do sometimes. I don't think putting myself in a position where other people can admire me in a sexual fashion is a mistake if it's what /I/ want to do.

What I want is for women to have full control over their own bodies. This means not letting men do things to them they don't want, but it also means giving women permission to express their sexuality as they see fit, I think.

I'm not trying to keep an argument going with you, really, it's just that for me these are also important considerations in this story. I'm also an art model, though, and I guess you could say this whole theme of being comfortable with human bodies and open sexuality and not feeling like those things inherently jeapordize feminist goals are pretty important to me.

Bottom line is, doesn't matter how promiscuous you are, 18 or 15, he was the one taking control, no vice versa. If she didn't want it (and from both the video and her comments it appears she didn't) it's both disgusting AND criminal.

Well said.

"As disturbing as the entire video is, what really gets me is that in the end he just walks offstage, and some other guy walks over to help the girl off stage. It just seemed to add to his "use" of her; once he was through, he was through..."

That's my favorite part too. Disgusting and sick, if you ask me.

"baring their dicks?"

How about baring their chests? (Because I really can't recall seeing chicks bearing their genitals in clubs).

No to keep the debate going with you Ninapendamaishi but I think you can agree with me that men's chests are in no way comparable to how women's chests are sexualized in this world, which is why I said dicks as that's the only organ on the male body that's forbidden from public view (an ass is an ass if you ask me and men and women have them).

I love men's chests but a man can run around without a shirt on while a woman most certainly cannot and when women bare their breasts in films it's considered nudity, where as men's are not. Peaches, who's an artist I love, has a song about how men should shake their dicks for their the female gaze, recognizing that men flashing their chests isn't at titillating and until women are allowed the same regard without men oogling our bare chests, there really isn't a comparison to be made.

Good discussion though.

I'm sorry, I just laughed because the video was so ridiculous.

what would a man have to do to a woman to result in a situation where most of society agrees that it was wrong? forget society...PEOPLE WHO READ A FUCKING FEMINIST BLOG

tofutti: lucky for you it wasn't your head getting smacked on the floor or you getting turned into a sex doll in front of a big crowd. With this thread and with the Toby Keith thread, I just have to ask: if you aren't interested in making relevant comments or meaningful discussion, why post?

i think if a man walked up to a woman and randomly killed her on the street people would come on here and say "well....do we KNOW if she may have said something offensive to him?? let's not jump to conclusions!"

Earlier news articles say that she's 14, so even younger.

I think he should be banned from the entire country.

"I think he should be banned from the entire country."

It's a possibility. I heard that actually happened to Snoop Dogg:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6594557.stm

There is nothing racist about saying that what Akon did on that stage is purely cultural. Soca shows usually involve some grinding action on stage. It is usually explicit. And it happens ALL THE TIME. I feel that so much of a big deal is being made because of the girl's father.

I don't personally like what Akon did and it's so easy to judge him or to judge the girl. I believe that in this situation one MUST look at the circumstances of the situation. If Akon did something wrong then the same criticism needs to be brought up against every other Carribean artist, particularly from Trinidad. Oh, and don't forget the female artists who do the same thing.

Oh, my god. That was actually worse than I was even expecting it to be... wow. This is "dancing"? People, to come back to reality for a moment, this is a far cry away from even the "grinding" that goes on in clubs... that was clearly violent and just crazy.

Also, for your infuriated pleasure(?), check out the lovely commentary on a clip of this over at youtube.

between this and the toby keith video, i'm officially creeped out.

This video makes me so damn sad. I watched it first with the sound off (forgotten to plug my speakers in, duh) and then with sound, and it was even worse. The girl had no ecape route, she had no choice in the matter. She had been asked to dance, but if some guy asked me to dance and then did that I think I owuld probably have him arrested. The worst bit is all this hoo ha saying she is "no innocent" and that she was dressed provocativly. I really hate this argument and would like to make a point to all those people out there who make it: A teenage girl can dress like an adult, act like a adult and flirt like a adult BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE HER AN ADULT. Teenagers are still so young, far younger than they are allowed to act. And yes, sometimes young girls do experiment with provocative behavior, language or clothes. But the are MINORS, called as such because it takes a degree of emotional maturity (not just physical) to be able to give INFORMED consent instead of going along with something (like the girl in this vid) because they are unsure how to get out of it.

This video makes me so damn sad. I watched it first with the sound off (forgotten to plug my speakers in, duh) and then with sound, and it was even worse. The girl had no ecape route, she had no choice in the matter. She had been asked to dance, but if some guy asked me to dance and then did that I think I would probably have him arrested. The worst bit is all this hoo ha saying she is "no innocent" and that she was dressed provocativly. I really hate this argument and would like to make a point to all those people out there who make it: A teenage girl can dress like an adult, act like a adult and flirt like a adult BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE HER AN ADULT. Teenagers are still so young, far younger than they are allowed to act. And yes, sometimes young girls do experiment with provocative behavior, language or clothes. But they are MINORS, called as such because it takes a degree of emotional maturity (not just physical) to be able to give INFORMED consent instead of going along with something (like the girl in this vid) because they are unsure how to get out of it.

aniri,

people aren't upset because of the grinding. It's because of the way it was done, and because the girl had no choice in the matter. That definitely DOESN'T happen at every Carribean show. Read some of the comments here and maybe you'll understand better.

What the hell? Some of you people have distorted a girls actions to him being raped?

I guess everyone missed the beginning when she drops to floor and starts raping him (since this is what dancing is now called, as per the posters in this thread).

So even though she initiated the grinding by laying down on the floor, and he participated, she misrepresented her age (he had no clue she was underage, how many here have ID guys before dancing with them), he is at fault?

This is sick and disturbed logic at best.

This is outright hating men if you ask me. He did nothing to instigate it, she wanted to dance that way, yet he assaulted her.

Way to go feministing.

Ohh let me guess, he is guilty in a duke rape case kind of way, selective digestion of the facts?

Look at the entire video on youtube before wantonly trying to attack a male for rape, which never occurred. Jumping down on a floor grinding his crotch with her crotch, and he decides to dance with a supposed adult at an 18+ only club?

The only person at fault is the club owners for letting a 15 year old sneak into a place she didnt belong. The

the video most certainly /does not/ show how the girl got to the floor, and the yelling "oh my god!" does not indicate she was wanting to dance that way, and neither do her comments.

And people never said he was raping her. People said he was "simulating rape" which may be debatable, but is not the same as equating fully-consensual grinding with rape at all.

Yeah well whatever. You watch an edited video (clearly edited since the fade in not on the clip)

I suggest you go to youtube and search the Akon clips which clearly show getting on stage and initiating it.

But convicting someone on an edited tape is very faulty logic.

I guess people here never learn from their (as well as history's) repeated mistakes. sigh...

All the evidence pointing to the duke rape case and it was spun to the point of vomit on this board. Now this.

Even /if/ she initiated dancing, do you honestly think she wanted her head to be smacked on the floor like that and to be tossed around like that? That is not the way people usually dance.

Do /you/ like having your head smacked on the floor and getting thrown around when you dance?

Some people do. Your talking about a girl who is upset her pastor father found out about it.

She now plays the I didnt want it card because of religous pressures.

More probable than him picking out a girl in the crowd, because he had secret operatives steal her ID and let him know she was underage (by dates alone, because she appears like any other average 18 - 21 year old), then he had ninjas slip some date rape drugs to loosen her inhibitions to get up on stage even though she didnt want to.

Once she was on stage, he pointed a gun at her (couldnt see it because it blocked by his back to the camera) and gave her the "grey" rape look disguised by bobbing his head to the music, and then raped her. Her pleas "Ohhh my god" which were clearly screams of pain. Because humans say Ohh my god! to verbalize the pain of rape. Not no, stop, or even so much as oww...

No, I like to know what really happened. You guys can sit around and play "Duke and Dancers" all you want.

Now Scilian,

I'm getting the impression from the way you're arguing that you're one of those people who thinks that once a girl consents to sex, her partner can do whatever he wants to her. I bet you are one of those people who sorta think that (feel free to prove me wrong).

Because guess what, just because she was willing to dance with him at first doesn't give him permission to do whatever. I mean, if she got up there with him, then picked him up threw him around and started smacking his head on the floor in spite of him screaming, well then that would be wrong and she would be the criminal.

I had a friend who was sexually assaulted. She consented to sex, but then he turned violent and wouldn't let her go in spite of her saying "no" and trying to break away. It was painful and traumatic for her, and /very illegal/ under US law.

If you were dancing with some girl, Scilian, and you started doing something that caused her to scream, my hope is you'd let her go. Just in case though, I don't think I'm ever gonna agree to dance with you.

"Some people do."

Some people like having their head smacked on the floor while they're dancing? Really?

Well, as long as you're interested in wanting to "know what really happened" why don't you find some proof that most people, or this girl in particular, want their head smacked on the floor while dancing. Seems like you're interested in very selective kinds of information to me.

All of which, Scilian, of course makes the fact that he lied to them to get them up there meaningless, right? I mean, getting them to do things under false pretenses is a-okay, yeah?

I feel quite comfortable calling that assholish behavior.

Okay... let's see if I can analyze the situation.

1) Lying about the prize being a trip to Africa was wrong. Period.

2) The girl's age is irrelevant to judging this man's actions; there was no reason for him or any of his staff to believe that the girl was under 18.

3) I do not see the girl objecting to the "dance" in the video that was linked from the original post. It's also hard to tell if her head was "smacked on the floor" or not. The "dance" was certainly sexual, crude, and somewhat rough, but, judging from the video alone, I don't see it as a case of criminal sexual assault.

The age of the girl (or boy) is ALWAYS relevant... csc in the states, at least, has a provision that sexual contact with minors is illegal. regardless of whether he knew her age or not.

She now plays the I didnt want it card because of religous pressures.

Oh Jesus Christ on a stick, Scilian. How the FUCK do you know why she's upset?

Boy I sure hope that if some bullshit like this ever happens to you, people don't speculate about your motives for being upset that a man violently THREW YOU AROUND A STAGE without bothering to make sure you were okay with it.

Doug, she COULDN'T object. How do you "object" when you're hanging on for dear life???

there was no reason for him or any of his staff to believe that the girl was under 18.

Oh, right. Because she's the first underage kid ever to get into a club or a bar in the history of the world. It's certainly not the kind of thing that goes on all the time. God knows that experienced performers and club-goers should never be expected to consider the possiblity of such a patently unheard-of thing occurring. I tell you, I'm sure that they are, as am I, shocked, just shocked to hear that anything like that could ever happen.

Yeah, right.

When did the definition of dancing become humping? I read the comments before I watched the video and I expected dancing, grinding and whatnot is somewhat normal for clubs. But what Akon was doing wasn't simply grinding on someone. I was shocked and appalled at what I saw, regardless of the girls age. I most certainly would object to that sort of "dancing". That was disgusting, I wasn't a fan before and I'm definitely not one now.

I didn't know the girl's age when I first watched the video, I just clicked on the link. And I still thought it was disgusting and that he was quite clearly taking advantage of a girl who had no clue what was going on. Watch the video, she's not moving, she's not "playing" or "dancing" back with him, she's lying on the ground, then getting swung up into the air like a rag doll, and then is thrown back onto the ground again while he's dry humping her. If that's dancing in a club you go to, please tell me the name so I never go there myself. It's horrible no matter if she's 15 or 18. I'm 20 and I can tell you if that happened to me, I'd probably be shocked, horrified and hurt just like she was.

The fact that she's 15 makes it worse for her, because to have something like that happen when you're that young is damaging. Perhaps moreso than if it happened to a girl my age. But his actions are reprehensible regardless of age.

"I do not see the girl objecting to the "dance" in the video that was linked from the original post. It's also hard to tell if her head was "smacked on the floor" or not. "

In the video it looks and sounds to me like it was being smacked on the floor. Furthermore, in her comments she /said/ her head was being smacked on the floor. Wouldn't that be a bizarre thing to lie about? Other club-goers were witnesses, after all.

That was intense and scary.

Let's assume that this happened and she was 18, because I think we can all agree that Akon's actions were wrong given that she was 15.

It seems like the point of contention of whether there was a lack of consent. She clearly never said "no" or "stop" or "I don't like this". She said "oh my god" which could be interpreted positively or negatively.

Of course it could simply be that she was frightened rather than excited given that things happened so fast, and that's why she was unable to say no (which does seem like a plausible scenario).

That seems to be the main sticking point about whether this situation qualifies as assault - was there a lack of consent.

There certainly wasn't affirmative consent, which we've been discussing in other threads. She says that she didn't consent. What's the sticking point?

Oh, right. The slut's lying (insert obligatory Duke reference here).

Eugh, I like hip hop music (even the mainstream stuff) but I've always thought Akon was putting out pretty much the crappest stuff on the market (music wise). Now here's just another reason to hate him.

Eugh, I like hip hop music (even the mainstream stuff) but I've always thought Akon was putting out pretty much the crappest stuff on the market (music wise). Now here's just another reason to hate him.

well said, EG, you rock.

Watching this shortly after watching the Richard Gere/Shilpa Shetty video, it occurs to me that the difference is only one of degree.

Gere kisses Shetty on both cheeks, and on her neck, and also bends her over backwards despite her obvious physical resistance to all of the above. She's laughing, and she doesn't strike out at him the way she would if he were, say, a guy who had just jumped out of the bushes. But it's not hard to understand why not: there's an audience; the context is one of cooperation; she's completely taken by surprise; he's bigger; nobody else is acting like anything's wrong.

I find it telling that many commenters, including those who take a strong position against Akon, resort implicitly to a legal paradigm to make their arguments. Was it a sexual assault? Did he have her consent? Was the girl fighting him? Does it matter what her age was or if he knew what her age was?

Despite my legal training, I am not interested in entertaining that line of reasoning at all. Why not? Because, as I think The Law Fairy has pointed out, it's a red herring.

First of all, if anyone thinks that the law of sexual assault and harassment constitutes anything other than a refuge abusers and rapists, think again. We can make legal arguments until we're blue in the face: look how well that's served women thus far. To make legal arguments about men's sexual assault on women is to play with a deck that's deliberately and overwhelmingly stacked against us.

Second -- and this is the part that would be unbelievably obvious if we weren't all trained to parse the details instead of look at the big picture -- both incidents are about men's sense of entitlement to the bodies of women. If she's not screaming like a banshee and fighting like a wild animal, then it's okay to kiss her or dry-hump her or rape her. (Oh, and if she is screaming and fighting? Well, she probably likes rough sex. Or was pretending, because she didn't want people to know that she really liked it. Or was a tease and got what she deserved.)

The point is not whether there was consent; the point is whether there was mutuality. Mutuality is any decent person's definition of what is required when you touch a person sexually.

Neither of these men bothered to ask themselves whether the women wanted or enjoyed or were horrified and disgusted by what was happening. They didn't require the participation of the woman. They just required her to be present as objects for them to act upon physically. They did what they did TO the women, not with them.

There's a word for people who defend that sort of conduct: misogynist.

Incidentally, the news coverage of this incident was nauseating. Reports were of "dirty dancing" or "grinding." The incident was denounced, but it was never clear whether it was because it involved an underage woman, or because it was "obscene." What was clear was that it wasn't being treated as a possible assault.

On a personal (i.e. not talking about legalities at the moment), even if people are hung up on whether or not one needs strongly affirmative consent -- aren't the actions in this video so extreme and potentially injurious (I mean damn, man...) that it should be necessary to be really clear on the issue of consent first? I mean, whether or not one considers it absolutely necessary to have a full conversation about consent before engaging in regular old missionary-style sex, pretty much everyone considers it necessary to fully articulate everything before doing anything that could potentially injure you or humiliate you in front of a huge group of people, right?

kattyben -- didn't see your comment before I posted mine, and I couldn't agree with you more. "Mutuality is any decent person's definition of what is required when you touch a person sexually." Yes. Wow.

Kattyben's point was awesome, and it made me think even more: it's SO true that guys tend to think they are entitled to touching or kissing women's bodies.

I'm in college, and I can't count the number of times a guy has come up behind me and started grinding on me without even asking permission or even frigging ASKING MY NAME. Is it really that hard to introduce oneself?

This also made me think of when Adrien Brody won an Oscar for Best Actor & kissed Halle Berry. She didn't seem to mind, but how often do women randomly throw themselves on men? I can't think of any situations where that's happened.

The fact is, kattyben's right: in our culture, unless a woman is screaming and pushing you away, it's considered all right to touch her. The girl in that video was obviously shocked and horrified at what was going on; I'd bet she felt like it wasn't really happening, or like she was having an out-of-body experience. Which is exactly how many rape victims feel.

After reading this, I'm definitely going to be MUCH more assertive with guys I don't want. I always have been, but now it's even more squarely put in my mind.

Kattyben's point was awesome, and it made me think even more: it's SO true that guys tend to think they are entitled to touching or kissing women's bodies.

I'm in college, and I can't count the number of times a guy has come up behind me and started grinding on me without even asking permission or even frigging ASKING MY NAME. Is it really that hard to introduce oneself?

This also made me think of when Adrien Brody won an Oscar for Best Actor & kissed Halle Berry. She didn't seem to mind, but how often do women randomly throw themselves on men? I can't think of any situations where that's happened.

The fact is, kattyben's right: in our culture, unless a woman is screaming and pushing you away, it's considered all right to touch her. The girl in that video was obviously shocked and horrified at what was going on; I'd bet she felt like it wasn't really happening, or like she was having an out-of-body experience. Which is exactly how many rape victims feel.

After reading this, I'm definitely going to be MUCH more assertive with guys I don't want. I always have been, but now it's even more squarely put in my mind.

it's SO true that guys tend to think they are entitled to touching or kissing women's bodies.

It is true. The other day, I was walking down the street and some guy (who smelled bad, I might add) came up behind me and put his arms around me. It was very weird--I just froze, assuming that it had been a mistake, some guy not looking where he was going, bumping into me and putting his arms out and kind of around to steady himself, and waited for him to back up and start apologizing. And he didn't! He just stood there, arms around me! What the fuck, I ask you, was that supposed to be?

Finally I snapped out of out and threw one of his arms off me and stepped away but it took me forever. I can totally see how women get abducted because of how long it took me to process what was happening.

Dude never even apologized.

This is monstrous. A hip-hop singer can lure a young woman onstage with the promise of a trip to Africa, simulate RAPING her instead, and because she's fifteen years old people just say that SHE'S the liar and SHE'S at fault? I know there are misogynists about, but good God!

EG, Oh My God.

Last night a female friend and I went out for drinks and dinner. We ended up at a hotel bar in Santa Monica -- nice, lounge-y place. We got a couple glasses of wine and sat down on a comfy couch close to the bar. After a few minutes, a guy sits down near us and starts talking. My friend is much friendlier/more outgoing than I am, and I was in a good mood anyway, so we chatted with him for bit. Then he decides to move over to the couch and sit in between us and put his arms around us. Um??

Like you, I froze. I just plain didn't know what to do. I think it was more a moment of like, he should fucking KNOW better. I shouldn't have to TELL him not to touch me. So I kept my hackles up, kept my body tense, and inched away from his as much as I could (he still did not take the hint). A couple other guys we'd been talking to earlier came and sat near us, and I think the guy thought they were our boyfriends, because he left pretty quickly after that.

Which fucking pisses me off even MORE. It shouldn't make a difference whether or not I have a boyfriend. You Don't Get To Touch Me. Fucking asshole didn't care until he thought we "belonged" to someone else.

Fuck, now I need some scotch to drunk off the Angry.

Good comment, Genny.

Watch the video, she's not moving, she's not "playing" or "dancing" back with him, she's lying on the ground, then getting swung up into the air like a rag doll, and then is thrown back onto the ground again while he's dry humping her.

Disturbing video. Speaking of ragdolls, the OC and Chicago gang rape cases had videos of girls who looked like ragdolls. The friend who turned in the video said she thought they were raping a corpse. Nonetheless, it took two trials to convict the OC men and the Chicago rapists got off scotfree because she refused to watch the video of her own gang rape.

"It shouldn't make a difference whether or not I have a boyfriend. You Don't Get To Touch Me."

Oh my god this is SO TRUE. I worked in a club and would always take the late night train home. There were always guys trying to talk me into going on dates with them. Not simply asking, mind you, freaking arguing with me when I tried to reject them. That has happened so many times to me with random guys. And the only thing that seems to get them to back off is if they think I have a boyfriend. Pisses me off SO MUCH.

Ninapendamaishi: I've been posting on here for awhile now, and I have made, what you would call, "relevant comments", but you've never responded to those. That's probably because I end up repeating what most people here say.

The video is disgusting and the fact that the girl is underage makes it even worse. I do think that he probably assumed that she was older, which does happen. People always assume I'm older because I look more mature for my age. However, the video shows more than just "grinding", it shows a man entertaining a crowd by making it look like he can use women.

And I laughed because he looked like an idiot. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it was my natural way to react.

There, is that relevant enough for you?

:)

sorry... I guess your comment came off wrong to me, after some posters defending Akon and saying it wasn't that big a deal and all.

Ugh.

This just brings back gross memories of the one time I went to a disgusting dance club in my city when I was 16 or 17. The dancefloor was packd and I was grooving to the usual bump-n-grind flow. But then this guy got too close for comfort and actually grabbed my breasts, grabbed my face and forced his tongue down my throat while his buddy happily grinded me from behind.

At that time it was before my first "official" kiss from an actual boyfriend who cared for me. I felt so violated and shocked that any man (he was either 21 or had a friend w/access to booze cuz he reeked of alcohol) felt okay to grab my breasts and face in that way.

Ugh. I immediately shoved him away and left the dance floor *and* the club -- even though my friends complained about the decision since they were having a great time. I was the driver so they did not have a choice.

I became aware of my own sexuality and its power that evening. Sorry to say that I used and abused it after that night for years until I realized that any "real" man would want me not only for my hot body but also because I can beat them at chess or a video game.

I think Akon should know better...to say the very least. Men *know* when they are violating a young woman in some way, especially an underage young woman. I experienced it over and over.

That young woman may feel empowered and awesome right now because she is just opening up her sexuality. I don't know, I'm projecting myself at 15 and I felt a lot different at the time.

Yet I still feel grossed out even if she was 18. I just don't think it is necessry. I don't know...I've always been really torn on hip hop/rap. But I don't think that just because it's hip hop Akon gets a free pass.

Overall it leaves a horrible taste in my mouth and a creepy shiver on my spine that I can't shake.

This has really made me realise how much I just tolerate men in clubs who can't keep their hands to themselves. I guess I just don't like conflict, but from now on I'm going tell them that what they are doing is *not* on.

http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/

I know Feministing has linked to/been linked by Holla Back NYC before (I think that's how I originally found this site - and now I check it religiously), but a lot of the stories about unwanted touching sound exactly what the site's about.

My sister was harassed on the bus this weekend by some guy repeatedly saying "You're a nice piece of ass. Wanna do me?" She was on the phone with my mother so she could ignore her, and in her words, she "didn't want to provoke him" by telling him to shut the hell up. I'm sending her the HollaBack link so she gets the courage next time to put that douchebag in his place.

As an international spin on the confrontation of casual sexual harassment, Ms. Magazine did a story in their "global" section in the recent issue, called "Don't 'Tease' These Eves." It was about protest actions that feminists are staging in India, encouraging women to stand up to men who harass them on the street. I looked at the Ms. site, but they don't have an online version of the article :(. Be sure to check out the print copy!

Ninapendamaishi - you wrote in response to some of my quotes:

"Actually, being touched sexually in a way you don't want is always criminal, at least in the United Stats."

--- I am well aware of this having been a victim of it myself. Also, part of my point is that they WEREN'T in the US - and even so, being touched when you don't want to be is a human right. So I'm not sure why you made this comment unless you know for sure she didn't want to participate when I - not having super human powers - couldn't tell.

---In response to seeing this kind of thing in adult night clubs - your response:

"Really? I /worked/ in a night-club and I never saw a man forcibly dry-humping a woman. If I had seen something like a man doing that or so much as repeatedly making rude comments, my job as a bouncer would have been to kick his ass out on the street..."

---Obviously we attend different sorts of night clubs this sort and worse goes on at nightclubs. Also if you watch the video - unless all of you have some other video information to go on - the girl looks like she's laying on the stage at the beginning with her legs spread and feet up waiting for him to start - that may not be the case but I didn't see anybody shove her there - at the beginning she seems to be laying there waiting for the dance to begin. I don't see her struggle or flip or try to crawl away or anybody holding her down. Then you hear somebody - SOMEBODY, I CAN'T TELL WHO - saying something like "oh my god" and then make a laughing sound and sort of a "aaahhhhh" yell or somethng - I don't hear screams of stop or quit and when he picks her up she puts her arms around him and leans into him.

I AM IN NO WAY SAYING SHE DESERVED TO BE MISTREATED OR TOUCHED IF SHE DIDN'T WANT TO BE TOUCHED. What I am saying is that she may have seemed more willing to him and the others there and also the folks may have had NO IDEA she was 15.

Those things MATTER when determining if his actions were criminal or simply piggish and macho and rather gross.

Then your wrap up was:

"Bottom line is, doesn't matter how promiscuous you are, 18 or 15, he was the one taking control, no vice versa. If she didn't want it (and from both the video and her comments it appears she didn't) it's both disgusting AND criminal."

--- Thanks for the "bottom line" - we agree on that and I just restated it all. As far as your "she didn't want it" - I don't agree with you - I don't think it is obvious. I think there IS a question as to whether or not she wanted to be there - for starters she snuck in then joined the dance contest then APPEARED to be laying on the floor waiting for him to do his dance moves. That is all I can glean from this video and the tiny snippet of info from the article. I think that it's easy to sit and watch a video snippet and make judgment calls when you weren't there and you have had no chance to evaluate the surrounding circumstances.

One has to ask themselves why she would get up on the stage and be in the dance contest and lay there if she didn't want on some level to participate.

Once it got out of hand and if she said stop - he should have stopped right away. No doubt about that. If he had found out her age he should have stopped even if she wanted to still participate - no doubt for me on that either.

But I think that when women start banding together and screaming serious accusations at a person, they'd better be damned sure of the circumstances.

If they find evidence of him doing this with underage girls and if they find evidence that she asked him to stop or witnesses who were there for the whole event who say she was scared and it was obvious she wanted to stop - then I think that he should be held accountable.

Also - if she felt somehow intimidated into the situation by somebody - that also should be investigated. Simply complying with the dance doesn't mean she wanted to do it - so if she said no or "I'm 15" or please stop or anything at some point then it's criminal as far as I'm concerned - but in that snippet I didn't hear that, did you? Please tell me at which part so I can listen for it because I've watched it five times and can't find it.

So I am not going to sit here and convict him on that snippet of video when I can't even tell she's 15 and I didn't hear he say stop and I can't even tell if it's HER yelling on the video or the person recording the video. I can barely see the girls face let alone tell what and if she's saying something.

I'm not going to stand on my feminist high horse and bash people with the girl power stick when I can't tell if she was being "violated" or not by that snippet of video.

Personally I think the most compelling question is what made this girl want to go to this concert - why did she join the contest - who was supposed to be watching her and keeping tabs with where she is that night and that the event took place in an ADULT CLUB - the performer (by the way, I never heard of this guy, so I don't care who he is) KNEW he was performing at an adult establishment - don't you think it's fair for him to assume the patrons were of legal age?

I also think "The Law Fairy" makes a very good point about the false "trip to Africa" prize.

Which may have made her feel like she had to be compliant more than she wanted to - which maybe could make a case for him coercing her?

Heather,

In her comments she said that she was confused, and didn't really know what was going on and that her head was "smacking the ground". I have detailed above the reasons for which it seems to me we have plenty of "evidence" to support that she didn't want to be dancing like that. You can read them again if you missed it.

Given her comments in particular, I would say you are essentially calling her a "lier".

Really though, I've been through this all, so I'll let someone else address you more fully.

oops... spelling. "liar"

i think your previous statements speak for themselves, ninapendamaishi. and more articulately than i could.

i also think the argument that 'this happens all the time at clubs' doesn't hold water--first of all, it does? because these moves were horizontal and i just don't get how that would work on a bumpin dancefloor. to be fair, i don't really ever go to dance clubs. if this IS what happens at dance clubs, thank god i'm a wallflower at low key townie bars.
BUT also, beyond all the other reasons that i find this video so abhorrent is this question: whether the moves are sexual or a rape-ish (for lack of a better term) the fact of it being PERFORMANCE, that this dude waits for the close out of his pop hit to flop this girl around and make these motions is an aspect that i just can't stand. whether he had her consent or not (which i REALLY don't think he did) or whether she looked 15 or 30, performing these moves in front of an attentive audience not only makes it harder for the girl to resist, but turns his concert into more like a porn show. or, considering the nature of the acts, a staged rape fantasy.
i wonder how it felt to be in the audience? gross.
also, is this the same guy that's in that gwen stefani single, doing the woo-woo's?

thanks stella.

Personally, I've definitely seen horizontal dancing and horizontal grinding (not at clubs, but at college parties), but the dancing, the actual, genuine, mutual dancing I've seen, STILL doesn't look like that video. And if you for whatever reason (or lack thereof) don't find the video compelling, I defer to the girl's own comments.

Regarding EG's comments on my post:

EG wrote: "There certainly wasn't affirmative consent... She says that she didn't consent. What's the sticking point"

The sticking point is that I think there was sufficient evidence that she was giving affirmative consent. The first thing I saw was the video (before I knew her age, etc.). What I saw was raunchy simulated sex on stage, with the male being aggressive and the female repeatedly saying "oh my god" in excited tones. A bad message to be sure, but it certainly appeared that she was signalling interest in continuing, and very clearly she never said anything that could be construed a desire to withdraw from the situation (e.g., "stop", "no", "I don't like this", etc.).

EG then wrote: "Oh, right. The slut's lying (insert obligatory Duke reference here)."

This seems unnecessarily snarky, and is also not relevant to the point I was making. As I noted explicitly in my post, she could have simply been too frightened or overwhelmed in that 30 second span to effectively communicate her objection to the activities. That provides a way to reconcile her current statements with her observed statements in the video.

As you point out, however, this situation, like the Duke situation, does bring out large groups of people who are form extreme opinions quickly. You focused on the people who automatically assume guilt on the part of the woman. I'd point out that a similar bias exists in the reverse direction - there is also a camp that is bent on perceiving guilt on the part of the male.

Regarding EG's comments on my post:

EG wrote: "There certainly wasn't affirmative consent... She says that she didn't consent. What's the sticking point"

The sticking point is that I think there was sufficient evidence that she was giving affirmative consent. The first thing I saw was the video (before I knew her age, etc.). What I saw was raunchy simulated sex on stage, with the male being aggressive and the female repeatedly saying "oh my god" in excited tones. A bad message to be sure, but it certainly appeared that she was signalling interest in continuing, and very clearly she never said anything that could be construed a desire to withdraw from the situation (e.g., "stop", "no", "I don't like this", etc.).

EG then wrote: "Oh, right. The slut's lying (insert obligatory Duke reference here)."

This seems unnecessarily snarky, and is also not relevant to the point I was making. As I noted explicitly in my post, she could have simply been too frightened or overwhelmed in that 30 second span to effectively communicate her objection to the activities. That provides a way to reconcile her current statements with her observed statements in the video.

As you point out, however, this situation, like the Duke situation, does bring out large groups of people who are form extreme opinions quickly. You focused on the people who automatically assume guilt on the part of the woman. I'd point out that a similar bias exists in the reverse direction - there is also a camp that is bent on perceiving guilt on the part of the male.

Now UCLA,

If she didn't want to be there doing those exact things and had been overwhelmed... too overwhelmed to be articulate, she by definition could not have given affirmative consent.

Now her comments later were along the lines of "I started dancing... but I didn't think it would be like that... my head was hitting the floor".

Affirmative consent refers in part to the notion that a partner has an obligation to make sure the other person wants to be doing what they're doing, not simply to make assumptions or to not care enough to find out. The "Oh my god!" (and really, just because porn uses it doesn't mean Oh My God is inherently sexual) was like the /last/ thing she said. She first started making noise when her head started hitting the floor -that's when she started screaming.

I'll repeat: my hope is that if you, UCLA, were dancing with some girl (or guy) and started doing something that caused them to scream, you'd stop (and if the scream was just their way of expressing they were really into the dance, hey that's a little different but they're welcome to start dancing again). However, just in case you wouldn't quit dancing in order to check up on the situation when someone starts screaming, I don't think I'll agree to dance with you either.

Right. Affirmative consent means not that the girl just didn't say no or stop, or that hey, "oh my God" could mean consent--it means that she actively and clearly gives consent. It means that the question isn't "did she clearly object?" and if the answer is "not really," we assume that the absence of clear, articulate objection means that she consented. It means that the question is "did she clearly, enthusiastically, articulately, and with no misinterpretation possible, consent?" And if the answer is no, you don't assume that it's OK with her.

the performer (by the way, I never heard of this guy, so I don't care who he is) KNEW he was performing at an adult establishment - don't you think it's fair for him to assume the patrons were of legal age?

No. Underage kids get into adult clubs all the time. It's been going on far more frequently, consistently, and for a much longer time than horizontal grinding has been a staple of dancing at clubs. If this guy is an experienced performer and club-goer, which you seem to be arguing he is by claiming that his dancing is normal club fare, then he's experienced enough to know that underage kids get into adult clubs all the time.

As far as your "she didn't want it" - I don't agree with you - I don't think it is obvious. I think there IS a question as to whether or not she wanted to be there

Well, Heather, putting aside the obviousness of not wanting it, you've conceded that it's not clear that she DID want it. The problem is, if it's not clear, you (the person initiating the dancing/sex/whatever) should err on the side of making sure she clearly wants it before going ahead. As others have noted here, she did appear to consent to SOME kind of sexual dancing -- but I find it really hard to believe that she consented to having her head banged on the floor and being thrown around onstage like a ragdoll. There's no way she could have known Akon would be so violent, and Akon knew DAMN WELL what he was doing and SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE IT. Akon knew what he was going to do and should have warned her about how violent it would become, and make sure she was consenting to THAT. It is obvious from the video that HER feelings and desires were about the LAST thing on his mind. That is in and of itself a problem.

And I really wish we could stop talking about the age issue. Let's just pretend that she's 18, because I don't care if he knew how old she was or not, I don't care who didn't bother checking her ID, I don't care how rebellious and evil and slutty she is for sneaking out, I don't care how irresponsible her pastor dad was in "letting" her out (insert multiple eye rolls). None of that matters. I will pretend she's 18. This was STILL reprehensible and STILL wrong and STILL violent and STILL horrific. I don't give a flying fuck how old she is, I don't care if she's MY AGE, it was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

TLF, will you marry me?

I think it's because you're usually so even-tempered and calm, but when you bust out the all-caps, I love it!

Hey Nina and EG,

Thanks for clarifying the definition of affirmative consent. Certainly that would be the ideal if people can do that.

I do wonder, however, if that should be the criteria for assault. It strikes me that in many situations it is an acceptable (and expected) norm to have sexual contact, particularly naughty club grinding, without explicitly asking your dance partner "do you mind if we do some simulated sex"? People generally rely on signals regarding how their partner's respond to their advances, what they say when things get progressively physical, etc.

I think it's clear that the aggressive male simulated sex followed by discarding his partner is certainly an objectionable message. I think we can all agree on that. For the reasons I mentioned, however, I don't see any clear evidence that Akon was committing assault.

>>

Never fear! First, I don't dance. Second, if someone was screaming in a bad way, I would certainly stop. But that is the key point of contention - that many people would reasonably conclude she was signalling excitement and a desire to continue, not the other way around.

" However, just in case you wouldn't quit dancing in order to check up on the situation when someone starts screaming, I don't think I'll agree to dance with you either."

That certainly seems like a reasonable action he should have taken.

"(and really, just because porn uses it doesn't mean Oh My God is inherently sexual) "

Hey! That happens in the real world too!!!

Ok, minor point, but is it the girl on stage saying "oh my god"? Because re-watching the video it sounds like it's someone near whoever's taping, not the girl on stage. It's too clear and sounds like someone standing a lot closer to the mic than either person on stage. When I first saw the video I took it to be the exclamation of someone watching what was going on, not anything the girl on stage was saying.

I could be wrong, but I don't see the girl's mouth moving and it really sounds like the girl saying "oh my god" is an observer, not the girl on stage with Akon.

"It strikes me that in many situations it is an acceptable (and expected) norm to have sexual contact, particularly naughty club grinding, without explicitly asking your dance partner "do you mind if we do some simulated sex"?"

It's also not customary to scream. And as many people have revealed through personal stories, sometimes uninvited personal touching does happen when it shouldn't. It still shouldn't happen (and if people cared enough to try bringing a charge to court of sexual harassment, in many of these instances she could of)

"Second, if someone was screaming in a bad way, I would certainly stop."

Also, I don't know if your sound system is a lot worse than mine (mine is actually pretty high quality) but I give up on not just calling this one like it is. Her screams sound a lot more like a dying cat or someone in distress than they sound like your average orgasmic girl. And when in doubt, well, you already heard this from EG and me...

"I do wonder, however, if that should be the criteria for assault."

It should. It would reduce the incidences of "accidental assault" in which so many people feel they have to defend the men involved. (It would also make it easier to defend women's rights, if you care about such things...)

"(It would also make it easier to defend women's rights, if you care about such things...)"

What's with people being so snarky on this board! As a regular reader / occasional poster of feministing certainly I am concerned with women's rights. That does not mean, however, that I am obligated to have a pro-female bias. Generally I don't post if there a strong consensus around something that everyone can agree on (e.g., the recent supreme court abortion decision is bad). But I do post when it appears people are coming to a consensus around something that doesn't seem so crystal clear.

"It's also not customary to scream. And as many people have revealed through personal stories, sometimes uninvited personal touching does happen when it shouldn't. "

I think that we can all agree that unwanted touching is bad. My point is that there is no clear evidence of unwanted touching. I think that someone screaming in excitement on stage while dancing in front of 100s of people is not surprising. In light of the fact that A) her actions were consistent with someone who was signalling intent AND B) she demonstrated no verbal objection to the activities, I think that the people who are suggesting that he clearly committed assault are overstating matters. I have, in my mind, reasonable doubt.

"It should. It would reduce the incidences of accidental assault in which so many people feel they have to defend the men involved"

While I certainly agree that it would reduce the number of assaults, I think there is a large proportion of male and female population what would not want requirements for explicit verbal consent for every action. Again, I'm not saying that Akon's actions are worthy of emulation or support, only that there is no clear evidence that she was objecting to the activities and that her actions could be interpreted as signalling desire to continue.

When I first saw the clip my inclination was to be blaming of him. I fucking hate the grind/lapdance/girls gone wild media driven pressure girls live under.

I was never defending his actions. I find his actions disgusting. My question was to the legality and her age or whether it was something simply repugnant or if it was actually criminal.

You don't seem to care about that question - you are certain he is guilty, criminally, and why bother even discussing it because you know, right?

None of you can answer if it was criminal because all of you only have that snippet of video and the sound bite from her interview.

I refuse to convict anybody on that because I do think there is a question as to her level of participation which raises a question as to his knowledge as to what she wanted or didn't want.

Either way, if I was a fan of his, once I saw that video or heard he was doing those sorts of dance moves - I would QUIT BUYING HIS MUSIC. I might even write a letter to his record label.

Ninapendamisi - you make a lot of good points but you act as though you KNOW all of the facts and there is no possible discussion in any direction - CONVICT.

Hopefully this WILL go to court or in the very least it will help anybody else who felt violated from the past be able to come forward or it will make him think twice as to what he is doing.

I've lived long enough to know I can't KNOW anything for a FACT from a snippet of grainy video and a short news article.

You just aren't interested in learning, are you?

I think most of us who have been the victim of a serious level of sexual harassment, or sexual violence, or simply coercive (usually, not always) male sexual partners, would think that "affirmative consent" would make for a pretty cool standard.

You just aren't interested in learning, are you?

I think most of us who have been the victim of a serious level of sexual harassment, or sexual violence, or simply coercive (usually, not always male) sexual partners, would think that "affirmative consent" would make for a pretty cool standard.

I think there is a large proportion of male and female population what would not want requirements for explicit verbal consent for every action.

Well, call me a prude, but I dn't really see how asking every so often "Is this OK with you?" would make life so very difficult. Anyway, not every action would wind up in court--if the woman in question didn't mind, she wouldn't have to press charges. The assumption behind the idea that she consented in this case is that she is now lying. Right now, the default assumption seems to be that in the absence of conclusive evidence, we are to assume that the girl consents. Why? Presuming consent is a dangerous, dangerous thing--is there any other situation in which we assume somebody's default position is consent? The default assumption should be that in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary, the girl is not consenting. The burden should be on the initiating person to make sure his/her partner consents, not on the partner to make sure she is articulating her objection to the satisfaction of random onlookers.

Not to mention, "affirmative consent" really isn't the unsexy horror some men and women imagine it to be. "Do you like this?" or even an articulate "Do you wanna have sex with me?" can be damn sexy when said with the right attitude and voice. The point of a standard like that is to provide protection for people, and it really doesn't hurt anyone.

"I refuse to convict anybody on that because I do think there is a question as to her level of participation which raises a question as to his knowledge as to what she wanted or didn't want."

In the girl's /own comments/ she says that he started doing things she didn't expect, she indicates that she was confused and she mentions her head hitting the floor as though it wasn't something she was digging. Now, if you're saying the girl might be lying, come out and say it. But that's not going to win you any debates here. I think all of us are looking at the evidence very carefully, and saying that we think it's definitely not in Akon's favor.

I refuse to convict anybody on that

Nobody's convicting anybody. Convicting somebody requires a court of justice. We are expressing our opinions of his behavior, an expression which, I might add, has no consequences whatsoever for Akon. So...why shouldn't we?

A further thought.

As we are discussing this issue, it does bring up an important point. In addition to reigning in hyper-aggressiveness on the part of males, this situation really shows the importance of training women to be clear and authoritative in there desires. In this case, if she did not wish to partake in the activities, feeling strong and confident enough to clearly and strongly voice her objection. This eliminates the need to have "he thought / she thought" discussions.

I wanna see you, when someone unexpectedly starts smacking your head against the ground and then twirling you around in the air, be very articulate, UCLA.

That aside, I think women can have trouble voicing their feelings in other situations. Yes, I think building women's confidence so they express themselves fully is awesome.

I also think training women and especially men to hold "affirmative consent" as their ideal would be crucial and the most important thing, because no matter what people are going to express themselves in unique ways.

Now since you seem interested in female communication, we could even start talking about a whole other set of feminist issues. Like has anybody else noticed that a substantial number of younger guys tend to freak out when women flirt suggestively or talk about sex openly?

, this situation really shows the importance of training women to be clear and authoritative in there desires.

I'm not really sure how one could be clear and authoritative while one's head is being banged against the floor, especially considering the effects of shock, as I experienced when some guy just put his arms around me. While I agree that we need to encourage all girls and women to be assertive and to make their wishes known, I don't think victims of rape, sexual assault, or unwanted touching should be held to some gold standard of assertiveness in order to have their experiences validated. That puts the burden on the victim, rather than on the perpetrator.

Ninapendamaishi -

What is it we are supposed to be learning? That you are right and we are wrong and that the case is cut and dry black and white?

Why would we even be discussing this if it were that easy?

If we (women/feminists) go stampedeing at every male who does something disgusting or questionable without finding out the facts first - and I don't mean a snippet of video and a sentence from the girl - then we lose power. It's like shouting ALL the time - eventually peoople stop listening.

I have been the victim of molestation and sexual harassment (a cousin and a cousin and an uncle and a boss) so, do I get the special stars to be allowed to discuss this topic and have it weighed fairly? I'm also a fat woman, which is virtually unforgivable in this culture AND I have TWO DAUGHTERS (21 and 13)who I wake up with my battle cry for every day - fighting the girlsgonewild-MTV-greaseduplegs-fergalicious-dryhumping-myhumps-lapdancingonthefirstdate world out there.

SO DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF NOT LEARNING - I had my learning forced upon me.

I'll tell ya - I guess we wouldn't need due process if you were running the legislative branch.

I'm sorry UCLA - I didn't mean to be snarky - but rather than answering some of my questions of my first post I felt she attacked me and I really don't need to be schooled by her. I was posing the questions to try and figure out where the error of the whole situation occured (beyond the general mentality, which is an all-encompassing problem) to have prevented this girl from going through this - BEYOND the fact that he did what he did.

If we only focus on what he did it's the same thing as simply putting money into prisions instead of into youth programs and parenting classes.

It only touches on the end result and the last step of the problem.

I ask myself what attracted her to his music - why did she attend the concert - who was supposed to be watching her - did she lie - if she did then why - did she ever say no or stop - has he had a pattern of this behavior at clubs and if so - why weren't people warned - how did she get in.

Yes, I am wanting to see him atone for what he did. I would like to know if he's done this before. I can't help but wonder if he hasn't done this or worse in the past and hope that it stops him from doing it in the future.

Ninapendamaishi - I'm sorry if you've been through a bad experience - I wake up every day wishing the world were a better place for women - and doing what I can to make it so. I would have much rather had you point out your feelings than pick apart my questions and imply that I haven't learned anything - you are again assuming you know for a fact something you don't - what I have and haven't learned. I'm not your enemy.

the "learning" post was meant to be addressed to UCLA, not you, Heather.

My beef with your position is different. But I think I have addressed it as well, separately.

"I ask myself what attracted her to his music - why did she attend the concert"

How does that have anything to do with anything? I guess I can only speak for myself, but I really don't think there is anything ethically wrong with a 14 yr-old listening to mainstream music, or getting into clubs to see famous performers, at least not ethically wrong in the sense that it would have any bearings on his actions.

"If we (women/feminists) go stampedeing at every male who does something disgusting or questionable without finding out the facts first - and I don't mean a snippet of video and a sentence from the girl - then we lose power. "

If you are afraid of losing power due to a discussion like this, maybe it speaks to how little power feminists have to begin with? Because these uncertainties, real or imagined, are exploited to the fullest extent in every sexual harassment and sexual assault case, usually to the advantage of the male perpetrator. Feminists have not advanced much on the issue of sexual violence in like 15 years, because most of the public who is aware of it deny that the 1 in 4 statistic is true. How much do you think feminists have to give up to be heard, Heather? Do you really think giving up anytime there's any uncertainty helps us get heard? There is NEVER 100% certainty in the eyes of everyone weighing in on a case. What each person does, is they look at the facts carefully, and they try and make reasoned arguments as to what they think the situation is. This is what the U.S. Courts and Jury System do, and that is what the general public does. Unsurprisingly, cultural assumptions (i.e. the status quo) can have a huge influence on the way most people spin the uncertainties in a situation. We're entitled to our interpretation of what happened, and to argue it out with others.

Also Heather, you seem to be ignoring this point EG and I brought up about "affirmative consent". This may not be the standard by which men are always held now. But I think if it was, the world would be a better place (not to mention, I think placing higher responsibility on men can also be interpreted in a positive way -hey, contrary to cultural assumption they aren't just stupid animals who are incapable of sensing emotion, having empathy, and handling their sexuality in responsible ways!)

I am not saying it has a bearing on the question of the criminality of what he did or didn't do - I am saying that I PERSONALLY would like to know all of the factors that led up to this - as a parent, as a woman and as a member of a society in general.

You are looking at my questions about other factors as excuses for his behavior - I'm trying to tell you to stop doing that because you are missing my point.

Also - again - you picked out one thing you decided I needed to defend.

I did learn something - you do not understand me and you don't want to and you don't care to try. You are simply going to attempt to pick apart my questions.

No there is nothing ethically wrong with her listening to mainstream music - I suppose - as long as his music isn't degrading to women. And if she is and his music is - then why would she do that? AGAIN - I am NOT SAYING that because she listened to his music she deserved what happened - I am speaking to bigger general questions to answer the question as to WHY.

I want to know all angles we can work to prevent this sort of thing. If you want to stand and scream at men and pick apart your fellow feminists - good luck with that - but I want to be proactive about it and get to the roots and the bud and work it from both ends.

EG, Law Fairy has three marriage proposals on Feministing so far all from women (prairielily, me and you)!

Heather and Nina, you seem to be arguing a very fine line and basically agree with each other. Cheers.

"this sort of thing."

I think what you have problems with here is perhaps a bit different than what I have problems with, based on some of your previous comments. Grinding is typical in clubs, horizontal grinding sometimes happens too. I don't have a problem with any of that, and I don't think it's inherently sexist.

I have problems with men taking liberties to touch women or control women's bodies, without being given explicit consent. (I.e. "hey, wanna dance?" "yeah", or perhaps me smiling at them and bumping back into them in rhythm) For me the situation is no more complicated than that, so I really don't need to know about the rest of this girl's history in order to express my opinions about this event.

Coming in a bit late...

You know, I would have a problem with this even if a) she was 18 or older, and this had been verified, and b) she clearly consented to/enjoyed this kind of dancing. Not that those things aren't relevant, and don't change the name of the game here - but I'm just so sick of violence (i.e. a guy throwing a woman around, banging her head, leaving her lying on the floor at the end of it) being portrayed as sexy. because it's not.

"Nobody's convicting anybody. Convicting somebody requires a court of justice. We are expressing our opinions of his behavior"

The main point of contention at this point is not whether Akon's actions are objectionable. I *think* we all agree on that. The main point of contention is whether Akon's actions constituted assault.

If I am correct, EG/Nina's view is that without affirmative consent, it is assault. We should err on the side of protecting the victim. If I am correct, UCLA/Heathers view is that it is not assault because it appears that she was a willing participant and it is not clear to observers when, if ever, she stopped being a willing participant. Further, she never voiced clear objection to the activities. We should err on the side of presuming innocence. I'm not sure what would shift those opinions at this point.

EG: "Well, call me a prude, but I don't really see how asking every so often "Is this OK with you?" would make life so very difficult."

Okay! I won't call you a prude :-). From my days in the clubs, this my impression of how things happen.
1. Girl dances with her friends
2. Guy comes up and starts dancing with girl (no verbal communication)
3. Guy starts grinding with girl (no verbal communication)
4. Dancing becomes increasingly sexual until the girl places a limit, usually my pushing a hand away, creating separation, etc.

I think that affirmative consent is a rarity, and most people like it that way. Things get quite sexual without it. At concerts and some clubs, between strangers I've definitely seen hands going down pants (by men and women), lots of dorsal-ventral simulated coupling (i.e., doggy-style), and women straddling guys (usually vertically), often without clear verbal assent.

Heather: "I'm sorry UCLA - I didn't mean to be snarky"

My recent comment on the snarkiness was direct at some of Nina's posts. I'm not sure why s/he thinks it's an effective debate strategy, but Nina appears bent on making small prodding comments that distract from the debate (e.g., "You just aren't interested in learning, are you?" or "It would also make it easier to defend women's rights, if you care about such things...)". It's not clear why she thinks that is an effective way to garner respect for her opinions.

"NINA: I wanna see you, when someone unexpectedly starts smacking your head against the ground and then twirling you around in the air, be very articulate, UCLA; EG: I'm not really sure how one could be clear and authoritative while one's head is being banged against the floor, especially considering the effects of shock"

As I noted in my very first post, one plausible explanation for why she didn't clearly express objections to the situation was that she was overwhelmed by the situation. Certainly we know that tonic immobility is a common response to fear, and has been used as an explanation for why some rape victims to not voice protests. As I stated before, it's plausible, but doesn't change the fact that the there was no clear signal to Akon that his actions were unwanted.

yeah mooserider,

I guess I mostly agree with you. I don't have a problem with horizontal dancing per se, but as far as the bits about the head being banged on the ground and being thrown around like that, I think the "maybe she wanted it!" is unlikely at best, and otherwise just absurd

there was no clear signal to Akon that his actions were unwanted.

But again, why on earth would he assume that the default would be that somebody would want to have her head banged against the floor?

I also have to say, I don't care what his perspective was. If I didn't think I was drunk, and got into a car, and hit somebody, I'd still be responsible.

Nina - I don't think we disagree as to the core of the issue here, I think we started off badly because I felt you attacked my first comment when all I was doing was posing questions to get a larger sense of how something like this evolves (or DEvolves!) from the music, culture, his attidues, her attitudes, kids in adult atmosphere being spoon fed sexuality too soon - question. I am all over this all the time - but I STILL feel as though you KNOW FOR A FACT all that happened and I'm saying we CAN'T!

Also the "affirmative consent" thing - I will have to get back to you on that but my gut reaction is that a world where we all have to have permission to touch another person probably isn't going to work very well and it could actually end up being pretty cold and could actually end up creating a whole new prison full of "offenders." I'll have to read up on the subject and get back to you on it.

"But I think if it was, the world would be a better place (not to mention, I think placing higher responsibility on men can also be interpreted in a positive way -hey, contrary to cultural assumption they aren't just stupid animals who are incapable of sensing emotion, having empathy, and handling their sexuality in responsible ways!)"

Why should men have to be MORE responsible than women? To me, that only confirms we are a "weaker sex."

Also - I don't view men the way you mentioned but I'm sure some do. I have two husbands and they are both very different, but neither of them ever would have hurt or forced themselves on a woman. Are they rotten boys sometimes? YES - but not like that.

As for assault laws and such - I think that improving assault laws would help and I also think that it would help if when somebody commits a sex crime it doesn't get pleaded down to a NON-sex crime would help too.

So many of those people are repeat offenders it makes me ill.

So many girls (and boys) are raped and even killed by people who have previously offended. It is a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE tragedy and such loss and leaves a giant hole in the world.

If you have put me in the "blame the victim" catagory you are wrong. Far from the truth. I simply refuse to decide that I KNOW that guy's INTENT based on that clip and her one sentence.

Either way he's obviously a pig and callous and well, nasty I guess - so folks should stop buying his music.

Did you all see the news article about the Texas teen boys who made a rap song? I did a blog entry linking to the story here:

http://www.charlescountycafe.com/?p=763#respond

What can we do to stop this bitches/hos mentality? How can we find more positive role models for our kids?

NINA WROTE "Now since you seem interested in female communication, we could even start talking about a whole other set of feminist issues. Like has anybody else noticed that a substantial number of younger guys tend to freak out when women flirt suggestively or talk about sex openly?"

That definitely is a topic of interest to me! However, I'm currently trying to finish up a manuscript that I'd like to submit to a journal tomorrow. It's on the sexualization of women's breasts, and women's attitudes towards their breast size, and men's attitudes towards their partner's breasts. Bottom line: The majority of women are dissatisfied with their breasts, but the the majority of their partner's are satisfied with their partner's breasts! This fits a larger pattern of results where people are more critical of their own bodies than they need to be.

But, I digress.

right - i don't have a problem with grinding or highly sexualized dancing - it's just when all the power/agency is clearly in the hands of one 'partner', and there's real violent overtones that i feel uncomfortable.

heather, you mentioned you have two husbands(!), if this is not a mistype, and you wouldn't mind: what do you mean?

But come one, would it really drain away all of life's joy so very completely if it went like this:

1. Girl dances with her friends
2. Guy comes up and starts dancing with girl (no verbal communication)
3. Guy starts grinding with girl. Guy says "Hey, baby, this good with you?
4) Girl says "Hell, yeah, baby!"
5) Dancing becomes increasingly sexual until the girl places a limit, usually my pushing a hand away, creating separation, etc.

"If I am correct, UCLA/Heathers view is that it is not assault because it appears that she was a willing participant and it is not clear to observers when, if ever, she stopped being a willing participant."

I feel comfortable with that summary.

"I think that affirmative consent is a rarity, and most people like it that way. Things get quite sexual without it."

If things get quite sexual that way without it because both people want them to, then things could get quite sexual with it too. Follow my logic?

Also I agree with your list of things that you've seen happen in clubs. On the other hand, have you ever seen screaming which sounded like that on the video that indicated the person was really liking the dancing?

I am unclear, at this point, about whether or not you concede that the girl didn't want her head smacked on the floor, UCLA. However, yes, EG and I are concerned about protecting victims. Incidentally, if the actions were mutual and enjoyed, there would not afterwards be a case to debate. Unless, of course, you think girls are frequently partaking in sexual activities and then later lying about it and trying to convict the man of something. Which is /so/ not the case, and /so/ symptomatic of this general distrust/hate of women that causes us to call our culture "misogynistic". You also seem like you are concerned about the intentions of the man, irregardless of whether or not an assault actually took place. You don't think a man should be held responsible for an assault unless he attended to assault, perhaps? Besides the fact I blatantly disagree with that principle and the fact that it would be virtually impossible to include such factors in our justice system, with our situation of "affirmative consent," everyone wins! You wouldn't have men "accidentally" assaulting people, and it would be even more difficult for a women who had expressed a desire to do something crystal-clearly to later lie about it. The only people I can see losing under such a system, are people who really, honestly, /don't/ want to know about their partner's feelings. Oh, and people who so uncomfortable with their own sexuality they find communicating painful, but I'd argue they're losing some either way.

Stellaelizabeth -

It's not a mistype. Legally married to Robert for almost 15 years - have been together with him since I was 19 (he was 20). Will I call my husband, but I guess life partner is fair too since we aren't legally married (5 years).

Robert is the more "traditional" sort of fella - watches football, good with computers, a little emotionally withdrawn at times but very loving and sometimes very stubborn.

Will is more like me - emotional, artsy. Between us we have four children ages 18,17 (Wills) and 21, 13 (mine and Robert's).

We're a pretty traditional family - cook dinner, help kids with homework, do community work, all the "normal" stuff families do.

"Why should men have to be MORE responsible than women? To me, that only confirms we are a "weaker sex.""

They don't at all. Rather, both parties have equal responsibility. A woman should not have sex/sexually touch a male partner unless she is absolutely sure he is happy about doing it. And vice versa. No double standard here.

Nina - thanks for clearing that up.

I am glad I had a chance to read everybody's opinions on this. It's something to ruminate on.

I will read up on the affirmative consent thing - and I'll try to be open minded about it - maybe I'll post a thread on my political blog to see what the guys and girls there think of it, just to get some idea.

I think it takes a lot of guts for folks to come out and really say what's in your guts, even if you're pretty sure somebody is going to disagree with you - so thanks everybody for being brave and sharing.

There is no shyness of advocating for women here - so that's a good thing!

I gotta go finish some art or I won't make any money!

:)

"But come one, would it really drain away all of life's joy so very completely if it went like this:

1. Girl dances with her friends
2. Guy comes up and starts dancing with girl (no verbal communication)
3. Guy starts grinding with girl. Guy says "Hey, baby, this good with you?
4) Girl says "Hell, yeah, baby!"
5) Dancing becomes increasingly sexual until the girl places a limit, usually my pushing a hand away, creating separation, etc."

Well said, EG.

"I'm currently trying to finish up a manuscript that I'd like to submit to a journal tomorrow. It's on the sexualization of women's breasts, and women's attitudes towards their breast size, and men's attitudes towards their partner's breasts. Bottom line: The majority of women are dissatisfied with their breasts, but the the majority of their partner's are satisfied with their partner's breasts! This fits a larger pattern of results where people are more critical of their own bodies than they need to be."

Sounds like an interesting topic. I'm sure you'll talk about media images. Are you also including an investigation of the affects of "group behavior" in the sense that when guys are together they often tell jokes or make other comments that involve putting down certain female body types? To me that would be worthy of including in your analysis as well...

Good luck though.

Like Nina, I also find the manuscript subject interesting - I'd love to know more!

Evidently there was some sort of ban on breastfeeding images on Myspace for a while - a young woman who is a midwife was quite upset (and I was too) about the kind of garbage on Myspace that objectifies and dehumanizes women, yet breastfeeding images were banned. GAH!!!

There was a show/docu I saw on HBO I think maybe eight years ago, I think it was simply titled BREASTS - and it was a similar topic and all of the women were interviewed topless - old, young, fat, skinny - it was very interesting.

This society tries to make us dissatisfied with EVERYTHING! That's what hte marketing goal is - what we have isn't good enough, we want to spend on this other thing and breasts are no differnt. Seems so inpersonal to me!

I would love to know more about your work with this!

EG, I certainly would have no problem with your suggested "Hell, yeah, baby" approach! But I think alot of men and women at the club get off on the whole increasingly naughty simulated sex dancing with strangers thing. I think its a norm for them for consent to communicated via body movements, not verbally.

"I am unclear, at this point, about whether or not you concede that the girl didn't want her head smacked on the floor, UCLA."

Oh, I'm sure she didn't want her head smacked on the floor. But that's not indicative of lack of consent. For example, one of my friends was dancy sexy with a guy once, and during a dip she banged her head hard on the table. Ouch! But she had (nonverbally) consented to a variety of sexy dance moves and the fact that one went awry isn't evidence of assault. Negligence, maybe.

" On the other hand, have you ever seen screaming which sounded like that on the video that indicated the person was really liking the dancing?"

No, but I have seen lots of people on stage in front of 100s of people screaming with excitement. In my initial viewing of the tape before I knew her age it didn't occur to me she was being assaulted, only that she was excited.

"You also seem like you are concerned about the intentions of the man, irregardless of whether or not an assault actually took place. "

I completely agree with you that affirmative consent removes all ambiguity, and eliminates the kind of debates we are having now. But lacking that, I think it is important to inquire whether a reasonable person would interpret her actions as signalling continued interest in increasingly sexual activities. The test isn't solely whether the man

I realize your concern - looking over all the horrid comments on youtube, it might be too dangerous to leave that kind of decision up to the mob. But that's where I err on giving the benefit of the doubt, rather than assuming guilt.

Sorry, I'm afraid I need to check out of the debate now because of time constraints (though I will of course will read your responses if you have them, just won't be able to respond).

Re: Breast Manuscript

Hey Heather / Nina. I'm happy to make the paper available to you. We're submitting it to a human sexuality journal. I could email it, or eventually it will be available on my website:
http://dfred.bol.ucla.edu/publications.html

Yes, I've seen the breasts HBO video - very interesting interviews!

TITLE:
The Barbie Mystique:
Satisfaction with Breast Size and Shape Across the Lifespan

Nina, your point about men derogating women's bodies is a good point that I didn't address explicitly. Currently this is what we say regarding the issues you brought up:

"Feminists and others have frequently claimed that the media and many men treat women as if they exist simply to provide sexual gratification for men (Bartky, 1990; Bordo, 1993; Frederickson & Roberts, 1997). Fredrickson and Roberts (1997) formalized this idea in Objectification Theory, which proposes that in Western culture women’s bodies are frequently scrutinized and evaluated by men. One consequence of these evaluations is that women internalize an observer’s perspective on their bodies and assess their own value as a function of how they believe their bodies are viewed by others.

Women’s breasts, perhaps more than any other aspect of women’s bodies, are widely presented for evaluation in television, movies, and popular magazines (e.g., Seifert, 2005). The media are often criticized for contributing to women’s dissatisfaction with their breasts, and there is some empirical evidence that women who are more regular consumers of media presenting idealized female bodies are more concerned about their own breasts (e.g., Harrison, 2003). However, even more important than media to women’s feelings about their breasts, may be a concern that their romantic partner would prefer a woman with larger or more shapely breasts.

Yeah, like Nina I am *interested* in the topic of that manuscript, but in a cynical way, because

"It's on the sexualization of women's breasts, and women's attitudes towards their breast size, and men's attitudes towards their partner's breasts. Bottom line: The majority of women are dissatisfied with their breasts, but the the majority of their partner's are satisfied with their partner's breasts! This fits a larger pattern of results where people are more critical of their own bodies than they need to be."

sounds a lot like *women are so strangely sensitive and weird about their body image! but it's not because of their PARTNERS, because see, their partners are fine with their bodies*!

Like Nina, I hope that broader systemic and contextual variables that influence women's body image are also taken into account in the study, and that measurement biases are as well--such as the fact that being self-deprecating is often seen as socially desirable behavior for women, whereas men being critical of their partners might be seen by the men as socially undesirable behavior. Thus, men might be less likely to report perceiving flaws in their partner in a research situation, for fear of looking like jerks.

I actually just realized that this whole discussion reminds me of something that happened to me about a year ago. Disclaimer is that I was a smidgeon younger and hadn't yet had as much college experience, and I think if I could do it over I'd handle things better. Anyway, hrm, here goes:

Incidentally, I happened to meet a sort of successful music artist at a party after his performance. I was really attracted to him in person. I was also a little boozy. After some talking we started making out and groping for like an hour. If we'd had sex I probably wouldn't have called it rape, because I definitely sort of wanted to. On the other hand, I was a little boozy and disoriented and sort of embarassed about the situation, and I wasn't giving what you would call "affirmative consent." So he stopped. And he backed off. At first I was a little hurt and confused, and a little upset at myself for not being better able to make clear decisions with confidence in strange situations. Ultimately though, I respected him for it. He hadn't slept in over 30 hours and he'd been drinking too and he was a little disappointed but I thought he was basically pretty responsible for a 20 yr-old rock star. And he didn't just walk off afterwards either.

Oh and I now I have a crush on him. That's another matter entirely though.

Also the "affirmative consent" thing - I will have to get back to you on that but my gut reaction is that a world where we all have to have permission to touch another person probably isn't going to work very well and it could actually end up being pretty cold and could actually end up creating a whole new prison full of "offenders."

I have to say that, as a guy, I always seek enthusiastic consent from my partners, and it's never made things "cold." I'm not sure why you think it would create a prison full of offenders, either, really. Enthusiastic consent can take many forms- it can be given without prompting, as when she says "Oh, yeah, I like that" sometimes it's requested, as when you ask "Do you like it when I do this" or "how does this feel" or "do you want me to"... The problem, I think, is that we're taught to be ashamed of sex. It took me a long time to get over my hang-ups about being vocal about what I wanted to do and what I wanted done, but, if anything, it's improved things. Enthusiastic consent has helped improve things, because, really, it's hot when your partner is really into what the two of you are doing, and when you feel comfortable enough to express vocally what you're thinking and feeling... it's hot.

Why should men have to be MORE responsible than women? To me, that only confirms we are a "weaker sex."

As things currently stand, I think that man are held to a lower standard than women- they're held less responsible. When a woman does get raped, you always hear people saying "Well, she shouldn't have been X, Y, and Z." Men are given a pass for all kinds of irresponsible, assholish behaviors, and I think it's time for us men to step up and start taking some responsibility for sexual behaviors.

Every time rape is talked about, there are men who worry about false accusations. There are easy ways to avoid false accusations, but men don't want to talk about it or deal with it- they'd rather that the sole responsibility for rape be left with women.

The idea of seeking positive, enthusiastic consent before engaging in sex, and not having sex with someone that you're not absolutely sure is capable of giving informed, enthusiastic consent isn't holding men to a higher standard, it's holding them to a minimally decent standard. That's the minimum that people should be going for when they're having sex. If we wanted to get beyond that, I think that people should have conversations about their feelings on abortion and what would happen if, god forbid, an unwanted pregnancy came up. I don't expect that everyone is going to do that, particularly not if you're talking about a random hook-up or someone you just met at a party- getting enthusiastic consent, though? That should be the case for everyone.

The drawback, of course, is that there will be times when someone doesn't have sex. The benefit is that rape goes down, "false" accusations go down, and people tend to have better, more fulfilling sex. I think that's a worth it.

RE: CHARITY "sounds a lot like *women are so strangely sensitive and weird about their body image! but it's not because of their PARTNERS, because see, their partners are fine with their bodies*!"

Let me see if I can clear up your concerns and make you feel a little less cynical!

First, we have a parallel paper on attitudes towards penis size that examines literally the exact same set of questions.
http://content.apa.org/journals/men/7/3/129

Second, BOTH men and women overestimate the importance of traits to the opposite sex. In particular, the common finidngs are in the body image literature:

1. Men and women rate their partner as being more attractive than their partner rates themselves

2. Men overestimate the degree of muscularity preferred by women, and the importance they attach to muscularity.

3. Women overestimate the degree of thinness preferred by men, and the importance they attached to thinness.

4. Nearly have of men are not satisfied with their penis size, while the vast majority of women are satisfied with their partner's penis size.

5. In two studies we get the same effect for women overestimating the importance of breast size to men.

This all points to a positive message: We are more self-critical of our bodies than we need be. Which I think is a positive message.

As always, roymac sums it up so beautifully. Your mention of women being held more accountable in matters of sexual conduct reminds me of something Twisty called attention to recently, which I'm sad to say I never even noticed. The "passive voice" problem - constant mention of women "being raped", language which kind of softens or avoids reference to mens' responsibility when it comes to rape, in a much more subtle and insidious way than implying all we need are better assertiveness programs for women. I know the phrase "...are raped" or "...was raped" can be used in a sort of shorthand way, but even if the intent is benign (and it's hard to believe it always is), it has a way of erasing the perpetrator from the equation, especially when discussing rape as a prevalent cultural phenomenon - when it really would make more sense, factually, to speak of "men raping women." It was a very thought-provoking comment, but then, most of Twisty's are.

I have to side with EG and Nina on this upon further thought. Roymac is also right about affirmative consent. The Antioch rules are necessary because we live in a misogynist society in which women are afraid to say no. There are many situations in which I was afraid to say no not just in sexual situations but any situation with a male. Feminism has made women more assertive but it has a long way to go. It's better to be safe than sorry. The girl in the video is probably very upset right now and sometimes it's hard to stop something even if you're an adult, e.g. the Shilpa Shetty situation, the Halle Berry-actor situation, etc. It's hours later they regret what happened because while it happened they tried to be nice or at least not appear anti-social.

Thanks for the clarification, UCLA.

He hadn't slept in over 30 hours and he'd been drinking too and he was a little disappointed but I thought he was basically pretty responsible for a 20 yr-old rock star. And he didn't just walk off afterwards either.

Oh and I now I have a crush on him. That's another matter entirely though.

I kind of have a crush on him too, now! Just because a guy you can trust when he's twenty, sleep-derived, drunk, and a rock musician to err on the side of respecting women's boundaries is my kind of guy.

Except that I'm way too old for him.

David Frederick, I'm interested in two of your papers

Frederick, D.A. (2004). Women’s preferences for different male body types. Society Scientific Study Sexuality Western Regional Conference, San Diego, CA.

Supervised Undergraduate Senior Research Projects
8. Leila Sadeghi-Azar. What do women find physically attractive? Confounds and convergent validity in popular measures of male body types.

Women seem about evenly split between their desires for manly men and sensitive, artistic types (e.g. Jake Gyllenhall, John Cusack, etc. etc. etc). I used to like the sensitive, artistic type because every guy in 80s and 90s chick flicks were this type and I must have absorbed this preference by osmosis. Or every guy worshipped in Sassy magazine was the sensitive, artistic type. Several years ago, women online told me I was really missing out by avoiding the manly man so I tried that and liked it. I think it's mostly social construction and less about hardwiring. Did you and Ms. Sadeghi-Azar find it about evenly split?

Every guy worshipped in Bust magazine was the sensitive, artistic type too.

Why do men assume women prefer manly men? I think more women prefer the less manly men - the sensitive, artistic type.

why does it need to be a binary? I think that binary in a way just reflects the false binary of masculine/feminine, and perhaps does not encompass evryone's tastes well enough to do great studies.

I tend to like tall thin-ish guys who are well-toned/muscular, sensitive, arty and tough. But that doesn't mean everyone I'm attracted to falls in that category (if you can even tell me for sure which category that falls into).

True that. I would like to know the results of his two papers

Women’s preferences for different male body types

What do women find physically attractive? Confounds and convergent validity in popular measures of male body types

RoymacIII:

"When a woman does get raped, you always hear people saying "Well, she shouldn't have been X, Y, and Z.""

---The "she was asking for it" defense is garbage. I don't care if she's half naked - rape is rape. I never said otherwise.

"Every time rape is talked about, there are men who worry about false accusations."

--- I think false accusations are actually very rare and I really can't see a woman putting herself through the trauma of trials and questions and probing if she didn't really go through it.

"The idea of seeking positive, enthusiastic consent before engaging in sex, and not having sex with someone that you're not absolutely sure is capable of giving informed, enthusiastic consent isn't holding men to a higher standard, it's holding them to a minimally decent standard. "

--- Sounds fair to me. By the way, I still don't think men should have to be held to a HIGHER standard - which wasn't my wording (actually she said MORE responsible) it was Nina's. I'm not sure what your point is other than that men should be held to higher standard than women or they should be held to a higher standard than they are now or they should be held to a minimum standard that has nothing to do with what standards women are held to?

Also - I love the way some of you are such idealists thinking that we'll just make affirmative consent a law (if that is what you are proposing) and everybody will comply and all the fate of every sex offender will be sealed and all people will act and talk the same way and follow these standards and it will be neat and tidy and just so good for everybody.

It's a nice idea, I just think criminalizing touching that isn't first approved in a verbal contract is - well - sort of sterile and not very realistic. Maybe it works for you. Hell, maybe you can only function if you get enthusiastic verbal approval beforehand - but not everybody is like that - we aren't all the same. I think it's more productive to just be clear when you DON'T want to be touched or DON'T want to be in a situation and make it clear so nobody can say you DIDN'T make it clear. If she had once yelled "STOP - I DON'T LIKE THIS" then there would have been very little left to various intrepretations by any of us.

Women who are drunk, druged or otherwise impared to give consent - we have laws about that already and the problem comes with enforcing them and keeping track of the offenders.

Those girls who are underage simply can't give consent - no matter what, and there are laws for that too.

I think it's easy to say, "If we just had this one rule then this thing would never happen." But it's much different when trying to apply it to many people, cultures and also applying criminality to it.

Again, I have to look into the affirmative consent stuff - I don't know a whole lot about it so I have to do some homework as to what it would require, what would be criminal or if it's just supposed to be a cultural thing that's encouraged or what.

Goodnight folks!

I love the way some of you are such idealists thinking that we'll just make affirmative consent a law (if that is what you are proposing) and everybody will comply and all the fate of every sex offender will be sealed and all people will act and talk the same way and follow these standards and it will be neat and tidy and just so good for everybody.

That's a pretty condescending and facile set of assumptions about what we who support affirmative consent think. I think it's naive to suppose that legal definitions don't have an effect on public perceptions. Look at how often, in discussion threads about rape, people start invoking terms like "evidence," "convict," "reasonable doubt." Making affirmative consent a legal standard would be part of an important sea change in cultural perceptions of female sexuality.

I really don't understand your objection. If men and women who aren't worried about affirmative consent mutually, happily sleep together without it, then they will be happy. And nobody will be raping anybody, and it would never come up. But why should one of those guys who thinks that's just fine and dandy tries to inflict himself on a woman who doesn't, why should that be protected? If those guys are willing to take that kind of chance on behalf of those women, surely they should shoulder the chance that they might be held liable themselves.

"--- Sounds fair to me. By the way, I still don't think men should have to be held to a HIGHER standard - which wasn't my wording (actually she said MORE responsible) it was Nina's. I'm not sure what your point is other than that men should be held to higher standard than women or they should be held to a higher standard than they are now or they should be held to a minimum standard that has nothing to do with what standards women are held to?"

I don't know where you're getting this whole idea that we think men should be responsible for doing things that we don't also think women should be responsible for doing. Certainly neither roymac or myself ever said that. I already addressed that for you, actually.

"It's a nice idea, I just think criminalizing touching that isn't first approved in a verbal contract is - well - sort of sterile and not very realistic. "

What it's criminalizing is /unwanted/ touching. If both people want touching, then no one is going to complain regardless of how they communicated. If someone didn't want touching, then what "affirmative consent" does is change the way in which you go about proving whether or not the person with the allegation is right. It places more responsibility on the aggressive party in sexual situations. Like you say, false allegations are rare. No law is perfect, but I see this as a more progressive one.

Incidentally, the women's group at my campus has also been waging an "affirmative consent" education campaign this year.

I think roymac, EG, and myself all addressed the realistic use of "affirmative consent" and the ways in which it is does not at all create a "sterile" environment. Even if you're a naturally huggy person, it really only takes a split second to make sure you're not making people uncomfortable, and they'll appreciate that you are considerate of their feelings.

"--- Sounds fair to me. By the way, I still don't think men should have to be held to a HIGHER standard - which wasn't my wording (actually she said MORE responsible) it was Nina's. I'm not sure what your point is other than that men should be held to higher standard than women or they should be held to a higher standard than they are now or they should be held to a minimum standard that has nothing to do with what standards women are held to?"

Oh okay. I reread this again, so let me clarify for you. We are asserting that men are currently held to a standard that is lower than a minimally decent one. Therefore, we are advocating that men be held to higher standards than they are now. Women can be held to the same standards.

RoymacIII:
---The "she was asking for it" defense is garbage. I don't care if she's half naked - rape is rape. I never said otherwise.

Of course it's garbage... does that stop people from saying and believing it though?
No. It doesn't.
That's one example of how women are currently held to a higher standard than men. That's why holding men to a higher standard than they currently are would move them to being held at the same standard that women are.

To pick arbitrary numbers- if men are held at a standard of 1 right now, and women are held a 3, holding men responsible at a 3 holds them to a higher standard, but also, to the same standard as women. Does that make more sense?

Also - I love the way some of you are such idealists thinking that we'll just make affirmative consent a law (if that is what you are proposing) and everybody will comply and all the fate of every sex offender will be sealed and all people will act and talk the same way and follow these standards and it will be neat and tidy and just so good for everybody.

Yes, and then the pixie fairies will hand out magical candy flavored condoms to all the hetero couples, and the gnome of everlasting orgasms will grant happy fun-times to everyone.

Please.

I like to think that most of us have shown that we're not complete and utter morons. There's no magical solution to the problem of rape. What we're talking about is changing the standards to which we hold people. Doing so will not have an instantaneous effect- it won't cure the problem over-night, for sure. What it will do is reframe our understanding of what counts as rape, and it will reframe the dialogue about who is responsible for rape. Instead of constantly talking about the ways that women can prevent themselves from getting raped, we can start talking about the ways that everyone can help prevent rape.

Change happens through a lot of ways, and one of those ways is through dialogue. If we change the way that people think of consent, over time, we can drive that point home, and make people more responsible for their actions.

Magically over-night?
No.

It's a nice idea, I just think criminalizing touching that isn't first approved in a verbal contract is - well - sort of sterile and not very realistic.

It is when you refer to as a verbal contract, yes. It's not really very sterile at all when your partner is saying "Oh my gods, yes!" You're stuck on this idea that affirmative, enthusiastic consent has to be a sterile "Can I do X, now" sort of comment. It doesn't. What it means is that "no means no" isn't sufficient- you need a "yes" of some kind. It means that a woman who doesn't say "no" but also doesn't engage the man isn't providing consent. It doesn't really make anything rape that shouldn't already count, it just changes the way we think of consent so that it's clearer to people.

I think it's more productive to just be clear when you DON'T want to be touched or DON'T want to be in a situation and make it clear so nobody can say you DIDN'T make it clear. If she had once yelled "STOP - I DON'T LIKE THIS" then there would have been very little left to various intrepretations by any of us.

Except that that isn't working. I don't see why it's so hard for people to get a "yes" before they do things. How hard is it to ask your partner "is this okay?" and get a yes?

It's not. It takes ten seconds and it makes sure that you're not raping someone. I think that is worth ten seconds.

Women who are drunk, druged or otherwise impared to give consent - we have laws about that already and the problem comes with enforcing them and keeping track of the offenders.

Except that we send mixed messages- we tell men "Well, no means no" and then we promote this idea that it's cool to ply women with drinks until they stop saying no. That's precisely why we need to start changing the ways we talk about rape and the things we're teaching people about consent. "No means no" was great, except that it lead to people thinking "lack of no means yes!"

I think it's easy to say, "If we just had this one rule then this thing would never happen." But it's much different when trying to apply it to many people, cultures and also applying criminality to it.

Again, not saying this would be a magical over-night solution- saying that this would help restructure the ways that we talk about rape and consent, and would help hold everyone to the same standard, and make it clearer what even counts as rape.

I've probably said it a million times already, but roymac rules.

I'm going to go over this one more time - then I'm done with this thread.

I watched the video AGAIN and I will try to quantify WHY in my mind there is some question as to whether or not she gave consent to what happened. Some of you aren't really listening to me, you're simply picking apart what I say to try to prove your own point.

I think the only person here who understands what I'm trying to say is possibly UCLA. Also, I really am rather put off by EG and Nina acting like they are the better "vicitim advocates" simply because they stand up against this guy and say it's wrong PERIOD from every angle - it's easy to jump on that bandwagon and be accepted here with open arms as the right kind of feminist.

- In the beginning she appears to laying on the ground "waiting" for him, he does a little swaggar/turn and then gets above her. At that time she LIFTS HER LEGS up which to ME looks like she did as part of the "acting" of the dance.

-Then he puts her legs over his shoulders and starts bumping her hard - which I think is when her head was hitting the ground. The AAAAGGGGGG!!! sound happens - which I will repeat I DON'T THINK THAT IS HER - it SOUNDS to me like it's somebody closer to the mic - like the person perhaps recording it because it's an individual voice we can actually hear clearer and she is down with him and the crowd and I don't think we'd hear her any more than we would one individual person at the front of the stage. AGAIN - I DON'T KNOW that is MY interpretation of what I am seeing and hearing. Even though he bumps her head at this point - either acidentally or even sort of un-caringly bumping her head I'm pretty sure isn't criminal - piggish yes - criminal? Don't know! I also don't know that his bumping her head would somehow withdraw her consent IF he knew he had bumped her head.

- When he picks her up she leans into him - she wraps her legs around him. Either she's feeling like she has no choice but to hold on tight OR she is playing along (I DON'T KNOW!).

-Then - his very ill-conceived idea of taking her over to the crowd and I'm sure somebody's hands were all over her - that would make me feel violated - and rather irritated at him for doing that.

- Then the "oh Gods" and such - again I AM NOT SURE that is her - it sounds like somebody closer to the mic. Even if it IS her (which I don't think it is) TO ME it sounds like "WOAHH" sort of a thing - not a "STOP" sort of a thing.

- The way she puts her arm across her chest after he so callously walks away gives me the impression at that point that she did feel violated in some way. At what point, for what reason and if she told anybody, I DON'T KNOW.

This clip is 48 seconds long.

We don't know if we are hearing her or the person filming. We don't know WHAT she said into his ear - it could have been Affirmative Consent it could have been "put me down!" - I don't know and I'm not going to pretend to know.

In the article she states:

The teen stated "I got carried away, I started to dance as well but I never thought it was going to be like that. I was shocked, my head was hitting the floor."

- I can't tell from that statment if it was the sexual nature of the dancing or the rough way he danced that shocked her - I THINK she might be saying both, but I can't tell, that's too vague.

- The question in my mind is even if he had gotten "Affirmative Consent" (assuming he didn't - we haven't heard from him yet and she didn't say in the article she told him to stop, or that she never told him to go, she simply says she was shocked) don't you think it STILL could have played out the way that it did - gotten out of hand? Or with the Affirmative Consent is he supposed to tell her in advance everything he is going to do before he does it? Or is he supposed to just get an "Oh yeah baby, I want to." from her as you all have said? If he'd gotten that at the beginning of the dance - would you all be fine with what happened? The way it happened? How do you know she didn't give affirmative consent in this case? We don't know - there has been no mention in the article of what the girl said before or during the dancing and you all keep assuming the voice we hear is her.

Personally I don't think a teenager should be considered as being able to give affimative consent to an adult(even if that is't the law in Trinidad).

Keep in mind also that he may have thought she was 18 since he was performing at an adult club. I think the club itself bears some responsibility here also.

Yes, an experiened performer maybe should have realized there might be underage girls in the room - but you don't know what kind of security pitch that club may have given him. You don't know if they "guarnteed" him no underage girls would be in the audience - YOU DON'T KNOW what sort of expectiation he could have had based on the booking of the club. I am not going to sit here and pretend to know everything surrounding the situation based on that clip and that article.

Her dress has no bearing on the situation as far as I'm concerned regarding giving permission. Appearance does not give permission to treat a person a certain way. I don't care if she was dressed provacativly - if she at any time told him to stop or withdrew her consent - it should have stopped. The only possible reason her appearance/clothing is related at all is that it may have made her appear older than her 15 years.

You can reject eveything I just said as excuses and such - whatever. We all come to situations from different life experiences behind us and we all bring something different when analyzing a situation.

She said "I never thought it was going to be like that." That is a CLEAR STATEMENT that there was NOT affirmative consent. If there WAS affirmative consent, she would have known that it was going to be like that, because they would have talked about it before hand and he would have said "okay, we're going to grind on the floor and it's going to be kind of rough. I'm also going to take you over the audience and move you around a lot, is that okay with you?" If she "NEVER THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE LIKE THAT" the conversation clearly never happened and he did NOT, I repeat NOT have affirmative consent, which it seems pretty obvious to me that ANYONE SHOULD HAVE before doing something so violent to another person.

Cara - that is what I was asking - the affirmative consent folks here are saying all it is is a matter of saying:

"hey baby, is this good for you" and the other person saying "yeah, I like it" or whatever

I am saying that he may have simply said he wanted to do a dance with her and she agreed - now we get down to how much should they have talked about it - beforehand and at what point it would have become criminal.

I am not SAYING SHE DID GIVE AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT and I don't think her statment "I didn't think it was going to be like that" means she didn't agree to dance with him - it probably means he didn't tell her everything he was going to do - and if Affirmative Consent was the law - how much information would he be "required" to provide (assuming he knew what he was going to do - I thought the dance looked a bit impromptu) and how often and to what extent? Also, if he got consent for all of the dance except the head banging part which may have occured accidentally - what then?

I think the fact that he did not stop once her head started banging on the floor makes it criminal. Either he wasn't paying enough attention to her (in which case it would be gross negligence) or he just didn't care (in which case it would be assault). It doesn't matter that it wasn't accidental. If you accidentally injure someone it is still your responsiblity to stop doing whatever you were doing that caused the injury and to make sure that the person is okay. In this case, he not only kept going, he got up and walked away from her without making sure that she was okay afterwards. I think that shows a clear disregard for her safety.

Also, I really am rather put off by EG and Nina acting like they are the better "vicitim advocates" simply because they stand up against this guy and say it's wrong PERIOD from every angle - it's easy to jump on that bandwagon and be accepted here with open arms as the right kind of feminist.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Nina and I disagree with you. We disagree with you because, as roy said, the current "lack of objection" standard doesn't work and ends up letting men get away with hurting women. Are we supposed to pretend we don't, or that we don't think that issues of affirmative consent have anything to do with rape, so that you don't feel "put off"? You're the one who was pretty condescending about why we think it's a good idea, and are now accusing of us jumping on some bandwagon out of some weird, high-school-like desire to be "accepted with open arms," instead of accepting the fact that it is possible for us to think things through fully and yet still disagree with you.

Cara - Thank you. That is also what I was asking for. I think negligence fits if he didn't realize he was doing it.

If he did realize he was doing it then the charge should be more significant - and I also agree that walking away was disregarding her safety.

"Oh okay. I reread this again, so let me clarify for you. We are asserting that men are currently held to a standard that is lower than a minimally decent one. Therefore, we are advocating that men be held to higher standards than they are now. Women can be held to the same standards. "

I also agree with this. And yes, that is what I was trying to say. I was actually thrown off by the initial "MORE" - which I read as meaning men should be held MORE accountable and to a higher standard. The above statment you made is more of what I feel and agree with.

UCLA - yes, please email me your manuscript, I'm very interested in reading it. Also, please let me know when you have it up on your site and I will link to it from my blogs.

Thanks!

well okay, Heather, but negligence (debatable, but...) would still make it criminal. I am pretty sure you were earlier arguing against his actions being criminal.

Not that this inherently proves anything about this case, but Did you know that a couple of years ago there was this horrible case in IL, where two 18 yr-old boys got a girl drunk and gave her drugs and then each had sex with her and taped it. Then at the end of the tape they wrote on her in marker and one of the boys spit on her. At the trial, the defendent turned off the volume on the tape and said "look... look at the way her hips are moving, doesn't that look like consent to you?" That (highly-debatable) assessment of the video held more credence with the jury than the girl's own version of the story did, and the boys were convicted of child pornography but not rape. One might think that having a tape would help a case...

I do encourage you to learn more about the standard of affirmative consent and try to see it in a good way. It's being embraced by sexual assault awareness groups on colleges across the country, so who knows, maybe in a couple of decades it /will/ be reflected in our laws.

Well I would like to state here, Heather, that that I DON'T think negligence is all that occured here. I think that this most likely was assault. I was following your argument of "what if" the woman had consented to all but the head-banging AND that he was unaware of the fact that he was banging her head. I personally think that both of these instances are rather improbable, and I was actually arguing that even in the most ideal situation (for him), this was still criminal.

The problem in these cases is too many people including women imagining themselves in the men's shoes. Why don't men and women put themselves in the woman's shoes? Even if there's a 99% she didn't like what happened, men and women will fight to the end to defend the 1% chance she liked it. If you put yourselves in her shoes, you almost definitely wouldn't have liked it. Now that she's saying she didn't like it, we should believe her. Otherwise, it's a double standard.

Excellent point, donna. Thanks.

No I was NOT arguing against his actions being criminal! I was ASKING if they were criminal.

Also - I apologize if I came off sounding condecending about the affirmative consent stuff but this format leaves something to be desired - I feel as though a huge portion of what I am trying to say would be understood better in person where body language, tone, facial expressions and inflection can meand the difference between asking a question and pushing a point.

Cara that you think MY examples are improbable but all of the other ones here are valid??? Again - I DON'T KNOW what his state of mind was or what he was aware of. Do you? We can all pick the video and statment apart but none of us knows anything other than that.

As for the IL girl case - the girl was drunk/drugged - to me that is rape. It's also criminal if she didn't take the drugs and they were administered to her. She was incapable of giving consent at that point, I don't care if her hips were moving or how or whatever. The spitting is further evidence of the fact that they had objectified and dehumanized her. I don't have all of the details of the case, but as you state it, it certainly sounds like an injustice of only being convicted of child pornongraphy and not rape too (and giving her drugs and assault and whatever else they could have hit them with) - hopefully they will have to be registered sex offenders either way???

I'm telling you guys I don't condone what he did but I do have questions in my mind as to how things went and to what level consent occured and what the intent of each of them was.

Also, as a mother, I am always concerned with how to keep girls from ending up in these situations in the first place. We are never going to rid the world of people like this so I would like to approach it from two angles - how to encourage the next generation of men to not objectify women and how girls can be given healthy doses of self esteem so they don't have to feel as though they need to be hypersexual in order to connect with men.

Of course the other angle (I guess that makes three) is to make sure there are laws on the books that protect people and that they are upheld and utilized to their fullest extent.

Also, I still think it's more productive to criminalize when a person persists past NO or STOP than to criminalize touching that occurs before a yes. That is just my opinion. I think that if a guy KNEW FOR A FACT that NO (even if she "didn't mean it" or if he thinks she "didn't mean it) means if you keep going you will be punished regarless of your interpretation - would eliminate the whole "She said no but she meant yes" defense AND it would make those saying NO (men and women) feel like it actually has some power.

Yes, Heather, I do think that it's more plausible that a woman who agreed to dance on stage did not consent to the type of "dance" we see in this video than that she did consent to it. Why? Because the dance is degrading and violent, and while many women do consent to degrading behavior, they generally do not consent to violent behavior. Also, she said that she didn't consent. I'm basing my perception on what I've seen and what was said-- which, like you've said, is all we have to go on.

Donna - I am looking at them as two people and trying to put myself in BOTH of their shoes.

I can much more relate to her position than his.

Cara - I think we are miscommunicating because what you are writing isn't really lining up with what I felt like I said.

I feel like I need a translator or I'm speaking in the wrong language or something. It's getting very frustrating.

Alright Heather... let's put ourselves in his shoes for a minute. I'm dancing with some girl a lot smaller than me, I start humping her and her head starts banging on the floor. I fucking stop. Also, I would /never/ drag someone around the floor like that. That's not how horizontal dancing is done. Some of us are trying to put ourselves in each of the player's shoes in the sense of what's probable. You seem to be putting yourself in his shoes in the sense of trying to find a pure intention in some really ridiculous behavior. Maybe he was intoxicated to the point where he didn't know what was going on... his behavior is /still/ criminal.

Again, we know from the girls comments that she didn't expect the dancing to be like that... hence she couldn't have given consent.

And I'm sorry, but I don't like the way you keep bringing up other aspects of the girl's behavior and life as though it's relevant. You can complain about oversexualizing of young girls in our culture. It still has virtually no bearing on this case, as far as I'm concerned. Like you said, he may have thought she was 18. Eighteen yr-olds have the right to express their sexuality however they want without being subjected to violence. What he did was still criminal.

Also Heather,

Akon actually does have some songs describing sexual violence against women. I rally would prefer that keeping women away from people with bad attitudes wasn't seen as a better solution than punishing men who do criminal things though. What are you going to do to make sure these things never happen -lock daughters inside? Misogynistic people exist everywhere. I would much rather be thorough about punishing them for criminal acts than focus on restricting women's freedom. With freedom of speech, singing the things Akon sings and listening to those things is not illegal. Assault or negligence, on the other hand, are.

"Also, I still think it's more productive to criminalize when a person persists past NO or STOP than to criminalize touching that occurs before a yes. That is just my opinion. I think that if a guy KNEW FOR A FACT that NO (even if she "didn't mean it" or if he thinks she "didn't mean it) means if you keep going you will be punished regarless of your interpretation - would eliminate the whole "She said no but she meant yes" defense AND it would make those saying NO (men and women) feel like it actually has some power."

What about the cases where women can't say no? Or they're too overwhelmed to think of it, and think simple screaming will suffice. Or they're too embarassed? Or they're feeling coerced and decide to go along with sex because they think that will be easier than fighting it? "Affirmative action" is about sexual partners having a higher level of respect for the feelings of each other. I really don't understand your objection. Some of us have had sex with affirmative consent. You should try it sometime, it's really not that bad. And again, it's not as though it would ever criminalize sex that both people want.

uh-oh, "affirmative consent" /not/ "affirmative action", obviously

My husband and I have affirmative consent sex every time we have sex. It's not that difficult, and it was never a conscious decision, it just occured due to our mutual respect for each other. And saying "Do you want me, baby?" or "I want you" before penetration really doesn't take much effort and really just serves to let each other know that we're ready.

"You seem to be putting yourself in his shoes in the sense of trying to find a pure intention in some really ridiculous behavior."

Wrong again. I don't see the point in contiuing with this, you aren't understanding me and I'm getting increasingly concerned that people are going to believe your interpretation of what I've said.

I don't think you get what I'm saying or WHY I am saying it nor do I get the impression you care to. Nor am I allowed to carry the discussion beyond the scope of what *you* deem as relevant. Even though I've explained my interest in those areas - and have REPEATEDLY stated that I am not expressing my questions as a form of excuse for Akon (gag).

Something to ponder:

I am considered a very liberal fat feminist by - well - pretty much everybody who knows me.

If we can't all get along and listen to each other - how do we expect the world to get any better? How to do we expect others to listen to us when we can't even communicate well on this blog?

Cara - I don't have to do that with my husbands and I don't want to. They know when I want to have sex, it's made pretty clear - sometimes verbally (which would fit into your senario) sometimes non-verbally. I also make it pretty clear when I'm not in the mood (sometimes verbally and sometimes non and sometimes I'm so busy they don't bother to ask). Generally you'd have to be blindfolded and have in ear plugs to not know the difference in my house.

I'm glad it works for you - that is your personal choice. I have no problem with that.

Again Heather, there are plenty of instances in which women don't want to have sex and find saying "no" to be impossible or not easy (let alone having that "no" respected).

Under our system, people who don't want to communicate about their desires to have sex don't have to. So long as it doesn't later turn out one person actually /didn't/ want to have sex, no one is going to have a problem. So you and your husbands can continue doing whatever it is you're doing. You're lucky if they are very sensitive to your body language and wouldn't dream of presuming sexual rights over your body. Not everyone is that lucky when it comes to the attitudes of their sexual partners. "Affirmative consent" lets people know that they are expected to be sure of their partners desires before doing things, and it provides legal protection for those people whose partners might not be so in-tune and caring about the other person's feelings.

Nina - I know - I've been a victim of those circumstances myself.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you would provide me with some links to study the subject further.

Yes, I am very lucky - but I also would not be with a partner who would ignore my needs or overpower me to take something from me.

I wish all women would demand the same respect for themselves. I feel that in some ways we have made great strides in this area, but I still see teen girls who cut themselves and hurt themselves and go out with boys who want to control them. It makes me cry when I have to try to convince these girls to do better for themselves and that they deserve better.

I am doing a photo project I call "Ophelia" which is the study of adolescent girls in society. I find the rituals and dress and cues they give each other fascinating and also sometimes deeply sad. I also recognize many of the patterns, partly because I lived them as a troubled teen with an eating disorder myself - so sometimes it's like watching the young me.

Perhaps I do not have a full understanding of what you are saying affirmative consent is, because as it has been in this thread - the definitions are somewhat ambiguous as to how much a person is supposed to say, when etc.

If I were to flirt with my husband early in the day and tell him I wanted to have sex at nine - then he approaches me at nine and starts putting his hands all over me - but I'm tired and forgot and got busy - has he violated it by not asking me first? Has he violated me if I simply disreagred his advances as a misunderstanding and I don't feel violated, even though he didn't ask?

See, what I am having trouble with is the way you guys keep making it sound so easy - you know - he asks "hey baby do you want to" and she says "hell yes" and so forth - and life has taught me that nothing is as simple as it sounds at first, so I am trying to understand all of the "rules" that go with AC and what breaking that rule would mean in terms of criminality and to what degree.

So, links, studies, information would be helpful.

"Yes, I am very lucky - but I also would not be with a partner who would ignore my needs or overpower me to take something from me."

Well, even if a woman breaks up with a guy as soon as she has a bad experience with him, she will still be affected by that bad experience.

"If I were to flirt with my husband early in the day and tell him I wanted to have sex at nine - then he approaches me at nine and starts putting his hands all over me - but I'm tired and forgot and got busy - has he violated it by not asking me first? Has he violated me if I simply disreagred his advances as a misunderstanding and I don't feel violated, even though he didn't ask?"

Well of course there is some room for interpretation. There is some room for interpretation with the laws we have now. I would say that if you don't feel violated, you're not going to allege sexual assault in court, so I don't see the problem. In the scenario you gave he apparently stopped when he realized you weren't into it. If, however, he continued and went on to have sex with you in spite of the fact you didn't want it and made no indication that you did, I think most people would feel somewhat violated.

What kinds of "studies" do you want? What do you need evidence for? In terms of learning about "affirmative consent," you can google it and read definitions and opinions on the matter and read about the experiences of the number of schools that have already institutionalized the standard as well as I can provide you links.

I thought you might like to provide some of your favorite examples of success in this area, but I can Google it.

Heather, perhaps I was being too vague-- I wasn't talking about my husband and I sitting on the couch, I was talking about when we're already making out/touching each other/being sexual and preparing ourselves for the penetration part of sex (which is why I chose the word "penetration") when we give the verbal consent I previously described. We signal our desire to each other up to that stage mostly through enthusiastic kissing and touching of each other. I believe that is a method of affirmative consent, as well. Where as, for example, if he was touching me sexually but I was not giving him any verbal encouragement ("that feels good") or physical encouragement (kissing him, touching him back), and was instead just laying there and not participating, but NOT telling him to stop, there would not be any affirmative consent and as a considerate and concerned partner, he would stop and ask if I'm okay, or he's doing something wrong, etc. I think that is what we (or at least I) am talking about as affirmative consent. I'm really getting the impression that you're misunderstanding what we mean by the way that you seem to be reacting to it so negatively.

Most of what I know about affirmative consent comes from the organization at my college and personal experience. I don't really have "favorite" studies per se, and I can't read your mind to tell you what would convince you it's a good idea. If you are simply interested in learning some in a general way.

The "Men Can Stop Rape" site has some information on the matter.

Here's a paper with a slightly different view:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=782367

Here's some philosopher's view on the matter. I didn't read it through, but again, I don't know what constitutes valuable opinions to you, if it requires PhDs or wahtnot:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/bclrarticles/3(2)/wertheimerfinal.pdf

Also, some colleges are promoting "affirmative consent." Vanderbilt has a policy. A bunch other colleges do too. But again, given that you may not find the same things compelling I do, I think it might be more affective for you to do research on your own. I'm assuming you want multiple perspectives, and would not research with an agenda to disprove that it's a good idea.

I wish all women would demand the same respect for themselves.

I think that's sort of one of the points of advocati