Just the headlines today, folks.
Sociological Images: Crossing Gender Lines: Boys Doing Double Dutch
Washington Post: Hollywood Wedded to The Formula: Bridal Films Ply the Same Scary Image
The Well-Timed Period: Increase in U.S. Teen birth Rate Due to Failure of Contraceptive-Focused Sex Ed
Questioning Transphobia: The Pope and teh trans
Womanist Musings: Sex Slavery
Dodson and Ross: At Birth, No Difference Between Male & Female Brains
Women's eNews: Casualties Replace Gaza's Maternity Ward Patients
BBC: Pakistan girl band creates a stir
The G Spot: In support of a feminist stimulus
Related: Robert Reich on How to Create Jobs Without Them All Going to Skilled Professionals and White Male Construction Workers
RHRealityCheck: Innovative Thinking In The Fight Against Gendered Violence
The Bilerico Project: Let's move beyond "marriage" in '09
Broadsheet: How the Madoff mess hits women
Muslimah Media Watch: Aliyah's Choice: The LA Times' Profile of a Lesbian Muslim
The Atlantic: American Girl (Ta-Nehisi Coates on Michelle Obama)
Yes Means Yes: Prop 8 Was A Matter Of Ideology, Not Race
The Black Scientist: Queering Black Politics: Reconsidering the Black Single Mother Argument (via PostBourgie)
Jezebel: Bobby Jindal Seeks To Stave Off Another Hurricane By Eliminating Gay Rights
Womanist Musings: When You Force Oral Sex You Might Get Bitten
Don't Gel Too Soon: Doubt - More than a Movie -- Also a Time Capsule
The Bilerico Project: A1 steak sauce: Sexism is that important
TransGriot: Why Some Black GLBT Peeps Hate the 'Q' Word
Finally, I'm sorry, but this is just hilarious.
Actions and Events
Chicago, IL: Catch a screening of Pray the Devil Back to Hell and a panel discussion on Wed, Jan 14.
Call for Submissions: An anthology about doulas.
Send a message to Obama on Darfur.
Cool photo project: What Does Feminism Mean to You?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Weekly Feminist Reader.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11315
I don't see the injustice in the Womanist's oral sex article.
I think that article is just flat-out absurd.
It article says that she was 'forced' into the blowjob, but then in her own words she said that she "didnt want to have sex". There is a difference between being forced into sex and not wanting to, and the article is vague on what really happened. The news link that that the article links to is broken.
Not wanting to have sex does not justify a physical assault on your partner.
Womanist Musings also claims that she was acting in self defense because he hit her after she was biting him, criminally ignoring who assaulted first.
Not wanting to have sex does not justify a physical assault on your partner.
So, when are women allowed to defend themselves from rape? For decades now, the culture at large has pushed women's self-defense programs as a solution to the rape problem. It seems that you would like self-defense only to be used in those few rapes when the attacker is unknown to the victim.
I understand that in this particular case, it is unclear what happened. Assume -- because this happens a great deal more than crazy bitches biting off menz's weenies -- that the woman in this situation was being orally raped. What was she supposed to do? Calmly talk down her attacker with his dick in her mouth?
"So, when are women allowed to defend themselves from rape?"
In the case where the man held her down and forced his dick in her mouth. (Actual physical coercion)
Or "if you dont blow me im gonna kill you in your sleep" sorta thing. (Threats)
The article is so vague that I probably shouldn't be arguing this in the first place.....
Mom TFH: I'm not saying that the lack of consent makes it right. I'm saying that the absence of physical coercion by the male invalidates the self-defense argument, making the woman's penis-biting battery.
Qwerty, I have to say that I'm outraged with your comment.
I was orally raped four years ago and, after it happened to me, I went to a friend to tell what just happened. I needed help and comfort. But, instead, guess what my friend told me? Exactly what you're saying now. That it wasn't rape! Cuz it's only a rape if the guy penetrates your vagina, right? It's only rape if you don't know the guy! It's only rape if he beats you! It's only rape if he threatens to kill you or your family!
Let me tell you something: there are many many ways a person can be forced to do something. There's physical coercion and there's psychological coercion as well. If the victim knows the person's who's assaulting her (which is what happens in most cases) you can be damn sure that psychological coercion is the most used by the rapist. And wanna know why it's so effective? Cuz everytbody will say "that's not rape! Where are her bruises? How can SHE prove she was forced into doing it? How can we know if she didn't bite his dick just because she's a bitch?".
And this culture is so fucking effective that, for a long time, I didn't have the guts to assume that I was raped. Because what happened to me was so different than the usual idea of rape I always heard of, I didn't know how to name it. I thought it was just botched sex. Now I know it was rape simply because I didn't want to do it and I was forced to do it anyway.
When I was orally raped, don't you think it crossed my mind to bite his dick as hard as I could? But I was scared and I didn't know what could happen if I did that. After I talked to my friend, I realized most people wouldn't believe me. As he didn't. He was my friend and he didn't take me seriously! Do you think strangers would?
And now, reading this at womanist-musings and reading your comment, I'm more sure than ever that I would have been blamed for what happened to me if I told anybody else.
It's a shitty society indeed.
I don't know Qwerty, but I think you're misunderstanding their comments. I think the point was not that its not rape if it isn't vaginal, or if it isn't a stranger, or anything like that. The point was that, the way the article is written, its very unclear whether the woman was raped or even claimed to be raped. The phrase "she did not want to have sex" does not necessarily mean she was raped. Did she tell her husband she didn't want to have sex and he forced her anyway? If yes, then its definitely rape. But that phrase could also be interpreted to mean that she didn't really want to have sex but agreed to anyway without indicating that she didn't want to. People do that in relationships fairly often, to please their partners. Sometimes people even volunteer to perform oral sex because they don't feel like having intercourse but they still want to make their partners feel good.
Now, I agree that in general it seems unlikely that someone would bite the genitals of someone they were having consensual sex with, but the way the article is written its very very unclear, and there are crazy unbelievable things in the news all the time.
Anyway, I don't think anyone was saying that forced oral sex, even between a husband and wife, isn't rape. They were just saying that the article does not mention rape, and doesn't give enough details to really tell.
How would we know it was rape, even if it were? Newspapers rarely report rapes as anything besides sex with some force involved. Do you really expect ever to get a fair reporting of a victim's side of the story?
This same "let's not jump to conclusions" attitude is one of the reasons that so few rapes prosecuted, even if they are reported. If someone is caught with your wallet and you say that they stole it, we jump to the conclusion that they stole it. When someone reports a rape, we, as a society, jump to the conclusion that the reporter is lying and that the sex was consensual. Why the gap? If no one had jumped to the conclusions, from all the conflicting reports of events, both the man and the woman involved should be in custody, but patriarchy lets the man off free.
The two people were very drunk. It was obvious that the woman had bitten down very hard on the man. That's a reason to take the woman into custody.
The woman didn't alledge rape. She told two conflicting stories, one which might have been the beginnings of some form of non-consensual sex, and the other where she just decided to bite him. In the absense of anyone claiming rape, and no evidence suggesting rape, do you really expect the cops to arrest him?
In the absense of anyone claiming rape, and no evidence suggesting rape,
Say you are talking to someone, a coworker, a stranger, anyone. Say that person tells you that s/he has at least one drink before going to work everyday, that s/he drinks to escape from hisser problems, that s/he drinks to relieve hangovers, that s/he drinks so much that s/he regularly blacks out and can't remember what happened while s/he was drunk. How would you respond if that person said s/he was not an alcoholic? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a rape. If a party says s/he was having sex she did not want, that's evidence suggesting rape.
do you really expect the cops to arrest him?
Well, yeah. B/c he battered her. That whole punching in the face thing? Yeah, that. Battery.
If a party says s/he was having sex she did not want, that's evidence suggesting rape.
Not necessarily. People consent to sex that they don't want all the time, especially people in long-term relationships. This doesn't mean that they were raped, it just means that they consented in order to make their partner happy, or to get something that they want, or just to get it over with so they can go to sleep. Consensual sex would be very complicated if partners that both claimed to want to have sex were required to quiz each other on their true motivations. That's not necessarily what happened here--I'd even go so far as to say that it probably isn't--but we do need to get all of the facts.
Well, yeah. B/c he battered her. That whole punching in the face thing? Yeah, that. Battery.
If a guy was going down on a woman and randomly started biting her genitalia and she kicked him away, would you want her arrested for battery? Again, Bowers might have had every right to do what she did, but the fact is we don't know that, so we can't assume it. What we know is that she harmed him, so he harmed her. That calculates as self-defense on his part. If it turns out that he harmed her first by raping her, then the calculation changes in her favor. However, that hasn't yet been proven.
The problem with your analogy is that the difference is evidence. In the case of theft, you have the wallet as evidence. A large part of why rape is so hard to prosecute is the lack of clear evidence. It's more like you claimed some guy stole your wallet and he didn't have your wallet on him. That doesn't mean he didn't steal your wallet, but with no wallet in evidence, there's no way to prove the guy stole your wallet and thefts often go unsolved for just this reason. Comparing rape with evidence-based crimes ignores why rape is often hard to prosecute.
To be clear, rape should absolutely be prosecuted, but it's important to be aware why it's legally complicated.
The phrase "she did not want to have sex" does not necessarily mean she was raped.
... the hell? ... oh, you mean like if she didn't want to have sex and she didn't have sex. Well, yeah, that would mean she wasn't raped. In this case, where she didn't want to have sex, and she was having sex, well, that's pretty much the definition of rape.
How do you figure that? People willingly do things they don't really want to do all the time. Plenty of people hate their jobs, but they still continue working. Plenty of people may not feel like having sex with their partners, but they'll often still consent for various reasons.
Except sex with one's partner? Is nothing at all like a job. You go to a job you don't like because you have rent, groceries, whatever to pay for, and the job rewards you for your work by giving you money. Sex between partners is about partners giving something to each other.
In feminist fantasy land, sure. But in reality, even consensual sex isn't always some poetic joining of souls, and a couple isn't always in the mood at the same time. Many people choose to compromise. And who says it can't be like a job? People do it to prevent an argument, to prolong their relationship, to stave off divorce, and in some cases people really do do it for the money. Your opinion of how things should be does not dictate how they are.
Except sex with one's partner? Is nothing at all like a job. You go to a job you don't like because you have rent, groceries, whatever to pay for, and the job rewards you for your work by giving you money. Sex between partners is about partners giving something to each other.
Its very common for people, especially in long term relationships, to consent to sex they don't want to have. I'd bet its even more common for someone to consent to perform oral sex partly to avoid having intercourse when they don't feel like it. "I don't feel like having sex, but I'll give you a blowjob if you want" -- just like giving someone a backrub, even though giving a backrub isn't exactly fun.
Now, I wish this article had more details, but they do not report anything about her suggesting rape.
Lots of people in LTRs, especially women, are repeatedly raped.
Was this in dispute? Or are you trying to deny the truth of the last statement by making another true statement that is simply unrelated? No one is saying "This was surely not rape!", all people are saying is, "this is an unclear situation."
What exactly does that have to do with this situation?
Bowers hasn't confirmed that she was raped ONCE, much less MULTIPLE TIMES. This is getting ridiculous. It's like the absence of details in the article is causing people to insert any details that they like.
Thank you.
I'm honestly pretty surprised at the number of thumbs up going to the comments that bluntly misconceive what I'm arguing.
It seems like you're letting your personal experience with rape cloud your vision. The commenter above said nothing about disbelieving the woman's story, nor anything about it not being rape if it's not vaginal, nor anything about how subtle coercion doesn't exist. What Qwerty is saying is that the woman's story is poorly portrayed in the article and that the wording is terribly vague. With no accusations of rape on her part it's difficult to make a well informed judgment on this case.
Yes, the difference between being forced into having sex and not wanting to have sex is that your partner agrees NOT to have sex in the latter and not in the former.
I am not sure there is a such thing as "criminally ignoring" something, but it is not up to the commenters on this thread to determine what was the initial battery. (Assault is just a threat of force, battery is the actual use of force).
The injustice is that the police officer, not the courts, determined who was acting in self defense and who was guilty of battery.
I'm not sure that the police took sides that much. They arrested the woman because they had concrete evidence she had assulted someone, and began an investigation.
(Another source for the same story) http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-bk-woman-bites-husband-in-penis-122308,0,1547730.story
The woman's story was very indistinct, and she never seems to have said she was raped. With no rape charge, what are they going to arrest the man for?
The woman was released the next day without any required bail.
If an investigation determines that they have a credible case for rape, they can always pick the man up. They have his name, address, photographs, etc.
...it is not up to the commenters on this thread to determine what was the initial battery.
Well, we all have to decide how we feel on the goings on the world. And we do that by making judgments on the facts we have at our disposal.
The injustice is that the police officer, not the courts, determined who was acting in self defense and who was guilty of battery.
While it might be nice to have an impartial court rule on every detail of every incident, I don't think our government could afford the cost. Further, the woman always has the possibility of suing her husband civilly if she was wronged. It's not the same as jail time, and there's often a cost disincentive, but at least it's there.
I see what you're saying and agree. Someone can not want to have sex and yet still consent to it--I'd even go so far to say that this is very common. If someone was mentally ill (or very drunk) pent-up resentment or simply a crazy, impulsive decision may lead them to bite during consensual fellatio. I'm not saying that this is necessarily what happened, but I don't think we should jump to conclusions when we have so few details.
"Not wanting to have sex does not justify a physical assault on your partner"
Um actually it kinda DOES.
Because, when you make somebody have sex with you against their will, that is called RAPE.
And, at least in the State of New York, you can use any force up to and including DEADLY force to stop somebody from raping you.
Biting is well within that standard.
No. Not wanting to have sex and then being forced to have sex is rape, and justifies defending yourself. Not wanting to have sex but choosing to do it anyway is not rape.
That's some twisted Philadelphia lawyer logic!
If you don't want to have sex, and somebody makes you have sex, that's rape.
Period.
And you have the moral and legal right to defend yourself - up to and including taking the rapist's life, if necessary.
Obviously, biting the jerk on the weiner would be well within that standard.
If someone makes you have sex, yes, that's rape.
If you don't want to have sex but make yourself have sex, that's no one's fault but your own.
Yes, if someone makes you have sex that's rape. If you decide to do it anyway despite not being that into it, its definitely not rape.
For example, if a sex worker has sex with a client for money, odds are she's not that turned on by the sex. But she agreed to it and was even soliciting it. If she doesn't really want to do it, does that make it rape?
As has been covered in this thread numerous times, not actively wanting to have sex does not mean that you cannot consent to sex. I don't really want a glass of water right now but if it made someone important to me happy, then I'd probably have a glass of water anyway. This doesn't mean that they forced it down my throat.
Again, this is probably not what happened, but the fact is that since we have almost no information to go on, I don't know what happened and neither do you.
Louise,
I'm a man, and I know how men are taught to think - that if we want sex, the woman in our life is supposed to have sex with us now, weather she wants to or not.
Knowing that fundamental ugly social reality, I can fill in the blanks of what happened.
I also feel bad for you if you regularly do stuff you don't want to do because it makes people you care about happy, you must have a very sad personal life!
If they really cared about you, they wouldn't make you do stuff you don't want to do!
Wait, let me get this straight.
You're a man, so you know more about men, so because there's a man involved in this situation, without any details or even a claim of rape you can determine that it was rape? It doesn't matter if you're a man or not, that's blatant misandry. Contrary to popular belief, all men are not potential rapists--no, not even the ones who aren't feminists.
And I feel bad for you if you've never cared about anyone else enough to go out of your way for them. And by the way--the entire point is that you don't tell them that you're not into it. There's more than one way to 'fake it'.
The American Family Association is boycotting PepsiCo products now because of their support for gay rights. If they keep up with the food company boycotts, the right wingers are going to starve.
Every time I skim past your comment, I read it as "the American Slut Association". Lol.
"Casualties Replace Gaza's Maternity Ward Patients" -- I'm not sure what the feminist bent on this is? It's unfortunate that these women won't be able to give birth in a hospital, but female bodies are designed to give birth without outside aid. They'll probably be OK. Dying war victims, on the other hand, have more need of medical care.
"Let's move beyond "marriage" in '09" -- I really disagree with this. I mean, yes, obviously we need to make sure that gays have basic human rights in all states, but that doesn't mean that we can't move forward in one state while a few other states are stuck in the 50's. I may be biased, since I hail from California, but I think it's important to do as much as we can for gay rights, including legalizing same-sex marriage in California. We're a very large, populous, and influential state--legalizing gay marriage gives the gay rights movement a power, a truly significant show of support, that it's never had before.
"When You Force Oral Sex You Might Get Bitten" -- I'm conflicted on this. If her husband forced her to perform fellatio against her will, then yes, she had every right to fight back. But I'm having a hard time getting her side of the story. In this article it says that she did not want to have sex, but it says it in such a way that I'm not sure if it means that he forced himself on her or if she consented but spontaneously changed her mind and bit him without warning, or even if she didn't really want to from the beginning but did consent and, again, bit him without warning. (I know, it sounds very odd, but stranger things have happened.) This is the most information I've been able to find on this issue: "The deputy said Charris Bowers gave him two versions of her side of the story, first saying she bit her husband's penis after he put it in her mouth without consent then saying she bit the organ after he walked up to her with his genitals exposed." Another troubling issue--that she's said two different things. I'm not saying that she's in the wrong here, and I know it's difficult for many victims to come right out and say "rape" at all, much less someone who's married to the perpetrator, but I do think we need more information.
I know this is all mostly negative, but I'm only replying to the ones that I have something to say about, which are generally the ones I disagree with. On the other hand, the Emma Goldman one is amazing. :)
I didn't have a "wedding planner", but if someone helping out with my wedding had told me, "You have been dead until now," I would have yelled, "You won't take me alive, Pod People!" and scurried for the door.
Seriously, is that line supposed to be creepy?
On a different note, I loved this post with Rachel Maddow and Katha Pollitt calling Rick Warren on his bullshit.
No matter how great you are. You are just one half. So there are many single parents on the world. But they are seeking ones to be happy and they so serious on __ soloparentdate.com __
Are you an advertising bot?
Anyway, I think that thinking of yourself as "just one half" is unhealthy, and I'd never date someone who had that attitude about themselves.
Yeah, I think it's fairly obvious that this is a bot. I was wondering where the helpful moderators are
The article on Michelle Obama is brilliant. That's what people should be reading and commenting on. I'm really looking forward to what a strong first lady can do in the white house.
The article on Michelle Obama is brilliant. That's what people should be reading and commenting on. I'm really looking forward to what a strong first lady can do in the white house.
"At Birth, No Difference between Male and Female Brians" -
Why would the female rats groom and lick their sons more than their daughters?
I was wondering that too. Do rats have patriarchy?
We should all write a mini-sized version of "The Second Sex" for them!
Last night I was wondering what would happen if feminists tried to bring feminism into the animal world. Like, it always pissed me off that walruses keep a harem of females around, or that chimpanzee males physically assault the female chimps to get them to have sex. However, I'm more focused on the human issue than the animal one!
Ah I was waiting for something to be posted about "Bride Wars." Every time I see those commercials, I shudder in repulsion.
Another crap movie aimed at the female demographic.