In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

One last note about sex, stories, and the whole ‘Jesus as cockblocker’ thing.

Erica

**Trigger Warning**

In regards to the post “Jesus Was Such a Cockblocker”

Let me start by saying I apologize if some of you found the language used in it triggering. I think there was an attempt to use humor to lighten a discussion of a difficult story and issues, and that humor didn’t translate well.

The author of this story is someone I know personally. She is not a monster, or a sadistic person: she was young, inexperienced, and involved in a relationship with someone she cared about while trying to negotiate their different views about sex. That doesn’t mean she didn’t make mistakes, or that what happened was ok. But she was brave enough to share her story with us.

In my experience, telling our stories, and sharing openly and honestly about our experiences is one of the most feminist acts we can do. It’s how we learn from each other, and it helps us to deconstruct the messages we’re given about who we are, who we should be, and what we should feel.

This past week I shared a number of personal stories that friends of mine submitted about their first sexual contact. Some have been funny, some have been sad. All have been courageously honest.

This particular post in question sparked a lot of extremely valuable conversation, about what is and isn’t ok, the role religion does or doesn’t play in sex, and whether or not gender roles being reversed in this situation would make a difference.

What’s particularly difficult in online conversations about these issues is that we can never really get the full story, or the broader context. We’re working with snippets and anecdotes, and evaluating them through the lens of our own experiences, beliefs and ideals — which isn’t a bad thing, certainly, but which is limiting. So I ask that as we continue to discuss this post, and as we talk about virginity and sex and experience broadly, that we not attack the character of people who have volunteered their stories. Instead, let’s talk about what these acts mean; how and where we draw lines; how gender and other identity-related power differentials come into play; and how we all negotiate sex and sexuality in different contexts and cultures.

Thank you for this discussion, thank you to all of the commenters who have also been courageously sharing their experiences, and thank you for the honor of writing for you during these past two weeks.

PS – should you want to find me outside of Feministe, I’m on Twitter, Tumblr, writing for Free Williamsburg, or The Awl. Or just email me.

76 thoughts on One last note about sex, stories, and the whole ‘Jesus as cockblocker’ thing.

  1. Sorry, but if the personal equals the political, then we absolutely *should* discuss the character AND actions of the person whose story was told.

    I didn’t really think much about the story until I read this post, then I went back to read the comments of the last post. The people who condemned the OP for pressuring her boyfriend were absolutely on target. I found it quite instructive personally that I let my eyes slide right past this reprehensible behavior … and I don’t think I would have if the genders had been reversed.

    1. Sorry, but if the personal equals the political, then we absolutely *should* discuss the character AND actions of the person whose story was told.

      I think part of Erica’s point is that we don’t know the character of the OP. We know one thing that she did, relayed in short form over the internet. So while criticizing her actions is fair game, I’m not sure it’s helpful in any way to say that she’s an evil or predatory person.

      Personally, I was squicked out by the story, because I’m always squicked out by stories where someone is coerced or sexually pressured. That’s one of the most basic tenants of my sexual ethics: Do Not Pressure. But I also believe that if we want to stop situations like the one relayed in the previous post, we have to be able to discuss honestly what happens to us as we develop our own sexual ethics and as we learn about sex and sexuality. That doesn’t mean that we should apologize or ignore bad behavior; quite the contrary. But a helpful conversation has to be able to point out sexually unethical behavior without attributing bad moral character to the person who shared the story. Obviously there are lines here — if the person was malicious or intentionally hurtful. But in the story below, we’re talking about a 17-year-old girl with very little sexual experience, who (presumably) grew up in an American culture that emphasizes the idea that Good Girls Don’t but that boys want sex all the time, but also that a woman’s most valued characteristic is her sexuality and her sexiness. I can understand how that gender-fucked attitude helped to create a situation where she felt like sex was a necessity, but was also hurt by being turned down, and responded with pressure and coercion. Don’t get me wrong: That doesn’t make it right. Whether her intentions were good or bad or just confused, it is just as harmful to Scott.

      But, in my opinion, if we really want to dig down and uproot rape culture and all the poison that goes with it, we need to be able to accurate assess our histories and actions, and we need to be able to properly situate them. We need to be able to discuss our actions and the contexts they arose in without diving people into categories of Good Sexually Ethical People and Bad Sexually Unethical People. So yes, let’s criticize and break down bad behavior where we see it; that is our feminist obligation. Let’s call out unethical conduct. But I think we can do that with some degree of nuance; I think we can realize that healthy sexual ethics are missing from the lives of a lot of people not because they’re inherently bad or unethical people, but because our cultural view of sex is so thoroughly fucked that it makes being a sexually ethical person challenging; sexual ethics require affirmative commitments and actions and knowledge that just may not have been readily available to a girl who is just out of high school. Again, I don’t want to be unclear: That is not the same thing as saying that the OP’s actions were ok or acceptable. That is not me saying that we shouldn’t criticize the story and the actions therein. But I think Erica’s point is that we can talk about ethical issues and consent and pressure in productive ways, and that it becomes less productive when we assume that one thing a person did at 17 means that they, as a person, are unethical or immoral or malicious.

  2. She is not a monster, or a sadistic person: she was young, inexperienced, and involved in a relationship with someone she cared about while trying to negotiate their different views about sex.

    This is all true for a great majority of males who acquaintance-rape. I appreciate the story and believe it has value, but we shouldn’t act as though she is less guilty of the same thing we would condemn and male in her position for.

  5. Any apology that includes the word ‘IF’ is either insincere or poorly worded.

    Saying “I’m sorry if you’re offended” places the responsibility for the offense on the offended party.

    Saying “I’m sorry that I offended you,” takes responsibility for your own actions and words.

    “Let me start by saying I apologize if some of you found the language used in it triggering.”

    This? The way that it’s written is that you’re sorry WE found it triggering. The way that it’s written doesn’t say YOU’RE sorry YOU posted something potentially triggering without a proper warning.

    I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your word choice was poor, and not deliberate. A lot of people don’t give much thought to the importance of word choice in apologies.

  6. Well, in this case, I don’t think it’s too much to question the OP’s character, considering the way the story was written. I found no remorse whatsoever from the OP – in fact, the way I read the story, she continues to belittle Scott. “In an Iowa sort of way” indeed.

  7. This is all true for a great majority of males who acquaintance-rape. I appreciate the story and believe it has value, but we shouldn’t act as though she is less guilty of the same thing we would condemn and male in her position for.

    There are actually few monsters out there in the world. Most rapists are what we would consider “nice” people in other situations. They will smile when they see a baby, open doors for people, do favors for friends when asked. This case is no different. What this woman did was despicable, and the lack of remorse in the story is the same.

    I do agree that you cannot in all circumstances simply reverse male and female narrators and hold men and women to the same standards as if we live in a cultural vacuum. At the same time, consent is still meaningful for males, and women can still very much rape men or coerce them into sex, and that behavior is still despicable, even with given the way men and women are raised differently in a patriarchal society. It doesn’t mean he was fearing for his life. It doesn’t mean he would have been slut-shamed. It doesn’t mean people would say he was “asking for it” or that he is ruining the reputation of an athlete who brings in lots of money for the school (I wish women’s sports teams got as much attention as men’s teams did).

    Nevertheless, she did pressure him and coerce him for months, and that behavior is not acceptable. She’s probably, like all rapists, a perfectly nice person otherwise. Bad behavior in one respect does not a monster make. But to excuse the bad behavior one shows no remorse over because the person is otherwise a nice person is a disservice to all whose consent has been disregarded.

  8. Um…we question the moral character of people ALL the time based on snippets, anecdotes, newspaper articles, etc. We don’t delve into the “well, maybe he was abused himself, and grew up with a narrative of beating someone makes you manly” when we hear about abusive husbands. We don’t write, “condemn the behavior, but not the person” or “it’s complicated, and you don’t know them personally” in those situations, so I’m not sure why we have to do this in this situation. Because she’s a friend of a blogger? Plenty of other rapists and abusers have friends too. And dismissing criticisms of them with “he’s such a good friend/father/neighbor etc” is what we call enabling rape culture.

    If we REALLY want to weed out rape culture? We need to not make excuses. Period. No…well she was 17 and inexperienced (also, she was a college freshman…more like 18 or 19), she didn’t know better. We need to not give passes based on the patriarchy and messages we’ve internalized. Yes, I’m sure we’ve all internalized really messed messages, and have probably done negative or hurtful things to ourselves and others based on those messages. I don’t think anyone is saying lock her up and throw away the key, but what she did was predatory. And from how she told the story, it’s obvious she learned nothing from it. She felt no remorse for sexually assaulting someone and then telling all her friends he was a lousy lay. I don’t think anyone is say she should be sent to prison, but she needs to be called out on it in honest terms, even if it hurts her (or the OP’s) feelings, because frankly, in this situation, her feelings are not the most important thing here.

  9. @Michael: If you find it okay to question the OP’s character, based on actions (improper and unethical actions) she took as a girl – 17 is really quite young, even when compared to 20 or 22 – then I’m afraid you’ll have to condemn everyone here to being a bad person of bad character.

    At one time or another, we have all taken actions that we regret, and using your logic, then everyone is a bad person for taking unethical or hurtful actions, and cannot grow up from those actions. As to belittling Scott, well, I’m still pissed at people who hurt me many years ago. She might be angry for something we don’t even know about – because being a victim doesn’t make someone blameless (which is different from saying that being a victim is his fault – it isn’t) in every other aspect of their lives. And, frankly, the moment we start requiring people to apologize for every stupid thing they did, every unethical or hurtful action, for every day of their lives, and condemn them if they don’t – well, I don’t hear you apologizing for whatever I’m sure you’ve done (and I’m not going to list my flaws here for everyone to peruse, thanks so much).

    Example: The jerks I’m angry at – they shoved me to the ground and knocked out one of my teeth (and risked doing much worse), then had the temerity to blame the incident on me to both teachers and their parents (mine didn’t buy it). That doesn’t mean that, at some point, I didn’t hurt them (I’m sure I did, and probably don’t remember it, since it happened when I was about 10, though I’m certain it wasn’t a physical harm because my parents weren’t sued).

  10. If you find it okay to question the OP’s character, based on actions (improper and unethical actions) she took as a girl – 17 is really quite young, even when compared to 20 or 22 – then I’m afraid you’ll have to condemn everyone here to being a bad person of bad character.

    If you’re sharing something bad you did when you were young, it makes sense for the narrative to include that you know what you did was wrong, and that you have learned from that mistake.

    The tone of the story was not “Look at this horrible thing I did when I was young and didn’t know any better. I have much more respect for people’s sexual boundaries and consent.” The tone of the story was more “Ha ha. Those silly religious people, like this old boyfriend I used to have, for example…”

  12. If you find it okay to question the OP’s character, based on actions (improper and unethical actions) she took as a girl – 17 is really quite young, even when compared to 20 or 22 – then I’m afraid you’ll have to condemn everyone here to being a bad person of bad character.

    One of the most important lessons anyone can learn is to judge a person’s character by the actions they perform. Action is the meat of the matter; words can be false and/or used to deflect attention away from a person’s actions. People tell you who they are via their actions.

    Also, 17 isn’t very young. Seventeen-year-olds who commit serious crimes can be (and often are) charged as adults. Not everyone subscribes to extended-childhood practices (considering…well, some people as basically children on up until the age of 25 or more, and usually when it comes down to holding someone accountable for his or her actions).

    As for a road map, I think the one learned in kindergarten (or even before) or early elementary school about non-bullying behavior was sufficient to follow.

  13. We’ve all done things in our lives that we regret. One of the reasons I am a Christian is because I honestly believe that if you express regret for the bad things you’ve done (and mean it), you are forgiven. Your sins are wiped away. And forgiving ourselves first is the first step. We can’t begin to forgive anyone else until we do that.

  14. A. Y. Siu: The tone of the story was not

    Let me introduce you to the fallacy of the tone argument.

    I’ve said, but it’s worth saying again, that I don’t support or sympathise with OP’s pressuring Scott to have sex when he didn’t want to. But it sounds like it was a messy and painful situation to have been in, from my reading of it, for both young people – and I can sympathise with that. To say that you would have more sympathy for OP if she used the right “tone” to tell you about the situation, only suggests to me that you have no sympathy at all for her.

  15. It’s so unbelievably offensive to suggest that the “tone”argument was meant to protect someone who told a story about a sketchy, potentially not-fully-consensual sexual experience as if the sketchy potential lack of consent was a fucking punchline.

  16. I wasn’t using the tone argument. I was describing the content of the piece and the attitude displayed within, which was not one of remorse.

    Please save your Philosophy 101 for a relevant situation.

  17. Solara:

    @Michael: If you find it okay to question the OP’s character, based on actions (improper and unethical actions) she took as a girl – 17 is really quite young, even when compared to 20 or 22 – then I’m afraid you’ll have to condemn everyone here to being a bad person of bad character.

    I’m sure I speak for a lot of people here when I say that I did not coerce anyone into sex when I was 17.

  18. If you will finish reading the comment, you will find that I meant we all have done things we regret.

  19. I did read the rest of your comment, and it’s horrid that your reaction to this story is “Well, Scott was probably mean to her, and she shouldn’t be expected to feel sorry about raping him.”

  20. Seconded on apologies including “IF” not washing. Peoples’ hurt and anger is not hypothetical when they are outright saying they are hurt and angry. And I think most people don’t dislike the lack of a trigger warning nearly so much as a description of unrepentant sexual coercion used in a discussion about the victim’s beliefs and choices.

  21. If you will finish reading the comment, you will find that I meant we all have done things we regret.

    Yeah, as a high school student I did stuff like cheat on homework or gossip about other girls behind their backs. Give my parents lots of crap. Pick on my younger siblings. And I generally regretted it (sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.)

    But I never coerced someone into having sex and then failed to regret it. That’s not one of those easily shrugged off “oh, kids will be kids” things. That’s one of those “hmm, someone didn’t respect sexual boundaries as a teenager and does not respect sexual boundaries now” things, which are far less harmless and innocent.

    Frankly, to bring this full circle back to Christianity, rape and sexual coercion are things I feel absolutely comfortable “casting the first stone” about.

  22. I am genuinely willing to acknowledge that young people make mistakes and that in the maze that is navigating a healthy sexuality in an unhealthy culture, people do things that hurt one another. I am willing to acknowledge that many, many people have done things that, in retrospect, probably made the other person uncomfortable or tread a very thin line of ethical sexual behavior.

    But this isn’t about what a person did when they were young, or the hurtful mistakes that so many of us make as we figure out our sexuality.

    This is about the appropriateness of telling a “funny” story where the punchline is all about how incredibly square the guy ways, and what a bad lay he was, when the rest of the story is about how he was pressured/badgered into a sexual relationship he repeatedly said he did not want.

    Whether or not someone is a good person, or whether they would do the same thing again now, it is *totally* appropriate to say that this story, as it was told, was triggering and indicative a really fucked up attitude towards someone’s right to control their own body. It is totally *inappropriate* for a feminist blog to post such a story as a harmless example of the variety of women’s sexual experiences.

  23. As people have mentioned above, there should be no ‘IF’ when you know that we were offended. Either apologise, or refuse to do so.

    There is nothing funny about a narrative that puts down another human being.

    The scope of online conversation is limited, certainly. That’s a good reason to exclude anything that gives the wrong impression about a person. Both the woman who told you the story, and the man involved.

    That post was not about an experience, it was about a person – It started with where he was brought up, and ended with his marriage and children, with an implication that that was all he wanted to do (Happy, Iowa style). Talking about a person in a derogatory manner is not feminism. There are a few other nice words to describe it, though.

    The rest of the post was so patronizing, its not worth commenting upon!

  25. If the author of the story had acknowledged that what she did was wrong and had shown the slightest bit of remorse or regret for pressuring someone into sex then I would not be as disturbed and upset. As is, the story serves only to mock and belittle someone who was pressured into having sex when they very clearly did not want to . There’s nothing “brave” about telling a story like that and I feel completely justified in judging the character of someone who would do so.

    I don’t care how inexperienced someone is (a freshman in college is not a child) or what their gender is or how nice their friends find them to be. When someone ignores and dismisses a very clear “no” then they have committed a rape. Consensual sex involves enthusiastic consent from both partners. Wearing someone down until they just can’t say no anymore is not the same thing.

    And the fact that women are taught that men always want sex doesn’t justify anything. I would never let a male rapist hide behind the “men are taught to be sexually assertive” argument. Yes there are harmful cultural messages about sex, but at the end of the day people have to take full responsibility for their own actions. It is basic human decency to acknowledge that other people’s feelings are valid and that their choices about their own body should be respected. It’s just not that complicated or confusing.

  26. I appreciate that there is a follow up here, but I see this as a lazy apology for what was, I maintain, a lazy post. I am all for sharing narratives and being candid about errors in judgment and developmental challenges in understanding and setting boundaries when it comes to sexual experiences. But – what the other commenter said above (and that was misinterpreted as a comment about “tone”) is true – the original post was not FRAMED as being about a non-consensual act of pressuing someone into sex, it was framed as being about sexual repression as influenced by religious beliefs / traditions. It was not Erica who had the experience with “Scott”, or perhaps even her choice of words in describing it, but I believe that Erica did miss the problematic aspect of the behavior – or it would have received different treatment in the post than it did and would not have been framed in the way that it was. Or perhaps, if I am mistaken, this could be explained – what was the rationale for framing the anecdote as being about religious repression, when it had this incredibly problematic aspect to it that was left completely unaddressed? Which many readers have found triggering, and not because they are looking for reasons to be offended, or enjoy “piling on” the guest blogger. Thank you.

  27. annalouise: It’s so unbelievably offensive to suggest that the “tone”argument was meant to protect someone who told a story about a sketchy, potentially not-fully-consensual sexual experience as if the sketchy potential lack of consent was a fucking punchline.

    I’m sorry I offended you. I didn’t intend to be offensive.

    But I do object to people being judged on their “tone”, especially in an Internet context where “tone” almost invariably means “what I think of the way you said it”.

  28. But I do object to people being judged on their “tone”, especially in an Internet context where “tone” almost invariably means “what I think of the way you said it”.

    Are you honestly trying to tell me the story is one of regret over coercing someone into sex and not one of making fun of her religious boyfriend?

    It seems you decided to latch onto word tone without even considering all what I was saying. I was not making a tone argument. A tone argument says “I disregard what you actually said in favor of the tone with which you said it.” The content of the story is a “humorous” relation of a religious boyfriend, not a remorseful confession of having raped someone.

  29. But okay. I’m reminding myself of the buzz some people get on making themselves feel morally superior to others, which I wrote a post about recently, and which I know from long-term experience leads only to long frustrating arguments about kitten-burning or similiar.

    You can’t literally throw stones at this girl, much though it appears you would like to, so I really have no reason to get in your way. Enjoy.

  30. I would find this follow-up a lot easier to tolerate if the original post had included any – ANY – indication that both Erica and the OP were clearly aware of the wrongness of this action. There was absolutely no condemnation going on in the post – which, whatever, fine let’s not condemn the person, but condemn the action, hell to the yeah. Neither of the people in the post did, and frankly, I find that inexcusable.

    And, also, holy shit, it is not a tone argument to say “some things should not be made light of, and sexually coercing someone is one of those things.” That isn’t about tone, that’s about respecting the fact that you did something incredibly serious and wrong, and are frankly trying to get yourself off the hook – the OP, again, took NO responsibility for her actions.

    Geez, I am reluctant about posting this, but honestly the more I think about this, the more genuinely upset I get. There’s nothing brave about telling a story of sexual coercion in which you DON’T ACKNOWLEDGE that you sexually coerced someone.

    Here is what I would have liked to have seen: acknowledgement that the original post should not have been put up without explicit discussion, even briefly, of how “problematic” (euphemism, seriously) it was.

  31. Can I confess to feeling a bit uncomfortable in this discussion having been on both sides of this relationship? Yeah, it was stupid and wrong.

  32. Isabel – thank you.

    How many of you defending the OP/her friend would be defending a 17 year-old boy who coerced a girlfriend into sex (after breaking her down and ignoring obvious pleas for help like pretending not to know about condoms) by saying “Aww bless, he was only 17 though, and ignorant, and like… a victim of rape culture but anyway LOL christians!

    The double-standard here is sickening. What if it was a hetero person coercing a gay person into sex, nagging and whining “You’ll like it, don’t knock it till you’ve tried it, but why are you rejecting meeeee?”. There’d be outrage, but that happens all the time too. Are we to excuse the ‘poor young victims’ of straight culture, who believe that the right penis or vagina can ‘fix’ someone?

    Ugh. Saying “I’m sorry you were offended by my offensive post you uptight jerkwad prudes” is no apology at all.

  33. I want to second Isabel. Especially this:

    And, also, holy shit, it is not a tone argument to say “some things should not be made light of, and sexually coercing someone is one of those things.”

    YES.

    I am saying this as someone who has, in the past, out of ignorance and selfishness, pressured someone who wasn’t ready for sex. We were both young and stupid, yes, but afterward when he told me he hadn’t really been ready I knew immediately that I had done something wrong. I hadn’t slowed down, really listened to his signals. I mistook his lack of no for a “yes” and that was very wrong. It was years ago but I am still very sorry for what I did and cannot possibly imagine in any scenario treating it like the punchline of a joke, or talking about him in a condescending way just because he was raised “in an Iowa sort of way” (he wasn’t from Iowa but was from another state that is also often mocked, largely due to class privilege).

    My point here is that I’ve been on both sides of this, like CBrachyrhynchos, but what I’m uncomfortable with is the idea that anyone could defend or laud this type of behavior. We all fuck up. But when we do, we need to acknowledge that and apologize for it. Not make a joke out of it. Not say “I’m sorry IF you felt upset.” Really admit that we were wrong.

    There has been none of that, on Erica’s or the OP’s part. And that is what disgusts me the most about this.

  34. The previous comment thread has gotten buried under a lot of arguments about hypotheticals and unknown quantities, so it’s getting difficult to follow, but this apology hardly seems to cover what people are actually having trouble with. The problem is not with Scott’s ex-girlfriend – she did not share this story with us. Conversation was certainly sparked, but its value has been diminished by the lack of clarity in the original post and the lack of insight demonstrated by Erica in using that particular anecdote in that manner. There’s more hurt and confusion than there is genuine discourse, yet somehow this seems to have been the point? It was a half-assed post to begin with, and it continues to be so.

    I am a big proponent of story-telling, but it’s ridiculous to suggest that story-telling is inherently virtuous, and that it can’t be a hurtful oppressive action. There’s a responsibility in story-telling too.

  35. One thing I’ve noticed in this thread is the question of context—whether or not we can discuss or implicate the character of the poster or subject since we are only encountering an excerpt of their full experience. While no poster or commenter should be obliged to include very personal or private information, especially if they aren’t up for the irrelevant judgment or character assassination of others on the thread, what I’m taking from this is that participants need to be very conscious and thoughtful about how best to frame and contextualize their argument or anecdote—in this case, the lack of an appropriate set-up by Erica was a detriment to the post. And, in this case, the author’s failure to acknowledge or explore her responsibility and harm done to Scott can and should be taken seriously on this blog. The author’s failure to convey the content in a respectful, sensitive way is a failure to convey her understanding of the wrong she did. If Scott ‘deserved’ to be made fun of for totally other reasons, that context should have been included or the snide comments about Iowa should have been edited out. As readers, we realize we can’t see the whole picture, and I think we do keep that in mind. But it’s a transaction of understanding, and so there is necessarily pressure on the authors to ensure they are making thoughtful writerly decisions as to prefacing topics or inclusion/exclusion of pertinent information.

  36. And this is what makes me the most sad and angry about the story: its assumption that the whole thing is funny. It’s not funny.

    This ain’t The Awl. I don’t mind snark, in its proper place. But this isn’t the place.

  37. While I like to give the benefit of the doubt, the original post leaves no room to do so, by its own design. So, if I were to make excuses or explanations (youth, regret, mistakes, culture) I would be demonstrating an unwilliingness to listen to the writer of the anecdote, who has used her own words to communicate her actions as the kind that are unacceptable and inexcusable. None of us should put words in her mouth. She did not say she regretted the incident. In fact, the implications of the pressuring, the ‘nagging’ were flippantly minimized by the words that are there. And the issues of consent and sexual ethics carry high enough stakes that they merit being discussed on their own terms and free of apologetics, that as others have said, do not and can not excuse the behavior.

  38. Erica,

    I enjoy reading your posts. I find your writing style to be engaging and humorous — quite my fave of the guest bloggers. Also, your emphasis on sex and sexuality has encouraged me to volunteer at my local Planned Parenthood, starting Wednesday. =) Props to you for keeping the convo going about sex, even in the face of all of this hostility (which, I think, kind of proves that the convo must go on).

    “In my experience, telling our stories, and sharing openly and honestly about our experiences is one of the most feminist acts we can do. It’s how we learn from each other, and it helps us to deconstruct the messages we’re given about who we are, who we should be, and what we should feel.” LOVE THIS.

    Like it or not, situations like the one mentioned are far from rare. Where can we safely talk about this behavior and dissect it intellectually if not from a feminist perspective — without the judgment we all so adamantly oppose???

  39. Note to editors: Can we please get a trigger warning on this post and the original post it references?

  40. Here is what I would have liked to have seen: acknowledgement that the original post should not have been put up without explicit discussion, even briefly, of how “problematic” (euphemism, seriously) it was.

    Yes, I think it would have been appropriate to keep this story but re-frame it, and make a much better post. I think that would have been totally doable, too. Hell, it could have been tied into some sort of “religion makes even nice people into potential rapists” thesis or whatever (not saying I think that’s true, necessarily.) But if the thesis is that Christianity fucks up sexual relationships, this is a fantastic example of that…just not in the way the OP discusses at all. Both parties seem to be victims in one way or another (Scott most obviously, but I’ll allow that the narrator might have been too) and it’s ridiculous to pretend only the woman was screwed over while completely ignoring the potential damage to the other party.

    I wouldn’t frame this as comedy, I would frame it as a tragedy: two young stupid people doing bad things for bad reasons but maybe with good intentions, and it doesn’t go very well. They get hurt, they hurt each other, and it all boils down to the f’ed up culture of playing out adult Christian sexual hangups on teenage bodies.

  41. RE: convexed

    In fact, the implications of the pressuring, the ‘nagging’ were flippantly minimized by the words that are there

    Flippancy can be used for various narrative effects. It can be used to minimize one’s own misdeeds, or it can be used to hide serious feelings of powerlessness.

    “Nagging” could mean “emotional manipulation” or it could mean “trying to have an honest and open conversation about sex with a partner who was actively trying to prevent that conversation from happening.” From the narrative posted, it’s unclear which of these “nagging” represents. Without additional information, there’s really no way to tell. Manipulating someone into sex is obviously grossly unethical, but I am not convinced that challenging a Christian to have open conversations about sexuality counts as manipulating someone into having sex.

  42. @JDP
    I agree with you that words can resonate differently, and that writers can move terms and tones strategically for narrative affect. However, in the original post, and in the context of the storytelling that is happening in this series of posts, the emphasis has been consistently on sincerity, with occasional snark, but has not been on deploying treatments of narrative in order to complicate or trouble the face value. So, unless I am shown a compelling reason to believe the author is being artful or veiled, I’m taking these selected moments in a manner consistent to the way the entire piece is presented.
    Second, look at ‘nagging’ in context:
    “After months of pressuring and nagging, Scott finally relented”
    When we are provided, by the author, with terms of ‘pressure’ that leads to ‘relenting’, it is perfectly clear that what is happening may be open and honest, in the sense of saying what it wants, but is certainly not respectful, ethical, sensitive, or responsive to Scott’s misgivings and preferences. This kind of honesty is still manipulation, because it twists the other person until they have ‘relented’, not enthusiastically agreed.
    Choosing to read ‘nagging’ in the original post, and my term ‘flippantly’ as being something other seems to me like being too generous, in the face of all the evidence present in the text, in the author’s own language, that demands our criticality.

  43. Also, the ‘nagging’ did not lead to a *conversation* about sex, in the post.
    “Scott finally relented, and we agreed to have sex”.

    Seems to me, from what is here, that the nagging and pressuring was the conversation, not the means to a conversation. Please, all we have to go by is what is in the text. By refusing to engage the text as it is, as it has been given to us, we are not doing any service to all the posters who write thoughtfully and with awareness—should we second-guess every word every poster uses, as if they can’t be trusted to present themselves in a way that seems accurate to themselves? I don’t see how stretching for alternate possibilities and literary interpretations of what has been deliberately composed to fit a forum that operates on straight-forward terms is useful for this or future discussions.

  44. I think it might be a mistake to speculate about what we can’t know about this person and her exact actions around this sexual experience, but what we *can* know is how that experience and this post presented. It was not presented as a story about how the complicated myths and pressures around sex can lead to someone, young and well-meaning, hurting someone they claim to care about.

    It was instead presented as a story about how one person’s religiously motivated desire not to have sex “ruined” another person’s desire to have sex with them. That is not okay.

    How can I trust someone to truly have open or honest conversations about sex when the most basic level of respect: that a person can say “no” to sex with someone at any time for any reason without being pressured or ridiculed for it, is ignored?

    How can this blog be a safe place for people to talk about their feelings around sex when it is *still* the openly expressed opinion of some commentators that there is something wrong with a person who says “I don’t believe in sex outside of marriage”.

  45. I think it might be a mistake to speculate about what we can’t know about this person and her exact actions around this sexual experience, but what we *can* know is how that experience and this post presented. It was not presented as a story about how the complicated myths and pressures around sex can lead to someone, young and well-meaning, hurting someone they claim to care about.

    It was instead presented as a story about how one person’s religiously motivated desire not to have sex “ruined” another person’s desire to have sex with them. That is not okay.

    How can I trust someone to truly have open or honest conversations about sex when the most basic level of respect: that a person can say “no” to sex with someone at any time for any reason without being pressured or ridiculed for it, is ignored?

    How can this blog be a safe place for people to talk about their feelings around sex when it is *still* the openly expressed opinion of some commentators that there is something wrong with a person who says “I don’t believe in sex outside of marriage”.

  46. Are people serious with this “we cannot tell from the original post” thing. Dude. Normally, seriously, comment threads and I do not get along, but:

    IF you are telling a story that can be interpreted as sexual coercion, you NEED TO RECKON WITH THAT. If you genuinely believe there was some sort of extenuating circumstances, you need to make those EXTREMELY CLEAR – and if the OP thought she was doing that, she clearly does not know what “extenuating” means.

    No: I do not want to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who “may” have sexually coerced someone, because guess what: if that is not what happened, it is their RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that we know that. The fact that the OP does not seem to be aware of how her post could have been interpreted – i.e., as a story of sexual coercion – indicates a really fucking distressingly high bar for considering a sexual act unethical. Frankly: if you read that story and do not see at least heavily implied sexual coercion, you need to reconsider your definition of and standard for consent. If there was “additional information” that would have clarified that “nagging” meant “mature and reasonable conversation” (which, frankly, from someone who acted shocked that a male version didn’t last long and proceeded to mock him for both that and his later endeavors from a REALLY gross perspective, I do not expect), then it was HER RESPONSIBILITY to give us that information. This is a case of “better safe than COMING ACROSS LIKE A BORDERLINE RAPIST.”

    Again, holy shit, if I were writing an account that I realized could come across like that, I would go OUT OF MY WAY to clarify that that was not the case. Because guess what: if you DON’T, you run the risk of essentially implying to sexual coercion/assault victims, “hey guess what, I don’t consider this an issue worth dealing with carefully.”

    Flippancy can be used for various narrative effects. It can be used to minimize one’s own misdeeds, or it can be used to hide serious feelings of powerlessness.

    When flippancy gives the impression – or even runs the risk of giving the impression, with something THIS SERIOUS, to an audience that has several members who are open about being victims of sexual “misconduct” to say the LEAST – of minimizing one’s own misdeeds, with the side effect of minimizing SOMEONE ELSE’S PAIN OVER A FUCKING GRAVE OFFENSIVE, then that is your cue NOT TO BE FLIPPANT. Your desire to be “cute,” or “humorous,” or minimize your own feelings of powerlessness – sorry, in this instance, they do not outweigh the importance of making sure your audience knows that YOU know how fucking serious this is. If you DO know – you have an obligation to get that across, because the alternative is minimizing the severity of sexual coercion. If you DON’T know – well, holy fuck are you ever wrong, and deserve to be called out on this.

    Where can we safely talk about this behavior and dissect it intellectually if not from a feminist perspective — without the judgment we all so adamantly oppose???

    First up: in places with a clear trigger warning, because MANY PEOPLE absolutely CANNOT discuss this intellectually and should not be asked to, ever, under any circumstances. In places where you say, “if you are not able to discuss sexual assault/coercion/etc. intellectually, please, for your own wellness, stay away.” And second: in places where it is clear that everyone knows what the story is about. It was not clear here. That is inexcusable, whether as a result of genuine ignorance or as a result of irresponsible decisions.

    As many people have already implored others to do: go on. Reverse the genders. Picture a boy “nagging” a girl who had decided not to have sex, because he did not respect her reasons not to, nor did he respect that her decisions about her body are, yes, sorry, more important than his need to get off. Is it reasonable to demand, in a sense, sex in an adult relationship? In a sense, yes: if you feel you cannot go without, you owe it to the other person to have a gentle, nonjudgmental discussion about the issue, and if they still say no, either dump them or deal, because nagging, for months, until they cave because it’s fucking easier than saying no, over and over, to someone they thought respected them – that is so fucking wrong. Picture, once more, a guy doing that to a girl. If you cannot see how deeply, deeply wrong that is… fuck, whatever, I honestly can’t be bothered to talk to you at this point in my life; it’s not something I have the stamina for, arguing with people who minimize the harm and wrongness of sexual coercion.

  47. Wow. I’ve been following this thread (and the original one) for the past few days, and by this point, my head really hurts.

    I am totally on board with the sexual coercion = very, seriously bad, camp.

    Still, the dog pile is a little overwhelming. I’d prefer if erica would be a little more vocal about the [very valid] criticism going on here. Especially the point of the non-apology.

    Before the follow-up post, I was a little on the fence about whether or not it was necessary to have SO MANY comments about how wrong this situations is. Obviously, it’s wrong, right? I’d really like to see some more nuanced discussion about WHY this kind of shit happens and how it plays out in different situations (like Jill said). I’ve done a lot wrong, and I think that going over and over the wrongness of something can be unproductive; however, as others have said, I wish that erica and/or (and this would be awesome) the OP of the “Scott” story would come out with a real apology, acknowledging the real gravity of this story. I think that most of the outrage here comes less from the story and more from the flippant nature in which it was told, and then the way the criticisms were “appreciated,” but not directly addressed. I’m disappointed that the follow up was more defensive than straight forward.

    I think there was a lot of potential in these threads. I also think it’s time for me to move on because the subject has been mishandled to such a degree as to make it almost impossible to salvage.

  48. The telling of a story like that would more rightly be considered “courageously honest” if the grown woman who knows better but was once a 17-year-old who *didn’t* know better actually acknowledged that what she did waaay back when was wrong. I can see that what was intended as light and humorous didn’t come across that way; I’m not making nasty assumptions this grown woman. I do think she was really brave to tell her story, and I am grateful to her.

    I think the story was immensely valuable, actually. I am glad to have read it and I think it illustrated some really important things.

    What disturbed me was the lack of remorse. I don’t demand that everyone flog themselves for all eternity for things they did when they were young and foolish — I did some horrible, horrible things, oh god, that make me cringe to recall — but I do ask that people acknowledge when they have done wrong if they are telling a story about a time that they did wrong.

    I am willing to credit that the woman who was the girl in the story knows that what she did was not right, but the fact is that in the actual telling of the story, that did not come through. If I had been the poster (Erica), I would have made sure that at least *I* acknowledged it was problematic, and made sure to put a disclaimer on it.

    I don’t understand. I’m not being antagonistic, I’m just asking. Erica, *did* it occur to you that others would be troubled by the story? It’s basically a description of a quasi-consensual (at best) sexual encounter where the instigator not only didn’t seem to grok that she did something awful at the time (even if it’s forgivable, given how young she was), but doesn’t acknowledge it now, in the retelling, and then goes on to belittle both his performance and his pretty obviously troubled feelings afterward.

    That’s pretty awful.

    See, I’ve been in that position, and while I wouldn’t call what happened to me rape, it still makes me feel sick, dirty, and stupid to think about it, and I wish I could go back in time and tell myself to just bail and not have anything to do with that person.

    I agree that attacking the character of a grown woman for something she did as a young woman is silly. The story teller also couldn’t have known how the story would be framed; perhaps if she knew that we were all going to see it, she would have chosen her words differently. I have no idea. I hope so. But I wish that you had then acknowledged the really obvious problem, Erica, which is that what is on one side a story about awkward sex with a person whose morality seems naive and unsophisticated to many people, apparently including the narrator, is, on the other side, a story about compromising yourself because another person badgers you into it, or a story about finding yourself poorly armed to fend off repeated unwanted advances, or a story about one person taking advantage of another person’s caring for them to get their way.

    I understand when providing space for others to tell their stories, it’s important to get out of the way and let them do that, and when presenting them for others to discuss honestly, it’s a good idea not to say a whole lot about them so you don’t bias anything, but in this case, the content clearly upset a lot of folks, and I think that was pretty predictably gonna happen because this is a story a lot of us know way, way too well to be comfortable reading about someone apparently taking having once been on the pushy side so lightly. If the guy who pressured me were to use that story to talk about what it was like to be with a really really inexperienced girl, and how silly it was that my lack of sexual experience meant I had poor boundaries, and golly, wasn’t it quaint that before and after I was sick to my stomach, and that I grew up and went on to get married and am now really happy in an Oklahoma sort of way . . . well, I’d just say, “Dude, I remember what you did, and it hurt me then and it sometimes hurts me now and while I might forgive you someday and consider it a slightly embarrassing but essentially harmless experience, it would help a lot if you at least acknowledged that you did something shitty to me, even if you didn’t mean to.” I can’t help but wonder how the guy in this story feels about the encounter now, so long after. I can’t help but wonder if he feels like me.

    It’s very, very important to be able to identify and acknowledge bad sexual behavior, even in a story told bravely, even about an event long in the past. For trigger warnings, if nothing else. Good heavens.

  49. annalouise: How can this blog be a safe place for people to talk about their feelings around sex when it is *still* the openly expressed opinion of some commentators that there is something wrong with a person who says “I don’t believe in sex outside of marriage”.

    I believe (while I’m open to different interpretations, still, this is how I see marriage) that marriage is properly entered into for life: a lifelong, loving committment in which two people intend to be with and for each other, sexually and romantically and all other possible ways, for the rest of their lives.

    Obviously: nothing in life is perfect, human relationships least of all, and I don’t in the least intend to judge someone else’s view of marriage, though I do think equal partnership and mutual understanding and consent are showstoppers – two people ought both to want the same kind of thing out of their marriage and understand what it is.

    Because that is my view of marriage, the corollary is that it is very wrong for two people who intend to get married to refrain from having sex before they do – if you’re planning to have sex with this one person and no one else for the rest of your lives, it’s irresponsible and foolish NOT to have sex with them before you make that final committment. Obviously a different view of marriage will lead to different views of sex before marriage, but having sex with your intended partner is at least as important as sitting down and having the money talk and the children talk an the job talk.

    How can this blog be a safe place for me to talk about my feelings about sex and marriage, if I’m not allowed to express my opinion that, according to my view of marriage, it’s wrong to enter into marriage for the purpose of having sex with your partner?

  50. And – you know, it’s fairly obvious the corollary of the POV that says “I don’t believe in sex outside marriage” is “you must get married in order to have sex”. Which is what leads, equally obviously, to high divorce rates as people who got married in order to have sex, get divorced once they discover this isn’t a sound basis for a good marriage.

  51. Wow. I didn’t realize that this post had so many critics. I just want to say that while I don’t feel the same way most people do here, I understand both points of view (the writer’s, and the critics’). I’m actually a little surprised to see it compared to female rape. Does nobody understand what heterosexual sex is anymore? Without male consent, it can’t occur. At all. Ever. Male rape is called sodomy – comparable to female rape. Male rape by a WOMAN is something I’ve never ever heard a man complain about. I have very grave doubts about whether Scott feels like a female victim of rape would.

    Hell, I know so many men who have had sex when they didn’t particularly want to. Do they think about it and feel miserable/depressed/used? NO! Because more often than not, it ended in an orgasm. How many women can say that about sex they didn’t particularly want to have?

    I’m not defending the OP’s actions (although I’m tempted to, just to irritate the mob), I’m saying that I understand how a girl her age would have been frustrated with Scott. Would it have been more ethical for her to leave him and have sex with someone more willing? Can you imagine the names she would be called? But oh well, women can’t win anyway. Not even on a feminist blog :D.

  52. Erica,

    Consider, for a moment, me writing a blog post about the stories I heard while living in the Middle East with a title such as “Mohammad was such a cockblocker” – and the consternation that would rightfully follow. I’m not a devoted Christian, but that shit ain’t hilarious – and coupled with the story of Scott it’s even less hilarious – because it crosses over into serious unkindness. Just because Christianity is more familiar – and much more powerful in your part of the world – doesn’t make all of this cool, especially if you are trying to reach people who might benefit from your point of view. Imagine some Christian girl (or boy) who’s trying to deal with the stuff that you are talking about; do you want to have a conversation, or do you want to shove her away?

    It’s almost as if there are certain groups of people – the Scotts of the world – who can have this sort of stuff happen to them, and have it be “OK.” Because of the way they were raised, the choices they made? I don’t subscribe to Scott’s philosophy at all – it’s alien to me, even as a religious person (here’s another important point, imho – religious people are not the Borg) – but that doesn’t make what happened OK, and the person in your story, though obviously having thought about it for a while, is still kinda saying that it was OK. Because his bedspread was funny. Because the sex was bad. Because he was from Iowa. I’m not a fan of being overly didactic – I like humour, dark humour in particular, and I don’t think people should be required to, like, rend their clothes and beat their breasts and wail as they recount stories like this one, but based on the text in front of me, I am only able to entertain one solid interpretation.

    Somebody,

    An *orgasm* makes everything OK? You’re goddamn kidding me – right?

  53. Somebody:

    Firstly: Now you have at least heard one man complain about being raped by a woman. I have and I complain about it because it ain’t right! It wasn’t her right to take that from me.

    Secondly: You are quite ignorant. Believe me, heterosexual sex can happen without the male consent. Since you seem sincere in your ignorance I’ll iterate some ways (not an exhaustive list):
    * Adult women can and do commit statutory rape against underage boys.
    * Women can rape men through unwilling (anal or oral) penetration of men with fingers or objects.
    * Women can rape men through performing oral sex on them without their consent.
    * Women can rape men by threatening/coercing them to penetrate them.
    * Women can rape men when the man is asleep or unconscious.

    And to ward of any stupid assertions: No, an erection is NOT consent! No more than stiff nipples are.

    Thirdly: It’s not unheard of for female victims of rape to experience both lubrication and orgasms during the rape. According to your statements that makes it less of an rape and in my view that makes you an asshole. As a sidenote which really shouldn’t matter to the severity of the situation I can tell you that I faked an orgasm to get out of my situation.

    Fourthly: Yes, it would have been way more ethical of her to leave him and have sex with someone else more willing. Do you really think that the likelyhood of her being called a slut (which of course is wrong) justifies her actions? Is that any better that the guy saying he coerced his girlfriend to have sex with him because if he didn’t get laid his friends would call him a pussy/wimp whatever? I sure thinks that neither is ok in any way?

    Fifthly: I find it scary that you think this is about “winning”.

  54. @Somebody: Physical arousal is not the same as consent, FFS. I strongly suggest that you spend a lot of time educating yourself about why ‘women can’t rape men’ is false, and about the cultural narratives around sex (that have already been discussed in this post and the previous one, for starters) which might lead to you ‘never having heard a man complain’ about being raped by a woman. You might also like to look up the definition of rape, which includes nonconsensual sexual contact, and does not necessarily have to involve PIV intercourse or an orgasm. Although by labelling the commenters here as a ‘mob’ you’ve already outed yourself as a troll, so I guess that enlightenment isn’t your aim here.

  55. Because more often than not, it ended in an orgasm. How many women can say that about sex they didn’t particularly want to have?

    Plenty. They won’t say it to you, though. Congratulations, you’ve brought the conversation to a new level of obscenity.

    Erica:

    Let me start by saying I apologize if some of you found the language used in it triggering.

    No apologies to the rest of us, huh? Noted.

    Feminist reactions are acceptable and understandable to the extent they can be categorized and pitied as an uncontrollable reflex response to prior trauma. Fucking noted.

    For the record, Erica, happy-go-lucky tales of unrepentant sexual bullying do not trigger me. I have that good fortune. They merely offend and disgust me.

  56. Does nobody understand what heterosexual sex is anymore? Without male consent, it can’t occur. At all. Ever.

    This is absolutely not true, and you should be ashamed of yourself for helping spread such a pernicious myth.

  57. Does nobody understand what heterosexual sex is anymore? Without male consent, it can’t occur. At all. Ever. Male rape is called sodomy – comparable to female rape. Male rape by a WOMAN is something I’ve never ever heard a man complain about.

    NO.

    This thread seriously needs a trigger warning, if shit like that is going to be flying around.

    Also, from Cara’s blog (triggering for rape apologism and discussion of sexual violence): Male Rape Victims and Why We Need To Care

    Also, my apologies for the unclosed tag on my previous comment.

  58. Speaking of trigger warnings. When we discussed rape in high school, the teacher’s example of heterosexual female rape was a specific, real, recent case involving several girls, one boy, physical force, and some foreign objects.

    But my teacher didn’t mention if the boy reported any genital pleasure, so I guess we’ll never know if it was really rape, eh, “Somebody”?

  59. “Male rape by a WOMAN is something I’ve never ever heard a man complain about. I have very grave doubts about whether Scott feels like a female victim of rape would.”

    One of the things that has consistently run through my mind in both these threads is this: we have no way of knowing if Scott is heterosexual. We only have one side of the story; a biased one at that. The description of his actions, including possibly using the church as a shield for his own doubts, to marrying and having enough children to start his own sports team, is quite possibly the narrative of a gay man living, as they say, on the down-low.

    And that’s the problem with coercing someone into unwanted sex. You can really never know what their personal motivation is; and since none of us has a right to someone else’s body, that not-knowing should be treated with respect. Anything else is a trespass, whether physical or psychological.

  60. “How can this blog be a safe place for me to talk about my feelings about sex and marriage, if I’m not allowed to express my opinion that, according to my view of marriage, it’s wrong to enter into marriage for the purpose of having sex with your partner?”

    Wrong for you, maybe not wrong for others, and for what it’s worth that’s a pretty judgmental way of phrasing it (“for the purpose of having sex”). I know some extremely conservative people who waited until they married to have sex, but they did not marry simply because they wanted to have sex. I don’t know anybody who did.

    But even if that is WHY some people are getting married, solely because they want to boink and their religion forbids it otherwise, so long as both parties are equal to the agreement and there is no gendered economic or social coercion going on (I’m thinking the “temporary” marriages allowed in certain interpretations of Islam, which often amount in practice to prostitution or sanctioned rape), why do you care? What harm is being done to anyone?

    There has been SO MUCH effort to reduce slut-shaming, saying that individual women (and men) should not be held to some universal standard. Making people understand that someone is not “wrong” for choosing to have premarital sex, or practice BDSM, or have multiple partners, or have anal sex, or have sex with someone who has an STI, or what have you.

    And that should include the choices people make to NOT have anal sex, to NOT practice BDSM, to NOT have multiple partners, or to NOT have premarital sex.

    I accept that it would be foolish for you to marry someone without having sex with them. Please also accept that there are people out there who would vastly prefer to be sexually incompatible with their spouse than have premarital sex; their decision is entitled to the same respect and consideration as yours, and for them it would be foolish TO have premarital sex.

    And comparing having sex to talking about children or money is just ridiculous, frankly. People are perfectly able to talk about sex and fully know each other’s thoughts on the subject without sticking body parts in each other. There’s no magical knowledge which is gained by doing that, other than the knowledge of what a person is like in bed, and if that is not a major consideration – if you’re willing to take them regardless of whether it’s good or not, and are willing to be celibate in the marriage if it really doesn’t work out sexually – then why have that talk?

    Some people think it’s absolutely ridiculous to get married without meeting the extended family, because it’s important to them that they get along, but that’s not true for everybody. Some people will only marry a wealthy person; some people will only marry an attractive person; some people will only marry someone of a particular ethnic or cultural background; and some people will only marry someone who’s good in bed (by their definition). Regardless, it’s not your call to make.

    And saying you need a “safe space” to judge and ridicule other people for their sexual habits…it’s so “out there” I don’t even know how to respond.

  61. “There’s no magical knowledge which is gained by doing that, other than the knowledge of what a person is like in bed, and if that is not a major consideration – if you’re willing to take them regardless of whether it’s good or not, and are willing to be celibate in the marriage if it really doesn’t work out sexually – then why have that talk?”

    That should be edited to say, “then why not just have the talk?”

    Blah.

  62. Hey Jesurgislac, Maybe you don’t belong on a feminist site then.

    I for one would feel safer and more comfortable if you never darkened these doors again since you feel so damn safe expressing your “personal opinion” that someone who approaches their sexuality differently from you is so wrong that the wrongness of their sexual identity is more important than that person’s right not to be raped.

    There is nothing feminist or okay or humane about saying “it’s your opinion” that someone shouldn’t have their own boundaries around when and under what circumstances they want to have sex. It’s disgusting.

  63. You know, it’s really NOT brave or insightful or whatever to joke about coercing men into sex. It’s actually really, really common and really, really stale. “Don’t drop the soap,” anyone? Male sexual assault victims are nearly ALWAYS treated as one big joke.

    And it’s that scornful “humor” which helps drive us further and further into silence, because we are constantly told that our assaults don’t hurt us or even, as happened right the goddamn fuck above, that some of us are indeed UNRAPEABLE. Nope! Not silencing at all, that!

    And yeah, this shit is triggering. Probably not just for the men, too, ’cause god knows it’s not enough to just care about male sexual assault survivors.

  64. “Does nobody understand what heterosexual sex is anymore? Without male consent, it can’t occur. At all. Ever.”

    Hey, look! Women can be rape apologists, too! I guess some people think that’s progress.

    I would like a world with less rape, coercion and sexual bullying. that’s what I would call progress.

    “Somebody,” please refrain from having partnered sex until you understand that the body’s reaction is not the same as the person’s consent because we are not our bodies.

    Then please fucking apologize to every rape survivor who has ever felt shame over a physical reaction that was in no way consent.

    Now.

    I said RIGHT FUCKING NOW!

  65. Seriously, what does it take to get a damn trigger warning on this post and the other post? An Act of Parliament/Congress? A plea from someone who’s being triggered by this shit? I can’t do the former, but as to the latter…

    PLEASE PUT A TRIGGER WARNING ON THIS POST AND THE OTHER ONE NOW!

    Shit. Feminism sinks lower and lower with rape apologism as long as the victim is a man/male and thus we can frame it as a woman sharing her experience and how dare we question a woman sharing her experience. Maybe next Erica can share the story of a pedophilic woman. I swear if it weren’t for the fact that I think cis feminists need to be confronted by more trans women feminists to maybe pay any attention whatsoever I would have already disowned feminism by now. This is such utter crap.

  66. Somebody, I think you are the one who doesn’t understand heterosexual sex. A man doesn’t decide to have sex and then give himself an erection. The erection is involuntary. And if you are saying that involuntary arousal makes it not count as rape, you have invalidated a lot of women’s experiences, probably including those of some of the commenters here.

  67. I’m shaking with disgust over Somebody’s comment. I never thought I’d see such ignorance in a feminist space.

  68. I know a survivor. (I know several. This is about one in particular.)

    When she was raped, she apparently showed signs of physical pleasure; she apparently orgasmed. I say “apparently” because she blacked out – the experience was so traumatic that she has no memory of it – but the reactions of her rapist afterwards as well as her awareness of how her body responds to contact lead her to believe that.

    Congratulations, Somebody: you have just attempted to erase her. Not just the male rape victims you intended to erase.

  69. “it’s wrong to enter into marriage for the purpose of having sex with your partner?”

    Well that at least explains your adamant defense of the girl that started all of this mess.

    I am not at all a fan of the save sex for marriage mentality. I am not even a fan of the marriage mentality, period. I don’t get why anyone would want to engage in marriage, must less marry someone that they haven’t even had sex with. But I don’t get to declare those activities “wrong”. I can say that I don’t agree with them or understand them. I can discuss why I find these attitudes problematic. But, for the love of the Goddess, I do not get to declare it “wrong” for another person to not have sex until they are married. And I damn sure do not get to try to talk someone out of their desire to save sex until marriage just because I don’t agree with it. That’s just not my place and it isn’t anyone else’s either.

    RE: Somebody.

    Seriously, trigger warning. I’m not even going to bother explaining why that entire comment was so extremely fucked-up. But this thread needs a serious trigger warning.

  70. The OP admitted to coercing a guy into sex. Coercing someone into sex means that you have power over that person. This is wrong. Coercive sex is considered rape in almost every state in the US. She raped someone. And now because she is a friend of a moderator, or because she is a woman it’s okay? and this piece of bs pisses me as a rape victim off:
    because being a victim doesn’t make someone blameless (which is different from saying that being a victim is his fault – it isn’t) in every other aspect of their lives. And, frankly, the moment we start requiring people to apologize for every stupid thing they did, every unethical or hurtful action, for every day of their lives, and condemn them if they don’t – well, I don’t hear you apologizing for whatever I’m sure you’ve done (and I’m not going to list my flaws here for everyone to peruse, thanks so much)

    That is victim blaming. Yes there is definitely a weird cultural power balance when a woman rapes a man. But that doesn’t stop the fact that this woman raped someone and has shown no remorse for her actions, then comes onto a feminist website writes about it, and other people blame him because “he must have done something wrong”. This if you didn’t know is exactly what the rest of us feel like. Because it’s not possible for a woman to be raped unless she did something wrong. The OP raped someone and shows no remorse for her actions. Then commenters have decided that since it was a woman raping a man that he must have done something to deserve it. That pisses me off and it shocks me that the moderators have done nothing to address that problem

  71. following that comment, I’m sorry Isabel I did not see the moderator label next to your comment until later down and after I submitted my comment

  72. A person is both their body and their mind. While often the body and mind communicate well, it is absolutely possible for the mind/self to reject sex that the body does not reject. When we honor and respect ourselves and others, we recognize the rights of their body, and the preferences, desires, and rights of their intangible person.
    To suggest that if the physical tissues and systems respond to advances that violate the mind/self of the individual than the individual cannot have been raped, or cannot have minded being raped, is abhorrent.
    If we believe here that women have a life and mind that is in, above, and beyond their physical bodies, and the limitations on those bodies, than we must believe that men also have desires and fears and interests that are not enslaved to the limitations or automatic functions of the body. To do otherwise is to undermine the human values that are the foundation of feminism or any other movement for progress and equality.

  73. The above was in response to Somebody’s comment. Sorry, I composed it earlier and didn’t refresh screen before submit. Lots of others have in the meantime said it well and more timely.

  74. Also, I want to ask, responding to a claim made be Somebody:

    Does it matter if Scott might not ‘feel like a female victim of rape would’? Isn’t it sufficient if he feels like a male victim of rape? Isn’t it sufficient that he has been victimized, regardless of our gender-readings? I’m bothered by the idea that if a rape victim’s suffering (percieved by us) is not equivalent to our perception of what another rape victim’s suffering may have been, than we should care proportionately less, or we should hold the offender proportionately less responsible.

  75. Hey all,

    I understand the post was triggering for some people, and I apologize for that. We’ve added a trigger warning to the beginning of both posts.

    I appreciate the discussion that’s gone on, and it’s definitely given me a lot to reflect on. The intention of the post was never to ridicule anyone’s religion, choice not to have sex, or to make light of sexual coercion, and I am genuinely sorry if that is the message that came across in my writing.

    At this point, this conversation has devolved passed the point of productivity, and for that reason we’ll be shutting it down. Thank you everyone again for all you’ve contributed.

    — Erica

Comments are currently closed.