Spillover #29

49 thoughts on Spillover #29

1. Admin note: just changed the author attribution on this post from Caperton to the Moderator Team, because then all of us get the notifications of comments left on this thread.

   Carry on; as you were. *salutes*

2. So. Continuing from the other thread.

   I’ve seen the ‘rape is not sex’ trope a bunch on feminist blogs, and honestly, I don’t get it. I agree that it’s obnoxious rape apologia when news outlets cover cases of rape by calling them things like ‘forced sex’ or ‘drugged in order to have sex’ instead of rape; absolutely, I’m on board there.

   What seems totally linguistically and logically bankrupt is to try to argue rape literally isn’t a type of sex. I mean, how do you define rape, if it’s not sex without consent? Try, please- define rape without using the word sex (or a synonym like intercourse). Or alternatively, give me your definition of sex itself, please? I’m not going to play the dictionary game; find me any reasonably common or even obscure definition of sex, such that sex absent consent is a literal oxymoron. I don’t think you can.

   I hate, hate, hate these bullshit political linguistic games, speaking as a survivor. It makes me feel claustrophobic and condescended to and like you think the only way you can convince people is by trying to program the language in order to make it impossible to disagree, Newspeak-style. I mean, you’re telling me nobody forced me to have sex against my will? The fact that I had issues surrounding sex afterwards is weird and inexplicable, because obviously my experience had nothing to do with sex? Fuck. That. Noise.

   Either your issues stand or fall on their own merits. Trying to redefine common words to mean something totally different in an attempt to prevent the possibility of someone disagreeing with you, even if done in service of progressive ideals that I actually agree with, is so creepy that just makes me want to get the fuck away from the person doing it.

   Sorry this post got progressively more ranty. But because of my own experiences, it really, really, really gets to me.

   1. And if your reply to this consists, in totality, of:

      Yeah, but what you’re missing is that rape isn’t sex

      then please just don’t bother. This hits too close to home for me to engage with barely-veiled trolling.

      If you actually want to defend that proposition, or answer the questions I asked in my post, go for it.

   2. I think that, although I agree with you, I can see where the opposite side(?) is coming from, semantically.

      Rape is not sex – can be approached from the angle that it’s only sex if it’s consensual. If I went with this, I’d argue that rape consists of sexual acts that are non-consensual (in the same way that murder consists of death-inducing acts that, unlike assisted suicide, are non-consensual).

      So, going by this logic, if someone is speaking of “sex that is forced”, they are obviously speaking of rape, since sex (unlike sexual acts) cannot be non-consensual, since it’s definitionally consensual. Does that make sense?

      (Personally, I think that “rape is not sex” as a phrase applies when people insist on referring to rape as sex, like those Cosby headlines. I also think that rape is not about sex, although it can provide sexual pleasure or satisfaction for the rapist – it is primarily about an exercise of power over another body that employs sexual acts in the process. I don’t think I’m being super clear but I think that makes sense?)

   3. On a purely logical basis I see your point, but I will never, ever accept that the common formulation in news stories (such as “Mr. X is accused of repeatedly having sex with his 13-year old daughter”) or rapists’ first person accounts (“first I drugged her and then I had sex with her”) is anything other than grossly and horrifyingly wrong. Wholly apart from the fact that “rape” is obviously the appropriate verb to use, if you insist on referring to sex, it’s the “having” that makes it sound consensual, because that’s what “having sex” implies in common usage. So using it to describe rape is a way of softening and minimizing the event. If you insist on using the word sex, then say “sexually assaulted” or use some other formulation that makes clear that the sexual acts were inflicted without consent.

      1. I will never, ever accept that the common formulation in news stories

         Agreed, 100%. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough about that in my opening.

         Rape is not sex – can be approached from the angle that it’s only sex if it’s consensual. If I went with this, I’d argue that rape consists of sexual acts that are non-consensual (in the same way that murder consists of death-inducing acts that, unlike assisted suicide, are non-consensual).

         That seems a bit convoluted, but I do understand your point. Wouldn’t this be analogous to saying ‘murder is not killing?’

         I also think that rape is not about sex, although it can provide sexual pleasure or satisfaction for the rapist – it is primarily about an exercise of power over another body that employs sexual acts in the process.

         I 100% agree with the rest of your post, but I think I might disagree here; motivations for rape vary pretty widely, and I think for a lot of rapists it really is a desire for sex coupled with a willingness to ignore the inability to consent. Someone who has sex with a too-drunk partner might not be a sexual sadist who gets off on power and control- they might just be an asshole who cares more about getting laid than other human beings.

         One reason I think it’s worth being careful here is the failure of the Duluth program, which is the most-used domestic violence counseling program in the country, and was informed almost entirely by second-wave feminism. Specifically, it’s core tenant is that:

         domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners

         Unfortunately, it simply doesn’t work; in reality, reasons for battering are diverse and don’t fit neatly into a single theory (feminist or otherwise). In fact, Ellen Pence herself, the woman who founded the program, wrote thsat ignoring issues like anger management, substance abuse, etc. actually means the program actually wasn’t able to achieve it’s goal. I bring this up here because I hear echos of that rhetoric in ‘rapists don’t rape for sex, they do it for power and control,’ which I think is similarly problematic.

      2. I think for a lot of rapists it really is a desire for sex coupled with a willingness to ignore the inability to consent.

         Would it be more accurate to say rape is not about power so much as it is about entitlement? Entitlement to another person’s body?

      3. Would it be more accurate to say rape is not about power so much as it is about entitlement? Entitlement to another person’s body?

         I guess it depends on what we mean by ‘about.’ That jumps out to me as a really vague phrase, “X is about Y.” Maybe we should ditch the formulation entirely and just say “X is motivated by Y,” “X has the impact of Y,” “X is a proximate cause of Y,” etc.

      4. That seems a bit convoluted, but I do understand your point. Wouldn’t this be analogous to saying ‘murder is not killing?’

         I’m thinking about this. One difference here is that we have terms for intentional and unintentional killing (like murder vs manslaughter) – does a word exist for consensual sex? I can’t think of one.

3. I’m just shocked that you, Ludlow, pick one sentence out of someone’s post and are just soooooooo confused as to how it makes sense! Shocked I tell you. And equally shocked that you just haaaaate it when some feminists say X. Because that’s so unlike you.

   / end sarcasm lest you be ever so confused by it.

   You got her fucking point. Period. That’s what matters for shits sake.

   1. Thanks, pheeno. I appreciate the backup from you and everyone else.

      I will reiterate, you cannot “have sex with” someone who cannot consent. You can force sex on them, sexually assault them, enact your power fantasies via sex. But you cannot HAVE SEX WITH.

      Saying that rape is the same as having sex is like saying strangulation is the same as hugging. Yes, they do indeed share features, but they’re not coterminous, and you’re being a butt, ludlow.

      It’s not goddamned rocket surgery and I’m not some linguistic warlock trying to magic away reality. I’m talking about how the media talks about rape, how we all sometimes talk about rape, and “having sex with” is not something that belongs as a description of rape.

      1. It’s not goddamned rocket surgery and I’m not some linguistic warlock trying to magic away reality. I’m talking about how the media talks about rape, how we all sometimes talk about rape, and “having sex with” is not something that belongs as a description of rape.

         Did you read my original response to you? The first line is:

         So I agree with you that they should call it rape…

         And the third line of my response here is:

         I agree that it’s obnoxious rape apologia when news outlets cover cases of rape by calling them things like ‘forced sex’ or ‘drugged in order to have sex’ instead of rape; absolutely, I’m on board there.

         There’s no conflict there. I simply was addressing the broader ‘rape is not sex’ trope that I see all the time, not just in your post, but all over the feminist blogosphere.

         Saying that rape is the same as having sex is like saying strangulation is the same as hugging. Yes, they do indeed share features, but they’re not coterminous, and you’re being a butt, ludlow.

         I didn’t say rape is the same as having sex, I said rape is a type of sex. If we’re going to talk about language and word choice, it’s important to accurately represent said words.

         Also, hugging someone without their consent isn’t called strangulation, it’s called hugging someone without their consent. Your analogy falls apart pretty fast.

4. Oh and I’M also speaking as a survivor so stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Your contrarian shit is getting old real fast.

   1. Your contrarian shit is getting old real fast.

      Ah, and we’re back to pheeno’s arbitrary suspicion that I disagree with her not because of my actual, ya know, beliefs, but out of a perverse desire to… something? Win at the internet?

      Maybe it’d be easier if you could give me a list of Approved Positions and just let me know what an acceptable percentage of deviation is?

      1. Psh, you wish you were that important. You post frequently how you see X on other feminist sites or the feminist blogosphere that you ( shock!!)disapprove of in order to rant after quoting someone else, tying it in as if that’s what they said too. It’s old. You don’t agree with some feminist ” tropes”. No shit. You say it often enough, on enough threads. No one here said it, so get the fuck off it. Go gripe about it on the boards you read it on. Quit bringing your shit with someone else over here and derailing the fuck out of threads with it.

5. By the by, no one here so far has tried to claim rape -literally- isn’t a type of sex. You pulled that right out of your own ass and ran with it. So fucking stop it. Unless and until I say hey Ludlow, rape has literally nothing to do with rape, then go argue an imaginary claim with someone else, somewhere else.

   1. By the by, no one here so far has tried to claim rape -literally- isn’t a type of sex.

      I specifically said I was addressing a broader feminist trope, based on its inclusion in a post that I otherwise agreed with. The idea that SEX IS NOT RAPE AND RAPE IS NOT SEX comes up all the time in spaces like this. I didn’t make it up.

      1. HI all. I’ve commented off and on here. I’ve been in lurk mode for a year or so, but I am delurking for this. Ludlow, the reason that that feminist trope is used so much is because it is accurate, real, and based on the lived experiences of survivors of rape.

         I was in an abusive relationship for many years. My “partner” forced sexual acts on me, as well as being emotionally abusive. WE DID NOT HAVE SEX. By equating rape with “a type of sex”, you are diminishing rape and the harm and impact it has on its survivors. You are reducing rape to “oh well, I had sex I didn’t particularly like”, which is pretty disgusting. You are also dismissing the control aspect of rape. Yes my partner got horny, but the sexual acts he did to me, and the accompanying emotional abuse, was his means of controlling me, by keeping me frightened and dependent on him.

         I’m sitting here shaking as I write this. I guess if this was the first time that you engaged here, I’d find it un-fucking-believable that you can be so dismissive of rape, but you have a pattern of being intentionally and obtusely contrarian, so I guess it’s to be expected from you. In this case, it really fucking hurts and I’m getting sick of it.

         I’m in total support of what pheeno and Donna have had to say on this thread.

      2. Ludlow, the reason that that feminist trope is used so much is because it is accurate, real, and based on the lived experiences of survivors of rape.

         Cool, so my experiences don’t count, because reasons, but yours do, because reasons. Makes sense.

         By equating rape with “a type of sex”, you are diminishing rape and the harm and impact it has on its survivors. You are reducing rape to “oh well, I had sex I didn’t particularly like”, which is pretty disgusting.

         That’s an utterly unfounded assertion based on, as far as I can tell, absolutely nothing. I don’t think my rape was ‘just sex I didn’t like’, it was rape. It was also sex without consent.

         You are also dismissing the control aspect of rape. Yes my partner got horny, but the sexual acts he did to me, and the accompanying emotional abuse, was his means of controlling me, by keeping me frightened and dependent on him.

         I believe you. I also don’t think your experience is the only experience anyone has ever had. Why do I have to take your experiences seriously but you don’t owe me the same thing?

         I’m sitting here shaking as I write this. I guess if this was the first time that you engaged here, I’d find it un-fucking-believable that you can be so dismissive of rape,

         Fuck you. You are genuinely trash for writing this to a fucking survivor. I can’t even comprehend the malignant narcissism that must go into what you just wrote. Fuck you.

      3. I mean the fact that you think defining rape as ‘sex without consent’ means I’m dismissive of rape is pretty solid proof that you’re so caught up in semantic games that you’ve totally fucking lost sight of reality. And then the fact you used that to go on to suggest I don’t think getting raped is a big deal- who knows, maybe I fucking liked it, right?- makes you just an absolutely contemptible waste of carbon.

      4. I seriously think we need a giraffe here. GallingGalla managed to point out what she thought were the implications of your argument without calling you human trash or a waste of oxygen. You can do the same; I think that’s kind of a baseline of community courtesy. I’m not participating in the semantic discussion, but your level of vitriol with Galla and everyone else here is just off the charts and I don’t get it and I really don’t think it’s appropriate, but it sure does manage to shut discussions down pretty fast.

         [Thank you for sending a moderator alert ~ Moderator Team]

      5. pretty solid proof that you’re so caught up in semantic games that you’ve totally fucking lost sight of reality.”

         Hahahahahahahahaha

         Pot meet kettle.

      6. Ludlow, I know “tone” arguments are generally frowned upon, but I think your comments in this thread are one case where they’re appropriate. (And I’m speaking as someone who usually appreciates your participation here.)

         There’s something about the way you tend to argue that’s just so belligerent and contrarian — and so prone to “straw manning” by attacking arguments that nobody here is actually making — that you can come across as being incredibly hostile, even though your substantive positions may not be so different from anyone else’s in the end. (Like your agreement with me that “having sex” is an awful way to talk about rape. But I would never have gotten the impression that you would agree with me about that from what you wrote originally.)

         And your nuclear attack on Galla went way beyond anything she said to you. That was completely uncalled for.

         A lot of people here are survivors of rape and/or sexual assault. That doesn’t render you immune from criticism if you come across as hostile to other survivors.

         It can’t always simply be a case of other people misinterpreting what you say.

      7. OK, I’ll take a step back from Feminist for a week or so and think about what you’re saying. I really respect your commentary so I’m taking what you’re saying here seriously.

         That said, at this particular moment, I do feel like I was totally justified in the level of vitriol I used when responding to the idea that I didn’t think being raped was that big a deal.

6. Ludlow, you still aren’t listening to me. I am objecting particularly and solely to the phrase “have sex with.” I never said rape did not involve sexual acts. You are the one who decided to use me as the occasion upon which to enact your objection to a feminist “rape isn’t sex” trope that I DID NOT EMPLOY.

   You are putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head and you need to fucking stop.

   For someone so interested in how language works, you seem to have real reading comprehension problems, and it’s super-irritating.

   Or you can change your nitpicking from critiquing my (not) saying the thing you object to to fine-tooth-combing my analogies that don’t work for you. Because shifting the goalposts really moves your non-point forward. Go nuts.

   What is it that you want out of this interchange? Do you want me to admit that rape involves sex? Because I never said it didn’t. Do you want me to bow down in despair because you think my analogy falls apart? Because that’s not going to happen. Do you want to bug me by willfully misunderstanding what I have said? Because if so, mission accomplished and you can move on with your day. But if your goal is not any of the above, then you are failing, since the above things are all you have accomplished.

   1. No, you’re not understanding that I’m not disagreeing with that objection. I’m disagree with a trope that I see come up a lot, an example of which I saw in your post. I agree “have sex with” is wrong.

      1. I’ve repeatedly said that I agree media outlets shouldn’t use “have sex with” instead of “rape.” So I don’t know why you’re insisting on pretending I didn’t.

   2. SHE DOESN’T CARE THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMETHING SHE DIDN’T FUCKING SAY. Clue the fuck in for God’s sake.

7. What do you want from me? I never employed the trope you laid at my doorstep. I told you that I didn’t use that trope, and instead of saying, “Yeah, sorry about that” you double down and nitpick my fucking analogies.

   If you are agreeing with me, then you need to apologize for misunderstanding me in the first place, and for using me as the platform for you to launch an objection to a trope I did not employ. Is the word “sorry” just too hard for you? Because if you agree with me why are you still being argumentative? What’s the point? Do I have to concede that you have a point in your arguing against a thing I never said? If so, that’s just fucked up.

   You have used me as a tool for you to make a point against an argument I never made. If you don’t see how that’s messed up, then you truly are toxic human being.

   I DID NOT USE THE TROPE YOU OBJECT TO. I. DID. NOT. USE. IT. Lay the fuck off.

   1. Lay the fuck off.

      I’m not attacking you. I told you I agreed with your main point, and then discussed how I disliked a common trope which I saw embedded in your post. And yeah, it was a shitty analogy. Go back to Defcon 5, please.

      1. It wasn’t embedded in my post. I didn’t say it. What is your fucking problem?

      2. This is you: “So, yeah, it wasn’t actually in the original post, but I’ll keep ignoring that fact and saying that I saw it embedded in the original post. I’ll say that over and over, then I’ll act like the OP is crazy for getting upset be being wrongly accused of saying something she didn’t, and tell her she’s being irrational. I’ll just keep putting words in her mouth and then when she gets irritated by that I’ll be all ‘What? What?’ and that won’t be invasive or nasty at all! I’m the BEST!”

8. So, Ellen Pao has ‘resigned’ as CEO of reddit. I don’t care what she did, getting ousted after a massive torrent of racism and sexism that dominated the site for weeks (much of it literally led by Dylann Roof supporters), and the fact that she was supposed to be the poster child for sex discrimination lawsuits on Silicon Valley which poisoned the well for her, is an unmitigated disaster. The same can be said for the reddit community. I’m not trying to erase the many good people on reddit but I don’t see how anyone can have faith in it as currently constituted.

   1. Sorry, I meant to post this in the open thread.

   2. Reddit doesn’t really make sense to talk about as a singular entity, IMO. I mean, it has some of the best feminist groups on the Internet, as well as lots of groups for people who are just, like, really into sharing tips on trimming bonsai. It also has subreddits that are despicably hateful. I’m not sure they can be said to form a real “community” any more than you can talk about the “internet community,” as if Feministe and the Manosphere are part of the same group. Reddit really is just a cross-section of the Internet, with all that implies.

      I also think it’s worth noting that most of the outrage was over the firing of a female employee. Some people made racist and sexist attacks on Pao, which should absolutely be condemned, but the reason the real revolt started- with hundreds of subreddits closing down- had everything to do with how Reddit was being run, and not a ton do with Pao’s identities. A ton of the moderators who shot down their subreddits were women (and moderators skew much more heavily female than the general reddit userbase, which is problematic insofar as they’re doing a huge amount of unpaid labor, but also interesting); obviously that doesn’t prove anything, but it’s at least suggestive that more is going on here than “oh noes, a woman took over.”

      Just my two cents as someone who loves r/games, r/ama, r/feminism, r/gifts, r/askwomen, r/abrathatfits, r/history, and a bunch of others.

      1. Ok, I lied I’m back. So where was the popular petition for reinstating that female employee? Has she been reinstated? No. The popular petition which garnered over 200,000 signatures was for the firing of the female CEO, even though there’s no link connecting her with the firing of said employee besides the fact that she’s CEO, literally. Ellen Pao is out and that will quiet the uprising, because the woman CEO who filed the sexual discrimination lawsuit and tried to ban r/fatpeoplehate was the target from the beginning.

9. That makes sense to a certain extent ludlow22, I’m a reddit user too! Otherwise I wouldn’t care about this, obviously. But there’s definitely a ‘culture’ among some of the more popular default subs. r/feminism is definitely a problematic sub, as it has a pattern of inexplicably banning people and unfeminist content getting upvoted.

   1. Huh, news to me- can you expand a bit? I certainly know all the Traditional Feminist Debates go on there- sex positive v. sex critical being the big one- but I’ve never seen straight-up antifeminist arguments being widely supported (of course, everything will always get some upvotes). They’re also quite good at shutting down the TERF-y stuff, in my (cis) experience.

      1. Well I don’t want to reveal my identity on there. But during GamerGate, someone repeating rumor based personal attacks on Zoe Quinn was getting a lot of support. I was banned with no explanation a couple of times (although to be fair, I just create a sock account and come back, but it’s still annoying) I would check out r/wherearethefeminists

      2. Wow, it looks like one of the mods has a huge issue with religion- about 80% of those posts seem to be from people who were banned for defending Islam, Judaism, or Christianity as not inherently misogynistic. It’s kinda weird, because I actually agree with that mod’s position re: religion, but his behavior in shutting down what’s supposed to be an open forum is really hypocritical. Especially since really gross misogynistic/transphobic/racist stuff gets a rebuttal or downvotes, but only this particular pet peeve results in an actual ban.

         Thanks for letting me know.

      3. But during GamerGate, someone repeating rumor based personal attacks on Zoe Quinn was getting a lot of support.

         If I remember this correctly, it was actually a really contentious discussion over whether our commitment to believing survivors meant we should take accusations of abuse against Quinn seriously, which is a little more nuanced (IMO).

      4. No it wasn’t just that ludlow22, it was literally people posting hour long videos attacking Quinn. And people aren’t banned from r/feminism for no reason just for posting pro-religious stuff. I’ve been banned from there twice and I’ve never posted anything pro religious. And frankly you seem more invested in defending everything that happens on reddit and minimizing the fact that racist and sexist posts were net upvoted by thousands of people on the front page and that’s a fucking problem. I’m done with this discussion. I’m leaving this here in case anyone else is interested:

         https://www.reddit.com/r/SRSDiscussion/comments/3cxzz4/in_which_arthur_chu_briefly_comes_back_to_reddit/

      5. No it wasn’t just that ludlow22, it was literally people posting hour long videos attacking Quinn. And people aren’t banned from r/feminism for no reason just for posting pro-religious stuff. I’ve been banned from there twice and I’ve never posted anything pro religious.

         I believe you, and that sucks. I just didn’t know. Thank you for educating me.

         And frankly you seem more invested in defending everything that happens on reddit and minimizing the fact that racist and sexist posts were net upvoted by thousands of people on the front page and that’s a fucking problem.

         I agree it’s a huge problem, and I have no interest in defending it. I’m sorry I came off that way, I really am.

   2. But there’s definitely a ‘culture’ among some of the more popular default subs.

      Oh, this I agree with. I love reddit for the little communities I’ve found there, but the massive default subs with 1M+ subscribers definitely have some cultural commonalities. It’s actually really hard to pin down, politically, though; I guess ‘mainstream moderate white liberalism, with a dash of techno-libertarianism’ would be my best attempt. It’s interesting because it’s a culture that aligns with most substantive policy issues social justice activists care about (anti-police violence, pro-choice, etc.) but with a strong disdain for the language and theory of social justice.

      There are exceptions even here, though; places like r/AskHistorians spend a huge amount of time debunking racist/colonialist ideas that a lot of people absorbed in their early educations.

      1. Incidentally, I don’t mean to imply that linguistic issues aren’t ‘substantive;’ I obviously believe pretty strongly that we should push back against the use of gendered insults, rape jokes, etc.

10. Ludlow, try looking at it this way:

    The phrase Ophiuchus objected to is “had sex with” – the word that truly puts that beyond the pale is “with” – because that implies a mutuality that is not present in rape. And the news media always uses the word sex in phrases that imply such mutuality – “he had sex with,” “they had sex,” and so on. It’s this trend that “sex is not rape” is a shorthand for – if it said “he used sex on,” maybe fewer people would find it objectionablem, maybe not – but that’s immaterial, because we’ll never see that, we’ll only see it used in ways that ultimately imply active participation on the part of the victim. And that’s not worth enabling no matter how precise we want our semantics to be.

11. D: Can we have a new Open Thread, please? Thanks!

    1. On it. Give me 10.

       1. Thanks a lot, tigtog! 🙂

Comments are currently closed.