Antigone Launches Feminist Social Networking Site on International Women’s Day!

Tags

Blog for IWD, canadian, change., feminist, movement, social networking, women

This post is part of Blog for International Women’s Day

Hi Friends!

Happy International Women’s Day!
My name is Amanda Reaume and I am the Executive Director of The Antigone Foundation. We believe it’s time for Canada’s feminists and women’s organizations to work together to leverage the power of social networking to connect around common causes and concerns across the country, both online and in person.

That is why we are launching Antigone Connect , an online site working to engage women’s organizations and feminists across the country to work collaboratively for women’s rights and equality in Canada and around the world.

Our Goal:

We are hoping to create a powerful online network that will be able to help lead the Canadian women’s movement forward in the coming years. As we approach Canada’s 150th Anniversary, we are all aware that there is a great deal more to be done in Canada to ensure women’s equality. More women in politics and managerial positions, accessible child care, changes to the Indian Act, equal pay, and equal pensions are just a few of the things that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women identified as necessary for equality nearly fifty years ago. They have still not been fully realized and this is going to take cooperation and coordination to accomplish.

Canadian Women’s History

This past fall, Antigone Magazine put together an issue about Canadian Women’s History and we spoke to Marilou McPhedran. She talked about how women organized around constitutional issues in the 1980s to ensure that women were included within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As McPhedran mentions, they did this without even a fax machine. With phone trees, letters to MPs and a lot of conviction, these women changed our country. We can too. Many of us now have access to e-mail, the internet, social networking, maybe even Blackberries and Smartphones. Some also have well paying jobs and contacts with women and men in power who support work for women’s equality. We owe it to our foremothers to leverage all the technologies and privileges that we have to connect and make sure that their legacies are not forgotten.

Your Help

But this network is not going to happen overnight. We need your help in the days and weeks ahead to expand it and bring to the table the voices of women from all backgrounds, from groups that might not readily identify as feminists, or those who might have difficulties accessing the internet, and the voices of women and men that are allies to the work that we do. We need you to tell people about it. To e-mail your contacts about it. To post it on Facebook or Twitter. To contact your friends who might have worked for feminist causes in the past but who have gone off in other directions. To help the technically unsavvy negotiate the technology! We need to come together to create this network across Canada.

Canadian Women’s Future!

Inspired by the next issue of our magazine (to be released in March 2010) entitled The Future of Feminism, we will be offering individuals and organizations opportunities to write about their visions for Canadian feminism. In blog entries, on Antigone Connect forums, on Dreams for Women postcards, and by leading online chats, we invite people to contribute to imagining the future of feminism. Email us at antigonemagazine at hotmail.com if you are interested in helping out.

Join Us

We launched this campaign this week and we are moved and excited by the response so far. It would be great to see you at Antigone Connect.

Thanks in advance for giving this a few minutes of your time, and for sharing this message with anyone you know who would like the women of Canada to unite together to transform our country.

Thank you!

Amanda Reaume and the Antigone Team

Executive Director, The Antigone Foundation
www.antigonefoundation.wordpress.com
Author and blogger, Some Leaders Are Born Women
www.someleadersarebornwomen.wordpress.com

photo credit: wikimedia commons

Padded Bras. For Children.

Tesco, a UK brand, has come under scrutiny for advertising and producing a padded bra marked to the seven and eight-year-old age range. This is not the first time Tesco has gotten itself into hot water for sexualizing girls waaaaay too early. In 2006 it had to remove a pole dancing kit from toy shelves after being accused of “destroying children’s innocence”. Tesco, in defense of the bra, delivered the following statement: “It is a product designed for girls at that self-conscious age when they are just developing. It is designed to cover up, not flatter, and was developed after speaking to parents.”

This brings to mind a couple of questions: what, exactly is being covered up? If you have teeny-tiny breasts the only way they would need covering is if you were to wear tight, shear shirts to begin with. Ohhhh… I guess the bra is supposed to go with the sexualized children’s clothing sold one aisle over in Tesco. Moreover, who are these parents crying out to the brand to develop a padded bra for their children? A padded bra, I might add, that is not just padded, but designed to draw attention to and enhance a young girl’s… nothing. Sounds like Tesco and Mama Lohan have been having some conversations.

I might be willing to buy the whole ‘cover-up’ excuse if it didn’t have such weird implications; Jessica over at Feministing has said it, and I think it bears repeating: “If you need to cover up a [child’s] non-breasts in order to feel like she’s being ‘discreet’, there’s something wrong with the way you look at [little] girls.”

ACCO presents "UnConference" – Spark the Dialogue! Speak Your Mind!

Tags

ACCO, asian-canadian, LGBT

March 6 – 7
Location: UBC, Upstairs SUB Room 207 and 209

Thursday, March 6

12:30pm to 1:50pm – ACSW 101 – “Who are Asian Canadians?” Illustrating Identity and Sports for Asian Canadians”

2:00pm to 3:20pm – ACSW 102 – “Ying, Yang, and Me!” The Complications and Implications of Interracial Dating and Interracial Families

3:30pm to 5:00pm – ACSW 116 – “Striking the Bamboo Ceiling” Asians in the North American workforce

Friday, March 7

12:00pm to 1:50pm – ACSW 202 – “Hey Asian Guy, Why So Angry?” A Look into Asian Stereotypes in Television and Film in Relation to the Feminization of Asian Males

2:00pm to 4:00pm – ACSW 212 – “Queer + Asian = ?” Difficulties and unique challenges of being Asian in the Queer Community and being Queer in the Asian Community.

All workshops are aimed at all people who have an interest in the Asian Community, regardless if they identify as straight, queer, homosexual, gay, lesbian, questioning, bisexual,trans, Asian, of Asian descent, part-Asian, or non-Asian! Admission is free.

For more information, please email info@ubcacco.com
Check out our website at http://www.ubcacco.com for further details!

The Asian Canadian Cultural Organization (ACCO) is a non-profit student collective dedicated to generating greater awareness of Pan-Asian Canadian issues through campus and community outreach.

WAGS at UBC: International Women’s Day Event

Tags

UBC, women's studies

WOMEN’S & GENDER STUDIES AT UBC: 35 YEARS OF CREATING COMMUNITIES OF
LEARNERS

HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

March 7, 2008, 3:00-6:00

Graduate Student Centre Penthouse, UBC

3:00-3:30 Introductions – Wendy Frisby (Chair, Women’s & Gender Studies)
& Sheanthi DeSilva (President, Women’s and Gender Studies Undergraduate
Association)

3:30 – 4:30 Undergraduate Women’s and Gender Studies Research Panel –
Katherine Lyon, Saadia Rai, Amina Rai and Sheelah Ziajka

4:30-5:15 – Keynote Speaker – Dr. Yvonne Brown, Personal Reflections of
a Mother Teacher on Gender, “Race,” Sexual Orientation, Disability and
Indigenous Struggles for Equality at UBC 1977-2007

5:15-6:00 – Reception & Retirement Celebration for Dr. Yvonne Brown –
Enjoy delicious food and help celebrate Dr. Yvonne Brown’s retirement.

Children Welcome

Sex and Metaphor

Reptiles and Angels–who knew sex had to be paradigmatic?

So it seems Mrs. Hampson of the Globe and Mail is at it again. This week’s edition of archaic attitudes includes a jaunt into theories of pornography. While her article does not bear the achingly naive attitudes of her previous pontifications about male desire and the politics of sex, it does, once again, undo its own logic. (For more on this see my post on June 8th “The ‘w’horrible truth.”)

Hampson makes the argument, using of course metaphor, that there are two ways of approaching and conceiving of the place of porn in a relationship. The first being that porn is little more than a tangible representation of desire and I quote “just another person.” This view claims that porn can actually help increase the intimacy of a relationship. Doubtful and frightening as this claim is, I will return to it later. The second much more palatable argument allows that porn is in fact a replacement for sex, and an addiction (for some).

What annoys me about this article is Hampson’s dismissal or ignorance of the conditions and climate that mainstream pornography thrives in. Pornography relies on metaphors of conquest and domination (for more on this see Amanda’s post on Sex as a Game), not on intimacy and mutual respect. Therefore, advocating for such porn (in all its forms and definitions) as an acceptable replacement for intimacy actually reinforces patriarchal attitudes about sex and marriage–instead of simply allowing the ‘reptile’ to come out once in a while, or to collaborate with what Hampson terms the ‘angelic’ part of sexual intimacy (mutual respect, where the reptile is lust).

While studies show that men are heavier users of porn than women are, distress over a partner’s cybersex habit is not exclusive to women, Dr. Schneider says. “I began to doubt my masculinity,” a man in one of her studies reported. “At first, we had more sex than ever as I desperately tried to prove myself. Then the sex with her made me sick – I’d get strong pictures in my head of what she did and lusted after, and I’d feel repelled and bad … I used to see sex as a very intimate and loving thing.”

This is the part I actually like about her article; it illuminates the fact that porn is not only disrespectful to women, but also to men. Mainstream pornography relies on tired stereotypes which reinforce traditional gender roles and ‘conquest’ models of sexuality. It also reduces both sexes to ‘prophood‘ removing intimacy from the equation entirely. For me, this paragraph marks the beginning of an understanding of porn for what it truly is: demeaning to relationships of equality. However, Hampson doesn’t quite catch on to her own evidence; She continues:

Which brings me back to angels and reptiles.

Pornography is not bad, but whenever I have watched it, I feel like one of those rats in a science lab. Sure, the sex corner of my brain can be made to light up. Give me stimulation, I get stimulated. Duh. It’s like asking me to respond to an advertisement for Manolo Blahniks. Do I feel desire? Sure. But it’s so uncreative. Someone is telling me what to think. That’s what I call the reptile brain.

The angel brain, on the other hand, is that part of us I think of as beautifully human. It’s where desire springs from higher human thought; where sexual intimacy happens through real connection, love, honesty, respect.

I can use my reptile brain, and I do. Lust is pretty basic. And hey, sometimes, that reptile is part angel, too. Human sexuality is a complex beast. But if I have a choice, and I do, I prefer to stick with the wings, with that which has a capacity for beauty and, if you’re lucky, transcendence.

While Hampson has actually recognized the manipulation of stereotypes and gender roles performed by porn, she hasn’t recognized her own attachment to these roles. That one feels ‘desire’ while watching games of domination and manipulation shows the extent to which such models of ‘sex’ and relationships are embedded in our collective cultural consciousness. Once again, here, sex is a paradigmatic model, where there is a winner and a loser; a lesser and a greater. Or, to translate this example into current theories of sex ed: a ‘no’ /abstainer and an STD. Hampson is indeed a rat in a science lab, as are we all when we respond to such formulations of sex and sexuality.

But it’s not quite as simple as Manolo Blahniks if you ask me…(though I do agree with the connection between pain and beauty–but maybe that’s because I can’t wear stilettos…)

Thoughts?

Sex and Metaphor

Reptiles and Angels–who knew sex had to be paradigmatic?

So it seems Mrs. Hampson of the Globe and Mail is at it again. This week’s edition of archaic attitudes includes a jaunt into theories of pornography. While her article does not bear the achingly naive attitudes of her previous pontifications about male desire and the politics of sex, it does, once again, undo its own logic. (For more on this see my post on June 8th “The ‘w’horrible truth.”)

Hampson makes the argument, using of course metaphor, that there are two ways of approaching and conceiving of the place of porn in a relationship. The first being that porn is little more than a tangible representation of desire and I quote “just another person.” This view claims that porn can actually help increase the intimacy of a relationship. Doubtful and frightening as this claim is, I will return to it later. The second much more palatable argument allows that porn is in fact a replacement for sex, and an addiction (for some).

What annoys me about this article is Hampson’s dismissal or ignorance of the conditions and climate that mainstream pornography thrives in. Pornography relies on metaphors of conquest and domination (for more on this see Amanda’s post on Sex as a Game), not on intimacy and mutual respect. Therefore, advocating for such porn (in all its forms and definitions) as an acceptable replacement for intimacy actually reinforces patriarchal attitudes about sex and marriage–instead of simply allowing the ‘reptile’ to come out once in a while, or to collaborate with what Hampson terms the ‘angelic’ part of sexual intimacy (mutual respect, where the reptile is lust).

While studies show that men are heavier users of porn than women are, distress over a partner’s cybersex habit is not exclusive to women, Dr. Schneider says. “I began to doubt my masculinity,” a man in one of her studies reported. “At first, we had more sex than ever as I desperately tried to prove myself. Then the sex with her made me sick – I’d get strong pictures in my head of what she did and lusted after, and I’d feel repelled and bad … I used to see sex as a very intimate and loving thing.”

This is the part I actually like about her article; it illuminates the fact that porn is not only disrespectful to women, but also to men. Mainstream pornography relies on tired stereotypes which reinforce traditional gender roles and ‘conquest’ models of sexuality. It also reduces both sexes to ‘prophood‘ removing intimacy from the equation entirely. For me, this paragraph marks the beginning of an understanding of porn for what it truly is: demeaning to relationships of equality. However, Hampson doesn’t quite catch on to her own evidence; She continues:

Which brings me back to angels and reptiles.

Pornography is not bad, but whenever I have watched it, I feel like one of those rats in a science lab. Sure, the sex corner of my brain can be made to light up. Give me stimulation, I get stimulated. Duh. It’s like asking me to respond to an advertisement for Manolo Blahniks. Do I feel desire? Sure. But it’s so uncreative. Someone is telling me what to think. That’s what I call the reptile brain.

The angel brain, on the other hand, is that part of us I think of as beautifully human. It’s where desire springs from higher human thought; where sexual intimacy happens through real connection, love, honesty, respect.

I can use my reptile brain, and I do. Lust is pretty basic. And hey, sometimes, that reptile is part angel, too. Human sexuality is a complex beast. But if I have a choice, and I do, I prefer to stick with the wings, with that which has a capacity for beauty and, if you’re lucky, transcendence.

While Hampson has actually recognized the manipulation of stereotypes and gender roles performed by porn, she hasn’t recognized her own attachment to these roles. That one feels ‘desire’ while watching games of domination and manipulation shows the extent to which such models of ‘sex’ and relationships are embedded in our collective cultural consciousness. Once again, here, sex is a paradigmatic model, where there is a winner and a loser; a lesser and a greater. Or, to translate this example into current theories of sex ed: a ‘no’ /abstainer and an STD. Hampson is indeed a rat in a science lab, as are we all when we respond to such formulations of sex and sexuality.

But it’s not quite as simple as Manolo Blahniks if you ask me…(though I do agree with the connection between pain and beauty–but maybe that’s because I can’t wear stilettos…)

Thoughts?

Sex Week Continues with… REAL DOLLS!

This one goes out to Feministing that first alerted me to this video. I figured that since we’ve been having discussions about sex for the last few posts, we might as well make this sex week! Next week is probably going to focus on women and the law! If anyone has any story ideas for that please pass them along!

Now, I’m not talking about the Pussycat Dolls either. Although perhaps that’s another post. I’m talking about Real Dolls. Lifelike looking sex dolls that cost upwards of $6,000-12,000. Yes. That’s right, sex toys that cost more than some cars. Well, you see these dolls are top of the line. Lifelike. And they’ve created an entire community of ‘idollators’ – men who ‘enjoy’ these dolls. Now the community ranges from those that simply see the dolls as masterbatory aids, to others who see these dolls more as ‘girlfriends’. There are even sites that display provocative pictures of these dolls, dressed up and posed in different outfits.

Please watch the above documentory. Also, here is a great Salon article about the phenomenon for more background. The company’s website is enough to frighten me for life!

I must say that it’s quite creepy. And scary. And even sad (as they said at Feministing). But it is mostly frightening. The appeal fo the Real Doll is that one can customize it oneself. Choose its boobs, shape and lips and vaginal size. Get different vagina inserts and tongues. Change the dolls faces. The men say that they like the doll because she ‘never complains’ and things ‘never get weird’. They say, according to the company that manufactures it that they are fifty year old men who order these dolls saying they will never be able to sleep with women who look like this and so they are buying and customizing their sex doll/mate.

I think what I find mostly disturbing is that unlike most sex dolls there is actually a community of owners who see them as companions. Some would rather be with a doll than a real woman… even if they could get one.

Thoughts?

Sex Week Continues with… REAL DOLLS!

This one goes out to Feministing that first alerted me to this video. I figured that since we’ve been having discussions about sex for the last few posts, we might as well make this sex week! Next week is probably going to focus on women and the law! If anyone has any story ideas for that please pass them along!

Now, I’m not talking about the Pussycat Dolls either. Although perhaps that’s another post. I’m talking about Real Dolls. Lifelike looking sex dolls that cost upwards of $6,000-12,000. Yes. That’s right, sex toys that cost more than some cars. Well, you see these dolls are top of the line. Lifelike. And they’ve created an entire community of ‘idollators’ – men who ‘enjoy’ these dolls. Now the community ranges from those that simply see the dolls as masterbatory aids, to others who see these dolls more as ‘girlfriends’. There are even sites that display provocative pictures of these dolls, dressed up and posed in different outfits.

Please watch the above documentory. Also, here is a great Salon article about the phenomenon for more background. The company’s website is enough to frighten me for life!

I must say that it’s quite creepy. And scary. And even sad (as they said at Feministing). But it is mostly frightening. The appeal fo the Real Doll is that one can customize it oneself. Choose its boobs, shape and lips and vaginal size. Get different vagina inserts and tongues. Change the dolls faces. The men say that they like the doll because she ‘never complains’ and things ‘never get weird’. They say, according to the company that manufactures it that they are fifty year old men who order these dolls saying they will never be able to sleep with women who look like this and so they are buying and customizing their sex doll/mate.

I think what I find mostly disturbing is that unlike most sex dolls there is actually a community of owners who see them as companions. Some would rather be with a doll than a real woman… even if they could get one.

Thoughts?

Sex Shouldn’t be Seen as a Game Where Some People ‘Score’…

So, yesterday’s post disturbed me and many other readers. I think the idea that one should coerce women into or demand sexual positions is so problematic and goes against my idea of what sex should be about. Number one: sex definitely should not be a game where the goal is to ‘score’ or get points from your friends. To me that is so incredibly perverse and disrespectful and dehumanizing to your partner. Yesterday’s post thus reminded me of a FABULOUS post not to long ago by Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon.

Marcotte’s post was about trying to understand why many of the threads about rape at Pandagon were overrun by men who tried to defend the rapist, or find a way to get him off based on a technicality (Ex. :but she invited him into her room late at night”). She then tries to explain where the attitude comes from that was evinced in Details and by some men (not all of course, I know many men who don’t have this crazy and disturbed view of sexuality).

I’d say the two major metaphorical frames about sex would be the conservative-sexist one and the liberal-feminist one. The conservative-sexist metaphorical framework of sex is Sex As Conquest. In this frame, women’s bodies are objects and sex is about the struggle to conquer the pussy. Sometimes the struggle over the pussy is between men (ex: jokes about fathers guarding their daughters’ bodies from young male interlopers) and sometimes women themselves are tasked with defending the pussy from sex. If sexual intercourse happens, by definition, the man who gets to fuck the woman has won and the defender (father or woman herself) has lost. Sex happens when women surrender, in this model.

The liberal-feminist view of sex is that it’s not a war or a game, but more of a mutual collaboration, less like a battle and more like playing music. In this model, to be a sexual person is to be a musician and sex is playing your instrument. Sometimes you play by yourself, sometimes you get with others and jam, and sometimes you actually have a band that you have a long-term relationship with. There aren’t winners and losers, but there can be good and bad sex, just like there can be good and bad music.

Can anyone say frightening… and yet very familiar? As a university student that has been my problem with some of the men that I meet. When they approach me they are working not to get to know me or to engage in any kind of collaborative sexual undertaking… but to manipulate me in order to get into my pants. I am not really a full person to them… but a thing to have sex with. A pussy with legs. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with casual sex. But even casual sex can acknowlege that its participants are both human, equal partners and the desires and pleasures of both can be respected. Having sex shouldn’t be about manipulation. Sex attained by manipulating or lying to someone (ex. when someone of either sex says “I really like you, I could see this going somewhere” when all they really want is to get laid and move on to the next person).

These separate models of what sex is explain why threads about rape turn into hellholes pretty quickly—sexists and feminists aren’t even speaking the same language, in a sense. The conservative-sexist model of rape is the same one used to define a foul in basketball. Basically, when sexual intercourse happens, the man team has scored a point against the woman team. Each team is allowed some strategies and disallowed others. In basketball, you’re supposed to snatch the ball from the other team, but you can’t cross certain lines or you’ll get a foul. This explains why rape trolls are so eager to find out what the “rules” are, i.e. when they are permitted to force sex. (”Is it rape if she’s drunk? What if she says yes and changes her mind? Is it okay to bully someone into it, so long as you don’t actually hold her down and force her? Are guilt trips okay?, etc.”)

If there’s some ambiguity when the referee calls a foul, your teammates (other men) are supposed to clamor to your defense, regardless of whether or not you actually fouled. If the foul is called, then the woman team scores a point (or a free throw in basketball, but you get the idea). The idea that it’s wrong to have sex with someone unless she really, really wants to do it makes about as much sense as saying that you should only be allowed to get the ball in basketball if the defense hands it to you.

On the liberal side, in contrast, the very idea that getting someone to play in your band or jam session who is reluctant or openly hostile makes no sense, thus the idea of “winning” in sex by getting a reluctant woman to submit is repulsive to feminists, period. Trying to figure out the rules of when coercion is acceptable and when it’s not makes no more sense than asking if it’s okay to make someone play in your band by holding their kids hostage, threatening to fire them, locking the doors so they can’t leave or simply laying a guilt trip on them. You can vaguely understand the desperation sometimes, if no one will ever play with you, but in the end, it makes no sense. Even if you can force someone to go through the motions, odds are the results are going to suck because they don’t even want to be there. Music is supposed to be fun, so if it’s not fun, it negates the entire point. Same with sex. All of that goes a long way to explaining phenomenon like banning the word “rape” from a rape trial and allowing the word “sex”. In the sexist view of sex, the distinction between rape and sex is one of degree. To feminists, the difference is of kind—if it’s rape, it’s not really sex, since sex is a collaborative effort and rape is a violent assault.

I wonder how you readers feel about Marcotte’s views about the different ways sex is seen and approached. Reading them was an ‘Aha’ moment for me. It totally made sense and made me think about the ways in which some (not all) of the men that I meet and interact with see sex and how I’ve always had a problem with that. This also explains the ways in which men share their sexual encounters with their friends for ‘points’. I always found this extremely disturbing that sex became less about a collaboration with the person they were sleeping with and more about a running game with their boys. I wrote an essay about how this was vaguely homoerotic – making sex ‘Between Men’ (using Eve Sedgwicks’ Between Men, of course).

Anyways, this always infuriated me because as a woman, I did not see myself as a pussy that was waiting to score on. As such I demand respect from any man that I interact with sexually or otherwise and I outright refuse to engage sexually with any men who have this conception of sexuality. I would rather remain celibate for the rest of my fricking life than plan into a game which is so dehumanizing and manipulative for women!

Thoughts?

Sex Shouldn’t be Seen as a Game Where Some People ‘Score’…

So, yesterday’s post disturbed me and many other readers. I think the idea that one should coerce women into or demand sexual positions is so problematic and goes against my idea of what sex should be about. Number one: sex definitely should not be a game where the goal is to ‘score’ or get points from your friends. To me that is so incredibly perverse and disrespectful and dehumanizing to your partner. Yesterday’s post thus reminded me of a FABULOUS post not to long ago by Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon.

Marcotte’s post was about trying to understand why many of the threads about rape at Pandagon were overrun by men who tried to defend the rapist, or find a way to get him off based on a technicality (Ex. :but she invited him into her room late at night”). She then tries to explain where the attitude comes from that was evinced in Details and by some men (not all of course, I know many men who don’t have this crazy and disturbed view of sexuality).

I’d say the two major metaphorical frames about sex would be the conservative-sexist one and the liberal-feminist one. The conservative-sexist metaphorical framework of sex is Sex As Conquest. In this frame, women’s bodies are objects and sex is about the struggle to conquer the pussy. Sometimes the struggle over the pussy is between men (ex: jokes about fathers guarding their daughters’ bodies from young male interlopers) and sometimes women themselves are tasked with defending the pussy from sex. If sexual intercourse happens, by definition, the man who gets to fuck the woman has won and the defender (father or woman herself) has lost. Sex happens when women surrender, in this model.

The liberal-feminist view of sex is that it’s not a war or a game, but more of a mutual collaboration, less like a battle and more like playing music. In this model, to be a sexual person is to be a musician and sex is playing your instrument. Sometimes you play by yourself, sometimes you get with others and jam, and sometimes you actually have a band that you have a long-term relationship with. There aren’t winners and losers, but there can be good and bad sex, just like there can be good and bad music.

Can anyone say frightening… and yet very familiar? As a university student that has been my problem with some of the men that I meet. When they approach me they are working not to get to know me or to engage in any kind of collaborative sexual undertaking… but to manipulate me in order to get into my pants. I am not really a full person to them… but a thing to have sex with. A pussy with legs. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with casual sex. But even casual sex can acknowlege that its participants are both human, equal partners and the desires and pleasures of both can be respected. Having sex shouldn’t be about manipulation. Sex attained by manipulating or lying to someone (ex. when someone of either sex says “I really like you, I could see this going somewhere” when all they really want is to get laid and move on to the next person).

These separate models of what sex is explain why threads about rape turn into hellholes pretty quickly—sexists and feminists aren’t even speaking the same language, in a sense. The conservative-sexist model of rape is the same one used to define a foul in basketball. Basically, when sexual intercourse happens, the man team has scored a point against the woman team. Each team is allowed some strategies and disallowed others. In basketball, you’re supposed to snatch the ball from the other team, but you can’t cross certain lines or you’ll get a foul. This explains why rape trolls are so eager to find out what the “rules” are, i.e. when they are permitted to force sex. (”Is it rape if she’s drunk? What if she says yes and changes her mind? Is it okay to bully someone into it, so long as you don’t actually hold her down and force her? Are guilt trips okay?, etc.”)

If there’s some ambiguity when the referee calls a foul, your teammates (other men) are supposed to clamor to your defense, regardless of whether or not you actually fouled. If the foul is called, then the woman team scores a point (or a free throw in basketball, but you get the idea). The idea that it’s wrong to have sex with someone unless she really, really wants to do it makes about as much sense as saying that you should only be allowed to get the ball in basketball if the defense hands it to you.

On the liberal side, in contrast, the very idea that getting someone to play in your band or jam session who is reluctant or openly hostile makes no sense, thus the idea of “winning” in sex by getting a reluctant woman to submit is repulsive to feminists, period. Trying to figure out the rules of when coercion is acceptable and when it’s not makes no more sense than asking if it’s okay to make someone play in your band by holding their kids hostage, threatening to fire them, locking the doors so they can’t leave or simply laying a guilt trip on them. You can vaguely understand the desperation sometimes, if no one will ever play with you, but in the end, it makes no sense. Even if you can force someone to go through the motions, odds are the results are going to suck because they don’t even want to be there. Music is supposed to be fun, so if it’s not fun, it negates the entire point. Same with sex. All of that goes a long way to explaining phenomenon like banning the word “rape” from a rape trial and allowing the word “sex”. In the sexist view of sex, the distinction between rape and sex is one of degree. To feminists, the difference is of kind—if it’s rape, it’s not really sex, since sex is a collaborative effort and rape is a violent assault.

I wonder how you readers feel about Marcotte’s views about the different ways sex is seen and approached. Reading them was an ‘Aha’ moment for me. It totally made sense and made me think about the ways in which some (not all) of the men that I meet and interact with see sex and how I’ve always had a problem with that. This also explains the ways in which men share their sexual encounters with their friends for ‘points’. I always found this extremely disturbing that sex became less about a collaboration with the person they were sleeping with and more about a running game with their boys. I wrote an essay about how this was vaguely homoerotic – making sex ‘Between Men’ (using Eve Sedgwicks’ Between Men, of course).

Anyways, this always infuriated me because as a woman, I did not see myself as a pussy that was waiting to score on. As such I demand respect from any man that I interact with sexually or otherwise and I outright refuse to engage sexually with any men who have this conception of sexuality. I would rather remain celibate for the rest of my fricking life than plan into a game which is so dehumanizing and manipulative for women!

Thoughts?