Photo

Reblogged from Lavender Labia

On partying, getting laid, and grey areas of consent.

[TW: rape]

This is a post about alcohol, sex, and consent. I am not writing this post as a person who feels that anything sexually violating has ever happened to her in any state of sobriety. I want to make that clear. To the best of my knowledge, I am also not writing this as a person who has made any other person of any other gender feel sexually violated in any state of sobriety (though, like the author of the article I will reference later, perhaps I have and I just don't know). I also want to make that clear (especially my small feeling of uncertainty).

The place I am coming from writing this post is as a woman who considers herself to be a sex-positive feminist who likes to drink and oftentimes likes to be sexual when she has been drinking, as a woman who has, in fact, gone out for a night of partying looking to get laid and been successful in this pursuit. I want to make that clear, too. 

Coming from and not coming from all of those specific places, I have to say that I...don't understand a lot of the conversation that happens around drunkenness, consent, and the scary things like rape that those conversations tend to turn to. 

Before you start yelling at me, let me say what I do understand. I do understand that consent is important, obviously. I understand that "no means no" is an ineffective rape-prevention strategy, and that one should absolutely never ever initiate sexual contact with someone who is obviously not in a state to say yes or no. So no one who is asleep, or so drunk they can't stand up or just booted all over the place, or so high that they don't make any sense and you can't quite tell whether they're looking at you or through you. That all makes crystal clear sense to me.

But what about someone who we know has definitely been drinking, but does not appear to be too drunk to take care of him or herself or be rational? We can't possibly be saying that drinking totally negates anyone's ability to consent to sexual activity, can we? Where, in the real world where we can't breathalyze everyone we meet a party, do we draw the line of can-reasonably-give-consent? 

Feministe has a big problem with a blog I don't really take issue with that often, The Good Men Project (GMP). Yesterday, GMP published an admittedly fairly nauseating article by a man who has come to realize that in the course of his life of partying, he has likely committed and been the victim of rape. The nonchalance with which he accepts this as part and parcel of the partying lifestyle is appalling, and it surprises me that I'm supporting anything in an article with this title, but I think the author has a few shining pieces of insight buried in all of the general dickishness. I am going to highlight them here:

That is the damnable thing. We all cluck our tongues at those evil bastards who force themselves on girls—or guys—who are insensibly passed out. At the same time, we all acknowledge that a glass or two of wine helps pave the way for a lot of good times. And in the trackless, unmappable gray swamps in between, we cough and change the subject.
In the real world, especially among experienced drinkers, being blackout drunk doesn’t necessarily look like being passed out on the floor, helpless prey for any passing predator. It can look like being drunk, but fully in control. It can look like being passionately excited. It can look like being a great dancer. It can look like being very sexually aggressive.

The truth of the matter is, everybody's drunk looks a little bit different. My chronology of drunkenness goes a little something like this (assuming a not-empty stomach). At fewer than three drinks, I am questioning whether there is, in fact, alcohol in the beverages I am consuming. Between three and four, my head starts to feel tingly. Ah, it's working. Between five and seven, I appear my drunkest. This stage of the night is when the timbre of my voice changes and my speech patterns begin to lilt, when I am most likely to gesticulate wildly or greet everyone I see with a hug. Wheeeeee alcohol is fun!! But by drink 8, most of that fades away. By drink 8, I am settling into a long night of drinking. I am comfortable in my drunkenness. I remember how it fits, and my voice and speech patterns return to normal. Mmmm, drinking makes me feel so warm and snuggly. Many people think I'm far more sober at 10 drinks in than I was at 5. And that can continue into somewhere around 15 or so, at which point shit will get bad quick and I will probably find myself a toilet to boot into and a couch upon which to fall asleep. Shit, why is the room spinning? This room definitely doesn't usually spin... 

At what point of that progression is a potential sex partner supposed to cut me off as unable to give consent? Obviously once the room has spun and I'm asleep on the couch, but what about before that? I might not have a great sense of chronology the next day, but nowhere in the progression am I blackout -- is there a point at which my consent somehow doesn't count? That seems...restrictive. "No" means no. Non-responsiveness means no. But I'm pretty uncomfortable with any definition of what is and is not okay when one combines alcohol and sexytime that involves qualification of when a "yes" or non-verbal enthusiastic participation means no. I just don't get how that shit is supposed to work. I think that at anywhere between 1 and 12-14 drinks, I am perfectly capable of giving consent.

But many girls (and some guys) would be far past coherent at that number. Many girls (and some guys) would have blacked out (and, like the author of the article points out, blacked out in a myriad of ways that could look perfectly normal) by that point. And we don't all carry breathalyzers in our back pockets at the club. (Imagine it: "Here baby, blow on this first..." No.) So what's a person who likes to drink and likes to get physical, possibly with person(s) he or she may not know particularly well/at all, when he or she has been drinking to do? 

This brings me to the second instance wherein I think the author of the article was rather poignant:

It must be bad manners to admit to being a rapist and to also say one is a rape survivor, all in one article. I don’t know any set of social mores where that’s okay. I certainly don’t feel like a rape survivor, whatever that’s supposed to feel like. I just can’t quite find a workable standard where I’m one but not the other.

I think one of the strongest points of the article is here, where the author reminds readers that when you're drinking/drugging yourself to delirium, you can fall on either side of the blurry line of consent. He tells us of one instance in which he was informed that he'd had sex with a woman he wasn't interested in involving himself with sexually or otherwise days after the fact by multiple witnesses. That, by definition, constitutes rape. Regardless of the fact that he doesn't view himself as having been victimized, I don't think he blames himself and his drinking for the actions he doesn't remember in this instance. I don't think he blames the women he may or may not have had consensual sex with in the past or their drunkenness for his or their actions in the past either. I don't think that what we are supposed to take from this article is that partying causes rape, or excuses it. I think that what we are supposed to take from this article is that there is a muddiness in this particular sphere wherein sex often happens in the presence of consent that may not be worth its breath.

And this brings me to the third instance wherein I feel some valuable insight was laid on the page:

The ones that bother me are the ones where I got loaded, had some fun with a lady, and then she never wanted to contact me again. Messages go unanswered, social contact is dropped.
There are men, rape-apologist pieces of shit, who will tell you that women cry “rape” every time they have sex they later regret. I carry no brief for those assholes. What eats at me is that there’ve been cases, more than one and less than six, in my life where either explanation would seem plausible. If a woman had consensual sex with a guy because they were both drunk, and later she decided he was a loser and she regretted it, she might refuse to have further contact with him because, hey, awkward. But if a woman was raped by a man who thought she was still capable of consent when she was too far gone, she might refuse to have further contact with him because, hey, rapist.

Once, on campus, a guy started dancing with me at a party. I didn't know him, and he hadn't been at this party for most of the night, so I had no background knowledge of how drunk or not drunk he was. He started kissing the back of my neck and feeling me up, and being receptive to all of this, I turned around and actually kissed him. We'd been making out for a while before the music stopped and I decided to ask his name. We both ended the night with orgasms, and a few days later I used the minimal amount of information I'd gathered about him that night to friend request him on Facebook. It took him 10 months to approve my request. 

Another time, in DC, I met up with a guy I'd met recently and a friend of mine from school to celebrate the guy I'd met recently's birthday. When I got there, it was clear to me that he'd started celebrating quite a few hours earlier, because he was far more animated than he'd been the first time we met. Within ten minutes of my arrival, this guy started dancing with me, which led to him kissing the back of my neck and feeling me up, which I was overwhelmingly receptive to, and we wound up pressing each other against the wall of this club making out with no holds barred. We haven't really talked since.

I had not thought this prior to reading this article, but am now wondering, did I take it too far with either of those guys? Should I have deemed their consent invalid regardless of the fact that they initiated our sexual contact? If a guy that I know has been drinking or is relatively drunk takes my hand and puts it on his dick, am I allowed to touch it, or have I just admitted to being on the other side of the blurry line?

In the post explaining why GMP decided to publish this post, female editor Joanna Schroeder says,

But the real world is a harsh, cold place full of mixed messages, drunken desire, Ecstasy-fueled touching, and the rush of cocaine. The real world is a place where “no means no” simply isn’t enough.

I agree with her. Wholeheartedly. I don't really agree when she later says that the author of the article is "deeply troubled," because again, he comes off unsettlingly content with his realizations. I think this guy is an asshole. At the same time, though, I don't think he's wholly wrong. And at the same time, I don't really agree with Feministe and other critics who have called this post and the why-we-posted-this post "rape apologies," because I think that, for better or for worse, they come from a point of questioning and cross-examining, rather than from a point of saying "I'm sorry." If the author of the article is saying he's sorry for anything, it's that he's sorry it has to be like this, and that's not an apology.

What I think is that we as feminists, as men, as women, as people who drink, as people who have sex, and just as people, need to be willing to have conversation around what happens when you mix drinking and/or drugs and sexual desire. I think we'd be doing a disservice to ourselves and the people we care about not to. I think the point of this article was to show that we can't have productive conversations about rape culture without having conversations about party culture and the complications of consent therein.

Reason #9374093742987 the war on women isn't over:

Reblogged from Riots not Diets

No person with a uterus should vote GOP.

Reblogged from Tudo Bom(b)

Reason Joe Biden is infinitely better than Paul Ryan #94873049730497

"Look, guys. No matter what a girl does, no matter how she's dressed, no matter how much she's had to drink, it's never, never, never, never, never okay to touch her without her consent. That doesn't make you a man--it makes you a coward."

--Joe Biden

(via Lavender Labia) 

T-1 week til the election = this blog is unapologetically Probama.

Reblogged from Potato Pancakes:

 

Photo

Reblogged from Choosing Pancakes
(artist)

Public service announcement:

"...if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights."

--Phaedra Starling, guest post here

Why do I talk to uninteresting/creepy guys that are talking to me?

Just read this on a blog about rape culture:

Women who are taught that refusing to flirt back results in an immediately hostile environment will continue to unwillingly and unhappily flirt with somebody who is invading their space and giving them creep alerts. (source)

And though I try to be good about recognizing stupid things I have been socialized to do and not doing them just because it's more convenient in the moment, I do this all. the. fucking. time.

Okay, well, at least a lot. I can think of a few examples off the top of my head.

Most recently: So I have a new guy's number in my phone. His name is Matthew. He is a grown man. Thankfully, he's pretend-to-be-classy-enough to have given me his number instead of asking for mine, so our interactions will not continue, but let me explain how I came to have Matthew's number.

It was a little before midnight last Monday night. I was standing on the platform at Trenton Transit Station, waiting for my train to take me to Princeton Junction, on my long trip back to campus from my interview in DC. There was a tall pretty cute guy standing to my left, and he caught my eye and I smiled a small smile at him. (This habit of smiling at strangers is something I picked up from my years of working in customer service, and I'm conflicted about whether it's a habit I need to try to break.) I sat down on the train and he sat one row behind me, to my left. As he's sitting, he asks me if this is the local train, and I know it's starting. But then he gets a phone call! He picks up and it's muthafucka this, nigga that, and I have decided that I have no interest in talking to this man. But then he tells whomever he's talking to that his phone is dying and he needs that last bit of juice to last him to NY, so he'll call him back later. Damn. I was almost free from talking to this man. We sit in silence for a minute or so, and then he starts again. I must commend him for his opening line: "Why you got all that hair tied up like that?" (We naturals are known for pride in our hair, I suppose.) I explained that I was coming home from an interview, and he asked me about the position and whether I wanted to move to DC and why and why not Philly or NY? He explained that he splits his time between Philly and NYC, has apartments in both places (the rent for the Manhattan apartment, which is only a few blocks from Penn Station, is $2k a month), and he owns a recording studio and sells cars. He didn't go to college, but his sister went to UPenn. He thought there were 5 Ivies (Cornell, Brown, and Dartmouth weren't on his list. Go figure.) He was talking about how great it is to be able to call himself a success without being in the drug game, and how much satisfaction that gives him, that he makes money cleanly and legally, and I respected that. He was kind of re-vamping my opinion of him until he mentioned that he has a son and he's really cute too. Yes, sir, it's great that you have a kid and evidently like/take care of him, but you are a grown-ass man who runs businesses and has a child and why are you interested in a 21-year-old college student? My answers had gone from being succinct and designed to express non-interest to semi-conversational, but at this point I was just like, wait, why am I talking to his man? Okay, he said I was pretty and he complimented me on my smile and my grey nails and the way I said "they match my suit...which is also grey." So what? (Side note: he also busted right out with "What are you mixed with?" And then seemed dubious of my "nothing recently..." This bothers me on multiple levels and will probably get its own post, so I'm going to move on.) We got to Hamilton and he asked when my stop was and I said next, and he said something that expressed dissatisfaction at this. Later he said, "So how are we gonna do this? You gonna take my number or what?" (Sir, you are not entitled to me. There is no guarantee that we're going to do anything.) I paused and may have "Hmmm"ed, which threw him off guard; he said, "What, you considering it or something?" "Am I not allowed to consider it?" "Well you, like, actually stopped and thought about it. You had me a little worried." I took his number, knowing I would never call it. 

Why did I do this? I have done this before! As long as the guy wasn't rude or legit calling me out on the street like this is an appropriate means of communication, I will generally entertain their advances, regardless of my own disinterest. I suppose I've always just interpreted it as, hey, I'm a nice person, and he doesn't seem to be an asshole, so I'll let him spit game as long as it doesn't seem like it's going to definitively lead anywhere I don't want it to go. Or as you know, I should work on my communication skills, or on talking to "regular" people (yes I know this term is all kinds of problematic; I just don't know a better way to phrase what I mean. Please volunteer one if you have one.) I don't give such guys my number when they ask--"I just don't give it out. It's just a rule I have."--and I won't volunteer to take theirs. But what's making me feel obligated to talk to them? Why do I feel the need to justify why I won't invite these men into my life by giving them my number? Operating under the rule that any men who do not seem like total and complete disrespectful creeps are allowed to occupy my time is...basically wrong on every level. When a guy calls out to me on the street, I will either ignore or flat out reject him (click here and here for interesting stories from my summer in New Brunswick), but on a train I feel like I'd be being rude by not allowing conversation to happen. But this is RIDICULOUS and I need to stop, like, immediately.  

I, for one, am not (particularly) mad at VSB.

I want to come out and say that, loud and clear, for everyone who happens across this little slice of the internet to hear. I'm uncomfortable with responses I've read that suggest that, as a man, all he is allowed to say about the subject of rape is "it's bad. Don't do it." I will say that people who have little to no background in a particular subject should do their homework very thoroughly before talking about the subject at length, which is why I hate when dominant groups try to wax poetic on the experiences of marginalized populations, but in this particular case I feel like that mindset suggests that the only people allowed to talk substantively about rape are rapists and rape victims, which doesn't seem healthy for the overall development of our society. I don't think I've ever been involved in a sexual act that was not enthusiastically consented to by both parties (though I occasionally wonder about the first time with my ex, because in the last seconds before we crossed that line, he asked me if I was sure I was ready, and I told him I was positive, and I didn't ask him in return before we continued), but I don't think that invalidates my opinions about rape and rape culture. And I don't think my opinions are any MORE valid than The Champ's just because I'm a woman.


Now he could have approached the subject more delicately, I'll give you that. Saying that the tone of Zerlina Maxwell's article:

seems to shift from “men need to take full responsibility for their actions” to “men need to take full responsibility for their actions…and women have carte blance to act as recklessly and stupidly around men as possible without any trace of accountability.” and I just can’t agree anymore.

[And] why can’t both genders be educated on how to act responsibility around each other? What’s stopping us from steadfastly instilling “No always means no!” in the minds of all men and boys and educating women how not to put themselves in certain situations? Of course men shouldn’t attempt to have sex with a woman who’s too drunk to say no, but what’s wrong with reminding women that if you’re 5’1 and 110 pounds, it’s probably not the best idea to take eight shots of Patron while on the first, second, or thirteenth date? Yes, sober women definitely get raped too, but being sober and aware does decrease the likelihood that harm may come your way, and that’s true for each gender. (emphasis added) (source)

is  decidedly insensitive, but as I understand it, he was never trying to say that women who get themselves into less-than-safe situations deserve to be taken advantage of. THAT is victim-blaming, and I didn’t see any of it in his post. All I saw was the same advice my momma gives me whenever I’m going out: be smart, and be careful. Know your limits. We obviously need to switch from being a culture that teaches “don’t get raped” to being a culture that teaches “don’t rape,” but I don’t think that promoting safety amongst women is necessarily antithetical to that endeavor, ESPECIALLY when we take non-forcible rape into consideration. (By that I mean, like, A and B meet at a bar, get drunk, go home together, and shit goes down without enthusiastic consent and neither A or B know what to think about the situation in the morning.) I think that suggesting that the entire onus of responsibility for that situation falls onto the responsibility of the man (if we assume this is a heterosexual encounter) is JUST as dangerous as the female-blaming society we’re trying to grow out of. 

I think that the most productive step our society could take towards rape prevention and overall healthy sexual living would be to promote responsible sexual conduct for people of all genders: that means more than just drilling into people’s heads that “No means no,” but rather introducing more nuanced understandings of consent, and the ability of persons in various conditions to give consent. If, for example, due to excessive amounts of alcohol consumption, neither party remembers what happened after a night of sexual activity in which enthusiastic consent wasn’t given (because enthusiastic consent can’t really be given if you’re blacked out), why is one party any more responsible for the night’s events than the other? OBVIOUSLY when one party forces him/herself onto another party, the victim bears zero responsibility for the situation, but there’s a lot of grey area between forcible rape and consensual sex. I think it’s perfectly healthy to suggest that, if it takes two informed persons to have consensual sex, all persons should assume at least a little bit of responsibility for making sure they can make informed decisions regarding sex.


So yes, his article is far from delicately written. Yes it presents a heteronormative, cisgendered, and somewhat sexist (in his presentation of men as aggressors and women as victims, because women can rape men too; an erection is not consent) understanding of rape and rape culture, and I wish the post had taken more nuance into account along those lines, BUT I don't think his basic premise of promoting sexual responsibility for ALL people is off the mark. 

Feel free to fight with me in the comments. I don't mean to have offended anyone, so if I have, please enlighten me as to alternative viewpoints/understandings and I'll take them into consideration and we can all learn and grow, okay? 

Shit Everybody Says to Rape Victims