You Really Got a Hold on Me, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld
September 9, 2014 Martha Thomases 5 Comments
California just passed a new law designed to reduce the number of sexual assaults on college campuses. The law requires all parties in a sexual interaction to ask for – and receive – consent at every step. To put this another way, just because someone kisses you doesn’t mean he has agreed to intercourse. It breaks my heart that it is necessary to explain this. Necking is not consent. Intoxication is not consent. A short skirt is not consent. A previous relationship is not consent. We are humans, not computer programs, and we each get to decide what we do with our own bodies. We can no more ethically take another person’s body for our own amusement than we can take another person’s property. Sometimes I think that we shouldn’t separate rape from other kinds of assault. No one (well, no one sane) offers a defense of “He was asking for it,” if arrested for beating up someone. Although it is a beloved trope of domestic abusers that some women like to get smacked. I hope the recent commercial failure of this film, the latest example of this meme, shows that the public isn’t buying this anymore. I love the way the concern trolls reacted to the new law. “Do I have to get permission every five minutes?” they ask. Yes, maybe you do, depending on what’s going on. Here’s an analogy. If a bank lends you money, that’s legal and everybody is happy. If you steal money from a bank, that’s a crime. Nobody who borrows money legally has to call up the bank every five minutes and say, “Can I keep the money?” At the same time, nobody thinks that just because the bank gave one loan, the vault is open to everyone. A woman’s body is not a piece of merchandise, nor is a man’s. However, our bodies are an integral part of our constant interpersonal interactions, and should be treated with at least as much respect as we give to the almighty dollar. The California law may or may not work, and, so far, it only applies to colleges. In California. Maybe you, Constant Reader, think it’s overkill. Maybe you think women are too eager to play the victim. Maybe you think we blow the situation out of proportion. And then this happens. Young girls were systematically raped and sold into prostitution, not in some Third World backwater but in England. The police knew about it and did nothing (or next to nothing). I mean, hey, the girls took gifts! They thought they were on dates! The fact that they were 13 years old or under doesn’t mean they weren’t little whores at heart. What can you do? To start with, don’t commit any of the kinds of bad behavior described above. And don’t tolerate it when bad behavior is committed by anyone you know. I mean all bad behavior. You aren’t (I hope) a rapist, but do you comment on the appearance of women who walk by you, loud enough for them to hear? Don’t do that. And if a friend of yours does it, tell him to stop. Make him watch this. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, is having a fine time in flyover country this weekend.
George Haberberger
September 9, 2014 - 8:43 am
“Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, is having a fine time in flyover country this weekend.”
Hey! I live in flyover country! Drop on by!
Mike Gold
September 9, 2014 - 8:48 am
California gets serious points for good intent and, hopefully, for raising awareness. But the idea of stopping and getting permission from both or all parties at each individual step — embracing, kissing, petting, fondling, oral sex, fornication, and so on, including repeated steps… hard to imagine that happening. It’s pretty unwieldy. Particularly as the numbers who are party to the incident grow.
But it beats stopping and saying “ok, sign here… and here… and here… and here…” And I’d like to see a proof of age provision added to this bill.
Martha Thomases
September 9, 2014 - 8:50 am
Well, there’s this (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/opinion/michael-kimmel-and-gloria-steinem-on-consensual-sex-on-campus.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A5%22%7D&_r=0), which cites Joyce’s ULYSSES and one of the most erotic passages in all of literature.
Mike Gold
September 9, 2014 - 9:05 am
Yeah, well, the Firesign Theater did that passage better.
Rene
September 9, 2014 - 12:10 pm
Sorry, but this really looks like that bogeyman of right-wingers, political correctness gone too far. Next step: a signed contract before a guy can even look in a gal’s direction. “That guy visually assaulted me, your honor!” But yes, I know guys that can make a woman feel assaulted just by the way they stare, still…
And Martha, don’t rely on pop culture to tell you anything deep about what men and women are thinking. SIN CITY may have bombed, but the tremendous success of the FIFTY SHADES OF GREY novel (with a movie just around the corner), would be an indication that feminist theory isn’t on a lot of women’s heads when they decide what is hot.
Martha Thomases
September 9, 2014 - 12:12 pm
Rene, I absolutely agree about FIFTY SHADES. But I haven’t read it. Does the woman telling the story like to get hit? And, if so, ick.
Rene
September 9, 2014 - 12:37 pm
Martha, the closest I came to reading it, was the wikipedia’s summary, but yes, it seems to me like the protagonist is a woman that enjoys being hit.
Though, ironically, the book features a signed contract before the characters have sex! Maybe that would satisfy California’s college campi? 🙂
Martha Thomases
September 9, 2014 - 12:45 pm
Rene, the California law does not require a signed contract. It only requires explicit consent. I don’t understand why that is controversial or threatening.
Rene
September 9, 2014 - 1:39 pm
It’s controversial because humans communicate mostly non-verbally when it comes to these things.
But I don’t see this like some paranoid conservatives might see it; like a weapon for psychopathic feminists to trap nice guys into false rape allegations. I don’t think it’s threatening. I don’t think girls will shout rape at well-meaning guys that didn’t ask before they put their hands a little too low when dancing.
I see it as a useless law. When it’s an ACTUAL abusive event, it will still be his word against her word, most times. Liberals really do have a problem: thinking that what we need is a more explicit explanation of what sexual abuse is in the law books.
Most times, the law that is in the books is already good enough. But abusers go unpunished because the community or institution is on their side, because the women are shamed into silence, because there was no will on the behalf of the authorities to really throw the book at the creep. You can make the book heavier by adding more details to the laws, but that means zilch if the book is not thrown.
Bill Mulligan
September 9, 2014 - 3:51 pm
A major factor in the decade long organized rape party that happened in England seems to have been the fear among those in charge that if the admitted that the perpetrators were mostly Muslim men of Pakistani heritage they would be accused of racism. Seems crazy to believe that anyone would put that fear over the lives of innocent girls but some people put a very large stock in such things.
Rene
September 9, 2014 - 5:36 pm
Bill –
That is a major peeve of mine. When people think that “cultural rights” trump human rights. The immense fear of appearing racist or bigoted causing otherwise sensible people to excuse murderers and rapists. It’s always a sad event when I watch some liberals trying to calculate what is their priority: multi-culturalism or feminism/gay rights. Usually, multi-culturalism wins.
Not trying to excuse those people, but I think some of this is cultural traditions being too strong for people to ignore. After all, liberals have cultural traditions too. They grow up with TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and A PASSAGE TO INDIA, with a history of colored men being unjustly attacked as rapists by racist white folks terrified of miscigenation and “black fingers” touching precious white women’s skin.
No liberal would want to step into the shoes of a Bob Ewell.
Martha Thomases
September 9, 2014 - 6:21 pm
We don’t know that the authorities were afraid of being accused of racism. There is n evidence other than speculation. We DO know that right-wing fundamentalists of all faiths and colors think girls and women exist for to serve men, and must be controlled.
Bill Mulligan
September 10, 2014 - 10:21 am
In the very article you cite it states “Some officers and local officials told the investigation that they did not act for fear of being accused of racism. ”
I can see where those on the left would rather not accept this evidence of the potential risks over political correctness, even if it involves the perpetrators admitting it. One wonders just what evidence WOULD be accepted. Other than actual confessions, what evidence is even possible?
To those less invested in wanting to think otherwise, this admission is far from “speculation”. Refusal to admit the reality of a problem makes it unlikely one can solve it.
I have little confidence that we can change the minds of anyone crazy/evil enough to rape schoolkids. So it is imperative that those in authority are free to deliver swift and fair justice to them as a way to discourage this behavior or remove them from society.
Bill Mulligan
September 10, 2014 - 10:41 am
England owes Professor Alexis Jay a great debt for bringing this problem to light. Previous inquiries were buried. It was a risk–one former whistleblower claims to have been forced to diversity training for daring to mention the fact that this was being perpetrated by men of Pakistani heritage. ( see http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/02/rotherham-abuse-researcher-diversity-course_n_5750560.html)
You can read Professor Jay’s report here: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham
The report found: “Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”
Still trying to wrap my head around the thought that there would be even the slightest bit of hesitation in doing what’s right. Even the most crazed PC fanatic wouldn’t condone child rape and if they did they would surely be shunned. Politics is everything to some folks but even they have their limits.
Martha Thomases
September 10, 2014 - 12:33 pm
“Some” officials is not a policy. And, if true, they should be fired. I say this as one of the more stereotypical PC leftists you will ever meet.
Here’s my line in the sand: If you don’t want to eat pork, if you want to wear a headscarf, if you want to chop down a tree and bring it into your house in the middle of winter, that’s fine. Enjoy yourself. If you want to change my behavior (or anyone else’s), we have a problem.
Children’s lives were at stake. I have no doubt that if boys were being kidnapped and turned out, authorities would have risked being perceived as racists. That said, I certainly don’t want to find out if this is true.
Rene
September 10, 2014 - 1:55 pm
Political correctness at its worst:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11069178/Rotherham-researcher-sent-on-diversity-course-after-raising-alarm.html
There are people saying that this is like the pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church, only replace Catholic with multi-cultural.
And, just like with the Church, the damage to the “cause” one tried to protect will be that much bigger because they spent so much time covering it up. Those who ARE racist are going to have a field day with this.
Obviously, sexism played a large part here too. That strange blame-the-victim attitude that is oh so comforting to one that has done nothing to protect the most vulnerable.
I don’t blame religion (Catholic or Muslim) or politics (Right-wing or Political Correctness), though. The desire to exploit the ones perceived “weak” is older than religion or politics. In fact, religion and politics are used to legimitize this exploitation, they’re not the causes of it, IMO.
That is why you get leftists like the Black Panther that said that the position women had in their party was “on their back with legs open” and the many atheists who use “evolutionary psychology” to justify women being kept subservient to men.
These guys are MONSTERS first, and Catholic, Muslim, Pakistani, Conservative, Atheist, etc. second.
Bill Mulligan
September 10, 2014 - 1:57 pm
“If true”…well, I can’t imagine why anyone would admit to it if it were NOT true, but ok. I’ll agree on the firing, in fact at a certain point it kind of crosses the line into aiding and abetting a crime. You’d think “rapist-enabler” would be something to be feared far more than “racist” but people can be very horrible.
“I have no doubt that if boys were being kidnapped and turned out, authorities would have risked being perceived as racists.” Perhaps. I wish I was as confident of that. Look at how many boys are sexually abused in the juvenile justice system here in the USA. Since in the vast majority of cases (9 out of 10) the abuser is a female staff member it seems to be of little interest (kudos to Salon and Slate for several articles highlighting this). Their maleness does not seem to have given them any particular value in the eyes of most of society and the media.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/04/sexual_abuse_on_the_rise_at_us_juvenile_detention_facilities_partner/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/woodland_hills_youth_development_center_the_dark_secret_of_juvenile_detention.html
Mike Gold
September 10, 2014 - 2:56 pm
Martha, there most certainly are a great many boys being kidnapped and turned out and/or forced into sex in other ways. I am totally unaware of any Muslim groups doing this, but other religions have done this throughout history and, as recent revelations have disclosed, continue to do so. The adoption business is traditionally run by organized religion.
I believe most of this sort of activity is secular or in the domain of small religious sub-groups that the big Organized Religion groups hypocritically refer to as “cults.”
Martha Thomases
September 10, 2014 - 3:01 pm
Mike, too many kids are swiped by too many evil humans of all stripes. I didn’t mean to challenge that, and if my words sounded like that, I misspoke.
I was simply addressing this organized gang and the way it was allegedly using political correctness to terrify local law enforcement.
Perhaps if we didn’t consider kids to be property but actual people, this would go better.
Mike Gold
September 10, 2014 - 3:03 pm
Hmmm… perhaps if we didn’t consider kids to be sex objects created for purchase, barter and financial gain, this would go better.
Rene
September 11, 2014 - 9:20 am
There is one thing that I agree with comments Martha made in previous posts.
What is the common link between the Catholic Church scandal and the Rotherham scandal?
It’s that both involve hierarchies that are very male-centric producing mass sexual abuse.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-end-macho-culture-of-mosque-say-muslim-women
Bill Mulligan
September 11, 2014 - 12:40 pm
Don’t assume women will be much better. If offered the opportunity, sexual predators of any gender will do what they do. Look at the abuse of boys in the juvenile justice system. 90% of reported abuses are by female staff members. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/woodland_hills_youth_development_center_the_dark_secret_of_juvenile_detention.html
Rene
September 11, 2014 - 1:29 pm
Bill –
I think this is probably a minefield, but here it goes anyway. In older times, the prevailing opinion was that a male could not be abused by a female. It just couldn’t happen. Male kids seduced by female teachers were not victims, but lucky little bastards.
After people started to realize how wrong-headed that was, and how males could be abused when they were the weaker side in a unbalanced relationship (teacher-student, guard-inmate, adult-minor), regardless of the genders involved, it seems like things changed in the opposite direction.
That males in a weaker position must always be considered as abused, and that said abuse must be considered always as being as bad as any other sort of abuse.
I know I am opening myself to criticism, that I’m diminishing a horrible experience, but I do believe that a 11-year old girl threatened with being burned alive by a gang member if she didn’t agree to have group sex is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more abusive than a 17-year old guy receiving gifts and favours from a female prison guard that later marries him.
Bill Mulligan
September 11, 2014 - 2:11 pm
“I do believe that a 11-year old girl threatened with being burned alive by a gang member if she didn’t agree to have group sex is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more abusive than a 17-year old guy receiving gifts and favours from a female prison guard that later marries him.”
Well, in fairness, there are not many things as bad as an 11-year old girl threatened with being burned alive by a gang member if she didn’t agree to have group sex. But I think it does no good purpose to start classifying these things in terms of degrees of badness. You end up looking like Whoopie Goldberg excusing Roman Polanski; sure it was rape but it wasn’t “rape-rape” (and certainly nowhere near the level of the dreaded “rape-rape-rape”).
The full extent of sexual abuse of young males is hard to know, partly because of the wrong-headed ideas you mentioned, partly because a lot of people seem to almost resent having to include young males as potential victims instead of victimizers. The individual I would list as the person most screwed up by his childhood was the victim of incest by his mother. Among the people who knew of this many simply refused to believe it. Apparently it was dogma that Such Things Simply Do Not Happen. Then I became acquainted with another person with a similar background. Unless I am some sort of magnet for these folks, I have to consider the probability that this is more common than any of us want to believe. And that refusal to face the reality of monsters in our midst is what allows them, whatever their gender, orientation, ethnicity, etc, to thrive.
Rene
September 11, 2014 - 2:56 pm
Yeah, things like that are probably way more common than we think. Even much more common is what psychologists call emotional incest or covert incest, where there is no sexual contact, but the parent, usually the mother, will form an unhealthy bond with (usually) the oldest son, by treating him more like an adult sexual partner.
But looking back at what I wrote, I said that a male-centric hierarchy was to blame for both scandals, but it seems like the problem is when a homogeneous community closes ranks.
Rene
September 12, 2014 - 11:17 am
This whole thing makes me remember some things I was thinking circa 2001, after 9/11.
A conservative is a person that thinks minorities aren’t ready to enjoy the full rights of a citizen.
A liberal is a person that thinks minorities aren’t ready to endure the full responsibilities of a citizen.
Those two attitudes are more similar than people think. They both somewhat dehumanize minorities.
When 9/11 happened, I really didn’t like the attitudes of many people on the left, particularly the left in Europe and Latin America.
They had an inability to see Muslims as full individuals, capable of both good and evil, and quite responsible for any crimes they personally committed. Instead, Muslims were only capable of acting in response to something the West did. As if Muslims were some indifferent mass of plastic that contorted and snapped back when touched. Only Western people could have responsibilities and initiate actions.
This is a sort of paternalistic attitude that is not wholly different from Conservatives of old that talked of White Man’s Burden and treated adult black males as “boys”. The black supposedly had the diminished responsibility of a child.
Liberals sometimes see minorities this way too, but they’re more hypocritical about it. A Muslim pedophile is a pedophile, before all else. He isn’t a victim of discrimation that is taking revenge on the injustices reaped upon him by white men, like some more clueless liberals in Britain are already saying.
Bill Mulligan
September 13, 2014 - 7:14 am
The Rotherhan scandal may have more aspects coming out. An early whistleblower now says she was physically threatened by the authorities.
Maybe these authorities were also partaking in the abuse? Or at least profiting from it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/387868/rotherham-whistleblower-reportedly-threatened-police-feared-life-ian-tuttle?utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Corner&utm_source=twitterfeed
Rene
September 13, 2014 - 3:27 pm
Yeah. Ideology gone awry or just corrupt and lazy authorities using political correctness as an excuse for even more calculated wrongdoing? Or both?
Or maybe it started as ideology but they just realized how bad it would look if their failure to act became exposed.
Bill Mulligan
September 15, 2014 - 11:05 am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756140/Rotherham-child-abuse-victim-confronts-alleged-abuser-street-SHE-arrested-van-load-police.html
Who knows if this story is true but if it is, one of the victims confronted her rapist and was arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated public order offences.
Were the cops in on this all along?
Rene
September 15, 2014 - 11:42 am
Incredible.
You know, I almost believe in the conspiracy theory that these policemen are all crypto-fascists. They actually hate Muslims and belong to some White Supremacist group.
Their strategy is to get the rest of the population so riled up and full of hatred of the Pakistani community that a massacre will happen.
I am joking, by the way. But tell me if it doesn’t look like that is what they’re doing? I mean, can someone be so pig-headed politically correct as those cops? Can someone be so caricatural that they look like villains out of some Frank Miller comic demonizing Muslims and the PC police?
And in this case, they’re the “PC police” literally.
Bill Mulligan
September 16, 2014 - 3:52 am
That would require a level of long term thinking and basic supervillainy that is sadly lacking in these uninspired times.
I keep hoping for James Bond megalomaniacs and all I get is the lady at the DMV.