From an ongoing discussion on my Facebook page
No matter how feminist one’s theoretical argument, when you go to daddy for recourse, which means the government in any form, that is not feminist and it does not support women, who (in nearly every feminist theory) are characterized as being inherently oppressed by patriarchy. This conversation does not have to come down to what is prosecutable and what is a crime against the state, or who is an injured party in the eyes of tort law. There is question of human consideration, and there is a question of power dynamics inside of any sexual transaction. The more sex is about pleasure, the less political it is. The more sex is about power, the more political it is. The thing is, most of us are attracted to sex where there is a question of power, and there are a top and bottom in nearly every sexual equation.
Last, if we want to understand the continuum of rape, coercion and consent, we need to understand the impulses inside of desire, and I mean both male and female desire. In this sense, how we treat the other is mediated entirely by our inner relationship. If we want to understand rape dynamics or coercion dynamics, the thing to deconstruct is how we feel about ourselves, and how we project that onto the other. We can rage on and on about rape and abuse, but how does that help heal either party to the transaction?
–ef
I hadn’t seen this one.
I have been one of the most vocal men speaking up about rape that I know. But nothing has made me want to be a defense lawyer and cross examine these two women, like this case has.
And were I the judge, I would throw the case out merely based on the collusion between the two complainants.
As I said in a comment elsewhere, in a case where there is no evidence, all you have is your word, so you better be unimpeachable. When all you have is your word, you tell the truth and you play fair. And, were I sitting on the bench, the people making the complaints had better keep quiet until they are in court. The point of going to the authorities is to have your day in court.
Tabloid schmucks indeed.
I imagine you all have seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQriw-tiFBU&feature=player_embedded
I find it almost unbearably sad. And I decided to hunt it up and post it in this comments thread because I find a congruity between sexual abuse and the subtler (is it?) abuse being directed by the newscaster in this clip. I’m not sure what “meaning” to derive from this but it feels to me very very on point to make this comparison.
Of course I cannot know what actually went on between Assange and any of his sex partners. I might speculate that, as with all or most of us, there is some unresolved material in the sexuality of the individuals in question. I might further speculate that, perhaps, there might have been some coercion or manipulation present.
I believe that pretty much anyone who has been sexually active for very long has experienced some of that kind of thing because it is endemic among us.
What saddens me deeply is how this intimate collective wounding is being dragged out and used to bash someone who, I firmly believe, is devoting his existence to correcting grievous wrongs with which we have all lived for way way too long.
That just sucks. It is surely par for the course, and to be expected and all that. But even so…….
I am a woman. As a strong woman, I love the ascending male nature within me, the phallic energy below my womb that would allow me to produce good quality male offspring if need be. Like many of you, I have taken residence somewhere in a balanced place within the two polarities. Here is the thing about us women, there is an unspoken little fact that mother never got around to teaching us, we are reared to be easily seduced by men. We learn that as we go from an early age and it is a social mandate that other women police you on to keep the servile order alive. More so than men, women are the true supporters of the social order which is to nourish, shelter, serve men, and offspring. Even if a woman never reproduces she will be a caught up in the pattern.
This is a difficult topic for women.
I, agree, we need to understand the impulses of our inner desire and what motivates each and every one of us. We appear to be at a point of evolutionary departure, one which will be about progress, cooperation and evolution. Julian Assange is tipping the balance of world power…
Medea – I apologise if you felt that my point about humility was aimed at any perceived lack of such in you. It wasn’t. My point was made in context of pointing out the limitations of being finite creatures on a limiting cyberspace forum. There is much we can all miss – the debate is inevitably ’emasculated’ (he winks) by the limitations of the context.
I, for one, am not trying to be part of a cheer for the ‘leader’ chorus. I simply did not feel that to suggest Eric walk a while in a woman’s shoes was a charge that could be level at Eric (because he doesn’t merely theorise empathy with women he has attempted consistently to enter into the woman’s frame of reference – ‘compersion’ seems to be a neologism that describes Eric’s attempts in this area, from his own mouth, very well).
It seems to me that you do not need to posture around muscularity, Medea! If you perceive others as being defensive in ANY way you are at liberty NOT to respond in kind.
There is a debate to be had here. Please persevere with this forum if you believe passionately in what you have to bring to the table. It’s fine to disagree and it’s fine to say why. But with so many people having so much experience and passion there will inevitably be times when folk align vigorously and sometimes get drawn heavily into deeply contentious issues that have dogged our planet for many a century!
Surely this is not a bad thing!
Nice to see you contributing on here.
And just to add re BoB: There was debate a few months back on here about the male gaze (in response to the ‘ladies’ going topless in a march – in which State I forget now (I’m British!) Amanda covered this event with photographs). This touched on BoB. So issue around the male vantage point and its power of definition also find room on here. Maybe,
Eric, if you read this, could you perhaps dig out the link and post that as a comment on this thread??
I have been reading Eric – in depth – for many, many years also. (I query why I should feel it necessary to state this.)
I am curious as to why responses to my points are defensive of Eric and/or his ideas: Eric appears more than able to sustain his own viewpoints. We cannot agree to disagree: so much for Saturn in Libra, I guess.
I also read an implication of a lack of humility on my part. As for my choice of a Wiki definition, I prefaced my usage with its choice for ease and speed. I am quite capable of discussing this topic in a more, dare I say, muscular fashion but as pointed out, some prefer a more broadly defined debate.
I respect your experience as you describe it, Carrie: I have my own.
And, no, I do not consider the BoB by any means equivalent.
If this ‘forum’ exists only as a cheering section for Eric’s views, perhaps I shall return to commenting only on his Facebook page, where a diversity of opinion and thought has already found voice.
“Medea, I can assure that Eric attempts more than anyone I know of to experience the embodied female perspective!”
I second that sentiment; I have been reading Eric’s works since 1997 and he is one of the most aware persons in regards to this issue I have ever met. He always tries to see the non-gender point of view and if called out, will even admit if he is leaning one side or the other.
Having said that, I also want to remind folks that he is a male and as such has a greater …shall we say percentage…of the male point of view than any woman would have. As a female, I also try to be non-gender biased yet I am always aware that I am female and as such, my percentage is greater on the female side just because that has been my life experience.
I have found Eric’s open mind and male point of view valuable in my own life path of understanding the male perspective and I know he has found many womens’ input valuable to his understanding of the female perspective; you can see it in his writing.
to add – if ‘we’ keep approaching this conversation (hurtful sexual contact) as a fight from different corners, no one will ever win.
I read PW choosing to understand that the editor’s perspective comes from no gender-biased corner.
A thought – Isn’t the entire BoB project a wearing of Tootsie’s shoes?
Medea, I can assure that Eric attempts more than anyone I know of to experience the embodied female perspective! Which all goes to show that a message board in cyberspace can only truncate narratives and people into a disembodied voice! Still, that’s probably inevitable. We can only proceed with genuine humility about the limitations of being a limited, time bound, bunch of creatures, muddling along in the semi-light..
A wiki definition of transaction, is however, most likely insufficient for critique here.
To be too tightly definitional about the language is itself logocentric and implicitly therefore phallogocentric. If we are to embrace Irigaray’s metaphor for transformation of *two* lips meeting then any sense of mono within the definition is patriarchal and oppressive – connoted to male usage or not..
We should probably stick to the sense of the debate in fairly broad terms. I think that attempting to deconstruct projections cognitively with an awareness model is probably too much a concession to idealism. I would prefer a differing approach with the same envisaged end point.
Love *conquering* Power.
But still, for this not to be more of said rampant idealism, it must have a mechanics.
I’d suggest that we are well advised to throw ideas about such mechanics vigorously around this forum (at least as vigorously as we and our partners may wish to throw each other around the bedroom, in our most animated and passion-filled moments – I hope such throwing does not imply a violent act, precluding all tenderness?? – Surely not??)
If we want to understand rape dynamics or coercion dynamics, the thing to deconstruct is how we feel about ourselves, and how we project that onto the other.
_______________________
And this would include the projections by animals, infants, and crones onto their rapists? Methinks the projection ‘rationale’ wears thin.
_______________________
We can rage on and on about rape and abuse, but how does that help heal either party to the transaction?
______________________
For brevity’s sake, let’s use Wiki’s definition of transaction: agreement, communication, or movement carried out between separate entities or objects, often involving the exchange of items of value, such as information, goods, services, and money.
I would not choose to invoke the word transaction in respect of rape.
Wandering yeti approaches the root of the issue when she correlates control over resources to power over Other. Sadly, she sees war and enemies, but I cannot fault her there: patriarchy has taught the rest of us, from women – the original Other – to aboriginals, that dichotomy is the basis of rational (male) thought and reality and, ergo, the logical outcome of disputing such a worldview is war made by the powerful upon the weak.
I cannot resist suggesting that a week spent Tootsie-style in women’s shoes might reframe your perceptions somewhat.
Yeti, again you have inspired me….”civilization as opposed to culture”…..oh! such a wealth of reading to do here..i.e. Civilization vs Culture. Thanks.
We can conceive of power being used responsibly… maybe just barely, but right. Right on.
This is the same divide and conquer strategy the Psychopath uses to divide the land into parcels of property only it’s dividing people against ourselves on the interior and each other on the exterior. It’s the mark of civilization as opposed to culture. As soon as we started locking up the food we started locking up the people and the people started locking up themselves to avoid punishment by those who locked themselves up first.
Until feminists, dark skinned people, indigenous people, environmentalists, witches, LGBT, poor people, kids, the sick, the unemployed, the homeless and all marginalized people realize that we all have a common enemy we’ll be too divided amongst ourselves to fight back and prevent the Psychopath from dividing us any further. What I mean is all of these various groups of people are all being fucked with by a small minority of rich people who have killed their hearts and only track reality in terms of the magical abstraction of money. The biosphere is going through the biggest mass extinction since the dinosaurs because of our technology and very very little is being done about it because the rich are still making money from the murders. This isn’t a different thing than the war on sex and the war between the sexes. The objectification of women comes from the same exact place as the objectification of Nature and the turning of our brothers and sisters in the non human realm into “natural resources” that only exist for our exploitation.
The more sex is about pleasure, the less political it is. The more sex is about power, the more political it is.
———————–
Last, if we want to understand the continuum of rape, coercion and consent, we need to understand the impulses inside of desire, and I mean both male and female desire.
———————–
Two key sentences.
The question of pleasure here is really one of whose pleasure? (which IS political) One experiences one’s own wantingness directly, but the wantingness belonging to the other is shrouded in mystery. Moreover, desire will deplete, fluctuate and sate in relation to its embodied condition. So ‘whose pleasure?’ is not a constant between lovers.
There is a sense in which abandonment is key here, (because of the implicit self-forgetfulness). One of the ways in which this ego-forfeit becomes possible is through lovers being thoroughly connected outside the boudoir and the overtly sexual contacts that they share. One does not need to be in one’s head, once in tune with the other.
———————-
If we want to understand rape dynamics or coercion dynamics, the thing to deconstruct is how we feel about ourselves, and how we project that onto the other.
———————-
Based on my preliminary observations, I would suggest that such a deconstruction presupposes that relatively unaware people will be prepared to do this. Perhaps therefore, a question of significance here has to be one of HOW awareness in somebody can propagate itself (relationally) toward the other, to bring release. As a problem conceived purely individualistically (as a modality of awareness/deficit), it seems to me that one of the great liberative capacities of sexual exchange is not being harnessed.
We CAN conceive of power being used responsibly (even if this is not the connotation we have come routinely to expect!!)
Express yourself and keep checking in with your lover. If they won’t look at themselves naked in the mirror with you, have a long think about what you might do about that…