One of the things I truly enjoy about DemocracyNow! is the way that it shows the nuances there can be between people who are theoretically on the same side of an issue. The discussion between Jaclyn Friedman, executive director of Women, Action & the Media a charter member of CounterQuo and the editor of the hit anthology Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape and Naomi Wolf, feminist, social critic and author of seven books, including The Beauty Myth and The End of America.
They both identify as feminists and neither one of them is one of those fake feminists (i.e., where they argue that it is a feminist position that women should be heterosexual, married, and shouldn't work). They engaged in a heated and very interesting debate about rape and it raises some interesting questions about the issue of consent.
Wolf basically argues that Assange did not commit rape. She conceded it would be rape if he had sex with someone who was asleep, but she says that the woman was not asleep, she was half asleep, she woke up and they talked about sex and he promised her he didn't have HIV/AIDS (apparently she didn't ask about any other STDs) and after his reassurances she consented to sex.
Friedman basically argues, no he actively engaged in sex with her while she was sleeping. When she woke up, he pressured her to have sex with him. She also called b.s. on Wolf's argument that victims of rape basically run and hide from any connection to the perpetrator. This argument that Wolf attempted to make was profoundly disappointing and makes it appear that she has never done much research or been involved in services supporting survivors of rape. As Friedman pointed out, it is actually quite common for survivors of sexual assault, especially by known assailants to continue to interact. It is also not that uncommon for some women to later engage in consensual sex with the perpetrator, many theorists believe this is done in an attempt to reclaim control over the situation, that by having consensual sex it somehow mitigates the feeling of violation from the previous encounter.
It was also a little disturbing how Wolf blew of the torn clothing. She laughed it off in a way that seemed to be saying that sex often gets rough and exciting, and ripping cloths is part of the fun, so it's ridiculous to use torn cloths as support of rape.
Wolf also alluded to the idea that these women's were groupies so of course they would consent to sex with Assange. I couldn't help but get a flashback to the days of Clinton. There is something about men in power, whether it be because they are presidents, rebellious media moguls, or football players, society seems to believe that it is impossible that women would not consent to sex with them. Apparently all women, all the time, even when they're asleep.
Anyway, there discussion is more interesting than my rant, so check it out.
Part 1: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/20/naomi_wolf_vs_jaclyn_friedman_a
Part 2: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/21/part_iifeminists_debate_sexual_allegations_against
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Wikileaks & Sexual Assault
A hot topic on the international media these days is Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Wikileaks has been publishing a large number of confidential cables that provide more insight into the way the U.S. engages in foreign affairs and internal thoughts about other governments and policies. There has been a large backlash to this publications by many in mainstream media and by the U.S.
At basically the same time as all this is going on, Assange has been arrested for sexual crimes. This is pretty much all the news says about it, I suspect because this is true, at least in the U.S. because few people in the U.S. would think Assange's behavior is criminal - from the little snippets I have been able to gather through articles, the main issue seems to be refusing to wear a condom. There are two women involved and they both apparently had a bit of a crush on Assange, were possibly groupies. It sounds like Assange may have gotten forceful with one woman and she acquiesced and tried to insist on his wearing a condom, which he apparently did, but then refused to pull out and reapply when it somehow broke. The other woman woke up to Assange having sex with her without a condom.
In Sweden, their criminal code is far more progressive than anywhere in the U.S. (at least that I'm aware of) and has a category of "less severe" rape, which, according to the New York Times is commonly invoked when men in relationships use threats or mild degrees of force to have sex with partners against their will. Maximum penalty - 4 years.
In the U.S. (in a vast majority of states), the marital exemption, means that being in a marital relationship prohibits the ability to be charged with anything other than a violent rape (i.e., use of deadly force).
Right now so many of the conservative pundits are anti-Assange to such a degree that they seem to be not even care why he is in jail. These same pundits would likely argue that the state is interfering to much with people's private lives. And it does bring up some interesting questions about autonomy and respect. So often in the U.S. we equate rape with having to be a completely violent act. There is even a judge who through out a violent stranger rape case because the victim asked the perpetrator to wear a condom (he didn't) but the judge concluded that asking to wear a condom was equivalent to consent. Given our reluctance in the U.S. to acknowledge, prosecute and convict rapist when no means no for any reason, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around what would happen if we prosecuted people for a "no, but not because I don't want to sleep with, just that I don't want to sleep with you without a condom." In our society, where women aren't allowed to say because they don't want to have sex with a date, a popular guy, a football player - would we ever be willing to accept it as a violation of human integrity worthy of criminal sanctions to violate a request to wear a condom? And how forceful of a request does it have to be? Is a simple, "do you have a condom?" enough? What if she says "it's okay if you don't."? Do you have to try to fight him off after he refuses to wear a condom?
And it's interesting when considered in conjunction with the U.S. laws that do allow for criminal charges against someone who willfully engages in sexual activity that s/he knows could infect his/her sexual partners with HIV/AIDS (I'm not sure if this applies to any other STDs). This is regardless of whether the sexual partner asked the person to use a condom.
On a complete side-note, Assange and some supporters say that the sexual assault charges are bogus and merely backlash against the latest wikileaks. While I recognize this is possible, there does seem to be a similar pattern of doing what you want regardless of the impact on others. He also would be far from the last person who has used his fame as an excuse for behavior, believing that his fame allows him to do whatever he wants to women who are interested (regardless of the level of interest).
At basically the same time as all this is going on, Assange has been arrested for sexual crimes. This is pretty much all the news says about it, I suspect because this is true, at least in the U.S. because few people in the U.S. would think Assange's behavior is criminal - from the little snippets I have been able to gather through articles, the main issue seems to be refusing to wear a condom. There are two women involved and they both apparently had a bit of a crush on Assange, were possibly groupies. It sounds like Assange may have gotten forceful with one woman and she acquiesced and tried to insist on his wearing a condom, which he apparently did, but then refused to pull out and reapply when it somehow broke. The other woman woke up to Assange having sex with her without a condom.
In Sweden, their criminal code is far more progressive than anywhere in the U.S. (at least that I'm aware of) and has a category of "less severe" rape, which, according to the New York Times is commonly invoked when men in relationships use threats or mild degrees of force to have sex with partners against their will. Maximum penalty - 4 years.
In the U.S. (in a vast majority of states), the marital exemption, means that being in a marital relationship prohibits the ability to be charged with anything other than a violent rape (i.e., use of deadly force).
Right now so many of the conservative pundits are anti-Assange to such a degree that they seem to be not even care why he is in jail. These same pundits would likely argue that the state is interfering to much with people's private lives. And it does bring up some interesting questions about autonomy and respect. So often in the U.S. we equate rape with having to be a completely violent act. There is even a judge who through out a violent stranger rape case because the victim asked the perpetrator to wear a condom (he didn't) but the judge concluded that asking to wear a condom was equivalent to consent. Given our reluctance in the U.S. to acknowledge, prosecute and convict rapist when no means no for any reason, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around what would happen if we prosecuted people for a "no, but not because I don't want to sleep with, just that I don't want to sleep with you without a condom." In our society, where women aren't allowed to say because they don't want to have sex with a date, a popular guy, a football player - would we ever be willing to accept it as a violation of human integrity worthy of criminal sanctions to violate a request to wear a condom? And how forceful of a request does it have to be? Is a simple, "do you have a condom?" enough? What if she says "it's okay if you don't."? Do you have to try to fight him off after he refuses to wear a condom?
And it's interesting when considered in conjunction with the U.S. laws that do allow for criminal charges against someone who willfully engages in sexual activity that s/he knows could infect his/her sexual partners with HIV/AIDS (I'm not sure if this applies to any other STDs). This is regardless of whether the sexual partner asked the person to use a condom.
On a complete side-note, Assange and some supporters say that the sexual assault charges are bogus and merely backlash against the latest wikileaks. While I recognize this is possible, there does seem to be a similar pattern of doing what you want regardless of the impact on others. He also would be far from the last person who has used his fame as an excuse for behavior, believing that his fame allows him to do whatever he wants to women who are interested (regardless of the level of interest).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
