Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: More to social media than your # of Facebook friends Previous entry: Friday Genius Ten “It’s Good To Be Bad” Edition

No, really, the word “no” isn’t that confusing

CrimeFeminism

I wish I had a more fun, cheeky thing to post on before a holiday weekend, but I can’t just let this new sex tape scandal thing slide.  In the past, I’ve suggested that men who film women (with their consent) having sex and then release it (without their consent) are committing a form of sexual assault—-not legally rape, of course, but indistinguishable from other forms of rape in that the intention is to use sex as a weapon to hurt and humiliate the victim.  I feel that releasing a sex tape without the permission of everyone involved needs to be elevated to the level of a crime, because it has so much in common with other forms of violence against women, and simply making it a matter for the civil courts isn’t doing enough to stop this practice.  The victim in this case is Kendra Wilkinson, and the story is really illustrative in this case of my point. 

I had to look the woman up, because I had no idea who she is. Turns out she’s a reality TV star and former Playboy model.  As you can imagine, her history in sex work is creating confusion around the issue, due to the myth that sex workers can’t be raped.  I was frustrated to see this line of reasoning trotted out at Broadsheet without a firm denunciation.

Kendra Wilkinson expects the leak of her private sex tape to be “really hard”—“probably the hardest time” of her life. It might seem surprising from a woman who has already posed naked in the pages of Playboy and co-dated Hugh Hefner with two other women. Such a woman is expected to gamely catch the wave of publicity and ride it out to her own benefit. It’s what she’s been working toward all along, right?

I don’t think Tracy Clark-Flory sees it this way, but she’s also not bringing up the fact that this is the same argument always used against victims of sexual violence, particularly sex workers, the old “non-virgins can’t be raped” myth that should really have been put to rest centuries before the video camera was even invented.  Again, to be clear, I’m not saying that releasing a sex tape is the same thing as rape, but it certainly falls on the scale of sexual harassment and assault, as far as I’m concerned.  And it should be treated as such by criminal courts.  If Justin Frye, who sold the tape, and the folks at Vivid, who bought it, were facing criminal penalties for this, I’m sure they would have thought a lot more carefully about violating this woman’s right to control her own body and sexuality.

What makes this entire situation more disturbing is the sexual violence aspects may not be limited to the releasing of tape.  I was alarmed to read this blog post at Jezebel describing the contents:

Kendra doesn’t really want to be videotaped. She says so on quite a few occasions.

“Please don’t do it,” she says. “Please?”

“Kendra,” he says, annoyed. “I’m barely zooming in. Just go.”

“Can you not?”

“You’ll like it. Trust me. Watch. Go.”

Kendra seems resigned to her fate, and, almost instantaneously, she shifts characters, from a very young woman being pressured into a sexual situation she finds uncomfortable to a willing sexpot, grinding obligingly on the bed with a black panther blanket across it. (Jesus Christ.)

As her male companion puts the camera close-up on her vagina, she shuts her legs.

“What?” he whines. “Just do it. Just keep messing around.”

She pushes him and the camera away several times after that, each time slipping instantly back into character as soon as he expresses annoyance.

He begins performing oral sex on her. She’s not entirely comfortable with this. She wriggles around and clamps her legs close, against his head.

“Keep ‘em open. Keep ‘em open. Keep ‘em open. Open your legs. Open ‘em. Open ‘em.”

They have sex. He has trouble staying hard. He’s gross, really - a balding redhead in his late teens or early twenties with a pube-hair goatee, bad teeth and a too-large nose - pudgy and pale all over.

He comes inside her, even though she’s obviously asked him not to. She makes a face and she rolls off the bed. He acts surprised and upset by her action. She tells him she doesn’t like it when he does that. He mutters something about a blow job.

The blogger says that it’s not rape, but calls it that “thing” that happens to young women.  And maybe it’s not, legally speaking.  Maybe she affirmed her consent every time the sex restarted after withdrawing her consent repeatedly.  I haven’t watched it, nor do I think that I want to be a part of all this.

But let’s be clear: being resigned after someone overrules your refusal to perform a specific sex act isn’t consent.  If someone mugs you on the street, and you pull out your wallet and hand it over with resignation instead of fury, you’re just as mugged. 

Which is why I’m bothered by this:

This isn’t a sex tape, really. It’s that thing we talk about that happens to our young women. That thing that we, as grown-ups, write about and research incessantly and condemn broadly, but don’t remember so vividly. It’s right here on video.

It reminds me to some extent of the Paris Hilton sex tape, but even more so here. It’s that space where young women have discovered and perfected their sexuality and its value, but haven’t yet figured out how it’s empowering. They just know that it’s something people want from them; it’s something people expect from them. Something young men expect from them; something, perhaps, that young men haven’t learned how to ask for politely. It’s uncomfortable and new and everybody’s learning, and what happens, more often than not, is that the male partner’s desires come first and more forcefully, and the young woman is disrespected and disempowered and left with a sense that she’s less valuable and less capable of demanding respect and control than her male counterpart - a sense than lingers into her twenties and beyond, even though she might not recognize it as such.

It is true that young women are more vulnerable to coercion, sexual assault, and rape because assailants exploit a common fear young women have about standing up for themselves.  And that’s all very interesting, but it’s secondary to my main concern.

What’s wrong with a man that, when faced with the words “stop”, “don’t”, “no”, “quit it”, or any variation of the above doesn’t immediately turn off the camera and stop the sexual activity?  What is wrong with him that he gets off bullying his supposed girlfriend into performing for him, even though she’s clearly opposed to the idea?  What kind of evil, twisted fuckhead bullies a woman into sex acts she doesn’t like, comes in her without her consent, and then sells the video—-again, without her consent—-to a porn studio?  What kind of twisted fuckers buy it?  Even if all this behavior falls short of the official line between rape and not-rape, I still see a bunch of assholes getting off on the fact that a woman’s consent is compromised.

Let’s face it. We all know the answer to why some men get off on this. They feel powerful. They like the control over women.  In this case, I’m sure her Playboy-style looks were part of it—-controlling a woman that other men gawk at is a way to feel like a big, powerful man.  We all know why men like to impress themselves and other men with their control and mastery over women, their willingness to hurt women. 

And if you still have questions about why feminists call ours a “rape culture”, I suggest letting the issues raised by this tape and the release of it percolate in your mind for awhile.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 06:53 PM • (274) Comments

What i just read about this was that it was Kendra herself that was shopping the tape around as recently as last year (after I read this I went to a celebrity stalker site to look it up). I do not think that’s true but that’s the latest news. They made it sound like she couldn’t stop the ex-boyfriend from releasing it, so she got on board to to at least get the best “deal”? I can’t imagine that this was ALL her idea, as they make it seem. It does seem like a form of rape to me. She trusted him and now he’s doing this to her.

I haven’t seen this one or any of the other “celebrity sex tapes” and don’t have any desire to. Its weird & creepy how all these things come out though. You literally can’t trust anyone it seems.

Comment #1: Mark  on  05/28  at  07:40 PM

She pushes him and the camera away several times after that, each time slipping instantly back into character as soon as he expresses annoyance.

While I haven’t been videotaped (as far as I know) I can relate to this. Many a time I have given in to a partner’s requests because I didn’t want to be seen as killing the fun or upsetting him only to have later regretted it and mentally told myself “next time, next time I will stick to my guns,” and then the next time rolls around and I pull the same shit. As I’ve gotten older I do find myself putting my foot down a lot more but there are still a few times when guys start whining and I give in just to make them shut up. I know this has to do with a few factors and I’m working on them.  In reading the Jezebel comments I didn’t realize that this seriously was a thing with women and as one of the commenters suggested we really should step up education to include teaching young boys that no means no and being pushy can get them into trouble.

Comment #2: UltraMagnus  on  05/28  at  07:43 PM

According to Salon, Wilkinson has been fighting this.  The problem is that Vivid can put any settlement paid into their cost of doing business column.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/28  at  07:44 PM

I’m also alarmed that TCF ended the post with advice not to make a sex tape if you don’t want it released.  It doesn’t sound like Wilkinson felt she had a choice.

Comment #4: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/28  at  07:45 PM

Ultra, I’m sorry.

Seriously, you’ve identified the gap.  All this is put on women to be the ones who stop it, and then we teach women that saying no to men makes you a bitch.  You literally have a choice between your own desires about sex and your desire not to be considered a bad person by society’s standards—-and in the eyes of a man who you probably wish to please.

Perhaps we shouldn’t hammer it into young women’s heads that they have to always be pleasing.  But we also need to make it clear to men that whining, cajoling, and other forms of bullying are what really make you a bad person.

Comment #5: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/28  at  07:48 PM

“That thing that happens to our young women,” not “that thing our men do,” I see. Ugh.

Comment #6: MissPrism  on  05/28  at  07:56 PM

I haven’t seen, the video and don’t plan too, so I can’t comment on the unfortunate contents of it. However, Kendra had to have been involved in the release of the video. There is a law that requires all actors in porn movies to sign off on their age and prove they are the ones in the video with picture documentation (drivers license, passport, etc.). Kendra could have easily stopped the release of it by just refusing to fill out those papers. It could never have been released without her consent.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002257——000-.html

A friend of mine works for an interwebs company and his job is to maintain the files they keep on every actor or performer that is in any adult movie on any of the websites they host. There are serious fines and even jail time for not keeping those records up to date and accurate. They are audited frequently and he always stresses out about it.

Comment #7: AlaskaSeth  on  05/28  at  08:26 PM

@7: But she wasn’t acting in a porn. I imagine that, like Amanda said, any costs incurred by releasing celebrity sex tapes are more than covered by the number of skeevy assholes who buy copies.

Comment #8: Entomologista  on  05/28  at  08:29 PM

That thing that happens.  Wow.  Things that happen include locking myself out of my house, or getting a flat tire, or having the vending machine eat my money.  Having a douchebag ex peddle a sex tape is a “thing that happens” now?

I just hope Kendra’s next TV show isn’t “Celebrity Rehab With Dr. Drew.”

Comment #9: liberalrob  on  05/28  at  08:29 PM

I just can’t imagine being that guy.  I can’t imagine feeling I’m so entitled to sex that I can whine and cajole someone into doing something they clearly don’t enjoy and don’t want to do.

And on camera, no less.  I mean, hell, that’s even more mind-boggling.  Not only is this guy selling a sex tape without his partner’s consent, he’s selling a sex tape that shows he’s a fucking asshole.

Comment #10: Ferox  on  05/28  at  08:40 PM

@8 It doesn’t matter what you want to label the video. The fact is you can not release a video for sale with a sex act in it without the person in the video filling out tons of legal documents proving she (or he) is 18 years old and the person in the video. It’s not a question of how much would it cost if she didn’t fill out the forms (lawyer costs, getting sued, etc). It means actual jail time for the owners of the company that released it. I think Vivid released it and I can’t imagine their multi-millionaire owners are willing to go to jail for 5 years for a few extra hundred thousand dollars.

Comment #11: AlaskaSeth  on  05/28  at  08:44 PM

#7

There is a law that requires all actors in porn movies to sign off on their age and prove they are the ones in the video with picture documentation (drivers license, passport, etc.). Kendra could have easily stopped the release of it by just refusing to fill out those papers. It could never have been released without her consent.

Alaskaseth, I’ve certainly seen those messages in the beginnings of porno movies, “All records kept by custodian of records X”, or whatever it says. I think I understand the purpose of the law, as a form of regulation on the porn industry.

However, I am quite skeptical of your overall point. You state that Ms. Wilkinson could have stopped the release of this video simply by refusing to sign papers. How then do you explain the way that many women have had sex videos released of them without any sort of consent on their part, and have been unable to do more than sue for civil damages (considering the amount of money a celebrity tape can make, the civil suits can hardly be more than a “cost of business”, and not a deterrent.)

From the Salon article, “The legal secrets of sex tapes”, that Amanda linked to:

Pamela Anderson, the other queen of leaked sex tapes, settled her suit over a video shot with ex-boyfriend Bret Michaels after a payout and an agreement that the tape would be destroyed. However, she and ex-husband Tommy Lee won $740,000 each in a copyright infringement suit over their infamous “honeymoon” video, which was stolen from their home — but only after five years of litigation.

This hardly sounds like it is easy to prevent a sex tape from being released if you simply refuse to sign some forms! If it were that easy, why would Ms. Anderson need to have a lawsuit lasting five years? I’m far from convinced that, under current laws, women and men who participate in sex tapes can prevent the release of the tape as simply as you say.

Comment #12: atheist  on  05/28  at  08:53 PM

#11 AlaskaSeth

There’s a tape out there of me and one of my abusers made without my consent.  It’s pretty much impossible for me to know where it is or why.  If I could sign a release and at least make money from it, at least I could pay for my therapy bills. 

It sounds like Kendra was faced with the video being out there, with or without her consent.  For another recent example, see under Prejean, Carrie.

Maybe you should spend your energy being horrified by the transcript of this tape, or, since you’re from Alaska, doing something about the fact that your state has the highest reported rape numbers in the country:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5804581&page=1

Comment #13: Lurker  on  05/28  at  08:57 PM

#11

It means actual jail time for the owners of the company that released it. I think Vivid released it and I can’t imagine their multi-millionaire owners are willing to go to jail for 5 years for a few extra hundred thousand dollars.

Once again this seems unrealistic. If that were the case, then why wasn’t Pamela Anderson able to send Seth Warshavsky of the “Internet Entertainment Group” to prison? Why did they instead need to sue him for a portion of the profits?

Comment #14: atheist  on  05/28  at  09:02 PM

1. I agree with Amanda’s general point. Releasing one of these things without the consent of all parties is akin to a sexual assault. (Indeed, while this sounds like something that victimizes women much more than men, I would say the same thing about a female partner releasing a tape without the male’s consent.)

2. I also agree with Amanda’s specific point. That transcript practically rises to the level of something you could introduce into evidence in a rape case.

3. That said, a lot of these tapes are made consensually, and I have to say that celebrities or aspiring celebrities who make these sorts of tapes are really not thinking things through. If you don’t wish to become an unwitting porn star, it’s really a smart idea to keep the video cameras turned off. Every time I hear about one of these things, I think to myself “why are they dumb enough to tape themselves having sex?”.

4. And all that said, I can’t resist pointing this out, from #12:

“However, she and ex-husband Tommy Lee won $740,000 each in a copyright infringement suit over their infamous “honeymoon” video, which was stolen from their home — but only after five years of litigation.”

That’s about $50,000 per inch.

Comment #15: Dilan Esper  on  05/28  at  09:05 PM

#15

Every time I hear about one of these things, I think to myself “why are they dumb enough to tape themselves having sex?”.

Why are they “dumb enough”? Maybe for the exact same reason I was dumb enough to take sex photos and videos with an ex-girlfreind: because it totally turned us on. And there are a lot of people like us.

And all that said, I can’t resist pointing this out, from #12:

“However, she and ex-husband Tommy Lee won $740,000 each in a copyright infringement suit over their infamous “honeymoon” video, which was stolen from their home — but only after five years of litigation.”

That’s about $50,000 per inch.

Granted, Anderson and Lee are probably crying all the way to the bank. Still, it’s not just the principle of the thing. Consider Ms. Wilkinson’s situation. When you apply the same legal reasoning to it, you start to see how damaging it could be to someone. And I am sure there are worse cases still, perhaps Lurker in #13 has one of those cases.

Comment #16: atheist  on  05/28  at  09:15 PM

@12 I’m sure there are some sex tapes that are leaked without the consent of the people in them. I am by no means defending them. Kendra’s sex tape is being released through Vivid which has never been found to do so without permission. They also released Kim Kardishans (sp?) video. This may be the first time they have done so without consent and if so hopefully we will see the owners go to jail or be fined.

I vaguely remember the Pam and Tommy tapes but I’m pretty sure that company was an extremely criminal shady company where the owner eventually fled the country to escape prosecution and his creditors.

I think most people are confusing leaked tapes that are for sale as low definition clips at flybynight websites with a professional release by a reputable company (as reputable as a company can be in the porn industry).

Comment #17: AlaskaSeth  on  05/28  at  09:24 PM

@13 I’m not sure why you have chosen to direct your hatred and anger at me for posting a link to a law about keeping records pertaining to videos on the web.

Comment #18: AlaskaSeth  on  05/28  at  09:24 PM

Dilan (post #15), your third post reminds me a lot of antichoicers who use the “she should have kept her legs closed” argument. As consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, consent to making a sex tape for your own private enjoyment isn’t consent to having it released to the public.

Lots of people enjoy making sex tapes and taking sexy pictures for/with their significant other. That doesn’t mean they deserve to be humiliated for it.

Comment #19: Becky  on  05/28  at  09:28 PM

One of my coworkers buys the glossy magazines (US, People, InTouch, OK) and I kept seeing headlines about how Kendra’s husband was so upset over this sex tape and was their marriage in trouble because of it, blah blah blah.

If it was my spouse/partner in a sex tape, I sure as hell would be upset ... at the asshole who released it, not my spouse/partner.  And with the content as described, I’d be even more upset because it was coerced.

Comment #20: Mnemosyne  on  05/28  at  09:34 PM

Kendra’s sex tape is being released through Vivid which has never been found to do so without permission.

What if—and this is speculation on my part—she had filled that paperwork out for another video with the same company (I know Playboy does a lot of soft-core stuff).  Would it carry over to this video even if she didn’t consent to its release?  They already have proof that she was of age, so they might be able to win in court with an argument that if she consented once, she consented to any video from them.

(Yes, I am seeing the parallels here.)

Comment #21: Mnemosyne  on  05/28  at  09:38 PM

alaskaseth is right on the law.  a 2257 violation is a felony that can result in jail time.  however, the politics of its enforcement are more complicated in that it’s ultimately up to the government to prosecute.  the most well-known companies who tend to operate above-board with this kind of thing tend not to be the ones the feds go after—they chase the low-hanging fruit.  which is not to say vivid violated the law here, but the enforcement of laws like 2257, obscenity laws, etc is not in a vacuum.  who’s prosecuted for what has a lot to do with the party in power and the politics of the prosecutors themselves.

anyway, i think what likely happened was that lurker is right and she knew it’d be released and figured it’s better to make money than not.

Comment #22: chareth cutestory  on  05/28  at  09:39 PM

Every time I hear about one of these things, I think to myself “why are they dumb enough to tape themselves having sex?”.

That’s rape apology. A couple that willingly tape themselves having sex isn’t doing anything wrong. A person who releases such tape without the consent of everybody involved is. Why aren’t you focusing on the person who’s wrong?
I have seen this before and the reply usually is “Oh, I’m not blaming them, but come on, it’s dumb and they should know there was a risk. They created the situation that victimized them.”
That’s blaming, no matter how much a person says it’s not what they’re doing. And it’s a fail on causality too. There’s a sequence of events that leads to the end result, and the fact that couple made the tape is in the sequence, but only one event in the sequence that is bad. Everything in the sequence could happen, and if some asshole hadn’t decided to release it, nothing bad would result. The final cause is the releasing. If you’re going to shift blame to any of the previous events in the sequence, you might as well start ranting about the Big Bang.

Comment #23: colorlessblue  on  05/28  at  09:39 PM

Not to mention that speculating about how much money the other couple settled for is akin to that tactic of saying the victims who sue in civil court instead of going to the police are lying for money.

Comment #24: colorlessblue  on  05/28  at  09:52 PM

#18 AlaskaSeth

Um, because you chose to respond to an article about how a person said repeatedly, while filming and after the fact, that she never wanted the tape made, by pointing out that there’s a chance she may have signed one form or another?

Comment #25: Lurker  on  05/28  at  09:53 PM

Dilan (post #15), your third post reminds me a lot of antichoicers who use the “she should have kept her legs closed” argument. As consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, consent to making a sex tape for your own private enjoyment isn’t consent to having it released to the public.

I agree with the second sentence and in no way see how it answers the first point. “Keeping your legs closed” is not a response to the need for abortion because you are asking people to deprive themselves of a basic human need and desire.

But sex tapes are a rather modern invention. For the first 10,000 or so years of human existence, humans could not preserve a record of themselves copulating and watch it over and over again. And you will note that I specifically talked about celebrities and aspiring celebrities. And the reason is because it seems to me that this issue has a lot different contours when there is a potential market to show nude and sexually explicit footage of a person.

Comment #26: Dilan Esper  on  05/28  at  10:10 PM

There is a potential market to show nude and explicit footage of any person, but specially if it’s a woman you want to humilliate. There are uncountable “expose your ex-girlfriend for revenge” porn sites out there.

Comment #27: colorlessblue  on  05/28  at  10:15 PM

By the way, I don’t think that analogies work very well here. “She was asking for it” is a terrible claim about rape because it says that someone who fails to conduct herself in a manner that the busybody approves of DESERVES the punishment of rape.

But I don’t think anyone would claim that a campus rape awareness program that said (1) be careful about having too much to drink at parties, (2) always let a friend know where you are, (3) be aware of your surroundings at all times, and (4) take your cell phone and be aware of emergency call box locations was engaged in “rape apology”. Indeed, if people started saying that I would argue that they are not only grossly wrong in their analogizing, but are having the effect of shutting down any sensible conversation about sexual assault awareness.

I don’t think ANY woman or man “deserves” to have a sex tape released. But I do think that in this day and age, whether we like it or not, people who decide to trust their partners to tape them engaging in sexual activities, who are either famous or aspiring to be famous, are doing this against a backdrop where people will be out there waiting to pay tens of thousands of dollars to get ahold of that tape. That’s not apology. That’s reality. If I were in a celebrity, I wouldn’t tape myself having sex in a million years for precisely that reason.

Comment #28: Dilan Esper  on  05/28  at  10:16 PM

Vivid has apparently secured Kendra’s permission to sell the tape, and she’s now getting 50% of the profits.  She just got her first royalty payment of $680,000.

I still agree with the post about how releasing a tape without consent is abuse, and it may even be that Kendra knew it was going to come out anyway so she decided that she might as well take the cash.

Comment #29: Sjt  on  05/28  at  10:17 PM

Just to add to that: Kendra was apparently trying to sell the tapes herself (there are apparently a lot of them) a few years ago.  She didn’t get her asking price and refused to sell.  Her ex-bf then sold them to Vivid, and she protested since she wasn’t part of the negotiation.  But then she reached a deal with vivid for royalties and agreed to the release date.

Comment #30: Sjt  on  05/28  at  10:21 PM

@25 You are correct I pointed out there is a chance she signed some forms that make it legal for Vivid to sell her video. That there is a chance she could have kept the video just a rumor by refusing to sign those documents. Which is exactly what Carrie Prejean did (whom you reference in your first angry post directed at me).

I didn’t defend the selling of the video. I didn’t defend the taping of the video. I didn’t defend the person who taped the video, or their actions in the video.

How you are able to rationalize making me a target for your hatred and anger is still confusing to me.

Comment #31: AlaskaSeth  on  05/28  at  10:31 PM

The recommendations in your hypothetical campus awareness program are close to useless, considering that most assaults are commited by someone the victim knows and/or trusts. A friend who knows where you are will probably think you’re safe with your boyfriend. The friend you’re counting on to keep you safe might be the assaulter. Being aware of your surroundings would only work if there were a sign that made rapists easily recognizable. Drinking makes one more vulnerable, but even people who never drunk anything get raped. And an assaulter has the surprise factor in his favour, so unless he’s kind enough to stop and let you call the police before going on and finishing the assault, cell phone and emergency call boxes won’t help in prevention.
There are real awareness programs out there giving this kind of advice and they’ve been criticized many times, by several feminists, with explanations of why they’re not useful and why they’re victim blaming. These people who have been criticizing this kind of advice for ages are not shutting down sensible conversation about awareness, they’re the ones creating the conversation in the first place. They’re also not just pointing put what’s wrong and not giving any ideas themselves: there’s data showing that the kind of awareness that really helps with prevention of sexual assault is introducing the concept of consent in sex ed, and creating awareness in bystanders so that they’d intervene in suspicious situations.

Comment #32: colorlessblue  on  05/28  at  10:36 PM

Eeeyuck. This kind of stuff just gives me the creeps - like UltraMagnus, I also felt whined and cajoled into a lot of things (although mine includes naked pictures, if not videos. that I know of) - the change in personality I can identify with a lot. And once again, because I had been involved in sex work, it would be utterly impossible for certain things to actually be private, right? Or not totally consenting, right? What a thought, just because in certain conditions I’m comfortable being naked, or having naked pictures taken of me, any change of circumstance should be fine! And furthermore, even if it isn’t fine, I don’t get to say otherwise - because hey, I agreed to the first, right?

But good to know if, however many years down the line, such miserable occasions were released for money I’d get the standard “well I wouldn’t have let that happen to me.”

Comment #33: Tenya  on  05/28  at  10:44 PM

Wow. This thread really exemplifies the point of the post. It’s all about finding reasons to dump on the woman or say that she’s not really hurt.

Dilan: if a campus rape awareness program said only those things, and never put out any material saying 1) Having sex with someone who has passed out is rape, 2) deliberately getting someone drunk so you can have sex with them is rape 3) handing over someone who has passed out to someone you know is going to have sex with them is being an accessory to rape 4) no, really guys, rape is not cool, 5)... then you would kinda have to wonder about them. Because 1) even if a woman takes none of the precautions your hypothetical group is pushing, the only people who are going to rape her are guys who want to be rapists.. 2) even if a woman takes all those precautions and more, she has troubling high odds of getting raped.

The line between advocating sensible precautions and blaming the victim is sometime thin, but in this case, as many others, it’s pretty easy to see which posts are on which side.

Comment #34: paul  on  05/28  at  10:46 PM

The blogger says that it’s not rape, but calls it that “thing” that happens to young women.  And maybe it’s not, legally speaking.  Maybe she affirmed her consent every time the sex restarted after withdrawing her consent repeatedly ... But let’s be clear: being resigned after someone overrules your refusal to perform a specific sex act isn’t consent.

This is a situation filmmaker Catherine Breillat focuses on in several of her films, and one of the reasons I’m grateful she’s around.

Comment #35: Ranylt  on  05/28  at  10:52 PM

@21 You raise a valid point. It certainly seems possible. I’ll ask my friend later tonight if he has to have a file for each video or for each person in the company database. If the case you put forth is true then I think it would be extremely wrong for Vivid to have pushed the video through.

Comment #36: AlaskaSeth  on  05/28  at  10:56 PM

Dilan: if a campus rape awareness program said only those things, and never put out any material saying 1) Having sex with someone who has passed out is rape, 2) deliberately getting someone drunk so you can have sex with them is rape 3) handing over someone who has passed out to someone you know is going to have sex with them is being an accessory to rape 4) no, really guys, rape is not cool, 5)… then you would kinda have to wonder about them.

I would agree with that. But that breaks down the analogy between rape apology and sex tapes. I agree with Amanda’s points and think that it’s absolutely scummy that people are out there selling sex tapes without their partner’s consent.

But I think several of the commenters are deflecting. Do you really believe that it is a smart career and personal move for an up and coming actress or starlet to make a sex tape with her boyfriend? Do you really think that, when deciding whether to make one, she should blithely rely on the promises of her boyfriend and assume that the tape will never see the light of day?

Is that what you really believe? I doubt it. And you are using the “rape apology” analogy to avoid the answer to that question.

Again, I’ll say it. If I were a celebrity or aspiring celebrity, I wouldn’t agree to make a sex tape in a thousand years. Not because I don’t have the right to make one, not because I think there’s anything immoral to make one, and not even because I think I shouldn’t have the right to rely on my partner that it would never be released. No, I wouldn’t make one because there’s been at least 30 of these “private” tapes that have been released to the public because there is huge money to be made doing so. Would I rather live in a world where, if, say, Amanda Seyfried wanted to tape herself copulating with her boyfriend she could do so without having to worry about it being made public? Sure I would. And I support what Amanda Marcotte is trying to do in getting us to that world. But that isn’t the world we now live in. And in the world we now live in, this is a big risk.

Comment #37: Dilan Esper  on  05/28  at  10:58 PM

Do you really believe that it is a smart career and personal move for an up and coming actress or starlet to make a sex tape with her boyfriend?

I really believe that, no matter what kind of career anyone is pursueing, whatever they do in private sexually with consenting partners is no one else’s business, at all, and should not impact their career or anyone’s opinion about them.

Do you really think that, when deciding whether to make one, she should blithely rely on the promises of her boyfriend and assume that the tape will never see the light of day?

She should be able to trust him, and he should pay harsh consequences if he breaks his promises. Like going to jail.

Comment #38: colorlessblue  on  05/28  at  11:13 PM

Thanks for the mansplanation, Dilan, I’m sure that if you;d just been around to mansplain to these silly wittle women how it’s a bad decision, none of them would have been taken advantage of by sleazy, unprincipled (ex)partners.

Now get lost.

Comment #39: kristin  on  05/28  at  11:14 PM

#31: AlaskaSeth

When someone responds to a story about a terrible, heinous act with a quibble about a legal matter, without addressing said terrible, heinous act, it says something about that person, no? 

You’re posting on a feminist blog.  People here actually care about quaint issues like consent and sexual abuse.  It sure seems like you are trying to derail the conversation, which is, like the title says, about how no means no.  There’s a long history of people victim blaming and silencing survivors of sexual abuse.  You are coming into a community and posting.  Which is fine.  But you obviously (at a minimum) don’t understand the issues people in this community face and grapple with.  And instead of asking questions, you post some quibble about the law.  Well, let me teach you something.  The law is pathetic when it comes to sexual abuse, and enforcement is even worse.  To give you just one example, until recently, incest in New York State was a class E felony, the lowest felony class.  This is how you are coming across.  If you mean otherwise, you need to say it.

Comment #40: Lurker  on  05/28  at  11:14 PM

The socialization and education angle is obvious; women are told they are “poor sports” and guilted/coerced into agreeing to things they do not want to do; why is the reverse not true?

Because you know it’s not true.

Comment #41: WereBear  on  05/28  at  11:16 PM

“I’m not saying it’s rape.” “I’m not saying it’s as bad as rape.” It is. Let’s take the hardcore stand here: she said no. Repeatedly. She did not consent to being filmed, she did not consent to the sex, and he coerced her until she performed sex for (and on) him. That’s partner rape. The person recording this is a rapist. In spite of the fact that the woman on this tape is a sex worker, she is also a rape victim.

What the fuck are we afraid of here? Hurting the rapist’s feelings?

Comment #42: Dez  on  05/28  at  11:16 PM

#37 - Playboy is notorious for their iron-clad contracts where everything you ever shoot or film with them belongs to them exclusively and they can publish whenever and wherever they want.  It would make sense to me that a company like Vivid might have a similar deal with their actors.

Comment #43: Mnemosyne  on  05/28  at  11:38 PM

“You raise a valid point. It certainly seems possible.”

If you have to positively assert that you are the person on the tape, it seems unlikely that companies have blanket forms for that particular piece of paperwork.  I doubt that they’d need a new “I am 18 or over, here is all my documentation” form for each project, but it is difficult to have a legally valid assertion that you’re really you in every film the company sees fit to slap a performer credit on in perpetuity.

Comment #44: preying mantis  on  05/28  at  11:39 PM

Do you really believe that it is a smart career and personal move for an up and coming actress or starlet to make a sex tape with her boyfriend?

Do you really believe it was smart of that drunk girl to walk down that dark alley?  She knew what she was getting into.

The more excuses you make, the more we circle back to the main point.  You are making the exact same excuses that rape apologists do.  Pretty much to the letter.

Comment #45: Mnemosyne  on  05/28  at  11:41 PM

#39:

Once again, you duck the question. Look, the fact of the matter is by the time I die, the number of these tapes is going to be 300, not 30. You know why? Because in our wonderful, glorious free market system [/sarcasm off], there is so much interest in celebrity sex tapes that people will pay a lot of money to those who peddle them. I think the laws you talk about would be good ideas. I also don’t think they will stop the celebrity sex tape trade. Kendra’s tape is apparently worth $1.2 million (counting both partners) right off the top. Do you realize that only a small fraction of Hollywood actors can command a $1.2 million advance to act in a mainstream film? Some of the sex tapes that have been released have been stolen. Theft is already illegal and punishable by huge crimes. You know what? People still steal stuff that is valuable.

This is just about the most obvious thing in Hollywood. Seriously. And it isn’t “casting judgment on women’s sex lives” (or men for that matter). It is stating that if you make a sex tape, the chances are not remote that the thing is going to get out later. When you are a celebrity or aspiring celebrity, this comes with the territory just like the paparazzi and tabloid speculation about your love life.

You seem almost afraid to admit something that is obviously true, as if someone will pull your feminist credential if you say anything other than that nobody should ever render any opinion that even remotely touches on even the surrounding circumstances of any consensual sex act that any other person engages in. But that doesn’t make it any less true.

#40:

Your snark fails. It isn’t about me, or anyone else, being around to explain. I don’t think anyone in Hollywood is unaware of the market for celebrity sex tapes. Indeed, I don’t think anyone in America is. In fact, it would not surprise me if talent agents and personal managers are actually talking about this issue with their actor and actress and model clients.

Nobody needs anyone else to explain anything. This is an obvious and even banal truth. It just seems weird to me that people would go out of their way with totally inappropriate analogies to pretend it doesn’t exist.

Comment #46: Dilan Esper  on  05/28  at  11:43 PM

The more excuses you make, the more we circle back to the main point.  You are making the exact same excuses that rape apologists do.

#47:

People keep on saying this, but you all just failed feminism 101.

Question 1: What is THE REASON why the rape apology is such a terrible thing?

Answer: Because the rape apology is premised on the woman DESERVING to be punished for her sluttiness / drunkenness / inattention / stupidity / bad choice in men by being raped!

That’s why it’s so offensive. That’s why the catch phrase is “she was asking for it!”.

It isn’t because anyone who ever relates any facts about any aspect of sexuality that involves a questionable choice is justifying rape.

Heck, under your version of the “rape apology” doctrine, you can’t even encourage a woman to bring birth control with her on a date! After all, that would be condemning every woman who ever had sex without using birth control. Except, um, no, it wouldn’t be.

I have not said, in any of my comments, that people who tape themselves having sex deserve to have the tape released without their consent. Not once. Indeed, I think that all the proposals here to deter that are good ones. They won’t work, given the realities of Hollywood and our celebrity-industrial complex, but they are nonetheless entirely just things to do. Nobody’s “asking for it”.

But it is still not a good idea for people to be making these tapes given that so many of them have already seen the light of day. Obviously, the promises of boyfriends are unreliable when there’s tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to be made. (Indeed, if you want to go deeper, the entire economics of Hollywood—where I lived for 11 years—involves a lot of people going broke because of overspending and excess, which creates a lot of people scrambling around to sell any asset they can think of, including a stolen sex tape. This is almost a perfect storm.)

Comment #47: Dilan Esper  on  05/28  at  11:51 PM

Meep. I keep seeing people mention that she would have sold them a few years ago, as if that excuses it now. (Again with the parallels, consent given once is not consent for all time.) If her conditions for release weren’t met, then they weren’t met.

Comment #48: PixelFish  on  05/28  at  11:52 PM

Austin, why are you haranguing Amanda about legality of this when the entire post is about how it shouldn’t be legal?

Comment #49: chingona  on  05/28  at  11:59 PM

Dilan,

I think one reason you’re getting this push back is that apparently the video includes her repeatedly saying no. A LOT of women have had the experience of being pressured to do something they didn’t want to do and going along with it to not seem like a bitch. To then have that held up as “stupidity” is ... insensitive at best.

Comment #50: chingona  on  05/29  at  12:01 AM

dilan,

have you ever been bullied into sex, or a sex act? no? then you have no idea.

also, what the fuck is an “aspiring celebrity”? amanda wrote a book. is she an aspiring celebrity? i’m an artist. i would like to be known for my art. am i an aspiring celebrity, & does that now mean i’m duty bound to not ever trust my partners in the bedroom?

Comment #51: miriam beetle  on  05/29  at  12:06 AM

Dilan,

Yes, people do stupid shit all of time, but there is another layer here.  If you read the Jezebel transcript of what happens in the tape, you will see that she was coerced into being taped.  You can warn people about taking precautions and rail against people who you think do stupid shit, but at the end of the day, what its really about is telling young men that coercing your partner into doing something they are not comfortable with is immoral and it should be illegal.  You can say that she should have known that she was going to try to make it as a celebrity, so she should have put her foot down, but women are socialized from birth not to piss anyway off and just go along with it so as not to upset anyone.  Dude in the video, and many dudes everywhere, take advantage of this situation in order to make themselves feel more powerful.

Comment #52: kitten parade  on  05/29  at  12:07 AM

Also, can you imagine the shitstorm of an argument that would ensue if you said to your boyfriend “I don’t want you to tape me because I think you’ll release it later”? Then it gets all “I’m so hurt that you don’t trust me” and the next thing you know, she’s apologizing to him. This is how this shit goes down.

Comment #53: chingona  on  05/29  at  12:18 AM

Dilan no one is denying anything: you just totally missed the point! This post is about a woman who was clearly coerced into doing something with which she was not comfortable. You come in and say “well we still need to look down on her at least a little.” The point isn’t whether Kendra makes good choices! The point is that this tape is fucking creepy and coercive and demonstrates patriarchal sex at its absolute worst.

Comment #54: alysia  on  05/29  at  12:23 AM

@41 As I said in my first post I have not seen the video and have no desire to see it. It’s horrible and heinous for someone to push themselves on someone saying no. I’m sorry if you don’t think that goes without saying. It’s rape. I’m not sure why you think I needed to start my post with my personal believes (that all coerced sex whether by force or intimidation or even pleading is wrong) to keep from offending you.

I posted the link to the law because I have a close friend who deals with consent, proof of age and proof of identity for videos depicting sex acts on the internet. In my experience the general public is unaware of those laws. After reading Amanda’s original post I got the impression she was also unaware of law 2557. I think in this circumstance (the release of this specific video) the law has quite a bit of relevance.

You are the one trying to derail my comment about law 2557 by accusing me of “victim blaming” and irrationally and strangely accusing me of not doing enough to lower the rate of rapes in Alaska. It’s like you need a target for your anger and hatred and randomly chose me, and are now trying to portray me as the kind of person deserving of your scorn.

“But you obviously (at a minimum) don’t understand the issues people in this community face and grapple with.” That comment by you is very condescending, arrogant, hateful and prejudiced. You have prejudged me without knowing anything about me. If you think that is ok you are wrong.

Comment #55: AlaskaSeth  on  05/29  at  12:26 AM

you will see that she was coerced into being taped.

Is there NO line between “coercing” and “cajoling”?  He whines a lot, but I didn’t read any account of threats or violence, or even threats of violence.  “C’mon, c’mon, c’mon , c’mon , c’mon , c’mon…......” isn’t exactly a right hook. Tedious as fuck, but not coercion.

Comment #56: Eric_RoM  on  05/29  at  12:29 AM

oh eric -

you would be the one to say that, wouldn’t you.  After reading your comments in several other threads, I would have to say you must be baiting people.

Comment #57: kitten parade  on  05/29  at  12:43 AM

Austin, why are you haranguing Amanda about legality of this when the entire post is about how it shouldn’t be legal?

because he hates all non-marital, non-procreative and wants all depiction of it banned, because he is another one of those guys who’s unclear on the concept of consent. don’t feed the troll.

Question 1: What is THE REASON why the rape apology is such a terrible thing?

Answer: Because the rape apology is premised on the woman DESERVING to be punished for her sluttiness / drunkenness / inattention / stupidity / bad choice in men by being raped!

and you’re incapable of seeing how putting the burden of protection on the victims is not a form of victim blaming? Do we need to pull out that over-used anecdote of Golda Meir suggesting a curfew for men to get the point across?

Rape prevention aimed at women doesn’t actually prevent rapes, but it puts the burden on women; thus, if they get raped, it can become their own fault for not following the rape-prevention rules. And that’s what you’re doing. You’re not saying they deserved it, but you are saying it’s their own fault.

And that is rape apologia. It’s not ever the victim’s fault.

Comment #58: jadehawk  on  05/29  at  12:44 AM

of course your comments also may show that you have never had a woman jump on your lap and start ripping off your shirt.  You do have to “cajole” her for sexual favors, hey?

just sayin’

Comment #59: kitten parade  on  05/29  at  12:46 AM

Is there NO line between “coercing” and “cajoling”?

no. if you don’t stop after being told to stop, you’re committing rape, whether you’re doing it by physical or emotional forcing.

Comment #60: jadehawk  on  05/29  at  12:46 AM

@41 The other thing I find strange is that you didn’t respond to my comment with something like “hey we could use law 2557 to aggressively prosecute and shut down websites that are in violation of it and identify websites that have actual documentation from the people in the videos.” Instead you immediately attacked me personally in a very hateful way. It’s like you don’t want this community to be a forum for rational discussions and idea presentations. It’s as if you want this community to be a place for you to vent your irrational anger at phantom situations.

Comment #61: AlaskaSeth  on  05/29  at  12:48 AM

“Is there NO line between “coercing” and “cajoling”?  He whines a lot, but I didn’t read any account of threats or violence, or even threats of violence.  “C’mon, c’mon, c’mon , c’mon , c’mon , c’mon…......” isn’t exactly a right hook. Tedious as fuck, but not coercion.”

The transcript describes her physically pushing him and the camera away, and records him as assuring her that he’s “barely” zooming in before going in for a close-up beaver shot, at which point she closes her legs and is then badgered into resuming the performance.  So he’s ignoring a partner who’s trying to physically intervene against his behavior towards her, obtaining grudging consent to x under y condition and then immediately violating y condition, constantly pressuring her throughout the recording to do something she is expressing explicit verbal unwillingness to do, and then trying to release the tape without her consent.

Even before we get to the fact that she starts out obviously and explicitly unwilling to participate in this act and is highly unlikely to have done a complete 180 from enthusiastic and ecstatic consent to the proposal—in short, that her being naked on film at the outset is the result of significant pressure on his part prior to hitting the record button—exactly how much more creepy boundary-ignoring and consent-violating needs to happen before you’re disinclined to downplay it as “cajoling”?  I mean, judging by the transcript, the guy patently does not give a fuck that she’s non-consenting.  That in and of itself can be a pretty potent means of securing cooperation—a sex partner indicating that they don’t give a shit whether you like it or not, this is going to happen, tends to suggest that it’s already out of your hands and maybe it’d be better to just cave before things get any further beyond your control. 

Without knowing anything about the relationship or his means of “cajoling” her, unwilling as she was, into getting naked in front of the camera in the first place, it’s difficult to say one way or another.  But it’s hardly outside the realm of probability.

Comment #62: preying mantis  on  05/29  at  12:50 AM

“C’mon, c’mon, c’mon , c’mon , c’mon , c’mon…......” isn’t exactly a right hook.

So a right hook qualifies it as rape. Anything else? How much raping exactly do you want it to be acceptable for you to do?

Comment #63: kristin  on  05/29  at  12:58 AM

So he’s ignoring a partner who’s trying to physically intervene against his behavior towards her, obtaining grudging consent to x under y condition and then immediately violating y condition, constantly pressuring her throughout the recording to do something she is expressing explicit verbal unwillingness to do, and then trying to release the tape without her consent.

Yeah. Cajoling, to me, is when you try to get someone in the mood, even if they didn’t start out in the mood. Based on the transcript, at every interval, she resists again and has to be pressured again. That crosses the line. If someone is so clearly not into what you’re doing and you make it clear that you just don’t give a fuck how they feel, that becomes coercive.

Comment #64: chingona  on  05/29  at  01:04 AM

I am not sure the exact nuance between cajoling and coercion, but this dude might be a bit more sympathetic if he whined until he got her to agree to be taped BEFORE he turned on the fucking camera rather than filming through her rather blatant refusals.

Comment #65: alysia  on  05/29  at  01:29 AM

When you are a celebrity or aspiring celebrity, this comes with the territory just like the paparazzi and tabloid speculation about your love life.

So it’s OK then.

There is a difference between “making a sex tape” and “having a sex tape made.”  The circumstantial evidence is that she had misgivings about doing it.  That should have been the end of it; instead, douchebag now-ex coaxed an 18 or 19-year-old starlet into going through with it.  And when she got famous enough for the tape to have value, and she was dithering about releasing it, douchebag now-ex tried to get paid.  I don’t care if “everybody’s doing it” or “that’s just how Hollywood is;”  it’s fucking WRONG.  Paparazzi are WRONG.  Tabloids are WRONG.  This is the sleazy, ugly side of celebrity and freedom of the press.  Yeah, maybe they have a right to do it, and maybe douchebag ex gets paid; that doesn’t mean it’s a GOOD thing.  If she didn’t want it out there, if Paris Hilton didn’t want hers out there, if Pam Anderson didn’t want hers out there, then they shouldn’t be out there and the fact that they are out there is shameful.  Maybe it’s not “rape” but it certainly is VIOLATION.  Violation of trust, violation of privacy (celebrity or no), violation of their dignity against their will for the pleasure of others.  And that is just plain wrong.  I don’t care how legal it is.

Comment #66: liberalrob  on  05/29  at  01:47 AM

I am not sure the exact nuance between cajoling and coercion, but this dude might be a bit more sympathetic if he whined until he got her to agree to be taped BEFORE he turned on the fucking camera rather than filming through her rather blatant refusals.

Ok, I’m going to catch a world of shit for this, but whatever.

I went over to Jezebel to read the article, and surprisingly found several comments (a minority, but they were there) disputing the description of the video as posted.  So I went and did a bad thing and watched it.

After viewing it, I have to agree.  Its not the coercion fest described.

Kendra is clearly into the whole idea of being on tape (or she’s doing a great job of acting, and from what I’ve seen of her in other media she doesn’t strike as a great actor).  She starts with a long striptease and dance in which she’s clearly either enjoying herself or acting.  She doesn’t ask for him to not film it or to turn the camera off.  She asks at one point for him not to zoom in too close.  Another time she smiles and laughs as she playfully pushes away the camera.

There’s one section where she doesn’t appear to like what’s he’s doing, but its not about being filmed (she’s holding the camera at this point), it appears to be that his technique sucks and isn’t doing it for her.  After that they have sex in a lot of different positions, and she’s clearly having a great time (or acting).  Throughout the whole video she’s smiling, laughing, trying to act seductively. 

I understand that it doesn’t matter if she tried to sell the tape a few years ago, or that she’s agreed to have it released now and is profiting off it.  Even then, the act itself can still be coercive and wrong.  But after actually seeing it, I don’t think its what was described on Jezebel.  From the evidence on the tape, this guy didn’t just whip out the camera and badger her into it. 

The weirdest thing about this whole experience was several commenters over there calling out the post for body snarking the dude.  If he’s really such a scumbag, then fuck em.  Who cares if someone makes fun of his receding hairline?

Comment #67: Sjt  on  05/29  at  02:06 AM

nope, the description is accurate. it’s of course condensed, since the video is half an hour long, but she does not seem comfortable with the whole situation. my interpretation would be that she was fine with filming the striptease at the beginning, and then the boyfriend talked her into filming the rest. But she freaks out about it a couple times and tries to get him to stop with the dialogue as quoted above. she does hold the camera at some point, that is true, but we already established that this wasn’t a question of force but of coercion and pressure into obliging him. (I couldn’t finish watching that, not even for research purposes)

And if you think she looks like she’s enjoying herself, I bet you also think that restaurant servers and starbucks baristas are really really enjoying their jobs all the time, too.

Comment #68: jadehawk  on  05/29  at  02:45 AM

Sigh. Look. If you attack someone for being fat, then it makes fat an attackable attribute. The guy is bad, and part of his badness is represented by his fat. You are also fat, and while you are not bad like this guy, you are bad because you’re fat.

It’s why we say Rekers is bad for being a hypocrite, not for being gay. Because there’s nothing wrong with being gay.

Either it’s okay to attack people because of a given attribute like appearance, and then you are denigrating all people in that group to make the attack, or it’s not okay to make the attack. Sarah Palin sucks, but if I say “she’s such a woman” as a negative remark, then I’m saying there’s sometihng wrong with “woman.”

It’s not about protecting the asshole, it’s about not slurring all the other people who happen to share irrelevant traits with him.

Comment #69: Mandolin  on  05/29  at  03:10 AM

And if you think she looks like she’s enjoying herself, I bet you also think that restaurant servers and starbucks baristas are really really enjoying their jobs all the time, too.

It is really stunning how many men are completely oblivious to what “porn smiles” look like.

Comment #70: kristin  on  05/29  at  03:26 AM

Austin’s point is clearly that he doesn’t care about consent or women’s rights, but that rape is wrong because it’s fornication. It’s basically a rape apology. I’ll ban him in the morning.

Comment #71: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  03:35 AM

#52-54:

It got lost in the original comment I made, but I fully agree about the coercion (indeed, I opined that the transcript of that video would possibly constitute admissible evidence in a rape trial). In fact, I don’t really see much difference between what went on with that transcript and the subsequent release of this tape and what happened with Erin Andrews. (By the way, if you want a real example of “rape apology”, you should have heard the idiots on “Good Day LA” a couple of days ago criticizing the skimpy outfits Ms. Andrews apparently wore on “Dancing With the Stars”, as if because she was clandestinely photographed in the nude she now has a responsibility to society to wear burqas for the rest of her life or something. Yeccch.)

But I suspect this won’t be the last coerced sex taping either. Again, the price of these tapes is so high that the upside to cashing in is immense. Even if Kendra is getting half, in this case, a guy who basically raped her on camera is getting half as well. Think that isn’t a horrible incentive?

Comment #72: Dilan Esper  on  05/29  at  04:28 AM

and you’re incapable of seeing how putting the burden of protection on the victims is not a form of victim blaming?

I think you are overusing the term “burden”.

Putting the “burden of protection” in the sense of doing nothing to disabuse men of their sense of entitlement, doing nothing to educate men about what rape is and how important it is to interpret “no” to mean “no” and not to coerce or cajole women who say no into changing their minds, etc., would be a very bad thing indeed. (I’m not sure that it is bad specifically because it is “blaming the victim”, rather, it’s bad because it imposes the burdens of preventing something on the party who is not responsible for it coming to pass.)

But it can’t be the case that any observation about any risk whatsoever becomes “putting the burden of protection on the victims”. As I said, good sex education courses tell girls about the importance of birth control, in the context of also stressing to boys their responsibility for contraception as well. Would it be better if nobody ever recommended to a teenage girl that she explore birth control options, because that puts the “burden of protection” on her rather than the boys?

In this case you have a reality that Hollywood is a really shitty world, for all sorts of reasons. I grew up here and lived in the area for all of my life. I have family roots in the industry. I have clients in the industry. Well, ever since Paris Hilton, you’ve had a market for sex tapes that has resembled maggots on a rotting piece of meat. And that means there’s a huge, huge incentive for boyfriends and others to get the cameras rolling. One way this manifests itself is in coercion, as seen here. Another way it manifests itself is in broken promises to keep the tape secret. A third way it manifests itself is through outright theft. All of these things should be illegal. But the money is so good it’s gonna happen even when it’s illegal. (It already does with the thefts.) I don’t think that broadening people’s awareness of this environment is anything close to saying a rape victim was asking for it.

Comment #73: Dilan Esper  on  05/29  at  04:38 AM

But sex tapes are a rather modern invention. For the first 10,000 or so years of human existence, humans could not preserve a record of themselves copulating and watch it over and over again.

Tapes are a modern invention, but embarrassing revelations aren’t. People had letters and photographs long before there was videotape. (See, e.g., however many Sherlock Holmes stories revolve around somebody’s past passionate letters or indiscreet photographs getting into the wrong hands.)

Comment #74: mythago  on  05/29  at  04:43 AM

Would it be better if nobody ever recommended to a teenage girl that she explore birth control options, because that puts the “burden of protection” on her rather than the boys?

except that BC is something the woman actually does have full control over. Rape? not so much. ex-boyfriends releasing video tapes? not so much. the accurate parallel to your suggestion to not ever tape sex is not BC; it’s the stuff lesbian separatists say about how women who date men shouldn’t be surprised they get raped; because that’s what men do.

I don’t think that broadening people’s awareness of this environment is anything close to saying a rape victim was asking for it.

and no one is saying that; you’re the only one harping on “asking for it” and “deserved it” as the only valid form of rape apologia. saying “you didn’t do enough to prevent it” is a form of rape apologia, too.

Comment #75: jadehawk  on  05/29  at  04:51 AM

i have no clue who the young lady is, but that’s beside the point. ex-bf is clearly a jerk, why she was with him to begin with escapes me, but so it goes.

vivid isn’t buying and releasing that tape without all i’s dotted and t’s crossed, it’s not worth it to them. this tells me that, at some point, she had to have provided documentation confirming her age, as well as signing a release form for the rights to the film. perhaps she’s now suffering “seller’s remorse”? had this been some web-based entity, i wouldn’t be so certain. it could be located in a hut in siberia, far, far away from any law enforcement or civil remedies.

hopefully a lesson learned: stand up for yourself, regardless of what some douchebag wants, no still means no. of course he should have honored her very clear request. that he didn’t probably explains his status as ex-bf.

how you’d go about enforcing a law, making this illegal, escapes me. that whole first amendment, artistic license thing and all. unless you assert a claim that it falls under “obscenity”, and there are already statutes dealing with that. the difficulty is defining it.

Comment #76: cpinva  on  05/29  at  05:38 AM

I encountered a similar form of sexual harassment of a young woman in a political chat room. 

About two years ago, the young woman had, unwisely and on a lark, gone to a sex chat room and had done some suggestive things on camera. Without her knowledge, the incident was recorded.

A group of conservatives, including at least two women, have proceeded to circulate the video among conservative chatters in the political chat room (the young woman in question is a Democrat, not as progressive as one might like, but a Democrat nonetheless). Whenever she speaks on the microphone, one of this conservative claque will begin telling other chatters to IM them and they will direct them to a site where they can see the young lady in video.  When this starts happening, almost all the conservatives join in at once, calling her various derogatory names and telling her to repeat those acts in the political chat room.

The poor young woman attempted suicide over this. Not satisfied with this, this conservative group attacked her even more viciously after she had been released from the hospital.  Fortunately, she seems to have become less vulnerable to such barbs and appears to be doing better.

Kendra, whoever she is and whatever else she is famous for, will be approached by people the rest of her life, many demeaning her, and also many addicted to some sort of fantasy that she wishes to interact with such “fans.”  It is, of course, overwhelmingly the act of demeaning women that all too many men engage in.  But acts such as Kendra’s exposure and the unwilling video made of the young woman I discussed also highlight American conservative attitudes towards the helpless—that they are there to be pummeled about: “Never give a sucker an even break.”

Comment #77: eniarku99  on  05/29  at  06:34 AM

#38

But I think several of the commenters are deflecting. Do you really believe that it is a smart career and personal move for an up and coming actress or starlet to make a sex tape with her boyfriend? Do you really think that, when deciding whether to make one, she should blithely rely on the promises of her boyfriend and assume that the tape will never see the light of day?

Dilan, it is totally beside the point how “smart” it is to make a sex tape, from a career or personal or any other statndpoint. I understand that you know a lot about how Hollywood works and I understnd how your frustration with the situation comes from a place of experience. What I want you to understand is that, while your experience is valuable, you are looking at this too provincially.

I think you have a justified anger at the hypocrisy and careerism of some people in Hollywood, actors/actresses who on one hand say they hate paparazzi and on the other hand use the paparazzi for their own career. An example that includes this mad culture of celebrity and combines it with the irregular political warfare of our time would be the absurd and constantly metastisizing situation with Dave Weigel moving in next to Sarah Palin. It is hard to decide which is worse, Weigel’s sleazy stalker behavior, or Palin’s combination of victim-card-playing with calls to her army of dangerous morons to rid her of this meddlesome journalist.

I think your anger causes you to look at the big picture from a limited and skewed angle. The big picture is that lots of people feel horny and lots of them express this horniness by taking pictures of themselves naked or fucking, and that with easy digital video/photography/social media/sexting/etc this is only going to get more common. I’ve taken sex pix with a girlfreind and I’m just a random horny male. Lots of women take sexual pix or vids, with guys or not, maybe just for a lark, and many of them end up on the intenet.

And what is truly disturbing is that while, on one hand, our sexual urges are combining with our culture of spectacle, and social media and we are deciding to get naked more often, on the other hand our culture of patriarchy is causing these naked pix to be a dangerous weapon that can be used against women (and occasionally men). I mean look at eniarku99‘s example in #80, this young aspiring politician was almost killed by her decision to do sexy things in front of a camera. She “should have known better”? BULL SHIT. That’s like saying, since the atmosphere is getting poisoned, we should learn to stop breathing. I don’t accept that answer.

The world that feminists want is one where it comes out that a young aspiring female politician did sexy things on video and, instead of being driven to the brink of suicide by the ensuing attacks on her character, she says “who cares?” and the issue is dropped. Just like when Scott Brown posed naked and it had no effect on his political fortunes, except maybe to improve them because he looked good. That is the world we want for everyone. That is why I do not accept, “women who pose for cameras aren’t smart”/“it is all a trick they want it released”, that worldview is just bullshit.

Comment #78: atheist  on  05/29  at  08:32 AM

Hear, hear Amanda.  I read the Jezebel post yesterday.  It left me feeling horrible.  I thought the writer was very wrong.  It seemed as if she almost got it, but then didn’t.  Or if she did, she couldn’t bring herself to go there.  Probably out of fear of backlash, I don’t know.

I couldn’t watch the tape either.

Comment #79: JennyLI  on  05/29  at  09:53 AM

Realitybeam, your post makes me sick.  I guess as long as she got some cunninlingus it couldn’t be rape, even if she closed her legs several times while he was doing it. 

No, I won’t watch the tape because whether or not it is legally rape, and I think many of us realize it won’t pass that threshold, it is sick, not consensual in the true sense of consent, and a fucking violation that it was even released.  Frankly I have a big problem with any man who does watch it.

Comment #80: JennyLI  on  05/29  at  09:56 AM

nope, the description is accurate. it’s of course condensed, since the video is half an hour long, but she does not seem comfortable with the whole situation. my interpretation would be that she was fine with filming the striptease at the beginning, and then the boyfriend talked her into filming the rest. But she freaks out about it a couple times and tries to get him to stop with the dialogue as quoted above

Like I said, I saw it and I disagree.  The dialogue is not quoted accurately, and that’s the source of a lot of people getting upset. 

And if you think she looks like she’s enjoying herself, I bet you also think that restaurant servers and starbucks baristas are really really enjoying their jobs all the time, too.

Again, like I said, maybe she was acting the whole time.  If so, it was a damn convincing performance.

Comment #81: Sjt  on  05/29  at  09:58 AM

I wish that men would be taught that an enthusiastic YES is something they should be hearing throughout a sexual encounter.  Some say that to make that the law would criminalize people having sex when they aren’t really that into it.  But you know, our culture can change.  From, the bitch wanted it, to the hot ideal being a woman enthusiastically saying yes, YES, yes, YES, throughout the sexual encounter.

Comment #82: JennyLI  on  05/29  at  10:00 AM

All in all the video contains way too much happy (even jezebel has a smiling picture), cunnilingus, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, and Kendra holding the camera for this to be rape.

Actually, the one part of the film where she doesn’t seem comfortable (though I believe its a matter of just not liking his technique as opposed to objecting to being filmed) is the cunnilingus part.

Comment #83: Sjt  on  05/29  at  10:01 AM

Oh you believe she doesn’t seem happy because she doesn’t like his technique? 

Jesus Fucking Christ.

What is it when a post like this goes up here?  A bell goes off that every priviledged asswipe with a penchant for mansplaining can hear and they come herding here?

So far as I can tell, my suspicions of any man who would watch the tape have proved out on this thread.  Now, they’re will be exceptions and one or two sincere men who just want to find out for themselves, but most of them watch it cause they get off on watching a man intimidate, whine, pressure, a woman into sex.

Why don’t you guys go spew someplace else?  Or is it the added thrill of spewing pro-rape culture propganda on a feminist blog where you just know there are at least a couple of women who have been raped?  Is that was does it for ya?

Comment #84: JennyLI  on  05/29  at  10:19 AM

I see this post here as saying two things:

A) releasing sex tapes without the consent of everybody involved it a form of sexual assault
B) in this particular case, the sexual assault aspect is present not only in the releasing, but in the recording and in the sex itself.

As chingona, alysia, miriam and others said, addressing B, repeating “they should know better” doesn’t work if, even if you don’t want to make a sex tape, you’re forced to do it. It’s a new attack on someone who has already been attacked.
But my objection isn’t just because in this specific case she was coerced into making the tape. I’m looking at A, at general sex tape releases where the participants willingly recorded themselves. Dilan is saying of these situations “well, not a smart move”, “I’m not saying they deserve it, I’m just saying they put themselves in the vulnerable position”, “I’m not blaming them, but really, they should know better”,  “come on, what did they expect when they acted like that, it was bound to happen”.
Others are going on with the “she’s lying about not giving her consent”, “she did it for the money/fame”, “next morning regret”.
I’ve heard all these things being said before about rape/sexual assault/harrassment victims, on the internet, from my gym trainer (about his neighbour “Yeah, it sucks that her pics were distributed, but she was kind of a slut. Her father gave her such a beating when he discovered… *laughs*”), from my father (about a woman threatened with gang rape in her university for wearing a short skirt - dad started with “What a whore!” and after months of arguing with me ended with “No, you’re right, she didn’t deserve it, but she should have known that she’d provoke a reaction when she dressed like that.”)
I find this line of reasoning rape apologia barely disguised, based on the fact that it’s almost repeating word by word the reasoning that rape apologists use.
To say that the analogy doesn’t work is to completely miss the point of Amanda’s post.
To insist on it over and over sounds to me like concern trolling.
And to say that I’m only claiming to have this opinion because I’m scared of having my feminist card yanked, poor little me, only capable of repeating talking points, so desperate for the aproval of the big feminist heroes, it’s not like I might have an opinion because the subject might actually apply to my own life, it’s mainsplaining.

Comment #85: colorlessblue  on  05/29  at  10:24 AM

Putting the “burden of protection” in the sense of doing nothing to disabuse men of their sense of entitlement, doing nothing to educate men about what rape is and how important it is to interpret “no” to mean “no” and not to coerce or cajole women who say no into changing their minds, etc., would be a very bad thing indeed.

Ideally, that’s true.

In the real world, “She didn’t take enough precautions” is used to relieve rapists of responsibility.  Realistically speaking, the more we talk about how women have the burden of preventing rape, the more jurors justify not-guilty verdicts to themselves when they know full well rapists are guilty.  That’s why people get so upset, because the logic that feels merely like an intellectual, even caring, exercise now comes out in the jury room when someone is saying, “Well, the guy’s a creep, but she should have known better than to go out to a bar/go home with someone/speak to a man/wear that skirt” to his fellow jurors who are on the verge of convicting someone they know is a rapist.  And it often/usually works.

Ellen Willis wrote a really great piece covering a rape trial in the 70s that delved into this.  The fact that the rapist raped the victim wasn’t considered in dispute by the jurors, who she interviewed after they returned a not-guilty plea.  There were witnesses who heard the screaming.  The man’s story had huge holes in it.  There was blood everywhere from her period when she struggled.  A friend was called to the stand who got a frantic call for help from the victim.  The verdict: Not guilty.  The jurors said they believed he did it, but she should have known better than to go into his house, even though the reason she did was he stole her purse and was “playing” with her, saying he’d give it back if she came inside.

Yeah, that was a long time ago, but juries use similar logic to let rapists off the hook all the time.  And that’s because we talk strictly about women’s mistakes leading up to the rape, so they can almost be excused if they think the person on trial is the woman, and the crime they’re asked to evaluate is stupidity/sluttiness.

Comment #86: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  10:31 AM

atheist, Dave Weigel didn’t move in next to Sarah Palin.  It was Joe McGinnis. And I don’t know that it’s quite the same thing as the paparazzi.  What a sleazy politician like Palin does is a matter of public interest, and moving into the neighborhood and getting to know people is a common tactic of investigative reporters.  Palin’s belief that she’s above the usual scrutiny that politicians can expect when it comes to their corrupt dealings is what’s driving that controversy.

Comment #87: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  10:37 AM

That said, I do agree that a politician posing naked or doing a sex tape shouldn’t be a career ender per se.  But if someone is exposed as a hypocrite, I think that’s just good reporting.  The line is fuzzy, obviously.  I don’t think that politicians who crusade, like Elliot Spitzer, against prostitution get to go to prostitutes without a journalist exposing that.  But releasing video tapes crosses my line. We don’t need to participate in the sex act to know it happened.

Comment #88: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  10:41 AM

All in all the video contains way too much happy (even jezebel has a smiling picture), cunnilingus, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl, and Kendra holding the camera for this to be rape.

That a woman snaps into performance mode after she realizes she has no choice to say no doesn’t make something not-rape, though I do agree that this might make it hard to prosecute.  But the appearance of happiness doesn’t equal happiness, especially if the victim is insecure and well-practiced at the art of performing sex for men.  I don’t know if her consent came in and out of the picture, but I do know the second it was withdrawn, the camera should have been shut off and the video erased, even if she came back later and started consenting again.  (My definition of consent is enthusiastic.  “Okay, I’ll do it and I’ll even smile about it” might be legal consent, but it’s not moral consent.  It may make it not-rape, but it makes the man involved an asshole if he gets “consent” under emotional duress, and I would caution women to avoid him for fear he may move on to illegal methods to get his way if emotional abuse doesn’t cut it.) 

I think a lot of people don’t realize how much “performing for men” becomes autopilot behavior for some women. It may seem stupid to smile when you’re sad, but it’s actually pretty rational behavior in some cases.  If, for instance, crying and saying no results in him acting on you anyway, but being more violent and angry about it, then it’s in your best interest to please him if he has final say over your choices anyway.  We were watching “Mad Men” last night, and I have to say that’s one excellent thing the show does, is show you how much the female characters are in these situations where, since they have no choice, it’s easier for them to fake pleasure than the make things even worse for themselves by going along and inviting abuse with the frowny faces.

Comment #89: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  10:50 AM

And to the inevitable rejoinder: “Well, sometimes no doesn’t mean no”, I say that if a man immediately stopped every time he heard no and refused to continue until she had spent at least 5-10 minutes explaining why she said no when she meant yes, then that behavior would stop pretty quickly.  Don’t let the girls who say no when they mean yes get away with it.  Make them choose.

Comment #90: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  10:54 AM

#87

In the real world, “She didn’t take enough precautions” is used to relieve rapists of responsibility.  Realistically speaking, the more we talk about how women have the burden of preventing rape, the more jurors justify not-guilty verdicts to themselves when they know full well rapists are guilty.

On one level its like people want to mentally protect themselves, on some level, from understanding how endangered we all are all the time, and how little any particular decision we make can keep danger away. The rape victim becomes a scapegoat for this, and ritually removes the understanding of their own vulnerability, from the judgemental observers.

Dave Weigel didn’t move in next to Sarah Palin.  It was Joe McGinnis.

Oooops.

What a sleazy politician like Palin does is a matter of public interest, and moving into the neighborhood and getting to know people is a common tactic of investigative reporters.

OK, granted.

Comment #91: atheist  on  05/29  at  11:06 AM

#91

I think a lot of people don’t realize how much “performing for men” becomes autopilot behavior for some women. It may seem stupid to smile when you’re sad, but it’s actually pretty rational behavior in some cases.  If, for instance, crying and saying no results in him acting on you anyway, but being more violent and angry about it, then it’s in your best interest to please him if he has final say over your choices anyway.

Dovetails with your statements, from other posts, on how women are often in a position where deception is required. Somehow the women got the job of lying to keep society running.

Comment #92: atheist  on  05/29  at  11:16 AM

WHATS THE FREQUENCY KENNETH WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY!!??!!???

Comment #93: atheist  on  05/29  at  11:17 AM

I feel that releasing a sex tape without the permission of everyone involved needs to be elevated to the level of a crime

* puts on lawyer hat *

In general, this screams “civil matter” to me if making the video was consensual.  It looks like a privacy tort, maybe a breach of contract (we agreed to not to publicize it, you broke the deal), or any number of commercial torts if the video was used commercially.  As for sex videos made without consent?  A more dicey proposition.

In this case, you could argue that the video was made without consent.  However, there is a big problem here with that argument.  In this case, the woman knew she was being taped.  The question in my mind would be did she feel free to walk out the door, or was she feel intimidated into staying.  If the former then no crime, if the latter then it was a crime.  In fact, if she was intimidated into staying, the main crime here is actually rape.

I don’t think your (Amanda’s) position is well thought out.  Let me give you a hypothetical to clarify.  Some places have an expectation of privacy: your house, dressing room in a store, public restroom, etc.  We all agree that taking non-consensual video in these places should be a crime.  Other places have no expectations of privacy: a public park, a city street, etc.  Let’s say that John comes across two people having sex in a public park (no expectation of privacy).  John takes out his cellphone and makes a video of the people having sex.  This video is obviously not consensual, but he is filming in a public place with no expectation of privacy. 

Is this a crime?  I think not, nor should it be.  The couple has no expectation of privacy and the location is clearly public - this is not peeping in a window or the like.  Anybody could wander by and see the couple.  I take it we all agree that watching the couple might be weird thing to do, but watching activity taking place in a public place should not be a crime.  If so, why should making a video of an activity in a public place be a crime consent or no?

But maybe you do think making a video of an activity occurring in a public place with no expectation of privacy should be criminalized.  If so then realize you just put Michael Moore, the Yes Men, and most documentary makers and journalists out of business.  But maybe you think this should only apply to sexual activity.  So that, in other words, you would be saying that engaging in sexual activity in public actually creates an expectation of privacy where there wasn’t one before.  No thank you.  If you do something, anything really, in a public place with no expectation of privacy its fair game.  If you want privacy, do your thing where you have that expectation.

Thus, even in the case of non-consensual sex videos, the case is not so clear.  Thus we draw a line between places with and without an expectation of privacy.  On the other hand, if a video made with consent, I don’t see how one can expect privacy.  In consenting to make a video, you consent to make a record that can be viewed by others.  And while you can refuse to consent before the video is made, or withdraw consent any time during the making of a video, you can’t withdraw consent after the video is made.  Obviously, you can’t withdraw consent after an act is complete because other parties in the act can’t retroactively comply (this has something to do with the way time works at present).

Now, let’s distinguish the release of a sex video without permission from sexual assault (anything from unwanted sexual touching to rape).  Sexual assault is criminal because there is no consent to the act either during or before the act.  Thus it is a crime.  If a video is made with consent, then there is consent to the actual act of making the video.  Let’s assume that the participants understand (or at least should understand) that a video (whether on film, tape, digital storage, etc.) is an enduring record and thus can be viewed by the public.  My position is, that if one consents to the making of an enduring record that can be made for the public one gives up their expectation of privacy.  I’m not saying that they give up their desire for privacy, only their expectation.

In summary then, sexual assault is a crime because their is no consent to the act while making a consensual sex video is a consensual act.

The parties making the video may agree not to make it public, but this is a private agreement.  If one of the parties later goes back on the agreement then the issue is the breaking of a private agreement, not the consent to making the tape in the first place.  Thus the remedy should be civil - not criminal.*

* If you can show that fraud was involved - i.e. one of the parties intended all along to release the video and lied about not releasing it so that the other party would consent - then I’m far more sympathetic to the idea that a crime was committed.

Comment #94: Richard Goblin  on  05/29  at  11:52 AM

And to the inevitable rejoinder: “Well, sometimes no doesn’t mean no”, I say that if a man immediately stopped every time he heard no and refused to continue until she had spent at least 5-10 minutes explaining why she said no when she meant yes, then that behavior would stop pretty quickly.  Don’t let the girls who say no when they mean yes get away with it.  Make them choose.

This happened to me one time.  My partner and I were about to have sex, and she told me she wasn’t sure.  So I stopped immediately and got out of bed.  She then said, “Sometimes ‘no’ means ‘yes’.”  I replied, “‘no’ always means ‘no’.  Period.”  Every guy needs to take this attitude.

Comment #95: Richard Goblin  on  05/29  at  11:56 AM

Richard, like I said, I realize under current law, it’s probably not rape.  But I think that we need to realize there’s a difference between legal and moral.  Men who enjoy coercing sex are often aware of what the legal line is, and they have an ability to stay on one side of it while still getting the emotional satisfaction of using sex as a weapon.

Comment #96: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  12:11 PM

I think like with racism, where it’s easy to believe it no longer exists until you travel somewhere where it’s more prevalent and you’re confronted with it, this is kind of a shocking reminder of what sexuality is like for a lot of young women.  It’s easy to imagine that after this encounter, she got up and made him a sandwich, then did a load of laundry for him.

But I don’t know what you do about it.  It’s one thing for enlightened people to say that no should mean no.  But between young douchebags and the (often attractive) young women that want to be with them, this seems pretty status quo and I don’t how you change that.  My problem with calling it rape is, what’s the threat?  If she says no he’s going to pout all night, and maybe dump her and find someone else to fuck?  I don’t know how you stop a young douchebag from using that leverage if the young woman is persuaded by it.

Comment #97: Wallace  on  05/29  at  12:21 PM

Wallace, I think this is where social pressure/stigma comes in. If a majority of people act like this is really gross and unacceptable, fewer people will do it and more women will feel like they don’t have to give in to it. People really are influenced by what other people say and do, how they respond to something like this. And if most of the response is that she was “stupid” to make the tape, it puts zero pressure on douchebag guys to act less douche-y. If most of the response is that it was vile of him to persist in making this tape, it changes the cost-benefit analysis for him and for her.

And as a side note (or maybe not), one of the disconnects here may be that very few men realize just how many women have had experiences along this spectrum, sex that we had because it just became easier to have sex than keep arguing about it and felt like shit about afterward. That experience - that saying no means staying up until 3 am arguing about why we don’t want to have sex or whether we’re going to have sex - is pretty fucked up if you think about, and yet it’s incredibly common.

Comment #98: chingona  on  05/29  at  12:33 PM

“Let’s take the hardcore stand here: she said no. Repeatedly. She did not consent to being filmed, she did not consent to the sex, and he coerced her until she performed sex for (and on) him.”

I don’t want to draw too fine of a point here, but “coerced” means “forced.” I haven’t watched the tape, nor will I, but from the description, it doesn’t sound like anything is coerced, more like he pressures, pesters, and cajoles her until she relents. I don’t know if you can criminalize that, but that sort of behavior should definitely be stigmatized for the pathetic douchebaggery that it is.

Comment #99: Brien Jackson  on  05/29  at  12:39 PM

Is this the third or fourth time someone in this thread tries to define how much coercion should be given a free pass before the wrist slapping starts?

Comment #100: colorlessblue  on  05/29  at  12:55 PM

If you’re talking about me, that isn’t my point at all.

Look at it this way; liberals have been extremely successful in establishing that racism is bad, but they also allowed the popular conception of what constitutes racism to be very narrowly tailored such that anything short of seething hatred for non-white people doesn’t count. And the effect of this is that constructive discussions of on-going racial prejudice are more or less impossible, because people get defensive and fall back to the “racism is seething hatred of non-white people, and that’s not me” to resist confronting their own prejudices and biases. In the same way, I think that if you blur the distinction between coercion and cajoling, as opposed to specifically establishing that this sort of cajoling is wrong on its own terms, you could very well wind up with a similar circumstance where everyone agress that coercion is wrong, but with a too narrow conception of coercion and an unwillingness to entertain a broader idea of what sort of behavior is wrong. I’m not at all arguing that cajoling is ok, I’m saying that it would be better to argue *specifically* that cajoling is wrong, rather than trying to push it into the realm of coercion.

Comment #101: Brien Jackson  on  05/29  at  01:17 PM

That a woman snaps into performance mode after she realizes she has no choice to say no doesn’t make something not-rape, though I do agree that this might make it hard to prosecute.  But the appearance of happiness doesn’t equal happiness, especially if the victim is insecure and well-practiced at the art of performing sex for men.

Or she was a victim of sexual abuse at some point in her past—many people who end up in the sex industry are—and learned to disassociate from her feelings and go along with the abuse to get it over with faster.

This, fellas, is why you want enthusiastic consent.  Someone who’s been abused in the past is quite likely to just go along with what you want, which makes you—guess what?  No different than the other people who have abused or exploited her in the past.

Comment #102: Mnemosyne  on  05/29  at  01:55 PM

Richard, like I said, I realize under current law, it’s probably not rape.

Agreed, but I am arguing why it should not become a criminal matter given the theoretical structures underpinning the law.

But I think that we need to realize there’s a difference between legal and moral.  Men who enjoy coercing sex are often aware of what the legal line is, and they have an ability to stay on one side of it while still getting the emotional satisfaction of using sex as a weapon.

Also agreed, because not everything that is immoral should be criminal or even capable of redress in the legal system.  For example, telling a sex partner that the two of you are exclusive while cheating on him or her with another is immoral, but should not be criminal nor give rise to a lawsuit.

Moreover, the law, especially criminal law, is the sort of tool that needs to draw (more or less) bright lines.  There will always be assholes who walk right up to but do not cross that line.  All this proves is that the law is a tool that has its flaws and limitations - just like any other tool.  Even if we move that line to where you would like it, those same assholes will continue to step right up to that line and engage in immoral but technically legal behavior.

We can argue where to set the line, but no matter where we set it there will always be someone who will exploit where it is set.  On the other hand, set the line too far back and you will discourage behavior that is acceptable or even desirable and create in effect an immoral law.  My opinion, gained from being both a lawyer and having worked in the Texas correctional system, is that its worse to over-extend the definition of a crime than to leave too many loopholes.

Comment #103: Richard Goblin  on  05/29  at  01:57 PM

What makes sex so sacred? Speak to me.

When you were “faking it” and going to your job every day, was one of the requirements that you drop your pants and get a rectal exam every day?

Once you start talking about putting things inside other people’s bodies, that’s when consent becomes a huge issue.  It’s one thing to fake nice talk with your boss.  It’s something very different to let your boyfriend/spouse stick his penis inside you.

See the difference?

Comment #104: Mnemosyne  on  05/29  at  01:59 PM

chin @100 is right.  We just keep talking about it and stop making apologies.  The rape rate has been in a free fall since the 70s—-going down way faster than other crime—-and it seems that education is working.

Comment #105: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  02:02 PM

My definition of consent is not enthusiastic. Passion is an ideal, not a moral obligation.

Agreed.  You’re not required to want to fuck anyone.

You are required, morally, to only fuck people who want to fuck you.  Fucking someone who doesn’t want to fuck you right now or ever?  Is a moral transgression, and depending on how much force and emotional manipulation you used, it may make you a sexual assailant.

Comment #106: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  02:04 PM

I don’t want to draw too fine of a point here, but “coerced” means “forced.” I haven’t watched the tape, nor will I, but from the description, it doesn’t sound like anything is coerced, more like he pressures, pesters, and cajoles her until she relents.

Coercion does not mean ‘forced’ in the common sense of forced.  Let’s take the sample case in the main article.  If a reasonable person thought that they would be in danger in her situation, then she was coerced. 

Let’s say he (the videographer) locked the door and was standing between it and the woman.  Suppose that every time she moved toward or even looked toward the door he backed up and kept himself between her and the door.  Let’s also say that keeps saying that “she’s going to like it and to just relax and enjoy it.”

If that was the case, she had to decide between having sex that she fundamentally did not want to do and being allowed to walk out versus getting all of the signals that she might have to fight her way out if she did not comply (which I think we can all agree given the hypothetical I have set out), then this is coercion.  It is not forced - he never held her down, restrained her, or threatened to harm her.  Nonetheless, the atmosphere he set up was not conducive to meaningful consent.

Comment #107: Richard Goblin  on  05/29  at  02:07 PM

What makes sex so sacred? Speak to me.

Do you think your girlfriend getting you off is her job?  Sex is supposed to be fun, not a performance she puts on to make sure you’re properly milked.  Milk yourself, if that’s what you’re in this for.  There’s something deeply sex-negative about the idea that sex isn’t “sacred”.  Particularly for women, letting someone into your body is a big deal. But more, sex leaves you literally and symbolically naked.

Here’s what I hear when I hear anyone say, “Enthusiastic consent is too high a bar.”  I have to wonder why you’re advertising that you can’t get laid honestly like most people do. 

Obviously, if sex is actually your job, treating it like a job is understandable.  But that you feel that your girlfriend or even casual sex partner should approach this like a job she has to get through in order to what?  What’s the payment?  What’s the compensation?  Approval?  Being left alone?  How sad.

Comment #108: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  02:09 PM

On okcupid, the online dating site, there is an item to answer: “No means NO!”  The options are:

1. “Always, Period”
2. “Mostly, occasionally it’s really a Yes in disguise”
3. “A No is just a Yes that needs a little convincing!”
4. “Never, they all want me.  They just don’t know it.”

I’m astounded at the number of women of all ages (from their 20s up to 50 or so, the demographics don’t get many older women on there) who answer with the second option.  It’s certainly not a large percentage, but I’m still amazed that anyone would A) believe that and B) admit it online.  It seems like it would provide a date rapist with an easy defense, though I’m also sure that such a question easily weeds out the morons among the menfolk.  In my case, it weeds out the women.  I’m not going to date anyone where consent is that much of a guessing game.

The sooner we get to a world where women can say Yes and mean it without being a horrible slutperson, the better we’ll all be.  I’m not sure I want to watch the video and judge the acting or cajoling or the consent issues, because I know I’ll never be able to really know for sure anyway.  It sounds like it might be as real as reality television or as real as a porno or as real as undoctored documentary footage that is part of a criminal investigation.  All I know is that it will probably leave me feeling unseemly, and that’s not a turn on.

Comment #109: 3letterjon  on  05/29  at  02:11 PM

Point taken, Richard.

On the term “coerced”.  I tend to think bullying is a form of coercion.  Emotional abuse isn’t something that people should blow off as a form of coercion.  In fact, I’m alarmed that anyone would think that it’s not coercion to keep going after someone said no, because you’re full aware that they’ll give up rather than fight you.

Comment #110: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  02:12 PM

In fact, I’m alarmed that anyone would think that it’s not coercion to keep going after someone said no, because you’re full aware that they’ll give up rather than fight you.

This is the very reason we need anti-stalking laws.

Comment #111: Richard Goblin  on  05/29  at  02:17 PM

AlaskaSeth: The purpose of the laws in question isn’t to prove everyone in a porno consented to being filmed, it’s to prove that everyone was of legal age. I think if the company involved can prove the identity of the persons in a video by other means (for example, being sued by them) they’d be able to sucessfully defend themselves in court. IANAL, though.

Also, I don’t think being badgered into sex counts as rape. If it did, then I’ve been “robbed” by high-pressure salesmen and panhandlers numerous times, by giving in and giving them money just to get them to stop pestering me. Of course it’s still sleazy, and there’s something deeply wrong with anyone who would want to watch a video of such badgering, but I don’t think it’s legally or morally the same thing.

Comment #112: Mike Crichton  on  05/29  at  02:17 PM

“It is not forced - he never held her down, restrained her, or threatened to harm her.  Nonetheless, the atmosphere he set up was not conducive to meaningful consent.”

Right, it’s “consent” under more extreme duress, which isn’t consent at all, so it’s more or less no difference than physical force.

Comment #113: Brien Jackson  on  05/29  at  02:35 PM

I tend to think bullying is a form of coercion.

This is gobsmackingly obvious to me. Not every form of coercion is one that shows up in the moment on a video. Sometimes you have to back way up to get the whole picture: a relationship where she feels like she doesn’t deserve anything better because he’s constantly reinforcing that idea, a relationship where she depends on him for her living because he can badmouth her and lose her gigs or quit cooperating with her needs to go to school; a relationship where he’s hit her in the past or gave away her pets or threatened to kick her out because she’s just not “committed enough”; a relationship where he knows perfectly well she’s a sexual abuse survivor, has PTSD, operates in survival mode whenever sex comes up, and he doesn’t give a damn.

To use Mike Crichton’s analogy: The high-pressure salesman also lives next door to you. He’s defaced your property or slashed your tires, threatened your kids or pets, or maybe he just calls you vicious names every time you step outside. You’ve found out the cops won’t do a thing about it. Then he shows up at your door to sell you some geegaw and you buy it because you know you can’t make him go away and you don’t want him to do anything else to you. You’ve been robbed, or at least extorted.

Comment #114: kristin  on  05/29  at  03:05 PM

Mike, the problem with that is that you’re not in long term relationships with those salesmen, and your wallet =/ your body.

Comment #115: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  03:41 PM

And like I said in the post, the question about whether or not this is legally rape—-getting hung up on semantics—-is somewhat missing the point.  Men who coerce or strongarm sex are often very good about getting their way using methods that fall short of the legal definition of coercion.  They don’t want to go to jail, after all!  But even if it’s not rape, the entire belief that fucking someone who doesn’t want to fuck you, and that you’ve “won” if you can get sex out of unwilling women, is certainly rape culture.

Comment #116: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/29  at  03:45 PM

Also, I don’t think being badgered into sex counts as rape.

As someone who was once almost badgered into sex with someone else against my will, I heartily beg to disagree.

Comment #117: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/29  at  03:45 PM

I’m trying to keep track of the arguments used in this thread.

- she’s lying about her lack of consent
- other people in her situation got a lot of money
- she was willing, for money, years ago
- she put herself in that situation
- what did she expect after acting like that
- she regretted it afterwards so she lied about not being willing
- it’s not really rape if it wasn’t as forceful as I consider forceful enough
- it’s not really coercion if the threat isn’t one I can recognize

Am I missing something?

Comment #118: colorlessblue  on  05/29  at  04:24 PM

Good try, Dilan.  But you have stepped through the looking glass and are not in the rational world anymore.

Comment #119: B405  on  05/29  at  05:07 PM

“I’m sure “He’s gross and redheaded” is not something Columbia teaches as appropriate reporting. “

Remember: women don’t care about looks.

Comment #120: B405  on  05/29  at  05:18 PM

And to the inevitable rejoinder: “Well, sometimes no doesn’t mean no”, I say that if a man immediately stopped every time he heard no and refused to continue until she had spent at least 5-10 minutes explaining why she said no when she meant yes, then that behavior would stop pretty quickly.  Don’t let the girls who say no when they mean yes get away with it.  Make them choose.

just to comment on this. There’s some women who get off on “no means yes”. So what you do is what the BDSM people do: before there is any sex, you talk it out, set the ground rules, and create a safeword. Then you can play “no means yes” to your heart’s content, as long as the safeword is still respected as a non-negotiable stopping point.

Comment #121: jadehawk  on  05/29  at  05:48 PM

I think there was also ‘she really loved it!”

Comment #122: shannon  on  05/29  at  05:51 PM

Remember: women don’t care about looks.

Correction: women don’t care about looks so long as they like you.  If you’re a douchebag, your ugly ass is fair game.  Standard human behavior, really.

Comment #123: schism  on  05/29  at  06:14 PM

Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein:
As someone who was once almost badgered into sex with someone else against my will, I heartily beg to disagree.

And what makes you so sure _I_ haven’t actually _been_ nagged into bed?

Amanda Marcotte:

Mike, the problem with that is that you’re not in long term relationships with those salesmen,

Would it be different if the sex tape in question was the result of a one-night stand?

<i>and your wallet =/ your body. <i>

Another example, then: Drinking with Army buddies, got pestered into a wrestling match, sprained my wrist. Was I “assaulted”? I think not.

Comment #124: Mike Crichton  on  05/29  at  06:30 PM

And what makes you so sure _I_ haven’t actually _been_ nagged into bed?

And where in my account did I say a bed was nearby, or that I welcomed the advances in the first place?

Comment #125: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/29  at  06:35 PM

This is what I don’t understand. Some people seem to treat any pressure as blockcaps COERCION and a terrible violation of someone rights. But coercion’s a very broad term; and people are often exposed to very mild coercion of a relationship ending. A lot of the time you can solve the problem of being pestered for sex by dumping someone, or if you refuse to sleep with someone for an extended period of time you’ll end up being dumped anyway. Those pressures are coercion, but I just don’t see those things as terrible calamities or violations that they’re being presented as.

It reminds me of something Amanda’s said before, it’s a pity that a lot of people are so desperate to be in a relationship that they’ll put up with all sorts of crap rather than be single. It’s like what Wallace was saying in #99, if someone would rather sleep with someone who isn’t a very nice person than end a relationship with them, that’s sad, but what are you going to do?

Comment #126: leeders  on  05/29  at  06:40 PM

leeders, in a world where women are taught that they’re worthless if they’re not attached to a man, the threat of being dumped is actually quite serious. Until we get to a point where women are valued as independent people, not through the men they attract/convince to marry them, we won’t see that pressure for sex disappear.

Comment #127: jadehawk  on  05/29  at  06:43 PM

“But even if it’s not rape, the entire belief that fucking someone who doesn’t want to fuck you, and that you’ve won if you can get sex out of unwilling women, is certainly rape culture.”

I just don’t believe this is what’s happening. I don’t think these guys are cartoon villains, it’s got to be pretty hard for them too. I accept there are a small number of guys who get off on coercing women who they know hate them; but most people couldn’t face owning up to that being the truth of their lives. I mean, it must be tough to accept that someone you love and have spend time building a relationship with can’t stand you, is repulsed by the thought of you touching them, and only sleeps with you because you twist their arm. No-one dreams of getting into a relationship with someone who hates them and of only getting sex by bullying their partner into it. That’s got to be an absolutely miserable existence, I imagine most people in that circumstance can’t accept the truth of what’s happening and probably think about and interpret it ways that are quite different from what it really is.

Just to be clear: I’m not apologising for their actions, it’s just I think their motivations are probably quite different to how they’re being characterised.

Comment #128: leeders  on  05/29  at  07:14 PM

Wow, what is it that makes the rape apology come out so strongly with these dudes?

I’ve been coerced in to sex, often, and repeatedly.  I’ve “performed” sex for male partners repeatedly.  I didn’t have my first orgasm until I’d been having sex for over two years, and yes, gave it to myself.  Know why?  Because my emotionally abusive boyfriend got so upset that he wasn’t giving me pleasure, that I started faking pleasure.  One of the biggest steps I’ve ever taken for myself was to admit I’d been lying to him about it.  Sure, this is the guy I dated from 16-20, and it REALLY hurt his feelings that…I felt like I had to lie to him so that he would just finish already.  It hurt his feelings a whole freaking lot.  Really.  A lot.  Still does.  Hurt his feelings.

Where am I in that equation?  Oh, just stuck in an abusive relationship with a depressed, suicidal partner who I actually didn’t want to kill himself, I just wanted to get away.  I’ve since had an agreement with everyone I’ve dated that if they want to break up, please do that and don’t murder me or anything.  You’re free to go away.

Comment #129: Mimi  on  05/29  at  08:00 PM

realitybeam, confusing enthusiastic consent with raw horniness is pretty dumb.

There’s a huge difference between “I choose to have sex when my partner wants to, even if I’m not desirous enough that I would have initiated, because we do that for each other,” and “I have sex with my partner because s/he turns into a big petulant baby/passive-resistant drag/violent shithead if I don’t.”

I’m not surprised you’re trying to persuade us all that Amanda’s a frigid and/or sexually frustrated bitch.  Once your “reasoning” is demolished, what’s left?  Anger at women who won’t fuck you but will use other means to enjoy themselves instead. 

Women’s sexuality doesn’t belong to you or to their partners or to men in general. 

I agree with Kristin that the fakey “porn smile” (and all the other aspects of performance sex) seems to be invisible to so many male posters here.  It’s creepy.  Do you really think that the same kind of smile you see on women who are performing in the Ice Capades or in the Miss America Pageant is a signal that she’s horny and enjoying it? 

I mean, look at yourself.  Do you guys all grin like monkeys throughout sex?  If so, you’re different from most men I’ve had sex with.

Comment #130: oldfeminist  on  05/29  at  08:08 PM

@realitybeam

I love that the idea of people in a relationship actually desiring each other, frequently and mutually, seems to you so incredibly, ridiculously uncommon.

You poor sad bastard. Most peoples’ lives really, truly, don’t suck as hard as yours.

Comment #131: Well, what?  on  05/29  at  09:43 PM

I just don’t believe this is what’s happening.

really. so you’ve never been to a party while in college, huh?

That you keep pushing “enthusiast consent” has me suspicious. It appears gender neutral, but it’s not is it?

of course; because women like sex so much less than men. BWAHAHAAA….

I’m very amused at the things you’re revealing about yourself and your relationships by posting that screed against enthusiastic consent (and therefore pro pressuring and tricking people into sex). I don’t think it’s Amanda who has problems getting laid…

Comment #132: jadehawk  on  05/29  at  10:37 PM

leeders @131, perhaps your pity for those poor, poor menz is what’s getting in the way of your understanding. You’ve never heard of “scoring” or roofies? Never heard of PUA culture? Sure, probably a lot of those guys won’t want their eventual wives to hate them; but other than that, yes, there are plenty of men who get off on the idea that sex is something they tricked or coerced out of a woman. Why do you think “he won’t respect you in the morning” is such a cliche?

Comment #133: mythago  on  05/29  at  10:39 PM

The win in this thread is Very Win and the fail is So Very Very Fail.

And to the guy who was arguing that rapists couldn’t possibly be doing it for the power trip: do you work in an office?  Drive on any highways?  If perchance you are unaware, petty tyrants are all around you.  The person going 55 in the passing lane?  The person taking as long as possible to exit the crosswalk?  The person who never brews a fresh pot after finishing the old one?  People get off on power trips.  Even little ones.  Many, many people will take them wherever they can get them.  And having power over another person’s body and most private parts and acts is a big fucking trip. 

And thank you, colorlessblue, for the running tally of apologist tactics.  It’s quite an extensive list.

Comment #134: bomberE  on  05/29  at  11:25 PM

Of course this is like rape. You have a woman repeatedly saying no—and she DID try to stop the release of the tape—and the porn studio continues anyway. This is forcing someone into a sexual situation against her will.

Comment #135: Ashley Herzog  on  05/30  at  02:26 AM

Dan Savage actually covered something similar to this on the Savage Love podcast recently (#187 or #188, not sure). The woman in question had been okay at one point with having multiple partners, but her husband frequently forced the issue. Dan basically pointed out that what he was doing was making her consent to her own rape, and that although she wanted to repair the marriage, he didn’t think it was worth it because the husband’s actions were criminal.

I don’t know if I would put coercing someone into a porn movie into the rape category per se, but it’s definitely some sort of nonconsensual sexual assault, and quite definitely prosecutable, both for the creator of the video and whatever asshat at Vivid signed off on publishing it.

Comment #136: BrianX  on  05/30  at  02:58 AM

My definition of consent is not enthusiastic.

Realbeam, if you could, like, put that on a shirt and wear it every day that would be really convenient for the rest of the world.  We’d know before even speaking to you what an incredible skeeze you are and wouldn’t have to waste our time—or risk our safety.

Comment #137: Ailuridae  on  05/30  at  03:08 AM

Richard Goblin @ 96

You said <blockquote> Let me give you a hypothetical to clarify.  Some places have an expectation of privacy: your house, dressing room in a store, public restroom, etc.  We all agree that taking non-consensual video in these places should be a crime.  Other places have no expectations of privacy: a public park, a city street, etc.  Let’s say that John comes across two people having sex in a public park (no expectation of privacy).  John takes out his cellphone and makes a video of the people having sex.  This video is obviously not consensual, but he is filming in a public place with no expectation of privacy.
Is this a crime?  I think not, nor should it be.  The couple has no expectation of privacy and the location is clearly public - this is not peeping in a window or the like.  Anybody could wander by and see the couple.  I take it we all agree that watching the couple might be weird thing to do, but watching activity taking place in a public place should not be a crime.  If so, why should making a video of an activity in a public place be a crime consent or no?<blockquote>

And I reply that you may not want to use that argument as the crux of whether it’s ok to film people without consent, current laws not withstanding. IIRC within the last few years your exact argument about no expectation of privacy in public spaces has been used as legal justification for “upskirt” videos. That by wearing skirts out in public the ladies filmed gave up the expectation nobody would stick a camera up their skirt.

I don’t at all think you’re trying to justify such actions, but I thought you should know that your argument can bring up even more questions involving consent and assault, and can be used to try to justify some seriously fucked up actions.

Comment #138: jessilikewhoa  on  05/30  at  03:13 AM

html fail. whoops.

Comment #139: jessilikewhoa  on  05/30  at  03:14 AM

I really don’t think many men realize how much of the sex a woman is having with them is an act (and I don’t mean “faking”. It isn’t that women aren’t into it or are two-faced, it is sexism and gender-roles that the women has absorbed growing up in the same sexist society as the man for whom she is performing.

The second they raise to bar of consent in sex-ed to be “enthusiastic consent” the will be the second before young women will be better at faking enthusiasm. Teach our children about enthusiastic consent, build a culture that shames people for cajoling/coercing, passive-aggressive bullshit, and emotional manipulation. Stop girls from resorting to man-pleasing by teaching boundaries, how to be assertive, how to recognize that type of behavior and other tactics for manipulation and how to confront it. If we had a class like that, a class about communication, we wouldn’t end up with as many of these maybe “miss-communications”.

/rant


#96 Privacy

That point has irked me for years. The logic-test I use:

A woman wearing a skirt is walking on the second floor mezzanine of a mall. She is in a public place and therefore has consented to the possibility of being seen by others and perhaps even caught on camera.

What if said second floor was made of glass, allowing everyone on the first floor to see up her skirt. I doubt she would consent to that (at least until she put on some trousers).

Just because you are in public should not mean you loose your right to all privacy. Not in the case of upskirt pics and vids, and personally I hope, not for “small audience exhibitionism turned internet phenomenon”. By extension, you consented to making a tape of sex with your partner (well hopefully you consented) for your own use. The same material made available en mass for public consumption should require a separate consent just as making the video required consent separate to that of every sex-act performed.

Context matters, probability matters. Consent(s) needs to be informed.

Comment #140: NerdGirl  on  05/30  at  06:55 AM

In consenting to make a video, you consent to make a record that can be viewed by others. ...

My position is, that if one consents to the making of an enduring record that can be made for the public one gives up their expectation of privacy.

Um, Richard, you realise your whole post is just begging the question? YOU think that anyone who makes a sex tape is implicitly consenting to have that tape released to the public at some later date.

But that just isn’t true. Hardly anyone who makes sex tapes is willing for it to be released to the public. So why assume that the consent is implicit? It quite clearly isn’t.
The default assumption should be that the tape is for the viewing pleasure of the participants alone, and sharing it with anyone without permission of both participants is a violation of consent. That is much closer to what people are actually assuming when they make sex tapes.

Also there is plenty of information recorded about you, (in an enduring format even!),  that you have an expectation of privacy about.
So there’s absolutely no logical path from “consents to making an enduring record” to “gives up expectation of privacy.”

Comment #141: daisyparker  on  05/30  at  07:04 AM

#140 BrianX

My gf and I have weekly SavageLoveCast dates and I am still horrified by that call. Most upsetting call evar.

When I hear things on the news, on Savagelove, around the water cooler, I often wonder what Pandagonians would say so cheers for bringing it up.

And Amanda, if you ever want to comment, the cast it is #188 starts and min 28.

Comment #142: NerdGirl  on  05/30  at  07:37 AM

So realitybeam has announced that he can’t get enthusiastic consent from a woman and somehow this sad and alarming fact means that Amanda has trouble getting laid.

Go back to whatever cesspool you floated over here from.  And know this; many men get enthusiastic consent from a woman.  All the time.

Comment #143: JennyLI  on  05/30  at  08:07 AM

realitybeam, fuck off.

I have a much higher sex-drive than my boyfriend. So, yes, he’s the one who has to enthusiastically consent, not me. I’m ready for a romp almost all of the time.

Comment #144: jadehawk  on  05/30  at  10:20 AM

Like I said before the term “enthusiastic consent” is suspicious. But of course you can put me at ease with stories of how you uttered the phrase “Will you have sex with me?” five times last week. I mean with that high sex drive and your moral superiority that should be cake right?

This is a very good example of the kind of unspoken, angry assumptions that drive rape culture: women don’t really want sex, not really, and certainly never as much as men want it. Meaning, of course, that women don’t want it as much as they’re supposed do, so if one of them is raped or humiliated sexually well, hey, the bitch probably had it coming at least a little bit.

Comment #145: mythago  on  05/30  at  12:47 PM

If you’re not getting enthusiastic consent on a regular basis in your relationship, then it’s time to either work on the relationship or find another one.  Also part of being in a grown-up relationship is recognizing that your partner isn’t always on the same page as you.  If you can’t handle that, you shouldn’t be in a relationship.

My experience is that people who feel good about each other and their relationship tend to have better sex and tend to be more satisfied with the frequency of sex.  Bottom line: if you’re unhappy about your sex life, it’s time to stop whining and start talking about the relationship.

Obviously, your mileage may vary, etc.

Comment #146: Captain Bathrobe  on  05/30  at  01:02 PM

And are you kidding me? Someone who makes a private sex tape does not “give up expectations of privacy.” If someone peeps through your window into your home and watches you and your partner having sex—or even watches you naked—they can be arrested. Why? Because you never consented to be peeped on by strangers. Neither did Kendra, obviously. Releasing a sex tape without the permission of everyone in it should be a crime.

Comment #147: Ashley Herzog  on  05/30  at  01:04 PM

I wonder if the people arguing “you gave consent so you give up privacy” take that same attitude about their medical records. Hey, you agreed to let your doctor figure out what your cholesterol level is; where do you get off complaining that a pharmaceutical company is using that information for marketing? You asked for a prescription for Viagra, so why are you complaining if the pharmacy techs talk about it loud enough for everybody in Rite-Aid to hear?

Comment #148: mythago  on  05/30  at  01:14 PM

All emphasis below mine…

I accept there are a small number of guys who get off on coercing women who they know hate them; but most people couldn’t face owning up to that being the truth of their lives.

That’s why we call it “rape culture,” leeders!
If it were just a “small number of guys,” here and there, with some bizarre personal dysfunction—it would still be a dangerous situation, but not nearly so bad as what we take as “normal” today. As should be clear from all the hemming and hawing here on this thread. Not so bad because these whacked-out guys would stand out like they had rabies—and would be treated accordingly. They’d find no support setting up these situations and those victims they managed to entrap briefly would find ready avenues of escape and ample refuge with just about anyone they might flee to. But instead:

I mean, it must be tough to accept that someone you love and have spend time building a relationship with can’t stand you, is repulsed by the thought of you touching them, and only sleeps with you because you twist their arm. No-one dreams of getting into a relationship with someone who hates them and of only getting sex by bullying their partner into it. That’s got to be an absolutely miserable existence, I imagine most people in that circumstance can’t accept the truth of what’s happening and probably think about and interpret it ways that are quite different from what it really is.
Just to be clear: I’m not apologising for their actions, it’s just I think their motivations are probably quite different to how they’re being characterised.
Comment #131: leeders on 05/29 at 01:14 PM

You see—don’t you? You should, it’s right there in your own statement. People misrepresent their own perceptions and motivations to themselves. This is either individual pathology—or it is culture. Actually what in my own fussy terminology I’d call culture fostered and enforced, sometimes with a quite visible heavy hand, by society—society=the organized pattern of human behavior that maintains itself via both cultural manipulation and explicit sanctions on individuals.

It should be clear that we live in a society which still places high value and reliance on trying to manipulate women into a submissive, dependent position. I believe that the main theme here is actually to perpetuate violence and competitiveness generally, rather than to simply and directly privilege some individuals over others. But privilege is so tightly bound with the culture of violence that this may be a pointless distinction.

Anyway this business of doublethink, when it is so pervasive and systematic that even people who think of themselves as enlightened, progressive, compassionate types are still having their heads spun into such plain absurdities is ideology—a subclass of the culture that maintains a society that works in part by denying its own logical basis, generally by means of distractions and paradoxes.

It only works to cloud individual minds because the larger array of social sanctions out there penalizes questioning it and rewards compliance.

Hence-“rape culture.”

Comment #149: Mark Foxwell  on  05/30  at  01:36 PM

@155: People misrepresent their own perceptions and motivations to themselves.
Thanks for that! I’d just add that it’s not just the person who’s abusing who rationalizes the behaviour to avoid facing what they did. A lot of the time, the victim is going through the say thought processes.
All this talk of repulse and hate in leeders’ comment is irrealistic. People usually enter in a relationship because they like each other, usually for a number of different reasons. Besides, usually people in a relationship are part of the same culture, so if one of them thinks pressuring the other into sex is normal, it’s likely the other thinks so too. So what you have is someone who thinks “well, I don’t like it when he does that, but it only happens sometimes, and he’s great most of the time, and I love him so it shouldn’t bother me to do a small sacrifice just this once. What’s wrong with me that I’m not enjoying the chance to make him happy?”
For example: there are people who think sex is a marital duty. I’ve even read someone saying that marital rape doesn’t exist because getting married means consenting to sex. When both partners have these beliefs, it’s more likely that the person who’s raped will suffer the experience with resignation rather than loathing. Add to that (sometimes) apologies after the act, being treated kindly in non-sexual situations, a good relationship with the children, and you have someone who’ll rather silently loath themselves for resenting being expected to fulfill their duties than loath the person holding those expectations. And then you have someone performing sex they didn’t want with a smile on their faces.

Comment #150: colorlessblue  on  05/30  at  02:46 PM

OK - realitybeam is creeping me out. (Although I am perversely curious as to what, exactly, is ‘suspicious’ about the phrase “enthusiastic consent”.)


@NerdGirl - #144—“The second they raise to bar of consent in sex-ed to be “enthusiastic consent” the will be the second before young women will be better at faking enthusiasm.”

That’s the exact argument some of my friends have used. These women have said to me, flat out, that if I insist on “enthusiastic consent” what will happen is that women will just learn to fake it better for me. It will just be one more pressure on them to not only put up with sex, but to fake loving it so I don’t have to feel bad. (Their phrasing.)  It was never the answer I expected, but I’ve heard it just often enough to wonder how we’re supposed to counter that reaction. Your suggestion about the focus on boundaries and assertiveness might be it.

As for your glass second floor example, something like that actually happened at a university I know. Not an exact match, but the stairs were glass. Some of the female faculty pointed out that this made them uncomfortable for obvious reasons. After some discussion, and people actually standing around and testing how far you could see, it was determined that to spy upskirts would require some rather blatant positioning by the offender (the angles involved in the stairs made it not at all easy to do). The administration promised to respond quickly and seriously to any complaints, and made sure security knew to pay attention to anyone positioning themselves in the sight lines. 

From what I know, it hasn’t been a problem (this was years ago, when the building was first being opened, and I don’t work there so I can’t be sure one way or the other).  But there was a clear decision by the people involved that just because the stairs were glass there had certainly been no giving up of an expectation of privacy.

Comment #151: LC  on  05/30  at  02:56 PM

Another point about upskirt videos that I’ve seen on the press was about specific cases, where men were walking around with cameras on their shoes. The argument I saw was that, while there was no expectation of privacy in a general context in a public setting (i.e. you can’t remove all your clothes in public and expect nobody will see your nudity), this set-up for recording was akin to shoving your face under someone’s skirt to look at her crotch. It’s absurd to argue that a woman leaving her house in a skirt any given day expects any stranger that passes by to do that.

Comment #152: colorlessblue  on  05/30  at  03:05 PM

I’ve watched the video (for free.)  It’s quite different from some of the descriptions. First of all, there is no “strip tease.”  She’s totally nude from the beginning except for an unzipped jacket that she takes off after about a minute and white lace-up boots that she leaves on.  I see no evidence that she was coerced or cajoled in any way.  You can see lighting equipment and a video monitor.  For the last ten minutes or so the camera is mounted on a tripod.  This was obviously a planned shoot, not some spur of the moment cameraphone thing.  At one point she makes a mild protest but the guy says something to the effect of “Try it, you’ll like it.”  She lays on the bed and fingers herself with no apparent discomfort or embarrassment.  Maybe it’s all an act but it’s a convincing one.  There is a protracted close-up of her vulva which her partner stimulates with his fingers and tongue.  She performs oral sex on him and the video concludes with a single long take of intercourse in various positions.

I don’t doubt that women give into sexual demands for fear of being dumped but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.  She looks good and knows it; he’s kind of a schlub. He’s the one who’s likely to be dumped.  It’s obviously wrong to make the tape public but most of the commenters want to use the tape as a vehicle for their own ideas -about rape prevention programs, birth control, the meaning of consent, etc.  One speculated that Kendra was victim of child abuse.  There just not much on the screen to suggest that this was anything other than consensual.  The audio, admittedly, is not good and replaced in some places by tacky music so you have to lip read.

Comment #153: Steve  on  05/30  at  03:16 PM

Yay rape culture! I’ve had boyfriends who coerced me in sex when I DID NOT WANT. I felt I had no choice really. A hale and hearty fuck you Reality Beam for Mansplaining what consititues rape is!
She Said No. Over and over again.
*That*said: Thanks Kendra, for helping to set feminism back. The disgusting The Girls Next Door would have provoked howls of outrage in the ‘70s is now seen as empowerment along the lines of Girls Gone Wild albeit in a milder form. And LOL about living with Hefner as his girlfriend and “cheating” on him, this though you were sharing him (gag can you imagine a 78 year old women with a bunch of studs? She’d be a continous source of mockery. Yay double standards!!) with 3 other women.
Your looks will fade and then what? What a empty, shallow woman she is. Hell I have way more respect for Paris Hilton.

Comment #154: pitbullgirl65  on  05/30  at  03:28 PM

1) The good news, if you want to call it that, is that the 100% true things Amanda’s saying about the couple, the relationship, the badgering, the catastrophic social understanding of “consent” and “coercion” and, especially, the behavior that’s said to be manifested in the video.

2) To the very best of my knowledge the separate issues raised by AlaskaSeth about the legal exposure faced by large, *commercial* porn vendors like Vivid if they make porn available *for sale* without signed consent forms, for each specific appearance, by all parties depicted, are also 100% true. That’s good news, if you want to call it that, in terms of potential conviviality in this comment thread.

The further good news, if you want to call it that, is that nothing, at all, about #2 restricts, qualifies, or otherwise mitigates Amanda’s observations, or policy recommendations related to #1.

In a society where a seriously sizable percentage of the population (mistakenly, obviously) is sympathetic to realitybeam’s… unfortunate expectation that women’s consent is necessarily closer to resigned than enthusiastic, and where a shockingly large percentage buys the “Cosmo” theory of women’s sexuality as entirely anxiety-driven performance, it’s possible that neither party in the video understands that sex could be any other way.  With the result that Wilkinson could not only have signed a model-consent form but also be personally hawking the videos on eBay it it *still* wouldn’t change my/our reaction, or opinions, or concern about its contents. 

So the content of the video, and the culture that tolerates it is one thing.  (And note that colorlessblue, who posted #156 while I was writing all this, explains that problem very nicely.)

The other thing, one that #96: Richard Goblin (barely) misses, is Amanda hits dead on involves Vivid and Wilkinson’s former partner’s arrangement to distribute the video against her wishes.  And that very particular but very pervasive problem is that the law doesn’t allow the *withdrawal* of consent.  It doesn’t allow it for rape (see the egregious Maryland supreme-court ruling from a few years back.)  It doesn’t allow it for model-consent forms going back at least as far as Penthouse Magazine’s publication of the legally model-released photographs of then Miss America Vanessa Williams back in the early 1980s.  And *if* at any point Wilkinson signed a model-release form for distribution of the video in question, which, again Vivid has an understandably meticulous record of obtaining before selling “celebrity sex tapes” then at no point thereafter does she have any (meaningful) standing to withdraw her signature or otherwise control its distribution.

In other words this isn’t about privacy rights, which is where Richard Goblin went astray: the tapes were made in private by private individuals and to the extent they were obtained by a commercial pornographer and distributed for sale it’s virtually certain that releases for publication were at some point consent was obtained in writing from all private parties in the videos and those rights were legally (in the technical sense) obtained by the distributor.  Instead, in the legal rather than moral sense, it’s about intellectual property rights: who owns images, who controls them, and who has the right to approve or disapprove their distribution, and when or whether those rights can ever be recovered.

It’s not a small problem, and it’s one I’m pretty sure Ann Bartow and and Bridget Crawford of Feminist Law Professors blog have taken an interest in.  In the cynical sense I “wish them luck” in that effort but in a social and personal sense I very sincerely wish the professors, and Wilkinson, and everyone else in Wilkinson’s situation luck.  Because, seriously, withdrawal of consent in matters sexual, even something as “abstract” as years-old sexual content on a video tape, should be taken very much more seriously than it is today.

Now. Back to the actual content of that tape.  Yikes!  Not only does the behavior sound like a gross violation of Wilkinson’s sexual autonomy and complete disrespect for her decisions not to perform it, and not only do I agree with Amanda, colorlessblue, chingona, and others about how it could have come about, it *also* sounds like documentation that besides being a manipulating back-stabber on the interpersonal and social front, when it comes to sexuality Wilkinson’s former partner is also a clueless toolbag with all the sexual non-charisma and erotic non-charm of one of Mike Crichton’s (#115) “high pressure” panhandlers.  Eww!

figleaf

Comment #155: figleaf  on  05/30  at  05:05 PM

Slightly off topic: Amanda in #92 you said “...to the inevitable rejoinder: “Well, sometimes no doesn’t mean no”, I say that if a man immediately stopped every time he heard no and refused to continue until she had spent at least 5-10 minutes explaining why she said no when she meant yes, then that behavior would stop pretty quickly.  Don’t let the girls who say no when they mean yes get away with it.  Make them choose. ” 

When people ask “how does feminism affect me” the very-feminist understanding that men are rational decision makers in sexual situations instead of being reflexively compelled would be a big one.  So thanks.

Oh, and quick question: what would rape culture look like if anti-feminists were as skeptical as feminists of the assertion that men are so perpetually starved and/or desperate for sex that they’re incapable of using it strategically for manipulation?  And, conversely, what would rape culture look like if anti-feminists gave up the idea that women are incapable of anything *but* viewing sex strategically for manipulation?  (In other words what if they understood how wrong moronic Billy Christal’s quip was that “men just need a place to have sex, women need a reason?”)

figleaf

Comment #156: figleaf  on  05/30  at  05:22 PM

@155[me]: People misrepresent their own perceptions and motivations to themselves.
Thanks for that! I’d just add that it’s not just the person who’s abusing who rationalizes the behaviour to avoid facing what they did. A lot of the time, the victim is going through the say thought processes.

This is why I’m on the whole culture/society hobbyhorse. The victim and the abuser are living in a particular society, one that perpetuates these patterns specifically.

Of course people also come up with their own personal trips. But a whole lot can be readily understood as standard narratives. Then the standard self-deceptions come into play. They’ve evolved as memes that serve to cover up the tracks of the social imperatives that favor these patterns, so that we go on perpetuating behavior that most of us resent being trapped in on some level or other.

All this talk of repulse and hate in leeders’ comment is irrealistic. People usually enter in a relationship because they like each other, usually for a number of different reasons. Besides, usually people in a relationship are part of the same culture, so if one of them thinks pressuring the other into sex is normal, it’s likely the other thinks so too. So what you have is someone who thinks “well, I don’t like it when he does that, but it only happens sometimes, and he’s great most of the time, and I love him so it shouldn’t bother me to do a small sacrifice just this once. What’s wrong with me that I’m not enjoying the chance to make him happy?”

The thing is, we aren’t some sort of abstract autonomous demigods roaming at whim, nor are we robots activated by instinct nor mere meme-enactors. We’re powerful but also limited, mutually interdependent, social individuals. So everything is complex, yet grounded in material reality. Thus, people are acting both from subjective interests and desires and in conformity with social imperatives. The trick is to evolve these latter shared mechanisms so they better empower the former desires, and develop wisdom in our desires and expectations so they can work better in a better society. It’s inherently a work in progress.

And I think it’s not so inherently, but very deeply, screwed up by a form of society that is very robust and old, but also deeply out of whack with clearly attainable shared, common desires.

Thus we wind up fighting battles with norms that are clearly stupid but deeply rooted, because they actually serve purposes that are nasty but persistent.

For example: there are people who think sex is a marital duty. I’ve even read someone saying that marital rape doesn’t exist because getting married means consenting to sex. When both partners have these beliefs, it’s more likely that the person who’s raped will suffer the experience with resignation rather than loathing. Add to that (sometimes) apologies after the act, being treated kindly in non-sexual situations, a good relationship with the children, and you have someone who’ll rather silently loath themselves for resenting being expected to fulfill their duties than loath the person holding those expectations. And then you have someone performing sex they didn’t want with a smile on their faces.
Comment #156: colorlessblue on 05/30 at 08:46 AM

One has to wonder why people who claim to think that believe human beings should go on having sex at all. Of course they usually wind up claiming that some people—ie men—desire sex in itself, and others ie women—must gratify them as a burdensome duty lest blue-ball-driven chaos be unleashed on the world. Oh, and so the race survives or some such. Thus is the will of God, or evopsych, or whatever.

The real function is to perpetuate both hierarchy and resentment itself, to muddy up clear thought about what people actually want from each other, so they’ll behave in quite a different way than they would if we were allowed to think more clearly.

Comment #157: Mark Foxwell  on  05/30  at  05:30 PM

All (and I do mean pretty much ALL) other considerations aside, one of the aspects of this that continues to blow my mind is that under just about any other circumstances, if an actor or producer made a video that was marketed to studios without the appropriate legal forms, or by someone who didn’t have the rights to it, many of the same people who are slut shaming and rape apologizing would be the first people to scream bloody murder.

They would absolutely see that she had the right to decide whether or not to sell it, and to shop it around if she chose to. Nobody claims that a publishing company could print something they stole from J.K. Rowling just because she signed the releases for the Harry Potter books.

It doesn’t matter at all whether or not she was in 50 other hardcore videos - or actually it does, because if she had, people would probably be MORE behind her right to control this one.

It matters deeply that this was or wasn’t consensual, and it matters deeply whether or not she consented to selling it. But so much of the argument is, essentially, that because she’s a slut, she has fewer rights than she would if this was about anything other than sex. That’s bizarre.

Comment #158: Lymis  on  05/30  at  06:30 PM

Gee, Mike_crichton, I see you’re just as much of a rapist apologist asshole here as you are on LJ. There’s nothing else to say about your stupid hypothetical, which omits any context or intelligence at all. Bravo for the consistency.

  @160: Jesus Christ, Pitbullgirl, what the fuck is wrong with you?

  Blaming the victim here? What a shallow, ugly person you are——and I’m not talking about your looks.  I guess it’s only slut-shaming when you do it to an ugly, non-Playmate-type woman?

I wonder how many of these guys going, “Oh, no is negotiable” are the sort who think that no good woman would say yes, so obviously they’re doing this girl a favor by convincing her. It’s just a charade to save her reputation while they get off.

Women do have to go through this big show because society says only bad women like sex. If liking sex makes you bad, what do you do? It’s the same thing with so-called false rape accusations. Sexism causes those, not some character flaw of women. Frankly, the guys who can’t imagine enthusiastic consent are creepy beyond belief. Yeah, thanks, now I know you can’t get laid. Probably not even in a morgue. But thanks for advertising that.

Comment #159: ginmar  on  05/30  at  07:40 PM

Realitybeam is just boggled at the concept of enthusiastic consent. It’s astonishing he doesn’t see what that reveals about him. Holy shit.

Comment #160: ginmar  on  05/30  at  07:49 PM

Erm, I’m still learning to translate patriarchy to logic. I can guess what someone’s saying most of the time, but I’m lost here. Can someone please explain to me what realitybeam thinks he’s saying in #167?
It’s making me think of the part of The Instinct of Language where Pinker says English is a language where sentences that obey all grammatical rules can still make no sense at all - Chomsky’s example “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” being the source of my internet name.

Comment #161: colorlessblue  on  05/30  at  09:00 PM

@colorlessblue: I’m pretty sure he’s going for the gold medal in the 400m Conclusion Jump.

Comment #162: schism  on  05/30  at  09:03 PM

Well, colorless, I was in the same dilemma. I wasn’t sure if it’s some odd jargon or if realitybeam is just using insane troll logic unlike our Earth logic.

“Gatekeeper model?”

If we believe it, I suppose we must have here one of those people who really do see sex as some kind of duty, for someone anyway, perhaps everyone?

And someone for whom Yes, really the word “no” is indeed that confusing.

Sleep furiously, realitybeam-in-thine-own-eye…

Comment #163: Mark Foxwell  on  05/30  at  09:19 PM

colorlessblue, I know you probably don’t really want to know, but what the hell.

He’s saying all women ought to go around announcing to every guy they don’t want to fuck that they don’t want to fuck him, without him ever asking.  He is saying that because men are obliged to refrain from bullying women into bed, women are reciprocally obliged to declare their fuck-readiness at regular intervals just so nobody gets the wrong idea.  You see, when a man wastes his precious man-time on a woman who doesn’t put out, he feels sad, just like a woman feels sad when she gets raped.  Unfair!

Of course, among normal people, declining an offer that has yet to be extended is ragingly rude.  You don’t go around telling dudes that no thanks, you don’t want a fuck, no, you don’t want them to buy you a coffee, and no, you don’t want to borrow five dollars, until they actually offer you these things.  So any woman who tried to follow his advice would come across as a delusional narcissist with no social skills.

But realitybeam is not normal people, so he does not know this.

Comment #164: sophonisba  on  05/30  at  09:19 PM

I’m wondering what the national anthem will be when he triumphantly mounts the podium. Scary thing is, he thinks winning an argument about being an obnoxious oblivious scumbag is an achievement.

Comment #165: ginmar  on  05/30  at  09:22 PM

And of course it’s another inch closer to the rape line, because his idea is that a woman ought to declare several hours before the fact whether or not she wants sex that night would only be helpful to a man if she weren’t allowed to change her mind.  And it’s hardly accurate to call it mind-changing in the first place; predicting whether you’ll be horny in a few hours is like predicting whether you’re going to be hungry in a few hours.  People guess wrong about that stuff all the time and only the extremely weird get seriously bent out of shape about it.

Comment #166: sophonisba  on  05/30  at  09:26 PM

Sophonisba thanks for the translation.  I seriously had no clue, it was word salad to me.

Comment #167: JennyLI  on  05/30  at  10:21 PM

@170: Mark, the gatekeeper model was about the only thing I understood. It’s something like: women’s purpose is to provide sex, so their default status is available. If they’re not available, it’s their responsibility to make it very clear (aka: close and defend the gate). Which is why the current model for consent is to say no to indicate lack of it, while the enthusiastic consent model is, you don’t assume anything and only act after you hear a yes, go ahead.
Though it doesn’t apply only for women. This myth that men are horny 24/7 and never don’t want sex can make men feel pressured into sex they don’t really want, or have their masculinity questioned. I remember when I was about 10 y/o, there was an PAS going on on tv telling people to use condoms. It was a man telling the story of how he was making out with a hot girl the night before, when he remembered he didn’t have condoms with him and decided to stop instead of having unprotected sex. The ad ended with him making a point of showing the girl he had an erection to prove the only reason he said no was the lack of condoms.
More recently, in the Flesh and Stones episode of Doctor Who Amy assaults the Doctor, and a big lot of people get outraged and say it’s not sexual assault because he didn’t say no. He kept pushing her away and walking out while she gropes and kisses him, giving reasons they shouldn’t have sex, pulling his clothes back on after she tries to undress him, but the lack of the word no overrides all other signs of lack of consent (and the lack of yes).

Comment #168: colorlessblue  on  05/30  at  10:41 PM

Thanks, sophonisba, now I get it.

Comment #169: colorlessblue  on  05/30  at  10:46 PM

ok, maybe it’s just sleep deprivation, but I’ve no fucking clue what #167 says. If sophonisba & colorlessblue are right in her interpretation, that’s some deeply fucked up shit.

Though I take part of the blame, for phrasing my response to him badly. Of course I need to consent enthusiastically too, it’s just this is less often an issue. For example when, like today, I didn’t get any sleep. Enthusiastic consent is not ever a one-way street. And I’m scoffing at the myth that men have a higher sex-drive; but like I said, considering what realitybeam is revealing about himself, I’m not surprised he rarely encounters any enthusiastic concept. He’s turned the world’s most awesome pasttime into a chore, like laundry.

his myth that men are horny 24/7 and never don’t want sex can make men feel pressured into sex they don’t really want, or have their masculinity questioned.

quoted for truth

Comment #170: jadehawk  on  05/30  at  11:56 PM

I’m blaming all typos and mistakes in #177 on aforementioned lack of sleep.

Comment #171: jadehawk  on  05/30  at  11:58 PM

Ginmar: And I see you still prefer moronic name-calling to intelligent discussion. Nice to see there are constants in the world.

The only “hypothetical” I invoked was asking whether it would make any difference if the sex-tape in question had been the result of a one night stand instead of a long-term relationship (The other examples were real life). For the record, I don’t think it would. The relationship status of the people involved should have nothing to do with whether we consider something to be sexual assault or not. Which, correct me if I’m wrong here, is a standard feminist position.

You might try reading what people actually write, and responding to that, instead of what you’re certain their evil little selves “really meant”.

kristin @117: In that case, it wouldn’t just be nagging, it would be harassment with the threat of violence. In an analogous case, I would have no problem concluding it was rape. But I don’t see any evidence that that was the case here.

Comment #172: Mike Crichton  on  05/31  at  12:41 AM

For what it’s worth, I think it would actually be fairly straightforward and perfectly consistent with First Amendment doctrine to muck around with copyright law to make it easier for “performers” on sex tapes to enjoin their release without their specific consent.

Unfortunately, given the realities of the amount of money involved here, I am not convinced that any legal solution is going to prevent these things from getting released. There’s just too much money at stake.

Comment #173: Dilan Esper  on  05/31  at  01:19 AM

I think your anger causes you to look at the big picture from a limited and skewed angle. The big picture is that lots of people feel horny and lots of them express this horniness by taking pictures of themselves naked or fucking, and that with easy digital video/photography/social media/sexting/etc this is only going to get more common.

On the merits of my point about being aware about this issue if you work in Hollywood, this is only one side of the equation. The other big picture is that lots of people (mostly men) feel horny and curious about what celebrities look like when they are fucking, and also probably have all sorts of sexist / patriarchal hang-ups / suppressed hatreds that cause them to get off on the humiliation of female celebrities. Plus, we just have a superficial celebrity driven culture where people are way, way, way too addicted to information about what celebrities are doing every second of the day and who they are fucking.

And in the meantime, the internet has shrunk the marginal cost of distributing porn to almost zero.

So, something that could, and should, be harmless and fun instead became fraught with dangers. That’s sad, it isn’t the way I would have wanted it, but it is reality.

When reality bites, it isn’t a rape apology to acknowledge it.

Comment #174: Dilan Esper  on  05/31  at  01:32 AM

For the record: A lot of men here seem to be focusing on cases like celebrity sex tapes being sold for money, and forgetting the much more common case of sex tapes and sexy photos of not-famous people being released/distributed/posted online for bullying purposes/revenge/for fun (!).

Comment #175: colorlessblue  on  05/31  at  01:39 AM

realitybeam’s bizarro statement at 167 is funny to me because I *have* had people say something like “no, I don’t want sex tonight, but would you like to come over and hang out”. It’s been fine. They’ve laid out the situation, I was cool with it, and a good (non-sexual) time was had by all.

@colorlessblue - The only reason I didn’t view Amy as sexually assaulting the Doctor was the difference in power. It’s the Doctor, he’s not really ever in danger of her imposing her will on him. But yes, I even had a friend of mine write me after she knew I saw it, since she was sure I had some things to say about her behaviour. 

And your comments at 156 are spot on. That dynamic is pernicious and terrible and so deeply rooted I often despair of it ever changing in my lifetime.

Comment #176: LC  on  05/31  at  01:53 AM

@182 - I do believe 4chan has a thriving “post the shots your ex-girlfriend wishes you didn’t have of her” culture.

Comment #177: LC  on  05/31  at  01:56 AM

@LC: anecdota is not data and all that, but I’ve read one man once describing being pressured into sex by a woman. The story was longer than this, emotional factors involved too, but one of the things he mentioned was not wanting to try to stop her physically, because he was afraid he’d hurt her, as he was bigger and stronger. (also: not wanting to revive the flamewar that was the Snooki thread months ago, I know pretty well that men do hit women; this is just a personal account of one man who doesn’t do it).
Another thing that really stuck with me was that he said something like “I’m writing this to you (a woman who had been raped and was writing about it) because I identify with the feelings you describe about being raped, and I wanted to ask for help dealing with these feelings. I hope you’re not offended that I’m asking, even though I wasn’t raped.” The woman asked him why he said he wasn’t raped and he talked about being stronger, about the woman who pressured him not using violence, about being a man, about the fact that he had an erection and orgasmed, and so on. It was clear that he was working with a definition of rape that wasn’t being forced to have sex.
Anyway, my point is: there are many kinds of power. And while the Doctor, in the worst circumstances, probably could stop Amy from raping him (as in, completing sexual intercourse), he still had to go through many minutes of being touched in several sexualized ways that he didn’t consent to. It’s still sexual assault, it’s a difference of degree, not of kind.
Also: pretend I’m a mutant, but I’m scared of the Sentinels so I never told anyone. So one day someone tries to rape me. I just use my mutant power and stop time so the rapist can’t move, and I can calmly walk away and only release him once I’m safe. The rapist didn’t know that I had the power to defend myself, but it doesn’t make what he did any less of an attempted rape.

Comment #178: colorlessblue  on  05/31  at  02:33 AM

@colorlessblue

anecdota is not data and all that, but I’ve read one man once describing being pressured into sex by a woman.

I’ve been pressured into sex by a woman. I gave in for much the reasons you’ve mentioned - it’s expected, it was easier to go along with it than to keep arguing about it, etc.

I have no doubt whatsoever it happens.

It’s still sexual assault, it’s a difference of degree, not of kind.

I agree with that. But I do think differences of degree matter.

(I’m taking your mutant example as given.)

Comment #179: LC  on  05/31  at  02:52 AM

can you imagine a 78 year old women with a bunch of studs? She’d be a continous source of mockery. Yay double standards!!
Comment #160: pitbullgirl65 on 05/30 at 01:28 PM

I have two words for you:  Mae West.

Comment #180: oldfeminist  on  05/31  at  02:56 AM

Yeah, moron, because you compared an arm wrestling match to an assault—-or asked, sarcastically, if that’s what we thought you were talking about. Way to ignore reality, jerkoff. I DO so love it when assholes troll feminist blogs and think they’re so clever when they ignore the actual situation and substitute one of their own making. You going out with Army buddies is not at all what we’re discussing, but thanks for the rape apologism, jerkwad.

Comment #181: ginmar  on  05/31  at  03:24 AM

ginmar, I suspect he’d feel differently if one of his Army buddies raped him.  And that’s the only comparison that really makes sense—rape for rape.

Comment #182: oldfeminist  on  05/31  at  03:27 AM

And you’re even more of a rapist apologist than I thought: I’d forgotten about your same old same comparison of your wallet to rape, and then there’s this gem, quoted verbatim:


Another example, then: Drinking with Army buddies, got pestered into a wrestling match, sprained my wrist. Was I “assaulted”? I think not.


  So much wrong there I don’t even know, but it’s always fun when a rapist apologist troll gets all huffy.

Comment #183: ginmar  on  05/31  at  03:27 AM

@sophonisba: “...the fact whether or not she wants sex that night would only be helpful to a man if she weren’t allowed to change her mind.”

Which brings us back to the problem in the original post.  Whatever Wilkinson’s original intentions were when her partner turned on the camera, and even whatever her real or alleged subsequent intentions were, the bottom line is she doesn’t want them to be published now.  She changed her mind.

@colorlessblue: About “gatekeepers.”  My breakthrough moment was realizing who women are supposed to be keeping their “gate” *for* ...which happens to be the same people they’re supposed to be keeping them *against.*  And then it all made sense why it’s such a joke to say women have the “power” in sex. 

Also @colorlessblue: “For the record: A lot of men here seem to be focusing on cases like celebrity sex tapes being sold for money, and forgetting the much more common case of sex tapes and sexy photos of not-famous people being released/distributed/posted online for bullying purposes/revenge/for fun (!).”

I’ve talked about that on my blog.  And it’s the specific area that Bridget Crawford and/or Ann Bartow have worked on in the past.  And because most of the “revenge porn” sites use the technical loophole of being “common carrier” sites where they just “let” men upload photos and others download them and rely not on sales (which is what Vivid is doing with Wilkinson’s video) but instead just “supporting” themselves with ads the laws really aren’t either as clear or as useful to victims. 

The folks who run Vivid can go to jail for selling images of anyone they don’t have clear records for, ad those records basically can’t be obtained without a performer’s active participation.  That’s a clearly-defined criminal offense and it’s relatively easy, and straightforward, to file a complaint and then let the wheels of justice turn.  So those guys are going to be extremely careful.  With revenge porn it’s much murkier, more of a civil action, usually it has to be against the uploader rather than the host site, etc., etc.  But on the other hand there’s pretty much never going to be the “but she provided signatures, verification of age, photos of herself on set holding up her legal ID, etc.” that Vivid would (almost certainly) be able to show.  And there’s never a question of *withdrawing* consent for publication because it’s almost never given in the first place, at any point, at any time.  So whereas the matter (but not the described content!) is awkward and involved in intellectual-property questions in the Wilkinson case, the case of “revenge porn” ought to be a lot clearer in the law.  There should be considerably more recourse to victims, and much greater penalties for uploading perpetrators, and much more clear delineation of what hosts should be obliged to do when a complaint is issued.  No doubt about that, period, at all.  So good point.

figleaf

Comment #184: figleaf  on  05/31  at  04:30 AM

Yeah, oldfeminist, what kind of asshole do you have to be to compare being raped or coerced or anythnig along that sexual assaault/non consent spectrum to, say, an aggressive commission-only Best Buy salesman?  Do people still sell Avon door to door? 

And I bet he can’t imagine his Army buddies raping him—-unless it’s those sekkrit homosexuals in the Army.

lso, I don’t think being badgered into sex counts as rape. If it did, then I’ve been “robbed” by high-pressure salesmen and panhandlers numerous times, by giving in and giving them money just to get them to stop pestering me. Of course it’s still sleazy, and there’s something deeply wrong with anyone who would want to watch a video of such badgering, but I don’t think it’s legally or morally the same thing.

Nothing like a good strawman/ rape apologist comparison of commission sales to rape to put a topper on a rape debate.  I really love the half hearted/ shrug of the cherry on top…..Oh, of course it’s sleazy, but what can you do? (Nothing, no doubt.) And that’s leaving out all the context and everything.

Rapist apologist trolls are quite possibly the only thing worse than BP board members in terms of sheer slime.  And this asshole is in the Army. What a fun guy for those poor females he has to be around! And people wonder why women don’t come forward.  I doubt he’s limiting himself to message boards in expressing this kind of sentiment. 

Every time one of these trolls trots out their crap, another rapist gets empowered.  After all, here’s a guy sneering that it’s not rape or coercion, or no worse than an aggressive sale!

I wish they’d just dispense with the pretense. It’s stupid and transparent.

Comment #185: ginmar  on  05/31  at  04:33 AM

Figleaf, you can just bet that if this kind of thing were happening to men in any way that’s as bad, it would be a big deal and lots of perpetrators and scorned men would be in jail now.

Comment #186: ginmar  on  05/31  at  04:36 AM

“You might try reading what people actually write and responding to that, instead of what you’re certain their evil little selves ‘really meant’.”

Good heavens man, don’t you realize that if g-mar isn’t allowed to misconstrue & misrepresent & misinterpret & make up any old shit that she damn well feels like making up & fling around the room at anyone & everyone that it suits her to do so like a monkey shitting in its hand & flinging it at passers-by & freely cast aspersions about peoples characters & lifestyles & intelligence levels & family backgrounds & personal hygiene habits that she’s based on her very own aforementioned misconstructions & misrepresentations & misinterpretations & plain old bullshit that she made up herself & proceeded to fling around the room at anyone & everyone that she felt obligated to fling them at like so many XXX-tra Large Cowpats because she’s convinced that her very own aforementioned misconstructions & misrepresentations & misinterpretations & plain old bullshit that she made up herself & proceeded to fling around the room at anyone & everyone like a manure-spitter jackknifing on the I-24 in Chattanooga, TN are actually gospel, than the patriarchy wins for evar & evar & its legions evil hipster dewds & platoons of professional virgins & cohorts of sinister Steve Irwin clones will strip Pandagonaians of their accumulated PandaPointz & force us to watch endless reruns of “Sex & the City 2”?  My God man.  CAN’T.  YOU.  SEE!?

This world in dire peril, & only a functionally literate slack-jawed slope-browed ill-tempered schlub w/ a deep personal investment in co-opting feminist rage for the sake of her obnoxiously self-important online self-righteous posturing can save it!

Comment #187: Smartpatrol  on  05/31  at  04:41 AM

I need better stalkers. Isn’t this the same fat-phobic asshole who believes all us feminists are pretty much interchangeable? Because if Twisty FAster said it, then it’s just the same as me saying it. We’re all Borg.

  Also, dude? The fucking &‘s just give you away as the sort of asshole who texts too much on some tiny little cellphone screen, which probably explains your accuracy rate.

Quick! Accuse all feminists of saying all sex is rape! Or whatever your trolly community is saying these days.

Comment #188: ginmar  on  05/31  at  04:49 AM

Sex and the City? Isn’t that about five squares on the ole bingo card?

Comment #189: ginmar  on  05/31  at  04:56 AM

For instance, I really hated my prior job the last 6 months I was there and still I went… “faking it.”

So close and yet so far.

Extend the feminist definition of enthusiastic consent to other domains, and you get the anarchist position on capitalist wage slavery.

http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm

Comment #190: BlackBloc  on  05/31  at  10:08 AM

I would almost be amazed at the number of shitheads and assholes there are but somehow, I’m not.  It’s a post about consent - so a million trolls pop up so they can find out where the not-legal line is in order to extract sex from those walking vaginas.

Consent is not a hard thing to grasp.  You shouldn’t need a flowchart describing all of the various ways that people indicate “no”.  And people have a right to change their minds about something.  Whether it’s about a dinner, sex, a walk to the park, going out drinking…there’s millions of situations out there (without having to bring up mugging, even!) where people pressure other people into doing something that they don’t want to do.  These trolls sound like the type of people that insist on doing something even though the group doesn’t want to and then proceed to throw a hissy fit if they don’t get their way.

If the rule is going to be “If you let someone take sexy pictures/video of you, you have no right to control it”, what you’re going to get is people who do not want to do these things, for the very understandable reason that they value their privacy and wouldn’t want that kind of thing posted anywhere.  Why should I trust anyone with my image, especially sexual images?  And if you’re pressuring me to do that when I’ve clearly said “no”, why?  I could care less whether you give me all the assurances in the world that you’re not going to release anything because I won’t believe you.  Why?  Because of things like this, because there’s people in this thread who demonstrate that withdrawing consent or not even being given the chance to consent to something is totally okay.  I would love to do more sexy pictures for guys, but I can’t, given the HIGH RISK involved because people are assholes.

Lack of consent aficionados are part of the rape culture, too.  If you can’t respect a person’s “no”, the problem does not lie with the disrespected person, it lies with the person who can’t accept a boundary.

Comment #191: SporkeyO  on  05/31  at  10:10 AM

Dilan Esper wrote:

Again, I’ll say it. If I were a celebrity or aspiring celebrity, I wouldn’t agree to make a sex tape in a thousand years. Not because I don’t have the right to make one, not because I think there’s anything immoral to make one, and not even because I think I shouldn’t have the right to rely on my partner that it would never be released. No, I wouldn’t make one because there’s been at least 30 of these “private” tapes that have been released to the public because there is huge money to be made doing so.

No sense limiting that just to celebrities.  There are seemingly countless “amateurs” sites out there, with pictures of people—mostly women—in various sex poses.  Getting your picture taken while fellating your boyfriend might seem fun and funny at the time, but seven years from now, when an ex has posted it on the internet and one of your co-workers finds an internet picture of you with a dick in your mouth, what damage will it do to your career?

Perhaps Kendra Wilkinson didn’t consent to having this tape made, but there are plenty of amateur and “ex-girlfriend” sites out there with pictures and movies of women who did consent, many probably enthusiastically, without realizing that their consent was eternal, that their consent to making the pictures could or would turn into those pictures being posted on the internet.

Comment #192: Dana  on  05/31  at  10:34 AM

Wow, Dana, you’re such an asshole.

  There’s a million sites out there because these guys are assholes, and guys like you just shake their finger at the victims. So, fuck you.

Comment #193: ginmar  on  05/31  at  10:59 AM

What I am, ginmar, is a realist.

Comment #194: Dana  on  05/31  at  11:26 AM

That’s what I don’t understand, why co-workers and bosses would see this kind of pictures and think: “This picture shows me that this woman has had sex, therefore it proves that she’s not a competent accountant/lawyer/physicist.”
But, as figleaf has pointed out in his blog in the past, co-workers and bosses don’t think “This man was capable of such a breach of confidence, of betraying and violating in this vile way someone he claimed to at least like a little at some point, what’s he capable of doing to my company, to which he’s only connected by the wages he’s paid? Is this someone I want to work with?”

Comment #195: colorlessblue  on  05/31  at  11:39 AM

So the rule is for the one with the higher sex drive… which means it’s a de facto man job.

*facepalm*

Can we invoke the stick rule yet?

Comment #196: BlackBloc  on  05/31  at  12:22 PM

What I am, ginmar, is a realist.

Yeah, a realist. Who just shrugs off sexism—-because fighting it means fighting sexist scumbags like you——as ‘realism.’ Gee, men are just dogs, they’re going to try and get revenge on you, ladies, so cross those legs and keep those buttons buttoned!

    You’re scum. That statement pretty much summed up everything about you. The status quo serves your conservative white man agenda, so you’re just going to let it go.

  Vile.

Comment #197: ginmar  on  05/31  at  12:25 PM

Also, wth is @204 about? Talk about flying off on an unrelated tangent. The only way I can see this having any relevance to the thread is if realitybeam is assuming that Pandagon’s issue with the sex tape is because it’s porn, porn is for men, and all we feminists and feminist-allies want is to win some sort of gender wars, but we’re dumb because there’s all this celebrity paparazzi shit and that’s exclusively consumed by women and it’s just as bad as porn, so nyah nyah women aren’t better htna men.

Which is so many layers of bullshit arguments that it collapses into a singularity of MRA stupidity.

Comment #198: BlackBloc  on  05/31  at  12:29 PM

Blackbloc, does that mean we get to hit him with a stick till he makes sense? I’ll endorse that.

Comment #199: ginmar  on  05/31  at  12:45 PM

@ginmar “Figleaf, you can just bet that if this kind of thing were happening to men in any way that’s as bad, it would be a big deal and lots of perpetrators and scorned men would be in jail now.
Comment #193: ginmar”

You’re at least technically right of course.  The very first “sex tape” scandal where a video tape was unearthed, sold, and distributed against the subjects’ wishes involved the actor Rob Lowe (among others.)  At the time releasing such photos or videos against someone’s wishes wasn’t really against any laws at all.  And I’m pretty sure that whatever meager protection exists today derives in large part from that case.

For the record I’ve been agitating against “revenge porn” and other forms of involuntary release of sexual imagery on my blog for several years (link.)  I think it’s a big, unambiguous problem that should be taken seriously no matter who the subjects are.

figleaf

Comment #200: figleaf  on  05/31  at  12:50 PM

@ginmar: Well that works too, but the old Pandagon stick rule was “We ban anyone that does not show proof of having intelligence above that of an inanimated stick”.

Comment #201: BlackBloc  on  05/31  at  01:08 PM

It is really frustrating how one line of troll in this thread is essentially “well, kendra shouldnt have been so dumb as to make a tape in the first place” and the other is basically “men have ‘needs’ and should be able to manipulate a woman to any extent short of violence to have those ‘needs’ met” Quite the mindfuck for a young woman seeking to live a culturally correct sex life.

Comment #202: alysia  on  05/31  at  01:40 PM

Ginmar’s and Dana’s bit about amateur sex sites points in two different directions and two different places.  There are amateur sites that pretty much say “We’re the place to post your ex-girlfriend and ex-wife photos!” and there are amateur sites where women post pictures of themselves, often ones that they took themselves.  With porn there’s always a range.

Who’s right?  Neither one, if you ask me.  (Dana might be a complete asshole, but I don’t know which sites s/he’s talking about.)  They’re talking past each other.  They might both be clueless assholes or both be completely right, but they’re probably not talking about the same things.  I recommend a few hours at someplace like www.indienudes.com to see the variety and scope of the porn that’s out there, as well as some of the video sites (there are many links at that site.)  People who talk about porn should know what they’re talking about, because some woman (usually) taking and posting and getting off on her fanmail isn’t the same as someone having private and nonconsensual moments posted online without permission.  Yes, I’ve seen both and one is definitely more unseemly.

Another fact not covered earlier: if the pictures are taken for non-commercial purposes and posted for free, the Federal law probably doesn’t apply.  Businesses have to keep records while significant others don’t unless they’re professional photographers.  Those amateur sites are affecting the porn industry’s bottom line, which does little to alleviate the total consumption of porn.  That’s probably going up rapidly now that anonymity is granted for the viewers, which is another sociological study subject that points favorably toward the patriarchy while simultaneously allowing women access to porn without entering “male” spaces.

Most porn is commercial crap and it sucks, but sometimes it seems like feminists have a view of porn much like religious conservatives have of gay people: they’re against it in principle, so any specific cases are muddied by their chosen/acquired ignorance on the topic.  Which isn’t to say feminists don’t look at any porn or that I’m an expert (both are far from true,) but that’s my observation in this instance.

Comment #203: 3letterjon  on  05/31  at  02:35 PM

*reads the thread very carefully looking for a feminist expressing disapproval of amateur porn made and posted online consensually, and/or disapproval of porn in general*
*fails to find any*

Comment #204: colorlessblue  on  05/31  at  02:51 PM

Colorlessblue,

I was commenting based on Dana and ginmar’s argument, and I think my statement about feminist ignorance about porn still stands up to scrutiny.  Though there is a lot in the thread about what can be posted online and under what circumstances, there is (IMHO) some ignorance about what is online and how it is discussed on this and other blogs.  Ginmar is right that many scummy men post things to hurt people, while Dana isn’t exactly saying this is a good thing but it is reality, and then the acrimony began.  Posting 207 could be read in many ways, and “disapproval of porn in general” isn’t out of the realm of possibility.  And I agree with ginmar in many possible instances of what she’s probably talking about and probably disagree with others.  I also think Dana was being a bit dense, handily recognizing such things from my own experiences in dense behavior.

Still, even if feminists did or didn’t express disapproval of amateur porn on this thread, there is still a lot of shock on feminist blogs when something like this subject gets posted and it makes the mainstream news.  But it isn’t such a surprise for those who see more porn, since “celebrity” sites like taxidrivermovie and drunkenstepfather have had this kind of thing for years, while many more sites do the same for amateurs.  I’m all for feminists and non-feminists knowing what’s out there and discussing it in whatever terms they desire, but what I saw happening made me want to suggest that it’s likely that those two were talking right past each other.  And that’s not helpful for them or us.

In other words, I stand by my now much-edited remarks.

Comment #205: 3letterjon  on  05/31  at  04:04 PM

figleaf:  “You’re at least technically right of course.  The very first “sex tape” scandal where a video tape was unearthed, sold, and distributed against the subjects’ wishes involved the actor Rob Lowe (among others.)”

The degree to which you all are familiar with these controversies is suspicious.  If I asked my husband or other guys about these sites, they’d be able to tell me something, some than others, but most wouldn’t be able to just rock back and start spewing about their history, the legal aspects, and the differences between the kinds of sites.

Unless your interest is based on feminism, or on figuring out what sites are appropriate to attend and what ones aren’t, or you’re actually in the industry, your familiarity is as telling as knowing where the sex workers hang out, how much they charge, which is the prettiest, which is the sluttiest, and how to get them to lower their prices.

In other words, when you complain that feminists don’t know enough about porn to have an opinion, you’re assuming that we have to be swimming in it, like you are, to judge it.  Whatever we’ve seen, it’s not enough.

Unfortunately when you’re swimming in it, you don’t see it, and the most common kind becomes defined as “normal” because if it weren’t, why would there be so much of it?

Patriarchy is everywhere.  It colors everything within its reach.  You have to *work* to extract it from your daily experience, because it’s always been there.  And patriarchy is at one of its strongest points in porn, because it is currently an industry geared to pleasing men sexually with women and then discarding them like used toilet paper.  Turning madonnas into whores is a specialty.  Women who give a shit about themselves generally steer well clear of it because of that.

Finding an exception, where a woman is a professional porn star, and loves sex, and doesn’t have that fakey “porn smile” while she performs, isn’t necessary.  I will posit there are some of these.  That doesn’t make the current porn culture, informed by patriarchy and violence, any less problematic.

I do think it’s funny that I’ve been such a big *named* target and that others get their names sprinkled liberally into responses, over and over, instead of just quoting the “offending” text and addressing the ideas therein. 

I proclaim that I’m old and feminist, and therefore must be fat & wrinkled & hairy & unfuckable and have never seen porn since Soul Train was the shit and everyone had a full bush and I’m probably muttering about how the kids ought not trim their yards and get out of mine.  Amirite boyz?

Bullying does generally start with the name fuckery; my RL name is particularly easy to play with by junior-high assholes, so I’m kind of immune.  But nice try. 

Guys, if you have no problem inevitable rape and pretending consent, why the popularity of nervous jokes you guys make about meeting Bubba in prison? 

You can ignore it if you’re the one in power, and the only time you’ll be exposed to being the one who doesn’t have the power is unlikely in the extreme for you keyboard warriprs to ever, ever encounter.  Refusing to show your receipt at the exit of Best Buy probably won’t land you in a cell with anyone dangerous, your “V For Vendetta” fantasies notwithstanding.

Comment #206: oldfeminist  on  05/31  at  04:27 PM

@realitybeam: I’m not appointing myself as the feminist police, but blaming the victim and attacking and slut shaming other women for making life choices different from what you’d approve doesn’t sound feminist to me, so I don’t think pitbullgirl counts. You are the only one in this page using the word degrading. And Amanda has talked about sex tapes, sex pictures, sexting, etc. enough times that it’s very clear what she’s objecting to is the non-consensual aspects.

@3letterjon: post 207 doesn’t even mention porn or anything close to it. I only see ginmar reacting to Dana’s “realism” comments, because it’s like this: Amanda writes a post saying “This is the situation that is happening now. The situation is bad and wrong and I want it to stop”. Then Dana, and many others, came and replied with the claims of realism that are basically repeating “This is the situation that is happening now. Don’t you get it? Get real.” That’s not realism, that’s arguing for the maintenance of the status quo. As ginmar is pointing out, arguing in favor of the status quo is arguing in favour of sexism. In this specific case, in favor of a culture where non-consensual publication of sexualized images of someone else (mostly women) and posterior shaming is accepted.

I’m aware of the existence of anti-porn feminists. I know the opinions on porn in a general way are all over the place, from feminists who believe women-empowering porn exists, to feminists who think all porn is rape (and lets not forget that there are those who believe all heterosexual sex is rape). The fact remains that what’s being discussed and condemned here, by the feminists, not by the trolls, is the lack of consent.
Bringing up consensually-made and consensually-distributed porn into the discussion would only derail, and suggesting that all feminists disapprove of/are clueless about porn is attacking a Straw Feminist.

Comment #207: colorlessblue  on  05/31  at  04:57 PM

@oldfeminist: I agree with what you wrote, I just want to say that I think you’re replying to the wrong person. figleaf’s knowledge of non-consensual porn comes from worrying about and opposing it. He’s been arguing against revenge porn for a long time. I can personally say that reading his posts was my main source of support between the time I was victimized and the time I found a therapist to see me.

Comment #208: colorlessblue  on  05/31  at  05:11 PM

My understanding is that the feminist position for opposing porn is as much about being anti-sex as opposing feudal peasants’ serfdom is about being anti-gardening.

But people like realitybeam tend to be ‘suspicious’ of such reasoning, because to them control and coercion (and not the ritualized, BDSM kind) is what sex is all about.

Comment #209: BlackBloc  on  05/31  at  05:19 PM

Colorlessblue, did you know that the ‘all sex is rape’ quote is a fabrication by a conservative columnist? So you’re doing some strawfeministing there yourself.

Comment #210: ginmar  on  05/31  at  05:30 PM

No, I didn’t know. Thank you for correcting me.

Comment #211: colorlessblue  on  05/31  at  05:40 PM

Any time you hear a supposed quote like that it’s a good idea to check Snopes. Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon both got slammed with that repeatedly, but any examination of their actualwriting—-as opposed to cherrypicked quotes designed to slam them—-reveal considerably more nuance than they’re given credit for. I find Dworkin’s life places her writing in an especially revealing context. She was arrested, jailed, and raped while working with Freedom Riders. When she was growing up, rape basically didn’t exist, legally, men could abandon their families on a whim, wives had no property rights nor ability to get credit, date rape didn’t happen, wife beating was called ‘life’, and so forth. Job ads in the paper were segregated by gender. Women were basically beaten in to submission by life and by men and if they did escape they were plunged into poverty. On top of all that, the culture treated them—in movies, ads, songs, and TV shows——as stupid, shallow, silly, annoying little bitches whose only virtue was their attractiveness. If you weren’t conventionally attractive you were subjected to unbelievable amounts of cruelty and abuse—-and this was during times of amazing contempt for women.

I can remember some of this stuff. I saw some of this stuff happening before my eyes.  People do love to attack Dworkin, but if you grew up the way she did, in the times she did,  saying that the culture views rape as sex would be not just understandable, but accurate.

And it makes me wonder about these morons that romanticize times even further in the past.  This was the Seventies that I’m talking about: Dworkin was a bit older than me.  Women had no recourse, no hope, no chance. But nobody brings that up when they trot out stereotypes about feminists.

Comment #212: ginmar  on  05/31  at  06:43 PM

“This is the situation that is happening now. The situation is bad and wrong and I want it to stop”. Then Dana, and many others, came and replied with the claims of realism that are basically repeating “This is the situation that is happening now. Don’t you get it? Get real.” That’s not realism, that’s arguing for the maintenance of the status quo.

I think part of the problem here is that some commenters want to pretend that there’s no gap between these two concepts:

1. “People need to be aware of the status quo in deciding how to act.”
2. “The status quo rocks!”

Unfortunately, pretending the two concepts are the same doesn’t make it so—it just makes straw man argumentation easier.

Comment #213: Dilan Esper  on  05/31  at  07:31 PM

By the way, while it is unfair to say that MacKinnon and Dworkin were “anti-sex”, it is true that in their most intense writings, they certainly painted a very bleak picture of it. I haven’t read their writings lately, but I remember MacKinnon in particular arguing that a woman could only have “rare contrapuntal glimpses” of sexual pleasure that was not tainted by false consciousness. (I remember my feminist legal theory professor, the wonderful Judith Resnik, noting that she was dating a relatively famous male writer (and renowned playboy!) at the time and saying “I wonder if that’s how she views the sex she has with her boyfriend!”)

MacKinnon and Dworkin were subtle and, in their way, brilliant, but they were also easily caricatured, and that’s what happened in the media (especially because they challenged First Amendment premises that the media, for obvious reasons, hold in very high regard).

Comment #214: Dilan Esper  on  05/31  at  07:40 PM

<blockquote>@oldfeminist: I agree with what you wrote, I just want to say that I think you’re replying to the wrong person. figleaf’s knowledge of non-consensual porn comes from worrying about and opposing it. He’s been arguing against revenge porn for a long time. I can personally say that reading his posts was my main source of support between the time I was victimized and the time I found a therapist to see me.
Comment #220: colorlessblue on 05/31 at 03:11 PM</blolckquote>
Okay, thanks.  I appreciate information.  And I’m glad figleaf was able to help you when you really needed.

Sorry, figleaf, what you wrote became the point on which I hung things that aren’t about you, but are about others like realitybeam and Smartpatrol.

Comment #215: oldfeminist  on  05/31  at  08:18 PM

Yeah, Dilan, bullshit. Dana’s got a history here and his dismissive “I’m a realist” is pretty standard shit for hte jerkwad that he is. “It’s reality, get over it,” doesn’t help women but it sure makes things great for assholes like him.

Comment #216: ginmar  on  05/31  at  09:04 PM

@ginmar #222 and @colorlessblue #219: I’d have said the “all sex is rape” quote was more of a willful misreading of Dworkin’s claim that when women have no legal right to say no, i.e. without their right to withhold consent, heterosexual sex is *indistinguishable* from rape.  Which was perfectly true.  Two really different concepts that were unfortunately very easily conflated, which is part of why the myth of “sex equals rape” is so persistent.  That and, of course, the unbelievable resistance something as perfectly reasonable as feminism continues to get from a (fortunately ever-shrinking) mass of holdouts and lazy asses.  Without the changes Dworkin’s activism brought about in favor of binding legal acceptance of consent contemporary “sex positivity” probably wouldn’t be possible, at least in the U.S.

Incidentally I also remember the sexual climate when Dworkin was most active and, yeah, the whole of the 1970s were a remarkably hard-bitten time for almost everyone who was involved in political activism.  It’s not surprising that she was misread back then—the “war between the sexes” really was something like a war!  It’s beyond annoying that propaganda from that war is still so persistent.  I should just add, though, that it’s also an *easy* misreading for people of good will who, not realizing how hard the times were in the 1970s, are mislead by her (understandably-for-the-times) emphatic, almost black-and-white rhetoric.

@Colorlessblue #219: Excellent points! The subject at hand really is about consent and, more fundamentally, respecting the *decision* of the person asked to give it.  The way the tape is being released, and the way one party’s decisions don’t seem to have been respected in it, makes it just a particularly relevant example of the problem.

@oldfeminist #227: Thanks.  Accepted.

figleaf

Comment #217: figleaf  on  05/31  at  09:41 PM

Yeah, Dilan, bullshit. Dana’s got a history here and his dismissive “I’m a realist” is pretty standard shit for hte jerkwad that he is. “It’s reality, get over it,” doesn’t help women but it sure makes things great for assholes like him.

I accept your point about Dana’s history. My point though—that there is a space between acknowledging a reality and believing reality is just peachy—stands independent of whatever Dana’s history here is.

Comment #218: Dilan Esper  on  05/31  at  09:43 PM

Ginmar wrote:

What I am, ginmar, is a realist.

Yeah, a realist. Who just shrugs off sexism—-because fighting it means fighting sexist scumbags like you——as ‘realism.’ Gee, men are just dogs, they’re going to try and get revenge on you, ladies, so cross those legs and keep those buttons buttoned!

You’re scum. That statement pretty much summed up everything about you. The status quo serves your conservative white man agenda, so you’re just going to let it go.

Vile.

Ginmar, we were talking about women, mostly fairly young women, getting their pictures taken in various sexual situations, with their consent, but eventually losing control of those pictures and having them plastered all over the internet.  You can combitch all you want about it being the fault of their exes in particular or scumbags like me in general, but it still doesn’t matter: if someone has pictures of her getting a “facial” or whatever made public in her professional setting, she’s going to be professionally harmed by it.  And I’d guess that on those amateur and ex-girlfriend sites, you’re going to be able to see the women’s faces a lot more often than you can see the men’s.

Comment #219: Dana  on  05/31  at  09:54 PM

colorlessblue wrote:

But, as figleaf has pointed out in his blog in the past, co-workers and bosses don’t think “This man was capable of such a breach of confidence, of betraying and violating in this vile way someone he claimed to at least like a little at some point, what’s he capable of doing to my company, to which he’s only connected by the wages he’s paid? Is this someone I want to work with?”

Of course they don’t, because there’s a difference in knowledge concerning the person in the posted picture and the person who posted it on the internet.  If a woman’s picture in a sexual situation gets posted publicly, her friends and co-workers may see the picture, possibly causing her a great deal of embarrassment, but they won’t know who posted it unless she tells them.  Even then, unless the person who posted it is familiar to them or works there, he will suffer no downside from having posted it.

Comment #220: Dana  on  05/31  at  10:02 PM

Shorter Dana: Don’t go walking around in that short skirt, ladies. Sure you have the right to do that, but you don’t expect men to do shit, do you?

You lazy, sexist, rapist apologist scumbag.

Comment #221: ginmar  on  05/31  at  10:47 PM

holy crap, sophonisba was right. realitybeam really does think the default status of a woman talking to him is “available for sex”, and that she must declare her lack of availability to him, instead of a presumption of no sex, and declarations of interest, as sane people would prefer.

Reminds me of the assholes who, halfway through a fascinating conversation about some sex-unrelated topic (politics, environmentalism, whatever) find out that I have a boyfriend, and then throw a fit because I was “leading them on”.

whatever. the sane assumption should always be that a person is not interested in sex or relationships, unless otherwise indicated. That this isn’t so is precisely because the concept of enthusiastic consent is lacking from society as a whole: instead of talking, people make dumbass assumptions, and then get pissy when they hear “no” and refuse to comply with it.

Comment #222: jadehawk  on  06/01  at  01:45 AM

I know I am going to regret replying before reading the rest of the thread.

realitybeam @  198

But this type of honesty is too uncommon isn’t it?

.

As a general rule, all good behaviour is too uncommon. But the world isn’t ideal. I’ve found this kind of honesty to be not at all rare, actually.

What’s bizarre to me is that folks so hell bent on pushing for the “moral” thing are so knee jerk against including women’s behavior in “enthusiastic consent”.

Um… what? Enthusiastic consent is every bit about women’s behaviour as well as men’s. It’s a “you and your partner should both be into it” standard. It’s really very straightforward.

Comment #223: LC  on  06/01  at  03:47 AM

LC, he seems to think that “enthusiastic consent” is simply an euphemism for “not asking (a woman) for sex” and a gatekeeping tool.

He doesn’t (want to?) understand that it’s a term for a system in which sex is something that’s openly talked about and therefore doesn’t need to be implied (ergo, a woman who wants to take him home to have sex with him would (and could, without risk of being shamed for it) tell him that she wants to take him home to have sex with him, instead of just inviting him home and let the assumption of sex stand in the room, which could lead to miscommunication and frustration); it’s a reversal from the assumption of consent/interest which needs to be expressly negated, i.e. “no means no”, into the assumption of no consent/interest until expressly, openly, and unashamedly stated, i.e. “yes means yes”.

Comment #224: jadehawk  on  06/01  at  08:06 AM

He’s also confusing enthusiastic consent with something like disclosure, getting all angry on behalf of Kendra’s husband, who apparently had a right to know what she did sexually in her past. It’s almost as if by marrying her he took ownership of her sexuality, which makes whatever she did even before they even knew each other a retroactive betrayal because she was robbing him of what he was entitled to.
Or maybe he’s making a point about informed consent. That without knowing it all Kendra’s husband was taken advantage of, because though they decided to get married, he would never take the same decision if he only knew what a slut she really was.
*gags*

Comment #225: colorlessblue  on  06/01  at  08:37 AM

Ginmar wrote:

Shorter Dana: Don’t go walking around in that short skirt, ladies. Sure you have the right to do that, but you don’t expect men to do shit, do you?

You lazy, sexist, rapist apologist scumbag.

Nope, never said that; that’s your interpretation.  But I also know I won’t change your opinion, so no sense bothering to try.  You might have figured out by now that I’m way too thick skinned for name-calling to bother me.

But you’re deceiving yourself if you think that righteous indignation over some guys uploading pics of their exes onto porn sites will mean that it won’t happen again, or that the women depicted won’t be harmed when it does happen.

Comment #226: Dana  on  06/01  at  09:31 AM

But you’re deceiving yourself if you think that righteous indignation over some guys uploading pics of their exes onto porn sites will mean that it won’t happen again, or that the women depicted won’t be harmed when it does happen.

Sure, it won’t help much someone who has that happen to her tomorrow(1), but making it clear that it’s unacceptable and that the fault is on the perpetrator each time it happens will help change the attitutes. It’s slow, but it’s something. Meanwhile, each time you repeat “if you don’t want it to happen just don’t take pictures”, the guys doing it? They’re listening too, and they think you’re on their side.

(1)correction, it might help someone who has that happen tomorrow, as she might read one of these posts and see that at least some people know what she’s going through and don’t blame her like all the rape apologists are doing. It makes a hell of a difference even if it’s just one person.

Comment #227: colorlessblue  on  06/01  at  09:55 AM

Also: combitch? Seriously? Troll.

Comment #228: colorlessblue  on  06/01  at  10:21 AM

Nope, never said that; that’s your interpretation.


ut you’re deceiving yourself if you think that righteous indignation over some guys uploading pics of their exes onto porn sites will mean that it won’t happen again, or that the women depicted won’t be harmed when it does happen.

The reason it will happen again, and the reason you will get called out for being the coward that you are, is because you wash your hands of doing anything that would stop it, because you’re on the side of the rapists. Be it on your heads, ladies, you say, if you allow some boyfriend to take that video. You’re really eager to criticize the women. The men? Nope.

Nope, never said that.

Typical Wingnut bullshit excuses. I got a news flash for you, asshole: You walk like one, you sound like one, you even use the same quotes. You’re indifferent to the harm men do to women, but you’re really eager to blame women for not foreseeing what might happen in the future. Thanks to your ‘hands off the men’ policy, men get the freedom to prey on women—-while assholes like you bitch at the women that they should have known. 

I especially liked it when you tried to throw some doubt on the whole battered woman thing by using your wife’s plastic surgery as an exception. You use the same tactics the whole time, so why on earth would you think people would ‘t notice. Your protestations mean zilch. You’ve consistently argued one tack every time.

Comment #229: ginmar  on  06/01  at  10:53 AM

“Also, I don’t think being badgered into sex counts as rape. “

WOW.  Stay the fuck away from women.  Far away. Wouldn’t want any one subjected to your coercion- which is totally not rape. Sicko.


I am so sick of stupid fucking boys pretending not to grasp the point.  If you seriously don’t understand, stay away from women.  From all people. And def don’t breed.

Comment #230: Gypsy Lee  on  06/01  at  02:06 PM

realitybeam@242 - No, I can’t figure out what you think it is.

Comment #231: LC  on  06/01  at  02:25 PM

God, I see what ginmar means about this thread!

1. Badgering women into sex: (a) can count as rape, and (b) even when not “legally” considered rape, is a douchy, sleazy, risky, awful thing to do, and is ethically equivalent to rape. Guys who are defending badgering women into sex are rape apologists, as far as I am concerned.

2. The First Amendment and the general notion that people of both genders ought to be free to construct consensual sexual encounters that work for them both militate in favor of the idea that some kinds of porn are perfectly OK, and certainly there shouldn’t be any principle that porn is immoral simply because men find it pleasing. That’s the sort of reasoning that leads to the burqa, not to feminist utopia.

BUT the celebrity sex tape trade is troubling on all sorts of levels—women are being badgered into making them, the men who buy, sell, and post them are often deeply misogynistic, the guys who watch them are often getting off on what they perceive as the humiliation of female celebrities, and, like with many aspects of the sex trade, the money that is available to be made puts a price on coercion of women.

I stand by my point that people in Hollywood need to be extra-careful about taping themselves having sex. But I can’t stand all the baggage that comes with it and am seeing the wisdom of my critics here.

Comment #232: Dilan Esper  on  06/01  at  02:55 PM

So I’ll say it again, “enthusiastic consent” is suspicious. I mean seriously, Jadehawk and LC can’t even figure out if it’s a simple standard or a system.

both, you condescending shit.

Comment #233: jadehawk  on  06/01  at  02:57 PM

3letterjon @214:
Dana is male, has two daughters in or associated with the military of the RCC persuation.
Ginmar is a female vet who has dealt with violence via a horrific mugging (and maybe aan abusive bf, though I may have mixer her up with someone else).
They have a go round fairly regularly.
Sometimes I feel the need for a score card trying to follow the conversations and interpersonal histories here.

Comment #234: helen w. h.  on  06/01  at  03:21 PM

“...but they won’t know who posted it unless she tells them.  Even then, unless the person who posted it is familiar to them or works there, he will suffer no downside from having posted it.”

I’m going to have to call your bluff here, Dana.  You’re telling me that if a prospective girlfriend, a hiring committee, a potential corporate customer, a rival for a business promotion or a political opposition-research team looking for a competitive edge, or even a school-volunteer reviewer does a rudimentary Google search on you, and they discover you’re (hypothetically of course) the kind of snot-sucking scumbag who’d post photos of his ex they’d just waive it off and say “that’s the kind of upstanding person I want to be associated with?”  Because I’m… pretty sure that would be enough to put most people off.  Because if you’re dishonorable enough to do that there’s absolutely no way, zero, none, no how anyone could expect you to be anything but dishonorable in the future.

“...they won’t know who posted it unless she tells them.” 

Which is why I think it’s a very, very good idea for her to do exactly that.  I call it outing the outer or revenge-porn revenge.  Because yeah, while she’d be slightly embarrassed to be seen naked, and justifiably outraged to have it done without her permission at the end of the day the photos prove only that like everyone else on the planet she’s naked under her clothes and she’s a sexual being the way all human beings are.  And, increasingly, enough people are putting *their own* photos on line that nobody’s going to give a shit if they see one more set of somebody else.

On the other hand, as I mentioned above, if she *does* tell her friends about him in specific details (e.g. name, email address, home town, school, facebook url, what was uploaded), and then her friends add further details, and they get it out there in Twitter and on Facebook and maybe upload the information onto an “out the outer” forum, then whatever fleeting embarrassment she’s going to feel will be compensated by the considerably longer-term embarrassment he’ll feel.  Because, seriously, sexual content notwithstanding, would you hire that kind of a backstabber could you trust him not to backstab you? If you started dating, or considered marrying that kind of backstabber could you count on him not doing exactly the same thing to you?  If you were trying to dig up dirt on that kind of a scumbag wouldn’t you bring his dishonorable unreliability to other people’s attention?  Are you saying you wouldn’t reconsider if you’d been thinking about signing a confidential agreement with him, or entering into a binding partnership, or other relationship requiring any degree of confidence or trust?  I don’t think so.

figleaf

Comment #235: figleaf  on  06/01  at  03:22 PM

I really don’t get what’s so suspicious about it. 

I mean, I guess I see what was said at #144 and #157 - if the idea of “enthusiastic consent” as a standard catches on, people who don’t care about consent will try to co-opt the standard and coerce a feigned enthusiasm from their partners, just as today they try to coerce an absence of resistance.  This isn’t a failing of enthusiastic consent, any more than coercion of non-resistances isn’t a failure of “no means no.”  I think “enthusiastic consent” works better than “no means no” at that, though, because it discourages the practice of willful/feigned ignorance of non-consent, and encourages clarification when that confusion is genuine.

Is it a standard or a system?  Like jadehawk said, both.  It’s a standard in the moral if not legal sense of “how sure am I that this person wants to do what we’re doing?”  It’s a system if you look at it from the other point of view - “how should I demonstrate that I want to do what we’re doing?”

Comment #236: jfpbookworm  on  06/01  at  03:27 PM

fuck; fine, I’ll elaborate. enthusiastic consent is a very simple standard, indeed: sex should only be had if clear, unforced, uncompromised consent was given by both parties. This is a standard to be cultivated by individuals. Enthusiastic consent is also at the heart of a culture that is sex-positive and open about sex in a way our modern culture isn’t. This is a standard to be cultivated by society as a whole.

These two aspects/interpretations are counterpoints to rape culture as a whole, and individual behavior of the “she didn’t disagree sufficiently hard” variety.

I can’t imagine a non-creepy reason to be suspicious of the former, while apparently not minding the latter too much.

Comment #237: jadehawk  on  06/01  at  03:27 PM

I mean google is pretty fast. The younger generation learns on the fly. We can even research on our phones, rather than drive to the library. But you are swimming in old so you don’t know that or care to know that and so at a minimum you killed figleaf with friendly fire.
Comment #242: realitybeam on 06/01 at 11:08 AM

Yep, I was right.  You made a shitload of wrong assumptions about me based on my name. I won’t bother to disabuse you of all of them, because it’s not about me.  It’s about how porn culture is a particularly naked extension of the patriarchy, which argument doesn’t depend on my authority.

But I will tackle this one.  You can Google up facts on the fly.  I do it many times a day, often from my phone. 

But you can’t Google up an entire perspective on an industry in ten minutes, or even an hour.  That requires perspective, understanding, research, interaction with people who have many different opinions and experiences with the subject. 

Actually, I should say you can’t develop a fully formed, independent perspective on it in that short a span.  It’s easy to copy someone else’s, or just let your prejudices run free. 

The automatic reactions the patriarchy has conveniently embedded into you are useful for this.  These are reactions which you think are real intuitive insights, because they get praised and called “truth” by your masters every time you bleat them out. 

Old = out of touch. 
Feminist = man-hater. 
What oldfeminist says = wrong and stupid. 

Easy!  I can do it myself. 

Gaining real perspective takes time and energy.  Some young people gain an appreciation for the volume of knowledge (not data) one needs pretty quickly, and don’t mind putting in the reading, Googling, listening, thinking work.  Others take a while, and are old by the time they understand it (like me, typical INTJ).  Some never get it and continue to think their automatic reactions really are the truth. 

It’s funny that you take my apology to figleaf as some kind of weakness.  I recognized where my assumption was wrong and dealt with it immediately. 

I could have shittily said to figleaf (via colorlessblue), “you know I excluded you when I excluded feminists who do research on porn so if it’s not about you it’s not about you so shut your fucking pie hole you illiterate ass.”  Instead I recognized where my response implied that figleaf was a porn defender.  I didn’t try to explain away my offense to prove I’m always right.

Somehow that feels better than always defending myself and never listening to anyone else who doesn’t agree with me.  Even if it’s a little more awkward sometimes.

Comment #238: oldfeminist  on  06/01  at  03:38 PM

Oldfeminist is cool.  See last 3 paragraphs of 251 for why.

Comment #239: helen w. h.  on  06/01  at  03:48 PM

And finally, from #238 “...or that the women depicted won’t be harmed when it does happen.”

See, this is where the real disgrace comes in.  How, exactly, does it harm women to be “outed” as having the same bare skin under their pants that every other human being does?  How does it harm women to have it known that in the privacy of their own homes they do more or less the same things with their partners that more or less every other human being does?  And who, exactly, is supposed to be shocked that, say, honeymooner couples use their digital cameras during foreplay or to record memorable sexual events in their relationships?  I mean, what, dude, are you still in middle school?  Do you and your friends still squeeze your knees together and blush when teacher says “Lake Titicaca?” 

I mean, yeah, if you upload photos you took together she’ll be embarrassed, and righteously angry about your violation of her trust.  And yeah, her feelings are going to be hurt too, probably big time.  But *harmed?*  Unless she lives under the Taliban or maybe in an FLDS compound the chances of her coming to actual *harm* you’re fantasizing about is actually pretty low. 

Which brings me to my real point, Dana.  Framing the consequences of “revenge porn” as *harmful* might make you feel all testosterone-y and manly but all I’m seeing is a loser toolbag so clueless about women that he still imagines it’s *harmful* to them that it ever get out that they might have been sexually active while married to their fucking husbands!

I shouldn’t have to spell this out but the whole idea of “post your ex” websites is that said photos were taken while she was still married! More to the point, while she was still married *to the guy who later uploaded the photos!*

Looking at it that way, who should be more embarrassed about uploaded photos of one’s ex?

Because what’s most revealing about someone who’s photos have been uploaded to a “revenge” website isn’t the photos.  Instead the real humiliation of such uploads is they show the she has really, really, really lousy taste in men. 

Because that’s what it’s really all about, Dana—what kind of self-respecting adult woman wants it known that she’d ever have seen anything in a skinky little Details Magazine reading, Crocs-wearing, booger eater who still believes the most humiliating thing he can do to a woman is upload the same kind of pictures every other couple with a camera has been taking since the original Polaroid camera went on sale back in 1947?  I mean, do you really want to be that dude?  And more to the point, would you ever want to have anything to do with that dude?

It’s not about the “manliness” of that kind of “revenge” that makes it painful to women, son, it’s being reminded they didn’t their ex’s self-humiliating immaturity until it was way, way too late.

Other people might want to be angry because you seem to be the kind of guy who’d do that sort of thing, or at least who’d defend others who did.  And I’m sure that makes you happy because it’s inside your framing of sex as harmful to women and women being defensive about that harm and you being all macho and manly for being able to threaten it.

The way I’d like to start framing it, folks should just feel sorry for you.  Heck, you should be feeling sorry for yourself!

figleaf

Comment #240: figleaf  on  06/01  at  03:52 PM

p.s. Comment #242 “...at a minimum you killed figleaf with friendly fire…”  Speaking for myself I’d say killing me would be pretty maximal.  Except it was such a minimum it barely scratched me.  It was a reasonable question it’s reasonable to wonder why McDonalds would be so familiar with child-labor laws, and why multi-level marketers are so familiar with pyramid-scheme case law, it’s perfectly reasonable to wonder why nominally casual readers of a feminist blog would be so familiar with laws (ostensibly) intended to curtail child pornography (18 U.S.C. 2257) or to protect people who haven’t signed model-release forms?

Turns out that if you’ve appeared in porn yourself, or you know people in porn, or you’ve followed discussions of followups to the infamous Meese Commission, or even if you’ve just visited the front page of most commercial porn sites, you’re probably aware that the 18 U.S.C. 2257 notification has to be prominently displayed on each site’s home page, and you might even be aware of some of the other time-consuming (and sometimes subject/model-endangering!) hoops that must be jumped through.  It’s unlikely, however, that Oldfeminist visits that many porn sites or knows that many people who do porn, and so, again, while it’s more common knowledge than she might have thought her question was perfectly reasonable.

figleaf

Comment #241: figleaf  on  06/01  at  03:58 PM

The only reason realitybeams has to be suspicious is that he really doesn’t think women get horny and initiate sex. He said:
it appears gender neutral, but it’s not is it?
If you can honestly say that an image of woman, rather than a man pops into your head whenever you type “enthusiastic consent” then I’ll take you seriously.
So the rule is for the one with the higher sex drive… which means it’s a de facto man job.
Nope. This is sooo not a pro sex, couples-friendly mechanism. It’s really a control thing.
So he thinks the Straw!Feminists are making enthusiastic consent up to control men’s behaviours, as in his mind they’re the only ones who’ll have to stop and ask for permission before having the sex they want. Apparently not only women don’t feel arousal, don’t initiate and don’t pressure men for sex, all women only have sex with men, too. I’m guessing that men don’t need to think about consent if they’re having sex with other men, as it’d be a case of two horndogs wanting it all the time.

Comment #242: colorlessblue  on  06/01  at  04:07 PM

#252 - ramen to that. I want to be just like her if I grow up. wink

“Apparently not only women don’t feel arousal, don’t initiate and don’t pressure men for sex, all women only have sex with men, too.”

I’m sure they don’t when he’s the man in question.  It’s the one thing that always rings out loud and clear when rape-apologists make their case: “If this comes to pass, I’ll never get laid!”. 

And, we *all* know gay men don’t exist.  Or gay women.  Or horny, uncoerced straight women. The only people in the world with autonomous sex drives (that is, unless you go all crazy and expect them to control them) are straight men.

Comment #243: Gypsy Lee  on  06/01  at  05:00 PM

I was going to write a lot more about how his particular phrasing confuses me, but yeah, I think you’ve more or less summed it up.

Comment #244: LC  on  06/01  at  05:33 PM

I’m guessing that men don’t need to think about consent if they’re having sex with other men, as it’d be a case of two horndogs wanting it all the time.

Yeah, I mean it’s not like some entitled jerk might just ram it in without thinking and expect you’ll like it then get whiny when you tell him your backend is off-limits for the rest of the evening. (Oops, sorry… painful flashback.)

At least being aware of male sexual entitlement by being on its receiving end helped this bi male with his relationships with women.

Comment #245: BlackBloc  on  06/01  at  06:08 PM

“If you can honestly say that an image of woman, rather than a man pops into your head whenever you type “enthusiastic consent” then I’ll take you seriously.”

See there’s more hidden male tragedy!  If you’re so unfamiliar with sexually enthusiastic women it’s not the first thing that pops into your head then… wow!  Do you have any idea how clumsy, inexperienced, clueless, and/or inconsiderate that makes you sound?  Since most women, you, know, actually *enjoy* sex and at least as likely as men to give their partners the benefit of the doubt what you’re saying is you’re an incredibly wet blanket.

figleaf

Comment #246: figleaf  on  06/01  at  06:11 PM

p.s. Comment #242 “...at a minimum you killed figleaf with friendly fire…” Speaking for myself I’d say killing me would be pretty maximal.  Except it was such a minimum it barely scratched me.  It was a reasonable question it’s reasonable to wonder why McDonalds would be so familiar with child-labor laws, and why multi-level marketers are so familiar with pyramid-scheme case law, it’s perfectly reasonable to wonder why nominally casual readers of a feminist blog would be so familiar with laws (ostensibly) intended to curtail child pornography (18 U.S.C. 2257) or to protect people who haven’t signed model-release forms?

Turns out that if you’ve appeared in porn yourself, or you know people in porn, or you’ve followed discussions of followups to the infamous Meese Commission, or even if you’ve just visited the front page of most commercial porn sites, you’re probably aware that the 18 U.S.C. 2257 notification has to be prominently displayed on each site’s home page, and you might even be aware of some of the other time-consuming (and sometimes subject/model-endangering!) hoops that must be jumped through.  It’s unlikely, however, that Oldfeminist visits that many porn sites or knows that many people who do porn, and so, again, while it’s more common knowledge than she might have thought her question was perfectly reasonable.
Comment #254: figleaf on 06/01 at 01:58 PM

Thanks. 

I was aware in a general sense of the notification requirement, even looked it up a few years ago when a friend was thinking about setting up a site and wanted to know what was involved.  It’s not something I see on any kind of regular basis, though there are some porn sites I go to.  I will have to check to see where it is on those home pages next time; probably I’m just not that interested in that detail when I visit, so my eyes go right past it!

(Gypsy Lee, helen w. h., *blush*.  Thank you.)

Comment #247: oldfeminist  on  06/01  at  06:36 PM

Helen, what you left out is that Dana is a avowed conservative who has repeatedly minimized sexism in his every appearance on this site.

  I haven’t had an abusive boyfriend. However, I’ve done a lot of research, been in the military for nearly twenty years, and I have stalkers, as that dude from the other thread shows. MOst of them are either conservatives like Dana or guys like that other dude, with all his “&s;”, who goes batshit when he thinks a woman says something. In his case, he’s blamed me for things that various other feminists said—-or didn’t say. Who cares if Andrea Dworkin didn’t say it? Or whatever.

My stalkers tell me I should be raped, that I asked to be outed, that I deserve it, that I should have protected myself better. They—-like Dana——never answer a basic question: You do realize that telling women to protect themselves better from yourself makes you into a huge gaping asshole, right? Dana’s saying he’s not going to give a shit about women. The fact that he has daughters means nothing—-this is why asking some scumbag how he’d feel if ‘his mother, sister, wife,’ were the target of assholery just re-inforces sexism. He might be great to his possessions—-but he regards other mens’ possessions as fair game.  Even his own possessions might be in danger, if they get tarnished.

Comment #248: ginmar  on  06/01  at  06:50 PM

figleaf@259 -  Yeah. That. I know lots of enthusiastic women. I also know (and have dated) women who were so trapped by our current model of “good girls don’t” that it became a cancer on our sex lives that they didn’t feel they could express their desire freely, or say no even though we were dating, because it’s not like they owed me sex. Trying to assure them that both those things were not only ok, but encouraged, and delightful resulted in lots of long, difficult struggles against deep-seated blocks.

I hear “enthusiastic consent” and immediately think of women both for those I know who have clearly embraced it and those I still care for who struggled with it.  (I accepted “enthusiastic consent” as the standard for my own behaviour long before I encountered it on the internet after realizing that every sexual encounter I felt bad about myself afterward had been one I had let myself be pressured into sex because “a boy never says no/is always up for it”.

Comment #249: LC  on  06/01  at  08:06 PM

@160: Jesus Christ, Pitbullgirl, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Blaming the victim here? What a shallow, ugly person you are——and I’m not talking about your looks.  I guess it’s only slut-shaming when you do it to an ugly, non-Playmate-type woman?

WTF are you talking about? Blaming the victim? Where? I was talking her stupid reality show, the bullshit with Hefner, (who is a sexist bastard) and her having to say how sorry she is that she cheated on him, but he is allowed to have 3 other girlfriends. What crap. Plus the fact that a woman his age would be roundly mocked, while he is seen as a stud. I don’t have respect for someone like her who just reenforces the whole woman as sex objects trope.  Compare her to Annie Sprinkles. She owns her sexuality.  I don’t know where the fuck you got slut shaming from my post. I wasn’t talking about the tape. From the transcript of the tape, she was bullied into it. Her boyfriend is a typical entilement minded jack ass, who feels she owed him sex.

Comment #250: pitbullgirl65  on  06/01  at  08:14 PM

Maybe it was the part where you blamed her for setting back women for whatever lenght of time? Just a clue, maybe? Hm? You called her a shallow ugly person whose looks would eventually fade. Yeah. 

*That*said: Thanks Kendra, for helping to set feminism back. The disgusting The Girls Next Door would have provoked howls of outrage in the ‘70s is now seen as empowerment along the lines of Girls Gone Wild albeit in a milder form. And LOL about living with Hefner as his girlfriend and “cheating” on him, this though you were sharing him (gag can you imagine a 78 year old women with a bunch of studs? She’d be a continous source of mockery. Yay double standards!!) with 3 other women.
Your looks will fade and then what? What a empty, shallow woman she is. Hell I have way more respect for Paris Hilton.


Blah blah blah. Nice slut shaming.

Comment #251: ginmar  on  06/01  at  08:27 PM

can you imagine a 78 year old women with a bunch of studs? She’d be a continous source of mockery. Yay double standards!!
Comment #160: pitbullgirl65 on 05/30 at 01:28 PM

Comment #187 OldFeminist. I have two words for you:  Mae West.
YES! I forgot about her. A woman ahead of her time.

Comment #252: pitbullgirl65  on  06/01  at  08:41 PM

This is half off-topic, but related to the use of sex pics for oppression. I just remembered a chain email that’s being forwarded here in Brazil, that I got months ago. The title is “Why poor people can’t have digital cameras”. It gets worse from there on, even though there’s no text on the body of the email, just pictures.
- sexy pictures of black women
- sexy pictures of fat women
- sexy pictures of women not dressed in the latest mainstream fashion trend
- sexy pictures of women with “markings of poverty” like badly dyed hair and missing teeth (I don’t know how to describe what I mean in english)
- vacation pictures in not-paradisiacal landscapes (like people bathing in a dam built for drought protection with the dry landscape around it, instead of a beach resort)
- gay men (most were black)
- transwomen (most were black, again)
- a birthday party where people were sitting in plastic chairs
It couldn’t be more clear that someone out there sat down just to compile a bunch of pics of marginalized people who deserved to be humilliated just for *being*.
(a little after I got this email most people who keep sending forwarded crap removed me from their lists because I Reply To All saying exactly what I think of people who find this kind of stuff funny)

Comment #253: colorlessblue  on  06/01  at  10:10 PM

Comment #266 My god that’s cruel.

Comment #254: pitbullgirl65  on  06/02  at  08:44 AM

@266 That’s just terrible.

Comment #255: LC  on  06/02  at  11:58 AM

oldfeminist #260: “...even looked it up a few years ago when a friend was thinking about setting up a site and wanted to know what was involved.  It’s not something I see on any kind of regular basis, though there are some porn sites I go to.”

And that comment, @realitybeam, perfectly illustrates the principle of opposing forced or unknowing porn vs opposing all porn, period.  And, clue, it’s just like the difference between bitterly opposing forced or unenthusiastic sex and opposing all sex.

figleaf

Comment #256: figleaf  on  06/02  at  01:27 PM

“See, this is where the real disgrace comes in.  How, exactly, does it harm women to be “outed” as having the same bare skin under their pants that every other human being does?  How does it harm women to have it known that in the privacy of their own homes they do more or less the same things with their partners that more or less every other human being does?  And who, exactly, is supposed to be shocked that, say, honeymooner couples use their digital cameras during foreplay or to record memorable sexual events in their relationships?  I mean, what, dude, are you still in middle school?  Do you and your friends still squeeze your knees together and blush when teacher says “Lake Titicaca?””

Dan Savage has said several times on his podcast that he thinks the stigma against having naked and/or drunken and/or bong-holding pictures of one’s self online is going to fade fast under the weight of reality. I hope so.

Comment #257: witless chum  on  06/02  at  01:52 PM

pitbullgirl65, the issue I believe ginmar is raising is when someone says a particular person puts feminism back, or someone’s a bad example because she’s in sex work or using her looks to make money, that’s a statement about those women and not about what they’re dealing with.

Whether it was your intent or not, you seem to be equating the women who do sex work with the odiousness of the milieu of sex work.  Do you feel the same about women who are stay-at-home-moms, who cook and clean and sew, because that’s the sexist view of motherhood?

It’s hard to retain feminist principles in sex work, but then, it’s hard to retain them in any job that has anything to do with other human beings raised in a patriarchy.  If someone wants to occupy the forward trenches, I have no problem with it.  It’s the milieu that troubles me, and someone negotiating that milieu doesn’t need me trashing her or him.

Not everyone has agency all the time, not everyone is drawn to the same places and activities.  You can’t know why she’s there or what will be next for her.  Better not to judge on that basis.

Comment #258: oldfeminist  on  06/02  at  02:11 PM

Comment #271: oldfeminist:
No you’re right. Ginmar is also *but* anyone jumping down my throat makes me defensive, pissed off and not able to see their point. It’s a shame that *Feminist porn and women like Anne Sprinkles are so out of MSM, while Penthouse, Playboy etc are seen as the models for porn.

*The odious Carlo Mencina(sp?) did a skit on Feminist Porn. It was the usual tired of trope of hairy legs and armpits. Asshole

Comment #259: pitbullgirl65  on  06/03  at  12:28 PM

Dan Savage has said several times on his podcast that he thinks the stigma against having naked and/or drunken and/or bong-holding pictures of one’s self online is going to fade fast under the weight of reality. I hope so.

I hope so too. But: (1) I am less convinced than Savage that it is going to happen—40 years after the sexual revolution, we still have a stigma against premarital sex, after all (for instance, it would be very difficult for an unmarried promiscuous woman to attain a high elected office in this country, even now); and (2) even if it happens, there’s still going to be a big market for celebrity sex tapes and all sorts of amateur porn, and that means there’s still going to be a financial incentive for boyfriends, husbands, and others to engage in the type of sexual assault that was the subject of Amanda’s post.

Comment #260: Dilan Esper  on  06/03  at  03:42 PM

Again: celebrity sex tapes being sold for money are rare and a minority in this kind of assault. The real issue here isn’t an economic market, it’s misogyny. It’s men who feel entitled to controlling their partners to the point that they’ll publish pictures for revenge if their partners end the relationship, and the other men who take joy in seeing women being attacked.

Comment #261: colorlessblue  on  06/03  at  04:28 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.