Slog
News & ArtsFriday, January 4, 2013
Sex / Religion / The Ladies Purity Culture Is Rape Culture
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Another brilliant piece from EJ Graff at the American Prospect:
“Rape culture,” as young feminists now call this, isn’t limited to India. It lives anywhere that has a “traditional” vision of women’s sexuality. A culture in which women are expected to remain virgins until marriage is a rape culture. In that vision, women’s bodies are for use primarily for procreation or male pleasure. They must be kept pure. While cultural conservatives would disagree, this attitude gives men license to patrol—in some cases with violence—women's hopes for controlling their lives and bodies. In October, responding to Richard Mourdock's incredible comment about rape, I mentioned an absolutely essential piece by The Nation's Jessica Valenti in a way I want to reprise here, if you'll excuse the self-quotation: "As Tennessee Senator Douglas Henry said in 2008, 'Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse.'"
In other words, only virgins can be raped—sweetly white-gloved, white-skinned virgins. Any woman who ever wanted sex—yes, that includes married women who unconditionally give permission when they put on that ring—deserves what she gets.
Go read the whole thing. And let's all recognize the purity rings, purity balls, purity pledges, and purity bears being pushed by rightwing Christians for exactly what they are: a threat to women.
131
@130 "The idea that having few sexual partners is good and healthy and that having many sexual partners [...] is bad and unhealthy"
How PURITY works where society gives no shit about it :
Religious : "Wah wah wah... Purity... Rings... Bears..."
Males and Females : "Yeah, whatever, having sex before marriage is better than marrying someone sexually incompatible ! Gross he's so focused on fucking, he an OB-GYN ?"
How PURITY works where society gives a huge shit about it :
Religious : "I'm your specialist in sexual moral matters ! Remember purity : the lesser, the better ! And put your Modesty Attire on, you impure whores !"
Female to religious : "Someone raped me, even though I had my Modesty Attire on !"
Religious : "Oh, no, a peen went in your poon and I hadn't married those sexual organs together yet ! Now you're impure ! If you get married to any other man that will make another, different peen get into your poon ! Further impurity ! We can't allow that ! Only way now to become pure again : marry your rapist !"
Male rapist to religious : "hey, thanks, buddy ! Couldn't talk any female into marrying me, but now things are so looking up for me ! Hey, when I'm bored with her, can I say she's taken a lover, and then we'll stone her, and then I rape another one and marry her ?"
Religious : "Sure, son. Purity applies to living poons only, dead poons don't count. Don't go rape two girls in a row, though, that would be tricky for our PURITY business."
Wake up from purity, DRF. Look around. You might learn a thing or two.
How PURITY works where society gives no shit about it :
Religious : "Wah wah wah... Purity... Rings... Bears..."
Males and Females : "Yeah, whatever, having sex before marriage is better than marrying someone sexually incompatible ! Gross he's so focused on fucking, he an OB-GYN ?"
How PURITY works where society gives a huge shit about it :
Religious : "I'm your specialist in sexual moral matters ! Remember purity : the lesser, the better ! And put your Modesty Attire on, you impure whores !"
Female to religious : "Someone raped me, even though I had my Modesty Attire on !"
Religious : "Oh, no, a peen went in your poon and I hadn't married those sexual organs together yet ! Now you're impure ! If you get married to any other man that will make another, different peen get into your poon ! Further impurity ! We can't allow that ! Only way now to become pure again : marry your rapist !"
Male rapist to religious : "hey, thanks, buddy ! Couldn't talk any female into marrying me, but now things are so looking up for me ! Hey, when I'm bored with her, can I say she's taken a lover, and then we'll stone her, and then I rape another one and marry her ?"
Religious : "Sure, son. Purity applies to living poons only, dead poons don't count. Don't go rape two girls in a row, though, that would be tricky for our PURITY business."
Wake up from purity, DRF. Look around. You might learn a thing or two.
130
@128 Yes, it's deliberate. The idea that having few sexual partners is good and healthy and that having many sexual partners, especially if chosen indiscriminately, is bad and unhealthy merits the use of words that have connotations of cleanliness and uncleanliness. If you think about it, it's no worse than describing a diet full of unhealthy food as "junky."
What you seem to be saying is that you don't like or approve of the concepts of purity and chastity. That's valid. The fact that a sensible person can believe this is not in question. The issue at hand is whether or not it's valid to claim that valuing purity and chastity causes horrible events like what happened to Ms. Panday. It isn't.
What you seem to be saying is that you don't like or approve of the concepts of purity and chastity. That's valid. The fact that a sensible person can believe this is not in question. The issue at hand is whether or not it's valid to claim that valuing purity and chastity causes horrible events like what happened to Ms. Panday. It isn't.
129
#30 - the Texas school teacher wasting tax dollars on purity lectures is not making it more likely that "pure" girls will get raped by the boys of her creed. She is making it more likely that women who fall into that creeds "impure" category will get raped. These types of traditional women need to piss off.
128
@DRF:
Even the choice of the word "purity" is a problem.
Pure = clean; that means: not pure = dirty, contaminated
Why can someone who chooses to have sex outside of marriage not be "pure"? She has to be "dirty"?
There is nothing wrong with wanting to have only a limited number of sexual partners during one's lifetime. But there is a lot wrong with letting everyone know that this is the morally superior choice and calling everyone who makes a different choice in effect "dirty".
Even the choice of the word "purity" is a problem.
Pure = clean; that means: not pure = dirty, contaminated
Why can someone who chooses to have sex outside of marriage not be "pure"? She has to be "dirty"?
There is nothing wrong with wanting to have only a limited number of sexual partners during one's lifetime. But there is a lot wrong with letting everyone know that this is the morally superior choice and calling everyone who makes a different choice in effect "dirty".
127
@126 No it's not. Purity is about sexual restraint. It's the idea that having fewer sexual partners is better than having more. Even misogynistic purity rationales have nothing to do with contraceptives.
125
@122 Then we shouldn't be saying "Purity Culture Is Rape Culture." We should be saying "Misogynist Baggage Culture Is Rape Culture." I could get behind that. But characterizing the word "Purity" in this way is an attempt to frame an idea that Mr. Savage does not like as much more harmful than it truly is.
@124 Contraception has nothing to do with whether a focus on chastity causes rape. I concur that access to contraception is a good thing for women and for society at large.
@124 Contraception has nothing to do with whether a focus on chastity causes rape. I concur that access to contraception is a good thing for women and for society at large.
124
Also, rules against pre-marital sex and contraception tend to turn women into wives and mothers early in life. That makes them less likely to work outside the home, which means they are more likely to be financially dependent on a man, and less likely to gain a position of authority outside the home.
123
@122 Yeah, the whole sexual purity thing is something that pushed, mostly, by men, and applied, mostly, to women.
122
@121: Here's the thing: People who value "chastity" or "purity" or "sexual restraint" or what have you for themselves are not putting others in danger. People who value those things for everyone else, through what we are calling "purity culture," may be.
And while it may be true that it isn't the focus on "purity" as much as it is all the misogynist baggage that goes with it that is the real issue, the fact is that it practice the two are damned hard to disentangle a lot of the time. The existence of some ideals of chastity that are not inherently misogynist does not negate the existence of a whole lot more which are.
And while it may be true that it isn't the focus on "purity" as much as it is all the misogynist baggage that goes with it that is the real issue, the fact is that it practice the two are damned hard to disentangle a lot of the time. The existence of some ideals of chastity that are not inherently misogynist does not negate the existence of a whole lot more which are.
121
@118 Yes, the concept of sexual restraint as being good in and of itself, independently of STI transmission is purity. That's why I keep using the term "chastity," which is so often used in religious contexts. We're not misunderstanding each other there.
I also concur that there is a correlation here. Cultures that view women as objects are more likely to think of purity/chastity as important, and they are more likely to have problems with rape. However, it is these misguided views that create a culture of rape, not the focus on purity. It is entirely possible to value purity without creating an environment that excuses or misplaces the blame for rape.
By choosing the title "Purity Culture Is Rape Culture," Mr. Savage is saying that valuing purity is what is to blame for these crimes, and it's not. It implies "sexual restraint isn't just not fun; it's going to get people RAPED!" "people who value purity aren't just prudes with whom I happen to disagree; they're putting others in danger!" and that's not true.
I also concur that there is a correlation here. Cultures that view women as objects are more likely to think of purity/chastity as important, and they are more likely to have problems with rape. However, it is these misguided views that create a culture of rape, not the focus on purity. It is entirely possible to value purity without creating an environment that excuses or misplaces the blame for rape.
By choosing the title "Purity Culture Is Rape Culture," Mr. Savage is saying that valuing purity is what is to blame for these crimes, and it's not. It implies "sexual restraint isn't just not fun; it's going to get people RAPED!" "people who value purity aren't just prudes with whom I happen to disagree; they're putting others in danger!" and that's not true.
120
@ 114 and 117: Me too. It sucks. We shouldn't hate on each other. I like and respect you both, and I wish to god that you two didn't have this awful thing in common. These last few days have been hard. I know that these conversations have made me feel sick and angry and full of despair.
There are so many of us.....
I wish I could hug you both and tell you that it'll be ok.
There are so many of us.....
I wish I could hug you both and tell you that it'll be ok.
119
@114
I'm so sorry to read that, Ricardo. You are corageous to share. Rape is a terrible thing for all who have experienced it. And, I hope you are far along on your journey of healing.
Take care,
k
I'm so sorry to read that, Ricardo. You are corageous to share. Rape is a terrible thing for all who have experienced it. And, I hope you are far along on your journey of healing.
Take care,
k
118
116: When we talk about purity culture, we're not talking about people being advised to exercise restraint for practical reasons (lower STI risk, etc). We're talking explicitly about cultures who view women as "pure" or "impure" based on the amount of sex they've had (or, usually, whether they've had any sex at all). There's a difference, and the latter is what we're focused on here. It may not be the only factor contributing towards rape culture, but it definitely shares a strong connection with rape culture.
Maybe there is a hypothetical way in which purity, if applied universally, wouldn't be sexist or dehumanizing and wouldn't be connected to rape culture. But we're not talking about hypotheticals. The egalitarian purity culture you describe doesn't exist, which is telling.
In reality, purity cultures apply this value system specifically to women- this is not a coincidence, and it's completely irrelevant whether or not it theoretically could be in some alternative world. Assigning "worth" to a woman based on her sexual experience (which is exactly what 'purity' hangups do) is dehumanizing: by default, it makes them less than human; it makes them a commodity rather than a person. A person's worth doesn't lower after having been "used," but a thing's worth does.
Also don't confuse "rape culture" with "rape incidents." A rapist might not be motivated by notions of purity. An incident of rape, by itself, may have little to do with whether women are dehumanized by social convention or not. But a "rape culture," where rape is normalized, over-rationalized, oddly common, and where responsibility is pinned on the victims, has everything to do with whether or not women are dehumanized in that culture.
Women are dehumanized in purity cultures and their worth is connected too specifically to their sexual experience. As a result their rapes are taken less seriously than they should be and are often seen as having something to do with the character of the woman rather than simply being seen as a violent crime.
More...
Maybe there is a hypothetical way in which purity, if applied universally, wouldn't be sexist or dehumanizing and wouldn't be connected to rape culture. But we're not talking about hypotheticals. The egalitarian purity culture you describe doesn't exist, which is telling.
In reality, purity cultures apply this value system specifically to women- this is not a coincidence, and it's completely irrelevant whether or not it theoretically could be in some alternative world. Assigning "worth" to a woman based on her sexual experience (which is exactly what 'purity' hangups do) is dehumanizing: by default, it makes them less than human; it makes them a commodity rather than a person. A person's worth doesn't lower after having been "used," but a thing's worth does.
Also don't confuse "rape culture" with "rape incidents." A rapist might not be motivated by notions of purity. An incident of rape, by itself, may have little to do with whether women are dehumanized by social convention or not. But a "rape culture," where rape is normalized, over-rationalized, oddly common, and where responsibility is pinned on the victims, has everything to do with whether or not women are dehumanized in that culture.
Women are dehumanized in purity cultures and their worth is connected too specifically to their sexual experience. As a result their rapes are taken less seriously than they should be and are often seen as having something to do with the character of the woman rather than simply being seen as a violent crime.
116
@115 I do not believe that valuing purity and chastity—especially not if they are valued in both sexes—necessarily places people in a position in which they are held responsible for other people's choices.
I believe that the real cause is gender inequality. Believing that women have to be pure but men don't is the cause. Believing that women are there to be, as the article says, objects of pleasure and reproduction is the cause. Believing that men's sexual needs are just like hunger and thirst and must be met and that men cannot or should not be expected to control these needs is the cause.
The belief that having few, carefully chosen sexual partners throughout one's life is good, however, had nothing to do with Ms. Pandey getting attacked. That belief is harmless by itself. It is only when people say "She got raped because she's impure" or "she was asking for it; look how she's dressed" that there's trouble.
I believe that the real cause is gender inequality. Believing that women have to be pure but men don't is the cause. Believing that women are there to be, as the article says, objects of pleasure and reproduction is the cause. Believing that men's sexual needs are just like hunger and thirst and must be met and that men cannot or should not be expected to control these needs is the cause.
The belief that having few, carefully chosen sexual partners throughout one's life is good, however, had nothing to do with Ms. Pandey getting attacked. That belief is harmless by itself. It is only when people say "She got raped because she's impure" or "she was asking for it; look how she's dressed" that there's trouble.
115
@113: But what do you think is the real cause? You wrote @108 "The problem is holding women responsible for men's sexual choices." Do you not see that this is an integral part of the purity culture? Purity is a sacred state that women are required to protect and preserve. If they fail to do so, then they are impure - and an impure woman is one who deserves whatever it is that she gets as a result.
114
@ 104 - You're probably not going to read this, as I'm a bit late in commenting, but you are FULL OF SHIT.
I am a man, and I have been raped. YOU don't know what you're talking about, so SHUT THE FUCK UP.
I am a man, and I have been raped. YOU don't know what you're talking about, so SHUT THE FUCK UP.
113
@109 Yes, you think that purity and modesty are the problem. You're wrong. The problem is not purity; it's gender inequality.
Something that's unquestionably bad, rape, has been associated with something that you happen to disapprove of, a focus on chastity, and you're jumping to the conclusion that the second causes the first.
Look at it this way: Back in the 1980s, a lot of gay men had AIDS. AIDS is unquestionably bad. Homosexuality was just something that most people back then happened to disapprove of. But homosexuality doesn't cause AIDS. Yes, refraining from homosexual sexual activity among men put people at less risk for contracting HIV, but that has nothing to do with whether homosexuality in itself is good or bad.
But that didn't stop homophobes from blaming the gays for spreading disease and claiming that it was God's punishment for their unenlightened ways. That's just what you guys are doing now: Something you don't like is associated with something that's bad, and you're claiming that it's caused by their unenlightened focus on sexual restraint rather than on the real cause.
Something that's unquestionably bad, rape, has been associated with something that you happen to disapprove of, a focus on chastity, and you're jumping to the conclusion that the second causes the first.
Look at it this way: Back in the 1980s, a lot of gay men had AIDS. AIDS is unquestionably bad. Homosexuality was just something that most people back then happened to disapprove of. But homosexuality doesn't cause AIDS. Yes, refraining from homosexual sexual activity among men put people at less risk for contracting HIV, but that has nothing to do with whether homosexuality in itself is good or bad.
But that didn't stop homophobes from blaming the gays for spreading disease and claiming that it was God's punishment for their unenlightened ways. That's just what you guys are doing now: Something you don't like is associated with something that's bad, and you're claiming that it's caused by their unenlightened focus on sexual restraint rather than on the real cause.
112
@72
"other than unregistered homophobes"
Should that really be plural? I thought it was just the same obsessed weirdo over and over. Certainly all the comments have the same writing style (bad ranty poetry)...
"other than unregistered homophobes"
Should that really be plural? I thought it was just the same obsessed weirdo over and over. Certainly all the comments have the same writing style (bad ranty poetry)...
111
If two adults and consenting, there is no valid reason for sexual restraint.
You've never been tied up? Good thing dolphins lack opposable thumbs.
You've never been tied up? Good thing dolphins lack opposable thumbs.
109
@DRF I thing you've been too much influenced by religious talk to understand what I've written on post 87.
I clearly stated that "purity" and "modesty" ARE the problem.
I also stated that telling youngsters to wait until adulthood for sex was good. This is the only kind of sexual restraint that can be considered good.
Other types of society-enforced sexual restraint are worthless : If two adults and consenting, there is no valid reason for sexual restraint.
If one is cheating by doing so (I mean breaking an agrement of exclusivity with his/her SO) then that one will have to bear the consequences, such as a broken relationship. Just like there are consequences in breaking any type of clauses in a contract.
But sex is not a special dangerous act that needs to be handled with kid gloves, and where society must get involved and enforce "sexual restraint" to override individual responsability, as if individuals were too weak to have sex by themselves. Sex is not a separate, sacred act from other human acts, such as washing one's hands before meals.
Making sex sacred through "purity" and "modesty" legitimates violence in sex against non-conformers, and any female can be considered a non-conformer by a rapist.
I clearly stated that "purity" and "modesty" ARE the problem.
I also stated that telling youngsters to wait until adulthood for sex was good. This is the only kind of sexual restraint that can be considered good.
Other types of society-enforced sexual restraint are worthless : If two adults and consenting, there is no valid reason for sexual restraint.
If one is cheating by doing so (I mean breaking an agrement of exclusivity with his/her SO) then that one will have to bear the consequences, such as a broken relationship. Just like there are consequences in breaking any type of clauses in a contract.
But sex is not a special dangerous act that needs to be handled with kid gloves, and where society must get involved and enforce "sexual restraint" to override individual responsability, as if individuals were too weak to have sex by themselves. Sex is not a separate, sacred act from other human acts, such as washing one's hands before meals.
Making sex sacred through "purity" and "modesty" legitimates violence in sex against non-conformers, and any female can be considered a non-conformer by a rapist.
108
@98 Saying that someone's sexual choices have an impact on how much that person is worth is no worse than saying that a person's other choices have an impact on how much that person is worth. Yes, "purity" is a loaded word; it implies that sexual restraint is good. It is.
I have read post 87, and the problem is not valuing purity or valuing modesty. The problem is holding women responsible for men's sexual choices.
You guys are jumping to the conclusion "This culture 1. values purity and 2. has too much rape so it must be valuing purity that causes too much rape!" I'm saying that these things, while not necessarily completely independent, are not necessarily causative either. It is possible to have #1 without #2. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I have read post 87, and the problem is not valuing purity or valuing modesty. The problem is holding women responsible for men's sexual choices.
You guys are jumping to the conclusion "This culture 1. values purity and 2. has too much rape so it must be valuing purity that causes too much rape!" I'm saying that these things, while not necessarily completely independent, are not necessarily causative either. It is possible to have #1 without #2. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
107
Is there a solution for "scary tyler moore" lurking in there? I sure hope so! Anyone have a spare burka?
106
but what you're not digging into is the reason why some cultures would have relatively higher/lower restrictions on women and emphasis on purity. It's a bit simpleminded to act like some cultures are merely unenlightened, and that there wasn't an economic driver behind the culture.
David Graeber has an excellent anthropology book that came out last year (5000 years of debt) where he looks at how credit was used in different historical eras. He traces examples of agricultural societies where families would get into debt and eventually have to trade their firstborn to the landlord's manor to do the washing or be a nanny, and/or be a prostitute, or slave. Thus it became a source of honor to keep a family's women inside.
He said that ancient Greece (where 'democracy' started) actually had a lot of slaves, and was the first location where veils were used for women in middle class households. It was only later institutionalized in certain arab cultures.
Not every culture through history was like this, and places that had less thriving commerce actually had less hierarchy and fewer slaves/fewer prostitutes and hence less focus on defending the family's women and children
David Graeber has an excellent anthropology book that came out last year (5000 years of debt) where he looks at how credit was used in different historical eras. He traces examples of agricultural societies where families would get into debt and eventually have to trade their firstborn to the landlord's manor to do the washing or be a nanny, and/or be a prostitute, or slave. Thus it became a source of honor to keep a family's women inside.
He said that ancient Greece (where 'democracy' started) actually had a lot of slaves, and was the first location where veils were used for women in middle class households. It was only later institutionalized in certain arab cultures.
Not every culture through history was like this, and places that had less thriving commerce actually had less hierarchy and fewer slaves/fewer prostitutes and hence less focus on defending the family's women and children
104
hey, mister g, you ever been raped? hmm? have you? no? then SHUT THE FUCK UP. same goes for the rest of the men on this thread. you haven't been raped, so you know nothing about it.
103
What about dolphin purity? And what about the rape of organic gluten-free muffins in an SUV behind the Wal-Mart in Bellevue? Where's the "progressive" outrage?
102
#29, #43, #83, #84: Very thought-provoking responses. I was and am having a hard time figuring out what is 'purity' culture. I get the extreme side better now (don't 'encourage' bad behavior in men in what you wear, etc)...and there I more easily see your points. And I think on the moderate side you have the folks that say "Wait until you are married to have sex". There I didn't see as clear a connection between purity culture and rape culture. But your points help me see that a little better now. The idea that sex is shameful, especially for unmarried women, can create an atmosphere that is more intimidating for someone to report a rape. And it's generally not intentional on the part of those who have that 'shame' perspective, but it's a sad effect of it.
So thanks. Good points politely put and I concede. And apologize if my initial response was insensitive.
So thanks. Good points politely put and I concede. And apologize if my initial response was insensitive.
100
97: Going by his other posts, what 91 actually seems to be trying to say is "lol rape! Take THAT, Seattle 'progressives' " (He's not the brightest bulb around, even by Slog standards).
99
98 is right DRF. Purity is a loaded word, and you are being disingenuous to suggest that any culture that uses it in a sexual context applies it equally to both genders. That is simply not the case.
98
@97 - The word "purity" itself is a problem for your argument as it attributes perceived worth. Go back and read @87's comment. The idea that you place value (which you are doing by using the word pure) on someone based on sexual history is demeaning to the person, and dangerous to society. Encouraging responsible behavior is the preferable alternative.
I have more to say, but my hangover is making it difficult.
I have more to say, but my hangover is making it difficult.
97
@95 I think that what @91 is trying to say--and I agree--is that it is possible to value purity and sexual restraint without also making light of rape or treating women like objects. Whether or not any real-world cultures has ever done this is a separate question. The way to tell seems to be whether the systems values chastity in male and female people or only in female people.
96
But #95, what about dolphins, the gang rapists of the sea? Everyone still wants to swim with them. Why do they get off the hook? Is their smile the secret to their success?
95
91: The connection isn't as ridiculous as you're trying to make it sound. Purity and "rape culture" both stem from viewing women as property that switches ownership from fathers to husbands. Cultures with this outlook tend to believe that this property should be "pure" so that the husband gets the full value. A culture that views women in this way isn't going to take rape as seriously as they should; to such a culture, rape is property damage at worst, and fitting punishment for impurity at best.
If a culture views women as full human beings, they're not going to make a big issue out of women's purity because why would they? There's no future owner requiring her to be appraised using such criteria. They're also more likely to see rape as the brutal crime it is and less likely to rationalize it as having anything to do with the victim's value. So you'd be hard-pressed to find a culture obsessed with women's purity that doesn't also have issues with rape.
And even as cultures evolve, vestigial attitudes stemming from these will still affect how women are perceived even when they're no longer considered legal property.
If a culture views women as full human beings, they're not going to make a big issue out of women's purity because why would they? There's no future owner requiring her to be appraised using such criteria. They're also more likely to see rape as the brutal crime it is and less likely to rationalize it as having anything to do with the victim's value. So you'd be hard-pressed to find a culture obsessed with women's purity that doesn't also have issues with rape.
And even as cultures evolve, vestigial attitudes stemming from these will still affect how women are perceived even when they're no longer considered legal property.
94
93: What the fuck are you even talking about? Find me one comment on any of these threads that has apologized for misogyny under the guise of political correctness.
Here, if it will make you feel better:
Burqas are a manifestation of the patriarchy and rape culture.
Happy?
Here, if it will make you feel better:
Burqas are a manifestation of the patriarchy and rape culture.
Happy?
93
Purity rings and Christianity are not the only offenders.
Burqas also contribute to misogyny, submission of women, and a rape culture. Time to point out that vile garment for what it is, rather than apologizing out of fear for political incorrectness.
Burqas also contribute to misogyny, submission of women, and a rape culture. Time to point out that vile garment for what it is, rather than apologizing out of fear for political incorrectness.
92
By the way, has anyone noticed that the Stranger doesn't do any local reporting these days? A lot easier to sit in some room and add their snarky observations to whatever they found on the Internet. Hey Stranger, your readers are the ones to do that, not your writers.
90
Upon reading the entire original, a recent news article sprang to mind:
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=1813297…
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=1813297…
89
thanks for posting this, Dan. It'll be interesting to see if even a mild focus on rape culture in your blog exposes you to the same violent rhetoric that all women, ever, are exposed to for discussing the same issues (SPOILER ALERT: yes, it will, because the defenders of rape have no scruples, obviously, and also not enough enemies)
88
Purity culture is rape culture. They both promote the idea that women are responsible for men's behaviour. Purity culture teaches a girl to dress modestly so as not to tempt boys and lead them down the wrong path; rape culture tells women that they 'get raped' because of what they wear. The language that's used strips the agency from the men doing the raping, turning rape into a natural phenomenon like inclement weather, something that women can guard against simply by dressing properly or staying indoors.
87
Abstinence-before-marriage Culture is Begin-marriage-by-a-rape Culture.
Telling females that not themselves, but society should allow when they have sex and with whom (through a wedding day), totally destroys their individual right to consent.
When consent has been ceremiously given away by society to the husband, can the new virgin wife stop sex all by herself if she's afraid on the first night ? Or if she feels some pain and she'd rather try it again some later time ? Or must she go through with it, despite wishing she could stop it ?
It's well known that abstaining from sex before marriage leads to the rape of the wife on the wedding night. It's a minor theme in 19th century litterature - a time that did put extra emphasis on virginity before marriage - especially in Balzac's writing.
But Purity Culture is much worse than Abstinence-before-marriage Culture.
First, calling "pure" those females who have surrendered their right to consent to sex to society, is calling "impure" other females. It's drawing a target on them. It's calling for hate crimes on them.
But even more perniciously, asking women to wear symbols of their "purity", like "dressing modestly", is a very dangerous thing for both males and females.
"Dressing modestly" means nothing else than making sure that the man who's looking at the woman is not getting aroused. Not only do "pure" women have to give away their right to consent, they are also asked to somehow supress the sexual interest of males in them.
Putting the onus of males not getting aroused on female behaviour is absolute bullshit. Science tells us that arousal is involuntary, but can be somehow curbed and managed by the person experimenting it, the older the easier. And arousal is not linked to sexual desire. Nor to the circumstances being sexually appealing in nature.
Sex-negative cultures consider arousal as shameful, just like anything that's sex-related. Telling men that their boners (shame !) are provoked by females not dressing modestly enough, is opening wide the door for them to rape anything in sight as soon as random arousal hits.
So "dressing modestly" really means that everytime a man gets a boner and a woman is around, the said woman is perceived by that man as not dressed modestly enough (since he does have a boner), so... she's fair game. Any man feeling arousal at a woman's sight will caracterize her as impure, however virginal a woman may behave and dress.
"Dressing modestly" is an integral part of Rape Culture.
A rapist saying that his victim "asked for it" means just that : he believes that the woman is magically responsible of his own arousal, and that she made his arousal happen in an intentional way. Males raised in a "purity culture" that puts shame on arousal and sex will feel violated by their own arousal, and thus will blame the woman for it, and punish the woman through a hate crime.
Of course, asking girls and boys to abstain from sex before their sexual majority is good. They have to know that sex is something that should only happen between consenting adults, and as long as they are not adults they are not strong enough to resist to external pressure towards having sex despite not really wanting to.
But there is nothing "pure" in that. Nothing is "impure" in sex. It has potentially dire consequences, just like voting, so it must be restricted to adults, who hopefully are mature (and informed enough) to have sex without the consequences of unwanted pregnancy or fatal illnesses.
It's not "impure" either to vote. Call non-voting before one is 25 or married "pure", call for a special dressing attire to indicate that one doesn't vote yet, and you'll get hate crimes on early voters (and non-early voters taken for disingenuous early voters), as stupid as it sounds.
More...
Telling females that not themselves, but society should allow when they have sex and with whom (through a wedding day), totally destroys their individual right to consent.
When consent has been ceremiously given away by society to the husband, can the new virgin wife stop sex all by herself if she's afraid on the first night ? Or if she feels some pain and she'd rather try it again some later time ? Or must she go through with it, despite wishing she could stop it ?
It's well known that abstaining from sex before marriage leads to the rape of the wife on the wedding night. It's a minor theme in 19th century litterature - a time that did put extra emphasis on virginity before marriage - especially in Balzac's writing.
But Purity Culture is much worse than Abstinence-before-marriage Culture.
First, calling "pure" those females who have surrendered their right to consent to sex to society, is calling "impure" other females. It's drawing a target on them. It's calling for hate crimes on them.
But even more perniciously, asking women to wear symbols of their "purity", like "dressing modestly", is a very dangerous thing for both males and females.
"Dressing modestly" means nothing else than making sure that the man who's looking at the woman is not getting aroused. Not only do "pure" women have to give away their right to consent, they are also asked to somehow supress the sexual interest of males in them.
Putting the onus of males not getting aroused on female behaviour is absolute bullshit. Science tells us that arousal is involuntary, but can be somehow curbed and managed by the person experimenting it, the older the easier. And arousal is not linked to sexual desire. Nor to the circumstances being sexually appealing in nature.
Sex-negative cultures consider arousal as shameful, just like anything that's sex-related. Telling men that their boners (shame !) are provoked by females not dressing modestly enough, is opening wide the door for them to rape anything in sight as soon as random arousal hits.
So "dressing modestly" really means that everytime a man gets a boner and a woman is around, the said woman is perceived by that man as not dressed modestly enough (since he does have a boner), so... she's fair game. Any man feeling arousal at a woman's sight will caracterize her as impure, however virginal a woman may behave and dress.
"Dressing modestly" is an integral part of Rape Culture.
A rapist saying that his victim "asked for it" means just that : he believes that the woman is magically responsible of his own arousal, and that she made his arousal happen in an intentional way. Males raised in a "purity culture" that puts shame on arousal and sex will feel violated by their own arousal, and thus will blame the woman for it, and punish the woman through a hate crime.
Of course, asking girls and boys to abstain from sex before their sexual majority is good. They have to know that sex is something that should only happen between consenting adults, and as long as they are not adults they are not strong enough to resist to external pressure towards having sex despite not really wanting to.
But there is nothing "pure" in that. Nothing is "impure" in sex. It has potentially dire consequences, just like voting, so it must be restricted to adults, who hopefully are mature (and informed enough) to have sex without the consequences of unwanted pregnancy or fatal illnesses.
It's not "impure" either to vote. Call non-voting before one is 25 or married "pure", call for a special dressing attire to indicate that one doesn't vote yet, and you'll get hate crimes on early voters (and non-early voters taken for disingenuous early voters), as stupid as it sounds.
86
and no one connects endemic exposure from a young age to pornography with misogynistic attitudes (increasingly among both genders, sadly, as girls are coming to adopt porn values as their own)?
will someone not at least give the poor beast a peanut?
will someone not at least give the poor beast a peanut?
85
Ms F - You appear to have missed the letter from the Virgin's Fiancee (Who Wasn't). He had Walked the Walk; she had let him assume she had as well, but, once the extent to which he required a virgin bride became clear, wanted to excuse her past in a way that reminded me of Ms Noonan defending her own particular divorce while attacking the institution in general - it was only two, and she wasn't a S***. Vile. She came in for almost as much negative commentary as he did.
I know where you're trying to go, and it's not without some value for some people, but the mechanism is too broken, and you can't get there from here that way.
I know where you're trying to go, and it's not without some value for some people, but the mechanism is too broken, and you can't get there from here that way.
84
@Rotten666, in all my college journalism courses, I was never told that it was bad form to write about something often. I've never heard anyone accuse war correspondents of being "overly focused" on war.
@14 @30, and other detractores--While maybe not intentional, putting value on virginity/purity rings (and slut-shaming, which, in my experience goes hand in hand) does promotes rape culture. If sex is considered bad, or to be avoided rape victims are silenced and demoralized. They question their responsibility when they are raped. They often do not come forward about it and won't talk about it openly. This gives rapists the green light to rape. If you don't believe this may I present evidence exhibit A from that awful rape thread on reddit earlier this year: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/commen…
"So, anyways, after a while it became boring to go after the sluts and sorority girls that would easily throw their cunt after you. I wanted the thrill of the chase, and that's what led me to forcing myself on girls. "
@14 @30, and other detractores--While maybe not intentional, putting value on virginity/purity rings (and slut-shaming, which, in my experience goes hand in hand) does promotes rape culture. If sex is considered bad, or to be avoided rape victims are silenced and demoralized. They question their responsibility when they are raped. They often do not come forward about it and won't talk about it openly. This gives rapists the green light to rape. If you don't believe this may I present evidence exhibit A from that awful rape thread on reddit earlier this year: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/commen…
"So, anyways, after a while it became boring to go after the sluts and sorority girls that would easily throw their cunt after you. I wanted the thrill of the chase, and that's what led me to forcing myself on girls. "
83
@Rotten666, in all my college journalism courses, I was never told that it was bad form to write about something often. I've never heard anyone accuse war correspondents of being "overly focused" on war.
Trolls and all, I'm glad that the concept of rape culture has entered the mainstream, international media/dialogue. The paradigm can't shift if people that don't "get it" aren't presented another option.
@14 @30, while maybe not intentional, putting value on virginity/purity rings (slut-shaming) does promotes rape culture. When women are considered "bad" or "soiled" when they've had sex they are silenced and demoralized. They question their responsibility when they are raped. They end up not coming forward about it, and not talking about it openly. This gives men (primarily) the green light to rape women (primarily). If you don't believe this may I present evidence exhibit A from that awful rape thread on reddit earlier this year: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/commen…
"So, anyways, after a while it became boring to go after the sluts and sorority girls that would easily throw their cunt after you. I wanted the thrill of the chase, and that's what led me to forcing myself on girls. "
Trolls and all, I'm glad that the concept of rape culture has entered the mainstream, international media/dialogue. The paradigm can't shift if people that don't "get it" aren't presented another option.
@14 @30, while maybe not intentional, putting value on virginity/purity rings (slut-shaming) does promotes rape culture. When women are considered "bad" or "soiled" when they've had sex they are silenced and demoralized. They question their responsibility when they are raped. They end up not coming forward about it, and not talking about it openly. This gives men (primarily) the green light to rape women (primarily). If you don't believe this may I present evidence exhibit A from that awful rape thread on reddit earlier this year: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/commen…
"So, anyways, after a while it became boring to go after the sluts and sorority girls that would easily throw their cunt after you. I wanted the thrill of the chase, and that's what led me to forcing myself on girls. "
82
Sloggers, I need advice. This post is very timely for me, as the other day I received my World Vision newsletter with an update on a couple of children I sponsor. The newsletter talked happily about how wonderful it was to be witness to a beautiful purity ceremony for the young girls in the village.
I was truly appalled and disgusted by this (and by the crappy hippy-dippy way the ceremony was described as some sort of pretty unicorn-coloured marvel) and have spent the last couple of days wresting with whether to withdraw my contributions - I don't want to penalise the children I sponsor, but this is absolutely insupportable. Of course if I withdrew I'd redirect my money to another charity; it's just that this funding is specifically supporting two actual and existing children.
I'm certainly going to write to World Vision and express my disgust and concern (and now I have this excellent article to link to), but I suspect they are going to send me some anodyne form response defending their position - and then what do I do?
I was truly appalled and disgusted by this (and by the crappy hippy-dippy way the ceremony was described as some sort of pretty unicorn-coloured marvel) and have spent the last couple of days wresting with whether to withdraw my contributions - I don't want to penalise the children I sponsor, but this is absolutely insupportable. Of course if I withdrew I'd redirect my money to another charity; it's just that this funding is specifically supporting two actual and existing children.
I'm certainly going to write to World Vision and express my disgust and concern (and now I have this excellent article to link to), but I suspect they are going to send me some anodyne form response defending their position - and then what do I do?
81
It all did get pretty meta didn't it? And all about Rotten666. I lost my temper, and I apologize for that.
The point remains that rape, and the culture that supports it, is endemic. Brushing it aside is not acceptable. It is a form of slavery, an attempt to control women's bodies and autonomy. Dressing it up in pretty white dresses as the Purity Movement doesn't mitigate that aim one tiny bit. It's still about controlling women and their bodies.
The point remains that rape, and the culture that supports it, is endemic. Brushing it aside is not acceptable. It is a form of slavery, an attempt to control women's bodies and autonomy. Dressing it up in pretty white dresses as the Purity Movement doesn't mitigate that aim one tiny bit. It's still about controlling women and their bodies.
80
Perhaps. It's deeper than the Stranger, but our collective immaturity is far more deleterious than purity culture proper. I honestly don't know really. My question was sincere.
79
Nice point, @65. But I'm sure that those liquored-up hipsters that we see on DotW aren't *that* type of man/boy.
76
@74: We can't seem to have a conversation here about rape culture, because we can't seem to even agree it exists.
75
Prisons are built with stones of Law,
Brothels with bricks of Religion
@3:
http://www.esquire.com/fiction/ESQ0107de…
Brothels with bricks of Religion
@3:
http://www.esquire.com/fiction/ESQ0107de…
74
Hmmm. Very interesting how much of this comments thread was Meta; about comments and their contents, about Cienna and other writers, and not so much about the . . . content of the post and its importance. Not echo chamber exactly, but not precisely grappling with the issue.
73
@69 As @41 and I were discussing, the difference seems to be that the CDC advocates abstinence for both men and women. It is unlikely that the form of purity promoted by the CDC or that promoted by non-messed-up chastity rationales stems from the sort of misogynistic underlying values that encourage rape.
72
@ Rotten666, what would really help is knowing your opinion about the topics being put forward, like what you think about rape culture. Is it real? Are claims about it exaggerated? Is rape like other crimes that are universally reviled, or are some victims likely to be assumed as deserving of it?
Regarding your efforts to clarify, I'll remark that you only get one chance to make a good impression. That said, I'm willing to take your comments as meaning just what you say they are - an explanation of why Cienna gets trolled. I personally disagree; the reaction she gets is out of all proportion to things like Charles posts about crying, for example.
Cienna may be blunt like Dan, as ECB was, but Dan doesn't get any vitriol from anyone other than unregistered homophobes and the occasional self-righteous registered troll (Ecce Homo, SB, etc). Cienna (and ECB before her) get sexist crap from longtime Sloggers who should know better.
Regarding your efforts to clarify, I'll remark that you only get one chance to make a good impression. That said, I'm willing to take your comments as meaning just what you say they are - an explanation of why Cienna gets trolled. I personally disagree; the reaction she gets is out of all proportion to things like Charles posts about crying, for example.
Cienna may be blunt like Dan, as ECB was, but Dan doesn't get any vitriol from anyone other than unregistered homophobes and the occasional self-righteous registered troll (Ecce Homo, SB, etc). Cienna (and ECB before her) get sexist crap from longtime Sloggers who should know better.
71
And once again the conversation becomes about how butthurt the men are that women call this culture what it is and don't acquiesce quietly to their mansplaining objections. Way to go, guys.
69
"A culture in which women are expected to remain virgins until marriage is a rape culture...."
The CDC advocates abstinence.
So Danny asserts that the CDC is Rape Culture?
Shameful.
The CDC advocates abstinence.
So Danny asserts that the CDC is Rape Culture?
Shameful.
68
"A culture in which women are expected to remain virgins until marriage is a rape culture. I..."
The CDC advocates abstinence.
So Danny asserts that the CDC is Rape Culture?
Shameful.
The CDC advocates abstinence.
So Danny asserts that the CDC is Rape Culture?
Shameful.
67
@62 I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the most eloquent writer. And I won't deny my initial statement was ham-fisted. I tried to clarify my position, but once people decided they knew my intent, no amount of explaining could move that mountain. I thought @23 would do the trick, then again @35, and @40.
Thanks for your input.
Thanks for your input.
66
@41 I happen to agree that one way to tell whether a purity culture is misogynistic or not is to watch whether it is only girls who are told to limit their sexual activity or whether it is girls and boys.
However, you will notice that I did not say that only girls get schooled by Texas schoolteachers. I said that a Texas schoolteacher teaching about chastity is not necessarily making it more likely that these girls will be raped and that it is not valuing chastity itself that causes these destructive attitudes toward rape.
However, you will notice that I did not say that only girls get schooled by Texas schoolteachers. I said that a Texas schoolteacher teaching about chastity is not necessarily making it more likely that these girls will be raped and that it is not valuing chastity itself that causes these destructive attitudes toward rape.
65
I also wonder if drunk culture is also rape culture (research ostensibly indicates binge drinking is at least corellated to rape). The Stranger loves them some drunk culture. Are they then also "part of the problem?"
64
I haven't been paying attention but I vote that purity balls be banned for the semi-pedophilic functions they are--they take patriarchal sexual agency and introduce a twisted perversion that's just creepy.
In other news, let's pile on rotten. He's no Mister G (he may even just made an error of ignorance or tact--imagine that!--rather than being a truly vile trolling asshole) but we can have our dose of smug, self-righteous indignation for the day.
In other news, let's pile on rotten. He's no Mister G (he may even just made an error of ignorance or tact--imagine that!--rather than being a truly vile trolling asshole) but we can have our dose of smug, self-righteous indignation for the day.
62
Rotten666,
I'm willing to trust that your first response has been partially misinterpreted and that you are not trying to dismiss the topic or Ms. Madrid. I do think that your wording intentionally, or not, intended to blame her for the garbage comments that have been made towards her person. Of course, there are many reasons for troll comments, but excuses do not justify actions. The vitolic commenters were in the wrong. Perhaps, defense is not your besr path here? How about an acknowledgement that your first comment can be legitimately interpreted as dismissive and express your regret? For bonus points you can try reading your comment through the eyes of those of us here; rape and sexual assault survivors who are distressed about the news and the vitrol that has been directed towards Ms. Madrid. Would you try to grasp that many of us are extremely sensitive, with good reason, to the topic of rape, Internet bullying, the demise of the Violence Against Women Act, et cetera...?
Kind regards.
I'm willing to trust that your first response has been partially misinterpreted and that you are not trying to dismiss the topic or Ms. Madrid. I do think that your wording intentionally, or not, intended to blame her for the garbage comments that have been made towards her person. Of course, there are many reasons for troll comments, but excuses do not justify actions. The vitolic commenters were in the wrong. Perhaps, defense is not your besr path here? How about an acknowledgement that your first comment can be legitimately interpreted as dismissive and express your regret? For bonus points you can try reading your comment through the eyes of those of us here; rape and sexual assault survivors who are distressed about the news and the vitrol that has been directed towards Ms. Madrid. Would you try to grasp that many of us are extremely sensitive, with good reason, to the topic of rape, Internet bullying, the demise of the Violence Against Women Act, et cetera...?
Kind regards.
60
@29
Purity culture can be the basis for rape culture, even if individual people wearing purity rings aren't running around screaming "rape the sluts!"
Yup.
Also, any time somebody talks about what female victims ought to have done to prevent rape -- even if such things come under the seemingly rational guise of "crime prevention tips" -- it constitutes a tacit agreement with the use of rape as a tool of social intimidation against women acting as freely as men do.
Rape is a hate crime. Perpetuating the hate perpetuates the crime, even for those who don't explicitly endorse the crime itself.
Purity culture can be the basis for rape culture, even if individual people wearing purity rings aren't running around screaming "rape the sluts!"
Yup.
Also, any time somebody talks about what female victims ought to have done to prevent rape -- even if such things come under the seemingly rational guise of "crime prevention tips" -- it constitutes a tacit agreement with the use of rape as a tool of social intimidation against women acting as freely as men do.
Rape is a hate crime. Perpetuating the hate perpetuates the crime, even for those who don't explicitly endorse the crime itself.
58
@44, As a nod of semi-support, I think your original comment was misinterpreted as being dismissive about the topic (rape) in general. As for the other half of my nod, you were clearly trying to excuse the vitriol Cienna receives by blaming her for trolling. If you think she gets trolled so hard because her writing style is "in your face" [as opposed to being "written by a woman"] then perhaps reading the following post and its comments might give you a better sense of why people think you being a dick here. Maybe?
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
She gets shit from commenters no matter how benign the topic. Perhaps the abusive commentary is carrying over from her posts about rape and other such lady-issues, but that doesn't exactly make it less of a problem.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
She gets shit from commenters no matter how benign the topic. Perhaps the abusive commentary is carrying over from her posts about rape and other such lady-issues, but that doesn't exactly make it less of a problem.
57
@47, there's a difference between saying: "Ciena gets a lot of trolls because she addresses issues such as rape and feminism and that really brings out the haters," and saying:
"I think Cienna might get shit because she has been overly focused on the subject. Same thing again and again." plus "Cue overwrought reaction."
If a bunch of people are telling you that they read your remarks a similar way, you might want to check yourself.
"I think Cienna might get shit because she has been overly focused on the subject. Same thing again and again." plus "Cue overwrought reaction."
If a bunch of people are telling you that they read your remarks a similar way, you might want to check yourself.
54
@47: You have said Cienna is overly focused on rape and you feel her style to be controversial and in your face. You state that Slog spends to much time on this topic.
I understand you perfectly, we all do.
I understand you perfectly, we all do.
53
@40 Rotten666
Yeah, she loves to say little things at the ends of her posts like the following:
I agree that you are wrong about her being "overly focused" (evidence). She *is* more likely to post about rape and woman's issues than other writers, but it is not her focus. She writes on lots of other stuff.
I don't think you meant anything by it, though.
Yeah, she loves to say little things at the ends of her posts like the following:
But I'm sure some wise (male) Slog commenter will explain to me how these women could've avoided their brutal gang rapes or, better yet, what they did to provoke these men into gang raping them.
I agree that you are wrong about her being "overly focused" (evidence). She *is* more likely to post about rape and woman's issues than other writers, but it is not her focus. She writes on lots of other stuff.
I don't think you meant anything by it, though.
52
Well thanks for playing TVDINNER.
All in all I probably could have done something more constructive for the last hour and half while the kids were sleeping, but I have to admit this thread has been pretty illuminating.
Oh and Jeremy, since I know your lurking, I'm coming out to the pub tonight.
All in all I probably could have done something more constructive for the last hour and half while the kids were sleeping, but I have to admit this thread has been pretty illuminating.
Oh and Jeremy, since I know your lurking, I'm coming out to the pub tonight.
45
As for barbs, please for the love of God someone has to back me up that Cienna has a very controversial in your face writting style.
<crickets chirp>
<crickets chirp>
44
@40: Oh I see. She should just stop making such a fuss and be nicer. Then things would be fine.
God help your daughter.
God help your daughter.
43
@14 TheBigRagu,
I don't understand why whenever something like "rape culture" or "purity culture" is discussed, someone assumes this means that all participants in the culture automatically support rape.
Being part of the "purity culture" does not mean everyone thinks that non-virgins deserve to be raped. Nor does being part of "rape culture" mean that all men want to rape women.
However, both cultures define women's value based primarily on their sexual relationships. A woman does not control her sexuality; she is valuable socially if she is virgin and valuable only for sex if she is not. Rape becomes the ultimate aggression; it strips the victim of all value. Worst of all, the culture encourages both the aggressor and the victim to believe it.
I don't understand why whenever something like "rape culture" or "purity culture" is discussed, someone assumes this means that all participants in the culture automatically support rape.
Being part of the "purity culture" does not mean everyone thinks that non-virgins deserve to be raped. Nor does being part of "rape culture" mean that all men want to rape women.
However, both cultures define women's value based primarily on their sexual relationships. A woman does not control her sexuality; she is valuable socially if she is virgin and valuable only for sex if she is not. Rape becomes the ultimate aggression; it strips the victim of all value. Worst of all, the culture encourages both the aggressor and the victim to believe it.
41
@30. Sure, self control has value. Learning some skills does too.
...and if that Texas school teacher were admonishing the boys *and* the girls to self control, like Dan talks to all genders about learning some skills, you might make the point you meant to make.
But, by pointing out it's just the girls who need to be schooled by Texas school teachers, you instead highlight the insidious nature of the dichotomy.
...and if that Texas school teacher were admonishing the boys *and* the girls to self control, like Dan talks to all genders about learning some skills, you might make the point you meant to make.
But, by pointing out it's just the girls who need to be schooled by Texas school teachers, you instead highlight the insidious nature of the dichotomy.
40
@37 I never was talking about differing responses to male/ female bloggers. That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. I just suggested that she has a narrow focus; rape trolls and anti women trolls are going to get a lot more mileage if she keeps on writing about rape and women. I don't see what the fuck is so controversial about that comment. I don't see how that is an endorsement of rape and sexism.
As for barbs, please for the love of God someone has to back me up that Cienna has a very controversial in your face writting style.
As for barbs, please for the love of God someone has to back me up that Cienna has a very controversial in your face writting style.
39
Rotten, your dismissive attitude characterizing Cienna as "overly focused" on this issue is indeed a problem. If you wish to change the culture in which your daughter lives, and by extension free this blog for those topics you find more worthy of discussion, then please, I beg you, put up or shut up. Are you doing anything about rape? Since your own child is at risk? Or are you content to let it slide, and call my concern, Cienna's concern, keshmeshi's concern etc etc etc overwrought? Because, for true my dear, if you aren't part of the solution then you *are* part of the problem.
Go look your daughter in the eye and tell her which it is.
Go look your daughter in the eye and tell her which it is.
38
Welp, Rotten, when you say that a writer is overly focused on a subject, it implies you think the subject isn't worth the time the write is giving it. There have been a couple of rape-related stories hitting the international news recently, and it's not unexpected that one or more SLOG writers will address the subject.
Describing a woman's reaction as 'overwrought' when discussing rape culture doesn't exactly make you Feminist of the Year. Someone having a daughter doesn't mean they can't be a jerk; it doesn't grant a get-out-of-jerkiness-free card.
If you think Charles doesn't know his way around a troll, you're sorely mistaken.
Describing a woman's reaction as 'overwrought' when discussing rape culture doesn't exactly make you Feminist of the Year. Someone having a daughter doesn't mean they can't be a jerk; it doesn't grant a get-out-of-jerkiness-free card.
If you think Charles doesn't know his way around a troll, you're sorely mistaken.
37
@35 They aren't putting words in your mouth. They're comparing aggregate responses to her posts vs. (for lack of a better term) control group as male posters of the same material with the same commentary. Perceiving a "barb" is very subjective and part of the problem.
35
Y'all fucking retarded. For the record:
I was just suggesting some reasons why people might give Cienna shit, in reply to @2. I never put a value myself on what she was writing. You can add all the emotional baggage you like on my comment, it doesn't change what I said. Kind of hilarious that I am now the SLOG poster child for Rape Culture.
Thank you Kesmeshi, for putting words in my mouth. You will always be a cock, in my opinion.
Lissa, thank you for letting me know I am part of the problem. I will make be sure I inform my daughter I am a proponent of rape culture, since you deem it so.
Backyard Bombardier, we could not have made it
this far with out your thoughtless knee-jerk reactions.
Hernandez: When I refer to Cienna's use of "troll bait" I did not mean the topics themselves, but the barbs she sticks in her articles specifically designed to get a reaction from particular groups of people. Hopefully that will put my statement in a better light.
Sahara29: The 666 is refers to my stupid infantile internet handle I used when I was a kid. I specifically use it on SLOG
because it apt due to my belief that grown people arguing with each other anonymously is stupid and infantile. It is meant to be Ironic. Thanks for showing interest.
I was just suggesting some reasons why people might give Cienna shit, in reply to @2. I never put a value myself on what she was writing. You can add all the emotional baggage you like on my comment, it doesn't change what I said. Kind of hilarious that I am now the SLOG poster child for Rape Culture.
Thank you Kesmeshi, for putting words in my mouth. You will always be a cock, in my opinion.
Lissa, thank you for letting me know I am part of the problem. I will make be sure I inform my daughter I am a proponent of rape culture, since you deem it so.
Backyard Bombardier, we could not have made it
this far with out your thoughtless knee-jerk reactions.
Hernandez: When I refer to Cienna's use of "troll bait" I did not mean the topics themselves, but the barbs she sticks in her articles specifically designed to get a reaction from particular groups of people. Hopefully that will put my statement in a better light.
Sahara29: The 666 is refers to my stupid infantile internet handle I used when I was a kid. I specifically use it on SLOG
because it apt due to my belief that grown people arguing with each other anonymously is stupid and infantile. It is meant to be Ironic. Thanks for showing interest.
34
@10 - You are so blinded by your sexism that I don't think you can even troll this topic properly.
@30 - You are an idiot.
@Lissa - I am so glad that you take the time to engage in these comment threads, I value your voice and thank you!
@30 - You are an idiot.
@Lissa - I am so glad that you take the time to engage in these comment threads, I value your voice and thank you!
32
Bequine @29, I was just thinking about that this weekend--if sex-outside-of-heterosexual-marriage is a sin, period, then there's no distinction between doin' it with your very willing girlfriend, and forcing your unwilling girlfriend to do it. So once you've determined to "break God's law," you might as well do the latter if the former isn't available. Blech.
31
@21: Oh please. Read what you said at 10. You said Cienna gets trolled because she is asking for it. Which is pretty fucking ironic on a post about rape culture - a prime tenet of which is that women who get raped are asking for it.
Of course, if I find trolling and bullshit rape jokes offensive, I must be a newbie, right? After all, someone who has been on the Intertubes for a couple of decades could not possibly be disgusted by that particular stream of masculine arrested-adolescent behaviour. That's just the way things are. If it pisses me off, that's my problem.
Jesus fuck.
Of course, if I find trolling and bullshit rape jokes offensive, I must be a newbie, right? After all, someone who has been on the Intertubes for a couple of decades could not possibly be disgusted by that particular stream of masculine arrested-adolescent behaviour. That's just the way things are. If it pisses me off, that's my problem.
Jesus fuck.
30
Valuing purity and chastity does not encourage rape. It is cultural values that treat women as less than men that cause both these things. The statement "a culture in which women are expected to remain virgins until marriage is a rape culture" is false. Prizing purity and tolerating rape share correlation, not causation.
In the modern world, it is perfectly possible to value chastity as a form of self-control without thinking that women are worth less than men and therefore without encouraging rape. In other words, if you see a Texas schoolteacher talking to girls about chastity, don't immediately assume that she's making it more likely for these girls to get raped. Lots of those programs have many things wrong with them, but this isn't one of them.
In the modern world, it is perfectly possible to value chastity as a form of self-control without thinking that women are worth less than men and therefore without encouraging rape. In other words, if you see a Texas schoolteacher talking to girls about chastity, don't immediately assume that she's making it more likely for these girls to get raped. Lots of those programs have many things wrong with them, but this isn't one of them.
29
@14: I am sure ig you asked 99% of people involved in purity culture if non-virgins should be raped, they'd say 'of course not." But as a woman who left the purity culture pointed out on her blog, the hyper-focus on complete sexual purity shifts the focus from sex being consensual to sex being allowed (ie: within the bonds of matrimony). Under this system, rape is seen as just another sexual sin, in the same category as entirely consensual and loving (but non-married) hanky-panky, or even just sexy thoughts at the extremes.. Additionally, purity culture commonly also emphasizes that women shouldn "tempt" men by dressing in what they have decided is an 'immodest" wayt, which makes the woman responsible for the man's emotions and actions.
Tl;dr Purity culture can be the basis for rape culture, even if individual people wearing purity rings aren't running around screaming "rape the sluts!":
Tl;dr Purity culture can be the basis for rape culture, even if individual people wearing purity rings aren't running around screaming "rape the sluts!":
28
@23;
Read Cienna's chicken post and the comments on it to get a clue. And that fact that you think anyone here is overly focused on this incredibly horrible subject tells me that you really don't assign much importance to this issue.
Read Cienna's chicken post and the comments on it to get a clue. And that fact that you think anyone here is overly focused on this incredibly horrible subject tells me that you really don't assign much importance to this issue.
27
@23 Unlike, say, you? What with the 666 in your handle?
From the indications you have just given, Hernandez and the rest of us have deduced that you don't in fact think rape is a serious enough issue to discuss in a sustained manner. So if you do think differently and for some reason care what we all think, give us a reason to think so.
From the indications you have just given, Hernandez and the rest of us have deduced that you don't in fact think rape is a serious enough issue to discuss in a sustained manner. So if you do think differently and for some reason care what we all think, give us a reason to think so.
26
@10,
You think that Dan isn't king of troll bait? Oh right, but he's a man, so he's not asking for it.
A few years back, when ECB was still here, she posted a story about an elderly man who got in trouble for spying on his single female neighbors with binoculars, and specifically she criticized the writer of the article for blaming the victims. She got endless amount of shit in the comments with a majority of male commenters saying that the bitches were asking for it. A few days later, Schmader posted the exact same article, with almost exactly the same commentary. No shit, no abuse of women in the comments. If you think women don't get shit on for being women, you ARE part of the problem.
In short, fuck off.
You think that Dan isn't king of troll bait? Oh right, but he's a man, so he's not asking for it.
A few years back, when ECB was still here, she posted a story about an elderly man who got in trouble for spying on his single female neighbors with binoculars, and specifically she criticized the writer of the article for blaming the victims. She got endless amount of shit in the comments with a majority of male commenters saying that the bitches were asking for it. A few days later, Schmader posted the exact same article, with almost exactly the same commentary. No shit, no abuse of women in the comments. If you think women don't get shit on for being women, you ARE part of the problem.
In short, fuck off.
25
As the authoress said, "It is not acceptable that more than 50 percent of the world’s population live in fear of violence solely because they are female." It is not at all acceptable. The SLUTWALK is women fighting back. At some point women will have to stand and defend women maybe violently, even from their Fathers and Brothers and Uncles and any male family member. If the women of India are serious about this, noses are going to get broken. Men won't have it any other way.
24
@15, I love that Russian(?)-accented young lady's commentary, especially since Russian evangelical immigrants have some committed some horrific hate crimes here. Two quick links:
http://www.elisanders.net/godwaswiththem…
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/16/…
http://www.elisanders.net/godwaswiththem…
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/16/…
23
Hernandez, I respectfully disagree. Personally , I have always thought that Cienna goes out of her way to push buttons to get a reaction out of people.
Also, you have no fucking clue as to what importance I assign to this issue, so there is that. As a matter of fact, I don't think I have said anything on the topic, I was just suggesting some reasons why people give Cienna shit. And no where did I say she was wrong or that I disagree with her.
Also, you have no fucking clue as to what importance I assign to this issue, so there is that. As a matter of fact, I don't think I have said anything on the topic, I was just suggesting some reasons why people give Cienna shit. And no where did I say she was wrong or that I disagree with her.
22
@13: Dude, she could do nothing but blog about kittens all day and she'd still get trolled. True. Fact.
Sorry the topic is such a drag for you. It must be hard to endure being so bored and uncomfortable. Can we get you anything? A cushion? Maybe a little glass of water? How about a poke in the ass with steel pipe until your intestines pop out?
Oh, oops! Sorry, sorry! There I go being overly focused! Wouldn't want you to get overwrought thinking about such things.
Snark aside, you are part of the problem. Solve the problem and we'll stop talking about it.
Sorry the topic is such a drag for you. It must be hard to endure being so bored and uncomfortable. Can we get you anything? A cushion? Maybe a little glass of water? How about a poke in the ass with steel pipe until your intestines pop out?
Oh, oops! Sorry, sorry! There I go being overly focused! Wouldn't want you to get overwrought thinking about such things.
Snark aside, you are part of the problem. Solve the problem and we'll stop talking about it.
21
@16 Trifecta! Lack of reading comprehension skills, canned outrage, and militant stupidity. Slog Newbie, 2013.
19
@13 - Overwrought reaction? @12 was spot on in her denunciation of your claim. Overly focused? All you need to do is scroll back to see that your claim is baseless. And besides you cannot "overly focus" on something as hideous as our rape culture. If you think Cienna is overly focused on this topic, you sir, are part of the problem, and you should examine that.
18
@13 Jesus, don't most people on this blog do that? If you're not adding some commentary then all you're doing is posting a link, you know?
To you it might seem like forced "little jabs." To me it seems like (justified) anger manifest in words over some truly sickening shit. So I suppose we can call it a matter of perception, and the fact you see it as just "troll bait" says something about the importance you personally assign to these issues.
To you it might seem like forced "little jabs." To me it seems like (justified) anger manifest in words over some truly sickening shit. So I suppose we can call it a matter of perception, and the fact you see it as just "troll bait" says something about the importance you personally assign to these issues.
17
@13, you're right. Slog is on the verge of becoming as much of a howling echo chamber as any wingnut blog, which is a shame. Mudede may be just as much a troll-baiter as Cienna or Goldy (Christ Goldy, you and three other people read the Seattle Times editorial page, give it a rest), but at least he's got fresh topics once in a while.
15
These people are just god-fearing. And check out why they are afraid of god's punishment: http://youtu.be/YxT_EOO4BTg
14
I don't agree that someone who believes in purity culture automatically believes non-virgins deserve to be raped. Just like someone who believes in god doesn't deserve to automatically be lumped in with Westboro Baptist lunatics. I think the purity things is misguided, but it's not that misguided. And while I'd love for prudes to get more realistic about sexual health, I don't agree that this kind of hyperbole will help bring them around.
13
Cue overwrought reaction.
Overly focused, as in the majority of all of her articles lately have been about this one topic. It's not just her; the SLOG has become obsessed with just a few pet causes, imo. Hell, the only person with truly original stuff these days is Charles.
As for troll bait, you can blame the patriarchy all you want, but it is pretty known that Cienna loves to add little jabs to her articles to get people talking in the comments. A practice which brings out the trolls. Ask her herself , I'm sure she will admit it.
Overly focused, as in the majority of all of her articles lately have been about this one topic. It's not just her; the SLOG has become obsessed with just a few pet causes, imo. Hell, the only person with truly original stuff these days is Charles.
As for troll bait, you can blame the patriarchy all you want, but it is pretty known that Cienna loves to add little jabs to her articles to get people talking in the comments. A practice which brings out the trolls. Ask her herself , I'm sure she will admit it.
12
@10: OVERLY focused? God. You are obtuse. She is troll bait because she is a woman on the Internet. That is literally all it takes. Add that to speaking on this topic, a topic that effects Every.. Single.. Woman.. On.. The.. Planet ( not to mention many many men as well) and well, it's open fucking season!
I mean seriously! Overly FOCUSED?
Christ!
I mean seriously! Overly FOCUSED?
Christ!
11
To be clear, chastity is not celibacy. A married woman can be chaste if she only has sex with her husband.
10
I think Cienna might get shit because she has been overly focused on the subject. Same thing again and again. Kind of like Goldy and guns/Seattle Times. Plus she is queen of troll bait, of course she has her merry band of trolls following her from post to post.
9
Legally the definition of rape has evolved to "sexual assault." Rape used to be limited to penis-in-vagina; now "sexual assault" is any un-consented-to touching of genitals or secondary sexual characteristics (ass, tits, etc) by another person, not just the act that would have rendered a potential child of uncertain parentage.
At the end of the day, old-fashioned rape and contemporary purity culture are all about property (if I may channel Charles) and inheritance rules. Daddy only wants his own son to inherit his economic and other forms of capital. Making sure that a woman's child is the blood of her husband requires virginity till marriage and sex-with-husband-only after marriage. Before DNA testing, it was always Mama's Baby, Daddy's Maybe, hence patriarchal policing of women's bodies.
This is what The Scarlet Letter is all about, by the by.
At the end of the day, old-fashioned rape and contemporary purity culture are all about property (if I may channel Charles) and inheritance rules. Daddy only wants his own son to inherit his economic and other forms of capital. Making sure that a woman's child is the blood of her husband requires virginity till marriage and sex-with-husband-only after marriage. Before DNA testing, it was always Mama's Baby, Daddy's Maybe, hence patriarchal policing of women's bodies.
This is what The Scarlet Letter is all about, by the by.
8
That's a harrowing tale of woe. Everyone should read it even though it didn't make me feel good at all and brought up some stuff I'd rather forget.
On a side note my sister who wears a purity ring seems on schedule to marry a guy who sets off 95% of my gaydar (she triggers it at about 50%). Her dad (my step-dad) recommended Exodus International to our brother, who rocks just the way he is.
Grrrrr: I think that Babs once sang "People, who needs people?" time to shift focus for a bit.
On a side note my sister who wears a purity ring seems on schedule to marry a guy who sets off 95% of my gaydar (she triggers it at about 50%). Her dad (my step-dad) recommended Exodus International to our brother, who rocks just the way he is.
Grrrrr: I think that Babs once sang "People, who needs people?" time to shift focus for a bit.
7
Also, Dan, your Chastity Bear link is buggered (concatenated with a strangertickets one).
http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/m…
http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/m…
6
Hey, y'all - the Bie-bull done sayed that if'n you's ain't a virgin on yer hunnymoon, then y'all need to be kilt. (Dooter-on-nomee 22)
5
Exactly right on, Dan. And I agree with Sandiai @2. Weird how the same truth coming from a man is treated more deferentially in some camps.
4
Unfortunately, the Republican congress is squarely in the hands of the rape culture. Women must keep fighting for a greater say.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Living Discomfortably by Dan Savage
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Black Market Elimination Fail: Draft Pot Rules Call for Ban on Hash and Hash Oil by Ben Livingston
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (131) RSS