Patriarchy, Sexuality, Rape Culture and Porn

23 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Patriarchy, Sexuality, Rape Culture and Porn

TBC

 

 

 

 

Pondering

The recent Duggar scandal did not occur in a vacumn, nor does prostitution, nor does rape.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/02/13/michelle_duggar_s_secret...

The advice comes from the best possible source, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar. The reason they are good role models is because despite having 19 kids, the “romance is still strong.” In fact, they are “like a newlywed couple every day,” says Jim Bob. The No. 1 secret? “Say yes to sex, even when you’re tired.” Apparently a friend once gave Michelle advice she will never forget: “In your marriage there will be times you're going to be very exhausted. Your hubby comes home after a hard day's work, you get the baby to bed, and he is going to be looking forward to that time with you. ... Anyone can fix him lunch, but only one person can meet that physical need of love that he has, and you always need to be available when he calls.” But don’t worry. This isn’t creepy or anything, because, “it's not all sexytime at the Duggars. They abstain when Michelle has her period, and also after childbirth: 80 days before sex if it's a girl, 40 days after a boy.”

Sex as a chore, sex as something women do for men, woman's power over men, something they want that we have, that we withhold as punishment and dole out as a reward. The power with which we corrupt men, drive them to desperate acts.

It is ironic that both evangelicals and prostitution promoters see sex as a chore women perform for men.

http://jezebel.com/5963267/why-do-we-still-think-guys-just-want-sex

For decades, the dominant direction in popular science has been towards a dim view of male self-control. That trend may have reached its nadir a few years ago when the authors of A Natural History of Rape suggested that sexual assault was simply an evolutionary adaptation –- and one which could be best circumvented by urging women to cover up. This science (which is often misrepresented in media coverage) is reinforced by a relentless barrage of stories about philandering public figures. Men and women alike end up buying into a myth of male weakness, deploying suspicion and cynicism as a prophylaxis against the pain of betrayal.

But what if everything we think we know about men –- and boys –- is wrong? A new book suggests that our stereotypes about guys are rooted more in myth than in science. In Challenging Casanova: Beyond the Stereotype of the Promiscuous Young Male, psychology professor Andrew Smiler argues that most young men would rather have emotional and physical intimacy with one partner than rack up a slough of numbers on the bedpost.

In Challenging Casanova, Smiler notes that heterosexual young men tend to fall into three categories: a small percentage of "players" with a high number of sexual partners; an equally small percentage of young (almost always devoutly religious) dudes who are determined to remain abstinent until marriage, and a much larger third group whom he argues want to follow "a reasonably traditional, romantic approach to dating." Even when they're "hooking up" (a practice that is neither as novel nor as ubiquitous as wistful and censorious aging pundits imagine) these guys are engaging in the gateway behavior into what they hope will be a relationship...

These findings contradict most of our received wisdom about what young men really want. "I'm constantly told that the ‘boys are lying' to me about what they really want," Smiler says in a phone interview. "The Casanova myth is so deeply ingrained that people are convinced that boys who claim to want relationships rather than casual sex are either incredibly rare or full of crap." The small number of genuinely promiscuous boys is explained away by absence of opportunity rather than absence of desire; the myth that most young men would be Casanovas if they could is as tenacious as it is unfounded. There seem to be few other aspects of human sexual behavior where the disconnect between reality and perception is so vast.

The new research about young men and romance is hard to accept because the emerging trend of "caring, romantic boys" doesn't gibe with our experiences of an older generation of men. Yet Millenial guys are genuinely different in their attitudes towards sex than their Gen X and Boomer elders. A substantial part of that evolution can be explained by a much-more widespread acceptance of cross-sex friendship. "Today, most boys have at least one friend who happens to be female –- a ‘girl friend' but not a ‘girlfriend,'" Smiler writes; until recently, "that was incredibly rare." The mainstreaming of platonic friendships with the other sex has transformed young men's attitudes towards sex, Smiler suggests -– and it has done so for the better.

What we have been sold as natural male sexuality is anything but natural.

Sineed

Quote:
They abstain when Michelle has her period, and also after childbirth: 80 days before sex if it's a girl, 40 days after a boy.

I've never heard of THAT before. FTW.

But yes, it's toxic masculinity. From the Geek Feminism Wiki:

Quote:
Toxic masculinity is one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men. It is the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth.

Examples:

  • Men are just like that: the idea that a Real Man constantly thinks about sex.
  • Emasculation: the idea that there is a finite range of political attitudes a Real Man can hold.
  • The idea that Real Men should be prepared to be violent, even when it is not called for.
  • The expectation that Real Men are strong, and that showing emotion is incompatible with being strong. Anger is either framed as the exception to the rule, or as not an emotion.
  • Relatedly, the idea that a Real Man cannot be a victim of abuse, or that talking about it is shameful.
  • Though not reinforced much in fictional media, in real life it is widely expected that a man would abandon his pregnant girlfriend, and is incapable and/or unwilling to take responsibility.

 

 

quizzical

i wonder why the time difference between genders? then i ask why would i wonder this as churchianity people are rarely on solid scientific fact when conducting themselves.

 

Struggling

Interesting. I wonder how much of this explains aggressive female behaviour in the bedroom. The man in the relationship says he does not want a sexual relationship (whether for the time being, until marriage, or some other time), but the woman does not believe him so pursues him sexually thinking that he will leave her otherwise. Meanwhile the man, having told her he does not want sex, concludes that she wants it so acquiesces out of a fear of losing her if he refuses. She might even tell him that she won't leave him if he refuses sex, but he doesn't believe her either. Now we have two individuals having sex to please the other when in fact neither is happy with it but neither believes the other's claims due to social conditioning into believing that the opposite sex craves sex and will seek it elsewhere otherwise. An unhealthy relationship all round, but what has caused these beliefs? What freedom is there in two persons, neither wanting sex, having sex to please the other of of a belief that that is what the other wants in spite of both having claimed the contrary but neither believing the other?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Are you for real?!

abnormal

quizzical wrote:
i wonder why the time difference between genders?

It's in the Bible (where else would the Duggars look?) - Leviticus 12 to be exact.

Quote:
12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

As for why, it seems obvious.  According to scripture in the eyes of God girls are twice as dirty as boys.

Sineed

abnormal wrote:

As for why, it seems obvious.  According to scripture in the eyes of God girls are twice as dirty as boys.

Thanks, abnormal Smile I thought it might be scriptural.

struggling wrote:
(A post that is entirey WTF.)

I'm not sure I understand this post, but it may not be appropriate for the feminist forum.

quizzical

abnormal wrote:
quizzical wrote:
i wonder why the time difference between genders?

It's in the Bible (where else would the Duggars look?) - Leviticus 12 to be exact.

Quote:
12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

As for why, it seems obvious.  According to scripture in the eyes of God girls are twice as dirty as boys.

well i hate to quibble but it's addressing the children of Israel, not churchianity people in the USA.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Yes, but there's a ton of cherry picking from the Old Testament in fundamentalist Christianity, so that's what they're using. Besides, the Dominionists regard themselves as the new, improved chosen people.

Pondering

Porn strikes again:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/fashion-and-beauty/beauty/vajacials-...

Like Anderson-Fye, he credits porn as a driver of the trend: “Because of the increased exposure to [pictures of] labia on the Internet, people are more aware of what the labia looks like in other women,” he says. “This makes them feel very self-conscious and it can have a significant negative impact on body image.”

Dr. Richard Bendor-Samuel, a plastic surgeon at The Landings Surgical Centre in Halifax, echoes Jugenburg’s sentiments. “In pornographic media, they have a term called ‘cleaning up,’ where images are digitally altered to depict a clipped and reshaped vagina,” he says. “It creates unrealistic expectations.”

Despite doing his utmost to dissuade most of the women who come to him for labiaplasty surgery, he says demand for the procedure has quadrupled over the past five years. He estimates that between himself and his partner, Dr. Louis Boileau, their clinic performs at least one labiaplasty per week.

Dr. Anthony Lockwood at the First Glance Aesthetic Clinic and Surgery Centre in Winnipeg has seen a doubling of labiaplasty surgeries in the past four years at his clinic, and he says he’s performed just over 100 in the past 12 months alone.

“Women across the board, from 17 to over 60, are much more discriminating about what they want to see when they look in the mirror,” he says. “Plastic surgeons have had a stereotypical male viewpoint of the labia, and now women are being more vocal with what they want. I find it strange that national societies in the U.S. and Canada have a negative attitude toward these procedures because it will only push them underground and the results will be negative.”

Like anything else involving cosmetic tinkering, the question of whether this is empowering to women or just another example of pandering to unattainable societal (read: patriarchal) norms inevitably comes up.

“Is genital surgery empowering? You could argue that it is if a woman carries out her choice and feels, at least in the short run, a little better,” argues Elke Reissing, a psychology professor at the University of Ottawa. And while she admits that there are more self-actualizing ways for women to boost genital confidence – pelvic floor physiotherapy, for instance, or short-term sex therapy – she doesn’t think cosmetic or surgical options are necessarily negative. If nothing else, it has us talking openly about vaginal confidence.

“The increased media exposure to women’s genitals is a complex phenomenon, but I believe it can contribute positively to women’s feelings about the variability of their bodies,” she says. “We objectify and sexualize women’s bodies a lot, but at the same time, there is much more range in what is considered beautiful. How we groom and care for our vulvas is another opportunity of choice.”

Trying to duplicate digitally altered cartoon vaginas through surgery does not empower women unless you interpret the ability to be surgically altered empowering.

abnormal

Timebandit wrote:
Yes, but there's a ton of cherry picking from the Old Testament in fundamentalist Christianity, so that's what they're using.

It's better known as "Cafeteria Christianity".  Kind of a "I like this bit so I'll accept it but I don't like that bit so I'll ignore it".

quizzical

i know the chosen people fantasy, my grandmother and aunty are over the top and if they're wrong they're forgiven so nothing matters.

my grandmother actually stated 'God chooses when and how people die, so controlling pollution to prevent cancers in Alberta doesn't matter.'

thankfully, i'm only around them when my mom is and she doesn't allow the churchianity jibber jabber to go on.

Pondering

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/20/now_were_leering_at_suicide_bombers_the_...

“Skanky suicide bomber used to be a selfie-taking party animal,” reads the headline at the New York Post, whose front cover is a bathtub selfie Boulahcen took of herself, presumably before her cousin, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, converted her to ISIS’s radically fundamentalist version of Islam.

“EXCLUSIVE: Extraordinary selfie of Europe’s first female suicide bomber shows the jihadi who never read the Koran, liked to drink and smoke and had a reputation for having lots of boyfriends,” screams a similar headline at the Daily Mail.

.....

If you want to know where a woman like Boulahcen got the notion that the difference between “good” and “bad” is not in how you treat others (starting with not killing people), but how much of your body you cover up in public, well, look no further than the Post and Mail coverage of this story. If fundamentalists, even radical fundamentalists like ISIS are able to convince women that their morality lies not in their heart or their brain but in what they do with their vagina, that’s because the entire culture around them is saying the exact same thing.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/20/now_were_leering_at_suicide_bombers_the_...

quizzical

well what a stupid ass article. French authorities announced she was not a suicide bomber at all.

quizzical

on this topic though here's a good article.

Quote:
There's this thing that happens whenever I speak about or write about women's issues. Things like dress codes, rape culture and sexism. I get the comments: Aren't there more important things to worry about? Is this really that big of a deal? Aren't you being overly sensitive? Are you sure you're being rational about this?

Every. Single. Time.

And every single time I get frustrated. Why don't they get it?

I think I've figured out why.

They don't know.

They don't know about de-escalation. Minimizing. Quietly acquiescing.

Hell, even though women live it, we are not always aware of it. But we have all done it.

We have all learned, either by instinct or by trial and error, how to minimize a situation that makes us uncomfortable. How to avoid angering a man or endangering ourselves. We have all, on many occasions, ignored an offensive comment. We've all laughed off an inappropriate come-on. We've all swallowed our anger when being belittled or condescended to.

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

well what a stupid ass article. French authorities announced she was not a suicide bomber at all.

The point is how she was sexualized and how the virgin/whore dichotomy is used by recruiters not whether or not this particular woman is actually a suicide bomber.

I did like your link.

quizzical

well it may have been the point. i couldn't get past the lies to see it.

Pondering

On Black Friday, Singapore clothing retailer SuperGurl replaced their usual "Shop Now" button on their homepage with one that said "RAPE US NOW." Beside it was an image of a young woman in a sexually suggestive pose.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/02/rape-us-now-ad_n_8700196.html

 

quizzical

Level of online threats against Notley not directed at male politicians, says professor

Quote:
A professor at the University of Calgary says Premier Rachel Notley is facing name-calling and death threats because she's a woman.

In the past week, there have been angry social media posts that Notley should be shot, stabbed, or even thrown into a tree grinder.

Some of the posts have referred to her as a b---h, and other offensive terms.

"It's a whole class of crap that men in politics don't have to think about, much less address." said Melanee Thomas an assistant professor of political science at the University of Calgary. 

Many of the comments stem from the controversy over Bill 6, which extends occupational health and safety rules and workers compensation coverage, to paid farm workers in the province.

Thomas studies gender-based political inequality, and says even when people fundamentally disagreed with Ralph Klein, Jim Prentice or Stephen Harper, they didn't attack them online with nearly this level of violence.

 

Pondering
Pondering

 

Cheri DiNovo is an NDP MPP in the Ontario legislature for Parkdale-High Park, in Toronto.

 When the assault happened, we’d been dating for a long time. It was very serious. I broke it off, and he wasn’t happy. But he came to my apartment so that we could divvy up all our stuff. That’s where it happened. I didn’t want to have sex with him, and I said so. I told him no. He chased me around the house, and I tried to fight him off. It was clear that wasn’t going to work. He was absolutely aggressive. I wouldn’t say he was violent exactly, but it was violence without having bruises. Finally, I just kind of succumbed. It was rape. There was no question about it. I didn’t tell anybody. I walked away and life went on. I’m a Baby Boomer, and I think for my generation it was just a common thing.

I felt really humiliated, embarrassed and horrible after. I want to think that he was embarrassed and humiliated, too. We’ve never talked about it. It never happened again. I would never report him, and I would never say his name.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/finally-i-just-kind-of-succumbed-it-w...

6079_Smith_W

I saw that video a few weeks ago.

Not a criticism, because it is bang on when it comes to pointing out how shaming gets perpetuated, and the direct links between that and violence.

But the "protect me daddy" theme, and the undercurrent of helplessness really pushed buttons for me.

Again, it is not a criticism, because I like the message, and I can see how it would resonate with a lot of people. Not everything works for everyone in the same way. But personally I had a hard time with it.

Thanks for sharing, because I have been thinking about this video in relation to the conversations that have been going on here.