by Jaclyn Friedman

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. I just can't take any more crappy news right now. After this past week, I don't even have enough juice left in the tank for a decent rant. I wish there was something truly awesome to write about, but I haven't found anything (feel free to suggest in the comments, though!). Instead, I herewith present a Roundup of Recent News That Doesn't Suck.

-After 17 seasons, an all-female team finally won The Amazing Race! (And an all-female team also came in second, to boot.) A big win for showing women that are smart and strong and capable on TV. Dear TAR Producers: please note that we know that you now know how to cast female teams that can truly contend. We’ll be expecting you to continue to do so from now on.

-Due, I'm sure, to a groundswell inspired by my column from last week, the MPAA has reversed its position on Blue Valentine, awarding it an "R" rating and a chance at box office and awards-season success. Complex depictions of female sexuality, FTW!

-Carnie Wilson is effing fat, and effing badass about it, to boot.

-The fine feminists at Feministing, in answer to the whole Movember thing that had men growing out their mustaches for charity, have declared this month to be Decembrow -- a month in which women let our brows go uni for a good cause of our choosing. Extra good news for me: this requires no effort whatsoever, since I pluck like once every eight months. I'm raising money for Women, Action & the Media - you can celebrate by donating, or grow a brow of your own for another good cause.

-Rep. Thomas Perriello (D-VA) and Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) have introduced legislation in the house that would make colleges a lot more responsible for their prevention of and response to sexual assaults. The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act):

I'm hardly the first person to say this, and I certainly hope I'm not the last, but what is up with Hollywood's movie-rating system?

The latest installment of MPAA madness is over the upcoming film Blue Valentine, starring Michelle Williams and Ryan Reynolds in a difficult relationship. The film evidently features three fairly-explicit sex scenes, though nothing that sounds outside of what I've seen in plenty of other places. Which is why the MPAA's recent decision to give it the feared NC17 rating is so outrageous.

A little primer on NC17: while “R” means the under-17 set has to be accompanied by a parent or other adult, “NC17” means no one under 18 is allowed in the movie theater, period. Because of that, it’s basically a box-office and award-season kiss of death, sending the message that the movie is just too sexually explicity to be taken seriously. (As if to prove my point, the highest-grossing NC17 film in history was the unintentionally campy classic Showgirls, which netted a paltry $30 mil domestically.). As far as I can tell, it's almost always used to steer "kids" clear of sex, rather than violence. Which is problem number one: why is watching sex more damaging to kids than watching violence? Again, it's hardly an original question, but it bears repeating since no one in charge seems to be interested in answering it. Is it really more damaging to young minds to expose them to two people having consensual sex than it is for them watch bloody and explict murders and people torturing other people? I... well, I can't even construct a coherent argument about that, it seems so obviously wrong, and so clearly part of what's creating our toxic and violent sexual culture. That the Powers That Be are more frightened of kids having access to frank sexuality than to the most elaborate scenes of violence speaks volumes about why we live in such violent and sexually repressed times.

But there's a second issue here, which is the question of what kind of sex is acceptable, and what sexual expressions are beyond the pale. As Morning Gloria at Jezebel points out, Black Swan, the newly released critical darling, features a scene showing Mila Kunis performing oral sex on Natalie Portman -- a scene which sounds awfully similar to a scene in Blue Valentine in which Reynolds' character similarly pleasures Williams' character -- but the MPAA was just fine with that, rating it an oodles-more-respectable "R" rating, and with it, a solid shot at some Oscars. So is the MPAA OK with cunnilingus between two women, because it's fulfilling some voyeristic male fantasy? Or, as the Blue Valentine folks have suggested, is the problem that Williams looks like she's having too much fun? If she were enjoying it less, would the MPAA be mollfied?

There's surely an argument to be made there. Consider the "sex" scene in Observe and Report, which is a drug-assisted rape played off as a joke. Didn't seem to have bothered the MPAA. Because it's much less damaging for "kids" to laugh at rape than it is for them to see a woman enjoying genuine consensual sexual pleasure?

Or, as producers have suggested, is the offending scene the one in which Williams and Reynolds have angry, messy, but realistically portrayed sex as their marriage unravels? Again, I have to ask, how is that in any way worse than films in which women are sexually tortured at great length?

(Some have suggested the rating is due to the brand-new (and shockingly sexist) category of “male nudity” (no “female nudity” category exists. Our nudity is expected, and so just called “nudity.”) But of course, there’s plenty of that in other “R” rated films, so that makes no sense, either.)

These ratings are, theoretically, meant to give parents the tools they need to make decisions about what their kids should watch, and ultimately to protect young minds from dangerous influences. Any content rating system is a set of values, at heart. Which begs the question: what are the MPAA’s values? From where I’m sitting, it seems they think sex is fine as long as women are being objectified and possibly hurt, but it crosses a line if women are whole people who have agency and don’t behave. If that doesn’t mesh with your values, here’s how to let them know.

So. From the Department of Depressing News comes this latest gem: a young woman at a nearby school accused a Notre Dame football player of sexually assaulting her. The school, depending on whether you believe their pre-publicity statement or post-publicity statement, either did nothing with these allegations, or very, very little. The athlete in question wasn't even benched pending investigation, he just played on as if nothing had happened. And then, tragically, the young woman recently killed herself.

by Jaclyn Friedman



Thanks to Hollaback, this video of a woman confronting a subway flasher has spread like, well, a virus across the interwebs over the past three days. As well it should: it's thrilling viewing, verging into the land of fantasy-fullfillment for many of us who've been sexually harassed in public. Most people seem to be throwing themselves eagerly into this brave woman's shoes, and experiencing the rush of power that she must have felt when she flipped the script on the cretin. And that's awesome. But I do want to take a serious moment to talk about WHY it's awesome, what that script is, and why there's so much power and release to be found in flipping it.

The answer is short but hardly sweet: shame. That's really what this video is all about: reversing our expectation of who should feel ashamed in this situation. And that's part of the power of the street harasser -- to make us feel vulnerable, ashamed, humiliated, frightened. But it doesn't have to.

Think about it: who's doing something shameful here? Um... Dude With His Penis Out In A Subway Car, that's who. Woman On Her Way Home From Work has done nothing to feel bad about, unless taking the subway home from work while female is an ethics violation. Oh wait, I forgot - taking up public space while female is always an offense punishable by unwanted sexual attention from men. Don't want that kind of attention? Don't be female in public. Otherwise, you're obviously asking for it, lady.

You get what I'm saying here. We've spent far too long internalizing that way of thinking -- so long that watching a woman reject it is shocking and exhilarating. Why isn't this the most commonplace response? It's not like she's in actual danger -- there are a million people around, some of whom even have cameras out. He's not a threat to her physically in this situation. And yet men behave like this on streets and subways around the world with alarming regularity. Because we let them. Because we forget that they're the ones acting shamefully, not us.

Imagine a world where this woman's behavior was expected. Where no one was confused about who should be cowering when a woman is harassed or violated in public. Imagine a world where everyone took as much joy as this woman obviously does in ensuring that justice is done to those who try to make women afraid or ashamed in public. Now start with yourself by identifying and rejecting the shame that's been put on you for things that other people are doing wrong. Then get out there and hand that shame back where it belongs.

A few weeks ago, when I was encouraging everyone to go to the SPARK Summit, I got this question from a friend of mine who’s raising two young girls:

The idea of owning sexuality versus being sexualized by the media is a little tricky for me (so I assume it's very confusing to lots of girls, too). I've seen you talk about "pearl clutching" about Miley Cyrus' antics, but then in [the promo video for SPARK], she's a prime example of girls being sexualized by the media. So are all these girls participating in the media "owning" it or not? And at what point is girls wanting to express their sexuality really them being manipulated by the media?

• a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or sexual behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics (so, in this shoot we see that Cory plays drums. What do the girls do? Throwing books whimsically up in the air doesn’t count. Reading books would have.)
• a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy; (this brings up the important question: why were two of only three white skinny young women in the cast featured? Why were none of the girls of color, or bigger girls, or boys who play gay or disabled characters? The definition of “attractive” in this shoot is narrow indeed.)
• a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; (like in the way that the whole “teenage schoolgirl fantasy” visual cliche that’s being played with in this shoot is about a very specific idea of teen sexuality, one in which “good girls” are passively available for “corruption” by men. The girls in these images are always fantasy objects for use by men, never complex actors on their own behalves.) and/or
• sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person. (This one is clear when it comes to young children. It also comes into play, for example, when women are writing about non-sexual things on the internet, and commenters focus on their looks and “do-ability” instead of what they’re actually saying. I’m not sure it applies here.)

• Cognitive and Emotional Consequences: Sexualization and objectification undermine a person's confidence in and comfort with her own body, leading to emotional and self-image problems, such as shame and anxiety.
• Mental and Physical Health: Research links sexualization with three of the most common mental health problems diagnosed in girls and women--eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression or depressed mood.
• Sexual Development: Research suggests that the sexualization of girls has negative consequences on girls' ability to develop a healthy sexual self-image.

by Jaclyn Friedman

A Canadian court is currently considering the case of a woman who consented to breath play (what they're calling "erotic asphyxiation") with her partner, but did not consent to the anal penetration she woke up to him perpetrating on her. And it's all being covered as a test of whether or not a woman can give "advance consent."

People. If you think this case is about whether or not a woman can give "advance consent," you have a very twisted definition of consent. Because what she's accusing him of is precisely the opposite: doing something to her sexually to which she had never consented.

See, contrary to what seems like popular belief, sexual consent isn't like a lightswitch, which can be either "on," or "off." It's not like there's this one thing called "sex" you can consent to anyhow. "Sex" is an evolving series of actions and interactions. You have to have the enthusiastic consent of your partner for all of them. And even if you have your partner's consent for a particular activity, you have to be prepared for it to change.

See, consent isn't a question. It's a state. If, instead of lovers, the two of you were synchronized swimmers, consent would be the water. It's not enough to jump in, get wet and climb out -- if you want to swim, you have to be in the water continually. And if you want to have sex, you have to be continually in a state of enthusiastic consent with your partner.

I know that bums out a lot of people. It's so hard! It's such a burden! It involves talking! And allowing your partner to be a fully-formed human being and not a toy that becomes yours as soon as you touch her!

Well, at the risk of mixing metaphors, suck it up. If you're not mature enough to treat consent like a continual process, you're not mature enough to be having sex. By which I don't mean "OMG teh kidz can't have teh sex!" I mean, if you can't grasp and act on the basics of consent, you're taking on a responsibility you're not equipped to handle. Like stealing your parents' car when you don't know how to drive, you can really hurt yourself or someone else that way.

Back to the case at hand. It's hardly confusing. She said "yes" to one act (the asphyxiation  which rendered her unconscious). She never said yes to the anal penetration. The only world in which this case is a question of "advance" consent is one in which we're still thinking of consent as a lightswitch. As a single question with only two possible answers and no takebacks. Sex? Yes/No? She said yes to a sex act (a kinky one at that, so she's probably that kind of woman, wink wink, nudge nudge, rape apology rape apology), and therefore she said yes to ALL sex acts. (And don't forget, no takebacks!)

Do I really have to break down the levels on which this model of consent fails? I guess I do. Let's start with "no takebacks." There are a million reasons someone might say yes to a sexual activity and then later withdraw consent. Some of them are uncomfortable to think about (maybe your partner says or does something that makes you feel suddenly unsafe), but some of them are pretty mundane. Maybe your leg cramps. Maybe you're getting sore. Maybe you thought it would be hot but now that you're doing it (whatever "it" is) you realize you're not into it, or you're just no longer in the mood. Maybe IT DOESN'T MATTER WHY. If you no longer want to be doing something sexual with another person, and you let them know that, and they don't stop? That's sexual assault. Period.

But that's not even what happened in this case, because she. never. consented. Not to anal penetration. How is that hard to understand? How does "yes, let's try some breath play" somehow sound like "yes, please shove a dildo into my anus"? Only in a world in which both of those sentences sound like "Yes to sex. Kinky sex! All of it! Woo!" And that's exactly the problem with the lightswitch model of consent. It makes sex into a yes-or-no question, the same way it separates women into sluts and prudes. And if you're a slut, if you say yes to sex, you say yes to all sex, whenever, however, and if you don't like it, well, tough -- you should've thought of that before you said yes. In other words? The lightswitch model of sex is one of the main pillars holding up the entire rape culture.

That's the real danger in this case. It's not just that the court might find that "advance" consent is a valid argument (um, duh, an unconscious woman can't withdraw consent, so you're NOT IN A STATE OF CONSENT), but that the court is upholding the lightswitch model of sex so firmly that it doesn't even notice it's doing so.

There’s only one kind of sex scandal worthy of discussing, and that’s the kind in which one or more participants in the scandal are acting like hypocrites. Think Eliot Spitzer, crusading against the sex trade and frequenting a prostitute. Think any of the “family values” politicians getting caught cheating, or the homophobic preachers who are actually on the DL. Think Tiger Woods selling himself as the ultimate family man. Even still, you’ll notice that hypocrisy alone isn’t enough to make a valid sex scandal - the hypocrite must be someone with influence over culture or policy. If your next-door neighbor is cheating on her wife, it’s not a sex scandal for anyone outside of your neighborhood. And even if the person is a powerful influencer, it’s the fact of their hypocrisy that matters, not the minutia of their bedroom behavior.

I mention this because people seem confused lately. (I’m being a bit flip here - it’s hardly a new confusion.) We seem to be under the mass delusion that what consenting adults do is scandalous just because we suddenly know about it. That a guy having sex with his boyfriend in the privacy of his dorm room, or a girl’s notes on her sexual exploits that she shared with just two of her friends are not only any of our damn business, but just cause for weeks of national pearl-clutching.

Guess what? They’re not. And the people being hypocrites in these sex “scandals” aren’t the people who participated in the sex - they’re all the folks who are standing in judgement on them. Because nobody involved asked for your judgement. They were going about their lives and their sex on their own terms. It just so happens that those terms make you uncomfortable, because you evidently don’t think gay people or women should have sexual agency.

Think about it: a tape of a guy having sex with his girlfriend would not have brought shame or mockery down on that guy’s head. (It might have brought that reaction to the girl involved, which is exactly my point.) And a guy who detailed his raunchy, drunken sexual exploits is Tucker Max, who’s spent over 100 weeks on the New York Times Bestseller List for telling (actually offensive) tales on himself. (The difference being, of course, that he goes public on purpose, while Karen Owen never meant for her stories to go beyond a few friends.) So where’s the pearl-clutching for Tucker and his ilk?

More...

by Jaclyn Friedman

On a recent trip to speak at a college, I wound up chatting with a student who was struggling to help a friend in a difficult situation. Trouble is, she’s not sure if she really wants help. That got me to thinking about the perennial question of how to help a friend in an emotionally or physically abusive relationship - specifically if your friend doesn’t want to leave.

One thing that’s common to all victims of relationship abuse, whether it’s emotional or physical, is that the abusive partner spends a lot of time trying to make their victim feel helpless, so that ze will rely on the abuser more and more, and will be more easily manipulated. That’s what makes this situation so tricky - oftentimes the victim is convinced ze has no better options, that ze is lucky to be with the abuser. From the outside, that can seem mystifying. But it’s crucial to remember, because if you swan in and tell hir ze's in a bad relationship and ze needs to get out, how do you think ze's going to feel? Probably, like you’re just someone else telling hir what ze should do with hir life and hir body, yet again. It may seem strange to you, since you have hir well-being at heart and the abuser obviously doesn't, but you're going to seem very similar to the abuser, in that you're just telling hir that you know better than ze does what ze should do.

On the other hand, if you show hir that you have faith in hir ability to think and act for hirself, you may actually be able to reach hir. Start by asking hir how she thinks the relationship is going, and really listen. Does ze express fears or reservations about some of the dynamics between hir and hir partner? If so, steer the conversation in that direction, give hir lots of room to explore and express those feelings.

If ze claims all’s well, but you think ze’s in a dangerous or unhealthy situation, you're going to have to broach the subject. (Not sure if you should be concerned? Here’s a pretty good list of warning signs - if even a few of them are present, your friend may be in trouble.) But remember: whatever you do, don’t tell hir what you think ze should do. Instead, tell hir that you are seeing some things happen between hir and hir partner that concern you. Be specific - give examples of the behavior that concerns you, and explain as clearly as you can why it worries you. Perhaps give examples of relationships you know of where healthier dynamics are present, as an example of how things can be different. Then ask hir what ze thinks of the dynamics you’ve described. Try not to argue with hir. Try to just really listen and understand. If you feel like ze is excusing away dangerous behavior, telling hir ze’s wrong isn’t going to help. Instead, tell hir you’re glad ze’s happy, but your concerns remain. Then emphasize that whether or not ze ever changes hir mind, you’re there for hir. One of the main ways abusers instill helplessness and vulnerability in their victims is by isolating them from their friends. Don’t play into this dynamic - be sure ze knows you’re not going anywhere, no matter what ze does or doesn’t do.

Here’s where it gets frustrating. If you’ve tried to help, and ze has refused, you’re going to come face-to-face with the sometimes-terrible truth is that you can’t help someone who doesn’t want help. All you can do is let them know that they have options and support. When it comes to people we love who are being abused, that can be pretty difficult to swallow, but it’s still true. And that’s why, if you’re in this situation, the other thing to do is get support for yourself. Talk to friends and family about it. You can also call whatever hotlines in your area are available to support rape or abuse victims, and get support for yourself - the trained folks who staff these hotlines know that supporting the support networks of victims is just as important as supporting the victims themselves - and sometimes the only way they can offer support to victims, if they don't yet want help for themselves.

(If you can't find anything near you, and you're in the US, call RAINN - the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Their national hotline is at 800-656-HOPE. They also run an online hotline which can be accessed wherever you are in the world, as long as you have an internet connection: www.rainn.org.)

Once you've done all you can, and you're feeling like you've got all the support you need, the only other thing you can do is make good on your promise, and be there for your friend no matter what. Check in with hir once in a while, but don't be too pushy - don't make your concern for hir the subject of conversation every single time you hang out. Just be hir friend - refusing to let hir be isolated can be one of the most powerful and loving gifts you can give someone in this situation. 

(Got a question for Jaclyn, or a topic suggestion for this column? Email her at yesmeansyes@jaclynfriedman.com, or contact her anonymously via Formspring.)

by Jaclyn Friedman

You know what I’m asking for? An end to “she was asking for it.” You know how you can tell? Because I am telling you that with my words. Maybe I’m butt-naked on my knees while I’m writing this, or maybe I’m stalking around in a hot little dress and shiny red heels, or maybe I’m cross-legged and wearing a burlap sack. And yet, whatever my choice of outfit or my body language, it would be easy to know what it is that I want. Because I know how to use $#&!^% words.

The fact that “she was asking for it” seems, to so many people, a legitimate defense against allegations of sexual harassment or abuse, defies logic. I mean that literally, as in, it makes no logical sense. Because what “she was asking for it” is saying, if taken to its logical conclusion is this: if a (person who is perceived as a) woman or girl dresses (in a way that can be interpreted as) explicitly “sexy” or “slutty,” she’s consenting to literally anything that any person who finds her “slutty” wants to do to her. Not even just consenting, actually, but inviting. Actively asking for “it.” “It” being literally whatever any human being feels inspired to do to her.

Maybe she’s a sports reporter trying to cover the Jets. Wearing what many consider sexy clothing. To me, her clothes say,  “I am a woman trying to succeed in a field that only values women if they’re conventionally sexy.” No matter, though - some people thought her clothes were sexy, so she got treated like a toy, rather than like a woman trying to do a job. Her words immediately following the harassment were not, strangely, asking for more. Instead, she said, “I’m dying of embarassment.”

Maybe she’s a 16-year-old with the nerve to be out enjoying herself at a rave when she was drugged and gang raped, and then the video of that gang rape went viral across facebook. Seriously. As we saw earlier this year in the case of the woman who wound up in a Girls Gone Wild video against her clearly articulated objection, being a woman at a party is enough for some people to decide you’re asking for it - and this case is a sobering reminder that “it” means literally anything anyone at all wants to do to you, whether you’re saying no, or drugged without your consent or knowledge to a point where you cannot say anything at all.

Maybe she’s a fictional woman in a fictional cartoon about how funny it is to arrange for some other guy to rape your sex partner. Who has, we at least hope, asked to have sex with you. That’s a non-transferrable request, even if she is naked and on her knees.

Maybe she’s a 10-year-old girl. Because once we allow “asking for it” to be possible for one woman, none of us are safe.

The idea that breathing while female = asking for anything from anyone should offend all people with brains. Or even just souls. As long as “asking for it” exists, we have sentenced half the population to a life of unearned terror. As long as “asking for it” exists, there is no hope of equality. As long as “asking for it” exists, there is no possibility of freedom.

I set out to write this column a few days ago just intending to talk about the Jets’ harassment of a sports reporter. But every time I sat down to work on it, there was a new woman being blamed for her own violation. I am a woman, and I am on my knees, and I am begging for it to stop.

(Got a question for Jaclyn, or a topic suggestion for this column? Email her at yesmeansyes@jaclynfriedman.com, or contact her anonymously via Formspring.)

by Jaclyn Friedman

You may have noticed that this column has been publishing fairly irregularly of late. For that, I apologize. But I hope to make it up to you with a brand-new format!

Don’t worry, I’ll still be commenting on pop culture as it interacts with our sexual culture. But, starting with this column, I’ll also be addressing topics related to promoting healthy sexuality and preventing sexual violence that aren’t directly related to the pop culture news of the day. Instead, I’ll be taking my inspiration from the young people I meet and interact with online, and in the communities and campuses I travel to. Even better? I’ll also be fielding questions and suggestions directly from you!

Have a topic you’d like me to cover or a question you’d like me to answer? Just email it to me at yesmeansyes@jaclynfriedman.com. Your name and info will be kept strictly confidential, so do also let me know what nickname I should use in replying to you.

To get us started, I’m going to dig into an issue that I’ve been thinking a lot about in the last year, one which was also raised in this egregious, victim-blaming article on The Daily Caller this week.

The always-fab Amanda Hess has already issued a thorough takedown of the piece as a whole over at TBD. What I’d like to focus on is just this little bit:

“...[T]he SVCW study reports that when those categorized as rape victims were asked if what they described was rape, nearly 50 percent said “no.” Further, 80 percent of the subjects researchers labeled as rape victims stated that the incident resulted in neither physical or emotional injuries. Only 5 percent of those identified as victims of rape actually reported the incident. “If an attorney defending a rapist were to use this, they’d say ‘Well, what’s the big deal? 80 percent of women who are raped don’t have any adverse affects,’” Gilbert said. “It expands the definition in a way that it includes a lot of events — you know sexual activity at that age can be confusing, there is regret after, there are break ups, all kinds of things that go on,” Gilbert said.”

More...