Tag Archives: sex abuse

Liberal = incontinent

Standard

(access to) pornography has changed the landscape of adolescence beyond all recognition

I don’t quite buy that. The (intellectual) stumbling block I’ve always found with critics – mainstream critics, that is – of porn is the notion that it depraves and corrupts. I’ve read/viewed enough porn over my (near) 42 years to realise that it fairly represents my sexuality. Nonetheless, I’ve never felt license to violate human bodies to the extent that the GP in the above article describes. And what is this thing with anal sex anyway…

‘…in-vaginal ejaculation is so novel it occupies its own, minority-interest ‘kink’ category (‘creampie‘, if you’re interested): the converse ubiquity of ejaculation on faces and/or breasts (as far as possible from the vagina, note) and anal sex‘.

Male sexuality is a very simple thing. We find an opening; we insert; we thrust unto orgasm. That’s pretty much the definition of male. Which is not to say we’re not capable of more, or different, simply that this underlies more and different: fires it, motivates it. We simply have to choose better: to choose ways of expressing our sexuality that are less damaging; or not damaging at all.We need to reject the – currently trending – mode of liberalism that promotes ‘anything goes’; that damages both our bodies and our partners’ bodies; our minds and theirs.

Please share this post, or the above article. When we’re hurting others, and diminishing ourselves just to feel/be ‘normal something’s gone badly awry.

We need to choose better, because we can…

Advertisements

Piñata

Standard

Poetry slams can be pretty hit or miss: there’s always a danger that the message can get lost in or distorted by the medium; that delivery might obfuscate substance, or lack thereof, in that egoistic complicity between performer and audience. Katie Roiphe‘s controversial 1993 tract The Morning After detected shades of this in its postmodern critique of America’s Take Back The Night movement, for example. With that in mind, I still found Pages Matam‘s Piñata (below) both convincing and moving. As we discover at 2.00 this is a subject close to his heart, and it’s heartening to see a man calling out sexism amongst his fellows: it happens too rarely. I’m surely not the only guy guilty at times of keeping his head down for fear of being alienated amongst my peers for not being ‘one of the lads’. I says much about the current state of sex relations that I and others feel that men who do so are still worthy of note, and that men persistently fail to alter their standards of behaviour until another man calls them out on same.

A piñata (little donkey – Mexican), for the uninitiated, is a device featuring in ceremonies and celebrations – commonly associated with Mexico, though thought to date back to ancient China – consisting of a hollow receptacle which is smashed open with sticks to release candy or other treats. It’s not hard to imagine why Matam seized upon it as metaphor for (sexual) violence. For cultural and experiential reasons that might require another whole post – or book – to elaborate on, men seem to be drawn to metaphorical modes of thinking, and nowhere more so than in this subject area, and Matam‘s response to a stranger’s crass proclamation well articulates certain toxic connotations of ‘beauty’ and ‘masculinity’.

Via upworthy.com

The Agency

Standard

Sex between students and teachers should not be a crime: Washington Post

It’s disingenuous to assess a relationship – of any kind, sexual or otherwise – between two parties on the premise that said parties have equal agency when common sense and evidence declaim that this is manifestly not the case, as with teachers and students; adults and children; men and women…

This is a persistent fault in liberal thinking: some humans are more equal than others.

It’s precisely the disparity in agency that makes many such relationships immoral, if not criminal. Certainly, many men don’t see – or wilfully ignore – the immorality and don’t believe that criminalization is fair or necessary, for example this recent case in the UK.

From the Independent coverage of the same story:

“I could have been that 13-year-old girl”. She added that child victims of abuse often do not see themselves as victims at all because of the grooming process they have been put through.

Angela (not her real name), 37, said that was the way she felt during six years of sexual abuse at the hands of her stepfather as a child. She said that, because of the abuse, she believed love to simply be a sexual act from an early age. “He told me that it happens in every family. I believed him because he was in a position of trust.”

“As a result of the abuse, I adopted some behaviour that could have been described as sexually predatory; in the same way as this girl’s was described. My understanding, as a young child, was that affection and being close to people was about doing sexual acts.”

When, as an adult, she said was raped again, she did not report it because she said she did not think she would be believed.

The attitude that victims, particularly children, are complicit in their own abuse means that there will be more and more stories like hers, Angela said.

“…I believed him because he was in a position of trust….” (My italics)

One of the features of moral outrage that makes it so hard for many to stomach is the hypocrisy that too often underlies it. Those who protest the loudest and abusers are too often one and the same. That teenage – and younger – victims of abuse who are popularly perceived to seek sexual relations with adults in positions of responsibility frequently masks this darker truth. Outrage, on closer inspection proves to be incredulity that the darker truth has been illuminated; that those not granted agency might have the audacity to illuminate it.

We live in a hierarchical society, for better or worse. As such, those permitted greater agency are obliged – if we wish to claim to be truly moral – to shoulder the greater responsibility. At present, as historically, we see the reverse presented as much the norm: promiscuous men projecting their abdicated responsibility onto women and girls when we label them ‘sluts’ or ‘predators’. This is a conspiracy in plain sight.

I don’t believe Betsy Karasik is a bad person; I believe in her good intentions both as a human being and as a lawyer. But the latter is significant. Lawyers – and the law – serve the state; uphold the status quo; because she has the agency over her clients that teachers have over students; that whites have over non-whites; that adults have over children; that men have over women. We have a responsibility to discharge that agency wisely and kindly, or disavow it: disputing it will not do.

p.s. Mic Wright‘s piece re bullying – a very personal subject for me, link via Telegraph article (above) – is also well worth a read

Catholic distaste for bad press

Standard

THE MOST DAMNING PHOTO PUBLISHED BY A BRITISH NEWSPAPER THIS YEAR?

From mirror.co.uk: ‘Jimmy Savile and the cardinal…’

Cardinal Keith O’Brien quit just 24 hours before he was due to fly to Rome to help choose the next pope. His resignation followed a series of recent allegations against him dating back to the ’80s by three priests and one former priest regarding inappropriate sexual behaviour. He ‘strongly denied’ those claims, but revelations of a relationship with Savile dating back to the ’70s will undoubtedly bode badly for his chances of being believed.

Another priest at Kilsyth (O’Brien‘s parish) at the time has been suspended following claims of abuse against two young victims. Ironically, it was Cardinal O’Brien who ordered the investigation last September; and when allegations against Savile first broke in the MSM last year, it was the cardinal who called for him to be stripped of his papal knighthood.

Also ironic is the fact that Cardinal O’Brien is known for his strong anti-gay views: he recently criticized the Scottish government’s plans to enshrine same-sex marriage in law by 2015, describing the latter as a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”. No wonder he was named ‘Bigot of the year‘ by Stonewall Scotland in 2012. His stance on women’s rights is no less forgiving: six years ago he claimed the abortion rate in Scotland was equivalent to “two Dunblane massacres a day”, also describing the implications of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill as akin to “Nazi-style experiments”. In all ways an exemplary Catholic, then.

It’s extraordinary that in the 21st century, an organization of such far-reaching social and political influence can continue to practice discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation with impunity. But the church has a real problem with sex, full stop. It’s clearly learnt it’s lesson from the last few years of public outrage over institutionalized abuse, and their media machine has been quick to swing into action following the O’Brien debacle:

Jack Valero, of lobby group Catholic Voices, said it was right for Cardinal O’Brien to resign.

He said: “I am very happy that this has been taken seriously, that the nuncio – the Pope’s representative in the UK – has written to the four people who have made the allegations to thank them for speaking out, and that the whole thing has been done so quickly.

I think this shows a new spirit.”

O’Brien tendered his resignation November last, and it was officially accepted by the Pope last week, but his sudden departure was unexpected. Was immenent exposure of the Savile connection a factor? New spirit or not, division, and confusion around the issue of priests and sex run deep in the church to this day, in particular the failure to grasp that the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sex tilts on consent, not the gender or sexual orientation of the participants. The church’s exception to homosexuality is not ‘homophobia’ per-se, so much as calculated propaganda in the interests of furthering it’s world-dominating, sex-dimorphic agenda. When O’Brien spoke of a ‘human right’ to marriage, it was the right of men to produce (Catholic) offspring he was defending. And who are ‘celibate’ priests to be dispensing this advice, anyway? That the Bible highlights the sinfulness of homosexuality*, yet not of paedophilia is scarcely surprising, given the social context of its time: that the church cleaves to those same standards 2000 years later, and that we give credence to the esoteric beliefs of this homophobic, misogynistic rape cult is the real scandal.

* See ‘Intercourse’Dworkin, Andrea. Ch. 8 ‘Law’ p. 185-211 for a penetrating, nuanced understanding of why homosexuality is such a ‘big deal’ within religious orthodoxy; and why policing men’s behaviour is really all about policing women.

Aside

Happened across this interesting link via Jason Hirschhorn’s Media ReDEFined (worth subscribing to for daily digest of what’s ‘happening’ across a variety of media).

Beating revenge porn with copyright

I don’t pretend to understand the legal nuances (any lawyers reading this?) but tackling the pernicious practice of ‘revenge porn’ is overdue. . Publishing intimate photographs/personal details for the purposes of blackmail, revenge or shaming is one of many unscrupulous uses of internet technology that hurts many women (and some men) and as is so often the case, ISPs and site owners seem unwilling to accept a moral responsibility to deal with it. The law is often victims’ only recourse, so it’s about time for the law to establish some clarity, and get tough.

Copyright vs Revenge