From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Sexual consent (Was: Roy's "consenting" slave)
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:54:48 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <1992Dec19.211201.18627@midway.uchicago.edu>
h431@quads.uchicago.edu (heather e blair) writes:

>In article <BzGv07.E2x@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
>dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott) writes:

>>It would be a *very* odd situation in which I believed one participant
>>thought consent was present and the other did not.  Too often it is an
>>after the fact characterization propelled by regret, guilt, or justification
>>by one of the participants.

>You're probably right, but I think I can see how this might happen when a
>"clueless" person (of either sex) who thinks passivity = consent runs into
>one of those people (again of either sex) who "freezes" when confronted by
>unwanted sexual attention.  Bad combo.  Both need re-education.

This has happened to me. 

I'm male, and the Clueless One was female.

In this situation, I was standing stock still, rigid, and weeping;
and she just didn't get the message, and literally dragged me upstairs
for what she called a "massage". 

I literally *couldn't say no*. I didn't know what was happening, and
I was in terror, and I felt I had no rights of any kind.

The whole thing felt awful, from start to finish. We didn't actually
have intercourse, or anything approaching it (perhaps because she
couldn't, finally, avoid seeing how unpleasurable was my reaction to the
"massage" itself); but ever since then (1986) I have felt really
violated by what she did. (There were many other incidents; for instance,
she was violent to me, and to other men; the incident I have briefly
described was just the moment which stands out the most, as somehow 
symbolic of the whole thing.)

She admitted, some time after the event, that she had tried to seduce
me, and she felt awful about it.

She had been sexually abused by her father, and (from lots of
evidence which it would be both tedious and painful to recall)
she was re-running the abuse with me, in a very complex division
of roles; it did her a lot of harm too; and I made my own
contribution to the mess.

("Just another data point"; "your mileage may vary"; etc.)
 
-----

I agree about the need for "re-education" of both parties in such
transactions.

I, in particular, need to learn not to be such a wimp.

But who is there to teach that sort of lesson? (The answer,
"psychotherapists", won't wash: because, from my extensive
experience of such people, the pun on the word "the-rapist"
is spot-on.)

-----

This example bears on some of the debates here about feminism: because
the single most painful aspect of feminism, for me, is the way in
which so many feminist writers seem to delight in describing abusive
relationships, between two parties, as if the word "man" were 
*synonymous* with (and not just, as it is, largely coextensive with)
"the sexual abuser", and "woman" with "the sexually abused".

This represents (to put it as mildly as possible) a waste of
intelligence and feeling: because we are all to some extent
children, and we all have the potential for being abused,
and we have need of every available scrap of knowledge about this
sort of relationship, in order to reduce its incidence; and it's a
shame to have most of the knowledge locked up in books written only
by women for women, just because (for various reasons) they happen 
to have, collectively, by far the greater experience of sexual oppression.
But bad things don't happen to collectives, they happen to individuals.

Perhaps my greatest complaint against feminism is its tendency to adopt
a collective voice. (There are some shining exceptions in soc.bi, I
hasten to add.) There is a good reason for this, of course; and I'm aware
that I'm overstating my case against feminism -- or rather, against some
feminists. (My excuse must be that it's still difficult for me to think
objectively about the painful issues involved.) The reason is that,
although biology may not be destiny, it's still a mighty powerful
influence; and if I were a woman (which I wish I was), I wouldn't
trust any man a lot, unless and until I knew him very well as an
individual. 

I've already quoted Colin Dente on this subject once, but I can't
resist quoting him again (more briefly this time):

> >[...]  Do you think it doesn't hurt like hell when I come across a woman
> >who hates me *because I am male*.  Of course it does - but I am in a
> >privileged position in this society (I am male).  I will survive that woman's
> >hatred, and I will accept it because it strengthens her.  This isn't me
> >patronising her - I know that I deserve it; all men deserve it 
> >[...]
> >I might strive to be a "feminist", I know that I fall short of my goal of
> >treating women fairly and equally.  *Intellectually* I am a feminist, but I
> >still catch myself interrupting women, taking more notice of the views of
> >men, etc., etc.

The first time I quoted these passages, a rather frightening lurker
e-mailed me: first advocating the use of guns, and then immediately
afterwards, saying (I quote) "Fuck you", for my apparent defence of
feminist bigotry. (I was never more glad of the existence of the 
Atlantic Ocean.)

I replied to him at length, and here is part of my reply:

[...]
I don't interrupt anybody (well, hardly). If you knew me in person (yes,
I know that you are confusing me with the person who wrote the words
above, but I must still reply to your attack on me personally) you would
know me as an *extremely* silent, depressed, and self-effacing person,
who is always *being* interrupted -- by men more than by women, as a rule --
[...] when feminists complain -- in their typically generalised and
indiscriminate terms -- about the way "men" treat "women" in
conversation, I recognise a *precise* description of *my own*
experiences of being ignored, interrupted, shouted down, mis-
interpreted, having my words taken and twisted into unrecognisable
meanings, and so on. And these same bigoted feminists make it very clear
that they are not the slightest bit interested in the painful reality
of the experiences of *this particular man*. And their own verbal
behaviour matches, and even exceeds, in its atrocious stupidity and
irrationality, the worst of which men are capable.
[...]
I will still give militant feminists a wide berth. They are not rational;
they are not nice; they are malignant in their attitude towards men. Sheer
self-preservation dictates that, to the greatest extent possible, I avoid
them. [...]

I ought to have mentioned that the woman who abused me was a militant 
feminist! For years after that incident, I was unable to think of myself 
as a "feminist", because I had had too bad an experience of the abusive forms
which "feminism" can too easily take (especially with its often well-
founded contempt for male" ideas of reason and justice -- a contempt
which can easily be used to justify any behaviour by any woman against
any man).

Soc.bi has helped to heal that wound, to some extent, and I do feel
more of a "feminist" again (insofar as a man can be). I hope I do not
seem to be repaying that debt by biting the hand that feeds me. But
certain recent posts have, instead of healing, been rubbing salt in 
my wounds. The tone of voice adpoted by some posters is only too
familiar to me, from bitter experience. I have been trying for days not
to get drawn into this thread (knowing very well the illogical and
manipulative attributions which are likely to result from my
participation); but now that this thread seems to have largely taken over
soc.bi for the time being, I seem to have no choice. 

My apologies go to anyone I might hurt or offend unintentionally.
(Maybe even e-hugs afterwards, but I'm not feeling cuddly right now.)
--
Gus Rodgers,  Dept. of Computer Science, |  [Profound thought for 1993]
Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End |     "Philishave is about
Road, London, England.   +44 71 975 5241 |      personal choice" 
E-mail (JANET):   arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk |             -- TV advert
Xref: sparky soc.bi:16881 soc.men:21456 soc.women:21687