It seems to me that most Pro-Life people I know really aren’t Pro-Life at all. They are, rather, Anti-Sex. That is, the abortion debate is often just a cover to wage war on the sexual revolution and the Dawn of the Pill. What many Pro-Life people are angry about is the casual sexuality of our age, an era of “abortion on demand.” Pro-Life advocacy, then, is often (consciously or unconsciously) really a way to get sexually promiscuous people to face the “consequences” of sexual activity. The focus on life is often cover for Puritanical worries about sexuality in modern America.
Why do I draw this conclusion? Because most Pro-Life people I know are only Pro-Life in this one area, and only in this one area. They are not, generally speaking, consistently Pro-Life. For example, most Pro-Life people are…
…not Pro-Life when it comes to gun control.
…not Pro-Life when it comes to preemptive war.
…not Pro-Life when it comes to capital punishment.
…not Pro-Life when it comes to global malnourishment.
…not Pro-Life when it comes to universal health care.
…not Pro-Life when it comes to entitlement programs for the women and children of the working poor (to remove the economic incentives for abortion).
…not Pro-Life in promoting condom usage to prevent teenage pregnancy or AIDS in developing nations.
In short, the only thing many conservatives are Pro-Life about is, well, abortion. Which, incidentally, is the only thing on the list that’s about regulating sexual behavior.
“Female horniness in the popular imagination is rare. Admittedly our idea of male horniness is pretty scrambled too, but we have some concept of it as a near-universal male experience. On the rare occasion a woman is horny in the mainstream culture, usually it’s comical or even threatening. This is getting better over the years. Slowly. But it’s still not an accepted thing that a woman can just plain want to get her grind on.”—The Pervocracy: From slutty to horny. (via sexisnottheenemy)
“Whenever a man stands up for the basic human rights of a woman, his act shouldn’t be the exception. And when a man rejects sexism, violence and abuse in his community and peer group, his act shouldn’t be a miracle. Actions towards ending violence against women and men should be seen as nothing less than an exercise of the best traditions of humankind.”—One man’s modest plea for womankind’s right to nonviolence (via sociolab)
Has your local public school opened up a new all-girls classroom? Are you tempted to enroll your daughter in it? After all, the principal may have…
The whole “men and women are biologically fundamentally different!!1!” argument bothers me to no end. Good to see there’s no such thing as a ‘female brain’ or a ‘male brain’. Which, in my opinion, basically confirms once again that evolutionary psychology (women are gatherers and therefore naturally nurturing!) is nothing more than snake oil science and should be lumped in with pseudo-science such as craniology etc.
I am putting together a training for men to, at the very least, start the conversation that Rape is a Men’s Issue. The idea is to start with the text below and develop the conversation to a personal level. I want each attendee to the training to understand that “Hey baby, nice…
S, this is a goldmine of good ideas and directions to approach people on this topic. I’d change a couple of things, but I’d really like to use it as a base in the future. -C
So, just so we’re clear: a 15-year-old who had unprotected sex and knows that she doesn’t want to be a mom is too immature to follow the directions on the box, but mature enough to birth and raise a baby?
"The laws untold story"- Garbage response to Aus public wanting harsher sentencing
In an edited version of a speech by Justice Chris Maxwell, president, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Victoria, Justice Maxwell tells us how complicated sentencing really is. He said that ‘not enough attention is paid to the core work of the criminal justice system, which is the investigation and prosecution of serious crime, and the conduct of fair trials. The integrity of our trial process is beyond question.’ This completely misses the point- once again. I feel its a way to silence the public when they ask for harsher sentences.
I’m pretty sure no one said sentencing was easy mate. I’m pretty sure also that everyone wants trials to be fair. Thats NOT what the public is complaining about. The complaint is sentencing and how pathetically low it is in this country compared to the rest of the west.
They are complaining about serious criminals who have been found GUILTY recieving TINY sentances in a system that has 0 effective rehabilitation currently. We are complaining about criminals having the lowest conviction rates, lowest sentences and lower time served for serious crimes than almost anywhere in the west.
These examples don’t even touch on murders, or torture. You should see how low sentences are for people who keep, sell and rape slaves!
No one is saying sentencing is easy; what we are saying is that an average of 5 years for horrifically violating someone isn’t good enough, and that 16 years for that plus torture and ATTEMPTED MURDER isn’t good enough. These numbers do not reflect what the public believes is fair. Do not tell us that we ‘just don’t get it’. We know it’s not easy and there are a lot of factors to consider but that doesn’t mean that such low sentences are therefor hunky dory- esp. when other countries similar to us have in some cases double the sentences or ACTUAL life sentences for the crimes we give a slap on the wrist for.
It’s not good enough, Justice Maxwell. The system or your response.
So you made a rape joke and now people are, like, really, really mad at you. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt; maybe you were at a party and the booze made your common sense slip away from you or maybe you were making what you viewed as a flippantly humorous remark on Facebook. Either way, you probably didn’t mean any harm, right? So what’s the big deal?
You know, I just checked back in on this post, and something about this last response rubbed me the wrong way. Not because I disagree with anything it said on its own, just because I think it ignored a very real problem in responding to reactions in feminist discourse and I think it missed the context on what it was responding to.
Here’s the deal: Straight cis men do get raped. Straight cis men do get abused. Straight cis men do suffer lots of problems because of weird patriarchal notions of masculinity. You’d be hard pressed to find a feminist that disagrees with those ideas. But here’s the thing: it can’t and shouldn’t dominate the conversation when women or trans men or LGBTQ folks talk about the type of oppression that THEY face. And it does! All the time, and in ways that are totally irrelevant.
When you read a post where a woman describes her rape trauma, and someone comes in and says “Well, men get raped too, what about the men?”, they’re not saying “We’re all potential victims of sexual assault, look at how awful this is, let’s examine it as one entity called “human” that is opposed to this type of behavior in all of its forms.” What they ARE saying is “STFU, woman. This isn’t just a woman problem, so you’re not allowed to talk about it in any terms that acknowledge your womaness, or gender as a factor at all. We don’t care that rape statistics show that women are much, much, more likely to be raped than straight cis men. We certainly don’t care that people with disabilities and trans people face even more severely heightened odds of being raped. We don’t care. Straight cis men get raped too. Therefore this is a non-story and you really shouldn’t be talking about it. Especially not in any context that we don’t agree with or approve of. Men get raped too, so your story is irrelevant.”
That’s why “But what about the menz?” is a meme in feminist circles. It’s because we see that idea ALL THE GODDAMN TIME. If we talk about about anything related to harassment, anything related to how we experience the world on a day to day basis, some asshole will come in and say “Men could conceivably experience that too, YOUR ARGUMENT IS IRRELEVANT.” It’s a derailing tactic. A way of telling us to Shut The Fuck Up, and center the conversation around the people that matter: straight white cis guys.
It’s a reminder that if we make the conversation about us and our own experiences, and we don’t go out of our way to acknowledge those straight, cis white guys… well, clearly it’s because WE are excluding THEM, and it has nothing to do with their inability to identify with us. Because they’re the default. So you can’t talk about human experience in female terms and have it not be automatically exclusionary to the guys that you are not talking about. Or the white people you’re not talking about if you’re discussing the experience of being a person of color. Or the straight people you’re not talking about if you’re talking about being gay.
And as a feminist, let me say this: Guys, I understand that bad things happen to you. I understand that you experience rape, harassment, problems related to sexuality and your masculinity. I get that. When I talk about me? It’s not because I’m refusing to talk about you. You’re allowed in. Share your stories, but stop acting like there’s something wrong with me if I don’t talk about yours every single time I talk about mine. Tell us what happened to you and how it made you feel and why you feel that way. Sit down at the proverbial table with us, have a drink, and tell us what makes you sad about the world.
But don’t you dare fucking interrupt me while you do it. This is a conversation, and in a polite conversation you have to listen and wait for your turn.
“Fashion is one of the very few forms of expression in which women have more freedom than men. And I don’t think it’s an accident that it’s typically seen as shallow, trivial, and vain. It is the height of irony that women are valued for our looks, encouraged to make ourselves beautiful and ornamental… and are then derided as shallow and vain for doing so. And it’s a subtle but definite form of sexism to take one of the few forms of expression where women have more freedom, and treat it as a form of expression that’s inherently superficial and trivial. Like it or not, fashion and style are primarily a women’s art form. And I think it gets treated as trivial because women get treated as trivial.”—
Also it can’t change without getting treated as a feminist issue. Lord knows everyone involved seriously needs to step it the fuck up and abolish the serious racism and body-hating that runs fucking rampant in this industry with a complete lack of respect for others.
Going to share a story now. I’m a freshmen in college, and as many of you know, college students often go to class in sweats and baggy T-Shirts. I, however, like dress nicely. Not really sure why I enjoy it so much, and there’s nothing wrong with dressing any other way. It might be because for years I watched my mom dress up nicely for her work, and I just took after her. I love fashion and shoes and being able to mix and match cute outfits together. But lately everyone has been judging me for dressing up. They always comment on my clothing and ask why I bother dressing up. Usually I just smile and shrug but honestly this is the reason why. And I’m tried of people assuming I’m obsessed with myself or that I’m shallow just because I enjoy the freedom fashion gives me.
I dress up because it gives me control over things in my life. It’s actually something my grandmother does as well, but for different reasons. When I dress pretty when I participate in fashion I get to live outside of what people expect of a fat girl. I wear bright colors and heels and walk around click clacking like I own the fucking place because knowing I love what I look like gives me the confidence to own who I am.
idk if that makes sense
but I love clothes, and I love high fashion
what I hate is the fatphobic retail fashion, what I hate is the racist fucked up body policing fashion industry
Link to video of an Occupy protester in Melbourne having her clothes forcibly removed by the cops plus an explanation of what’s going on (at least as much of an explanation as can be given)
Firstly I would just like to say:
The police handling of the Occupy movement in Australia has been rather disgraceful. However in saying that and while I agree with the Occupy movement, I do not agree with the way it’s being done and handled by Melbourne protesters and Australians in general. Both sides have been aggressive in different an inappropriate ways (Police being physically aggressive and protesters being “non-violent” and acting as if that means their behavior isn’t aggressive, offensive, confrontational, illegal, unsafe or unacceptable), and both sides have taken things purposely out of context, used spin & shock tactics and even blatant lies to make their points to the public- who now largely don’t give a toss.
The video looks beyond horrible. However there is no context or real explanation. If anyone was there when it happened I’d be keen to hear from them. What the police are doing in this video makes no sense whatsoever. There must be some kind of backstory and context to this missing. As you said it’s “as much of an explanation as can be given”. I want to hear from the police why her costume was removed (was it offensive, somehow threatening or dangerous?) and why it was removed that way, in public. As well as who authorized it. It’s certainly not common police practice. I’m guessing its going to be disgusting and face-palmy. I assume that she refused to take it off or get changed. But even if that was the case I certainly don’t think it should have been done in public. If it was so bad it needed to be removed for xyz reason surely they should have taken her somewhere and made her wear something else? Or charged her with public indecency or something? It NEEDS to be investigated. Stripping someone to an indecent level in public is beyond WTF. I struggle to believe this is the full story though after seeing some of the lies and blatantly biased, out of context videos and quotes used as dirty tactics by protesters, there has to be more to this. Thats not to say either that there being more to this makes it acceptable- because it doesn’t. But I need to be informed.
As I said; I support the occupy movement on a global level. It’s message is important. But the way it’s being handled in Australia by both sides is seriously shameful in my opinion, and makes me feel personally ashamed of this country. I never thought I’d be ashamed of fellow protesters in this way. But I am. Dirty, underhanded tactics, aggression, lies and “half truths” for publicity aren’t acceptable. Not only are both sides shaming themselves and our country, it reflects poorly on a very important world wide movement.
EDIT: She is apparently offered clothes to put on underneath multiple times and refused. I was told you can hear it at the start of the video but I don’t have any sound. Doesn’t mean what they did is right, but does show they did present her with more options (Get arrested, get changed or we take it off) and it wasn’t just ‘lets strip protesters!’ as it’s being portrayed.
(This is the last I’ll be discussing about the movement in AU.)
discussing how misogyny & sexism play into these issues is definitely important, but the feminist movement should be a safe space for everyone. for example, trans* people are often erased in the movement, even when misogyny oppresses them. we should make an effort to be inclusive of everyone, because creating more oppression isn't the goal. not to say we should erase how misogyny relates to these issues, but just be aware of other experiences and acknowledge them.
I agree completely. I’m not sure what this has to do with our conversation though! :)
[tw: discussion of rape, child molesting] i wanted to reply to your post on the subject of child molesting and how it's not sexist to always refer to the molester as "he", and i wanted to disagree with you. even if it is only a small percentage of children that are molested by female people, or people of non-binary genders, it's important to use inclusive language and not erase those experiences. just because it's rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Just because something is rare absolutely doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. You are absolutely correct. However, I stand by my thoughts that labeling something by what is clearly and undeniably the vast, vast majority is the right thing to do and is not sexist, especially considering the consequences of not doing so.
I’m sure many people have heard the argument “But women are rapists too!” and that “Men are victims too!” against most anti-rape and feminist stances, or even just against talk about rape itself because rapists are basically always listed as ‘he’. Yes, women can do these things, and yes women can and do rape and abuse. However its a tiny percentage. With the word ‘he’ and referencing to men is in the majority, the derailing misogynist arguments and ‘what about the men’ folk pop out, a lot. For me, almost every single time I discuss anything relating to rape on the internet ever. If this where to change to include women or trans* folk, I think it would seriousl;y bump up these misogynist, derailing bullshit.
If terminology used (gendered pronouns) where to include the tiny minority I certainly think that it would discount and deflect from the truth that rape and sexual violence ARE gendered, with men being the majority of perpetrators, causing more harm than good.
I think it’s most well put by Renee Koonin as written in the Australian Social Work journal, Volume 30:
"There are inherent risks involved in discussing child sexual abuse by female perpetrators. Acknowledging abuse by women may be used as all excuse to deny the gender bias in sexual abuse (Forbes 1992-93). Critics of the organisers of the National Conference on Female Sexual Abuse held in London in March 1992 were concerned that the debates would serve to turn the clock back to the time when professional literature on child sexual abuse looked only at individualistic and unthreatening theories of the causes of abuse. This psychiatric, psychological and family dysfunction literature either ignored the preponderance of male abusers, or sought to argue that the evidence was coincidental, inaccurate or incomplete. We are reminded that it was not until feminists forced the issue of male power into the analysis of child sexual abuse that the central significance of gender was gradually acknowledged (Kelly 1988-89).
Thus, there is concern that any attempt to remove the spotlight from male abuse serves the political ends of providing fodder for what ‘many policy makers, professionals, researchers and journalists urgently want to hear and believe’ (Nelson 1992), Critics view any emphasis on female abusers as part of the effort to revert to a gender-neutral theory and practice of child sexual abuse (Forbes 1992-93) and a clumsy effort to reemphasise mother blame and collusion. Media coverage of the London conference which referred to the so-called ‘discovery’ of sexual abuse by women as the ‘tip of the iceberg’ was extensive (Heath 1992., Laurance 1992; Marchant 1992:D Nelson 1992; Nelson and Oxford 1992: Sharpe 1992).
In this respect, fears that a broad discussion of sexual abuse by women will be used to deflect attention from the abuse of power by men are well-grounded.”
TRIGGER WARNING! Why labelling pedophiles as 'he' in legal documents and research is not sexist, or unfair.
[[TRIGGER WARNING: Rape, child abuse, child sexual abuse]]
I had a message in my ask box the other day (which I deleted due to language and troll tone) stating it was sexist that in legal documentation, studies, articles etc that when discussing pedophiles and child sex offenders they where always labelled as ‘he’. It was claimed there are lots of female child molestors so it should be labeled ‘they’ or ‘he/she’, and that women hurt children more often as they had more opportunity.
Only 1.7% of child sex offenders in Australia are female that commit crimes against children they know (Which is the most common). The Highest statistic I could find from official and reliable sources for female child abusers in western society was this:
“Although males clearly constitute the majority of perpetrators, a review of the evidence for female sex abusers (McCloskey & Raphael, 2005), suggests that females do abuse in a small proportion of cases. Data from the US National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) showed that males made up 90% of adult child sexual assault perpetrators, while 3.9% of perpetrators were female with a further 6% classified as “unknown gender” (McCloskey & Raphael, 2005) (LINK)
I don’t think it’s fair to have to split the pronoun between male/female and I certainly don’t see it as a grey area. It’s not even close to a 50/50 split! If those numbers where in any way similar, then the language would need to dictate so, but as that is not the case I think things make sense as they are and I do not believe that is sexist.
To whomever sent me that message here is an easy to understand chart for you from a new publication released by the Australian Institute of Criminology this September (You can see it here) about the misconceptions surrounding child sex offenders. It discusses and lists the statistics of genders and ages of offenders and victims.
Figure 1: Relationship of victims of child sexual abuse to perpetrator (n=1,294,000)a. a: Total adds to more than 100 percent (103.7%). This indicates that a small proportion of child sexual abuse victims (3.7%) were abused by perpetrators belonging to more than one category
However; there are some points I would like to discuss that where brought up:
Children are usually abused by someone they know, although data suggest that strangers comprise nearly one in five perpetrators of child sexual abuse against males.
As most victims of child sexual abuse are female, but most perpetrators are male, what is the role of gender as a risk or protective factor?
In a link sent in by Anjan G., Victoria’s Secret model Adriana Lima explains what she does in the months prior to walking the catwalk (source). Here’s a summary:
For months before the show, she works out every day with a personal trainer; for the three weeks before, she works out twice a day.
A nutritionist gives her protein shakes, vitamins and supplements to help her body cope with the work out schedule.
She drinks a gallon of water a day.
For the final nine days before the show, she consumes only protein shakes.
Two days before the show, she begins drinking water at a normal rate; for the final 12 hours, she drinks no water at all. She loses up to eight pounds during this time.
Lima’s training and nutrition regimen reveal that the look that is believed by some to be the epitome of feminine accomplishment — the look required to be a Victoria’s Secret Angel — is accompanied by significant physical strain. Lima looks as she is supposed to on the runway, but she is also dehydrated and hungry.
The story reminded me of this photograph, taken by Zed Nelson. It shows Ronnie Coleman, immediately after walking off the stage at the Mr. Olympia competition, breathing through an oxygen mask. He would take first place. Explaining the photograph, Nelson writes:
Oxygen administered to exhausted contestants during ﬁnal round of judging. The strain of intense dieting, dehydration and muscle-ﬂexing, places high levels of strain on the heart and lungs, rendering many contestants dizzy, light-headed and weak.
Bodybuilders often have extreme and rigid exercise and diet plans in the months preceding a contest. In those months, a bodybuilder’s goal is to make himself appear as strong as possible. He must balance his body’s functional needs with his aesthetic goals, and sometimes the latter wins over the former.
Bodybuilders and models, then, represent aesthetic extremes of masculinity and femininity, but their bodies aren’t the natural extension of male and female physicalities. Instead, achieving the look require significant sacrifice of one’s body. In other words, they look fit and strong, but looks can be deceiving.
“Feminism is not simply a struggle to end male chauvinism or a movement to ensure than women have equal rights with men; it is a commitment to eradicating the ideology of domination that permeates Western culture on various levels—sex, race, and class, to name a few—-and a commitment to reorganizing U.S. society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires.”
"Campaigns to protect girls from 'sexualisation' assume that sexuality itself is a corrupting influence on young women"
I’ve been asked by multiple people about this topic, over many recent scandals involving sexually related things being marketed to young girls. All I have to say is:
I think that marketing sexualized products, or products which intend to sexualize young girls is wrong. That does not mean that I think sexuality is a corrupting influence, or that youth sexuality and/or sex are bad. It means I think that our society is corrupt in the way it deals with, discounts, fetishizes, exploits, degrades and abuses womens sexualities.
In our society, womens sexuality is profitable and exploited at every turn. From porn, to music, to womens/girls magazines, to movies to advertising. Girls get messages from every corner telling them to be attractive and sexy, placing more value on it than anything else. Then as they get older new messages appear about sex; how they should have it, how to fuck the best, how to make him want you, how being bisexual can make him hot. We fetishize and praise “virginity” and the destroying of it. We fetishize, exploit and capitalize on womens sexualities- especially young women, the incredibly popular “barely legal” category. We place a huge amount of pressure, expectation and unrealistic standards on girls regarding sex which go to the extremes and always end up putting girls in either the ‘virgin/prude’ or ‘whore/slut’ categories, punishing them for their sexuality and sexual activities regardless of what they are.
So no, I don’t think that sex or sexuality is whats hurting women. I think its our fucked up veiws, degradation, shaming and exploitation of female sexuality that is corrupting influence, and I don’t want young girls being exposed until they are emotionally, mentally and physically ready to handle not only sex and sexuality- but the amount of bullshit they are going to have to deal with surrounding it. Which is a huge, unrealistic and never ending amount of bullshit.
By forcing conscious or unconscious sexualized messages in the form of clothing, music, movies, advertising… we are just shaping more young girls to be exploited and learn what the men who make these products want the girls sexuality to be. They want it to be g-strings, booty shaking, big boobs, blonde hair, unrealistic screaming and always sexually available. While there is nothing wrong with those things, or with enjoying them- it’s wrong that we as a society are allowing all kids to be molded into this; especially when most don’t have the life experience, mental or emotional maturity to be able to rationalize and deal with these messages and pressures. We need to let them have a wider variety and learn to be sexual in their own way, on their own terms, in their own time instead of on ‘the mans’ and societies terms and times.
Until womens sexuality is just that- our own sexuality instead of a molded product then I don’t think products aimed at making kids ‘sexy’ is ok. I think it’s just another ploy in our culture to pressure, influence and exploit womens sexuality- making it a product and social construct to trap women, to please men. That is what is corrupting- not sexuality.
Hey, In your opinion will legalizing prostitution decrease sex trafficking? I know this is a broad topic but I was curious about your view on this subject. Thank you
Yes and no. In my country prostitution is legal (Australia), however we still have sex trafficking, mainly of young Asian women. I largely beleive this is because:
1) Customer demand for women seen as ‘compliant’
2) Customer demand for women whom they can be violent towards.
3) Racialized ideas that Asian women have certain qualities (eg, they are more compliant and will accept abuse without or with little complaint.)
4) No help, education, consideration or incentive for women who are in (or where in) sexual slavery to come forward or leave. In fact- even for a women who was able to get free, knew where to get help and was able to communicate her needs there is almost no incentive. Sex workers who even go as far as to help officials catch and convict the traffickers are often
Placed into detention centers with other people who are having their refugee status processed- a process which can take up to 7 years.
This is an admitted systematic failure of our government- Such hard and enforced laws and investigations to find and destroy the sex trade while providing no assistance (instead, punishment) to highly traumatized sex slaves, who often can not go back to their country or don’t wish too out of fear of social stigma and abuse, fear of being re-trafficked or killed for having information which could be used against slavers, among other things.
5) While prostitution is legal, it is heavily stigmatized and there is not enough people willing to work in the industry. This is for a number of reasons including but not limited too:
You can be legally discriminated against by anyone and any organization including banks, real estate, health care providers, courts and legal services etc- even though your job is 100% legal and you pay tax.
The way legalization is conducted means women must work at brothels or have their own registered premises (which is basically IMPOSSIBLE). Work from your home, work from a hotel etc is technically illegal because it’s not a registered place, and councils will not let people register homes. This effectively forces sex workers to work for pimps- brothel owners, who will take LARGE cuts of earnings for providing nothing but space, or it forces them to break the law should they wish to earn a fair living.
Taxation- Even though sex workers pay tax they are at a higher instance of being investigated for tax fraud and being charged because they generally work in cash. It’s just widely believed sex workers are liars, cheats and scum, and even though who are perfectly on the books are at risk of heavy fines and discrimination.
Stigma and misinformed stereotypes that all sex workers are slaves, drug addicts, have low self esteem, drinkers, irresponsible, disease ridden, unable or undeserving of privacy and to have children.
New laws- There are new laws coming into effect in this country will effectively push most legal, tax paying sex workers underground. If you’d like to read more see my post here.
I think legalization minimizes sex slavery and human trafficking, and if there was less stigma, harassment and discrimination against legal sex workers we would have much less of an issue. However, sex slavery isn’t something I think will ever fully go away based on the legality of the sex trade.
People who knowingly visit sex slaves in this country and who hold racist and fetishized ideals of those slaves aren’t just there for sex. The price for them isn’t cheaper than a street worker, or a legal brothel worker. They ‘see’ these enslaved women because they are deeply and most likely unconsciously racist, they want to be able to exert power and dominance mentally and physically, and want to be able to bully someone into doing illegal and dangerous sex-work activities (like not using a condom, swallowing semen or body fluids etc).
The legality of something doesn’t stop slavery. Otherwise not only would we not have any sex slaves, we wouldn’t have domestic, hospitality or construction/labor slaves. All those jobs are legal and easy for international students and travelers to get, yet there is still a considerable amount of slaves forced to work in those fields.
This is obviously a huge problem. It contributes to the fucked up attitude society has about rape. It’s not surprising though, is it?
Women are portrayed as naturally scheming and lying. We’re told that women aresupposed to gossip and ‘bitch’ about each other behind their backs, while being nice to their face. And this is where we find a massive problem. Women (and men) are taught that women are simply dishonest. “It’s just who they are.” It’s in their nature to be liars.
From reality TV shows to the stereotype of “gold diggers”, the lesson is that women are supposed to be over-emotional liars who can’t help being “bitchy.” Men are taught to be much more upfront about their anger and hatred to one another. Men are seen as naturally honest, while women are seen as naturally dishonest.
So, when someone accuses a woman of lying about being raped, it’s not just because rape isn’t taken seriously enough. It’s because society is built on the idea of women being dishonest and unreliable (and since men are obviously honest, their opinion is taken as truth over that of a woman’s).