GG guardian article - Rape - "bad sex"

[Chaosandcoffee]

guardian link

Germaine Greer talking at Hay about reducing sentences for rape - well actually just reframing rape altogether - rejecting it as a violent crime in itself - where there isn't physical injury etc.

Don't know if there's already a thread. I've just deleted my attempt at discussion. I've reread the article and I don't feel like trying to be rational and open minded. But maybe someone can help me out.

I agree Offred and I’m increasingly looking forward to seeing your take on things that come up. Rape can and should be challenged, of course it should. However all bad sex should be also challenged but if it all gets lumped together nothing gets effectively dealt with and perhaps that’s the point....

"Rape can and should be challenged, of course it should. However all bad sex should be also challenged"

Trying to follow here but TEMRA but I can't walk out what your definition of bad sex which should be challenged is? Can you give an example?

Back to the point about trauma. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what trauma is and looks like.

For many it's the continuation of the freeze response mentally. Pushing it away and pretending it didn't happen.

I was hideously traumatised by something that happened when I was 16 and I did such a good job of never thinking about it I didn't even know it had effected me until I started to speak about it 21 years later.

Trauma doesn't always = distressed. The shut down and highly avoidant response is also a very common response to trauma.

I suspect TEMRA is talking about the increasing dehumanising transactional nature of all sex in culture which is related to individualism and capitalism.

In the news today
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-44309758

Yes sciencemad but again that is rape culture in action because not only are women required to be traumatised but they are required to be traumatised in the right way.

Dissociation can present on the outside as very similar to integration re rape but the narrative says that it must always be dissociation.

"Yes sciencemad but again that is rape culture in action because not only are women required to be traumatised but they are required to be traumatised in the right way."

That was my point.

But that’s not Greer is it?

Would we be discussing this aspect of rape culture if GG (feminist philosopher) had not talked about her experience and laid down a challenge to do so when she asked ‘why?’ the narrative is this way?

Another thing Greer raises is being told she is dissociated rather than has integrated...

It's an element of rape culture I've discussed in the past on many threads about rape so my contribution hasn't been prompted solely be GG's desire to reduce rape sentences to community service, no.

Believe it or not I was capable of debating rape culture before GG made those comments.

I feel I’m derailing a bit as taking about GG’s personal merits is probably a bit of a distraction, but if I understand Offred you’re saying her value lies purely in saying plainly outrageous things that get people on the internet arguing. So she’s pretty much Katie Hopkins. I don’t consider this kind of goadery of any use to anyone.

Everybody is capable of debating it.

Your point was GG should have centred one particular experience of rape, which is not her particular experience of rape, when talking about her experience of rape, so as not to upset women who had a different experience of rape because misogynists say things like this.

I disagree with this.

I don’t believe that the work re rape is done already so the more conversations the better but also the fact that GG is a respected, recognised feminist philosopher adds a different element to discussions that follow.

The fundamental point about the perception of rape being influenced by patriarchal notions of purity and of women as property is nothing new either. People have been saying this for a long time. Really struggling to see what she’s brought to any kind of debate here.

"Everybody is capable of debating it.

Your point was GG should have centred one particular experience of rape, which is not her particular experience of rape, when talking about her experience of rape, so as not to upset women who had a different experience of rape because misogynists say things like this."

Are you directing this to me, Offred? Because I didn't say that.

"Back to the point about trauma. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about what trauma is and looks like."

That was my point ^^

I was speaking more generally about societies view of what trauma is, and then more generally about trauma.

And then I talked about something traumatised me greatly (NOT an assault, sexual or otherwise, btw)

And then you told me my point was that GG should have centred one particular experience of rape over another.

Which is not remotely what I said.

Your point was GG should have centred one particular experience of rape, which is not her particular experience of rape, when talking about her experience of rape, so as not to upset women who had a different experience of rape because misogynists say things like this.

Is this directed at me or sciencemad, because this was not my point at all? I don’t think she should “centre” any experience of rape. I think she should avoid using language that conveys utter contempt for the people she is supposed to be concerned about. Can you explain how, for example, dismissing women who were in many cases raped and in other cases heavily pressured into sex with film producers as “women opening their legs for roles” is anything other than contemptuous, trivialising and - yes - misogynistic? She’s always, always doing this.

I’ve confused you with sloth, sorry!

I’m saying that I think when a feminist philosopher makes these points in that way it is materially different because she is challenging feminism to deal with them.

GG is also often taken out of context and reduced to soundbites too.

@A4710Rider

IMO if you assumed consent and didn't check, you are a rapist

I'm going to be seeing my DP later, we're going out for dinner, we may end up making move, at no point will I ask for consent. What am I?

Will you continuously ensure that your partner is an active participant in the love-making? If so, then you are checking for continued consent. You may find it easier to frame this as "Would I stop and check on my partner if they stopped responding encouragingly during sex?". Consent doesn't have to be verbal, especially in an established relationship where each partner knows the boundaries of the other, and I would argue that checking that your partner is continuously actively participating is a higher consent standard than "do you want to fuck?" and taking the "yes" as final with no further checks.

Feminism does not deal with it in the same way when it comes from MRA/antifeminists. Feminists think about it more when it comes from GG and articulate refutations. When it comes from MRA/antifeminists there’s more of a ‘well obviously they are idiot MRAs’ attitude to it.

It’s not that feminists never discuss these issues and never would if GG wasn’t quite so brash...

Moltenlasagne - I agree entirely with the staggered system, and this would have seen quite a few people locked up who have been found not guilty of rape because, I suspect, the jury didn't want to see them potentially facing a life sentence. But they might well have convicted on a lesser related charge...

I feel that the "rape is rape" brigade, who would be outraged at your idea, have done a lot of people a disservice.

Thinking about this more, I'm forced to wonder who out there actually wants to "roll onto his exhausted wife" or indeed any other variant of sex with a partner who is anything less than 100% enthusiastic. I can't think of a bigger turn-off than realising that my partner doesn't actually want sex and is "just going through the motions" or, worse, is in pain.

Staggered system is already pretty much how it works in practice re sentencing. Just this is particularly vulnerable to judge’s views too. In many ways a clearly articulated set of rules which accommodated ‘rape is a serious crime’ but set out different sentencing based on particular features would be a positive step IMO.

What I’d be opposed to is essentially codifying of rape myths into law, which obviously staggered sentencing/new crimes could be vulnerable too.

Hello, I've changed my name for this as this is identifying and I post personal stuff on here.

I was at the Germaine Greer talk at Hay and recorded the talk thinking I might blog about it later. You can hear the whole thing here (audio only):

It might end up being taken down as I probably wasn't supposed to do it.

The papers are picking up the juiciest quotes and giving them very little of the context of what was a long discussion. I'm finding that very annoying, so I think it's worth listening to all of it.

I disagreed with much of what she said (and a lot of it was really contradictory) but she did have some good points, especially around the fact that the way we are prosecuting rape really isnt working and needs change, even if I disagree with how we'd deal with that.

Interestingly enough, just from the audience reaction, and the discussions I had or overheard after, it seemed as if a lot of men got prickly and defensive, while the women tended to think she was minimising the issue, so just that divide was interesting in itself.

I also wonder where male rape fits in to all of this. Do we make male-on-male rape a less serious crime too? How do men feel about this? Male rape victims seem to be just as traumatised as female ones, ime.