Rape Culture 101

Just read this, it's an amazing article. The only thing it lacks is more emphasis on the fact that men get raped too, it is mentioned in passing though.

Originally posted HERE

FAQ: Rape Culture 101

Posted on October 19, 2009 by shakesville

This post was written by Melissa McEwan and originally published at Shakesville on October 09, 2009
Editor’s note: this post does not follow the usual FF101 FAQ conventions, but it’s being included in the FAQ list anyway.

[Trigger warning.]

Frequently, I receive requests to provide a definition of the term “rape culture.” I’ve referred people to the Wikipedia entry on rape culture, which is pretty good, and I like the definition provided in Transforming a Rape Culture:

A rape culture is a complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.

In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable as death or taxes. This violence, however, is neither biologically nor divinely ordained. Much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.

But my correspondents—whether they are dewy noobs just coming to feminism, advanced feminists looking for a source, or disbelievers in the existence of the rape culture—always seem to be looking for something more comprehensive and less abstract: What is the rape culture? What are its borders? What does it look like and sound like and feel like?

It is not a definition for which they’re looking; not really. It’s a description. It’s something substantive enough to reach out and touch, in all its ugly, heaving, menacing grotesquery.

Rape culture is encouraging male sexual aggression. Rape culture is regarding violence as sexy and sexuality as violent. Rape culture is treating rape as a compliment, as the unbridled passion stirred in a healthy man by a beautiful woman, making irresistible the urge to rip open her bodice or slam her against a wall, or a wrought-iron fence, or a car hood, or pull her by her hair, or shove her onto a bed, or any one of a million other images of fight-fucking in movies and television shows and on the covers of romance novels that convey violent urges are inextricably linked with (straight) sexuality.

Rape culture is treating straight sexuality as the norm. Rape culture is lumping queer sexuality into nonconsensual sexual practices like pedophilia and bestiality. Rape culture is privileging heterosexuality because ubiquitous imagery of two adults of the same-sex engaging in egalitarian partnerships without gender-based dominance and submission undermines (erroneous) biological rationales for the rape culture’s existence.

Rape culture is rape being used as a weapon, a tool of war and genocide and oppression. Rape culture is rape being used as a corrective to “cure” queer women. Rape culture is a militarized culture and “the natural product of all wars, everywhere, at all times, in all forms.”

Rape culture is 1 in 33 men being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Rape culture is encouraging men to use the language of rape to establish dominance over one another (”I’ll make you my bitch”). Rape culture is making rape a ubiquitous part of male-exclusive bonding. Rape culture is ignoring the cavernous need for men’s prison reform in part because the threat of being raped in prison is considered an acceptable deterrent to committing crime, and the threat only works if actual men are actually being raped.

Rape culture is 1 in 6 women being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Rape culture is not even talking about the reality that many women are sexually assaulted multiple times in their lives. Rape culture is the way in which the constant threat of sexual assault affects women’s daily movements. Rape culture is telling girls and women to be careful about what you wear, how you wear it, how you carry yourself, where you walk, when you walk there, with whom you walk, whom you trust, what you do, where you do it, with whom you do it, what you drink, how much you drink, whether you make eye contact, if you’re alone, if you’re with a stranger, if you’re in a group, if you’re in a group of strangers, if it’s dark, if the area is unfamiliar, if you’re carrying something, how you carry it, what kind of shoes you’re wearing in case you have to run, what kind of purse you carry, what jewelry you wear, what time it is, what street it is, what environment it is, how many people you sleep with, what kind of people you sleep with, who your friends are, to whom you give your number, who’s around when the delivery guy comes, to get an apartment where you can see who’s at the door before they can see you, to check before you open the door to the delivery guy, to own a dog or a dog-sound-making machine, to get a roommate, to take self-defense, to always be alert always pay attention always watch your back always be aware of your surroundings and never let your guard down for a moment lest you be sexually assaulted and if you are and didn’t follow all the rules it’s your fault.

Rape culture is victim-blaming. Rape culture is a judge blaming a child for her own rape. Rape culture is a minister blaming his child victims. Rape culture is accusing a child of enjoying being held hostage, raped, and tortured. Rape culture is spending enormous amounts of time finding any reason at all that a victim can be blamed for hir own rape.

Rape culture is judges banning the use of the word rape in the courtroom. Rape culture is the media using euphemisms for sexual assault. Rape culture is stories about rape being featured in the Odd News.

Rape culture is tasking victims with the burden of rape prevention. Rape culture is encouraging women to take self-defense as though that is the only solution required to preventing rape. Rape culture is admonishing women to “learn common sense” or “be more responsible” or “be aware of barroom risks” or “avoid these places” or “don’t dress this way,” and failing to admonish men to not rape.

Rape culture is “nothing” being the most frequent answer to a question about what people have been formally taught about rape.

Rape culture is boys under 10 years old knowing how to rape.

Rape culture is the idea that only certain people rape—and only certain people get raped. Rape culture is ignoring that the thing about rapists is that they rape people. They rape people who are strong and people who are weak, people who are smart and people who are dumb, people who fight back and people who submit just to get it over with, people who are sluts and people who are prudes, people who rich and people who are poor, people who are tall and people who are short, people who are fat and people who are thin, people who are blind and people who are sighted, people who are deaf and people who can hear, people of every race and shape and size and ability and circumstance.

Rape culture is the narrative that sex workers can’t be raped. Rape culture is the assertion that wives can’t be raped. Rape culture is the contention that only nice girls can be raped.

Rape culture is refusing to acknowledge that the only thing that the victim of every rapist shares in common is bad fucking luck. Rape culture is refusing to acknowledge that the only thing a person can do to avoid being raped is never be in the same room as a rapist. Rape culture is avoiding talking about what an absurdly unreasonable expectation that is, since rapists don’t announce themselves or wear signs or glow purple.

Rape culture is people meant to protect you raping you instead—like parents, teachers, doctors, ministers, cops, soldiers, self-defense instructors.

Rape culture is a serial rapist being appointed to a federal panel that makes decisions regarding women’s health.

Rape culture is a ruling that says women cannot withdraw consent once sex commences.

Rape culture is a collective understanding about classifications of rapists: The “normal” rapist (whose crime is most likely to be dismissed with a “boys will be boys” sort of jocular apologia) is the man who forces himself on attractive women, women his age in fine health and form, whose crime is disturbingly understandable to his male defenders. The “real sickos” are the men who go after children, old ladies, the disabled, accident victims languishing in comas—the sort of people who can’t fight back, whose rape is difficult to imagine as titillating, unlike the rape of “pretty girls,” so easily cast in a fight-fuck fantasy of squealing and squirming and eventual relenting to the “flattery” of being raped.

Rape culture is the insistence on trying to distinguish between different kinds of rape via the use of terms like “gray rape” or “date rape.”

Rape culture is pervasive narratives about rape that exist despite evidence to the contrary. Rape culture is pervasive imagery of stranger rape, even though women are three times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger, and nine times more likely to be raped in their home, the home of someone they know, or anywhere else than being raped on the street, making what is commonly referred to as “date rape” by far the most prevalent type of rape. Rape culture is pervasive insistence that false reports are common, although they are less common (1.6%) than false reports of auto theft (2.6%). Rape culture is pervasive claims that women make rape accusations willy-nilly, when 61% of rapes remain unreported.

Rape culture is the pervasive narrative that there is a “typical” way to behave after being raped, instead of the acknowledgment that responses to rape are as varied as its victims, that, immediately following a rape, some women go into shock; some are lucid; some are angry; some are ashamed; some are stoic; some are erratic; some want to report it; some don’t; some will act out; some will crawl inside themselves; some will have healthy sex lives; some never will again.

Rape culture is the pervasive narrative that a rape victim who reports hir rape is readily believed and well-supported, instead of acknowledging that reporting a rape is a huge personal investment, a difficult process that can be embarrassing, shameful, hurtful, frustrating, and too often unfulfilling. Rape culture is ignoring that there is very little incentive to report a rape; it’s a terrible experience with a small likelihood of seeing justice served.

Rape culture is hospitals that won’t do rape kits, disbelieving law enforcement, unmotivated prosecutors, hostile judges, victim-blaming juries, and paltry sentencing.

Rape culture is the fact that higher incidents of rape tend to correlate with lower conviction rates.

Rape culture is silence around rape in the national discourse, and in rape victims’ homes. Rape culture is treating surviving rape as something of which to be ashamed. Rape culture is families torn apart because of rape allegations that are disbelieved or ignored or sunk to the bottom of a deep, dark sea in an iron vault of secrecy and silence.

Rape culture is the objectification of women, which is part of a dehumanizing process that renders consent irrelevant. Rape culture is treating women’s bodies like public property. Rape culture is street harassment and groping on public transportation and equating raped women’s bodies to a man walking around with valuables hanging out of his pockets. Rape culture is most men being so far removed from the threat of rape that invoking property theft is evidently the closest thing many of them can imagine to being forcibly subjected to a sexual assault.

Rape culture is treating 13-year-old girls like trophies for men regarded as great artists.

Rape culture is ignoring the way in which professional environments that treat sexual access to female subordinates as entitlements of successful men can be coercive and compromise enthusiastic consent.

Rape culture is a convicted rapist getting a standing ovation at Cannes, a cameo in a hit movie, and a career resurgence in which he can joke about how he hates seeing people get hurt.

Rape culture is when running dogfights is said to elicit more outrage than raping a woman would.

Rape culture is blurred lines between persistence and coercion. Rape culture is treating diminished capacity to consent as the natural path to sexual activity.

Rape culture is pretending that non-physical sexual assaults, like peeping tomming, is totally unrelated to brutal and physical sexual assaults, rather than viewing them on a continuum of sexual assault.

Rape culture is diminishing the gravity of any sexual assault, attempted sexual assault, or culture of actual or potential coercion in any way.

Rape culture is using the word “rape” to describe something that has been done to you other than a forced or coerced sex act. Rape culture is saying things like “That ATM raped me with a huge fee” or “The IRS raped me on my taxes.”

Rape culture is rape being used as entertainment, in movies and television shows and books and in video games.

Rape culture is television shows and movies leaving rape out of situations where it would be a present and significant threat in real life.

Rape culture is Amazon offering to locate “rape” products for you.

Rape culture is rape jokes. Rape culture is rape jokes on t-shirts, rape jokes in college newspapers, rape jokes in soldiers’ home videos, rape jokes on the radio, rape jokes on news broadcasts, rape jokes in magazines, rape jokes in viral videos, rape jokes in promotions for children’s movies, rape jokes on Page Six (and again!), rape jokes on the funny pages, rape jokes on TV shows, rape jokes on the campaign trail, rape jokes on Halloween, rape jokes in online content by famous people, rape jokes in online content by non-famous people, rape jokes in headlines, rape jokes onstage at clubs, rape jokes in politics, rape jokes in one-woman shows, rape jokes in print campaigns, rape jokes in movies, rape jokes in cartoons, rape jokes in nightclubs, rape jokes on MTV, rape jokes on late-night chat shows, rape jokes in tattoos, rape jokes in stand-up comedy, rape jokes on websites, rape jokes at awards shows, rape jokes in online contests, rape jokes in movie trailers, rape jokes on the sides of buses, rape jokes on cultural institutions…

Rape culture is people objecting to the detritus of the rape culture being called oversensitive, rather than people who perpetuate the rape culture being regarded as not sensitive enough.

Rape culture is the myriad ways in which rape is tacitly and overtly abetted and encouraged having saturated every corner of our culture so thoroughly that people can’t easily wrap their heads around what the rape culture actually is.

That’s hardly everything. It’s merely the tip of an unfathomable iceberg.

The 'Perfect' Porn Vulva: More Women Demanding Cosmetic Genital Surgery

At the risk of sounding like a militant feminist, I love my vagina. I love being a woman. I like the way it looks and wouldn't change anything about it. I've heard of genital mutilation women, but naievely thought this primariy happened in Asia and Africa. Well apparently the practice has moved to North American shores. The only difference, and a fact that makes it worse in my opinion, is that they are brainwashing women into consenting to such atrocities. Please see the article below.
ORIGINALLY POSTED HERE

The 'Perfect' Porn Vulva: More Women Demanding Cosmetic Genital Surgery

By Rebecca Chalker, AlterNet. Posted August 11, 2009.

Women are risking their lives to achieve an unrealistic and unnecessary ideal.

Type "labiaplasty," "vaginoplasty" or any of nearly a dozen female genital cosmetic surgeries into any search engine, and a flurry of doctors' Web sites will pop up touting the self-esteem, sexual enhancement, comfort and fashion benefits of female genital cosmetic surgery.

These sites, typically decorated with airbrushed pictures of lovely women in various states of undress or even nude, are replete with before-and-after photos of trimmed-down labia and gushing quotes from satisfied customers.

Many of these sites promise ecstasy, plus: "Laser vaginal reconstruction can accomplish what ever [sic] you desire."

Some patients seem happy with the results.

"When my husband and I had sex, well, it was like nothing I've ever experienced before," a 40-year-old woman reports, six weeks after a three-hour combination labiaplasty, vaginoplasty and clitoral unhooding, costing at low estimate of $15,000 (a high estimate: at least double that). "I had an orgasm probably within three minutes. … I feel like I've found what I had lost ... I feel like I'm 25 again!"

Her surgeon reports this case study as "Strengthening Our Love For Each Other."

Dig a little deeper though, and you find stories tinged with grief and regret about genital "enhancement" surgeries gone wrong.

"Had the surgery 1/07," one woman reports. "Can't say enough [about] how much I regret it. The problems I had it done for can't even compare to the pain and discomfort I'm having now. The surgeon, who has extensive experience, doesn't know why this is happening."

One of the newest wrinkles in the business of sex is the explosion of genital cosmetic surgery.

Not surprisingly, women constitute 90 percent of patients requesting these surgeries. Both physician and popular Internet sites prey on women's sexual insecurities by promoting appearance and alleged sexual benefits, but pay scant attention to the wide range of normal genital appearance, the variability of sexual response and possible harm.

The New View Campaign Working Group on Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery, a project that I participated in, identified unresearched claims made about female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) and analyzed how the rhetoric used by the body-modification and sexual-medicine industries has co-opted core feminist concepts of empowerment, self-determination and choice for profit.

Our review of medical, academic and popular literature, and a survey of physicians' promotional materials provides a disturbing picture.

There are nearly a dozen genital "remodeling" procedures.

The most popular by far is labiaplasty, the trimming of one or both sides of the inner lips or labia minora, or cutting out a V-shaped wedge. As a part of the clitoral system, the inner lips are sexually sensitive, so removal of this densely innervated tissue to get better sex seems, well, counterintuitive.

The next most popular surgery is vaginal tightening: vaginoplasty or vaginal rejuvenation, which involves removal of part of the vaginal lining and tightening tissue and muscles surrounding the vaginal opening.

The question about the development of scar tissue and disruption during future vaginal births is typically left unaddressed.

Reduction of the glans or tip of the clitoris (clitoropexy) for is done for purely aesthetic purposes. The only function of the glans is sexual sensation, so trimming can in no way enhance sexual pleasure. The protective clitoral hood (or "unhooding") is rarely requested, but is often offered (for additional cost) along with labiaplasty. The idea that reduction or removal may enhance clitoral sensation is pure mythology.

Hymen restoration or repair (hymenoplasty) is done to provide the illusion of virginity when the hymen has been broken through normal activities or intercourse. Some women are having hymenoplasty as a "Valentine's present" to their lovers.

Removal of a tough or "imperforate" hymen for functional reasons is variously called hymenotomy or hymenectomy.

The wildly controversial "G shot" is an injection of a quarter-sized dollop of human-engineered collagen through the vaginal wall into the urethral sponge, the spongy tissue surrounding the urethra.

Developed and franchised by Dr. David Matlock of Dr. 90210 fame, this procedure must be redone every few months. According to Matlock's Web site, and unpublished data, this injection results in "enhanced sexual arousal and sexual gratification for 87 percent of normal sexually functioning women."

Many women sing the praises of the shot: "After my G shot, I get sexually aroused performing yoga." But comedian Margaret Cho reported no sexual enhancement at all and says it felt like she was "sitting on a hemorrhoid donut."

Other procedures include pubic mound reduction, reducing or poofing up the outer lips or labia majora and "building up and strengthening" the perineal body.

Regarding the ecstatic reviews, psychologist Carol Tavris notes that "One of the most well-documented findings in sociology is called the 'justification of effort' effect: The more time, effort, money and pain that people invest in a procedure, program, surgery, or other activity, the more motivated they are to justify it.

"How easy would it be for you to find a Marine willing to say that cadet hazing and suffering were unnecessary and brutal?" Or "… to get George Bush to say 'Gee, I guess going to Iraq was a bad decision?' "

All women by far are not enthused. "Perhaps the only rejuvenation going on is the doctor's wallet," an anonymous contributor to the Wall Street Journal blog opined. On Women's Health News, Rachel Walden observed "… spending $3,500 to $20,000 cutting up your hoo-ha isn't going to fix what's wrong with you."

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists noted in 2007 that these "procedures are not medically indicated, and the safety and effectiveness … have not been documented. No adequate studies have been published assessing the long-term satisfaction, safety and complication rates," although the college dropped the ball by failing to institute regulations or sanctions.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons informally agrees with this policy, but does not have a formal policy of its own.

Women may believe that their doctors are proficient in these techniques, but ob-gyns, family-practice physicians and urologists are promoting and performing these lucrative surgeries with minimal training.

By Matlock's estimation, doctors in all 50 states, and around the world, operate as "franchisees" of his business. Although he has been asked repeatedly for documentation on safety and effectiveness, Matlock has refused to publish any outcome studies, citing his need to "protect his intellectual property."

The most reliable evidence of the possible negative after-effects of genital surgeries is reported in follow-up reports on children with intersex conditions. In many cases, labia reduction removes sexually sensitive tissue, may cause lifelong hypersensitivity or numbness, pain on intercourse, infection, adhesions and scarring.

Some doctors acknowledge the downside of these putative enhancement procedures.

"We have seen many unfortunate examples of terrible, scarred, uneven results of labiaplasty from other physicians who have attempted labia-reduction surgery with typically poor results, which are usually permanent," Dr. Robert Roh, a New York City gynecologist, reports on his Web site.

Dr. Red Alinsod, an Orange County, Calif., gynecologist, concurs: "The numbers of patients requiring labiaplasty revisions have dramatically increased over the past several years. It is not a common procedure but one that is steadily on the rise as more surgeons attempt to perform labiaplasty surgery without knowledge of the basic tenets of aesthetic vaginal surgery."

No guidelines for "normal" genital appearance exist. An article in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology by Jillilan Lloyd and colleagues notes that "Previous work has defined the labia minora as hypertrophic [enlarged or overgrown] … if the maximum distance from the base to edge was [greater than] 4 centimeters." After careful measurement of 50 volunteers ages 18 and 50, these authors report "wide variation in all parameters assessed," with the width of the labia minora varying from 7 to 50 centimeters in width.

Describing protuberant labia minora as "looking like a spaniel's ears," French surgeons reported a high patient satisfaction rate for 98 women who answered a post-operative mail questionnaire.

Although they defined labia minora hypertrophy to be greater than 4 centimeters, they concluded "… we believe that hypertrophy of the labia minora is definitely a mere variant of normal anatomy." The 7 percent dissatisfaction rate was caused by poor aesthetic or functional result, or unrealistic patient expectations. The authors concede that "… 40 percent of the patients did not respond to the questionnaire, or were lost to follow-up, thus giving a potentially lower satisfaction rate."

Normal female genitals are virtually invisible in the popular media, except through pornographic sources. Lloyd and her colleagues note, "With the conspicuous availability of pornography in everyday life, women and their sexual partners are increasingly exposed to idealized, highly selective images of the female genital anatomy."

In 2005, shock-jock Howard Stern went live on the E Channel and found that the frequent appearance of porn stars enhanced ratings. Houston, a popular porn star and strip club dancer, appeared on Stern's show and talked about reducing her labia to look better on film. Carlin Ross, of www.dodsonandross.com remembers how Stern milked the topic.

"He could see that the porn stars were good for ratings, and they would bring their labia trophies cast in clear resin like an award and auction them off on Ebay."

Surgeons have also noted the impetus behind this trend. "Some women just want to look 'prettier,' like the women they see in [pornographic] magazines or in films," one New York City ob-gyn says. Another doctor reports that his patients want their vulvas to look like "the playmates of Playboy."

Based at least partially on the porn model and on the invisibility of normal genitals in the media, on Web sites, in chat rooms and women's magazines they are establishing a narrow norm and aesthetic ideal.

These negative messages feed a long history of misogynist genital disgust, and misinformation creates an environment of dissatisfaction and a demand for female genital cosmetic surgeries that would fall within the definition of female genital mutilation articulated by the WHO, UNICEF, and UNFPA in 1997:

Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for nonmedical reasons. … In some forms of Type II … only the labia minor are cut.

Women's right to choice is a core feminist concept, but choice made in the vacuum of the deficient discourse on FGCS is little more than wishful thinking.

The entrepreneurial medical and media narratives do not provide a useful understanding about the appearance and function of the female genitals, hence, informed consent is impossible.

Sexual attraction, response and pleasure are complex interactions of psychological and physiological processes that change with age, partners and experience, and regardless of the perceived short-term benefits of genital surgeries, reconfiguring the genitals is unlikely to have significant impact on sexual fulfillment.

And it's not just grown women that are drawn to the procedure.

Hosting a chat room on the subject, the Web site scarleteen.com elicited this hyperemic query: "i dont think this is normal can i just cut my labia off." ... "hello whats the younest age you can have labiaplasty sugery?" [sic]

Click here for more information on female genital cosmetic surgery and on the New View Campaign's fall protest.

Rebecca Chalker is the author of The Clitoral Truth and teaches the "Cultural History of Sexuality" through her Web site.

Why Are People So Afraid of Bisexuals?

This is a REALLY great article! I can relate to a lot of what she says! And it's written well and funny in a warm and friendly way.
ORIGINALLY POSTED HERE

Why Are People So Afraid of Bisexuals?

By Adele M. Stan, AlterNet. Posted August 5, 2009

I don’t like the term bisexual; I prefer to think of myself as a person of no fixed sexual orientation. It better suits the amorphous world I inhabit.

“How do you identify?”

“Oh, I’m a PoNFSO.”

Okay; it’s a little unwieldy, and abbreviated, it hardly rolls off the tongue. So, neither fish nor fowl, I content myself with being the bacon in the LGBT sandwich.

I didn’t come of age as a free-spirited bisexual. I always knew it was what I was, at least from the point at which I knew what the term meant. As a child, I had crushes on both boys and girls. When my best friend in high school lost her virginity, I was beside myself. But how was I to tell her I was in love with her -- especially after I had spent the previous year utterly smitten with a boy?

I remember being very little, maybe four, watching the Ed Sullivan Show, mesmerized by the siren on the screen, Miss Peggy Lee. In my memory, she is wearing a satin evening gown and a feather boa. I’m laying on my belly, looking up at the television. I can still feel the scratchy texture of the fake-braided rug on my elbows as I propped up my head with my arms. I didn’t know whether I wanted to be Peggy Lee, or just wanted to touch her.

But I was equally magnetized by Frank Sinatra -- the brash insouciance, the jacket slung over the shoulder, the cock of the fedora. I didn’t know whether I wanted to touch Frank Sinatra, or be Frank Sinatra.

Splitting the difference

When I was 19 or so, I told my mother that I was bisexual. She did what a good Catholic mother should -- the functional equivalent of sticking her fingers in her ears and singling the la-la song. It was a non-response born of kindness, and she had reason to hope I was just going through a phase. I hadn’t had an encounter with a woman yet; that would have to wait another 23 years.

For most of my adult life, and across all sectors of my life, I had tried to split the difference between the acceptable and the unacceptable. I had wanted to be an actress and a musician, a career path not condoned by the world of the newly-minted middle class from which I sprang. So, I opted to be a writer, thinking this was somehow more respectable.

I was rarely drawn to lovers who fulfilled anybody’s dream of respectability. I liked hippies and artists and working-class men with big brains. I never really saw myself as marriage material, but when the man I was in love with asked me to marry him, I said yes. I didn’t want to lose him.

And somewhere, deep inside me, I Iiked the patina of respectability that came with having a husband. Never mind that I was a lefty writer and he was a hippie carpenter, or that we were penniless, apparently by choice. The operative terms were that I was a wife and he was my husband. I could pretend to be almost normal.

I treated my bisexuality in a similar way, as if my marriage rendered it moot. I figured that if I just didn’t go there, I wouldn’t have to go there. It might have even turned out that way, if my marriage hadn’t busted up.

(Here I’m afraid I must disappoint you, reader; my marriage did not fall apart because of some torrid affair with a woman, on either my or my husband’s part. No, it came apart for the usual reasons that marriages do: disputes over money, career goals and whether to have a child.)

A geographical cure was in order, I thought. I moved from the New York area to Washington, D.C. There, on my new job, I met a handsome young woman who happened to be a lesbian. She was brilliant, a writer, and had great taste in music. I no longer had a reason not to go there, so I went. The sex was as natural as any I'd ever had. I was 42.

Playing lesbian house

At last, my bisexuality was fulfilled. I was a full-fledged member of the LGBT community, right?

Well, a funny thing happened when I told my lover’s friends that I was bisexual. They looked at me askance. One took me aside to tell me that she didn’t have any patience for straight girls who were “playing lesbian house.”

Time went on, the affair ran its course. But even though I had become a presence in the LGBT community, whenever I identified myself as bi, it seemed I met with resistance. For many of my new friends, it seemed, calling yourself bisexual was just a reluctance to admitting being gay.

I began to believe them. After all, I had no idea who I was anymore. I was as close to being a broken person as you could be and still hold a job. Just about every shred of my former identity was gone. I was no longer a wife and no longer a journalist. (I had given up my career in an attempt to save my marriage.)

Until my affair with the woman I’ll call Willa, I had clung to my Catholic identity, even though I railed against the church in my writings. Now that I was practicing something that the pope called “intrinsically evil,” there didn’t seem to be much point in that. I had even abandoned the Great State of New Jersey, from which I, as a lifelong resident thereof, had derived much yahoo pride. And I was no longer a heterosexual -- not that I ever really was.

I was little more than a quivering exposed nerve, and a nerve knows not what it is, just that it feels things. I was almost grateful to let someone else define me.

So I became a lesbian for a year or two. I bought a fedora.

When I told two of my brothers, each separately, that I was gay, they both seemed skeptical, saying the same thing: “Don’t put a label on yourself.” I told myself they weren’t ready for the truth. When I told an old flame, he replied, “Addie, you’re not a lesbian. You’re a bisexual. Get over it.” It was the truest thing he ever said to me.

Slowly, it began to dawn on me that calling yourself bisexual was not some kind of a cop-out; it was, in fact, to claim an identity that no one really wanted. Then I fell into bed with an old friend -- a man -- and had a perfectly wonderful time. Want it or not, that identity was mine.

One from Column A, one from Column B

There’s not much percentage in being an “out” bisexual. Many gay men and lesbians question the legitimacy of that identity, and many straight people either feel profoundly threatened by it, or take too prurient an interest in it. The truth is, bisexuals, by the fact of our existence, screw with everybody’s perception of how sexuality works.

The LGBT community, some years ago, became dangerously invested in proving that gay men and lesbians are born gay and lesbian. That may or may not be true -- no one’s come up with definitive proof either for or against that proposition -- but the political imperative to prove the gay-at-birth theory is defensive, emanating from a conservative frame that implies if you’re not born that way, then what you’re doing with that other consulting adult in your life is wrong.

While it could be argued (and I’m sure someone has data they think proves this) that bisexuals are born that way, the ease with which we choose partners of one or another gender complicates the whole “born gay” narrative. I don’t know if I was born this way, and I really don’t care. It’s who I am; what more do you need?

Nobody seems to know how many of us there are, because nobody can quantify how many actual bisexual people live as heterosexuals, having sex with only members of the opposite sex. A 2005 survey by the Centers for Disease Control found that 1 percent of men and 3 percent of women 15–44 years of age had both male and female sexual partners in the 12 months before the survey was taken. But figures among younger people suggested that many people with more adaptable sexual orientations change their behavior as they age, perhaps in order to live more acceptably.

“Among females,” the CDC authors write, “5.8 percent of teens and 4.8 percent of females 20–24 years of age had had both male and female partners in the last 12 months; percentages were lower at ages 25–44. Among men, about 1 percent had had both male and female partners in the last 12 months at each age.”

Some 10 percent of women in the 18-44 age group, said they were attracted “mostly to males”. (A similar question put to men yielded a much smaller percentage: 3.9 percent said they were attracted “mostly” to females.)

These results seem to bear out the idea of the Kinsey scale, in which sexual orientation is seen as a mix of gender attractions in most people. Despite these findings, people tend to wear their sexual orientation like a suit of armor, and that leaves bisexuals largely outside society’s categorical systems.

Straight people, in my experience, tend to regard bisexuals as sexually insatiable wife- and/or husband-stealers, people who need at least one from Column A and one from Column B just to make through the day. However titillating a thought that might be, it just doesn’t work that way. To me, a person’s gender is just another attribute, like the color of his eyes, or the texture of her hair. Sometimes you fall in love, rendering monogamy the likely outcome -- just like regular folks.

Shape-shifters

Perhaps most disconcerting to both heterosexuals and members of the gay and lesbian communities is the way bisexuals float between worlds. We are society’s shape-shifters. Partnered with a member of the opposite sex, we appear straight. Partnering with a member of our own sex renders us gay, at least in the eyes of the world. We can choose the degree of freedom and oppression we choose to accept. Hence, we are not to be trusted.

I’ve known the perils of gay-bashing and taunting, as I kissed my girlfriend on the street or, in the former case, was just dressed a little too butch while walking through a gay neighborhood being cased by thugs. But I’ve also experienced the pleasure, pain and societal legitimacy of legal marriage. Neither choice was born of any falseness to my sexual orientation.

Nebulous by nature, bisexuals don’t really have much of an organized community of their very own -- at least not one that I’ve stumbled across or am particularly interested in finding. (Unlike transgender people, our survival simply doesn’t depend on knowing others who are just like us.) Consequently, we often partner with straight or gay people, rather than other bisexuals. This is not without its dilemmas.

For a couple of years, I dated a lesbian musician, until such time as we moved our relationship to the platonic plane. Not long afterward, a gorgeous, smart, funny man, also a musician, asked me out. The only problem was that a member of his band was close to the woman I call my ex-non-girlfriend, and he was unaware of our relationship. So what would ordinarily be a third-date conversation about my peculiar condition became an extremely awkward first-date conversation; I felt the need to give him the back story before he got it from somebody else. He really wanted to be above it all, but he just couldn’t get past it. “You think that’s natural?” he asked me. Two dates later, we were kaput.

Then there was the young man who recently wooed me. I was perplexed why he was pursuing me, some 15 years his senior, until his eyes lit up a bit too lustfully when we discussed my sexual orientation. (I’m a blogger in the LGBT community, and he had Googled me.) I’m not eager to be anybody’s fetish.

Queering the deal

I’m old enough to remember a time when there was no “B” or “T” listed in the titles of gay and lesbian organizations. There is some irony in the fact that bisexuals and transgender people occupy a similar place in the greater LGBT community, transgender people arguably being the most oppressed of the lot, and bisexuals arguably being the least (depending on who we‘re partnered with).

Although I don’t always feel entirely accepted in the LGBT community, I have been the recipient of great good will there. And so, I will always be “out”. Any man I may meet who can’t deal with that is just not my man.

When my life fell apart and I took up with Willa, it was the gay and lesbian community that saw me through. Eventually, I took my place in the LGBT arts community, and when I lost my health insurance, got my health care gratis at the Whitman-Walker Clinic in Washington, a wonderful organization born of the AIDS crisis. The LGBT community has supported my work as a writer, and I have experienced great generosity from my friends, who largely hail from the community.

Every now and then, I hear some bisexual person grousing that we are kept to the back of the LGBT bus. I just can’t work up the dudgeon; a lot of gay and lesbian people struggled and even died so that I might have the freedom to be true to myself. That’s why, in the end, I prefer to identify as “queer”; that puts us all in the same boat, our identifying characteristic being not who we sleep with or what mix of genitalia and gender identity we possess, but the simple fact that we are not the majority, and face obstacles because of it.

It took a long time, but I’ve learned to be grateful for my bisexuality. Because of it, I like to think I have a more nuanced understanding of gender and sex than do many others. After all, I have both a satin evening gown and a fedora, and I wear them equally well.

Adele M. Stan AlterNet's acting Washington bureau chief, and the author of Debating Sexual Correctness (Dell).

Stop the Humiliating 'Sex-Testing' of Champion Runner Caster Semenya

ORIGINALLY POSTED HERE

Stop the Humiliating 'Sex-Testing' of Champion Runner Caster Semenya

By Dave Zirin and Sherry Wolf, The Nation. Posted August 22, 2009.

South African runner Caster Semenya shouldn't be the one humiliated by "gender testing"-- it's the outdated views of athletic officials that are embarrassing.

World-class South African athlete Caster Semenya, age 18, won the 800 meters in the International Association of Athletics Federations World Championships on August 19. But her victory was all the more remarkable in that she was forced to run amid a controversy that reveals the twisted way international track and field views gender.

The sports world has been buzzing for some time over the rumor that Semenya may be a man, or more specifically, not "entirely female." According to the newspaper The Age, her "physique and powerful style have sparked speculation in recent months that she may not be entirely female." From all accounts an arduous process of "gender testing" on Semenya has already begun. The idea that an 18-year-old who has just experienced the greatest athletic victory of her life is being subjecting to this very public humiliation is shameful to say the least.

Her own coach Michael Seme contributed to the disgrace when he said, "We understand that people will ask questions because she looks like a man. It's a natural reaction and it's only human to be curious. People probably have the right to ask such questions if they are in doubt. But I can give you the telephone numbers of her roommates in Berlin. They have already seen her naked in the showers and she has nothing to hide."

The people with something to hide are the powers that be in track and field, as well as in international sport. As long as there have been womens' sports, the characterization of the best female athletes as "looking like men" or "mannish" has consistently been used to degrade them. When Martina Navratilova dominated women's tennis and proudly exposed her chiseled biceps years before Hollywood gave its imprimatur to gals with "guns," players complained that she "must have a chromosome loose somewhere."

This minefield of sexism and homophobia has long pushed female athletes into magazines like Maxim to prove their "hotness" -- and implicitly their heterosexuality. Track and field in particular has always had this preoccupation with gender, particularly when it crosses paths with racism. Fifty years ago, Olympic official Norman Cox proposed that in the case of black women, "the International Olympic Committee should create a special category of competition for them -- the unfairly advantaged 'hermaphrodites.'"

For years, women athletes had to parade naked in front of Olympic officials. This has now given way to more "sophisticated" "gender testing" to determine if athletes like Semenya have what officials still perceive as the ultimate advantage -- being a man. Let's leave aside that being male is not the be-all, end-all of athletic success. A country's wealth, coaching facilities, nutrition and opportunity determine the creation of a world-class athlete far more than a Y chromosome or a penis ever could.

What these officials still don't understand, or will not confront, is that gender -- that is, how we comport and conceive of ourselves -- is a remarkably fluid social construction. Even our physical sex is far more ambiguous and fluid than is often imagined or taught. Medical science has long acknowledged the existence of millions of people whose bodies combine anatomical features that are conventionally associated with either men or women and/or have chromosomal variations from the XX or XY of women or men. Many of these "intersex" individuals, estimated at one birth in every 1,666 in the United States alone, are legally operated on by surgeons who force traditional norms of genitalia on newborn infants. In what some doctors consider a psychosocial emergency, thousands of healthy babies are effectively subject to clitorectomies if a clitoris is "too large" or castrations if a penis is "too small" (evidently penises are never considered "too big").

The physical reality of intersex people calls into question the fixed notions we are taught to accept about men and women in general, and men and women athletes in sex-segregated sports like track and field in particular. The heretical bodies of intersex people challenge the traditional understanding of gender as a strict male/female phenomenon. While we are never encouraged to conceive of bodies this way, male and female bodies are more similar than they are distinguishable from each other. When training and nutrition are equal, it is increasingly difficult to tell the difference between some of the best-trained male and female Olympic swimmers wearing state-of-the-art one-piece speed suits. Title IX, the 1972 law imposing equal funding for girls' and boys' sports in schools, has radically altered not only women's fitness and emotional well-being, but their bodies as well. Obviously, there are some physical differences between men and women, but it is largely our culture and not biology that gives them their meaning.

In 1986 Spanish hurdler Maria José Martínez-Patiño was stripped of her first-place winnings when discovered to have an XY chromosome, instead of the female's XX, which shattered her athletic career and upended her personal life. "I lost friends, my fiancé, hope and energy," said Martínez-Patiño in a 2005 editorial in the journal The Lancet.

Whatever track and field tells us Caster Semenya's gender is -- and as of this writing there is zero evidence she is intersex -- it's time we all break free from the notion that you are either "one or the other." It's antiquated, stigmatizing and says far more about those doing the testing than about the athletes tested. The only thing suspicious is the gender and sex bias in professional sports. We should continue to debate the pros and cons of gender segregation in sport. But right here, right now, we must end sex testing and acknowledge the fluidity of gender and sex in sports and beyond.

Dave Zirin is The Nation's sports editor. He is the author of Welcome to the Terrordome: the Pain Politics and Promise of Sports (Haymarket) and A People's History of Sports in the United States (The New Press). Sherry Wolf is an independent journalist the author of the new critically praised book Sexuality and Socialism (Haymarket Books). She is currently organizing for the LGBT National Equality March for full civil rights in October.

Vampires, Werewolves, and "Scary" Female Sexuality: the Sexist World of Twilight

MORE Twilight fun! Original article found at www.alternet.org, HERE


Vampires, Werewolves, and "Scary" Female Sexuality: the Sexist World of Twilight

By Carmen D. Siering, Ms. Magazine. Posted May 19, 2009.

Adults have an obligation to start a conversation concerning the darker themes and anti-feminist rhetoric in the extremely popular Twilight series.

In Stephenie Meyer's Twilight saga, a wildly popular four-book series of young adult novels, the protagonist Bella Swan -- by all accounts a very average human girl -- has two suitors. One is the unimaginably beautiful vampire, Edward, the other a loyal and devoted werewolf, Jacob. Fans of the books, and now a movie version, often break into "teams," aligning themselves with the swain they hope Bella will choose in the end: Team Edward or Team Jacob.

But few young readers ask, "Why not Team Bella?" perhaps because the answer is quite clear: There can be no Team Bella. Even though Bella is ostensibly a hero, in truth she is merely an object in the Twilight world.

On the surface, the Twilight saga seems to have something to please everyone. Moms are reading the books and swooning over Edward right alongside their teen and tween daughters. Librarians and teachers are delighted to see students with their heads tucked into books, and since Twilight's romantic sensuality is wrapped up in an abstinence message, all the kissing and groping appear to be harmless.

But while Twilight is ostensibly a love story, scratch the surface and you will find an allegorical tale about the dangers of unregulated female sexuality. From the very first kiss between Edward and Bella, she is fighting to control her awakening sexuality. Edward must restrain her, sometimes physically, to keep her from ravishing him, and he frequently chastises her when she becomes, in his opinion, too passionate. There are those who might applaud the depiction of a young man showing such self-restraint, but shouldn't the decision about when a couple is ready to move forward sexually be one they make together?

Bella is also depicted as being in need of someone to take charge, someone to take care of her. Edward isn't just protective, though, but often overprotective of Bella. Edward is jealous of Bella's relationships with other boys, going so far as to disable her car to keep her at home. He is condescending, assuming that he knows what is best for her in every situation.

Maybe it's difficult for Edward to see Bella as an equal because Bella has almost no personality. Meyer writes on her website that she "left out a detailed description of Bella in the book so that the reader could more easily step into her shoes." But Meyer fails to give Bella much of an interior life as well; Bella is a blank slate, with few thoughts or actions that don't center on Edward. If Meyer hopes that readers see themselves as Bella, what is it she is suggesting to them about the significance of their own lives?

Meyer also insists that she sees Bella as a feminist character, since the foundation of feminism is being able to choose. What Meyer fails to acknowledge is that all of the choices Bella makes are Meyer's choices -- choices based on her own patriarchal Mormon background.

In Breaking Dawn, the latest book in the series, Meyer finally allows Bella's subordination to end as she takes her proper place: in the patriarchal structure. When Bella becomes a wife and mother, Meyer allows her to receive her heart's desire -- to live forever by Edward's side, to be preternaturally beautiful and graceful, to be strong and be able to defend herself.

The Twilight saga has become something of a bonding phenomenon among mothers and daughters. But reading the books together and mutually swooning over Edward isn't enough. As influential adults, mothers (and, by extension, teachers and librarians) have an obligation to start a conversation concerning the darker themes and anti-feminist rhetoric in these tales. There is plenty to work with, from the dangers of losing yourself in an obsessive relationship to the realities of owning one's sexuality.

Director Catherine Hardwicke's film version of Twilight remains true to the novel, but there are subtle changes that make it much more feminist-friendly. Kristin Stewart's Bella is more outspoken and forthright, and Robert Pattinson's Edward is much less condescending and overbearing. Their relationship seems to be built on equality and friendship, and includes scenes of mutual sexual frustration and restraint. Here is a Bella we can root for, a Bella who stands just a little bit more on her own and is a part of the action. It will be interesting to see if the next film in the Twilight series, to be directed by a man this time, Chris Weitz, will take a similar path. Or, once again, will Bella be left without a team of her own?

For the full version of this article, pick up a copy of the Spring 2009 issue of Ms. on newsstands, or have a copy sent to your door by joining the Ms. community at www.msmagazine.com.

Egypt's "Spinsters" Fight Against Stereotypes and Discrimination

Original article posted on www.alternet.org, HERE

Egypt's "Spinsters" Fight Against Stereotypes and Discrimination

By Manar Ammar and Joseph Mayton, Women News Network. Posted May 6, 2009.

Egyptian activists are speaking out against the "spinster" concept and calling for a re-examination of how the country views women.

Cairo, Egypt – It is a challenge to be unmarried in Egypt and even more so if the woman is "growing old" according to Egyptian customs. This means any unmarried woman past her mid-twenties is seen negatively through society's lens, leaving many questions to be answered. However, a group of Egyptian female activists are speaking out against the "A'anis," or spinster, concept, calling for a re-examination of how the country views women.

Youmna Mokhtar is a young Egyptian journalist who became fed up with the use of this word in everyday life. So she founded the social group called "Spinsters for change" that aims to educate people on the use of "A'anis."

In Arabic, "A'anis" has at least three meanings – none of which have a relationship to its understood social meaning. The first is: a dull tree branch, the second is: one who looks at the mirror more often and the third is: a strong female camel. In Egypt and across the region, socially, it refers to a woman who has reached a certain age and is still unmarried.

"I started the group to initiate a dialog between women to discuss how we can change that social look," said Youmna. The group is outspoken against the social labeling and ill treatment of unmarried women. Although the word is commonplace in colloquial Egyptian Arabic, it remains a derogatory word.

Women feel the negative attachments to the word, which they argue attracts rumors, suspicion and pitying looks, as if asking; "what's wrong with her if?" (if she hasn't yet married). But, with the average marriage age continuing to rise, Mokhtar believes it is time to evaluate how language plays a role in societal perceptions.

"Although the group is called "A'anis for change," I am against the label, yet we used it to name the group [because] it is the term people use," Mokhtar explained. "First, we thought of calling it "girls for change," but it was not going to deliver the same meaning," she added with a chuckle.

"There are more important things than the name, it is the pattern of behaviors that comes with it," Mokhtar continued. The openness of the group is attracting more than just unmarried Egyptian women. Married couples and bachelors are also joining in as they explore the concepts of marriage and the intense pressure to marry cast today on a majority of Egyptian youth.

"First, in the family a lot of pressure is put on the girl to get married. Then the pressure turns into insults and condescension and they ask her why are you being snobby for refusing these men. And if that doesn't work, they use the fear factor, saying 'so what are you going to do? We are not going to live forever.' And then comes friends. All of her friends got married and she didn't, so in their eyes, she becomes the one who is going to envy them for getting married and she could even find herself not invited to one of her friends' weddings."

"A deeply rooted belief exists in the Egyptian culture that early marriage is better for girls," said a 2006 USAID report, "Preventing Child Marriage: Protecting Girls' Health."

"Pressure on women to get married often begins immediately following university. Some women have the luxury of waiting one or two years before the nagging begins. By the time a woman reaches 30-years-old, parents stop trying to force their daughters to get married, Mokhtar admitted. However, not because they don't want to see their children wed.

"They would justify it using the idea that it becomes unsafe for women to get pregnant after 35," Mokhtar said.

"Women who seek divorce in Egypt have two options, fault-based or no-fault divorce (khula)," said Cairo public prosecutor, Hassan Osman, during a 2004 interview on marriage law and legislation with Human Rights Watch. "Unlike men, women can only divorce by court action (tatliq). Regardless of which system they choose, a number of government officials are involved in the process, including judges, attorneys for both parties, and arbitrators involved in compulsory mediation between the couple. Public prosecutors are also often present in divorce cases, exercising considerable influence on these proceedings and the outcome of the case."

"What happens to women who refuse to marry in the first place?

"Many women in Egypt are married without their consent, often before they become adults," outlined Human Rights Watch. Women who do not marry, though, are often looked upon negatively as complete outsiders.

Although marriage in modern Egypt is seen as an equal contract between husband and wife, in practice it's not that easy. Many women on the edge of marriage are hesitant to ask for equal rights in the contract itself because of fear their suitor may decide to "back out" of the arrangement.

A female friend of Mokhtar, who is over 30, has turned down a number of possible suitors, which has left a mark on her village. A number of men have even taken the step to come to the friend's house, pretending to ask for her hand in marriage in order to glimpse the woman who refuses marriage past 30. Mokhtar believes this is part of the issue surrounding Egyptian society's continued wrongdoing against women.

"It shows how our society looks at women as wives and baby makers. She is born to get married and give birth no matter what kind of marriage she is in. Happily married or not, the point is to [get] married," Youmna added. The concept of a wife as "property" in marriage spans centuries in Egypt, but ancient history may point to a different story.

According to the Annenberg Foundation project, Bridging World History, the concept of marriage as a "family" identifier for parents and children in ancient times should be questioned.

"It is highly debatable whether there was a concept of [Egyptian] ‘marriage'; the sole significant family-establishing act appears to have been cohabitation for reproduction. The concept of fertility was important to social and political orders that evolved along the Nile… Like many other societies, ancient Egyptian society was patriarchal: men and their male heir controlled the majority of relationships. In the realm of the household, elite Egyptian women controlled property, business, ritual, and family matters. This is not always obvious from the surviving records," said the project.

Dr. Abdel-Halim Nureddin, professor of ancient language at the Faculty of Archeology at Cairo University, agrees that women in Ancient Egypt had numerous rights. "Ancient Egyptian traditions and laws gave much attention to women's rights in marriage, divorce, inheritance, as well as in cases of selling and buying," said Dr. Nureddin in a recent lecture.

In spite of a more liberal trend in ancient history, a majority of people view Egyptian marriage and divorce today with the belief that women are discriminated against in modern Cairo.

In Egypt an overwhelming majority (80%) thinks that divorced women are mistreated (a great deal, 38%; some, 42%), though interestingly a substantially lower number (48%) perceive this level of discrimination of widows," says WorldPublicOpinion.org, a respected global consortium of research centers from 25 nations (23 June, 2008).

Statistics prove, a greater percentage of citizens in Egypt today see marriage and women's rights under a very tight lens of societal rules and regulations. Others, like journalist, Youmna Mokhtar, see the limits of "acceptable" roles in Egypt placed constantly, and without merit, on the shoulders of women as the "barriers" to a better society.

As Mokhtar describes her recent group discussions, "Later many men joined [my] group and presented superficial cliché comments in which they blamed women for being unmarried. One man said that "girls are too romantic and they want to marry a knight or someone who looks like a movie star."

The idea goes further than simply marriage. The group addresses the discrimination against divorcees as well as unmarried women. It attempts to show the error in society's obsession with social patterns.

"People treat unmarried woman with pity all the time, praying for then to get a good man and a good home, very similar to the way they treat the disabled: with prayers and pitiful eyes," said Asma Abdel Khalek, a 30-year-old single Egyptian woman.

"In reality, women are viewed as dependents whose primary duty is to the home and the family," said a May 2008 EUROMED study on cultural perceptions of women's productive and reproductive roles in Egypt.

Youmna Mokhtar revealed that a number of people, women and men, are increasingly excited about the idea of Spinsters for Change, which has them thinking of targeting a larger audience outside the Internet. The group is planning meetings to share their experiences and hold lectures to discuss the merits of marriage in order to re-examine why people "get married in the first place."

"The label [of a'anis] shames those who fall under it no matter if it was her decision not get married or it just happened. Either way, why shame her?" explained Mokhtar, on woman's right to choose marriage.

"Another important message we try to deliver to society is please leave the a'anis alone. Let her be and don't pity her," added Fairouz Omar, an Egyptian educational and social advisor for the group.

Joseph Mayton is a Cairo-based journalist whose work regularly appears in the Middle East Times, World Politics Review and other region-focused publications.

Second and Third Wave Feminists Clash Over the Future

It hurts my heart to think that we are fighting amongst ourselves when our struggle is nowhere near over!! Please read the full article HERE

Second and Third Wave Feminists Clash Over the Future

Run Date: 05/26/02

By Jennifer Friedlin WEnews correspondent

A growing conflict between two generations of feminists comes to light at a recent Veteran Feminists of America conference. Do women in their 20s appreciate what was done 30 years ago? Do women in their 50s understand what women young now still cope with?

Photo courtesy of Liz Budniz. NEW YORK (WOMENSENEWS)--Feminists have never been known for their uniformity of opinions, so it should come as no surprise that the transition from the second to the third wave of feminists has left a clear rift between the generations. Feminist revolutionaries from the 1960s and 1970s gathered at a recent conference at Barnard College in New York to share their thoughts on the effects their words and actions have had on the history of the United States. Although the conference, sponsored by the Veteran Feminists of America, was designed as a celebration of feminist non-fiction and fiction literature and not as a forum to discuss the problems with the women's movement today, the theme of "us versus them" emerged time and again. The first wave refers the movement to obtain the right to vote which lasted 72 years. The women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s is generally referred to as the second wave. The more recent efforts led by women in their 20s and 30s is generally called the third wave. Comparing the collectivist drive that defined the feminist movement during the second wave to the more individualist attitude prevailing among women today, several panelists said they were concerned about the future of the movement. "If there should be an economic downturn or right-wing forces try to twist things to say women should go home again, I hope that women would have the consciousness to resist," novelist Marilyn French told the approximately 100 members of the predominantly graying audience on April 26. French's doubts about younger women's collective consciousness were echoed by a number of other members of the panel, which featured Susan Brownmiller, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Erica Jong, Phyllis Chesler, Barbara Seaman, Betty Friedan, Judith Rossner, Catharine Stimpson, Marlene Sanders, Alix Kates Shulman and Mary Gordon. (Sanders is a Women's Enews board member.) 1970s Were 'Earthshaking' Several of the second wave women spoke of the transition from a movement based on the "we" to today's sea of disparate "I's," fighting for their individual gains without a thought about the past, present or future of the feminist cause. Reveling in the glory of the second wave, speakers such as Brownmiller bemoaned the current climate in which feminism has become a dirty word and collectivist action is considered passe. "However active people are today, whatever we had in the 1970s was earthshaking," Brownmiller said. Somewhere along the road, however, the earthshaking force that helped revolutionize America and elevate women's status dissipated as the political and social climate turned reactionary. Unforeseen and somewhat disappointing consequences resulted. "I don't hear strong, clear feminist voices today," Brownmiller said. "I don't see women coming up with new theories." In addition to the emergence of a more "me-oriented" culture, the emphasis on "family values" and the media's growing interest in stories about careerist women who regret not having had children have relegated feminism to the backburner, the panelists said. Meanwhile, as they ride on the coattails of the successes of the feminist movement, young women no longer feel a sense of urgency to mobilize. Older Feminists Dismayed by Young's Sense of Entitlement A number of panelists expressed their dismay with the prevailing sense of entitlement common among women while unresolved feminist causes, such as child care and economic disparity, abound. "We were action-oriented in a public, political context. We had to challenge laws, change patterns, alter behavior," Pogrebin said. "Being able to bare your midriff . . . is fine as an expression, but it doesn't mean things are going to change." Other speakers focused on the positive side of the equation. "Because of our books, we changed society. Without 'Fear of Flying,'" said Erica Jong, author of the revolutionary book, "there would be no 'Sex in the City.' My daughter wouldn't feel empowered." "We have produced a generation of uppity women who feel entitled," Jong added.

CONTINUED

"Gray Rape" : A New Form of Date Rape

Please read the full article HERE


October 15, 2007, 4:00 pm

‘Gray Rape’: A New Form of Date Rape?

By Sewell Chan

When Robert D. Laurino, chief assistant prosecutor for Essex County in New Jersey, told a friend that he was speaking on a panel about the topic of “gray rape,” the friend was confused. “Are you talking about the rape of the elderly?” the friend asked.

An article in the September issue of Cosmopolitan magazine, “A New Kind of Date Rape,” defined “gray rape” as “sex that falls somewhere between consent and denial and is even more confusing than date rape because often both parties are unsure of who wanted what.”

A standing-room-only audience packed the lobby of the Gerald W. Lynch Theater at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice this morning to listen to a vigorous panel discussion on the idea of “gray rape” — and whether the term is even meaningful, helpful or harmful. Not too many events in the intellectual life of New York City bring together Jeremy Travis, the legal expert and former city police official who is the president of John Jay, and Kate White, editor in chief of Cosmopolitan, which sponsored the event.

The panel had four women and three men and was moderated by Ashleigh Banfield, the Court TV anchor. Ms. White promised a “very scintillating discussion.”

Laura Sessions Stepp, a Washington Post journalist, wrote the September article on “gray rape.” It has stirred considerable discussion on blogs and discussion boards. (Ms. Stepp’s latest book, “Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love and Lose at Both,” about how smart, ambitious young women do emotional damage to themselves by getting physical with men they are not dating or may have met for the first time, also raised some controversy.)

In this morning’s discussion, Ms. Stepp said she did not embark on the story believing that there was such a thing as “gray rape.” She said, “For me, rape is rape. I really didn’t know what that term meant.”

But in the course of her reporting, Ms. Stepp said, she came across descriptions of “sexual encounters where usually both parties were very drunk and really didn’t know what they had said to each other the next morning.” In such cases, consent is uncertain. Such cases are more likely to emerge today, Ms. Stepp argued in the article, in an era when sexual boundaries and rules for women have loosened and when it has become socially acceptable for women to pursue casual sex.

“Girls go after guys just as often as guys go after girls these days,” Ms. Stepp said at the panel. In her article, she wrote, “The odd thing about the current equal-opportunity hookup culture is that a lot of guys may feel as uncomfortable and confused as their dates do when things end up in bed.”

Ms. Stepp’s article and her comments generated a wide range of reactions from the other panelists. Some panelists, in particular, were concerned that the concept of “gray rape” could be used to exonerate men from their culpability in violent sexual crimes.

“Rape is still rape,” said Neil Irvin, director of community education at Men Can Stop Rape, saying it almost “seems cliché” at this point to have to remind people that no means no.

Ms. Banfield pressed the issue. “Is it possible that you could acquiesce at the beginning of the evening and by the time you’re too drunk to be heard or understood, it would be unfair for men to try to decipher when the no ends up actually arriving?” she asked.

Joseph Samalin, who as a student at State University of New York at New Paltz and at Columbia University was active in groups that oppose women’s violence, did not buy that premise. “There were a lot of things in the article that concerned and frustrated me,” he said. He said that intentionally or not, the article might have the effect of suggesting that “you can be a woman in charge of your own sexuality … but not too much because these are the consequences that will happen to you.”

Mr. Samalin added: “We still need to hold a lot more men accountable for their actions, their behaviors and the violence they commit. I’d rather be at a panel here on that.”

Ms. Banfield maintained that gray areas remained one of the most fraught areas in discussions of sexual violence, especially on college campuses. She cited the case of Adam Lack, a Brown University student who in 1996 was accused by a fellow student of sexual misconduct. The accuser said she could not remember the events of the evening but said she was too intoxicated to be able to consciously consent to sex. Mr. Lack maintained that the student had initiated the sexual encounter and that he was not aware she was drunk. No criminal charges were brought, but Mr. Lack was subjected to academic discipline.

Chitra Raghavan, a John Jay psychologist who conducts research on intimate-partner violence and rape, said she did not accept the article’s argument that it has become socially acceptable for women to pursue casual sex.

“I would respectfully disagree that women have been sexually empowered to hook up,” Dr. Raghavan said. “What’s happened is that women are not legislated anymore. There’s a huge difference for it to be legal for women to pursue sex and for it to be socially acceptable for women to pursue sex.”

Many studies have shown that rapes often do not involve physical violence or coercion, because the mere threat or potential for physical harm is enough to make victims submit, she said. Dr. Raghavan also said that studies have shown that women’s sexual interactions do not change appreciably if they have been drinking and that serial rapists maintain (inaccurately, of course) that their victims did not resist and in fact wanted to be raped. She said that the discussion of alcohol “is endemic of how we blame women,” saying that such blame could lead to a viewpoint like: “Women hook up, get drunk and then say they don’t want sex. Tell them to cross their legs and put on a chastity belt!”

Twilight Madness, PART THREE...DEAR GODS! THERE'S MORE!!

*laughing hysterically*

SO...I bought myself my first ever issue of BITCH Magazine. I read it almost cover to cover in about two hours. It was amazing and wonderful and kit expanded my mind as well as my feminist sensibilities. I recommend it to all my friends! Anyways...back on topic...TWILIGHT! There's ACTUALLY a three page, well written article on this disgrace of a book and movie(after reading this review, yes I WILL be politically incorrect and say it's HORRIBLE...I don't have to see it to know!), and about how damaging and scary this story really is. Especially once you get to the fourth book or the little known "alternate" version of Twilight that S. Meyer is writing. Just think, Twilight told from the point of view of Edward, with his describing his fantasies about HOW he would kill her! CREEPY!! Or how when Edward and Bella FINALLY have sex, after 3 WAY too long books chock full of what is being called "abstinence porn"(my new favourite word!), Edward essentially rapes her and she's HAPPY and TURNED ON by this! Now, there's nothing wrong with a good spanking here and there things that I won't mention here(*blush*), but it should be between consenting adults! NOT A NAIVE AND MANIPULATED 19 YEAR OLD AND HER "OLDER" LOVER!! There's talk of Bella covered in bruises form their "love making" that she tries to hide "so he wont feel bad".
WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE??? Pardon my foul language but that's just INSANITY!!
AH! MUST STAY ON TOPIC!
SO to get to my point! PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE HERE! Or buy the wonderful magazine!! Enjoy!

Bite Me! (Or Don't)

Stephenie Meyer’s vampire-infested Twilight series has created a new YA genre: abstinence porn

Article by Christine Seifert, published in 2008; filed under Books; tagged abstinence, fan fiction, objectification, porn, sex, Stephenie Meyer, Twilight, vampires, YA fiction.

Abstinence has never been sexier than it is in Stephenie Meyer’s young adult four-book Twilight series. Fans are super hot for Edward, a century-old vampire in a 17-year-old body, who sweeps teenaged Bella, your average human girl, off her feet in a thrilling love story that spans more than 2,000 pages. Fans are enthralled by their tale, which begins when Edward becomes intoxicated by Bella’s sweet-smelling blood. By the middle of the first book, Edward and Bella are deeply in love and working hard to keep their pants on, a story line that has captured the attention of a devoted group of fans who obsess over the relationship and delight in Edward’s superhuman strength to just say no.

The Twilight series has created a surprising new sub-genre of teen romance: It’s abstinence porn, sensational, erotic, and titillating. And in light of all the recent real-world attention on abstinence-only education, it’s surprising how successful this new genre is. Twilight actually convinces us that self-denial is hot. Fan reaction suggests that in the beginning, Edward and Bella’s chaste but sexually charged relationship was steamy precisely because it was unconsummated—kind of like Cheers, but with fangs. Despite all the hot “virtue,” however, we feminist readers have to ask ourselves if abstinence porn is as uplifting as some of its proponents seem to believe.