Disclaimer

By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

The brutal rape of poor, innocent Mr. Creosote

Feminist claims which conflate seduction, persuasion, verbal pressure, and rape remind me of the Monty Python's The Meaning of Life sketch "Mr. Creosote." (for those who haven't seen it, here's a link. Warning: not for the easily grossed out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhbHTjMLN5c)
   
In the sketch, Mr. Creosote is obviously not in any condition to continue eating. It starts out with him vomiting all over the restaurant and some of the staff. It's so dramatic that it affects all of the other patrons in the restaurant - there's not a person there who is unaware of his condition. Still, he is served, and parts of the sketch indicate that he has gorged himself after all of that vomiting. He establishes that he does not want any more food. Repeatedly refuses, in fact, when the waiter offers him a complimentary mint. The waiter keeps asking, offering reasons why Mr. Creosote should accept and eat the mint. "But sir, it's only wafer thin!" and "Just - just one." Eventually, Mr. Creosote relents, and accepts the mint. The sketch communicates the waiter's knowledge of what this will do to Mr. Creosote in its portrayal; the waiter runs and ducks for cover behind some of the restaurant's decorations, just before Mr. Creosote explodes.

There are two ways of looking at this sketch, and both relate to the discussion on the persuasion/pressure aspect of feminists claims about date rape.

Even when Mr. Creosote knows he's too full to continue eating, it takes only a few seconds' persuasive speech and exposure to the sight and smell of the mint to for him to decide to ignore his condition, and eat it. Doing so is a decision he makes. Though it is in response to a persuasive effort, it's still his decision. The entire time, he has the power to refuse. In light of this, the consequence (his explosion) is a consequence of his own decision-making, not something inflicted on him by the nefarious, scheming waiter... though the waiter did nefariously scheme to persuade Mr. Creosote to blow himself up. Mr. Creosote is not a victim.   
    
Feminists would call Mr. Creosote a victim.

If one were to replace the restaurant scene with a date setting, the overeating with attention-seeking, and the mint with a sex act, they'd say Mr. Creosote was raped. Replace the explosion with any negative experience related to consensual sex (getting caught cheating on a partner, being judged for the behavior, getting pregnant, getting an STD, or simply regretting sharing oneself too lightly for one's own moral outlook) and you have a trigger for shifting blame from the person who decided to relent and participate in a sex act to the person who sought the decision-maker's sexual consent, even though the decision maker still had the power to walk away from the situation.

Instead of articulating the idea that women should be empowered to set personal boundaries and decide for ourselves whether to enforce them (up to and including the decision break off contact altogether if those boundaries aren't respected) or change our minds about them based on a guy's assertions, feminists treat women as powerless objects whose behavior is shaped only by external pressure.

This is one of the most misogynistic aspects of feminism; the imposition of artificial helplessness upon otherwise capable human beings, to the point where women are represented as having no free will of our own. This representation of women is used to paint any male effort at seducing a woman as attempted rape, and any success in that arena as completed rape. Women are portrayed as incapable of resisting persuasive speech, of rejecting continued requests, and of responding to actual pressure with outrage and abandonment of the date. Instead of encouraging women to feel empowered to stand our ground and control our actions, feminists use scare tactics to instill female reluctance to assert one's autonomy, falsely inferring danger upon the mere act of saying no. You can't be expected to do that, say feminists. It's too hard, and leads to such terrible circumstances - if you reject a man's advances, he might reject you right back!   
   
In this way, feminists do more to promote "date rape" than to combat date rape. This particular aspect of their ideology trains their female followers to ignore the range of choices available to them and then treat the choice they make as having been imposed, instead of their own, leaving them feeling victimized by the men with whom they've chosen to interact, when instead they've allowed ideology to limit the strength and independence with which they approach that interaction.

What if the U.S. Government spent nearly a million bucks to promote and study porn?

What if said funding, provided to an endeavor called the Everyday Erotica Project, were to cover the following:   
  • a feature-length documentary, Between the sheets, for international television broadcast, focusing on the global community of erotic visual media viewers, writers, directors, actors, and crew
  • an interactive, content-rich website allowing the website’s users to see erotic visual media in a broad context across time and place
  • an academic symposium on the past and future of erotic visual media hosted by the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress
  • a nationwide series of theater programs dealing with the past, present, and future of erotic visual media, plus a traveling exhibit, organized by the Adult Film Association of America
What if the project description glorified erotic visual media and the businesses surrounding its consumption?

What if the project description laid out a plan to "bring together disparate groups of scholars, writers, viewers, editors, erotic visual media fans, and the general public, to launch an entertaining, substantive, lively discussion about how everyday erotica is created, who consumes it, and how it helps shape private lives and public cultures?" Wouldn't that sound a bit like a federally funded pornography creation and promotion, and industry networking, all thinly disguised as academic study?

Do you think there might be a bit of public outcry regarding that spending?

Would people not question the point of federal involvement in the porn industry?

Would the argument not be made that there's not sufficient benefit to the U.S. population to justify federal funding for such an endeavor?

Would feminists not loudly question why women's hard-earned tax dollars should go toward paying for what amounts to glorification of and support for sexual entertainment for men?

Of course they would.

There would be hell to pay, and probably a lot of shaming thrown in for good measure. How dare the patriarchal overlords fund such a one-sided project? How dare they throw women's money at behaviors to which many women strongly object?

And for at least some reasons, they'd be right. Such funding which would not be in the interest of the general population. Federal money shouldn't be spent on something so unnecessary - so frivolous - not because a portion of the population finds it abhorrent, but because it's not a national need. It's entertainment, and private commerce. If such a project were conceived, it would and should be up to the industry to fund it. 
   
So what if we replace "porn" with "romance novels?"

Then you have a real, government funded program. The Popular Romance Project is Wastebook 2013's 3rd item, with spending listed at $914,000. Other funding for the project was provided by Mass Humanities, Romance writers of America, Tavris Fund at Brandeis University/Women’s Studies Research Center
and donors to a kickstarter campaign. 

Take everything I've written above about the Everyday Erotica project, substitute reference to romance and romance novels for every place where I mentioned erotic visual media, and you have the gist of it. According to its website, the Popular Romance Project "will explore the fascinating, often contradictory origins and influences of popular romance as told in novels, films, comics, advice books, songs, and internet fan fiction, taking a global perspective—while looking back across time as far as the ancient Greeks." The feature-length documentary will be called "Love Between the Covers." The academic symposium will be hosted by the Library of Congress Center for the Book. A nationwide series of library  programs will be organized by the American Library Association.

This is no less wasteful or sexist than it would be for the government to fund a project to promote and study porn, and politicians in the U.S. would know better than to even try. In fact, according to former Library of Congress curator Ralph Whittington, the Library collects nearly everything (including phone books) but not porn. Yet the National Endowment for the Humanities had no problem throwing nearly a million dollars at a project centered around material which is nothing but sexual entertainment for women.

Of course, there are those who will cry, "But this is different! This is sophisticated. Porn encourages the objectification of women! Romance novels don't do that!" 
 
Of course, they do.

Every complaint feminists make about pornographic portrayals of women can be made about portrayals of men in romance novels written with women as the target audience; they promote in women unrealistic standards of male aesthetics, unrealistic expectations, and an unrealistic and exploitative attitude toward men. If one argues that these portrayals have little or no effect on the female reader's relationship with men, then one has no business making claims related to portrayals of women in pornography.

The difference isn't in the effects or validity of the material. It's a gaping double standard within society's attitude toward the aspect of the target audience which makes these media entertaining to them: their sexuality. Male sexuality is treated as aggressive and controlling, and women in heterosexual interactions are generally seen as being acted upon by the men they're with, rather than as participants in a mutual experience. Therefore, sexually suggestive or explicit entertainment for men must be treated as dirty, shameful, and exploitative, and hidden away from public view. On the other hand, female sexuality is treated as valuable and important. Important enough that even a woman's most mundane effort at heterosexual interaction is treated as a favor or prize offered to the man involved. Important enough for the National Endowment for the Humanities to tuck nearly a million taxpayer dollars between the collective straight female population's lascivious... covers.

Feminists complain that women are slut shamed for expressing their sexual needs, while men's sexuality is celebrated, yet the stark difference in social and official response to gender-targeted sexual entertainment tells an entirely different story.







google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html