| |
|
Homeless Halo, you said:
most rational males and females would agree that some "strange" man has no right to put his hands on a girl he doesn't have permission from, but there seems to be some question as to whether or not the female is permitted to do likewise.
This is what I do not understand.
As for the first part, maybe 'most rational males and females' would agree that, but there is a significant minority of people (30%, ie around one in three, ie let's hope you get one of the other two policemen dealing with your case and that the two-thirds of 'rational' people on your jury can talk the other one-third around...) who don't. See this Amnesty poll, which shows that 30% of people in the UK think that a woman is 'partially or totally responsible for being raped' if she is drunk. If you can give some statistical evidence for your claim about the Detroit police's attitude to arresting men who grope women in clubs with statistics, please do so, and I'll rethink my opinion on that. In the meantime, if you really don't understand why the case you mention (a drunken man being groped without his consent by a less drunken woman) might be experienced differently, or taken less seriously, here's my explanation: I hope it helps.
There is a myth that male bodies are, or should be, sexually impenetrable (no vaginas!) and hence sexually invulnerable (since 'vulnerability' and 'penetrability' are closely semantically and conceptually linked in our culture). This myth seems to have certain benefits for men - it perhaps gives them a stronger sense of their bodily integrity, their rights over their own bodies, their strength and their safety, and perhaps means that it is easier for them not to be seriously threatened by unwanted touches. On the other hand, it also has disadvantages: that is, because men are expected to be impenetrable/invulnerable at all times, there might be a feeling that they are 'naturally' incapable of being vulnerable, and hence their experiences of sexual vulnerability may not be taken seriously.
Of course, because of this myth, men and women may often have different experiences of their own bodies. That is, women, who are trained to think of themselves as penetrable and vulnerable, may experience unwanted touch as more assaultive than men, who are trained to think of themselves as capable of preventing or stopping unwanted touch without difficulty, and hence not to find it terribly threatening. (It may go the other way, of course: someone who is trained to think of himself as not subject to unwanted touch may find it more upsetting when it happens to him than someone who is trained to accept a certain level of unwanted touch.)
Can I also say that this thread, as it stands, is pretty horrible to read? I'm not entirely sure what can be done about that, but perhaps we might try and push it in the direction of some theories about the relationship between sexual acts, sexualized body parts, power, signification, etc (maybe bringing in some stuff from the fondly-remembered blowjobs/power thread?) Or just some reflection here might be a good thing, if people have the energy. |
|
|
