Why being raped *IS* just as bad for a prostitute. A simple analogy.

To all the people who think that being raped is not so bad for a prostitute, and that offenders should be treated more leniently.  Generally the reason given for this is that prostitutes engage in sexual conduct all the time, so therefore sex within the context of rape is not so traumatic.

I would like to offer an analogy to show that just because you do something all the time, having it done against your will is traumatic no matter what it is.

Most of us can swim.  Most of us don't mind diving under the water, in fact most swimmers enjoy it.  If you're the kind of person who enjoys swimming, or even if you don't enjoy it so much but you can get under the water if you have to (to rescue your phone from the bottom of a pool for example) try to compare the voluntary going under the water and coming up for air at your leisure, to being dunked by an arse-hole who does not know when to stop.

Imagine being pushed under when you weren't ready, and even if you managed to get a breath in, imagine being held under so that even if you wanted to take another breath you couldn't.  Imagine that the person doing this to you didn't think it was a problem, and didn't care about your suffering, hell, even thought it was funny!  Imagine fearing for your life when you realise that you will be be let up for air at the whim of merciless dickhead.

Imagine, after the arse-hole has had his fun, and you're staggering out of the water gasping for air, and cursing obscenities at the fuck-knuckle for abusing you in this way, that someone dismissed your experience with, "Well, it's not as bad for you, you're used to going under water." It wouldn't go down particularly well would it?

A near drowning at the mercy of another person is traumatic no matter who you are.  It may be *more* traumatic if you've never been under water before, I'm not denying that.  The argument is that no matter how many times you've been underwater of your on volition being forced under is traumatic, period.  And no matter how many times you've had sex, whether it be for love or money, being forced to do it is traumatic also.

Some people find this concept very difficult.  It is my profound hope that I have just made it a tiny bit easier. *bows* *crawls back under rock*

An honest account of motherly anger? About time.

Film-maker Julia Black, a BAFTA and Grierson nominated independent documentary maker, is making a film about motherly anger. As a mother of two, she is interested in shifting the taboo that surrounds a mother's anger towards her child or children and wishes to research into how many mothers, like her, have been shocked by the level of anger they experience.

Please take a few minutes to fill in this online questionnaire. All answers are entirely anonymous and cannot be traced to your e-mail address.

www.survey.ingenious2.co.uk

I did it, and it can be done in ten minutes or so. There's also room for the more loquacious of us to comment at the end which was nice (for me anyway!).

How to approach women in public 101

One day, a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away when I worked in science.... a bunch of girls and one bloke were sitting in the tea room talking about self defence. We talked about the general differences between men and women, strength, centre of gravity, and vulnerable body bits. Each contributed something: knowing when to run, how to fight when cornered, what to yell (FIRE!) and how to defend yourself with a pencil or a set of keys.

The one bloke listened with his mouth agape, "You girls have REALLY thought about this haven't you?"

Well, yes, we have. Because we have to, because every strange bloke we meet might be a strange assaulter. Men are generally so much stronger than women it's almost obscene, we have to think about our safety all the time. That's life.

This excellent post, Schrodinger's Rapist, sums up why we girls might treat really nice men like they're lepers if they approach us in public. It's a beautiful job, reasonable and non-hackle-raising. Essential reading for any bloke still looking for Ms Right.

The breast feeding pics that Facebook banned.

Can't remember how I found this collection of breast feeding photos that were removed from Facebook, but it's enlightening. A couple of the more pertinent (not to mention old) points that were made were:

Men's nipples can be photographed and those photos published without comment but a woman's areola is obscene. One of many examples of double standards within our nice western patriarchy and...Facebook.

Photos of topless women holding babies are pornographic according to Facebook - you can bet they haven't removed any photos of topless men holding their tots.

The funniest photo is captioned: "If breast feeding on facebook disturbs you, please feel free to put a blanket over your head." Any woman who has fed a baby under a blanket so as not to frighten the general public with the sight of a baby having lunch will know precisely why this is hilarious.

In my opinion, if photos of breasts doing what they are supposed to do appears to be pornographic to the viewer, then the viewer might want to ask themselves some pertinent questions with regard to what turns them on. Breast worshipping, (or viewing bare breasts as obscene which equates to a hatred of breasts), is a cultural phenomenon. For some reason our culture seems to be afraid of breasts, as though the sight of a nipple might drive men mad and contaminate the minds of little children. Fear of exposed body parts is one of the more ridiculous social norms I grew up with, and one of the hardest for me to overcome (if you think I exaggerate consider that I feel naked just showing my ankles), yet I can still see past my inhibitions to the logic of the situation.

The logic is this: Breasts are milk making machines, it's a biologically hardwired thing humans have going on. Even men's breasts, usually considered redundant, can be made to produce milk. What breasts cannot do is possess magical power over the minds of others. Breasts cannot make a man have an erection or desire sexual intercourse, nor can they make little children into sexual deviants. Amazing though they are, breasts simply do not have those powers. Despite all appearances to the contrary, those extraordinary powers lie elsewhere, in the context. Our poor beleaguered breasts exist within a society that indoctrinates us with a sexual view of our milk making machines. And SEX, oh my goodness, SEX is BAD. Soaked in our deeply Christian culture is a morbid fear of SEX. We do not talk about the SEX, we hint at it, we suggest that there may be the merest possibility that it may be going on. We protect our children from the SEX while allowing them to see footage of people shooting each other. I fear I may have digressed...

The upshot is this: breasts have no special powers other than making milk and providing a soft place for children to rest their heads. All the other powers attributed to them are actually sourced in our craniums. It is the mind that makes the breast a sexual object. It is definitely the mind that makes a picture of a breast feeding baby pornographic. Facebook needs its head read.

Some Reactionary Commentary on the film Orgasmic Birth by someone who read the pamphlet and checked out the website.

I must be feeling a bit better because these (very similar) articles in The Age by an Avril Moore made me a tiny bit angry. Just a little bit. A twinge.

Maybe, because I've seen the film and helped host the Melbourne screening I'm taking the whole thing a little personally.

Or maybe I'm just cross because she spouted her drivel having not seen the film.

Nope, it's neither of those things, it's this: This Avril chic is using her painful births to trump all the women who report a painless or ecstatic birth. She has blithely silenced the voices of women who report beautiful birthing experiences, dismissing their accounts and replacing them with her own. Isn't that one of the things the patriarchy is supposed to be good at? Disregarding the reported experiences of women? Telling us what it is we are supposed to be experiencing? particularly when it comes to childbirth? Tisk tisk Avril, BAD feminist, naughty!

Avril called the "natural birth community" backward when she accuses them of deferring to men. Avril complains that, "this 'woman-centred' approach to birth, all dressed up to empower labouring mothers, remains unapologetic in its deference to men" simply because one woman reported a reduction in pain when she smiled at her husband.

Wow.

Some readers may remember that I happen to know quite a bit about pain, and I'm pretty sure that what Avril knows could be stamped on a paracetamol capsule: Times New Roman, size 10 font - "Birth, it hurt when I did it!". It is not unreasonable to suppose that smiling at someone you love during labour could reduce pain. Distraction is an age-old technique for reducing pain, meditation forms part of the armoury against chronic pain and there is plenty of other evidence much of it published in reputable journals, that focussing on pleasurable things works wonders for pain. In infants, physical pain response is reduced when they are given sucrose to suck on, distraction with something nice is a time tested pain reliever for young children. If smiling at your husband distracts you and gets some happy chemicals pumping in your brain then wonderful! It's hardly what I would call deference.

She cites other examples of deference too. Ina May Gaskin dares to dedicate her first book to her husband and apparently two homebirth doctors in the 1970s were OMG! blokes! Avril, in the 1970s most doctors were blokes, you played the odds and won there, and my honours thesis would have been dedicated to my husband (if it had been dedicated to anyone) that doesn't mean he told me what to put in it.

Avril's contempt for Ina May Gaskin beggars belief given her credentials. Avril has experienced three births, Ina May has been present at over 1200 and pioneered an extremely effective low intervention solution for shoulder dystocia. Avril, 3, Ina May, 1200. I think Ms Gaskin is winning in the experience stakes. Also, as a writer, Avril should know that a book like Spiritual Midwifery doesn't run to four editions if it's full of hippie clap-trap.

If Avril had seen the film, she would have known that the women in it are a far cry from shutting up and smiling submissively at their husbands. They are not only very much in charge they are very noisy indeed, it's just not the kind of noise that we expect to hear having been fed hysterically screaming women by mainstream media. It's animal, it's beautiful, and if you heard only the sound track you might think you were listening to quality porn - for real.

I gather, Avril, you were more of a screamer? REALLY focussed in on that pain, did you? Good on you! Whatever works dear.

Target women - Birth Control

I'm a bit of a latecomer to Sarah Haskins, but just in case there are other ignoramuses like me out there I'm sharing the love. Those using readers might need to visit the blog to watch the videos.

I like:


and:



...and there's so much more for those who Google.

Prostitution - some things to disagree with the radical feminists about.

I read with interest the article on the global sex industry in The Age today, mainly because of the title "The Vagina Dialogues" which I mistook for "The Vagina Monologues" and I was kind of hoping they'd come to Melbourne so that I could see them (finally). Anyway, not monologues, not even dialogues really, just a catchy headline - The Age has outdone itself today in that respect, but I might post about that later...

British feminist Sheila Jeffreys claims that us "neo-liberalists" view prostitution as simply a form of work (that'll be me), and that we should be more outraged at the buying and selling of women's bodies. I'm not sure that I'm happy with that as a blanket statement. Sure, when I hear about sex slavery I get as angry and unhappy as the next person. But I think it is a grave error to confuse sex slavery with prostitution. Also, to be blindly outraged at the buying and selling of women's bodies is dismissive of all the work done by sex workers campaigning to be recognised as a legitimate profession. Of course, in my ideal world, prostitutes are all doing the work by choice, they are well educated regarding their sexual health and how to maintain it and they work in nice places with lots of security guards and the means to summon them if they get a dud client. I know this is the reality for the minority of sex workers, but I also know that the other realities have other complications, drug addiction being a classic. If you're so drug fucked you can't hold down a job, you're desperate for more, and someone will pay you for the use of the one possession you can't lose... well....

I agree with Jeffreys that more of the money being made by the sex trade could go to the women themselves, but I feel that way about factory workers too. Big business is bad in itself, to label prostitution bad because of an association with big business is another error.

Perhaps I should reveal why I'm such a big fan of prostitution in my idealised form:

1 - Prostitution allows all kinds of people to have access to sex who otherwise couldn't or wouldn't get it.

It's obvious really, but some people need you to point out the obvious. I'm talking about people who are shunned by their partners, the disabled, the super busy or the just plain ugly. Who am I to say that these people should never have sexual intercourse simply because they cannot find a bedmate? If a person cannot walk, we find ways to help them get around, if they can't talk we find ways to get them communicating, we don't turn our backs on them reasoning that it's their tough luck and they'll just have to suffer without things the able bodied among us take for granted. Why should access to sex be any different? Are we so prudish that we cannot suffer the thought that the unfortunate might have sexual needs? In my opinion it is better that they safely pay to have those need fulfilled as the alternatives to not bear thinking about. Of course, this solution makes sex the privilege of the wealthier portion of the sexually frustrated population but that is a whole other can of worms I do not have time to address here!

2 - Prostitution keeps families intact.

Oh yes indeedy. Bear with me on this one. In this scenario, the frustrated marriage partner is not only paying a prostitute for sex, they are paying their sexual partner to go away afterward. I argue that prostitution, as long as it does not become an addiction, is a far more family friendly way of fulfilling frustrated sexual needs than cheating on your partner with someone else. This is because of the drain the cheatee can have on the family. There is the time drain where the cheater is off with the cheatee, there has to be courting and bonding before the actual sex and all of this takes time. Prostitutes take far less time by comparison. There is the emotional drain on the family where the cheater becomes emotionally distracted and distant, if one assumes there is no emotional attachment to the prostitute there is nothing to distract the cheater from the family. There is also the financial drain caused by maintaining a cheatee. Prostitutes cost money, for sure, but do they cost as much as the gifts and food, and places to sleep often entailed by an affair? Unless the cheater is a complete miser or having an affair with a rich single person the answer is probably not. And finally, lets not forget the emotional trauma often suffered by the cheatee at the hands of a cheater who refuses to leave the family. The pain of being the "secret other" is not to be underestimated. Going to a professional third party for sex may not solve the initial problem that lead the cheater to seek out extra sex in the first place, but at least it's less likely to cause any further problems.

I'm more than happy to hear from people who disagree with me. However, I will maintain that prostitution is actually a vital part of a healthy society. Particularly if that society is going to glorify unnatural modes of existence, I'm thinking here of the ideal that one partner can satisfy your every sexual need for your entire monogamous life. Sex is one of the few arenas where seeking out satisfaction outside the partnership is frowned upon in our culture. If you need other things such as books, company for exercise, conversations about antique cars or the occasional back massage it is considered ok to get them outside the relationship, but sex? Oh no, if you're not getting what you want in that area tough luck buddy, you chose your sex life when you chose your partner. This seems to me to be ridiculously exclusive and based on an ancient tradition whereby women were only allowed to have sex with their husbands so that the husbands could be sure of the paternity of their children.

Logically, if we can satisfy needs for anything other than sex outside of marriage, then we should all be signing up for life with the partner who was best in the sack. However, hardly anyone does. I didn't, and for a plethora of excellent reasons, one of which is that I'm just not that sexually driven. But if extra sex ever became a priority, you can guarantee I'll be seeking out that extra sex from a paid professional rather than going through the ugly emotional messiness of an affair. Radical feminists are wrong to tar all forms of prostitution with the same brush. Lets hope they see the light.

Bill Bailey for... something good...

I pinched this pic from Hoyden About Town. Awesome. I want one of those T-shirts.

Oh no! Don't be friends wiv da boyz!

This is primary school-yard logic from a journalist who I assume is at least old enough to vote.

Articles like this are only going to be taken seriously by the most vacant of women, and will barely blip on the radar of men who think of women as people rather than potential bedmates. Crushes can be dealt with and most of them pass, leaving rock solid friendships. The kind of emotional immaturity that results in a person only having close friendships with their own sex is unfortunate and curable. Articles like this do not help.

Prostitution and Proposition K in San Fransisco

Legalising prostitution seems to be a no-brainer to me. Mainly because it increases the safety of the people who work in the industry. However, I'm painfully aware that I have not been exposed to all the arguments on the issue so I check stuff out when it crosses my path. I came across this on the University of California Feminist Legal Theory blog. It's interesting, as are the links out.

"Earn Your Right To Wear White" and ignorance on your wedding night.

Thanks to Feministing for this link. Check out the undies.

For those who don't want to bother chasing the links, the undies comprise of one white thong with ABSTAIN in big letters across the front and "Earn your right to wear white" in little red letters. What is this suppose to achieve I wonder?

Is it supposed to serve as a little reminder for horny teens getting it on at the drive-in? What's going to happen? Boy reads message and says, "What the...." and girl says, "Oh yeah, I forgot, I'm saving myself for marriage. Tee hee!" Or maybe it's more of a warning than a reminder: "Succumb to the evil carnal pleasures tonight and hell fire will await you, you slut!" Oooh yes, better keep those undies on Miss, God doesn't like you when you like it.

*sigh*

Seriously now. The thing that gets me about virgins being prized above those who have dared to brave the sweatier parts of coupledom, is that it's only a good thing for the bloke. Other than being prized for something she hasn't done, Little Miss Virgin loses big time.

First of all, here's why it's a good thing for the bloke:
1. Guarantee that no other seed has contaminated his breeding vessel.
2. Little Miss Virgin is going to have no idea how shit he is in the sack having no one to compare him to. It will be years before she figures this out, if ever, so he won't need to make any effort with regard to her satisfaction until then. Woohoo!

Lets see how little Miss Virgin fairs:
1. Her perceived "value" goes up which is fine and dandy as long as all she wanted to be was someone's breeding ground and house cleaner.
2. If she thinks that losing your virginity is going to be all Mills and Boon type milk and ambrosia she's in for a nasty shock. Personally I count losing my virginity as one of my all time sexual lows. Painful, bitterly disappointing (I'd read too much Mills and Boon), something I wanted to get over with, and compared to later sexual encounters with different people DEAD BORING.
3. If she never gets married she never gets to have sex. The only people who love God that much are nuns, and even they get their end away occasionally (see Emma Dickens, Immaculate Contraception).
4. If he turns out to be the kind of lazy douche bag who won't go down her and believes female orgasms are a myth she's stuck with him.

There are worse things than being a lazy douche bag in the sack though. How about blokes who have educated themselves via bad porn and thus, having never actually seen a girl have an real orgasm, think that all there is to women and their sexual enjoyment is a bit of a moan here and there. Or maybe he's the kind that thinks sex is just for procreation and that she should take it lying down like a good girl? What about blokes who seriously believe that the clitoris is "hard to find" and thus don't look too hard for it? (For any possessors of the Y chromosome who may have read this far, it's front and centre.) Also, if HE doesn't have sex before marriage he's going to have no idea on her wedding night, other than what he's read about or seen on the television. Those of us who are a bit better travelled in the sweaty arena can say unequivocally that IT'S NOT LIKE ON TV and that trying to make it so will lead to disappointment. The way I see it, to double the inexperience on the wedding night is to double the ignoramus disaster, and triple the pain for the girl.

I'd love to say more, but I've run out of time. I'll leave you lovely well-meaning Abstinence (Misery) Pushers with this:

Your God is not a fun God.

Anyone can see me in my tit-sling, but only friends can see my Profile.

Is this kind of behaviour logically incoherent? Or am I becoming a fuddy-duddy in my old age?

I was procrastinating by chasing links in FaceBook when I came across a comment from a certain Naomi from the UK. In her photo she's either wearing a bikini or her knickers, it's hard to tell, but she's inside so I'm going for knickers. Normally this kind of thing wouldn't faze me, it's FaceBook after all, and Gen Y appear to have different ideas about how much flesh is too much to reveal to the public.

What fazed me is that this woman's breast bones were clearly visible to the point that it was ugly and off-putting. The only time I've seen bones like that is when women are starving themselves to fit the impossible ideal fed to them via a media dominated by the male gaze. I sent her a note to that effect which I now regret - none of my business really - but when doing that I found that only Naomi's friends could see her FaceBook Profile.

Get out.

The entire internet community can see you in your knickers but only friends can know the real you?

Did you want to perpetuate the idea that a woman's only value lies in being sexual eye-candy? One day valued as Sexual Object the next, valued as Domestic Goddess and Baby Machine. There's a fine line between advertising a great body (if a bit on the starved side) and aiding and abetting the patriarchy by implying that your body is the best thing you have to offer and the rest of you is not worth seeing.

Again, maybe I'm becoming prudish in my old age, it's not that I think women shouldn't be able to flaunt a gorgeous young body, it was the discrepancy that bothered me. The blatant advertising of the outside over the inside and the deep, sinister implications this can have for how women are viewed.

I don't want to be viewed solely in terms of my appearance, no women I know wants to be viewed that way. I wonder if Naomi does? I wonder if she's thought about it at all?

UPDATE: I would just like to add that Naomi responded to my message and has seen this post. She was a terrifically good sport about it considering my critical take on her choice of photo. She responded that she was proud of her body, and didn't care what people thought about it - a good thing in itself. However, she has now changed her FaceBook pic to a beautiful face shot. I think this far more complementary! Cheers mate.

Take Lisa off the air. Please Sign.

Hi folks,

Sorry no posts for a while, I'm actually thesisising. REALLY I am!!!

Someone sent me a petition re the 'Lisa' drunk rape add on FaceBook though, so I thought I'd spread the word.

To quote the email I received:

A member of the group has very kindly set up a petition calling on ALAC to take the Lisa ad off the air, on the grounds that rape is never a woman's fault, and that this idea is distressing to victims and makes it harder for them to report sexual violence to the police. Please sign and circulate the link widely.

If you haven't seen the so called 'Lisa' add already you can view it here.

Drunk women are in absolutely no danger of sexual violence unless there is a rapist in the vicinity. Drinking does not cause rape, rapists do. Amen.

New hope? Or a way to enable ignorant uncaring bastards?

Fantastic, soon we will have a "microbicidal condom" that women in the third  world will be able to use to protect themselves from HIV when their husbands or lovers refuse to wear condoms on their willies.  Nice for those women who will be able to afford it, which will be hardly any of them.  Hopefully Mr and Mrs Gates will come to the party when it's time to manufacture and distribute.

I think it's a great idea.  Putting the power to prevent HIV infection with the smart half of the population will be a giant step toward an HIV smack-down in the countries who can least afford to be affected by AIDS.  What makes me a tad irate is that it is necessary at all.

You will notice that I called the women the "smart half" of the population.  I would also call them the more caring and considerate half.  I cannot even imagine what must go through a blokes head when, despite vocal local campaigning, he refuses to wear a condom.  How about these though?

"Why buy a condom when you can just get another girl-friend for free?"

"I can't afford a condom, I need the money for anti-virals!"

"I can't keep my dick in my pants to save my own life, or the life of those I claim to care about. Keeping my dick in my pants is haaard.... My John Thomas is such a rascal, he won't do a thing I say!"

"A condom makes my manly, manly prick look silly.  We refuse to be made fools of!"

"My priest says I will go to hell if I use a condom and I believe him because I can't think for myself.  If I thought about it, I'd just go to confession afterwards and be absolved, but this thinking stuff is haaard.  Hang on, I'll ask my dick what it thinks..."

Quite frankly, I cannot think of anything realistic other than a deep seated contemptuous disregard for their wives and children.  If they truly gave a toss, they'd be tossing off rather than indulging in promiscuity.  If they truly cared for the welfare of their family they'd be dressing their tadgers in the finest that Durex has to offer.  They don't.  So, Microbicidal gels are necessary.  

What REALLY irritates me though, is that this gel will enable the male component of the population to continue merrily fornicating without a thought for the consequences.  If it works the gel will save lives.  It will not, however, address the root of the problem.  That would be up to the people with the tadgers.

It's a milk making appendage you morons.

Abusive title? Probably. I'm stressed, tired, and my epiphenomenalism exegesis isn't going in the right direction.

About half of Americans (according to this article) and some Australians that I know, are adverse to women breastfeeding their babies in public because a breast is a sexual thing, and the general public shouldn't be exposed to sexual things they don't want to see.

Better take down all those city billboards screaming, "Want longer lasting sex?" not to mention the countless gigantesque half dressed women selling everything from politics to palm pilots to cars to actual sex.

We're happy to accept pictures of half naked women as long as it makes someone money, but if you want to feed your baby we'd prefer you went to the toilet, m'kay?

My tired brain cannot find the words for these uptight people. I can only recommend rectal surgery to remove whatever cleaning implement they rammed up their darker orifices... and tell this short story.

Once upon a time, I prepared to feed my new and hungry daughter at a family gathering. My brother-in-law became a little flustered and betrayed his surprise that I hadn't removed myself from the group by saying, "When a women starts breast-feeding in front of you, you just don't know where to look!" My gorgeous, darling, feminist husband replied, "Look them in the eye, mate, in the eye."

Look at the picture above.  Breastfeeding? Or cuddling? You'd have to be up real close to tell the difference.  Close enough to know me well enough not to care.