My bad sex wasn’t rape

[XemaSab]

Thirty-some summers ago, when I was 15, I lost my virginity to a boy who didn’t care a bit about my emotional well-being. He was very popular, on his way to college in the fall, and sleeping with any girl who would spread her legs to have sex with him that summer.

Two weeks after we had sex for the first time, he and I and his best friend got drunk — me for the first time in my life — and I ended up having sex in a park with both of them. It was somewhat miserable for me to have sex consecutively with two young men, ages 17 and 19, and to hear the second one ask, in the midst of intercourse, “Are you using birth control?” and quickly add, “Oh, who cares — if you get pregnant, it’s your fault,” and to have my bra and panties left behind on the grass when they drove me home. I was shaken both by the degrading nature of the incident and by the fact that I had allowed it. But allow it, I did. Was I raped? No. Did I ever for one second think that maybe I had been raped? No.

Many would disagree.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/22/my_bad_sex_wasnt_rape/

[MineralMan]

1. Statutory rape it was.

19 year old and 15 year old. Illegal in every state.

[Art_from_Ark]

64. The incident in the OP was 30+ years ago

and sex between 15 and 19-year-olds was probably not illegal in every state at that time.

[MineralMan]

65. Actually, that makes it even more likely.

Age of consent was 18 or 21 in most states at that time. It's since been lowered to 16 in many states. Statutory rape.

[gollygee]

69. Yeah it was

That's when I was a teenager. It was very illegal. 30 years ago wasn't the dark ages.

[phleshdef]

100. No it isn't. Its quite legal in many states.

A lot of states have a 4 year exemption law. The author of this article, she grew up in DC, which does in fact have such an exemption at this time. If it had that same exemption 30 years ago, then its quite possible it wasn't statutory rape, given than the 19 year old doesn't turn 20 before the 15 year old turns 16.

[MineralMan]

104. That's true, although those laws use different numbers of years.

In some states, the number of years also depends on the age of the younger of the two people. But, mostly, those laws are pretty recent. It wasn't that long ago that they didn't exist and a 19 year old having sex with a 15 year old was most definitely statutory rape. Even in the states with such laws, there is almost always an upper limit to the age of the older person. Very often that is 18.

Given the time frame of the original post, and lacking the location, I think there is a very strong chance that it was statutory rape.

Even in the early 1960s, when I grew up, nobody really bothered with teenagers having sex, unless the girl was the police chief's or mayor's daughter. Then it was Katy bar the door, for sure.

[phleshdef]

107. The time frame would've been the 1980s.

And I know in WV, when I was growing up, the 4 year exemption was always around, even in the 1980s. I don't know about DC (which is where this author grew up).

As far as the upper limit goes, neither WV or DC has one. Within 4 years or less, legal. Outside of that, not legal. And since the age of consent is 16 in both places, it doesn't matter after that anyway.

I guess my real point is, I don't think a 19 year old should have to spend the rest of their life on a sex offenders list for having sex with a girl or boy thats 3.5 years younger than he or she. Thats not really the topic here, but I have a cousin that wound up in that situation because of age of consent laws not having a 4 year exemption in his particular state. I thought that was pretty excessive, especially since that same state would've allowed the 2 to get married with her parents consent at those same ages. Its all a bunch of gray areas and double standards when you are talking about teenagers having sex.

[redqueen]

110. I'm curious about your personal opinion on this.

Do you think a 15 year old is as emotionally and mentally mature as a 19 year old? Individuals differ of course, I mean in general.

Freshman in high school, sophomore in college. About the same?

[phleshdef]

111. I think it depends on the people involved.

In general, probably not the same, but probably not THAT much different either. Both are still teenagers and neither are particularly well developed emotionally and mentally yet. Then again, these days, I consider just about everyone under the age of 25 a "dumb kid".

The 4 year exemption seems fair enough to me. I went to a 9th - 12th grade high school, so that probably reinforces that a bit. Basically, if you could've went to the same high school together at the same time...

[cali]

114. I think a 15 year old should have the right to explore his/her sexuality

I think a qt year old should be able to make her own decision about consenting to sex with someone who is 4 years older.

[brewens]

132. In Idaho, I believe a 15 year old is off limits to anyone 18 or older.

When a girl turns 16 the five year close age exemption begins to apply. Still not cool in my book to have a girlfriend that might be a high school sophomore if you've graduated. I remember a couple cases like that when I was in school and we thought the guys were creeps.

[Jackpine Radical]

133. But not in many European countries, or until very recently in Canada.

Age of consent of 13 or 14 is not uncommon.

[seabeyond]

134. you might check out the countries that are that young.

http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

[angstlessk]

2. I was raped when I was 11 and there were many things I did that were wrong

including drinking beer..but I NEVER thought about, nor wanted to have sex...I was raped

I was passed out and they went to jail

[JI7]

4. you were 11 ? how old were the rapists ?

[angstlessk]

5. grown men, one had several children

In court they lied and said I told them I was 16 and wanted them to ...me...I stood up in court and said you are a liar...at which point I was made to sit down and shut up

The family of one of the rapists came to my house, hoping we would not pursue the charges..his mom, wife, and kids.

[JI7]

10. yeah, because it would have just been ok for grown men to drink and have sex with 16 year olds

[angstlessk]

13. that may be the age of consent in Virginia at the time?

[JI7]

21. what ended up happening to them ?

i'm sure they did /said whatever they could to not be held responsbile. and the family coming to your home, yuk.

things are still bad now but i just sometimes think of back then when people didn't even want to talk/discuss these things.

[angstlessk]

24. They went to jail..and some years later when I was working in retail

He and his family came in to the store where I worked and purchased a bunch of stuff....then the little boy brought it all back to get a credit...

I never checked each item..cause I was kinda emotionally involved..and wondered many years later if it was just a scam....bringing back MOST of the stuff?

[redqueen]

28. Many, many men claim it's natural and normal, and even argue that it should be legal.

I haven't personally seen any of those claims here in a while, thankfully.

[cali]

88. Gulp. I'll make the claim that it isn't necessarily harmful

and that the way we treat minors around the issue of sex in this culture is problematic.

From a 2002 review of Judith Levine's "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex." :

<snip>

In the furor over the book, most commentators have missed Levine's main point: "Sex is not ipso facto harmful to minors." In fact, "America's drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing. Instead, often it is harming them."

Despite what critics contend, "Harmful to Minors" is not about pedophilia. It tackles a wide range of issues including censorship, statutory rape laws, abstinence-only sex education, abortion, gender, AIDS, and child welfare. The latter issue, which raises questions beyond sexuality about how our society provides for its neediest children, is "the most important one in the book," Levine told AlterNet, and "the real reason the right is against me." But the inflammatory issue of child-adult sex continues to draw the headlines.

<snip>

Nevertheless, parents are nervous -- even squeamish -- about their children's and teens' sexuality, often seeking to deny their offspring the sexual freedoms they themselves demanded at the same age. (Physician Victor Strasburger has even penned a paean to hypocrisy entitled "Getting Your Kids to Say 'No' in the '90s When You Said 'Yes' in the '60s."

In the past two decades youthful sexual desire has become widely pathologized. As Levine notes, "It's as if (parents) cannot imagine that their kids seek sex for the same reasons they do: They like or love the person they are having it with. It gives them a sense of beauty, worthiness, happiness, or power. And it feels good."

<snip>

http://www.alternet.org/story/12960/what_judith_levine_is_really_saying

Judith Levine, btw, is a well known civil libertarian and feminist.

I want to add a personal note here: When my son was 16 he had a sexual relationship with a woman 7 years older than he. Did it bother me? Not a whit. Did I find it weird or strange? No, not really. How would I have reacted if my son had been my daughter? In much the same way I imagine. I don't think we give teenagers enough credit when it comes to their sexuality.

[sigmasix]

125. my rapist was never punished either.

I was raped repeatedly over a 2 year period in my childhood by my half-sister. I was 9 years old the 1st time. She told me that I should consider myself lucky to be raped. When I reported it, I was told to keep my mouth shut and that it isnt possible for a boy to be raped by a woman. My half sister's mom was a prostitute by choice- my father found out about the woman's activities and divorced her. She wasnt forced into prostitution; she chose the lifestyle of a sex worker because it was fun and there were always parties. Prostituting herself wasnt enough though- she also rented-out her little girl to full grown men for sex (once again- no one forced her to do this to her daughter- she did it of her own volition) My father used to have to travel across the midwest in the 60s and early 70s to try and rescue my half-sister from her toxic mother. On one occassion he hitch hiked to cleveland in 1962 to find my half sister in dirty crusted diapers and undernourished. He took her home to indiana and cleaned her up- doing the best he could- until the judges decided that my sister shouldnt be parted from her biological mother, even with all the proof of abuse.
When she got to be an adult, the dammage caused by her mother was amplified and distorted by drugs. I was born in 66 and by 1974 the rapes had begun in earnest.
I have spent the better part of my adult life trying to understand the deep scars and emotional problems caused by those childhood traumas. I have been accused of deserving the rape, enjoying the rape and orchestrating it. They have even went so far as to claim that I was making it all up. All of this rape shaming was performed by neofeminists that claim women don't rape. In several of my women's studies courses I was shamed and ridiculed by female victims of rape when I was honest about my experience. Many women's studies students and professors agreed that those rapes weren't REALLY rapes because I was a guy, and didn't I need an erection to complete the act? I was told that my 9 year old self deserved the rape -and was apparently hoping for it- and that I should stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. She was 19, I was 9- yet I have been informed that it was my fault by many that claim to be feminists. Thier anger stems from the fact that the real world doesnt conform to the vision of extremists.
My half sister is dead now. We were able to bury the hatchet before she died- but her mother still lives and blames all the men in her life for the deaths of her children and how messed-up they all are.

[superpatriotman]

129. I can't believe what I just read

I admire your courage for sharing your history.

[dsc]

32. just to clarify

It isn't a defense to say the victim told me she was older. Even in cases where the victim was in a bar and being served alcohol, that still isn't a defense against statutory rape.

[Honeycombe8]

8. An 11 yr old is incapable of making proper judgments. That's why they're called children.

There is nothing you did that was "wrong" by any legal or adult standard. An 11 yr old can be pretty much talked into doing just about anything by an adult. Your brain isn't even fully formed at that age.

Don't judge a child's behavior by adult standards.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. very well said

[LittleBlue]

3. Interesting article.

It’s sad to me that we are still buying into a puritanical vision of women and saying that when they willingly participate in something and don’t like it they have been assaulted. It’s sad to me that we are teaching kids that if someone is too emotionally immature to give proper consent, it’s rape, as the generally terrific site Scarlteen does.

(So now it’s up to our partners to determine if we have the emotional maturity to give consent? Or is it just that we want them to roll the dice that after the fact we won’t turn around and say, “I wasn’t mature enough to give consent, so you raped me.”) So much of victim blaming relies on these outmoded views of women’s sexuality.

Like she says, a lot of this seems like modern puritanism.

[BainsBane]

7. it has nothing to do with so-called "puritanism"

It's about consent. When a woman doesn't or can't give consent, because of age or state of inebriation, it's rape. It's really not that tough to figure out.

[LittleBlue]

9. The article is in response to the Girls episode

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/03/11/girls_adam_and_natalia_sexual_assault_and_verbal_consent_on_hbo_s_girls.html

[alphafemale]

95. Good lord. Supposedly educated twenty somethings consent to that shit?

Using "consent" in the loosest sense here...as in not ripping his balls off.

But are twenty somethings really routinely "agreeing" to sex acts they'd rather not do to keep a boyfriend?

damn

[redqueen]

12. This woman appears to be pushing an agenda.

She is playing fast and loose with facts in an attempt to... whatever.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Did the "dreck" hit a nerve, perchance?

it is paternalistic in its approach to women, as though women are helpless beings incapable of voicing their wants, and, absent violence and/or threats of violence, can’t or won’t say no. If we want to argue that women are so limited by the patriarchy that they can’t say no, how do we counter the arguments that women can’t handle jobs in the military or working as police officers?

Good question, and another one which is consistently ignored by the Savage Death Island "consensual sex between women and dooodz doesn't exist" consent-nuance crowd.

[bettyellen]

33. dreck, because she's so very dishonest by omitting her prior history of sexual abuse and acting out

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2013, 12:32 AM - Edit history (1)

at a very young age here. and more so because she says nothing about this encounter that would let us know if she was behaving as enthusiastic participant and initiated it, or very reluctant or in a drunken stupor.

yet she goes on and on about how OTHER women should have agency and be loudly consenting- she has purposefully omitted this info here to feed controversy. (the age issue is problematic here as well, but I don't know state laws and can't go there)

Like her wistful pieces about dear old Dad making her feel special with digital rape when she was 7-8 years old - which she ALSO doesn't call rape, this is just more journalistic flame bait from a woman who writes out of both sides of her mouth.

How much you want to bet her editor asked her, "hey now- what else can you not call rape?"

[Warren DeMontague]

61. You're making nasty statements about what this woman has said around being an abuse survivor?

I haven't read this other article you're making the allegations about, but, jesus- talk about blaming the victim.

Anyway, your response has little to do with the article in question, and nothing to do with what I wrote, particularly challenging the view- promoted by "twisty" and others- that consensual sex between men and women is impossible. That's right, always. (This is, we are told, a "nuanced definition of consent&quot ...

I think "no means no" is a good standard to go by. However there are people (the folks who eyeroll at the words "agency" and "free speech", mostly) who think "yes means no", too. Not yes can mean no, mind you; but yes always means no. That means that, as a woman, you're not saying yes even if you think you are.

I don't know, but that would offend the crap out of me, if someone tried to tell me I as an adult wasn't capable -ever- of consenting to sex.

[bettyellen]

70. Critical analysis that her piece completely lacked context is nasty now? I think her

inability to label her own experiences being digitally penetrated when six years old as rape are truly significant here. Don't you?

She does not label her own experience as a child as rape- which is what it undoubtably was. Being a rape survivor doesn't give her permission to redefine rape for the rest of us. Her reluctance to call it what it is, sadly is probably what made her their ideal choice for this "edgy piece".

For the rest- I think "no means no" SHOULD be enough. I think we may have to use a standard of getting a yes though, when it comes to impairment. Now that we know lawyers will argue that when you cannot speak, then you didn't say no that is a problem.

And I do think that giving a yes- and getting one- IS the standard that society should strive for. Through awareness campaigns. I truly think we have to culturally shift towards that expectation to have a healthier society.

Legally speaking- the whole issue of any alcohol use nullifying every yes is messed up. I don't agree with that. However, I'm not seeing that men are being unfairly incarcerated when drunk women say yes. I'm seeing people argue that the Stuebenville victim was not impaired enough, and worse. So, I am a bit less concerned about that. Journalists who are loathe to admit in major media that a Dad sticking fingers in his daughter is rape- hell yes- that concerns me. Especially when dreck like that is brought here and passed off as valid in any way.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Okay- here's what I'm saying. You're talking, it seems, about something she wrote in a diff. piece

unless I missed that part of this piece.

I think some of her assertions in this piece are challengeable, but that's a different story. I saw the scene on "Girls" and like probably most people who viewed it, it was disturbing. I can see how some might argue a rape aspect to that particular scene.

And no, I too do not believe there is some rampant epidemic of people being accused of rape when there is no reason. I agree with you there. As for Steubenville, it seems to me that most people without a vested interest in the success of the town's football team are fairly well on the side of the victim, though.

[bettyellen]

148. yeah, I think she left out details and context in this article and that's why it's BS flame bait

she does link to her controversial article in the piece. and that article goes on to describe (in a little too much detail, I think) her "acting out" sexually at a young age, and initiating sex play while younger than 15. That too, has me questioning her suddenly coy omission of details as to what actually happened with the two boys. But it was necessary in order to leave the reader unable to judge at all what happened. (as well as clarifying whether it was considered statutory at the time)

apparently, there is a 50/50 change it was legal- but she doesn't say which. there's also a chance that she initiated that sex and was engaging those boys herself in sexual and consensual way. we really don't know. and I think that's why people see an agenda- to muddy the waters of what rape is, and to write something "controversial" instead of an honest examination of the issue.

And her being unable to use that word to explain what happened to her at age six, gosh- what IS rape if not that? i just see a lot of confusion and self blame in her perspective. she's no one to look to for answers here.

I think, in a similar way Girls tried to muddy the waters to create controversy. But that's fine, because it's fiction- not journalism.
Didn't Adam stop the particular thing she didn't like and move on- even though he protested? I thought so.
I thought there was supposed to be some irony in that she had a very detailed list of what is okay, had been very vocal in the past.... and he found a way to totally upset her by following those rules. And it left me wondering since she so great about clear consent why wouldn't she say hey wait- stop now. I totally expected her to stop the sex because it seemed to be going bad for her. I think there was supposed to be some irony in there, or something. I don't want to say anymore unless I see it again.

As far as Stuebenville, it's hard to know what the supporters vs non supporters numbers are. Aside from the families of those boys, there's just no excuse at all. That women are also ganging up on her- friends testifying and others threatening just shows you exactly how it is acceptable to openly support rapists there. If that's not a sick little culture being exposed, I don't know what is. Not broad brushing any place- and I think we need to agree to discuss segments of society without accusing everyone of broadbrushing all men, or Stuebenville residents, etc.

[Sargasso Sea]

127. Forgive my noob showing but how do

you define consent?

[Warren DeMontague]

139. "New"? Really?

Yeah, right.


No means no, yes means yes, and consenting adults can and should be free to make their own damn decisions about their own damn lives and bodies.

That's how.

[Sargasso Sea]

140. Thanks for your reply. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

150. Sure. Maybe you can answer a question for me.

Is this your blog?

http://radicalresolution.wordpress.com/

[Sargasso Sea]

168. Why, yes it is. (was actually) nt

[Warren DeMontague]

173. So you acknowledge that you've been banned from DU so many times that you need to proxy your IP.

http://radicalresolution.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/female-only-space-whats-that/#comment-145

Except Feldspar and Sera used proxies (had to – been banned so many times!)

Also worth noting that many of those bans were for bigoted statements against transgender people, right?

[Sargasso Sea]

174. I would never, ever admit to such a thing. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

177. You don't need to, you admit it in the comments of your blog. Just now you admitted that's you

who was doing the commenting, so that's the same thing.

[Sargasso Sea]

178. If you say so Warren. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

179. Okay, shall we read the entire thing?

According to a mighty DUh troll slayer Feldspar, Sera Bellum (Chonky) and some other banned member by the handle of Survivorista (?) are all one “Hydra” who is really a man who is *a transphobic* and not a radical feminist, nor a lesbian because – wait for it – they all have the same IP. Everyone is congratulating themselves on being so sharp.

Except Feldspar and Sera used proxies (had to – been banned so many times!) and have no flipping IDEA who Survivorista is/was.

You're obviously not "new" if you were talking about DU last year.

If you hate this place so much, why do you guys keep coming back?

ps. Say Hi To Helen.

[Sargasso Sea]

182. It's been great fun sparring with you, Warren and

your internet sleuthing skills are undoubtedly of the highest quality BUT I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Sargasso Sea]

184. Also - let's not hog this thread shall we? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

185. Right.

[Sargasso Sea]

188. Lol! Thanks 'n good-night! nt

[Warren DeMontague]

186. you blogged about being banned from DU last year. So either you've been here before, or

you have a time machine.

[Upton]

180. Warren..

I don't know if you were the alerter, but this relates to the conversation you are having..

At Sat Mar 23, 2013, 06:09 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Why, yes it is. (was actually) nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2557212

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

This person is admitting, in this post, to being a repeat disruptor who has, quote, \"been banned so many times\". I realize this post prob. wont get hidden but I want this to get to admin\'s attention. Please read: \"used proxies- had to, been banned so many times\" comment by the blogger she is acknowledging being:
http://radicalresolution.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/female-only-space-whats-that/#comment-145

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 23, 2013, 06:17 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Based on just the one post, I'll vote to leave it alone, but the alerter is right about this particular poster having been here before.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: I am voting to hide because I think the person is right about the poster being banned before. I also read a bit of the blog and saw DU members referred to as "morons".
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Reading the blog, this person has respect for DU, and is clearly here to be disruptive.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

[Warren DeMontague]

181. Yeah, that was my alert.

I have very little patience for someone who has been banned several times for over the top bigoted statements, blogs about how much they hate this place, but keeps coming back to disrupt anyway.

[Upton]

187. Don't blame you..

I recognized the name myself, because I remembered the blog too. Is this another version of Survivorista?

[Warren DeMontague]

189. No, turns out that was another repeat disruptor, dude from Canada with a penchant for going off the

rails into anti-Semitism.

[Warren DeMontague]

201. Your previous times here, you spoke of "FAABs","Womyn-born-womyn", "gynergy vampires", and the rest.

statements that were widely regarded, by -not just me, but many people on this site-, as egregiously transphobic. Your blog talks about the "trans takeover" at Conway Hall.

While it's undoubtedly a good thing that meta is gone, one unfortunate byproduct is, a lot of solid documentation on the people who make a hobby of getting banned and coming back through an endless series of zombie incarnations, is now inaccessible.

Admin can still see it, though, I think.

And if someone has been banned; not once, not twice, but "so many times" (as you stated in your blog comments) doesn't it stand to reason that it's not a coincidence or a case of a bad day and a couple ill-advised comments? To get banned over and over again, there's a problem. A pattern. It doesn't just happen.

But here's a start. Any current MIRT members who are tuning in may find this educational, as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=275415&sub=trans

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=279994&sub=trans



http://www.democraticunderground.com/11391371

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11392087

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11392087#post4

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=2125 (a fascinating sub-thread)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1927

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=2123

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1912

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=256802

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=13075&mesg_id=13098

[Jamastiene]

202. Thank you, Skinner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302312&sub=trans

[Warren DeMontague]

207. Seconded. I will stop derailing the thread, now.

[Jamastiene]

208. I appreciate you standing up to that transphobic troll. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

209. No prob; Their shit was vile, and I've got a long memory.

One thing about meta, it made it a lot easier to shine a light on those sorts of games-- and a lot harder for people to hide what they had done in their previous times around.

[Whisp]

74. I doubt she's a she to begin with

not at all saying that women are excluded from being deluded assholes, cuz they are not.

but this sounds like a guy just trying to yank some chains for the weak of mind to message out more of No really means Yes.

[tammywammy]

94. Yes, Anna March is a woman.

http://www.annamarch.com/


http://www.facebook.com/annamarchwashere

[Honeycombe8]

6. Legally, you were raped by the 19 year old. Statutory rape. You were not old enough to "allow it."

That's why you were called a minor. You were not old enough legally to buy alcohol, commit your life to die for your country on the battlefield, enter into legal contracts, own your own home, own your own car, or "allow" someone to have sex with you.

[phleshdef]

103. Not true. It depends on the laws of that state. See post #97.

[Honeycombe8]

136. No, it's true. Post 97 gives a few far out hypotheticals that don't even apply

to the OP. Even if Post 97 applied to the state and year, it is almost impossible for the so-called consensual sex to have been legal.

If the OP lived in the same state 30 years ago (CA), the age of consent was 18.

[phleshdef]

142. You are wrong.

The person who wrote the OP was posting someone else's story. That person, if you research the author at all, you will find that she grew up in Washington DC. DC has the 4 year exemption law, just like many states do.

So not only is it not based on hypotheticals, it has a very high chance of fitting the story exactly and the situation being 100% legal.

[cali]

116. In Vermont it is not illegal for a 15 year old to have sex with a 19 year old

A close-in-age exemption to the Vermont legal age of consent allows a minor 15 or 16 years old to engage ins sexual contact with a partner up to 19 years of age.
Vermont Close-In-Age Exemption
Vermont has a close-in-age exemption, also known as a "Romeo and Juliet law", to the legal age of consent. This provision allows partners who are close in age, or both under the Vermont age of consent, to engage in consensual sex without fear of prosecution under Vermont age of consent regulations. For more information, read about close-in-age exemptions.

still rape?

[redqueen]

11. Wow, I can't even finish reading that dreck.

First of all, 15 and 19? She was raped.

Second of all, emotional maturity is mentioned exactly one time on the Scarleteen page she links.

And finally, the page she linked to which she says called the scene in Girls rape?

Some people on the Internet are already calling it rape. Maybe they’re right, I really don’t know

Pure propaganda. She doesn't consider being raped as rape? Well... lucky her, I guess.

Maybe I'll bother with it later. As of now...

[angstlessk]

16. I have been avoiding all the rape posts..cause I think..I am over it...

but when only one person says it's not your fault because you were so young..it makes me cry to this day..and I am 62...my mother blamed me because I drank beer and got drunk..in fact..when the police found me I was passed out in a field, where they dumped me.

[redqueen]

29. It wasn't your fault.

I sympahtize, so much... and I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.

[bettyellen]

34. you Mom was wrong to blame you. I'm sorry you went through that.

[union_maid]

57. Of course it wasn't your fault

And any adult - or near adult - who has sex with any 11 year old, is committing rape. There's really no way around that. I have not actually read the Salon article. It sounds awful. But the first case 15 year old with indifferent boyfriend - that doesn't sound like rape. It sounds abusive, but not so much rape. The second time - with the two guys, one of them being 19. That sounds an awful lot like rape to me. Your case - no doubt about it.

[Hekate]

62. Take it from here, it was not your fault

I'm 65 y.o. and 11 y.o. is -- my God, a baby. If you are a mother yourself, didn't you look at your grade-school child and think that very thing?

There's a lot of posts I wish I had avoided 100% at this point (rape and the pope, primarily), but am glad I read yours.

Hekate

[Bucky]

73. I'm so sorry you went through that. "Blame the victim" is always wrong.

Society used to actively pursue that "blame the victim" mentality because, sadly, the "winners" in society are so often the perpetrators of injustice--bank fraudsters in the 2000s, Wall Street junk bonders in the 1900s robber barons in the 1800s, land swindlers in the 1700s, colonial conquistadors in the 1600s...

The opinion leaders of the world formulated that "blame the victim" notion because they needed to rationalize their inhumane treatment of fellow human beings. Your mother blindly followed that thinking in part because that's what she was taught her whole life and because the reality of what happened must've scared her. We're growing beyond that now, some of us. You deserved better support from your family.

I hope all these replies to you show you your DU family has nothing but s for you.

[bettyellen]

17. she is the writer who wrote- a little too wistfully- about her father's abuse. I don't think she

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2013, 12:31 AM - Edit history (2)

called him digitally penetrating her- when she was 5 or 6 I think? rape either.
There you go.

[redqueen]

31. How the FUCK is she ... yeah, nevermind.

There are no words.

[bettyellen]

76. I love this reply. Pity and heartfelt!

How the fuck? She established herself as the go to girl for this bullshit.

[Whisp]

82. this horsehit has a NAMBLA feel all about it.

[redqueen]

87. Yep, and this is such a crowd-pleasing treatment of the subject.

This kind of equivocating bullshit has to be called out harshly. We are just now starting to make a few inches of headway and she comes out with this shit. She should be ashamed. She's too deep in denial for that, though. For now, anyway.

[bettyellen]

92. Yeah, I think she is being used by her publisher. Whatever she was trying to say is muddled up

by her inability to cast judgement. She can't even be clear about Stuebenville, FFS. I think she has a lot of conflicting feelings, and should have saved them for a therapist's office.

[redqueen]

93. +1

[tammywammy]

41. I read the Salon article about her abuse.

She does refer to it as being abused as a child.

The other part, that I guess you think is "wistful", she talks about the strange feelings a child can have. On one hand she knew it was wrong and not good, but she's conflicted because she's receiving special attention from her father. She discusses how it did fuck her up, to think that was showing love.

I thought it was insightful into how abused children get conflicted feelings when sexually abused.

[bettyellen]

43. RAPE. she doesn't identify correctly digital penetration of a child as rape. soft-pedaling seems

to be her thing.

[redqueen]

113. Did you read it?

My god...

I'm done with Salon. Fucking done.

[The Flaming Red Head]

200. What about a rectal temp on a baby

is that digital or could be confused with it. I will not work pediatrics ever, ever, ever and I am surprised that they can find anyone to work with children anymore.

[myrna minx]

210. .

Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:16 AM - Edit history (1)

[redqueen]

108. All I found was this and her piece about her "shazam boobs"

Do you perhaps have a link?

[tammywammy]

109. Here:

http://www.salon.com/2001/05/16/daddy_3/

[redqueen]

112. Jesus.

"Some lovers you just never forget."

[bettyellen]

115. Yep: "Some lovers you just never forget." about her and Dad.... trigger warning....

Him digitally raping her, and forcing her to touch him when she was six.
If she can't call that rape, her opinion on what is rape is worthless.

I brought this up because this article was so coy about what really happened when she was 15. There's no way to judge without knowing the laws or how she behaved. I'd say that was deliberate- she shows an aversion to judging anything as rape. (Her comment about Stuebenville was very unclear- an afterthought. )

Strangely enough, I thought the Girls episode did similar. To me, it was clear she was objecting to a very specific activity and it appeared to me he did stop and move on to something else she had agreed was okay (even after he argued he was fine with her being dirty) . I'm not sure without seeing it again. I thought they did that to show a woman who had been very vocal and clear could also, at times and during the same encounter, be unclear. And unhappy about the outcome. Not sure what happened there.

[smokey nj]

121. That article wasn't written by the author of the OP. The one at this link was written by Delaney

Anderson and the article in the OP was written by Anna March.

[tammywammy]

123. Anna March linked to that article and hers.

I am a survivor of childhood sexual assault and have written about that in assorted publications, including here in Salon, but for my various opinions, I was told that I was not a feminist.

The italicizes "here in Salon" was a link to the article I linked to.

[smokey nj]

124. Are Anna March and Delaney Anderson the same person?

[tammywammy]

126. I'd think so.

Either she used a pseudonym to write the earlier article, which is possible, or she's trying to co-opt someone else's article.

Since both articles are in Salon I'd think the former not the latter.

[bettyellen]

172. yes they are. i was confused too, and saw she changed her name after that article.

[smokey nj]

195. Thanks.

[bettyellen]

120. ha ha, yeah. poor woman apparently still loves all the attention, then regrets getting it...

best cmmnts on the Shazam Boobs:


Thom
MONDAY, DEC 10, 2012 08:50 PM EST
What a ridiculous essay, premised on March's false opposition between being a feminist and "caring" about her breasts. There's nothing interesting here about politics and the body, given the sloppiness of her thinking.

And we're supposed to find something meaningful in March realizing it's better to be with a partner who wants her to be healthy and, you know, alive? Good for her--true love and all that--but I think Salon is using March's tits as click bait to collect hits on a silly, badly thought-out essay not worth the time.

Permalink Flag
Bruce Scherer
MONDAY, DEC 10, 2012 09:15 PM EST
"Shazam boobs" had me hoping this was superhero related. Sorely disappointed. Link baited.

[Hekate]

63. That gave me a shudder

Somebody needs some time with a shrink.

[bettyellen]

72. Ironically, she writes about her many unhappy years allowing men to use her.....

Kind of like her editors seem to be doing now.

[Hekate]

131. In confessional literature, there can be a rather fine line between...

...valuable insight and the merely salacious.

[Whisp]

78. I hear the hooves of the cavalry charging in to support the OP...

and tell us how wrong We are to be disgusted by this probably made up dreck in the OP that is probably a fantasy by a sick man diddling with us.

[cali]

117. Bullshit.

A close-in-age exemption to the Vermont legal age of consent allows a minor 15 or 16 years old to engage ins sexual contact with a partner up to 19 years of age.
Vermont Close-In-Age Exemption
Vermont has a close-in-age exemption, also known as a "Romeo and Juliet law", to the legal age of consent. This provision allows partners who are close in age, or both under the Vermont age of consent, to engage in consensual sex without fear of prosecution under Vermont age of consent regulations. For more information, read about close-in-age exemptions.

Gad.

[Texasgal]

14. 15 and 19

Statutory rape.

YES. She was indeed RAPED. Period.

[phleshdef]

99. Um, no, possibly not. Please see post 97.

[flamingdem]

18. In the olden days, the late 60s and 70s in my case, we didn't call it rape

We just didn't have that mentality. It was "free love" and we were supposed to feel okay about grey area experiences because guys are just like that. We were clueless, so were they.

[nomorenomore08]

20. Of course "bad sex" isn't necessarily rape. Anybody with any sense knows that.

But as other posters have commented, this woman clearly is pushing an agenda, and a rather creepy one at that.

[JI7]

22. yeah, creepy is the word , glad it's not just me who is getting that feeling

from this.

[Sheldon Cooper]

23. Wow that author seems to have really internalized the self-doubt

and self-loathing that so many rape victims feel. I'd feel sorry for her is she had managed to have any insight into what really happened to her, but she's too wrapped up in self-blame to see the situation for what it really was. I hope she gets some help.

[bettyellen]

26. she was sexually abused as a child, and part of her shtick is to be a bit too ambivalent about it.

[Sheldon Cooper]

67. Is it attention-seeking behavior then?

You can certainly gain a lot of attention by taking your rape story and turning it on its head, I guess.

[bettyellen]

71. She got a lot of attention for the first piece, and they are looking for readers. I'm not kidding

when I guess her editor thought this was a great time for her to "not label something rape".
Heck, if she can't use the word to accurately describe the rape of child, she would be the one you call, right?
I think her omission of any details of her experience with those two boys was designed to stir up shit.

For all I know the consent laws in her state made it legal, and she initiated the experience with those two boys. She intentionally put us in a position where it is almost impossible to judge. So, yeah. Flamebait instead of journalism is how it reads to me.

[LiberalLoner]

153. +1

[Shrike47]

25. I also found it creepy.

[JVS]

27. Oh, that was very clearly rape! But part of her article is correct.

"Not giving, or being able to give, consent and regretting consent given are two different things."
That's true.


But since she was a minor, this is a clear cut example of rape. 19 year olds cannot get consent from 15 year olds, even if she thought then and still thinks now that she was capable of giving consent.

[Iris]

30. And she was drunk. n/t

[seabeyond]

35. The idea that what happened in Steubenville... are all rape is ridiculous.

The idea that what happened in Steubenville, with Natalia on “Girls,” and with me in the park 30 years ago are all rape is ridiculous.

not to mention all the posts above, like her father sexually assault her as a young child, and she does not recognize that as rape, or a drunk 15 yr old with a 19 yr old as rape.... where is her authority to claim steubenville was not rape, even against what the judge said.

there was a purpose putting this article out. i am sure you will find people to say raping an unconscious girl really isnt rape. i see you found it. yea, you

[LittleBlue]

36. Where is she claiming Steubenville isn't rape?

The idea that what happened in Steubenville, with Natalia on “Girls,” and with me in the park 30 years ago are all rape is ridiculous. Not giving, or being able to give, consent and regretting consent given are two different things.

I think she's claiming just the opposite.

[seabeyond]

37. it sounds to me like she is saying, what happened in steubenville, girls and her are not rapes. nt

[LittleBlue]

39. I think she's saying they're two different things.

She's saying that all three are not equivalent. Reading the entire article, it's clear she thinks Steubenville is rape.

[tammywammy]

40. She said she was glad justice was served in Steubenville.

a young woman in Steubenville, Ohio (terrific that some sort of justice has been served);

[seabeyond]

45. that was a very poor sentence.

Today I’ve been hearing that any extended discussion of the plight of the rapists in Steubenville is wrong. I think that if we want to teach men not to rape, showing the consequences of punishment is a good thing. I keep hearing that to explore rape prevention strategies for women is wrong, though we teach people how to prevent crime all the time (lock your windows, don’t keep your wallet in your back pocket, turn your lights on when you go out of town, etc.). That statistics from within the rape crisis movement about lesbians being raped are not possible (but we’d better not question statistics about how many women are assaulted – that would be paternalistic!).

It is, of course, vitally important to work against sexism, but trying to hang on to sexual violence as something that only men do to only women is not going to help in that struggle. We can honor the victim and still feel empathy for teenagers convicted of the rape. We can put responsibility on men not to rape and still discuss prevention strategies with women. We can acknowledge that women are perpetrators, too, and we can make room for the fact that men are sexually assaulted in vast numbers (primarily by other men).

i still see the rape apology thru out her piece. really, once i saw she was not going to explain girls... so we as readers could decide if it was rape or not, i perused, and fell on the one sentence that to me implies that the three are the same.

i never really found the sentence you have, been even then, it wasnt demonstratively defending the victim.

and still, getting to more steubenville, i found more that made me uncomfortable.

no, i am not into this piece. i thought the whole of it was what we do not need today. too much of it is used already to victim blame. or dismiss the issue.

"violence that only men do to women". when women rape 1.something %, i think we can hold onto it.

this sounds like a piece from a mens group, honestly.

i dont want to get in the subject. if she was not grouping the three together, my bad. but still, with her sentence structure, she feels like she was. and the rest i read wasnt impressive.

and . i havent seen you in forever. good seeing you again.

[tammywammy]

50. I didn't read it as rape apologist or dismissive.

We need to stop cannibalizing one another over our differences, and instead invite broad discussion. Yes, we must teach men not to rape, but it’s not as simple as that. In order to end sexual violence, a number of strategies must be employed and to talk about them too often gets incorrectly dismissed as victim blaming. Men should be encouraged to take more active roles in the fight against sexual violence. Sex should be discussed in terms that describe a shared perspective rather than as something that is done to a person by another person. It’s a pretty short walk from trying to “talk a girl into” sex to taking the sex, from cajoling to coercing to forcing. Let’s rewrite the story by respecting women’s sexual choices — even when those choices lead to sex that makes us feel bad, pretending that we enjoy things we don’t.

I thought it was an interesting article...thought provoking.

[bettyellen]

79. yeah- when you have to reread and check for the parenthetical to be certain she can finally call

a rape what it is..... Well that kind of says it all. She is kind of all over the place in that article.

[seabeyond]

84. exactly. especially as the whole article implies otherwise. one would expect

her defending the rapist in this situation, then to put up a poorly written sentence putting steubenville in with two other rapes she has already declared are not rapes.

i mean...

but, as i said, there was a lot in the article i was not comfortable with. i have heard on du to dismiss rape discussion.

[bettyellen]

90. if you read back to her earlier article, you can see she has serious issues faulting herself

It's very sad, her history and all. She seems unable to really blame her Dad, or call what she went through as a young girl rape. It was. Not the best judge of these things, is she?

[Whisp]

96. yeh, I'm feeling sorry for her now rather than angry at her. n/t

[LittleBlue]

42. Nice...

[geek tragedy]

49. Cool story. nt

[dsc]

60. but if it had been a man

and not a woman, what would your and their reactions have been?

[JVS]

89. Yes you were raped.

[cali]

101. Please tell me you're not serious.

[niyad]

46. the OP is posting an article from salon, not speaking from personal experience, I think.

[In_The_Wind]

48. Well then. I am truly sorry that it happened to anyone.

[JI7]

51. that's fucked up, did he ever get arrested ?

[In_The_Wind]

55. no

[ismnotwasm]

47. Oh, For Gods Sake

Bad sex is bad sex. Drunken, consensual sex is not rape. Its embarrassing, sure. I remember a time or two myself back in the day. Steal the booze and dope and get the hell out before the talentless idiot woke up. Is this now a 'thing' --a "I got drunk and I wasn't raped" story?

Or a bad sex stories? I despise bad sex.


I despise rape far more. I've always known the difference between a useless mistake of a sexual encounter and a rapist asshole.

[Texasgal]

52. 15 years old

and a 19 year old is NOT consensual sex! There are laws and a reason for them!

[ismnotwasm]

54. Oh, geez, I'm sorry! You're so right.

I didn't see the ages. It pisses me off that there has to 'clarification' of rape. Women have such a hard time with the 'false accusation' bullshit I thought this was a back door way to say the same thing.

Figured I'd establish my bone fides right of the bat.

[cali]

118. It is consenual in Vermont. You know that awful backward state.

[madville]

53. 30 years ago what was the age of consent?

Just curious legally. To this day some states are 16,17, or 18. Was it younger back then in your state?

[alp227]

56. Simple moral issue: it's the CONSENT & the law that matter.

No consent, no sex. Also the law too.

[Kalidurga]

58. So what was the point at the park where she consented enthusiastically?

I must of read over that part. But, later on she says that sex shouldn't happen unless both parties have given enthusiastic consent. So, I can only assume I missed the part where she consented enthusiastically to have sex with a boy and a 19 year old man in a park when she was 15 and not even at the age of consent let alone enthusiastic consent. I understand rape denial. I haven't seen someone this thick with it before. She seems to have a double standard one standard says she wasn't raped, but another that says she was.

Also she doesn't seem to be able to describe what happened in the episode of Girls she refers to. I would call that rape as well. It isn't just bad sex when someone is abusive and you are telling them during the act it's not ok that you aren't liking things that are happening. That is a clear signal that sex should be over or that some accommodating needs to be done. Clearly the guy didn't stop and he clearly made no accommodations when she asked. I don't care if her objection was that she hadn't showered and he was ok with that. It seems pretty clear that she was really saying stop. If nothing else he was obligated to stop and offer her time to take a shower. But, I am pretty sure she was saying just stop. It's pretty common for women to say things like that to put off having sex without having to say the words no or not tonight.

[Generation_Why]

59. In a few years, this will be the new approach to sexual consent...

[MineralMan]

66. Yah, that's pushing it to absurdity,

but consent is something that has to be given for all of those things, at the time. Every time. Sometimes, it even does involve negotiations, but attorneys aren't necessary. The consent thing is necessary, though.

[boston bean]

68. Are you saying that most alleged rapes are not rape?

[Bucky]

77. It's a pretty frivolous treatment of a serious subject.

The joke wasn't funny enough to warrant 6 minutes of my life, so maybe the video made a more important point after the one minute mark when I saw where the joke was going.

[Generation_Why]

122. I wasn't really saying anything. Just injecting some humor. But I'll clarify MY stance:

Holding someone down against their will and forcing yourself on them is rape.

Using a passed out body as a sex object is rape.

Rape is actually under-reported and victims are further, unfairly, and digustingly victimized in the courts.

With that video, I was taking a shot at people that seem to want to broaden the definition of rape. They're as kooky as those seeking to shrink the definition.

[bettyellen]

149. so totally passed out is your standard here for rape? And you think a "yes" is too much trouble

to obtain when you you want to have sex? (inferred from video)
Wow, see and many here thought no education is needed on the issue. Sheesh.

[Egalitarian Thug]

75. The problem I see with this article is that the author assumes that whether what was done to her

was or was not rape is a choice.

[randome]

81. I think the point is that NOW, as an adult, she does not consider it rape.

It was definitely rape at the time but today she does not consider it to be rape.

And I suppose she does not feel traumatized by it.

[bettyellen]

91. I don't think she considered it rape then either... did I miss something?

[randome]

143. I'm saying it was rape according to the law, regardless of consent.

But as an adult now, she is free to call it as she sees it and she does not now consider it rape, apparently.

[lunasun]

80. "The idea that what happened in Steubenville, with Natalia on “Girls,” and with me in the park 30

"he idea that what happened in Steubenville, with Natalia on “Girls,” and with me in the park 30 years ago are all rape is ridiculous"

Well that is one opinion on the Ohio case from one person
Do not know the show or her own history but why add the Ohio case?

[Lex]

85. It was oddly written

mixing up all the cases together and trying to comment on them as if they both were, and weren't, the same.

[Lex]

83. Legally, it doesn't matter if she doesn't "feel" it was rape. If she was unable to give consent

because a) she hadn't reached the age of consent, or b) was too drunk to give meaningful consent,

then it was rape.

[phleshdef]

97. Some people in this thread don't have a lot of knowledge about statutory rape laws.

They differ from state to state and they've been different at different points in time.

I don't know what state this happened in or what the laws were 30 years ago in whatever state that was. Without knowing that, there is no way to determine if statutory rape occurred in a legal sense. For example, some states have an age of consent at 16 BUT if the older party is less than 4 years older than the younger person, then its still not considered statutory rape. West Virginia, where I grew up, is like that. A 19 year old could, hypothetically be less than 4 years older than a 15 year old, depending on where birthdays fall. If that 15 year old turns 16 before the 19 year old turns 20, then it would be legal.

The moral of my post is, don't make assumptions without knowing the facts.

EDIT: An upon further examination, the author of this article grew up in DC, she reveals that in an interview found here:

http://www.literaryorphans.org/playdb/?page_id=532

Currently, DC has the same 4 year exemption a lot of states have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws

"The age of consent in the District of Columbia is 16 with a close in age exemption for those within four years of age"

Meaning its very possible that no legal rape occurred.

[Comrade Grumpy]

98. Wow, this woman has an improper opinion. Let's trash her.

How dare she interpret her own experiences in her own way?

[tammywammy]

102. I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing that.

From saying it must be a man and NAMBLA like.

[bettyellen]

105. if she is unable to call digital penetration of a six year old rape I will trash her WRITING about

the subject of "what is rape". Hell YES I will. Not her, but what she has written. Which is crap, btw.

Why wouldn't we share opinions on a piece posted here, LOL.
Are you new around here or something?

[redqueen]

106. Who's trashing her? Being angry at the fact that she's working so hard to blur lines does not

equate to trashing someone.

Nice try, though.

The fact is, she was raped by her own father. That kind of, you know, has lasting aftereffects.

Dr. Warren Farrell is another person who tried to claim that raping your own children could be part of a loving relationship. Is it ok for him to do it too? Or is it only wrong because he wasn't rationalizing his own experience of rape?

[sigmasix]

137. lasting aftereffects indeed

Sexual traumatization of a child can and does cause the formation of an adult with demonstrated emotional, sexual and social problems that include confusion about the reality of thier own victimization.
There is tons of research that underlines this fact- why do so many people seem to forget this?

[bettyellen]

156. some people think it's okay for her to write about that- or hide it from readers to manipulate them

(as I think she did here)

but we can't discuss it. Whoa. Makes no sense to me.

[Lex]

128. So disagreeing is "trashing" her?

[LadyHawkAZ]

135. Thank you

Some of the responses in this thread are frightening.

~She was molested by her father so her opinion on her later consensual encounters is invalid.
~She didn't mention her molestation in this article, so she's dishonest.
~Her description of her father's abuse was a little too wistful and she didn't call it rape clearly enough (here's the article, trigger warning, the descriptions of what it did to her mind are horrifying) so she's worthless. (???!!!)
~She has the wrong opinion. She must be a man.

PEOPLE, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. Agree with the article or don't. I don't care, but agree or disagree on its own merits. Attacking her for her experiences with her father, as if it was her choice somehow, is out of line; using it to attack her unrelated experiences and invalidate both those experiences and her as a person is flat-out wrong. This is not the way to treat an adult victim of childhood abuse. We've spent years trying to remove the perception that sexual abuse leaves you a ruined person. This isn't helping. Please stop it.

[redqueen]

141. "so she's worthless."

Who said that?

I don't think anyone said that her being raped by her father makes her opinion on later encounters invalid. People said the law about statutory rape made her opinion about her experience of rape invalid.

Her having been raped by her father and then referring to him as a "lover" is what makes her opinions on rape questionable at best, is what I think. (However it was pointed out that she didn't even write it so I don't even know why that piece of crap vomitous editorial was even mentioned in this thread except as yet another example of muddying the waters about rape.)

Your mischaracterization of what others are saying adds absolutely nothing to this discussion.

[LadyHawkAZ]

145. .

"Him digitally raping her, and forcing her to touch him when she was six.
If she can't call that rape, her opinion on what is rape is worthless."

"she is the writer who wrote- a little too wistfully- about her father's abuse. I don't think she called him digitally penetrating her- when she was 5 or 6 I think? rape either."

"she was sexually abused as a child, and part of her shtick is to be a bit too ambivalent about it."

Schtick? Ambivalence? If you want to talk mischaracterization, let's look at some of what was actually said in that piece tammywammy posted about her father:

"The abuse was the center of my universe. I created an imaginary friend, Charlotte, who was the only one I confided in. I had conversations with Charlotte in my head all the time about the ways my father touched me. We would devise elaborate strategies, some plotting to get rid of my dad so he’d stop doing it and others scheming to get rid of his girlfriend so he would never stop thinking I was special.

I acted out my distress in myriad ways. My kindergarten teacher caught me gritting my teeth as I pretended to strangle an imaginary attacker. She notified my mother, who questioned me. I told my mother that I was cold — that I was shaking because I was cold. Her solution was for me to carry a little white sweater to school with me every day. Once when a friend and I were playing at my house, I stuck my fingers in my vagina and asked her to sniff them. In my neighborhood, a small group of us kids used to expose our genitals to each other, but only I let one of the boys try to put his penis in me. Once I made my best friend, Jane, pull down her pants and lie across my lap as I pretended to spank her. I told her she was a bad girl. It was what had been done to me.

Shortly after I started spending nights at my dad’s house, two girls in my neighborhood disappeared. One was 11, one was 9. It was traumatic; their disappearance spooked me horribly. There was whispering, never substantiated in any way, that maybe their father had been “messing around” with them and they ran away from home, or that he killed them to protect himself; this theory stuck with me. The day they ran the dogs in the woods across the street, the day they dragged the pond searching for their bodies, those are two of the most vivid and horrific memories of my youth. I worried for my life, that I would disappear or that I would be killed. I started writing my will. I was 6. "

Yeah, that's "wistful", and it gets uglier from there. I'm sorry that in working through her feelings publicly in an article for a heavily trafficked website, she used a sentence you didn't like, and it rendered all her other thoughts and feelings invalid. Because she called it "abuse" and not "rape". Jesus H. Fucking Christ. Does anyone think this stuff through at all before they say it?

[redqueen]

157. No, not "a sentence (I) didn't like"... a whole bunch of noxious crap about "Daddy".

Did you read it?

"It was like a vestige of Daddy; for a long, long time, only Daddy would make me come."

I'm sorry, but that verbiage is fucking sick. She didn't have to say it that way, but she did. And she said a lot more questionable shit besides, and then she CLOSES by referring to him her lover.

[LadyHawkAZ]

159. Yes, I read it. Not just a few select sentences but the whole thing

which was, in its entirety, her working through her feelings on the abuse. Which she called abuse, and described as abuse. The reason her verbiage is sick is because the entire abuse was sick, and she recognized it as such. She described her abuse as she saw it and experienced it, not the way you think she should have seen it. And then had the nerve to have sex at 15, and talk about that too.

Damn abuse victims!

I cleared my ignore list today. I think that may have been a mistake.

[redqueen]

160. I went through that same shit.

And no, her verbiage is not sick because it was sick.

[bettyellen]

151. i said her opinion about using the word "rape" was worthless, and I stand by it.

[redqueen]

152. "her opinion is worthless" =! "she's worthless" nt

[bettyellen]

155. are we not allowed to critique work by any writers who've been sexually abused?

[LadyHawkAZ]

158. You are not allowed to use past, unrelated abuse as a dismissal

of a person whose opinion you don't like. No. Just no. Fuck no.

[bettyellen]

161. I'm using the stories she tells about herself to give context to the stories about herself.

because I believe she is being dishonest- and it's journalism (sort of). and it;s about rape and she;s the one choosing to bring it up- seriously - can no one discuss the body of her work- because it is mostly about rape- I have to shut up? NO.

not dismissing her as a HUMAN BEING, please fucking stop saying that. That's bullshit.

sometimes human beings put out shitty products.
this article is one.

[redqueen]

163. Portraying criticisms of someone's opinion as a personal attack...

I guess if that's the only way you can make your point...

[redqueen]

162. The OP's opinion about statutory rape was dismissed because statutory rape.

Not because of the different woman who romanticized her father raping her.

[bettyellen]

165. they are the same writer- she changed her name.

[redqueen]

166. Thanks. nt

[LadyHawkAZ]

167. It wasn't a different woman

From the OP:

I am a survivor of childhood sexual assault and have written about that in assorted publications, including here in Salon, but for my various opinions, I was told that I was not a feminist.

I can't imagine why she would want to publish it under a different name. Because it's not like there are assholes in the world who would hold such a thing against her... we don't do that with victims, right?

"Romanticized". "Wistful". "Schtick". After all the things she said in that article. Onto ignore with both of you.

[redqueen]

169. Thanks for calling me an asshole for disagreeing about her opinions.

And her characterization of her being raped by her father.

Nice of you. Pure class.

[bettyellen]

170. you still don't understand the difference between attacking the work, and attacking the person?

Have somebody else explain it to you. Because they are two different things.

[bettyellen]

175. she is attempting OPED journalism, for fuck's sake. and doing it dishonestly, and pandering

with salacious little anecdotes designed to stir up controversy. that is a criticism of her work. i don't think she's been able to sell anything that wasn't deliberate sit stirring.

If she has to change her name again, because she cannot handle commentary on her work, that is all on her. she chooses to reveal and conceal quite what she wants to, when she wants to. we get to put the stories together and judge her stories as a whole. That is what this is about, her writings, her career.

[redqueen]

190. "pandering with salacious little anecdotes designed to stir up controversy"

Spot fucking on.

As a fellow survivor I find it sickening.

[bettyellen]

192. and here I thought we weren;t supposed to put any woman on a pedestal.

I find it sickening too.

[LittleBlue]

164. It's futile, LadyHawk

Your rational, logical approach is no good. Honestly expressing her feelings on being sexually abused makes her arguments worthless.

[redqueen]

171. Another person is equating criticizing her opinion and characterizations

as being the same as questioning her sanity.

Time for high melodrama now I guess.

[bettyellen]

176. completely misquoting what people here wrote. I call bullshit.

[redqueen]

183. I meant to reply to you.

I can't believe the post I replied to.

No one is "questioning her sanity"

[LittleBlue]

144. I recall something Dave Chappelle said about it

On Inside the Actors Studio with James Lipton, Chappelle said that questioning another person's sanity is one of the most vicious attacks on them. It marginalizes them as thinking people, making their viewpoint invalid.

I'm guilty of it at times, we're probably all guilty of it at times. Questioning a molestation victim's mental state because she takes a particular opinion is pretty low. Only her psychiatrist (if she has one) would have a valid opinion about her mental state, which we must presume is unimpaired.

[LadyHawkAZ]

146. It makes me goddamn furious

and always has.

[randome]

147. Sometimes group behavior causes the very feelings we want a victim to not feel.

If we tell someone over and over again that she must feel awful about being raped, then she might be 'swayed' by those strong expressions into feeling something she might not otherwise have felt.

At the same time, we want to offer all the support and understanding that it's possible to give so the needle to be threaded can be next to impossible.

[bettyellen]

154. I don't get it- I criticized HER PIECE for omitting her whole history of sexually acting out....

when she felt it was significant enough to go into in great detail before- and it's incredibly relevant to the experience she is now writing about. As is her reluctance to use the word rape in the past.

in this article, she's suddenly reluctant to flesh out the details of her experience - because it makes her story so much more controversial, and edgy. so yeah, I think it was a deliberately manipulative choice to present an unclear scenario and she's a hack for doing it.

Abuse survivors can lack talent and make shitty creative decisions too. And they can certainly participate in their own exploitation, just like the rest of us. I think it's important not to ignore that.


Get it right. I said her opinion on something was worthless, not her. Sheesh.

[bettyellen]

191. that would be relevant- if every bullet pointed item in that list wasn't bullshit.

but it appears none of them are accurate. you'd have to cut the words up and arrange the words to get something close to the truth of what she is posting about.

seriously - she;s writing about her life in a very disjointed and dishonest way. she should be called on it.

[msanthrope]

193. I'm rather glad this behavior...which you documented quite well, IMHO,

is no longer confined to Meta..but is on display in GD for the wider audience to see.

[LadyHawkAZ]

196. I should not have cleared my ignore list

My current nausea is my own fault.

It's victim shaming. If she'd said "I had sex at 15 and it was totally rape!" there would have been no questioning, no arguments, no accusations of dishonesty if she didn't disclose her prior abuse, no vicious digs at her horrific incest story (which she did call abuse) or suggestions that she seemed to have liked it a little too much, no questioning of her gender, she'd have been a hero. Unfortunately her opinion was a "wrong" opinion, so she must be either mentally damaged or lying.

Fuck.

[opiate69]

199. Yup.. and, as expected, the responses to you are worth at least 2 squares on the bingo card..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2548525

[mercymechap]

119. Sure sounds like rape to me.

It's obvious that she doesn't feel bad about it now, claiming that she doesn't consider it rape and it's a good thing that she has moved on and that she wasn't traumatized, but obviously she felt bad when it happened. It seems apparent her concept of rape must have been muddied or she would have told someone about it then. But, nonetheless, a 19 year old having sex with a 15 year old is definitely rape. It doesn't matter how promiscuous the 15 year old seems and even if she throws herself naked at an adult male, that is no reason for him to take advantage of her.

In Texas a young AF trainer just got 4 years in prison for having sex with a trainee (not a minor). There seems to be a scandal of the sort as several other trainers have been tried already. In reading this particular story in the newspaper, I found it odd that she was living in California but had flown back to Texas several times to have sex with him, after the alleged rape took place. Her claim was that she wanted to develop a relationship but he pushed her into having sex before she was ready. Thousands of e-mails and texts that were exchanged between the two were introduced as evidence, and she was married the whole time to someone else. The internet articles do not disclose many of these details like the newspaper did. Anyway, after reading about it I wasn't convinced that this could be considered rape, yet he has been labeled as such.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-17/national/37795946_1_air-force-trainer-wrongful-sexual-contact-lackland-instructors

[Lex]

130. Yes, and it doesn't matter legally that she doesn't "feel" like it was now.

I am glad she's made peace with it in her own way.

[flvegan]

197. Your responses are very interesting.

DU is what it is.

Thank you for this post.

[seabeyond]

204. thank you for taking the time to break it down as much as you did. there was a lot of troublesome

in this article. clearly. and i really did not want to delve into it. just a lot of bad.

that was one thing i was noting in this thread. they hypocrisy. saying we must embrace her article that has so much wrong in it, or we are calling her personally out (shaming?), yet... this whole article was telling women how to accept their rape and feel sorry for their rapist.

[redqueen]

205. It about made me physically ill to have to sift through it.

Yesterday I could barely read it. "every girl who would spread her legs"... you know who talks like that? Yeah... anyway...

I posted it as an OP instead. IMO it's that important to really see the messages that person is sending and supporting.

[seabeyond]

206. yes. i agree. the trash is just overwhelming.

it really is.