So I just found a new blog by Alisa of Kink in Exile. She works for a non-governmental organization (a.k.a. NGO) somewhere in southeast Asia. She’s also a BDSM masochist. Which, she makes pretty clear, can be problematic in areas where for women no isn’t respected, where it doesn’t mean no.
Figleaf mentioned the sexual freedom created by the feminist idea of “no means no” in two of his posts and this intrigues me. Of course growing up in the world of 3rd wave feminism I took the idea of “no means no” and “no one asks to be abused” as a matter of course. However, what Figleaf points out is that these ideas give me the power to say yes. He articulates something I have been struggling with since moving to Asia.
You see, I noticed that I am a lot less sexual here; a lot less open to sexuality in general and a lot less desiring of sexual attention in specific. No can mean a lot of things here, but it does not, in general, mean “no, please stop this is not ok with me.” I don’t feel safe here and so energy I would otherwise spend on cultivating relationships I divert toward responding to, and coping with harassment. Furthermore, I don’t feel respected the way I do in the west. I don’t feel like all of my choices will be respected – only the socially acceptable ones. As Figleaf points out I have to think about what I am willing to say yes to because I do not later get the option of saying “No. Enough.”
I may wind up quoting too much of the post. You can see it in one place, though, here.
It’s a pretty big deal. Not to say there isn’t still a lot more work to do — not only elsewhere in the world as where Alisa must deal not only with the local culture but also an international/business/NGO culture where the work of learning to respect not just women but feminism hasn’t been much of a priority — but it’s pretty vivid hearing ideas I can only promote in the abstract returned to me in tangible detail. And it’s not just an affirmation of anything I’ve said. In earlier post on rape she talks about another critical feminist principle: “nobody asks to be abused.”
I live in a particularly fucked up place on a generally fucked up planet. I am surrounded by women who are more scared than any western woman I have ever met. They don’t walk alone, don’t sit with men, don’t wear tanktops, don’t drink in public. This is the virgin/whore paradigm taken to the nth degree – we are virgins and the whore should rightfully get raped.
I mentioned to a friend the other day that being sex positive in a culture where rape is so common was getting hard. He told me being sex positive was “extremely risky.” You know what, it is, but that is not what I needed to hear. As Calico pointed out, I am not empowered because I didn’t get raped. Rape is not ok, why is this a question?
Not getting raped should not be a full time job and I am sick and fucking tired of it being just that.
Being a good girl does not protect you from being raped.
Walking in pairs does not protect you from being raped.
Saying no to a drink does not protect you from being raped.
Wearing a burqa does not protect you from being raped.
And why would this “feminist staple” be any business of the vast, vast majority of men who, after all (and as Alisa clearly says) have no interest in raping anyone? I’m darn glad you asked (emphasis mine.)
Pay attention because this one is important – sex is a good thing, and good sex does not lead to rape.
And if you think this isn’t your problem because you’re male you’re wrong. Do you realize the impact on your sex life? Do you realize the affect that a woman in America getting raped every 2 minutes has on the woman you’re dating? Do you really think men can’t get raped? Do you really think that your sex life can be as fulfilling as possible when half of us are taught fear before we know what we’re supposed to be afraid of?
Makes a lot of sense, right? Here’s a woman who enjoys sadomasochistic sex violent enough to give the nice people at Kink.com pause, and all around her are guys wanking to, well, clips from kink.com because they’re not doing anything to make the world safe enough for potential partners like her, like others in their own countries or towns, maybe in their buildings, and maybe right next to them perishing away in the same bed!
Contrary to what neo-conservative feminists may believe I engage in kinky sex, SM, non-monogamy, or even heteronormative intercourse not in spite of women’s liberation, but because of it. Knowing that when I say “no” it will be respected allows me to say yes to all the things I am interested in without fear. It opens a whole new world of possibilities that were not possible under the virgin/whore paradigm, or if they were came with too high a price. And that is fundamentally the difference between sex in my tribe and sex in exile…when my “no” isn’t respected I am not willing to say “yes.”
“When my ‘no’ isn’t respected I am not willing to say ‘yes.’” Think about that. Hard.
And men ask what’s in feminism for them? How about honesty in your relationships? How about respect. How about enthusiasm? How about trust? How about acceptance of your lust. How about fulfillment of your hopes, dreams, and wildest fantasies?
And yes, this is one of those much-maligned “sex blogs” and so yes, I couch my arguments when I can purely in terms of sex, but I want to be clear that anything and everything men are willing in good faith to put into feminism they will get out of it more honesty, respect, enthusiasm, trust, acceptance in every part of their relationships, and not just in bed. But yeah, in bed too.
You a man who doesn’t want to go there? There’s probably a box cleanup tissues on the nightstand, table, or bathroom counter near you. How’s that been going for you? Want to live like that the rest of your life?
Me neither. And neither does Alisa. And neither do your partners. Whatever perqs we men might think we’re getting just don’t pencil out so well.
—-
Her whole blogs pretty interesting. Check it out if you get a chance.
Submitted by 1751 (not verified) on Thu, 2007-11-15 20:34.
That post made me cry.
I refused to be in relationships for a really really long time cos I knew I had a lot I wanted to sort out before I did get back into them - I had been involved in a few abusive relationships and I came from a family background where the scene was set for me to put up with abuse and bad treatment.
So having made this decision that I would not be in a relationship til I felt strong enough to know that I would not put up with any bad treatment, that I would be able to say *that's not enough*, not just *that's wrong* (ie, knowing what I wanted, rather than just what I didn't want), I was stuck in a bizarre position - as a single mum back at uni, older than most of the people I studied with...who the fuck was I gonna sleep with?
I had no problem whatsoever with the idea of casual sex...except (and this is a fucking big except) I did not feel safe. My ideal I guess was a casul set up with someone I know, but I wasn't meeting enough people for that to pan out, and there was no way in hell (particularly after doing Criminal Law and reading the rape stats, the commentaries by police and judges etc) I was going home with any dude I met at a club. And this post just nailed it.
If I don't know without a shadow of a doubt that I am guaranteed to be able to say no and have that absolutely respected, there was no way I was going anywhere with with a guy, in fact I'm didn't even bother talking to guys because when I did and they were repulsive arseholes and I decided to leave the conversation I was often called a slut and abused. (BTW an excellent post on this stuff over at Hoyden About Town and the fact that the dudes working the Pick Up Artist crap need to learn that this is often why women don't approach them)
Now please, don't read me as judging women who do talk to guys in pubs and go home with them...I have no ethical problem with it whatsoever...but I felt viscerally unsafe about it.
So this:
And if you think this isn’t your problem because you’re male you’re wrong. Do you realize the impact on your sex life? Do you realize the affect that a woman in America getting raped every 2 minutes has on the woman you’re dating? Do you really think men can’t get raped? Do you really think that your sex life can be as fulfilling as possible when half of us are taught fear before we know what we’re supposed to be afraid of?
is fucking WHERE IT'S AT guys!
and this:
And men ask what's in feminism for them? How about honesty in your relationships? How about respect. How about *enthusiasm?* How about trust? How about acceptance of your lust. How about fulfillment of your hopes, dreams, and wildest fantasies?
gives me hope for masculinity!
[Yeah. It's pretty frustrating when you think about it. I mean... the thing is that there's this whole *fictional* level to sex -- who "scores," who gets "scored against" -- that just fucks up the kind of *real* sex we could be having just as much of... or less of... or *more* of... instead. And then you look at all the *damage* it causes, and men, especially, think that if we don't "jump on" every chance for sex we can that we're somehow losers... with the result that we alienate and outright freak out our ostensible partners. Grrrr!!! Thank you FP. --fl]
Submitted by 1751 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-11-16 10:11.
Excellent post. Thanks!
[Thank you, PS. --fl]
Submitted by 1751 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-11-16 18:37.
(Appropriately retooled PUA rant for here, feel free to delete):
Ah, fl, I think you discount the effects of "'Just Say No' Means No" a bit, the unholy union of patriarchy and feminism, which results in a sort of learned helplessness in susceptible men. Approaching potential partners is blood sport for a man's ego, and I find it crushingly humiliating that my partners (feminists all, armed with latex and pill and education) have been few and far between, while equally-educated and -protected NON-feminist women have been fulfilling the every desire of traditionally-masculine men to the tune of lots and lots of sex. The reason straight men jump at any chance of sex is that almost all of them are in a situation of scarcity compared to their desire, and most--I would argue--are in a situation of absolute scarcity. Trying to keep a grip on the operative humanity of people who seem to exist to frustrate you is difficult at the best of times, and "the PUA crap" is actually the only counter-indoctrination available on a par with "'Just Say NO' means NO" in terms of strategies for coping with "rejection", because it provides a bigger picture (one is developing a social skill set, not trying for an outcome-dependent confirmation of one's worth) if nothing can be done about the frustration, although not the total acceptance as full human beings that feminism calls for, namely that women simply ARE, without reference to men or men's desires.
[You might be interested to know that one of my huge breakthroughs towards understanding the "no-sex" paradigm was recognizing that *inside* the paradigm "no means no" means "no, not ever" not "no if you're going to be a jerk about it." The best illustration, ever, of the difference is in this post by The Girl With A One-Track Mind. Read that post. Memorize it! She wasn't saying no to sex. In fact, she wasn't even saying "no you're a jerk." In fact she kept saying over, and over, to get off the being-a-jerk business and fuck her already. And she *still* had to literally grab him by the balls and squeeze -- to almost *literally* be a ball-buster. And after that she *still* wanted to have sex with him! And he just couldn't stop because his belief that he had to "score" by ejaculating *on* her outweighed any desire to have sex *with* her! And actually I'm going to have to do a whole post about that because, come to think about it, he was so deep in his PUA/SC/no-sex-class hole he couldn't even listen to "yes means yes!" See what I mean? Thanks, Eurosabra. --fl]
Submitted by 1751 (not verified) on Sun, 2007-11-18 08:03.
How excellent to wake up and find this! Alisa's an amazing woman. I'm going to drop her an email in case she didn't notice your post yet.
[Thanks, Calico! I think she knows. Nice to hear from you too, by the way. --fl]
Submitted by 1751 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-11-19 15:50.
I'm very familiar with that post, and my reading of her readers' response to it was that BECAUSE the type of unsatisfactory sex that she declined objectified HER, it was okay (according to her radfem readers) for her to become threateningly violent to force respect for her boundaries, while the type of unsatisfactory sex she proposed to him (condom, etc) left him with the option of unsatisfactory sex or no sex, which is the choice feminism leaves men, tout court. And indeed, she keeps score by counting orgasms and is quite happy about the "seven to one" score, particularly since the guy didn't get the orgasm he wanted. I was trying to find some rationale for this reading that doesn't make it look like female sexual agency itself is the problem from the perspective of straight men, except that the guy is both a jerk and Freud's ideal model of male sexuality, because he can only experience pleasure in degradation of the sex object. The urge to "chuck it" with a partner like One Track would be pretty great, since she's obviously aggressively cruising with concern for her own pleasure uppermost, relying on the guy's asshattery for the readers' sympathy. So my thought is that perhaps they deserve each other.
Part of the problem with the "no sex class" paradigm is that people who feel that men can negotiate EXACTLY the type of sex they want OVERLOOK the situation of scarcity. Craigslist is crammed with str8 top men seeking female subs, and female doms seeking male subs for "no sex" play. I think your line above discounts the VERY REAL difficulty the average man has finding a partner, even among average women, and the PUA dogma is quite clear: "Don't be average."
["...straddling my chest and pinning down my arms with his thighs... I also knew that if he didn’t shift I would have his come all over my face." --fl]
Submitted by 1751 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-11-19 19:24.
Yeah, of course he's a harmful, dangerous, sexually-violent idiot. Thing is, there's so much going on in that encounter that I think antics like that don't indicate anything about the "no sex" paradigm, which is a "vanilla" problem and a "vanilla" paradigm. Rather it's a "no sex without degradation" problem, i.e. the guy is obviously pornsick. Someone truly vanilla wouldn't be preoccupied with the $ shot, someone decent with experience in BDSM would NEVER try to renegotiate boundaries DURING the activity, a fortiori through coercion, and I'm a little bit surprised at both parties' inability to walk away from the sex--I am surprised that the persistence didn't totally squick out "Abby Lee", and I find it indicative of the @$$hattery involved that the guy was unwilling to walk away at the outset or act like an honest participant in consensual activity and respect her boundaries. A real dom would find someone up for the full money shot, someone completely vanilla would have no interest in it, and anyone with a modicum of humanity would respect her boundaries, although doing it grudgingly would be grounds for "no sex." The real, honest reaction from someone totally trapped in the "no sex" paradigm (and wholly unspoken for fear of giving up a chance at some good playtime, finally) would be "I'll respect your boundaries for the sake of getting some play", itself unhealthy, unfair, and belittling, but perhaps not inhuman if it leads to decent, pleasant, and respectful sex. Certainly not as intrinsically *evil* (other human as irrevocably Other, means to an end, object not subject, denial of agency "What are you going to do about it?" etc. etc.) as what actually happened (which is all of the previous.) It's too *pathological* to be "no sex", rather it's "pr0n sick."
[I just wanted to establish that her response was neither unprovoked nor even (while harsh) uncalled for. I agree that others might have simply called it off sooner. And while sure, he's not exactly what you'd call a typical case his exaggerated behavior (or her exaggerated, though credible portrayal) he's an excellent poster boy. Or, put it another way: he doesn't need a different cure, he just needs a lot more than most of us ever will. The cure being recognition that women don't just enjoy sex but enjoy it *non-abstractly.* Thanks, Eurosabra. --fl]