The commoditization of sex (or, why rape is still bad)

There was an article on Reddit in the past few days; some academic blowhard saying that the same sexual ethics that permits promiscuity also means that rape is no worse than assault or coercion of any other kind.

I must loudly disagree.

The sexual ethics that allow promiscuity does not, as the idea that rape is no worse than assault or mugging requires, imply any sort of commoditizing the sexual act or sexuality itself.  It implies "hey, sex is fun, let's do it".

In order for rape to be equivalent to assault or mugging, there are a few factors that would have to be completely removed.

1)  The exceptionally personal nature of sex means that rape and sexual assault are also far, far more personal crimes.  You're not just beating someone, you are doing something personal to them.  You are taking away their self-determination in matters of the most intimate nature.

2)  Assault and muggings don't come with either of the possible life sentences common in rape cases: pregnancy and STDs.  If a guy punching me could give me AIDS, shit, that'd be bad.  But it can't.

3)  Rape survivors, unlike people who get assaulted, have shit to deal with just trying to have justice served.  People who get beaten, or robbed, or practically any other crime, are rarely told, in a roundabout way, that it's their fault.  Rape survivors?  They get told "Should've dressed less slutty" and "Shouldn't have been drunk" and "shouldn't be alone at night".

So, rather than say that a culture that allows promiscuity has no right to punish rape more harshly than theft, assault, or breaking and entering, why not look at the actual issue here.  Sex is not a commodity in a sex-positive culture; sex is a deeply personal thing in a sex-positive culture.  In fact, in a sex-positive culture, it is more personal because you are having sex when, where, how, why, and with whom you want, rather than being bound by rules the sole purpose of which is to control.

Old Stuff -- Instinct

A while back, I had a heated discussion on Facebook with a girl who I know to be vehemently — almost violently — “pro-life”.
Besides my general problems with the “pro-life” movement, this girl had the audacity to start saying that abortion “goes against the maternal instinct”.
I have two problems with this.

1. This girl finds certain other instincts — the instinct to fuck, for example — to be absolutely detestable.  If something is base by virtue of being instinctual, and, as a result, something for animals below our stature, then all instincts are thus painted with that brush, not just the ones you find to be “morally reprehensible.”
2. The biological imperative generally called “maternal instinct” is more than just “must protect my baby’s life at all costs.”  The actual maternal instinct is to do as much as possible to produce offspring that will be successful, and able to reproduce, spreading the genes; if you give birth to a child and do not have the means to care for it, you are actually going *against* the maternal instinct if you keep that up, since that child will end up a malnourished, prickly creature with a lack of a modern education.  This does not seem to breed success.

Now, I have some problems with the pro-life movement in general.  Perhaps not so much with their end goals — I’m all for reducing abortions, too, and I’m pretty damn pro-choice — but with their means of doing so.

1. I find the name “pro-life” to be an extreme misnomer.  Many of these people are, at best, pro-existence; many children born to those considering an abortion will end up doing little more than existing, and forcing this sorry state is a true shame.  Others will rally in favor of the death penalty within minutes of chanting and praying and singing and harassing in the name of the “right to life” that is held by all people.  However, a wise PR man once said that it is better to be “pro-x” than “anti-y”.  And, come now, how can one really be against life?
2. Many times, I will hear “we need to ban abortion” in the same breath as “we need to teach kids about abstinence!”  That’s great, but here’s the problem: abstinence-only education, based on many studies, ranges from utterly ineffective to actually being counterproductive, assuming the goal is to prevent sexual activity and pregnancy.  So, you want to prevent something “immoral” by preventing another “immoral” thing, but preventing the second “immoral” thing actually doesn’t work, and actually makes the first “immoral” thing more frequent.
3. I have yet to meet someone who is seriously pro-life that isn’t so based on some cockamamie BS their pastor pulled out of some misinterpretation of the Bible based on a translation of a translation of a translation of the words “given” to prophetic writers by “God”.

Yes, this bothers me.  A lot.

Old Stuff -- Why Abortion isn't the be-all end-all of evil

Abortion is a terrible thing, but a necessary one. We, as a society, permit abortion because banning it outright poses a greater risk to society than allowing it. It tells women that they are still, no matter what, not the ultimate forces that decide their lives; it encourages “coat-hanger” abortions, a dangerous self-administered procedure as likely to cause sterility and/or death as it is to terminate the pregnancy; and the social impact of millions of unwanted children would be staggering: millions of extra children in abusive homes and in the care of the state — the adoption system is already severely overwhelmed (see the UK, where several thousand children were put up for adoption last year immediately after birth, and less than 10% of those were adopted), and further burdening the system will simply reduce the capacity to care for the children already in it as well as those who will be inevitably thrown into the system. A life that has no feeling, no emotion, no capacity for pain is a small price to pay to not leave children hungry or afraid for their lives.

Old stuff -- Band-aids and babies

What do you call a group of people who favor short-sighted band-aids for problems over fixing the gaping holes that caused the bleeding in the first place?
Answer: Republicans!
Oh, I make myself giggle.
Seriously, though…
Trying to ban abortion — at any stage — is nothing more than a band-aid.  It isn’t going to magically make women get pregnant less — surprise, people like to fuck! — and it isn’t going to make them safer — hello, coathanger!  You know what *will* create a state where there are fewer abortions?  Creating a state where there are fewer unwanted pregnancies.  It’s pretty simple math here: unwanted baby -> getting rid of unwanted baby.  Wow, difficult, I know, you totally need to have a post-doctorate degree in psychology *and* rhetoric to understand that one.
So, instead of banning abortion, why not actually provide a proper framework?
On the one side of the conception barrier, we can:

1. Educate about and encourage the use of contraceptives: condoms (yes, men, you’re on the hook here, too!), hormonal contraceptives, et cetera.
2. Teach people how to say no to sex, and how to say no to sexual practices they can’t handle — like sex without a condom.
3. Teach people how to have a good relationship in general and provide resources for abused women.

And on the other side:

1. Provide proper medical care and screening to pregnant women.
2. Get rid of the social stigma attached to being a single mom or unmarried with a kid.
3. Offer proper support so that parents can actually get a decent job — provide educational services, placement services, et cetera.
4. Provide actual opportunities for the child.  Public schools suck — kids born now have next to no opportunity unless they’re born into it.

So, maybe, instead of saying that abortion is the moral stain, maybe you should really look at where that ketchup is dripping from, yeah?

Life is weird. Deal with it.

When I was first diagnosed with bipolar disorder, my aunt told me that God was "testing me" or "had given me bipolar for a reason," whichever suited her mood at the time.  Ok, whatever, I was still a Christian, at least nominally, at that point, and the thought that there was some higher purpose to my suffering was a comfort, albeit a small one.

The thing is... three years later, I realize that there isn't any sort of a higher purpose to it.  It just happened.  My suffering wasn't part of any deity's plan for my life; it was just a part of my life.

Some people, I say this to, they say my life must be so depressing because I view my suffering as just part of life; if there is no higher purpose for my life's dead-ends and speed bumps, what is the purpose of even trying?

It's rather simple, really -- I am who I am.  My life is going to include what it includes.  There is no higher plan for this outside of "I exist, here is the sum of everything leading up to my existence."

I don't see how people think living a life where you are the one who controls your destiny is depressing.  It's quite freeing, really, to realize that the deaths around you, the diseases you suffer from, the disappointments in your life, aren't any sort of test you must pass or some lesson in humility or compassion or anything like that, and, as such, there is no right answer to the question of "How does God want me handle this?" because God doesn't care, there is no risk of failure.  It's lovely.

Men and feminists

I don't really like the word "feminism".  I'll be honest.  It has too many social connotations of being a man-hating bitch, and most of the feminists I've met in my life have been pretty laid back "live and let live" types.  The other reason I don't like it is that it vaguely implies it's just for women.

The thing about feminism is that it is beneficial to essentially everyone in society.  Feminism, at its core is, much to the contrary of some misogynistic mens' ideas about it, not about how women are inherently better; instead, it focuses on a few main points that apply equally to everyone:

1. Mutual respect -- Most of the feminists I've met do not believe such bizarre things as "all men are rapists" or "all men are pigs".  They believe in respecting themselves enough to stand up for what they want in life, and in respecting others in a mutually-respectful environment.
2. Self-determination -- All people, regardless of their gender, should have the right to go where they want in life, unhindered by a notion that "good girls don't swing from poles" or that "good boys don't cut hair for a living".  People can choose for themselves, both men and women.
3. Gender equality -- Regardless of what some ultra-conservatives may think, there is no good reason for women to be subservient to men based on their naughty bits.  None.  Relationships don't need to be (and, honestly, shouldn't be) adversarial in nature, and a man can be a secretary to a woman just as well as a woman can be a secretary to a man.  Shock.

So, instead of dismissing feminism as "women's work", gentlemen, how about we work together with the women to make the world a better place -- although, I won't blame you if you pick a new name.