As raised on the Otterday open thread, this has been all over the TV, radio and papers today – the 4 Corners episode on ARL footy players and their attitudes of sexual entitlement. Especially the attitude that says if a girl agrees to sexual contact with one footballer, or maybe two, that it’s no big deal if suddenly several other players appear in the room to “take a turn”, with a larger crowd of the team’s entourage happily watching this suddenly changed situation. The news stories very carefully avoid any terms suggesting that any player committed a criminal sexual offence, as no charges have been laid, and certainly no convictions have ensued.
The Dawn Chorus has a good summary of some issues raised, and included this link to the story on the 4 Corners website.
I’m sure no regular readers here are surprised at the idea of elite athletes behaving badly with regard to sex, especially the classic scenario of an initial agreement to one-on-one sex transforming into a gangbang, a young woman confronted with a room full of men much larger than she is expecting sex and simply not caring if the woman they penetrate is crying while it happens or lying rigid, just waiting for it to stop so that she can spend hours in a shower trying to scrub the memories away. Enthusiastic consent? Who the hell cares about that?
So often we hear “women are throwing themselves at these men, they don’t need to force anyone” (how revealing is that phrase I’ve emphasised with italics – we accept that some men need to, do we? or that a need might make it “OK”?). This is crap. The idea of men turning to sexual coercion out of sexual desperation is simply not an adequate explanation – men turning to sexual coercion due to their sexual expectations, their sense of entitlement due to their status, explains so much more.
As Kanin demonstrated in his study on self-disclosed date rapists in an undergraduate community in 1967, the main thing his group of sexual coercers had in common was the fact that they were more sexually successful than the average man on campus, thus they expected continuing sexual success, and therefore felt entitled to coerce sexual intercourse.
I can’t write anything more and hope to remain moderately coherent. Your turn.
Similar Posts:
- More for the “sex workers can’t be raped” file by tigtog
- Consensual sex contracts vs. consexual creed by tigtog
- Foregrounding the object redux: rape research from the UK by Lauredhel
- Sex Contracts and Withdrawing Consent by tigtog
- On women “competing for male attention” by tigtog
{ 80 comments }
← Previous Comments
Kate Ellis:
http://www.smh.com.au/leaguehq/articles/2009/05/15/1242335859511.html
Jet: I love you. Well done.
Mmm, that Kate Ellis piece kinda encapsulates for me how the conversation that’s going on here is drifting into policing sexual behaviour not for its consensuality, but for its ‘morality’, a morality that’s working to reinforce some pretty narrow heteronormative ideas about ‘good sex’ The de Brito take on the whole situation did this too (in amongst trying to make sexual ethics about ownership of women). Group sex isn’t inherently degrading, people; sex in which any party is not an enthusiastic participant is the problem. And that can happen, thanks for reminding us, Bettina, in even the ‘most moral’ and most heteronormative of contexts.
I don’t know about that WP, I think Kate Ellis is saying what was degrading was a bunch of adult sporting role models getting a young girl into a room and using her as an instrument for their own pleasure, and laughing at her while they did it. That to me is never going to be ok. Because while I have no issue with group sex, that’s NOT what’s going on with a football team and a teenage girl lured to a room. If they wanted ‘group sex’ there’s a million ways to get that happening that don’t involve any question of taking advantage, or changing the rules, of predatory behaviour.
Yeah, but the problem with the situation is not the group-sex-ness of it, and that’s what’s starting to be implied. I think it’s really problematic when the conversation turns to ‘what kinds of sex we think are okay’ instead of actually addressing the real problem here, which is that this woman’s experience didn’t matter to any of the 12 men in that room, and that that is ethically wrong. Obviously “getting a young girl into a room and using her as an instrument for their own pleasure’ is never going to be okay (and I would never ever say that it was). But the offensiveness lies not in the number of men, nor in whether the act appears degrading to others, but in the fact that ‘Clare’ didn’t want to be there, and was experiencing it as a violation, and none of that mattered to any of these men. I’m not saying that Ellis doesn’t have valuable points to make, it’s just that I’m not happy that the conversation seems to be drifting away from actually being about sexual ethics and into being about what sexual behaviours we think are okay, or degrading, or those ‘we’ approve of ‘our daughters, wives and mothers’ participating in. And that shift, to me, is a conservative one, and one which means that a conversation about what sexual ethics really need to be (i.e., one in which women (and men, given that saying ‘no’ to sex is situated as saying they’re insufficiently masculine, for example) have absolutely no problem saying ‘yes’ *or* ‘no’ to sexual acts, depending on their desires, because they are not punished either way) is turning back into ‘what’s safe or good for women’.
I’m also a bit wary of the idea that the problem with particular sex acts is that they are inherently ‘degrading’. First of all, I don’t think that the degrading-ness is a function of the sex act (as in, I don’t think that violation is a function of how two or more bodies are coming together, but rather is a function of how those parties are experiencing it). That distinction is not being made in these conversations, and it’s ensuring that women’s desires (and men’s) are remaining policed by situating some desires as desires for degradation. In other words, to raise the line that Catherine Lumby wishes would go away, yes, it should be possible for women to consent to group sex, and that shouldn’t be something that women have to be made to feel ashamed of. The *only* way that is going to be made possible is when women feel safe enough to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and that is only going to happen if rape is not going to happen, i.e., when it’s not a part of conventional sexual behaviours, or is punished severely when it does happen. But when we start talking about particular *acts* as degrading, the conversation about how to make that possible is closed down from the outset.
Second, I’m edgy about the way that ‘degrading’ implies that a woman can, in fact, be sullied by her sexual experiences, made less-than-pure, less than what she ‘ought’ to be (that’s an echo of Pru Goward’s ‘white wedding’ remark). Why are the men not degraded by their absolute failure to engage with ‘Clare’ at all? Why are women always at risk of being degraded by sex (even by consensual sex) whilst for men it’s always about an assertion of their masculine power? I’m not denying ‘Clare’s’ experience of the incident as degrading, not at all. But I want to know why particular acts are being characterised as inherently degrading, and the role that that plays in reiterating problematic ideas about, especially, women’s sexuality as being a site of especial vulnerability, and the eroticisation of that for (some) men.
WP, YES. Empathically yes.
Mindy, FP: Thanks for the shoutout!
Absolutely. (And in the case of large group sex, I think that consent needs to be not a subjective assessment of “enthusiasm”, but very very explicit verbally expressed consent with a non-coercive negotiation of rules and boundaries in a non-threatening environment _before_ it happens.)
Can you give a specific comment number, please, as we’re above fifty now? I sifted through, but couldn’t see what you were referring to. (I did see a lot of comments against woman-blaming and “slut-shaming”.)
Lauredhel: it’s comment 50 here. Here’s the link again :-) http://www.smh.com.au/leaguehq/articles/2009/05/15/1242335859511.html Like I said above, it’s not that it’s a *bad* piece, but I just see it as part of the slow drift of public discourse that ensures that any real conversation about sexual ethics never quite happens (y’know, MSM-wise).
Oh and ta, Jet :-) I’ve been having comment anxiety ;-)
*snerk* I actually meant to say *emphatically* yes, WP, but I guess I empathise with you too. :)
I fail at html. Sorry all; that was in response to Lauredhel’s comment at 57 regarding sex negotiations. And [grins] I liked that you were empathically emphatic, Jet… or emphatically empathic?
WP @ 54:
But the offensiveness lies not in the number of men, nor in whether the act appears degrading to others, but in the fact that ‘Clare’ didn’t want to be there, and was experiencing it as a violation, and none of that mattered to any of these men
That’s what I initially read Ellis as saying. Perhaps that is due to my own optimism in reading it – that I needed to hear someone say that what was wrong with it was their utter disregard for the woman’s comfort or well being.
I am 100% behind your points, I just didn’t read Ellis as necessarily talking about group sex rather than football culture and the disregard for women in this situation. Perhaps I should go and reread.
Lauredhel @58, yeah, that seems to be the issue for me. That a large travelling group of football players just cannot expect to rock up to a pub, pick up a lone nineteen year old and do what they like claiming consent. It isn’t that it isn’t possible for a nineteen year old to consent to group sex, and I understand that rule sorting might take away ’spontaneity’ of an activity, but hell, if you’re respecting the woman and her right to participate in a manner she enjoys, if you don’t want to be accused of rape when things change in the heat of the moment, unlucky. Take the time to sort out the rules, cos it only takes a second for things to change, to go beyond the consent a lone woman was giving and become assault.
Ah! I misinterpreted your “here”. I’m not entirely clear on who Ellis is saying was “degraded” – the woman or the men involved – but I agree that general discourse around rape and “degradation” can be pretty dodgy along the lines that you say. “Degrade” can mean “treat with disrespect” as well as “lower the quality of” – but that’s a difficult ambiguity to negotiate in such a victim-blaming culture.
@ Raydish @ 48: I hope my school starts thinking in a similar manner about the (Touch) Rugby team boys, who think they’re all hot shit because they’re on the team and don’t need to be serious about their English or Social Studies and can ignore and be quite rude to their female teachers. Because that’s how the more serious behaviour starts and it needs to be stopped right now.
Great comment WP. Women shouldn’t hav to ‘pure’ in their sexual practice. Jill Singer had a good article today in the Age, which I can’t seem to link to. She made the point that this more akin to ‘pack sex’ in which a dominant group single out and isolate a vulnerable women, so that’s she’s in no position to consent or not. This is very different from consensual group sex.
It’s so bviuos that for the rugby players this wasn’t about the woman herself. This was about bonding over a piece of meat. I’ve met men who refer to attractive women as ‘pieces’ which makes me nauseated. It’s precisely this attitude on display.
You’re right about the dual meaning of ‘degrade’, of course, Lauredhel. It’s just that that blurring of the line seems so very strong around discussions of sex, and is a key term by which women are disenfranchised around their own sexual desires in the name of ‘protection’. Of course, once we see particular sex acts as the source of the ‘danger’, rather than conventional attitudes to sex, particularly masculine ones, we never have to think about what’s required to create a culture of robust sexual ethics. I think the reason I’m particularly sensitive to the characterising of particular sexual acts as inherently ‘degrading’ is the usual yuck of Sam de Brito’s take on the whole thing the other day: http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/allmenareliars/archives/2009/05/do_aussie_men_like_women.html There are so, so many problems with the whole way he’s approached the issue, but all over again, it’s about particular sex acts as inherently degrading rather than about whether or not she *wanted* to be having sex. Also the hideousness of the ‘what if it was one of *my* women’ approaches to ’sexual ethics’, which again situates men as the ones who decide whether or not a woman ought to be okay with a sexual act or not, on the basis of her being his possession. In relation to Kate Ellis, FP, her comments were so heavily edited (down to adjectives, in a few spots) she may well have been talking about sexual cultures amongst NRL players rather than the badness of group sex; but the article itself managed to blur that line, and it’s the key one I think we need to be clear about.
I was, I suppose, hoping that at some point we (not us here at HAT, who seem to manage this quite well, surprise, surprise ;-)) might be able to have a conversation about everyone respecting women’s desires both *to* have the sex they want, and to *not* have the sex they don’t. Disheartening that this seems so hard, and to be so swiftly corralled back into conservative lines of thought about sex.
WildlyParenthetical’s last blog post..Disciplining Sex: Economies Etched in Intersexed Flesh
Via Holla for a Hoyden comes this Fox Sports link, dripping with victim-blaming:
“Women need to be educated as well about inherent sexual dangers”
Lauredhel @70
That comment off Fox is ridiculous. Prefacing a statement with ‘I make no judgement’ doesn’t automatically make what comes after NOT a whole heap of judgemental crap. Of course, the author has totally missed the point with the whole stealing lipstick analogy… Facing consequences for doing the wrong thing when being the perpetrator of a crime is a totally different ballgame from telling someone they ‘deserve’ their consequences for being the *victim* of a crime. Which I realise all contributors here are aware of, but it’s stunning how something so simple goes out the window in the general public sphere.
And WP @69… Yeah, I read through de Brito’s ham-fisted treatment of the issue too, and then dared to venture into the comment section. One respondent even made a remark along the lines of ‘oh I don’t have to think about that happening to my daughter because she’s a smart nice girl and she wouldn’t get herself into a situation like that in the first place.’
Amongst a lot of the online comment, an incredibly observant summation can be read over at the Voice of Today’s Apathetic Youth (http://todaysapatheticyouth.blogspot.com/2009/05/matthew-johns-just-product-of-aussie.html). The author pretty much gets it in one where she writes…
“This isn’t the NRL’s problem, it’s an Australian problem. As much as I detest the game and the bogan/yob culture surrounding it, it really is just a distilled version of all the worst characteristics of Australian society. For the NRL to change, we need to change. ”
Amen.
Shaunc @50 “But having NRL players being banned from schools is counter-productive. The reason players visit schools is for charity work or educations programs “.
Those programs may be valuable, and I see what you are saying, but I feel that football players are the wrong vehicle for the message. Some knights players visited my daughter’s school earlier this year, for some educational thing (fitness, health?) and the kids were excited, “Yeah Knights!”, We sending the message to young kids that these guys are people to listen to, emulate, to respect, and I don’t like that (even before this story broke). These guys are heros because of sporting prowess, cos their an “aggressive risk taking male” not the role models that I want paraded before my children, regardless of the putative message they’re bringing, they are bringing heaps of other baggage as well.
Purrdence @67 “team boys, who think they’re all hot shit because they’re on the team and don’t need to be serious about their English or Social Studies and can ignore and be quite rude to their female teachers. ” That’s exactly what I’m talking about
KM : The stealing-lipstick analogy is horrifying. Not only is a woman not, y’know, committing a crime by going to a room with a man – but it places the rapists in the role of the correct, righteous, societally-sanctioned punishment police. I guess we should just give them a government paycheck now for their essential enforcement activities keeping the sluts in line, eh?
Lauredhel @70
God, that’s sick-making. Someone else besides the footy players who obviously believes that if a girl agrees to a sexual encounter with a) a specific player or even b) a couple of them, this automatically means she is a dirty slut who is consenting to shag ANYONE and/or have them watch and film.
No, dear I’m afraid not. Consent is very specific. If you agree to have private sex with two guys (or even semi-private sex with one in a toilet cubicle and you’re in a hurry – not my personal taste, but hey, each to their own) then you have agreed to HAVE PRIVATE SEX WITH TWO GUYS. End of. Anything beyond that is not consensual.
These incidents really reek of that sexual “incrementalising” some guys do to bully you into doing more than you are happy with. Tell him right out that you are NOT going to be having sex (or setting whatever boundaries you are comfortable with) is just a starter’s flag as far as they are concerned and they then attempt to ‘nudge’ you further along closer to what they want: “Well lets just do A. You liked that, so let’s just do B as well, et al”. Do they not twig how insulting that is?
@74. They know how insulting it is. That’s just part of the fun.
This situation is the end result of viewing women as commodities for male use. Our emotions simply aren’t real or complete to some men, except as a means to gratify or amuse them. (Reason 24 why treating a sacred sculpture as porn is infuriating)
This is reminding me how much I dislike the term ‘consent’ altogether. You consent to a medical procedure, or to have someone check your credit record. You consent to having something done to you. Enthusiastic participation should be the term we promote as the only measure of whether a sexual act is acceptable.
@ orlando:
The standard should totally be active affirmation/assent rather than merely consent, because people pretend to not understand when consent exists and when it doesn’t, even though small children can be easily instructed on when consent does and doesn’t exist when it comes to trespassing on a neighbour’s lawn – that you need an explicit invitation and that the invitation can be withdrawn at any time.
FYI: There is now a Supporters of Clare group on facebook.
There is a Supporters of Clare group and there ARE a number of horrid anti-Clare comments. Join me in reporting each of them? I think it’s incredibly offensive to come into a small group designed as a support for one young woman and call her a liar/a whore/what have you in that space. THEY HAVE THE REST OF THE WORLD, WHY do they need that space??
Whoops, the admin has (happily) gone through and cleared out the revolting remarks. But yeah, I’m all for clicking the report button when people are being offensive.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed. If you wish to re-open this discussion, please leave a comment on the latest Open Thread.