Respecting Women: You're Doing it Wrong

Remember how I told you not to assume you’re a goodperson?  Cool, keep that in mind, because some readers are going to need that for this post, as I am confident that some of you do the thing that I am about to talk about and haven’t realized it’s a problem.  So sit back, relax, and put your “getting called out on my shit” boots on.

Too often I hear men, sometimes with the best of intentions, talking about respecting women as our “mothers,” “sisters,” “aunts,” “wives,” “girlfriends,” and so on.  Now, I get it, we value these relations in our lives.  We talk about the “Mother Earth” and respecting the planet as such.  Shit like that.  But here’s the problem: it is not because women fill these roles in the lives of men that women deserve to be respected.  In fact, it is not because of their relationship to men at all.  Women deserve to be respected because they are autonomous human beings.  Insisting that we respect people based on their relational identification to men both gives a pathway to disrespecting other women who do not have that relationship to a man while also maintaining patriarchal norms by insisting that women only matter to the degree that a man matters.  One should respect other humans regardless of their gender and regardless of their relationship to anyone else.  When we say that women’s rights are human rights, we have to consider that in its fullest implication.  To discuss human rights is to discuss what it means to be human and whom we count as human.  This has an expansive history, but one that we still struggle with around the world (here is some recommended reading on the topic).  When one claims that women matter due to their relation to men one is continuing the trend of “rights” really being “men’s rights.”  In this case it means that men really have rights to women-as-property, and that the only problem with disrespecting women is that one man is intruding on another man’s property.  But men must respect women’s autonomy independent of their relation to men and recognize that women are not property.

In other words, don't be like this nonsense.

And let’s not forget that if you don’t do that you are also maintaining an incredibly heteronormative relation.  After all, the “relations to men” idea only makes sense in a heteronormative, cisgendered, gender-binary system and respecting women as mothers, sisters, etc. excludes people who do not fit the cisgender, heteronormative idea that underpins the statements.

I recognize that it is not only men that do this though.  Sometimes when women are being harassed on the streets or being bothered by a man who won’t respect their “no” in a bar (and if that is you, please read this post) women sometimes fall back on the “I have a boyfriend” or “I’m married” line to get the creeper to go away.  Now, I would never condescend to tell a woman how she should react to harassment.  If someone feels threatened or unsafe, they should do whatever they feel necessary to protect themselves.  However, whenever possible, it seems best not to do this. By falling back on those lines one reproduces everything above: that women are only deserving of respect in relation to a man rather than as an autonomous individual capable of self-determination and the freedom to decide what level of access, if any, one grants others to their body and time.  Furthermore, by using such claims the man in the encounter is left with the impression that what he was doing was not actually wrong.  He would have been behaving appropriately if some other man hadn’t already “claimed her” as his "property."  Contrary to this, men need to be left with the knowledge that women should be respected independent of the relationship to a man.  All humans deserve respect and dignity (OK, maybe not meninists), and that if a woman does not have interest in you, regardless of whether that is for a drink, conversation, sex, or anything else, this must be heard and respected.

What's In It For You?

Today’s blog is inspired by Philadelphia’s own “Bitchiest, Fistiest,” Charlotte Velo of the Philly Kink Girl blog.  Charlotte likes to take boy’s fists, as her aforementioned self-imposed moniker implies and as all of us lucky enough to be in her circle are certainly grateful for.  But apparently at one point when she suggested fisting to a man his reply was, and I quote, “What’s in it for me?”

Seriously, dude?!

This reminded me of another story, which is not about fisting, but speaks to the same problem.  At a party with a friend, she and I were discussing how hot we are for hearing our lover’s orgasm.  The louder and harder the fucking better!  And one of the other dudes in the room said, “Really?  You’re turned on by your partner orgasming?  Why?”

SERIOUSLY, DUDE?!

OK, I think that there are several problems at work here.  Let me work them out one by one…

-       Firstly, there is a general kind of selfishness at work in both of these stories.  The first story makes this the most obvious because the guy actually asked, “What’s in it for me?”  The immediate answer to that question is, “Get out of my bedroom.”  However, once he’s been asked to leave, we also have to recognize that he’s a person who cares about no one but himself (at least when it comes to sex).  If he does not directly benefit from the sexual act (meaning the act does not involve his penis—more on this later), it’s of no interest to him.  In the second story, the guy is clearly concerned primarily with his own pleasure and not that of his lover.  Otherwise, he would understand that hearing his lover experience pleasure, especially to the point of orgasm, but also all the other wonderful sounds that go on during foreplay and fucking, which are also hot and beautiful.  In each case, I would argue the person at hand is probably not a very good lover.  #SorryNotSorry to be presumptuous, but if you don’t care about your partner’s pleasure, it’s hard for me to believe you have spent any time thinking about what might actually make them feel good, or taking instruction from a lover who wants you to do something differently.  In short, you’ve probably never bothered to learn, and as such you’re probably a lousy lay.  Oh, and side note, what do you think are the odds that the “what’s in it for me” dude would turn down a blowjob?  An act that directly benefits his cock, but does not necessarily produce orgasm or sexual pleasure in his partner?  Yea, I think the odds are virtually non-fucking-existent that he would turn down head.  So he won’t do things that get his partner off and not him, but I’m almost sure he’ll do things that will get him off but not his partner.  #Selfish #Entitled

-       There’s a second point I want to make here though, which is about erogenous zones.  Especially in American society, for too many people (both men and women) the primary purpose of sex is to achieve male orgasm.  Too many men see cumming as the sole purpose of sex, and really only count something as sex if it has this possible result (evidence suggests that men and women have different ideas of what count as sex, with heterosexual men considering PIV sex, while women consider the entire act sex and have a far more diverse an nuanced idea of what acts constitute “sex.”  Queer folks get this way better than do heterosexual men too).  Unfortunately, though, too many women see this as the point of sex too, leading in part to what has been called “the orgasm gap” between men and women. 

Obviously this is already a heteronormative, transphobic, ableist definition of sex, and as such we should throw it out the fucking window.  But there are other problems with it too, and the nature of erogenous zones is one of them.  Because of our culture’s obsessive focus on the penis (which produces what we call a phallocentric culture), men have a singular focus for erogenous zones: their cock.  Because of this, too many men fail to realize that one’s entire body and entire experience can be erogenous and sensual in nature.  Do you have any idea how many nerve endings are in your fingers and hands?  Do you have any idea how amazing it feels to have your entire fist inside of a woman (or, if you’re into it, inside the ass of someone who is any gender)?  Do you know how beautiful it is when someone orgasms and you can feel their pulse going from high to low, beating around your entire hand?  It’s fucking amazing and it’s hot as all hell.  Now, maybe you’re just not into fisting.  That’s you’re loss in my opinion, but it’s fine; you’re welcome and free to consent or not to whatever activities you’re into.  But the real point here is that, men, your cock isn’t your only erogenous zone!  Your hand can be erogenous, your stomach, your ass… the list goes on and on. 

Which brings me to the second story, in which the guy was unable to understand that sex is a multisensory act, replete with scents, sounds, sights, tastes, and touch.  All of these things go into an amazing sex act, whether with a long-term partner, a one-night stand, or something in between.  The entire experience, not just getting your dick off, can be amazing.  The whole space and all that goes on in it makes sex as awesome as it can be.  When you ignore some of what can go on here you often make the experience less fun, especially for your partner(s).  By not recognizing that one’s partner’s orgasm, along with all the subtle moans, groans, giggles, gasps, and so forth that are a part of sex are hot and beautiful you’re missing out on a major part of sex!  You may still get your rocks off, but your partner(s) probably won’t be impressed and may well not be invited back for more (and, frankly, you shouldn’t be).

So, listen, sex is amazing!  But, CisDudes, it’s about more than your cock going into something and thrusting back and forth a few times until you orgasm and pass out.  Seriously, sex is more than that.  Start having better sex!  And start by caring about your partners and recognizing the beautiful intricacy that is sex.  And people having sex should talk!  That's how you get better at it.  Get told what feels good, then do that thing.  And tell other people what feels good and do that thing.  And if they don't care, find someone who does!  And female-identified peoples reading this, don’t put up with a selfish dude who doesn’t give a shit about your pleasure.  There are better dudes in the world.

Consent in Hollywood

Allow me to preface this by saying that I actually enjoy a great many aspects of popular culture.  Even when I don’t necessarily agree with the representations present in a film or song, I often enjoy it anyway. So I do not intend for this post to just be anti-pop-culture or anti-Hollywood.  However, with that being said, I do believe that Hollywood has given us a toxic image of heterosexual romance and especially a toxic image of heteronormative, hegemonic masculinity and the heteronormative male pursuit of female affections.  Ultimately, I believe that the most common narratives of Hollywood romances discourage active and joyous consent and encourage some of the worst behaviors of men, ultimately contributing to rape culture.

Think about one of the most common Hollywood narratives: boy meets girl à boy approaches girl à boy attempts to gain girl’s affections à girl declines à boy persists, assuming that her “no” is not genuine à eventually girl “gives in” à boy gets girl.  Perhaps one of the more succinct representations of this is an opening scene from the Will Smith movie Hitch, below in which the main character’s dialogue could basically be summed up as, “Don’t believe her when she says no to you.  Don’t believe that she’s not interested in you.  Just be a good guy and you’ll get the girl because every woman is just looking for a man.”

Hitch

There are so many problems with this incredibly prevalent narrative, which is in no way limited to Hitch or even RomComs.  Firstly, the narrative tends to assume the “male aggressor/female resistor” mode of heteronormative relations.  In such a model, the male seeks female attention but the female must initially decline his advances because a woman who gives in too easily is a “slut” or “whore” and thus not to be respected because “good girls” don’t give in so easily.  Thus, in an effort to gain male respect (and especially the respect of the audience, always constructed with the male gaze in mind) the female must initially decline lest her chastity, which should be a relic of a bygone era, be put into doubt.

The biggest problem I think though is that the women in these narratives decline to consent to a relationship and the male protagonist of the film does not take her declination seriously.  This is a pernicious aspect of rape culture: that even when not assaulting a woman physically, one still assumes that a woman’s “no” is something other than a genuine declination of romantic affections.  And when we don’t take that “no” seriously we contribute to rape culture.

Let me say this as clearly as possible: consent is not something to be won; it is something to be given.  What the narrative described above represents is an effort not to be offered consent but to win it.  It treats romantic encounters as a competition between two people in which the male is the offensive player, seeking to break through the female’s defense.  The male “wins” when he fucks her, marries her, or somehow convinces her to engage in a romantic entanglement with him.  The insidiousness of this is that the female does eventually seem to consent to the relationship, and she is always presented as being happy with her choice.  This masks the rape culture that is in play here by a convenient “happily ever after.”  Even if viewers might be uncomfortable with the male protagonist’s initial behaviors (probably more often, they are not uncomfortable with it) this discomfort is assuaged by the happy ending.

In the real world though, we have to remember that women are regularly the victims of stalking, frequently have men refuse to leave them alone in a bar or other public space (or online), are the victims of street harassment as unwanted advances are thrust upon them, and that sexual assault and rape are all too real for most women, either as victims of these crimes are as potential victims who must deal with that possibility.  And narratives like this encourage men to engage in unwanted advances because the story convinces men that these advances are not “really” unwanted and that the “good guy” will “win the girl” if he is persistent enough.  But in reality, that kind of persistence beyond a “no” is a form of sexual harassment.

Is Hollywood really so uncreative that they can’t write decent stories based upon active and joyous consent?  Is Hollywood really so anti-feminist that we cannot imagine seeing a woman who engages in an active and engaged sexuality for her own pleasure as well as the pleasure of a partner?  Maybe, but I’d like to think not.  I’d like to think that if Hollywood began producing more films for something other than the “male gaze” that we would see far more narrative structures, producing far more interesting movies with a greater diversity of plots.  And wouldn’t that be nice?  And might that not appeal to especially female, but also male viewers?  And in doing so, might we not produce better interactions between real people mirroring the behaviors they see on screen?

No Needs No Explanation

Rape culture permeates our society in both obvious and not so obvious ways.  Today’s post is about one of the more subtle ways in which this happens: the apparent need on behalf of men to hear a reason for why a woman declines their advances or any other request.  The insidiousness of this is that to the asker their wish for an explanation probably seems like a rather innocent and innocuous thing.  You have made a request of someone, they have declined that request and though you [hopefully] intend to respect that declination, you wonder why you were rejected.  Rejection can be painful, of course, and so maybe you want to better understand why you’re being made to feel this pain or you want to improve yourself.

The problem here is that a “no” has to be respected completely independent of the reason for it.  Or even if there is no reason at all.  When you insist that a person explain to you why they said no, you are indicating that you have some prior right that person’s time, body, or life; or you are indicating that your desire for an explanation is of more importance than their right to say "no" to you.  The apparent need for an explanation indicates that if no good reason is forthcoming (and of course you, the man, are the arbiter of what would count as a “good reason”) then there is room for negotiation; you are indicating that you believe you may still be able to gain access to that person if their “no” was not rooted in cause, or at least not in a cause that you find good enough.

To really embrace consent, though, it is necessary that we accept someone’s refusal without consequence and without explanation.  Consent is not about having “good reasons” for refusing someone access to one’s time or body; consent is about recognizing someone’s right to control their own bodily autonomy and how other people interact with you no matter what.  To really embrace consent means that you cannot demand an explanation.

To be clear, I am not saying that you can necessarily never ask “Why.”  In certain contexts it may be OK.  Specifically, I am thinking that if you know someone well, have an established relationship with that person, that person feels safe and comfortable with you, and you are hoping that by asking for clarification you can grow as a person or improve upon an existing, positive relationship, then maybe you can ask.  I hope you know your partner(s) well enough to determine that for yourself.  But even then, you cannot demand an explanation; if the person declines to explain themselves that is their right and you must allow them this right without consequence.  Outside of such a circumstance, if you’re interacting with someone you have not had a previous relationship with (imagine you’re attempting to flirt with someone in a bar, or talking to someone on an online dating site) you, frankly, need to explanation and probably should not ask for one.  

To ask for an explanation, and even more so to demand one, indicates that you have some right to an explanation, that someone cannot turn you down without justifying herself; that without an explanation you have a right to access to that person and her body, time, space, etc.  And that is a part of rape culture.  Don’t fucking do it.  And don't insult or degrade women who say no.  If you're on a Tinder, don't do the all too common thing of calling a woman who says "No" any number of slurs.  Accept it and move on.  If you're in person, also accept it and move on and away from her space.

Don't Assume You're A Good Person

A girlfriend of mine recently dealt with two bouts of street harassment in a single day, about which she posted on Facebook.  Predictably, a few men on her Facebook wall made some rather shitty comments.  The first stated, “It’s tough being so hot.”  

Yea, way to minimize the experiences of a woman being sexually harassed by further commenting on her body and reducing her to her physical attributes.  Way to contribute to the patriarchy, really doing your fucking part...

I want here to focus more on the second response though in which some significant mansplaining began to take place, and to which I was asked to respond because, well, you know mansplainers: sometimes they’ll listen to a dude saying the exact same thing as a woman but will actually hear it because it’s said by a male.  So, while I generally wish to avoid online debate, I entered the fray.

I’m going to save a more detailed discussion of mansplaining for a different post.  Instead, here I want to make a suggestion to all well-intentioned, well-meaning people who come to conversations from a position of privilege and power.  This might mean you’re a man, a white person, a heterosexual, a person of wealth, or some intersection of the aforementioned and/or other identifications.  It doesn’t really matter.  The point is, you have privilege but you’re one of those well-intentioned, left-leaning privileged people.

Here’s the advice: don’t assume you’re a good person.

I know, that’s hard to hear.  “But I am a good person!” I hear you yelling.  “I’ll vote for Bernie Sanders!  I call out sexual harassment!  I donate to planned parenthood, for fuck’s sake!”  Word.  Good for you.  We all want to be the protagonists of our own story, we all narrate our lives in such a way as to make ourselves feel like we’ve done well or are aiming to do well.  Now, again, shut up and stop assuming you’re a good person!

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you’re a bad person.  Maybe you are a decent kind of person doing decent kinds of things with a decent heart.  What I mean when I say not to assume you’re a good person is that even if you have good intentions, don’t assume you’re all good.  This is where I think a lot of people go wrong.  Look at the guy above: when called out on his shit he, first of all, got defensive.  He, second of all, defended himself with a list of his positive attributes such as protesting, posting, voting... blah blah blah.  See what he did there?  He assumed he was a good person and attempted to prove it.  See what he did not do?  He did not hear what was being said to him by a woman experiencing harassment, he did not listen to being called out on his shit; he made the conversation about himself (seriously, dudes, stop making this shit about you, because it's not; this is for a forthcoming post, but men, you really need to stop making every conversation about you).

So what should you do?  You should strive to be a better person than you are today.  The beauty of this is that you’re never done growing and you’ll never assume you’re done.  When someone calls you out on your shit, you’ll be open to hearing the criticism because you WANT to be a good person.  And in wanting to be a good person, you’ll have to hear people when they tell you that you did something problematic.  And, ideally, you’ll grow as a person.

Here’s the rub: you’ll never be done.  #SorryNotSorry, but you won’t be.  No one ever is, but especially people of privilege have to engage in a lifelong process of constantly attempting, but never fully succeeding, in overcoming the indoctrination into hegemonic masculinity, white supremacy and racism, and every other shitty trait this society breeds.  Sorry, but through no fault of your own, you were born into it and you can’t help that.  It’s not your fault, but it is your damn fault if you don’t do something about it, or if you don’t take seriously the criticisms of those who point out your faults. 

So don’t take it personally, Mr. Well-Intentioned-White-Guy, we’re all flawed.  But stop assuming you’re a good person and starting working toward becoming a better person.  You’ll be much better off and you’ll hopefully avoid the mansplainer above’s mistakes.

Also, please note that this does not just apply to men, but to many people in positions of privilege.  See the video below for an example.