More thoughts on exhibitionism, feminism, and sex-crime.
shesanightowlWrote a provocative response to my post about gaybars and subway exhibitionists. So here's an attempt to figure out what I really think:
Hmmm. Ok. I don't think that in all cases individuals ought to publicly and explicitly confront those who bother them, since safety, expediency and efficacy are clearly most important. In any case, I'm not sure I *really* meant (and I surely don't mean it anymore) that there was an onus on the two women to speak up against the exhibitionist in an uncomfortable (and potentially unsafe) situation that was imposed on them.
I just wish we lived in a culture where we are better versed in the varieties of sexual consent (and the necessity of being frank and open about asking for, giving, and whithdholding consent) than we are about sports teams and shoe-styles. My own confusion about the issue (I wrote and re-wrote tis response several time over already) is testament to how confused our culture (and I) am about consent.
Also since I don't know what was going on in the women's own minds, it's rather dumb for me to accuse them of being subject to patriarchy just because they said nothing; their utterly ignoring the guy and going on with their conversation may have been a potent enough assertion of their own identities.
I, however, very much felt I *was* a tool of some sort of social power structures. Probably multiple, conflicting ones, which is why I didn't know how to act. I'm in favor of consensual deviance from hegemonically-correct sexuality, and I think that people ought to be able to get away with public sex on an uncrowded late night subway car without being arrested. By contrast I'm *not* in favor of sexist-oppression (when I'm aware of it) or of non-consensual aggression or sexual acts.
But given the sexism of the culture we live in, the shit I saw on the subway wasn't "just" an act involving three unsexed, ungendered people and a fourth observer:
I don't think people should masturbate *at people* in public like that. It's fucking rude. However, as an act in-itself, stripped of all gender implications, that's all I think it is -- deeply rude. It becomes sexual aggression only because rape-culture frames it as such and makes it so.
Don't make the same mistake I originally did though, and think that makes the act harmless. Given that we are living in a sexist culture, the man's act *is* one of sexual aggression. It's not feminists' pointing out of this that perpetuates rape culture. (They might do better to point it out in ways that don't victimize women though).
I'm still really confused, although surprisingly I'm finding the conventional feminist reading reading of the events to be more and more acceptable.
Maybe there's a reverse asymmetry involved: while the man's act should be seen as one of sexual aggression (against the women directly, but also against the ideal of a harmonious society), the women can choose not to feel aggressed-upon.
Upon further reading (see here, here and ask alice!), I think that I might have the most sympathy with the *psychological* (rather than feminist or criminal justice) reading of exhibitionism, and perhaps my actions were in line with that?
Ask Alice says that NY state has a 3-month prison term for misdemeanor public lewdness, and while I suppose that's ok in this case (it's not like I can get him to seek counseling, but perhaps a judge can), I'm very wary that "public lewdness" could be used to prosecute a whole host of activities in ways that I'd feel are oppressive.
Hmmm. Ok. I don't think that in all cases individuals ought to publicly and explicitly confront those who bother them, since safety, expediency and efficacy are clearly most important. In any case, I'm not sure I *really* meant (and I surely don't mean it anymore) that there was an onus on the two women to speak up against the exhibitionist in an uncomfortable (and potentially unsafe) situation that was imposed on them.
I just wish we lived in a culture where we are better versed in the varieties of sexual consent (and the necessity of being frank and open about asking for, giving, and whithdholding consent) than we are about sports teams and shoe-styles. My own confusion about the issue (I wrote and re-wrote tis response several time over already) is testament to how confused our culture (and I) am about consent.
Also since I don't know what was going on in the women's own minds, it's rather dumb for me to accuse them of being subject to patriarchy just because they said nothing; their utterly ignoring the guy and going on with their conversation may have been a potent enough assertion of their own identities.
I, however, very much felt I *was* a tool of some sort of social power structures. Probably multiple, conflicting ones, which is why I didn't know how to act. I'm in favor of consensual deviance from hegemonically-correct sexuality, and I think that people ought to be able to get away with public sex on an uncrowded late night subway car without being arrested. By contrast I'm *not* in favor of sexist-oppression (when I'm aware of it) or of non-consensual aggression or sexual acts.
But given the sexism of the culture we live in, the shit I saw on the subway wasn't "just" an act involving three unsexed, ungendered people and a fourth observer:
I don't think people should masturbate *at people* in public like that. It's fucking rude. However, as an act in-itself, stripped of all gender implications, that's all I think it is -- deeply rude. It becomes sexual aggression only because rape-culture frames it as such and makes it so.
Don't make the same mistake I originally did though, and think that makes the act harmless. Given that we are living in a sexist culture, the man's act *is* one of sexual aggression. It's not feminists' pointing out of this that perpetuates rape culture. (They might do better to point it out in ways that don't victimize women though).
I'm still really confused, although surprisingly I'm finding the conventional feminist reading reading of the events to be more and more acceptable.
Maybe there's a reverse asymmetry involved: while the man's act should be seen as one of sexual aggression (against the women directly, but also against the ideal of a harmonious society), the women can choose not to feel aggressed-upon.
Upon further reading (see here, here and ask alice!), I think that I might have the most sympathy with the *psychological* (rather than feminist or criminal justice) reading of exhibitionism, and perhaps my actions were in line with that?
Ask Alice says that NY state has a 3-month prison term for misdemeanor public lewdness, and while I suppose that's ok in this case (it's not like I can get him to seek counseling, but perhaps a judge can), I'm very wary that "public lewdness" could be used to prosecute a whole host of activities in ways that I'd feel are oppressive.