I am a car, or a wallet, or possibly a house.

Delurking to say this:

When rape apologists, in the process of victim-blaming, compare the crime of sexual assault to theft or robbery or burglary – when they refer to how a survivor was dressed or behaved with allusions to unlocked car doors or open wallets or un-alarmed doors and windows – what they are saying is this:

That bodies are property. That the violation of someone’s bodily autonomy is akin to the theft of property. That someone’s right to sexual freedom and consent is nothing more than property.

In effect, then, we are to constantly erase or invisibilise our bodies from the public sphere. That is what they mean.

And that’s why it is so disingenuous a comparison. Because no one argues with the right of your car or wallet or house to exist, but our bodies must be taken out of the equation.

– M. We.

Of Star Trek, Spring Break, and Sexual Assault

Trigger warning for mention of rape/assault especially of inebriated persons, and of sexual slavery.

For those who don’t know me, I am a student in a field related to media analysis, and I’m a rape survivor, so these are both issues in which I have really strong interests. Specifically, I’ll be addressing the rape-apologist ‘Spring Break’ T-shirts marketed by the Star Trek franchise.

Continue reading

I like rape jokes with my pancakes and jam.

by Weds.
TW for criticism of a rape joke.

Omigod, Straits Times Life! section? Did you just make a rape joke yes you made a rape joke.

Context: John Lui’s article on working at a pastry shop making crêpes.

#protip 1: Crêpes are not pronounced with an ay sound for the e-with-circumflex.

#protip 2: Ergo, they do not rhyme with rape.

#protip 3: Where in hell does anyone get off joking about a pancake stall being called Serial Crêpeist-rhymes-with-rape?!

I stopped reading right there okay. And flailed. Because. What the shit. Seriously.

Did the Penny Arcade FAIL not clue you in to the fact that rape jokes hurt real people?

Frivolity! NOT.

by Wednesday.

In today’s Straits Times, an article, ‘Magistrate’s complaints on the rise’:

Examples of frivolous complaints [emphasis mine] seen by lawyers included one filed by a parent upset with another after their teenage sons fought, and another by a woman harassed by a former boyfriend’s numerous calls.

Then, there was the case of a man harassed by his girlfriend’s suitor, who sent him obscene messages.

The court spokesman said many simply see the process as a means of settling their grievances.

Can we get this straight?

It is not frivolous to expect legal protection from harassment.

It is not frivolous because, oh, ‘they had a relationship and lovers’ tiffs are lovers’ tiffs’.

It is an egregious ignoring of real and valid societal concerns, such as protecting real, valid, actual human beings (ergo, women) from abusive behaviour.

This must be an act of supreme cognitive dissonance for the author to use the word harassed without thinking that harassment means a disturbing, discomforting, threatening act or series of acts, and instead using the adjective —

what was it?

— right. Frivolous.

Rape is about power. Abuse is about power. Harassment is a form of abuse.

Also, if one’s former partner is harassing one’s current partner, as in the second example cited, then yes, that too is not frivolous. It describes a dangerous individual who claims ownership of his ex-girlfriend, dehumanising her, and behaving violently towards her current partner.

These are Things That Are Not Frivolous, brought to you by the letter F.

Saturday Morning Rage

Trigger warning for assault/abuse.

In today’s news, the trial of a teacher accused of raping his student is sidetracked by the ‘revelation’ that they were ‘having a relationship’, because, you know, she had texted him saying so and she was a slut anyway (predatory grooming and abuse does not exist, maybe?); an article is published where molestation in nightclubs is blamed on women ‘trying to be like men’ and going drinking and getting drunk and making false reports and come on he was drunk too you can’t blame him; and Amy Chua’s article was republished without commentary.

Just another day in my SG life.

Just like that book by Nabokov

by Wednesday.

Trigger warning for rape/sexual assault.

Oh, lovely. I’m so glad to know that victim-blaming is well and alive in our population.

Newsflash: A twelve-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to sexual activity. A twelve-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to sexual activity with an adult. A twelve-year-old cannot meaningfully consent to sexual activity with an adult in a position of authority over them.

Cut for triggering content.