Trigger Warning for graphic descriptions of sexual assault and discussions of victim re-traumatization.

In a somewhat unusual case out of the UK, three men have just been convicted on various sexual assault charges after gang raping an unconscious woman — an unconscious woman who only became aware of the attack after one of the attackers, Nicholas Jones, saw fit to shock her with the footage he had taken of the rape on his cell phone.

Three men have been jailed over a rape which was only discovered by the victim after she was shown mobile phone footage of the attack.

Mohammed Shahjahan, 27, Nicholas Jones, 26, and Feizal Ali, 26, from Oxford, sexually assaulted the woman while she was unconscious in November.

The woman said she had passed out in a flat in east Oxford after drinking three vodka and Red Bull cocktails and did not remember the attack. She did not discover she had been raped and sexually assaulted until two weeks later when she was shown the footage by one of the perpetrators and described the moment as “a big shock”.

The woman told the BBC that all she remembered was having the three drinks and then waking up in a bed. The court was told that the woman had been “incapable of consent”.

On sentencing the three men, Judge Julian Hall said: “This was a disgraceful incident which would not have come to light but for the fact that Nicholas Jones filmed it, kept it and later showed it to the victim.”

Upon first reading Judge Hall’s words, I assumed that he meant them as an indictment of the horrific nature of the act. In other words, “This attack was terrible, and to compound the horrific nature of it, we never even would have known these three rapists were lurking out there if one of them hadn’t been so sadistic and arrogant as to film the assault and then later re-assault his victim with it.”

But further comments provide a rather disturbing context, and take this news report from being just yet another really terrible story about how rapists like to rape, and turn it into one about rape culture and how even in the face of every reason in the world not to, we like to give rapists the benefit of the doubt:

Hall said Shahjahan was “an arrogant young man who was heartless, shameless and had no consideration for the victim”. Jones, who pleaded guilty to the charges of sexual assault and voyeurism, was described as “a decent young man who did absolutely terrible things that night”.

Wait, the one who took the video and suddenly confronted his victim with it is the “decent young man”? Whose actions we should praise, as they made prosecution possible?

Now, hell. Maybe I’m just biased. But when I think about a man participating in the gang rape of an unconscious woman, filming the assault for posterity, and then later accosting that victim with the video as a means of telling her what he did, “Good Samaritan” isn’t exactly the term that comes to my mind.

Lest anyone else here get confused, while being sure to note that the recording of any such video would have been monstrous, let’s be clear on what exactly Jones shocked his victim with (trigger warning, see above):

Mr Moore said film shot on a mobile, filmed around 11pm, and a still image from 2.10am from Jones’s phone showed what happened.

He said the trio used “dominating sexual language directed at the victim who is unconscious” as she is seen to “whimper” and make “a couple of feeble attempts” to push them away.

Mr Moore added: “Shahjahan desists from it and can be heard saying ‘***** this, man. Nick, there you go, all there, what did I tell you, did I not keep my promise?’”

The still photo showed Shahjahan, of Slaymaker Close, Headington, lying on top of the victim on a bed.

Are we to assume that Jones made this film as evidence of the crime he was currently participating in, intending to hand it over to prosecutors rather than use it as a means of bragging and titillation? I have to say that I’m not buying it. And usually, we’d consider the rapists who think rape is just so fun that they want to have a record to allow them to relive the happy experience over and over again some of the worst of the bunch.

The Oxford Mail does report that Jones allegedly apologized to the victim as a part of showing her the clips of the rape. But while there is no more detailed description of the incident than that available, it’s quite clear from the fact that the victim reported the assault alone after her exchange with Jones that his confession was not along the lines of, “I understand that me telling you I raped you the other week is a lot to take in, but there’s more. I also took a film of it on my mobile. It’s of course your right to view it, but I know you might not want to, and you can take all the time you need to decide. I’m letting you know because the prosecutor can use this against the other rapists; unless you don’t want to report for some reason, I’m planning on going down to the police now and turning myself in.”

Because you’d think that would have been reported, and I’m not inclined towards giving convicted rapists the benefit of the doubt. And even then, Jones wouldn’t have deserved rewards and sympathy for doing the most decent thing he could have possibly done after acting in the least decent way imaginable. But even a “by the way, I raped you the other week, see, I’ve got a video of it–” is apparently grounds for leniency in the eyes of Jones’ defense attorney:

Richard Fisher, defending Jones, said: “Jones’s candour in interview and candour with the complainant are perhaps more indicative of his character than the despicable acts which took place.”

Oh yes, what a guy. What’s a shame is that the judge apparently bought it.

Trigger Warning for rape apologism.

A few months back, I wrote an article for the Guardian’s Comment is Free about a U.K. study, which showed a significant number of respondents thought that some rape victims were at least partially to blame for their attacks. The various reasons that respondents blamed women were the unsurprising — if she had been drinking, if she had worn something revealing, if she had engaged in some other kind of sexual contact with the rapist, etc. — but no less disturbing than they’ve always been.

Well, it seems like someone in the Scottish government decided to do something about it. Rape Crisis Scotland has launched the “Not Ever” campaign — the title referring to when, exactly, a rape victim is actually to blame for a rape.

The television ad, which has just been released, focuses on the rape myth that women who dress a certain way are “asking” to be raped. (And thank you, BBC, for putting the word “myth” in scare quotes, as well as “prejudice.” What ever would we have done without that oh-so-subtle dismissal?) The ad can be seen on the Not Ever website or below:

Transcript:

A scene of a party. A pale blond woman in her 20s stands talking to two men, one pale and one with darker skin. She wears a black top and sparkly blue skirt, and all parties hold drinks in their hands and appear to be having a good time.

Woman: (laughing playfully) You’re terrible! (laughs) You’re so bad! Shut up!

Cut to two presumably white men across the room.

Man One: (looks at woman, sucks in air between his teeth) Check out the skirt! She’s asking for it.
Man Two: (laughs)

Cut to scene of the same woman in a department store. She pulls two skirts off the rack, one the sparkly blue skirt she wears at the party, and takes turns holding up each one to her hips. A sales assistant, a pale middle-aged woman, walks up to her.

Sales Assistant: Can I help?
Woman: Yeah, thanks. I’m going out tonight and I want to get raped. (smiles) I need a skirt that will encourage a guy to have sex with me against my will. (holds up each skirt again)
Sales Assistant: (smiles eagerly and folds arms across chest) The blue one. Definitely the blue.
Woman: (nods and smiles)

Woman turns and directly faces camera, with a sarcastic look on her face.

Woman: As if.

Male Voiceover: Nobody asks to be raped. Ever.

Here is what I love about this ad: it treats rape apologist attitudes as a problem, regardless of whether or not they refer to a specific rape. There is no indication in the commercial that the woman has actually been raped. There is no indication that she will be raped. There is no indication that the man who makes the “she’s asking for it” comment is actually planning on raping her, or anyone else, for that matter. And still, in spite of all of this, his comments are dangerous, they have a real impact, and they are worthy of our attention. They’re worthy, in fact, of a PSA about how incredibly fucked up they are. All on their own.

And that, I think, is absolutely fabulous.

Here’s what else I love about this ad: while there’s no indication whatsoever that the man is a rapist, there’s no way to tell for sure that he’s not, either. As Thomas has pointed out many times at Yes Means Yes, while not all men who make rape apologist jokes are rapists, rapists do tend to make rape jokes and apologist comments. Leaving the man’s motives up to interpretation thus manages to do two important things: tell guys who aren’t rapists but think that rape is something fun to joke about that it’s not, as well as tells guys that if their friend is making these types of comments, you should probably point out that it’s not cool. As bystander behavior is incredibly important, I have to say that I love this potential dual effect.

A few points are also scored for the casting. While it’s my understanding that beauty standards on UK television are far less rigid than they are in the U.S., I still appreciate that the man making rape apologist jokes is an average looking guy — not “hot,” not purposely and “demonically” ugly — and that the woman, while pretty, looks like someone you might see walking down the street. Of course, we can also talk about how, yet again, the woman in the ad who is portrayed as most definitely not to blame is presumably white, middle-class, abled, straight, and cis, when women who are not these things are likely to face even worse blame. That’s a disappointment, though on the race front at least it’s worth noting that my research says Scotland is about 98% white — not meaning that erasure is therefore acceptable and harmless, as I’m sure many non-white Scots will tell you, but simply that we’re dealing with a different climate than the ones I usually write about (and therefore can’t effectively speak to).

Sadly, for a campaign which I unusually happen to have very few other complaints about, it all starts to break down on the website.

Most of the material on the site is great. In addition to the section about “dress” that goes with the ad, there are also short but smart sections about rape myths involving “drinking” and “intimacy” — and when I saw that the latter actually used the phrase “sexual autonomy,” I damn near swooned.

The problem is with the “Have Your Say” section of the site. The section can’t be avoided by browsers — excerpts appear right on the front page. As I write this, the five comments scrolling across the front page are as follows, three anti-rape, two rape apologist:

“Rape seems to be the only crime where it’s seen as ok to put the victim on trial.” Natasha, Female from Glasgow

“Every woman has the right to wear the clothes she likes, have fun with her friends and has the right to say no at any point, without the fear of rape.” Jo, Female

“Women need to understand men don’t think logically when they are aroused, and its the way they dress and act that arouses men.” James, Male

“It’s about time there was a campaign about something other than women having to curtail their actions to prevent rape.” Mooji, Female

“Obviously its ridiculous to think that anyone ever “wants or deserves” to be raped but to ignore that how someone behaves affects the possibility of their being raped is foolish and to start a campaign to deny it is irresponsible.” Mark, Male

The comments from James and Mark are the exact opposite of what this campaign is trying to get across — they fully represent the attitudes it wants combat. I could understand taking these comment and addressing them on a serious level as an educational tool. But placing them on the front page of the site uncritically just about undoes the job the campaign seemingly intends to do.

Users are also invited to share their views on the forum (trigger warning). I opted to not delve too far into it, but from what I did see, the many thoughtful users who are posting have not prevented it from nonetheless quickly turning into a space where rape apologist views can be freely aired, often unchallenged. This is especially sad, as I think the user oriented parts of the site have transformative potential — if moderators and educators were watching and engaging with topics, it could serve as a great 101 learning space. Some users are in fact asking questions, and those questions deserve to be answered. Unchecked, rape apologist, victim-blaming tirades, on the other hand, don’t serve to educate anyone of anything.

Website moderation matters. As I’m sure most people here would agree, if you’re going to allow comments, it’s part of the job of running a website. I know better than anyone that moderation can be difficult — it can be overwhelming, it can be triggering, and sometimes it can feel outright impossible. But here, I can’t even see the faintest illusion of trying.

I’d really, really love to see Not Ever get the website situation under control — either moderating out rape apologist comments and discussion topics, or directly challenging them and using them as learning tools when they do appear — because I otherwise think the campaign is pretty great. Great enough, in fact, that I’m really curious as to whether or not they’ll do future ads about rape myths surrounding drinking and intimacy, and look forward to seeing them if they do. I also noticed that they’re doing some polls on the site, with some of the results coming out disturbing — I’d love to see them use the information they gather as a resource for effectively extending the campaign.

What are your thoughts on “Not Ever”?

Thanks to Pamela for the heads up.

UPDATE: Video added, some text updated to reflect that it is embedded in the post. Rape Crisis Scotland has also responded to the critiques of the website in comments!

Just last week, I was defending the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK for its recommendations regarding age-appropriate sex education. This week, I find myself needing to ask what in the hell they’re thinking.

NICE has recommended that all pregnant women should be given carbon monoxide tests in order to determine whether or not they’re smoking, so that they can be given advice on quitting. Instead of, you know, asking them.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said carbon monoxide tests should be carried out on every expectant mother.

If implemented, every woman would have the breath test at her first ante-natal appointment.

Midwives criticised the test, saying it could make the women feel “guilty”.

NICE said the guidelines were not aimed at penalising smokers but were designed to help women and their families give up smoking during and after pregnancy.

“During pregnancy, smoking puts the health of the women and her unborn baby at great risk both in the short and long-term, and small children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to suffer from respiratory problems,” Professor Mike Kelly, Nice director of the centre of public health excellence, said.

“One of our recommendations is for midwives to encourage all pregnant women to have their carbon monoxide levels tested and discuss the results with them.

“This isn’t to penalise them if they have been smoking, but instead will be a useful way to show women that both smoking and passive smoking can lead to having high levels of carbon monoxide in their systems.”

The guidelines were welcomed by the Royal College of Midwives, but it urged “non-judgemental” support for women smokers.

Right. Except that the way to be “non-judgmental” isn’t by telling women up front that they can’t be trusted. And by telling them that they can’t be trusted specifically once they’ve become pregnant — thus indicating that their bodies are no longer their own. Paternalism, misogyny, and policing of women’s bodies don’t have great track records.

Look, absolutely no one is saying that smoking while you’re pregnant is a good idea. While it’s hardly the automatic death sentence for fetuses that a lot of people make it out to be, evidence suggests that it’s not a great idea for either the woman or future baby. And lots of women do smoke during pregnancy. But it’s rarely because they don’t know the risks (at least in most Western countries), or because they’re careless, stupid women who hate their babies and want bad things to happen.

Women smoke during pregnancy usually because they’re unable to stop. There’s currently a culture in a lot of places that suggests one can drop smoking whenever she wants — that it’s a question of personal choice. We have a tendency to not treat nicotine addiction as a real, serious addiction just like any other. And that’s saying an awful lot, as addictions to other substances are also frequently treated like issues of willpower rather than of physiological and psychological dependency.

It’s also true that a lack of support also tends to factor into why many smokers, pregnant or not, are unable to quit. Clearly, more support is needed. But the way to provide more support isn’t through coerced tests and humiliation. Right now, many pregnant women don’t tell their doctors if they smoke or use other substances. Again, the reason is rarely malicious or negligent, but concern over being judged, guilted, shamed, and/or even punished. The issue is that many women can’t trust their health care providers to react with compassion and care rather than blame and disapproval. And trust is not built by a person in a position of authority expressing a lack of trust in the person in a subordinate position. One would imagine that empathy would go a lot farther than a carbon monoxide test, any day.

While the guidelines don’t seem to make the test mandatory, it’s unlikely to be easy to opt out. Any woman who refuses to take the test, regardless of whether she does so based on principle or any other reason, is likely to be highly suspected of “hiding” something, and lectured by precisely the kind of judgmental health provider that is causing the problem to begin with.

Here’s the thing. People smoke. Some of them do it during pregnancy, and of them, few actually want to. The problem isn’t a lack of “detection,” it’s a culture that shames women as bad mothers and bad people for smoking, and treats addiction as a crime that needs to be “detected” and stamped out by society for the greater good, in the first place.

As much as it generally pains me to say these words, the Daily Telegraph has it right. Rosie Murray-West writes:

Even the Royal College of Midwives seems a little dubious about the plans, worrying that women will feel judged and as if they aren’t being believed. “Use of the monitor has the potential to make women feel guilty and not engaged,” says Royal College education manager Sue MacDonald.  “It is crucial that health practitioners, including midwives, focus on being supportive rather than making women feeling guilty.”

I’m looking forward to the supplementary barrage of tests that NICE will be bringing out later. Perhaps the sniff test to check we haven’t been eating unpasteurised cheeses, or the credit card statement test to check for illegal indulgence in sushi?  Or they could just focus on supporting people who are trying to get through one of the most testing periods in their lives – without unnecessary testing.

Women are people. Even when they’re pregnant. Let’s start treating them that way, hmm?

In the U.K., a traffic police officer was just sentenced to time in jail for repeatedly contacting women he had pulled over for traffic offenses and harassing and coercing them into sexual activities in exchange for not pursuing their infringements. In total, the trial encompassed the victimization of eight different women:

Jamie Slater, 33, of Port Talbot, was sentenced to three and a half years at Cardiff Crown Court for misconduct while in public office.

He contacted the women after stopping them and offered to let them off if they had sex with him.

Slater was dismissed from South Wales Police in December.

The court heard how the South Wales Police officer used the police national computer to access personal data on his victims.

The married father-of-two stopped six women for minor motoring offences and requested their mobile phone numbers.

He later sent the women drivers text messages asking them to meet him for sex. The court heard Slater harassed women who refused to meet him.

Peter Davies, prosecuting, said all Slater’s victims had felt powerless to complain because he was a police officer in uniform.

Let us be absolutely clear about one thing: this was rape. A police officer offering to exchange a dismissal of offenses for “sex” is engaging in harassment, manipulation, coercion, and duress. When harassment, manipulation, coercion, and/or duress are present, consent is not. That the women technically could have said no is not relevant — the power differential and necessarily threatening nature of an “offer” such as the ones presented by Slater ensures that any “yes” is not equal to meaningful consent, but to compliance. And compliance and consent are two very, very different things. The women’s technical ability to say no also means exceedingly little when Slater was not above even more directly bullying the women into sexual contact when they refused his demands. This officer is, in fact, guilty not just of “misconduct” but of multiple rapes and multiple attempted rapes.

Sexual violence committed by police officers is also sadly not anything new. Which is why the framing of Slater’s crimes by the department really grates on me:

Tom Davies, Independent Police Complaints Commissioner for Wales, reassured the public this was a rare case.

He said: “Slater was a disgrace to all who work for the police service and abused the position of trust a serving police officer is given.”

He added: “Slater was a rotten apple and acted alone.”

I imagine it’s probably true that Slater did not commit his crimes as a part of a ring of rapist officers all working in conjunction with one another. He most likely acted without direct assistance from other officers. But to portray this as a situation involving a “rotten apple” is all the same incredibly misleading, and distorting the problem to a point that borders pretty strongly on outright lying.

The truth is, police sexual violence against women is commonplace. It is supported in both deeds and in words. It is denied and excused. Women of color are particularly at risk for police violence. Trans women are particularly at risk for police violence. And that’s mostly only covering violence that is sexually based — a fraction of all actual police violence. It’s also to not mention other police abuses of power that don’t employ explicit violence.

So this is a case of a rotten apple? I don’t think so.

Granted, all but one of those linked cases was from the U.S. And I would be very genuinely surprised to learn that the problem of police violence is not worse — and significantly worse — in the U.S. than it is in the U.K. It’s also encouraging that Slater has been tried and convicted for his crime. But I still remain unconvinced that there is not a culture of misogyny in the British police force — indeed, past cases of UK police officers being accused and/or convicted of sexual violence are not exactly hard to find. I also believe that Slater was able to get away with his crimes for so long because of a culture that involves fear of police authority and the expectation that cops will protect other cops before protecting the public.

Why is it so regularly assumed that we’ll feel better being coddled with reassurances about bad apples, rather than knowing that the real problem is being recognized and addressed? I can only assume the answer is that no one cares about how we feel, especially those of us who care about things like social justice and injustice, but rather about how to maintain a system that benefits the oppressor and doesn’t require the difficult work of change.

But it remains that presenting systemic problems as isolated, individuals ones is one of the most dangerous things we can do. Accepting the oppressor’s version of the story, that a systemic problem is really an isolated event, is one of the most dangerous things we can do. And it’s also one of the most powerful things we can do to ensure that oppressive systems stay in place and intact.

Jamie Slater may have acted alone to commit his rapes, but his crimes are not isolated. They’re a part of a larger system of police misogyny, rape apologism, violence, and unchecked, fearsome authority. Slater was not just a police officer who committed crimes, he was an a man whose job as an officer allowed him to commit crimes. And the more we remember that and point it out — repeatedly — every single time one of these cases comes up, the better.

Well, here we go again. Every few months or so, some public official or organization makes a common sense observation that sex education is largely useless unless we start it early, and thus expresses support for age appropriate sex education for kids as soon as they start school. Cue the outrage, as a variety of other public officials, media talking heads, and over-protective parents panic that those who back comprehensive sex education at all levels are looking to indoctrinate kindergartners with pornography.

This particular frenzy is taking place in Britain — apparently the U.S. is getting a break on this front, for a change — and even the likes of supposedly respectable Reuters is bearing headlines like “UK watchdog says teach sex to kids from age five.” Which suggests a potential lesson plan that reads, “Hey, kids! Today, we’re going to teach you how to give a blowjob! Can you say blowjob? Bloooooowwwwwww JOB!”

Reading the article, however, gives one a slightly more subdued understanding of the recommendation:

NICE said school governors should ensure education about sex and relationships and alcohol starts in primary school, which British children attend from the age of five.

“Topics should be introduced and covered in a way that is appropriate to the maturity of pupils and is based on an understanding of their needs and is sensitive to diverse cultural, faith and family perspectives,” it said.

For the youngest children, this would involve learning about the value of friendships and having respect for others.

“All children and young people are entitled to high-quality education about sex, relationships and alcohol to help them make responsible decisions and acquire the skills and confidence to delay sex until they are ready,” NICE said.

Oooooh, not teaching children to learn the value of friendships! Time to crank the rage up to ten!

But family groups branded the draft guidance, published today, ‘inappropriate and unnecessary’.

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said Nice had shunned marriage and family values groups and sidelined parents. ‘There is no evidence such education in primary school leads to lower teenage pregnancy rates, better sexual health or more stable marriages,’ he added.

Still appalled? Don’t worry, there are more folks who have your back:

But family campaigners have slammed the plans for children as young as five to have sex education lessons, branding them ‘unnecessary and harmful.’

They fear it could lead to teenage pregnancy being seen as acceptable.

“There is no evidence which shows that the more children are taught about sex, the less likely they are to become pregnant,” the Daily Express quoted author and social policy expert Patricia Morgan as saying.

Morgan added: “The more children are told, the more likely they are to experiment.”

To be entirely fair, UK residents seem to be handling this logical recommendation with far more maturity than their counterparts in the U.S. would. While some outrage undeniably exists, quotes from groups who find the idea of age appropriate education to be abhorrent are much fewer and farther between than they are whenever a U.S. politician makes any recommendation or drafts any legislation regarding sex education. And while most headlines are an exercise in fear mongering, about half of the media sources are actually U.S.-based. Though British press and citizens are far from being models of sexual progressiveness, they do seem to have their act together far better than the bulk of those in the United States.

The issue, though, is that this shouldn’t even be subject to question at all.

Indeed, if the description of the guidelines is accurate, I have no problem saying that they do not go nearly far enough. Teaching about interpersonal relationships and respect is certainly important, and I wouldn’t recommend removing it as a part of curriculum. But if that’s as far as education goes at the youngest levels, it’s still selling children short. Notably missing is the necessity for extended, repeated discussions on touch and consent — something that it is never to early to teach, as all forms of touch should require consent, and as those who wish to touch without consent often choose very young victims. Other basic education is also missing. Quite simply, all children should know the meaning of words like vulva, vagina, clitoris, penis, testicles, and foreskin.

In my view, this should not really be up for debate. In a world where we saw even very young children as human beings deserving of basic rights — and where we saw information about one’s body as a basic human right — there would be absolutely no room for controversy. And how can we really claim to understand children as people if we think it’s acceptable to withhold information about what to call parts of themselves? How can we really think of children as having selves without also thinking that their selves deserve to be named?

And yet, it seems that we can’t even get that far without debate being provoked. The above quote from Patricia Morgan explicitly shows a fear of children being provided with information about themselves and their peers. The idea that it doesn’t really matter what awful things you are afraid they may do with the information when you consider that it’s their right to be provided with it doesn’t seem to cross her mind. What matters is not human rights, or even emotionally healthy views of sexuality. What seems to matter is getting kids to do what we want them to do.

This exposes a big problem with the most popular models of sex education in the Western world, whether they be comprehensive sex education that aims to teach students about contraception and STD prevention, or the abstinence-only model that is so popular in the U.S. Both models at their base attempt to not teach young people how to be sexually healthy human beings who respect their own bodies and the bodies of their partners, who know how to draw and respect boundaries, who understand how to both give and receive pleasure, and who have the tools they need to assess risk and keep themselves and their partners as safe as they reasonably can. They attempt to prevent young people from having sex by emphasizing all of the negatives and failing to mention any of the benefits — and then, if we’re lucky, they do harm reduction. And while harm reduction can certainly be important, it shouldn’t be the be all and end all of teaching other people how to be sexually healthy. Not if what we mean by “sexually healthy” goes beyond negative STD and pregnancy tests.

Sex education, in my view, shouldn’t be about “preventing teen pregnancy.” It should be about teaching young people how to engage in emotionally and physically healthy, pleasurable, consensual sexual relationships if and when they choose to engage in such relationships at all, and informing them about how to keep themselves as healthy and safe as they can and how to control their reproductive capacities as they see fit as a part of that.

NICE has suggested nothing even remotely as radical as what I’ve presented here. All they’re doing is noting that if you wait until kids are already starting to become sexually active and have already been discussing sex with their friends for years and forming sexual attitudes, any sex education provided at that point is going to have minimal impact. And when that’s enough to earn righteous, huffy opposition and headlines that suggest a coming collapse of all moral and social codes, we’re dealing with a much bigger problem regarding sex than what kids are being taught. We’re facing the dilemma of what adults really think and believe.

Trigger Warning for violent imagery, discussions of intimate partner violence, and victim-blaming.

A new campaign against domestic violence has just been launched in West Yorkshire, England. According to police, domestic violence increased by 30% during the last World Cup in 2006. They’re looking to prevent that from happening again this year.

Let me say, first of all, that I think it’s laudable that they’ve recognized a trend and are acting on it instead of just standing by the phones and waiting for the calls to come in. It’s also rather encouraging that they actually believe domestic violence is something that can be prevented rather than simply responded to. I also know that I tend to criticize more of these types of campaigns than I celebrate. I know that I may seem insensitive towards the fact that it’s very, very difficult to come up with a striking image and short slogan that captures substantial and unproblematic anti-violence theory. In truth, I do recognize that this is an incredibly hard task.

But I also don’t think it’s helpful to applaud campaigns that are actually harmful. And I don’t think it’s useful in the long-term to give out cookies for effort, while such efforts keep failing to improve.

Now, the image above, at first glance, is better than a lot of other campaigns. It focuses on the perpetrator, not the victim. That, alone, is a huge step. And so thank god for it.

But there are also numerous problems. Firstly, I have to say that while incidents of domestic violence rose by 30% last World Cup, I doubt that domestic violence itself rose in hugely meaningful terms. I imagine that what was seen was not a rise in men abusing their women partners, but a great surge in men abusing their women partners all at once. I imagine that virtually all of the perpetrators were already perpetrators (or would have soon become perpetrators) — they just all decided to commit their assaults around the same time, for a change. The World Cup didn’t make them do it. And so I think that centering a campaign around the World Cup as though it’s a cause is somewhat misguided.

As Jo recently noted in comments, I also take issue with the constant focus on potential prison time when dealing with perpetrators of gendered violence, whether it be intimate partner violence or sexual assault. I’d really rather prefer consistent messaging that focuses on the fact that such violence is wrong and oppressive and should be considered completely unacceptable to the community, rather than “well, you might be punished.”

But my main problem with this campaign isn’t actually the poster you see above. It’s the fact that there is a second poster. A poster aimed at women, who are presumed to be the victims. This second poster is incredibly revolting, in my view, and that’s why I’ve put it lower down in the post instead of at the top.

This second image will be larger than the first because it includes small type. Please be aware that it is very graphic and will be possibly triggering for anyone who has experienced intimate partner violence or any other form of assault.

There is so much wrong here that I hardly know where to begin. I’ll work in ascending order.

First of all, there is the imagery itself. Again, only a white woman (or a woman who is clearly supposed to be read as white) can be a victim. And the imagery is extremely violent. Rather than helpful to many survivors, I have to be concerned that it’s just likely to trigger them. It also reinforces the hierarchy of “real” victims and perpetuates myths about “real” domestic violence. “Real” domestic violence leaves marks. Most people believe this, including victims. The fact that many if not most perpetrators know how to avoid leaving marks is ignored. And so is the fact that the following narrative runs through many victims’ heads: “He just slaps me around a bit. It’s not that bad. It’s not like I’m all bruised up. It’s not like I’m at the emergency room. It’s not like I’ve got scars all over my body.”

The next problem is that the poster completely absolves the perpetrator of any responsibility. The marks on the woman’s back aren’t attributed to her partner — they’re attributed to red cards and penalties. The text on the poster is not about someone choosing to physically harm her, but about the “World Cup leaving its mark.” In fact, not even the tiny print at the very bottom of the poster mentions a responsible perpetrator. All language is passive. You need to connect the dots to a perpetrator yourself, if you are in fact so inclined. And in a world where victims blame themselves and onlookers also blame victims, that is really, really far from good enough.

The worst problem of all, though, is that the poster does seem to apply blame to someone other than the World Cup. It applies blame to the victim.

Don’t let the World Cup leave its mark on you. Don’t let the World Cup leave its mark on you.

According to this poster, someone who is abused by a partner “because” of the World Cup has let it happen. According to this poster, it is the potential victim’s responsibility to ensure that she doesn’t let it happen. According to this poster — which, again, does not so much as include a mere mention of a perpetrator — it can only happen if she lets it.

Heads up, West Yorkshire Police: victims don’t let themselves be abused. Whether it’s the first time the abuse has been committed or the one thousandth time, it is never the victim’s fault. The victim never lets it happen. The perpetrator is at fault. The perpetrator lets it happen. The perpetrator makes it happen.

And yes, it would be a much better world where all victims of abuse were free to leave the perpetrators at the drop of a hat. But we don’t live in that world. We live in a world where many victims don’t have anywhere to go, any way to support themselves financially, any emotional support from friends and family, any understanding that the abuse is not their fault, or any guarantee of safety from the perpetrator once they do leave.

And while a world where victims of abuse could freely leave is a world that is much more ideal than this one, even in that world, victims who stay would  not be letting the abuse happen. Not to mention that if we’re already working on creating much more ideal worlds, I’d really rather aim for the truly ideal one, where victims don’t need to leave because there aren’t any perpetrators.

Trigger Warning for rape apologism. Linked articles contain descriptions of sexual assault.

Out of the U.K. comes an extremely disturbing case in which two young boys, aged 10 and 11, have been convicted of attempting to rape an 8-year-old girl.

I’ll let that sink in for a moment.

The case raises numerous ethical conundrums and requires a nuanced response. At one point during the trial, the victim recanted and claimed that she had invented the story — whether she was telling the truth during this recantation or responding to pressure from the defense’s cross examination is unclear, and was ultimately up to the jury to decide. Many are also arguing that the case was dealt with hugely inappropriately, that a full fledged criminal trial for boys so young was absurd, ugly, a display of society’s worst impulses, and a travesty of the judicial system.

And on that last point, I actually pretty strongly agree. I believe that the ideal goal of all judicial processes should not be punishment, but rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is not always possible. And the systems we currently have in place for rehabilitation are frequently flawed or abysmally failing. But if there is anyone, anyone at all, who is capable of being rehabilitated, any sex offender who can successfully make the decision to not commit sexual violence again, a child of this age has to be it. That doesn’t minimize or excuse the violence committed against the victim — in fact, I believe that it is a much greater dishonor to a victim’s suffering and trauma to throw up our hands and say that we can’t prevent the same thing from being done to somebody else, when there is indeed a very, very great chance that we can.

Trying these children as adults and ultimately putting them on the sex offender registry list instead of working with them through various means to ensure that they realize that what they did was wrong and lose any desire to ever do it to anyone else ever again, I think, was absolutely the wrong move.

I also think that my stance is a vastly different one from that displayed by many commentators, who seem to think that these boys were treated inappropriately by the judicial system not because of their age and high likelihood of being able to be successfully rehabilitated, but because they think that the boys’ ages mean that what they did wasn’t a big deal, doesn’t count, or couldn’t have possibly happened.

One writer who expressed this view in a rather notable way is Philip Johnston of the Daily Telegraph. In his column, he opines:

Consider: the two boys must be pre-pubescent, so how could there have been any sexual motivation behind what happened? The cause, surely, was nothing more than the curiosity that young boys and girls have always shown towards each other’s bodies. And even if there was what adults would consider to have been an unhealthy interest shown in the sexual organs, that is most likely due to the imagery that rains down on our children every day from television or the internet.

…

The first thing that strikes you about this case is how incredible it is that it even came to a trial at the Old Bailey – or anywhere else, for that matter. Which part of “they were children” does the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) not understand? Why, indeed, did the authorities respond to a story of rape from an eight-year-old, who cannot possibly know what it means?

Oh, Mr. Johnston, your privilege is showing. I assure you, there are sadly countless eight-year-old girls all over the world — and eight-year-old boys, and children of other genders, too — who may not be able to define the word “rape” for you, but know a hell of a lot more about what it means than you ever could. And you should be infinitely grateful for that, rather than using it as the basis for snide remarks. I think that “children are too young to know about sexual matters, so why should we believe them when they report sexual violence to us?” is the most shockingly irresponsible thing I’ve seen in print in a very, very long time.

Johnston also seems terribly confused about what constitutes sexual violence, and is under the impression that the perpetrator must glean sexual satisfaction from hir crime in order for it to “count.” I’m not being sarcastic when I say that I’m confident that in his world view, crimes such as obstetric rape, rape committed by straight men against other men or by straight women against other women, sexual assault by gay men against women, and so on, fall under the category of something else entirely. Because clearly, it is the view of the perpetrator that matters most, not the experience of the victim. I also wonder how far into prudish denial he is, if he thinks that children at that age do not have sexual selves or ever masturbate or experience arousal.

Skipping over the section where Johnston argues that kids who use bigoted slurs should be protected more than the marginalized children who are harmed by them (and coyly expresses his view that homophobia is an invented phenomenon), he goes on to argue:

The boys were virtually under the legal age of criminal responsibility, and while children can of course act in a criminal way, when it comes to sexual behaviour we must surely be mindful of motive. Rape is carried out both to exert power and for sexual gratification. Since when has idle, child-like interest been a sex crime? If they had hurt the girl then they could have been charged with assault. Now, astonishingly, the boys are to have their names placed on the Sex Offender Register – though, as Mr Justice Saunders, the trial judge, said, it is not clear what that will mean for children of this age.

The two are the youngest boys ever charged with rape in this country (and possibly anywhere else). There must be an explanation for that: previous generations would not have put children on trial in this way. We seem to cosset our offspring more than ever, yet treat them as though they were grown-ups for merely behaving like children.

Again, I disagree with the way that this case has been handled. I think that better methods for handling this type of situation, which unfortunately will undoubtedly occur again, need to be developed right now. But the fact that this case was handled very, very poorly does not in any way suggest that non-consensual sexual touching of another person is merely children behaving like children.

Indeed, the vast majority of us get through our entire childhoods without sexually assaulting other children. And those of us who really are as genuinely curious as Johnston seems to think that these boys were managed to express and act out such natural curiosity in a way that didn’t infringe on another child’s rights or force another child to grant unwanted access to hir body.

There is a line — a really big, bright red one, actually — between acknowledging that there is not a one size fits all appropriate response to sexual offenders regardless of specific circumstances, and outright rape apologism. It is possible to say that 10 and 11 year old boys probably don’t deserve to be branded for life without completely excusing what they did. And it’s absolutely necessary to say that while they don’t deserve to be branded for life, they desperately do need help, rather than to just brush aside what they did as acceptable because of age and all the sex on TV.

We can argue that this case was handled inappropriately — and as I believe that if the boys are forced into detention their likelihood of recidivism will skyrocket, even dangerously — without claiming that certain bodily violations are inconsequential. Indeed, I argue that we must, if we actually desire to stop sexual violence, rather than simply decide who is and isn’t worthy of being punished.

In England and Wales, there’s a plan underway to grant anonymity to those who are accused of rape but have not been convicted.

Yes, under this plan, the name of the alleged victim would not be the only one withheld from public knowledge for reasons of safety and privacy. And understandably, local anti-rape activists have not responded well.

There has been growing pressure to change the law for defendants amid claims false allegations ruin the lives of innocent people.

The coalition Government yesterday pledged to extend the current ban on identifying victims in rape cases to defendants as well.

It would mean only those convicted of rape would ever be named but the controversial move last night split opinion.

Rape support groups said it was an “insult” that would discourage victims from reporting attacks but those have been falsely accused welcomed the decision as long overdue.

The pledge was included in the Government’s detailed coalition agreement which also revealed plans for a complete review of sentencing policy, raising the prospect of an end to short term prison sentences.

It also pledged to give anonymity to teachers facing accusations of assault or other offences by their own pupils.

It comes amid concerns careers are ruined by staff who are victims of malicious and false allegation from their students.

Officials last night refused to give further details on how the rape defendant ban would work but victims are currently afforded protection for life from the moment they report a rape.

There has been growing pressure to change the law for defendants amid claims false allegations ruin the lives of innocent people.

I, for one, am really just incredibly tired of the myth that the anonymity granted to rape survivors is some kind of special privilege. In reality, it’s a “privilege” I’d be more than willing to give up — because a world in which anonymity for rape survivors is not needed is a world that views a rape accusation as serious and credible, and a rape survivor as a victim who bears no blame or public shame and who is worthy of support.

In this world, rape accusers are harassed. They are called liars and whores, accused of filing false charges, shouted at in public, socially ostracized, looked upon as spoiled or ruined, and told that they are to blame for what happened. They often feel the need to leave their colleges, quit their jobs, or even move house just to escape the abuse. In this world, being a rape accuser is wrongly made into a shameful business. In this world, rape survivors are not supposed to hold their heads high — they’re supposed to hide away and cry, and apologize to the world. Rape accusers need anonymity as a protection from having their lives ripped apart any further than they already were by rape.

And the claim that being falsely accused of rape is just as bad as being raped — which plenty of supporters of this reform make (wade into any comments at your own risk), and which the plan itself implies — is a slap in the face to rape victims.

No one is denying that being accused of a crime you did not commit is an upsetting and potentially even traumatizing event. But it’s also a far less common one than rape. Further, with the relatively rare and still only sometimes exception of stranger rapes, accused rapists tend to be granted much stronger support systems than accusers, as rape myths prevail and no one wants to believe that their “nice” friend/son/brother/coworker/partner could be a rapist. And frankly, I just refuse to believe that those who are falsely accused of rape — not even convicted, just accused! — and are tried and vindicated in the judicial system face the same risk of a “ruined” life as someone whose bodily autonomy and personal worth has been violently violated in what is usually a gendered hate crime that faces great social stigma. Indeed, I personally propose a moratorium on the useless and inflammatory claim that anything is “as bad as being raped.”  (There are other words, and other analogies!) But in those cases where similarly high levels of trauma are likely, such as those where false accusations are based in racism, this law would probably do little to help, and might even hinder, making it harder for racial justice advocates to media watch and proactively volunteer their support and assistance.

It also strikes me as incredibly disingenuous to suggest that those who are falsely accused of rape are more likely to become social outcasts and have their lives ruined than those falsely accused of murder. Yet, alleged murderers aren’t being considered in this proposal. What I see to be the main difference between these two groups is who is doing the accusing. In murder trials, the victim is dead — he or she cannot accuse anyone, and is usually the police who decide which party to accuse. In a rape trial (that is not also a murder trial), the victim is alive — and with the exception of some stranger rapes or rapes committed while the victim was unconscious, it is the victim, usually the woman, who points to the accused.

And that’s what this comes down to: whether or not women can be believed. The fact is that false reports of rape are made at about the same rate as every other crime — and no one has been able to prove otherwise without seriously  distorting the numbers. But only rape accusers are made suspect. And with rape accusers being overwhelmingly women, women are made suspect. What anonymity for rape accusers says is that rape survivors deserve to be protected from a misogynistic rape culture that would otherwise attack them. What anonymity for those accused of rape says is that men need to be protected from vindictive, lying whores. Not to mention a society so punitive as to think rape is bad!

The thing is, this has been tried before. As the article notes, it was tried from 1976 to 1988. What was the reason it was repealed? Feminist man-hating? No — the fact that it made victims less likely to report.

And who can blame them? With a 6% conviction rate, victims really don’t have a whole lot to hope for, other than a public record of the accused’s alleged crime and a warning to potential future victims. Without even that much — and with most rape allegations going ignored by the media, anyway, it’s already a pretty long shot — how many will decide that reporting is just not worth it? How many will lose an avenue through which to make public what was done to them? And how many rapists won’t even face the most basic, minimal punishment of being socially ostracized from those few informed and wise enough to know that rape accusers are almost always telling the truth and rapists almost always go free?

Trigger Warning for rape apologism and graphic descriptions of rape, especially in linked article.

An ongoing UK rape case presents us with a perfect example of rape apologism, and the grave cultural misunderstanding over what exactly constitutes both rape and consent.

Jack Tweed, the widower of a reality show star, is charged on two counts of rape. His friend Anthony Davis is accused on one count of rape for the same instance. Davis launches a defense of both of their actions in a way that is particularly disturbing:

The alleged victim, who is now 20, told Snaresbrook Crown Court in east London she was “horrified” and went into “complete lockdown” when Davis joined Tweed on the bed and they both raped her together.

But Davis told police he was stood between the door and the bed and could see Tweed was having sex with the teenager up against the window.

“She didn’t protest it,” he told police.

“She didn’t say stop. She didn’t say anything to suggest she didn’t want it to happen.

“She didn’t say anything at all.”

She didn’t say anything at all. In other words, she didn’t say yes.

In a better world, a more compassionate world, a world that cared more about the humanity and rights of others, these would be words you would never, ever speak in order to proclaim your innocence regarding an alleged rape. In a better world — a world that thought rape was a real crime, and that women’s bodies actually matter (not because only women are raped, but because rape is so associated with women and socially constructed accordingly) — when accused of rape, admitting that you did not at any point obtain any form of consent would be a virtual admission of guilt. Not a defense.

There are non-verbal ways to give consent, certainly. But Davis is in no way referring to those types of consent. He is, in fact, seemingly not talking about consent at all. What he is talking about is a lack of explicit non-consent. He is talking about women as though they are a permanent state of consent, a state that must explicitly be revoked to constitute rape. He is speaking about women as though they exist to be sexually used, as though they have no inner lives, as though they have no basic bodily rights. He is speaking about women as not needing to give consent, but being 100% responsible for loudly and verbally withdrawing it. He’s speaking about women as being obligated to say “stop,” but about men as being in no way required to ensure that there is a meaningful “go.”

He is claiming that a woman’s silence essentially allows him to do whatever he wants to her.

He then goes on about the alleged victim’s grave and apparently very damning failure to scream:

He went on: “The whole episode in that room couldn’t have been longer than four, five minutes, max, if that.

“If a girl had been assaulted or raped, she would have come out of that room traumatised.

“She would have been screaming, surely someone would have heard something.”

…

Davis added that, when the victim was having sex with Tweed by the window, her leg was in the air.

“If she did want him to stop, all she had to do was kick him and he would have been off,” Davis said.

Seemingly, Davis is prepared and willing to pull out every rape apologist, rape denialist, victim-blaming myth in the book as a means to claim his innocence. Interestingly, he spends precious little time explaining that consent was present, and how that consent was expressed and verified. He just wants us to know that the alleged victim didn’t do anything to precisely indicate that her body did not belong to these two men.

It couldn’t be rape, because it didn’t last very long.

It couldn’t be rape, because no one noticed any visible trauma.

It couldn’t be rape, because she didn’t scream.

It couldn’t be rape, because there were no witnesses.

It couldn’t be rape, because it’s only rape when a victim physically struggles.

I couldn’t possibly be a rapist, because my alleged victim didn’t act how I expect rape victims to act.

It couldn’t be rape, because a rape victim must say “no,” or otherwise consent is present.

And she didn’t say anything at all.

h/t meloukhia

In the UK, the National Centre for Domestic Violence has launched a new campaign focusing on men who are the victims of domestic violence. Sounds great, right? The fact that, while women are mostly the victims of intimate partner violence, they are not the only victims of intimate partner violence, is still an issue not discussed very frequently in mainstream culture, so increased visibility for the issue is certainly a good thing.

The problem is, I’m not so sure about the way they’re approaching the campaign. Ideally, I’d love for you to see the image on your own without my prior description, but it could be considered not safe for work. For that reason, I’m placing it below the jump, and am reproducing this description for you to make a call about whether to click through or scroll down:

The campaign, created by JWT London, focuses on the embarrassment experienced by men who often feel too ashamed to report the abuse they have suffered.

This is shown through a provocative image of an emasculated man who appears to have no genitalia.

The image, which was shot by renowned photographer Nadav Kander, is accompanied by the headline ‘We know how it feels to be a victim of male domestic violence’, and directs sufferers to the centre’s website.

The new campaign has been launched following research showing that approximately four million men are affected by domestic violence each year.

Dr Steve Connor, chief executive of the NCDV, said: “As a man, it can be difficult to admit that you are being abused, and many men may feel ashamed, embarrassed or worried that they may be considered less of a man by speaking out against their abusers.

Now, the image itself:

The text on the poster reads: We know how it feels to be a male victim of domestic violence. As a man, telling somebody that your partner is abusing you is difficult. You might feel ashamed, embarrassed, or worried you’ll be viewed as less of a man. But for all victims of domestic abuse, the advice is the same, you are not alone and there is help available.

The campaign doesn’t quite sit right with me for numerous reasons, and I want to explore the several ways I’ve tried looking at this ad below.

My immediate, unfiltered thoughts upon viewing this image with no prior description of it went like this: “that’s a man with a vulva. So, being a male victim of domestic violence is … like being a trans man, WHAT?“

Of course, I then read the accompanying article, and saw the man described as having “no genitals.” I looked more closely and saw that what is actually just a shadow my brain had initially interpreted as labia, likely because labia are not only presented to us in popular culture as very small and hairless, but also because it is ingrained in our culture that if one does not have a penis, one must have a vulva instead.

Certainly, this initial reaction reveals some of my own implicit and subconscious biases. There is no way around that. But I also find it very difficult to believe that — in a world where vulvae are now pretty much always represented as hairless and tiny, where “vagina” is seen as the opposite of “penis,” where everyone is always assumed to have at least and only one of those body parts, and where a penis has been historically construed as something while a vulva has been construed as a lack of something — I am the only one who has subconsciously absorbed those biases and will, casually glancing at this ad as they pass by, see a man with a vulva. Of course, since trans* bodies are regularly treated as nonexistent, and since one’s genitals are regularly treated as indicative of one’s sex and gender, most of those people wouldn’t interpret the image as being of a trans man, but as being of “a man that’s actually a woman.”

Obviously, that interpretation would be incredibly transphobic. Since the image is supposed to represent how a male victim of domestic violence feels, that interpretation would also create the incredibly misogynistic message that being a male victim of domestic violence is like being a woman.

But let’s put my careless first glance at the image aside, and assume that everyone will see the man and perceive him seemingly as intended — not has having a vulva, but as having no genitals. Where does that leave us?

Again, in a cissexist world where men are always assumed to have penises, most aren’t going to truly see a man with no genitalia as “a man with no genitals,” but rather as “a man with no penis.”  (Indeed, this article has been posted to Twitter numerous times as “If you’re a domestically abused male, you may not have a penis.”) This still retains the transphobic and gender essentialist idea that a penis equals manhood, even though plenty of men, including some trans men, intersex men, cancer surviving men, and more, do not have penises (or what most people narrowly consider to be a penis) and are still men. And again, when a vulva is still frequently interpreted culturally as the lack of a penis (and vulvae are associated with womanhood), the misogynistic message isn’t so far off, either.

Looking away from the actual genitals or lack thereof, what the image is supposed to symbolize is also problematic. The man’s lack of genitals is supposed to represent his emasculation. In addition to the transphobic elements of this message listed above, the message is further disturbing in how closely society links emasculation with femininity. I hope we can all agree that gender is important to most people, and no one should be degendered or have their gender identity denied, regardless of whether they are trans* or cis.  But when masculinity and femininity are routinely (and falsely) presented as the only two gender options, it’s understood that an “emasculated” man is feminine, and a “defeminized” woman is masculine.

And so, again, the message remains that being a male victim of domestic violence is an awful lot like being forcibly feminized. And being a feminized man is an awful lot like being a woman.

But finally, let us for a moment, close our eyes and pretend that social constructions of masculinity and femininity are not connected. Let us pretend further that our culture does not interpret “less of a man” to mean “more of a woman.” And let us also pretend that depictions of penises and manhood as inextricably linked are not transphobic. I know, it’s difficult and kind of ridiculous. But just for a moment.

Forgetting all of those problems, let us just talk about how the targets of this ad — presumably cis men — are likely to view it. While never supporting help for some at the expense of active harm to more marginalized people, the real question here is: Is this ad is helpful?

I’m not a cis man, and I’m not a male victim of domestic violence. So I can only make a rough and quite possibly inaccurate guess as to how those men may feel. That guess is that on the one hand, they would be happy — as am I — to see some visibility for the issue of men who are abused by their partners. On the other hand, is it likely to cause them to get help? Are they likely to see the image and think “yes, I feel emasculated, these people get me, I’m going to call them for assistance, or at least think about it”? Or are they going to see a reinforcement of the idea that being a victim of domestic abuse makes them less of a man, and feel ashamed and to blame for their own abuse all over again?

I don’t know. I really don’t. But my gut feeling is that the latter is more likely. Because I know that as a woman who has been in an abusive relationship, I wouldn’t react positively to an ad that told me I felt a little bit like this image, a pathetic doormat who has been dominated by a man. That ad would strike me as insulting, likely to produce more victim-blaming laughs than sympathetic understanding, and wholly irresponsible. So at the moment, I find it hard to view this ad incredibly differently.

But I really want to know what you think — especially the guys, both trans and cis, though of course both trans and cis ladies, and those who identify as neither guy nor lady, are more than welcome to weigh in. How did your brain initially interpret this image? What ideas about gender, sex, and violence did that interpretation bring to mind? How do you think that men who are victims or have been victims of domestic violence will respond to it? If you are a man who is in or has been in an abusive relationship, how did you respond? If you’re a woman who is in or has been in an abusive relationship, how did you respond? As long as they’re expressed respectfully and in a way that neither reinforces nor discounts other forms of oppression, I’m really interested in hearing all of your views.