I Interrupt National Romance Week For Some News…

At 8:00 A.M. on Saturday, August 15, 2009, Hope For Healing will be hosting their first ever Blogathon — 24 hours of blogging dedicated to raising awareness of & funds for helping victims of domestic violence. And I’ll be participating.

Twolia has generously & graciously sponsored me for this Blogathon & I’ll do everything I can to stay up & blogging for 24 hours. What can you do?

I’m so glad you asked!

* Read what I have to say (I know it may not be easy to read so many emotional & perhaps depressing posts; but if I’m going to pour my heart out along with educating y’all, it would be nice to know you give a crap!)

* Carry on the conversation: Post comments, Tweet, post/link at your own blog, email links to your friends & family — spread the word & let everyone you know how important the issue of domestic violence is to you and that you think it should matter to everyone else too.

* While I/we search for answers, try searching for something online… At the end of each Blogathon post there will be a special link to iSearch.iGive.com — clicking it and performing searches will raise money for HopeForHealing.Org. (Maybe you’ll want to debate me on a point & need some research… Maybe you want to find out just sleep deprivation does, so you’ll better understand the condition of my posts… Maybe you want to see if you can have coffee delivered to me!)

So here’s the deal for this Saturday: I stay up, confessing, educating, ranting (and I bet raving — it will be 24 hours, you know!); you read, you discuss (here, with friends & family at home, &/or out in the internets somewhere), and you perform a search (on any topic you’d like) and I’ll know you give damn about domestic violence.

More about Hope for Healing.Org: A nonprofit located in Strawberry Plains, Tennessee, that works with victims of domestic violence; restores the lives of juvenile offenders; distributes Angel Food, household items and free clothing; and meets some other needs of survivors and their families on a case-by-case basis.

Preventing Intimate Partner Violence, Is Screening Enough?

According to a recent study, the answer is “No.”

Screening for domestic violence followed by referral to a clinician does not reduce the recurrence of violence among women, according to a study for the the McMaster Violence Against Women Research Group, published in the August 5, 2009, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. (Full text here.) In the published editorial on the study, the authors have this to say:

[This study] should dispel any illusions that universal screening with passive referrals to community services is an adequate response to violence in intimate relationships.

The findings are not overly surprising to me…. And it reminds me of how that “Are you safe at home?” questions is addressed whenever I visit doctors offices, the emergency room, walk-in clinics etc. The question in terms of words varies only slightly (from “Are you safe” to “Do you feel safe” to “How would you rate your sense of safety at home?” etc.), but the manner and tone in which it’s asked varies quite a bit.

For some, it’s such a routine question, it seems as if your answer isn’t even going to register. Others try to toss it in with the litany of other questions, like a sneaky curve ball, hoping you’ll be caught off guard and give away the truth you might otherwise resist. Still others seem embarrassed to ask it — but they are fine with my “dignity” hanging out the back of a paper gown.

I wonder if there have been any studies on how effective the actual questioning aka screening itself is.

Oprah: At Least 6 Years Late On Domestic Violence

The August 2009 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine, has a feature story (beginning on page 154, after the book reviews?!) on how the laws against domestic violence aren’t enforced. The piece, titled “Why Didn’t They Stop Him?” (by Phoebe Zerwick, photographs by Mary Ellen Mark) is an excellent one — and long overdue.

Not only did I pitch this story roughly 6 years ago to Oprah, but the horrible especially because it’s true story of the ordeal of Vernetta Cockerham which resulted in her daughter’s murder is really only half the story.

Every time I start to blog about Oprah and her ignorant stance on domestic violence (she thinks it’s as simple as leaving), I get so infuriated I have to quit; I have 7 posts in draft to prove it. And this one will be short so that I can finally get to posting something without getting so outraged or ill that I cannot continue.

For the past 6 years I’ve contacted Oprah by every means I could find: via her website’s online form, via email, via phone messages at Harpo, and even spoke directly to producers of the show — who told me the half-dozen books and another half-dozen studies on the subject weren’t enough; call back when I published my own book.

Grrr — I’m in the middle of a battle for my own safety & that of my children; the book, and 1 million other things, will have to wait.

Wait for the day someone wants to open their minds to the realities — before another woman &/or her child(ren) dies.

Yes, Oprah, I told you about the Massachusetts study in 2000 which said that as many as 60-80% of restraining orders are not enforced; and I have the personal experiences to prove it. Running from my abuser kinda kept me a bit too busy to write that book.

Yes, I told your staff about the U.S. Department of Justice study that same year which said that arrests were only made in:

47% of the cases in which the victim reported being raped

36% of the cases in which the victim reported being assaulted

29% of the cases in which the victim reported being stalked.

I especially went into great detail about what happens when children are involved in domestic violence cases.

And I emphatically stated how all of this not only results in victims having a loss of faith in the system, how it not only results in keeping victims with their abusers, but how it is further abuse of victims by the system & how it impacts the children involved.

I even offered to put myself at further risk by going on-air to discuss this.

So, while I applaud you for finally getting to the truth of some of the matters involved in domestic violence, Oprah, I wonder why it took you so long? Especially when you had 6 years of my nagging.

I wonder how much longer it will take for you to heed my voice and take up the other issues I have brought to your attention?

And I wonder how many more women & children will suffer & die during that time.

But I guess death just sells more that saving lives, doesn’t it; don’t worry, continue to ignore us, and you’ll have more deaths to put on the cover of your publications.

Oprah, and staff, be prepared for more calls & emails from me.

Royal Pains, Crazy Love, Stereotypes, Abuse Excuse, & Big Fines

Last night’s Royal Pains gave me a royal pain in my donkey. Normally I love the show (especially the MacGyver-medical stuff), but last night…

UGH.

One of the plots in this episode (titled Crazy Love) revolves around a “passionate Latino couple” from Caracas. (I’ll spare you my diatribe on the stereotypical ick of that — and most of the hour long show’s plot — and just get to the part that makes me want to slap Royal Pains with a fine.) “Passionate Latina” Sophie (played by the lovely Roselyn Sanchez), discovers that along with paying for her boob job, her adoring husband (who is having financial troubles and so fears his beautiful wife will leave him) has had a GPS device implanted in her without her permission. This is discovered when she’s having an MRI and the device tries to pop through her chest (incredibly gross!), and gives her radiation poisoning.

royal-pains-promo-stillWe never see Sophia upset (though the concierge doc, when confronting the husband with moral & medical outrage, tells the husband to “give her some space now” — and Divya, when asked by the doc how Sophia is doing, says, “She just keeps saying (in mocking Spanish accent), ‘Why me? Why me?'”). When Sophia lays in the hospital bed, recovering from the surgery to save her from the radiation poisoning, her sheepish husband shows up at the door to her room and asks if he may come in. Sophia says yes; he says he’s so sorry. Sophia’s reply?

(Get ready for it, because it’s so infuriating!)

Sophia’s reply to her controlling spouse who has had her secretively implanted with a GPS device so that he can track her, to a man who nearly killed her with such abusive behavior, is… “I didn’t know you loved me so much.” And then they kiss so much that everyone leaves the room.

Ho-ly crap.

Didn’t anyone during the writing, acting, editing — any part of making this show — violently puke at the idea of even suggesting a happy, sexy, “forgive & forget” reaction to the discovery that a man has violated his wife by secretively implanting her with a tracking device?!

I guess it’s all a-OK because he was stressed over money & insecure; isn’t that the excuse we so often offer abusers? We see the incidents (at least the reports) increase during times of economic down-turns, and we study those connections, but do nothing about it — other than use it to justify, to excuse the control & violence.  Here, in this show, literally.

And they didn’t even leave it at that!

This lovely-dovey stuff makes Divya covet such passion for herself with her (presumably arranged) engagement. Barf barf barf barf barf.

Isn’t one woman mistaking love for abuse enough? No, you had to show us another woman craving it, thinking that’s the secret sauce missing from her happiness sandwich.

Knowing all this, doesn’t it make the episode’s title of Crazy Love wildly inappropriate? You’re going to inform us that you can check for blood type matches in a jiffy using a silver tray, but you’ll pass along the dangerous mythinformation that love = control?  Bad math, bad science, bad idea.

Shame on all of you at Royal Pains. I sentence to you to a fine of $60 million to, payable to two different abuse & crisis centers (each receiving $30 million) — one organization specifically helping Hispanic women.

And don’t ever do this again. I want to keep watching your show — but if you ever do this again… Well, let’s just say that I doubt you’ll be responding to me with a “I didn’t know you loved me so much.”

Dating Fear Mongering, Single Mom Edition

Once again, supposed experts shoot their mouths off, using salacious headlines and fear to label & manipulate women; this time the horrible deeds are being done by Robert Siciliano at Single Minded Women.

In the article, Siciliano paints single mothers as easy prey for sexual predators:

…the one under-discussed, over looked and “it can’t happen to me” aspect of being on the dating scene is your personal security, and that of your children. In fact, online dating is one way pedophiles find their next victims (through unsuspecting single mothers looking for love and perhaps a male role model for their children).

While the supposed security expert infuriates me with his depiction of single moms as so eager for love that they’d sacrifice their own children, it’s only going to get worse:

As the saying goes, “water seeks its own level” which means unhealthy, insecure people seek each other out; this often leads to destructive relationships. But what’s worse is insecure people often seek out destructive, unhealthy and sometimes violent people. We’ve all read the story, the single woman or single mom who couldn’t break the cycle of always settling for less, and winds up a statistic.

Healthy, conscious, right minded people don’t settle for less and can sense “bad” from a mile away. They are secure, and often are aware of their personal security as well. When something doesn’t look or seem right, they pay attention to their senses and get themselves out of what may become a dangerous situation. They cut their losses and chalk it up to a learning experience. Others get deeper into destruction.

There is a clear parallel here between what would be considered a healthy potential mate, and a predator that has nothing but bad intentions. The good guy actively pursues what he believes to be his heart and does things to romance his potential mate. The bad guy does the same thing but in the name of personal gain, manipulation and evil. Predators will target anyone who will give them their time and attention. Often a smooth talking good looking guy, who is a predator, may win over the attention of a healthy and conscious woman, but she will soon see there’s something wrong with the guy. Whereas an unhealthy woman who is unsure of her personal security will settle for less and in some cases put her and her children at risk. Sadly, sometimes loneliness trumps consciousness.

Sadly, sometimes it’s media-hungry experts who consciously prey upon the fears & insecurities of the humans they pretend to be helping.

The real “clear parallel” that Siciliano seems to be operating off of is his non-documented notion that single mothers are single parents because they are “unhealthy,” “insecure,” “destructive,” & therefore somehow more likely to put their children at risk.

Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s his first bit of helpful (and tainted) advice (page 2):

First make sure you have a healthy strong mind and your self esteem is in order. Read as many self help books as possible, go to weekend empowerment retreats, associate with friends that are goal oriented and have their life in order, shred any baggage you may have and most importantly, “know thyself”; which means to understand oneself is to understand others as well.

Like all self help books are full of sound advice. *snort* Like those with real (not author-imagined) mental health issues are able to trust their way to “health” through a book alone — or trust their friends (doesn’t that “water seeks its own level” business apply to friends too?)

The rest of his advice for dating safely online is fine; rather generic and based on the commonsense advice your friends give you (and not unlike what mom told you in the years before the internet & other tech gadgets), but his message gets lost in the fear-mongering & victim blaming.

If there is any connection (and I’ve not yet ready any study that indicates this) between single moms’ children being at risk from pedophiles and/or sexual predators, I’m willing to bet that this has less to do with the single mother’s poor self esteem than it does with access to the children.

Just as biological dad has access to his own kids, step-dad or mom’s boyfriend is there to watch the kids while she works, runs errands, etc. In both cases (as with uncles, other family members, clergy, etc.), these males are (eventually) trusted to be alone with the children; trust being something the criminal works hard to gain. It’s a matter of single mothers working, meaning a higher rate of absenteeism from home; not something necessarily borne of an “unhealthy” single mom putting her children at risk for the sake of her own loneliness.

Are some pedophiles using dating sites to target victims? Sure they are. Just like rapists are. But targeting victims isn’t new. Before the internet and dating sites, those willing to commit sex crimes against children were trolling parks, volunteering to coach or otherwise be with & supervise children, etc. looking for victims. (I they wanted adult female victims, they knew what they were looking for & did their best to find the situational windows to take advantage of.)

Like Celeste Moyers, the director of the Safer Online Dating Alliance, said two years ago (when Good Morning America covered this “story”), “If someone wants to do harm, that person will find a way to do it.”

“People are caught off guard,” she said. “Even the smartest savviest online dater can be a victim of sexual assault.”

So why is this fact buried in most of the coverage of this issue — and absent from Siciliano’s salacious story?

Because it’s preferred to blame the victim — and the victim’s mother — rather than to hold the victimizing, criminal pedophile responsible.

Shame on Robert Siciliano for playing up & preying on the fears of female single parents, for labeling them “unhealthy” for not being married, for blaming them for somehow increasing the potential victimization of their children.

If I Only Had A Penis

Dear Wizard of Oz,

After hearing of your kind generosity towards straw men, lions, tin men, and stray girls & their little dogs, I was wondering if I might be granted a penis — just for a few days. And I’ll return it unused, I swear!

I just need one penis, no matter how small, to get into casting for VH1’s Tough Love 2 Men’s Panel, so that I can access & confront the Evil Witches (the show producers) & Their Flying Monkeys (Steve Ward).

If necessary, I will pour water on them.

It’s not for selfish reasons that I ask; I have to protect women, you see. And I’ll need a penis, no matter how small (a penis is a penis, after all), to get in.

So please, dear Wizard of Oz, temporarily give me a penis. I have the brains, the heart, the courage — and I know how to get back home.

Sincerely,

Alessia
Good Witch In Training, of Relationship Underarm Stick

The Corrected Word

I was understandably distraught when I read Christina Hoff Sommers’ Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship, in which she finds fault in Berkeley law prof Nancy Lemon & her widely used textbook, Domestic Violence Law, saying:

False assertions, hyperbole, and crying wolf undermine the credibility and effectiveness of feminism. The United States, and the world, would greatly benefit from an intellectually responsible, reality-based women’s movement.

I’ve not read Lemon’s book, but naturally I agree — false statements are not good & undermine the very causes I hold dear.

But so do false accusations about such work, and Sommers isn’t as pure as any ethical now in my book — she’s got an agenda. OK, so maybe we all do — but hers is not exactly pro-female. Sommers is (white hetero male) conservative and she’s well-connected, meaning her false assertions, hyperbole, and crying wolf greatly undermines the credibility and effectiveness of feminism because her voice is deemed worthy & given lots of media push.

This weakens Lemon’s book and therefore weakens educational & societal concern over the validity of domestic violence, diminishing the issue of violence towards women, and, because Lemon is a woman (and I gather a self-proclaimed feminist), such attacks by Sommers discredit Lemon and female authors (at least those who identify as feminist and aren’t conservative foundation teat-suckers & ass-kissers of the patriarchy), turning the “conversation” in general into a feminist bashing event.

All very horrendous & vomitous indeed.

But thankfully, Tenured Radical rides to the rescue.

Just go read it — now! — and see how deeply sucking (figuratively & literally) Sommers is — and how Tenured Radical gets to the truth of the very historical facts Sommers questions.

You may not feel “all is well,” but it’s good to know that others are in the battle.

I try to help by magnifying & spreading the corrected word.

Men Claim They Are Dumb Animals With No Ability To Control Their Violence

G, aka ToxicShockTaco, commented here about some stupid comments she’s read & frustrating conversations she’s had online which prompted her to write this blog post. Following her links, I found the usual victim blaming mentality which serves to excuse criminal acts; things which shouldn’t surprise me because they are so commonplace. But still, like G, I can’t help but feel compelled to say what I can in hopes that there’s a chance to educate.

Among “Jimbo’s Jems”:

So, I guess if a girl decided it would be cool to smear raw ground beef all over herself & walk inside a pen full of hungry lions, getting eaten alive wouldn’t be her fault either, eh?

Or, on a more plausible note, if she thought it would be cool to walk into an outlaw biker bar & strut around half naked, she wouldn’t be considered to hold one shred of responsibility for anything that happened to her there, either.

Right?

OK, don’t you love how he compares himself & men in general to a predatory beast? And how he thinks sex = food?

Yes, the sex drive is biological, like hunger; but they are neither equal in need nor imperative. And even when it comes to hunger, humans — even the male ones who joke about the 5 second rule for food on the floor, would consider the possible consequences of eating raw (or even cooked) meat they just stumbled upon.

If I were a man, I’d be insulted that you forfeit male ability to exercise self-control. As the mother of a son, I’m angry. How dare you say that penis or testosterone equals inability to control one’s self! As if being male limits a person to some sort of reptilian, reactionary response — of a violent nature yet!

Even the comparison to “outlaw bikers” is ridiculous.

First of all, the very word “outlaw” means criminal, so obviously, the matter of safety is an issue for anyone — and if he meant Outlaw with a capital “O”, well, I’m not sure that violence towards women is in the bylaws… And in either case, I don’t think I’d toss around that implication lightly. (Frankly, I suspect, Jimbo is just throwing around pejoratives, playing with fears &/or negative opinions of bikers; my personal experiences with bikers of any sort, including Outlaws with a capital “O,” have been nothing but respectful — in fact, they have been the first to back me up when a drunk jerk hasn’t backed-off when told to.)

Secondly, with regards to his questions/accusations that a woman “strutting around half-naked” in any sort of a bar believes herself free from the responsibility of the actions of others, let me help Jimbo out here. Such a woman may be risking legal actions such as “indecent,” “disorderly,” and “harassment” — not to mention just plain rude — depending upon what exactly “half-naked” is, what the location is (strippers, for example, are more than 1/2 naked and they are not allowed to be assaulted or raped), and other situational issues. But yeah, she’s not responsible for what other’s do.

Jimbo continues:

Because as we all know, a woman should be able to wear anything she damn well pleases with no thought to the possible consequences, and any consequences she may suffer, will never be considered to be even partially her responsibility, even though she engaged in behavior that expopsed her to risk to begin with.

Right?

No, of course not. A woman shouldn’t be outside wearing a bikini in temperatures 40 degrees below zero. A woman should not violate dress codes at the place of her employment. A woman should not wear clothing soaked in gasoline, even if she’s not standing next to a burning building. And there are countless other situations in which women should follow rules of safety & convention. But “scantily dressed” or even “nude” does not mean that she has put herself in the path of sexual danger — the criminals stalk her down on her path, regardless of how she is dressed.

In case you can’t see the difference between sexual assault & the to-be-expected dangers of my particular examples, let me make them clear for you. In the case of bikinis outside in winter, the elements are not controllable, so humans must dress for the weather or risk threats of exposure to the cold. In the case of employer dress codes, the employee has agreed to the dress codes and risks loss of job if they do not comply. In the case of wearing gasoline-soaked clothing, well, frankly, there’s no reason to wear it and it would be risking burns & death from a spark from anything anywhere along with other health issues — all immutable laws of science which can & should be avoided by not being an idiot. However, in the case of being “half-naked” or whatever, becoming a victim of sexual crimes is not dependent upon immutable laws of science or medicine or legal contracts — it is based upon the actions of another, something one has no control over, outside of societal agreements & norms (which criminals are willing to break, no matter how the victim is dressed or acts) or, after the fact, courtrooms.

In any other area of life, all people, both men & women, are considered responsible for their own safety & well being. If you have unprotected sex with strangers & get aids, it will be considered your fault for engaing in risky behavior. Drive without your seat belt & get injured in a wreck, even your insurance company will successfully argue in court that you share some of the responsibility for your injuries. But when it comes to fashion choices & how a gal presents herself in public, whether by dressing in skimpy, revealing clothes or posting sexually suggestive pictures of herself online, suddenly reponsibility goes out the window & it’s a ghastly social faux-pas to even hint that she may have brought something on herself by the choices she made.

OK, so my other examples should make most of this clear, but…

Are you, Jimbo, saying that if a woman is raped by a stranger who doesn’t use a condom & ends up with HIV or AIDS, that she is at fault? Maybe that’s not what you intended, but I’m pretty sure it’s implied there somewhere.

Even if it’s not, when a person consents to sex with anyone, stranger or not, condom use or not, this act of sex cannot be be compared with rape in any way because rape is by definition lacking consent, you freaking idiot!

Ditto the seatbelt. Use or non-use of a seatbelt is a matter of consent. And when a woman dresses skimpy, the only thing she is consenting to is being dressed skimpy. She is not consenting to sex. In fact, the question hasn’t even come up yet.

Assaults, rape and other sex crimes are without consent. Which means she said “No” or was unable to say “Yes” by virtue of physical or mental state, and what she had on or off is absolutely meaningless. At this point of “no” or inability to give consent, any action or continuation is solely the act & responsibility of the rapist/attacker/criminal.

He is the perpetrator, she the victim; and he carries all the blame. Period.

So yes, it is “a ghastly social faux-pas to even hint that she may have brought something on herself by the choices she made,” you misogynistic twit.

Furthermore, when talking about rape, do not condescendingly refer to females as “gals.”

Of course stalking or raping a woman is criminal & morally wrong. But that doesn’t mean that it’s just perfectly OK for women to exacerbate their chances by making themselves a target.

How do we, exactly, “exacerbate our chances” of making ourselves targets of crimes which are perpetuated by criminals who hate women? That is the million dollar question. But this has nothing to do with, as you ignorantly believe & argue, the dress, talk or actions of women/potential victims, attractive or not. Simply by opting to remain ignorant (because you refuse to read the actual information, studies &/or statistics), you show no concern for the realities and safety of women and are exposing yourself as a danger to women.

More from Jimbo:

I don’t think most women really understand what the sight of an attractive, nearly naked female does to a man with an active libido. Most men can control themselves, but some just can’t. And those guys have eyes, too.

This is the belief system which exposes you as a man afraid of women. You believe women have “power over men,” rendering men, if they are not already unable to control themselves, powerless to T&A. I guess in your fear of the big bad women, you see on the horizon nothing but a future of weakness, pity & self-loathing for you & your gender and so you think men have the right to take what they want to ward this off. But, Jimbo, that’s not a man.

In another comment, Jimbo wraps up his philosophy:

You make it sound like I’m somehow excusing the act of rape, when I’m not. But I will state categorically, any woman who goes out to nightclubs by herself or even with another girl or group of girls, dressed in an ultra short, tight-fitting skirt with a plunging neckline showing off a lot of cleavage & wearing what Amy Winehouse referred to in song as “Fuck Me Pumps”, then spends the evening hanging out & flirting with strange men, is putting herself in a dangerous situation. And if something bad happens to her, while it might not be technically “her fault”, SHE BEARS A PORTION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY for doing all the things that put her in that situation.

So let me recap too.

By removing any of the responsibility from the person who committed the crime, you are excusing the perpetrator of that crime.

By placing any percentage of the responsibility, no matter how small, on the part of the victim, you are blaming the victim.

Here’s the math, Jimbo: The person who commits rape is 100% responsible.

Of course, I’m aware that Jimbo, if he reads this or G’s post, will just sneer. He’ll likely dismiss this post with his usual rhetoric, “It’s a total lack of a sense of humor & an air of deathly self-seriousness that all feminists seem to have in common.” Or maybe he’ll just call me a “fat old hag” — because that’s the other usual attack. *yawn* (Even if I was, it wouldn’t make me any less right, pinheads.)

But maybe, just maybe, we can reach a few more enlightened folks who at least want to believe that males can & should control themselves & their predatory instincts.

Whether they do or not, they are 100% responsible for their actions.

We’re Sick, Sick, Sick Of Violence & Hatred Towards Women

The following was written by Tenured Radical after the May 2009 campus shooting at Wesleyan, but it sums up so much for me and others (some of which wonder if the US flag flies for women too) that I had to share it:

But can I say one thing? I am sad, but I am also angry. I am sick, sick, sick of men beating, brutalizing and killing women and children, of boys brutalizing their girlfriends, of fathers raping and killing their wives and daughters. All these years after second wave feminists first raised this as a fundamental problem in our culture during the 1970s, the media, the police and our judicial system still treats each of these things like an isolated incident of individual pathology. And there seems to be no organized feminist movement left to insist, in contradiction to this vapid construction, that the hatred of women by men is a systemic cultural and political problem in the United States. I am sick of men who think they acquire ownership rights to women because they fall in “love” with them, men who think that “love” entitles them to do whatever the hell they please to keep women under their control so they can “love” them even more. I am tired right now and have nothing eloquent or intelligent to say on the topic, but if this short rant feeds your feminist outrage too, go to this post by Historiann about the Loyola University tragedy, where Daddy decided that his life wasn’t worth living and then imagined that the rest of the family would be better off dead too, a not uncommon scenario. I end with a quote from Historiann’s post:

Just curious: how many women and children (especially girl children, as in this case–2 women and one girl were the victims here) have to die before someone notices? One woman is accused of a child murder out in California, and that’s all we hear about all day long. But husbands apparently have carte blanche when it comes to murdering the women and girls who lived in their homes?

What’s your guess, friends? (Are you holding your breath?) If 2,100 women and children are killed simultaneously on live television by their male partners and fathers, even if it’s not by jetliners crashing into buildings, do you think anyone will notice then?

Are Dating Messages Too Ambiguous? And What Does That Mean About Rape?

In the journal Personality and Individual Differences (Volume 47, Issue 2, July 2009, Pages 145-149), T. Joel Wade, Lauren K. Butrie & Kelly M. Hoffman present findings of a study on the male perceptions of women’s opening lines. The study, dissected in further detail at PsyBlog, reveals that men prefer women to be very direct — to the point of being boringly blunt. Ladies should ask a man to dinner (#1) as opposed to asking him if he’s busy that weekend (#6); ask him if he’s got a girlfriend (#2) rather than ask about what shows he’s watched (#5).

But the most surprising finding, at least to PsyBlog, was this:

The only surprise is the low ranking of funny or sexual humour. Men don’t seem to appreciate the lewd come-ons suggested by gender stereotypes. This relatively low rating for a jokey approach is another thing shared by both sexes. Previous work by Bale et al. (2006) found that women weren’t particularly impressed with men trying to be funny, despite what we are often told. It seems opening lines are a serious business for both sexes.

This is not surprising to me or readers of this blog — remember when I told you that men, no matter what they say, do not want sexually aggressive women? But it’s interesting to note for another very important reason…

Remember all that commotion & conversation about Steve Ward’s stupid & misogynistic comment on Vh1’s Tough Love? You know, where supporters of Ward’s and those who blamed the victim in the name of Women’s Safety alike declared that Ward’s statement that Arian “would end up raped if she kept talking like that” was accurate and well-intentioned?

These people believe(d) that his (sometimes even admittedly inept) scare tactic was a tool to get Arian (and others) to “wake up” to reality. Of course, they forget that rape is not an act of “misunderstanding” and “misplaced lust” but one of violence; but we’ll ignore that for now and just look at how this study is more proof that Steve Ward is the tool.

Men (and women too), do not find frank sexual talk and humor to be an arousing come-on; it’s actually more of a turn-off.

So there, ladies and gents, you have more proof that wildly sexual talk is less likely to inspire a man to think she’s into him than if she has asked him out to dinner.

And, just to be clear, asking a man to dinner is not a signal for rape. (Heaven help me if any of you argue that point!)

No word, still, on just how direct a woman has to be to communicate that No means No.

So I am still left badgering the point that society needs to condemn acts of sexual violence. We’ll need to say it loud and clear, of course.

Perhaps by way of introduction. “Hi, I’m Alessia and sexual assault and domestic violence are not acceptable.”

I think I’ll get that made on a t-shirt.

Carnival Against Sexual Violence #72

I know many people don’t like reading about “stuff like this” — it’s too depressing &/or too upsetting, but the 72nd edition of the Carnival Against Sexual Violence has been published.

You should read it because 1 in 6 women (and 1 in 33 men) will be a victim of sexual assault in their lifetime — and if it’s not you, you will know someone who has been a victim.  The issue matters now, before you or someone you love is assaulted; it matters because ignorance and avoidance of the issue helps perpetuate the violence.

Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder: Diagnosis For Abusers?

These guys (&/or gals) aren’t “new,” but they might be about to get a new name. Grrl Scientist reports that Dr. Michael Linden, a German psychiatrist, wants to get a new diagnosable and treatable mental health disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) — the “bible” of mental health.

Named Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder (PTED), Dr. Linden notes that PTED is similar to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), where mentally healthy people are functioning fine — until a triggering event destroys their core values and shatters their basic beliefs, and folks with PTED feel wronged, humiliated and that some injustice has been done to them.

“Embitterment is a violation of basic beliefs,” Dr. Linden explains. “It causes a very severe emotional reaction. We are always coping with negative life events. It’s the reaction that varies.”

Perhaps the most dangerous thing here is the externalization. For while these people suffer from major depression, dysthymia, and anxiety disorders, these people do not feel there is anything wrong with them — at least not anything they can (or should have to fix). Again, according to Grrl Scientist:

“These people don’t have the feeling that they must change, but rather have the idea that the world should change or the oppressor should change, so they don’t ask for treatment,” Dr. Linden points out. “They are almost treatment resistant. Revenge is not a treatment.”

…Dr. Linden suggested that loving, normal individuals who suddenly snap, killing either their family or coworkers and then themselves may actually be suffering from post-traumatic embitterment syndrome.

In many ways, all of this sounds like every abusive, controlling, person I’ve ever met. Continually managing “what others do” rather than focusing on what they can do themselves — as dismissing the rest.

I would be very interested in learning more about PTED… Meanwhile, girls and boys, be very concerned if you have these people in your lives. Perhaps getting this disorder recognized will be helpful in getting these people the treatment they need — and making relationships safer in general.

Image via.

Might As Well Just Hit Myself With A Rolled-Up Cosmo

cosmopolitan-mag-june-2009The June issue of Cosmo has a cover screaming the usual predatory scare tactics about love, lust, sex and how not to be a fatty. But buried on page 44, the pickle-sized beef patty on an obnoxiously condiment loaded burger, is the meet of the issue.

Is It Ever Okay To Stay If He’s Hit You? is an article prompted by the Rihanna/Chris Brown situation (another topic I should sink my teeth into, eventually), and it discusses how even a shove is dating violence.

While the one page (large font & image laden) article isn’t bad, it barely covers the subject of dating & domestic violence past the surface stuff. However, given Cosmo‘s poor & even dangerous presentation of such serious issues, I suppose I should count my lucky stars that the topic even made it into the glossy — even if it, as it usually does these days, took a celeb situation to warrant any coverage at all.

cosmo-abuse-in-relationshipsBut I’m not thrilled.

Not just because it’s skimpy coverage, designed to provide assistance in gossiping about Rihanna and her “shocking” decision to “take Chris back.” But because it’s buried on page 44 — and the issue isn’t even put on the cover.

Yeah, I know that the domestic violence issue, like rape, is a downer and that it won’t make copies fly off the news stands like Best. Sex. Ever. (I know this from writing Relationship Underarm Stick.) But is it too much to ask that Cosmo give attention where attention is due and at least try to look like it gives a damn about the safety of women? More in-depth — and accurate — articles, please; and load the cover with ’em when you run ’em.

Because while the chicks who read this stuff are probably the least likely to be drawn to important personal safety information, they are probably the most in need of it.

Of Abuse & Avatars — And Outrage

At first glance what I’m about to post may seem to be back-peddling on my stance regarding rape (the lengthy debate of which you can follow with these posts); but keep reading, because I think what I’m about to share has a lot more to say about society than what’s presented…

CNN reports on a recent study, lead by Jennie G. Noll of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio, published in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics titled Childhood Abuse, Avatar Choices, and Other Risk Factors Associated With Internet-Initiated Victimization of Adolescent Girls. From CNN’s report:

“Results indicated that abuse status was significantly related to online sexual advances, which were, in turn, related to offline, in-person encounters,” the study says.

The authors say there was no direct link between abuse and offline encounters, but that a history of abuse puts girls at greater risk.

Looking at the girls’ avatar choices, the authors found that girls who present themselves provocatively in body and clothing choices are more likely to have had online sexual advances.

That risk is tied not just to an avatar, but to the overall image a girl projects online, they say. On sites that don’t use avatars, such as MySpace or Facebook, simply compiling suggestive photographs or narrative descriptions can increase girls’ vulnerability, they say.

“Those adolescents who may be unaware of how their appearance might be perceived may not, from a developmental perspective, possess the social sophistication necessary to field and ward off sexual advances in ways that protect them from sexually explicit suggestions,” the study says.

“This may be a particularly important lesson to convey to female adolescents who are especially vulnerable to exploitation and victimization, such as those who have been victims of childhood abuse,” it says.

CNN ends their report with the mandatory, “watch your kids!” mantra.

“Caregiver presence was associated with significantly fewer reports by adolescents of online solicitations,” the study says. “As such, the importance of parental monitoring of adolescent Internet use cannot be understated.”

I’m not against such things; I not only believe in such parental involvement, I participate in it with my own children. But, as Diana Hartman notes, this bland bit of advice might actually be counter-productive when it comes to adolescent victims of abuse:

While the study found “caregiver presence was associated with significantly fewer reports by adolescents of online solicitations,” it is also important to note that 62 percent of females under the age of 18 were abused by someone known to them. Furthermore, in more than half these cases the biological father was the perpetrator.

Hartman ends her fine post with this sentiment:

Instead of studying the girls, the authors might seriously consider the best way to treat them.

I agree — but equally important, where’s the study &/or training of would-be victimizers and exploiters?

Once again, the behavior of victims & potential victims is what is scrutinized and therefore held accountable rather than that of perpetrators.

It’s easy to dismissively wave your hand at such a thought, to poo-poo me with a, “Where are we going to get honest perps from?” But that poo-pooing only leaves us with more of this shit.

We keep identifying victims, defining their behavior as risqué and risky (and doesn’t that just stink of judgment and victim blaming), regurgitating that information to dictate behaviors of potential victims (mainly women), and through it all, we turn a blind eye to the culprits — the very people who need to stop/be stopped.

You might not think this has much to do with adults online &/or adults dating, but honestly, yesterday’s adolescents are today’s adults; has that much changed? I don’t think so.

And today’s adolescents are the adults of tomorrow; are we educating them for the creation of a better world tomorrow?  I don’t think we’re doing that either.

When You Are Surprised To Find A Relationship Deal Breaker After Three Years Of Dating

Ashley writes in with a personal problem stemming from the Steve Ward/Vh1 mess:

Hi Alessia,

I’ve been following along with the Steve Ward fiasco (what a piece of work that jerk is!) and I wonder what you think of the situation that I now find myself in…

While I was drafting my letters of outrage, my boyfriend of 3 years (you can call him Bob lol) came on over. Because I was feeling pretty intense about things, when he greeted me with the casual, “Whatcha doin’?” I actually answered him. I told him of Ward’s hurtful stupidity, the lack of concern on the parts of show producers etc., and my overwhelming grief to discover (via reading all the comments etc.) just how widely held & deeply rooted such irrational beliefs are in our world.

At first I thought Bob’s lack of concern over the situation was because he hadn’t seen the show and maybe he thought I twisted the words… So I sat him at the computer and ordered him to read. But when he read, he wasn’t as outraged as I had thought he would be.

Not only did he not share my opinions, but he started to argue Ward’s side!

Now, after years of dating I was shocked! I mean we’ve discussed rape and violence towards women (and children too) and he’s always seemed educated, concerned for women’s safety and nearly apologetic in that male way of like “I can’t believe there are men who would do that.” So I was flabbergasted that Bob would hold Arian or any women accountable for what a man or men do.

I want to rant on & on about this, but you’ve covered the issue really well and I know I’m preaching to the choir, so I’ll get to the problem here. ;)

After three years of dating we’ve been talking marriage. (The only reason we aren’t officially engaged is the money thing — until I get to the next level at work, I’m still not able to afford an apartment of my own which is something I insist upon doing before I marry.) But now that I see that Bob is holding onto some archaic, dangerous, misogynistic and mean victim blaming beliefs, I just don’t know…

I sent him away that day and our conversations since then have mostly been short. Anytime the elephant on the phone line is mentioned, we just end up debating at best, arguing at worst.

Bob thinks I’m over reacting; I should know after three years that he’s a good guy. But I can’t get past the fact that good guys don’t ever excuse the behavior of bad guys — let alone hold the victims responsible for what the bad guys do.

I still love him… Otherwise this wouldn’t hurt so much. But I don’t trust him the way I used to — and I’ve lost some respect for him. I think, as hard as it will be, that I need to end things with him.

Am I being overly sensitive? Am I irrational or otherwise sabotaging a good relationship for a small thing?

Biting my nails with anxiety & heartache while I await your reply,
Ashley

Dear Ashley,

I probably should say that I’m sorry my blogging has disrupted your relationship with Bob — but I can’t honestly say that.

I’m sorry to hear that Bob’s not the good guy you thought he was, but,see, from where I sit, I think you are better off for making this discovery now. Even three years of dating in is better than making this discovery after three years of marriage & building a family. That’s what dating is for, to learn all you can about one another.

I don’t think I even have anything to tell you that you don’t already know…

You know that if trust and respect for your partner diminishes you are faced with two choices: Work it out, with compromise & communication (maybe some counseling), or walk away safely.*

And there are some things we just can’t compromise on.

This situation is not purely one of political difference, like say gun control, where you might compromise by owning a gun but keeping it in a locked gun safe in the garage or something– and by knowing that each of your votes cancels-out the other’s vote.

This is far more than theory, philosophy, or ideals; this is a fundamental framework of every day living. It’s a matter of freedom, equality & safety because, as you know, even if Bob is not personally a threat to you or others, he insists upon perpetuating an environment which places women with the responsibility to control male behaviors — and when that (obviously & maddeningly ridiculously) doesn’t work, he leaves victims to suffer the guilt & blame.

Heaven forbid any violence should ever befall you or someone you love, Ashley (knocking wood!) — but given the odds… How would you cope or assist another survivor in their recovery with Bob at your side? Even if his mouth never uttered a blaming sentence, you’d see it, feel it.

Whether or not you & Bob should have children of your own, building a family between yourselves involves each of your extended families and you community of friends. Can you live with Bob passing along his views about the responsibilities women (or potential victims) have to control the behaviors of rapists and abusers to your nieces & nephews, your friends’ children?

You know Bob’s views help shape our world; and you’ve clearly said that his views help shape a world you don’t want to (continue to) live in. So you know what the math is: If Bob can’t be educated out of this, you’re better off living without him. There’s no sense in living in a toxic relationship.

This is definitely a relationship deal breaker.

In the interest of fairness to your relationship with Bob, and your heart, you owe it to yourselves to communicate this as plainly as you can to Bob.

Wherever the chips fall, I wish you well.

Alessia

* Note how when a human being has less respect for another human being, that the first human is not entitled to hurt, abuse or force the less-respected human to do whatever they want.

Follow Up On Tough Love Rape Stance

If you’ve been living under a rock and somehow missed the slimy activities going on with Steve Ward and VH1’s Tough Love show…

It starts here, with Giving Steve Ward & VH1 Some Tough Love Of My Own, continues with More On Moron Steve Ward & The Rape Issue & Mommy, Make The Bad Man Stop, and, frustrated with all that, I then directed you to contact the producers etc.

I’ve been contacting them all, one by one, and thought you might be interested in my progress…

First I contacted Flower Films, the commercial film production company founded by Drew Barrymore & Nancy Juvonen which is a partner in Tough Love‘s production. If you thought for just one moment that being “woman owned” would make the company receptive to this issue of blaming women for rape you’d be dead wrong.

During a phone conversation last week, with a woman who refused to give her name, I was told that “all complaints/comments are to be posted to VH1’s blog.” When I explained that this had been done, but Ward was only continuing his misogynistic statements, I was told, “We read the blogs, we are aware.” I’ll admit, that set me back a bit, so I countered with a, “Don’t you wish to make a public statement to at least clarify Flower Films’ views — to separate them from those of Ward?” Her reply was to say that there would be “no statement on the subject” and I was dismissed.

Can you feel my hackles rise?

Grrrr.

Next I contacted the other production partner in the making of the show, High Noon Entertainment “one of America’s largest creators of unscripted television.”

There I spoke with Paul Taylor, Executive In Charge Of Production, who began by plainly & dismissively informing me that they had “been in touch with their legal department and they were protected.” Because, you know, the litigious are all they ought to be worried about.

I countered by restating my concerns for the perpetuation of misogynistic rape mythology; he countered with, “Well, you know, VH1 is a controversial network…”

So profiting from dangerous myth-information is a-OK?

Ready to spew (both anger and vomit), I thought about High Noon Entertainment’s primary concern regarding legal action… They have a legal team & they know how to use it — which is not the case for victims of rape. That smug “been in touch with legal & we’re protected” line…

Well, if that was their line then I was going to jerk it.

So I told Mr. Taylor that next on my list was to inform those involved in the federal lawsuit regarding trademark infringement, trademark dilution and related claims against MTV Networks, Drew Barrymore’s Flower Films and High Noon Entertainment based on the unauthorized use of the trademark “Tough Love,” of which Toughlove America is the exclusive licensee. (See details here.) He interrupted, countering with noise about how unfounded the lawsuit was — so I interrupted right back with an, “Oh, given that the lawsuit expressly states a desire to collect damages for the harm being done to their brand by the show’s use of the name, I imagine that they’d be interested to know just how many of us are now associating the phrase “tough love” with blaming rape victims.”

Now I had more of Paul’s attention. He wasn’t quite conceding anything, mind you, but he was now actively asking questions, such as my name, my telephone number, and the name and location of this blog. (I cooperated fully — and I totally welcome any further contact, should it occur.)

Feeling that perhaps he had moved past the party-line deafness and that he might just hear me now, I reiterated my concerns about Ward’s statements especially in light of the interviews Ward has done. In the interviews since the show aired and we responded, he’s defending his beliefs, not budging an inch; antagonizing, not apologizing.

Either Taylor began to hear my concerns or he’s just really good at the old “neutralize a complainer by being a good listener” thing because we ended the call with Taylor informing me that he would share my concerns but, due to a staff wedding that week, I likely wouldn’t hear from anyone until this week.

Not that I’m holding my breath.

But I will call back, Mr. Taylor, to see just what High Noon Entertainment intends to do about this mess Steve Ward has gotten them into.

And when I do, I’ll share it with you. As I will all my contact with those involved with this issue.

Now I have to go puke. Again.

Enough Is Enough

Now that Steve Ward & VH1 have shown us their true colors, showing indifference to concerns of misogyny and perpetuating inaccurate information which could add to the danger of women and other victims of rape, we must take action.

Before I urged you to contact VH1 via their blog and Ward at his Match Makers website, and Marge has suggested emailing VH1 at vh1blog@vh1.com; but as we’re not making enough of an impact with those methods…

Flower Films and High Noon Entertainment are partners with VH1 to produce VH1 Tough Love. High Noon Entertainment is one of America’s largest creators of unscripted television, and Flower Films is a commercial film production company founded by Drew Barrymore & Nancy Juvonen.

Here’s how you contact them:

Flower Films
7360 Santa Monica Blvd.
West Hollywood, CA 90046
USA
Phone: 323-876-7400
Fax: 323-876-7401

High Noon Entertainment
12233 W. Olympic Blvd
Ste 328
Los Angeles, CA 90064
USA
Phone: 310-820-7500
www.highnoonentertainment.com
questions@highnoontv.com

Jeff Olde is the Executive Vice President in charge of Original Programming and Production at VH1.

VH1 Television
2600 Colorado Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
USA
Phn: 310-752-8000

VH1 Television
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
USA
Phone: 212-846-6000

Also, Toughlove(R) America, LLC filed a lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles on March 4th for trademark infringement, trademark dilution and related claims against MTV Networks, Drew Barrymore’s Flower Films and High Noon Entertainment based on the defendants’ unauthorized use of the trademark “Tough Love,” of which Toughlove America is the exclusive licensee.

Igal J. Feibush, the company’s CEO said, “We believe that the actions of MTV/VH1 constitute a clear violation of our federal and state intellectual property rights. We have always vigilantly protected both our mark and the integrity of our proprietary program. With this lawsuit, we intend to stop VH1 from continuing to use our name and to collect damages for the harm being done to our brand by their use of it.” Toughlove America has stopped other media companies, including Sony Corporation and News Corporation, from using its trademark.

I’m sure they’d like to know that we think the show & it’s name are linked with misogyny and rape; that ought to raise damages.

Especially as Toughlove America has plans for its own show.

Matthew Lifschultz, Partner of Toughlove America, LLC
Phone:310-749-9702
MLifschultz@Toughlove.com

William J. Robinson and Miriam Claire Beezy, partners in the Los Angeles office of Foley & Lardner LLP, are representing Toughlove America, LLC in the action:

William J. Robinson
wrobinson@foley.com
213.972.4599

Miriam Claire Beezy
mbeezy@foley.com
213.972.4780

As you can see, I’m no longer messing around; I’m furious & I’m serious.

I am working on a list of VH1 advertisers too; any/all help is appreciated — as are all your letters, emails and calls of outrage.

PS Steve Ward is also, apparently, on Twitter: @stevenbward.

Mommy, Make The Bad Man Stop

Whatever benefit of the doubt I gave to Master Matchmaker and VH1 Tough Love “commander” Steve Ward has been taken away — by Ward himself.

In an interview with some nameless VH1 bot, Ward defends the indefensible:

You said that Arian is going to end getting raped if she continues her behavior.

Yes.

You know it’s going to go down hill from there; he’s admitted that what he said wasn’t a mis-step, an ill-formed phrase, or something said quickly that “came out wrong.”

There was some talk around the Internet that your mindset was not unlike that of those who blame victims for being raped.

Well, that just goes to show how naive people are.

Wait, wait, wait; did Ward just call me naive?! I’m the one with the facts! He’s not merely “naive” or even “ignorant” — because we’ve told him, he’s got access to (at least) the same facts, experts and research as we do, yet he’s sticking with fiction. Dangerous fiction too yet.

I wasn’t blaming anybody for anything.

But, as you’ll soon see, Ward is doing just that.

I was explaining to her that there are risks to her behavior. She seems to feel that there are no consequences to her behavior. Like nothing bad can happen from her being as raunchy and as inappropriate as she was. And I was trying to explain to her that when you do things like that you put yourself in harm’s way. And there are men out there that because they are f***ed up in the head, for whatever reasons, they may take it as some sort of an invite, or that you really want it or this or that. I mean why would you sit there and rub a guy’s d*** under a table? You don’t know who he is or where he is from or what he is about. And you know what, a couple of beers later he may go try to rub you and you might not like it and he is not gonna stop. That’s all I was trying to point out them.

There are risks to her behavior — but not rape. The risks are that Arian is limiting herself, reducing her value to her looks, her body & sex. This is a pattern of behavior based on low self-esteem which will not bring her respectful relationships but continue with a parade of one-night-stands (who may be around for multiple nights, but are invested in her only as far as they are inserted in her). These are all fine issues to be discussed — and they certainly fit the context of the show and Ward’s (quickly diminishing In my eyes) expertise. However, everything else he discusses is the exact definition of blaming the victim.

This “if she, then he” line of thinking places the burden of responsibility for his (crappy) behavior upon her shoulders. He’s literally,”Hey, she asked for it.”

And I’ve got news for you; even when you are appropriate, “classy,” and “a good girl” — and even when he’s had no beers or alcohol whatsoever — he may try to rub you and you do not like it and he is not gonna stop. I know. Personally.

And that’s why there wasn’t backlash from the rest of the girls in the room, because they agreed with me.

Oh, so if everyone in the room agreed that you could fly, that would make it true?

The reason the women in the room agreed with you is because such bullshit thinking is so prevalent in our society — which is precisely why I continue to harp on this topic. I hope you all educate yourselves to the facts.

It’s time you, the women in the room, the VH1 producers, the Stepford Wives’ leaving comments in defense of your misogynist mythology, the asshats who like things the way they are, and, yes, the frightened & desperate who want to believe that such things won’t happen if they are “good” — you all need to be educated. You present a clear and present danger.

The reality, though, is that Arian wasn’t going to get raped in this situation. You’re there, cameras are there, producers are there. I wonder if there’s any suspicion that she might be playing up the salaciousness for the sake of the show.

No, I believe that she does this in her daily life. She is truly like that.

I too believe this is, more or less, Arians MO. But scaring her with lies & threatening her with violence is not the answer.

And she enjoys taking the risk and putting herself in that position. It is a very precarious situation. She doesn’t realize that there may be consequences. I’m not blaming the victim, but if the girl would act a little bit more appropriate, then I’m sure she wouldn’t be treated the way she is by men.

You are blaming the (in your eyes, potential) victim. If (desperately knocking wood!) Arian were to be raped, you’d be all, “I told you so!” and therefore not holding the rapist 100% accountable.

If she walked around like a classy woman and treated herself with respect, she would command respect and men would respect her.

I agree with you, she would command more respect — at least from non-violent, non-controlling, rapists.

With a personality like she has, why would anyone respect her? That was the point I was trying to make. She was trying to say that there were trust issues, and she doesn’t trust men. And of course, why should she trust men? Men don’t respect her.

True. But there’s a HUGE leap between men not respecting a woman, not wanting to “bring her home to mom,” and rape. I myself have not respected people who have not warranted respect — like you right now, Ward — but I’m not raping or assaulting any of them.

Honestly, Ward — and the rest of you at VH1 who refuse to correct the gross errors of your words and ways and continue to perpetuate myth-information, placing more women in danger — you make me feel violated.

And for every woman and man who feels that they must teach their daughters to “be good” so that the bad men won’t hurt them rather than addressing the issue of bad men, it’s another forced entry.

“Show mommy where the bad man touched you on this doll, honey.” I’m pointing all over, because that’s where it hurts.

And there’s no place on the doll for my soul.

You know what else? There are no, “And what did you do to the man to make him touch you,” or, “And what were you wearing,” or, “And what do you do for a living” questions when you show a child victim of rape or abuse the doll. Why not? Because it’s not ever the victim’s fault.

Ward, your statements perpetuate misogynistic mythology and generate the same sense of shame which victimizers, abusers, and rapists use to keep victims silent, docile, and in control.

You may not be raping women, Steve Ward, but you are adding to the exploitation of their shame and you are reducing the responsibility of rapists & perpetrators of abuse; things which punish victims and prevent them from receiving justice. And that just adds to the power of the rapists & abusers, creating more victims.

You, sir, are more of a threat to Arian than any “dangerous behaviors” she exhibited. You are a threat to me, to women every where.

UPDATE See how to take action: Enough Is Enough!

More On Moron Steve Ward & The Rape Issue

The conversation about Steve Ward’s stupidity is continuing — thank Gawd.

But all the talk brings up a few points I’d like to clarify.

1) I was really enjoying Tough Love up to this point. Ward (and the shows producers) seemed to be operating from the old BDSM mantra, “Safe, sane & consensual,” something pretty rare in reality television.

Most remarkably seemed to be the “consensual” part, in which scripted tricks were not played on either the female participants nor their male “possibilities.” (You might be able to debate the use of physically using electronic shocks to modify the women’s behaviors, but it’s not like these were stun-guns or something. It was no worse than having Ward or another coach standing beside them going, “Bup-bup-bup!” when they did something dumb.)

Overall — and up until the misuse of “rape” (both in diagnosis and as a fear-mongering tool) — I’ve been appreciative of the combination of tact & honest bluntness in confronting the women’s baggage — both the emotional issues & the bad habits. So it pains me to see the show go so low.

2) I’m not condoning Arian’s actions. I understand them; but I do worry for her. (A number of the other women on the show too.)

But there is a clear distinction between Arian’s self-hurtful behaviors and the predatory act of rape performed by another. She, and women like her, need to be held responsible for their own actions — but not the actions of others. In this case, Arian needs to be aware of what she is doing, how her perception of the effectiveness of her defense mechanism as inaccurate and is in fact detrimental to herself and her objective of finding a good relationship. She needs to see this in order to change her behaviors — in order to bring her the happiness she both deserves and seeks.

This is what Ward was trying to do/say. And it would have been a great lesson for all those watching too. He started well, but… *shudder*

This would have been one of those educational & self-help moments; a lesson for all of us at home, young & old who need to learn it, or at least understand it. But…

3) What about the other side? When comments are left at VH1’s blog about this “educational moment”, they go something like this one by Kaya:

To all of you who are so upset with Steve, let me ask you this: is this what you will teach your daughters? That it’s okay to get drunk, dress suggestively, act in a sexually agressive manner and take home anybody you like, and nothing will ever happen to them? Many rapists are predators, just like child molestors. A child molestor will seek out a victime when he or she is most vulnerable and least able to resist. So will a rapistt; in this case, a drunk woman eager to be alone with him. Sure, the rapist is at fault, but that doesn’t make the woman less raped, beaten, emotionally scarred, dead, etc….

If you aren’t teaching your daughters how to protect themselves, you shouldn’t be a parent.

Ignoring my desire to nit-pick some of your comments on the behaviors of rapists, let me say that I agree totally that parents should teach their daughters how to protect themselves. And when, for whatever reason, they haven’t learned such things — or have adopted bad or unsafe habits — they need to be reeducated. See all of the above.

This brings up the post I linked to in my original Ward/rape post (read it; I link for a reason, yo). I too wish the world wasn’t the way it is, but it is and we need to safeguard our daughters, our girls, our women. But what are we teaching our sons, our boys, our men? (Incidentally, that same blogger — the author of the main author here at Kitsch Slapped — has a post about talking to her son about such things.)

In all this talk about rape, where’s the part about parents teaching their sons?

Kaya’s statements completely ignore the lessons here about teaching young men that rape & other abuse is not to be tolerated. Like Ward’s original statement and those of the other show participants, such language of omission isn’t an accident. They are excusing bad male behaviors, placing the blame for “enticing” upon Arian’s shoulders — and all women’s shoulders — when the blame clearly belongs to men who commit rape, assaults, and abuse of any sort.

This sort of complacent language dismisses male responsibility & diminishes the crime. It complicates how we as a society react to charges of assault & rape. It’s why Ward said what he did, why the other women agreed with him, and why the comments at VH1 have been so stupid. It perpetuates the myths, blames the victims, and places other women in danger with misinformation. All things I’ve already spoken of, so I’ll stop now. For now.

4) Because I have a lot of friends who are sex workers * (escorts, phone sex operators, erotica authors, strippers, etc.), I also feel I need to clarify my statements about Arian, her stripping, and my thoughts on what I see regarding a history of her past abuse.

This is the toughest part of the post, actually, because what I’m about to discuss is a stereotype as old as the oldest profession. And incredibly hurtful too. So, let me say for the record that abuse & sex work do not go hand in hand.

Like any segment of society, especially female segments, abuse is a part of the demographic — but abuse is not an identifying characteristic. It should not be assumed to be a part of any sex worker’s history.

Unfortunately for sex workers who wish stories that reinforce such stereotypes would just go away, Arian, the sex worker, exhibits a hyper sexuality that moves past a self-described “bad girl” let alone a content within her own skin, sex positive person.

The true tell-tale signs for me, just in this last episode, were her approval seeking glances at her fellow house mates when she sat in the “hot seat,” her upping the loud & raunchy display & talk when she found no support, and her lashing out in pain like a wounded animal when the rape word hit the fan. (As I said before, she was looking for a reason to leave and explode — but watch closely, she’s got more pain than fire in her eyes at that point.)

In past episodes, we’ve seen her both use her sexuality to garner attention and react dramatically when it’s been of no help to her. Most obvious in her dealings with Ward himself, when she feels she not only has no control but no value to Ward.

I can’t speak for sex workers everywhere, but none of the sex workers I know behave like Arian has on the show.

And so it is this set of behaviors I speak of when I say I believe Arian has been abused; these are the behaviors which are dangerous. Her employment as stripper or sex worker has nothing to do with it.

There. I think I covered every thing I intended to.

Oh, except for the fact that I still urge you to contact Steve via his matchmaking service’s site, Master Matchmakers, and VH1 to demand an apology.

* Don’t act so shocked that I know and cavort with sex workers. They are damn fine people.

If you are “just surprised to hear this because I never mentioned them before”, well, I also don’t identify my computer programming friends. I also don’t identify my gay friends, my black friends, my white traditional straight vanilla mom friends, etc. How horrible would I be if I identified them as such for no reason? I only mention such identifiers when I feel it is relevant.

UPDATE See how the story unfolds:

Mommy, Make The Bad Man Stop

Enough Is Enough

Please take action!

Giving Steve Ward & VH1 Some Tough Love Of My Own

I’ve been watching VH1’s Tough Love for the past few weeks now and, despite his somewhat slower-than-I up-take on females and a need to nurse along a viewing audience, I have agreed with Steve Ward nearly word for word — up until tonight that is.

Tonight Steve Ward began to very tactfully, once again, help Arian to see that her automatic defense mechanism, using overt hyper sexuality to turn away men before any attachments could be made (and so avoid being hurt herself), was a bad thing. True, such actions will keep her from being hurt; but they will also keep her from finding what she really wants: to be in an honest, truthful, committed, loving relationship. Where Ward went wrong was saying that if Arian continued on this path, she’d end up raped. Now the already defensive and shut-down Arian used the powerful word of rape as her cue to end the conversation. She was going to do that anyway because she is in complete denial — and wishes to remain there. But Ward was way out of line here.

Rape is not about sex. It is not borne of lust. It is not caused by the penis’ desire for pleasure, nor a biological drive to pass on DNA. Rape is an assault of rage, anger & power. The penis (&/or other objects) are used because the physical penetration and friction of intimate walls violates emotional and spiritual worlds, echoing on in the psyche, forever haunting that person (and those who love them). Whereas death is but a moment’s passing, and therefore finite.

Ward’s perpetuation of such dangerous misogynistic mythology not only places (once again) the responsibility for male behaviors squarely on the shoulders of females, leaving victims to face guilt, but by covering up the truth, leaves more women ill-prepared and therefore vulnerable to attack.

Ward should apologize. And undergo the proper education.

So should everyone behind the show at VH1.

But perhaps even more alarming than Ward’s perpetuation of this dangerous myth, was the fact that all the other women present did not correct Ward — in fact they repeated what he was saying as if it were the truth! (I at least expected my girl Jody to speak the truth!) They are as brainwashed by the rape myth as Ward.

Can you see the huge tears rolling down my face?

As for Arian & the show, she was set to run off set anyway. But it was stupid to even try to talk to a woman who is so wrapped-up in the belief-fear that her only value is her body, by talking about her bodily risks.

It’s been clear to me from the start that Arian’s projection of hyper-sexuality is based upon a fear that this is all anyone sees her as. (And some sexual abuse signals were seen by me with the first watching of the show; so watch for that reveal too.) If she is to feel valued for herself, Ward’s conversation should have focused (more accurately) on the fact that, with continued use of her defense mechanism, the danger Arian faces the continuation of a succession of one night stands — but if she express more value of herself past her sexuality, exhibits less signs of sexual availability, then she increases her odds of finding men who will view her in terms of total person-hood and not just a great lay.

So Ward f-ed up all over tonight.

You’ll notice, if you’ve seen the show, that VH1 conveniently doesn’t have a clip of Ward saying she’ll be raped — they have the clip just before that line (which, if you haven’t seen the show, is evidence of Arian’s hyper-sexuality) and the clip after it, of Arian leaving & the other women’s reactions.

No go to VH1 & demand an apology and proper education for all.

You can also contact Steve via his matchmaking service’s site: Master Matchmakers.

UPDATE See how the story unfolds:
More On Moron Steve Ward & The Rape Issue

Mommy, Make The Bad Man Stop

Enough Is Enough

Please take action!

Quick, Check Your Stone Tablet For Today’s Date: More Legalized Rape News

At BUST Magazine‘s blog, a post that Afghanistan Legalizes Marital Rape — which naturally reminded me that it wasn’t so long ago that we were writing on the same stone tablet. (I did post a comment there to that effect; but so far, it is not showing up at the site. I hate that.)

Anyway, as Peter at BUST‘s blog writes:

Want to read something mortifying? The Guardian just released an article stating that Hamid Karzai, Prime Minister of Afghanistan just rushed a bill through the Afghan parliament which will legalize marital rape. ‘The final document has not been published, but the law is believed to contain articles that rule women cannot leave the house without their husbands’ permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands’ permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex.’

At the post, Allison left the following helpful comment:

Revolting and infuriating.

If you are not aware of them already, please check out Rawa.org, a group that has been trying to help Afghan women find a voice and equality against fundamentalist/sexist power in their country since 1997: http://www.rawa.org/index.php

1965: Legal Marital Rape

Can a husband legally force his wife to have sexual relations when she doesn’t wish to? That 1965 Dell Purse Book by Richard T. Gallen, Wives Legal Rights, says, “Yes.” As long as his demands are “reasonable and her health is not impaired or endangered.”

wives-rights-sex-1965a
wives-rights-sex-1965-b

No mention of hitting or physically forcing her exists (apparently because on page five they’ve already said no hitting allowed).  But what’s really implied here with this notion that a husband’s legal right to force his wife to have sex so long as it doesn’t impair her physical health, is a side-step of physical abuse on the part of the man, neatly placing responsibility for any altercations at the feet of wives, for a wife can’t/ought not resist or she would be at fault for denying him his sexual rights.

All of this completely denies the existence of any other reason for sexual denial. As if her body & mind are indeed his property, subject to his whims.

We could just ignore this, write it off as “history,” but these idiotic notions are still with us. They linger in court decisions, media coverage, and even family reactions, even 40+ years later.

They only specifically mention sex during pregnancy, which clearly shows the fetus (or ‘baby’) has more value than the mother-to-be.

Then again, I know many women who while pregnant, wanted sex at least every night; those hormones, you know…

And there’s no mention of her right to have sex, pregnant or not. The stereotype that women don’t want sex was is so prevalent, that it doesn’t even warrant discussion of women’s marital rights to sex. *snort*

Yes, I’m A Domestic Violence Survivor

This snippet on page five in Wives Legal Rights, by Richard T. Gallen (Dell Purse Book, 1965), breaks my heart. Not just because it’s about what we’d now call domestic violence which “may be” pursued as a crime, but because while the publication is over 40 years old, the cultural lag is so much further behind.

husband-legal-right-hit-wife-1965

You see, I’m a survivor of domestic violence. Times two. I’m not proud to say that I’ve lived it twice; but it’s important to know because once the abuse damages your world, you may be even more susceptible in the future. This is contrary to what most would call “common sense” or even a natural human instinct to survive by avoiding the warning signs (should there actually be any prior to being in the middle of the madness), but it’s the truth.

I’ll be posting a lot more about domestic violence… I hope sharing my experiences not only educate and support others living it — or even provide a means to strengthen my own voice on a subject I’ve long been afraid to speak of outside of court rooms and therapist offices — but that talking about this serves as a catalyst for awareness and change from the rest of the world who feels they are exempt for the blight. Whether they know it or not, they are part of the problem.

And yes, if that feels accusatory, like I’m pointing a finger at you, I am. Too many people are locking their doors and windows under the mistaken assumption that they are then safe (which is so not what the numbers say). And when they do so, they lock out the realities, putting themselves and their children at risk as well as perpetuating the myths and, by placing judgments on those involved (including the victims), they further allow domestic violence to live — not in dark corners or under rocks, but in the light of day.

You have been put on notice.

My Pajamas Made Him Kill Me (Or, In Which I Review A Film I Haven’t Seen)

Most would say it’s not fair to review a movie you haven’t seen — and normally I’d agree. It’s an ethics thing. But sometimes you hear about a movie (based on the opinions of those who have seen the film), and you just have to say something…

This is especially true when the movie is based on a true story.

In this case, the film is based on a crime — but the real crime here is not (just) that the makers of the film have sensationalized and exploited a murder, but have missed the very points which make the story moving and important.

The film is The Pyjama Girl Case (1977), and it’s based on the real life story of the unidentified charred remains of a woman discovered in Australia in 1934.

Let’s begin with the reviews…

Stanley Runk “Runkdapunk” says:

On the books this film is a giallo, but it is only in the most basic sense. Yeah it’s a murder mystery, it deals with sexual themes and it’s Italian. That’s where all comparissons end though. No rampaging killer with gloves and a hat/hood and no real body count to speak of other than the Pyjama girl herself. Sure there are a few more deaths, but not until the end of the film.

J. B. Hoyos says:

“The Pyjama Girl Case” disappointed me for several reasons. First, and foremost, it is not a true Italian giallo. Absent is the typical black-gloved serial killer. Only two people are murdered. Second, this movie doesn’t contain any major shocks or plot twists. The plot is very linear. Third, there is only one attractive woman and that is actress Dalila Di Lazzaro who later went on to act in Dario Argento’s superb “Phenomena,” which is definitely an Italian giallo.

(Oh, and “Runkdapunk” also says that Dalila Di Lazzaro is “yummy except for the armpit hair” — just in case you wanted to know.)

And those are the people who gave it three stars at Amazon; there are worse reviews with less stars.

Now I don’t know what a “giallo” is, let alone an Italian one, but that’s neither here nor there because I’m not going to judge this film by whatever standards either may have. And I’m not going to even discuss if a movie can have enough killing (I’m totally one girl who doesn’t go in for body-count flicks). But I do have a lot to say.

Again, this movie is based on a true story. The real-life “Pyjama Girl” was a brutally murdered unknown woman, whose battered and partially burnt body was found dumped roadside in Albury, New South Wales on September 1, 1934. Normally I find the phrase “brutally murdered” to be redundant or excessive — nearly an expletive to induce horror — but the details, according to Australian Screen, make it pretty clear that one can easily use the extra word:

The victim’s head was wrapped in a bloody towel and her body was pushed headfirst into a hessian bag. The body had then been set alight. A post-mortem revealed that she had been shot below the right eye, but the cause of death was probably eight blows to her face.

“Brutal murder” no longer seems to be just for shock-value, does it?

Anyway, as her identity was not known, the woman was dubbed the “Pyjama Girl” because she was found wearing pieces of pyjama fabric.

After coroner’s inquest failed to establish the identity of the woman, artists’ sketches and a forensic facial reconstruction were created to represent what the victim may have looked like, with the images shown around the world, in hopes that someone would identify her.

And her body was preserved in order to be put on display and shown to hundreds of people. Yes, hundreds of people paraded past her post-mortem. For ten years.

Her death was naturally shocking, but her death became a mystery which fascinated the nation and, for some, became an obsession. To the extent that in 1939 an entertainment “newsreel” was made to be shown in cinemas before feature films (and, in some cases, was, like other newsreels, shown continuously).

Again, a quote from the Australian Screen (where you can catch clips):

The Pyjama Girl Murder Case newsreel, produced in 1939 after the coronial inquest, is considered to be Australia’s first true crime film. Filmmakers Rupert Kathner and Alma Brooks defied a ban by the New South Wales Police Commissioner, William MacKay, on newsreel coverage of the case and even tried to break into Sydney University to film the body. The use of adverbs such as ‘stealthily’ and emotive phrases such as ‘fiend in human form’, as well as the re-creations of various episodes of the case, indicate the ways in which the filmmakers sought to sensationalise the case.

In 1944, ten years after her body was found, a man was convicted not of her murder, but of manslaughter. Rat-bastard Antonio Agostini confessed to the police commissioner that he had “accidentally shot” his wife, Linda Agostini, “during an argument.”

Just how unlikely it is that Linda was Pyjama Girl (Linda Agostini had brown eyes; Pyjama Girl’s eyes were blue), is as astonishing as a husband who confesses to murdering his wife but only gets 6 years — and serves less then 3. And this is stuff that Richard Evans tells in his book, The Pyjama Girl Mystery (also available via Amazon).

But what we end up with now, are two dead women — both of which were likely killed by men they knew. (The odds say it’s true; and who else has access to a woman in her pajamas?)

Author Evans’ investigation into this case is far more fascinating than the story told in that 1977 movie — but that’s not even my main (or only) point.

Apparently in 2004, Australia’s ABC’s Rewind program ran a story on the Pyjama Girl mystery and, along with an extremely interesting interview with Evans, they presented this fascinating bit of cultural commentary:

MICHAEL CATHCART: In the 1930s, pyjamas were exotic, the sort of thing worn by young flappers. These so-called ‘new women’ dressed in skimpy clothes, they smoked, they drank, they partied and they laughed at convention. The straitlaced moral guardians of the day held up the Pyjama Girl as an example, a warning of what happens to young women who go astray.

CALEB WILLIAMS, CURATOR, JUSTICE AND POLICE MUSEUM: It was a wonderful trope for the newsmen of the day to play with. The idea of, you know, this wonderful, gorgeous, sexy woman abandoned bashed in a ditch in a pair of exotic silk pyjamas – it was sort of media heaven, basically.

In case you missed it, let me highlight the most offensive part here: The straitlaced moral guardians of the day held the Pyjama Girl up as a warning of what happens to young women who go astray. Why did they think the young woman had “gone astray”? Because she wore pajamas.

Pajamas.

Pajamas were, at the time, the “exotic” sort of thing worn by young flappers. And flappers were amoral women. Women who, apparently, deserve to be beaten, shot, burned and left dead in a ditch.

That’s a whole lot of conclusion jumping and victim blaming.

Just like the crap said about Linda Agostini.

Wikipedia (a site I trust about as much as I do the investigation into the Pyjama Girl case), says that Linda was a “penniless glamour girl” who “worked at a picture theatre in the city and lived in a boarding house on Darlinghurst Road in Kings Cross where all accounts tell she ‘entertained’ more than her fair share of young, attractive men. Platt was a heavy drinker and a flighty Jazz Age party-goer who had difficulty adjusting to stability.” Lovely. Who writes and edits at Wiki? Tony Agostini’s family?

Wiki does not reference those particular sentiments (for they sure aren’t facts), but none of the sites referenced says such things. One of the sites referenced, Australian Dictionary of Biography, says the following:

Tony and Linda were a popular couple. He was 5 ft 7 ins (170 cm) tall, trim and dark haired; she was only five feet (153 cm) tall, attractive and well liked. Yet, according to Tony, their relationship was not an easy one.

Linda sometimes left him for long periods and drank too much which shamed him within the Italian community. In 1933 the couple moved to Carlton, Melbourne, where he worked on the newspaper, Il Giornale Italiano, and she took a job at Ferrari’s hairdressing salon in the Manchester Unity Building. Agostini later claimed that there were frequent altercations. During one quarrel in bed, Linda was fatally shot with a pistol which Tony alleged she had held.

“They were well liked,” but… Tony says “their relationship was not an easy one,” Tony says there were “frequent altercations,” Tony says they argued in bed and she had a pistol. *snort*

Tony says it was an accident — but the bitch had it coming.

Who is here to speak for Linda? (And couldn’t I argue that with an ass-hat like Tony for a husband, I’d take off and drink too. Only I wouldn’t return to where he lives — by my choice, not his hand.) But let’s all blame the victims.

Linda’s treatment is like Pyjama Girl’s: Unfair and unwarranted crap which absolves their murderers from any responsibility. Which makes me really, really upset. The kind of upset that renders me unable to even swear properly.

How can anyone ven suggest that a woman was somehow responsible for her own murder because of the PJs she wore or drinking?

That Pyjama Girl’s death & “murder case” was reduced to media hype, social agendas, sloppy & corrupt police work — and just plain political no matter how you cut it — is a story which deserves to be told. If only because it may be the only way this woman (and Linda Agostini and other victims) can be honored. And because it just might be of value in teaching people what matters.

And that isn’t a woman’s pajamas. Or her short skirt. Or the number of drinks she’s had, who she knows, where she goes. She’s human and her life was taken — and likely by someone she trusted.

So, just how ridiculous does that not-giallo-enough film made in 1977 seem now? Like some chick’s armpit hair, it just doesn’t matter. Other than it was an insignificant waste of time.

And yeah, I could be all wet because, as I readily admit, I didn’t see this 1977 film. But then “Runkdapunk” says, “The disc has a half hour documentary about the actual Pyjama girl murder case which is actually more interesting than the film.” So I rest my case.

Now if only poor “Pyjama Girl” could only rest in peace.

Casting Call: Blushing All The Way To Your Pink Sneakers

Is your mom a cougar? Does she you flirt with your friends and dates — and friends’ dates? Does your uncle or the man you are dating have a “Peter Pan” complex and need to grow up? Are you an adult virgin or having difficulties with relationships because you just hate sex?

If any of these topics apply to you or someone you know — and you want to air the dirty laundry in public (and you know how I feel about that!) — Pink Sneakers Productions, the folks who bring you My Big Redneck Wedding & Brooke Knows Best, want to hear from you for a new untitled docu-series.

To be considered, email a brief description of your story, and headshots if possible, to casting@pinksneakers.net. Or call the casting department at 407.464.2080.

Remember to tell them Alessia at Relationship Underarm Stick sent you!

Puppies, Kittens & Vampires, Oh My!

We humans want, crave, unconditional love and acceptance — but we’re pretty unrealistic in the terms. Our highest heights of female romantic fantasy too-often focus on Bad Boys. You know, those hard men with elements of danger — not that they’d ever hurt us! Oh, the intoxicating power of what could crush, but doesn’t.

It makes us puppy putty in their hands.

These big strong men could hurt us, but they won’t. We’re the one good thing in their lives, the Good Woman who truly know that beneath that rough exterior of the Bad Boy lies a tragic side — their true tender side — that only we hold the key to unlocking…

We’re the kittens in their big strong man-hands

We tame the Bad Boy, leashing the unleashable wild child & binding him to us.

As women, we can’t help but see ‘the potential’ in these men. We see behind the swagger, to the hidden wounds; behind the drug addiction, an artist or profoundly brilliant man who suffers; behind the womanizer, a man who has been so injured in the past, he fears to really try again… And we can heal him if we love him enough. No matter how big the challenge, the obstacles.

In fact, the bigger the challenge, the larger the danger, the least understood or accepted he is, the more romantic the relationship becomes.

The ultimate pinnacle in Bad Boys are vampires and other supernatural creatures. Not only are they dangerous and misunderstood, the big strong Bad Boy arms we want to swoon into, but there is no larger a separation than between living and dead, making these men the most unobtainable of all.

The notion of vampires and other immortals who live forever, doomed through their isolation and loneliness to never quite consummate the real physical thrust of human connection, is the exaggerated dramatization of the isolation and loneliness — the fear of unrequited love — we all wish to overcome. Even if that romantic love cannot be consummated. This is the popularity of un-dead men in television shows & films, such as Angel, Moonlight and Twilight.

In some ways, I find this more disturbing and potentially damaging than the unrealistic media images of romantic comedies for it teaches women self-sacrificing denial. Not just in physical pleasure, but in tolerating distasteful and reprehensible acts for the sake of love; real love doesn’t ask you to tolerate violence because he’s just bound by different morals than you are. Women already are asked this stuff too often — and too often they comply, making room for danger in their relationships

But supposing you can separate fantasy from reality, intelligently enjoy fiction and not tolerate unpleasant friction, then by all means, consume such things. And if you’re a real fan of Twilight, perhaps you’d like to enter this contest.

Dear Cosmo, I Hate You; And I’m Pretty Sure You Hate Me Too

Cosmo, you claim to be a magazine for women, but with your featured headlines screaming “What Sex Feels Like For Guys: Once You Know the Key Arousal Triggers, You Can Double His Satisfaction” I know who it is you really serve. And it isn’t me.

Honestly, do you really think women need pressure to perform for men — or any partner? Make no mistake: That’s what you are saying when you want us to focus on the satisfaction of others. It’s not like women have a long rich history of selfishness; on the contrary, ours is a history of selflessness. So when your cover also screams “Get More Pleasure: The Secret to Savoring Every Moment” I know it isn’t going to include my sexual pleasure. (It doesn’t. And, as I wrote before, Cosmo doesn’t exactly want us to find pleasure in our naughty dreams either.) It’s clear that you, Cosmo, believe my sexual satisfaction is unimportant, a distant third to pleasing him and capturing him (which is really about pleasing him anyway).

No, I’m so not over this Cosmo issue; and you can’t make me stop ranting about it. Cosmo, with its pandering to men under the guise of female liberation, is actually so misogynistic that it is dangerous. And people need to know.

13 Signs You’re In A Toxic Relationship


Thirteen Signs You’re In A Toxic Relationship

1 Most, if not all, of your family and friends do not like or trust your partner. This can be a tricky one to recognize for several reasons. Parents, especially, may not state their lack of trust directly because they know that in our state of love & infatuation we romanticize the “you and me against the world” mentality — they also know that this is something which the toxic partner will exploit, driving you faster away from them and into the toxic person’s grasp. Some relatives and friends may know something is ‘wrong’ but won’t know just how to prove it… But if you have people you trust warning you — even if they can offer little proof — you should continue to trust those closest to you and question this new relationship.

2 There are clearly two sets of rules, one for you & one for him, and both are set by him. Most of these things will be seen first in the form of jealousy. And in the beginning, such things will be written off as misunderstandings in the ‘getting to know you’ phase, and the drama can be seen as terribly romantic and passionate. He may even tell you that he reacts this way because of what some former girlfriend (that bitch!) did to him. Eventually, though, he will be so jealous that every last detail about how you look is a fine line between being attractive enough to please him and being a whore; he, on the other hand, may come and go as he pleases and affairs are just something you’ll have to forgive and forget, either because you were fighting at the time, or he was drunk, or he’s just a man who needs your help. You’ll become so anxious to understand his rules and avoid his reactions, that you don’t know what is worse, leaving the house alone or going out with him — so you settle for staying home and letting him go out alone because it’s less likely to upset him.

3 He will want to move in or get married quickly. He may say he’s never been so in love, or he may suggest it for economical reasons — after all, you spend all your time together — but what he wants is more access to you.

4 Once you are together, the toxic partner will disrespect and dismiss all things ‘you.’ All things you will be stupid, dumb, worthless, and on & on. He will belittle you, your body, your gender, your jokes, your hobbies, your family & friends. He will belittle you when alone, he will belittle you in front of his family, his friends, in public in front of strangers — but not so fiercely, or directly, in front of your family & associates because he is smart enough to if not charm them, then at least to remove any suggestion that he is anything other than a gem. That way, should you complain, you will not be believed. He will dismiss your upset over breaking or loss of your things. He will disrespect your privacy, right down to the most intimate bodily functions. He will ignore & dismiss your complaints with a wave of the hand — if you are lucky. (See #6, #8, #10)

5 Your partner monitors your spending, phone calls, mail, computer access, etc., and gives you time allotments for finishing errants and other tasks, especially those performed outside the home or out of his sight. My ex went to far as to call what few friends I did have along with all of his friends to find out where I was if I was not back from an errand within 20 minutes — round trip. I also had to account for all money spent to the nearest 25 cents.

6 You find yourself no longer participating in activities you once enjoyed. At first you don’t see that you’ve quietly acquiesced bits of your life; you just think you two are spending all your time together — how romantic. Ugh. I gave up browsing in bookstores & the library — those time limits vanished too quickly to really browse. I gave up classes & groups, such as pottery class and book clubs, because he thought that stuff was stupid. I also gave up shooting pool with friends — even when out with him — because other men might notice me.

7 Even though your finances are supposed to be shared, he will control the spending, the accounts, access to the money. He will play daddy with the money, holding your Barnes & Noble gift cards in his wallet for you, “Because you know how absent minded you are, dear.” (This way he not only scores the gift cards, but discredits you along the way.) He will use those gift cards when he wants to, without apology. I remember one Christmas he sent me out with my credit card (one I had in my name before we were married) to buy all the Christmas presents — and then he refused to pay one cent of that bill. I had to beg to earn the money from him to pay it off.

8 You find yourself isolated, alienated &/or cut-off from family and friends. If stopping all your usual activities and socializing habits hasn’t already alienated you from your family and friends, he will start misunderstandings and fights between you and your relatives and friends. When my friends called, my ex used to pretended to be talking to me while passing me the phone saying horrid things such as, “I’m not going to tell her you don’t want to talk to her,” or, “That Cathy you call ‘The Cow’ is on the phone for you,” etc. I didn’t know any of this until after the divorce, of course. Some of us never know why or how… We just find ourselves isolated, without a support system, in a world dominated & controlled by him.

9 You find yourself flinching, cringing or otherwise fearful even if your partner has never struck you. A part of you recognizes what’s to come, even if you don’t cognitively think it — or refuse to see it.

10 When he hurts &/or disappoints you, the conversation’s focus becomes all about him. Not just an angry lecture about what he wants and demands and how you have disappointed him (that usually is part of the abuse activities); but he becomes contrite, even cries, asking you to forgive and even to save him. It’s so ridiculous that it’s hard to believe, but it’s true. I remember once, holding my ex while he cried, soothing him telling him everything would be alright — this after he beat me with balled fists for the first time. He will make many promises to be good, to get counseling, to make it up to you — none of which will ever be carried out past a smile and some trinket. But by this time, you’ll be so relieved to have him happy — or at least not agitated and angry — that you’ll accept it just to keep the peace.

11 You find yourself changing shifts at work (if allowed to work outside the home), denying yourself regular sleep habits, to accommodate his schedule and wishes. If you have children, you will also find yourself, however unconsciously, trying to be a protective shield between them and the abuser. It is also another reason why you do not leave the house to attend activities with friends — because you do not want to leave the children home alone with him.

12 He threatens you, your children &/or your pets with violence. My ex used to threaten my then-grade-school-aged daughter that her cat would be dead by the time she came home from school; neither she nor I can remember why. Violent threats are not just statements the abuser is willing to make, he’s willing to carry them out too. When he does, you might not remember why either.

13 You, your children, &/or pets are hit, shoved, raped, or otherwise assaulted.

If you recognize any of these signs in your relationship, get out of the relationship. If you are living with a controller, abuser or toxic partner, seek assistance. Feel free to contact me and visit Women Against Domestic Violence. And if you are on a computer that he has access to, clear your broswer cache!

If you see these signs in a family member or friend’s relationship, take great care in what you do. Here’s a great tip sheet for you.

Get the Thursday Thirteen code here! UPDATE: The original site appears to be down, so please check Thursday-13.com!

The purpose of the meme is to get to know everyone who participates a little bit better every Thursday. Visiting fellow Thirteeners is encouraged! If you participate, leave the link to your Thirteen in others comments. It’s easy, and fun! Trackbacks, pings, comment links accepted!

Pulling Relationship Weight

Leigh Peele, a published author and expert on weight loss, has an intriguing article at the Examiner on the courtship of obesity:

The process of mate selection for human beings is different from culture to culture and has evolved with the ages. Long ago the majority choose a mate purely on the ground of livelihood. If your mate could feed you or have children that was good enough. That isn’t to say there wasn’t always a rebel or two that caused a uproar in the normal flow of things. However, the majority of the time people chose mostly out of safety, and at best for love.

Flash forward to a time of internet dating, mail order brides, maxim magazine, and Flavor of Love. I think you will find that things are a little different. Self independence and prosperity is possible for both sexes. The ability to have children isn’t dependent on a penis and a vagina. Lastly, food is everywhere in advanced societies so the need to find a mate based solely on those past needs are getting cut more and more everyday. If those aren’t leading the ranks of why we pick a mate, what is?

I’ve written, elsewhere, on the subject of the biology of appearance in attraction, and while Peele clearly has a belief system (if not an agenda), she raises some good points:

How you look, the health you convey, and the body you have is now a extreme contributing factor. Studies and survey’s around the world are showing time and time again that the weight and appearance of a person plays a very large role in if they are found to be dating material or not. The question is, why?

If you say because “fat people are ugly” you would be wrong. Studies show that it isn’t the physical attraction to the person that is the issue, it is the underlying factors instead. For example, one study shows that on average medical costs are 36% higher for obese adults than their non-obese partners. Other studies also show that those who are largely overweight make a smaller percentage of pay vs those who have a healthier BMI. Obesity is also highly prevalent in low educated households, and the children of obese parents have a higher likely hood to drop out of high school.

When we combine all that above this means that through one scan of the eyes the average person when on approach for dating material can see someone who is obese as unhealthy, uneducated, and not financially secure. Obviously this is not true in all cases, but now if you find yourself in this position, not only do you have to worry about your own insecurities of being physically under par to yourself, you have to worry about your whole level of worth being judged from education to finance. Because of this overwhelming pressure, studies show that the mate you choose is going to be constantly less than your instinctual set standards because you feel that this is the best you can do. The cycle then starts of the problems in the relationship.

Peele then goes on to describe what she believes occurs in relationships where one person is ‘thin’ and the other ‘obese’:

Constantly those who are overweight will put “being fat” on the high list of problems in a relationship before they will put “living in self doubt.” Mixed couples fight more about cheating, have more short term separations, and will settle more in abusive relationships on average than couples who share in the same activities and physical physique. It is a lot more likely that one of you is nice and the other is a jerk.

…It isn’t about BMI, that is just a side effect. That is merely the scapegoat for the problem. The problem is self worth and self esteem. Usually those who were married pre-obesity have less problems than those who go into the courtship already overweight. With marriage there is a level of knowing what can be there again if desire or a deep understanding of the person in when they felt their best. Since the person saw the “real” you at a point, even if you are insecure now, there is still enough of you there in them that you are able to maintain a high level of happiness and trust.

I’ll admit, I’ve never quite looked at weight issues from this perspective. I’ve been ‘fat’ and I’ve been ‘thin,’ and while I’ve certainly noticed the times when my fat self was unattractive — not for the physical reasons but the insecurities & bad attitudes — I’ve never quite put things together as neatly as Peele has.

Not that being thinner delivers a magical life, but there is something I can attest to as far as attitude & acceptance. Speaking in generalities, if & when I happily accept ‘me’, I have better partners and better relationships; but when I am miserable, I make dumber decisions & accept far less than I really deserve.  Not to mention, I’m just a bitch (or killjoy) to be around.

There’s also been a difference between my relationships (with myself and with others), depending upon how I ‘took the weight off’.

The times I forced myself to diet — like an aggressive prison warden — I may have lost weight, but I felt the punitive actions, the self-loathing, and not only was miserable in the process and with others, but the weight came back quickly. However, once I rid myself of my emotional baggage, I naturally seemed to slim-down — as if that baggage was literally the saddlebags on my hips and thighs.

So while I’m not sure I agree that relationships between the skinny dating the fat are doomed to inequity, I do see (and often talk about) the great difficulties in relationships between those who are happily accepting of themselves and those who are riddled with insecurities and self-loathing. If your weight is an indication of the latter, the issues are certainly worth exploring for yourself.

Shut-Up Cosmo: Date Rape Is Not The Victim’s Fault

In the latest issue of Bitch magazine (Fall ’08, Issue #41), a scathing article by Jennifer McDaniel, “Don’t Take Advice From Cosmopolitan, Part 877″, blasts Cosmo’s recent (June 2088) article — and related sidebars — on date rape.

The article, featured on the cover with the line “5 Signs a Guy Is Capable of Rape”, is called “How a Date Rapist Works”; the related sidebar pieces are “Reading a Rapist’s Body Language” and “Personality Traits That Make You Vulnerable”.

On the surface you might think this helpful advice — but only if you believe the imperative premise that women are the ones responsible for men’s behavior. As McDaniel writes:

The article, like its gray-rape predecessor, ends up being both insulting to women and victim-blaming to boot. If a rapist could be identified with such easy-to-spot criteria, what woman wouldn’t readily discern a potential assailant and haul ass out of that bar? Rape victims are traumatized enough without being made to feel that their rapists were giving off clear signals that they were too stupid or oblivious to read.

(For the record, the “grey rape” article referred to was published in Cosmo back in September, 2007; you can find that pile of steaming crap here.)

It’s dreck like this that has had me avoiding Cosmopolitan magazine for a long time now. I hope you’ll avoid it too because the only help you’ll find in those slick pages are how to perpetuate the abdication of male accountability.

Does anyone really need that?

While I want women to be safe (and I hope Cosmo does too), it’s absurd, irresponsible, and down-right hurtful to put the blame for male violence on female victims.

As McDaniel said, “It’s not so surprising that Cosmo still seems to think so little of men that it refuses to hold them accountable for their behavior, but couldn’t they try to expect more from women?”

Instead, grab a copy of Bitch — better yet, subscribe. Because Bitch does expect more from both men and women.