September 30, 2014
storyofagayboy:

***URGENT PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT***
Grindr, a popular app for gay men, now carries an urgent warning for users in Egypt. According to many sources, Egyptian authorities are posing as LGBT people on various social media sites to identify and arrest homosexual people. The app is urging users in the region to proceed with extreme caution, especially when identifying themselves or arranging meetings/hookups. While so far the focus seems to be on gay men, all LGBT people in the area should be cautious. Reports show that Egyptian police have carried out violent raids on private homes which lead to the arrests of several gay men. These men were then subjected to disturbing medical “exams.” Police also raided an LGBT party last year, violently arresting many and sentencing them to up to 12 years hard labour. While homosexuality is not illegal in Egypt, athorities are using sexual deviance, debauchery and insulting public morals as terms for the crackdown. Many claim this fresh attack on the LGBT community is lead by President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi who wishes for his country to be more Islamic.
For all of my LGBT friends here on tumblr, please be extremely careful as this situation develops. Remember to clear your search history, use private browsing if possible, and be extremely cautious with who you talk to online.

storyofagayboy:

***URGENT PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT***

Grindr, a popular app for gay men, now carries an urgent warning for users in Egypt. According to many sources, Egyptian authorities are posing as LGBT people on various social media sites to identify and arrest homosexual people. The app is urging users in the region to proceed with extreme caution, especially when identifying themselves or arranging meetings/hookups. While so far the focus seems to be on gay men, all LGBT people in the area should be cautious. Reports show that Egyptian police have carried out violent raids on private homes which lead to the arrests of several gay men. These men were then subjected to disturbing medical “exams.” Police also raided an LGBT party last year, violently arresting many and sentencing them to up to 12 years hard labour. While homosexuality is not illegal in Egypt, athorities are using sexual deviance, debauchery and insulting public morals as terms for the crackdown. Many claim this fresh attack on the LGBT community is lead by President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi who wishes for his country to be more Islamic.

For all of my LGBT friends here on tumblr, please be extremely careful as this situation develops. Remember to clear your search history, use private browsing if possible, and be extremely cautious with who you talk to online.

(via thenewwomensmovement)

September 30, 2014
orgasmictipsforgirls:

Sex toys that feel like oral sex…

“Hey there! I have a question regarding self pleasure. I’ve been absolutely loving your blog, and I really enjoy all of the cunnilingus posts. It’s always been a fantasy of mine but I’ve never actually received any oral sex, so I was wondering, is there a way to create the sensation of receiving cunnilingus while going solo?”


“Hey - I was wondering if you knew of any ‘cunnilingus’ toys? Or toys that give a similar sensation? I adore being eaten out, but being a single lady (and not getting much action as I’m not a fan of one night stands) I’m craving for someone to go down on me! A toy would be fabulous help…”

I found two! Above, the ‘Sqweel 2’, which is kind of a slightly-scary seeming ferris wheel of flicky tongue things but maybe kinda fun?
Also, the Lelo Ora:

And there’s a review of that here! It’s definitely very pretty. Have fun!

orgasmictipsforgirls:

Sex toys that feel like oral sex…

Hey there! I have a question regarding self pleasure. I’ve been absolutely loving your blog, and I really enjoy all of the cunnilingus posts. It’s always been a fantasy of mine but I’ve never actually received any oral sex, so I was wondering, is there a way to create the sensation of receiving cunnilingus while going solo?”

Hey - I was wondering if you knew of any ‘cunnilingus’ toys? Or toys that give a similar sensation? I adore being eaten out, but being a single lady (and not getting much action as I’m not a fan of one night stands) I’m craving for someone to go down on me! A toy would be fabulous help…”

I found two! Above, the ‘Sqweel 2’, which is kind of a slightly-scary seeming ferris wheel of flicky tongue things but maybe kinda fun?

Also, the Lelo Ora:

And there’s a review of that here! It’s definitely very pretty. Have fun!

September 30, 2014
Myth vs. Fact

masakhane:

Sex is supposed to be loud - that’s how you show that it feels good.

Myth! Watching any mainstream porn clip will make you totally think this is true. One touch, and people are yelling and moaning like their life depended on it. Truth is, sex doesn’t have to be a competition of who can make the neighbors more uncomfortable. You don’t have to grunt loudly just to let your partner know they are doing the right thing. More often than not, sex is quiet and satisfaction is rooted in heavy breathing and uncontrollable moaning. The noises that surface are your body’s natural response to pleasure. Granted, some people do yell as a natural response and are loud during sex. That’s perfectly fine. But forcing certain reactions and sounds just to encourage your partner may take away the genuineness. Don’t forget, sex is all about being authentic and having fun without feeling forced to!

Cindy, Sex Educator

(via whoneedssexed)

September 30, 2014
What’s the deal with the HPV vaccine?

plannedparenthood:

image

Someone asked us…

what’s the deal with the HPV vaccine? should i get it? what does it even do?

The HPV vaccine is really awesome and important. Human Papillomavirus, or HPV, is the most common STD out there nearly all sexually active people will get HPV at some point in their lives. Most of the time, these infections are harmless and go away on their own. However, some types of HPV have been linked to cancer and genital warts.

There are two HPV vaccines out there right now: Gardasil and Cervarix. Both vaccines are given in a series of three separate shots over six months.

Like the common cold or the flu, there are a LOT of different types of HPV. Like, more than 100. Types 16 and 18 cause about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases, and both Gardasil and Cervarix protect against these. Gardasil also protects against types 6 and 11 — the two that cause about 90 percent of genital warts.

The HPV vaccine is recommended for all people between the ages of 11-12. That’s because it works best if gotten before becoming sexually active. But you can totally get it up through age 26. Just keep in mind that it doesn’t cure HPV if you already have it. Like all vaccines, it’s prevention, not treatment. So the earlier you get it, the better it works.

With a new school year around the corner, now’s the perfect time to get the HPV vaccine and spread the word about how important it is. So if you, a friend, sibling, or anyone else you know between the ages of 9 and 26 still haven’t gotten the vaccine, encourage them to talk to their nurse or doctor. Or call your nearest Planned Parenthood our health centers provide nearly 40,000 HPV vaccines a year, so we’ve gotten pretty good at it!

-Kellie at Planned Parenthood

(via whoneedssexed)

September 29, 2014

quoms:

seawitchintraining:

Joan Rivers literally said several times that she hated feminists and feminism what the fuck is Times magazine doing calling her a feminist icon.

but girl power, guys! when a woman becomes famous almost exclusively for trashing and demeaning other women it’s important that we recognise her girl power. feminism is only about women achieving positions from which they can enact violence on other people

(via afro-dykey)

September 28, 2014
Ok. let me explain in detail why “racial preferences” are problematic.

theblackoaksyndicate:

I made a post about the topic a while ago, but I don’t feel like looking for it, so let’s talk about it!

Incase your unaware, racial preferences are exactly what they sound like.  A person basing someone else’s eligibility for a romantic/sexual/platonic relationship based on someone’s race. 

Chances are if you’re gay and a PoC you’ve run into this scenario multiple times, “White Guys Only,” “Not Into Chocolate, Rice or Spice”, etc. 

Many times I’ll come across those who’ll denounce the idea of racial preferences as racist because “They can’t control who they’re attracted to” or even classier, “I can’t control what get’s my dick hard”.

Let’s get something straight right out of the bat. Attraction is not something created in a vacuum. What you wind up finding attractive in a person is not a trait created in complete isolation from the world around you. 

We’re constantly bombarded as a society with what our culture as a whole deems attractive and worthy of romantic and sexual attention. And whether or not we actively realize it, we internalize a lot those messages and incorporate them into our perception of reality. 

And naturally, if you’re a part of a racist society, you’re going to internalize the racist constructs that come with it. 

Attraction and the Perception of Beauty are not exempt from this. 

No, Societal cues do not dictate the entirety of what you find attractive, but it contributes to a lot of it. It’s also worth noting that many people who once claimed racial preferences abandoned them once they questioned why they had them in the first place. 

And please let us not forget. Race as it exists as we know it, is a purely social construct. Meaning that it’s legitimacy and place in society is not based on any actual significant physical differences. 

And not only that, but it was created as a way to perpetuate the concept of White Supremacy (at least in the West). 

So moving on to the basic and pretty much obvious reason why racial preferences are racist. Usually these preferences overwhelmingly favor White People and more often then not, when racial preferences don’t favor White People, they “favor” PoC in disgusting stereotypical ways.

Now here’s the thing. Take the phrase “I don’t find Black People attractive”. Let’s break this statement down.

Here is this 1 person, deciding that the entire Black Population, don’t suit their personal tastes. Based soley on the fact that they are Black. Let’s look at the numbers.

*Note, we’re going to be looking at the numbers for Sub-Saharan African Peopled because that’s what people usually mean when they’re referring to Black People.

As of 2011, the population of Sub-Saharan Africa was clicked at 874,841,049 people. Now let’s add in the total from The US, where the population of Black People in the US is usually steady at 13-14%, meaning the Black Population of the US a little over 44.5 million people. Combine those numbers and you’re at 923,297,058 people. 

923,297,058 individual people. And within that number (which doesn’t include the totality of the global diaspora because I didn’t take into account South America, Asia, or Europe into these numbers) you have  different cultures, different ethnicities, different identies, different languages, different personalitie, and a shit ton, nigh a near unimaginable number of skin-tone variations, and this is just talking about the basic stuff. 

So this 1 person, is willing to trust their gut that no one within that group of over 900 million individuals is attractive based on the one fact that they’re all Black. And please, let us remember that the concept of race is not a Universal one, so there will be plenty of people within that 900 Million that’ll have no clue what you’re talking about when you refer to them as Black. 

And before you even ask, no this is not about forcing you to require to find PoC attractive. 

You are not obligated to find every single Black guy attractive. No one is, but if you’re only reason for not finding that guy attractive because he’s Black, then you’ve got a couple of issues that you need sorting out. 

(via fucknofetishization)

September 28, 2014

Anonymous said: Hi! I'm sorry to bother, but I have a question. I have a friend who looks white (blonde, light skin, green eyes) but was actually born and raised in India by her Hindu parents. She practices Hinduism and only recently moved to the states. She still wears traditional clothing, but the other day she posted a picture of herself in her traditional clothes and got a lot of hate for it, people saying it was cultural appropriation. She's bummed out about it and is now questioning her ethnicity. Help?

youarenotdesi:

pendere:

stirringwind:

1. All those people screaming cultural appropriation at her are ignoramuses who are basically saying, “Wow, you don’t look like my ill-informed, narrow-minded stereotype of what people from this region actually look like!” and “I actually subscribe to horrible, reductionist stereotypes that Indian people can only have dark hair, skin and eyes. Light hair? Green eyes? European (origin) only!” 

This is gonna be a tad long, because it’s gonna delve into biology and history- and it’s because I hope people realise how artificial the US paradigm of race is. It’s woefully incompetent at understanding the biological diversity of our species because it is a social construct. Modern scientists and historians generally refuse to categorise people on the amount of melanin they have because it’s just reductionist and oversimplistic- what they do is classify people by their geographic origin, linguistic and cultural ties. 

2. India is an EXTREMELY diverse continent. It’s so genetically diverse that the only place more genetically diverse is the African continent, aka, the birthplace of humanity. And this is a big deal. I’ll explain why.

image

Surprise! People inhabiting an extremely large country that has more than 2000 ethnic groups, members of all the world’s religions, been the site of multiple ancient civilisations, been on the major crossroads of human migration and trade for thousands of years come in multiple colours!

  • Presently, the most widely-accepted theory of our origins is the Recent African Origin, or Out of Africa TheoryThis holds that originally, humans first appeared in Africa, thus all of us have African ancestors. All modern non-Africans are descended from much smaller groups of people who migrated out of Africa, anytime from 65,000 to 125,000 years ago. How do scientists know this? By looking at our DNA, in addition to fossil and archaeological records. They discovered that the differences in the DNA of non-African peoples like say, a German a Japanese and a New Zealand Maori was far less than the genetic differences between people from different African ethnic groups. (Somali, Dinka, Yoruba, San, Kikuyu, Luo etc- I’m BARELY scratching the surface)
  • What this meant was that Africa had to be the original, diverse genetic pool where modern humans first appeared. Everybody else outside of Africa today is descended from much smaller groups of people who left Africa at various times- and that ancestral genetic “bottleneck” is why people who appear to have very different heritage (e.g European vs East Asian) actually have far less genetic variation than the various African peoples.
  • So, India being the second most genetically diverse place on this planet is a big deal- it’s basically second only to THE CRADLE OF HUMANITY. That’s why I’m pretty convinced your friend can have blonde hair and green eyes and still be 100% Made in India.

3. Now, the genetics of India itself.

Genetic studies have shown that if you take a modern Indian from any part of India, no matter how dark or fair they are, his or her lineage will consist of mixing from two main ancestral groups. One is the Ancestral Northern Indians (ANI), and the other the Ancestral Southern Indians (ASI). You may have heard of the ancient Indian caste system which put a lot of social pressure that prohibited marrying outside your caste. Caste discrimination is banned today, but old attitudes do persist. However, even this caste rigidity wasn’t so 4000- 2000 years ago. ANI people married ASI pretty freely, so that’s why every modern Indian has heredity from both groups. So, already to start off, you got quite a fair bit of diversity hidden in people’s genes. 

  • And the next interesting part to explain why it IS possible for Indians to have features stereotyped as “European” is because while the ASI seemed to be genetically unique to the Indian subcontinent, the ANI people are genetically related to Middle-Easterns, Europeans and Caucasians (and I mean this not in the sense of “white” as often used in the US, but the actual region of Caucasus, which borders Europe and Asia).
  • You mentioned she looks “white”- and the American-understanding of “white” being hurled at her by those people screaming cultural appropriation are actually ignorantly treating “white” as synonymous with “European-origin”. In reality, it’s completely useless in the realm of biology. Biologically, there is actually no real dichotomy where “European” suddenly ends and “Asia” begins. 

image

  • As I earlier pointed out, well, we’re all kinda related. And it’s not at all earth-shattering that some people from India look like they’re of “European-origin”. Because modern Europeans, Central Asians and the Ancestral Northern Indians are all believed to be descendants of a group of people called the Proto-Indo-Europeans. It’s believed they lived around 6000-7000 years ago. Some modern people that are descended from the Proto-Indo-Europeans are French, Germans, Iranians and Pashtuns (a major ethnic group in Afghanistan).  It’s even been found that Europeans and Indians shared a gene for fair skin from a common ancestor- which is why there ARE people who look like your friend. Naturally, fair skin is just relatively rarer in India vs Europe because more parts of India are located in hotter regions. Therefore, there’s more selection pressure for darker skin which has more melanin to protect from the sun- making fair skin rarer, but still possible. 

image

(This is a map of the Kurgan Hypothesis, which is currently the most popular theory for how the Proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from their homeland to settle Europe, Central Asia, Iran, India and Turkey etc)

  • Saying Indians are descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is NOT the same as saying they’re of “European origin”. For example, think of the Proto-Indo-Europeans as like the “mother” of Europeans, Central Asians and the Ancestral Northern Indians- they’re like “sibling” groups, not descendants. The original Indo-Europeans were not “European” in the modern sense. I am clarifying this because plenty of colonial-era scientific racism tried to attribute ancient India’s achievements to “European who left Europe for India”- you might have heard the phrase “Aryan” thrown around in Nazi Germany, which was used to mean “blonde hair, blue eyes”. Nazi scientists and historians also abused it to explain away the sophistication of non-European civilisations in Ancient Egypt and India. In reality, ”Aryan” is derived from the ancient Sanskrit word “Arya" which means "noble". Sanskrit is an ancient language still used in classical Indian texts, and is of Proto-Indo-European origin. For example, the name of the country “Iran” actually means “land of the Aryans”- it was the names ancient Iranians (another people descended from the Proto-Indo-Europeans) gave to what others called the Persian Empire for more than a thousand years before the Third Reich. 

image(Sanskrit manuscript)

  • Furthermore, many languages we often separate as “European” and “Asian” like German, English, French, Italian vs. Hindi, Farsi (Persian), Gujarati, Punjabi, Pashto, Sanskrit etc are ALL classified by linguists as belonging to the same Indo-European language family- which all evolved from the original language the Proto-Indo-Europeans spoke. See how artificial the Europe/Asia dichotomy really is, in terms of human genetics and origin of cultures? 

4. Finally- there’s plenty of modern proof that the region we call Europe today does NOT have a monopoly on producing people with blonde hair, fair skin and green eyes.

This is Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, a popular Indian Bollywood actress who is also known for her striking blue-green eyes. She’s 100% Indian- she was born in Mangalore, India to Indian parents. 

image

This is a couple at their wedding- the lady on the left is Indian, from the Southern Indian city of Hyderabad. Her husband is Ethiopian.image

This is a photo of a boy and a woman who is likely his mother, taken in Turkey.

image

This is a girl from Darfur, Sudan- an area that has more than 30 ethnic groups.

image

This is a Nuristani girl. The Nuristani people are an ethnic group from Afghanistan. 

image

5. And in the first place, what makes up a person’s identity IS NOT JUST HOW MUCH or HOW LITTLE MELANIN THEY HAVE.

  • Tell your friend she is 100% Indian, because what makes up her identity is not just how she looks. Identity is what feels most natural to her, and if that identity is indeed very intertwined with major aspects of Indian culture- then well, she IS Indian and noone can say otherwise. 
  • Those people had no right to make her feel awful and “not-Indian enough” because it’s clear she identifies as such due to actually being born there and also practising major aspects of Indian culture. The best example I can think of to explain this is how in the US, people sometimes use the term “Latino” as a race category, with the stereotype that all latinos must have tanned skin and dark hair. In reality, it’s more of a cultural identity. The are fair haired-latinos and darker-skinned latinos whose ancestors included the African slaves brought to the Americas four hundred years ago. But what really makes them “Latino” or “Hispanic” is their upbringing- growing up in the environment of Latin America, which is culturally a syncretic fusion of Amerindian, African, Spanish, Portuguese and other European influences. 

image

(This is the Brazilian football team that won the 1970 World Cup- you can see Pelé- second from the bottom right. He is an Afro-Brazilian. If you look at his teammates, you can see how latinos come in ALL COLOURS.)

6. Your friend should not be questioning her identity, but those people attacking her should be questioning their utterly myopic worldview. The history of human genetics and migrations makes it abundantly clear how DIVERSE India is- so it’s perfectly possible for her to be Indian but have blonde hair and green eyes, even if it may be less common. 

7. On a more general note, I cannot stress this enough to everyone- DO NOT GO AROUND ATTACKING PEOPLE for “cultural appropriation” when you are NOT even from that culture in question and/or don’t actually know in detail the history and genetics of that region.

  • If you suspect cultural appropriation: DO YOUR RESEARCH FIRST or ASK SOMEBODY you know who actually belongs to that group. You may be attacking mixed-race people or people like the anon’s friend, who simply has features that are less genetically dominant- blonde hair shows up less easily in countries with a bigger pool of people with dark hair because dark hair is dominant. Even if her parents had dark hair, it’s possible they both carried a recessive gene for blonde hair that was suppressed by their dark-hair gene. Their child would be blonde if she happened to get both copies of the blonde gene instead of the dark hair gene.
  • Also, even if you think the person isn’t of that group, please bear in mind they might have been invited to dress in that clothing by a friend, or because they’re at an event. (I.e let’s say, at an Indian wedding)
  • I can’t stress how infuriating this “white knight” complex is. Speaking as someone pretty familiar with colonialism, I’ve had people who didn’t grow up in my culture condescendingly insist that if I’m okay with somebody doing something from my culture, it’s “self-internalised oppression”. I’ve studied African colonial literature, and the way people insist on defining what people should be alright with is very reminiscent of 19th century imperialists high-handedly saying, “oh, we have to bring the light of civilisation to save those backwards colonial subjects from themselves!”

image

This is Reese Witherspoon, wearing a kimono in Japan, where she is being taught by JAPANESE people how to perform the traditional tea ceremony. This is not reducing a culture to a caricature because she’s actually learning stuff respectfully and wearing a bona fide kimono.

  • Fighting against cultural appropriation is to prevent cultures from being cheapened, made into jokes, sexual fetishes or ugly caricatures. Part of returning power to people to define themselves is ALSO by allowing them to set the parameters of what they want to share with others- and many cultures are perfectly willing to share aspects that are non-sacred or do not have to be earned. So, for example, do not go around insisting a Japanese person should not be allowed to teach non-Japanese people to wear a kimono- because a kimono, unlike a Navajo war bonnet (akin to veteran’s medals), is something anybody can wear. Recognise this difference.

Know the difference.

knowledge.

September 28, 2014
"In this culture, gender attribution, like gender assignment, is phallocentric. That is, one is male until perceived otherwise. According to a study done by Kessler and McKenna, one can extrapolate that it would take the presence of roughly four female cues to outweigh the presence of one male cue: one is assumed male until proven otherwise. That’s one reason why many women today get “sirred” whereas very few men get called “ma’am.”"

— Kate Bornstein, Gender Outlaw (via socio-logic)

(Source: hardtobeasaintinthecity, via socio-logic)

September 28, 2014
a friendly reminder

beahbeah:

marfmellow:

that calling women of color exotic is

  • fucking racist
  • dehumanizing
  • othering
  • and not a fucking compliment

image

(x)

(via sexednerd)

September 28, 2014

fleur-ethereal:

Watercolor Series: Women Defined by Jay Crosby Barry

See the whole series here

(via captain-kale)

September 28, 2014

Anonymous said: Your post: "Understanding Consent" I like it. I agree with it. I believe in it. I think it is the bedrock of human relationships. I consent. Stopped me in my tracks, too. At the time I found it, I was, well, frankly, surfing for an image to appreciate through masturbation. How does one secure consent with people in pictures one finds on the internet? Confronted honestly, it's a problem. I don't know how I will handle it. But, Thank you. --just one of 3.5 billion males

Do you mean, how can you avoid contributing to exploitation while viewing porn? Just trying to make sure I fully understand the context here~

Thanks!

September 27, 2014
"Casting cheaters as monsters doesn’t do much to help people make good choices in the face of difficult circumstances. Ignoring the ways we contribute to creating those circumstances doesn’t help, either — and may even increase the risk that we’ll become like the “monsters” we decry."

On the value of empathy, not othering. | Doing Good Science, Scientific American Blog Network (via brutereason)

(via brutereason)

September 26, 2014

themidwifeisin:

The NuvaRing, brought to us by Molly, that lovely lady.  Can you believe she’s doing all of the AND finishing college a semester early right now?

(via fuckyeahsexeducation)

September 26, 2014
Go Home, Consent, You’re Drunk
As calls to  “end” campus rape reach a fever pitch, I want to highlight a few recent pieces on sexual consent from around the web. California is currently  considering “affirmative consent” legislation that would create a separate definition of rape for college students, one in which the absense of “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary” (though not necessarily verbal) agreement to proceed at each step of sexual activity would be considered assault. 
One of the biggest areas of controversy in  the legislation is a section concerning consent and intoxication. “In the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process,” the bill states, “it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented…if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity” because of incapacitation “due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication.” Many have pointed out that this standard is awfully vague, leaving much room for discretion in what constitutes too incapacitated to consent.
 Megan McArdle suggests that this is a feature, not a bug, for those pushing affirmative-consent policies: 

Prosecutors, and regulators more generally, like vague standards that are impossible to enforce consistently. It gives them a great deal of discretion in whom they target and how. It is a threat that can be wielded to force pleas to lesser crimes or other “voluntary” actions that obviate the need for a messy trial they might lose.
If university administrators moved to an affirmative-consent standard by themselves, parents and alumni, particularly the parents of sons, might complain. But if lawmakers force them to it … well, it’s another weapon in the arsenal that allows them to target men who, say, generate too many plausible but impossible-to-prove complaints. The part of me that was a potentially vulnerable college woman understands the desire. But the part of me that is suspicious of authorities with broad and vague powers nonetheless thinks we should look for a better way.

At Bustle, Pamela Stubbart considers a  sexual assault case from Occidental College and articulates something that’s long bothered me about the affirmative consent movement:  If drunk people can’t give consent, how can they perceive consent?

Everyone understands the intuition that a policy (and more importantly, a real culture) of meaningful consent helps to protect incapacitated people from non-incapacitated (or less-incapacitated) potential assailants. But when both parties in a sexual encounter are (by their own admissions) blackout drunk…it doesn’t take a trained philosopher to point out the underlying principle: if fall-down, blackout drunkenness really does incapacitate someone morally and relieve them of responsibility for their actions, for consistency’s sake that must count both for ability to give consent and ability to perceive it. The burden might be reasonably placed on the clear initiator to prove that he or she was drunk, but in the Occidental case, neither Jane nor John Doe denies that both were as drunk as can be.


Fortunately, rapists do not get themselves blackout drunk and then go out planning to rape people and “get away with it.” When both people are that drunk, and equally drunk, it’s usually the result of a voluntary (if ill-advised) organic social situation. Here’s the reality of the matter, which is kind of both good and bad news: rape is not some kind of mutual poor decision or drunken accident (which would make it easier to educate or engineer away). Instead, there really are men who prey on women sexually, often by getting them drunk.

Affirmative consent legislation suggests that misinterpreation of consent is a major root of sexual violence. But  most rapes are committed by repeat offenders with calculated agendas, not students confused about whether the absense of a ‘no’ means ‘yes’.
"Given the horrors of sexual assault, the desire to do something is powerful and totally understandable,"  writes Freddie de Boer. “But the establishment of explicit consent policies strikes me as a perfect example of the flawed thinking of ‘we need to do something, this is something, therefore we need to do this.’” He, too, sees affirmative consent laws as promoting misunderstanding about rape: 

Rapists are those who engage in sexual behaviors against others who have not consented to those behaviors. Whether the standard is “no means no” or “only yes means yes,” rapists will violate that standard, because they are rapists. Perhaps such policies will make it easier to prosecute cases against offenders, but again—it is as easy for someone to claim after the fact that he asked for and received a yes as it is to claim after the fact that the other person didn’t say no. These policies seem only to solve problems under the assumption that many rapes are so-called “gray rapes,” and yet anti-rape activists have long worked to insist that there is no such thing, or that such situations are quite rare.

De Boer also sees hypocrisy in attempting to promote individual agency and autonomy by requiring that agency be used in a very particular way:  

One of the most important parts of the feminist project is insisting that women own their own bodies. This has application to abortion, where the pro-life movement seeks to take physical control of women’s bodies away from them. And it has application to rape. The insistence of those who work against rape is that only the individual has the right to define appropriate and wanted sexual practice. With the informed consent of all adult parties, no sexual practice is illegitimate. Without that consent, no sexual practice is permissible. This is a humane, moral standard that has the benefit of simplicity in application and clarity in responsibility.
But it stems first and foremost from the recognition of individual ownership. To define the exact methods through which individuals can request and give consent takes away that control and turns it over to the state, or even more ludicrously, to a dean or some academic grievance board. We should be expanding the individual’s control over their own sexual practice, not lessening it. And we should maintain the simplest standard that there is: that if a person rejects a sexual advance, or is in such an incapacitated state that they cannot rejected that advance, or is under the power of the other party to the extent that they feel compelled to consent, sexual contact cannot morally or legally take place.

Yet mainstream feminists have taken up the cause of affirmative consent on campus with vigor. It seems to epitomize critics’ charge that these feminists are only concerned with the problems of the privileged and middle-class. Only about one-third of Americans ever earn a college degree. Only about six percent of Americans are currently enrolled in college, and far less on traditional college campuses. Why are the intricacies of consent for this population so much more important than, say, finding funding to test the backlog of rape kits—something that could help catch existing rapists and protect people regardless of their educational attainment (or incapacitation) level?

Go Home, Consent, You’re Drunk

As calls to “end” campus rape reach a fever pitch, I want to highlight a few recent pieces on sexual consent from around the web. California is currently considering “affirmative consent” legislation that would create a separate definition of rape for college students, one in which the absense of “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary” (though not necessarily verbal) agreement to proceed at each step of sexual activity would be considered assault. 

One of the biggest areas of controversy in the legislation is a section concerning consent and intoxication. “In the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process,” the bill states, “it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented…if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity” because of incapacitation “due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication.” Many have pointed out that this standard is awfully vague, leaving much room for discretion in what constitutes too incapacitated to consent.

Megan McArdle suggests that this is a feature, not a bug, for those pushing affirmative-consent policies: 

Prosecutors, and regulators more generally, like vague standards that are impossible to enforce consistently. It gives them a great deal of discretion in whom they target and how. It is a threat that can be wielded to force pleas to lesser crimes or other “voluntary” actions that obviate the need for a messy trial they might lose.

If university administrators moved to an affirmative-consent standard by themselves, parents and alumni, particularly the parents of sons, might complain. But if lawmakers force them to it … well, it’s another weapon in the arsenal that allows them to target men who, say, generate too many plausible but impossible-to-prove complaints. The part of me that was a potentially vulnerable college woman understands the desire. But the part of me that is suspicious of authorities with broad and vague powers nonetheless thinks we should look for a better way.

At Bustle, Pamela Stubbart considers a sexual assault case from Occidental College and articulates something that’s long bothered me about the affirmative consent movement: If drunk people can’t give consent, how can they perceive consent?

Everyone understands the intuition that a policy (and more importantly, a real culture) of meaningful consent helps to protect incapacitated people from non-incapacitated (or less-incapacitated) potential assailants. But when both parties in a sexual encounter are (by their own admissions) blackout drunk…it doesn’t take a trained philosopher to point out the underlying principle: if fall-down, blackout drunkenness really does incapacitate someone morally and relieve them of responsibility for their actions, for consistency’s sake that must count both for ability to give consent and ability to perceive it. The burden might be reasonably placed on the clear initiator to prove that he or she was drunk, but in the Occidental case, neither Jane nor John Doe denies that both were as drunk as can be.

Fortunately, rapists do not get themselves blackout drunk and then go out planning to rape people and “get away with it.” When both people are that drunk, and equally drunk, it’s usually the result of a voluntary (if ill-advised) organic social situation. Here’s the reality of the matter, which is kind of both good and bad news: rape is not some kind of mutual poor decision or drunken accident (which would make it easier to educate or engineer away). Instead, there really are men who prey on women sexually, often by getting them drunk.

Affirmative consent legislation suggests that misinterpreation of consent is a major root of sexual violence. But most rapes are committed by repeat offenders with calculated agendas, not students confused about whether the absense of a ‘no’ means ‘yes’.

"Given the horrors of sexual assault, the desire to do something is powerful and totally understandable," writes Freddie de Boer. “But the establishment of explicit consent policies strikes me as a perfect example of the flawed thinking of ‘we need to do something, this is something, therefore we need to do this.’” He, too, sees affirmative consent laws as promoting misunderstanding about rape: 

Rapists are those who engage in sexual behaviors against others who have not consented to those behaviors. Whether the standard is “no means no” or “only yes means yes,” rapists will violate that standard, because they are rapists. Perhaps such policies will make it easier to prosecute cases against offenders, but again—it is as easy for someone to claim after the fact that he asked for and received a yes as it is to claim after the fact that the other person didn’t say no. These policies seem only to solve problems under the assumption that many rapes are so-called “gray rapes,” and yet anti-rape activists have long worked to insist that there is no such thing, or that such situations are quite rare.

De Boer also sees hypocrisy in attempting to promote individual agency and autonomy by requiring that agency be used in a very particular way:  

One of the most important parts of the feminist project is insisting that women own their own bodies. This has application to abortion, where the pro-life movement seeks to take physical control of women’s bodies away from them. And it has application to rape. The insistence of those who work against rape is that only the individual has the right to define appropriate and wanted sexual practice. With the informed consent of all adult parties, no sexual practice is illegitimate. Without that consent, no sexual practice is permissible. This is a humane, moral standard that has the benefit of simplicity in application and clarity in responsibility.

But it stems first and foremost from the recognition of individual ownership. To define the exact methods through which individuals can request and give consent takes away that control and turns it over to the state, or even more ludicrously, to a dean or some academic grievance board. We should be expanding the individual’s control over their own sexual practice, not lessening it. And we should maintain the simplest standard that there is: that if a person rejects a sexual advance, or is in such an incapacitated state that they cannot rejected that advance, or is under the power of the other party to the extent that they feel compelled to consent, sexual contact cannot morally or legally take place.

Yet mainstream feminists have taken up the cause of affirmative consent on campus with vigor. It seems to epitomize critics’ charge that these feminists are only concerned with the problems of the privileged and middle-class. Only about one-third of Americans ever earn a college degree. Only about six percent of Americans are currently enrolled in college, and far less on traditional college campuses. Why are the intricacies of consent for this population so much more important than, say, finding funding to test the backlog of rape kits—something that could help catch existing rapists and protect people regardless of their educational attainment (or incapacitation) level?

September 25, 2014
uncutting:

restoringtally:

restoringmikey:

foreskinhiatus:

A DTR, many people use the DTR for restoring their foreskin. I’m considering buying a DTR once I have some extra cash, just so I can give input on how effective it is, and also compare it to the TLC Tugger.

My preferred device. The DTR.

The DTR is available at ForeskinRestore.com

My device of choice also!
I know that most restoration devices can look intimidating (some describe them as looking like medieval torture devices), but having owned a DTR for over 3 years, I assure you all that this actually fits quite comfortably, and in all seriousness, there are times where I forget if I’m wearing it and I have to check.

uncutting:

restoringtally:

restoringmikey:

foreskinhiatus:

A DTR, many people use the DTR for restoring their foreskin. I’m considering buying a DTR once I have some extra cash, just so I can give input on how effective it is, and also compare it to the TLC Tugger.

My preferred device. The DTR.

The DTR is available at ForeskinRestore.com

My device of choice also!

I know that most restoration devices can look intimidating (some describe them as looking like medieval torture devices), but having owned a DTR for over 3 years, I assure you all that this actually fits quite comfortably, and in all seriousness, there are times where I forget if I’m wearing it and I have to check.

(via fuckyeahsexeducation)