because we should know better...
gentle readers, consider yourselves warned -- this post is to be a rant.
so, for some reason lately at school, several of my guy friends have taken to making jokes about such things as the "hot carl" or the "donkey punch" or other disgusting frat-boy-esque examples of sexually deviant behavior, all of which involve some sort of hitting or ejaculating-on or going-to-the-bathroom-on, generally performed by men on women.
frankly, i don't see the humor. it all seems incredibly gross and horrible and ridiculous. yesterday, while on the way to target (where i was to mysteriously spend $100 on stuff that i apparently "needed"), krista and i had a fantastic conversation which began like this:
e: so, this whole 'hot carl' business? can i just say how absolutely annoying it all is?
k: yes -- of course you can. and can i just say how enraged i am at the whole thing because of how sexist it is?
and she's absolutely right. all of these stupid sexual acts are violent, humiliating, and demeaning. they all involve some circumstance where a man is acting against a woman, with the (perhaps unconscious but nonetheless obvious) intent to assert some sort of dominance. in a world where we censor our statements so that we don't offend race, religion, or sexual orientation, why is it that intelligent, professional adults still find humor in something so blatantly harmful to women?!?
krista (whose sensitivity to this is much more heightened than my own) pointed out in our conversation that if our strong, brilliant, female criminal law professor, whom everyone pretty much thought was fantastic, had been around, none of the our guy friends would bring up these jokes. so why is that she should be given more respect than us, the women who actually interact with these men every day? or, if there had been some equivalent joke about racial minorities, no one would dare say it out loud, for fear of being branded a racist. so why are we going to allow this sort of sexism to run rampant?
the thing that is most frightening to me is that i consider the people with whom i spend my time to be brilliant, progressive, idealistic, hard-working, fantastic. and none of them realized how harmful and offensive these jokes are. nobody saw how sexist it is. even my own distaste for that line of conversation had not been rationalized in my head -- it just existed as a general repulsion and disgust. it took krista to present it in a way that made sense for me. so, if smart, educated individuals don't see how unconscious this sexism is, what can that mean for the world at large?
call me some sort of crazy feminist, but i'm of the opinion that healthy sex is something that is 100% consensual and affirming. i don't care what you do or who you do it with, but jesus christ, don't publicly perpetuate a conception of sexuality that involves brutality, defecation, defilement, or degradation. my friends, the only term for that kind of behavior is sexual assault.
end rant.
and thanks to krista, for being one of my heroes.
posted by emily @ Sunday, October 02, 2005
6 comments
6 Comments:
Three Comments:
1. Nobody said that these 'deviant' sexual acts aren't consensual - in fact that's part of the humor - that people consent to/enjoy these types of things.
2. The receptor of the hot carl, donkey punch, etc. doesn't have to be female - that person could just as easily be male.
3. I doubt these jokes would have been made around our Contracts, Constitutional, or Criminal Procedure professors - not because they're male or female, but because they're our 'academic elders' not our friends.
Yeah - they're gross comments - but I don't think they are akin to racial or ethnic slurs, and at least in the context or our conversations they didn't amount to sexual assault, lest the next time I ask someone to tie me up, they're booked as a sexual offender.
in response:
1. true, if you accept that these acts aren't mythical, there are sure to be instances of 100% consent. but just as there are acts of boring old missionary position sex that isn't consensual, there is sure to be occasion where the donkey punch (which i believe involves punching a woman--not a man--in the back right before ejaculation so that her muscles tense up) involves some sort of bizarre element of surprise. and as i said in the original post, i don't care what you do or who you do it with, but it's the public perpetuation, the jokes and the references and the ha-ha-ha-ing that i find to be offensive. hey, i know that people engage in sexual behavior of all sorts of varieties, but the good old right to privacy does, in some ways, deserve some privacy.
and, i probably should apologize, or at least offer explanation, for my use of the word "deviant". i was kinda trying to be witty there, as in scalia referring to sodomy as a "deviant sexual act", which it of course is not -- i certainly don't know anyone who hasn't in some way sodomized/been sodomized. and we've all lived to tell the tale. and most of us have enjoyed it. and again, the right to privacy. but does the right to privacy/free speech/what-have-you mean that we should continue to say things that are offensive? i mean, lynchings didn't just happen to black men and women, but talk of lynchings is certainly charged with racism in a way that prevents us from making it the subject of humor.
2. see response #1. and even if we're talking about male-on-male or female-on-female sex, if there's an element of violence/control/dominance in the way we joke about sexuality, is it really funny?
3. professional/personal designations notwithstanding, for me it still boils down to a respect issue on some level. and not just respect for women and men, but a respect for sex itself.
and yes, there is a context for everything, but if we're all working towards some sort of better tomorrow, perhaps we should be more careful with how cavalierly we throw around things, even in jest, that could hinder our greater goods.
Redirect:
1. With every type of sexual encounter - there are going to be instances of non-consent -> that's were sexual assault comes into play. I doubt that there is any evidence that these "deviant" sexual acts are performed more non-consensually than other normal sexaul acts, if they are performed at all. (I thought that the "deviant" language was funny in your orginal post - and I concur re: the whole sodomy thing). So it is of no consequence that there are instances of non-consensual "hot carl's". Also is there some anatomical reason that a donkey punch must be performed on a woman? Seems to me it would work just fine if I'm fucking a guy....
And I'm not sure that the whole privacy thing is such a good thing all the time - come on - our society is by and large uncomfortable talking about sex - this isn't a good thing - maybe if we were more open about what went on in America's bedrooms (not at the hand of the state, of course!) we would know whether Donkey Punches are only performed on women - or if Blumpkins are often non-consensual.... But I will agree that in general words & certain phrases carry inherent meanings attached to them by society. And insofar that this is the case with these deviant sexual terms - that's bad for women. But I will disagree on equating it to lynching. Lynching to me involves an entire segment of our society tormented by a racist majority, where an apathetic government didn't get involved, whereas a Hot Carl, to me, just implies that some guys and girls like to get freaky with their excrement.
2. Yes sometimes it is funny - some people like themes of violence/control/dominance running through their sex lives. Don't tell me that you've never tied a man to a bed....or used handcuffs. As long as it's safe and consensual, and gets a few laughs - who cares.
3. How far does this standard extend? Is it disrespectful to sex to joke about that time that someone came in 30 seconds.....or that time that someone couldn't get hard....or what about the occasional queef....come on this stuff is funny - why not share the fun?
And as far as greater good - I'm with you insofar that if Hot Carl jokes are bad for women - and they promote sexism - then we should stop saying them. I'm just saying that sex in general is humorous - oppression of women isn't funny. Rape = not funny, Hot Carl = I'm not so sure.
rebuttal:
1. okay, so a donkey punch can be done on a man, too. i've just only heard it described as being inflicted on a woman. but you're right -- that doesn't mean it's only applicable to women. see how naive i am?
as far as society being uncomfortable talking about sex, that is undeniably true. but unfortunately, distance is travelled in baby steps. if we're want society to arrive at a place where one can mention menstrual cycles or STDs or abortions or bondage or whatever, without having someone else recoil in horror, we have to work gradually. think of the "sex & the city" women. lots and lots of people consider that show raunchy, in bad taste, excessive. but "raunch" and "taste" are entirely subjective. it's a good old california v. miller "community standards" idea. and how does one go about changing community standards? by being subversive. and by making people open their eyes to the messages that are being sent. as far as "sex & the city" goes, the fact that the show centers on women makes it, to me, better. so often the purveyors of these statements (the hot carls, the dirty sanchezes, et cetera) are men. straight men. you know, "the man", representatives of the majority culture. i dunno. there's just got to be a better way to make sex less taboo than to play the game according to the rules that have already been laid out by someone else. which S&TC kinda does. god this is frustrating. my point is that why do we have to think that these jokes are funny if it seems that buying into the humor means denying something you hold dear?
before i started law school, i worked in an environment with a lot of young, 20-somethings. my coworkers frequently (as in, like, daily) called me a prude because one day at work, one of my coworkers was reporting her masturbation routine to everyone and i made a comment suggesting that it was a little inappropriate. and that was it. i became "prudey", "prudilla", other stupid variations of "prude". it was obnoxious. but i don't give a shit about when or how often or by what method my coworker masturbates, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with work. so why am i a prude because i said something about this? i.e., whose right to "free speech" should prevail? the answer is i just don't know. see the last paragraph for more.
2. sadly, i've never used handcuffs. and see # 3.
3. the standard extends indefinitely. my first thought in response to this is that you have to consider your audience, but on second thought, it occurred to me that in order to be consistent, this has to be consistently applied. i'm gonna break with the supreme court here and say that intent AND effect must be considered. if either the intent of the speech or its effect is disparaging, maybe it shouldn't be said.
i will admit that i struggle with this. i know that i'm guilty of making/laughing at jokes like this. i know that i've talked about my own sexual behavior without considering the ramifications that my words may have. i know i'm teetering dangerously on the line of censorship, and i don't like that at all. there's that voltaire (?) quote -- "i disapprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it." yeah. but what if what is being said is harmful? what of hate speech? do i want to defend someone's right to say that he hates homosexuals? do i want to defend someone's right to tell racist jokes? do i want to defend someone's right to fight a holy war in which innocents get murdered? i don't think i do. but i certainly don't want to impose some sort of easily manipulated balancing test (weighing the potential harm) into the equation. so what do i do? what's my response as a liberal, idealistic, educated person? how do i deal with this? if i find something to be offensive and disparaging, do i celebrate it as being said openly and without constraint? or do i try to speak equally as loudly in retort? or is there some other, as yet undetermined option?
One last thing - which I will put down for the benefit of those who weren't at lunch with us (read: the rest of the world):
In terms of speech, I think that if something that someone says offends you - say so, then tell them why - if they find that persuasive or tend to think that others likely have the same reaction - chances are, they'll stop saying it. This works well with friends - as for the world, we need to focus our energies on what people do (like actually opressing women or minorities) - who cares if they make jokes at their country clubs. If actual discrimination can be arrested, the exclusivity of those country clubs (fora where such speech is a-okay) will be a vestige or our oppressive past.
Of course if your reasoning for offense is unpersuasive or that offense is singular in nature - you will likely have no effect in reducing its use - but that's the nature of the game, you can't have one person's subjective reaction dominate society's expression.
But overall - I tend to agree that these terms (Hot Carl, Blumpkin, etc.) suggest male/female domination, though not exclusively, and therefore - I'll reduce my usage of these terms when I'm not at my local frathouse.
i'm sorry if my "hot carl" jokes about your new kitten offended you. of course i'm not going to call your kitten hot carl. that's just gross.
if i'd known you found it so offensive, i would have stopped earlier. i think the most important thing about sex and sex talk and sexuality is COMMUNICATION - "yes i want to be tied up, but only in my own house and only after we've been dating for a while," or, "no, we can't have anal sex, not even with lube, not even if you 'accidentally' miss, not ever," or, "i think it's gross when you make comments like that, please stop." audience is important. i have friends that i would never, never have this conversation around because i know it bothers them. that doesn't mean they're less of a friend, or i think less of them. it's just how they are, and that's fine. i didn't realize how strongly you reacted to it.
some women may enjoy being "degraded" by something like a hot carl, but i should hope that they're actually in control when these things occur, and if they're not in control, they shouldn't be doing them, and that's a completely different thing from the fact that they exist.
that's all. again, i'm sorry.
sandy
Post a Comment
<< Home