What Henry Rollins said (emphasis mine)

It is obvious that the two offenders saw the victim as some one that could be treated as a thing. This is not about sex, it is about power and control. I guess that is what I am getting at. Sex was probably not the hardest thing for the two to get, so that wasn’t the objective. When you hear the jokes being made during the crime, it is the purest contempt.

That's pretty clear. If the town of Steubinville is even remotely like other sports-identity towns then even if you subscribe to dolorous of MRA/PUA/Ev-Psych analyses of gender it's unlikely such a town or school's star quarterback and wide receiver will have much trouble finding willing partners.

To add to that consider the "apology" issued by one of the four prominent, well-connected Carmel, Indiana, basketball players as part of his reduced-sentence plea bargain after "allegedly" digitally sodomizing a smaller boy on a school team bus filled with fellow teammates and at least three adult coaches.

"I can assure there was absolutely no malice in my actions. At the time, I truly believed this was normal everyday athletic team horseplay. After reflecting, I came to realize how I could have put a teammate in a situation in which they were uncomfortable."

Source: Indianapolis TV news station WISH

Horrifyingly, I believe him!  I believe the boy really didn't believe the sexual violence he perpetrated against his victim was done with any particular malice towards him.  And I also agree he probably considered it "everyday athletic team horseplay."

I very gloomily suspect the perpetrators in Steubinville were little different, even though the Carmel victims (that we know of) were male and the Steubinville victim (that we know of) was female.

This indifference does <em>not</em> absolve the perpetrators.  Instead it damns them.  And it damningly confirms Rollins' point: sexual violence is almost never about <em>sexual desire</em> for the victim.  Instead it's waaaay more about choosing tools for establishing, demonstrating, or maintaining social, not sexual, status of the perpetrator. Sometimes the victim is the intended recipient of the demonstration.  More often, however, the victim is the object, in the most literal sense of the word, of the perpetrator's demonstration to others.  Thus the bragging.  Thus the (not even always nervous) laughter by peers and nominal elders.  Thus the "boys will be boys" indifference by coaches, police, "proud fathers" and other nominal supervisors.

They can all "assure there [is] absolutely no malice" in the perpetrator's actions.

This is the opposite of assuring.

Incidentally I'd go one step further and say that this phenomenon of the use of sexual violence to demonstrate social dominance best explains the reflexive defense of perpetrators and for the equally reflexive anger and blame launched against their victims.

#@$!&%!!!

So in Psychology Today this guy Alain de Botton says something that ought to creep out a lot of victims of sexual violence and comfort or even delight any number of perpetrators.

Involuntary physiological reactions such as the wetness of a vagina and the stiffness of a penis are emotionally so satisfying (which means, simultaneously, so erotic) because they signal a kind of approval that lies utterly beyond rational manipulation. Erections and lubrication simply cannot be effected by willpower and are therefore particularly true and honest indices of interest. In a world in which fake enthusiasms are rife, in which it is often hard to tell whether people really like us or whether they are being kind to us merely out of a sense of duty, the wet vagina and the stiff penis function as unambiguous agents of sincerity.

Source: Psychology Today (naturally)

So... What's wrong with this picture?

Two things: First, it's totally wrong that an erection (or a wet vulva) can only mean arousal, let alone that they are "particularly true and honest" indicators.  As pretty much every man who's woken up with a full bladder can tell you.  

But second, as too many victims and perpetrators(!) of sexual violence can tell you, victims of sexual violence can develop or be made to develop(!) erections (or vaginal lubrication) and even ejaculations!

See for instance this post from Living Well, an Australian site for recovering male victims of sexual violence (my italics)

People who sexually abuse boys and men often use their knowledge about male bodies to deliberately cause an erection and/or ejaculate to occur. They do this because they know it is extremely confusing and embarrassing. They might also do it to try and convince both the person being abused and themselves that what is happening is not really abuse. Whatever the reasons, ultimately they know that if the boy or man was aroused, they might be less likely to tell anyone about the abuse due to feelings of shame and embarrassment.

Source: Living Well: Sexual Assault and Arousal

Or see also this from (a more woman-focused but still appropriate for men) survivor-support site the Pandora Project (my italics.)

A sexual response or orgasm in the course of sexual assault is often the best-kept and most deeply shameful secret of many survivors. If you are such a survivor, it’s essential that you know that sexual response in sexual assault is extremely common, well-documented and nothing for you to be ashamed of.

Source: Pandora Project: Sexual Arousal & Sexual Assault

This is consistent with what a number of sources have to say about the way perpetrators (relatives, fellow prisoners, priests and scout leaders, and of course aggressive hetero date-rapists) manipulate their victims into a) submission, b) co-operation, c) deep and abiding shame, and especially d) silence.  

Oh, and sometimes?  e) ignorance and long-term misunderstanding.

For instance if you've ever been told "You're hard, that means you want this," or "Look at you, you were soaking wet, you were loving it?"  When you hadn't really been loving it but couldn't figure your way around their point about your "particularly true and honest indices of interest?"  You might want to sit down and talk with somebody who can help you figure out what was (or is) going on.

Lest you think de Botton's particularly insidious form of gaslighting applies only to victims of sexual violence, it's important to get that some perpetrators really believe it themselves!

Check this out, also from that Pandora Project article

And it isn’t just about you and the way your body responded either. It may also have been one of the repertoire of dirty tricks rapists use to get their victims to feel responsible. Diana Russell writes that “Some rapists think they’re lovers” and tells us:

(These rapists) think that if a woman is stimulated in ‘just the right way’ she will enjoy it. The conquest may seem more important if the rapist believes he has turned the woman on physically, particularly if it is against her will. Getting the victim to respond physically may also alleviate the rapist’s guilt feelings.

This, incidentally, was one of the things that completely threw me for a loop about a year ago when it first started to soak in that an awful lot of my personal assumptions about sexual behavior growing up had been learned, some of it from a very early age, by people who themselves had been sometimes radically abused and by others who were themselves active abusers.  Thrown me for enough of a loop that while I'm still pretty sure I've always been a considerate or at least very well-intentioned sex partner I feel obliged to question whole constellations of assumptions I've made in the past.  One thing for sure, for me, personally, is that "at least I'm not like those guys" and even sometimes "at least I'm not like those gals" no longer feels all that reassuring.

Summary: if you would have found de Botton's claims  reassuring, or even just reasonable, take a little time to re-think some of those assumptions.

As you've probably heard, long-time anti-abortion, anti-choice activist Cathrynn Brown, a conservative New Mexico state legislator, has discovered a new-found interest in preserving evidence of sexual violence: making it a crime of "destruction of evidence" if a victim of sexual violence seeks an abortion or if anyone pressures her or assists her in obtaining one.

Well, as you might also have heard that original language was... a little broad. Why it might somehow have been interpreted to mean she just wanted to force victims to extend the violence perpetrated on them, their partners, their children, and their extended families* for another 9 months, or, heck, another 18 years and beyond!

So she's amended her bill. Here's the text: let me know if you see any problems with it. Note: I've got some problems with it. (The quote is in its original all caps but with my emphasis added.)

“AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW; SPECIFYING THAT A PERSON WHO COMMITS CRIMINAL SEXUAL PENETRATION OR INCEST AND WHO PROCURES AN ABORTION OF A FETUS RESULTING FROM THE CRIME WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME IS GUILTY OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE; PROHIBITING PROSECUTION OF THE MOTHER OF THE FETUS.”

Source: Follow the link on Brown's Twitter feed to her bill and its revisions

Somewhere out there a slightly less baby crazy but no less predatory successor to Mary Kay Laterneau* just got her wings.

Problem #1: As a non-stereotypical victim of sexual violence I’m particularly annoyed by the way Brown’s bill further hard-wires male-on-female, penis-in-vagina violence as the only kind that matters. Especially her revised version. 

Problem #2: I mean, does she seriously mean she now claims in her tweet that meant all along: that no mother will ever be prosecuted for destroying evidence of assault or incest by procuring an abortion for herself? Because that's saying once again that male-on-female violence being the only kind that counts: no woman ever could initiate sexual assault or incest, discover herself pregnant, and destroy evidence of her own guilt therefore she strictly and explicitly excludes that possibility in her text.

Problem #3 is more generic and more-commonly raised: particularly given the waiting time nine months seems like an extraordinarily long time to wait to gather evidence.  Nor is even hard DNA evidence on the (male) attacker be particularly determinative given the near-universal practice of defense attorneys arguing "she asked for it," "she's 'crying rape,'" "it was actually consensual."  Or the near-universal acceptance of such tactics by juries.

Problem #4, also generic and more commonly raised: very, very often sexual violence, even when committed by men against women, doesn't involve vaginal penetration, let alone male ejaculation, let alone pregnancy.  So while an embryo, fetus, or born person might have some value in some circumstances, it's by and large the least relevant kind of evidence police, medical personnel, counselors, or prosecutors should concern themselves with.

Problem #5 is just more about the typical anti-abortion/forced-pregnancy bullcrap that inspires these kinds of cruel stunts: Cathrynn Brown claims that by prohibiting "tampering with evidence" her anti-abortion bill "protects women and girls from incest and other sex crimes."  And yet... and yet... given a) her prior complete disinterest in issues relating to evidence gathering or victim assistance combined with b) her long-time involvement in "pro-life" organizations in her community I think it's... um... really, really unlikely that she'd stand aside if a victim sought an abortion in order to obtain evidence.  In other words she not only doesn't really care about male, child, or other non-impregnable victims she almost certainly doesn't care for impregnated victims either.

Problem #6: The whole thing just displays a complete incomprehension and/or dismissal of real-life sexual violence, its impact, its victims**, its assailants, its prosecution, and so on.  You're free to argue that protecting "the unborn" is more important than the health or safety of victims of sexual violence (never mind justice for or even acknowledgement.)  And it's possible and maybe even likely that Rep. Brown feels that way.  But if so it would be mighty nice if the were able to be honest about their priorities. Instead of smarming it up with smug lies about "protection" for victims of sexual violence. 

*See also Rene Chantal Frank, Dianne Dieterich, Amanda Soleto, Jennifer Riojas, Rhonda Eisenberg, etc.  Also, I originally spelled the name "Laterno" after foolishly trusting Google's suggestion -- turns out so many others misspell it that Google hints for it anywa.  Doh!

** Something I've never heard the forced-pregnancy crowd explain is how to get around the awkwardness around the Thanksgiving table every year not just for a victim the anti-Choicers wants to force to give birth but for her husband and father of her (possibly older) children, her parents, and so on.

Head's Up: This post discusses specific forms of sexual violence in order to indicate how narrowly such violence is typically defined.  I use the word "rape" as a specific legal and social term.

So in comments Jacob Taylor took issue with my fairly routine assertion that if men want male victims of sexual violence to be taken seriously we to take women victims seriously.

You demand a quid pro quo condition that male survivors and their advocates must meet before anyone should support them.

You're really not going to find anything in this blog that says men have to make sacrifices to "earn" anything from women. And if I ever, ever say men need to make sacrifices or otherwise pay women before "anyone should support them" it'll either be a serious typo or I'll need medical attention.  And so it's unlikely that I'm ever going to say that if men earn enough cookies we'll get taken seriously.

Instead I'm saying that as long as there are jerks out there like Todd Aikin saying it's only rape if an assault is so brutal the female victims organs of reproduction go into failure then society isn't going to take seriously what happens to men. And I'm saying as long as there jerks like Whoopi Goldberg saying it's not "rape rape" if all the attacker does is drug a minor girl, chase her screaming through the house when the drugs weren't strong enough, subdue her and anally penetrate her" then society isn't going to take seriously what happens to men. And I'm saying that as long as all the other smug dirtbags who say violence less than Aikin's or Goldberg's definitions -- stuff like threats, intoxication, "date rape," etc., is all a just a big misunderstanding or malicious "crying rape" go unchallenged then society isn't going to take seriously what happens to male victims.

So when I say men should take female victims seriously I mean we need to be landing like a ton of bricks on the likes of Aikin and Goldberg when claim that for all intents and purposes not even women can be raped. Because as you've probably noticed, the people who define the universe of sexual violence that narrowly aren't even going to register what happens to men until it's so bad that authorities (again,overwhelmingly male) simply have no way left to deny it.  Sure, that (finally) happens in cases like Mary Letourno, and Penn State (and all state pens!), and pedophile priests where it's so overwhelmingly obvious even the newspapers start to pay attention.  But for the most part?  They've never heard of it and aren't interested finding out.

Helping them get their heads out of their butts about <em>all</em> victims of non-Aikin/Goldberg violence -- the kind society doesn't even take seriously when it happens to women! -- therefore helps everybody.  Which is why I say it's important to for advocates for ,a;e victims of violence to take seriously female victims of violence.

If you look at it that way, the way I look at it, then it probably won't look so much like "quid pro quo." And if you see it that way then if someone claimed I'm just saying men have to somehow "pay" women to take our problem seriously then you'd probably be as annoyed and frustrated as I get.

Instead what I'm saying is that society is completely bound up with the deep, historical, and completely gender-defined idea that "rape" is something that can only happen to women -- "good" women at that!  It can happen at the hands of strangers.  Under the most horrifically violent circumstances. And it says that anything and maybe everything else is lies, avoidance, or even consensual "cuckoldry."

For this reason I don't think taking assault against women seriously is some kind of "quid pro quo" to getting men taken seriously. Nor do I endorse doing it to "earn" respect or cookies or any of the rest of that patriarchy-inspired crap the way "Good Men" Galahads do it.

Instead I'm saying men who care about male victims should take female victims seriously because until society starts taking them seriously it's not going to take male victims seriously either.

This would be so whether or not the Feminist Illuminati Conspiracy ever gets on board. Because for all the squalling feminism is obviously not the problem. Not unless you think the abuse-condoning Joe Paterno was a radical feminist. Not unless you think the entire abuse-condoning Catholic hierarchy is radically feminist. Not unless you think Scott (Dilbert) Adams is a raging feminist. And so on. Those guys are a much bigger obstacle, and their kind has been around thousands of years longer than feminism. So blaming feminism for anything is, as I've said repeatedly, like the bull charging the cape instead of the matador.

Head's up: This post discusses violent disregard for sexual consent.

You know, I really, really want to spend a lot of time talking about hetero situations where men's or boy's sexual autonomy is violated and their consent disregarded.

In fact, I'm actually going to talk about those things, because it's happened to me, it's happened to a lot of other men and boys, and it's a problem that if left unaddressed will leave a reservoir of contempt for consent no matter how effectively we put a lid on men and boys disregarding women's and girl's consent.

And in fact I'm going to talk about how the very idea that women can never transgress men's sexual consent or that men are always and almost by-definition always "game" is a pernicious, patriarchal myth.

But you know what? Shit like this (i.e. beatings, murder, ganging up, or "just" proudly Instagramming victims) makes it really hard to get that other issue taken seriously.

So.

If you really care about male victims of sexual assault then you'd better care about female victims too. And I don't mean lip-service "caring." I mean take positive action.

Oh, and I don't mean demand (vigilante) justice after the fact -- that's what "good men" do. I mean stop it before it happens. And I don't mean stop it by "guarding" or "protecting" women or warning them that they'll get what's coming to them if they drink too much or somehow dress the "wrong" way. "Good men" are taught to do that crap too. Instead I mean stop it by stopping your fellow man from going there in the first place. By stepping in when you see someone crossing the line. By shutting down the humor when someone makes light of a crime. Oh, and by challenging each and every case where someone tries to find some way to blame the victim or, worse, tries absolve their abusers and assailants.

You do that? Take female victims and male perpetrators seriously? You do that and people will take you seriously when you talk about female on male violation.