I've been getting a Dunkin' Donuts, medium french vanilla. It's not good coffee. It's not even consistent. But it's comfort food. And, it's turned into my way of damning the man. I get a bagel with it, as an excuse...the bagels taste like soft flabby bandaids, bleached and pillowy and utterly sanitized. The cream cheese is more of an emulsified. dairy derived, fortified, edible ointment. It's shelf-stable, you know. Terrifying thing in a soft cheese.
My excuse for going to Dunkin' Donuts is because my cafe doesn't have sesame bagels, and wouldn't toast them, even if they did. My secondary excuse is that I don't know how to make coffee "regulah", since I don't put milk and sugar into our drip coffee. These are thin, sad excuses, based on equivocation, and only vaguely credible if you buy that I enjoy how the coffee
and bagel taste. And I don't.
Nerve.com has published a peppy little dialogue on rape. It's quite bold, seven years ago. Right now, it's moderately sassy, like a forty year old woman in a mini skirt with no bra, drunk on lo-carb margaritas, and looking for action. Some may object, some may see controversy, others might just see an interesting conversation-starter. (hey, patsy h.!)
The nerve dialogue does make some interesting points, the primary one being that 'no means no' is not necessarily the best test for lawful vs. unlawful sex. The current legal hoodangy is that while no always means no, sometimes yes means no, too; an overexpansion that has perhaps lead to the soft goo that current dialogues on rape seem to be mired in. In order to protect women (and men, too, and teenagers) from coerced consent, 'yes' in circumstances of power imbalance has begun to be treated as 'no'. Which is reasonable only if the coercer is aware of their coercive power over the submitter, and is able to determine what the submitter's actual wishes are.
Which brings us to date rape, and then back to my bagel. Stick with me, it'll be fun.
Do circumstances exist that one partner has power over the other, and is able to use that to obtain sexual consent, with knowledge that it would otherwise not be granted?
The person (person A) who wants sex would have to know-
- Whether Person B wants to have sex.
- That they, Person A, have a way to force/coerce Person B
- And, before having sex, that Person B still does not want to have sex.
However, the asumption that these points are always knowable by both or either party before any sexual act occurs, especially between people who are acquainted with each other, is unfounded. (A lovely point hinted at by the Nerve folks). Human interaction is so variable, communication so fallible, that the majority of sex acts probably occur in some optimistic fog.
I don't know why I do anything. I just spent three dollars. (my last three dollars) on a bagel and coffee that I barely consider food and bev. And I'll do it again when I have three dollars again. I don't like this coffee. I didn't like that bagel. I am openly disdainful of people who order french vanilla anything. Did I buy this coffee because I am mad at my coffee shop? Because I can't get in and out of my cafe in under twenty minutes? Because I want my coworkers to think that I have a life? Did I buy the coffee because of advertising? Did I buy it because of class discomfort, as I'm considering going to law school, a significant divergence from my working-class roots? Did I even want this coffee, that bagel?
It is reasonable to consider that my sexual decisions would be less clear, less reasonably thought out, and less easily communicated then my breakfast choices. If you think I know why I do what I do, in any aspect of my life, even law school, you're giving me far too much credit.
There is considerable ambiguity to human desire and motivation. The only solution is clear communication. So what about rape, then? If you can't know what someone wants, what are you to do when they don't tell you? Clear cut cases of rape- violent rape, incest, real coercion- the disparity between the rapist's aim and the victim's objection is known to both. So when "yes" means "no", what has really happened?
It depends. Who knows? I don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment