Journal Entry #5

The issues of language discussed in “The Discursive Reconstruction of Sexual Consent” and “Degrees of Consent” have brought to light for me some important and subversive points about the nature of discourse on sexuality, particularly that of consent. In the first article, Ehrlich highlights the issue of “she never said ‘no,’” particularly how this sentiment is expressed by one of the members of the council, GK. The article mentions at the beginning that there are two female participators on the council. As the testimonies continue, we begin to see that one of them in particular is having trouble with the “signals” sent by the complainants. In recent years the “no means no” mantra seemed to be a step in making the case for date rape and other kinds of sexual assault, the kinds of claims which would have otherwise gone questioned and unprosecuted. What this mantra fails to notice, and what is shown through the questioning from GK and later through the Antioch college policy is that no “no” doesn’t mean yes. This kind of standard denies outright the complexities and potential mitigating circumstances of sexual situations, and reinforces antiquated stereotypes about masculine versus feminine sexuality. In the beginning of the trial’s transcript, I too was inclined to agree with the views of GK. Why was it that she didn’t run away, or make any specific verbal proclamations during the time of sexual activity? That seems to be the reasonable thing to do. What I failed to realize is that this way of thinking is heavily founded upon the assumption that in heterosexual relationships men are insatiable animals who must, as part of their nature, impose this sexual drive onto women. They have the right to make women uncomfortable, literally advance on their bodies, unless the women explicitly say “no”. Clearly this is a false assumption, and it shows in the transcript. The defendant, Matt, repeatedly emphasizes her lack of “clear” resistance, whereas the complainant’s language is constantly confused and unsure. It seems as though they are trying to reconcile the feeling that something terrible had been done to them with no provocation with the cultural atmosphere that they should have acted in some other way. Obviously then this model of understanding these kinds of interactions is insufficient, or at the very least, not grounded in reality. This kind of situation is particularly difficult to describe given that the phenomenon with which they disagree, assumptions about the nature of men and the appropriate corresponding feminine response, are, as assumptions, practically invisible.
Given how difficult this phenomenon is to name (much less talk about) I found the Antioch policy particularly impressive. On the one hand is seems like an attempt to take “no means no” to the extreme, to create a situation that naively attempts to remove the ambiguity of consent from sexual encounters between college students. I think it is much more than that, as is shown in the article. Just as much of the conflict in the previous article resulted in not having a name for that which was the problem, this policy does just the opposite. It gives names, it gives language, and most importantly establishes a dialogue for those who are most reluctant to speak. I also found it completely befitting that the students should be reporting better sex as a result. This is not only a move to improve the status of safe sex, the policy improves the student’s communication in relationships. Instead of clumsily initiating acts which will henceforth be remembered as ambiguous and awkward, their sex lives are endowed with language, a narrative by which they can understand the experience, and their sexual identities better. It stands to reason considering we use narration and linguistic manifestations (remembering Saussure, “there is no thought without language”) to understand and make sense of every other area of life, bringing language to the speechless areas can only improve our understanding and give those without a voice, or who are too afraid to speak, agency.

Works referenced:

Language and sexuality reader. Abingdon, [England]: Routledge, 2005.

ct.666 --the word count of the beast!

Journal Entry #4

This time it is a song!

Walt and I wrote a song as a response to Julia Penelope Stanley's article "When We Say 'Out of the Closets!'" detailing some of the main themes. So without further ado, here are the lyrics to Walt & Amanda's Sexuality Song (Response #4):

Why we gotta do it just like the neighbors do?
Why we gotta do it just like the t.v. says we should?
Why can't I be more than advertisement to you?
Why we gotta do it just like the neighbors do?

One pair of pants ain't enough for a pair of men
You can be my lover but you don't have to be my bitch
If we're not man and woman, why we gotta be defined by them?
One pair of pants ain't enough for a pair of men

Why do I gotta wear lipstick just cause you got that strap-on on?
What makes you so masculine, is it that fake dong?
Just 'cause you're a dyke baby, doesn't mean you're not my woman
Why do I gotta wear lipstick just cause you got that strap-on on?

I ain't no trick so I sure as hell won't call you no John
Ain't no crime to look at you and get a hard-on
It don't break no laws to love you, we're not doing anything wrong
I ain't no trick so I sure as hell won't call you no John

Why we gotta do it just like the neighbors do?
Why we gotta do it just like the t.v. says we should?
Why can't I be more than advertisement to you?
Why we gotta do it just like the neighbors do?