- Published on
Confused About Rape? Occupy the Dictionary
Wow. A lot of confusion about rape in the news these days.
We have Congressman Todd Akin telling us that “legitimate rapes” don’t result in pregnancies. We have Senate candidate Tom Smith comparing pregnancy from rape to “having a baby out of wedlock.” Last year, Paul Ryan co-sponsored a bill in Congress that would ban federal funding of abortions except in cases of “forcible rape,” a term which he has refused to define, because, as he insists, it’s “stock language.” We have all kinds of liberal folks (seriously… Noam Chomsky?) insisting that Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of the whistleblowing website Wikileaks, who has been accused of rape and sexual assault, should not have to respond to Swedish police questioning, because—you know, he’s one of “our” guys.
We have Congressman Todd Akin telling us that “legitimate rapes” don’t result in pregnancies. We have Senate candidate Tom Smith comparing pregnancy from rape to “having a baby out of wedlock.” Last year, Paul Ryan co-sponsored a bill in Congress that would ban federal funding of abortions except in cases of “forcible rape,” a term which he has refused to define, because, as he insists, it’s “stock language.” We have all kinds of liberal folks (seriously… Noam Chomsky?) insisting that Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of the whistleblowing website Wikileaks, who has been accused of rape and sexual assault, should not have to respond to Swedish police questioning, because—you know, he’s one of “our” guys.
Whoopi Goldberg has gone on record (never retracted) declaring that it was not a “rape-rape” when Roman Polanski drugged and vaginally, orally, and anally assaulted a thirteen-year-old who claimed, “I said, ‘No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!’, and then I didn't know what else to do.” This week the Guardian ran a story with this headline, “How do we teach young people what sexual consent really means?”
My sisters, this is a boatload of confusion.
My sisters, this is a boatload of confusion.
And, I would submit not just confusion on the part of the perpetrators and their allies. I remember teaching an Intro to Women’s Studies class not all that long ago, and I conducted an anonymous survey. Turns out that all of the women in the class (they were all under twenty-two) self-reported as sexually active and not having orgasms. When I attempted to teach a workshop on how to communicate with partners about what one enjoys in bed, I discovered to my chagrin that none of my students had the slightest interest in this. Apparently, what they were having was not really “sex-sex.” One had to wonder whether or not it might be “rape-rape.”
Later on, teaching at an elite private college, I began asking questions about the experiences of the young women I was teaching. When asked if they knew of cases of date rape on campus, they expressed uncertainty as to whether or not their experiences with men would qualify. Since studies have shown that one in four college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape, and since studies have also shown that one in twelve male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape, and since studies have also shown that one third of males surveyed said that they would commit rape if they could escape detection, and since one fourth of men surveyed believed that rape was acceptable if the woman asks the man out, and the man pays for the date or the woman goes back to the man's room after the date… well, I don’t think it's going too far out on a limb to suggest that a significant number of these confused young women had, indeed, been date raped.
The problem here appears to run deeper than “No means no.” Looking for the source of the confusion, I believe that I may have found the culprit.
Later on, teaching at an elite private college, I began asking questions about the experiences of the young women I was teaching. When asked if they knew of cases of date rape on campus, they expressed uncertainty as to whether or not their experiences with men would qualify. Since studies have shown that one in four college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape, and since studies have also shown that one in twelve male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape, and since studies have also shown that one third of males surveyed said that they would commit rape if they could escape detection, and since one fourth of men surveyed believed that rape was acceptable if the woman asks the man out, and the man pays for the date or the woman goes back to the man's room after the date… well, I don’t think it's going too far out on a limb to suggest that a significant number of these confused young women had, indeed, been date raped.
The problem here appears to run deeper than “No means no.” Looking for the source of the confusion, I believe that I may have found the culprit.
It’s the word “sex.” Check it out:
In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, sex is defined as “sexually motivated phenomena or behavior.” Not too helpful. Kind of like looking up “tennis” and reading that it is a “tennis phenomenon or behavior.”
Looking up “sexual” is not much help either: “having or involving sex"... which of course leads us back to “sexual.”
Sex, like “forcible rape,” appears to be “stock language.” Nobody needs to define it, because we all know what it is. But--see above--apparently not.
I am a writer, and like under-celebrated, African American genius Toni Cade Bambara, I believe in “acts of language.” I’m going to commit one now. I’m going to suggest a new word for sex. And it’s going to be a gynocentric, subjective word, referencing the clitoris not the vagina.
In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, sex is defined as “sexually motivated phenomena or behavior.” Not too helpful. Kind of like looking up “tennis” and reading that it is a “tennis phenomenon or behavior.”
Looking up “sexual” is not much help either: “having or involving sex"... which of course leads us back to “sexual.”
Sex, like “forcible rape,” appears to be “stock language.” Nobody needs to define it, because we all know what it is. But--see above--apparently not.
I am a writer, and like under-celebrated, African American genius Toni Cade Bambara, I believe in “acts of language.” I’m going to commit one now. I’m going to suggest a new word for sex. And it’s going to be a gynocentric, subjective word, referencing the clitoris not the vagina.
I’m going to propose the words “cypriate” and “cypriation” for female genital activity initiated by the subject, for the primary intention of experiencing a pleasurable arousal of the clitoris. For example, “Last night, next to the waterfall, I cypriated with my partner.” Or… “Cypriation at the full moon can be especially intense.”
I admit, I am taking my cue from the late, great Monique Wittig, whose acts of language opened my eyes to wild possibility. In her Lesbian Peoples: Material for a Dictionary, she and Sande Zeig coined the word “la cyprine” to refer to the vaginal secretions that signal sexual desire. [“Sécrétion vaginale, signe physique du désir sexuel. Une agitation trouble l'écoulement de la cyprine.”] The derivation for her neologism is the island of Cyprus, legendary birthplace of Aphrodite, the goddess of love.
I admit, I am taking my cue from the late, great Monique Wittig, whose acts of language opened my eyes to wild possibility. In her Lesbian Peoples: Material for a Dictionary, she and Sande Zeig coined the word “la cyprine” to refer to the vaginal secretions that signal sexual desire. [“Sécrétion vaginale, signe physique du désir sexuel. Une agitation trouble l'écoulement de la cyprine.”] The derivation for her neologism is the island of Cyprus, legendary birthplace of Aphrodite, the goddess of love.
Obviously cypriation does not refer to many of the acts that are considered sex or sexual in the heteropatriarchal world. In fact, it probably refers to only a tiny minority. But adopting the use of this word will require that the subject own her agency, and it will also validate her own pleasure as something of primary, defining significance.
In other words, these young women who are unclear about whether or not they are experiencing date rape will have absolute clarity as to whether or not they are experiencing cypriation. Furthermore it will facilitate their understanding that any interaction with their vulva that is not cypriation is a potential form of violation and not acceptable... unless, perhaps, the woman's primary incentive is achieving pregnancy.
In other words, these young women who are unclear about whether or not they are experiencing date rape will have absolute clarity as to whether or not they are experiencing cypriation. Furthermore it will facilitate their understanding that any interaction with their vulva that is not cypriation is a potential form of violation and not acceptable... unless, perhaps, the woman's primary incentive is achieving pregnancy.
There should never have been one word that could be used to refer to pleasurable, welcome sexual activity for women and, at the same time, any and all violations or torture of her genitals. There should never have been a word for sexual activity that confused an act designed for procreation with an act designed for a woman’s pleasure. There should never be a word that can be taken to assume that actions pleasing to men and their genitals are or should be pleasing to women and our genitals. Sex and rape are only synonymous for rapists. Vagina and vulva are only synonymous where the clit and the woman’s pleasure are incidental or irrelevant.
What has happened is that women’s experience and women’s anatomy and women's pleasure have been stolen in a linguistic equivalent of three-card monte.
Sisters, take back the clit! Occupy the dictionary! And as our great foremother Sappho would sing, “We shall enjoy it/ as for him who finds/ fault, may silliness/ and sorrow take him!”
What has happened is that women’s experience and women’s anatomy and women's pleasure have been stolen in a linguistic equivalent of three-card monte.
Sisters, take back the clit! Occupy the dictionary! And as our great foremother Sappho would sing, “We shall enjoy it/ as for him who finds/ fault, may silliness/ and sorrow take him!”
The fact that these men think they can make permutations and exceptions to forced heterosexual sex, i.e. rape, is reprehensible. Given what I know of Whoopie Goldberg, that she aligns herself with these men is truly not surprising.
This article is so important because it clarifies/de-mystifies what these men in office are actually purporting as "fact." There is a really good documentary called "miss-representation" about how the media is also in collusion to degrade girls/womyn into believing this is the way things should be.
I'm still reading but this caught me:
"Whoopi Goldberg has gone on record (never retracted) ..."
Whoopi Goldberg *did* retract what she'd said, clarifying that she was trying to talk about the specific charges that he'd plead guilty to and was NOT attempting to imply that the girl had not been raped. She was very clear that she was not justifying his actions.
"Some people got the idea that I was condoning what he did. I'm going to be very clear: I was trying to make sure we had our facts straight because that's my job - particularly about what he was arrested for and what he was charged with, which was unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, not rape, which was my point."
Her comment was made in a discussion over whether he should be deported/forced to return to the U.S. to submit to justice. She was clarifying what he had actually plead guilty to, not what he'd done. And she was not saying he was not a reprehensible rapist. We run into trouble in trying to discuss what happens to us in that we have our language and legal system to include in our discourse. Both of these conspire against us as women.
Whoopie Goldberg has done some awesome work for both women and African Americans. I hate to see her contribution to all of us discredited (and, by some, downright shunned) based on one mis-statement that she does NOT stand behind. We can at least not continue to claim that she never reacted to the criticism of her because of those oft quoted words. Vilifying her out of context and without the clarification she made the next day is trashing her reputation and depriving us of her strengths and contributions to women. I know it hurts more when a feminist slips like that, but we need to not let that extra pain we feel, slip over into punishing women more harshly for being imperfect and messing up sometimes. The media only sees sound bites, we can do better than that I think, when it comes to a sister feminist.
My lesbian sister recently derided penis-vaginal copulation for not providing as frequent orgasms as lesbian clitoral stimulation.. But my question is when the fk did orgasm become the only goalpost??? I love orgasms, and I love sexual stimulation other than orgasms, I seek out both, on MY terms. In my case the most reliable method to achieve orgasm is my telephone shower... it also happens to be the least satisfying. So there. I do it when other options are not available. But having an orgasm is not the purpose of sexual intimacy! and therefore orgasms should irrelevant in the definition of rape.
Sometimes I wonder whether we are trying to transform all uninvited actions into rape... what about the term sexual molestation, does it no longer have any utility?
I'm a big girl and a bad-ass with a horrible bitchy attitude, but I love sex, I've never been raped, but it's come awfully close several times, because I do live dangerously. I was once coerced into a blow-job in exchange for a ride home as a teen.
Frankly the word sex should disappear from the language of sexual activity, sex should be reserved for the biological concept of XX vs XY chromosomal configuation. All other actions should get specific descriptions... copulation, sodomy, fornication, masturbation, cunnilingus, finger fucking, etc etc etc. There are plenty of much more specific words out there. Let's use them and forget about euphemisms, they are duplicitous.
I know many girls that have let themselves be pushed into having sex when they didn't really want to. Would I call that rape? Not exactly, I think it more has to do with this insane idea chicks have about not enjoying sex so they almost expect it to be that way. The expectation that they don't really want sex and that the guys do, I think causes them to just say, "well, whatever, I didn't really want to but that's how it is." I think those kinds of problems are more with the mentality of women and how they personally think about sex. Of course, guys want sex but woman shouldn't be thinking that bad sex aka nothing in it for them is the norm. That's my personal opinion on the subject and from my observations of the females in my life. For example, my wonderful SO is the best lover I've ever had and one time just to see what would happen, he asked me to "not enjoy sex" and I said I would do my best, so I laid there doing the best I could, looked at the ceiling, tried to think of other stuff, didn't make a sound. When we were done, I told him that was the worse sex I've ever had. He said sadly, "that's how sex usually is for me until I met you" I mean, come on girls! Expect better from your lovers! And don't just lay there like a fish expect an orgasm to just show up like girl scout cookies at your door!
Keep in mind, I am not talking about the kind of rape, in which someone is slipped a ruffie or forced against their will. Totally different kind. Though I would think women have a lot of choice in that too. I mean the kinds of rape that are the least avoidable are the least likely. Such as rape at gun point. The highest percentages of rapes are those that are the "date rape" kind, girl gets drunk or otherwise incapacitated, and has no friends to keep her safe, and the guys like sharks can smell blood in the water so to speak. My rules when I go out with friends are a) if someone is getting to that point of no return it's time to pack it in, all of us b) you always need a sober friend, I am usually that person c) keep an eye on your stuff, or have a friend watch it, don't leave drinks on a random table come back and gulp it down.Be smart ladies! Please!
Do guys have a responsibility not to rape you? DUH, of course. Do girls have a responsibility to themselves and friends to watch our backs, you bet! But bad people and bad decisions don't mix. Last time my friends went out, my friend got way too drunk. Why? I have no idea. I had only a small drink I barely sipped on. There was a guy wanting to drive her home, of course I told him NO WAY, and we left, needless to say, she did not get raped.
And as far as vaginal sex vs clitoral sex, in my personal opinion, clitoral sex always leaves you wanting more. Is it easier to have an orgasm rubbing on the outside? Of course! Is it more satisfying, not even close...