I don't know how many of you are Jezebel fans, but you may have heard that Moe Tkacik and Tracie "Slut Machine" Egan, two Jezebel editors, were recently interviewed by Lizz Winstead as an installment of "Thinking and Drinking." This is a weekly event in which Winstead interviews media figures she likes and, I suppose, people drink. It's supposed to be serio-comedic, I gather, but this particular evening did NOT go well. Read Winstead's account here, Slut Machine's account here, and Jezebel's attempt to handle the fallout here. There's also a full video--I haven't watched it, some say the clips Winstead put on the Huffington Post are edited to put Moe and Tracie in the worst light.
Anyway, here's what I'm pissed off about*.
The whole rape discussion started because Winstead said, "But in an age where you're focusing on sexual freedom, I mean, there's just not, it's not always safe...to just have a free, 100% total sexual life." When Moe and Tracie start to sort out exactly what she means, Winstead barks, "You could get raped," in a maternalistic tone suggesting, to me, that she is already disappointed in them. So here's my question:
How does having lots of sex make it more likely you'll get raped?
Leaving the house makes it more likely, that's true, and I suppose people tend to do that when on the prowl. My understanding is that rapists are not, in general, looking for women who want to have sex, so are the slutty ones at bars really more likely to get roofied than the ones looking to go home alone? Or is being at the bar the crime? Some statistics from RAINN (the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network): of the 73% of rapists that are known to the victim, almost half (35%) are "intimates" or family members--more than just "friends or acquaintances." "Friends and acquaintances" is itself a blanket term, obviously, and I suppose would include the random guys at bars or whoever else Winstead thinks is doing the raping. But if there are in fact any friends in that demographic, and not just acquaintances, Winstead's prejudice starts to fall apart.
I genuinely just don't understand why people think you're most likely to be raped by someone you actually want to have sex with. Is that even what Winstead is thinking about? She spends so much time on the attack against drunk-ass Tracie and Moe that I'm not entirely sure what her question even meant. These rapes that happen BECAUSE of pursuing a sex life--where are they happening? I don't understand the mathematics of this.
*For the record: I think Moe is the worst writer on Jezebel, and have been losing my affection for Tracie for some time now. I agree that most of what they said was stupid and at times offensive but they're getting PLENTY of heat for that on other sites so that's not my focus here.
Showing posts with label STATISTICS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label STATISTICS. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Have You Shamed A Slut Today? (Rape Edition)
Friday, January 25, 2008
In Case You're Keeping Score
I have cried at my desk twice this week: once for Heath Ledger, once for my own confusing* existence.
TGIF!
*::cough::pathetic::cough::
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Everyone Sucks at Math (Not Just Girls!)
Here is something that has bothered me as long as I can remember: statistics show that the average number of sexual partners for straight men is higher than the average number of sexual partners for straight women. Uh...how is this possible? Each straight man is having sex with a straight woman, so the average MUST be equal. This is so annoying, and this August the New York Times agreed with me. To quote:
Dr. Aral said she cannot determine what the true number of sex partners is for men and women, but, she added, “I would say that men have more partners on average but the difference is not as big as it seems in the numbers we are looking at.”
Dr. Gale is still troubled. He said invoking women who are outside the survey population cannot begin to explain a difference of 75 percent in the number of partners, as occurred in the study saying men had seven partners and women four. Something like a prostitute effect, he said, “would be negligible.” The most likely explanation, by far, is that the numbers cannot be trusted...The problem, he said, is that when such data are published, with no asterisk next to them saying they can’t be true, they just “reinforce the stereotypes of promiscuous males and chaste females.”
So, there*.And today's stupidity: in this week's Savage Love, a guest expert gives us this gem:
"Most people have either had a three-way or thought about it. Yes, even women. "
Even women??? The context of this is guy/girl/girl threesomes, so wouldn't more women than men HAVE to be into it??? Jeez. That is incredibly dumb.
*Neighbor Steve is arguing with me over whether or not the statistics are actually impossible, and my response: it is impossible if the male and female sample sizes are even roughly equal, which in these surveys (and in the world at large) they usually are. For the math to work, the number of women would have to be several times the number of men.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Mythbuster #3: [Insert cheesy euphemism for pubic hair]
This is not quite a straight-out Mythbuster, because the truth? I don't know what guys like*. All I know is, I am pretty riled up over the subject of the bikini wax. I'd thought we were finally starting to hit a backlash against the whole 'landing strip' thing, and now Time Out New York has an oh-so-cute little article making it sound de rigeur. HOWEVER, they neglect to actually ANALYZE their own little infographic:
As you can see, 65% of men expect major deforestation...but 65% of women just give their trim a little trim--AT MOST. (Also, way to drop that parenthesis, TONY editors.)
So that's the myth we'll be busting today--the 'everybody does it, I have to do it, if I don't do it I'll be a lonely, unattractive, loserish freak' kind of myth.
It certainly feels that way at times. The media (apparently including you, Time Out) makes it seem like all women have 80-100% of their pubic hair ripped out by the roots once a month, and that this is normal and sensible and cool and that anyone who forgoes this ritual is a wingnut who doesn't take her life seriously. Then I talk to my friends and realize this isn't true. And I look at these numbers and realize it REALLY isn't true. Not everyone does it, it's a choice, and not every guy cares. Okay, some of them care, but they are assholes like this guy:
"A well-coiffed, nice-smelling pussy is a thing of beauty, something we brag about to our friends. After the implicit moment of awe and respect you receive from your buddies, we talk about the girls with nasty boxes—how we fucked them anyway, how it was ugly, how it was tragic, how it will never happen again. On the other hand, a girl with a great-tasting, -smelling, -looking box…that girl is a princess. We wank it to her."
Thanks for sharing, Henry. Clearly, you love women. (BTW: the next, nominally-nicer-or-perhaps-just-less-honest guy ALSO links hairiness to smelliness. They offer no opinion on vulvae that are hairy yet hygienic.)
Do you want to go Brazilian? Awesome. It even looks good on some (read: skinny) people. I myself used to get waxed occasionally--just the bikini line, since I'm NOT skinny, and taking off much more than that makes me look like I'm wearing clothing 2 sizes too small. I started feeling guilty about it, though--about putting myself through pain and expense for this kind of beauty standard. The fact is, I don't know how those women do it, the ones who go totally bare. By which I mean: how do they deal with stubble??? When I wax, it only stays smooth for a few days, and you have to mostly grow it back out in order to get waxed again. So don't women who wax spend like 75% of the time looking gross (and feeling itchy) anyway? Perhaps in light of this, and in acknowledging that the whole thing's an expensive, embarrassing hassle, The TONY article advises PERMANENTLY shearing your "nasty box," laser-style.
Full disclosure? I almost did this. Again, just the bikini line, but still--I was there in the spa-type-place ready to say good-bye to stubble and ingrown hairs (on my mom's dime, no less). As the lovely woman was debriefing me, however, I realized I was fighting back tears. I freaked out, I bailed, and then fortunately it was my birthday so I sang karaoke and got totally trashed and everything was fine. But why the waterworks? I HATE the stubble and bumps at the top of my thighs. But suddenly it felt that, by permanently removing even a little of my pubic hair, I was admitting, officially, that my body was shameful. Despite 25 years of mostly hating my body, suddenly it seemed perfect. I loved it. There was nothing wrong with the hair it grew naturally, the hair that meant I was sexual and adult, the hair that no guy would ever feel compelled to drop a grand on removing from his own body.
Maybe that's stupid. I still shave that hair off when I think anyone's going to be in the area. (Or when I wear a skirt that might be wind-sensitive.) Why do the two feel so drastically, emotionally different? I guess it's the permanence of it. We all like to look our best, especially for our lovers, but we don't wear the party dress 24/7. I think shaving now and then--even waxing now and then-- feels okay because it feels like I'm doing something special. It's not for every day. But since the glossy pages of our culture demand women be perfect at all times (perhaps dating back to the ladies of The Rules telling us to wear lipstick when we take out the trash), that optional, every-now-and-then choice has become yet another Shame issue. Well, I'm taking a stand. I officially DENY that this is required. Because it's not. And guys like Henry can suck my hairy twat.
*In this and all things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
