#ididnotreport

If you have a twitter account please go to #ididnotreport. There is also a sister hashtag #ididreport that kind of explains why there are so many stories on #ididnotreport. I have to say there is a strong TRIGGER WARNING for sexual assault, harassment, abuse and domestic violence. These are women giving reasons why they did not report their assaults. It can be overwhelming and devastating. I, myself, have given over 25 #ididnotreports. It's both cathartic and depressing for me how easily it flows from me.

People are also keeping an archive of it here for those of you without a twitter account. It hasn't been updated tonight, but I'm sure they'll get on that when they awaken.

Carnival Love

The 17th Carnival of Radical Feminists up now at Spinning Sisters

AND

The 53rd Carnival Against Sexual Violence is up at abyss2hope

Also, tigtog at Hoyden About Town talks about the difference in the treatments of transgenders between the carnivals.

People who shouldn't be allowed to work with women

I don't normally look at PostSecret, but someone pointed this out to me:

There are really no words I have to describe how horrifying and repugnant this is. No matter how much you dislike someone there is NO reason to not only condone, but agree with the daily terror that is Domestic Violence. I've worked at a DV shelter and I have seen firsthand the effects of DV on women and families. There is nothing, NOTHING that excuses this. It is not only blaming the victim for the abuse whose responsibility is solely that of the abuser, but it is also continuing the oppression by blaming that person. This is the same mentality that keeps women from reporting the abuse and that keeps abusers from jail and from police taking the matter seriously.

The most common reasons for not reporting domestic violence to police are that victims view the incident as a personal or private matter, they fear retaliation from their abuser, and they do not believe that police will do anything about the incident.

Women who are in DV situations have more then enough problems without the people who are supposed to help them blaming them for abuse and disregarding the fundamental reason for that abuse: misogyny. Most women already believe that it's somehow *their fault.* The person who wrote this should quit since they feel this way.

I wish I could express myself better, I am beyond angry.

Onto more people who shouldn't be allowed around women.


Recently blogger Kyle Payne plead guilty to filming himself sexually assaulting a woman. According to his site, this is Kyle Payne:

Meet the Blogger

Kyle is a social justice educator, writer, and activist. Much of his work is concerned with putting a stop to violence against women. For years Kyle has served as an advocate for survivors of sexual violence and other forms of abuse, in addition to promoting what he calls “a more just and life-affirming culture of sexuality” through activism and education. As a researcher, Kyle has studied the feminist anti-pornography movement and is particularly interested in men’s roles in confronting pornography and the rape culture. In addition to his pro-feminist work, he is involved with anti-racist, free speech, peace, and anti-globalization movements.

Education

2008 - M.S. Degree in Adult Education
Capella University, Minneapolis, MN

2007 - B.A. Degree in Philosophy & Religion,
Social Consciousness, and Women’s Studies
Buena Vista University, Storm Lake, IA

College Activities

Rape Crisis Advocate (4 years)
Editorialist (4 years)
Webmaster (4 years, several organizations)
Resident Advisor (3 years)
Student Radio (3 years, several positions)
Academic Assistant (2 years)
VP of Service Learning (1 year)
Wellness Education Specialist (1 year)
Career Peer (1 year)
Student Senator (1 year)

College Honors and Awards

Male Leader of the Year Award, BVU (2007)
William H. Cumberland Research Award, BVU (2006)
Willard Stief Award for Community Living, BVU (2006)
Nominee, Senior of the Year, BVU (2007)
Nominee, Volunteer of the Year, BVU (2006, 2007)
Alpha Chi Honor Society (2006-present)
Dean’s Fellowship, BVU (2003-2007)
Who’s Who in American Colleges and Universities (2006)
Campus Compact Civic Engagement Fellowship (2006)

Here's the thing: Much of his work is concerned with putting a stop to violence against women. For years Kyle has served as an advocate for survivors of sexual violence and other forms of abuse, in addition to promoting what he calls “a more just and life-affirming culture of sexuality” through activism and education. As a researcher, Kyle has studied the feminist anti-pornography movement and is particularly interested in men’s roles in confronting pornography and the rape culture.

He works putting a stop to violence against women and against rape culture yet he, himself had no problem with sexually assaulting and making pornography out of an intoxicated and unconscious female student. He was in a position of power over this woman, a Resident Advisor in the dorms and police found the film on his hard drive. After he posted bail he wrote this on his blog:

"For a variety of reasons, there is very little I can say about the recent news. So, unfortunately, I cannot give you the answers that you might seek. Worse yet, I can do little in the way of defending myself against a whole host of claims about my character that are both irrational and damaging.

IRRATIONAL! IRRATIONAL! Yes it's irrational to get angry about the fact that you, someone who labeled himself a "radical feminist" who worked against rape culture then turned around and not only sexually assaulted someone, but made pornography out of it. According to his blog he works doing rape crisis advocacy which scares the hell out of me-a rapist talking to victims of sexual assault! There's more about this at Buried Alive.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month

I bought this shirt. I am a survivor. Jennifer Baumgardner created the shirt as part of a project I Was Raped she has been working on through her organization Scarleteen, a sex education program (which will receive some of the proceeds from the sales of the shirt to fund their work).

This story was in the Sunday NYTimes and the comments are atrocious.

I think the comments on the blog post about the shirt from The NY Times are the most revealing thing about the project. So many people are saying that “no rape survivor should shove this in my face” or that “it’s personal” or “what am I supposed to say” or “if I were a rape survivor I wouldn’t wear it therefore it’s fucked up”, etc., etc.

What's beyond the realm of fucked-upedness is people comparing rape to the mortgage crisis or fucking losing a job:

We have all been victims of something. Ever lose your job, your house, your sanity? Ever been bullied or humiliated?

Yes, those things suck, but A) the victims are not blamed (maybe in bullying) and B) the complete decimation of trust, security, shame, violation, degradation, fear, self blame (what did I do?), and it goes on and on DOES NOT COMPARE ON ANY LEVEL. This is disgusting minimization. Not to mention that rape victims suffer from Rape Trauma Syndrome some of the highlights include flashbacks and nightmares that continue to haunt and traumatize you after the event. Any smell, sound, etc that reminds the person of the event can also further traumatise the victim. Not to mention long term effects like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which has a lot of the same symptoms as Rape Trauma Syndrome only you get to enjoy it for years to come. I was first raped in high school. Now, over 2 decades later, I am still dealing with PTSD and I probably will be dealing with it for the rest of my life (I will also admit that part of this stems from childhood emotional and physical abuse from my mother.)

It’s obviously doing it’s job and no one’s even wearing them yet! Words cannot express how much rage I have at the people telling me that I am victimizing myself by choosing to buy and possibly wear the shirt and telling ME HOW I should deal with MY OWN healing process. They obviously want us to not bother them with the fact that rape happens, and it happens a lot, and it doesn’t happen in dark alleys, and it doesn’t happen only at gun or knifepoint, and it doesn’t only happen in bad neighbourhoods or that it somehow doesn’t happen to “strong” women. (I was once told that I couldn’t be raped (by someone who did not know my past) b/c I am a hardass.) And it happens often and it happens to people they know.

They say the shirt is stupid and ineffective whereas there are over 300 comments which means it’s pretty damn effective so far in getting people to talk about it. Then they say, “well why not make rapists have the word rapist tattooed on their head”, uh, how about because about maybe 1% ever get found guilty, maybe.

Well, when I get the shirt, I’m just going to head back over and read these comments and I know it will get me to wear it. I’m sorry you don’t want to talk to your children about rape. I’m sorry you don’t want it shoved in your face. I'm sorry it makes you fucking uncomfortable. But you know what? I didn’t want to be raped, and I’m sick of everyone thinking that it’s a private fucking matter. If someone had just beat me up in an alley and I talked about it you wouldn't tell me that was private so FUCK YOU. It's about getting people to talk about the subject, it's about me and letting all the other victims who I come into contact with every. damn. day. that they are not alone. That they can talk about it, that it IS NOT something to be ashamed of or something that should be a dirty secret. And if they want to talk with me, that I'll be there for them.

I've been loving the Letters to the Editor lately

The whole Spitzer thing through prostitution into the front pages of papers all over (it came to my sleepy burb's paper Saturday, glad to see they're paying attention). And with it people debating legalisation, calling it "victimless" and assorted other comments that show the complete ignorance most people have towards the horror that is prostitution. Not only have there been Op-Eds by prostitution researcher Melissa Farley, but also a very good one talking about how legalisation has increased child prostitution, violence, and trafficking into the Netherlands since they enacted the law while Sweden has seen a decrease since they made selling sex legal and buying sex illegal. You can read this Op-Ed here.

I want to point out some of the best comments (in order of publication):

To the Editor:

I believe that the comments by Prof. Alan M. Dershowitz of Harvard Law School about prostitution were irresponsible and insensitive.

As a second-year student at Harvard Law School, I have been taught by my professors that making hyperbolic, unlikely and unsupported statements, such as Mr. Dershowitz’s assertion that “prostitutes aren’t victims — they’re getting paid a thousand dollars an hour” is irresponsible generally and particularly so when speaking with the press.

Through my Harvard Law seminar on women’s human rights, I have read empirical studies that document that murder, sexual assault and post-traumatic stress disorder rates among prostitutes are much higher than among the general female population, belying the accuracy of Mr. Dershowitz’s avowal that prostitutes are not victims.

Finally, Mr. Dershowitz’s admonishment that resources devoted to ending prostitution should be apportioned to fighting terrorism is insensitive because it ignores the continued economic, racial and sexual exploitation of women and children the world over and seeks to distract us by generating fear.

As such, Mr. Dershowitz’s statements are a disservice to gender equality and the fight to end violence against women and children. Jessica Corsi

Cambridge, Mass., March 11, 2008

To the Editor:

Re “The Myth of the Victimless Crime,” by Melissa Farley and Victor Malarek (Op-Ed, March 12):

In the various political roundtables this week, everyone seemed to agree, at least, on the “victimless crime” argument. I am shocked that the thoughtful, intelligent people (mostly men) on these shows are so comfortable with the idea that a woman would choose to have sex for money.

Do these people know any women? Can they really believe that this is a choice?

We have programs in place to reach out to people who “choose” to use drugs or “choose” to live on the streets, so why do we view prostitution, high-priced though it may be, as just another comfortable, middle-class career choice?

Yes, Eliot Spitzer’s prostitute probably drank fine wine. That doesn’t change the fact that she engaged in a psychologically damaging transaction every day.

I applaud Melissa Farley and Victor Malarek for calling our attention to the one neglected and yet terribly important issue of the Spitzer scandal.

Kathleen Reeves
New York, March 12, 2008

•

To the Editor:

Melissa Farley and Victor Malarek are correct. I would like to add that seeing Silda Wall Spitzer’s stricken face on TV — not to mention pondering what the Spitzer daughters must be going through — shows prostitution to be far from “victimless.”

Patty Quinn
Elkins Park, Pa., March 12, 2008

Here's the latest one that reminded me that I had a lot I wanted to say about this, but unfortunately it's finals and I'm short on time, so I'll let these people (many of whom have raised points I would have) speak for me, and many women who know the horrors that prostitution brings.

To the Editor:

Re “Do as He Said,” by Nicholas D. Kristof (column, March 13):

In the coverage of Eliot Spitzer’s prostitution patronage there has been scant recognition that the exertion of the worst sort of power over a vulnerable person is the fundamental basis of prostitution and its close cousins rape, sexual assault and torture. While sexual acts are indeed often the vehicle, subjugation is the essence. If this were more widely understood, there would be less tolerance of these crimes and less tendency to blame or punish the already victimized.

I am grateful for Mr. Kristof’s continuing attention to these issues in our country and around the world.

Irisita Azary
Glendora, Calif., March 13, 2008

If these arguments don't convince you, take a look at Melissa Farley's studies in prostitution, which can all be found here. I'll leave you with a snippet of her study from 5 countries:

Here is what 475 prostitutes from 5 countries said:

United States: 56% don't want it legal, 88% want out now.

South Africa: 62% don't want it legal, 89% want out now

Thailand: 72% don't want it legal, 94% want out now

Turkey: 96% don't want it legal, 90% want out now

Zambia: 92% don't want it legal, 99% want out now

Pure awesome

I've been re-watching Heroes on DVD and I totally forgot about the part where Claire almost gets raped (but doesn't because she gets killed) and just tells everyone that nothing happened until another classmate comes up and tells her that she once went off with the quarterback and "nothing happened" and Claire decides to take things into her own hands (having regenerative powers and all so she doesn't have a scratch on her and the fact that even if she had stayed dead it most likely wouldn't have been pinned on him.) And drives his car into a brick wall with the two of them inside of it, because she knows that he'll just keep doing it again to more women. Go Claire. Granted, not the best way of dealing with things, but deciding to take action when she knows that women have been and will be raped by him, pure awesome. I love it.

Will it never end? Proposed brothel for the 2010 Olympics in VanCan

An article from todays Vancouver Sun. (Emphasis mine)

Coalition pushes for legal brothel during Olympics
Ottawa's support sought for safe, prostitute-run facility that would cater to Olympic visitors

Jeff Lee
Vancouver Sun

Sunday, November 11, 2007

VANCOUVER -- A group of Vancouver prostitutes wants to open a "co-op" brothel in time for the Winter Olympics, saying it would help sex-trade workers by providing a safer working environment when the world comes to visit in 2010.

Susan Davis, a working prostitute, said she envisions the creation of as many as five cooperative brothels if the B.C. Coalition of Experiential Communities -- which includes men, women and transgendered sex-trade workers -- convinces the federal government to permit the first brothel on an experimental basis.

The group has support from some politicians, including Vancouver East MP Libby Davies and Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan, who believe a brothel owned and run by sex-trade workers would help reduce violence against them.

Now Sam Sullivan won by some very shady stuff by having a candidate whose name was exactly the same name except he used his full name James Green instead of popular and former celebrated mayor Larry Summers endorsed COPE candidate Jim Green where people thoought they were voting for the COPE candidate but instead voted for James Green. I don't like the guy, and he wouldn't have been elected if it hadn't been for the multiple Greens who were running.

Davis said the group is weeks away from incorporating a cooperative corporation and is looking for a possible location in the city's east-side Strathcona area. But she said the group won't open the facility, complete with "quickie rooms" equipped with sinks and a bench, unless it has support from the federal government.

The Strathcona district is located in the Downtown East Side (DTES from now on) which is the part of Vancouver that is plagued with poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, and prostitution. It's also the area where serial prostitute killer Robert Pickton picked up his 46 known victims. Opening a brothel there is not going to help anyone in the area.

"What we'd like to see is an exemption given to us along the lines of what was given for the Insite safe-injection site," Davis said.

She believes tens of thousands of men who come to Vancouver during the Games will be searching for sex. B.C.'s booming construction economy has already brought thousands of workers, and along with them, prostitutes, she said.

"Just like the workers are coming from all over the world to build the city, sex workers are coming with them," she said.

Sullivan, who said the city needs a new approach to dealing with the problems of prostitution, doesn't object to the idea of a co-op brothel.

Again, Sullivan is an asshole. And rather then try to help the women currently on the streets in a productive manner he's buying in to the misconception that decriminalisation and legalisation *actually* make conditions better for prostitutes, which is patently false.

But he said he's more focused on helping so-called "survival sex-trade" workers find cures to their addiction.

"I believe we need to keep an open mind," he said. "But I don't believe it would address the needs of the survival sex trade. I don't think a brothel of this kind would even allow women like that into it, because they come with lots of problems."

It has been documented that many sex workers do not start out as addicts, but become addicts to deal with the abuse they suffer because of prostitution. Goldstein estimated that 40% to 85% of prostitutes were drug users; in addition, he reported that among higher class prostitute women, prostitution tended to precede substance abuse, while in lower class prostitutes, the reverse tended to be true (Goldstein, 1979). James, alluding to data from an unpublished 1976 manuscript, stated that "Prostitution follows addiction in 48% of the subjects, precedes it in 38%, and is simultaneous in 14%" (James, 1977).


Opponents of the brothel say it would only perpetuate the idea that prostitution is acceptable, and not solve the abuse heaped on women in an industry most of them don't want to be in.

"It entrenches prostitution as legitimate, and therefore legitimatizes pimps and traffickers," said Daisy Kler, a social worker with Vancouver Rape Relief. "I do not believe the public would agree that this is a good idea, to have some disposable women available for the Olympics."

Last week, Calgary-based The Future Group released a report warning that Vancouver's Olympics will be a target of human traffickers wanting to exploit prostitution. The report, titled Faster, Higher, Stronger: Preventing Human Trafficking at the 2010 Olympics, said the federal and provincial governments need to deter traffickers from using the Games to profit from human misery.

Janine Benedet, an associate professor of law at the University of B.C., said the city already has hundreds of brothels. The only difference is that they operate illegally. Bringing in one for the Olympics, she said, is wrong.

"To the question, 'Is society ready for this?' my answer is, 'I hope not,'" said Benedet, who lectures on sexual violence. "The notion that this is somehow different or better than any of the other brothels out there is simply false."

Studies show more than 90 per cent of women in the sex trade are not there by choice, but rather because of trafficking, drug addiction and societal problems such as incest.

Benedet said the majority of Vancouver's prostitutes are native women, and many of them suffer from deep psychological trauma. Davis said a brothel run as a cooperative would not turn away prostitutes looking for a safe and clean place to do their business.

From the article linked to above under the word "false" (though actually on page two comes these facts:
United States: 56% don't want it legal, 88% want out now.

South Africa: 62% don't want it legal, 89% want out now

Thailand: 72% don't want it legal, 94% want out now

Turkey: 96% don't want it legal, 90% want out now

Zambia: 92% don't want it legal, 99% want out now

Amazing that pro-prostitution people bandy about how "legal" means safer and is what prostitutes want. I'd say that the study shows that prostitutes *don't* want prostitution to be legalised.

The trial of Robert Pickton, who is accused of the first-degree murder of 26 women, all of whom were either survival sex-trade workers or addicts, amplifies that point, she said. (see above)

"It would be better to be working inside in a bad place than it would be to be outside and getting killed," she said. "Our main focus is to help the adult prostitutes. We're focusing on the Downtown Eastside first because that's where so many of them are getting killed."

So why don't we address the real problem: that these women are seen as disposable. Many cities do not even investigate missing prostitutes until the numbers reach the double digits, which shows just how much these women are valued in society, i.e. they have less value then an unprostituted people.

Davis said the co-op has the support of federal politicians, including Davies, Liberal MP Hedy Fry and Senator Larry Campbell, the former Vancouver mayor. Davies said she supports the coalition's idea of the co-op, and also wants to see prostitution decriminalized. (again, see above)

Society's prohibitionist stance against the sex trade hasn't solved the problem that men continue to seek out women for sex, she said. While she is opposed to child prostitution, she doesn't think adult prostitution should be illegal.

"Where there is sex between two consenting adults, even if there is money exchanged, I don't think the state should prohibit it," Davies said. "I think even the police would agree that the current situation is not tolerable, and that we need safer conditions for sex-trade workers."

But Vancouver police department spokesman Const. Tim Fanning said a brothel can't legitimize an industry that completely victimizes women.

"You can call it what you want, but prostitution is just a breath short of slavery," he said. "These women are not in it by choice. The police department would in no way support anything like a brothel."

WOOT WOOT! Unfortunately I am shocked that a Constable actually understands what prostitution does to women, but it is a very welcome surprise.

Davis said better "exit" strategies are needed to help prostitutes who want to leave the industry. But she thinks prostitution as a whole should be accepted instead of stigmatized. She said as an example, she services many elderly men whose wives either won't have sex with them or who are widowers and don't want long-term relations.

Isn't that sweet. A modern day Mother Theresa. *rolleyes*

But Kler saw Davis's proposal as a thinly disguised attempt to legalize an industry she sees as akin to slavery.

"Fundamentally, it's not the laws that kill, beat and rape women, it's men," she said. "The mantra in this city is that it's safer, it's safer, it's safer. We fundamentally see prostitution as a form of violence against women. If you are coming from a women's equality perspective, as we are, fighting for the equal status of women, we see that there is no benefit to women as a group to legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution." (did I mention that Daisy kicks ass? but then again, Vancouver Rape Relief also kicks ass)

The idea of brothels is not new to Vancouver. In 2005, then-councillor Tim Louis suggested the city should open one to support prostitutes as long as it didn't make money from it, prompting Sullivan, then a mayoral candidate, to say: "The goal should be to help these women get out of the survival sex trade, not keep them in it. I'm running to be mayor to help people, not to get into the business of being a pimp."

But the approach of the Winter Games has brought the issue to the fore again. The Olympics, like many major sporting events, traditionally generate a boost in prostitution.

Victor Malarek, author of the best-selling book The Natashas: Inside the New Global Sex Trade, said more than 40,000 women and girls were brought to Athens for the 2004 Summer Games.

For the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany, more than 20,000 women were imported. In both countries, prostitution is legal, but the vast majority of those brought in were foreigners from countries like Moldova, Romania and Ukraine.

While Canada's immigration laws and visa requirements will prevent many foreign prostitutes from being trafficked in Vancouver for the Games, Malarek says the reality is that the 2010 Winter Games will be no different than other Olympics.

"You're going to open up a Pandora's box if you allow even one legal brothel," he said.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, the federal government's senior minister in B.C., and the Vancouver Organizing Committee declined to comment.

jefflee@png.canwest.com (to contact the author of this article)

To learn more about what pornography (taped prostitution) and prostitution are really like you should visit (for starters anyway):
Prostitution Research and Education
Against Pornography
Polaris Project
Factbook on Global Sexual Exploitation
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International
Genderberg

Jersey Jaxin on why she left porn and the abuses of the industry

Yes I know, do we really need to keep posting things about how women in the industry are harmed? Well since a lot of people don't listen the answer is YES. I know I'll keep screaming until people actually hear me. My words and other brave bloggers words about their experience in the sex "industry" have been glossed over as "odd" stories, since everyone know that the sex "industry" is just good sexy fun, right?

Yet again a woman who worked in the industry tells us a resounding NO. Yet again I am silmultaneously moved to tears and angered beyond belief by the stories of another woman (and you know for all the women brave enough to speak out there are a cadre of women with the same experiences who don't (and I understand that...it's not easy to talk about abuse)) who has been abused, used, disrespected, and treated like nothing more then a few holes.

To all you "good sexy fun" believers AGAIN I ask: HOW MANY WOMEN WILL IT TAKE TO CONVINCE YOU THAT PORN IS HARMFUL TO WOMEN? HOW MANY? At least give me a number, I bet I could find that many women. Just tell me, WHAT WILL IT FUCKING TAKE?

Ex-porn star Shelley Lubben interviews Tanya W. (porn name: Jersey Jaxin) about her decision to leave porn and the horrible conditions that she was working in.

Part the first:


part the second:


From Shelley Lubben (now, I hate WalMart (and Target slightly less) but in this instance, if I could, I would send a gift card):

"I want to give Tanya some relief from the many years of suffering she has endured. She has only known pain and abuse since she was a little girl and now I want all of us to reach out to her. She is moving to another state where there are mainly Super Walmarts. If you would like to help Tanya as she begins her new life please send Walmart and Target cards to my PMB Box and I will forward everything I receive to her as soon as I receive them from you.

Let's keep helping the porn stars rebuild their lives! YOU are making a HUGE difference in the lives of women by your giving.

Tanya already sends a BIG THANK YOU to us for your support and love as she courageously rebuilds her new life.

You can send the Walmart cards here to my post mail box at:

Shelley Lubben
PMB Box 33
6077 Coffee Rd 4
Bakersfield, Calif. 93308

Or if you'd like to help in some other way please visit my web site here. (Also you can see the other women that Shelley is trying to help and lend some support or a hand (there are non-monetary things like finding lawyers, translators, etc)

Thank you SO MUCH for caring about the porn stars! Love, Shelley"

Now I know Shelley is one the Christ train, and I fear people will react by saying: "oh she's just religious right." To that I say, how many people in the religious right are ex-pornstars and how many actually want to *help* people leave porn? Seriously, what she's doing is wonderful for anyone. I don't care if she calls herself the one true god, she is doing much more then most people in our society, helping the abused and battered women get a life outside of the abuse (porn).

Hat tip and more info: Anti-Pornography Activist Blog

When past mental health diagnoses become a weapon

I've been trying to write this post for some time, but it's really hard to exactly express what I'm feeling, so I'll just list it: anger (and a whole lot of it), disgust, fear, anger, incredulity, outrage, shock, sadness, and more (righteous) anger.

A woman, Fran Lyon, whose website can be found here detailing what's going on, who was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder when she was a teen (which is ridiculous b/c you're not supposed to be diagnosed with a personality disorder until you're over 18) is being threatened with having her baby taken away from her, 7 years after her diagnosis, and 6 years since her therapist has said she has recovered from her symptoms. (For a breakdown of BPD look to my old post found here. Read this first if you know little or nothing about BPD/ERD.)

From Writhe Safely (link at bottom):
A man rapes a woman, her resulting PTSD is misdiagnosed as Borderline Personality Disorder.

Women who have been raped are traumatized and eligible for the non-punishing dx of PTSD, which sits on AXIS I of treatable mental illness.

BPD is an AXIS II diagnosis, the AXIS referring to disorders of the personality, that are by definition lifelong and untreatable.

Daily Mail article (Reproduced in full here with my own emphasis added).
The daughter of teachers and with a glittering academic future, Fran was delighted when she became pregnant. But social services discovered the illness she thought she'd put behind her - and will confiscate her daughter when she is born...

Fran Lyon is due to give birth to her first child - a daughter she has already named Molly - on January 3. But the prospect, far from being one of joyous anticipation, fills her with a dread that keeps her awake at night.

It's not because Fran doesn't want the child. She does. Desperately. And not because she is frightened of the pain of labour. She is prepared for that.

It is what happens afterwards that fuels Fran's anxiety. And there can be no preparation for that pain.

For within 30 minutes of birth, barring any medical complications, Molly will be handed by doctors to social workers. They have instructions to take away Fran's newborn baby and place her in foster care.

The 22-year-old will then be transferred from the maternity wing to a gynaecological ward, because Northumberland Council has decided that Fran - who has never harmed anyone in her life - is potentially a risk to other mothers and their babies.

Fran has no idea if she will be able to touch her baby, even for a minute, before leaving hospital alone, or if she will ever get her daughter back. Her biggest fear is that she won't, and that Molly will be put up for adoption.

'It is incredibly upsetting not knowing if I will be allowed even to hold my baby,' says Fran, a charity worker. 'Until social services became involved in my life, I was having a normal pregnancy and was full of excitement.

'They have taken away what should be the most precious time in my life - and I will never get that back. I'm already in love with my baby. I can feel her moving, I talk to her. I've bought her baby books and clothes. You just can't undo that attachment.'

Fran is an intelligent and articulate woman. She has nine A- starred GCSEs, five grade A A-levels and is in the third year of a neuroscience degree at Edinburgh University - which she is completing at home in Hexham, Northumberland.

However, what concerns Hexham Children's Services, which is part of Northumberland Council, is Fran's medical history.

Having had a difficult relationship with her parents, who are teachers in good state schools, from the age of 15, she started selfharming. Fran spent three years - on and off - in psychiatric hospitals.

Her problems appear to have begun when she was raped by an acquaintance at the age of 14. Diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, she was discharged from a therapeutic facility in 2002, where she had spent 13 months, and spent nine months as an outpatient.

Today, she needs no medication and, according to her former psychiatrist, Dr Stella Newrith, 'has made a significant recovery to the point where her difficulties are indistinguishable from those of much of the general population'.

In a letter to Northumberland Council, Dr Newrith, who treated Fran for a year when she was 16 and has known her for many years, stated: 'There has never been any clinical evidence to suggest that Fran would put herself or others at risk, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest she would put a child at risk of emotional, physical or sexual harm.'

Furthermore, she said: 'I would view the removal of Fran's baby as an extraordinarily heavy-handed gesture. It is also my professional opinion that doing so would be an infringement of Fran's human rights, as it would be much the same as removing a child from someone from the general population.'

Yet on August 16, a child protection case conference recommended that Fran's baby should be taken away at birth - a decision based in part on the contents of a letter from consultant paediatrician Dr Martin Ward Platt, who has never met Fran and could not be present at the meeting.

In his letter, Dr Ward Platt states that 'even in the absence of psychological assessment, if the professionals were concerned on the evidence available that [this woman] probably does fabricate or induce illness, there would be no option but to put the baby into foster care at birth pending a post-natal forensic psychological assessment'.

However, he warned that it was necessary first to establish as far as possible whether or not Fran does suffer from this illness - something Fran claims they have failed to do.

Fran has never been diagnosed with this condition, yet she has nevertheless been deemed by Northumberland Council as someone likely to suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, a controversial and unproven condition in which a parent - usually the mother - makes up or induces an illness in her child to draw attention to herself.

And so, unless a judicial review next week rules in Fran's favour, her baby Molly will almost certainly be taken away at birth.

'I can understand why they might have concerns about my past, but the speed with which they have come to this conclusion, despite the evidence of my own psychiatrist, is terrifying,' she says.

'I was at the case conference and it lasted just ten minutes.

'This letter from Dr Ward Platt was given to me just five minutes before the meeting started, and when it was produced, the chairman said there was no point - in the light of what this letter stated - even considering the other evidence which I wanted to present, which was letters of support from psychiatrists.

'I think they simply panicked, and when people panic they make, in my opinion, bad judgments. I left that meeting numb with shock. I'd had absolutely no time to digest the letter or argue my case, and I was so horrified at what they'd said that I just couldn't even begin to respond to it.

'I have never harmed anyone in my life. I have no criminal convictions. I believe I can be a good mother to Molly - but they are not even prepared to give me a chance to prove that.

'I have offered to stay in a mother and baby unit after Molly's birth for as long as they want, and to be monitored. I would be prepared to stay there for 18 years if it meant I could be with my baby. But that, it seems, is not even an option.'

Fran's case is far from unusual. Two thousands babies under one year old were taken from their parents last year by social services - three times the number ten years ago. Critics believe councils are doing this to help meet government adoption 'targets'.

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, chairman of the Justice for Families campaign group, certainly thinks so.

'How can it be in the child's best interests to take a baby away from its mother at birth? The reason why they do it is because it's much harder to take away a baby the longer it spends with its mother, and a healthy newborn baby is so much easier to find adoptive parents for.

'It is estimated that 97 per cent of babies taken away from their mothers at birth, on the basis that the mothers are "capable of emotional abuse", are never returned to them - and that is simply scandalous.

'Of course, there are cases where it is right to do so, but the whole public family law system is corrupt because of the secrecy which surrounds it. Decisions are based on opinion and conjecture, rather than fact and evidence.

'What does Fran's case tell us? That no woman who has been raped or had mental health problems can be allowed to have a baby, even years later?

'What could be more traumatic than for a mother to have her baby taken away at birth? It's monstrous. That, in itself, can cause mental health problems, which is then used by social services against the mother as a reason not to return the baby. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

'There has been a massive increase in younger babies being taken into care, before there is even any evidence of harm - and you have to ask why that is.'

Despite her own troubled past, Fran Lyon is convinced she can be a good parent, and is desperate to prove that. From the start, she has been open and honest with social workers about her medical history, but she feels this has been used against her.

Although she describes her childhood as 'difficult', she refuses to elaborate, other than to say that she is close to her mother and younger brother, but has no contact with her father.

The catalyst for her severe mental health problems was, she says, the rape she suffered when she was 14.

She told police that she was attacked while working as a Saturday volunteer in a charity shop in Northampton, when the shop's founder - a middle-aged man - drove her to an empty warehouse supposedly to pick up supplies for the shop.

When Fran reported the rape, he was interviewed by police. Three more women claiming they, too, had been attacked came forward and agreed to testify against him. However, in 2001 the man killed himself before the Crown Prosecution Service could decide whether to proceed.

'After the rape, I became clinically depressed,' says Fran. 'I lost a huge amount of weight and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital after trying to kill myself with an overdose of tablets. It wasn't a cry for help; I wanted to die because of what he had done to me.'

She spent the next three years, on and off, in residential psychiatric hospitals in Oxford, Nottingham and London after being diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, in her case characterised by self-harming, instability and suicidal tendencies.

For the final 13 months, Fran went to a therapeutic residential clinic, where she attended individual psychotherapy sessions and group analysis before being discharged as an outpatient.

By the time she was 18, she appeared to have put her problems behind her.

She started to flourish, taking five A-levels at Orpington College in Kent and applying to study neuroscience at Edinburgh University.

At the same time, she worked for two mental health charities, Borderline and Personality Plus. It was through that job, two years ago, that she met the man who is the father of Molly.

'Of course, I was worried when I fell pregnant. I wondered how we would cope as a couple, because we weren't living together,' says Fran.

'But once that wore off, I was excited. I would go shopping with my mum to baby departments, buying books and looking at prams.'

But a few weeks ago, all normality ended. Social services suddenly became involved when Fran phoned the police after what she describes as a 'disturbing incident' with her partner. Fran's relationship with him ended immediately.

'The case was referred to social services and I was interviewed by two social workers, who said from the beginning that they would have to look at the whole family, not just one person in isolation,' says Fran.

'At that first meeting, they asked about my concerns regarding the baby's father, but then it became clear through their questions that their investigation was centred on me. I have never made a secret of my mental health problems. I felt I had nothing to hide.'

Fran was co- operative, she says, because she naively thought children's services would offer her help and support. She was stunned when she received a letter informing her that a child protection case conference would be held on August 16.

'That's when I became frightened and thought for the first time: "Are they going to take my baby away from me?"

'I couldn't believe how everything had happened so quickly. When you are up against a big system such as social services, it is very easy to feel overrun and overwhelmed.'

Realising the seriousness of the situation, Fran instructed a solicitor and contacted her former psychiatrist, Dr Stella Newrith, who offered her full support.

A second psychiatrist, who Fran knew through her charity work, offered a character reference stating: 'I have no doubt that her diligence and capacity, particularly in dealing with complex emotional situations, will stand her in good stead for the rigours of parenthood.'

Yet these testimonials, Fran says, were never even read out at the conference after Dr Ward Platt's letter was produced.

Northumberland Council insists that two highly experienced doctors - another consultant paediatrician and a medical consultant - attended the case conference.

Neither they, nor anyone else present - including Fran solicitor - made any objection. Feeling stunned and intimidated by what she had heard, she felt unable to speak out.

Everything she wanted to say will now be heard - with the help of a new solicitor who specialises in such cases - at appeal.

According to MP John Hemming, Fran should win her case; but there is no guarantee that she will. Both he and Fran are particularly concerned that last week social workers contacted the psychiatrist who provided a character reference for Fran. They believe this was done with the intention of 'pressurising' the witness into withdrawing his support, and undermining Fran's appeal.

It was seemingly suggested by a social worker to the doctor in question that Fran had given incorrect details about her health to hospital staff: in short, doubt was cast on the reality of an ectopic pregnancy Fran suffered on Christmas Eve two years ago.

'Is it ethical for social workers to go behind my back and speak to my witnesses, discussing my private confidential medical history and suggesting to them that I might have made things up?' says Fran.

'I did have an ectopic pregnancy, and I have the scars to prove that I had abdominal surgery.' Mr Hemming goes further, describing such behaviour as akin to witness nobbling. He also claims it is not uncommon for social workers to pressurise witnesses - a punishable practice in the criminal courts.

'There is a culture in which the end is seen to justify the means, and sometimes the means employed would not be tolerated in any other court of law,' he says. 'Yet if anyone tries to speak out, they are guilty of contempt of court. The whole family court system, because of the secrecy which surrounds it, is vulnerable to bad practice. Social workers are under pressure not to lose cases.' Northumberland Council, while legally prevented from speaking about individual cases, insists there is nothing sinister in their actions.

A spokeswoman said it was the court which would make the ultimate decision, after hearing legal representation from both sides. 'Safeguarding children is our top priority,' said a spokeswoman. 'We speak to all sides without bias or pressure. 'We would welcome a review of the family court arrangements, and support transparency, as long as this is in the best interests of the children.

'Safeguarding arrangements have been praised as good following a rigorous inspection by a number of Government departments. It was specifically noted that "good action was taken to enable parents to keep their children safe in the home and the community. Our duty to safeguard children is our only motivation, and we strive to keep children with their families wherever possible, or extended families if that is not possible.

'We do not have numerical targets for adoption; nor have we received any financial rewards in relation to adoption figures.'

As for Fran, the final four months of her pregnancy are filled with stress and uncertainty, and the nagging terror that her worst nightmare will become a reality and her baby daughter will be snatched away from her. 'Some days I feel positive,' she says quietly.

'But others I feel totally overwhelmed. All I am asking for is a chance to prove that I will be a good mother.'

Sadly, that wish may not be granted her.

Now I was diagnosed as BPD a few years ago, not by my therapist who believes that I only have severe PTSD whose symptoms mimic those of BPD, but by a psychiatrist I had to see in order to get meds. Now in my disability file held by the government I will always be labeled as BPD. (Thanks, doc.) As Fran's case shows, this can be very dangerous. Now I do not plan on having children, but my friends not only trust me with their children, but encourage us to spend a lot of time together (mostly b/c I seem to be everyone's favourite crazy auntie). The thought that because I have been diagnosed with BPD that I should be a danger to children is ridiculous. BPD is characterised by self-harm, not with harming others. I wish I could express more of how I feel about this situation, but I am just too overwhelmed with disgust and anger to be eloquent.

In the News:
Journal Live article
Telegraph article
Sky News article

From the blogosphere:
The Roadkill Diaries' Tony Blair's Britain
Writhe Safely's How Psychiatry Blames the Victim
Uncool's Fran Lyon (also a hat tip to Lina for making me aware of the situation)
The Trouble with Spikol's Horrifying Violation of Human Rights
*NEW* S511's Link Roundup

I will be updating this as more blogs and news items appear, and I will have another blog when the court decision is made. I'm hoping for the best, but I'm not holding my breath since society seems to think that anyone diagnosed with a mental health disorder is less then human.

Porn again, porn again

This was in the anti-porn LJ community, and I thought I'd pass it on.

'm not requesting to join the community because I don't feel I possess the right attitude for it, but, I did find an article in this month's issue of FHM in England (of all things!) about why one man had given up porn, and I typed up most of it because I thought you and/or the members might be interested in reading it. (Were my scanner capable of scanning magazines without blurring the text to buggery, I'd have scanned rather than typed, but there you go):


[just skipping to the main bits of interest, really]

Then the internet arrived. Designed to be a force for good and to share the knowledge of the world, it was immediately used, of course, to spread images of people having sex. The filth travelled around the glove like those ocean-going barges stacked high with rotting garbage. Only this was muck that everybody wanted, that found a welcoming port in every corner. In mine too.




Along with most other red-blooded males, I gleefully downloaded the photos, saw the pussies of Pamela, Paris and Abi. I cruised the sites and eyed up thousands of girls from every nation and in every position. When broadband arrived, I thought, "This is it, Utopia, a constantly refreshed supply of beautiful women, naked and performing for our pleasure." Now we are all sultans.

(Some talk about his nephew and how his nephew'll never have to buy a porn magazine from a shop because it's just a click away on the internet. Also mentions that the nephew in question is 13)

But slowly it has become clear to me that I'm the lucky one after all, not him. In fact, I regard anyone who watches porn these days as being incredibly unfortunate. Why? Because it's going to poison your mind, mess up your relationships and ruin your sex life.

That may seem like a sweeping statement, but I know it's true because it actually happened to me. Nothing I'm about to confess is based on bland statistics or boring surveys or government research - it's based on the fact that, in bed with a woman one night, I did something which caused her to feel fear and pain. I practically became a sex offender. And porn was to blame.

My transformation from nice guy to near-rapist began when I got into the habit of kicking off each working day by watching a bit of hardcore. I thought of it as my equivalent to a cup of coffee. A pick-me-up. Five minutes of online ogling before settling down to the grind of earning a living.

(explanation that 'hardcore' in this case wasn't referring to anything underage or illegal, so it's not as though he was watching 'the shit with animals and torture and dungeons', but the regular stuff often watched online)

The participants seemed to be clean and willing, and their activities appeared innocent enough. Certainly, I never felt I was being perverted by them, especially as my favourite one, called "Her Sweet Hand", was entirely devoted to women giving hand-jobs. In my view this was only "second base" and therefore hardly pornographic at all.

If you'd asked me back then if watching these clips was affecting my sex life, I'd have said, "Yes, but in a good way." The way I saw it, my libido was getting charged up like a car battery, so when I pulled a girl I would be raring to go. She'd get better sex, and I'd get a chance to act out some of the scenes I'd watched. Everyone's a winner.

After a while, however, I noticed I was getting much more dominant in bed. Previously, I had been a pretty democratic lover, happy to share the workload in the three classic positions, but now I found I was doing a lot more doggy style. I would do it harder, too, and while I did it I would pull the girl's hair and think, "Yeah, you're getting it now, you dirty little bitch." If sufficiently emboldened by drink, I would actually say those words, and plenty more besides. Then, after showering her who was boss for half-an-hour or so, perhaps pinning her down by the wrists for variety, I'd climax. But whereas in the old days, I was happy to come into my Durex or on her tits, now it had to be all over her face and neck like a white volcano.

(the segment preceding this is mostly just reiterating what's been said before and not that interesting)

I can only guess how far down that track I'd have gone if I hadn't been snapped out of it. But luckily - for me, anyway - I pulled a girl at a party and then went too far. Far too far. We got pissed, cabbed it back to my place and then I gave her the full Beast of Hammersmith treatment. I remember talking filth, going at her like a merciless jackhammer, when she first asked me to stop.

I didn't stop. In fact - and this is the hard bit to confess - I gave it to her even harder. One... two... three strokes, riding the wave as she squirmed underneath me. I was engorged with power, my cock a weapon. But then she wrenched away from me, and I could see by the look on her face that A Bad Thing had happened.

It took a lot of fast talking and soothing hugs to calm her down. At one stage, I thought she might actually report me. When she left, I shivered under the duvet, shocked at what I'd done.

What had I become? And why? I had never acted like this before, so I deduced that it might be due to the internet porn I'd been feasting on. The next day, I visited some of the sites I'd used regularly. And slowly, just as a secret image used to emerge if you stared at those old fractal pictures long enough, the truth became clear.

Modern porn... it's not about sex at all. It's about cruelty to women. Almost all of it, especially the most popular "gonzo" king, is built on their humiliation. Again, let me stress that I'm not talking about the extreme stuff here, I'm talking about the mainstream. Your basic, entry level porn.

The problem stems from the fact that porn gets stale very quickly. There are only so many ways a man and woman can make love, so the adult-video makers have to up the ante constantly to maintain sales. Once, you never saw penetration. Then anal sex was a taboo. Now it's pretty common to see triple anal penetration. As one porn director put it, "People want more. They want to know how many dicks you can shove up an ass. It's like Fear Factor meets Jackass."

Precisely. It is like Jackass. Painful and demeaning things - like getting cornhold or throat-fucked - are happening for our pleasure. And the discomfort shows on the women's faces. They get hurt while we whack off. Looking back at my favourites with fresh eyes, I saw it clearly. Even in the "innocent" hand-job one, they worked without being pleasured themselves. They ended up been coated with spunk. They were, quite literally, sex objects.

You want to know the really worrying thing? Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry, famously bigger than Hollywood, and if the sight of women experiencing discomfort or humiliation was distasteful to the mass audience, it would have been edited out. Market forces would insist upon a correction. So the only conclusion to draw is that normal guys - not a tiny minority of perverts and weirdos, but you, your pals, your brothers, your colleagues - actually like seeing it.

Well, not me. Not any more. I've seen what they're selling and I don't want to buy it. And I warn you, everytime you watch a gonzo clip from "Meatholes" or "Exploited Babysitters" your subconscious is being bombarded with the same message. You won't so much get brainwashed as braindirtied. And then - like it or not - there's a chance you'll bring what you've viewed into your real-life relationships. Monkey see, monkey do.

Personally, I'm now only going to use the computer for e-mails and poker. If I want porn, I'll stick to the older kind where everyone appeared to be having fun. Say what you like about '80s porn movies, at least I know I'm never going to end up like the blokes who starred in them. Mainly because I hate moustaches...

(emphasis mine)

First off I'd like to point out that he's a rapist. No matter how many hugs or whatever he gave her and even though she didn't report him does not in fact mean that it wasn't rape. He admitted to continuing after she said no. He admitted that he thought she would report him. He is a rapist.

While he doesn't realise that all porn is dehumanising and degrading to women, he does come to a very real conclusion. Time and time again men tell the same story, but do we (usually) hear it in media other then feminist magazines or in forums other then the feminist blogosphere? A resounding NO. Many of the people Pamela Paul interviewed for Pornified said the same things, and about how they were no longer to sustain erections with a woman unless they envisioned the degrading images of pornography. However mush they want to sweep this shit under the rug, there are always people willing to tell their stories, be they women who escaped the industry (like me) or men who have come to the realisation that porn turns them into sadistic assholes. While I disagree with him continuing to look at porn, bravo for him for publishing this in a lads mag that glorifies the pornification of women. Hopefully more men will be brave enought to stand up to this.

Leagalisation of prostitution does nothing to alleviate abuse

Turkish political candidates talk about how legalised prostitution does not mean better circumstances for prostitutes.

"They talk about domestic violence, but it was the state that beat us up," she says, in the stuffy, shabby office that is serving as her Istanbul headquarters.

Frequently breaking down in tears, she goes on to talk about 18-hour working days in the brothel, social security payments withheld, even murder.

"Serpil, mother of three; Fatma from Diyarbakir; Hatice from Izmir; all three were killed while I was inside and their deaths passed off as overdoses," she says. That was the rule for disobedience, she explains: first, a beating, then rape, then murder.

"We're not here simply to get attention," Tukrukcu says. "We're here so that people know the truth about all these things."


Two women are bravely overstepping the public taboos against former and current prostitutes by running for office. They seek to ban prostitution, focusing on the state-employed prostitutes that both were pushed into. Their stories, like the one above show that it doesn't matter if prostitution is legalised and regulated (like the state sanctioned brothels in Turkey) that prostitutes still fall victim to rape and abuse, and even murder, which is the same problems that women working as prostitutes the world over have problems with.

I hear a lot from people who support the legalisation of prostitution saying that it will make conditions better for prostitutes. There are not many places where prostitution is legal, so looking at Turkey's problems with prostitution give us a glimpse into how legalised prostitution works. The bottom line is that it is no safer then illegal prostitution.

Now I do not support the arresting of prostitutes. This I think is a crime. These women all ready have enough problems without having to deal with the law. I support the Swedish Model which criminalises the buying of sex and decriminalises the selling of sex. The also offer programs to help the women integrate into society by offering a plethora of job skills for them to learn. And those are the people that should really spend time in jail: the johns. It is not the woman's fault for needing to sell herself to get by, but it is the john's fault for raping these women for money. When mens demand for women to be accessible for rape on demand diminishes then we will see prostitution disappear. But this means that we need an equal society where women are not treated as the sex class, but instead seen as fully human.

Rape is caused by.....

well, rapists of course, but does that mean everyone puts the blame on them, who happend to be men most of the time? No! We blame women! Now I have unfortunatly have gotten accoustomed to this phenomenon expecting it to occur rather then not, so I may be a little jaded, but the oh so wonderful Dr. Violet Socks pointed out that in this case we should send them an avalanche of angry letters. I agree.

The offensive article (this time) can be found at women's e-news (warning: badly written). The article starts off talking about Ladie's nights and then progresses into the number of date rapes that occur each year. Because those women should not have been out getting drunk at such a young age and after they got the men all riled up with their sexy dancing the men were going to explode if they didn't get to throw the woman over their shoulder and have their caveman way with her. Cavemen don't listen to yes or no, nor do they have the brain power to understand.

Wait a moment, that's not right. Men can understand yes and no, they can dance with someone "erotically" (I take my word choice form the horribly written article), they can decide that someone is too drunk to consent, and they, now this is the big one here, wait for it....theycan choose NOT TO RAPE SOMEONE.

Reread the last paragraph. Don't worry, I'll wait. Finished? Ok.

This woman, Liz Funk, apparently also writes a "feminist" blog (i shit you not, you can find it here.) For someone who read Against Our Will last year she sure did miss a huge point: that no matter how much you've been drinking (or for that matter how old you are) it's not your fault. Does she think that the women are also running around waving their arms in the air screaming rape me? Probably not, but saying that young women getting drunk leads to their rapes is about the same thing. I know plenty of people who have been raped while sober (including me), does she think that this means that women shouldn't be sober? No? Let's go through the list again, using Ms. Funk's strange troll logic to help wipe out rape:

Women are raped while drunk
Answer according to Ms. Funk: Women should stay sober.

Women are raped while sober
Answer according to Ms. Funk: Women should get drunk.

Most women are raped while wearing jeans or pjs.
Answer according to Ms. Funk: Women should not wear those rape inducing jeans or heaven forbid pajamas!

Women are raped by strangers
Answer according to Ms. Funk: Women should know everyone, all 6 billion of us.

Most women are raped by someone they know
Answer according to Ms. Funk: They should hide in their houses and know no one.

Many women are raped in their own home
Answer according to Ms. Funk: They should stay somewhere else.

Women are raped by their husbands
Answer according to Ms. Funk: They should not get married.

Women are raped by people not their husbands
Answer according to Ms. Funk: Women should get married.

Need I go on? This is insane troll logic that girls under 21 getting drunk=rape of said girls. I was drunk and not raped plenty of times when I was under 21. Mostly because the people I would go out with were respectful enough to know that no means no and that a woman being drunk also means no.

I hope it became painfully clear to those of you who aren't regular readers that the only way to stop rape is for the rapists themselves to STOP RAPING. The real answer to not being a target for rape is to not posess ovaries or a vaginal canal. Too bad that is also an unattainable solution. So let's write many many emails to Women's E-news and tell them we don't like this bullshit being published and perpetuating the cycle of victim blaming.

Send emails to editors@womensenews.org. And please note that the problem is Ms. Funk, who according to Amanda and Jill has a history of being a tad iffy on basic feminist understanding (that’s putting it generously). Womens eNews itself appears to be a very worthy publication.*

ONLY RAPISTS CAN STOP RAPE

*This line copied from Dr. Socks.

Read more here, here, and here

Now go write that email.