Archive | Sexual Violence and Freedom RSS feed for this section

Canadian Sex Advice Columnist Weighs in on Atlantic Kerfuffle Over Pay the Writer

3 Jun

Prominent Canadian Sex Advice Columnist and Very, Very Good Bad Girl Weighs in on Atlantic Kerfuffle Over Pay the Writer

 By Nate Thayer

June 2, 2013

Yesterday I received a very supportive message from an esteemed colleague in the international press corps, which was deeply appreciated.

In addition to being a renowned, nationally syndicated Canadian sex advice columnist, Alex Tigchelaar has been a stripper, sex worker, playwright, performance artist and an all-around very, very good very bad girl.

She made me smile.

Alex Tigchelaar wrote in support of the lingering, only slightly muted, kerfuffle over writers being paid for their work which was sparked by a recent exchange I had with the Atlantic magazine which sought to engage my professional services with the caveat that I agree they did not have to pay me for them.

As a professional colleague, Alex took strong offense to this arrangement and wrote me to say just that.

Dear Nate,

Thank you for giving me something to reference/talk to people about when they are surprised to see me, a formerly syndicated columnist, standing behind the bar at Sweaty Betty’s or mopping the floor at Buddies in Bad Times Theatre.

I say, “Read Nate Thayer’s piece on the state of journalism. If he’s being asked to write for free we’re all fucked.”

On the upside it’s been nice talking to people about what a positive impact my work had on them.

As you probably know yourself, you usually only hear from people who want to kill you when you are actively writing.

Thanks Nate, for your dignified outrage.

If you are in Toronto please stop by Sweaty Betty’s. Drinks are on me if I’m behind the bar.

I also bartend at a transsexual strip club.

Not sure if that’s more up your alley but if it is, again, drinks on me.

Your pal and longtime fan,

Alex

My colleague journalist, sex worker, and Renaissance woman Alex Tigchelaar

My colleague journalist, sex worker, and Renaissance woman Alex Tigchelaar

Buddies in Bad Times is a theatre company dedicated to the promotion of Queer Canadian Culture, voted Toronto’s Best Small Theatre Company in 2012, and “dedicated to the nurturing, protection, and celebration of queer culture.”

Alex is clearly an advocate of the Queer community, but maintains cynical distance of blind support for what appears to be just about anything—an essential trait of good journalism. “Homos and hookers go together like peanut butter and jam—sometimes anyway. I could do without some of this current crop of queer, The Revolution Starts Up My Ass hookers.”

Sweaty Betty’s is a storied Toronto dive bar where “the tortured literati rendezvous nightly”, a “small, bordello-inspired den” located across the street from one of Toronto’s oldest mental institutions.

“In a city of infused vodkas and creative cocktails, Betty’s refuses to mix anything with more than three ingredients, “said a review in Lonely Planet of Sweaty Betty’s. “ This no-nonsense approach pares a night out at the bar to the essentials: having a good time and chatting people up.”

Betty’s sounds like my kind of establishment and Alex my kind of barkeep.

The only negative comment I found on Sweaty Betty’s was an online review from ‘Mellisa’, who objected to “one of the male bartenders stole my friend’s hat from off the bar where she put it down for a moment. She phoned them the next day and asked if they had found it, they said no. Then, the next time she went, she saw the guy WEARING her hat.” But even Mellisa said “I do like the location, décor and ambiance of Sweaty Betty’s — but I can only put up with the people if I’ve already been drinking. And drinking a LOT.”

Sign at Toronto bar Sweaty Betty's

Sign at Toronto bar Sweaty Betty’s

Alex did not identify the transsexual strip club where she bartends, but I am confident I can get the directions from her next time I am in Toronto where I will be sure to drop by Sweaty Betty’s to quench my considerable thirst for people with minds like Alex Tigchelaar.

Former journalist and Sweaty Betty’s barkeep, Alexandra Tigchelaar, from whom I have a standing invitation for drinks on the house, is indeed a formerly nationally syndicated columnist in Canada–author of the weekly sex advice Montreal Mirror’s column Love Bites from 1999 to 2009. Her work as a journalist has been widely praised as insightful, witty, powerful, and honest.

But, in addition, Alex has an impressive resume which includes neo-Burlesque performer, stripper, artist, playwright, sex worker, actor, author, and journalist who sometimes writes under the pen name Sasha Van Bon Bon.

<iframe src=”http://player.vimeo.com/video/20803154&#8243; width=”500″ height=”299″ frameborder=”0″ webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen>

MothUP Toronto IX – LOVE & SEX – Sasha (Alex Tigchelaar) – “Feature Dancer” from MothUP Toronto on Vimeo.

Alex was co-creator of The Scandelles, a Toronto male-female burlesque cabaret troupe, since renamed Operation Snatch. She is also the curator of cabaret Dirty Plotz, which is about the “Politics of Pussy”.

She studied creative writing and English literature at Concordia University but her art is mostly a product of working in Montreal and Toronto’s strip clubs, where she found her talented, unorthodox creative voice.

A nationally syndicated sex columnist since 1994, she has written about sexuality for numerous publications, and is co-author of a short porn film called Give Piece of Ass a Chance (which screened at over 20 international film festivals), has penned an erotic comic for Eros Comics called Beatrix Dominatrix, hosted erotic events, and performed as a go-go dancer on the Canadian Broadcasting Company’s 60th anniversary televised show.

alex2

“As a cabaret theatre artist I explore the space of Revered/Reviled.  I know this space very well.  This is a space of divine creation but it is one that is often foisted upon a person – it’s not entered willingly.  Learning to live in it with grace and resourcefulness is difficult.  It can make a woman fucking crazy,” Alex said in a 2012 interview.

“In Dirty Plötz, we are, quite literally, examining the Sacred and Profane Hole,” she said in another interview.  ‘Plotte’ is French-Canadian slang for pussy.  In addition, the title of the piece “Dirty Plotz” is a play on the 1990’s comic Dirty Plotte by Julie Doucet.

“Doucet was, in her words, interested in ‘sex, violence, menstruation and male/female issues’, and so am I. Big time,” said Alex in the Canadian interview.

Since not only did I appreciate her thoughtful words of support to me as a colleague, but we shared similar interests, I promptly wrote a thank you note to Alex.

Dear Alex:

Out of the considerable hundreds, at least, of friendly incoming missives I have received regarding that story, yours is, by far, my favorite to date.

Thanks for the grin inducing, thoughtful, kind words,

If the bastards ever do force me off my perch, I had always thought that my only alternative employment possibilities for which I might be qualified would be working third shift at some urban 7/11.

Now I know there is at least some hope for a better alternative if such an unspeakable scenario materializes.

Good on ya. And thanks again. Keep up the great work.

Your pal and new fan,

Nate

“I don’t understand why the job is illegal—there’s just something about that that drives me fucking mental,” said Alex in another 2012 interview on the rights of sex workers. “I cannot, for the purposes of supporting myself, use my own body to do that? Sure, I can go and become a construction worker, or a  lawyer and I can use my body and my brain to generate income—often, in those cases, fairly unethically—but I cannot use my body to generate my own income? What the fuck is wrong with that picture?” said the sex worker, activist, journalist and performer.

To me, Alex Tigchelaar seamlessly integrates the essential purpose of free speech among free people in free societies and the role of a free press.

“I mean yes, putting a bunch of woman of different sizes and gender presentation on stage, that’s minimally revolutionary, but let’s get those people telling their stories,” she said. “Seeing a woman of size or a transsexual performing, that’s just one thing, but now that we have the opportunity, let’s go deeper than that. We got on stage taking our clothes off, and then we opened our mouths.”

Alex succinctly summed up her multi-talented body of work. “Underneath all of those personalities and people is the truth, which is: ‘It’s my body, I have agency over it—not you.’”

I would add only that it is Alex’s mind, as well, which she has demanded equal agency over.

“What I’ve realized is that people become quite angry when they’re faced with these stories, they’re much happier listening to the stories of women being victimized,” she said.

Speaking of sex workers, Alex says “our stories are often trivialized through the lens of shame and criminality. When we talk about kept women, we act as though these women were the only ones who were kept when this was and continues to be the reality for so many women—as though a wife, sister, or servant wasn’t or isn’t kept, and often with much more rigid terms. I contest the concept of “kept” when it comes to sex workers anyway. It’s far more complex than that. I’m also tired of people saying, ‘No girl dreams of being a stripper.’ Seriously, speak for yourself.”

female burlesque cabaret troupe, Operation Snatch performing in Dirty Plotz, which is about the “Politics of Pussy”

female burlesque cabaret troupe, Operation Snatch performing in Dirty Plotz, which is about the “Politics of Pussy”

After a cursory peak at Alex’s impressive life, I asked her for permission to quote from her private correspondence to me.

Hi Alex:

I wanted to post your kind note on my blog and FB private page, and wanted to make sure you had no objections to identifying you as the author. If you do, no worries, just give me a shout.

The message remains much appreciated. Is journalism a great fucking job or what? Not the least for putting me in the mix of people like yourself.

Best,

Nate

She responded:

Nate,

My only objection would be to referring to XXXX as XXXXX, for fear of alerting the moral authorities to its true nature and putting my hard working colleagues at risk for arrest. We are still in a fairly grey legal area in Canada. If you could refer to XXXX as XXXX, that would be very appreciated.

Alex

I replied:

Hi Alex:

Will do.

That was exactly the reason I wanted to double check. It dawned on me that Canada has been going through some legal acrobats over these laws in the last couple years, right up until recent weeks, if I am not mistaken.

The last thing I want to do is get you or your colleagues locked up. Quite the contrary, I think we would agree our shared mission is to keep people free, despite the quite alarming knucklehead factor which appears to be metastasizing against that trend and these efforts.

I will make the suggested adjustments.

Stay in touch.

Best,

Nate

Alex responded:

Nate,

Thank you! Yes, that knucklehead factor is more alarming than you can imagine.

If you can believe it, a half dozen organizations with open religious affiliations have been granted intervener status in the Supreme Court hearing on June 13th while 5 supportive, non-abolitionist and sex worker run sex work organizations  have been denied intervener status. (And here is the kicker quote of the year) I am thrilled that people who believe that the end of days will be heralded by a whore on a multi-headed beast will be permitted to object to a woman’s right to make money using her body (well, a certain part of it at any rate) over my sensible and experienced colleagues.

Alex

With that final message, and that brilliant final sentence, I formally have included Alex to my fictional “12 people in history you would invite to a dinner party” guest list.

I think I will sit Alex on my right, next to Jesus.

With Pol Pot, directly across from her, who will be seated next to the Pope, who will be allowed to be accompanied by one, handsome, young male attendant.

Ronald Reagan would be in the mix. With Beethoven tinkling the ivories in the background and Sid Viscous on vocals.

Dr. Hunter S. Thompson would be in attendance along with Sir Winston Churchill and Christopher Hitchens. There are a couple remaining slots still open.

And, Alex, if you choose to attend, the drinks are on me.

Your pal and new fan, Nate

Susan Brownmiller and Why I am a Journalist

6 Mar

Susan Brownmiller and Why I am a Journalist

Ok, You want to know why I will never cease being a journalist?

 This whole kerfuffle today over a post on my blog, which had perhaps a 100+ followers this morning, about the state of journalism which has gone viral and attracted the attention and comments of hundreds of thousands of people by a few hours later, has drawn supportive comments from umpteen number of people. Plus a few nasty ones.

Among the gems was this comment from someone who asked to be a FB friend: “Nate, I’ve been reading about your Atlantic controversy all over the place– and I remember how generous you were to me in Phnom Penh in the 1990s, in a journalists’ bar, when you asked what I was doing in the city and I said “Doing a story on The Temples of Angkor” and you said–so spontaneously- “The guy you want to speak to is sitting over there…” You are such a great journalist, and the reason I subscribed to the Far Eastern Economic Review for so many years.”

Honestly, I don’t remember the encounter. But I do know, now, who this person is.

Susan Brownmiller is a US feminist, journalist, author, and activist best known for her 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, in which she argued that rape was “nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” That book sent the then equivalent of cyberspace atwitter, prompting a slew of reactions and criticism which forced the debate of women being treated like chattel up for public debate. Angela Davis said her book was tantamount to an “unthinking partnership which borders on racism” and that was friendly fire.

Later, the New York Public Library selected Against Our Will as one of 100 most important books of the Twentieth Century.

Brownmiller spent four years investigating rape, from ancient criminal and civil law to the way rape was  reported in contemporary media,  literature, film, and popular music.

Brownmiller changed the course of the human debate on the rightful role of women in society, and pissed off far from a few people in the process.

 

Today she asked to be my friend on face book. And she sent me supportive comments for standing up to big media companies trying to fleece journalists to increase their profit margin.

She wrote in a post today I was tagged in on face book: “He was so generous to me in Phnom Penh– he was the dean of the journalists’ community. I was sitting with Kevin’s drunk journalist friends, who were telling their war stories, aggrandizing themselves, when this guy, Nate Thayer, the expert on Pol Pot, came over to our table and with his insatiable curiosity asked me what I was doing in the city–which none of Kevin’s friends had bothered to ask. And then he neatly pointed me in the right direction…giving my Angkor story for Travel&Leisure a depth it wouldn’t have had. I’m so glad his kerfuffle with the dummies at The Atlantic has gone viral.”

Susan wrote some time ago “My parents were so intense about…newspapers and the radio that I became very intense about these things too. My dad worked as a sales clerk in Macy’s and my mom worked as a secretary in the Empire State Building. I was lucky to go to Cornell University for a couple of years on scholarships. When I left school, I was determined to be a Broadway actress. This was, in my case, a very mistaken ambition. So I found a little tenement apartment in Manhattan, got jobs as a file clerk, did some waitressing, got fired a lot, and studied acting. Quite accidentally I started backing into editorial-type jobs for some confession magazines, and learned” how to be a journalist.

Journalism has permitted me to be in the mix of people like Susan Brownmiller—whose unyielding, curmudgeonly refusal to accept what is unacceptable, has directly contributed to making this a better world for uncountable millions.

Thank you Susan.

You, and that, is why I will die being a journalist.

Rape, Child Abuse, and Animal Cruelty: Women’s Sexual Freedom and Respecting My Pal Lamont

19 Jan

Rape, Child Abuse, and Animal Cruelty: Why Everyone’s Sexual Pleasure Requires Women Have Sexual Freedom

And Why That Means You Have to be Nice to My Pal, Lamont.

 By Nate Thayer

Warning: If you are disturbed by explicit sexual content or disturbing descriptions of violence do not read further

I recently posted a story outraged at those who force animals to fuck them. I said it was, like fucking a child, an unacceptable crossing of the boundary that all sex must be consensual; where all parties are capable and willing to consent, free from coercion, manipulation or force. With animals and children they simply don’t have the capability to give consent.

Importantly, I at the same time absolutely defended, and demand for myself, that all erotic desires be freely explored and are healthy to express. That none are better suppressed. But some must never be acted on, and some should be left to fantasy and role-play either by oneself or with a consenting partner.

 

The two inviolable guidelines are that we should all be free sexual beings, without judgment or shame or guilt. And you cannot deny anyone else that exact same right.  To carry sexual fantasy to action every participant must both give, receive, and exchange, full, clear, and non-coercive consent. We all have the right to explore whatever sexual desires we have. And none of us have the right to deny that in another.

This post will not make your pussy wet or your cock hard. If that is what you are seeking at the moment, and probably what I would prefer to be writing than this post, I would urge you to click the computer button and move on. You can find that in thousands of other stories posted online. If you want my take on why some things turn you on or whether fantasies are healthy to act on and some are not, you might—maybe–want to continue reading.

Below is an excerpt from an earlier missive I penned in response to some people who believe it is OK to fuck my dog titled “Except for One Obvious Exception…” I believe there are no limits to exploring sexual fantasies or desires by you or with anyone who consents to sharing them. I don’t care if anyone thinks mine are perverted, immoral, or simply has no erotic appeal to him or her. And I don’t judge the many I have no desire or even understanding of the sexual arousal and pleasure it brings to them. Who knows why we all have distinct sexual urges that drive us to unbridled frenzy? Who cares why? But exploring through shared fantasy and role-play and exploring through experiencing them are two very distinct things. This is my reaction to a question posed online earlier:  “Has anyone ever let a male dog fuck them?”…and the question poster continued “My wife had our German Shepherd fuck me like I was his bitch. Has this ever happened to anyone else? I was really sick feeling at first, but now I really like it and want him to!!”

There is a reason why non-consensual sexual acts are defined as rape and sexual assault. Animals cannot by definition consent. This is also fact for children. If you have erotic fantasies of non consensual sex, which I submit is common, normal, and shouldn’t be repressed for the many that do, then either by yourself or with a person or persons who share that sexual desire and fantasy, role play and explore it within the boundaries of fantasy. But to experience it by forcing it on another who isn’t willing or consenting is, and should be, unacceptable.  

 

Virtually any other sexual desire fantasy or fetish can be achieved and experienced consensually. I am aroused by many things others are not and who find no erotic pleasure in those I do. So if it is consensual and doesn’t involve animals and children, then I truly hold no judgment and defend your right to pursue without restriction fulfilling your own erotic needs.  I also understand when others see no erotic appeal in what turns me on and don’t impose my sexual menu of lust on others who don’t share them.

But to the above question poster I say: You should be arrested for animal cruelty, face the consequences of the full weight of the law, never be allowed to be around dogs, and will forever be the focus of my utter contempt.

 

And the same applies to those who force children to experience your selfish choice to force your desires on those incapable of consenting to choose to participate in them. Anything can be played out in role play and fantasy but to force an unwilling or incapable person or animal to serve your interests, regardless of knowingly ignoring, and refusing to respect, and choosing to abuse, and therefore deny that right to someone else, is firmly beyond defense. Of course you are ashamed of and beneath contempt for denying to someone the choice that you are demanding for yourself. You cannot deny the sexual freedom to anyone in order to achieve sexual pleasure. It is the sexual repression and denial of anyone that hurts everyone.  Full stop.

The response to this was civil and posed many questions that took issue, saying it was oversimplified. Many argued that sex with animals was separate from sex with children. “I don’t think it’s a consent issue and I’m not even sure it’s a animal cruelty issue. I’m absolutely certain it’s not appropriate to bracket it with child sexual abuse. All of that may be skirmishing around the fringes: I absolutely agree with your view that we cannot be held culpable for what turns us on, only for acting on it in a way that is likely to hurt or damage others.” And “I think consent or non-consent is a human attribute. To apply it to animals is a bit of a double standard…I mean, if animals can never consent, do you feel bad about killing and eating them, the way you feel bad about having sex with them? Which do you think is worse: eating an animal? Or giving them an orgasm? Why do we feel we have dominion over the animals?”

The arguments contended that there is a long history of bestiality. That if one was to use ‘consent’ as a rule guiding action towards animals than we should all be vegetarians.  “Consent is not the answer, unless you are prepared to follow it the whole way, which means veganism.” And “What is worse—killing or fucking an animal?” “It just becomes a matter of personal distaste at the thought of it; it’s a perversion to satisfy your carnal urges with a different species. But then again hunger is a carnal urge as well. Food, water and sex drive every species on the planet. So if its o.k. to eat a lesser species to satisfy your carnal hunger… why would it be wrong to ‘eat’ a lesser species to satisfy your carnal lust? 😉 ask them which they would prefer.”

Most agreed that the idea of fucking a child or animal was deeply offensive to them. But is being offensive to someone a justification for judging someone else’s or making an erotic urge illegal? 
”I asked for a reason bestiality was wrong, from a strictly legal and philosophical standpoint, and all I get is people calling it and me disgusting,” said another respondent. “I ask a question which you have failed to answer. …You and everyone else’s comments are nothing more than statements of how disgusting you find the act. But you have not yet explained the moral or philosophical reasoning behind why having sex with an animal should be illegal.” And “your comparison between child molestation and bestiality is a false premise. They are not ‘wrong’ for the same reason of ‘non-consent’. It is impossible for an animal to give consent, period. Cows aren’t even smart enough to understand the mortal danger they are in and greyhounds never really get the nefarious plot to chase a hare that never moves. So what exactly is ‘wrong’ with bestiality; besides that it is as gross to me as those people who claim to find their poop and pee sexually exciting?”  Others brought up the issue of exactly when a child is defined as old enough to consent.  “So the question about sex and animals is interesting. What is it that makes that behavior taboo not just for Vegans but also for, in practical terms, everybody? Is it just that we have hang ups about sex? Probably. Sexual morality and logic are, appropriately enough, not very comfortable bedfellows…. But don’t put someone who sexually abuses my children in the same bracket as someone who sexually abuses my dog. 

But let’s be clear – child sex abuse is not really a consent issue. If it is, we will have people trotting out “the exceptionally mature pre-pubescent argument”. And we will have no answer to them. There may well be children who have the maturity to consent to sexual activity with adults but I don’t want to live in a world where we let them.”

Still others said “what about incest?”

 

All these questions, and others, are legitimate and the debate could go on endlessly. “(Thayer’s) thesis about the underlying rationale being lack of consent is superficially attractive but is simply wrong and I will hold to that until persuaded otherwise. The problem is that the only suggested alternative, which is that some things are just inherently wrong and that it is innate in us to recognize them, doesn’t appeal to his (or my) rational mind.”

So here is my more thoughtful response.

We all have sexual desires, urges and fantasies that are the result of the complex wiring of life experiences, social conditioning, religious and cultural influence, repression and guilt, many based on painful as well as pleasant memories that form the architecture of our erotic minds.

 

Like, snowflakes, everyone one of us is different.

Specifically, without restriction, every one of us should be encouraged to embrace and explore whatever menu of sexual urges, desires, and fantasies make up the erotic menu of the buffet from which we can freely choose which dishes appeal to us.  I make absolutely no judgment on any sexual desires that gets anyone off or turns any one of us on. It is meaningless and irrelevant if I find some perfectly repulsive, or hold no erotic appeal for, or simply find baffling that it is included on anyone else’s sexual urges of choice. And I demand that there be no interference in my right to derive pleasure and explore those lusts desires and sexual kinks that make up mine. . There are many that we each find a distinct turn off, simply have no interest in, or find wincing at the thought of participating in. I have my own list in both categories as well. But clearly there are many who share each of ours and to find others with common sexual interest and to explore them together is a joy, a right, and a gift.  But to take that to one step further—to experience or act upon—has another set of very clear inviolable boundaries for all of us.

It is consent. And the issue is the guidelines for acceptable rules of human sexual behavior. It has nothing to do with whether humans eat animals, or whether animals are lesser beings. Or whether some children mature earlier than others. For the same reason whether many women have sexual fantasies of being raped. Coerced and non consensual sex not just forces others to participate against their will. It forces many not to participate in sexuality they in fact desire.

 

For many, if not all women, there is a blatant double standard that if they freely express their erotic mind, they will be judged and condemned. So they are restricted to not be able to express what they want, but are pressured to not object to what they don’t want.

 

And for far too many men, they want a woman who presents no sexuality in public to be exactly the opposite in private—but only with them. Our desires don’t control our actions.  Desires may be beyond our control, but our actions are within our control. As are our attitudes towards our sexual partners.

So I will extend the connection here to sex with animals and children being unacceptable for the same reason that repressing women’s ability to be free to express their unedited erotic selves is unacceptable and is connected to being forced to not being allowed to refuse, or to be forced to participate with those that do not, and equally being forced to not be free to participate, initiate or consent in whatever is erotically appealing to them.

These are rules that define sexual conduct between adult consenting humans. They are not guidelines for non-sexual human relations or interspecies relations. We all, in our universal quest for sexual satisfaction, deserve to be free to choose to express our desires and lusts and kinks and fetish’s as we want. Without exception.

 

Except one: When it denies another the ability to pursue that same choice.

The connection is in fact not an issue of sexuality, but one of force and control–an imbalance of power, where one of the involved parties cannot, or is denied the right to, consent to or communicate in their sexual actions and choices.

 

Both involved parties must be conscious, fully informed, and positive in their desires in order to be able to give genuine consent.

 

The bottom line is – if you fuck animals, or engage in any other form of sexual contact with them, you are engaging in nonconsensual behavior with a creature that is unable to consent.

It also delves more deeply into these connections with the known interaction of animal sexual abuse with violence against people and child sexual abuse. All three are not about sex.

Rape is about power. Rape isn’t about a man getting carried away with passion and desire. It is about controlling the victim and removing their autonomy, control, decision making powers, and humanity.

Consent is when one can say no, and that no is accepted. And equally, but more nuanced, when one is empowered to be free to not just say yes, but ask that their desires be equally free to be requested to be fulfilled. Consent demands not only giving it but also receiving and exchanging it.

 

Clearly animals cannot do that. Bestiality and sex with children are model cases of demanding sex without consent, denying that to another, while also confusing affection and acquiescence for consent.

Guess what the single largest reasons people engage in bestiality is? The fact that no negotiation is required. In other words no negotiation means they eliminated the issue of consent. Or, even more offensively, chose to demand that only one person’s desires mattered and they imposed them on another.

 

A study of those who had sex with animals found that 74% gave the reason as no need for negotiation.  Another study of juvenile sex offenders found that of those who had engaged in sex with animals, 96 percent admitted to sexual abuse against humans as well. Those that sexually abused animals also had a much higher rate of sexual abuse against humans than other sex offenders. So the connection between sex with animals and rape is established.

Abusing an animal is a way for a human to find power and fulfillment through the use of a victim they know cannot defend itself.

 

Now let’s break down a human crime, say rape: If we substitute a few pronouns, it’s exactly the same. Rape is a way for a human to find power and fulfillment through the forcible use of someone against their will who cannot defend themselves. Now try it with sexual abuse of a child or spousal abuse: Child abuse is a way for a human to find power and fulfillment through the forced use of someone they know cannot defend themselves.  The line separating an animal abuser from a child abuser to a rapist is much finer than is comfortable.

 

People abuse animals and children for the same reasons they abuse people. Some of them will stop with animals, but enough have been proven to continue on to commit violent crimes to people that it’s worth paying attention to. Virtually every serious violent offender has a history of animal abuse in their past. The connection gets more alarming.

Studies of prison inmates show 75% of violent offenders had early records of animal cruelty. 30% of convicted child molesters and 48% of convicted rapists admitted animal cruelty in their childhood. 71% of abused women report that their batterers have threatened to hurt/kill their pets or have done so. 32% of battered women with children report that their children have hurt or killed pets. 25%-48% of battered women delay leaving an abusive situation for fear of what will happen to her pet if left behind. 48% of rapists have committed acts of animal cruelty as children or adolescents. 30% of child molesters have committed acts of animal cruelty as children or adolescents.
15% of all active rapists also rape animals. 40% of animal abusers committed brutal crimes against people.

Cruelty toward animals is a marker for violence toward humans.

 

If a person behaves violently towards an animal, this is violent behavior that, in all likelihood, is not confined to animals.

 

Children exposed to domestic violence are 3 times more likely to act out animal cruelty than children in nonviolent homes. 88% of New Jersey families with physical abuse in the household claimed animals were abused as well. 12 different independent studies show 18% – 48% of battered women delay leaving abusive situations out of fear for the safety of their animals.

 

Violence against small, helpless, or non-threatening creatures unlikely to retaliate is a precursor to assaulting children, women, and the elderly, disabled, or other vulnerable victims. Batterers who hurt animals resort to more types of violence and controlling behaviors to humans than batterers who do not abuse animals.

It gets even more ugly.

Every serial sex rapist ever recorded has a history of animal abuse.

 

Ted Bundy, Son of Sam, Jeffrey Dahlmer, the Boston Strangler, William Gacy and on down to the less infamous.

 

Dennis Rader, the “BTK” (Bind-Torture-Kill) murderer in Wichita, Kansas, confessed to strangling cats and dogs prior to his sadistic spree raping and torturing and murdering untold numbers of women. His day job? An animal control law enforcement officer for the city.

 

Washington D.C. convicted serial killer Lee Boyd Malvo stalked and killed cats with a slingshot. “This was probably the most serious problem…in a strikingly obedient child,” his court psychologist testified. Malvo once had a pet cat but grew to hate animals, a psychologist testified at his murder trial, because his mother would beat Malvo when the cat would sleep in Malvo’s bed and soil the sheets. “If he saw a stray cat he would become angry and shoot the stray cat. He hit some of the cats, and probably killed some of the cats,” she said.

 

Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris smashed the heads of mice with a crowbar and set them on fire.

 

Russell Weston Jr., tortured and killed 12 cats: burned and cut off their tails, paws, ears; poured toxic chemicals in their eyes to blind them; forced them to ingest poison, and hung them from trees. He later killed 2 officers at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC.

Jeffrey Dahlmer impaled frogs, staked cats to trees and decapitated dogs. Later he dissected boys and kept their body parts in the refrigerator. He raped and murdered 17 men.

 

Kip Kinkle shot 25 classmates and others in Springfield, Oregon. He killed his father and mother. Before that, he blew up a cow, set a live cat on fire and dragged it down Main Street of town. Classmates rated him as “Most Likely to Start WWIII.”

 

Albert De Salvo, the “Boston Strangler,” placed a dog and cat in a crate and after starving the animals for days; he watched them kill each other. Later, he raped and strangled 13 women.

 

Richard Allen Davis set cats on fire before he killed all of Polly Klaus’ animals before abducting, raping and murdering her when she was age 12.

 

11-year-old Andrew Golden and 13-year-old Mitchell Johnson tortured and killed dogs before, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, they shot and killed 4 students and 1 teacher during a fire drill at their school.

 

16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death, killed 2 classmates and shot 7 others. He later confessed to bludgeoning his dog, Sparkle, with baseball bats and pouring liquid fuel down her throat and set fire to her neck. “I made my first kill today,” he wrote in his journal. “It was a loved one…I’ll never forget the howl she made. It sounded almost human.”

 

Ted Bundy, executed in 1989 for at least 50 murders, was forced to watch his grandfather torture animals. Bundy later piled animal bones on human graves.

 

Gary Ridgway, the Green River killer, suffocated a cat as a child years before kidnapping, raping and murdering more than 40 prostitutes in Washington State.

 

At four years old Michael Cartier dislocated the legs of rabbits and hurled a kitten through a closed window. He later shot a woman 3 times in the head.

 

Henry Lee Lucas killed numerous animals and had sex with their corpses. Later he killed his mother, wife, and several other people.

 

Edward Kemperer hacked to death 2 cats. Later, he killed his grandparents, mother, and 7 other women.

 

Richard Speck threw a bird into a ventilator fan. Later he killed 8 women.

 

Randy Roth taped a cat to a car’s engine and used an industrial sander on a frog. He then killed 2 of his wives and attempted to kill a third.

 

David Richard Davis fatally shot 2 ponies, hurled a wine bottle at kittens and shot randomly animals. Later, he murdered his wife for insurance money.

 

Peter Kurten, the Dusseldorf Monster, tortured dogs, and practiced bestiality while killing animals. He murdered or attempted to murder over 50 men, women and children.

 

Richard Trenton Chase, “The Vampire Killer of Sacramento,” bit the heads off birds, drained animals for their blood, killed animals for their organs, and later killed 6 people in random attacks.

 

“The Kobe Killer,” a 15-year-old boy in Japan, beheaded a cat and strangled several pigeons before he decapitated an 11-year-old girl. He also killed a 10-year-old girl with a hammer, and tried to rape 3 other children in separate attacks.

 

Richard William Leonard’s grandmother forced him to mutilate cats and kittens when he was a child. He later killed someone with a bow and arrow and murdered another by slashing their throat.

 

Tom Dillion murdered other people’s pets. He later shot and killed five other people.

 

Nine-year-old Eric Smith strangled a neighbor’s cat. At 13, he bludgeoned a 4-year-old to death after luring the boy into the woods, choking him, sodomizing him with a stick, and fatally beat him with a rock.

 

David Berkowitz, the infamous “Son of Sam,” poisoned his mother’s parakeet out of jealousy before shooting 13 young couples, men and women.

 

Arthur Shawcross repeatedly threw a kitten into a lake until the kitten drowned from exhaustion before killing a young girl. After 15-1/2 years in prison, he killed 11 more women.

 

Michael Perry decapitated a neighbor’s dog. Later, he killed his parents, infant nephew and 2 neighbors.

 

Jason Massey’s killing resume began with cats and dogs; at 20 he decapitated and disemboweled a 13-year-old girl and fatally shot a 14-year old boy. He claims to have killed 37 cats, 29 dogs and 6 cows.

 

Patrick Sherrill stole neighborhood pets, tethered them with baling wire and encouraged his dog to mutilate them. He killed 14 co-workers and himself in 1986.

 

Keith Jesperson, the “Happy Face Killer,” bashed gopher heads and beat, strangled and shot stray cats and dogs. Later he strangled 8 women. He said: “You’re actually squeezing the life out of these animals… Choking a human being or a cat — it’s the same feeling…I’m the very end result of what happens when somebody kills an animal at an early age.”

 

Carroll Edward Cole, executed in 1985 for 35 murders, confessed that his first act of violence was to strangle a puppy under the porch of his house.

 

Robert Harris murdered two 16-year-old boys, doused a neighbor with lighter fluid and tossed matches at him. Earlier he was caught by police killing neighborhood cats.

Defenders of sex with animals use the same arguments as those who excuse or defend sex with children and rape of women.  They split the conduct into two categories. Desiring to fuck and to be fucked against their will. Open practitioners of sex with animals say they would never hurt an animal and the animal willingly wants to fuck them. “As a self-confessed zoophile, I personally have no interest in abusing, hurting or torturing animals. I do not go around, breaking into people’s houses and having sex with their pets. Most people with zoosexual tendencies are very sensitive to the needs and body language of their pets. One who knows their animal can quite easily tell if they are stressed or unhappy by a given situation. Simply to say they cannot speak does not, and never has, meant an animal cannot communicate. There’s certainly a grey moral area when it comes to men sticking their cocks in female or male animals, and I don’t show any of that on my website – it feels too close to rape,” says one, 
“But a dog fucking a woman is a different situation entirely. A male dog won’t get an erection and actively take control of humping a woman unless it wants to.”

 

It is this same self-deluded, self-justification argument which is used by pedophiles; that it is a mutual act of affection to fuck a child just taken to the next step.

 

And how many women reading this are familiar with the argument that “She wouldn’t have dressed that way or been in that place alone if she didn’t want to be fucked?” Would a candlelight dinner, champagne, romantic music, gifts, etc be considered coercion or trickery? A friendly smile? She—like the children and animals are expressing non-verbal approval to be fucked regardless of whether the offer verbal consent, according to this line of argument.

Rape is sexual assault that is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person’s consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, and abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent. “Victim blaming” is holding them to be in whole or in part responsible for the crime, that certain victim behaviors, such as flirting, or wearing sexually-provocative clothing, may encourage rape, suggesting victims are  “asking for it”, simply by not behaving demurely.

 

That power is reserved to men whereas women are meant for sex and objectified, that if women want sex it is the equivalent of wanting forced sex, and that male sexual impulses and behaviors are uncontrollable and must be satisfied.

 

To take it one step further, rape has throughout history been viewed less as a type of assault on the female, than a serious property crime against the man to whom she belonged, typically the father or husband. The damage was done to the husband, or father if she was unmarried, severely depreciating her value to a prospective husband. In such cases a demand for financial compensation from the rapist, payable to the woman’s household, whose “goods” were “damaged”, was the penalty. The woman was a piece of property.

Under biblical law, the rapist might be compelled to marry the unmarried woman instead of receiving the civil penalty if her father agreed.  And it isn’t ancient history. In every U.S. state it was legal for a husband to rape his wife until 1975, when South Dakota finally made it a crime to force your wife to have sex against her will.

As the gruesome facts above show, rape is not about sex. Rape is about power, control, objectification, and ownership. Rape is not about a man getting carried away with passion and desire. As is made intentionally disturbingly clear above, rape is not about sexual attraction at all, but rather about controlling the victim and removing their autonomy and humanity. The rape of a woman, as with sex with animals and children, is an act of power and control through force and violence, rather than one of sex.

In 2008, the United Nations recognized the connection between rape and power, officially declared rape to be a weapon of war. It didn’t take a genius to figure that out.  From Roman history and the Mongol empire right through the colonization of the Americas, rape was not held to be a crime. Rather, rape was one of the spoils of victory of power through violence. Under Spanish law in colonizing America, native women could be raped because they were considered Pagan and not Christian.

 

Throughout history, the rape of women has been regarded as a recognized, legitimate spoil of war, ancient enough to be mentioned in the Bible. The systematic rape of as many as 80,000 women by the Japanese soldiers during six weeks the Nanking Massacre in China is an example. During World War II an estimated 200,000 Korean and Chinese women were forced into prostitution in Japanese military brothels, as so-called “Comfort women”. 200,000 women were raped during the Bangladesh Liberation War a few decades ago by the Pakistani army. Serbs raped 20,000 Bosnian Muslim women during the Bosnian War in the 1990’s. More than 200,000 females living in the Congo today have been raped during the recent wars there.

 

In 1998, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found that systematic rape was used in the Rwandan genocide. It said: “Sexual assault formed an integral part of the process of destroying the Tutsi ethnic group and that the rape was systematic and had been perpetrated against Tutsi women only, manifesting the specific intent required for those acts to constitute genocide.” 500,000 women were raped during that 1994 Rwandan Genocide.

So rape as an instrument of control and power and violence seems rather indisputable.

 

As is sex with animals.

 

 

And as is sex with a child.

So let’s move on to sex with children. It is rape, sexual assault, and unacceptable because a child has no ability to consent. Everyone knows a child saying ‘yes’ does not mean s/he wants to or enjoys it or agrees. It, too, is a form of coercive and manipulative abuse of power over someone incapable of freely determining whether they are acting by consent. It is because they cannot, on an equal basis, say ‘no’, that they are targeted.

But where most common sex takes the form of willing manipulation, child abuse is coercive: the abuser preys upon a child’s intellectual helplessness. The abuser gets all the self-satisfaction he or she wants and in the process leaves the child with a life-long legacy of having been manipulated into aspects of eroticism well before having developing any defense mechanisms to cope with the psychological and sexual assaults.

Studies of child sex offenders show that pedophiles use psychological manipulation to meet personal needs, justifying abuse by making excuses, defining their actions as love, and using the power imbalance that is always fact in all adult-child relationships. They also defend their actions saying the children they raped enjoyed it and were sexual beings, or that they weren’t responsible because of uncontrollable sexual urges, and felt they were entitled to their sexual desires fulfilled.

The connection between child abuse and animal abuse and forcing women to both act against their sexual will–and be forbidden from acting according to their sexual will–is also clear.

 

30% of convicted child molesters and 48% of convicted rapists admitted animal cruelty in their childhood. Another study showed 40% of persons convicted of child abuse admitted they abused animals and 30% of persons convicted of rape confessed to prior animal abuse. Studies also found that a history of animal abuse was found in 25% of male criminals, 30% of convicted child molesters, 36% of domestic violence cases and 46% of homicide cases.

The connection between sex with animals and children and rape and sexual assault of women has far less to do with sex than it does with sexualizing power and control to deny or target those who can’t say ‘yes’ to act out selfish demands.

 

It is exactly the absence of consent that is what the offender lusts after.

 

It doesn’t matter whether physical harm occurs. What matters is that one participant is not able to be fully informed, communicate consent, or to speak for themselves.

 

For consent to be exchanged both participants must be conscious, fully informed and positive in their desires.

 

The animal or child is unable to understand the act or even understand it at the physical level. This is similar to having sex with a mentally handicapped adult. It is taking advantage of their inability to comprehend.

Even if the animal or child physically ‘consents’–as in does not resist the physical advances of an adult human– they still cannot be said to be consenting. There is no contract as such between both parties.  In an act of rape the potential exists for reciprocity, but it is not fulfilled. Only one party – the rapist – derives any pleasure from the act, while the victim is denied the option to choose what pleasures her or him or, in the case of animals, it.

Consent is the exchange of voluntary, sober, wanted, informed, mutual, honest, and verbal agreement. It cannot be coerced or imposed. Consent cannot be coerced. It is a process to be asked for every step of the way. If you want to move on to something else, just ask.

 

Consent is never implied and cannot be assumed. The absence of a “no” doesn’t mean “yes”. It always requires that both participants be equally involved in any sexual decision or activities to have sex.

 

This destroys and eliminates myths such as the stud vs. slut stereotype. It frees everyone to find and choose without restraint what he or she both want and don’t want.

 

It means every individual is responsible for not only their own sexual conduct but requires them to engage in mutual sex with those who have and can take the same responsibility.

 

Communicating with your partner about sexual needs and desires liberates for women and men to both want and enjoy sex. Knowing your personal beliefs and values and respecting your partner’s personal beliefs and values allows us all to be free to explore and free from judgment.

 

Your desires may be beyond your control, but your actions are within your control.  Sexual excitement does not justify forced sex.

As a corollary, only each us can prevent rape or sexual assault–by not doing it.

 

A lot has been said about how to prevent rape. Women should learn self-defense. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn’t have long hair and women shouldn’t wear short skirts. Women shouldn’t leave drinks unattended. Hell, women shouldn’t dare to get drunk at all.

 

What utter bullshit and profoundly counterproductive to all men who are seeking sexual fulfillment.

 

Instead, if a woman is drunk, don’t rape her.

 

If a woman is walking alone at night, don’t rape her.

 

If a woman is drugged and unconscious, don’t rape her.

 

If a woman is wearing a short skirt, don’t rape her.

 

If a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don’t rape her.

 

If a woman is in a coma, don’t rape her.

 

If an animal can’t say ‘yes’, don’t fuck it.

 

If a woman changes her mind in the middle of, or about a particular activity, don’t rape her.

 

If a woman has refused a certain activity, don’t rape her.

 

If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don’t rape her.

 

If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don’t rape her.

 

If your stepdaughter is watching TV, don’t rape her.

 

If your friend thinks it’s okay to rape someone, tell him it’s not.

 

Tell your sons and grandsons, sons of friends it’s not okay to rape someone.

 

Don’t tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape. Don’t imply that she could have avoided it if she’d only done this and not done that. Don’t imply that it’s in any way her fault.

 

Don’t accept a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions.

So, for me, that takes care of the issue of the actual act, or experiencing, sex with children and animals.

 

It in no way denies or judges that many people have sexual urges and fantasies of underage sex, being raped or raping, sex without consent, and yes, sex with animals. It is only when acted on that each of these crosses the acceptable boundaries.

Coerced and non consensual sex not just forces others to participate against their will; it forces many not to participate in sexuality they in fact desire.

 

For many, if not all women, there is a blatant double standard that if they freely express their erotic mind, they will be judged and condemned. And, for far too many men, they want a woman who must repress their public sexuality but act the opposite in private—often only with them.

 

So never assume before you proceed. A good lover is a good listener. A bad listener is at best a bad lover and at worst a rapist.

 

Whether a sexual desire or fantasy is natural or perverted does not depend on what organs are used or where they are put, but only that mutual consent guides the sexual encounter.  It just needs mutual agreement of response to the other’s sexual arousal.

 

Consent by definition is the exchange of mutual agreement. If one is going to engage in sexual activity with another not only should they have consent they must exchange it. Not only is it someone’s right to give consent but also it is equally your obligation to receive consent.

 

Because animals are not capable of saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is exactly why you cannot fuck them, period. And by extension, why it is essential that you not only offer consent but you receive consent in any sexual encounter. This question of whether non-sexual human relations with animals is a consensual one is spurious. We are referring to human sexually activity with a partner—in this case wo(man) or beast.

Which leads us to the difference between fantasy desires and actions: There is a difference between sexual desires of fantasy and brutal, violent reality. There also is a difference between the fundamental right of choice in one’s fantasy and the loss of control as a victim of sexual assault.

The most common fantasies for men and women are reliving an exciting sexual experience, imagining sex with a current partner, and imagining sex with a different partner.

 

The next most common fantasies are oral sex, sex in a romantic location, sexual power or irresistibility, and forced sex.

 

45.8% of men in a 1980 study said they fantasized about being raped by a woman and 44.7% of fucking a woman who “pretends resisting” and 33% of raping a woman.

 

More than half of women fantasized of being raped or coerced forcibly into sex.

 

The top women’s fantasies include older women fantasizing about sex with a much younger man, or a man of a different ethnicity, or a man who is lower than them on the social scale, like the fantasy of the pool man or the delivery boy; Quickie sex with a total stranger, often on a plane or train; being overwhelmed and taken against their will or raped (but not painfully or violently); sex with another woman, even if they don’t consider themselves to be lesbian; sex with someone who cares for them such as a doctor or priest.

 

For younger women, “Daddy” fantasies about older men are common. Older women fantasize about their sons much younger friends. Sex with someone who is a blur.

 

More women than men fantasize about location and setting like making love on the deserted beach of a beautiful island.

Fantasies are frequently used to escape real-life sexual restraints and to imagine dangerous or illegal scenarios.

 

Fantasy is a normal, healthy part of sex for men and women. A rich fantasy life leads to better sex. One of the attractions of fantasy lovers — even when your fantasy lover is actually your current partner, as often happens — is that they’re right beside you, and they know just what to do to make you feel good. And you can enjoy fantasy sex with someone other than your partner without repercussions, because it occurs solely in your mind. Fantasy gives you an outlet for all of the wild, lustful, often forbidden urges that you’ve always wanted to do.

Now to digress and insert the Internet as a way of expressing sexual fantasies and how it is healthy and contributes to decreasing—not promoting—unacceptable sexual conduct.  In 2001, the four states with the lowest per capita access to the Internet were Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, and West Virginia. The four states with the highest Internet access were Alaska, Colorado, New Jersey, and Washington.

 

Next look at the figures for forcible rape compiled by police reports for the years 1980 and 2000. In the four states with lowest Internet access, the increase in rape was 53%. The four states with highest Internet access the decrease in rape was 27%.

 

The same phenomenon has followed changes in pornography laws when eased around the world. In Japan the laws legalizing pornography were met with a stark decrease in sexual violence over the period of change, sex crimes in every category, from rape to sexual assault against children significantly decreased. Despite the wide increase in availability of pornography to children, not only was there a decrease in sex crimes with juveniles as victims but the number of juvenile offenders also decreased significantly. These same findings were seen with the rise of sexually explicit materials in Denmark, Sweden and West Germany. In West Germany, from 1971 to 1987 group rape rates decreased 59%. Rape by strangers decreased 33%.  In Japan the number of rapes committed by individuals known to the victim, decreased. Since rapes by strangers or groups are more likely to be reported than date or marital rapes, again there is little doubt these findings in Japan represent real differences.

While pornography does arouse people sexually, it leads to legal sexual expressions through fantasy. Couples might have increased their love making frequency, artists might have created newly inspired works of art, multitudes might have used the pornography as vehicles for sexual self knowledge and many used the material for reading or viewing pleasure and masturbation.

 

All of these are positive, legal and constructive, or at least nondestructive, social outlets.

 

Erotic fantasies expressed, not repressed, are a way to relieve the sexual suffocation we all are victims of and promote healthy expression, rather than the unacceptable acting out of behaviors that violate others right to their own sexual freedom and choices.

So the point of all the above overflow of dry facts and academic analysis of fucking, lust, perversion and desire is that it is all normal.

 

Think and lust how we all want to.

 

But never deny another that exact pleasure by forcing them to satisfy yours by denying them theirs. All sexual acts and sexual crimes begin with fantasy.

A perfect example of where fantasy allows full pleasure without denying others their own is found in the edges of the forbidden corners of the BDSM community.  Many, both women and men, find deep and pure sexual pleasure in being dominated or submissive—including fantasies of purely non consensual sex. Many include domination, control, humiliation, pain, injury, and violence, or a combination of these themes, as a means to elicit suffering. As the fantasies vary, so does the degree of violence. But there are clear rules on how those are satisfied. Sexual role-playing of rape fantasy is self-defined as ‘ravishment’ or ‘forced sex role-play’. To make the distinction between consensual role-play and non-consensual assault. Though consent is absolutely paramount the illusion of non-consensuality or rape is important to maintaining the fantasy. Crossing the line is rape and assault. One or more “safe words” are used to communicate being consenting partners. All participants agree what will transpire beforehand. Limits are respected and made very clear, to maintain consensual play.

Who knows why we all have different desires and sexual tastes? Who cares? The only way that we can each seek and enjoy and satisfy the demands of our often fiery, sweltering, turbulent, and ecstatically pleasurable and sometimes disturbing lust in the forbidden corners of our erotic minds, is to ensure no one restricts them.

 

And that means we cannot restrict or deny the same in others.

 

So, I say feel free to fuck who, where, how, and when you want. As long as you do not deny me or anyone their pleasure in doing the same. And having both the right and ability to say exactly what that is.

 

And that means, by definition, stay the fuck away from my dog, Lamont.

%d bloggers like this: