Tag: sexual violence

Trading Pleasure for Consent

Posted on by jmsheridan

Let’s get one thing straight: stealthing is sexual assault.

You could be forgiven for not knowing what stealthing is, except that is part of the problem. Recently the HuffPost claimed stealthing was a ‘new sex practice’, but since then people all over the world have been coming forward and telling their stories, implying there is nothing new going on here. We are just finally talking about it.

The term itself is fairly new and the internet has been quick to inject the phrase into the online lexicon. But in case you’re still not familiar with it allow me to summarise:

Stealthing is the act whereby one party removes the condom during sex without the other party’s knowledge or consent. Gross, right?

The recent surge of online debate over stealthing began when Alexandra Brodsky of Yale Law School posted a study suggesting that the trend was on the rise in the US and calling for new laws to concretely safeguard victims.

Source: Instagram/@honestly_quotes

In recent years, courts from all over the world have found stealthing to be a clear breach of bodily integrity and a non-consensual sexual act. Bills have been introduced in the US to criminalise it in California and Wisconsin, and a similar piece of legislation is under consideration in the UK.

Now that you know what stealthing means you’re probably thinking ‘Oh, I’ve heard stories about that. Hasn’t that been going on for ages?’ And the sad truth is yes, it probably has. The development of sexual assault and other crimes of a sexual nature, as they are defined under the law, has been painstakingly slow. Some parts of Australia had no laws against marital rape until 1987, and we only managed to introduce legislation criminalising image-based abuse, commonly referred to as ‘revenge porn’ this year. We’ve been well behind the game.

This slow progress can also be seen in stealthing. There have been no cases of stealthing brought before the courts in Australia, and no legislation specifically mentions the ramifications if protection is removed during intercourse without both parties consenting. I can understand the law being slow if it is catching up with technology, but condoms aren’t exactly the latest and greatest in contraception. So what’s the deal?

If I were a betting woman – and I’m not, but if I were – I would guess that the reason there has been no action in this area of law is because nobody is reporting it. Like most issues with sexual assault, it all comes down to whether the victims step forward. And as usual this comes with a whole other mix of problems, from not understanding that what happened was ‘assault’, to not wanting to get a friend or loved one in trouble. One account online of a victim of stealthing also noted that the police did not take her matter seriously when she gave her statement. Sound familiar?

Time and time again victims of sexual assault are having to fight against this overriding theme that consent is not as important as pleasure. Allegations of rape always contain questions over whether the victim was ‘asking for it’ or whether the victim simply regretted it the next day. Sex is fun, sex is pleasurable, people love to have sex! So victims are asked if they are sure they didn’t consent, and if they are sure it was rape. Because to some people any sex is still sex.

Stealthing is the ultimate example of this. Offenders remove the condom, most typically because they can experience more pleasure without it, be it from the physical experience or the feeling of degrading the other party. And in exchange for this pleasure is the consent of the victim, who has no idea that the terms upon which they agreed to have intercourse have been rewritten.

Imagine sex like a contract. Both parties put forward their terms. Lights off. Reciprocal orgasms. But most importantly: a condom. Then during the execution of the contract the terms are changed. And not just any term, but one of the big ones. One of the terms that protects a party’s physical autonomy – the term that protects them from falling pregnant or potentially contracting an STI. That shield is literally taken away.

If you agreed to enter a boxing match on the condition you wear protective gear, wouldn’t you be angry if half way through the match they took your helmet away and continued to punch you?

So while Australian law remains silent on stealthing, it is important that victims don’t. Men, women and non-binary victims who have had their bodily integrity compromised by the selfishness of another. People who have been violated and assaulted by offenders who have consistently gone unpunished.

Stealthing is not a prank. It is not a joke. There is nothing funny about sexual assault.

And as far as I’m concerned that’s all stealthing is: sexual assault. And the sooner we stop trying to divert the conversation about sex-based crimes with discussions centered around pleasure, the better.

Featured Image: Encouraging Life Organisation which provides services on ‘reproductive, sexual health and comprehensive sex education’

Mental Health Police: Thirteen Reasons Why You Should Stop

Posted on by jmsheridan

CW: The following article deals with themes portrayed in Thirteen Reasons Why including mental health, suicide and sexual assault. Please read on at your discretion.

Have you seen it yet? What tape are you up to? Have you seen Clay’s tape yet? HAVE YOU SEEN CLAY’S TAPE YET?!

Whether you’ve actually seen it or not I’m sure that by now everyone is at least familiar with Netflix’s latest hit Thirteen Reasons Why. It follows the story of Clay as he comes to terms with the death of his close friend Hannah, who has left behind a series of tapes explaining why she chose to kill herself. Some have loved it, some have hated it, and some have made memes about it. No matter what your feelings are on the show, we can all agree that it deals with some pretty intense issues often shied away from by big production companies, which is great to see.

However I have noticed a fair amount of articles and blog posts surfacing about the themes in the show that made me wrinkle my nose. There have been several experts that have come forward to criticise the show for a very graphic (too graphic?) suicide scene, which is a very valid criticism and one for a separate discussion. But I do have growing concerns about the online chatter that criticises the depiction of mental illness and trauma throughout the show. I know people who have spoken out about how they relate to the show, only to be quickly shot down by others who say that the show’s depiction of mental illness does not reflect reality.

Picture: Netflix ‘Thirteen Reasons Why’

And that’s not right.

I feel like an ugly trend has been developing where we police each other’s health. We saw it back in 2015 when the #effyourbeautystandards movement was taking off. So many people trying to reclaim their self-worth were shut down by those who made assumptions about the health of plus-size people. They were policing the health of their bodies, insisting people were putting their lives at risk just by trying to love themselves. Even recently Tess Holiday, the creator of the #effyourbeautystandards movement, was fat-shamed by her Uber driver who was policing her for what he perceived as bad health.

But now it seems that we are also policing people for their mental health. Thirteen Reasons Why and the subsequent discussion have brought this to a head, with people attacking each other online over the accuracy of the portrayal of Hannah’s mental health. Besides severe disappointment (really guys? This is the hill you wanna die on?) I was also shocked. People were trying to delegitimise the experiences of others based on a television show.

Hasn’t the negative stigma surrounding mental health done that enough? Do we really need to be contributing to the mystification of mental health by suggesting that only one version of trauma exists? Who are we to dictate how a rape victim should feel and behave after the fact? Do we really want to tell each other the correct way to experience depression and PTSD?

Because the answer should be no, guys.

Of course the show does not mention Hannah’s mental health specifically; we cannot know for certain if Hannah suffered from anxiety, depression or PTSD resulting from the constant and extreme bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. The show has been criticised for not tackling these issues head on, but I actually thought this was a purposeful statement. We don’t have to label someone’s health in order to recognise the different signs and symptoms; a person does not need to walk around with a sign that says ‘depression’ in order to have depression.

There are serious problems with diagnosis in mental health. A lot of people remain undiagnosed for their serious and very treatable illnesses for all kinds of reasons. Some people are ashamed, some people deny that there is anything wrong, and some people just don’t realise that what they are feeling isn’t healthy. I felt that by not labelling Hannah with a specific mental illness, the show was emulating reality: people often do not reach out for a diagnosis for many of the reasons discussed in the show.

Picture: Netflix ‘Thirteen Reasons Why’

Instead of handing her a sign that says ‘depression’ or ‘PTSD’, Hannah is living out these conditions. We can connect the bullying and sexual harassment to her deepening depression. We can connect her stillness and fear following her rape to trauma and PTSD. We can hear her descriptions of feeling empty and recognise that Hannah has some mental health issues that she needs help working through.

Is the show suggesting that their depiction is an entirely accurate depiction of mental health? No. Is the show suggesting that their depiction is the only way of experiencing mental illness? No. At the same time it is not showing every aspect of mental illness. It’s a television show, and while it has a certain duty to treat the subject material with care and respect, it does not claim to be an authority on the issue.

Because it isn’t.

People can experience mental illness in the same way that Hannah does. I myself really related to Hannah, and saw my own experiences, thoughts and behaviours from my years with depression emulated in the character of Hannah. At the same time people can experience mental illness differently to Hannah. Some people get angry. Some people get sad. Some people self-harm and some don’t. The point is that everyone is different and we are all just trying to work through our mental health issues.

I am not a doctor, I am not an expert. But I feel that common sense tells us that people can experience illness and suffering in different ways. Just because someone experiences their depression differently to you does not make either of your experiences any less valid. It just means you are different.

So just be kind to each other. Help each other. And if you need a reason why you shouldn’t shut down someone who is trying to confide their feelings in you, just because your experience was different – I can think of thirteen.

If you or someone you know may be suffering from mental illness, contact SANE, the National Mental Health Charity Helpline on 1800 187 263 or Lifeline, a 24 hour crisis support and suicide prevention service on 13 11 14.

Feature Image Source: Netflix ‘Thirteen Reasons Why’

Stop Protecting Rapists

Posted on by jmsheridan

Words: Jessica Sheridan

This morning I woke up to find yet another headline that has become all too familiar over the past few months: ‘Rapist Walks Free’. I’m starting to forget the last time I woke up and there wasn’t a similar story somewhere on my newsfeed.

A few days ago I read about Kraigen Grooms, a 19-year-old from the US who pleaded guilty to committing sexual acts with a toddler back in 2014. Grooms was 16 at the time of the attack, and the female victim was aged between 12-18 months; more of a baby than a toddler. The lewd act was also recorded on camera by another party. Police found evidence to suggest the attack was premeditated, and that Grooms may have also planned to commit a similar offence against another toddler, this time a three year old boy.

So to sum up: a teenager raped a baby while streaming it online. And he planned to do it again.

I imagine that many of us assume that an offence such as this would carry with it an appropriate sentence, and for most of us I think that a lengthy prison term would satiate our want to see justice done. Sexual violence is after all one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed, and young children and babies are some of the most vulnerable members of society. Surely, for their protection, such an act should be met with adequate justice?

Grooms, who was guilty of engaging in a lascivious act with a child, received a ten year suspended sentence. The only term he served was the two years waiting for his trial, shared between juvenile detention and county prison. The only palpable impact upon his life was the requirement that he register as a sex offender. If he fails to do so, then he will serve his prison sentence. In other words, as long as he follows the rules this time around, he doesn’t have to serve any jail time for his offence.

One can’t help but draw parallels between this case and that of the now infamous Brock Turner. Turner was found guilty of sexual assault earlier this year, and was sentenced to only six months in prison. To add salt to the wound, he only served three of those months, released early for his good behaviour. The Rolling Stone reported that the judge’s lenient sentence was supported by the claim that a lengthy prison sentence would have a ‘severe impact’ upon Turner. Turner was also required to register as a sex offender, which the judge felt was part and parcel of his punishment.

Unlike Grooms, Turner was not a minor when he committed his crimes, and his victim was 22 years old. Still it is easy to see the similar way leniency was shown in both cases. Both offenders evaded lengthy prison sentences, both are white males, and both are required to register as sex offenders. And in both cases there has been public outrage and a call for the sentencing judges to be investigated and dismissed.

But what does registering as a sexual offender really mean? In the US it limits where a sexual offender can live so that they cannot reside close to places with children, like schools and parks. However, as critic Emily Horowitz has noted, not all offenders have committed sexual crimes against children. Turner, for example, attacked an older woman. While protection of our kids is obviously paramount, you have to wonder why the focus is on children even for offenders who have not committed acts against children. The punishment does not seem to fit the crime.

Some might argue that the sex offender registry is designed to forever inhibit offenders whose details are listed publically for employers, neighbours, and basically everyone to see. But if you were hoping that this would be the long term punishment you thought they would receive, then I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed. Although the register does provide details of registered offenders, in some US states only the details of high-risk offenders are available to the public.

And as if that wasn’t enough, the Office of Justice has found no consistent studies demonstrating the effectiveness of sex offender registration in actually preventing further crime. 

So what’s the real outcome here? What punishment do Grooms and Turner face for sexually assaulting their respective victims who were both unable to defend themselves? The answer unfortunately is that neither of them will likely serve any significant prison time for their crimes, and the only long-term punishment either will receive is being listed on a glorified name and shame register.

Am I understating the impact on a person’s life of being a registered sex offender? Probably. But both of these men who committed crimes against vulnerable persons will serve understated sentences. So yes, I’m bitter. I’m angry at the sense of entitlement that seems to encourage men to take whatever they want. And I’m angry that the system is letting them largely get away with it. Why should the victim suffer more than the offender?

And yes, both Turner and Grooms will probably suffer at the hands of public outrage. And no, it is not okay to stand outside someone’s house with assault weapons as some people have done outside of Turner’s house – that is not an appropriate punishment either. None of this goes to the core of the issue: neither of these offenders will face a punishment that fits the crimes they committed.

At first we weren’t finding rapists guilty of their violent crimes. We called victims of sex crimes liars and fabricators and victim blamed our way through centuries, blindfolded and throwing punches in the dark. Now we finally accept that these violent sexual acts are occurring, but we refuse to punish offenders because we are too focused on how their lives will be affected in the long term.

We need appropriate sentencing. We need rehabilitation programs. We need justice.

Featured Image: Zac Quitzau  Facebook: Zac’s Doodles