![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Trigger Warning: Discussion of Rape
Oct. 10th, 2012 12:35 pmSo over on tumblr last night someone posted a quote from Tony Abbot which was supposed to make him look better in the harsh light of the tongue-lashing he recieved from Julia Gillard.
It wasn't very well recieved.
This was the quote in question:
“I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak” (sic)
And... no.
My friend Cat weighed in beautifully when someone decided to interpret that statement as "both extremes are bollocks and a middle path is more optimal". What that person was implying, which I don't think they realised, was that in the interest of "fairness", women do not have the right to say no to sex every time they do not want to have sex.
Hell no.
Dressing it up in the guise of "men shouldn't always ask to have sex every time they want to, either" does nothing to make it better, either, because a lot of people don't ask before trying to have sex with you and that's called rape. They're implying that the drive and desire to have sex lies primarily with men, and the duty to provide such sex lies with women. It implies that women saying no is a bad thing. It implies that men being told no is a bad thing. It implies that "yes" is the only acceptable answer to the question of sex.
It is NOT.
Tony Abbot is a politician, which is to say, a moralising, bandwagoning bastard who changes his tune to fit the wind of popular opinion. He has a long record of being unsympathetic and offensive to women of all classes, creeds, and backgrounds. Quoting anything Tony Abbot has said to me as an example of underlying tolerance and fairness of sttitude will be met with derision and scorn. Defending your misinterpretation of Tony Abbot's statement will not endear you to me. Engaging the Tone Argument on my friends will downright Piss Me Off.
You do not have, Tony Abbot does not have, NO ONE ELSE in this world has the right to tell me what I can and cannot, should and should not, will and will not do with MY BODY. Your desire to have sex with me does not override my right to not have sex with you if I do not want to. You may express your desires to me, but then you accept and abide by my decision. To do otherwise is to impose your wants over my right to an autonomous, rape-free existence.
(Guys get sick of being told "no" when they ask someone to sleep with them? Try being asked over and over for sex. Except most guys wouldn't see this as a bad thing, because for them sex is power. When they're actually put in a position to recieve repeated, unwanted sexual advances they find it just as unpleasant as we do.)
tl;dr even when Tony Abbot tries to get it right, he gets it very wrong, and holding up one of those shining examples as evidence of his reasonableness in the face of his very well deserved calling out is gonne getcha NOWHERE.
It wasn't very well recieved.
This was the quote in question:
And... no.
My friend Cat weighed in beautifully when someone decided to interpret that statement as "both extremes are bollocks and a middle path is more optimal". What that person was implying, which I don't think they realised, was that in the interest of "fairness", women do not have the right to say no to sex every time they do not want to have sex.
Hell no.
Dressing it up in the guise of "men shouldn't always ask to have sex every time they want to, either" does nothing to make it better, either, because a lot of people don't ask before trying to have sex with you and that's called rape. They're implying that the drive and desire to have sex lies primarily with men, and the duty to provide such sex lies with women. It implies that women saying no is a bad thing. It implies that men being told no is a bad thing. It implies that "yes" is the only acceptable answer to the question of sex.
It is NOT.
Tony Abbot is a politician, which is to say, a moralising, bandwagoning bastard who changes his tune to fit the wind of popular opinion. He has a long record of being unsympathetic and offensive to women of all classes, creeds, and backgrounds. Quoting anything Tony Abbot has said to me as an example of underlying tolerance and fairness of sttitude will be met with derision and scorn. Defending your misinterpretation of Tony Abbot's statement will not endear you to me. Engaging the Tone Argument on my friends will downright Piss Me Off.
You do not have, Tony Abbot does not have, NO ONE ELSE in this world has the right to tell me what I can and cannot, should and should not, will and will not do with MY BODY. Your desire to have sex with me does not override my right to not have sex with you if I do not want to. You may express your desires to me, but then you accept and abide by my decision. To do otherwise is to impose your wants over my right to an autonomous, rape-free existence.
(Guys get sick of being told "no" when they ask someone to sleep with them? Try being asked over and over for sex. Except most guys wouldn't see this as a bad thing, because for them sex is power. When they're actually put in a position to recieve repeated, unwanted sexual advances they find it just as unpleasant as we do.)
tl;dr even when Tony Abbot tries to get it right, he gets it very wrong, and holding up one of those shining examples as evidence of his reasonableness in the face of his very well deserved calling out is gonne getcha NOWHERE.
