Authored by: blackhand on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 09:33 AM CST

How was the article framed moralistically? It even brings up how "sexual assault" and the survivor/perpetrator dichotomy is limiting and potentially unnecessarily divisive.

In spite of the one line that says some behavior that is always unacceptable (and right after saying the survivor should classify the behavior according to their own standards), the article tries to break down right vs. wrong as abstract categories and instead emphasizes consent and desire as waypoints for examining experiences:

As every experience is unique, we should use language specific to each one, rather than attempting to force all our experiences into abstract categories; we can do so by describing each individually: as a deliberate boundary violation, for example, or as a decision in which consent was ambiguous.

Can you elaborate on what you find so legalistic? Or is any behavior that isn't impulsive too domesticated?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: HPWombat on Friday, March 07 2008 @ 01:07 PM CST

A welcome challenge blackhand. I'll attempt to define my criticisms more. First I will apologize for calling this article awful. This issue is a difficult one to take on and I must pause now to consider how I would approach these issues..

---
Listen to Radio Subvertista at cbusimc.org! Interested in Midwest and Great Lakes Regional Networking? Check out midwest.azone.org and launch your position pap

[ Reply to This | # ]