Carrie and "The Donald" take tea while Sean Hannity looks on....
What happened to Carrie is not, as at least one feminist blogger has argued, "sexual assault, " and it does not "perpetuate the rape culture," unless you're saying televised beauty pageants rape our culture, yeah they do. But as Media Matters just pointed out this week, the word "rape" is being used far too often in political discourse, and it denigrates the suffering of those who have actually experienced that crime, the exact same way tossing around "Hitler" denigrates holocaust victims. In future, I hope we can pull it back a notch, and only use the term rape to mean, well, rape.
I would be very inclined to see assault if Prejean's boyfriend had secretly taped her. That has happened in more than one occasion to other models/actresses, and its perps should be thrown in jail, period. But Prejean pressed "record" herself. What she did is akin to getting passed-out drunk at a frat party. She's responsible for the dangerous position she stupidly placed herself in, but not for any violation (and releasing the tapes is a violation) committed against her.
Releasing the tapes was a violation... of her privacy.
Yet note that the one major case that was won on behalf of gay rights, Lawrence v. Texas, was won in part on the basis of due process/privacy of the individuals in the case. Carrie Prejean saw, I think in a spur of the moment on-stage glitch decision, that she could have it all -- sexy image, fame, and in some unfocused dream, "to be taken seriously"--by denying that gay citizens have a right to commit to a relationship that sexually is no one's business but their own. And then her right to "privacy" is taken away.
I don't expect Prejean to see the irony. I do demand the privilege of mocking her for her inconsistency.
And obviously, there is just as much porno about being Miss California as there is to being paid for online dildo sex. The Donald knows what he's talking about, and Prejean calling him for advice shows just where her "career goals" lie. The End.
How much do I LOVE this effing post?!!
ReplyDeleteAnd the artwork--OMG, Alice is my favorite children's book. I used to want to be Alice, and dress like her, back in the day. (In the fashion book, I mention this obsession a little bit.)
This...this is like Christmas and Halloween (when I have been known to dress as Alice, ahem) all rolled together and topped with some flaming Sambucca.
Oh, and by "lawn mower", are you by any chance referring to that episode of Mad Men? Because you know that show is packed with sexism and racism, right?
What, wait, spotlighting the sexism and racism stuff we all went through in the 60's is the whole *point* of the show? Huh.
/snark.
HUGE sigh. Another beef I have is that it is apparently unacceptable, in certain circles, to say someone "had it coming". I can't remember the commenter's name, but at Pandagon, someone pointed out that, you know, that's kind of bullshit reasoning there--not *everything* is a rape apology, a "she asked for it" statement. I agree--sometimes we do things that actually bring about consequences, the probability of which we were at least tangentially aware when we committed said act. If I live on fudge and potato chips for a week, and my face breaks out and I gain ten pounds and start being really cranky, well, I kinda had it coming. If I wear my satin pumps in the rain--instead of going back into the apartment and grabbing some weather-friendly shoes--and the pumps get ruined, well, etc, etc.
And just to ice the cake, as it were, my word verification thingie is: SUPID.
Love, love, love.
Bon Weekend, BG. And thank you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOkay I calmed down and I'm revising my previous expletive laced comment. Ya know, I see exactly what you're saying, Litbrit. LOLOL.
ReplyDelete'Did you really mean to write that passing out at a frat party makes it ok to get abused? So a woman attending one is "asking for it?"
ReplyDeleteI think you didn't.'
That's good that you 'think she didn't' because that's not what's written there. Moving on...
What's happening to Prejean can happen to anyone who calls the whirlwind and then struggles to ride it.
Fame can be very unforgiving in some guises, and IMHO if Perez F*cking Hilton hadn't figured Prejean for a ripe patsy to get some cheap heat for his tawdry site and 'baited the hook', she may well have gone on to a limited yet idyllic 'former beauty queen turned spokesmodel' fame where no one cared very much about her politics or proclivities, as opposed to being the latest bit of flaming cheese in the simmering fondue of frustrated American sexuality.
But 'sex tapes released without the participants' consent is sexual assault'...? No. Sorry. Sexual assault is sexual assault, but invasion of privacy is not and never will be.
;>)
Darkblack: exactly. You should've seen how I was excoriated over at That Place for disagreeing with the party line, which is to say, the nodding and yessing to the ridiculous "Prejean was sexually assaulted" b.s. Yes, the ex-boyfriend (or hookup, or lover, or whatever he was) is a scumbag. Yes, he may be guilty of invasion of privacy, copyright infringement, etc. But sexual assault? No way.
ReplyDeleteNB, you need to read the post with your glasses on, dearie. Here's what Fran said:
She's responsible for the dangerous position she stupidly placed herself in, but not for any violation (and releasing the tapes is a violation) committed against her.
Responsible for the dangerous position she stupidly placed herself in.
But not for any violation committed against her.
See how that works?
Much baying on the moors while the dissident runs the moonlight, Litbrit.
ReplyDeleteHopefully to claim 'copyright infringement', Ms. Prejean has craftily trademarked rubbing one out on camera, in which case she stands to become a most wealthy woman indeed, given the current popular predilection for digital (ahem) exhibitionism.
;)
'Some people' (ah, that sweet precursor to a logical fallacy) filter things unswervingly through their own subjective experience and reject with prejudice data that doesn't fit the model, especially after a traumatic event.
Unfortunately, there's not much productive reasoning to be had in that circumstance because self-negation is seen as a consequence of negotiation within the dialog.
Of course, self-negation really isn't a factor because the personal validity and impact of the experience remains unchanged, but the blurring of demarcations between subjective and objective prevent a detached viewpoint that might aid in a reasoned discussion.
Ah, well...Not everybody loves one, do they?
;>)
i dont know what to add
ReplyDeletebut a great post
prejean is the epitome for "be careful what you wish for"