Sexual violence has no excuse
Rape is a weapon, of war, of patriarchy, of domination over other bodies. There is no positive explanation for rape, no situation where rape would ever be acceptable. Sexual violence has no excuse, no reason or hand waving, it is simply a weapon of terror, a weapon of power. To violate another person sexually is to cross a line into repugnance and abhorrence. To threaten sexual violence, to threaten rape is to threaten repugnant actions on another person. It is never simply an empty threat; it is spawned from the deep recessed of power and domination.
In an age where identity is hidden, where anonymity affords a degree of power all of its own, those who threaten sexual violence can hide in their clouds of data relatively safe to throw out hate and intended violence without fear of getting caught. If you are faceless, only a vague handle, then impunity is your hand maiden. There is no greater comfort for those who threaten than the knowledge that only the most determined investigator will track you down.
That the internet has spawned a culture whereby casual fly-by rape threats are common responses shows how far anonymity has unleashed a certain form of power. Yes, historically rape and rape threats are endemic in the record, but social media has given the power to the masses to use the threat of sexual violence as a first strike weapon. If the masses disagree with you often the sexual violence threats and rape threats are not far behind.
Why is this acceptable? It is certain an artefact of male and patriarchal power, yet it is also a casually thrown about parlance in certain circles. Suck on my dick is common enough that it is simply a joke phrase. #suckonmydick is practically polite in the Twittersphere. We, the global we, pass this off as one of those things, yet there is real psychological damage done to those on the receiving end. Targets can be of any gender, any sexuality, any culture, this is not simply a white middle class woman hand wringing thing. There is a push to better educate boys on sexual mores, yet in the digital realm all manner of sexual violence and sexual threats proliferate everyday conversation.
It is not prudish to argue for bodily autonomy, to argue that threatening sexual violence is abhorrent. If the right to say no is the foundation of consent, the right to not to face sexual threats should be a corner stone of internet etiquette. This should be basic stuff, yet I have had people defend sexual violence turns of phrase vociferously. Queer folk have advocated for threats of sexual violence against those they oppose, those they see as oppressors. Frankly, it turns my stomach, especially when trans women are likely to be victims of sexual violence and threats of sexual violence. This is not a neutral conversation, the moment you allow yourself to use threats of sexual violence in your speech is the moment you wield sexual violence as a weapon against others.
Why should calling out such speech be seen as a mea culpa? Why defend those who threaten sexual violence? The arguments often used invoke the power imbalance between queer folk and those they threaten, yet if it unacceptable to threaten queer folk with sexual violence why is it acceptable the other way round? This disconnect between being on the receiving end of rape threats and dishing out threats of sexual violence is common, especially in queer spaces where all folk have known is a society that wishes to oppress them. We have made this normal because we casually see this as normative behaviour.
Real people are on the receiving end of these threats, real lives. Empathy should work all ways, and if you disagree with someone using the rape threat as a first strike is, in my opinion, beyond any bounds of normality. One of the first stages in extremism is to other the opposition, to see the person on the other side of the discourse as the enemy, as less than human. We decry fascist behaviour, especially the othering process, yet when we do it to others we are slow to see it. Real people, real bodies, real lives. Yes, we may vehemently disagree, but if we simply other them and treat them as an abstract concept free to hurl abuse at then we are already lowering ourselves to their standards.
As a woman I care about this because consent and bodily autonomy are so fundamental to my world view. Just because I disagree with another person does not give me the right to attack their bodily autonomy, or threaten vile abuse. In the age of crafty cuttles am I being naïve? No, just desiring of a discourse that does not devolve to rape threats, calls for sexual violence, and the centring of conversation on the abuse of others. Call me Canute, or say that I am shouting at clouds, but calling out sexual violence should never be seen as something to be derided or shamed. Somethings are worth planting a flag in a hill for, and this, for me, is one of them.
