It was a locked post to a feminist-snark community. From what I figure, the criticism is either:

* A "yes means yes" anthology will be poppy sex-positive faux feminism, more interested in selling the idea that sex is great than in really analyzing anything

OR

* Jessica Valenti is involved. There was a whole debacle about her book _Full Frontal Feminism_ (which I had a peek at, and looked so cutesy as to be utterly nauseating to me. "You too can be a feminist! WHEEEEEEEEE!" oh, fuck off.) Several women of color felt that she was a poor representative of feminism, and wondered if more substance-ful WOC feminists/womanists were being looked over for book deals, publicity, etc. because they were not white and accessible to a young white audience. They particularly felt bothered by FFF's cover, depicting a slender and white body as if this were the body of feminism.

Their critiques were ignored in a rather obnoxious way, which led a lot of people (including me) to feel even worse about Valenti, her book, and the deliberately over-peppy style.

So the poster (who only said things like "I'd like to rip it up", which don't tell me much about what she didn't like, though she is a woman of color) MAY be seeing that it's Valenti's project and be angry Valenti gets another book project (and does not choose to specifically try to reach out to communities of color). Which I can kind of see. As I can see the worry that, with Valenti at the helm, this book too might come out heavy on the perkiness and light on the analysis.

But without more information, I worry that what might be happening is assuming that we shouldn't talk about what sex means because that's too frivolous. That's why I'm asking, as a couple people on my f-list are in the comm in question, if that's what's being said, or if it's Valenti that's the problem, or if there's some major problem with the project that I don't see.

No, actually. I guess since I'm the one that posted the criticism I should start hashing my thoughts out in a semi-public forum.

Thanks for stopping by. :) As far as that post of yours goes, part of why I was puzzled was because I thought your comment about dumb people hailing the Santa-panties thing as a milestone was brilliant.

I don't like the idea because I have a problem with a project that's painting sexual enjoyment as the key to ending rape culture. As multifaceted as the subject of rape is and the nuances of sexual enjoyment are, I think that some of its prospects are doing a huge disservice to addressing the complexities of rape culture.

I didn't get the impression it was quite doing that. I thought that it was about noting that endless stress is placed on no and taking no seriously, when, well --

-- "consent" in the general imagination is a deeply legalistic notion: was "permission" given or was it not? And that makes sex into something like a medical procedure or a legal contract: something that someone gets *authorization* to *perform* on someone else.

And that's not what we should be aiming to ensure always happens. That doesn't dismantle rape culture, because it doesn't mean that people see sex as anything other than something they do to others or allow to be done to themselves.

That's why... actually, my first thing upon seeing that call was to offer them a paper of mine (possibly too academic) on thin, legalistic consent vs. mutually engaging sexual encounters. I don't know if they'll take it, but I'm actually really excited that, if they're not peppy-ridonkulous, perhaps they might.

I have to run out now, but I'm also not seeing "heteronormative" really -- I can't tell if you're suggesting pressure, or legalistic conceptions of consent, or issues of refusal, or etc. only come up in het relationships, but this isn't so. And it's a uniquely creepy experience to be pressured by another woman, if you've gathered the idea from other feminists that women know better.

(Or are you saying the mentions of porn are heterosexually focused because most users of porn are men?)

But not every rape floats in that framework of what some refer to as "gray rape." Sometimes "consent" is entirely irrelevant and many different institutions beyond legal attempt to impose voluntariness on analyzing rape.

How do you mean? I'm not sure what your framework is (not saying you're wrong). I'm wild guessing that you're referring to things like rape as a weapon of war, where there are totally different issues than just "hey, wait, the bad thing about this is that the brutalized women haven't said yes!" If you are, then yes, I agree, and I think that in an ideal world, the anthology editors would mention that. But I'm not sure I'm convinced it needs to be in the antho -- I think it's worthwhile to examine what a woman's "yes" actually means in a rich way, which sounds like what this is doing.

The heteronormativity, I think, stems from the fact that we're talking about reintroducing men to dialogue on the subject, as if rape's burden and its resolution rests on men. Rape and sexual assault happens in all dynamics.

Okay. Then yeah, I agree. I wasn't sure if you were saying the voluntariness framework was heterosexist somehow, and I don't think it is -- I think a lot of the so-called "gray" stuff can be the same even in lesbian relationships (I can't speak to it in gay male relationships just out of lack of experience.) "If you really loved/liked/wanted/respected me you'd..." etc. But we want to think only men act that way.

wrtt the thing about men: There's really a very big thing in some feminisms: Men Can Stop Rape. It's not our problem that most violence is perpetrated by men on women. Etc.

And while yes, that's heteronormative, I'm not sure it's *wrong* -- it really is worth examining how successful those programs are and that activism is, and if it's not, why it's not. Because there really is, I think, a notion that rape is something that only women worry about, and something women invite -- men never even get mentioned, really. And then when they *are* mentioned, it's as drooling hard-dicked demons taking.

And that picture, that one-dimensionalness: if we really think the gendered-ness of rape is imperative (personally, I'm in your camp more here. I think conceiving of it as, as TBTN here puts it, "gender violence" means more queerfolk will get hurt and be silent) then we really DO need to be thinking about men and talking to men. What's working? What's not?

And, well... like I said, I have some issues with "gender violence" too, if it's not handled in a nuanced way where it's *clear* that means understanding the trends as we know them, but does that mean it's heteronormative to put that in an antho? I'm not convinced it doesn't go in there.

Also, I may be naive, but I'm expecting there to be some voices in this thing that disagree at least in part, so again, I'm not totally sure some papers on the men thing shape it all. Though they may, depending on the submissions received.

Hi. :)

Yeah, I had a look at that, and well... I agree with some of the criticism there, but some of it really bothers me, too. To wit:

AND THIS BOOK ISN'T BACKLASH AGAINST RAPE SURVIVORS? "If you'd just said yes, you wouldn't have been raped! It would have been consensual!

Sloppy angry remarks like this *really bother me*, because they're simply *not* what's being said. Nowhere in that CFP does it say people should say yes when they don't want to. It bothers me deeply that just about any time sex-positive feminists say "Let's talk about yes. Let's talk about what women *do* want", we're accused of telling women something to the effect of "Stop rape: Consent."

It's as if we don't get to talk about what it would mean to have a world wherein more, most, or (ideally in utopia, which I think will never happen) all sex is richly consensual, because HEY LOOK THERE ARE RAPES GOING ON

as if 1) that isn't FUCKING OBVIOUS THANK YOU and 2) it wouldn't ever, at all, in any way help to teach people, from the beginning, as a part of basic sex ed, "No, you shouldn't be making sure you don't hear 'no' -- you should be making sure you do hear 'yes,' and a deep one."

I don't see how that doesn't help. What we say nowadays to people about consent is very often, "I know you're a MAY-UN and a horndog. Just make sure you don't hear 'no,' mmkay?" Which means a whole bunch of people who don't know (or, at the very least, have a ready excuse when pretending not to know) that there's a lot more to real willing and real sexual desire than that.

And... we can't dismantle the myth that most women don't really like sex much so people who fuck them have to scrounge for scraps of consent and stop caring if it's not really full consent until we DO talk about desire.

So to have it *endlessly* thrown in women's faces that when they *want* to talk about their consent and what it is and what it means, some Great FakeFeminist We is actually saying

"the problem of rape can be solved by changing women's response to sex."

well, I'm hard pressed not to see misogyny in that statement, there. Oh you poor dollies, just buying right in to the whole idea of telling THE MALE SYSTEM THAT YOU LOOOOOVE IT!!!!! because you want to talk about what you do like and do want. Not yet dears, not yet. I'll tell you when, honey. I'll tell you when.

Um. Not so much.

What I *do* think this anthology doesn't and won't do is talk about other forms of rape than rape by someone you know. And I think that matters, and am bothered by that.

BUT: I also am not absolutely certain it's not okay to focus one anthology designed to talk about consent and pleasure on one particular form of rape. Rape culture is huge. Is one book really required to dismantle all of it at once?

I think the problem is that it needs to be really really clear, continually and throughout the anthology, that this deals with only one aspect of rape culture. In and of itself, I don't see a problem with focusing on one aspect, but I think there runs a risk of attempting to universalize that one aspect. Which is a huge problem, because inevitably the people for whom this model DOESN'T fit are groups that are already marginalized. That's really my main issue right there, that this anthology will be read as a statement or analysis of ALL rape, not just one facet of rape culture. And it does eventually come back around the the whole FFF debate, and who gets published and who doesn't.

YES THAT.

That is the big reason I may not submit.

yes yes yes yes exactly thank you exactly exactly my head is now falling the fuck off from nodding so effing hard

It's interesting that the only concern she is taking seriously is the one from another white woman. The only one she is reconsidering is the fact that it pits past feminists and feminism with this ~amazing new feminism~ of which she and Jessica are the standard bearers. Doesn't seem like she is taking into consideration anything that people of color said at all from my reading. So you can drop the "s" in concerns since it's only the one concern she admits was poorly worded and she regrets.

So yeah, I am questioning your good faith criticism of the critics, dude, since she is only taking the one white woman critic seriously.

Y'know, if all the criticisms were about J-Val's flat stomach or who Jaclyn Friedman works with, you might have a really good point. You just might.

But they're not, and it's dishonest to paint it that way unilaterally. The issue never was, "oh Ms. Friedman, please correct your shoddy proposal." I think the sign of the fact that it will be a good anthology in an abstract sense is one of its editors is willing to engage and to respond to criticism. Another sign is that it does inspire heated discussion about just what makes up rape culture, what addresses it, the problematic nature of rape culture in the first place...

But it's easier to say that all the "problematic" discussions are about kicking white/feminist/straight/lesbian/unifaceted/multifaceted/middle-class/upper-class/web-based/grassroots-based women down, right? Then lump the substantive ones with them or dismiss the substantive points in the problematic discussions? Y'know, instead of actually engaging with the criticisms like Friedman is doing?

Yeah, I thought so. Ease FTW.