Lauredhel of Hoyden About Town has posted the image of a t-shirt on her Dreamwidth. This t-shirt is available for sale, and some of the profits will be donated to Wikileaks, which of course really, really needs the money (in some other dimension). The shirt says quite simply:
Free Assange
Lock up your daughters
Lauredhel details why the slogan is not subversive humor. She also explains how “Lock up your daughters” is “not a warning between women, it’s an oh-so-hilarious homosocial catchcry between men “on the prowl”.” Read her article for more details on why those excuses/explanations won’t wash in this case.
Additionally, “Lock up your daughters” is an inherently problematic phrase because:
- It implies a daughter’s sexuality is her father’s commodity to trade, as indeed it was throughout human history until just a few decades ago (and still is in many cultures). (This is why, quite frankly, men raping their daughters isn’t as rare as you’d like to believe.)
- It implies that male sexuality mustn’t be locked up, because it’s so very, very important, you see, so women/girls and their guardians must hide themselves away if they don’t want to take part in male sexual rampages.
- It suggests that men on the prowl must not be expected to exercise rational judgment, since that might get in the way of their sexual rampaging, therefore any woman not wanting to service them sexually should be kept well out of their way. This frees them up to assume any woman they encounter is theirs for the taking. Anyone who later claims she didn’t see it that way will be interrogated and humiliated on the subject of why she didn’t lock herself in a convent if she didn’t really want to service the men.
But combine this phrase with a call to free a charged rapist, and it sinks to a whole new level. Even when male “sexuality” is actually just a violent form of brutality that happens to resemble sex superficially, that important force must not be locked up. It must be allowed to roam free at any costs, so if you don’t want your daughters to be part of it, lock them up.
There are days when it seems to me our entire civilization was built for no reason other than to ensure that men feel entitled to unlimited indiscriminate sex with women, and that women not even feel entitled to the occasional orgasm from a long-time partner. Women are lectured to prevent their own potential rapes, and prevent their own pregnancies, and prevent their own stalkings and incidents of sexual harassment. We’re advised to take responsibility and manufacture our own orgasms instead of waiting for male partners to give a shit. We’re held entirely responsible for things that are so out of our control, it’s a bit like holding someone responsible for things that happened before he was born.
Meanwhile, men are taught such senseless levels of entitlement that it never even occurs to many man that the unwanted but natural consequences of sex were something he could’ve avoided by simply not having it or employing some precautions. No, if there’s an unwanted pregnancy, he has been mistreated! If there’s an abortion he doesn’t approve of, he has been mistreated! There was nothing he could do to prevent it! He couldn’t just be celibate, could he? Couldn’t bring a condom with him? Couldn’t avoid dating a woman he knew was after his money or wanted to hurt him in some way? Couldn’t get a vasectomy?
Oh, and let’s not forget the most tragic thing in the world: men who can’t get sex. Poor dears. All the rapes in the Congo pale next to the travesty that is not getting any if you’re a male, thirteen or older. He can’t possibly be expected to work on his looks or his charm. He just sits around whining about how he’s so nice and women don’t like nice guys. (Meanwhile, women who aren’t getting sex or dates are taught to question themselves and what they are doing wrong, until they are blue in the face. If they can’t find anything, they’re to assume it’s weight and go on a starvation diet. Yes, this applies even if they’re already 20 pounds underweight.)
No, men mustn’t pause to examine themselves, their motives or the likely consequences of their actions, ever, for if they do, it might distract them or even dissuade them from the quest society has handed them: the mindless screwing of everything in sight. Everything in the world, including the welfare of children (and even male happiness), must be sacrificed and is sacrificed daily to preserve the male entitlement (and requirement) to fuck the whole world. Hell, they don’t even limit themselves to human beings. They fuck animals, too. And metaphorically, they fuck the world over, because it would be so unhip to consider the well-being of some silly rain forest for five minutes when there’s fucking to be done!
And by “fucking”, what we really mean is consumption. The using, ruining and casting aside of everyone and everything. It’s just the manly thing to do!
Julian Assange’s entitlement to fuck everyone he’s ever met is more important than the rights of any woman in the world to decide who she will and will not have sex with. Also more important is his right to decide how to fuck them – say, without a condom. That’s what this t-shirt is saying.
That’s what rape culture has always been saying: neither a woman’s right to decide who she’ll have sex with nor her right not to be physically brutalized is as important as keeping the menz up to their chins in sexual access to everyone and everything. When this policy brings the human species to an end, I just hope it doesn’t take the rest of the planet with it.
{ 63 comments… read them below or add one }
Next Comments →
When I first read the quote, I thought it was subversive. You know, if you free Assange women everywhere will live in fear. Obviously one person’s freedom is worth less than millions of womens’ victimization.
But then I clicked through and read that profits from the sale are being donated to Wikileaks. *facepalm* What…I can’t even…NO! Can I call Poe’s Law on this shit? There is no comment so extreme that nobody will say it in earnest…
Sylvia Sybil(Quote) (Reply)
THIS WHOLE POST should be in the necessary stuff box/some kinda “Hathor Legacy 101″ thingy, ‘cuz it’s AWESOME. I’ve been mulling rape culture/male entitlement about in my head off and on for a few weeks straight now, thinking of how to fully explain it and you’ve just done it SUCCINCTLY, as always.
(I’m not gonna click on that link/read the comments…from what I gather, she’s apparently playing the “lock up your daughters” trope straight? Yeah, that’s just gonna piss me off)
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
I’ve been thinking about the phrase “lock up your daughters” a bunch lately, and about how disturbing, but how common and accepted a statement it is. It’s depressing how much this idea that being a man = having sex with every woman possible – consent or no – and being a woman = being sexually available at all times (but heaven forbid she has her own sexual desires!) is considered perfectly right and normal.
“We’re advised to take responsibility and manufacture our own orgasms instead of waiting for male partners to give a shit.”
This reminds me of “advice” I’ve heard countless times about how women are supposed to fake orgasms when having sex, to make their partner feel better or something. It always struck me as odd, not only because I always remember it being given in the context of a “battle of the sexes” setup where both genders are expected to just manipulate each other, but because I’ve always thought of sex as something where *both* partners give and get pleasure from each other.
Dani(Quote) (Reply)
You and me both! I cannot fathom any reason for faking an orgasm – even a bad one! First of all, there are so many reasons a partner, particularly a woman, might not have one. It’s not always a reflection of the man’s bed skills, so he should have nothing to feel bad about. And if it IS his skills, those skills can never improve if no one tells him how to do it better.
And if it’s that he’s just completely selfish in bed, then why on earth assuage that already-inflated ego by faking ecstasy? I cannot imagine. I really don’t get it.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Thank you!
The link is to Lauredhel’s post, and her comments are well moderated, so I’m not sure what your second paragraph means? Neither of us linked to the original site where you’d be likely to find icky comments.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Jennifer – I think it might be because of your ambiguous introduction, [Lauredhel has] posted the image of a t-shirt available for sale on her Dreamwidth.” This might imply that I’m the one selling the T-shirt. Maybe an edit?
lauredhel(Quote) (Reply)
Don’t you love it how if a boy has slept with many girls, he’s a ‘player,’ but if a girl’s slept with more than one guy, she’s ‘easy’ or a ‘slut?’
And if a girl has a reputation for dating many guys (let’s not even get into the others she could be dating), she’s ‘manipulative,’ ‘high-maintenance,’ aka something’s wrong with her/she caused the break-ups. But if a guy’s dated many girls, he’s, again, a player. Don’t you just love that, too?
At least female pedophiles don’t exist. So glad that my kid was lying/exaggerating when she told me Ms. N told her to take off her pants. Doesn’t she have such an interesting imagination?
By the way, my teenager told me he scored with his teacher. Sure she’s a bit old for him, but that just means he’s got more game, am I right? He’ll learn by manipulating her into staying with him (as if it’s the other way around!), then move on and find himself a pretty little trophy to cook and clean for him and keep him company at night.
Oops- gotta go, you know how the wife is when you miss dinner. (Guess I’ll go pretend she’s important to placate her.) Anyway, let’s all celebrate the fact that we have double standards! Bye!
Eme (who is single and w/out kids)(Quote) (Reply)
Got it. Sorry, I was feverish when I wrote that, and it never even occurred to me how it would read to someone not living inside my head. Thanks!
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Yeah, I think that’s what it is. I thought she was selling it and intended for the rape-trope to be played straight as opposed to being subversive/showing how fucked rape culture is.
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
“Don’t you love it how if a boy has slept with many girls, he’s a ‘player,’ but if a girl’s slept with more than one guy, she’s ‘easy’ or a ‘slut?’
And if a girl has a reputation for dating many guys (let’s not even get into the others she could be dating), she’s ‘manipulative,’ ‘high-maintenance,’ aka something’s wrong with her/she caused the break-ups. But if a guy’s dated many girls, he’s, again, a player. Don’t you just love that, too?”
Ugh, I’ve seen this trope played the straightest/most blatantly on Jersey Shore of all places. Everybody REALLY HATES Angelina for acting just like The Situation/Pauly D/Every other guy on the show. Also, everyone constantly espouses/reeks of gender essentialism when it comes to divvying up chores like cooking and cleaning (although more often than not the guys end up cooking and grouse about it, LOL).
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
To me, it’s very much like laughing when a man says something “funny” that isn’t funny at all. Wouldn’t want to bruise his sense of comedic timing!
Uh, no. I laugh when something is funny, I orgasm when all the buttons are pushed in the right order.
sbg(Quote) (Reply)
My apologies! I shouldn’t try to write when I’m sick!
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Off topic, but hope you feel better soon.
SunlessNick(Quote) (Reply)
Meanwhile, men are taught such senseless levels of entitlement that it never even occurs to many man that the unwanted but natural consequences of sex were something he could’ve avoided by simply not having it
But not having sex is never an option for a real man, right? \sarcasm
I’m wondering: are any of you watching the BBC show ‘Being Human’? It’s basically a fantasy drama about the friendship between a vampire, a ghost and two werewolves. (It’s better than it sounds.) And while so many modern vampire stories turn them into tragically romantic heroes, this show tells the viewer again and again that Mitchell (the vampire) is a serial murderer and rapist and that there’s no excuse for his crimes.
But what I like best is that Mitchell himself doesn’t defend his actions. At the end of the series 3 premiere he openly admitted that he’s a monster and should be punished. In a recent story line Mitchell fell in love with Annie, a ghost. They decided to start a relationship, but there’s one problem: they can never have sex because she’s a ghost and doesn’t have a physical body. At least this was a problem for Annie, but when Mitchell realized it he said, “Thank God” and then he explained that “for me sex was always a weapon, it was never about love or even lust”.
I appreciate that the writers had the guts to let a male character state openly that his sexuality is dangerous and hurtful to others and himself. The show itself doesn’t portray sexuality as bad; George and Nina, the werewolves, have a healthy sex life. But Mitchell’s sexual desires are entangled with cruelty and blood thurst and he can’t seperate it, so the only way for him to be a decent person is to stay celibate.
I’ll admit that I feel a bit torn about Mitchell’s character. While he is indeed interesting, rooting for him means rooting for the rapist and murderer. But then again he is the rapist and murderer who stoped. And it’s quite refreshing that this show never blames the victims (like so many other shows/films do). The victims are victims, we see their torn bodies, we know that Mitchell enjoyed doing this and we are promised that he will one day pay for it.
M.C.(Quote) (Reply)
Yes, clearly it is so important for this one man to be free that every woman he might potentially decide to sexually assault should lose their freedom.
You know who “lock up your daughters” was originally said about? Julius Caesar. Not exactly a noble exemplar of freedom. Way to go, Assange fans! Make that equivalent between your hero and a violent tyrant!
JMS(Quote) (Reply)
I thought the “lock your daughters up” phrase was at first saying that crap, he’s free and no one is safe, but the fact that it’s mean to imply that he’s some kind of casanova? God.
One of my university professors was talking about human psychology and basic needs and he said that the only real needs human beings have are food and sex, and everything else is psychological luxuries that we think we need. Food and sex are our only true needs. Which made me go WTF because I lived in Ottawa at the time and it’s like -30 in winter and trust me, warm clothing and shelter isn’t a psychological luxury. Neither is getting your medical needs met when you need them. Neither is sleep.
I can easily name a thousands things I need to survive and thrive before sex is on the list. No one has died from a lack of sex. Lack of food, yes, lack of sex, no. I don’t get any of the thinking that sex is such a basic need.
Lika(Quote) (Reply)
Don’t we also NEED to evacuate our bowels/urinate?
So yeah, I can do fine with no sex. I have been for about…EVER.[/virgin]
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
I think the “lock your daughters up” suggests more that it’s the job of women (or in this case men/women controlling a younger set of girls) to protect themselves and not at all the responsibility of asshole rapists to not rape. It’s not his fault if you don’t keep the goods away from him. It has nothing to do with him being a casanova a girl might “succumb” to (which is problematic in and of itself).
I’m not sure that came across as clearly as I wanted it to, but I’ll be darned if I can figure out how else to say it.
As for the second bit, I would have been dead long ago if sex were a basic need. For real.
sbg(Quote) (Reply)
Huh… guess I’m not a human being then.
Finbarr Ryan(Quote) (Reply)
OMG, some people just don’t get the difference between needing and wanting. I cannot believe it when educated people claim sex is a “need.” It is for the species in a way (not that any particular species needs to live forever – extinction is part of the cycle), but for individuals? A car comes closer to being a true necessity, particularly in cities where public transportation is non-existent or too unreliable to get you to work on time more than twice a month. An education comes closer to being a true necessity. There are a LOT of things which you don’t absolutely have to have that are much closer to “need” than sex.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Even sillier is that what most people mean when they say they “need” sex is the release of orgasm. Which you can give yourself every day if you want to.
JT(Quote) (Reply)
I’m wondering if this would be any better (aside from in the most practical capacity) if the proceeds for this were going to, say, domestic violence shelters or rape crisis lines, which is what I really wanted the post to say instead of “wikileaks.” At least then it’d be kinda ironic and probably intended to be subversive.
BTW, it amazes me how Wikileaks supporters seem unable to comprehend why supporting leakers like Bradley Manning from being tortured is more important than some fucking douche’s “right” to have sex with whoever he wants however he wants, both from a realistic and a moral sense.
Shaun(Quote) (Reply)
To be fair, I think the expression “lock up your daughters” *usually* comes from the patriarchal attitude of “young girls need to be protected from their own sexuality, so lock them up so they cannot run off with handsome seductive young men who are just using them, as you, the grownup, know what they need better than they do.” Which is asinine, but not, typically, an expression that women need to be protected from rape by being locked away. It’s not rape the expression suggests girls need to be protected from, it’s their own desires for “inappropriate” men.
(Why people do not figure out, from the existence of this expression, that women like to have sex with hot guys, is beyond me.)
But, on the other hand, the concept of female agency and that women may want to have sex with seductive men is often used as a way to blame women for being raped, and often, no distinction is drawn in the patriarchal mentality between the woman who willingly had sex with a seducer, and the woman who was raped, and both are considered to be somehow soiled. *And*, the fact that this is being used in the same phrase as “Free Assange” *does* imply that in this context, it does mean rape.
Alara Rogers(Quote) (Reply)
You actually just bombed your own logic there, Alara. People still have trouble comprehending that women have lust. Therefore, how COULD an old saying, popular with the patriarchy, reflect that women should be protected from their own lust? Rape was an acceptable way to get a wife up until, oh, a century ago? Maybe two? Because once you broke the goods, you had to pay for them, but that made everything okay! Women ran off with attractive men not, it was believed, because they were consumed with lust, but because they were silly little fools who’d fallen for the man’s “sweet nothings.” Now, as you also say, a lot of people had trouble distinguishing “seduction” from “rape”, but at no point before the 20th century did the idea penetrate mainstream culture that women could actually feel lust – as opposed to being fooled by men into capitulating to sex.
I’ve never seen the phrase used in a context of girls pursuing sex. I have only seen in contexts where men are behaving rapaciously – right along with “boys will be boys”.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
The way I see it, you need something you will die without. So, our atmosphere, food, water, certain vitamins and minerals, and a relatively safe place to live. (Though the last thing has so many variables I can’t even begin to get into it–because plenty of people survive in conditions that are incredibly poor.)
To the extent of my knowledge more people die because of having sex than not having sex. In fact, I’d guess that no person has ever died because they didn’t have sex. I mean directly from not having sex. I am sure somewhere in history someone was KILLED by other for not having sex, but that kind of…is a check mark in the humanity kind of fails sometimes column.
The Other Anne(Quote) (Reply)
I know! Manning is having his rights violated and being slapped with so many charges I don’t even.
I don’t support Assange (racist, sexist, rapist that he is), I support this kid who tried to expose the wrongs his country was doing. HE’S the liberal hero of truth. HE had and has a LOT to lose for his actions, which I fully support. Assange? Not so much. I support Wikileaks as a supporter of truth and Bradley Manning because he got the truth out there. i need to go donate to his fund. But I has no monies
The Other Anne(Quote) (Reply)
Actually, until pretty recently (historically speaking) women WERE thought to be the lustful, wanton ones that need to be reigned in. This attitude is still found in other parts of the world, and is one of the reasons female genital mutilation is practiced. Girls are “oversexed” and need to be tamed.
This idea of “pure virginal woman with no sexual desire” mostly comes from the Victorians. Such a heartwarming bunch they were.
JT(Quote) (Reply)
Okay, that’s… definitely not what I learned in school, but I’ll accept that as accurate.
Still not sure it lends any credence to the interpretation of “lock up your daughters” as being about daughter wantonness rather than unbridled male sexuality. And I think the UMS is baked in, regardless of whether someone has the daughters’ lust in mind, too.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I learned a definite contradicting mixture of the two. It seems like some men can’t make up their minds between wanting to believe that women are sexless creatures who withhold what teh men “need” or can’t control themselves from taking and being lustful, wanton whores who corrupt every pure, righteous and good man they find.
The mind. It boggles.
The Other Anne(Quote) (Reply)
There’s the ancient Greek play Lysistrata, in which all the women hole up in the temple and refuse to come home (read: sex strike) until their husbands stop fighting. The play was a comedy because of course all women are desperate for sex and how could they possibly manage to hold out? (They do, but with great difficulty.)
Men’s ideas about women’s attitudes about sex vary across time and culture, but the general theme is that women must be unhealthy about it. *eyeroll*
Sylvia Sybil(Quote) (Reply)
Next Comments →
{ 1 trackback }