![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Perhaps I was a little unclear in my last meta. Perhaps I fell victim to my English-major habit of needing to prove everything, even things only tangentially related to my topic. If I did, I apologise. Perhaps I wasn't talking about what you wanted to talk about. I don't apologise for that.
I talk about a lot. I talk about sexism, ablism, and Castiel and Ruby as counterbalances, among many other things. I even have a convenient list if you don't believe me. But I also talk about uncomfortable things and I'm getting the feeling that I'm treading on uncomfortable ground here.
To clarify my point, I'm going to copypasta from my previous meta:
I want to talk about this.
I want to talk about how Dean is being victimized here. I want to talk about how we have a (manly man's man who drinks beer and listens to rock and roll and eats red meat and sleeps with women and drives a classic car and likes big guns) is having his choice - his consent, his ability to say no - taken away by a (should-be-trustworthy, older, authority figure) male. On a (mainstream, regular, not-special-interest) television show, Dean is being told that, regardless of his own desires, Michael is going to take him and Zachariah is going to have fun in forcing him to say yes to Michael.
Some brief information on assaulted men: Men are even less likely to report assault and rape than women. Imagine, briefly, how off that makes our statistics. Male rape, particularly penetrative rape, is associated with a loss of manhood, making it problematic on multiple levels. Like all rape, it is about power, not sexual desire. According to Wikipedia, the first successful prosecution of male-on-male rape in the UK was in 1995. According to RAINN, in 2002, one in eight rape survivors was male. Have some links.
Male sexual violence is also rarely depicted in media, especially mainstream media. The victim is usually a child, gay, or in prison. The media offered by Mankind Counselling fit these boundaries, almost exclusively features characters who are molested as children. I'm still looking for another representation that is like what we saw in Sympathy for the Devil (5.01), which, according to the information I have found, is fairly realistic in what male rape actually does look like.
As I said in my previous meta, I'm not sure what it means. I am, indeed, grappling with what it means that Castiel took (rode, possessed, was inside) Claire and then took Jimmy, when Jimmy was dying and desperate to save his daughter. I'm grappling with what it means that the men of the show - John, Bobby, Sam - who manly men and men's men and all-American men with big guns and fighting skills have been taken and ridden and filled against their will, except for Dean who was so clearly, visibly brutalised in a highly sexual manner.
It's one thing, as a friend pointed out to me, for Lilith to take little girls. It's one thing for Ruby or Meg-demon or Azazel to ride an unwilling victim. But it's a new line, a new violation for an angel to do this, even if we don't find angels to be terribly trustworthy. What does it mean that even angels will ride roughshod over consent with pleasure?
And what does it mean to have this representation of male rape in mainstream television and have it primarily - as I see it, correct me if I'm wrong - ignored by its normally highly rape-conscious, misogyny conscious fanbase?
I don't know which bothers me more, to be honest.
I talk about a lot. I talk about sexism, ablism, and Castiel and Ruby as counterbalances, among many other things. I even have a convenient list if you don't believe me. But I also talk about uncomfortable things and I'm getting the feeling that I'm treading on uncomfortable ground here.
To clarify my point, I'm going to copypasta from my previous meta:
Dean's fight with Zachariah, where he keeps telling him that no, he won't let Michael take him is both heart breaking and terrifying. It is one thing to think of a demon - Meg or Lucifer or Azazel - taking someone against their will, but the brutality of the angels is beyond cruel.
Zachariah says to Dean, "You're Michael's weapon or, rather, his receptacle... Michael's vessel. You're chosen. It's a great honor... I am completely and utterly through screwing around.... Now, Michael is going to take his vessel... You understand me?"
I think part of the terror is how easily Zachariah dehumanizes Dean. Dean isn't a person. His consent doesn't really matter (or, in Zachariah's words, the angels' god-given need for consent is "unfortunate"). Dean is an object - he is a receptacle and a vessel. Dean is empty until Michael fills him and uses him. Dean is nothing; he is empty until Michael rides him.
I really don't blame Dean for saying no to that.
Then Zachariah takes it a step further. He broke Sam's legs because Dean was mouthing off at him, but when Dean actually dares to say no - dares to assert himself as a person - Zachariah is visibly furious. He offers to heal Bobby, if Dean will say yes, but says that if Dean says no again, Bobby will never be able to walk. After Dean says no again, Zachariah gives Dean stage four stomach cancer, saying he will heal him if he allows Michael to take him. (Stage IV gastric cancers are usually metastasized tumors that have spread to other parts of the body - probably Dean's only hope of recovery is a miracle.) At another no, Zachariah removes Sam's lungs.
Unsurprisingly, Dean begs for death at this point. Zachariah has, after all, pretty much run out of people to hurt and Dean is in visible agony from his gastric cancer, while Sam struggles behind him. Zachariah, however, tells him, "Are we having fun, yes? ... Kill you? Oh no, I'm just getting started." Zachariah is ready to torture Dean into allowing Michael to ride him.
I want to talk about this.
I want to talk about how Dean is being victimized here. I want to talk about how we have a (manly man's man who drinks beer and listens to rock and roll and eats red meat and sleeps with women and drives a classic car and likes big guns) is having his choice - his consent, his ability to say no - taken away by a (should-be-trustworthy, older, authority figure) male. On a (mainstream, regular, not-special-interest) television show, Dean is being told that, regardless of his own desires, Michael is going to take him and Zachariah is going to have fun in forcing him to say yes to Michael.
Some brief information on assaulted men: Men are even less likely to report assault and rape than women. Imagine, briefly, how off that makes our statistics. Male rape, particularly penetrative rape, is associated with a loss of manhood, making it problematic on multiple levels. Like all rape, it is about power, not sexual desire. According to Wikipedia, the first successful prosecution of male-on-male rape in the UK was in 1995. According to RAINN, in 2002, one in eight rape survivors was male. Have some links.
Male sexual violence is also rarely depicted in media, especially mainstream media. The victim is usually a child, gay, or in prison. The media offered by Mankind Counselling fit these boundaries, almost exclusively features characters who are molested as children. I'm still looking for another representation that is like what we saw in Sympathy for the Devil (5.01), which, according to the information I have found, is fairly realistic in what male rape actually does look like.
As I said in my previous meta, I'm not sure what it means. I am, indeed, grappling with what it means that Castiel took (rode, possessed, was inside) Claire and then took Jimmy, when Jimmy was dying and desperate to save his daughter. I'm grappling with what it means that the men of the show - John, Bobby, Sam - who manly men and men's men and all-American men with big guns and fighting skills have been taken and ridden and filled against their will, except for Dean who was so clearly, visibly brutalised in a highly sexual manner.
It's one thing, as a friend pointed out to me, for Lilith to take little girls. It's one thing for Ruby or Meg-demon or Azazel to ride an unwilling victim. But it's a new line, a new violation for an angel to do this, even if we don't find angels to be terribly trustworthy. What does it mean that even angels will ride roughshod over consent with pleasure?
And what does it mean to have this representation of male rape in mainstream television and have it primarily - as I see it, correct me if I'm wrong - ignored by its normally highly rape-conscious, misogyny conscious fanbase?
I don't know which bothers me more, to be honest.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
These are very interesting thoughts. I do see Dean as a victim though and I agree with you that "his choice - his consent, his ability to say no - taken away by a (should-be-trustworthy, older, authority figure) male."
But it's a new line, a new violation for an angel to do this, even if we don't find angels to be terribly trustworthy. I'm not sure if it's any different for an angel to do this than a demon, only because Kripke has stated that the angels are dicks (with the exception of a few of them, Castiel, Anna). They're not nice guys, they're downright bastards, as we've found out along with the boys. They're not the angels we know from religion. For all we know, all the angels are like that. So I'm not sure if I see the difference besides being forced to ask for consent. (Which makes it seem all that much worse, doesn't it? Zachariah going out of his way to get Dean to say yes was pretty disturbing.)
From:
no subject
Whether or not we see the angels as dicks - and I have been saying that the angels aren't trustworthy since Castiel showed up - there's a huge difference between being dicks and forcing someone to beg for his life, to force him to say yes. There's a massive difference between being an ass and raping someone (or being happy and willing to rape someone). There's a difference between being untrustworthy and taking pleasure in others' pain, taking pleasure in torturing people.
Additionally, there is the culture we exist in. No matter Kripke's decrees from on high, Supernatural doesn't exist in a cultural vacuum, anymore than fandom does. While we can know logically that the angels aren't trustworthy, there is the idea that angels and demons are different. If they aren't - why would Lucifer fall? What difference is there between Heaven and Hell? When John escaped the torture of Hell did he, then escape to the torturous fires of Heaven? Even if angels are asshole bastards, I think before this, I held them to, at least, a slightly higher standard than, say, Lilith, even if I thought they were scum.
From:
no subject
I agree, there is a huge difference to those things. I'm just saying I don't see the difference between whether an angel who forcefully asks for consent is all that different from a demon who takes without permission (aside from the consent issue). At the end of the day, it's still possession, and it is still wrong.
From:
1/2
Supernatural has never really pulled its punches in referring to sexual violence, even male on male sexual violence. I've no doubt that TPTB knew exactly what they were doing when demon!John pressed Dean to the wall and then invaded his personal space with a long, lingering stare. You also had Nick the Siren, who was extremely sexualized himself. He slipped Dean a drug via his drink that caused him to lose his inhibitions, spat in Sam's mouth, and then forced them into a duel to the death to win his affections. Alistair practically personified a creepy stalker ex, complete with sexually charged references to non-consensual past actions. He sang about dancing "cheek to cheek" and mused on how "daddy's little girl" would want revenge for "all those pokes and prods." There was also the guy from Croatoan with the Stepford smile who tried to force Dean to leave the Impala, the one that Dean called a handsome devil but declined on account of not swinging that way.
Point being, the act of possession, whether from an angelic or a demonic source, is scarcely the only form of male on male sexual violence on the show. That said, possession itself is referred to in incredibly sexualized terms - Dean's "you full on had a girl in you for a week - that's pretty naughty" implies it, Zachariah's choice of wording here very much is indicative of it (and as you mention in your other meta, out of context sounds like nothing so much as demanding consent for a sexual act), Meg Masters claims that the demon who possessed her "cut my hair and dressed me like a slut" (this despite the fact that demon!Meg did not particularly dress in a provocative fashion) and so on.
I can't think that all of this has been accidental and that TPTB weren't aware of all of the unfortunate implications. However, I don't think the writers are really separating out angelic vs. demonic possession with the in the manner you're referring to.
They're both pretty horrifying, after all. Demonic possession is done completely by force and often kills the human; I think Ruby even refers to demonic hosts as being "ridden hard and put away wet". Angelic hosts, however, DO have to consent - even if it's a mostly uninformed consent - and they are generally fully healed when injured in the line of duty and kept alive throughout the entire process.
I think the concept of consent is important because there's no way a human really can know what they're getting into ahead of time. It's significant, therefore, that angels have to ask for permission at all. The consent isn't fully uninformed either, from the four angelic possessions we've seen thus far. Castiel seemed to speak to Jimmy for a matter of days before taking possession (though this is perhaps something of a retcon, along with Castiel's claim that Jimmy had prayed for it in 4x01), Lucifer is upfront and honest with Nick that it will likely be an unpleasant experience for him, despite the severe amounts of mental manipulation that go with the explanation. Dean obviously had some time to hang around the angels before Zachariah put the deal out there (which, on an offtopic really makes me wonder why Dean was allowed to wander off to begin with. He could have been resurrected and then kept in the green room until Sam got around to killing Lilith, which frankly would likely have been faster had Dean not been there. So why was Dean allowed to return anyway? They'd likely have gotten his consent had he been more ignorant of what his consent would actually have enabled). The only one who didn't much much opportunity to consider the offer was Claire and she at least had seen demons and knew how dangerous they were, which was more than Nick had the chance for.
From:
2/2
I can't separate the two concepts completely. They're both rape to me and both pretty damn scary. I don't find possessed!Sam in BUaBS to be less horrific than the concept of Michael!Dean in 5x01. Sam was no less robbed of his own free will than Dean would have been. The language in Dean's case just is a bit more explicit.
I don't think the implications have been completely ignored though. There were a significant number of posts after DT aired that spoke of the threat of sexual violence from demon!John and where they suspected things might have gone if "this was aired on HBO" and I do think the writers, if not explicitly the fans, were very much aware of the threat of sexual violence in 5x01.
I'd almost argue that they're MORE aware of the concept of male instigated sexual violence than they are of other forms of it. Meg and the CRD have both forced kisses from Dean, Meg also forced a kiss from Sam as I recall (which is a rare threat of sexual violence towards Sam; it's an unfortunate implication in its own right that Dean alone among the main cast seems to be pretty much the sole target of sexual violence in Supernatural, from demon!John to Bela - that "don't objectify me" comment - to the CRD to Alistair to YED!Samuel and now again with Zachariah) but the concept of female on male sexual violence is generally ignored. The most we get about it is Dean telling Sam to find a girlfriend who's less of a bitch.
So to for that matter is male on female; Meg might have in control, but she was very much possessing a male body when she knocked Jo out and sniffed her neck. Likewise, there's the issue of consent of Ruby's host. TPTB tried to get out of an implication of rape by declaring Ruby's host braindead in S4 but if a male attending slept with a female patient in a persistent vegetative coma, you can bet your ass it would still be considered rape. Necrophilia is rape as well, if they're arguing that her host was dead and so therefore had no say in the matter. The dead cannot consent. Sam sleeping with that girl's body was still rape because there was no possible way she could have consented. They also tried to handwave Lilith's seduction of Sam with a "she wants it too" remark but could anyone really believe Lilith when she said that?
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure why the male on male sexual violence is that much more noteworthy or appalling than the other forms of sexual violence we've seen on display. It's ALL disturbing. Dean sticks out to my mind because there's the implication that he was physically raped by Alistair in Hell and because the threat of sexual violence towards him seems much more prevalent than it is with other characters. Dean can't make it through a full season without someone invading his personal space and leering at him. However, Dean has been the object of both male and female sexual aggression and while it seems to happen to him the most, he's very much not the only one. Male on male violence does come up with alarming frequency in SPN but I'd argue that it actually receives more attention and focus (and care of handling, for that matter) than the myriad other varieties out there.
From:
no subject
I'm also thinking about the fact that Uriel (whose vessel was a black man) used racialised language to refer to humans (mud monkeys). The disdainful attitude of angels to humans is fairly obvious. So here we have angels twisting and forcing consent from men to violate their bodily integrity - what we're essentially seeing, on screen, is humans (because of course white males represent all of humanity, ugh) being portrayed as a minority group, powerwise. The angels look down on them, disregard them, feel free to use and abuse them with little regard for their welfare and it is their place. In terms of this sexualisation - 'humans' are women and angels are men.
But then, is it problematic that I'm essentially still saying rape is a women's issue?
From:
no subject
If you aren't familiar with the idea, I suggest you check out Does This Remind You of Anything?.
From:
no subject
From:
Re: 2/2
I literally went looking. I wasn't happy to go looking and I had to steal myself up for it. I'm a survivor of sexual violence myself. But I don't know if it was more horrifying that I couldn't find it.
I seen and read works about sexualised violence against women. Sometimes it supports rape culture, sometimes it doesn't. The only non-child abuse media portrayal I can remember of sexual violence enacted on a male is in Life on Mars - and that was not dealt with at all, that I can remember.
If RAINN's stats are right and one in eight rape victims is male - what does it mean that these men have no representation? They have no fictions. They have no models. They have the idea that they're gay and wanted it, that they were in prison, or that they were children. That's not right and it points to a huge vacuum - what does it mean that Supernatural is filling it?
From:
no subject
I did a lot of research (okay, a day's worth, but my brain is not happy with that) before I posted this follow up. Men's stats as victims of sexual violence are so under reported as to be unknown - but RAINN did estimate that one in eight rape victims was male in 2002.
By media standards, men don't get raped (unless they haven't hit puberty or are in prison - otherwise they want it). It's not even that rape of men is hot - it literally doesn't exist. (I am sort of ready to cry that my search for fiction books dealing with male rape turned up law books. I admit it.) Obviously, media standards are deeply wrong. Men are, obviously, brutalising other men in this way. Women are using men in this way, as well, but it's estimated that you've got a better chance of finding a unicorn than getting that reported because it's not real, don't you know?
Perhaps Alastair doesn't need the metaphorical rape of riding his bodies because he actually rapes souls like Dean in Hell? Maybe that's more of a power trip, since he's head torturer?
From:
Re: 2/2
I'm not saying that's intentional, far from it, but it does smack of derailing, somewhat.
From:
no subject
Yeah. I'm trying to figure this out in my head, because the idea of framing humans as the low power group is interesting, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the black-vesseled angel is the one who used racialised terms (or the angel who uses racialised terms chose a black vessel, hmm) , but it frames the men as women-getting-raped and that defeats the entire purpose of exploring male rape in the first place by saying "no wait it's only because they're metaphorically women lol".
There is, on the other hand, a cultural context - we're still seeing white men victimised on our screens. So. Hmm.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Just some thoughts, definitely not "answers", I don't think your questions have simple ones, if they did, they wouldn't be so uncomfortable to contemplate.
What does it mean that even angels will ride roughshod over consent with pleasure?
My take?
It means nobody likes us (humans) very much.
According to the known mythos, God created humans and required his angels to defer to them. Lucifer revolted against that, as explained by Uriel.
If true, and it's all angelic hearsay, or human mythology, why would God require than angels defer to man? What is so special about humans? Whatever it is, it has placed them in between these two warring factions of angels and demons.
In the movie Prophesy (which SPN seems to borrow from), it's asserted that man has a "soul", angels do not.
If we take what Anna described as an angel's existence, angels have only obedience, not volition. There's a lot of question thrown on that at the moment, who are Zachariah and his cronies "obedient" to? But the concept is that angels obey God's Word, whereas humans were given free will.
The price of the exercise of free will according to scripture was expulsion from paradise, from easy living in protected comfort, into the world full or dangers, disease, disasters. Humans have free will, but not power, not the power of angels, nor of demons.
Angels lack a soul, and maybe a soul is what it takes to respect the sovereignty of consent?
And/or...
It means that as Anna suggested, something is very very wrong "up there" in heaven.
And what does it mean to have this representation of male rape in mainstream television and have it primarily - as I see it, correct me if I'm wrong - ignored by its normally highly rape-conscious, misogyny conscious fanbase?
It means that it's a lot easier for female fans to perceive and react to female issues?
To bring up an old argument, in 4.09 I Know What You Did Last Summer, there was a huge backlash against Sam for fucking a demon, and the whole necrophilia issue, but only a handful of people I noticed ever reacted to the fact that Sam was coerced and seduced.
Sam said no, not once but several times, and Ruby didn't back off until she provoked a reaction in line with what she wanted. At least one person I know of was so sensitive to this that they considered it dub-con for Sam, and I tend to agree. But the larger fandom reaction was against Sam, with little sympathy for the fact that his refusal clearly meant nothing to Ruby.
Was this because, as a male, the rule no means no doesn't apply for Sam?
With that reaction in the recent past, it doesn't surprise me much that there hasn't been more reaction to the rape-like aspect of Dean's torture.
I don't know which bothers me more, to be honest.
From the point of view of the show itself, I think the message was put plainly, and some of us (yourself included) got it.
God is not in His heaven and all is not right with the world.
From:
no subject
That really, really bothers me about what I'm seeing as I watch reactions unfold. Maybe I'm too close to the issue and am overreacting, but it does bother me.
If it doesn't matter if Sam says no or Dean says no, then why should it matter if Ruby or Jo or Anna says no or not?
From:
Re: 2/2
If we are saying, "Women's consent matters more than men's consent. Sexual violence against women is worse and matters more than sexual violence against men. Even when it is presented to us, we should ignore men's consent issues because they don't matter," then how can we expect men to say, "We will look at the issue of sexual violence against women and women's consent because they are important issues."
Aren't we, essentially, doing what the feminist community so often claims the patriarchial culture does to us, when we say, "Those issues, no matter how closely tied to us they are, do not matter! Our consent and our desires and our sovereignty matter more than their consent and their desires and their sovereignty,"? Isn't the whole point of railing against sexual violence is that sexual violence is bad, regardless of who is victimised?
From:
Re: 2/2
However, even in that instance, I'd still ask what the difference is between Zachariah in 5x01 and Alistair's implications in 4x16 or demon!John in 1x22 or demon!Samuel in 4x03. There's a lot in my response in regards to specific male on male violence outside of my comments about female on male or male on female violence; the conversation wasn't completely derailed by their mention. Likewise, how is an angel forcing consent that much different than a demon running ramshod without it when the only alternative to consent is a torturous death, one that is likely to be repeated time and time again given that angels have the powers of healing and resurrection?
If anything, Zachariah's "choice" here seems to be more closely aligned with Alistair's demand of Dean in Hell, to my mind. In both cases, consent was demanded under such extreme duress that is really shouldn't count as consent at all. If a person is raped at knifepoint and is made to say that they want it first, they're no less raped than they would have been had they not verbalized their false consent.
In specific terms of male on male rape, I can think of a few other examples outside of Supernatural. I'm pretty sure male on male rape happened in Nip/Tuck, to one of the main characters. Torchwood sort of hints at it during the Year That Wasn't between the Master and Jack. You had the Master sadistically killing Jack over and over again while calling him "handsome" and speaking to the Doctor in sexually charged language, at any rate. You occasionally see it come up in crime dramas, albeit much more rarely than you do with female or child victims.
It is true that male on male rape is underrepresented. I think a large part of that is due to a primarily male writing crew for television and movies. Men tend to make light of rape, particularly with male victims. I think it's an attempt to use humor to deal with extremely uncomfortable topics - hence Youtube videos like "Prison Bitch" being alarmingly popular and female on male violence being considered a joke, something to laugh over.
The actual implication and serious side of rape tends to be brought up by women more than men, I think, perhaps because we've had to deal with the threat as a threat for much longer. Teenage girls are often taught in school during sex ed that there are "places you can go". They're warned about not taking drinks from strangers at bars or in clubs and to stay out of certain areas of the city at night when they're alone. I'm no expert, but I don't think many teenage boys get the same advice or warnings. My sister worked once at a domestic violence center where battered women were welcomed with open arms but abused men were rejected out of hand. There might be a significant amount of male rape victims in the world, but the world unfortunately doesn't seem inclined yet to listen to them or to prepare boys and men for the truth of how prevalent male on male rape is.
I think progress is being made in that regard. We're a lot further along than we were 20 years ago. We'll be further along still in another couple of decades, as awareness grows.
As for what it means that Supernatural doesn't seem to hesitate in touching on male on male sexual violence, honestly, the clinical side of me wants to say it's because the writers are well aware of their predominantly female fanbase and the viewers' general enjoyment of angst and trauma being heaped, in great quantities, on their favorite characters. And perhaps because it is such a majority female audience, there's a greater ability to relate to characters who are being sexually victimized. An invitation to put ourselves in Dean's place, to empathize with him, as it were.
From:
Re: 2/2
As is, I stand by my point regarding angelic possession being pretty much identically horrific in my eyes as demonic possession. Even within the context of male on male sexual violence within Supernatural, I'm not sure exactly what sets possession in particular apart from the threats of physical rape that we've seen at other points in the show.
From:
no subject
So there's a cultural blindness to male rape, but it's just that - a cultural blindness.
From:
Re: 2/2
To me, there are worse implications to the writers not even being aware that they're writing rape with Sam/Ruby than there are with the obvious care taken when describing and instigating M>M sexual violence. At least in those cases they seem to know what they're doing. With Sam/Ruby, they were just oblivious.
From:
Re: 2/2
Given that vampirism is a Victorian euphemism for sex, often of the rape variety, Jonathan Harker's experience at Dracula's castle was very definitely a representation of a man raped, by females in this instance, but females who penetrated with fangs and sucked the life out of him. (And it was gang rape - there were 3 of them.) He escaped, but had a severe mental breakdown as a result, and doubted himself, until he was able to come to grips with the experience by confronting the one who had initiated it (Dracula).
This is probably one of the few examples of a male character experiencing rape, fantasy and symbolized, but as explicit as the Victorians could allow.
(The book is better than any of the movies made of it, if you can enjoy the Victorian prose. While there are things I have liked in most of the movies, none of them has ever done the book real justice, and even the relatively recent version by Coppola doesn't do Jonathan justice. He is easily my favorite character, with Mina a close second.)
From:
Re: 2/2
I think I won't say anything. I put myself through the ringer researching this and I need to walk away at this point. I might come back tomorrow or the next day and be able to discuss this rationally.
From:
Re: 2/2
But she never said it was more important or that angelic possession was more horrific than demonic. I feel like people are saying we should only talk about the "most important" problem and I have huge issues with that. There is loads of meta out there on the other forms of sexual violence, why can't we have this wee space to talk about this one?
From:
Re: 2/2
From:
Re: 2/2