Tag Archives: consent

JRfm Promotes Rape Culture, Sigh

Is it only sexual assault if he rapes her?

A male person didn’t run up to CBC-tv’s Megan Batchelor on air in Squamish and shout, “Fuck Her Right in the Pussy.”

Maybe he knows people can get fired for that.

Instead he was maybe trying to be “nice” by trying to kiss her. She complained to the RCMP.

If I went into a car dealership and kissed a woman or man on the cheek, out of the blue, I think the business would support their sexually violated employee. That makes sense.

If I went into a Starbucks and tried to kiss a male or female employee. Same thing. If I tried to grope their genitals, same thing. If I tried to do it to a man or a woman on the sidewalk? Same thing.

Should I toss out, in my defence, that hey…the victim should be flattered that I found them attractive. Or, hey…they’re in a public place, so they’re fair game. Or hey…it’s not like I raped them, so a milder, less intrusive form of sexual assault is less bad, so shut up.

So while the media has been reporting this latest attempt to violate female reporters trapped and vulnerable by being in a live TV broadcast, JRfm has stooped very very low by framing the issue to illicit responses that perpetuate rape culture:

A CBC TV reporter is filing a formal complaint to the RCMP about a young man who attempted to give her a kiss on the cheek while reporting live.

Do you think the young man deserves a criminal record for this? Or do you think she is justified and it was completely inappropriate.

  1. Start by implying that this act occurred because dude was “young” so hey, cut him some slack. He’s young. So he’s not threatening. Or he’s an innocent.
  2. Ask a rhetorical question that implies that he doesn’t deserve a criminal record for this youthful dalliance.
  3. Suggest that the reporter is not justified in complaining to the police.
  4. Add an adverb to “inappropriate” to suggest that the act was maybe not entirely, completely inappropriate, like just a little bit bad.
  5. Wait for your JRfm loyal followers to explicitly do the rest of the work in perpetuating rape culture.

So if you want a sickly living textbook example of the kinds of rape culture justification floating around out there, there are right now 105 comments on the JRfm Facebook post, the majority of which are sick and wrong. Those who try to call out rape culture are, of course, attacked.

And of course, many of the rape culture apologists are women. And the majority of responders are woman, actually.

Then when you swing by JRfm’s website for their elaborated story, they get far more explicit excusing this sexual assault:

She was reporting live from The Squamish Valley Music Festival, when a young man tried to sneak in the shot and give her a kiss on the cheek. He missed, but the attempt was there. What some viewers may have taken as a light-hearted joke, Batchelor is now following up with the RCMP to file a formal complaint against the young man.

Do you think he deserves a criminal record for life because of this? Did it seem like a harmless joke to you? Or do you think it was too inappropriate for TV?

  1. There’s “young” again.
  2. The fact that he missed is supposed to excuse his attempt.
  3. Let’s introduce “light-hearted joke” as a way of framing this.
  4. Criminal records are FOR LIFE, don’t you know!
  5. And let’s suggest “harmless” as a frame too, despite the fact that maybe the reporter should be the one to define harm.

In the end, JRfm has set up a special moment to perpetuate rape culture and set back the value of promoting consent to the mass public.

Budweiser Stops Pandering to Rapists?

Budweiser, the perfect beer for rapists:

New Bud Light Tagline: 'Remove 'No' From Your Vocabulary for the Night'

Being up for whatever happens [even with its own hashtag: #UpForWhatever]


an evening environment that doesn’t include no in its vocabulary


all within our still vibrant rape culture


a recipe for Budweiser to demonstrate how pathetic they are at understanding how communication works.

And they end up being complicit in continuing to promote rape culture and a world where explicit consent for sex is either ignore, downplayed or rejected.

They still haven’t apologized, but they have said that they regret missing the mark. Continue to not expect integrity from corporations:

The Bud Light Up for Whatever campaign, now in its second year, has inspired millions of consumers to engage with our brand in a positive and light-hearted way. In this spirit, we created more than 140 different scroll messages intended to encourage spontaneous fun. It’s clear that this message missed the mark, and we regret it. We would never condone disrespectful or irresponsible behavior.

Is Withholding Sex Now Sex Abuse?

Or, Is Lysistrata A Sex Offender?

I attended today, along with Alex, a discussion panel to remember the Montreal Massacre where Marc Lepine murdered fourteen women at the École Polytechnique simply because they were women and he thought that they had prevented him from attending the school.

A lot of people – including many Conservatives who claim to fully support the equality of women (in the eyes of the law) – will argue that since the days of the Montreal Massacre society has advanced by leaps and bounds.

And sure, we’ve gone some distance since we established in law that women were merely the chattel property of their husbands or that forced sex in marriage was not rape because the woman were expected to provide sex to their husbands.

Or have we?

One of the courageous and amazingly strong women presenting at the panel today pointed out that in a time where the Family Law Act was being revised to erase gendered definitions (partially, perhaps, as an attempt to treat everyone equally in the law, and partially, perhaps, to fix legal issues once same sex marriage was legalized) that not everything has changed, and perhaps some areas have been changing back, in a scary way.

The example she used? A fact sheet from the Legal Services Society of BC (“a non-profit organization accountable to the public and funded primarily by the Ministry of Attorney General“) that defines sexual abuse of men by women as including

criticising a man’s sexual performance and/or withholding sex as punishment.

This is in context of replacing gendered terms in the Family Law Act and updating the ‘legal information for battered women’ with more gender neutral language.

So much for that. Here’s what the definitions on this fact sheet look like:

Imagine that – here, we’re going to the odd length of defining “partners” who abuse men as exclusively women, in a time where we’re de-gendering the system, completely ignorant that the vast majority of partner-abuse cases are perpetrated by men against women.

And here’s their terrifying description of what sex abuse is:

This astounds me. In an age where we should be stressing what consent is to men, making sure that we’re holding rapists to account and not blaming their victims, we’re defining withholding sex as sex abuse committed by women against men?

Some intrepid reporter should ask our Families First (TM) Premier if she thinks saying “no” to a violent man and refusing to have sex with him is abuse.

Not to mention that this pamphlet seems to have classified Lysistrata as a sex offender, and even the women of Belgium who threatened to withhold sex to try to end their country’s political stalemate.

In short, however, the message to me is clear: we might think we’ve come a long way in gender equality since the Montreal Massacre, but the truth is that we haven’t.

The police who respond to a domestic abuse call are likely to classify it as a “dispute” and not help women in need. The justice system, with an eye to formal equality, doesn’t always understand that legalistic equality does not always mean substantive equality. A system that has for hundreds and thousands of years merely regarded women as the property of their men is not fundamentally changed by removing gendered nouns in the law. More must be done.

I most definitely do not consider a a woman who says “no” to sex with a man after he hits her or degrades her to be abusing him, and I think it is preposterous for a government funded organisation that is supposed to provide educative materials to the public to suggest that it might be.

Consent is consent. Denying consent is not abusive. Suggesting, however, the denying consent is abusive is the most perverse enabling of abuse that I have ever seen.

We spend too much time as a society blaming women for being raped, allegedly through what they wear or where they walk. We shouldn’t be saying that taking control of their own bodies is somehow abusive.