![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I linked ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pentane to soldiergrrrl's infuriated post about the Illinois State Police's idiotic "don't worry your pretty little head with guns" self-protection page.
soldergrrrl's post is here.
pentane's post is here.
I'm going to use the standard "she" for the victim of the assault, and "he" for the attacker. Some of these things apply specifically to women, or people with female plumbing. Some of these things apply specifically to men. I expect you'll be able to tell which things are and aren't necessarily sex-linked.
The page Soldiergrrrl links suggests that a woman try to dissuade an attacker by vomiting on him. Kiz's story includes the common myth, "pee on your attacker."
To round out the trifecta (quadrifecta? disinfecta?) it's sometimes suggested that a woman tell her attacker she is menstruating, or let loose her bowels.
Now, there are two problems with this whole "let loose your bodily fluids" issue.
For starters, I am anormal healthy adult who frequently occasionally satisfies my sexual curiosity by searching the internet for materials of educational or erotic interest. It has come to my knowledge, though I don't personally share the quirk myself, that a good many people enjoy the, um, intimacy of sharing certain bodily processes with a partner. It's common enough that there are names-- "golden showers" for urinating on a partner, "brown showers" for defecating, "red wings" for oral sex on a menstruating woman. I don't know if there's a name for the person you puke on during sex (other than "REALLY understanding") but I bet there is. {ETA: Of course, one of my friends knows. "Rainbow shower.")
Many people go searching for this material online because they are intrigued, but not enough to look for a partner who shares their taste, or they have a partner who definitely doesn't, or they like the idea but don't want to clean up after it all the time. So, for every person into consensual bodily-fluids kink out there, there might be a few who find it intriguing but aren't interested enough to deal with the aftermath.
I mentioned that there are some sex-specific facts we have. One is that men, compared to women, are more likely to have erotic interests in things that are well off the standard scale of what's sexually attractive to the average person. A group of men compared to a group of women will have more individuals sexually interested in feet, or the smell of sweaty armpits, or being called names, or the feel of latex, and so on.
Now for the first question. Are men who are likely to sexually assault others *less likely* to have such interests, especially including a sexual interest in body fluids? If so, getting bodily fluids on them might make them unaroused. Are they *as likely* as the average person-- given that in a situation of assault, one probably doesn't have to clean up the sheets/floor afterwards because it's not their house-- and just less inhibited? Or are they *more likely*? In the second and third case, there is a fairly significant chance that making a body-fluid mess is not going to stop them in the slightest. After all, they already aren't put off that their victim isn't willing. [ETA again: I'm not saying the attacker might be turned on, I'm posing the possibility that they may not be turned off and citing evidence that plenty of okay folks aren't turned off and kinda like it.)
So, let's say that the victim has a small chance of POSSIBLY turning the person off and avoiding a rape. Let's even assume that this small chance balances out the fact that they're having to weaken themselves by heaving up their stomach contents, strain out their bowels, and so on. The other thing we have to weigh this against, that we haven't yet, is what if it doesn't stop them?
I was raised as a girl to wipe myself very carefully after going to the toilet, because getting feces in my vagina or urethra could cause irritation, pain, and infection. I know that it helps prevent urethral infection from vaginal bacteria to urinate before and after intercourse. And I know never, EVER to let anything that's been in my bottom in my mouth or vagina without a good scrubbing.
Squick to follow.
So, is it worth the extremely small chance of NOT getting raped to crap my pants, if there's a large chance I'll just get my own shit shoved up my vagina? Also, while having to suck someone's cock under threat of violence is really repugnant, it has NOTHING on the idea of sucking someone's feces-smeared (or blood-smeared or piss-dripping) cock.
OK, done with the squick. And out of the cut!
Here's the thing. I'm really into the idea of assault avoidance. That's great stuff and we should definitely talk about it. But what about assault SURVIVAL? How do you get out of it with some part of your dignity intact, with your body your own again (or the idea that someday it will be), and with the smarts to do something other than stand there screaming and crying-- like get yourself to safety, contact the authorities, call a friend, and take care of yourself?
Why aren't we covering things like "for God's sake, don't try to use your keys as defense unless you have nothing else"?
If you break your keys, you can't get into your car or house. Those may be the closest immediately safe places for you. That's stupid. If he TAKES your keys, then he has access to your house, your car, your work (if you have a key to there-- I do) and so on. Sure, it may give you a few seconds' headstart to run-- but if the only thing close is your car, where the hell are you going to run TO?
This whole "nothing is more important than YOU" is very nice, but YOU need your glasses to see, your shoes to run, your keys to be safe when you get where you're running to because you can't run forever.
pentane to soldiergrrrl's infuriated post about the Illinois State Police's idiotic "don't worry your pretty little head with guns" self-protection page.soldergrrrl's post is here.pentane's post is here.I'm going to use the standard "she" for the victim of the assault, and "he" for the attacker. Some of these things apply specifically to women, or people with female plumbing. Some of these things apply specifically to men. I expect you'll be able to tell which things are and aren't necessarily sex-linked.
The page Soldiergrrrl links suggests that a woman try to dissuade an attacker by vomiting on him. Kiz's story includes the common myth, "pee on your attacker."
To round out the trifecta (quadrifecta? disinfecta?) it's sometimes suggested that a woman tell her attacker she is menstruating, or let loose her bowels.
Now, there are two problems with this whole "let loose your bodily fluids" issue.
For starters, I am a
Many people go searching for this material online because they are intrigued, but not enough to look for a partner who shares their taste, or they have a partner who definitely doesn't, or they like the idea but don't want to clean up after it all the time. So, for every person into consensual bodily-fluids kink out there, there might be a few who find it intriguing but aren't interested enough to deal with the aftermath.
I mentioned that there are some sex-specific facts we have. One is that men, compared to women, are more likely to have erotic interests in things that are well off the standard scale of what's sexually attractive to the average person. A group of men compared to a group of women will have more individuals sexually interested in feet, or the smell of sweaty armpits, or being called names, or the feel of latex, and so on.
Now for the first question. Are men who are likely to sexually assault others *less likely* to have such interests, especially including a sexual interest in body fluids? If so, getting bodily fluids on them might make them unaroused. Are they *as likely* as the average person-- given that in a situation of assault, one probably doesn't have to clean up the sheets/floor afterwards because it's not their house-- and just less inhibited? Or are they *more likely*? In the second and third case, there is a fairly significant chance that making a body-fluid mess is not going to stop them in the slightest. After all, they already aren't put off that their victim isn't willing. [ETA again: I'm not saying the attacker might be turned on, I'm posing the possibility that they may not be turned off and citing evidence that plenty of okay folks aren't turned off and kinda like it.)
So, let's say that the victim has a small chance of POSSIBLY turning the person off and avoiding a rape. Let's even assume that this small chance balances out the fact that they're having to weaken themselves by heaving up their stomach contents, strain out their bowels, and so on. The other thing we have to weigh this against, that we haven't yet, is what if it doesn't stop them?
I was raised as a girl to wipe myself very carefully after going to the toilet, because getting feces in my vagina or urethra could cause irritation, pain, and infection. I know that it helps prevent urethral infection from vaginal bacteria to urinate before and after intercourse. And I know never, EVER to let anything that's been in my bottom in my mouth or vagina without a good scrubbing.
Squick to follow.
So, is it worth the extremely small chance of NOT getting raped to crap my pants, if there's a large chance I'll just get my own shit shoved up my vagina? Also, while having to suck someone's cock under threat of violence is really repugnant, it has NOTHING on the idea of sucking someone's feces-smeared (or blood-smeared or piss-dripping) cock.
OK, done with the squick. And out of the cut!
Here's the thing. I'm really into the idea of assault avoidance. That's great stuff and we should definitely talk about it. But what about assault SURVIVAL? How do you get out of it with some part of your dignity intact, with your body your own again (or the idea that someday it will be), and with the smarts to do something other than stand there screaming and crying-- like get yourself to safety, contact the authorities, call a friend, and take care of yourself?
Why aren't we covering things like "for God's sake, don't try to use your keys as defense unless you have nothing else"?
If you break your keys, you can't get into your car or house. Those may be the closest immediately safe places for you. That's stupid. If he TAKES your keys, then he has access to your house, your car, your work (if you have a key to there-- I do) and so on. Sure, it may give you a few seconds' headstart to run-- but if the only thing close is your car, where the hell are you going to run TO?
This whole "nothing is more important than YOU" is very nice, but YOU need your glasses to see, your shoes to run, your keys to be safe when you get where you're running to because you can't run forever.
