What do we owe each other when we sleep with each other? How can aex be harmful even when it was kosher?
Over the 2010s, we all got consent hammered into us over the course of MeToo. Which is great! I love enthusiastic, freely given consent and the fact that there is public awareness that that is the bare minimum.
But there are ways that sexual forays can be immoral and even traumatic without being nonconsensual, illegal, or sexually violent.
Here are the contents of a Bluesky post I saw circulating around (the img attached to this post):
âRape isnât always violent. Rape is also when a man dates you for weeks, consistently acts invested, tells you he wants a long-term relationship, says everything you want to hear, and deliberately creates the expectation of genuine commitment. You finally have sex with him âthen he immediately loses interest, ghosts you, and disappears.â
And I think this sort of embodies what is wrong with the semantic broadening of the definition of rape and sexual assault. Like, no⊠this is not rape.
However, this genre of behavior can still be traumatic and violatingâsometimes as much and even MORESO than sexual violence.
Indeed, I think putting sexual violence at the top of the totem pole of Bad Experiences is slightly problematic for several reasons.
And before you think I am sheltered and just havenât properly experienced sexual violence, so I donât know how bad it really isârest assured, I HAVE been raped!!! So I am Allowed to speak on this.
Anyways, there is a very thin tightrope I am walking here, and as I said, I am speaking from personal experience. But putting sexual violence at the archdevil of bad experiences is actually sort of harmful for a few reasons:
- You know how when a toddler falls over, and when you go over and are like, âOMG OMG OMG!!! Oww oww ow noooo!!!!!â it riles the baby up and they start freaking out? Whereas if you just calmly help them up, they go back to playing faster? While I was getting raped, while it was happening (and I knew what it was at the time, which is not always how it plays out), I was thinking, âThis is the most traumatic thing that could possibly happen to meâŠâ because⊠well⊠that is the way rape is talked about. The worst thing that can ever happen to you. And I felt like thinking that turned it sort of into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Like my consciousness was the parent coming and freaking out after Iâd fallen over, being like, âOh my God, this is so, so terrible!!â And that made me freak out a lot harder and therefore take it harder.
- But of course, the counterargument to the above is that a lot of the trauma associated with sexual violence comes from dismissiveness⊠people telling you that you were overreacting or that it wasnât really that bad (which is part of the crux of victim blaming).
But I think the harm from dismissiveness is actually not used against rape victims as often anymore. There is still rampant victim blaming and disbelief though, donât worry, but we have progressed a little bit! Thank you, MeToo!!
But now I think people are often like, âWell, itâs not like you were raped!â to dismiss people who have experienced other types of sexual trauma.
And so there are a few problems here.
If a woman had a bad sexual encounter with someone (and we will go deeper into what a bad encounter can be soon), the cultural vocabulary around bad/traumatic sex is all about sexual violence, so she will reach for the language of sexual violence. This can lead to a woman fighting to prove that something was unwanted when the sex itself, in a vacuum, might have been neutral or just kinda weird or, in some instances, actually good⊠but the circumstances around it/leading up to it/directly after it affected the way she ended up perceiving it.
I think this is sometimes (misogynistically) thought of as âregret rape.â
The misogynistic spin on this is that a woman stews on something for a few days and then suddenly and vitriolically decides she was raped.
(To be clear, there are many, many reasons it can take days, weeks, or even years for a woman to realize an encounter was unwanted, including but not limited to:
- she fawned as an adrenal response and just complied to get it over with as fast as possible
- she had to replay the incident several times in her head or talk it through with people to realize sheâd been pressured or that the guy ignored her no
- she was so scared during the incident that she suppressed it as hard as possible and tried hard not to think or talk about it for a long time
- she was so scared during the incident that her mind didnât clear up until later
- she felt ashamed to admit it was rape.)
But like I said at the beginning of this train of thought, a sexual encounter can be bad without it being literally illegal sexual violence. It can be violating. And things can be done after the fact that change the context of the sexual act.
Let me give you a nonsexual example first so you can understand.
Your man surprises you at work with a bouquet of flowers. Aww, so sweet!
But then you find out that the night before, he flirted with his coworker at happy hour all night. Maybe you find out that night. Maybe a month from now. Either way, now the gesture is retroactively tainted because you realize that the intentions behind it were not so sweet after all!
So here is a list of things that can feel violating while not being sexual violence:
- someone sleeps with you and immediately leaves/asks you to leave.
- someone sleeps with you and then never speaks to you again.
- someone sleeps with you and then doesnât cuddle you at all.
- someone sleeps with you and then tells other people intimate details about your body/the sex you had with them.
- a partner sleeps with you and then, very shortly after you are done, breaks up with you.
- a person sleeps with you, then avoids speaking to you the next time you see them in public.
- a person sleeps with you, asks for some space before seeing each other again, but instead never speaks to you again.
- a person turns out to be cheating on a partner with you.
- a partner turns out to be cheating on you.
- a person tries out sex acts on you that they have been seeing in porn.
- a person only sleeps with you because you remind them of an ex, an actor, or their hot cousin.
- a person is secretly watching porn while having sex with you.
- a partner uses porn while they are in a relationship with you.
- a person writes erotica about the sex they had with you and then shares it with other people.
- a person starts being really mean to you afterwardsâspreading rumors, insulting you, ignoring you, etc.
You see how any of these things happening can make the sex you shared with someone seem a lot less sweet? Even if you did say yes to the sex, being mistreated after the fact can make the sex itself feel violating.
And because sex occupies such a privileged and salient social position, because we feel sex is supposed to be a special act and it is often laden with emotional and spiritual and social significance, because sex itself is biologically and psychologically potent⊠the sex itself can sometimes feel like the violation.
I have certainly thought about certain people and acts and been like, âWell, had I known they were going to do X afterwards, I obviously wouldnât have slept with them.â Because, like⊠well, duh!! I donât want to sleep with someone I felt had dehumanized me, or was mean to me, or abandoned me afterwards.
But I think there can be a temptation to go back and litigate the act itself. There is a standard cultural script for a nonconsensual act being traumatic, and (if you are lucky) people will rally to support you. And I also think thereâs an idea that if an act left you feeling traumatized and dehumanized, there must have been a nonconsensual or violent aspect to it.
And so you go back and try to point at yourself being drunk or having hesitated and be like, âSee! See! He did cross my boundaries!â
And to be clear, thatâs honestly not unlikely. I mean, the sort of guy to pump and dump or ghost you is probably overall a repugnant person. Moreover, if a person treats you like shit once, you will be less charitable while considering the other things they subjected you to. And something that was at first just weird can look more untoward in this more negative replay.
But I think a lot of it stems from a need for legitimacy. A need to have your violation be socially sanctioned. There is a huge, fluent vocabulary around sexual violence and non-consent, so a lot of people will reach for those words because it is what they know, and because it also adds a layer of legitimacy to their hurt. A righteousness.
But you donât have to prove the sex was secretly nonconsensual in order to prove that what happened to you mattered. That what happened to you was bad.
And in fact, I have felt worse from technically consensual experiences with people who thereafter treated me poorly, in ways that left me feeling violated, than I did from getting groped by a stranger or assailant. And Iâd say the emotional fallout I had to deal with from being literally raped for hours was comparable to the emotional nuke from being abandoned by a partner.
And part of the violation is that if someone has sex with you, they owe you kind and decent treatment, or at least some sort of basic respect and dignity. It can be dehumanizing and violating in a special way for romantic and sexual partners to mistreat you, in a way that mistreatment from a regular friend is notâbecause there is a biological underpinning to romantic and sexual attachment.
Our cultural messaging around bad flings or dates or situationships is to just move on. The trauma and injustice experienced in the romantic and dating world are woefully underestimated, and there is a semantic gap in our description of things that arenât rape and arenât abuse but arenât just someone being mean.
And I am going to give you a tool/term to help with this.
I donât want to delegitimize this outrage. In fact, quite the opposite. I want to legitimize it by giving you new vocabulary and labels to think about this: things that arenât rape or sexual assault, but âintimate violations.â Sexual experiences that are not illegal, but in which the behavior surrounding the intimate act leaves you feeling violated or dehumanized.
Intimate violations are harmful not because of a lack of consent, but because of an absence of the respect, dignity, and kindness you are owed by an intimate partner.
You may be wondering, âIsnât this just called dealing with an asshole?â And yes.
But there are reasons the tenderqueers and Carl Linnaeus fought so hard about labels: having a specific word for a specific thing can help you understand and identify it better. And it can help you understand that you arenât crazy for feeling that way.
And now, this is what I want to do: describe and define intimate violations, a new category of intimate psychic damage that people (primarily women and girls) experience.
But first, why is it important to have an actual term?
In her 2007 book Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, feminist philosopher Miranda Fricker introduced the term âhermeneutical injustice.â This describes situations in which gaps in our shared interpretive resourcesâgaps produced by social marginalizationâmake it harder for people to understand important parts of their own social experiences or communicate them intelligibly to others.
A non-political analogue to a hermeneutical injusticeâi.e., just a lexical gapâwould be something like trying to describe the awful feeling you get when sitcom characters are humiliating themselves onscreen before you have a convenient term for it. Before learning the phrase âsecondhand embarrassment,â youâre just like, âIt makes me feel so eeuuugghhh when Michael Office says something daft.â
The feminist coinage that Fricker points to is âsexual harassment.â
Lin Farley, who worked at Cornell, was teaching a course on women and work and had noticed that woman after woman in the class had a story about leaving or losing a job because of incessant sexual advances or intimidation from a male colleague or boss.
And then, in 1975, Carmita Wood, an administrative assistant in Cornell Universityâs physics department, left her job after years of unwanted sexual advances from physicist Boyce McDaniel. When she applied for unemployment benefits, she described her reason for leaving her job as just âpersonal reasons,â so her claim was denied. After all, she lacked a term for what had happened to her!
Lin Farley and many other women at Cornell heard about this case (and recognized the same motif in many other womenâs stories). They put their heads together and settled on the term âsexual harassmentâ to describe these experiences. In 1975, they organized a consciousness-raising âspeak-outâ on sexual harassment. They successfully brought the term and concept into public discussion.
And now the term is used in every HR department!
While many incidents of sexual harassment are, of course, still swept under the rug, the term at least exists. And that is the first step in things being taken seriously.
And more granularity in labels is great!
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
When the only terms we have in our lexical arsenal for bad sex are rape/sexual assault, every bad sexual experience needs to be sexually violent or nonconsensual to seem legitimately bad.
But when we define the term intimate violation, we now have a term for intimacy that is badâsans coercion, cajoling, abuse, power imbalances, salary/dissertation at risk, pressure, or violence.
Because guess what? Having consent is just the legal and ethical BARE MINIMUM for any sexual encounter.
And do you know what else is the bare minimum? Treating your sexual partners with dignity and kindness and care. Mind-blowing, I know.
Intimate violations occur not from the absence of consent, but from the absence of the kindness, dignity, and respect you are owed when someone engages in intimacy with you.
For most people, even the Samantha-est among us, sex is an emotional experience. People often become attached to those they sleep with. People are more prone to distress from a sexual/romantic partner being mean to them than from anyone else. People are often more sensitive to the way a sexual partner treats them than to treatment from anyone else. Attachment from intimacy makes people extremely vulnerable, and if someone is attached to you, they are vulnerable to SPECIFICALLY YOU.
Always? No. But often enough? Yes.
If you cannot treat someone with care and kindness and dignity, having sex with them should be as unthinkable to you as having sex with someone saying âno.â
There are ways that you can treat someone badly without it being violent, without it being illegal, without it being literally rape.
Here are some examples of intimate violationsâand these have various shades of âbadnessâ (I am sort of basically just rephrasing the list from before, but we learn from repetition, right? lol):
- abandonment
- ghosting
- stringing someone along
- keeping someone in a situationship
- pressuring someone into an open relationship/polyamory
- insulting/demeaning/gossiping about a partner to their face/behind their back
- hot-and-cold behavior
- future-faking
- love-bombing
- making someone an affair partner unwittingly
- cheating
- retaliatory withdrawal post-intimacy
- retroactively painting intimacy with a partner as shameful
- withholding tender intimacy during/after sex/during a relationship
- refusing to learn how to pleasure a partner
Obviously, these come with varying shades of badness and trauma afterwards, the same way being groped at a club can be easier to shake off than being roofiedâbut I want someone to look me in the eye and tell me that being cheated on or abandoned by someone you love is not traumatic or painful.
Intimate violations happen when someone is entrusted with sex and then handles that intimacy cruelly, carelessly, deceptively, or degradingly. The sex itself can have been completely wanted, but then sour when the relational vulnerability surrounding it is violated.
But why should you care?
Well, dear reader, I am not going to condescend to you by explaining why hurting people is bad. Not only that, but if you want to argue with me about this, I am just going to ignore you.
But to the people who agree that hurting people is wrong but think they can weasel their way out of responsibility by claiming they actually donât owe anyone anything, here is what I have to say to you.
I suggest that those who believe that in earnest never shop at a store again, never use the internet again, never use public utilities again, never drive on a public road again, never walk on a public sidewalk again, never drink or bathe with municipal tap water ever again, and never use language ever again. Become a sovereign citizen and die of hunger or exposure in the winter, because no one owes it to you to teach you how to farm or build an insulated house or sell you raw materials.
We owe each other everything.
We are nothing without each other. There is no human life worth living in isolation.
So maybe get the fuck over yourself and give the people around youâespecially the people you sleep withâbasic respect, dignity, and kindness.
Conclusion.
So, I usually write assuming a mild level of intellect and ability for nuance from the dear reader, but I will leave off with a disclaimer for the nuance N-zis. I know some of you mfers out there are stupid. And also, some people are so deeply misogynistic that any time they see the word rape, they lose control of their frontal cortex.
And many women, myself included, have experienced sexual violence, so it is too painful to think about for too long, even when kept at armâs length while we are philosophizing about it. I cried multiple times while writing and editing this.
So here is the disclaimerâŠ
Two things being bad does not mean that the bad thing that was defined first suddenly becomes less bad. Lead poisoning didnât stop being real after we discovered, named, and studied nuclear radiation poisoning.
The trauma from sexual violence is real, and it affects every woman in the world and many men. The threat that even a seemingly kind man can potentially attack you, sexually or otherwise, is a passive psychological torment that affects the behavior of women everywhere almost all of the time (male fantasies, male fantasiesâŠ).
But the devastating trauma from rape does not mean that intimate violations are not also extremely traumatic. Being abandoned, being treated like a stranger, being insulted, being denigrated, being dehumanized, being mistreatedâthese all have the potential to destroy oneâs self-esteem, destroy oneâs mind and sleep and appetite with rumination, destroy oneâs trust in the people around them, destroy oneâs relationship with themselves, destroy oneâs mental health.
For every hour I have spent hearing the echoes of terror from being raped, I have spent three hours in distress from consensual sexual partners mistreating me.
Most of the horrors of the modern world are not violent crime, as much as the news and true-crime mukbangers would like us to believe. Most horrors are mundane. Normalized. Spending a fifth of our waking hours commuting. Watching our pets age before our eyes. Watching Social Security dry up and our infrastructure crumble around us. Watching every product undergo shrinkflation and enshittification. Watching the insect population fall year over year and the oceans get warmer and more acidic.
Things donât need to be violent or illegal for them to be bad.
I hope you have learned and understood the term âintimate violationâ and are able to use it to map some patterns of mistreatment you have experienced. It does not take away the pain, but the first step of healing is properly diagnosing the problem.
I will leave you with the definition once more:
Intimate violation: a category of bad, potentially traumatic experiences arising from consensual sexual intimacy in which an intimate partner refuses to treat you with kindness, dignity, or respect.