All in a muddle

What finally got me going after 20 days of not blogging? This tweet:

“If her name begins with A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z, she wants the D.” Source

Not only was this stupidly tweeted by a teenaged boy who's been accused of raping a thirteen-year-old girl, it's indicative of a mindset that perplexes me. So I've decided to analyze the mindset.

First, I'm trying to understand the point. Is it that all women want sex? Okay. Asexuals aside, that's true enough to be pointless. And of course it disavows the existence of lesbians, which is ridiculous enough to be beside the point. 

Perhaps he means to suggest that all women want to have sex with him? Ludicrous, of course, but maybe he thinks that bolsters his image somehow? 

I guess my question is, why would you point that out? It implies that someone has made the counter-argument, which is that some women don't want to have sex, and he is contradicting that statement. Perhaps even that one shouldn't listen to women who claim they don't want to have sex, because they really do. 

Which brings me to the next question is, why would you ever question someone saying they don't want to have sex with you? If someone says they don't want to have sex with you, and they secretly do want to have sex with you, what are you risking by believing them? You're risking missing an opportunity to have sex.

Disappointing, perhaps, but surely not devastating. 

Consider the reverse. If someone says they don't want to have sex with you and they really don't, and you have sex with them anyway. 

Wow. 

So what's the mindset that would allow someone to tweet such a statement? Especially AFTER said person had been accused of rape. I can't begin to understand that. 

Terrifying

As it turns out, reproductive coercion is something that happens. That is, men sabotage their partners' birth control, or lie about condoms falling off, or intimidate/threaten/beat their partners to prevent them using birth control. Reproductive coercion is a form of abuse. Its purpose is to tie a woman to her abuser for life.

This is a terrifying notion. The idea that a man could betray me in that fashion, the idea that any woman could have to bear the consequences of that betrayal, and the idea of a child having to grow up in that situation is utterly frightening.

But then consider what else is happening to these women. Imagine being in a situation where your partner is trying to force you to become pregnant, or in a situation where you are already pregnant against your will, and then trying to get help.

In many parts of this country, a woman in that situation will be slut shamed. Even well-meaning doctors might assume that woman is a fool who doesn't understand how to use birth control.

Or, that woman could encounter a professional who "values life."

After being abused by her partner, this woman could be denied access to birth control by a pharmacist. She could be denied access to the morning after pill. In many parts of the country, there is no practical way for this woman to access RU-486, a pill that induces abortion, which would be a way that she could obtain an abortion without her partner's knowledge. In some states, if she is married to her abuser, he will be notified if she attempts to have an abortion at a medical center.

Can you imagine coming to the realization that your partner lied to you--put holes in a condom or claimed it fell off and he didn't notice, or hid your birth control pills, or flat-out raped you--and that you were pregnant as a result? Can you imagine being then told by your doctor that you should've known better? That although you arranged a doctor's appointment at a time when you were able to get away from your abusive partner, you have to come back in 24 hours because the state isn't sure you really want an abortion? That you can't have RU-486 unless you can come back to the doctor's office two more times, even though this is not medically necessary, and instead you could go home, take the second pill, and say you were having a miscarriage? Or that you can only have an abortion if your husband, the man who betrayed you so you could never get away from him, signs a paper giving you permission?

I desperately hope that reproductive coercion is rare. But even if it is, the idea that anyone is put in the position, in the United States, of being forced to bear a child and be tied for life to a man who abused her in that fashion is abhorrent. The fact that this exists is reason enough that safe, legal abortion should be available to every woman. Because nobody deserves to live that way. No child deserves the life that goes along with that. Adoption might be an option in a situation like that, but adoption could also result in the abuser escalating his abusive behavior. In any case, it's not up to me. It shouldn't be up to the government. This should never happen to anyone, but if it does, the least we can do is allow a woman the dignity of deciding what happens next.

Russia is pissing me off again

The most horrible thing has happened to a child who was born in Russia.

He wasn't exactly adopted, because it appears that a "gay" couple (it will become evident why I doubt their homosexuality in a bit) hired a Russian woman to be their surrogate. In the US, surrogacy does not involve adoption, as far as I know. In any case, the men-who-claim-to-be-a-gay-couple sexually abused their son in a whole variety of horrifying ways, which is an inexcusable crime and these men deserve to not only lose their son forever but also to rot in jail and then hell. (You know, if there is an afterlife, which there isn't but at moments like these I like to imagine one because there really is no way these men could suffer enough in one human lifetime.)

Russia has no jurisdiction in this case because the child in question was an American citizen at the time the crimes were discovered, the men involved were an American and an Australian, and the crimes happened in France, Germany, the US and New Zealand (I think. News reports are not consistent.) The American Judge who did have jurisdiction sentenced the men to 40 years in prison. The boy is now living with someone else, either a relative or another family (again, news reports are inconsistent.)

But here's why I'm pissed at Russia. If you have the stomach for it, read this story from an Australian news source, and then this one from Russia. For those who are easily sickened, I'll sum up: The Australian story gives us some details including the names of the convicted criminals, what happened, and what is going to happen now. The Russian story features our old friend Pavel Ashtakov, who claims the boy was purchased from his mother, that Americans sexually assault children all the time, and that the solution to the problem is to stop international adoption.

I'm not exaggerating. At all. He seriously said those things, and this guy is a major influence in Russian politics AND the principal man in charge of deciding what happens to the 120,000 children currently living in Russian orphanages.

This is the same country that just made it illegal to be gay in public. Because, you know, kids won't grow up to be gay if they don't see gay people holding hands on the street and there are no Russian pedophiles.

And they gave away my friend's kid this week in defiance of a request from the European Court that no action be taken until they heard my friend's case. Honestly, I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, my friend is devastated and I feel her pain. It's real pain, and Pavel can go to hell for causing it. (Note the above disclaimer about hell.) But I don't think Pavel was ever going to let those 300 kids go, and that being the case, it's better for the little girl to be in a family than in an orphanage, and hopefully my friend will be able to move on now and find a child she can adopt. I hate myself for feeling that way, because it feels like I'm letting my friend down, but this is just a hateful, horrible situation and there's no way to feel good about it.

I may even have to boycott the Olympics next winter, which would be really hard for me because I am a total Olympic freak, but that country has gotten completely bonkers and I'm afraid for the safety of gay Olympians, and afraid to seem to be endorsing anything Russia is up to right now. The human rights violations are just sickening and I'm not sure there's anything we can do about it.

Update 7/1/13:

I got this comment on Facebook, and thought I'd post it here for everyone to read:

Janine Beth Howard Gorell Of course Pavlov never mentions that orphans "graduating" from orphanages are REALLY ripe pickings for exploitation. And there are a lot more of those with adoption being unilaterally closed.

It's so simple

I saw this on Facebook yesterday, posted by The Asian-Pacific Resource & Research Centre for Women (ARROW). I'm not sure why their post popped up on my feed. Probably one of my friends "liked" the picture. But it really made me think.

What's wrong with reminding men that the women they treat so badly are the same (fundamentally) as the women they love? If you'd kill the guy who raped your sister, surely that's a good reason not to rape someone else's sister. 

But it's not a feminist reason. 

The reason you shouldn't rape a woman is because she's a human being, deserving of respect and autonomy just because she's a human being. The reason women should make decisions about abortions, rather than government, is that women are adults. They are capable of making rational decisions based on information that is unique to a situation--and the circumstances surrounding an abortion are always unique--and living with the consequences of that decision. The reason women should get equal pay for equal work is that they are human beings, just like men.

Defining women relationally is just another way of removing their humanity: women should be treated with respect only because of their relationships to men. 

It's not okay. 

Treat people the way you want to be treated. All people. Children, the elderly, people with disabilities, LGBT people: everybody. It's the basis for every religion going, although many religions later define it away.  It's not complicated. Sometimes it's hard, but it's not complicated. Treat people the way you want to be treated.

I am so sick of this!

I read this today and I listened to an interview about this and of course heard the news about Plan B being (theoretically someday) approved for over-the-counter sale (which is good news for a change) and I have to say I'm really getting sick of the slut-shaming.

I suppose that's not a revolutionary thing to say, but come on, people! The article I linked to is about a 13-year-old girl who was raped and decided not to get an abortion when she found herself pregnant because she doesn't believe in abortion. As a result, people are writing "slut" and "whore" on her house. There are seriously people in this world who have nothing better to do with their time than spew hate at a pregnant little girl, as if she doesn't have enough to worry about with the whole bearing-her-rapist's-child thing going on. These people evidently think it's their job to control the sex life of someone else's kid--a kid who didn't make the choice to have sex and for whatever reason, couldn't be protected from rape by her parents.

Why is that your business? And why do you think writing graffiti on her house will change anything? Or are you just trying to scare your own daughters into having abortions if they get raped?

Oh, wait. You don't think they should be allowed to have abortions if they get raped. Or have the morning-after pill. And you don't think boys should be taught not to rape in the first place. Or have access to contraception.

I'm so sick of people blaming women for sex. Sex is a good thing. Rape is a bad thing.

And if you want women to have fewer abortions, try supporting cheap and available contraception, comprehensive sex education, and not shaming girls who choose to carry their pregnancies to term.

Impossible: An Essay About Women's Clothing

Here's something men and children just don't understand about women.

Clothes are impossible.

I'm not just talking about the lack of pockets. And you do have to remember that women's clothing is entirely unreliable in the matter of pockets. True, many women enjoy or even love purses--the fashion of them, shopping for them, wearing them as an accessory--but it is also true that we cannot rely on our clothes to carry necessities such as our wallet and keys. It took Hopper a while to understand this, and he was for a long time frustrated with me for never being able to find my keys. They were always in a different work bag (which is exacerbated, in my case, by the fact that I have multiple part-time jobs and need several different work bags) and finally one day he blew up at me.

"Where do you keep your keys?" I shot back.

"In my pocket!"

"Well, as soon as women's fashion reliably makes pockets in my pants, I'll do that, too!"

Since then, he's been much more tolerant of my key-locating tribulations.

Then there's sizing. Now, Hopper has had some sizing issues since I've known him because he lost a lot of weight. After that, he had to get measured by a salesman to find out what size he was. Get that, ladies? He got measured, and then knew what size he was! That's all it took!

Ladies' clothes are sold not by measurement, but by numbered sizes. Aside from the fact that the sizes increase numerically, so that a size 10 is in fact larger than a size 4, they make no sense at all. There is absolutely no consistency in size from one brand to another. None. There is also variability in shape--women can have generous hips, or generous bosoms, or both, or neither, or be pear-shaped or apple-shaped and so on and so on. Some designers take some of these things into account in their larger sizes, others don't, and finding a designer whose clothes fit and flatter you is an enormous challenge. Some designers don't even have consistent sizing in their factories so that one size 8 dress is different from another size 8 dress of the exact same size and color.

The sizes also change over time. When I was dangerously thin in college, I wore a size 4. When I got married I was about a size six, I think, and I tried on a vintage dress in size 12 that fit me perfectly. The very thin (but not dangerously) grad students I work with tell me that they wear a size 0. Zero. That's a size. Zero. How can a person be zero? In any case, the sizes have been steadily getting larger so that a size 12 was once rather small and is now close to average (the average American woman is, I believe, a 14) and they have to come up with ever-smaller numbers to describe the thin. I'm not sure where they're going to go now that zero is a size, but that's not my problem.

You'll notice I've only been using even numbers. That's because ladies' clothes are sold only in even sizes. The odd sizes are used for Juniors. That's clothes for teens, basically. The fashions are different and those sizes are different, too--usually less generous in the hips and bosom, because all teens are shaped like that, evidently. I was able to shop in Juniors until I was about 30, but now I just feel silly in most of those clothes, and they're less likely to fit me.

And then there is the fact that our bodies change. We don't just get larger as we get older, which is typical of men, too. Every woman I know has a range of sizes in her closet. It's hard to know from one summer to the next which set of clothes will fit, and that's without taking changing fashions into account. Additionally, as we go through our cycles, we get larger and smaller, so the trousers that fit one week might be too tight or too lose the next. (That's not taking into account the cycle our jeans go through from first wearing to second wearing and back through the wash to shrink and become tight again.)

I'm not even going to get into alternate sizing, but there is Petite (for short women) and Woman (for larger women) and of course Maternity, which is self-explanitory.

So, guys, the next time you're sitting there outside the fitting room waiting for your gal while she tries on clothes and you're wondering why it takes her so long to shop when you just cruise into the Men's section and grab some shirts and trousers in your size and head home, now you know. Women's clothes are impossible. IM. POSS. IBLE.

An open letter to all Atheists everywhere

Dear Atheists,

Can we all please stop pretending that religion makes no sense at all?

I get that you don't believe in it. That's cool. I don't believe in God either, and I'm working my way down the whole religion thing.

But I understand why it appeals to people, and I get the internal logic.

See, all you have to do is assume that God exists, and that [insert faith tradition] is instructions from Him, and there you go: it all makes sense.

Is the base assumption logical? No. There's absolutely no evidence to support that hypothesis. But if you want to understand the actions of the religious, that's all you have to do. And you're smart, right? That's why you don't believe things without evidence. So you can do a simple logic exercise.

What triggered this rant? (I hear you cry.) Well, the other day, Richard Dawkins tweeted:

1. Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins26 Apr

   Sharia law "is legal to them". Oh great. So I'll go out and break English law and plead that I was obeying "Dawkins Law". What rubbish.

   Expand
2. Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins26 Apr

   Oppressed & abused women believe the falsehood that Sharia "law" is law. http://bit.ly/14iOKn6  Who is telling them the lie? "Scholars"?

    View media
3. Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins26 Apr

   British women beg old fools called "scholars" http://bit.ly/14iOKn6  to grant divorce from marriage that was never legal in the first place.

    View media
4. Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins26 Apr

   BBC investigates Sharia in UK: http://bit.ly/14iOKn6  But why so keen for Sharia divorce, when Sharia marriage not legal in first place?

    View media

From this we are meant to infer that Dr. Dawkins is baffled by the behavior of Muslim women. There is absolutely no logic to what they are doing. After all, their marriages are dissolved under British law, and that should be enough for them.

Well, it isn't. They might want to get married again someday, and under Sharia law, if they don't get a Sharia divorce, they can't get another religious marriage. And if your whole community thinks that's important, it's pretty damned hard to say, "Well, science says it doesn't matter," and walk away.

Let me explain this in terms you can understand. Humans are pack animals. While some humans have been known to leave their pack of origin and to join a new pack, this is rare. Most humans will sacrifice greatly to remain in the pack. Those humans who are rejected by a pack tend to exhibit signs of great anguish, which can lead to depression, desperate attempts to be accepted by the pack, or even destructive behavior. Most humans will follow the rules of their packs even when this defies logic and often even when their own self-interest is compromised in other ways, reducing their individual social power or even depriving themselves of necessities.

So while the evidence may show us that these women will not suffer in hell if they do not get their Sharia divorces, these women believe that they will, and therefore they operate under that assumption. It's not scientific, but it is logical. Even if individual women don't believe in God, they may seek a Sharia divorce so that they can be accepted by their communities, because the thought of leaving the community forever is too painful.

Religion satisfies many human needs, and it polices many societies. We may wish it would go away. We may even work to end its influence. But let's not pretend we don't even know what's going on.

Sincerely,

The Jewmanista

Raising a girl

Today in the car, Boo told me a long, halting story. It took at least a mile of driving to get it out. She went around and around and back to the beginning. And finally she got to the upshot: a boy in her class logged her out of the computer and she lost a day's work on a really important project.

Now, there wasn't much for me to do here. The boy in question has lost computer privileges for a week, Boo's teachers know what happened and will make sure she has adequate time to re-do her work, and while she's been inconvenienced, she isn't hurt. But I did advise her to save more often in future.

And I felt like this is the 9-year-old version of the rape prevention talk. Because this wasn't Boo's fault. This boy did a jerky thing, and it sounds like he did it to annoy her. There's no reason she should have been expecting someone to aggressively shut down her computer. She should be able to walk away from her work without it being deleted. But there's something she can do to protect herself, and it's my job to teach her that.

If she was a little bit older, that's what I'd be teaching her about Steubenville. Rape is wrong. An unconscious person cannot defend herself and relies on the people around her to keep her safe. The boys who actually raped her are the ones going to jail, but every other person in that house, every person who saw one of those tweets, whoever bought the alcohol for that party and the adults who should have been supervising but weren't all failed that girl that night. All of those people are the ones who are wrong. An unconscious person cannot be held responsible for what happens to her.

But that's why you don't want to drink until you black out. That's why you only go to parties with friends that you trust, and that's why you stay with those friends and you leave with those friends. That's why you call me and Dad if a party seems out of hand and we will come get you, no questions asked. That's why I don't want you to use drugs, and if you feel you have to, you only use them when you're with trusted friends. And that's why you should only have sex when you're ready and with someone you trust. Don't put yourself in that position.

I don't want to teach her those things. I shouldn't have to teach her those things. I wish we lived in a world where all the boys were taught that women are human beings with feelings who should be treated with respect. But I will teach her those things, because even though a girl should be able to pass out at a party and wake up the next morning safe and sound, I can't help feeling like the outcome of that party in Steubenville could have been different if that girl had taken precautions. If she had known her limits, or had a trusted friend who could bring her home, or if she had called her parents when she arrived to say that there were no parents at the party and drugs and too many boys and she wanted to come home. It's not that I blame her for what happened, but rather that I wish it hadn't happened. I wish that girl had had enough control over her environment to protect herself, and I want to keep my own daughter safe from that kind of horror.

There's no way to know if I can. If the message boys take from Steubenville is not "don't rape" but "don't post your rape on the internet," then the result of Steubenville will be more rapes, not fewer, and more rapists getting away with their crimes. Hopefully enough people are outraged by this event and the way it's been covered in the media that more parents of boys will teach them "don't rape" and rape culture will diminish and eventually disappear.

In the meantime, I'll have to live in an uncomfortable world where I say to my daughter, "It's not your fault, but here's what you can do to prevent it from hurting you so much." And soon, "Here's what you do to stay in control of a situation, and here's what to do to get out when a situation gets out of your control."

I hope it's enough.

Steubenville

I'm simply horrified by everything to do with the Steubenville rape case.

I'm horrified that this event happened--that a drunk girl could be raped and dragged around and raped again.

I'm horrified that the teens involved were stupid enough to post it all on the internet.

I'm horrified that this girl was shamed for what was done to her while she was unconscious.

I'm horrified that this girl's parents had to see these pictures in order to advocate for their daughter.

I'm horrified that the testimony revealed that none of this seemed out of the ordinary to any of the (awake) teens involved.

I'm horrified that the witnesses were granted immunity.

I'm horrified that the rapists were given only two years in jail.

I'm horrified that the judge recommended that rapists not put evidence on the internet in future.

I'm horrified that the major news networks seem to sympathize with the rapists, rather than the victim.

I'm horrified that FOX seems to have revealed the identity of the victim.

And mostly I'm horrified that our culture teaches men that they deserve sex and women that they should both submit to men and never have sex. It is a culture that ensures that rapes like this will happen, that boys will disseminate pictures of unconscious, naked girls and that people will lament the loss to the boys of their reputations while calling the victim a slut.

Protesters

Every month I go to a meeting at Planned Parenthood. It's part of my job. I work on a research project that deals with People Living with HIV/AIDS, and I have to report monthly to the Ryan White Part A Steering Committee, who funds our study. The Committee has its meetings at a Planned Parenthood office because it is centrally located and has a nice meeting room that is big enough.

Today, for the first time, there were abortion protesters outside.

The first time I went to a meeting at Planned Parenthood I wondered whether I would see protesters, but it's been a year and I'd never seen any, so it was a bit surprising. I wasn't scared because there were only a few of them and because of the way the building is situated, they can't come near the door. Mostly, they looked pathetic, standing on the other side of a snow bank holding their signs.

Signs that said, "Choose adoption, not abortion."

That made me mad. I was tempted to approach the protesters and ask them not to protest in my name. But then I started thinking about the birthmothers I've known and I realized how really stupid that sign is.

Anti-choice people like to bring out women who were traumatized by abortion all the time, but they never talk about birthmothers.

In adoption, we speak of the triad. Every adoption consists of three parties: the child, the birthparent(s) and the adoptive parent(s). The general public (adoption protesters included) likes to think of the pretty part of the triad: the happy adoptive parents raising the grateful child. When people do think of the birthparents (which isn't often) they like to think of them as unlucky teens who get a fresh start now that they are absolved of parenting responsibilities. Sometimes we talk about adult adoptees who search for their biological families and face mystery or rejection or bad news, but we don't worry about them too much because after all, they've got parents.

When we were in process with Boo (that's an adoption term: "in process." It means we were going through the process of adoption) I was very active on an online support group for adoption. This support group was for people in all parts of the triad, and although there wasn't a whole lot of mixing, I got to know a few birthmothers. Now, I realize that these were birthmothers who chose to join an online support group, so they aren't a representative sample of all birthmothers, but I'm not trying to generalize. Many women choose adoption and go on to live happy, productive lives. Most probably think about their children from time to time (or every day) and wonder how they are, and where they are, and feel sad as we all do about people who are no longer in our lives, but are able to resolve their feelings and move on in a healthy way.

But some do not. Some birthmothers feel a connection to the children they have placed for adoption that is overwhelming. When I was active on this website, one birthmother killed herself because her child's adoptive parents would not let her see the child even though they had a written agreement that said their adoption would be open and she would have a relationship with the child.

She died. Not from complications during her pregnancy (which can happen) or domestic violence (which happens to pregnant women too) or poverty (which happens all too often.) She died because she chose adoption and she couldn't handle the reality of it. And because the law does not give birth parents any rights. Even with a written adoption agreement, this woman had no legal recourse when her child's parents decided to change the rules.

So when I see people suggesting that adoption is a good alternative to abortion, I think, "Maybe. For some." I don't know if the woman I knew would still be alive if she had chosen abortion. There's no way to know. But every time I think about abortion rights, I imagine myself making my own choice. I can't imagine having an abortion. I can't imagine placing a child for adoption. If raising a child was not an option (as it wasn't say, when I was a teenager) then I would find myself in an impossible place with three terrible options. I would have to choose one of those options, though, and live with that choice.

That's why I can't stand these people blithely suggesting that they know which choice is better. A triad is a complicated place to live, and shouldn't be entered lightly. All three corners can be painful at times. So stay out of women's bodies and women's choices and leave adoption out of your argument.

Sexism and Judaism

Today in Jerusalem, ten women were arrested for wearing tallit at the Kotel (prayer shawls at the Western Wall.) I'm not a personal fan of wearing a tallis. It just doesn't work for me. But the notion that there is a god who cares whether or not women wear them offends me anyway.

I feel like the men who made this law and the men who reported these women and the men who arrested these women didn't have parents who said to them, "Worry about yourself!" Because that's how prayer should be. You want to pray at the Wall? Fine. Go ahead. You want to wear a shawl and a hat? Go crazy. But why are you looking at the women on the other side of the divider? That divider is there so you won't be distracted by lustful thoughts while you're praying. Instead, you're looking at the women to make sure they're not praying the same way you are, because if they do that, God will get mad.

Seriously?

How can you believe in a god like that and still feel like life is worth living? If your god cares more about what someone is wearing while they pray than how that person conducts her life, you need to find another god. If your god is offended because women want to observe more laws than they have to, because women are doing the same kind of work you are doing to become closer to the same god you are allegedly worshipping, there is a problem, and it's not the women.

Rules like that--rules that say this person can pray and that person cannot--are proof that your religion was written by people. People have an interest in raising one group over another. Men have benefited from this arrangement, where men get to pray and study and women raise children and earn money to support the family, for centuries.

Behavior like this, that divides one group of Jews from another, just serves to weaken us all. We look worse to the International Community, we look foolish to anyone who can think logically, and you lose support from the millions of progressive Jews who live around the world.

All so you can keep your little corner to yourselves.

Sexism in the Twenty-Fourth Century

Hopper and I are still working our way through Star Trek: The Next Generation and we're now on Season 4. I'm bothered by a pattern that may be emerging.

I realize that these episodes were written and filmed over 20 years ago, but there's a kind of sexism in them that makes me particularly uncomfortable in some of Commander Riker's story lines.

Riker is, of course, known as a bit of a man-about-galaxy, but in two season four episodes he is taken advantage of in disturbing ways. First, in "First Contact," he is taken prisoner on a planet that is just developing interstellar space capability. He needs to escape from the hospital where he is being held prisoner while he recovers from some injuries. A hospital employee (I can't remember her function, if it was explained on the show) played by Bebe Neuwirth says that she will help him escape, but only if he has sex with her, because she's always fantasized about making love with an alien. Riker demurs, makes excuses, and finally succumbs.

This is rape. If you're unsure of my assertion, imagine the scenario with the roles reversed: an attractive woman is held prisoner, and one of her captors offers to help her escape provided she has sex with him first. Riker was raped.

Later, in an episode called "The Host," Dr. Crusher falls in love with an ambassador who is traveling on the Enterprise. The ambassador is seriously wounded while attempting to settle a local dispute, and when Dr. Crusher tries to save him, he informs her that the body she is trying to heal is only his host. He is in fact a parasitic being that lives inside the hose. He instructs Dr. Crusher to save the parasite and request a new host from his planet. She does this, but the parasitic being cannot survive on its own long enough for the host to arrive, so Riker volunteers to be a temporary host.

Once the parasite is implanted, the ambassador appears to take complete control of Riker's body and mind. Dr. Crusher is understandably confused by all this, but eventually realizes that this is, in fact, the man she loves and she goes to see him and spends the night with him.

This is a teeny bit less clear from an ethical perspective, because it's unclear to what extent Riker is aware of what's going on while his body is occupied by another sentient being. What is clear, however, is that he did not consent to sex with Dr. Crusher.

Raped again? Well, he certainly was beyond consent when his mind was co-opted by another being, whether or not he remembers it. What's unclear to me is whether Beverly raped him or the ambassador did. Or maybe they both did.

Again, reverse the roles: imagine Beverly's mind is taken over by another being and that being uses her body, without her consent, to have sex with Riker.

Makes you uncomfortable, doesn't it?

I'm not sure these episodes could or would be made today, but why did we ever think this was okay to do to a man? Is it because it's Riker, and we know he's kind of a slut? I think it might be. It's a combination of the idea that men always want sex and the idea that a slut can't be raped. And these ideas are completely validated by the show--Riker shows no difficulty with either scenario (although it's unclear whether he's even aware of the second one.) Even I said to Hopper, when Riker volunteered to be the host to the ambassador, "Does this mean Riker gets to do it with Beverly?" And I'm sure that was the thought process of many.

After all, Riker does it with everyone.

I hope we've come beyond this as a society. I hope we understand now that no matter what someone's sex life is like, or what gender they are, a person shouldn't be forced into sex against his will. Ever.

I wonder how Jonathan Frakes feels about it.