I am not sure if "Dear Prudence " has been discussed here on Feministing or not (and I admittedly lack the restraint to check-before-I-post), but I must confess to reading it every week, and sometimes discussing some of the letters with friends.
Today my former room-mate and I had a disagreement about a letter that I saw as coming from a "blame the victim" mentality and she saw as nothing to be concerned about, particularly as it wasn't a woman. The letter in question was from a man who, as a seventeen-year-old, had what he describes as an "affair" with his step-mother and never told his father. Prudie's advice is to tell his father in a restaurant and suggests that he:
Give as brief an account as possible and emphasize that you were a minor when she seduced you. (It would help if you were also a virgin.)
(Emphasis obviously mine.)
My perspective is that this kind of statement propagates the idea that if he had not been a virgin it would have been somehow more his fault than if he had never had intercourse. My friend thinks that this is reasonable because if he was a virgin he would be "more naive" and "susceptible" and so if he was not he would be more to blame. (I also consider their "affair" "rape", while she considers it "tragic love".)
Am I completely off here? Is there something I'm missing?
(This is my first post. Please don't crucify me!)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: If he were a virgin would it be okay?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11413
I don't think you are off at all. If it were the other way around (teen girl with step-dad) we would just view it as a classic case of a step-dad abusing his step-daughter. The same thing sometimes happens with the way people view female teachers and their male students in our society. Either way, what the step-parent is doing is very wrong. They are the adult in the situation, and supposed to be someone their step-kid (and spouse) should be able to trust. It's possible this guy's dad won't see it that way and will be mad at his son, but that will be wrong (and the guy being a virgin or not has nothing to do with it!)
Is the age of consent different in the USA? In Britain (where I live), the age of consent is 16, so if a 16 or over teenager, boy or girl, sleeps with a step-parent, it's not really abuse unless it's non-consensual.
If indeed the age of consent is 18 or something in America, well, then what she did was wrong and I'd call it abuse technically, though it's really hard for me to relate to any idea of the age of consent being 18. That just seems way too old. I think 16 is a good starting point for consent.
Age of consent -- whatever consent means -- varies by state in the US, generally from 16 to 18. IIRC, there are caveats for persons in positions of power over minors, so that, regardless of consent, it is illegal for a teacher to have sexual contact with a minor student. I imagine that a step-parent would be considered an authority figure in that case. Then again, since the woman was a step-mother, it's possible that a "Romeo-and-Juliet" exception could have come into play, wherein if the partners are within a certain age of each other they cannot be charged with statutory rape.
I guess I just think differently about such things. I don't see it as *necessarily* abusive if an older man or woman has a consensual sexual relationship with a younger person in their care, step-child or whatever. I mean, situations like that often are abusive in the sense that it's kind of perverting a relationship which is traditionally not supposed to be sexual (as with step-siblings, too, or any older person with a 17 year-old), and of course the idea of having sex with someone who is 'barely legal' has overtones of doing the same with someone who is NOT legal, but I'm just saying that that situation outlined is not always an abusive one.
"it's kind of perverting a relationship which is traditionally not supposed to be sexual"
No, not "kind of." That's what happens, and it's abuse. I don't see where the gray area is. That's abuse, plain and simple.
I very much doubt the "close in age" exception applies in this case, as the step-mother would have to be within 2 to 4 years of 17 depending on the state. Even for a "trophy" or "trade-in" wife, that seems a bit young. I don't know where this guy is from, but odds are against him living in a state that would recognize it as illegal. As the step-mother is in a particular position of authority over her step-son, it is a bit creepy and probably manipulative, but most likely not against the law.
It sucks, but Prudence is giving advice fitting the reality of the situation. The father is more likely to be forgiving of the sons actions if he can view him as more innocent. Though, sadly, few fathers would like to hear from their 17-year-old sons, in any other context at least, that they are virgins. Traitor if you do, "pussy" if you don't. Societal norms will get you every time.
I'd defend Prudence only if her advice was qualified. Yes, putting an emphasis on his own virginity could make things go easier during the discussion with his father, however, without noting that he'd be doing that to play on his father's own prejudices, her advice is just as harmful as if she honestly thought he would be more innocent (ha) if he had been a virgin.
I also think it has to do with the fact that if he were a virgin male then he would have no control of his hormones because according to society guys are not responisble for their actions when they are horny.
I understand Prudences' advice. She's trying to analyze the situation and help the boy find the best way out of this. By his description the relationship seemed consensual and now the question is how he's going to survive bringing the (old) news to his father. Playing on his own innocence at the time may help make sure his father doesn't kill him (or something less drastic but equally dramatic). After all he did betray his father when he had an affair with his wife, even if the wife was much older and "seduced" the son.
So, I think Prudence is trying to help the son put together a story that will work for him when he's going to tell his father. But I am also grossed out by the idea that lies behind the "virginity"-thing, that people who have had sex are less trustworthy and can't be exploited by other people. The same thing happens in most rape-cases, when the victim (often a woman) is interrogated about her sexual practises. It's plain disgusting and wrong.
I think Prudie is trying to get him to gain leverage with his father by playing the virginity card because the father may find it more palpable that way. He may feel more sympathetic with the boy if he can identify with his feelings of how young, dumb, and horny he also was at that age. Father may find it easier to believe that step-mom was just too much temptation for such a hormone raging teenage virgin male to resist. So,I see that he might say he was a virgin just to gain empathy from Dad.
That said, if someone gave me news like that in public I'd have to give them a special beat down later just for adding insult to injury. The nerve, and it's just mean.
I also do not put consensual sex between older teens and adults in the same realm as sex between a 30 yr old and a 12 yr old and certainly not in the same category as forcible rape by a long shot. It is grossly inappropriate on so many levels and may make her a horrid excuse for a person, but I don't think it makes her a sex offender. I'd say the same if the genders were reversed,too.
I get what Prudie was aiming at, that if you're a virgin it makes you seem more innocent, but it's totally inappropriate. Non-virgins can be sexually taken advantage of too, and we shouldn't propogate the myth that if you've had sex in the past, you're somehow responsible for or complicit in the abuse that happens to you.
Emily Yoffe, the woman behind Dear Prudie, is a slut shamer. She used to make a point of telling every person who wrote to her about a sex problem that really, they wouldn't be in this situation if they would just keep it zipped until marriage. She mostly succeeds at putting a sock in it these days, but now and then a little judgementalism slips out. People who aren't familiar with her might think that she is being realistic about how virgins are perceived as blameless, but to me, this is just her own feelings about sex contaminating her advice.
FrumiousB is right. I've been really disappointed with Yoffe lately. It seems over the past 3-4 months she has become quite rigidly, old-fashioned conservative in her advice - definitely a slut-shamer and making very snide comments about how having an unplanned pregnancy and/or abortion (and to be fair, she's been condescending to both those who carry and those who terminate) indicates you are some kind of amoral person, incapable of ever making a good decision.
Glad to hear someone else pick up on it, that virgin comment is just the latest in a long line.
If you'd like a more refreshing view from an advice columnist, you should check out Margo Howard's column. She was the original Dear Prudence and is like a sassy, smart aunt
I
Well, I was attempting to post a comment agreeing with you about Dear Margo, but apparently the internet ate it.
After reading the letter, I don't believe that Prudie is blaming the victim. She seems to be trying to get the victim to stop being a victim by owning having been a victim. Goodness, what a messed up situation, first to have the relationship and then to have the stepmother attempt to blackmail the son with it!