Some people, so I’ve been told, “like it rough.” This is not a preference I understand, let alone share. Yet I take it that the appropriate attitude to hold regarding tastes differing from mine, whether in food, music, or sex, is that of indifference. What flavor of ice cream you buy, and what you do behind closed doors with a consenting partner, is none of my concern.
Injury, of course, tends to be the line at which even we live-and-let-live folks are at least willing to consider the implications of certain preferences. Fulfilling some preferences can potentially lead to bodily harm. Rough sex is such a preference, as we have learned from a recent PETA ad.
Another such preference: playing team sports. My mother can attest to this, citing the several (mild) concussions I suffered during my high school football days. Driving is dangerous too. I could take a bus most places, but I prefer driving even though roadway accidents are a leading cause of injury and death. I’ve decided the convenience is worth the risk, just as I decided the fun of football was worth the risk. The danger of rough sex is probably more in line with that of football, judging by the PETA ad.
Faux Controversy
All of this has roughly nothing to do with current discussion swirling around that commercial, by the way. This strikes me as odd. If there is to be any controversy about the ad, the only reasonable question to ask would regard the appropriateness of positive depictions of rough sex in the media. (I’ll stay out of that one.)
Rough sex is, after all, what the commercial depicts. The depiction is, further, an unambiguous one. A viewer encountering the commercial for the first time would have no cause to wonder, “Is this about rough sex, or is it about a woman whose boyfriend abuses her?” Considering only the latter interpretation would be well-nigh impossible.
Certain online commentary that would have you think otherwise is, sadly, unsurprising. Following the typical formula of the “feigned outrage” commentary, these reactions omit entirely any analysis to support their interpretation. Not satisfied even to make the already-implausible claim that the commercial’s message is ambiguous, these commentators drop all pretensions of reasonableness and simply begin with the assumption that the commercial portrays abuse.
Most readers recognize the obvious posturing. No sincere analyst of the commercial would interpret it as a humorous portrayal of a guy who abuses his girlfriend. The woman is shown to be injured, yes. The cause is shown to be rough sex. Also shown clearly: The woman enjoys it. Not only does she enjoy it, but she is the one who initiates it.
No doubt making the woman the initiator was a decision carefully calculated to avoid the very allegations that are nonetheless being made. To show a man initiating rough sex with an injured woman would have been an obvious PR disaster for PETA, even if it would have been unfair to interpret that as necessarily portraying a case of abuse. But given the rules of the game, the response would have been inevitable. The fact that numerous commentators have responded as such anyway demonstrates just how irrelevant such precautions are. Put up a billboard with the message “We do not condone violence against women” and someone is bound to pretend they don’t see the “not” in there.
Demanding Honesty
PETA’s commercial doesn’t portray domestic abuse – and no one really thinks it does either. Not unless some of these commentators believe that a woman could not possibly consent to, even enjoy, rough sex, and that any who think they do are deluded. That particular claim achieves the almost impressive feat of managing to be offensive to both men and women at the same time, and I doubt it has many proponents.
The alternative is that these commentators are simply dishonest. They don’t really believe the commercial portrays anything wrong. It just presents an easy opportunity to bring up a topic they want to discuss.
That doesn’t mean we should ignore the topic of violence against women. If we did, its victims could be stigmatized like they were in less enlightened times. Like male victims of domestic violence are still stigmatized today – and by all accounts, men are just as likely as women to be victims of domestic violence.
What we can do is demand honesty. We can demand that accusations of the naughty -isms (sexism, racism, socialism, etc.) be supported with evidence, and refuse our attention to people who exploit these to “cry wolf” for an audience.