I write this post with shaking hands and a heavily beating heart, but both have seen worse than public ridicule and I cannot stay silent any longer. I have seen too many people deeply distressed by the words of a colleague whom I am sure meant no harm- but who essentially rubbed salt into some already painful wounds.
On the social forefront of the United States political scene, there have been recent movements toward awareness raising, support, and justice for victims of sexual assault. Though in the past the movement included many gimmicky statements such as “No means no,” and “Consent is sexy,” many current activists recognize that (a) it is the presence of a yes and not the absence of a no that establishes consent, and (b) consent is not sexy, it is a fundamental human right.
However, for all the good intentions of advocates for sexual assault survivors, there are those who wish to exploit the social spotlight being placed on these victims’ experiences. Some have even gone so far as likening sexual assault to the use of taxpayer money to make earning a college education more accessible to those who may not be financially able to otherwise due to existing social power structures, such as racism and classism. These individuals who feel entitled to the painful experiences of others ask why it is considered acceptable to ‘touch’ someone’s money without consent when it’s not okay to touch their body without consent.
Without even touching on the shaky financial foundation of this argument, I would like to make a statement. You cannot violate a piece of paper or a nugget of metal in the same way that you can another human being; as an object, money’s humanity exists only two-dimensionally in the faces pressed and printed onto its exterior. This heightened concern for objects is ironic, given that objectification is really the problem within this realm of thought.
It feels foolproof to use the social relevance of sexual assault as a route of justification for a political agenda when you don’t think about the people affected by the crime. When you think of us as an invisible statistic, we become the perfect vehicle for your metaphor because we are staggering in number. On average, 293,066 people over the age of 12 are sexually assaulted in the United States every year- it makes sense that clumping this large of a group into an abstract singularity would grant your argument quite a lot of power… but when you dehumanize us and use us as a means of power, you do so without our consent, just as our assailants did.
I will not allow myself, or anyone else who has been affected by sexual assault, to be a passive justification for your agenda or your thoughts. My advice to those who attempt to exploit the growing awareness of sexual assault for their purposes is this: if you think something is wrong, state your opinion forwardly, and support it with established, accredited facts. Do not play with things that are so much bigger than your fear of lowered legitimization through the disruption of power structures and steps toward some semblance of equality, for the levity that this requires further capitalizes on our bodies… and as it is said, consent should apply to everyone.
