You Keep Using That Word

In light of the torrent of women finally coming forward with their stories of rape and sexual assault by powerful men -- and being believed --I wanted to take a moment to broach the topic of consent, and why men -- not just heterosexual, as we've seen with Kevin Spacey, but I'm going to focus on straight cis men because let's face it, that's the demo that can't keep their hands and dicks to themselves -- seem to have such a difficult time both recognizing "no" and taking it for an answer.

The problem is that men are socially conditioned to view sex not as a mutual expression of affection between two (or more) people, but as a thing they do to someone else. And perhaps more disgustingly, a "deal" they have to "close." They must overcome the objections of their target and turn that "no" into a "yes." You can see this ridiculous mindset at play in David Wong's Ayn-Randian manifestos on Cracked, particularly this one (which I've torn apart here).

And men are conditioned this way because up until very, very recently, their partners didn't exactly have a say in the matter. Particularly straight men. If you were a woman? As a member of the nobility/aristocracy, you were flat-out assigned a man to have sex with (the husband chosen for you by your father). If you were a peasant, you simply married the first man who asked because you needed his salary. Ergo men never had to worry about being worthy, so much as first. The woman wasn't ever going to turn him down. She wasn't allowed to.

Up until even more recently, sexual assault and rape were in the same category as property crimes. Raping a woman was no different than vandalizing a piece of merchandise. Rapists literally paid a fine to the husband of the victim if she was married. If she wasn't, he could either pay a fine to her father or marry her; you broke it, you bought it.

Hell, just for perspective? Ancient Greece (on which nearly all of Western society is based) had no separate word for "rape."

For men, particularly straight men, sex is viewed through the lens of a sales transaction. He offers strength, protection, and wealth, and he gets sex and children as payment for his services as a husband. His objective is to turn any potential "no" into a "yes."

Thus, to him, sex is something his partner is letting him do. And if they let him do it, whether they want him to or not, that's all that matters. He closed the sale.

On the contrary, when victims -- especially women -- talk about consent, they mean "sex that is wanted, with this particular person" rather than simply letting sex happen out of a sense of obligation or being too under-confident to refuse. And that's a concept that we can't seem to get through men's heads.

Comedienne Margaret Cho outlines the issue perfectly in this post on her site:

But the sex I am talking about having, the kind I didn’t want, is sex I initiated with people I wasn’t attracted to so that I could get finished faster, or so I didn’t have explain whytowherefor I wasn’t into it or into them, or I loved them so much, but the chemistry wasn’t there, and I felt bad for them and so I would leave my body temporarily for them to do what they wanted, like “take what you want, I’ll be over there” and then return at the end for cuddling and the nice warmth of sleeping in a bed with another person.

Women have been conditioned by and large to agree to sex we don't want to have because it's presented to us as our end of the bargain. Something we let men do to us in exchange for him providing financial security and physical protection.

Why is this not consent? Okay, you remember Lumbergh from Office Space? Star of the That Would Be Great meme? Would you say Milton/Peter/Porter/Slydell consented to anything he asked for? Of course not. They did it out of unspoken obligation.

They acquiesced. They relented. They did not, in any way, consent.

Now picture being expected to have sex in the same way you're expected to go to work on Sunday. Specifically, picture being expected to have sex you derive little, if any, pleasure from because your partner does not know or care if you're enjoying yourself. Picture this and you're starting to scratch the surface of the problem with the male definition of "consent" with regard to what it means for women.

The difference between consent and acquiescence can be summed up in one word: desire. "Lie back and think of England" isn't consent. You don't "let" people do things to you out of desire; you do it with them as a willing and enthusiastic participant. Consent is having sex out of desire. Acquiescence is having sex because it's easier than refusing. Particularly when it comes to the power dynamics between women and the powerful men they work for. If they're "letting you do it" because "you're a star", that's not consent. That's a person too afraid of what might happen if they say no.

So if you could take no for an answer and keep your hands and dicks to yourselves unless you're double-damned pinky-swear sure the other person is into you (or wants you to be into them), yeah, that'd be great.

Neon Genesis Evangelion Is the Most Misunderstood Franchise of All Time

The show that launched a thousand flamewars, because pretty much nobody knew what the hell was going on. And a show that everyone agrees was one of the darkest and most nihilistic works of fiction ever made.

Well, almost everyone.

I'm one of those weirdos that saw it as the complete opposite. As one of the most optimistic and positive views of humanity in fiction, minus the usual cheese that comes with the Humans Are Special trope. It was a visceral deconstruction of said trope, stripping away the layers to find out why. I think the reason so many folks consider it negative is because they're so focused on the visuals (which are indeed horrifying) that they ignore what's actually happening and what the characters are discussing.

The short version is that the underlying main plot of the show is to collapse the AT Fields -- the physical manifestation of the psychological wall that separates people's identities from each other, in effect the thing that makes you able to identify as the individual you are -- of everyone on earth and combine all souls into one being (referred to throughout the show as Instrumentality). The goal is that nobody will suffer any longer since they don't have an identity, and therefore no need to establish relationships with other people.

Shinji, the series' protagonist, ultimately rejects this despite his crippling fear of others, and opts to keep his identity. Hence the movie ending with him and Asuka alone on a beach in a post-apocalyptic hellscape with the "sea" in the background. That sea is the collective souls of mankind.

Now, why the unholy fuck would I consider this a positive ending? Even uplifting? Besides me just being weird and disturbed?

The devil is in the details.

Up to this point, Shinji has been through the proverbial wringer. At 4 years old, he watched his mother get absorbed into Evangelion Unit 01 (and opt to stay there, effectively committing suicide, but it's not clear he was ever informed of that). Right after this, his father shipped him off to live with a teacher, and only contacted him nearly a decade later to be Evangelion Unit 01's pilot.

Then came the 13th Angel (Bardiel) battle. It had possessed Unit 03, and when Shinji refused to fight because he knew there was another pilot just like him in there, his father took control of Unit 01 away from him and had him sit in the cockpit fully conscious and aware while it brutally tore apart Unit 03 and nearly killed the other pilot (whom he learned was a friend of his).

Right after this is the battle with Zeruel, the 14th Angel. Shinji is forced to return to piloting Unit 01 after swearing he wouldn't, and in the course of that battle is absorbed into it exactly like his mother was ten years prior. Only he makes the decision to come back.

Right before the events of the movie, he fights the 17th Angel, who had shown up disguised as Kaworu, a fellow pilot. Before learning his true identity, Kaworu was literally the first person in the series to not treat Shinji like an object that exists to fulfill the needs of other people. And in the end, Shinji is forced to kill him. Something he swore in the Bardiel battle that he would rather die than do.

So by the time that the underlying plot of the show comes to fruition, Shinji is at the lowest point any human being could find themselves. More than anyone, he has every reason to go "yup, fine by me, I'm totally cool with not suffering anymore" and taking the ultimate escape from reality that is joining Instrumentality. But he doesn't.

Because as all the philosophical talk in the movie illustrates, having an identity is painful when you fear other people and when you view the world as a cruel, shitty place. Having an identity is pure torture when you hate that identity because you are under the impression that everyone else does.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

When you change your own perspective and stop viewing everything and everyone as hating you and out to hurt you, having your own identity is good. Even pleasurable. Certainly preferable to floating in a sea of nothing and not caring anymore. As Shinji himself puts it:

I feel that there were only hateful things there. So I'm sure it was okay to run away. But there was nothing good in the place I ran to, either. After all, I didn't exist there... which is the same as no one existing.

But that's not all. The real punch comes in the next few lines:

Kaworu: Is it okay for AT Fields to hurt you and others once more? 

Shinji: I don't mind.  But, what are you two within my heart? 

Rei: Hope.  The hope that people might be able to understand one another. 

Kaworu: And the words 'I love you'. 

Shinji: But that's just pretending - a self-intoxicating belief... like a prayer. It can't possibly last forever. Sooner or later I'll be betrayed... And they'll leave me. Still... I want to meet them again, because I believe my feelings at that time were real.

That is the point at which Shinji rejects Instrumentality, and his reasons for doing so. Sure, he'll be hurt sooner or later. But there's happiness there, too, and it's just as real as the pain. And that alone is worth retaining his identity for.

So despite the crucified Eva series in the background, despite the giant decapited Rei head on the horizon, despite everything else...existing is better than not existing. And that giant sea in the background? All of humanity has the chance to make the same choice as Shinji. They can all come back if they want to.

Having walked that line before? This is powerfully positive stuff. Especially in current times when so much is going wrong. When every day seems like the world is sinking into that sea inch by inch, figuratively if not literally. It's going to get ugly, but people can act to set shit right again. Things can get better. But only if we stick around long enough to take action.

That is, at its heart, the message of the entire film and the entire series. As long as you're alive, there is still hope that things can get better because you have the ability to act. As Shinji's mother says, "Anywhere can be heaven as long as you have the will to live. After all, you're alive... and you can find the chance to achieve happiness anywhere."

God's in his Heaven, all's right with the world indeed.