What are you NOT reading Wednesday

I recently discovered a podcast called "The Philosophy of Sex", hosted by someone who gives few googleable details about herself, named Caroline. I listened to her interview with Bri Lee and also with Damon Young. I have not read either Lee or Young's books, but I have read their shorter writing and media work, etc. I did not cringe at Caroline's handling of EITHER the criminal-(carceral)-justice focus of Bri Lee OR the queer-kink focus Damon Young has. And, more importantly - given I have cringed at both Lee and Young at different times for wildly different reasons - Caroline's interviewing showed off the best of both of them, or at least the features I consider the most interesting.

Hence, I began with interest her podcast interview with Avgi Saketopoulou, entitled "Sexuality Beyond Consent", concerning the book of that name, full title "Sexuality Beyond Consent: Risk, Race, Traumatophilia"

By traumatophilia, Saketopoulou means the process by which small and large traumas shape our erotic interests. About ten minutes in, I added her book to my tbr. About 40 minutes in, i removed it with strong "I might if it was necessary for academic research but I'm not paid for this anymore" prejudice".

I must stress: until that point, an awful lot of what Saketopoulou had to say resonated with me. She's a therapist: she talks eloquently about how trauma is rarely ever "cured" but can be treated (a phrase she quoted from one of her colleagues: "ghosts become ancestors"). She's interested in taboo, and in the complexity of boundaries. The podcaster, Caroline, was starting to ask her about her idea of "limit consent", shortly before I noped out; certainly Saketopoulou made an eloquent summary of what I find to be Katherine Angel's most compelling point, re the limits of affirmative consent discussed some time ago on here, best chapter reproduced online at Granta.

"Sometimes," says Saketopoulou in this podcast, "We can't know what we want until it is already happening." Note: she does use the positive of want, not the negative; I had to re-listen to check.

For example, says Saketopoulou, this happens in the therapeutic relationship. I am now paraphrasing, but so far quite closely. You can't treat a patient without medical consent to treatment. But consider [paraphrase grows less literal, I am too repelled to reproduce this faithfully] a patient who came to Saketoupoulou, and who by the end of their first meeting was extremely convinced she could benefit from the therapy Saketoupoulou offers. But she was not willing to pay the stipulated fee. She could AFFORD it, Seketoupoulou specifies; but did not wish to pay it. Yet she did not walk out, demanding more time and attention.

So far, so ... actually completely within predictable professional norms, I'd have thought? Not so, Saketoupoulou. Saketoupoulou specifies that the client had not asked her fee, in initial contact. And then moves on to talking about how the client wanted Saketoupoulou to acknowledge that Saketoupoulou had "screwed" her.

... I'm sorry. I can afford no patience for someone who blames the client not asking, rather than saying "my bad, I should've posted my fees online" or "wow, I really didn't train my receptionist properly". You DID screw this client, lady. Granted, you might still encounter that sort of client neediness (eg: person who hoped for fortnightly therapy and has just been told they need biweekly; person who who hoped for concessions you're not willing to give), and if you hadn't already thought about that and developed an Emotional Labour Face for enforcing those boundaries... uh... please talk to your nearest pro sex worker?

In all seriousness, I am deleting this book from my tbr, with prejudice. The described professional scenario is not completely unrelated to sex, but its closest neighbour is abosolutely pro sex work, and I have not known many pro sex workers personally but none of those I do know nor those whose writing I have read would make this careless a conflation between their professional boundaries and the very real risk that someone might commission them to engage in acts that the client can't handle OR with respect to which the client has un-meetable emotional needs.

Also, despite my Australian-ingrained instinct to read her name as racialised, Saketopoulou seems to be Greek, educated at the American College in Greece, and now based in the US, so... no, I don't think I will even gamble on her chances of having a good take on slaveplay (something which the podcast teased early on). I'm not saying I'd EXPECT a Greek Australian to have great takes on that (I acknowledge my prior over-generosity re CS Pacat, Lebanese-Australian) but I might be interested to read, because the way that "off-white" racialised people navigate the racial landscape is interesting... but no, I don't think Saketopoulou is the Greek I'd be looking for. If some American has a review that tackles her work from a race perspective I would read it, but I do not think I will read her book itself unless I am very bored in a library.

This has been: a broad Listening Recommendation for the Philosophy of Sex podcast, and a "don't even bother" anti-rec for Avgi Saketoupoulou.

For posterity

A list of posts I have not finished making

1. A history of the Great South Road. (But hey, it finally kicked me into reading Grace Karskens. I can't get hold of her work on the Great North Road, but even she hasn't studied the Great South Road in depth)

2. My Angst Re R v Martinez, Let Me Show You Eet. Not least because I think the costs judgment R v Martinez gives enough information to an infomed reader to alert one to the possibility of transphobia(transmisogyny) at play, and I didn't know this until someone else alerted me to the news so uh... maybe I missed it? Maybe it was a forensic decision to avoid the nonbinary-femme-thingy? It's not like I have close personal knowledge of the case, but I definitely heard ABOUT it in progress.

3. Huh, I really appreciate that NSW doesn't use the term "rape" in indictments.* I THINK that when I did y 11 legal studies the term was still rape, although it's possible we were too callow to care about distinctions between rape and "sexual intercourse without consent". I do remember that the benchmark, whatever it was, in 2003, was not PIV but body part or implement into any orifice. That... hasn't come up in my courts career, which either means a) legal studies instruction weird or b) legislation doesn't reflect what's actually prosecuted or c) b, but also add Time And Multiple Changes To The Law. Goats only know, the way that crimes of buggery are prosecuted in 2023+ bears no resemblance to how prosecutors thought about it pre 1984. Ditto "indecent act upon male", see scathing judgement in appeal Lam v R.
I am MOSTLY in a state of "aaargh when in doubt go to the library" about... all of the things.
But I am also, often, when I surface in a sense of balance, unexpectedly liberated by the absence of the word "rape" from the formal legal landscape.

If I could refine my bullshit down ONLY to ye olde nonsense inflicted by my Worst Ex, I would go frolicking across the fields, gladly embracing a world in which "rape" just isn't a term used to determine indictable-ness, and which can instead be used to define a sexual-social offence.

Unfortunately, every time I come to that extremely freeing realisation... well, all the other bullshit piles up. I definitely remain someone who has either better or more urgent things to do than Speak Up As A Survivor.

4. After clarifying 3, I haven't even got more than two sentences into trying to make re My Most Recent Ex. Probably doesn't count as "post I'm not making. ( content:angst, sex, consent )

5. Let point 5 stand for the things I haven't even STARTED posticulating about. There are many.

* Add to list of reasons why I shouldn't be allowed to exist without access to academic databases: the bench book (used in sentencing) says part 3 div 10 of the Crimes Act is "offences in the nature of rape, [etc+ - it's a long header]. I have typed MANY sentences in the last year and not heard the term used.