Rapey dudes can only hide in the shadows of survivors' silence and shame, which is why I am so candid about the ways in which I've been victimized. But most survivors of sexual abuse aren't as open, and for good reason. In my experience, sexual assault is a twofold trauma: one is the assault itself, and the second is society's reaction (i.e. victim blaming). Sometimes, the reaction is worse than the original abuse. Who can blame survivors for staying silent to escape the secondary trauma?
If you are one of the women who has chosen to protect herself with silence, I am absolutely NOT saying that I am braver than you. My brain is just fueled by rage-ahol, of which my supply is endless. Your brain is probably constructed out of "logic" and "self-preservation techniques." I envy you. I do hope the world becomes a nicer place, so that you are able to talk about your experiences without fear of victim-blaming. Until then, the decision to talk about it is COMPLETELY up to you.
----
I have compiled a guide to the people you meet when you talk about sexual assault. They range from completely horrifying to just slightly misguided. I even make fun of myself a little. No one gets it right all the time.
My hope is that by deconstructing these reactions, we can build a world where women and men feel safe to talk about the sexual abuses they've endured, to step out of the shadows and focus a shaming spotlight on the rapey dudes and their sick, exploitative behavior. This is what you can do to stop rape: stop perpetuating the victim-blaming responses that lead women to live in fear and silence.
A quick note about terminology: I use the phrase "rapey dude" to refer to rapists, molesters, sexual assaulters, and street harassers. Although they are not interchangeable, they exist along a continuum: all of them derive pleasure from making their victims feel powerless, to whatever degree.
So, without further ado:
----
-punch in the face-
A very effective way to get women to STFU about anything, but especially their sexual abuse.
"That sucks and all, but humans are biologically programmed to rape, so you'll ever be able to stop it."
I actually had a dude whip this one out in Feminist Theory class. Then he deployed a big creepy smile and chastised us for not "reacting logically."
I wish I were kidding.
I'm not sure how that one ended, because I had a massive dissociative panic attack. I do remember a lot of fists crashing into desks and yelling. I heard rumors that they spared his life, barely.
"You've lost count of how many times [you've been assaulted]? Why do you think it's happened as much as it has? "
Probably because every time I leave the house, I dress myself in thigh-high boots, a red miniskirt, and a skin-tight top. I cake my face in makeup, going extra heavy on the bloodred lipstick and bright blue eyeshadow, which we all know is a sure sign of a slut (=rapeable woman)! Then I go outside and prance around, shaking my ass for maximum boner-inducing effect. The men obviously get SO TURNED ON that they lose all self-control! It's just like every! rap! video! ever!
OH WAIT, THAT STILL WOULDN'T GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO SEXUALLY ASSAULT ME.
You really want to know why? BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF RAPEY DUDES IN THE WORLD. PERIOD.
If there's any connecting thread that has to do with me, that would probably be my poor white trash upbringing (if you don't understand the connection between socioeconomic class and sexual abuse, see Dorothy Allison after class -- or better yet, watch Precious, because that shows the intersection of class AND race).
Here's the thing: I have just been completely and totally violated, in a way you can't even begin to comprehend. Asking me to analyze what I "contributed" to my own abuse totally aggravates the trauma and violation that I feel. I need support, not a deconstruction of the subliminal please-rape-me messages communicated by my lady-body. I WAS JUST EXISTING, AND SOME DUDE CAME ALONG AND ASSAULTED ME. Let's deconstruct HIS actions, maybe?
"You should carry pepper spray! " / "You should try threatening to cut his balls off!"
This reaction makes complete sense. We want to see justice served to these shitbags, so we naturally project awesome vigilante fantasies onto the situation.
JUSTICE IS A DISH BEST SERVED COLD, I wish I'd said, before kneeing the bitch in the scrotum and spitting in his cold, dark eye-sockets.
The problem is that I didn't do that. I reacted from a place of surprise and terror, probably because SOME 200-POUND DUDE JUST GRABBED ME OUT OF FUCKING NOWHERE. And your comment just makes me think about all the things I "should" have done to prevent my abuse. I think to myself: if I only would have had my pepper spray IN MY HAND and READY TO FIRE, maybe that dude wouldn't have grabbed my crotch! It makes me feel like I share some measure of responsibility for "allowing" this abuse to occur / continue.
Adi said this, which was so unbelievably perfect: The fact that any part of you is thinking how YOU could have behaved differently, in ANY way, breaks my heart and makes me want to scream. You should never have to critique your response to assault. You should never be assaulted.
"I would have punched the guy."
When it happens to you, you don't react the way you think you will. To assume you would (or could!) immediately shut the situation down with brute force is plain arrogant.
Do not ever say this.
"You should take a self-defense class."
ARE YOU SENSING A THEME HERE?
Look, dudes. While I think the burden of ending rape SOLELY belongs to rapists, I am also not blind to the conditions in which I live. Our first, second, and third approaches should all be about TEACHING DUDES NOT TO RAPE US. But that will take a while! So in the meantime, while we work REALLY hard at that, I'm not at all opposed to trying out solutions on an individual level. Which means, ultimately, modifying my behavior. I think that is stupid and unfair, but I will totally do that! That is how little I enjoy rapey attention!
Did you know that I also get up every morning and run loops around Bernal Heights Park, or across the footbridge and over to Potrero Hill? With well-trained hamstrings, I will be able to run away from rapey dudes very, very fast! Especially that dude back in '09 who tried to solicit me from his car, "I NEED A WOMAN, BUT ONLY FOR A VERY SHORT TIME. CAN YOU HELP ME?" I wear my running shoes precisely for occasions like this! Later days, creep!
Did you know, friends, that I choose almost every outfit I wear to deflect the attention of street harassers? It doesn't work very well, for the record. Or at all. Women who have been assaulted and harassed while wearing burquas will probably agree.
If a self-defense class makes you feel more empowered, go right ahead! But I have better things to do with my time. The number of times that I could have prevented a sexual assault with my fists is approximately zero. The number of times that I could have shamed a rapey motherfucker by using my voice is approximately a lot.
Not only do punching classes seem useless, given my experience with the actual dynamics of sexual assault, but the idea of going to a karate class and letting a bunch of strange dudes practice holds and kicks on me? NO I WILL NOT BE DOING THAT EVER.
"If you want to avoid being raped, you should cut your hair short / always have your car keys in your hand / never leave your house for any reason ever."
This advice is based on a erroneous assumptions about the dynamics of rape and the motivations of rapists.
Rapists! They don't usually jump out of bushes! Usually they are men you know and trust (in about 75-80% of rapes). So any rape-avoidance techniques that assume all rapes = stranger-rape will automatically be offensive, because they ignore the complex and diverse dynamics of rape.
"What were you wearing?"
Child-sized purple sweats with elastic ankles ('89)
A sexy-as-fuck leopard print top ('99)
A navy blue polo shirt and super unflattering men's-cut Dickies (that was the night I was assaulted by two completely different, unrelated dudes! A two-for-one special! -- '00)
Don't remember! Probably regular-people clothes! Made out of a cloth-type substance! ('07)
A long-sleeved shirt under a hand-me-down blue vest, Old Navy jeans, and a Bart Ehrman book in my lap ('11)
THANK YOU FOR INSINUATING THAT MY CHOICE OF CLOTHING HAS ANY PART IN CREATING SEXUAL ASSAULT.
Fun fact #1: never play devil's advocate for the rapey guy.
"Maybe if you just understood the complex bonerific emotions in the rapey dude's brain, you wouldn't be so mad! I know you're TOTALLY TRAUMATIZED right now, but let me explain how your tight jeans probably caused his all-consuming need to assault you! No no, I mean, I'm not trying to excuse his actions... I'm just saying your jeans certainly didn't help the situation." -MEANINGFUL STARE-
Fun fact #2: rapists do not think like you. You see a woman at a party, sporting a miniskirt and an enormous grin, and you think man, I would like to make the sex together, if she is amenable to that sort of thing! Rapists, on the other hand, want to tap the five-year-old girl in the little mermaid nighty.
You get turned on by normal stuff, like a girl telling super funny jokes in a low-cut top! Rapists get turned on by exploitation of power differentials. They want to bang UNCONSCIOUS LADIES and CHILDREN.
Your brain is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT than a rapist's. My clothes may turn you on, but the mere fact that I exist is enough to trigger a rapist.
Furthermore, if you defend my right to wear these jeans, I will wear them to your party and you will be INUNDATED WITH HOTNESS1. Would you rather I be forced to wear an oversized sweatshirt and baggy, stained sweats? LET'S BE LOGICAL. Make the world a safe place for me to be sexual, and you will be able to enjoy my sexuality, to whatever degree I deem appropriate.
"Oh, I thought you actually got assaulted."
or my next favorite, "Well, at least you knew the guy."
or the University president saying of a campus rape, "What makes it worse [than a regular-type rape] is that it was perpetrated by a stranger..."
Again, I wish I were kidding.
Oh hay guyz: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO RANK THE TRAUMA OF MY SEXUAL ASSAULTS.
Getting assaulted by a stranger is no worse than being assaulted by a relative. If you are a woman who has experienced both of those things and you would like to comment on the relative traumatic value of each of these things WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE ONLY, go right ahead. Otherwise, SHUT YOUR FACE FOREVER.
"I'm never letting my daughter out of the house."
This one, I completely understand. I've felt it myself, about my own hypothetical child. You want to protect your daughter from the onslaught of sexual abuse she is likely to face in her life. Just note that the biggest threat actually comes from inside the house (your creepy brother, the neighbor), equip her to understand and communicate her own boundaries, and that's really all you can do. The rest is just good luck.
What I find interesting about this reaction, though, is that I don't hear an equivalent response on the other side:
"Oh my god, that's disgusting. I'm going to teach my son to respect women SO HARD."
Which, if you really want to stop rape, is really the more effective half of the equation to tackle.
"All child molesters should be rounded up and shot."
What I find interesting about this sentiment is that in my experience, most of the people who say it, when faced with the fact that a loved one is guilty of sexual abuse, choose to completely ignore it and let the abuse continue.
This response calcifies the idea that child molesters are animals, all frothing at the mouth while hiding behind the bushes at a playground. They have fangs and their eyes are direct windows to hell. They don't deserve mercy, because they are inhuman.
Ultimately, that molesters-as-monsters paradigm blinds people to the reality of who these people really are. Sometimes they are charismatic, productive members of society... when they're not busy molesting children, of course. I've seen it over and over and over again that a child tries to sound the alarm about sexual abuse, and the nearby adults COMPLETELY IGNORE them and let the abuse continue, simply because they cannot square the idea of this man they love and the monsters they've always pictured as abusers. "It must be a misunderstanding," they say.
The idea of swift, over-the-top punitive action is satisfying, but ultimately it sets the bar for justice too high. When faced with the reality of sexual abusers, people simply don't want to execute their sons, brothers, and friends. They are, after all, human beings. They have committed monstrous crimes, but they are not monsters per se.
They absolutely MUST face the consequences for their actions, but those consequences should be based on public shaming, in addition to whatever it takes to stop them from assaulting again.
"[Men harass you from their moving vehicles] because you look like you have low self-esteem."
What does someone with low self-esteem look like, anyway? A girl who dresses "slutty" to "get attention"? One who dresses in baggy clothes because she's ashamed of her body? A petite girl, who looks like she's been pushed around her whole life? A fat girl, who's probably been tormented about her weight?
How the fuck could you possibly psychoanalyze a fellow human being as you race past in a car at 40mph?
Or maybe, since ladies generally have crappier self-esteem than their dudely counterparts, maybe this person was trying to say that ladies are harassed SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE LADIES. In which case, I agree.
"I hate men."
Every time a dude makes me feel unsafe, I yell this at Mah Huzbin'. What I mean is that I hate aggressive masculine sexuality, so I should probably just say that, instead of railing against a group of mostly awesome people.
It's stupid. I'm sorry.
The truth is that the times I yell this are the times when I need men the most. I need them to scratch my back, hug me, and to help me rebuild my sense of safety. I need them to prove to me that rapiness is not a gene on the Y chromosome: that you can be a man and simultaneously demonstrate kindness and respect.
So to all you men who are respectful and feminist, to those who open doors for me but let me pay for your coffee, to everyone who's flirted with me while simultaneously managing to respect my humanity and autonomy: thank you.
1if you're into socially awkward ladies who hang out with slugs and snails, that is.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
charts about wieners: this book is awesome
I read a book, and it kind of fucked me up.
The name of this book is Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. You can find it at your local library by clicking here.
The book fucked me up for two reasons:
-the book argues that humans are innately polyamorous ("multimale-multifemale mating"), and that thesis is pretty solidly grounded in "evidence" and "logical argumentation"
-I read the book the week before I was slated to be married
OH SHIT, TIME FOR A CRISIS.
Actually, I didn't really have a crisis. Beez and I had already confronted a lot of these questions, so it wasn't very difficult to reconcile the new information with our marriage project. After all, we have always had complete openness about our crushes on other people (often to the bewilderment of our family and friends). We talk about them, we gently tease each other about them, and sometimes -- sometimes! -- we fight about them. But whatever the mood, we communicate, and do our best to acknowledge the fact that extramarital crushes have nothing to do with our feelings for each other (i.e. a crush on someone else doesn't subtract anything from our relationship, it's not a symptom of some deeper problem between us, it's not some midlife crisis and no one needs to buy a goddammed sportscar).
As a wise man once told me, "I think there are things in life that make you queasy, and that's okay."
BUT STILL, even though we had identified and hashed out these issues on an individual level, there was something supremely terrifying about learning about ingrained non-monogamy on a species level: there is a relationship-arsonist programmed into my genes, and ain't no escapin' that. Reading the book made me feel two parts manic with the joy of discovery, and one part shitting-myself-in-fear.
At the end of the day, I have no answers, other than the fact that I love mah husband with every fiber in my body.
----
Every time I encounter a new theory, I put it through the Bullshit Test. Does it make sense on its surface? Or are there major problems, which may or may not be resolvable with further evidence?
For example, I read a book on marriage last year, which decidedly did NOT pass the test. For Better: The Science of a Happy Marriage opened by summarizing some really fascinating science on testicle-to-body-size ratios, and how that relates to promiscuity in apes and humans. She reasons that since humans' ratio falls somewhere between chimps (=resident sluts) and gorillas (=polygynous), humans' sluttery must fall somewhere between the two (with monogamy being the obvious halfway point between senseless whoredom and brutish polygyny?). She concludes by saying,
"The size of human testicles seems to suggest that while multiple couplings remain an option, humans are nonetheless well suited to long-term partnerships."
Wait, what? All that nuanced and interesting science, and you just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it? "These things are complicated! Therefore, lifelong monogamy!"
Then, of course, she goes off on this bullshit tangent about PRARIE VOLES, as if some random rodent could shed more light on the human experience than our closest ape cousins? COME ON, LADY, YOU'RE KILLING ME.
Sex at Dawn, on the other hand, weighs the science more evenly. Ryan and Jetha make some incredibly obvious assertions, like: if monogamy has been the natural state of affairs for four million years (as Owen Lovejoy argues), why do we, as a species, struggle with it so much? Why, if monogamy comes naturally to us, do we have any need to mandate it through force all around the world (e.g., stoning for adulterers, clitoridectomies to quell female desire, harsh divorce laws that rip children and property away from cheating partners, etc. etc.)?
If people still cheat in spite of the threat of DEATH BY STONING, that suggests a pretty strong innate drive, wouldntcha say?
Here's my theory: If we were meant to be lifelong monogamites, our brains would be designed differently. We would meet that special someone, oxytocin would pour into our brains and permanently re-wire our desire, and we would never be attracted to anyone else ever again. Presto: happily ever after.
----
Sex at Dawn lays out mountains of evidence to support its thesis, and it's fairly compelling. But the book wasn't written to argue for any specific arrangement/outlet for our polyamorous hearts, only to argue that they evolved for a reason (i.e. social cohesion). Extramarital crushes are not the result of some character defect or a moral shortcoming: they're an inextricable part of our biology.
That much, I suppose, is revolutionary.
The book, I should say, does not give you license to be an asshole. In other words, "One can choose what to do, but not what to want." This book excuses only your desire, but any action you take is yours to answer for. Deceiving one's partner is always, ALWAYS a dick move. Don't do it. Period.
----
At the end of the day, this is the question I keep coming back to:
While our primate brains have evolved for millenia under the pressure of a hunter-gatherer social structure, the fact remains that we do live in a post-agricultural society, and we have been enculturated into a world where monogamy is king. Time and resources exist in limited quantities. Jealousy is an innate emotion, and can be a hugely destructive force (although, in my experience, can be tamed through loving practice).
The real world may either be an insurmountable wall, or maybe it's just a half-marathon that you need to train for. I DON'T KNOW. Maybe I will never know. And that is okay.
So how do you square your biology with the world around you? The book barely attempts to answer that question (and some of its attempts regress into idiot sexist assumptions -- men just want emotionless banging?). But the purpose of the book is not to advise, just to illuminate a much-ignored facet of our biology.
It's a choose-your-own-adventure book, I guess is what I'm saying.
The questions are for you to answer for yourselves: how much do you bend to the whims of your biology, and how much do you make an effort to channel/shape/squelch it? How much squelching is realistic or healthy? When your essential biological drives don't match up perfectly to the world around you, how do you negotiate internal and external realities to find something approximating happiness?
In the end, i could come up with no answers, other than:
-be honest
-create a safe space in which honesty flourishes (i.e., when you feel jealous, ask for what you need - i.e. hugs - instead of attacking)
-foster security by consciously investing in your partner (hint: more hugs)
-humans probably have needs that are diametrically opposed (stability vs. novelty: we crave them both), and everyone just needs to find the balance that works for themselves
That's it. That's all I know.
Well, also this: our relationship has been aided immeasurably through this kind of honesty (filtered, as always, through solid communication techniques). We trust each other more, and our connection is deeper and more meaningful. It will probably be good for you too.
----
Read the book, bitches. Only by uncovering and understanding your basic drives can you make informed decisions about how to channel them.
Also, the book has charts about wieners!
The name of this book is Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. You can find it at your local library by clicking here.
The book fucked me up for two reasons:
-the book argues that humans are innately polyamorous ("multimale-multifemale mating"), and that thesis is pretty solidly grounded in "evidence" and "logical argumentation"
-I read the book the week before I was slated to be married
OH SHIT, TIME FOR A CRISIS.
Actually, I didn't really have a crisis. Beez and I had already confronted a lot of these questions, so it wasn't very difficult to reconcile the new information with our marriage project. After all, we have always had complete openness about our crushes on other people (often to the bewilderment of our family and friends). We talk about them, we gently tease each other about them, and sometimes -- sometimes! -- we fight about them. But whatever the mood, we communicate, and do our best to acknowledge the fact that extramarital crushes have nothing to do with our feelings for each other (i.e. a crush on someone else doesn't subtract anything from our relationship, it's not a symptom of some deeper problem between us, it's not some midlife crisis and no one needs to buy a goddammed sportscar).
As a wise man once told me, "I think there are things in life that make you queasy, and that's okay."
BUT STILL, even though we had identified and hashed out these issues on an individual level, there was something supremely terrifying about learning about ingrained non-monogamy on a species level: there is a relationship-arsonist programmed into my genes, and ain't no escapin' that. Reading the book made me feel two parts manic with the joy of discovery, and one part shitting-myself-in-fear.
At the end of the day, I have no answers, other than the fact that I love mah husband with every fiber in my body.
----
Every time I encounter a new theory, I put it through the Bullshit Test. Does it make sense on its surface? Or are there major problems, which may or may not be resolvable with further evidence?
For example, I read a book on marriage last year, which decidedly did NOT pass the test. For Better: The Science of a Happy Marriage opened by summarizing some really fascinating science on testicle-to-body-size ratios, and how that relates to promiscuity in apes and humans. She reasons that since humans' ratio falls somewhere between chimps (=resident sluts) and gorillas (=polygynous), humans' sluttery must fall somewhere between the two (with monogamy being the obvious halfway point between senseless whoredom and brutish polygyny?). She concludes by saying,
"The size of human testicles seems to suggest that while multiple couplings remain an option, humans are nonetheless well suited to long-term partnerships."
Wait, what? All that nuanced and interesting science, and you just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it? "These things are complicated! Therefore, lifelong monogamy!"
Then, of course, she goes off on this bullshit tangent about PRARIE VOLES, as if some random rodent could shed more light on the human experience than our closest ape cousins? COME ON, LADY, YOU'RE KILLING ME.
Sex at Dawn, on the other hand, weighs the science more evenly. Ryan and Jetha make some incredibly obvious assertions, like: if monogamy has been the natural state of affairs for four million years (as Owen Lovejoy argues), why do we, as a species, struggle with it so much? Why, if monogamy comes naturally to us, do we have any need to mandate it through force all around the world (e.g., stoning for adulterers, clitoridectomies to quell female desire, harsh divorce laws that rip children and property away from cheating partners, etc. etc.)?
If people still cheat in spite of the threat of DEATH BY STONING, that suggests a pretty strong innate drive, wouldntcha say?
Here's my theory: If we were meant to be lifelong monogamites, our brains would be designed differently. We would meet that special someone, oxytocin would pour into our brains and permanently re-wire our desire, and we would never be attracted to anyone else ever again. Presto: happily ever after.
----
Sex at Dawn lays out mountains of evidence to support its thesis, and it's fairly compelling. But the book wasn't written to argue for any specific arrangement/outlet for our polyamorous hearts, only to argue that they evolved for a reason (i.e. social cohesion). Extramarital crushes are not the result of some character defect or a moral shortcoming: they're an inextricable part of our biology.
That much, I suppose, is revolutionary.
The book, I should say, does not give you license to be an asshole. In other words, "One can choose what to do, but not what to want." This book excuses only your desire, but any action you take is yours to answer for. Deceiving one's partner is always, ALWAYS a dick move. Don't do it. Period.
----
At the end of the day, this is the question I keep coming back to:
While our primate brains have evolved for millenia under the pressure of a hunter-gatherer social structure, the fact remains that we do live in a post-agricultural society, and we have been enculturated into a world where monogamy is king. Time and resources exist in limited quantities. Jealousy is an innate emotion, and can be a hugely destructive force (although, in my experience, can be tamed through loving practice).
The real world may either be an insurmountable wall, or maybe it's just a half-marathon that you need to train for. I DON'T KNOW. Maybe I will never know. And that is okay.
So how do you square your biology with the world around you? The book barely attempts to answer that question (and some of its attempts regress into idiot sexist assumptions -- men just want emotionless banging?). But the purpose of the book is not to advise, just to illuminate a much-ignored facet of our biology.
It's a choose-your-own-adventure book, I guess is what I'm saying.
The questions are for you to answer for yourselves: how much do you bend to the whims of your biology, and how much do you make an effort to channel/shape/squelch it? How much squelching is realistic or healthy? When your essential biological drives don't match up perfectly to the world around you, how do you negotiate internal and external realities to find something approximating happiness?
In the end, i could come up with no answers, other than:
-be honest
-create a safe space in which honesty flourishes (i.e., when you feel jealous, ask for what you need - i.e. hugs - instead of attacking)
-foster security by consciously investing in your partner (hint: more hugs)
-humans probably have needs that are diametrically opposed (stability vs. novelty: we crave them both), and everyone just needs to find the balance that works for themselves
That's it. That's all I know.
Well, also this: our relationship has been aided immeasurably through this kind of honesty (filtered, as always, through solid communication techniques). We trust each other more, and our connection is deeper and more meaningful. It will probably be good for you too.
----
Read the book, bitches. Only by uncovering and understanding your basic drives can you make informed decisions about how to channel them.
Also, the book has charts about wieners!
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
This may save your life and / or entertain you
Trans-fats! They are bad for you, I think! But what are they, exactly?
ALLOW ME TO TELL YOU IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL. I will show you pretty pictures and there will not be a test. READ IT, BECAUSE THIS POST WILL HELP YOU NOT DIE. Seriously, investing fifteen minutes in reading this could add years to your life.
Let's start our lesson with a brief word on fats in general. Fats are, in a word, delicious. They contribute to a feeling of fullness. When you try to cut them out of your diet, as my eating disorder has forced me to do countless times, you will become HUNGRY AS FUCK and actually eat more calories overall, which your body will convert into fat, thus completely defeating your purpose.
Eat 60 grams of fat every day. Do it.
There are two main categories of fats: saturated and unsaturated. Saturated fats look like this:
The fat tails are straight, and thus they can pack closely together into solid formations, in places like your arteries. (The actual mechanism of plaque formation is WAY MORE COMPLICATED, but this is a useful way to get at what's actually going on.)
You're clear to eat a healthy amount of saturated fats -- 15 grams or so per day -- just don't overdo it. If you're eating a good diet (vegetable-heavy, lots of whole foods, easy on the meats), it's pretty difficult to eat much more than that.
Moving on! Normal unsaturated fats look like this:
See that extra line by the red arrow? That's a double bond, and that shit is super cool. You notice how the molecule is all wonky? That's because the double bond introduces a "kink" into the molecule. These fats can't pack closely together in your arteries to form plaques. (If you're having trouble picturing the concept of molecular packing, take out a fresh ream of paper. The smooth sheets are like saturated fats. Now crinkle up each sheet of paper and throw it into a pile. That's like unsaturated fat. Congratulations, you have just wasted a bunch of paper for no reason.)
Unsaturated fat has all the delicious flavor of its saturated counterpart, but without all those pesky triple-bypass surgeries. PUT IT IN YOUR MOUTH.
LABORATORY EXERCISE: take a look in your kitchen, and pull out some butter and olive oil. Butter, you will notice, is solid, whereas the olive oil is liquid. Butter is mostly saturated fat (molecules are packed together), and olive oil is mostly unsaturated fat (wonky molecules are going all crazy up in this bottle). That's essentially what it looks like in your arteries: butter forms solid plaques, whereas the olive oil stays liquid and just cruises right on through. If you eat reasonable amounts of both, your body will break them down in short order: no harm, no foul.
Okay, you are now an expert on all the fats that occur in nature. Now take a look at this bitch:
HOLY SHIT, it's got that weird extra line, but it also has a straight tail! HOW IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE?
Ladies and gentlemen, you have just been trans-fat'd.
Trans fats pack down in your arteries just like saturated fats, but with the added benefit of staying there forever, because your body is physically incapable of breaking them down!
Trans-fats are created in a factory through a process called “partial hydrogenation.” This process converts unsaturated fats into saturated ones (“saturated” with hydrogen, that is). They stop the process halfway, which creates these toxic franken-fats (there is a really topical joke here about blue balls but I'm too much of a feminist to take the bait). The freaky-shaped double bond is totally unrecognizable to your body, so it has no idea how to break the molecule apart.
Trans-fats intake is linked to risk for ALL KINDS of shit, from depression and infertility to cancer and the diabeetus. You could argue that the relationship is correlative rather than causal, since trans-fats are found in processed foods, and maybe you're just measuring the effects of poor diet in general. It's impossible to say with any certainty, because there is a real dearth of research into trans-fat biochemistry. WHATEVER. One thing is for sure: TRANS-FATS COAT YOUR ARTERIES AND KILL YOU WITH THE POWER OF SATAN. Don't eat them, pretty please.
If they're so toxic, why are they in our food? you might ask, and I would answer with a long-winded rant about industry-friendly laws and all the shills for Kraft foods that now work as "regulators" in the FDA, and then I'd wrap it all up with an eloquent speech in favor of campaign finance reform. But I already wrote all that in my hilar-insane coffee-and-sleep-deprivation-fueled essay, "Trans Fats and Neoliberal Capitalism," which was tragically destroyed in the great hard drive crash of '06.
It made no sense and I got an A+. College!
But I am trying to do science, not politics, so I guess the more germane question is: why does the industry want to put them in our foods in the first place? The answer is about as mundane as you might expect: they are marginally less expensive than an equivalent mix of natural un/saturated fats. Also trans-fatty foods can sit on shelves for longer before going bad, because the molecules resist spontaneous breakdown. Also also, major food factories don't want to change their recipes, because that money could be better spent on designing X-TREME! NEW! PACKAGING! WITH SNOWBOARDERS OR SOME SHIT!!!
Uh, Kraft? I think foods are SUPPOSED to rot if you leave them on a shelf for five years. THAT IS THE NATURE OF BIOLOGICAL ENTITIES.
We're not even talking about quick-rotting fruits and vegetables, my friends. We're talking about the difference between peanut butter that lasts three years vs. one that lasts five, and you're paying for that extra shelf life with heart attacks. WHAT THE FUCK, THIS ISN'T EVEN DEBATABLE, CHANGE YOUR RECIPES OR I'LL CUT YOU.
Trans-fats add no deliciousness to your foods (natural oils would be far tastier -- crisco can't hold a candle to butter or olive oil). They make foods imperceptibly cheaper, and they extend the shelf life on foods that already have very long shelf lives. They are not found in any natural food source1, and since they were introduced in 1910, your body has not evolved2 any mechanism to break them down. From a consumer standpoint, they have absolutely no benefits to counter their BLATANT TOXICITY. If we had a functioning democracy, they would be banned faster than you could say "coronary artery disease."
There are some foods that are bad for you, but can be eaten in small quantities. Juice, soda, refined flour, red meat: all of these are bad for you, but you can enjoy them infrequently without suffering serious health effects.
Trans fats, on the other hand, are harmful in any amount. When you eat them, your intestines see them and think, "Oh, look at this delicious molecule! It will provide me with much energy." So they suck it up before they look at it more closely and realize, "OH SHIT, I CAN'T USE THIS AT ALL." So they pass it along to your arteries, where they are deposited forever and ever and ever. Even small amounts of fat will build up in your body over time, so it's imperative that you don't eat ANY.
The 2008 labeling laws are pretty worthless, because they allow manufacturers to round down to the nearest half gram. If a package advertises "0g trans fat," it probably has 0.49g of trans fat, which is infinity percent more than your body can break down. At least the new labels help you catch major trans fat offenders, like canned frosting,coffee creamer, and Little Debbie snack cakes. Also, margarine used to be made entirely out of hydrogenated oils, but some of them are possibly reformulated now?3
EDIT: Oh for shit's sake. I just went to the store and discovered that even though coffee creamer's main ingredients are sugar and partially hydrogenated oil (SO TASTY), it actually says it has "0g trans fat per serving." Case in point: if something is made ENTIRELY OF HYDROGENATED OILS but can still be advertised as having "0g trans fat," then we have a serious problem on our hands.
Okay, so here's the plan. Before you purchase or consume ANYTHING, please read every word those long, boring ingredients lists. Do a scan for "hydrogenated oil" or "partially hydrogenated oil." If it's anywhere on the list, light that shit on fire and run in the opposite direction.4, 5
Quick tip for getting out of the grocery store quickly: buy more fruits and veggies! An apple's ingredient list is pretty short. <3
You will probably find trans fats in everything, but don't despair! Substitute milk and sugar for that nasty Coffee-Mate bullshit. Use a mix of olive oil and butter instead of margarine. Swap out your Jif peanut butter for Smart Balance (it doesn't taste like hippie crap, I swear!). And just stop eating canned frosting, because that shit is seriously awful.
So, in summary:
-trans fats cause heart disease
-also your body is PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of ever breaking them down
-trans fats are also probably hiding under your bed with a knife OH MY GOD RUN
-eat apples, motherfuckers
1Okay, there is ONE very specific kind of natural trans fat that is found in the milk of ruminants, but once you eat it, the trans bond is immediately converted into a conjugated double bond, with the second bond being in the natural cis conformation OKAY THIS IS GETTING WAY TOO COMPLICATED, I'M SORRY I SAID ANYTHING. Just trust me, the natural shit is a) only found in milk and beef and b) is not dangerous.
2If you're reading this from a Louisiana public school, please substitute the phrase "God hasn't commanded the necessary catabolizing enzyme into existence."
3Margarine was hailed by industry shills as a "healthy" alternative to butter. This is because they failed to notice (or deliberately ignored) the crucial distinction between normal unsaturated fats and trans-fats and lumped them all together. What a difference a double bond orientation can make.
4May not actually be legal. Void where prohibited.
5For reasons I won't get into here, "fully hydrogenated" oils are technically okay.
ALLOW ME TO TELL YOU IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL. I will show you pretty pictures and there will not be a test. READ IT, BECAUSE THIS POST WILL HELP YOU NOT DIE. Seriously, investing fifteen minutes in reading this could add years to your life.
Let's start our lesson with a brief word on fats in general. Fats are, in a word, delicious. They contribute to a feeling of fullness. When you try to cut them out of your diet, as my eating disorder has forced me to do countless times, you will become HUNGRY AS FUCK and actually eat more calories overall, which your body will convert into fat, thus completely defeating your purpose.
Eat 60 grams of fat every day. Do it.
There are two main categories of fats: saturated and unsaturated. Saturated fats look like this:
The fat tails are straight, and thus they can pack closely together into solid formations, in places like your arteries. (The actual mechanism of plaque formation is WAY MORE COMPLICATED, but this is a useful way to get at what's actually going on.)
You're clear to eat a healthy amount of saturated fats -- 15 grams or so per day -- just don't overdo it. If you're eating a good diet (vegetable-heavy, lots of whole foods, easy on the meats), it's pretty difficult to eat much more than that.
Moving on! Normal unsaturated fats look like this:
See that extra line by the red arrow? That's a double bond, and that shit is super cool. You notice how the molecule is all wonky? That's because the double bond introduces a "kink" into the molecule. These fats can't pack closely together in your arteries to form plaques. (If you're having trouble picturing the concept of molecular packing, take out a fresh ream of paper. The smooth sheets are like saturated fats. Now crinkle up each sheet of paper and throw it into a pile. That's like unsaturated fat. Congratulations, you have just wasted a bunch of paper for no reason.)
Unsaturated fat has all the delicious flavor of its saturated counterpart, but without all those pesky triple-bypass surgeries. PUT IT IN YOUR MOUTH.
LABORATORY EXERCISE: take a look in your kitchen, and pull out some butter and olive oil. Butter, you will notice, is solid, whereas the olive oil is liquid. Butter is mostly saturated fat (molecules are packed together), and olive oil is mostly unsaturated fat (wonky molecules are going all crazy up in this bottle). That's essentially what it looks like in your arteries: butter forms solid plaques, whereas the olive oil stays liquid and just cruises right on through. If you eat reasonable amounts of both, your body will break them down in short order: no harm, no foul.
Okay, you are now an expert on all the fats that occur in nature. Now take a look at this bitch:
HOLY SHIT, it's got that weird extra line, but it also has a straight tail! HOW IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE?
Ladies and gentlemen, you have just been trans-fat'd.
Trans fats pack down in your arteries just like saturated fats, but with the added benefit of staying there forever, because your body is physically incapable of breaking them down!
Trans-fats are created in a factory through a process called “partial hydrogenation.” This process converts unsaturated fats into saturated ones (“saturated” with hydrogen, that is). They stop the process halfway, which creates these toxic franken-fats (there is a really topical joke here about blue balls but I'm too much of a feminist to take the bait). The freaky-shaped double bond is totally unrecognizable to your body, so it has no idea how to break the molecule apart.
Trans-fats intake is linked to risk for ALL KINDS of shit, from depression and infertility to cancer and the diabeetus. You could argue that the relationship is correlative rather than causal, since trans-fats are found in processed foods, and maybe you're just measuring the effects of poor diet in general. It's impossible to say with any certainty, because there is a real dearth of research into trans-fat biochemistry. WHATEVER. One thing is for sure: TRANS-FATS COAT YOUR ARTERIES AND KILL YOU WITH THE POWER OF SATAN. Don't eat them, pretty please.
If they're so toxic, why are they in our food? you might ask, and I would answer with a long-winded rant about industry-friendly laws and all the shills for Kraft foods that now work as "regulators" in the FDA, and then I'd wrap it all up with an eloquent speech in favor of campaign finance reform. But I already wrote all that in my hilar-insane coffee-and-sleep-deprivation-fueled essay, "Trans Fats and Neoliberal Capitalism," which was tragically destroyed in the great hard drive crash of '06.
It made no sense and I got an A+. College!
But I am trying to do science, not politics, so I guess the more germane question is: why does the industry want to put them in our foods in the first place? The answer is about as mundane as you might expect: they are marginally less expensive than an equivalent mix of natural un/saturated fats. Also trans-fatty foods can sit on shelves for longer before going bad, because the molecules resist spontaneous breakdown. Also also, major food factories don't want to change their recipes, because that money could be better spent on designing X-TREME! NEW! PACKAGING! WITH SNOWBOARDERS OR SOME SHIT!!!
Uh, Kraft? I think foods are SUPPOSED to rot if you leave them on a shelf for five years. THAT IS THE NATURE OF BIOLOGICAL ENTITIES.
We're not even talking about quick-rotting fruits and vegetables, my friends. We're talking about the difference between peanut butter that lasts three years vs. one that lasts five, and you're paying for that extra shelf life with heart attacks. WHAT THE FUCK, THIS ISN'T EVEN DEBATABLE, CHANGE YOUR RECIPES OR I'LL CUT YOU.
Trans-fats add no deliciousness to your foods (natural oils would be far tastier -- crisco can't hold a candle to butter or olive oil). They make foods imperceptibly cheaper, and they extend the shelf life on foods that already have very long shelf lives. They are not found in any natural food source1, and since they were introduced in 1910, your body has not evolved2 any mechanism to break them down. From a consumer standpoint, they have absolutely no benefits to counter their BLATANT TOXICITY. If we had a functioning democracy, they would be banned faster than you could say "coronary artery disease."
There are some foods that are bad for you, but can be eaten in small quantities. Juice, soda, refined flour, red meat: all of these are bad for you, but you can enjoy them infrequently without suffering serious health effects.
Trans fats, on the other hand, are harmful in any amount. When you eat them, your intestines see them and think, "Oh, look at this delicious molecule! It will provide me with much energy." So they suck it up before they look at it more closely and realize, "OH SHIT, I CAN'T USE THIS AT ALL." So they pass it along to your arteries, where they are deposited forever and ever and ever. Even small amounts of fat will build up in your body over time, so it's imperative that you don't eat ANY.
The 2008 labeling laws are pretty worthless, because they allow manufacturers to round down to the nearest half gram. If a package advertises "0g trans fat," it probably has 0.49g of trans fat, which is infinity percent more than your body can break down. At least the new labels help you catch major trans fat offenders, like canned frosting,
EDIT: Oh for shit's sake. I just went to the store and discovered that even though coffee creamer's main ingredients are sugar and partially hydrogenated oil (SO TASTY), it actually says it has "0g trans fat per serving." Case in point: if something is made ENTIRELY OF HYDROGENATED OILS but can still be advertised as having "0g trans fat," then we have a serious problem on our hands.
Okay, so here's the plan. Before you purchase or consume ANYTHING, please read every word those long, boring ingredients lists. Do a scan for "hydrogenated oil" or "partially hydrogenated oil." If it's anywhere on the list, light that shit on fire and run in the opposite direction.4, 5
Quick tip for getting out of the grocery store quickly: buy more fruits and veggies! An apple's ingredient list is pretty short. <3
You will probably find trans fats in everything, but don't despair! Substitute milk and sugar for that nasty Coffee-Mate bullshit. Use a mix of olive oil and butter instead of margarine. Swap out your Jif peanut butter for Smart Balance (it doesn't taste like hippie crap, I swear!). And just stop eating canned frosting, because that shit is seriously awful.
So, in summary:
-trans fats cause heart disease
-also your body is PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of ever breaking them down
-trans fats are also probably hiding under your bed with a knife OH MY GOD RUN
-eat apples, motherfuckers
1Okay, there is ONE very specific kind of natural trans fat that is found in the milk of ruminants, but once you eat it, the trans bond is immediately converted into a conjugated double bond, with the second bond being in the natural cis conformation OKAY THIS IS GETTING WAY TOO COMPLICATED, I'M SORRY I SAID ANYTHING. Just trust me, the natural shit is a) only found in milk and beef and b) is not dangerous.
2If you're reading this from a Louisiana public school, please substitute the phrase "God hasn't commanded the necessary catabolizing enzyme into existence."
3Margarine was hailed by industry shills as a "healthy" alternative to butter. This is because they failed to notice (or deliberately ignored) the crucial distinction between normal unsaturated fats and trans-fats and lumped them all together. What a difference a double bond orientation can make.
4May not actually be legal. Void where prohibited.
5For reasons I won't get into here, "fully hydrogenated" oils are technically okay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)