Analysis Violence

If Boko Haram Sells Nigeria’s Girls, Is It a Crime?

Imani Gandy

Now that the Nigerian government claims that the girls have been located, doubt is growing over its ability to successfully extricate them from the clutches of the terrorist group alive, and concerns remain about the fate of the girls. But if Boko Haram makes good on its threat to sell the girls into forced marriage, will it face any consequences for its actions?

When hundreds of Nigerian school girls were kidnapped last month, perhaps one of the most horrific aspects of a thoroughly distressing crime was the overt threat by the Boko Haram members that they would sell the girls off into forced marriages.

For nearly five years, clashes between Boko Haram and Nigerian security forces have left many of Nigeria’s citizens living in a constant state of fear. But it wasn’t until this recent kidnapping that the insurgent group truly sprung to center stage.

Now that the Nigerian government claims that the girls have been located, doubt is growing over its ability to successfully extricate them from the clutches of the terrorist group alive, and concerns remain about the fate of the girls. The government has already stated that a military rescue would endanger the lives of the girls, and that a prisoner swap—the girls for imprisoned Boko Haram members—is out of the question. So the question becomes: If Boko Haram makes good on its threat to sell the girls into forced marriage, will it face any consequences for its actions?

That question has no easy answer. Rewire has learned that prosecuting members of Boko Haram for committing the “crime” of forced marriage could be a lot harder than we might have imagined. Our review of current laws shows a surprising reality: In 2014, there is still no written international law that explicitly makes forced marriage a crime.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

How can this be? We know, for instance, that forced marriage, both of girls and women, as well as of boys and men, has played a part in numerous conflicts, including relatively recent wars—both civil and international.

From the systematic rape of women and girls in the Balkan conflicts and the Rwanda genocide, to the “bush wife” phenomenon during the Sierra Leone conflict, to the mass weddings under the Khmer Rouge regime, kidnapping, sexual slavery, and forced marriage are horrors that far too many women and girls face when the places they call home erupt into sectarian violence.

But despite the progress in international treaties and courts to recognize the gravity of sexual violence, when it comes to forced marriage in particular, there’s still no consensus on how to treat it as a matter of international law.

It’s a reality that many experts say leaves victims without adequate recognition of the very specific emotional, physical, and cultural trauma that forced marriage entails.

In an interview with Rewire, Amrita Kapur, a senior associate with the Gender Justice Program of the International Center for Transitional Justice, points out that forced marriage involves unique psychological harm not present in sexual slavery. That is due in part to the cultural implications of marriage in certain cultures.

“The connection with the community or the victims’ place in their own society is severed because in these cultures, when you do marry, you join your husband’s community,” says Kapur.

“You can certainly suffer stigma as a result of being a sexual slave,” she says. “But the return to the community doesn’t have the same type of connotation by being associated with the enemy.”

Kapur calls it a “double social harm.”

“The victim is forever identified as the wife of the enemy soldier,” she says.

Since at least 1948—in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—marriage without consent of both parties has been recognized as a violation of international human rights law.

Nevertheless, forced marriage was not recognized as an international crime until 2008, when the Special Court of Sierra Leone (SCSL) issued its ruling against members of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council, a rebel group which had perpetrated mass rape, forced marriage, and sexual slavery against women in that country. In that case, the court said forced marriage was a crime independent of sexual slavery, and held that forced marriage formed a distinct inhumane act of sufficient gravity to be considered a crime against humanity.

“[F]orced marriage involves a perpetrator compelling a person by force or threat of force, through the words or conduct of the perpetrator or those associated with him, into a forced conjugal association with another person resulting in great suffering, or serious physical or mental injury on the part of the victim,” the court said.

It was the first judgment of its kind.

The Sierra Leone tribunal also said there was a distinction between forced marriage and sexual slavery: Forced marriage, the court said, carries with it an element of relationship exclusivity not present in sexual slavery, as well as certain “benefits,” including, horrifically, protection from rape by other men.

The court also pointed out that forced marriage implied much more than rape, but a whole array of other, often forcible, duties, such as cleaning, cooking, child-rearing, and pregnancy.

These distinctions led the court to conclude that forced marriage is not predominantly a sexual crime.

It seemed as though this decision heralded a new determination to recognize forced marriage in international criminal law as a separate crime against humanity, but in fact, since then, those efforts have mostly stalled.

One reason is the lack of consensus in the international community as to how to address the crime.

Some scholars believe that forced marriage should be charged as a separate crime, and all physical and sexual violence suffered should form part of the offense of “forced marriage.”

Other experts balk at the Sierra Leone tribunal’s approach, raising the particular concern that the decision could reinforce patriarchal notions of what marriage is and incorporate gender stereotypes about women’s work—cooking, cleaning, and child-rearing—into international law. There is also a concern that charging forced marriage as a separate crime against humanity minimizes the sexual violence and enslavement that is the hallmark of forced marriage.

Kapur advocates for a more nuanced approach that considers the unique harms suffered under forced marriage. “I think the more nuanced approach would acknowledge that for forced marriage to be a distinct crime, the unique elements have to be sufficiently distinct to justify creating a new category.”

“The way you would argue that’s the case with forced marriage is that the unique element is the forced conjugal association and what the perversion of the institution of marriage does to the victims who are expected to perform ‘wifely’ duties,” she said.

“In Sierra Leone,” Kapur said, “a number of those victims were very explicit in saying that the type of harm that they suffered was not the same as being a sexual slave.”

Kapur recognizes that there is a lot of overlap between the two: “Sexual slavery and forced marriage often both have elements of forced labor, both have elements of sexual violence, and people have noted that forced marriage very rarely occurs without the sexual slavery and the sexual violence.”

“The real question,” she said, “is whether you say it’s worth recognizing that even though forced marriage has those elements, there’s something else there that needs to be recognized—that the type of harm is sufficiently different than that which would be experienced as a sexual slave.”

“It is quite possible in numerous cultures that the type of psychological harm that comes from the forced conjugal association is unique and should be recognized as such.”

The body most likely to prosecute a crime such as the forced marriage of the Nigerian school girls would be the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is empowered to investigate and prosecute crimes in four main areas: war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and “aggression”—legalese for “war.”

The ICC’s authority is derived from the Rome Statute, which recognizes certain gender-based violence as crimes against humanity: rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, and enforced sterilization. Forced marriage, however, is not among those crimes.

Importantly, the ICC is a court of last resort. It will step in and assume responsibility for prosecuting people accused of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community in situations where a nation is either unwilling or unable to do so itself.

Such is the case in Nigeria, which has been unsuccessfully battling the Boko Haram insurgency for nearly five years.

The ICC has already begun an investigation into Boko Haram. Last August, in a damning report, the ICC prosecutor said there is a reasonable basis to believe that the terrorist organization has been committing crimes against humanity—murder and persecution.

After an “investigation” that lasted more than two years, the ICC prosecutor found that Boko Haram had launched widespread attacks directed at the civilian population in different parts of Nigeria, including Borno, where the burned-out remains of the Chibok boarding school are located. The report estimates that more than 1,200 civilians have been killed in hundreds of suspected attacks against churches, banks, schools, and government buildings. The report also notes that these attacks have been committed pursuant to an organizational policy defined by the group’s leaders to establish an Islamic system of government in Nigeria.

And yet, despite the group’s longstanding history of sexual crimes, the report only mentions a single allegation of rape—and not a rape allegedly committed by a member of Boko Haram.

While not specifically enumerated as a crime against humanity, thanks to the Sierre Leone court judgment, there are now grounds to argue that forced marriage is an international crime that could be prosecuted in the ICC. The ICC prosecutor could hold Boko Haram accountable for selling the girls into marriage, by comparing the gravity of that crime to the crimes specifically listed in the Rome Statute—war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, or aggression—or charging it as an “other inhumane act” under Article 7(1)(k), the Rome Statute’s catch-all provision.

In either event, the ICC prosecutor would have to prove that forced marriage specifically was part of a widespread or systematic attack committed against a civilian population pursuant to organizational policy defined by Boko Haram’s leaders. And in order to hold the leaders directly responsible even if they did not actually kidnap the girls themselves, the ICC prosecutor would have to prove that they knew about it.

Certainly, the kidnapping of 276 Nigerian school girls seems like a widespread attack against a civilian population. But the prosecutor would have to consider how many girls, if any, were forced into marriage before bringing charges. (And now that the Nigerian government claims to have located the girls, it is unclear whether Abukubar Sekau, Boko Haram’s leader, has sold or will sell any of the school girls into marriage.)

In addition, it might be difficult for the ICC prosecutor to prove that forced marriage is an organizational policy. Sekau’s gleeful claims that he intends to marry off the girls could help satisfy that requirement. Generally, however, the ubiquity of violence against women during conflicts such as that raging in Nigeria has made it difficult to prove that the sexual attacks are part of a specific plan.

“Sexual violence is so tolerated and is committed with such impunity, that, paradoxically, it’s difficult to show that it’s part of a plan,” said Kapur.

While the crime of forced marriage has gone relatively unaddressed, the Sierra Leone court decision and the ongoing prosecution of Khmer Rouge leaders for crimes against humanity in Cambodia provide some guidance. Ultimately, however, this is a complex and developing area of international law with no simple solution.

Clarification: This story has been clarified to reflect the fact that, while the ubiquity of sexual crimes in the context of conflict often makes them difficult to prosecute as crimes against humanity, in the case of Boko Haram, the public comments from the group’s leader about his plans to sell the girls into forced marriage could make such a prosecution more attainable.

Commentary Violence

This is Not The Story I Wanted—But It’s My Story of Rape

Dani Kelley

Writer Dani Kelley thought she had shed the patriarchal and self-denying lessons of her conservative religious childhood. But those teachings blocked her from initially admitting that an encounter with a man she met online was not a "date" that proved her sexual liberation, but an extended sexual assault.

Content note: This article contains graphic descriptions of sexual violence.

The night I first truly realized something was wrong was supposed to be a good night.

A visiting friend and I were in pajamas, eating breakfast food at 10 p.m., wrapped in blankets while swapping stories of recent struggles and laughs.

There I was, animatedly telling her about my recently acquired (and discarded) “fuck buddy,” when suddenly the story caught in my throat.

When I finally managed to choke out the words, they weren’t what I expected to say. “He—he held me down—until, until I couldn’t—breathe.”

Hearing myself say it out loud was a gut-punch. I was sobbing, gasping for breath, arms wrapped as if to hold myself together, spiraling into a terrifying realization.

This isn’t the story I wanted.

Unlearning My Training

I grew up in the Plymouth Brethren movement, a small fundamentalist Christian denomination that justifies strict gender roles through a literal approach to the Bible. So, according to 1 Corinthians 11:7, men are considered “the image and glory of God,” while women are merely “the glory of man.” As a result, women are expected to wear head coverings during any church service, among other restrictions that can be best summed up by the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11-12: Women are never allowed to have authority over men.

If you’ve spent any number of years in conservative Christianity like I did, you’re likely familiar with the fundamentalist tendency to demonize that which is morally neutral or positive (like premarital sex or civil rights) while sugar-coating negative experiences. The sugar-coating can be twofold: Biblical principles are often used to shame or gaslight abuse victims (like those being shunned or controlled or beaten by their husbands) while platitudes are often employed to help members cope with “the sufferings of this present time,” assuring them that these tragedies are “not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”

In many ways, it’s easy to unlearn the demonization of humanity as you gain actual real-world experience refuting such flimsy claims. But the shame? That can be more difficult to shake.

The heart of those teachings isn’t only present in this admittedly small sect of Christianity. Rather, right-wing Western Christianity as a whole has a consent problem. It explicitly teaches its adherents they don’t belong to themselves at all. They belong to God (and if they’re not men, they belong to their fathers or husbands as well). This instilled lack of agency effectively erases bodily autonomy while preventing the development of healthy emotional and physical boundaries.

On top of that, the biblical literalism frequently required by conservative Christianity in the United States promotes a terrifying interpretation of Scripture, such as Jeremiah 17:9. The King James Version gives the verse a stern voice, telling us that “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.” If we believe this, we must accept that we’re untrustworthy witnesses to our own lives. Yet somehow, we’re expected to rely on the authority of those the Bible deems worthy. People like all Christians, older people, and men.

Though I’ve abandoned Christianity and embraced feminist secular humanism, the culture in which I grew up and my short time at conservative Bob Jones University still affect how I view myself and act in social situations. The lessons of my formative years created a perfect storm of terrible indoctrination: gender roles that promoted repressed individuality for women while encouraging toxic masculinity, explicit teaching that led to constant second-guessing my ability to accurately understand my own life, and a biblical impetus to “rejoice in my suffering.”

Decades of training taught me I’m not allowed to set boundaries.

But Some Habits Die Hard

Here’s the thing. At almost 30, I’d never dated anyone other than my ex-husband. So I thought it was about time to change that.

When I found this man’s online profile, I was pleasantly surprised. It was full of the kind of geekery I’m into, even down to the specific affinity for eclectic music. I wrote to him, making sure my message and tone were casual. He responded instantly, full of charisma and charm. Within hours, we’d made plans to meet.

He was just as friendly and attentive in person. After wandering around town, window-shopping, and getting to know one another, he suggested we go to his favorite bar. As he drank (while I sipped water), he kept paying me compliments, slowly breaking the touch barrier. And honestly, I was enthralled—no one had paid attention to me like this in years.

When he suggested moving out to the car where we could be a little more intimate, I agreed. The rush of feeling desired was intoxicating. He seemed so focused on consent—asking permission before doing anything. Plus, he was quite straightforward about what he wanted, which I found exciting.

So…I brought him home.

This new and exciting “arrangement” lasted one week, during which we had very satisfying, attachment-free sex several times and after which we parted ways as friends.

That’s the story I told people. That’s the story I thought I believed. I’d been freed from the rigid expectations and restraints of my youth’s purity culture.

Now. You’re about to hear me say many things I know to be wrong. Many feminists or victim advocates almost certainly know the rationalizations and reactions I’m about to describe are both normal responses to abuse and a result of ingrained lies about sex in our culture. Not to mention evidence of the influence that right-wing conservatism can have on shaping self-actualization.

As I was telling people the story above, I left out important details. Were my omissions deliberate? An instinctive self-preservation mechanism? A carryover from draconian ideals about promiscuity?

When I broke down crying with my friend, I finally realized I’d kept quiet because I couldn’t bear to hear myself say what happened.

I’m a feminist, damn it. I left all the puritanical understandings of gender roles behind when I exited Christianity! I even write about social justice and victim advocacy. I ought to recognize rape culture!


If only being a socially aware feminist was enough to erase decades of socialization as a woman within rape culture—or provide inoculation against sexual violence.

That first night, once we got to my car, he stopped checking in with me. I dismissed the red flag as soon as I noticed it, telling myself he’d stop if I showed discomfort. Then he smacked my ass—hard. I pulled away, staring at him in shocked revulsion. “Sorry,” he replied, smirking.

He suggested that we go back to my house, saying we’d have more privacy than at his place. I was uneasy, unconvinced. But he began passionately kissing, groping, petting, and pleading. Against my better judgment, I relented.

Yet, in the seclusion of my home, there was no more asking. There was only telling.

Before I knew it, I’d been thrown on my back as he pulled off my clothes. I froze. The only coherent thought I could manage was a weak stammer, asking if he had a condom. He seemed agitated. “Are you on birth control?” That’s not the point! I thought, mechanically answering “yes.”

With a triumphant grin and no further discussion, he forced himself into me. Pleasure fought with growing panic as something within me screamed for things to slow down, to just stop. The sensation was familiar: identical to how I felt when raped as a child.

I frantically pushed him off and rolled away, hyperventilating. I muttered repeatedly, “I need a minute. Just give me a minute. I need a minute.”

“We’re not finished yet!” he snapped angrily. As he reached for me again, I screeched hysterically, “I’M NOT OK! I NEED A MINUTE!”

Suddenly, he was kind and caring. Instead of being alarmed, I was strangely grateful. So once I calmed down, I fucked him. More than once.

It was—I told myself—consensual. After all, he comforted me during a flashback. Didn’t I owe him that much?

Yet, if I didn’t do what he wanted, he’d forcefully smack my ass. If I didn’t seem happy enough, he’d insistently tell me to smile as he hit me again, harder. He seemed to relish the strained smile I would force on command.

I kept telling myself I was okay. Happy, even. Look at how liberated I was!

All week, I was either at his beck and call or fighting suicidal urges. Never having liked alcohol before, I started drinking heavily. I did all I could to minimize or ignore the abuse. Even with his last visit—as I fought to breathe while he forcefully held my head down during oral sex, effectively choking me—I initially told myself desperately that surely he wouldn’t do any of this on purpose.

The Stories We Tell and The Stories That Just Are

Reflecting on that week, I’m engulfed in shame. I’m a proud feminist. I know what coercion looks like. I know what rape looks like. I know it’s rarely a scary man wearing a ski mask in a back alley. I’ve heard all the victim-blaming rape apologia you have: that women make up rape when they regret consenting to sex, or going on a date means sex is in the cards, or bringing someone home means you’re game for anything.

Reality is, all of us have been socialized within a patriarchal system that clouds our experiences and ability to classify them. We’re told to tend and befriend the men who threaten us. De-escalation at any cost is the go-to response of almost any woman I’ve ever talked to about unwanted male attention. Whatever will satiate the beast and keep us safe.

On top of that, my conservative background whispered accusations of being a Jezebel, failing to safeguard my purity, and getting exactly what I deserve for forsaking the faith.

It’s all lies, of course. Our culture lies when it says that there are blurred lines when it comes to consent. It violates our personhood when it requires us to change the narrative of the violence enacted against us for their own comfort. Right-wing Christianity lies when it says we don’t belong to ourselves and must submit to the authority of a religion or a gender.

Nobody’s assaulted because they weren’t nice enough or because they “failed” to de-escalate. There’s nothing we can do to provoke such violence. Rape is never deserved. The responsibility for sexual assault lies entirely with those who attack us.

So why was the story I told during and after that ordeal so radically and fundamentally different from what actually happened? And why the hell did I think any of what happened was OK?

Rape myths are so ingrained in our cultural understanding of relationships that it was easier for me to believe nothing bad had happened than to accept the truth. I thought if I could only tell the story I wanted it to be, then maybe that’s what really happened. I thought if I was willing—if I kept having him over, if I did what he ordered, if I told my friends how wonderful it was—it would mean everything was fine. It would mean I wasn’t suffering from post-traumatic stress or anxiety about defying the conservative tenets of my former political and religious system.

Sometimes, we tell ourselves the stories we want to hear until we’re able to bear the stories of what actually happened.

We all have a right to say who has what kind of access to our bodies. A man’s masculinity gives him no authority over anyone’s sexual agency. A lack of a “no” doesn’t mean a “yes.” Coercion isn’t consent. Sexual acts performed without consent are assault. We have a right to tell our stories—our real stories.

So, while this isn’t the story I wanted, it’s the story that is.

I was raped.

Culture & Conversation Media

‘I Could Have Written This Myself’: Jessica Valenti’s Memoir Is Painfully Relatable

Feminista Jones

Jessica Valenti's latest, Sex Object, is a book that many women will read and think, at least 20 different times, “I could have written this myself.”

When I was 11 years old, a much older man followed me as I walked home from school. He made comments about my body in suggestive ways that made it very clear he wanted to do more than simply say, “Hello.”

It was the first time I recall feeling like a sexual object, though I did not quite understand what it meant at such a tender age. I did know that the way that man spoke to me was wrong, very wrong. I knew that I felt dirty, ashamed, and uncomfortable, so much so that I wanted to cover myself up before ever going back outside again.

Nearly every day since then, I have been acutely aware of at least one man on the street or in other spaces who has felt bold enough to engage me as his possession, if only for a few seconds. Never quite a human being, never quite an emotional being whose day can be ruined by licentious whispers or random grabs, I was simply an object, likely one of many those men would pass by throughout the day.

My reading of Jessica Valenti’s newest book, Sex Object, took me back to so many of these encounters, some more painfully vulgar than others.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Valentico-founder of the popular blog Feministing and author of several feminist tomes confronting rape culture and championing sex-positivityoffers a series of anecdotes in Sex Object on the life experiences that have made her acutely aware of her status as a sexually objectified being.

I immediately connected with her narrative as though I had dictated my life story to her. Not only do she and Itwo highly visible, outspoken feminist women assumed by some to exist at theoretical oddshave so much in common in this regard, but these stories echo the realities of many other women who feel silenced by fear and shame.

Through my work as an advocate for victims of street harassment, I’ve witnessed other women speak out and share their stories of being made to feel like sex objects. Like me, they can certainly connect to the feeling of being repeatedly objectified just by virtue of being women (or girls in many instances). That there are so many of us who can relate to the pain, the anxiety, or even the occasional numbness, is how I am reminded of the importance of the work that I and others do as feminists to make the world safer for women, particularly the work of rejecting the notion that we should feel shame or fear for we are all connected by the universality of the experience.

The feminist movement, particularly in America, has ebbed and flowed in its waves over the last century. With each new wave comes a set of key issues those of us who openly identify as feminists focus more of our energy on. Whether we feel compelled to challenge a new outlandishly oppressive legislation proposed to further limit women’s rights and the rights of other marginalized groups; we rally to protest and demand justice in a series of heinous acts of violence against women, trans women of color in particular; or perhaps we are motivated by reports from leading advocacy groups that suggest women’s equal access to resources, legal protections, and bodily autonomy remains tenuous at besteach generation of feminists rises to the challenge of continuing the fights of those before us.

I appreciated Valenti’s discussion of victimology and how it has factored into some of the splits within the feminist movement. There are those feminists who reject the victim label according to the long-standing practice of denying victimhood based simply on womanhood. There are also those who, like Valenti, understand that “despite the well-worn myth that feminists are obsessed with victimhood, feminism today feels like an unstoppable force of female agency and independence.”

No stranger to criticism from within factions of the feminist movement, Valenti also touches briefly on the challenges of a decentralized movement while acknowledging the value in approaching these issues with an intersectional lens. In the book, she readily acknowledges her privileges as a white feminist woman and notes the efforts of those living at the intersections of gender, race, and sexuality to push the movement forward. At times, she seems to be writing on eggshells, and I gather it might be due to the backlash she has received over some controversial statements or pushback via her Twitter feed. Sex Object is personal, yes, but Valenti’s choice to note the nuances of modern feminism (given her own contributions as a respected thought leader) is admirable.

One could argue that the exposure of conflicts, particularly via social media like Twitter or Facebook, weaken the movement and its broader intentions. But I offer that healthy disagreement has strengthened us allveteran feminists and newcomers alikeas we have been given opportunities to engage each other in ways that our foremothers were unable to.

Followers and subscribers are learning as we share our experiences, as Valenti has done here, and the critical need to respect these unique lived experiences cannot be understated. While some have all but completely bowed out from engaging in what can be an unnecessarily vicious behaviors associated with “call-out culture,” other feminists like me, who are regarded as representatives of particular factions, remain willing to listen, share, learn, and unlearn. And what we who willingly engage in such public discourse have discovered in the middle of all of this is that we do share these common experiences with being objectified as women, regardless of race, class, ethnicity, orientation, or gender identity and presentation, and not always on the street. Many of us encounter this type of harassment in other areas of our life as well, such as at the office or even in our own homes. “The individual experiences are easy enough to name, but their cumulative impact feels slippery,” Valenti notes in her introduction.

One of the most important takeaways from the book is that there is no such thing as a perfect or ideal feminist: We are each humanly flawed and have a lot of learning and unlearning to do. “It’s okay if we don’t want to be inspirational,” she writes. If I had a church fan at that moment, I would have waved it in strong agreement.

The current wave of feminism inspires us to openly acknowledge that our experiences as sex objects have had lingering effects on our mental health, such as disrupting our ability to form healthy intimate partnerships. I appreciated how Valenti opened up about her own process of navigating various intimate encounters and partnerships through this lens. For example, she writes about her own anxiety and how her post-traumatic stress disorder affected her relationship with her husband. Though Valenti and I come from vastly different backgrounds, we connect heremy relationships have been largely negatively affected by the sexual traumas I’ve endured in my own life.

Like Valenti, I sought therapy to deal with my experiences. I’m a social worker by profession and recognized that I needed to engage someone with professional skills to help me address the lingering trauma. Valenti opens up about the therapy sessions she’s had, both alone and with her husband, and how they helped her better understand her responses to certain triggers. It is important, for those who are able to do so, to seek support and not live with fear or shame associated with the negative mental health side effects resulting from sex harassment.

To be a woman in this world is to be aware that, in at least some way, your body is supposed to exist for the consumption and control of men. “It’s not a matter of if something bad happens, but when and how bad,” she writes.

But Sex Object reminds us that we can be vocal about generational sexual trauma and abuse of girls and women because these experiences are common—too common, really. And however feminism manifests in our lives, whether we identify as sex-positive feminists, Black feminists, or womanists, embracing this liberation movement aids us in doing the incredibly difficult work of rejecting the burden of shame.

We can speak more freely about our abortions, as Valenti did in what becomes her signature frank, straight-no-chaser narrative style. Her straightforward, often explicit descriptions of her experiences leave the reader with an understanding that abortion is matter-of-fact and should not be as taboo an issue as it continues to be.

If one takes anything away from Sex Object, it should be the empowering liberation that comes when speaking the truth about one’s experiences as a woman, good and bad, amazing and horrifying, even if only to oneself.

Read this book not as a sex-positive feminist manifesto, but as a personal, therapeutic memoir. I get the sense that writing this book was way more important to Valenti’s own personal growth as a woman, mother, partner, and feminist than it was serving as a feminist guidebook for navigating female sexual objectification. Sex Object is raw; it is relatable and blatant in its (occasionally triggering) honesty. It is a book that many women will read and think, at least 20 different times, “I could have written this myself.”