What stroke me first was the number of rapes in
US, according to Miss Maxwell. After
that lecture US seem much more dangerous than Russia to me now. I’m not saying
that there are no rapes in Russia. It’s just not that common: the numbers are
not so frightening and most of rapes are performed by maniacs. So I can say I feel
absolutely safe in my town, with my friends, at parties. And I never
experienced any sexual assault in my lifetime.
All in
all I agree with Miss Maxwell – victim blaming isn’t fair. But, I think that
accusing a man in raping you when you don’t even remember if you have given
consent is not fair too! I saw how some girls (Russian and American) behave
when being drunk. I mean, what did they want when they were rubbing their buts
against guys pants when dancing? Why did they do that? And o’k, why if drunk
girls are not to blame drunk guys are? I’m absolutely sure that most of them
thought that they aren’t raping anyone. Cause the girl agreed to have sex with
him. She didn’t fight. She didn’t say no. And she didn’t look unconscious. Oh,
probably, she even said yes, but the next morning ashamed of her behavior she
accuses an innocent guy in raping her (I’m not talking right now about cases of
marital rape, child sexual abuse and raping of unconscious girls). And that’s
very serious. It leads to imprisonment. I mean, if rape is a legal case why
don’t we ask for proves? Just believing every girl reporting rape without any
proves is another extreme. Both accused and accuser should be interrogated and
trusted – cause we are fighting for equal treatment, not for men oppression
instead of women, right?
And the other fact that stroke me is that miss
Maxwell said that most of rapists are your friends, whom you didn’t expect it
from. So my question, apart from drinking so much that you don’t remember
anything, is that why do you call friends such awful people? I’m absolutely
sure that all my friends in Russia and my brother and my husband have never
raped anyone in their life. And they wouldn’t. I refuse to believe that a nice
person, whom you know very well can just appear to be rapist. Cause rape isn’t
a nice walk, that anyone can take. Only a defective person can do that. So, you
either don’t call rapist a friend or don’t call a rape the situation when both
people aren’t conscious about what they are doing. And by the way, I’d never
call a friend a person who won’t interfere when something obviously bad happens
to me.
I apologize in advance for the long response. You raise some great questions. A couple things:
ReplyDelete1. When we say "rape," we mean sexual act(s) that occurred without the explicit consent of all involved.
2. By explicit consent we mean legal consent. By legal consent we mean the verbal exchange of consent from two physically, psychologically, and mentally able persons. This means that one cannot give consent if unconscious (obviously), but neither can one consent when intoxicated. (A problem muddled profusely by the intersection of college drinking habits and the college hook-up culture.)
3. Both sides, the victim and the perpetrator, generally are treated to a fair trial (or similar process if not reported to police - i.e. college proceedings). In fact, I had the opportunity to do a MOCK sexual assault hearing for Rhodes as part of the committee's training. I - my character - clearly was raped. I had a lot to drink and was in no place to give consent and passed out a couple times in the duration of the sexual encounter. Because there was not enough evidence in my favor (also my "assailant" prepared for this training session much better than me…), it was deemed as not in violation of the sexual misconduct policy. I cannot speak for every case ever presented, but I'd like to think that generally both sides are treated fairly and evidence is a major factor in decisions.
4. Zerlina's point was that we cannot blame women for dressing provocatively or dancing provocatively as you suggest because by doing these things they are not asking for sex. They may be insinuating it, but they are not choosing to be sexually assaulted. The perpetrator, and only the perpetrator, is making the choice to rape. Making the choice to perform acts without the explicit consent of his (or her) partner. I do agree that on the whole, though, women probably could benefit from thinking a bit more about what their actions if only for their safety.
5. Maybe this makes it a little more clear on how sexual assault is often perpetrated by someone victims know rather than strangers. More often than not, the idea of rape we have from pop culture and the media - of a stranger coming up behind you and forcing you to have sex in an alley or carrying you away in his van - does not actually happen. It is more likely that you trust this person enough to be alone with him. Sexual acts that the perpetrator often sees as harmless are not what the woman would like to have happen, and since she'd been drinking perhaps her inhibitions were lowered and she thus could not give legal consent. And the man should know not to take advantage of anyone compromised position.
6. Finally, I do agree with you. We need to teach men not to rape (and what rape is since I think a lot of people are fuzzy on that) from a young age and teach women to be more responsible and conscious of their actions. When sexual assault does happen, however, we cannot place the blame on the victim because dressing provocatively or consuming alcohol does not equate to wanting or asking to have sex and it does not automatically entitle men to get sex. Think of alcohol/provocative actions/fill-in-the-blank and sex as having a correlation and not equalling causation.
I hope that was helpful!
~ Brooke
I can understand how you might come to these conclusions. Victim blaming is present in numerous examinations of crime – it is not limited only to females. European oppression of Native Americans were rationalized as necessary, as these inhabitants were “savage”. Slavery was enforced through this narrative of blame as well. Africans were first observed as weak, brought to new lands [with new diseases] without nourishment to support them. It seemed logical that a master would be necessary to protect them. Overtime that narrative reversed – the African male and female were seen as overly sexualized. Therefore a master was needed to control them. So yes, it makes sense that people still buy into the notion of victim blaming in terms of violence against women.
ReplyDeleteI would caution you, however, to review the nature of this crime. Rape is an explicit act of violence and anger. Its use of sexual acts, including penetration, is seen as weapons. As a result it seems we often over-sex the rapist. Yet rape is not, in fact, an expression of desire. It is an expression of dominance and the need for power. This is why rape also occurs to men; why male rape does not mean that the victim OR the rapist is homosexual.
I would also like to point out that there is no other crime (that I can think of) which subjects the victim to as much scrutiny during investigation and trial as rape does. Rape victims are twice placed at risk: once in the physical rape itself, and next in the process of “investigation” which brutalizes, harasses, and ignores the victims. I assure you, it is difficult to go through that process without placing yourself at risk for trauma, stigmatization, and shame.
One of the first myths associated with victim blaming is that the victim asked for it. As you said, “What did they want when they were rubbing their buts (sic) against guys pants when dancing?” This is what many people might say. The victim “got what she asked for” (even though it is acceptable for the victim to retain their right to say no). After all, she was drunk.
In this instance – I’d say we need to stick to the facts. It is true that alcohol often plays a role in rape. However, it is illogical to suggest that women are responsible for rape due to them drinking. This implies that rape can occur as some sort of accident. We have an attitude that men can’t control their sexuality, and its women’s responsibility to treat them with kid-gloves. Yet sexuality can be controlled, and rape IS a conscious decision. Men (And women – let’s not forget that rape isn’t inherently masculine) are not washed of blame just because they or their victim has been drinking. They are responsible for their actions, and should be held accountable.
Think of this through another lens, if it helps. What if a young college student named Jordan decided to go for a walk after drinking? Walking is a form of exercise, and it can be fun. Jordan walks across the street, and is traveling down the sidewalk when Parker hits Jordan with his truck. Does the fact that Jordan has been drinking mean there is no crime? Even if Parker has been drinking – the crime is still not erased. Jordan could have MINIMIZED their risk by not walking at night, or by not walking with alcohol in their system. However, this does not mean Jordan is to blame. The crime, ultimately, is Parker’s fault.
ReplyDeleteAs a final point – I find it interesting that you bring your statement to a personal level. You “refuse to believe that a nice person, whom you know very well can just appear to be rapist.” I understand this position – no one wants to believe any one they know could ever rape or have been the victim of rape. Yet the nature of rape culture – and victim blaming – perpetuate the systems that allow rape. Knowing the statistics of rape, it now comes as no surprise to me that I knew my attacker. Nor am I surprised that I was instructed to view the situation as something that was my fault, or inevitable. But I do know now that this reaction – this instruction – assigned moral responsibility to me and alleviated the blame from my attacker.
Victim blaming is not new. It’s not shocking in any sense. But it is a tiresome thing to encounter, when the logic behind it is so clearly non sequitur.
Ann,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your response to Zerlina's talk. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and criticisms.
I would like to clarify a few points that were perhaps misunderstood (and elaborate on what the previous posters commented):
1) Acquaintance Rape vs. Stranger Rape / The Psycho Myth:
When Ms. Maxwell discussed how most rapists are your friends, she was referring to the fact that a strong majority (~70-90% depending on which study you look at) of rapes are acquaintance rapes, not stranger rapes. That is to say, American culture trains young women to look out for stranger rape, but not acquaintance rape. Women are instructed not to walk alone at night, to carry pepper spray, to be aware of their surroundings, etc. in an effort to stop the rapist from jumping out of the bushes with a knife or kidnapping from a dark alley or any other sort of cinematic portrayal of rape. While this type of rape does occasionally happen, it is a miniscule portion of rapes; the majority of time, the rapist is an acquaintance, a class mate, a person that you are on a date with, the guy you are talking to at the bar, or just someone you have met at a party -- not some psycho. The psycho myth misleads people into thinking that rape occurs at night in bad areas from evil strangers -- not on a date, not at a fraternity house, not in your dorm room. This provides a false sense of security, where people leave their guard down in situations where rape is more likely.
Furthermore, you are correct that many men do not rape. According to David Lisak, 5% of men commit 95% of sexual assault. That is to say, there is one guy out there at a party/bar who may assault fifteen or twenty women in his time at college.
What Ms. Maxwell emphasized is that in American culture (and generally worldwide), we tolerate these 5% rapists. For example, the public conversation of the Steubenville rape concerned: "But what about the players (read: the rapists) bright future? What will happen to them?" and did not focus on survivor support. The administration actively protected the rapists because they were football stars. Many citizens actively blamed the survivor for being drunk: "Were you drinking? What were you wearing?" (as if that implied consent). Furthermore, many do not intervene in a bad situation, such as a party where a friend is too drunk and has someone hitting on them or giving them more drinks.
2) Consent
ReplyDeleteWhen someone grinds, or rubs her (or his) ass against his (or her) pelvic region, that person does not consent to sexual intercourse. "What do they expect then?" Perhaps they just want to excite their partner and enjoy dancing this way. Perhaps they want to make out later on the dance floor. Perhaps they want to go back to another's room and have oral sex. Or perhaps they want to have full-blown sexual intercourse later that night. I do not know and I cannot assume. While the action is sexually explicit, it does not mean that the actor/actress wants to have sex. Just as being drunk or dressing in revealing clothing does not mean one wants to have sex.
To put it plainly: no one who grinds thinks "I want to dance like this so I will get raped!" Just like no one who puts on a mini-skirt thinks that "Oh, this is my rape skirt! I want to go get raped tonight!" and no one drinks another vodka thinking "I want to get wasted so I can get raped!"
Alcohol is not foreplay. Grinding is not consent.
Consent is a legal term. It means one must say "yes" to sex. Specifically, it means fully conscious and mentally aware individuals explicitly and freely agree to do the same sex act in the same way at the same time. Rape occurs when there is any sexual intercourse (anal, oral, or vaginal) without consent.
Not saying no, not fighting, not appearing unconscious is still not saying "Yes! I want to have sex!" Consent is not implied until expressed otherwise. Even when she invites you back to her room, she is not saying she wants to have sex. Even when she accepts your invitation to go back to your room, she is not saying she wants to have sex. She needs to say, “I want to have sex” (or some variation like “let’s fuck”) to express that she wants to have sex.
Does that make sense? If it does not, please let me know and I will hopefully clarify.
Consent verbalized without any extenuating circumstances is fine, but I am uncomfortable about the ideas of consent expressed here. Does one not consent to having less capability to reason and less control over motor functions in the very act of drinking alcohol? Or in the abuse of any drug? I understand we need these legal requirements to prevent people from obtaining consent by physically influencing another's mind. We need this protection from more than just rape. However, in these other situations the context is usually more formalized. For example, business contracts and meetings. In sexual interactions, many things differ. There is much less scripted in sexual encounters than there is in those other sorts of encounters. At the very least-- and this following claim is in no way de-emphasized by being the least of what we could claim--we are treading down a very narrow and unknown road while we put in place universal legal definitions of consent. It is narrow in the sense that there seem to be only a small number of ways to do things rightly compared to how many ways it can be done wrongly; and unknown in the sense that sexual, social encounters are usually not planned and not usually scripted. These claims about the differences in "plannedness" and "scriptedness" are certainly open for debate, but I think there is more room for improvisation and unexpected events in the social realm.
ReplyDeleteAlso here's another way to get rid of rape culture but it's bad:
ReplyDeleteWe teach men: sex is like playing tennis
We teach women: you are the tennis ball
Result: no rape culture. (because the woman is an object and does not get to refuse anyways. They are protected and owned by the men in the same way tennis balls are- rapists are condemned as thieves that use other people's properties)
Therefore, let's stop blaming other people (i.e. victims, victim-blamers, perpetrators and perpetrator-blamers) and start blaming ourselves for willingly sustaining the rape culture. What we should really do is to put our mental and physical energy into building a society where sex stops being a part of a vicious cycle of power imbalance but a part of an equal enjoyment of pleasure among however many players - just like tennis.
ReplyDeleteTRIGGER WARNING:
ReplyDeleteBriana,
'Victim blaming' signifies a specific set of actions that question the rape survivor on what she (or he) could have done to prevent being raped. "Were you drinking? How much? What were you wearing? Were you flirting with each other? Did you willingly go back to his room? Well, what did you expect to happen?" By definition, no one wants to be raped. It is an extraordinarily traumatic experience.
Yes, the rapist and the raped are both influenced by rape culture. However, in a rape case, one person potentially has had her (or his) life ruined due to no personal choice. If the rapist is sentenced to prison (which only ~7% of reported rapes end in a conviction sentence anyhow), then his (or her) life is ruined due to his (or her) personal choice. The raped is a victim in this situation.
ANOTHER TRIGGER WARNING this will be graphic: To put it plainly using a male-female example -- the raped has been physically overpowered against her will by the rapist. She has been held down and penetrated. She has been dominated -- a man forced his penis inside of her repeatedly until ejaculating in her. After this, she is likely to exhibit the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (which is commonly found in war veterans who have seen other humans'/friends limbs torn off, decapitated, etc.). They have flashbacks, cannot sleep, cannot focus on anything. The rapist goes to class/work the next morning.
Yes, there is a powerful and a powerless in rape.
Link to the 7% study 37% reported are prosecuted; 18% prosecuted result in conviction -> 6.6% reported rapes result in conviction.
ReplyDeletePierce,
ReplyDeleteI am having trouble understanding your larger point, so please clarify if I misconstrue your argument.
Consent is a legal term.
To use an example outside of sex crimes: I am a real estate agent. I own acres of land in Louisiana. You are interested in buying some of my land, and I tell you I am charging $1,000 per acre. We go to check it out; it's swamp land. No way you're buying it. However, say we go to a bar, I buy you a few scotches, we have a few good laughs, and then you think "Eh, to heck with it" and end up signing a contract to buy the land.
If you were to take this contract to the judge the next day, do you know what she would do?
Throw it out. You can't sign contracts drunk.
On your next point: I am having trouble understanding what you mean by: "Does one not consent to having less capability to reason and less control over motor functions in the very act of drinking alcohol?" Yes, one's choice to drink disinhibits her. She can have a drink and still consent to sex. Heck, she can probably have two drinks. However, if she is too drunk to drive, then she cannot legally consent. And if you have reason to believe she is too drunk to drive (e.g., she's slurring her words, stumbling, glazed eyes, boisterous conversation), then you cannot legally have sex with her.
Yes, this is tricky because people often use alcohol to create a gray area. It gives both parties easy ways to say 'I was so drunk!' I realize this is an issue of "The law tells me this, but society tells me this is how it is done!" And you would be right. However, I am unsure how "Don't fuck drunk people" is a narrow way of doing things correctly.
If you are concerned that you want to hook up, yet do not want to commit sexual assault, then you can follow a few consent guidelines to make sure you are never in the position to be accused of sexual assault (and therefore, never sexually assault).
ReplyDelete1) Consent is explicitly verbal.
Ask your partner what he or she is comfortable doing. Most people feel awkward doing this, but it is better to be safe than sorry. (and honestly, it's really not awkward). Some guys have a problem doing this because they think 'Well, I won't get as far as if I didn't ask" No one ever says "Aw man, I was going to jump your bones, but then you asked me what I wanted to do!" though. But yes: that is the case if you were planning to force/pressure someone to do something against his or her will. (Read: sexual assault)
Furthermore, communication will lead to better sex in the first place, so it's a good place to start. Any sort of variation (however crude) works. For example, "Wanna fuck?" suffices. As previously covered, actions like accepting drinks from you, dancing with you, etc. do not constitute consent. It has to be verbal. (Okay, I can think of one action that really passes the test: if she guides your erected penis into her vagina. Other than that, ask.)
2. Understand that consent to one act is not consent to another.
To use a male-female example: Just because she wants to make out, does not mean she wants to be felt up. Just because she wants to be felt up, does not mean she wants to be fingered. Just because she wants to be fingered, does not mean she wants to have sex.
Again: Communicate. "What do you like to do?" Is a great question to ask.
3. Consent is freely given.
Understand the physical power differential/potential coercive threat of a situation. For example, I am a 160lb. male who can bench 235 lbs. If I am on top of a woman, she may not feel totally comfortable expressing that "No, she does not want to have sex." She has to know that if she says does not want to, then I will not pressure her further. Therefore, place distance between the two of you or otherwise reaffirm that saying no is totally acceptable when you ask.
That is part of the whole "Yes sometimes means no" idea. The other part is:
4. Consent can only be given from someone who is freely conscious and mentally aware.
(Refer to aforementioned commentary on drinking.) If there is reason to believe someone is intoxicated, then you cannot have sex with them. (Similarly, people with down syndrome cannot consent to you -- as you probably know.)
If you follow those guidelines, then you should be good to go.
Ian,
ReplyDeleteIt appears that you have misread my post and have also read meaning into it.
I clearly addressed why a legal definition of consent is necessary... your example regarding the business encounter is therefore redundant. I explicitly state "business contracts and meetings" as an example of a more formalized or scripted encounter in which it is foreseeable that such legal protection of consent is required.
Consent is not purely a legal term, nor is it only viewed legally. If we ask the law, the law will provide its legal definition of consent. The law can, though does not, dictate our dictionaries or the meanings we hold words to possess. A legal definition of consent is merely a standardized version of the word for reference in court proceedings whereupon all parties involved appeal to this standard out of fairness and consistency. This is why we have a legal definition. Should that legal definition be expanded to include more? Should that legal definition be expanded to include such and such particularities? These are the questions I am concerned with.
My point—and I apologize for not making this clear—is that a legal definition of consent should not be a universal to apply to all situations; that certain encounters are more scripted and formalized (like business) whereas others are not so well understood and do not adhere to tradition as often (like social encounters). It is easier to apply a universal to something that is equally consistent as in the case of a scripted scenario. It is more difficult to apply a universal to a category that is actualized in many different ways as in the case of social encounters.
I state, “Consent verbalized without any extenuating circumstances is fine,” in which I intended to express my belief that permission for sex should be verbalized with nothing but the utmost freedom of the individuals consenting. Now what inhibits this freedom or free will is another question, and I do not believe that free will is coherently maintained under the influence of alcohol. I state this simply for the record.
I did not post with concerns regarding hook-ups, nor do I think I expressed such a sentiment in my post. Also, I am not attempting to advocate for the expansion of the “gray area” of morally indiscernible action.
I tried to express what I meant by “narrow” and your interpretation of what I said appears off base. I did not mean “narrow” in a sense of “narrow-minded.” The following will help clarify. Initially (years ago), it appeared to me that there are few ways to do things rightly… that is, there are fewer ways to be correct, true, or within moral bounds than ways in which I can be incorrect, false, and out of bounds. I am speaking very generally here. To give you an idea of how general, there is only one way to add two positive integers to get 4, but infinitely many ways to fail to do so. This idea of a “narrow road” or a small “target,” I borrow from the Nicomachean Ethics, a compilation of notes on Aristotle’s works. I have never read Aristotle’s opinion of social equality, nor am I so naïve to think he would reflect our ideals today. Admittedly, I cannot find a quote that accurately expresses this idea as I now understand it. Yet, I am sure you would understand how I might get such an idea from a philosopher of virtue ethics who emphasizes habit and being in the “right”, and then quickly relate it to the world and find that the categories of “correct” and “true” appear narrowly exclusive ideas. That is, much more seems categorizable as incorrect or unacceptable behavior. At least, things appeared this way at face value. I am not so sure I feel this way with respect to all action after analyzing this idea.
Response to Ian Continued...
ReplyDeleteMore importantly however, if the ways in which we can act respectfully and within moral bounds are so few, then why should I hesitate to accept a definition of a word that only makes those bounds more apparent? In fact, I do not hesitate to accept such a definition. My hesitation lies in the involvement of the law and government. I did not like the idea of such involvement in social interactions. Honestly, to me, government interference in the social realm sounds a bit like 1984. That comparison is an extreme and my view in general here is not very well thought out. To say, “I do not want the government involved in social life in such and such manner,” seems a stupid thing to say or feel without extreme clarification, and this is why I did not say it.
Hopefully, I have sufficiently fulfilled your request to clarify anything which you have misconstrued.
Pierce,
ReplyDeleteThank you for clarifying.
Yes, I am using 'consent' here when speaking of a specific scenario. I think you could tweak the specifics for different situations to contextualize the term (e.g., when one says 'the consent of the governed' vs. 'consent of a sexual partner.' To use my provided definition, 'freely given' could mean 'without perceptions of coercive threat' in both cases, yet 'mentally aware' would more accurately mean 'with necessary information' in the former instance and 'without excessive influence of alcohol/drugs' in the latter instance. Both cases indicate one individual freely granting permission for others to complete some action, which is what most mean by 'consent').
I emphasize the definition of 'consent' in the context of sexual activity to illustrate why sexual assault is assault and not merely regretful sex.
Also, I am confused now on whether or not you are hesitating to accept the "definition of a word that only makes those bounds more apparent."
If you are, then the government is protecting citizens from criminal activity here, not unnecessarily involving itself in social interactions. I agree that the government should lack the ability to define moral boundaries; however, it should prevent other-harming activity. For example, I would argue that the government should not legislate against adultery (although I believe it to be morally wrong), yet should clearly define and legislate against sexual assault.