What is called the problem of "sexual assault" on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike. (Based on our reporting, the same is true in the military, at least in the enlisted and company-grade officer ranks.)
Which points to a limitation of the drunk-driving analogy. If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex. But when two drunken college students "collide," the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.Does the penis unzip the zipper and violate the woman all by itself with no intervention or accountability by its owner? If memory serves, there is no excuse for drunk driving in a court of law – but "it's okay if you are male" in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. There will never be drunk justice until the day a good ole boy becomes pregnant.
For decades, sexual predators have used every excuse in the book to beat a rape rap, often accusing their victims of provocative dress, flirtatious behavior, or a disreputable reputation. In short, slut shame!
Here is James Taranto promoting 'victim blame' with another 'get-out-of-jail-free' card for the good ole boys. What next: Partisan spin to exonerate murder? This is outrageous!
It's the Caveat Emptor Defense. Hey girls if you were dumb enough to drink that drink with GHB in it, well too bad! You should have known better.
ReplyDeleteBlaming the victim is a time-honored tradition amongst rapists and right-wingers. Just ask Ted Nugent and Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty they like to have sex with under age girls and call it christian values.
Also love that swipe at military members as well. Seeing as conservatives are chicken hawk cowards who steered clear of the Generational GWoT they wouldn't understand why alcoholism is rampant amongst the military.
What such paleolithic nonsense fails to take into account, I think, is that there is a non-trivial power differential here: for all the talk about equality (and although women have made great progress in recent decades), women still do not occupy as powerful a "subject position" as men do in everyday life. Even women who have achieved real status or power are often treated as if that status or power somehow doesn't count, or at least it counts for less than if a man achieved and wielded it. So it's ridiculous to say in situations like the ones described, "well, they're both equally culpable." Nope: the guy has the power in the first place; his is the dominant subject-position, and his irresponsible behavior entails traumatic consequences for the woman he mistreats. It's an unfortunate but basic fact of life, and a person really needs to be oblivious not to understand it.
ReplyDeleteThe power differential doesn’t begin or end with the risk of pregnancy. People of different body weights absorb alcohol at different rates, and women are especially vulnerable. If “candy is dandy but liquor is quicker,” alcohol has been the oldest date rape drug since the beginning of time.
DeleteIndeed, alcohol is a factor - often a strong factor in crimes normal inhibitions would usually prevent. And yet it seems to be the center of most people's social lives.
DeleteWhat Dave said.
ReplyDeleteDave? Who's Dave? I don't see a Dave here. Must be a troll.
DeleteLet me speak for Dave, since by not existing, he's at a disadvantage.
DeleteWhat Dave would doubtless have been saying, had he been here to say anything, is that yes, alcohol is a contributing factor in many crimes of violence, negligence and aggression. A close friend and former judge tells me she hardly ever saw such cases where alcohol wasn't present but anecdotes aside, I think it should be permissible to advise our daughters not to go out drinking with the boys, or attend frat parties where binge drinking inevitably occurs in the same sense that we advise them not to drive a car or operate heavy equipment after drinking. Yes, anyone should be able to frequent dark alleys late at night and keep questionable company without fear, and it's not my fault if I get robbed, but this is planet Earth which has always been more dangerous than planet Wishful and always will be.
One fears to give such cautionary advice these days as one is likely to be accused of excusing someone and triggering an inappropriate avalanche of accusation. Indeed alcohol is the drug of choice and of course is easily available and quite legal and amongst the young, imbibing it is to demonstrate one's social worth. Being around drunks is inadvisable. More so for smaller, weaker and more defenseless people and it's as true for risks other than rape.
Lust is also, arguably, the oldest sentiment since the beginning of multicellular life and alcohol interferes with impulse control of all sorts. Staying away from drunken males may be the best advice we can give anyone, but as long as alcohol is the measure of man, as long as it is a massively important part of our culture, we're going to have to expect drunks to do reprehensible, irresponsible things.
Is there really a "rape culture?" is rape really on the increase? are more men getting away with it -- are a significant number of men getting away with it in the first place or are we getting angry at a selected set of gerrymandered facts? Well I can supply anecdotes well equipped with emotionalism and outrage to almost anything.
Are men being falsely accused? Again, there are too many anecdotes to ignore regarding retracted charges being ignored by the courts, men spending 25 years incarcerated and later exonerated by science and the notion that all men are potential rapists and that society is reluctant to prosecute rapists and that there is a conspiracy of judges and prosecutors to let them get away with it is something that, in my opinion, needs some statistical support before I jump on that bandwagon and start demonstrating with signs and choreographed protest. I can certainly write impassioned polemics about women who have falsely accused men and prosecutors who have extracted false confessions of rape and having lived perhaps too long for comfort I fear witch hunts and emotional appeals because I've seen too many of them.
All Dave wanted to do here is to suggest that we treat, that we try cases individually without dragging in all sorts of prejudicial baggage, seeing everything through our fears and angers and collections of anecdotes. The law seems to be designed to do that and whispering in the ear of the blindfolded lady that all men are suspect ( or all of any other group for that matter) is simply not in the best interests of anyone but zealots.
The simple answer to your question, "Is there a rape culture?" is YES. It isn't new -- it has existed for a long, long time. (And no, of course it doesn't mean that nearly all men are vicious creeps who will do whatever they can get away with. It's that a non-trivial percentage of such individuals is enough to muck everything up for everybody.) Are "more" men getting away with rape? I don't know, but isn't the vital issue that so many men have for so long gotten away with it, for the obvious reasons that women are often not even taken seriously, or they're afraid of repercussions, afraid of actually and insanely being blamed for what happened to them, and so forth? One need not be a "zealot" or an ideologue to acknowledge any of that.
DeleteAnd I don't deny it one bit. I mentioned Gilgamesh and Siegfried as examples from antiquity and I'm sure you know of more. I do object to the approach that maleness is one of natures failed experiments but no one here seems to adhere to that rot. No one here is a zealot -- or an apologist for rape.
DeleteAll of what you say is true, but we can't undo history or quickly change the attitudes of billions and I argue only with the notion that things are getting worse, that rape is more acceptable these days than in the past. I think the opposite is true.
Captain Fogg spoke well for Dave, and accurately.
ReplyDeletecap Fogg said. ''I think it should be permissible to advise our daughters not to..// and....it is very permissable to TELL our sons that NO is,, well, no. I told him. 'kid, I don't care if she is back in your room with 3/4 of her clothes off....and decides NO. Game over. Done. I also had a talk with the daughter...if he doesn't understand NO...go for the eyes and nose....it hurts the most.....
ReplyDeleteAnd okjimm topped the lesson off in superlative fashion.
ReplyDeleteLet me add a female perspective here. Attending a party and drinking should NOT be a green light for some clown to spike a girl's drink with some date rape drug. Taking advantage of an unconscious female is equally reprehensible. I'm pretty sure women go out for the night with the notion of having a good time with friends even if maybe they get a little drunk. I don't think they should have to worry about some degenerate assaulting them. Rape is an act of violence, not a sex act. It is meant to demoralize and demean a woman and feel powerful. It is a crime that must be treated as we would any other assault and battery. Sometimes women are raped to death - literally so this is not about sex.
ReplyDeleteIf rape were simply an act of violence, like beating someone up and breaking their bones, I suppose we would prosecute it as some felony-level category of violence. But it's that AND something even worse than that, isn't it? Don't you lose some of the special horror of the crime by insisting on a clean separation between sex and violence? Isn't it using "sex" (in this context, I am speaking only of the biological act, not of any more sophisticated notions about it) AS violence that makes the whole thing so dreadful and the effects so likely to be permanent? Broken bones usually heal pretty well (though simple violence is humiliating as well), but I don't know that the kind of psychic wounds that rape surely causes heals so well.
DeleteThe simple problem with focusing on the biology that rape involves genitals is why this crime is not treated in the legal system the way other assaults are treated. If a man punches someone and steals that persons money there is never a suggestion that the victim wanted it or provoked the act. No prosecutor would attempt to suggest that the victim consented to being beaten and robbed. There would be no questions in court as to the victims habits.
Delete"Do you always carry money on you?"
"Isn't it true that you were wearing an expensive suit?"
"Didn't you give $5 to a panhandler? So you enjoy giving your money away?"
As ludicrous as these questions sound, this is exactly what still happens in rape trials. Because the presumption is that rape is about sexual desire then there is also a presumption that the victim may have been a wiling participant who has cried rape for her own demented reasons.
By the way, study after study as reached the same conclusion--false allegations of rape occur with no more frequency than false allegations of any other crime. It's a myth that there is a massive incarceration of innocent men at the hands of a vindictive woman crying rape.
the massiveness may be absent, but cases seem to be coming up at a rate sufficient to disturb me. I'm not willing to ignore rules of evidence to prosecute someone on someone else's word nor am I forgiving of prosecutors so anxious to get a conviction that they extort them.
DeleteThat doesn't mean I don't agree that defense attorneys are just as unscrupulous in attacking rape victims, but is the 'suggestion' simply a lawyer doing his job or is it the public in general excusing rape?
From what I've seen of rape cases, I think it's the criminal law system, including rules of evidence and the public in general. It's not that people are quick to excuse rape; it's that people tend to doubt that rape occurred if the victim was drinking, or willing went on a date her rapist, or wore a short skirt, or danced provocatively in a bar. As I have stated, it s the only violent crime where the victim is questioned as to whether her behavior did anything to provoke the attack. There have been several cycles of reform in rape laws in several states and the rules of evidence have improved since i first began practicing 17 years ago but there is still a long way to go.
DeleteIf a victim is dowdy and unattractive, she has a better chance of her rapist being convicted. Because popular belief continues to focus on rape as being about sex, there's more sympathy from juries for the victim because they don't believe that she did anything to entice her rapist and must simply be a sex fiend. All of our cultural issues with human sexuality come through loud and clear in rape trials.
On the other hand, an attractive woman is often perceived as being provocative. Juries may suspect that she led the rapist own and then cried rape because of some deep seated hatred of men. Prosecutors instruct rape victims to dress conservatively for court, minimal makeup, no low necklines or short skirts and nothing that hugs her curves.
We should instruct our young women to be careful and use caution in their encounters. However, if we want to change rape culture, we have to also teach our young men that "no" always means stop right now and isn't part of some courtship ritual of playing hard to get. We also have to teach them that a woman who is drunk or passed out is incapable of consenting to sex.
What I think it boils down to is that as a culture, we don't talk about sex and sexual attraction with our young people. We don't tell them flat out that feeling desire doesn't mean that you're ready to become sexually activity. Young people are bombarded with sexual imagery from an early age. On television it's standard that if boy meets girl and they like each other that before the hour is up they will make out and by the third episode, they will have sex. The message is that it takes a couple of dates and a make out session to fall in love and then you have sex. When I was twelve my mother wouldn't allow me to watch Peyton Place on television because she thought it was too risque because they talked about a girl getting pregnant. Now kids have televisions in their rooms and watch anything that they desire without any monitoring or input from parents.
And of course they have the internet and "twerking" isn't something you get arrested for any more. young women and girls tend to dress more provocatively than prostitutes did in my day. Sex sells and we've been sold a lot of it.
DeleteObviously kids have to be taught right from wrong, but some are unteachable and there is rape that goes far beyond any question of consent or suggestion of "asking for it" even if society has taught for a long time that women will consent if men were only more like John Wayne. Some people really are monsters. That's not a cultural problem, but I suppose we have an easier time trying and sentencing such people if we catch them.
Teaching respect for people and their rights as human beings is really the struggle behind so many other struggles having to do not only with gender and ethnicity, but with economics and dehumanizing, diminishing people of all sorts is a kind of rape too, whether it's denying the right to vote, to stay in a hotel or to have equal protection under the law. Our cultural issues are a problem in all sorts of trials and we all know that equality isn't the rule, socially or anywhere else and unscrupulous people will take advantage of that. Is there a war on women's rights? I think so and going back to the original post we see that war from conservatives from Limbaugh to the bozo this was all about. Misogyny is part of the right wing assault on equality and that's what Octo was getting to. Taking the side of rapists is part of the new/old right and no improvements in justice and decency and equality or any other of those liberal things is possible without dealing with them harshly.
Will our culture ever embrace the idea that women are not beings over which men have dominion, and that women are not responsible for the violent acts committed by men?
ReplyDeleteMost people will gladly leave that kind of thinking in the ash-heap of history, but a certain number of rogues will never figure it out. It only takes a fairly small number of creeps and losers to create significant problems for everyone: the old "grain of sand in the engine" metaphor seems apt here.
ReplyDeleteRocky brings an important and highly relevant issue to any discussion of rape. It is not about sex but about power. As Rocky states, "It is a crime that must be treated as we would any other assault and battery."
ReplyDeleteIf a person of either gender stops at the ATM at 3:00 a.m. and is assaulted and robbed, there is no attempt at the trial of the alleged perpetrator to question the reasons that the victim chose to go to an ATM in the wee hours of the morning. There are no questions as to whether the victim makes a habit of such activity. There is no attempt to paint the victim as contributing to the crime or enticing the defendant by waving his or her money around. All of those things are likely to show up in a trial for sexual assault, in spite of the changes in rape laws and the prosecution of rapists that have occurred in the last 30 years.
Enticement, or provocative behavior is only relevant if you still mistakenly believe that rape is about sex. I also think that characterizing rape as perpetrated by men who are consumed with sexual desire is insulting to all of the men who would never consider raping a woman. It suggests that men are like the mythical werewolf who loses control whenever there is a full moon and cannot resist the lure of a woman. That's sheer nonsense. Men who commit rape aren't sex deprived; they are seeking domination, not sex. The sexual act is a means to domination and it is from their exercise of power and control that they derive satisfaction.
To fully and successful impress upon boys that there is nothing that a woman can do that excuses or justifies rape, we have to first reframe the way we talk about rape to reflect an understanding that it is not about sex or eroticism, but about violence. Then we must teach our boys to embrace the beliefs that Shaw states so eloquently. The discussions that we need to be having about rape are with our male children who will one day become the men who interact with our daughters.
How predictable. Sigh. And an example of why I am about to leave this blog. What a lovely misreading of what I wrote! My idea was and is that we should treat rape as something EVEN WORSE than simple assault, and impose even severer penalties. I'll repeat that: it's EVEN WORSE, and I have nothing but derision for anyone who makes that notion sound somehow unreflective and retrograde. It must feel so empowering just to read what others write however you like and then make up some ideas, attribute them to others and trash said ideas. Now Rocky's point is a good one indeed: of course what we are dealing with is mainly an issue of control, domination, power. Nobody should doubt that. It's also a good idea to keep the instrumentality of that power in view, and doing so in no way implies that all or most men are werewolves. Unless, of course, simply putting things in the most "correct" and formulaic way is the only thing that matters. In that case, let's all agree not to bother thinking about things carefully, and just say the approved words in the right order and be done with it. I'm signing off. This kind of talk is of absolutely no value to me, and it hasn't been for a long time.
Deletebd, I just read your comment today. When I wrote my comment last night, I hadn't even noticed that you made one. I was responding to Rocky and Shaw's comments which I thought were right on target.
DeleteThe reason that I have been long absent from any regular participation on this blog is because I grew weary of having to worry about the hurt feelings and indignation of some members any time I offered a contrary viewpoint.
You are rude, self-centered and arrogant. It's not always about you. In my case it's never about you until now. I have my views and I feel no obligation to gain your approval before expressing them.
And for the record, no one including me suggested that rape should be treated as simple assault. As with all criminal acts the law provides for degrees and there is no logical reason why any violent crime would be classified as simple assault.
I was not addressing your comment. It wasn't on my radar. I read your comment a few minutes ago today (Friday) and I provided what I thought was an answer to your questions proposed in your post.
Why you would read my previous post from Thursday night as being in any way a response to yours puzzles me. You wrote nothing about the issues which I addressed. I still see nothing in your previous post that suggests that rape is not about violence and domination. My point was that it's not about sex and thinking that it is has resulted in the peculiarity of rape being the only crime in which the victim is put on trial as well as the perpetrator, required to prove that she did not give consent. Nothing you said suggested that you did not recognize rape as being about violence. Furthermore if I had been addressing your post, I would have damn well said so.
I will not be attacked or bullied by you. I will write what I think and if i do find a flaw in any argument that you make I will say so. You can do the same to my opinions. But this jumping to conclusions is unacceptable. Your insults are also unacceptable. Don't pretend that you were not insulting with that crap about "...let's all agree not to bother thinking about things carefully, and just say the approved words in the right order and be done with it." Suggesting that you are a careful thinker and by comparison I am not. And this is just flat out rude and insulting, "It must feel so empowering just to read what others write however you like and then make up some ideas, attribute them to others and trash said ideas."
Exactly how have I driven you to wanting to leave this blog? I certainly haven't been around a great deal and I haven't commented on anything that you have written. Bit dramatic, aren't we?
I get Dino's point that the act of rape is made worse by the sexual component but the big reason it is made so much worse than being beaten, stabbed or shot is because of the stigma attached to rape - not by women but by society. Which I believe is Sheria's point. As soon as a sexual aspect is added to the offense, it becomes not a trial about what the criminal has done to the victim but what the victim may have done to "bring this upon herself." The women of this blog have a unique perspective about rape simply because women by and large are usually the ones who are raped. I know there are instances of men and boys also being raped but they are not in the same sphere as male on female rape. (91% of reported rapes were by women). The rape itself is a form or torture or abuse in that it is meant to leave a lasting scar no one can remove. The rapist "marks" his victim. Like throwing acid in the face or carving someone up. But even though a man can douse his wife in acid because he doesn't want anyone else to "have" her, society does not look on this as a sexual act. So we should not look on rape as a sexual act. We should add torture and abuse on to the charges but until rape is recognized as an act of violence that the victim did not somehow participate in, then alluding to anything sexual related to it will only continue to victimize the women unfortunate enough to run in to one of these monsters.
DeleteAnd I think we can all agree we are talking about a small percentage of creepy slugs who pass themselves off as men and not the whole male gender pool.
Yes, I can certainly understand that it's worse to be beat up than to be raped but I don't agree that it's worse for a female. Male victims of prison rape may carry a larger burden and one at least as large for the rest of their lives and isn't that why the word "bitch" has taken on a new meaning. Men lose gender identity as well as self respect by being raped, by being someone's "bitch"
DeleteIs rape meant to leave a lasting scar or does the rapist think of the victim as something to be used and discarded? Does he want to subjugate and enslave? Does he simply not give a damn. That's where I depart from this argument. I don't think it's worth generalizing because that's where we depart from reality and enter a scenario of our making.
We're not going to understand every crime and it's motivation by making broad statements. I prefer the word aggression to violence and I maintain that there is a difference and that rape can certainly take place in the absence of violence. The law recognizes that having sex with someone a month less than 18 as rape because it's below the legal age of consent. It's consent not given that makes sex rape, and without sex of some sort it cannot be rape even though there are other criminal trespasses like lewd and indecent behavior that may apply.
Indeed how would we define rape if it were independent of a sexual act?
And this just misses the point as statutory rape involves a whole separate issue which involves age and possibly pedophilia and NOT a forced act. Don't patronize me about "generalizing", like serial killers who frequently get sexual satisfaction from the act of torture and murder, rapists may also get a sexual thrill because if they didn't they obviously could not complete the act of rape but in both scenarios sex is NOT the primary motivating factor. Rape cannot take place without violence, ask any ER personnel who can tell you a rape victim will always have genital trauma. Violence, dominance, abuse and torture are what motivate rapists - NOT sex.
DeleteFrom this study:
http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/240951/original/
"The two primary and numerically largest types identified by Groth were
the “power” rapist and the “anger” rapist. The power rapist was motivated by his
need to control and dominate his victim, and inversely, to avoid being controlled
by her. The anger rapist was motivated by resentment and a general hostility
towards women, and was more prone to inflicting gratuitous violence in the
course of a rape. Not surprisingly, these types were rarely found in pure form.
Most rapists were actually blends of power and anger motivations; however, a
predominance of one or the other was often discernible. 11
The third and (thankfully) numerically far smaller type was the sadistic
rapist. This rapist was motivated by the sexual gratification he experienced when
he inflicted pain on his victim."
I think that Rocky is right on target and the study she quotes is representative of the major studies about rape and the nature of the rapist.
DeletePerhaps it would clarify why rape is not about sex if you consider that when two people have sex, they are both involved particpants in the sexual act. No women who is raped has been an involved and willing participant. Rape is not something done with a woman but to her. It's a violent act because it is done without her consent.
I have never heard of a single victim of rape describe it as sex.
I'm sorry, but with respect, I found this argument to be extremely patronizing and more than a bit arrogant from the outset. No discussion can be a discussion when one party is allowed to rig the terminology to support a conclusion whether it's the prior condition that we call taxation, Communism or that sex isn't sex unless you say it is. A Catechism is not a discussion.
DeleteDoes the credo that rape "is not about sex" have any bearing on the problem of how victims are treated in the courts or in the court of public opinion or on how we ought to prosecute and how we ought to try cases in the best interests of justice and the protection of the public? It's a distraction to say the least. Done with, done to - is this a distinction with any other purpose than to co-opt the argument, to dismiss concerns that don't come from official sources or dare to deviate from prescribed terminology? Is this not patronizing in the extreme? Woman dictating to men how men think? If one side is on a podium and the other forced to prostrate, it's not a discussion and most of all, drawing up sides when we both are concerned with and both deplore any justification for rape -- does that make sense? Does that get us anywhere?
To me an act involving the unwilling or forced use of sex organs nor even surrogate sex organs is still sex. If it involves sexual gratification, it's sex and centuries of usage and all the dictionaries I've referenced agree. That other motivations and emotions compound or attend the act is irrelevant. Trying to force all cases into a certain scenario is a distraction and to dismiss concerns about human rights and justice unless they support that scenario and use that terminology seems more likely to alienate your allies than to rally support.
As far as I'm concerned it's sex, whether it's unwanted groping, forced contact with sex organs of any kind, prison rape, masturbation, the abuse of altar boys, bestiality, inflatable 'party dolls' or necrophilia. I see no reason to narrow the definition of sex other than to force agreement by dismissing arguments by fiat, by asserting and arrogating control of discussion. That's something done to the discussion not with it.
"The major studies" may or may not be correct, may or may not have been deemed major because they corroborated a prior political opinion but I'm simply not going to get involved in any more such Jesuitical casuistry. Sorry if anyone is offended by my opinions and they may be misguided and a poor thing indeed, but they are mine own and I am willing and able to support them.
I think rape is a horrible crime, I think that for most victims the consequences are worse and longer lasting than from other kinds of physical abuse. I deplore the use of character assassination against rape victims as I deplore the inconsistent sentencing of rapists. I am not persuaded that rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence should be waived in cases of rape. I agree that the radical right has an interest in stifling women's rights that seems almost pathological and is more than almost disgusting. Beyond that I have nothing further to say.
Captain, the only arrogance that I see is yours. In spite of the significant body of research on rape which concludes that rape is not about sex but about power, you insist that your narrow personal perspective is superior. You insult every woman who has ever been raped by insisting that it is about sex because the man perpetrating the act of violence may receive some physical gratification from the act.
DeleteSex is between two people, both of whom are voluntarily engaging in sexual activity. Sexual desire has not been demonstrated to motivate rape. Rapists have access to willing sexual partners, many are married or in relationships where sex is readily available. If the rapist wants sex with a stranger or desires to engage in a sexual activity not favored by his partner, sex for pay is readily available. The rapist intentionally chooses an unwilling partner because the use of force and humiliation is an essential part of the rapist's satisfaction. The only person getting any satisfaction from the act is a rapist. That's not sex. It's the use of force and the sense of power that the rapist experiences that is the the turn on for the rapist. That is not about sex, it just involves genitals and there is a hell of a big difference.
You don't listen, Captain. You have come to a foregone conclusion and are determined to prove it correct regardless of what the people who are most likely to have been the victims of rape tell you.
I know when I'm having sex and being raped is not sex. It makes no more sense to call it sex than to call child molestation sex. Would you honestly argue that pedophilia is sex? Certainly the pedophile receives sexual gratification from the sexual contact with a child but is the child having sex too?
"I am not persuaded that rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence should be waived in cases of rape. "
No one has suggested either of these should apply in rape cases.The reality is because there is a tendency to think of rape as being about sex, before addressing the actual violent act, the victim's character is put on trial. Did she willingly participate? Did she dress or behave provocatively? The reasoning is that the victim may have sexually enticed the rapist to act.
Recognize rape as about violence and that line of questioning becomes absurd. Who would ask the victim of any violent act other than rape, "Did you enjoy it?" And yes, that question gets asked in some rape trials.
In a well publicized 1993 case, a woman who insisted that her rapist use a condom had trouble getting a grand jury to indict the rapist. "The case had attracted widespread publicity when the first grand jury investigating the assault refused to indict Mr. Valdez because some jurors felt the use of condoms provided by the victim may have suggested her complicity in the encounter. The defendant maintained that use of condoms during the Sept. 16 sexual assault implied the woman's consent." Rapist Who Agreed to Use Condom Gets 40 Years
Sexual assault is one of the most under reported crimes, with 60% still being left unreported. averaging in unreported rape, only about 3% of rapists serve any prison time. Based on data from National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Most rapes aren't committed by strangers in a mask. Family members, friends, the nice guy who took you to dinner may be your rapists. Victims often are afraid of not being believed and/or having their sex life put on trial. Declaring sympathy for rape victims isn't the issue. Listening and respecting that the likely victims of rape, women, know what we are talking about would be appreciated.
Thank you Sheria for a very well written and thoughtful comment. As long as the spectre of sex is prominent in rape cases women will continue to be vilified by the "Eve and the poisoned fruit" defense. Leaving women to decide whether to be victimized again or just slink away.
DeleteRape: forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will
DeleteYou know, when I get angry about the abuse of English it isn't about Shakespeare adding words as much is it is this sort of thing. Linguistic gerrymandering seems the height of arrogance - as though some survey, some treatise, some statistic dictates how we must all speak. Call it anything you like, rape is a sex crime but it's wrong and that's the point. A motivation is not a crime or we'd all be in jail.
It's not enough to agree in principle, I guess. But you know, some young man who kills himself because he was raped by a priest and authorities ignored or insulted him and protected the perpetrator is just as much a double victim. The prisoner who hangs himself in his cell after being gang raped repeatedly. It's not a crime because of the gender of the victim, it's a crime because it's a violation is rape because illegal sexual intercourse of some sort is involved. It doesn't matter what was going through the mind of the rapist and more than what went through the mind of the Son of Sam killer determined whether he was a murderer or just interested in power.
Sorry but truth and justice may be independent of the way some group chooses to present it. To me a sex crime is a sex crime and you can insist that rape is a power crime all you want - justice is not served and allies like me and others here are alienated. Jesuitical casuistry I called it and casuistry it is.
Perhaps when you calm down and stop raging about things unrelated to what I said I'll resume posting here, but I've had it and I'm tired of talking through the cloud of hyperbole and rage.
Rape is rape no matter who is raped and by whom. A sex act is a sex act It's rape whether the rapist is punished or not And I sure as hell am not going to apologize for being disgusted only as long as it's a woman being raped. It's as though you're only interested in justice for some and don't give a damn about any one else.
What does it prove, how does it help, what does it accomplish to throw all these statistics at me or to throw a fit if I define the word sex as it always has been? It's entirely irrelevant to anything I said and the implication that I somehow think rape is permissible is more than I'm going to tolerate. A sex crime is a sex crime is a sex crime no matter how angry you get about how such crimes and victims of such crimes are sometimes treated. I once quit a feminist forum because I would not repeat the formula that "rape is murder" and that "pornography is rape." I never went back. I'm not a child. I'm not ignorant. I'm not uncaring and I'm not stupid and that's what I will probably do with this one if I have to be lectured to as though I were all those things and were somehow the enemy.
Sorry
Captain, I'm neither angry nor raging. I offered a reasoned explanation as to why thee has been a great deal of effort put into a more accurate definition of rape.
DeleteRape is not about uncontrolled sexual desire. To the contrary of what you appear to think that I believe, I find it insulting to the majority of men who are not rapists to compare having sex to an act of rape. The same body parts are involved but the purpose and intent is very different.
Motive or intent is an important component of criminal law. The difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, and manslaughter is the motive of the perpetrator. An pleading of self defense is to argue the motive for the killing. Motive is always important in criminal law.
Until the 20th century lawmakers were exclusively male in the U.S., women did not have any input into electing those lawmakers until 1920. Is it surprising that rape has been defined in terms of male perspectives and that women may have a different perspective? Perhaps men who are raped feel as if they've had sex; I've never met a single woman who described rape as a sexual experience. It appears that we have vastly different views of what constitutes sex. Rapists are not seeking sex but power and conquest. Sexual desire is not the motivation for rape. Is the pedophile who rapes a two year old having sex?
Rape is sexual assault. Sexual assault is not the same as having sex. The victims of rape don't have to be attractive, are never willing, and often are inappropriate for any sexual interaction. Rape is far removed from the consensual sex between adults.
I don't want you to repeat any formula. You may continue to define rape as being about sex. What I do not accept is that your definition cannot be challenged and that contrary opinions should be dismissed because of some antiquated male defined concepts about rape. You honestly offer as an argument that there is something sacrosanct about your defining "...the word sex as it has always been." Definitions change and evolve as we gain more insight into the nature of human actions.
I've also said nothing to suggest that I believe that you believe that rape is permissible. I have made a consistent and clear argument that focusing on rape as being about sex and sexual desire has resulted in portraying the victim as suspect, as possibly complicit in her own rape. It's this concept that has resulted in sexual assault being the only type of assault where the victims behavior, dress, and attitude are detrimentally evaluated as possible provocations for the assault. None of that has anything to do with suggesting that you find rape permissible, nor with questioning your intelligence.
You pontificate at will on a variety of topics but declare that I am lecturing to you when I debate an issue about which I have strong opinions.
You are not the subject of this discussion, at least not in my mind. I have been presenting an argument for redefining how we conceptualize rape to focus on rape as an casualty like other physically violent crimes in order to refocus trial standards so that it is solely the defendant who is on trial and not the victim. In other words, we should apply the same legal standards to rape as any other type of assault.
"I have been presenting an argument for redefining how we conceptualize rape"
DeleteAnd I see it as trying to control an argument by using rhetorical chicanery -- and by force. Beyond the Oxford Dictionary definition I mentioned previously, Black's gives us: The unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by a man forcibly and against her will. "
For Carnal knowledge we have:
"The act of a man in having sexual bodily connection with a woman. Carnal knowledge and sexual intercourse held equivalent expressions. Noble v. State, 22 Ohio St. 541. From very early times, in the law, as in common speech, the meaning of the words “carnal knowledge” of a woman by a man has been sexual bodily connection ; and these words, without more, have been used in that sense by writers of the highest authority on criminal law, when undertaking to give a full and precise definition of the crime of rape, the highest crime of this character. Com. v. Squires, 97 Mass. 61."
I think Rape has an extra degree of criminality over ordinary assault as the physical and emotional consequences are usually greater - sometimes far greater. I'm not amenable to demands that my speech be subject to someone else's desire to win an argument nor do I see that opinion as being arrogant.
Captain, you're at least 30 years behind. This debate about how we define rape is an old and ongoing one. Not surprisingly, as more and more women have gained prominence in the legal system, the concept of rape as being about sexual need or desire has been rejected by a significant segment of the legal system. Citing definitions of terms from Black's law is not legal analysis, nor is citing dicta from some old court cases. I don't really care whether you think rape is about sex or not. It's certainly your choice. Rest on your hurt feelings and your belief in the righteousness of your beliefs. Your speech doesn't have to be subject to anything.
DeleteOn the subject, a different perspective?
ReplyDeleteI also loved this film in the way it told the feminist story through role reversal. Very intelligent piece.
DeleteShaw, loved the film. Amazing how much was revealed about the objectification of women in only ten minutes. I think it was brilliant reversing gender roles.
ReplyDeleteSheria,
ReplyDeleteLet me say that I recognize the problem of aggression in our society, sexual or otherwise and I don't have a cure in mind. In fact I tend to think we have a spectrum of such problems each demanding a different approach. One of the problems in approaching these approaches is the tendency to simplify for the purposes of uniting people behind a cause. I'm suggesting that there are different motivations that lead people to rape people and any course of action must recognize this to be effective. My post really stems from the dislike of falling back on standard arguments and political platitudes often supplied by activists. It stems from the regular practice of describing crime in general as a rapidly increasing danger as a tactic to rally support for some cause. Is public support for a lax attitude toward rape really on the increase -- really?
I do not believe, for one thing, that sexual desire plays no part in rape and I do not believe we would have a word for it if there were no such thing as sexual desire. I'm searching my memory for tales of eunuch rapists and drawing a blank, so In my opinion it's like saying armed robbery isn't about money but about assault and I see that whole thing as political and counterproductive. There are degrees and types of sexual coercion that have nothing to do with violence or causing harm and are none the less rape but without sexual desire, there's no sex and without sex it's not rape. I think that old saw serves no purpose.
I'm led to believe that rape is fairly rare in countries like Holland. If so, that would suggest that sometimes rape is a cultural problem in our country, and that it has to some degree, something to do with lack of outlet in our still fairly repressed country, prostitution and pornography being quite legal and ubiquitous and visible in that libertine land. Men who are not desperate for sex or even interested in sex don't tend to be rapists yet some persist in believing that pornography and prostitution cause rape. Perhaps this is another case of theory blindness and tolerance for absence of evidence. Are Dutch men less aggressive in other ways? in business, in football? I doubt it. I'm not willing to dismiss the argument that frustration is a factor.
Men tend to try to achieve dominance in conversation. Have you noticed? Some will tend to tone it down when asked nicely. Some of us can be trained. Some won't. Some men are self confident, others pushy and aggressive and those are often rewarded for it in most societies. When it comes to gender relations, what society admires on the football field or in business can be criminal elsewhere. Can we educate boys about this without redesigning the culture? Maybe, but looking at things like racism, that's a long slow road and full of potholes. It's hard to tell people that this or that subset of humanity is worthy of respect and get results. As has been suggested by the voice from the Cretacious, the roots of aggression worship run deep and even the tales of Gilgamesh are cautionary ones about the gods disliking the way he took indecent liberties with women. Did Siegfried rape Brunhilde? Seems that way to this modern reader. It seemed normal - laudable to medieval audiences.
ReplyDeleteIs there is something in our cultural background that suggests to men that they aren't really that much out of line by forcing themselves on women? Are we - is a good deal of the world confused as to what constitutes manliness and the acceptable limits of aggression? You bet. I think it's undeniable that we do have something along those lines, but not all rapists are of the macho sports team, fraternity house debauchery type. Some are pathological and that's not a cultural problem.
What we do about the Rape/murderers, the kidnappers, the Ted Bundys, the John Gacys the child molesters, the guys who lock women in basements, is definitely another question. Maybe the most immediately effective thing is to teach caution and prudence to potential victims even though sure, it's not that boy's fault that he was strangled and buried in the crawl space or the young lady abused at the frat party. I don't care who's insulted, I told my children not to go anywhere with strangers.
Of course as the Dino says, very few men are rapists nor are likely ever to be -- nor armed robbers or even violent people for that matter. Not that anyone here is doing it, but it's too common to condemn maleness as one of nature's mistakes and sell it as Feminism. I'm offended. I'm offended at the notion that society still condones and accepts rape as normal and worse that apathy is on the increase. Quite obviously it isn't and as to the "she was asking for it" defense, we both know that a defense lawyer will try anything and I'm sure rapists with remaining bits of conscience need to delude themselves that this was the case. People who shoot people may convince themselves it was self defense. People who steal cars consistently tell police the owner gave them permission. Sometimes they get away with it. Detestable, yes, but it's a problem that needs to be treated case by case and justice is always elusive. Do we need more female prosecuting attorneys, more female judges? I hear some of them are pretty good these days.