I think we need to stop demonizing rapists.
I feel a little strange saying this, especially when violence against women is an under-addressed issue, and most rapists go free because no one will believe that they could have committed sexual assault. Women are typically blamed while men escape any consequences for their actions.
But I think a big part of that problem is that we demonize rapists too much.
Everyone pictures rapists as psychopaths, hiding in the bushes with knives. As feminists we've worked really hard to dispel that myth, explaining over and over that most rapists assault someone they know - friends, acquaintances, dates, and partners.
A big part of the reason that people aren't catching on to what that really means is that they are still picturing men who commit sexual assault as evil or morally corrupt. If their friend isn't evil or morally corrupt, he couldn't possibly commit sexual assault.
Some rapists are just master manipulators, and hide the fact that they are vicious predators, as evil as any real human could be. I don't really believe in evil, and I've known men personally who were certainly not anywhere near it, yet still committed the horrible crime of rape. A lot of guys who commit sexual assault actually do have a conscience, and actually don't want to be sexually assaulting women.
We need to become more effective at separating the act from a good vs. evil judgment of a person. We can't be naive and think that having a polite chat with a rapist will necessarily stop him, but we have to acknowledge the complexities of individuals. There are a lot of men who need a lot of education, but we need to find a way to talk about rape that places the responsibility for rape squarely on the perpetrator's shoulders without *necessarily* condemning him forever.
We need to show people that they can reconcile their belief that their friend has a good heart with the reality that he has committed rape. Rape is a terrible crime with terrible consequences, I know this personally. But when so many men think that the whole sexual assault discussion doesn't apply to them or their friends because they aren't knowingly, intentionally, maliciously committing sex crimes, we're losing an audience that might actually want to change.
Just as we need a performance model of sex (as articulated brilliantly by Thomas Macaulay Millar in Yes Means Yes), we need a performance model of sexual assault. The crime is about the actions of an individual, not the goodness or evil in his or her heart.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Good, Evil, and Sexual Assault.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12764
I agree wholeheartedly, and would like to extend this idea to social justice as a whole. The "but she's a good person" defense for rape, violence and bigotry needs to go.
i think you're really brave for bringing this up and agree with you 100%.
How do you propose we do that?
I'm not sure if I know precisely what you're asking me.
I think we (on a broad level, not on an individual level when dealing with our own rapes or rapes in your life) need to just stay out of the good person vs evil person debate.
Instead, we need to focus on condemning what a person DID.
You can't prove what's in someone's hearts. You can't win an argument over whether a person is good or evil. All you can prove is what they DID. So, whether they should be classified as a "good person" or an "evil person" is irrelevant. What they did is the only relevant thing.
A sentiment I love seeing affirmed so often on feministing is that patriarchy hurts men too.
Of course men who rape are fully accountable for their actions, but a patriarchal society is ruled by power struggles and the value of dominance. These values are given their full expression in a rape. Rapists aren't born, they're made, and they don't exist in a vacuum.
I agree. Studies have found that majority of convicted rapists don't think that what they did was rape, even if they used a weapon. Why? They don't identify as "rapists."
"A lot of guys who commit sexual assault actually do have a conscience, and actually don't want to be sexually assaulting women."
Bullshit. If men didn't want to sexually assault women, then they wouldn't.
I agree that rapists aren't born, they're created. That doesn't mean I have to see them as good people. jesus christ. This reminds me of all my old friends who stayed friends with my assaulter and not me. Awesome. Holy fuck, this ruined my day.
I agree Kate. I just this week made a community post about how one of my "friends" is still friends with my rapist. And I was bombarded by over 25 posts from people here telling me to dump that loser because he wasn't a true friend. And I agree with them.
Yes rapists are created, and demonizing then as the stalker in the bushes doesn't help our cause, but neither does saying that they can be good guys (which is basically what I was reading your post to say OP). I'm sorry, once you rape you are no longer a good guy. The ability to call yourself that is gone. And if some other men feel alienated from the conversation because they feel I'm attacking their friend who maybe didn't really mean to sexually assault me and is really a good guy at heart then they can go fuck themselves too.
We can still educate about the different kinds of rape out there (stranger in the bushes, date rape, acquaintance rape, etc...) without placating to the men and worrying about hurting their feelings because we might accidentally call out the fact that they or their friends are in fact asshole rapists.
I'm not sure the OP is so much as saying that rapists can be good people, but that rapists are often OTHERWISE good people, and that demonizing rapists as monsters makes it easier for rapists, potential rapists and peers of rapists to say "well, that doesn't apply to me or my friends, because we are good normal people, who don't plot attacking women in alleys."
And yes, I agree with the OP, because I've had friends with that mindset. It is difficult for them to admit that they are rapists or even committed rape (even if they can be shown how their behavior was predatory) because they hide behind the but-i'm-a-nice-guy-and-not-anything-like-a-rapist.
I left out the conclusion I intended to draw, which is that the more people that recognize that they have or are capable of committing rapes, the less rapes will happen in the future.
This is basically what I thought the OP was saying too. I ultimately agree with them, but I can also see where the objections are coming from. A lot of women live in fear knowing that any man can be a rapist, but not enough men see themselves that way. They think "I'm a nice guy, so I can't be capable of rape. If I sleep with a woman without her consent, it can't be rape, because I'm a nice guy, and nice guys aren't capable of rape." It's a cognitive dissonance/vicious cycle thing.
Yes but then what is it we should do exactly? I'm not saying that rapists don't do otherwise good things. Like maybe my rapist reads to blind kids. Do I think the fact that he's a rapist overshadows the good he might do? Hell yes. But I'm not going to say reading to the blind is bad obviously. So what is the solution? Go around saying good people rape too? I'm not willing to ever call him a good person. I call him rapist. I honestly don't see a solution here.
Its not about how good or how bad a person is: the important thing is stopping rape. To do this, we need to make sure that those capable of committing rape are aware of this capability, so that they will never, ever rape (or if they have, they will never rape again).
I was raped four years ago by the last person I would have expected: a fellow feminist, who believed at the time she could not commit rape because she was not a rapist. What she did was terrible, but eventually she acknowledged the rape and genuinely apologized. That is a level of closure most rape victims do not get, and it did a surprising amount of good for my anger over the experience. While I may never be able to forgive her for the act itself, I am not worried that she will ever rape again.
But I think, if she was aware she was committing rape at the time, she wouldn't have done it.
Really, well I too have confronted my rapist. He laughed in my face. Said I was making things up. Said I wanted it.
So that's great that you're certain that if your rapist knew she was commiting rape she wouldn't have done it but I'm 100% positive that my rapist got off on the fact that he was forcing me to have sex with him. And that he'd do it again if he had the chance. He's already done it to one other girl that I know of.
I respect your anger here, and I don't mean to imply on any level that the man who raped you is an acceptable human being or should be treated like one. Clearly, his behavior reveals the extent of his capacity for hurting people, and his attitude after the rape itself is equally reprehensible.
I want you to know that I had the same experience. The guy who sexually assaulted me laughed about it. He knew exactly what he was doing. I can't describe how much it hurt. And I'm so sorry that that happened to you.
I'm not saying that there aren't rapists who aren't all-around horrible, awful people.
My post might not apply to your situation at all.
The post is not meant to say all or most rapists are "good people". It's to say that I think the best strategy in getting guys to pay attention and take responsibility for their actions is to refrain from engaging in the "you're a good person vs. you're an evil person" argument at all and condemn the ACTS of sexual assault, so people who think they and their friends are "good people" don't have an excuse to tune out.
This is a broad strategy, and doesn't apply to *every* individual situation. The guy who did that to you should be locked up. And if you think he's a bad person, you're probably right and I support you.
But, I think that in the broader strategy of engagement/education we need to leave the good person vs. bad person debate behind.
I'm sorry that happened to you. Thanks for being generous and brave enough to use your personal life in this discussion.
llevinso,
I'd really like to talk to you some time. I read your post a couple days ago and it hit home with me, except my situation is kind of different. you can contact me at momzclass at yahoo dot com. i would really appreciate it! i wanted to reply to your last post but i just...didn't feel up to typing it all out at the time.
thanks,
sarah
I agree that rapists aren't born, they're created. That doesn't mean I have to see them as good people.
But that's just what this post is NOT saying. It's not about the labeling of someone "good" or "evil," it's about addressing the actions, their consequences, and how all of this fits in society.
Rapists do bad things, obviously, if they've raped someone. But it's not as easy as writing someone off as "evil," and shunning them forever. This is a complex, society-wide problem that is not getting fixed.
This post is suggesting that labeling rape as "evil" does more harm than good for both the victims and society. This is because rapists do other things in their life which many may consider laudable, friendly, or even good by others. By having the label "rapist" ultimately be associated with "evil," people reject the accusation by the victim as lies (because they know the other aspects of this person's personality that aren't "evil") rather than accepting that someone they know and like has committed a terrible act.
Perhaps, by dropping the labels that pigeonhole three dimensional people, we should focus on the acts, their repercussions, and finding a way to help the survivor heal and help the offender realize and change his behavior.
exactly. this is an argument that I think needs to be made. that a-almost nobody is entirely good or bad, so trying to say that is going to make anti-rape advocates seem like liars-and b, if a rapist is "all bad" then obviously the victim was lying, because most people know a, at least a bit. especially for their friends. if a rapist has to be entirely bad, then they will in their head prove the victim wrong by counterexample.
Amen.
First of all, I'm sorry that this post ruined your day. To anyone else who feels the same way, I'm sorry I upset you.
I'm a survivor too, and some of my friends have stayed friends with the guy who did it, and that really hurts.
ElleStar has it exactly. I don't want to say that they're 'good people' or 'evil people'. We need to condemn the act without making any judgments on whether someone is a good or bad person.
You can't prove what's in someone's heart. When we make it about "what they are" instead of "what they did", then all of a sudden it makes sense to say "well he's an upstanding citizen, look at all these other great things he's done, he's a great friend he can't possibly be a rapist". well, i would never say such a thing but to a lot of people that makes sense.
when you make it about *what they did* and ONLY that, then people can stop appealing to other aspects of someone's personality to prove they didn't do it.
This isn't going to solve everything overnight, but an argument of "you're a good person" or "you're a bad person" is unwinnable. We need to look at what we can prove, and that's what someone DID. That's why I want to condemn the act, and refrain entirely from making good vs. evil judgments.
I am very uncomfortable with removing the stigma of raping even slightly.
To me, a person who rapes is a rapist. A person who murders is a murderer. It doesn't matter if they also donate to charity and rescue kittens.
I don't think that it is effective to say that "we aren't calling you a bad person; you are just a person who did a bad thing." A person who does a bad thing has made a choice to do so - a conscious choice to deprive someone else of their rights and physical autonomy.
Unlike many other crimes that can have mitigating factors in the motive itself (i.e. killing in self-defense, stealing to feed your family), rape is not a justifiable crime in any circumstance. There isn't a rationale for raping someone that holds up to logical scrutiny.
I am sure not everyone agrees with me, and that is ok. However, for me, I think this is a dangerous way to give rapists and rape apologists an "out" whereby someone is a "good person" and deserves leniency - even more so than the current rape=evil mindset.
"I am sure not everyone agrees with me, and that is ok. However, for me, I think this is a dangerous way to give rapists and rape apologists an "out" whereby someone is a "good person" and deserves leniency - even more so than the current rape=evil mindset."
Obviously I can't speak for the OP, but I don't think they're arguing for giving rapists an "out" depending on their "good character". Right now, a rapist's otherwise "good character" is ALREADY an out - many people will look at them and disbelieve the victim because the rapist "is such a good person". By removing the stigma that all rapists are evil in every aspect of their character, we can effectively deal with someone who rapes and donates to charity and loves kittens without any elements of their personality/actions negating one another. Essentially, they can be punished for the crime they committed without the blinders of good or bad character.
I don't mean that the OP's intention is to give that out - more that by using this type of language we somehow legitimize the out that people are already using. By accepting the premise that the rapist can be an otherwise good person I feel that we would be giving legitimacy to that excuse.
I'll be very honest here. It is difficult for me to get to a point of choosing to support this because it is almost word for word what one of my attackers said to me to prove that he should not go to jail. I don't want to grant that any support.
I would prefer that potential rapists and actual rapists understand that by choosing to do this evil thing that they *are* being evil - or at the very least being incredibly horrible to another human. My worry is that while we would not mean it that way, it may be interpreted as some sort of sliding scale of badness whereas right now many just don't want to admit they are doing something horrible and use this same language to excuse themselves.
but see-what they're saying is that this argument shouldn't be a reason your attacker doesn't go to jail. I don't know your story, but I can only assume that you don't think these other things make your attack matter any less. and that's what the OP is arguing. that the attack is what matters.
Right - I do understand this. I will try to clarify below in my response to gracie-bird.
"...more that by using this type of language we somehow legitimize the out that people are already using."
I don't quite understand - is there any way you could explain this for me? How does understanding that people can be good in some parts of their life and still rape legitimize rape? It seems to me that by understand people can be good in various aspects of their character and STILL commit rape, we increase the likelihood of
a) prosecuting rapists despite their otherwise good character - in other words, focusing on the crime they've committed and not other elements that have little to do with that crime; charity, kittens, etc.
b) widening the boundaries of what we consider rape or a rapist to be - hiding in the bushes with a knife - to include those that are usually left out of these definitions and therefore given an out. Again, I don't see how widening these boundaries legitimizes that out - it in fact narrows it if not taking it away completely. A "good" college boy who commits rape would no longer have the excuse of being good, far from having a more legitimized excuse.
"It is difficult for me to get to a point of choosing to support this because it is almost word for word what one of my attackers said to me to prove that he should not go to jail. I don't want to grant that any support."
I understand this must be hard for you, and I'm very sorry to hear of your experience. But I don't think the argument is that because rapists can be "good" they should not go to jail, as your attacker was so horribly trying to suggest, but DESPITE the fact that they are "good" they can still be capable of rape. Such an argument as the latter would absolutely negate the first.
In my case, I got very little support from the people around me when I came out about my rape because my rapist was such a nice guy, so I'm obviously in support of the OPs argument. I can understand if we don't come to terms on this.
Thank you for your kind words. I will try to explain it in a way that makes better sense. It may be it is just one of those things that makes better sense inside my head than out - as it is based on my own experiences.
As an example, there are 2 crimes committed
(a) A person rapes someone
(b) A person murders people (in this case serial killer for a clear crime that has no mitigation)
In case (a), the rape, when the statement is made, "X is a good person." Our current culture takes that to mean 'could not be guilty of rape.' In case (b), the serial murders, the statement made is subtly different - "X seemed like a good person." Our current culture understands that if the person is a serial killer, then despite outward appearances they were not a good person. It isn't seen by society and courts as a mitigating factor that the person also does good things and people like him/her. Unfortunately, in situations of rape this is not the case. In most cases of rape where the attacker is described as a good/nice person otherwise it is used as a factor that is seen to somehow lessen their attack or intent.
To me, it will not effectively change that by granting that someone could be "nice" yet commit rape. I would prefer a more detailed focus on the fact that despite *seeming* nice, people can harbor dangerous ideas and intentions.
It would be easier for me to make that jump if most people had the same reaction to "X is just a good person that also killed a lot of people" and "X is just a good person that also raped someone." For whatever reason, there is a culture that accepts that the first is absurd, but somehow accepts the second as fair.
It is never the thoughtful feminists and other well-intentioned intelligent people I worry about. From seeing how even very clear statements against rape have been misconstrued into victim blaming and used as rationalization by rape apologists, I am just concerned with how our adoption of this type of language may be embraced by the very people we want to reach to convince of the seriousness of the crime.
Fair enough. I think we essentially believe the same things - the crime is tantamount and the personality or character is largely irrelevant - but are just focusing on different outcomes and sides of the issue. And I won't say that the way of thinking that the OP proscribed is the be-all-end-all solution to rape, I can definitely see the downsides that you're talking about.
In any case, we're getting a good dialogue out of it :)
I wonder if a better way to frame the issue than "Rapists can be good people" would be "Anyone has the potential to corrupt themselves by raping, and thus we ALL need to be very very careful about consent." I totally understand what the OP is getting at, especially since some people who TRY to be good people have serious impulse control issues and commit sex crimes (and thus do not really succeed in being good people). There are serious inherent problems with saying "good people can be rapists", but the truth of the matter is that people are incredibly complicated and many, if not most, rapists are not the kind of obvious monsters whom nobody would feel guilty about sending to jail.
I'm so sorry to hear that happened to you. He deserves to be locked up.
We disagree on strategy, but please know that I would never want to do anything that would make it easier for him to escape punishment.
I absolutely understand that - and I wish he were locked up. I am glad we are able to have this kind of dialogue. I think it can only help us all better work towards our goals.
Or, more succinctly:
We should recognize the "good character" or rapists not in the service of proving that rapists can be good, but in the service of proving that good people - despite all assumptions to the contrary - can rape.
I don't mean to give them an out.
What I want, is for us to say the ACT of sexual assault is horrific in itself. It doesn't matter if you're a good person or a bad person, what matters is that you did these things, and those things constitute sexual assault, and that IN ITSELF is the problem.
I want this model to take the intent out of it altogether. It doesn't matter if you had good intentions or bad intentions. What matters is that you perpetrated these actions.
I wrote this post BECAUSE i so firmly believe that it doesn't matter what other good things you do, or what intentions you had, sexual assault is sexual assault.
"What I want, is for us to say the ACT of sexual assault is horrific in itself. It doesn't matter if you're a good person or a bad person, what matters is that you did these things, and those things constitute sexual assault, and that IN ITSELF is the problem.
I want this model to take the intent out of it altogether. It doesn't matter if you had good intentions or bad intentions. What matters is that you perpetrated these actions."
I don't think that it is effective to remove the value judgment from the person. If the act is horrific, then there is no question of whether someone is a good or bad person. I would think that people who commit horrific acts can be described as 'bad.'
People may not wish to see themselves or their friends as capable of horrific acts. That won't change by removing good/bad from the discussion. A person who rapes commits a horrific act. A person who has positive feelings towards the rapist will always have a difficult time coming to terms with that. I think we have too much cultural wiggle-room to allow us to divorce the actions from the actor.
I value your thoughts on this, but I don't agree with the language of your conclusions. I am sure both want to lessen the number of rapes and increase the rate of convictions for the guilty, but I think we have different opinions on what will help us reach that goal - which is not a bad thing. Healthy discussion will give us a better chance overall.
So I have a question because I'm curious...
Let's say someone does a crime and goes through the judicial system, is sentenced and fulfills his/her sentence. Do you think it is still fair for the person to be stigmatized and seen solely as an offender? Can he/she ever be seen as a person who paid his/her debt to society and is reformed?
I'd say that is up to the individual. Each person must decide for themselves how to handle that. For me, personally, a convicted rapist, child molester, or murderer - having served their sentence - can rejoin society. However, that does not mean I am required to socialize with them. I would not choose to be friends with those people, but as long as they do not break any laws and do attempt to be productive members of society they can obviously live as they wish.
Mariella,
I've read your post several times and read your responses. I get now what you're trying to say. I have several thoughts. But I must ask you to please, please, choose your words more carefully. I'm not usually one to react negatively to someone's phrasing, but I think the phrasing of your post is what I lashed out at. (It is very well written, you obviously gave thought to your word choice but I was unprepared for the connotation that I took away.) Such as:
"I don't really believe in evil, and I've known men personally who were certainly not anywhere near it, yet still committed the horrible crime of rape."
"We need to show people that they can reconcile their belief that their friend has a good heart with the reality that he has committed rape."
With this wording, the opposite of what you were trying to say came across to me.
I also object to this: "I don't want to say that they're 'good people' or 'evil people'. We need to condemn the act without making any judgments on whether someone is a good or bad person."
Nuh-uh. You rape, you are open to judgments on your character. You rape me, I judge you. You rape anyone, I judge you. Your good person card is taken away, and yes I will condemn you forever.
I think the solution lies in changing people's attitudes before vs. after the fact. The prevention is what needs to be concentrated on. When someone is accepted as a rapist, they deserve all the fury that is coming their way. I agree that it is hard to show that someone is a rapist when they don't fit into the old stereotype of what "kind of person" a rapist is.
What we need to show is that ANYONE is capable of rape, not soften our reaction to those widely recognized as rapists. The fury needs to spread, not be toned down.
Ok, I understand your problem with my choices of words, but I have to stick by them because they're true in some circumstances. I did say that some rapists are as close to evil as any human could be. At the same time, I personally have been sexually assaulted by a guy who is not evil, who according to all his friends has a good heart (not the same guy I posted about before who knew what he was doing and laughed at me). And actually, he does. He was a very close friend of mine, and he does have a good heart, and did not think of what he was doing as sexual assault.
That doesn't change what he did. I was still just as traumatized by it. It makes me really angry at him, and I'm not friends with him anymore. But the point of all this is - I'm sorry my wording hurt you, and I tried to make it clear that it didn't apply to everyone's situation, but it does apply to some. It applies to enough that I think we need to seriously think about strategy here, and who we can reach and how to reach them.
The reason why I see this attitude as part of prevention is that I am sick of having the same conversation with guys about date and acquaintance rape: I tell them the statistics, they believe me; I tell them men of every social group do this, they accept that; I tell them that, consequently, people that we are all friends with do this, and they say "I'm sure none of MY friends would do this!"
That's why I feel like we need to be able to say: "you have this great friendship with that person, I believe you. You've personally witnessed this person treat women well, I believe you. That may have all been real - but this person still committed this crime. I feel like men think that in order to believe their friend committed rape they have to also believe that every good aspect they've seen about their friend wasn't real. I want people to reconcile their personal experiences with the reality that their friends (or they themselves) committed sexual assault.
As for your other comment, if someone rapes me I absolutely have the right to condemn them forever. If someone rapes another person, I would also privately judge them. But, in terms of public engagement and education, I want to follow the strategy of "what you did" not "what you are".
And when I say public, that would include everyone outside my close circle of family and best friends. But that's just me.
"I tell them that, consequently, people that we are all friends with do this, and they say "I'm sure none of MY friends would do this!"
I don't keep rapists as friends. So I can see how you friends how problems with that statement. If you're not offering them any proof, why should your friends be suspicious of everyone they know? That's a shitty way to live and a way of thinking I got over a long time ago.
The people I consider friends are people I know wouldn't rape. It took me a long time to trust people again and I'm very cautious with new acquaintances and very few become friends. I'm sure I know people who are capable of rape. But am I friends with them? Hell no.
As for your comment of public vs. private--no one who so violates any woman or man with and act of rape deserves to be afforded privacy in the public space. If you violate someone's body, your privacy deserves to be on the chopping block next.
I stand by my statement. The fury against rapists needs to spread, not be toned down.
"The people I consider friends are people I know wouldn't rape. It took me a long time to trust people again and I'm very cautious with new acquaintances and very few become friends. I'm sure I know people who are capable of rape. But am I friends with them? Hell no."
But that's the whole point of this post. EVERYBODY thinks that their friends are good people, and not capable of rape. You think they're great people, because you've consistently seen that side of them.
Let's say for example that my best friend is a man. We've been best friends for 10 years, and he's amazing. Some woman accuses him of rape. Who do I believe? Obviously my friend, because I've only seen him do good stuff. He doesn't kill cats, he doesn't beat up children, he doesn't rob banks, he's not this horrible charicature from television. That's the whole issue. He could very well be a serial rapist, and I would never believe it, just because he was a 'nice guy'.
Yeah, I knew someone would comment on that.
And true, no one could be 100% sure. But the people I allow myself to get close to are people I believe would never, ever do that to someone. I didn't make friends with any men for a year after my assault until I met someone that allowed me to believe that not all men would do something like that. Now, I only befriend people who give me that same feeling.
Now there are people I know, have even hung out with on occasion that I would not be surprised to find out they have assaulted someone. But I'm not friends with them because I don't trust them enough.
As for the last part, someone very close to me was accused of rape and arrested. I knew him very well and he was a great person--volunteer, quiet, sweet. And when he was accused? I believed the girl I never met.
Well, I AM offering them proof. But unfortunately, they tend to either keep saying "well I just don't think that guy would actually commit RAPE. he might do some things wrong but I don't think he would do THAT". That's where I get the idea that some people have this cartoonish version of what a rapist is and that needs to change.
Also, sometimes when I say "person x in our social group sexually assaulted me" they're like, oh yeah well i could see that about HIM but I bet no one ELSE i know would do it. One of the people that sexually assaulted me was known to be "sleazy". So some people believe ME, but still, when they hear it about other people will still say, "no, he might have some problem, but he wouldn't commit RAPE" - as if rapists are the devil incarnate. We need to lower the burden of proof to show that you don't have to think someone is the devil incarnate to believe that they would commit rape.
Also, when I said public vs. private, I wasn't saying rapists deserve to not be publicly shamed. I'm saying maybe I, personally, would make a judgment call and decide that someone is a bad person, but in SOME circumstances, for SOME audiences, I don't think that's an effective strategy to take when we're trying to get men to engage and educate.
Obviously you disagree, and you might be right. This is a strategy I'm developing based on my own experiences (both of sexual assault and the aftermath, and my experiences as an activist). I'm human though and I could be totally wrong. I don't mean to offend everyone, I'm just trying to address this aspect of rape culture that I find problematic in the most effective way *I* think I can.
and YOU might not be friends with rapists, but your average guy who is totally ignorant on rape culture most likely IS friends with at least one person who has committed these crimes, probably more. sometimes I know this for a fact when I'm having a conversation with people, but depending on who it happened to I can't always name ppl (b/c the survivor's wishes come first).
Right. Well, *I've* only been speaking for my own situation. So...yeah, I knew that.
Let me ask you this: how will stopping the demonization of rapists make people more willing to believe their friends could rape? When it comes to people you are friends with that are accused of rape, they don't disbelieve because they see rapists only as evil men hiding in an alley. They disbelieve because that's their friend. No matter what they have in their head for who constitutes a rapist, they still won't want to believe because that is a loved one.
And for that matter, how will making people open to the idea that their friends could rape solve anything? The problem is society's respect for women, not the belief that all people are good. Unfortunately, too many people do not think that sexual assault is a big deal--not because of the people that commit it, but because they don't see enough value in the people it happens to.
"Unfortunately, too many people do not think that sexual assault is a big deal--not because of the people that commit it, but because they don't see enough value in the people it happens to."
I think you're right about that. I don't think this is the be-all end-all solution to rape.
By convincing guys that people they know could commit the crime, I'm trying to get these guys to understand that "good guys" like them need to be very involved in rape prevention. I think a lot of men write off rape prevention as something they need to be involved in because the men who commit rape are evil scary random psychopaths.
This is why I think a lot of people don't see the problem with all rape prevention being aimed at women. If only psychopaths commit rape, you're not going to change their mind by telling them not to do it, so all we can do about the problem is tell women not to drink and to use their umbrellas as a weapon in case they're attacked. They don't think their good all american boys are doing this.
I want to convince your average, "normal", "good" guy that he too needs education about rape and rape prevention.
This. This I agree with completely.
Ok, well I'm sorry I offended you so much before I could finally articulate at least some of my position in a way that you could connect with. (sorry b/c I know how stressful it is to hear stuff you find offensive on this subject).
This is part of why I write posts sometimes - I have a small group of friends that I discuss these things with, but getting feedback about approach so you can adjust and fine-tune your strategy when it comes to activism is really important.
So, even though I know you disagreed with many things I said, I hope we can both respect each other's commitment to the cause and appreciate the value of talking about stuff like this.
I agree to a certain extent. And I'm so sorry to hear that this post ruined your day. *hugs*
However, I think that the OP has an element of truth. I think that the vast majority of men who rape don't see their actions as rape. Maybe they're being a little pushy, maybe they're jerks sometimes, but they're not RAPISTS, God no! Rapists are scary psychopaths who hide in the bushes and rape virgins at knifepoint. And compared to that standard, what's the harm in pressuring that cute girl at the bar into having a few more drinks?
But I differ from the OP on one major issue. I absolutely believe that anyone who commits rape (or defends someone who does) is a horrible, horrible person. I don't care if they don't realize that they committed/are defending the Crime Of Rape - the fact is, they clearly see women's bodily autonomy as unimportant if they think it's okay to go farther than she wants, or get her drunk to lower her inhibitions, etc etc. And that, to me, is just as bad. Lack of education and the excessive demonization of rapists is a problem, sure, but the biggest issues is still lack of respect for women's autonomy.
I don't mean to say that people who commit sexual assault can't do other, good things. But much like a racist asshole is going to be a racist asshole no matter what good work she does in her community, a rapist is going to be a piece of shit rapist with no respect for half the human race, even if he volunteers at the homeless shelter 7 days a week.
I don't know that I can really focus on just the crime here. Perhaps we can do that with, say, thieves (a person can steal, but they might have a good reason for it and they can usually be rehabilitated), but something as horrific as rape? What about murder? Can we separate the person who commits a murder from the act, and appreciate all of his good qualities, despite what he's done? I don't know about that.
"a rapist is going to be a piece of shit rapist with no respect for half the human race, even if he volunteers at the homeless shelter 7 days a week."
I agree that a rapist is a piece of shit despite charity work.
But... if every man who has committed sexual assault is doomed and incapable of change... we're all doomed. 40% of Canadian women have been assaulted in our lifetimes. I don't know how many men have committed sexual assault, but it's a lot. If they, and everyone who supports them, are all incapable of change, then the world is doomed.
From grabbing a woman's ass without consent to torturing and raping, it's all sexual assault, and it's all traumatic, horrible and just... so so terrible.
But again. If everyone who has ever committed sexual assault, and everyone who has ever been a rape apologist/not believed a woman when she said she was raped - if all these people are incapable of change, why don't we just give up now?
I agree with this completely.
I 100% agree with you that a lack of respect for women's bodily autonomy is the biggest problem. It is BY FAR the biggest problem. You're absolutely right. I'm just looking for the best strategy to get people to listen, engage and learn what they need to know about women's bodily autonomy. If we can't reach anyone we can't change anything.
Thank you! As I was reading the post, I felt like it was opposite day and I didn't get the memo.
"I think we need to stop demonizing rapists."
Uhh, you mean START demonizing rapists, right....? NO? (quietly retreats to the radfem blogs from whence she came)
she means stop requiring demon before we'll believe rapist, if you read the post/comments
I'm not sure why people think that those who disagree with this post didn't read it or didn't read the comments. I did. I still disagree. Perhaps the post was poorly worded and that is the reason that I disagree, but I disagree nonetheless.
I tried to make it clear that when I said we needed to stop demonizing rapists, it was a little strange because violence against women is NOT taken seriously ENOUGH.
But everyone's against rape in theory. It's just as another commenter said - people think they have to see someone as a demon before they'll believe rape, and I think that needs to change.
But I respect your disagreement.
I agree. This whole thing sounded ridiculously permissive.
We need to communicate why certain actions that men don't think of as rape are still rape (ie getting a woman drunk or coercing her into saying yes even without violence). But the people who do that are still bad people. Not that they just did a bad thing, but there is at least a part of them that is bad. Just because you're not a strange masked man doing the raping doesn't mean you aren't bad. Friends who rape are bad. Friends who rape because they didn't consider the woman's feelings are bad.
An almost retorical situation and question...
Situation: A parent sexually assaults their child.
Question: Despite that despicable act, is it possible the parent still loves their child?
A lot of guys who commit sexual assault actually do have a conscience, and actually don't want to be sexually assaulting women ~ OP
There is quite a bit of criminological research into the personality traits and one of the traits that many criminals have is a high measure of impulsiveness.
That's one reason those that suffer from Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder are more likely to commit crime, including sexual assaults, than those without FASD.
And that is just one diagnosis/affliction that increases someone's impulsiveness.
I definitely get what you're saying, although from a slightly different angle. I ran into this in a gothic literature class during a discussion of the concept of "evil" and people were using Hitler as an example of "evil".
The problem is, defining someone as "evil" is an othering action. It separates them from us. They're not part of the human race, they're not part of our society, they're EVIL and therefore their actions aren't anything worth analyzing in the context of our society. 'Cause if someone's evil, and is operating out of evilness, well, that's all the explanation there is for it, right? It's just something in them that we can't help. 'Cause it's scary to even admit for a second that we share something in common with these people.
But that's dangerous. Once you've cast them out, you do society a huge disservice. This is the chance to ask, "Why did they do this terrible thing? What about our world allowed this to happen? What can we do in the future to prevent it?" It's far safer to claim the Hitlers and the rapists and everyone else we'd rather push away so that we can understand them and understand how to stop others from becoming like them. "They're a bad person" might be comforting, but it just does not cut it if we want to make this world a better place.
also very true. I like this point and kind of brought it up on a similar rape depcition thread (though that was specifically about movies) if we make people who rape so evil and other that we can't possibly have any question about their morailty, we let ourselves off the hook for examining our actions.
YES exactly. Thank you. So well said.
alixana, do you go to UCI? Just because, I have a friend who taught a Gothic lit class there this quarter and he was telling me about the exact discussion.
Nope, I went to Bowling Green State University. Funny how conversations aren't really all that unique despite being in different places with different people, eh?
Something similar has been found in efforts to educate children about potential abductions. Based on what we teach them, they are usually looking for someone who visually looks scary--sometimes, even, an actual "monster." But of course that is not the case with most adults who exploit children.
I disagree with your premise that many rapists are not morally corrupt. Rape is a heinous crime and only a person who is extremely unethical would rape someone. Some people would rather die than be raped. For example, the woman who wrote "A Woman in Berlin: Eight Weeks in the Conquered City--A Diary" said that some women in post-war Germany committed suicide to avoid being raped. And rape victims commit suicide much more often than the average person. So rape is an extremely heinous crime that some believe is worse than murder.
There are thousands of crimes (legal and illegal) and a person's morality is determined largely by how low they will go. All other things being the same, person who jaywalked ten times has higher morals than a person who robbed a store ten times. In order for a person to decide to rape someone they have to be at the near bottom of the morality scale. Therefore, people should see rapists as morally corrupt.
I agree that rapists are not 100% evil because no one is. But there are enormous differences in people's morality and rapists are among the least moral people and should be punished severely.
The problem with the rapists in question here--the rapists who do not see themselves as rapists--is that they are largely unaware of their victims' plight. They see their act in shades of gray or as somehow not really rape. (Make no mistake, this is every bit as awful as plotting rape).
I am, by no means, advocating leniency for rape or amnesty for rapists, but I think the OP is on the right track for reframing our concept of who rapists are.
Rape happens by real people. By real normal people (who believe in their heart of hearts that they are not evil, just like you and me). And until real normal people realize that their own actions could constitute rape, or their friends behavior at a party last night was rape and they failed to stop it, these kinds of rapes are going to continue to happen.
I agree with the OP that people should stop thinking of rapists as monsters and start thinking of them as people because that helps us identify them in order to prosecute them. The part I disagree with is the assumption that rapists aren't morally corrupt. We (and they) should see them for what they are: people who have extremely low morals.
Rape happens by real people. By real normal people (who believe in their heart of hearts that they are not evil, just like you and me).
I'm not sure what your definition of normal is. Are you assuming there is such a group as abnormal people and that rapists don't belong to that group? Normal is a vague term.
I agree with the OP that people should stop thinking of rapists as monsters and start thinking of them as people because that helps us identify them in order to prosecute them. The part I disagree with is the assumption that rapists aren't morally corrupt. We (and they) should see them for what they are: people who have extremely low morals.
I'm not sure what your definition of normal is. Normal is a vague term. Criminologist Lonnie Athens found that people who commit violent crimes think differently than people who avoid committing violent crimes. I strongly recommend his book called "Violent Criminal Acts and Actors."
Right, but when I said "morally corrupt" I meant... people can say "I've seen that guy do the right thing with women on other occasions, I've seen him help people" etc etc... like they've seen that the person has some values so they can't have committed rape.
I realize now that I actually meant morally BANKRUPT - i got my term wrong. Sorry.
I was trying to get at the fact that lots of guys have value systems and think they're honourable but have a huge blind spot when it comes to women. That doesn't make it better, but I think it's hard for some people to understand that lots of people do have values but then totally lack respect for women.
I totally agree with this.
It's impossible for a man to be honorable and rape women at the same time or have a low opinion of women. Women are half the population of the world. Women risk their lives for men (and women) to be born. Since a woman risked her life to give life to a man, it is impossible for him to be honorable and not respect women.
However, I do agree with you that a rapist can have some values. But the act of rape is so horrible that when a man decides to rape a person and does rape then the man sinks to an extremely low moral level. They can reform their values. But they would have to do an enormous amount of good deeds for the victim who may never recover despite the apology and the good deeds for him/her.
Yeha, I think the point is not that the rape doesn't make them a bad person, jsut that they can be a good person in other ways and still be a rapist.
I like the idea of an ad campaign showing a guy, say, working as a nurse and saving a life, or teaching in a classroom, and then cutting to an image of him taking a drunk girl back to his apartment, then flashing across the screen: It doesn't matter who you are. The minute you have sex with someone who is impaired or didn't consent, YOU ARE A RAPIST. Get out the image that rapist can mean a person who can very likable, who saves lives and helps people-- but who raped someone. I think that the best way to do this is NOT to say they are a good person (or a bad person), but rather that they can do good things and come across as a nice guy and still be a rapist.
Describing it as not "demonizing rapists" isn't perfectly accurate. What I think the OP and the rest of us want is to educate people in the idea that people can do good things and still be capable of rape; that people are still rapists if they commit a rape no matter what they are like in other areas. Basically, present rapists as friendly, nice people who still, for some reason, are secretly that messed up and even they may not realize it. Stop showing rapists as perverts lurking in bushes or even frat boys with date-rape drugs and show them as lovers, friends, partners, people with good jobs and lives.
I like that idea for an ad campaign. I'd love to see that kind of thing as well.
This is brilliant. First thing I've seen in years that I truly believe will make a REAL difference. Does anyone know how we could actually get this done? Perhaps NOW or another organization would be willing to put it on? I would definitely donate money.
Maybe I should start a new post about this, or email someone on staff here. Brianna, would you mind if I did that? (I would credit you of course, or if you'd rather do it yourself that's cool.)
Go right ahead.
Rape is inherently immoral. Thus, everyone who rapes is morally corrupt, no matter what else they do in life.
But I do understand the point that rapists come in all shapes and sizes. Even someone who's a paragon of virtue in all other ways can still be a rapist. Which begs the question: How do women distingusih between rapists and men who won't rape them? Is there any good way? Obviously not every guy is a potential rapist, or else it wouldn't make sense for women to ever live with them, so is there a way to tell who's who? Or is it all a roll of the dice?
Talking to people often reveals their morals. To find out if a man is willing to rape someone you could ask him questions about whether he thinks women and men are equal, whether he thinks women exist for men's pleasure, whether he thinks it's acceptable for a man to steal a woman's body, etc. Also, you could find out his history to see if he is violent,specifically if he has been violent against women who have not physically harmed him.
Sexism is the main reason why men rape so figuring out how sexist a man is will help a woman determine whether he is willing to rape someone. The evidence shows that male dominance causes rape. Men dominate women in our society politically, economically and socially, thus we suffer rape. I read one of Sanday's books about a gender equal society: the Minangkabau. The book called Women at the Center describes the Minangkabau society where women have as much power as men (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~psanday/). Sanday lived with the Minangkabau for many years all summer each year and though she did a thorough investigation she found no rape and no domestic violence. There is division of labor so that women dominate some power centers and men dominate other power centers. For example, Minangkabau women inherit all property and have more economic power than men. But overall there is roughly equal gender power. Sanday said the people are very nice and the men are nurturing like women. Sanday wrote two books about rape so she's an expert (Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus, A Woman Scorned: Acquaintance Rape on Trial). She says what motivated her to write about rape was the amazing difference she saw in the way women were treated in the gender equal societies versus the way women were treated in the United States. Her studies document that rape is a problem when men dominate women in society. Thus, to end rape it is necessary to end male domination.
http://journaloffeministinsight.blogspot.com/2008/12/male-dominance-causes-rape.html
But I've known guys who would say (and honestly believe) that men and women were equal, that rape is wrong, that men aren't entitled to women's bodies, and yet they still have committed sexual assault. That's the problem. As much as we don't like to admit it, some people are actually unaware of what they're doing. And that does NOT make it any better, but they might change if they would realize what they're doing! So how do we reach those guys?
A lot of guys aren't recognizing their actions as sexual assault because they have this totally extreme vision of rape as a psychopath getting kicks out of torturing women and almost killing them.. then they look at their own actions and think they might have been a bit pushy but it wasn't RAPE - that terrible psychopathic crime.
I'm trying to find a way to show these men the disconnect between their stated ideals and their actions. They have a tendency to assume that if they're accused to rape, we're saying they were lying about those ideals, and the fact is, there are a significant number of people who *honestly believe* they respect women, but still commit sexual assault. I need them to see that they're not necessarily LYING.. their intent might honestly not have been to commit sexual assault, but their *actions* still constituted sexual assault (and that is a terrible, terrible thing).
That's exactly what I was trying to say. :) I think that people who commit sexual assault of any kind are shitty excuses for human beings. For some, I honestly don't see any hope of improvement. But I think that's the exception, not the rule. Like I said earlier, there are plenty of guys who think, "well I can be a bit of a jerk sometimes, but I'm definitely not a RAPIST" (because rapists are the big scary other). If those guys could learn that what they are doing IS rape, and no matter how great they are in other ways, they are STILL being rapists, I think they would have a chance to change.
I agree with the original point that we need to stop othering rapists. But I think it's important to continuing reinforcing the (valid) belief that it is a horrible crime, and a crime that "bad people" commit. No one wants to be that bad person who commits a cruel crime. We just need to make "good guys" realize that they can easily become that bad person.
The questions that I suggested are just a few questions a woman can ask. She must ask questions until she gets an idea about the man's belief about women and men's relationships and whether he believes force is acceptable against a woman who says no. Even then, she has to look at his behavior to see if his words match his actions.
Also, I don't believe in your implication that some men do not know they are forcefully taking control of a woman's body against her will. Force is obvious. Men know when they are using force against a woman.
Whether they label rape as rape or sexual assault, men know when they are using force against a woman's will. Men have to be taught that they must get a woman's permission before acting sexually towards her and immediately stop if the woman says she doesn't want sex any more. It's that simple. If a man thinks that he doesn't need to ask permission or doesnt have to stop when the woman says no, that is an immoral view. So when you say that some rapists don't understand that raping a woman was rape, what that means is that they believe they have a right to use force to use a woman's body without asking her for permission.
There are a lot of ways to show them. Movies, TV shows and public service announcement can teach men that they must get a woman's permission before acting sexually towards her and stop when she tells them to. Schools can teach this. Parents can teach this. It's a lesson that's easy to understand. Also, women must be taught to verbally grant permission and say no when they don't want it and, if necessary, physically stopping the man when they don't want sex. However, if they don't do that the man is still guilty of rape if he used force against a woman's will to steal her body because it's obvious by guns, knives, brutality, drugs, etc. that he used force against her will.
That is an odd sentence. It's not logical. When a man drugs a woman and steals her body against her will he knows he's not respecting her. When he points a gun or knife at her to force her to have intercourse he knows he's not respecting her. When he is bigger than her and threatens to break her bones if she doesn't have intercourse with him he knows he's not respecting her. Thus, when a man threatens a woman forcing her to do humiliating things he knows that is not respecting her.
the fact is, there are a significant number of people who *honestly believe* they respect women, but still commit sexual assault.
That is an odd sentence. It's not logical. When a man drugs a woman and steals her body against her will he knows he's not respecting her. When he points a gun or knife at her to force her to have intercourse he knows he's not respecting her. When he is bigger than her and threatens to break her bones if she doesn't have intercourse with him he knows he's not respecting her. Thus, when a man threatens a woman forcing her to do humiliating things he knows that is not respecting her.
It is logical. Most men would agree that a violent assault (be it rape, robbery, or whatever else) is wrong. There are some who believe that a woman is always asking for it, but no "good guy" believes that. But most rape is a lot more subtle.
Here's a couple of examples. A woman is willingly kissing a man but doesn't want to go any farther. If he takes her shirt off, that's sexual assault. Or she consents to kissing, naked groping, and oral, and don't want to go farther. He is raping her if he attempts PIV sex. How about that thing on jezebel the other week where a woman's boyfriend "surprised" her with anal sex? He didn't think of his actions as rape, but that's exactly what it was.
Here's a more personal example. When I was 16, I went to a rave and did E. I met an older man, and after dancing and talking (about feminism of all things!) for a while, I consented to make out with him. (Whether or not my consent was valid, I don't really know - I was under the influence and so was he, but I think I was thinking clearly, and I don't regret that part.) Anyways, he wanted to go a lot farther than that. I told him (verbally) I didn't want to have sex, but I continued kissing him. Things got hot and heavy, which made me a little uncomfortable but didn't make me want to stop, but then he "accidentally" penetrated me. When I pushed him off angrily he told me he was sorry, but "[my] body was saying yes when [my] words were saying no, and [he] didn't know which to believe." A minute later, he did it again, and I ran away. I absolutely consider that act to be rape. But I don't think he did. He probably just thought he was "listening" to my body instead of my words, and he assumed that was a more honest depiction of my feelings. After all, I *was* turned on. I *was* attracted to him. Stupid mistake on his part? Absolutely. Horrible experience that's scarred me for life? Yep. But I don't think he's an exceptionally bad person. I think he's just a regular guy who doesn't get it. Just a regular guy who is a rapist.
I think a lot of men have trouble grasping the problem with those situations. They see it as being a bit pushy, or maybe assuming that they know better than the woman what she really wants. Even "good guys" can be guilty of this. They need to be taught differently of course (ignorance is no excuse!), but with the false stereotype of the psychopathic rapist, it's difficult for them to admit to being anything like that. And it's just as hard for their friends to admit that they are friends with a rapist, because they KNOW that their friend can be nice. And because that just doesn't fit in with the stereotype, they assume that they/their friend can't possibly be a rapist, because they have proven themselves to be good in some ways.
that was very well said. and thank you for being so generous with your personal life to contribute to this discussion.
i completely agree with you. and i think it was you above who said (in different words) that when guys stereotype rape as the more obvious situations (like where a woman is unconscious, or he uses a weapon or threatens to break her bones), then when "all" they're doing is buying her a few more shots or continuing to try to do something after she says no (because they think she's just saying that so she won't look slutty b/c she "seems so into it" that she MUST want it) what they're doing doesn't seem so bad.
We've been doing the basic standard "no means no" education for guys for awhile now. It's not working. There are obviously huge gaps in rape prevention (there are also huge problems with legal enforcement, victims' services, the general oppression of women etc).
One of the gaps I see is that while we've dispelled the myth of the kinds of assaults that happen to women, there's still work to be done in dispelling myths about what "types of people" can commit sexual assault.
The "no means no" education is good and should be continued but as I said before in my post about Professor Sanday's research showing the link between sexism and rape, the problem is complex and the only way to end rape is to end sexism.
It's important to educate people that seemingly nice men can be extremely corrupt. People must recognize that rape is a horrible crime and not a moderate or petty crime. Because when they recognize this they will be less likely to watch rape pornography, fantasize about raping someone and be less inclined to rape another person. When rapists view themselves and when others view rapists they must shatter the illusion of the nice man and see him as the extremely corrupt person that he really is in order to help the man change into a better human being.
I disagree. If you read police reports about rape you will see that the rapists used weapons, brutality or the threat of brutality against their victims.
I sympathize with your pain about this occurrence. This brings up an important aspect of rape. Many people believe that if a woman is sexually attracted to a man that she doesn't have the right to prevent him from having sex with her. But there are a lot of reasons a woman may decide not to have sex such as loyalty to her husband, avoiding AIDS, not wanting to get pregnant, etc. So a man must stop if a woman tells him to. What makes rape a crime is not that the victim never physically enjoys it, but that when a person has made the mental decision to not have sex the rapist steals the victim's body without permission. Women have a right to decide when to have sex and when not to have sex, and no man has the right to decide for her regardless of how her body is reacting.
"I disagree. If you read police reports about rape you will see that the rapists used weapons, brutality or the threat of brutality against their victims."
Ok this is the problem. You're absolutely right, there are many cases where rapists used weapons, brutality, or the threat of brutality against their victims. In those cases, all the men were 100% aware that they were committing sexual assault, and probably none of them thought they respected women.
But there are many, many cases where the rapist did none of those things. Instead he kept buying her drinks until she agreed, or he ignored her body language when she started pulling away, or when she said "I don't know" he kept pushing instead of stopping and making sure she was ok etc. You're less likely to see these in police reports because most of the victims of this type of rape (rightfully) fear that no one will believe them. (That's also a problem for women who were assaulted with weapons too, of course)
In many cases, the rapist does not use weapons, brutality or the threat of brutality. Maybe even more to the point, the victim *may not even say "no" at any point*. It can still be rape, 100%. It's still horrible for the victim. But because the only fully, widely accepted rape prevention strategy is "no means no", if there isn't a "no" a lot of guys think they aren't committing rape. They are completely wrong, and we need to find a way to reach those guys and make them learn that positive consent is an absolute must.
Positive consent, in mainstream culture, is a total joke. People act like it's this mechanical, militant thing where before each move you say "may I place my hand here?" Really it's just about looking a lot farther into the situation than "no" or the absence thereof. It's about paying attention to body language, taking the responsibility to care if someone is too intoxicated to meaningfully consent, understanding that other phrases (like "I don't know", "not right now", "I'm not sure", "I don't think so", "maybe later"), if they're not a resounding yes, they mean no.
Some people have internalized these message, many haven't. Those who haven't don't always understand that they're committing terrible crimes. Those who haven't sometimes think that accusations of rape must be arbitrary, if they're not based in the victim loudly and clearly saying "no". That in itself makes them dangerous. But some of them are different than the guys who use weapons and brutality. That doesn't make their crimes better, it means they need to be dealt with in a different way.
When you say he kept buying her drinks until she agreed I'm not sure if you're saying he had sex with an intoxicated woman. Basically, if a person is drunk they are impaired and it is generally believed they are less able to make a reasonable decision which gives a rapist an advantage over the victim. But, if she was drunk and she said no and/or she fought the rapist to prevent being raped then she is a victim of rape or attempted rape. She is also a victim of rape if she was so drunk she passed out and the rapist had sex with her when she was unconscious. I should have mentioned drunken unconsciousness and rape drugs in my statement about police reports because that is a common rape crime that police handle.
Also, if the rapist tied up the victim against their will and she/he did not say no before being raped that is still considered rape.
I agree that rape can occur if there are no weapons and the victim does not verbally say no, but instead fights the rapist, cries, tries to run away or does something that makes it obvious that they don't want to have sex.
However, I disagree that the only "fully, widely accepted rape prevention strategy is "no means no." RAD classes are offered often free of charge by local police departments. Rape self-defense classes are promoted as a way to prevent rape. Guns and mace are also promoted for defense against rape. Movies, internet articles, advertisements, etc. are constantly suggesting ways people can prevent rape.
Mainstream culture does not view positive consent as requiring a person to say at every step "may I place my hand here." Positive consent is generally viewed as having two components: 1) getting a person's permission just before sexual contact and 2) stopping when the person says to stop. I believe it's important to teach people those two aspects of consent because it helps clarify to a person whether someone wants to have sex with them or not. I agree with you that some people are confused about whether their advances are wanted or not wanted, but saying yes or no makes them understand clearly. Also, it's important to say yes or no because a court of law will pay a lot of attention to that. A police officer told me if a woman knows she is facing a rapist she must say no several times because that will help her prosecute the rapist in a court of law if she becomes a victim.
"RAD classes are offered often free of charge by local police departments. Rape self-defense classes are promoted as a way to prevent rape. Guns and mace are also promoted for defense against rape. Movies, internet articles, advertisements, etc. are constantly suggesting ways people can prevent rape."
Yes, but I'm talking about the kind of rape prevention aimed at men. Even if the classes you're talking about are aimed at men, how many men take those classes? I don't know a single one.
When I said positive consent in mainstream culture is a joke, I mean that people aren't properly educated on it, so they interpret it to mean they have to ask cumbersome, unsexy questions every two seconds. I know a lot of guys who would think this is what positive consent really means. The message is not being properly taught in a way that reaches the majority of men, like say in schools. Some schools might teach this, I hope, but many, many do not.
Again, you continue to give examples that sound very obvious, like someone being tied up or someone actually being unconscious. There are plenty of cases like that in rape. But for a lot of reasons, there are plenty of cases where the woman does not make some grand gesture that makes it abundantly clear to your average guy who has never had any rape prevention education that she is refusing consent. Anyone should be able to pick up on the more "subtle" signals, but a lot of men need lot of education before some of them will clue in and stop.
There were still be many more who will *not* stop just because they have education. We need to continue advocating against rape for that reason, and advocating against sexism in general.
When you talked about rape prevention strategy you didn’t specify you were only referring to rape prevention for men. You are correct that most rape prevention education is for women and girls and I agree with you that there should be more rape prevention education for men. Some men teach classes at schools to other men to educate them that rape is wrong but there should be more of those classes. And parents should teach boys that rape is an extremely immoral crime. But as I’ve said before, the only way to end rape is for women to gain 50% of power through leadership in politics, economy and the social realms.
This is something that we disagree about. If a woman does not want to have sex with a man then she sends signals she doesn’t want to have sex; she might send mixed signals but a man can identify those signals that show she doesn’t want sex or hesitant. If a man respects women as equal he knows how to have sex with a woman as an equal. Only men who are very sexist would ignore the obvious and subtle signals a woman sends to show that she doesn’t want sex or is hesitant. Sexist men rationalize taking a woman’s body without her 100% consent. At a deep level in their mind, they know when they are taking advantage of a woman sexually. All rapists know that they are rapists, but our society so thoroughly promotes male domination that many men (and women) believe men have a right to take a woman’s body against her will and that is the main reason why rape occurs and why it is difficult to prosecute rapists in our society. Note that Peggy Reeves Sanday found 44 societies where men did not dominate and there was virtually no rape in those societies. To stop men from raping women it is necessary to teach them that women deserve to be treated as an equal sexual partner.
"All rapists know that they are rapists, but our society so thoroughly promotes male domination that many men (and women) believe men have a right to take a woman’s body against her will and that is the main reason why rape occurs and why it is difficult to prosecute rapists in our society. Note that Peggy Reeves Sanday found 44 societies where men did not dominate and there was virtually no rape in those societies. To stop men from raping women it is necessary to teach them that women deserve to be treated as an equal sexual partner."
I agree with pretty much everything you said there, except that all rapists know that they are rapists. I just don't believe that's true. They are still rapists nonetheless and this may even make it WORSE for the victim. It certainly doesn't make it better anyway. But I just cannot agree that *all* rapists know that they are rapists.
In what situations do you think a rapist is unable to understand he's a rapist? Consider the following situations?
-rapist who uses a weapon (gun, knife, etc.) to force victim to comply
-rapist who uses drugs to make a victim unconscious
-rapist who uses drugs to weaken victim, but not make them unconscious
-rapist who imprisons/binds victim so victim cannot defend themselves
-rapist who threatens to injure or kill victim if they do not comply
-rapist who threatens to injure or kill victim's child if she does not comply
-rapist who uses physical force to overpower victim who fights back but is not physically strong enough to separate themselves from the rapist
Would you consider all of the above rape if the victim verbally said they didn't want to have sex?
Would you consider all of the above rape of the victim ran away from the rapist before they used force/drugs/threats but did not verbally say no?
Would you consider all of the above rape of the victim had a look of horror on their face before the rapist used force/drugs/threats?
Would you consider all of the above rape if the victim had had sex with the rapist but said no to further sex?
Would you consider all of the above rape if the victim was sexually attracted to the rapist but said no to avoid AIDS, pregnancy or infidelity?
Would your opinion change to any of these scenarios of the victim was the rapists wife?
OF COURSE I think all of those situations are rape. First of all, many of those situations are the more "obvious" ones where the victim is unconscious or the rapist uses weapons, brutality or the threat of brutality. I've already said those rapists know that they're rapists. Secondly, I'm an anti-rape activist. I know a lot more about sexual violence than the average man. Whether or not I know something is rape is completely irrelevant, because the people I'm talking about are those who haven't had any effective rape prevention training.
Most of the men I know (men who attend university where date rape is rampant) have never had *any* formal rape prevention education. Anything they know about rape comes from the media or random people who don't have training. This is where information received is likely to be very wrong, either because the source gets it wrong (and it's really hard to convey information correctly if you don't have formal training) or because the person doesn't properly understand.
The one thing I saw in your post where a man who hadn't had proper rape prevention education might honestly not think he's committing assault is using "drugs" to weaken the victim. Many men think that buying women drinks to lower their inhibitions in order to gain consent is an acceptable way to pursue sex. Many people think that. They are wrong, but that does not mean they do not believe it. They are also not incapable of understanding, but they need proper education.
There are other examples. Dominant culture tells people that it is normal, natural, and acceptable for men to aggressively pursue sex. There are also widespread messages telling people that women don't like sex (therefore it's natural for them not to be enthusiastic) and that women will say no at first when they are planning to later say yes because they don't want to look like sluts (therefore "no" means "keep asking"). That is an incredibly dangerous combination. We would need effective, feminist rape prevention education for all men and effective law enforcement to combat that combination. We all know law enforcement is a joke; almost no rapists are ever reported, nevermind convicted. As for education, the only message most guys receive is "no means no, passed out means no." They aren't hearing that, first of all, "no" means "stop RIGHT NOW" and secondly, you don't just need to avoid someone saying no, you need a *meaningful yes*. That means consent needs to be positive, freely given, and enthusiastic. I can assure you that there are many men who have never really thought about that, because they picture rape as the kinds of "obvious" examples you continue to cite where the rapist uses weapons, brutality, or the threat of brutality.
Also, I'm aware that every sexual assault is an act of violence. But even though these things can overlap, there *is* a difference between outright physical violence (like holding someone down, using a weapon etc) and the more spiritual/symbolic violence of coercion (like continuing to push forward when someone says "I don't know"). Not difference in impact, severity, or wrongness, just difference in the way they look.
Very well said.
Nancy, do you honestly believe that the situations you described are the ONLY ways that rape can happen? Or the most common? It appears that you're completely ignoring the FACT that most rapes just don't happen that way.
My question wasn’t whether you knew what rape is. I had asked, “In what situations do you think a rapist is unable to understand he's a rapist?”
while I agree that media accounts of rape are often wrong, I believe that’s because the media is male-dominated and promotes a sexist view about rape. I don’t think media people need formal training about rape to understand the basics that it’s basically male domination. Also, I don’t think it’s possible for a man not to understand that rape is male domination.
I agree that plying a woman with alcohol to physically and mentally weaken her before attacking her with sex is an acceptable thing in our society-acceptable for the men, not acceptable for the woman victim who is blamed. Some people, like yourself, understand this is wrong, but a lot of people think it’s acceptable to do even though they know it harms the victim.
Your view of consent is correct. But whether men view legal rape as requiring violence or the threat of violence, they know that the “other kind” of rape (taking a woman’s body without her consent) harms a woman.
I agree there are different kinds of rape, and the law also punishes different kinds of rape. However, regarding what you said about “continuing to push forward when someone says ‘I don’t know’” that is physical violence because rape is a physical act and when someone pushes forward they are overpowering the victim physically, thus that is a case of using forcing to obtain sex.
I think I have to just stop responding to this line of comments, because we just 100% disagree with each other on this issue.
I'm going to respond to several of your points in this post and the next few all in this comment.
"If you read police reports about rape you will see that the rapists used weapons, brutality or the threat of brutality against their victims."
Police reports have very little to do with ACTUAL RAPE. The vast, vast majority of victims do not report their rapists. Of the few who do, it is most often because it is a severely violent case, it was done by a stranger, or it is connected with another crime (like robbery). It is extremely rare for a rapist to use physical violence or a weapon. Most women who are raped by a partner or good friend are especially reluctant to report it.
From my own experience with the police system, it is more likely that they will be called liars who are just trying to ruin some poor guy's life than they will be taken seriously. I'd imagine that would be a pretty strong deterrent to filing a report (it sure was in my case and in my best friend's cases), so I would imagine that would really cut down on the number of reports filed. I don't think many cops would mock a woman who was brutally beaten, stabbed and raped quite as readily as they would mock a teenage girl who was abused by her boyfriend.
Most rapists are like the one in my examples: a man who's doing something consensual with a woman, then goes a little farther than she wants, a man who thinks that his partner will like something if he just makes her try it (therefore in his mind he is doing a GOOD thing - he's trying to do something he's convinced they'll both enjoy, not raping her), or a man who thinks that a woman's body language speaks louder than her voice.
In your next few comments, I really take offense to the idea that rape victims *always* struggle, say no, and/or fight back (even when intoxicated), unless they've passed out. The fact is, a seriously intoxicated person is INCAPABLE of giving consent whether or not they appear coherent or not. It doesn't matter if she's had too many drinks and says no, or if she's had too many drinks and doesn't say anything. How DARE you imply otherwise.
A person should not have to make it obvious that they do not want to have sex. They should instead make it obvious when they DO want to have sex. My body is not public property up to the point where I say no and run away.
"Rape self-defense classes are promoted as a way to prevent rape. Guns and mace are also promoted for defense against rape. Movies, internet articles, advertisements, etc. are constantly suggesting ways people can prevent rape."
Rape prevention classes targeted at women are 100% useless. I think the fact that they even exist is a horrific sign of sickness in our society. The onus CANNOT be on women to prevent rape. That's what causes pervasive victim-blaming attitudes.
How the fuck are guns and mace and self-defense classes supposed to help a woman whose husband rapes her? Or the woman who is raped by a friend while spending time with a group of friends in a place where she feels safe?
"All rapists know that they are rapists, but our society so thoroughly promotes male domination that many men (and women) believe men have a right to take a woman’s body against her will and that is the main reason why rape occurs and why it is difficult to prosecute rapists in our society."
That is completely false. Not only do not all rapists know that they are rapists, but I would even hazard a guess that MOST rapists do not know at any "deep level in their mind" that they are rapists. Particularly the ones who feel entitled to women's bodies - how can they rape someone they own?
I havent’ read any evidence of that.
The evidence doesn’t back your claim. A significant number of convicted rapists used a weapon or threatened women with violence by words or their greater size. Also, you forget that the actual act of rape involves the rapist overpowering a person physically. So it’s illogical to say that rapists did not use violence.
Evidence contradicts your theory. A 2002 study by psychologist David Lisak of 1,882 men never convicted of felony found that 120 men (6%) committed 483 rapes of women they knew. None were reported. These men exhibited common characteristics that many studies have documented about rapists:
-“They are adept at identifying likely, vulnerable victims.
-They plan their attacks, using sophisticated strategies to groom their victims for attack, and to isolate them physically.
-They use "instrumental" not gratuitous violence; exhibit strong impulse control and use only as much violence as is needed to terrify and coerce their victims into submission.
-They use power, control, manipulation and threats — backed up by physical force, and almost never resort to weapons such as knives or guns.
-They use alcohol deliberately to render victims more vulnerable to attack, or completely unconscious.”
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=6136
I never said or implied that.
I agree and I’ve never said otherwise.
Rape prevention classes do work. I’ve read accounts of women using the martial arts techniques taught in defense-classes to protect themselves. Women can and do beat up men enough to be able to run away.
Also, I never said it’s women’s responsibility to prevent being raped. The rapist is entirely responsible for the crime. However, it is helpful for women to be able to defend themselves.
Those weapons can be used equally effectively on husbands or strangers.
“Data from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of defense. Defense with a gun results in fewer injuries (17%) than resisting with less powerful means (knives, 40%; other weapon, 22%; physical force, 51%; evasion, 35%; etc.) and in fewer injuries than not resisting at all (25%).Compared with any other means of defense, rapists and other vicious predators are far less likely to complete their attack when the innocent defender uses a gun.”
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/women.guns.html
But they don’t and can’t own women. Whatever the law is women have a right to control their body. So even if a man thinks he owns a woman he raped her if she didn’t want to have sex. As to whether rapists know that they are rapists I believe they do and you think some don’t and that is a difference of opinion.
I noticed that the link to the rapist study doesn't work. If any one is interested in reading the story you can find it from a title search at Google.com:
Study: Rapists adept at identifying targets
By Nancy Montgomery, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Monday, March 16, 2009
Sorry, this is going to be all over the place. I'm growing very frustrated by this thread and this will probably be my last response.
"Also, you forget that the actual act of rape involves the rapist overpowering a person physically."
No, actually. The actual act of rape involves the rapist performing a sexual act on the victim against hir will. Violence (other than the obvious violence of performing an unwanted sexual act on the victim) does not necessarily enter into it, though of course it often does. A rapist raping an unconscious, intoxicated, confused, or terrified person often does not have to use any sort of extraneous violence to commit his crime.
# Seventy-seven (77)% of completed rapes are committed by non-strangers (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). A woman is four times more likely to be raped by an acquaintance than by a stranger (Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2002).
# Acquaintance rape is rarely reported to police. Less than 2% of acquaintance rape victims reported the assault whereas 21% of women raped by strangers reported the crime to police (Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2002).
# Every year, an estimated one woman in eight in college is raped and in 85% of those assaults the women knew their attacker (Texas Woman's University, 2007).
Some similar statistics from a 1993 survey by Statistics Canada.
# 6% of all sexual assaults are reported to police.
# Only 1% of women who have been sexually assaulted by an acquaintance report the incident to police.
Here's more from I Never Called It Rape: The Ms. Report.
* 1 in 4 women surveyed were victims of rape or attempted rape
* 84% of those raped knew their attacker
* Only 27% of women whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims
* About 75% of the men and at least 55% of the women involved in acquaintance rapes had been drinking or taking drugs just before the attack.
* 2,971 college men reported that they had committed 187 rapes, 157 attempted rapes, 327 episodes of sexual coercion, 854 incidents of unwanted sexual contact.
* 84 % of the men who committed rape said that what they did was definitely not rape.
* 41 % of the raped women said they expect to be raped again.
From a 1986 survey by UCLA researcher, Neil Malamuth.
30% of the men questioned said they would commit rape if they knew there was no chance of being caught. When the survey question changed the word "rape" to the phrase "force a woman into having sex"--again with the stipulation that the man would not be caught--more than 50% said they would do it.
The fact that so few rapists are reported (and of those who are reported, even fewer are actually convicted) does not give me any reason to believe that their cases are the "standard".
As I've said, many men just don't think they are committing rape when they do. They might admit to being a bit pushy, but because we tend to see rapists as scary monsters in the bushes, almost everyone who falls short of that stereotypical level of "evil" simply doesn't see themselves as a rapist.
If these men don't understand that there is something wrong with disrespecting women's bodily autonomy (and many of them don't even think that women's bodily autonomy IS disrespected by anyone, much like they do not believe that we are living in a patriarchy or adhering to traditional gender roles in many ways) then it simply doesn't make sense for them to feel any guilt for taking something that they feel entitled to (in this case, women's bodies). It's sick, wrong, and terrifying. But there is hope for those men, unlike the stereotypical stranger with a knife. We may be able to educate them and change their minds.
I don't know about where you live, but where I live there are very few civilians who have guns, and mace is illegal. Even in places where it is more common to have weapons, I have a hard time picturing a woman carrying a gun or mace every time she is alone with her husband or boyfriend or male friends. Let alone using it. From the gun safety classes I have taken, I got the impression that you are supposed to shoot to kill, not injure, when you are defending yourself against an attacker. If you just try to injure them, they are likely to come after you more angrily or try to disarm you. With all the fear and guilt and loyalty a person would already feel to her partner or friend, how can one expect her to make a split second decision like that (and before he notices her weapon and tries to get it away from her). If I owned a gun, I would not keep it under my pillow while having sex with my boyfriend "just in case" I retracted my consent and he didn't stop right away. That's because I trust him, as I imagine the wives/girlfriends/friends of most rapists do.
And forgive me for not being impressed with quotes from firearmsandliberty.com.
"Also, you forget that the actual act of rape involves the rapist overpowering a person physically."
You contradicted yourself because you admit performing an unwanted sexual act on a victim is "obvious violence." And I said the same, that the act of rape itself is violence because the rapist physically overpowers the unwilling victim instead of having equal sex.
I just wanted to say that I believe we have mostly the same view that rape is a heinous wrong, that the focus should be on changing men's attitudes and that there is a possibility to improve society by ending rape.
Hi Mayfly
I was in a similar situation to yours. I was 23 and on a second date with an older man. We had a great time and went back to his place for coffee. At some point we started making out, which I enjoyed. When he made a move to remove my trousers I said I didn't want to have sex but we continued making out. He tried again to remove my trousers and again I told him no.
At that point we were both very aroused but I knew I didn't want to go all the way that night. He went ahead and started removing my clothes and at that point I sort of spaced out. I remember crying and saying I didn't want to but I felt physically incapable of pushing him away.
I just lay there and let him do it.
When he was done he finally realised just how upset I was. He looked shocked. I demanded to be taken home and I thought I'd never want to see him again. But I did see him again and we ended up having a relationship that lasted several months. He never again forced himself on me or did anything I didn't want him to do.
Did he rape me? Yes he did. Was he aware what he did was rape? No, at the time I don't think he viewed it as rape. He thought I was aroused and wanted it but I was too shy to say so.
When we talked about it afterwards I told him that no matter what we were doing he should've stopped the instant I said no. He acknowledged he was wrong and he never again gave me cause to feel unsafe with him.
I don't know how he was with other women after me. I hope the experience and my words had an effect on him.
The point is though...it took me years to acknowledge that he'd raped me. I had a mental image of a rapist as a stranger who would attack me. I didn't have a mental picture of a rapist as someone I was dating, who wouldn't listen when I said no.
This is one of the lines that I took major issue with in your post: "We need to show people that they can reconcile their belief that their friend has a good heart with the reality that he has committed rape." No we don't. I feel like that sentence is just saying to the person "It's okay to be friends with a person that rapes because he has a good heart. Deep down you know he's different." WTF?
What we need to do is show them that their friend who they thought had a good heart in fact does not because he is actually a rapist. And even though he's done good things he's a rapist and that kind of makes all those other good deeds moot.
Then what do we do about people who have committed rape? They don't disappear the minute they rape and fly off to the land of the evil people, never to be heard from again. How do we deal with rapists in everyday life? Chances are we ALL know someone who has committed rape, since most rapists never admit it to anyone.
I'd rather have them admit it, atone for it, and never do it again.
If I find out one of my friends has raped someone I would almost definitely stop being friends with that person. End of story.
Yes there is a slim chance they have really seen the error of their ways and changed and atoned (What is with all these people saying their rapists apologized? I mean, that's awesome for them but I've never heard of that happening to any of my friends or me for that matter. The rapist usually denies what they did was rape in most instances.) and that would be taken on a case by case basis. But raping someone means you're seriously fucked up and morally bankrupt basically. I would lose all respect for that person. All their good deeds would vanish in my eyes and all I would see them as is a rapist. So why would I stay friends with them? Why should the fact that they volunteer at a soup kitchen invalidate their horrible crime?
What I meant about that was...
People think that personally seeing and experiencing someone acting in a morally sound manner refutes the charge of rape.
I want people to understand that the rape charge doesn't mean their personal experiences were wrong - it's just that their personal experiences are unrelated.
Because someone can "do the right things" at certain times, and have compassion and empathy for other people at certain times, and not be out to destroy the world, and STILL commit rape. People don't get that.
"I think that the vast majority of men who rape don't see their actions as rape. Maybe they're being a little pushy, maybe they're jerks sometimes, but they're not RAPISTS, God no! Rapists are scary psychopaths who hide in the bushes and rape virgins at knifepoint. And compared to that standard, what's the harm in pressuring that cute girl at the bar into having a few more drinks?"
Absolutely, well put mayfly. I don't think OP is claiming we should be _nice_ to rapists, or celebrate their humanity or give them awards for rescuing kittens. What we DO need to do is create the WIDER understanding that doing good deeds doesn't inoculate ANYONE from the capacity to hurt: "raised money for AIDS awareness? good for you. That doesn't excuse your behavior last night."
Rapists are people. People with pets and hobbies and parents and (probably) friends. We need to correct the idea of the rapist as "other," (eg. scary guy in bushes with knife) because as long as the "other" image persists, it will be that much harder to convince society that the nice guy across the street is capable of hurting someone.
Yes and I totally agree with that Jrant.
But the tone of the OP and the wording used just didn't make me feel good about what she was trying to say. It didn't sound like she was trying to educate about how even the thought of "good guys" can be rapists but how rapists are thought of as evil so it's hard to discuss them and we need to realize they do good things too.
I don't know if I'm making my point well at all because it's hard to describe my feelings when reading the OP but it was very off-putting.
I agree with your general point, but your comment that you don't believe in evil doesn't really mesh with some of your other statements here -- for instance, a rapist having "a good heart."
If you don't believe a person can be evil, how can you believe he can be inherently good? In my opinion, if one doesn't exist, neither can the other.
To my mind, that's the stronger way of approaching this issue:
There is no such thing as a good person or a bad person, a kind heart or an evil one. There are only people who choose to do things that are widely considered good or bad. Those people's "selves," to the extent that they exist, are composed of their actions and those around them.
People seem to be misunderstanding that the OP is NOT saying that rapists can have good hearts. She isn't making any good v. bad judgment calls, and while I understand it disturbs people that she isn't saying "RAPISTS ARE EVIL," understand that that would be entirely contrary to her point. The OP isn't saying they have good hearts--she's trying to explain that demonizing them will only make people who think their friend has a good heart unable to believe that friend could be a rapist. And that's bad for everyone.
Great post, Mariella!
thank you :)
I said reconcile the reality of rape with their friends' *belief* that the rapist had a good heart. I don't think asking people to change the beliefs they've developed from personal experience based another person's claims works. So I want to just leave their belief as it stands, and say it's not relevant. Say to them "maybe you're right - but those things could all be true, and he still committed sexual assault."
And I did say that I think one of the guys who has sexually assaulted has what I would describe as a "good heart". I know him personally, he sexually assaulted me, and I think I have the right to my own interpretation of my own life.
As for your other comment - I don't know why people take it as a given that if good exists, the opposite must be and that must exist too. I just don't think evil has to exist if good does. But I do agree with you - inherent good AND inherent evil need to be taken out of the conversation.
That's why I said things like "The crime is about the actions of an individual, not the goodness or evil in his or her heart. " Not the goodness OR evil.
who has sexually assaulted *me*... that was an important word to leave out.
Mariella, I really like this.
To the doubters: Mariella is NOT saying it's okay to be a rapist.
She is suggesting society change how it talks about rapists because, as it stands, "rapist" is a masked man in the bushes who attacks strange women. He is "evil."
Because of that characterization, the vast majority of rapists are never held accountable for their actions, because those are not the cirumstances under which they committed rape. When we characterize rapists as evil monsters - though it's mostly normal seeming men out there committing rape and sexual assault - we erase those rapes. They become not rape, because Joe volunteers at the soup kitchen (and therefore he's not evil), Mark has a wife and kids (and therefore he's not evil), etc. So their victims don't get justice and their experiences are invalidated.
Most of the accusations against Mariella are the exact opposite of what she's really saying.
So nice to come to the end of the these comments and have had someone else already compile all my thoughts and type my entire post for me. Kudos!
Thank you very much. I've always really liked all your comments so that means a lot to me.
Based on a real conversation:
Dude 1: It took me until two in the morning to get the paper for Dr. Whoever's class done
Dude2: waited to the last minute?
D1: not exactly, I was working on it late last night and my girlfriend/wife wanted some and so I finally threw her dick so I could work without being distracted. I lost an hour or so to foreplay, banging her, and cuddling. She actually asked me why I stopped cuddling after like 15 minutes and I told her I still had a paper to write. Then I had to get back into writing the paper and that took even longer.
D2: You cuddled for 15 minutes? I would have been out there like Flash.
D1: Here is the thing... She wants sex, I can throw her some and its not a big deal... If I want some and she is not in the mood, then I am an asshole... and even more so if after being shot down I try and do a stealth-jack. What the fuck? its not like she wanted it.
D2: I know, I know... The hypocrisy of it all...
What's the point of this comment? Both the male and female partner described here sound selfish and stupid, but neither sounds like a rapist.
He's probably a MRA.
The point is many women at times act like they are entitled to sex, and want sex with an less than enthusiastic partner.
I have yet to find a dude that has not had sex with his girl-friend/wife when he was not in the mood becuase it was just easier, or wasn't worth the fight or drama if he did not do it.
If the roles are reversed that would be called grey-rape at least.
When women do the same act with the same motivations its not a big deal.
Ugh. Grey-rape. Thanks, Cosmo or whatever other fuckface mag came up with that one!
Negotiations of sexual compatibility in a relationship is an entirely different conversation that doesn't belong on a rape thread. Go take your complaints elsewhere, please.
Frankly, that's not true.
a) I'm a dude. I have refused sex when I wasn't in the mood. And my sexual dignity was well worth the fight.
b) I've been raped by a woman. It was a big deal.
Grey rape doesn't exist. It's a made up word from Cosmo. Rape is rape is rape is rape.
And take your MRA bullcrap somewhere else. This thread isn't even halfway related to what you're talking about.
Its a term in use, people know what it means...
If you can't see what I am trying to get at is least half-way connect then I will be on my way.
Good day.
I said good day!
Ok, so your point was that a woman can pester her boyfriend for sex but if a guy does the same thing its considered rape?
First of all, I don't think that's really connected to this thread, certainly not enough to post that conversation without explaining your point.
Secondly, I don't think that's really true. If you reversed that exact conversation I would not call it rape. And I think most people, men and women, are capable of refusing to have sex when they have a paper to write. I've suggested sex to my boyfriend and had him tell me he has too much work plenty of times, and I've also said so when I'm too busy.
If the less-than-enthused men oblige, it's not rape. Women oblige to sex when they're not all that into it too; that is NOT what "rape" refers to. If the men in your little tale are unable to consent, or protesting whilst their girlfriends fuck them, you have a case. Otherwise, FAIL.
If the less-than-enthused men oblige, it's not rape. Women oblige to sex when they're not all that into it too; that is NOT what "rape" refers to. If the men in your little tale are unable to consent, or protesting whilst their girlfriends fuck them, you have a case. Otherwise, FAIL.
I was a research assistant on a project that looked at all the sexual assaults reported to the police in my municipality.
I read over 800 police reports and 1400 sexual assault dyads.
From that, I know what course of events women will report as a sexual assault and will leave them traumatized.
And in the eyes of many victim/survivors, what you don't call rape was rape.
I don't remember if you commented on a thread recently where a woman said she had gotten drunk ,gone to make out in a closet with a man at a wedding, been surprised when he wanted to have sex, but gone along with it. She was debating whether or not it counted as rape, and a lot of people said it did. Granted the circumstances are different, but I do think that sometimes we take the definition of rape too far, to where anyone who goes along with sex that they aren't totally into has been raped. I have seen people say that asking over and over again counts as coercion.
That said, I don't think that this particular conversation quoted would indicate rape no matter the gender of the speaker.
I don't think I understand what point your comment is making. Please clarify.
What you said about rapists can be said about any perpetrator of any crime. But I don't think that sentiment is as obvious when it comes to grown men who rape grown women (or teens), whether they know the woman or not. I can forgive a man who rapes a child before I can forgive a man who rapes a woman. It's clear that someone who rapes children has serious mental issues and were probably abused as a child. They have warped views about sexuality and love. But rapists are taught that they're entitled to sex from women whenever they want, not when the woman wants it too. I think the act of raping a grown woman reeks of privilege and entitlement. They don't have a sickness like a pedophile or a bank robber or a drug dealer has. I don't know if I explained that well, but that's the best I can do for now.
"I can forgive a man who rapes a child before I can forgive a man who rapes a woman. It's clear that someone who rapes children has serious mental issues and were probably abused as a child."
I disagree with this completely. A child is innocent and helpless. They haven't yet lived their life, at least an adult had many safe years first. An adult is much better able to handle such a thing but a child? That is much worse.
Is there a NEED to decide which is worse? Is it even possible? Why does it even matter?
I wouldn't generalize something like that.
I've experienced both. The assualt during adulthood? Much, much harder to cope with than my molestation as a child.
I think saying that its "worse" for children shows some belief--conscious or no--that a woman isn't entirely innocent in the situation and holds responsibility for what has happened to her. That is very, very dangerous. I've been blamed as a victim as an adult and, yes, when I was six. No one is more innocent.
I wasn't basing my ability to forgive a child rapist over someone who rapes grown women on which is worse. What's worse is not an objective thing. A middle-class American child who is raped and gets medical attention and psychological intervention immediately might deal with the rape better than a 23-year-old widow who was raped by a soldier just outside a refugee camp in a war-torn third world country. An infinite number of environmental factors affect how and if a person recovers from a traumatic event. What I said in my initial comment is that I can sympathize with the deep and incurable mental illness and past trauma of a pedophile over the sense of entitlement of someone who rapes women.
You say our culture thinks "if their friend isn't evil or morally corrupt, he couldn't possibly commit sexual assault."
What needs to change is for people to start seeing that committing sexual assault means you are evil and morally corrupt. You argue for separating the two, and I completely and utterly disagree.
"They are still picturing men who commit sexual assault as evil or morally corrupt."
No, "they" don't!!! And that is exactly the problem.
klg, I think you've just highlighted exactly my main problem with this post (in a way I've been trying but apparently failing to do). I don't want to, nor think we should, separate the two.
No, "they" don't!!! And that is exactly the problem.
I think you're missing the point. "They," as in people who are friends with men accused of rape, tend to take the stereotypical view of what a rapist is. That view is that rapists are evil monsters who prey on women. "They" see their friend as a three dimensional person with good attributes and having done many good things in their lives. Therefore, since the friend is not the essentialized "RAPIST" that they see as a dark and evil person, the accuser is lying. This is bad. We need for people to see that anyone can commit rape, even the good friend that came through that one time, so that women will be believed when they tell others that they have been raped.
This isn't about forgiving rapists, or even trying to see the good in rapists. It's about understanding that there are people who DO see the good in rapists and that this makes them disbelieve women who accuse them of rape. By reframing the idea of rape as something that someone who isn't "evil" can do, it makes it more likely women will be believed when they come forward.
ElleStar,
I think I understand what the original post probably has at heart. My problem is with the way it is presented, starting with the "shock value" statement presented at the beginning of the post.
I believe we need to start demonizing rapists, at the very minimum.
Being a "good person" and a rapist are not mutually exclusive in this culture and we need to change that, not resign to it by framing our approach to fit the mess.
"Being a "good person" and a rapist are not mutually exclusive in this culture and we need to change that, not resign to it by framing our approach to fit the mess."
It's times like these when I realize how wordy and rambling I really am. This one sentence sums it all up so perfectly.
"Being a "good person" and a rapist are not mutually exclusive in this culture and we need to change that, not resign to it by framing our approach to fit the mess."
I think this is EXACTLY what the OP is saying. However, as other were saying demonizing makes "rapist" into "OMGSCARYEVILRAPISTMONSTER" which doesn't jive with friends of theirs who have been accused of sexual assault. So changing the demonization from "evil" to "a bad act even a friend of yours could do" is something needed.
I believe we need to start demonizing rapists, at the very minimum.
Being a "good person" and a rapist are not mutually exclusive in this culture and we need to change that,
I very much agree. Why we would WANT to continue associating with a rapist in any capacity is beyond me. What possible benefit could this have?
I'm at a total loss as to why we as a culture would want to overlook the severe crime of rape because the individual holds a job and visits his sick grandmother every Sunday. It's suggesting they shouldn't be held fully accountable for their actions or have to deal with consequences.
Doing the occasional good thing and being a good person are quite different. No single person is all "good" or all "evil". For example, I'm sure there are pedophiles who rescue cats from trees or put a penny in the "take one/leave one" jar... but does that in any way diminish their crimes? Hell no. Would acknowledging their good deeds reduce the crimes of pedophiles? Hell no.
sorry the italicizing (quoting) didn't display accurately. It should have also included the second paragraph:
"Being a "good person" and a rapist are not mutually exclusive in this culture and we need to change that,"
"Why we would WANT to continue associating with a rapist in any capacity is beyond me."
To find out what motivates a rapist? To find out what could possibly deter a rapist? To find out what rapist actually considers themselves a rapist and, in that case, why? To find out what rapist actually considers themselves as innocent and, in that case, why? To use those findings to educate OTHERS about what rape is and is not?
The moment we write someone off as "completely evil", they become emotionally and mentally inaccessible to us. When they become emotionally and mentally inaccessible to us, we cannot use their actions as a foil for our OWN in order to properly analyze ourselves, our friends, and our society.
doing a clinical study of rapists, which is what you've described, is far different than friends and acquaintances socializing with known rapists out of some kind naivete or denial.
And I'm not advocating anyone being friends with rapists. I'm talking about getting people to believe that their friends ARE rapists.
In other words, if person x is a rapist, I'm going to stop being friends with person x. But when person x's friends start telling me he couldn't possibly have committed the crime, I need a way to convince them he DID commit the crime.
Likewise, when I start talking about date rape, I need people to think "I need to learn what actions constitute rape, because my intent doesn't matter, if I take actions that constitute rape, well I'm guilty of rape and I've destroyed someone's life and I'm going to jail"
I need people to stop thinking "yeah, those frat guys really are douchebags. Luckily my friends and I respect women so we don't need any education." They think their 'good intent' is enough. It's not.
"I'm at a total loss as to why we as a culture would want to overlook the severe crime of rape because the individual holds a job and visits his sick grandmother every Sunday. It's suggesting they shouldn't be held fully accountable for their actions or have to deal with consequences."
Exactly. So I'm saying, tell people that him visiting his sick grandmother everyday is irrelevant. He loves his grandmother, he visited her to be nice, AND he's a rapist.
I'm not saying rapists are good people. I'm saying we need to stay out of the "individual x is a good person vs. individual x is a bad person debate." It's unwinnable.
I want to say "your belief about individual x being a good person notwithstanding, individual x committed sexual assault."
I think it's impossible to force people to dismiss the beliefs they hold based on their personal experience in order to accept someone's accusation of rape. They need to realize that they might have really had genuinely good experiences with the person, and that is irrelevant to the accusation of rape against him.
You keep using the word debate. Who's debating?
I think pretty much everyone believes that rapists are bad people. They may not consider everything rape or assault that those educated in the subject do. THAT'S what we need to change, not our perceptions about the other good that people commit or how their friends view them.
the people debating are the people who hear an accusation of rape, and don't believe it because they can't reconcile the charge with their personal experiences with the accused that led them to believe he's a "good person"
I have to heartily disagree that the reason people don't believe rape victims is because they can't accept the idea of their friend, neighbor, whatever as a fully evil cartoon sketch of a rapist. And if we just made rapists more acceptable as full people they'd come around. Um, no.
People don't believe rape victims because they still put the blame and onous on the victim, not the assaulter -- and they do this because they believe women are in some way responsible for the attack, or that it's some kind of punishment for promiscuity, or they're exaggerating, or basically can't be trusted, or who hasn't been with that woman who led them on. Other people don't believe rape victims because they don't want to believe that these things really happen in their little bubble world. Because it makes them feel less safe. Making rapists seem less demonized will not change any of that. It will actually just make the problem worse by lessening the crime in people's minds.
If someone has a hard time accepting their good time drinking buddy is a date rapist, gee just imagine how hard it is for all of his victims who trusted him. You know what I say to those "hard time accepting" people? Buck the f*ck up! Deal with the reality that most women do on a daily or weekly basis. Yeah, your friend is an misogynist asshat who values his own needs over the basic rights of another. Deal with it. Talk to him. Maybe get him to understand the severity of his actions. Maybe get him counseling. Maybe warn other women. Maybe don't dismiss it because it shocks your little world. Maybe open your eyes to the threat that nearly every woman has to live with.
darn. typo. "onus" not "onous".
If someone has a hard time accepting their good time drinking buddy is a date rapist, gee just imagine how hard it is for all of his victims who trusted him. You know what I say to those "hard time accepting" people? Buck the f*ck up! Deal with the reality that most women do on a daily or weekly basis. Yeah, your friend is an misogynist asshat who values his own needs over the basic rights of another. Deal with it. Talk to him. Maybe get him to understand the severity of his actions. Maybe get him counseling. Maybe warn other women. Maybe don't dismiss it because it shocks your little world. Maybe open your eyes to the threat that nearly every woman has to live with.
I hope this wasn't directed at me.
I don't disagree that more needs to be done to prevent rape in the first place and to make women safer by making men who rape take responsibility for their actions.
I just agree with the OP that part of the problem in our society is the resistance by many to believe that their friend/neighbor/family member is capable of rape because they don't fit the stereotype. Changing the stereotype away from this othering demonization might be one step in this process. We can still condemn acts and make people take responsibility for them without labeling them "evil."
I hope this wasn't directed at me.
oh, no! That wasn't a personal dig. I was speaking generically about type of person the original article seems to be referring to -- the friends and associates of the rapists who just can't accept the rape because the concept is too difficult for them. I think I just framed it poorly.
In essence I was saying that currently we (as a culture) often excuse the rapist. And now we're hearing arguments that make excuses for those close to the rapist (or the victim). I don't see the value in giving people more ways to avoid responsibility, including responsibility to acknowledge the severity of rape crimes and how that will affect their relationship with the rapist.
Okay. At first I thought it was, then I read closer and though it wasn't. So I just wanted to make sure.
I don't disagree with you in the goals for society. I just disagree that using deeply connotative language will help offenders take responsibility for rape. It's my opinion that maybe taking some of the loaded connotations of the word "rapist" might actually encourage more people to admit their actions and take responsibility.
I might be wrong, but I think it's worth this discussion.
It isn't about excusing people close to the rapist it's about finding the right strategy to change their minds.
I'm not naive - I don't think a polite chat will change everyone, like I said. But I think this is an effective strategy to deal with a lot of people who, despite sympathy to the cause, are just totally ignorant about the pervasiveness of rape.
I think there are many, many aspects of our culture that support rape and make it possible. Rape culture is complex and deeply fucked up. This is not the answer to rape culture i.e. I'm not saying that if we all start doing this, rape will no longer exist.
I think this addresses one aspect of the problem - the insistence that someone has to be purely evil and psychopathic to commit rape therefore people who aren't the devil incarnate are not rapists.
"'They are still picturing men who commit sexual assault as evil or morally corrupt.'
No, "they" don't!!! And that is exactly the problem."
They do though. Everyone (almost) is against rape in theory, but rape is a conclusion (Andrea Dworkin said that). Whenever there is an individual situation where a woman is raped, no one believes her. I think a huge part of that is because they are "other-ing" the rapist (as other commenters have said).
People are so busy picturing Satan incarnate as rapists that they refuse to condemn the actual people committing sexual assault. They're not Satan incarnate, therefore they didn't commit sexual assault. I'm trying to counter that thinking.
One point that I feel has not been fleshed out enough on this comment stream is the issue of dealing with rapists. By persecuting rapists in the context of the Prison Industrial Complex, we are supporting a system that often does not support the survivor or create an accountability for the rapist.
Currently I am working on some local organizing to develop a way for accountability of perpetrators of sexual assault in a way that is supportive and compassionate to the survivors needs and could potentially help the rapist understand the implications of sexual assault and learn more about consent. We have not entirely hammered out a way to do this, but I think it will be very specific to each community.
When we are talking about rape, good and evil miss the point. What we need to evaluate in our own communities is how to create safer spaces, support survivors and hold perpetrators of sexual assault accountable. One group that has some great resources for those of you who are interested in this work is Philly's Pissed.
http://www.phillyspissed.net/
This!
I totally agree with this. At this point, I see little option but to send individual rapists to jail (even though this rarely happens, most rapists go free).
At the same time, just criminalizing individuals in the context of the prison industrial complex masks the fact that the pervasiveness of violence against women is inextricably linked to the broader social oppression of women. We send individuals to jail (or, claim that we do) without dismantling the larger social problems that create rape culture and make assaults on women the "regular order of business", as laverge put it.
A friend of mine was telling me about a law class where they studied a community (Aboriginal, I believe), where they really attempted to tackle this issue, and found that if they just sent every man who had committed sexual assault to jail, close to 40% of the men in the community would be locked up, and they felt that would be too devastating to the community. They tried to figure out other mechanisms to deal with it that centred more on reconciliatory justice than retributive. If a man would confess everything he did and admit his guilt, for example, he might not have to go to jail but would participate in things like education programs, community service, and mechanisms that were designed to give the survivor peace and justice.
Now, this is not a model that we could just implement on a large scale, certainly not right away. And many rapists are so far beyond the point where something like that would work at all. But I think we do need to look at the fact that our current criminal "justice" system does not work when it comes to preventing or punishing violence against women.