Sunday, October 24, 2010

Women's rights versus 'asking for it' - who's to blame?


I've seen a number of articles in recent weeks, all written by women, emphasizing that a woman is (or should be) in total control of her body at all times. All the articles debunked the frequent occurrence of what they referred to as rape (in the context of 'date rape', or sex at a party while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and similar situations), and sought to place all the blame on the men concerned.

To illustrate the general tone of these articles, here's one from an Australian author.

I recall some very uncomfortable moments ... when people I assumed were like-minded about the simple idea that a woman has the right to say no at any point before or during sex revealed some alarming views to the contrary. Views like "if she goes back to a guy's hotel room, what does she expect?" And "it's her fault for putting herself in that situation in the first place". And "scrubbers who hang around football players deserve what they get".

Ugh. The logic here is ugly and warped. It's based on the premise that men cannot control themselves. That they are wild beasts who barge through any door whether it's open or closed. And that women surrender their right not to be sexually assaulted after 2am. Or when hanging around footballers. Or when agreeing to be alone with any man.

The most troubling aspect in this debate is the concept that any woman ever deserves to be sexually assaulted. Naively, I thought we'd progressed miles from the arcane idea of "asking for it", from the idea that a woman's clothing or sexual history had any bearing on her right to say no.

. . .

Back on the phone with my mum, both of us dismayed by some of the attitudes we'd heard expressed publicly, we decided it all came down to the concept of progressive consent. Not a catchy phrase, admittedly, but one that's absolutely crucial when it comes to navigating sex in any context. The premise of progressive consent is this: just because you agree to one thing, it doesn't automatically mean you agree to something else.

If you agree to go home with someone, it doesn't automatically mean you want sex. Maybe you just want to kiss. Maybe you want to decide when you get there. Maybe you agree to one type of sex, but not another. Maybe you agree to have sex with one guy, not two. Or two guys, but not four. Maybe you agree to have sex with the guy you like, but not with his mates watching. Maybe you agreed to have sex an hour ago, but now you don't want to. Now you want to go home. Or go to sleep. And obviously, both parties have the right of refusal at any point - not just the woman. Is that all so hard to understand?


There's more at the link. All the other articles I read were of similar tone.

Ladies, you may hate me for saying this, but there are a few great, big, hairy elephants in the living-room that the author above (and the others I've read recently) won't acknowledge. They include (but are not limited to) the following:

  • The consumption of alcohol and/or hallucinogenic drugs, which we know full well will inhibit the operations of logic, rational thought, and moral restraint in both men and women;
  • The 'crowd mentality' that can overtake individuals in a group setting (particularly when fueled by alcohol or drugs);
  • Different cultural norms that inform and influence the actions of those formed in and by them.

I respectfully submit that these three elements, taken together, can make a mockery of a woman's right to permit or refuse sex. Note that I don't deny the woman's right to do so: I merely point out that under certain circumstances, it won't make a bit of difference to reality. Let me explain.

First, alcohol and drugs. A woman may be able to have a few drinks, or smoke a joint or two, or inhale a couple of lines of cocaine, and remain in control of her faculties. She may be able to decide that she no longer wants to continue flirting with the guy she's been teasing for the past hour or so . . . but is he similarly capable? If he's been drinking and/or doing drugs as well, his tolerance for those substances may be significantly less than hers. Sure, it'll be morally and ethically (and possibly legally) wrong for him to act on his impulses, but by now he neither knows or cares about that. He's reacting out of emotion and animal drive, not intellectually. Under such influences, he may no longer be capable of behaving rationally.

The 'crowd mentality' is another well-known factor. It can influence people to behave very differently to what they'd normally do, particularly if alcohol and/or drugs are an additional factor. Just look at 'street parties' that turn violent; night-club crowds that dissolve into a fighting mob of drunken revelers; celebrations after 'the big game' that degenerate into an orgy of burning vehicles and broken shop windows. The same thing can happen at an ordinary party. I've read more than a few newspaper reports about women who agreed to have sex with an individual at a party, in view of others, and it turned into a 'gang-bang' situation (to which the women hadn't agreed). I'm very sorry that they wound up in such a mess . . . but why the hell did they agree to public sex in the first place? In such an atmosphere, where normal moral and ethical inhibitions are lowered, it's all too easy for things to get out of hand. Those involved may not even realize that she didn't want them to join in. They may take her assent for granted . . . and they're usually in no condition (or mood) to listen to any objections.

Finally, cultural norms. Have you listened to so-called 'gangsta rap'? Notice how women are frequently referred to as 'bitch', 'ho' and the like? What does that tell you about the status of women in such a society? That's right . . . they're very low on the totem pole. They're seen as existing for the use (and abuse) of men. I've met many such men in my work as a prison chaplain (because, inevitably, many of them end up behind bars). Their attitudes are a fact of life . . . and such men are present in every single US town or city. They sometimes come into contact with others from different backgrounds, such as women who've been brought up to have more self-respect, and say 'no', and expect the men in their lives to honor their choice: but these men, from a very different background, have never had to take any notice of 'no' before. If you run into one at a street party, or drunken after-the-big-game celebration, he may not pay any attention to your protestations that you don't want to go all the way. If he thinks you've given him the slightest encouragement (even mild flirting), that justifies him, in his mind, to go to the limit - whether you like it or not. That's your purpose in life, as far as he's concerned. You're sex on the hoof, nothing more.

I'm afraid that women simply have to safeguard themselves against such dangers. Such safeguards include not going to places where you don't have any sort of safety net; not over-indulging in alcohol or drugs (in public, at least); not flirting with strangers; and being aware of differences in social background and ethos. If a woman insists that such factors are irrelevant, and that her choice must always be the dominant factor, she's living in cloud cuckoo land, I'm afraid. She's lost contact with reality.

I've worked with rape victims, and I'm all too horrifyingly aware of the devastating consequences of this crime. I grew up with three sisters, and have had a number of relationships with the opposite sex. I'm not blind to the rights of women, and was brought up to accept them as the norm. However, those rights didn't stop my parents teaching my sisters to dress, speak and behave appropriately, avoid potentially dangerous situations, and in general behave like ladies. Because they did so, and were taught to get out of a potentially harmful situation as soon as they detected it 'going downhill', none of them had any serious problems with men . . . unlike many of their friends and peers.

Let me try to express this conundrum by means of an analogy. I don't want to be run down by a drunk driver. Therefore, I try to practice defensive driving, including staying away from areas where I'm likely to encounter such drivers (e.g. bars in a roadside strip mall on a Friday night, and so on). By keeping clear of the danger, I'm being prudent. It won't help me to insist that I have the right to be on the road outside that bar-filled strip mall at any time I choose. Sure, I have that right: but if I choose to exercise it at certain times, and/or in certain places, I'm asking for trouble. I should - I do! - know better; therefore, I modify my behavior. Is that too hard to understand?

I'd like to hear from readers about this - particularly the ladies. Am I being unrealistic, or unfair, or sexist, in holding these views? Am I correct in thinking that it's a woman's responsibility to take such factors into account, and avoid such dangers if possible? I accept that sometimes the dangers can't be avoided, but one can minimize them by careful preparation and attention to detail. If one chooses not to do so, but rushes into potentially dangerous situations without care or concern, without planning or precautions . . . isn't the blame for anything that happens at least partially on one's own shoulders?

What say you, readers?

Peter

22 comments:

  1. http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/rape.html

    The integral links are very incisive as well.

    I have the "right" to walk alone and drunk downtown in any major American city with $20 bills hanging out of my pockets.

    To note I'd be an _idiot_ to do so, and certainly could have taken steps to ward off the easily foreseeable results of that choice, wouldn't be "blaming the victim" any more than pointing out that women might make better choices than being alone (and drunk/high) with a man if they are concerned about (date) rape.

    Personal responsibility means you accept that the world is not "perfect" however and use a modicum of judgement when serious issues are on teh line.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with you 100%. Yes, I certainly have the right to walk scantily-clad into a seedy bar at 2 AM, drink bourbon straight up until I can't walk straight, and accept a ride home from a stranger. But I can't expect to be safe doing so, no matter how I might rail at the unfairness of it all. That is life, and that's reality. So I deal with it, because I'm not an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If one chooses not to do so, but rushes into potentially dangerous situations without care or concern, without planning or precautions . . . isn't the blame for anything that happens at least partially on one's own shoulders?

    I don't think blame is the right word in this context. Saying a woman is partially to blame for being raped when she clearly did not consent is akin to saying someone whose car got crashed into is partially to blame for being on the road. It's a fine line and gets very close to blaming the victim.

    However, to say that it's a woman's responsibility to take care of herself and that she's failed in that duty when she intentionally enters dangerous situations... that's fair. The reality is we all spend time preparing for what could go wrong, whether it's emergency equipment in our cars, fire extinguishers, or simply avoiding the type of people and situations that could cause us irreparable harm. But being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people does not in any way make us responsible for what anyone else may do. The blame for anyone's actions always falls on their shoulders and rape (with clear non-consent) can only be blamed on the rapist.

    Consent is important. Being prepared to enforce that consent, and avoiding situations in which you can't, is just as important. But we all have sole responsibility for our own actions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That was my comment, major typo I missed. No coffee as yet.

    I don't expect to be safe if I show up in a bar wearing a thong for the wet T shirt contest with a bottle of Jim Beam in hand and get a ride home with Ted Bundy. That being said, most of such crimes involve women who are still totally naive to the world.

    At 20, was I thinking about such things? I was living in Seattle in the summer while girls were disappearing regularly, and all my friends and I did was joke about it, thinking, that would never happen to us.

    The young Illinois college student last week. Did she think when she simply went for a walk in a park area behind her campus, during the day, conservitively dressed and sober that they would be pulling her remains from the leaves a week later? No.

    Parents need to educate, I drilled it in my daughter, and she learned to carry a handgun in college, though she wasn't allowed to carry one on campus. Like me, she is cognizant as to her location, who is around her and always has a way out. But many parents want their children's world to be all nice and shiny and they leave the nest thinking it is still that way and walk right into the spider's web.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Peter. A lesson I learned 40 yrs ago. I am trying to convey this to young women now. Being in total control of your body means avoiding unsafe situations. Your post hits the nail on the head. I will pass it on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Politically Correct" thinking is believing the world must be the way we wish it to be, instead of the way it really is.

    The initial problem here is that so many people, and mostly women have bought into the lie that men and women are the same, especially when it comes to sexual thoughts and behavior.

    Most parents who have grown up believing in the myths of the enlightened/anointed of academe, have done their children a disservice by not educating them out of such nonsense.

    Reality can be brutally insensitive.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, you are spot on with our assessment, sir. In an ideal perfect world, I can wear a Bavarian bar maid costume and 3" heels at two AM as I walk my teacup dog along the Boulevard and nothing will happen. In reality, nothing good will happen, for anyone.

    Culture matters. The guys who assaulted me did so in part because I insulted another guy's manhood by refusing his advances when he tried to feel me up. I was supposed to be flattered that a good looking guy like him would lay hands on a fat little nerd like me and I should have been willing to go along with him - I was neither, and that offended them greatly. And note, please, that this was in the midwestern US.
    LittleRed1

    ReplyDelete
  9. Self-control takes practice. Most men get a lot of that practice, and are very good at self-control.

    The type of men these women seem to go for? Uh...not so much.

    If you think he's hot enough to make out with, be prepared for the possibility that the last woman he heard the word "No" from was his mother, and the last time it happened was before he hit puberty. If so, he'll be way out of practice in implementing the appropriate response.

    He might stop anyway...even the alphas aren't _always_ jerks. But just in case, you'd be well-advised to have a back-up plan better than "Stop...or I'll say 'stop' again!".

    Whether or not a bunch of guys in a casual social encounter (or on the internet) respect your right not to be raped has _absolutely nothing_ to do with the question of whether the guy you're going home drunk with after knowing him for all of twenty minutes is going to respect that right. Even _then_, he probably will. But "probably" isn't really good enough, when the other side of the bet involves getting raped.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am in complete agreement. I would go so far as to say that a woman may not be asking for it if she goes back to a guy's hotel room at silly o'clock, drunk and out of control, but it is an extremely silly thing to do. This is not to say that guy's can't control themselves but come on - why else would you go back to a hotel room with him? Not to sip coffee and play bridge!

    I am a child sex abuse survivor and one thing I would say is that some types of men (and I am sure it works in terms of women too although I never came across any) could pick up that I was vulnerable. I spent years fending off abusive men who thought they could take advantage of me. A couple succeeded but not to a great extent. I was lucky to grow up within a good immediate family and quickly learned coping skills. No-one knew about what had happened to me so it wasn't like I walked around with a big label on my forehead. But I might as well have done.

    So my additional advice for women is to be aware that some people can sense vulnerability at a distance you would be surprised at and some of us need to take extra special care and be very sensible about the way we behave. It ain't pretty and it ain't always fair. It doesn't have anything to do with men being unable to control themselves but has everything to do with the fact that predators with extremely good covers exist and you need to know that in order to protect yourself.

    That said, I have every sympathy for a bloke to takes a woman back to his hotel only for her to cry rape afterwards - there is something very unfair about this sort of scenario ...

    ReplyDelete
  11. One term that might apply here is contributory negligence. No one "deserves" to be robbed/raped/assaulted/whatever. No one "asks" for these things. Yet, the failure to make good decisions is the root cause of so many crimes because while most are able to resist the temptation, there's always someone who cannot or simply doesn't care.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have longer thoughts that I think I will make a blog topic out of but my shorter thoughts are these; what these women writing the articles are angry about isn't that reality isn't in line with the ideal, but the tendency to "accept" reality as it is to the point that men raping women just is, and blaming them for it is like blaming a tiger for eating a deer.

    I'm pretty sure I've related this tale before, but at the university I went to it was general knowledge that a certain fratenity were drink-dopers, to the point where warning students of this was part of my freshman orientation. So far as I know none of them were ever prosecuted and the general attitude was boys will be boys and those were particularly naughty ones.

    In my ideal universe, students are warned, everyone is educated about watching drinks and not letting their guard down, and known criminals are legally and by institutions treated like known criminals rather than the occupants of the tiger cage.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well-put, Peter. I'd like to see a society where we can evolve past some obsolete primate instincts, but in the meantime I agree that the world is a bad place and we all need to be smart about how we go through it.

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well said Peter, and I've forwarded this to friends with teenage girls.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is a touchy, touchy subject, as LabRat notes on her blog. I understand your points, but I wanted to add my perspective, since it isn't exactly "Hear, hear".

    Instead of the "a woman is (or should be) in control of her body at all times" that the articles in question endorse, I'd prefer: "a person is (or should be) in control of his or her body at all times". This not only involves consent, but also the choices we make and our actions. A rapist is ultimately in control of his (or her) body before, during, and after the act. The victim's control and autonomy have been violated. No amount of halter tops or walking in the wrong part of town can change that.

    There's very little reason to remind rape victims that they may have made choices that put them in harm's way. Many, many of them go farther than that and blame themselves entirely for getting raped full stop. It's so easy (because of the cultural prevalence of reasons like your three bulleted elephant points) for them feel their rapists were like forces of nature rather than human beings with free will. Rape has an almost automatic legacy of shame and self-loathing. That's perhaps why so many advocates and survivors dismiss the idea of a gray area (although a gray area indeed exists and mutual intoxication can be a factor in graying in up). Instead they try to put things very simply, perhaps simplistically: If you did not consent, it was rape. Rape is NEVER the victim's fault. The end.

    This assurance isn't only there to teach potential victims that they're entitled to say no any step of the way, but also to counteract the internal blame that an actual victim might very likely feel.

    It is incredibly important--for women especially--to understand that there are people out there who don't care about their rights over their own bodies. It would be wonderful if they were taught how to be wise, to watch for danger signs, to quickly shut down an attacker when things go too far. However, a person lacking that wisdom, that knowledge, and those abilities is never "asking for it". Unpreparedness isn't an invitation, nor an excuse, nor even an adequate explanation for an attack. I'd like to see people question a victim's actions less and concentrate on the rapist's more.

    Yes! Educate potential victims! PLEASE. But never "you should have..." someone to whom the damage has been done. Let defense lawyers do that. Coming from society at large, it'll do no good.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I had two very eye-opening experiences with a girl I once dated on this subject (nothing scandalous!).

    The first was one night where we went out to dinner and each had a glass of wine. We then went to her house and, watching a long movie, each drank a further half bottle of wine. For those keeping score, that's about three-four drinks in four-five hours. After the movie, I drove home. The next day, she told me that she remembered dinner but absolutely nothing after that. In other words, a girl who was probably legally okay to drink had blacked out and, had consent ever been an issue, wouldn't have remembered giving it.

    2. This same girl told me that she'd been raped before and I took it at face value. One day I asked her about it, and it turned out that what had happened was that her then-boyfriend had pestered her for sex and verbally abused her over several weeks until she finally gave in. Other women told her that she'd been raped. There are a lot of things you could say about this situation, but not that it's rape.

    Keep in mind that this is a girl who is of average size and above-average intelligence. If she has such issues with capacity to consent and the definition of rape, what must smaller girls or less-intelligent people think?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Most men aren't rapists. Some are, whether that's due to culture or inability to hold one's drink / drugs / social context.

    Rape is never the woman's fault, that onus lies explicitly with the rapist, who, when caught, should be hanged.

    That said, certain behaviours on the part of women are certainly a good method of sorting those men who are not rapists from the ones who are, usually with tragic consequence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My comments, as they were apparently too long to leave here: http://orphanwilde.blogspot.com/2010/10/in-response-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. I made comments of similar import to Peter's in the wrong place and made a lot of people very hurt and angry.

    Something I learned was the tremendous extent to which blame is commonly placed on the victim to avoid blaming the perp. People feel like the victim is only being blamed for being stupid, so it's not such a big deal. And then, subconsciously, it's possible to escape fully dealing with the perp. Thing is, likely her parents know the perp's parents, or her friends know him; the people around her don't want to deal with the misery of actually calling the cops, giving them the story, the trial, asking people to be witnesses. People don't want to deal with it, and if they can wriggle out of it by focusing on her stupidity rather than his evil, it's a huge relief.

    Remember the offender here isn't the guy we're used to from self-defense discussion, a stranger with a rap sheet as long as your arm. This is your neighbor's teenager or a friend of all your friends. Yeah, maybe he seemed a little off, but you help her go forward with this and you're going to keep seeing his friends at class and parties, or his parents that you always asked to watch the house when you were on vacation.

    And the people I was talking to had been through that experience as the victim, where no one wants to hear it, they want to sweep it under the rug, they want to say that's just how the world is, she should have known. So they don't want to hear word one about what she should have done, and I see why. What Peter and I and most of the commenters here meant as a sensible warning in advance is commonly an excuse to worm out of dealing with the offender.

    I'm not convinced we can NEVER talk about prudent behavior. But I think we better bring up its use as an excuse every damn time. Every victim has a whole circle of friends and family. A lot more of us are going face the temptation to sweep it under the rug than are going to face the crime itself. There's a lot more of us that need to recognize the warning signs of wriggling out of handling a rape than will need to recognize the warnings of impending rape. We ought to be considerably better at recognizing those than recognizing what the victim did wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I also left a comment on Labrat's post. Remembering my college experience, I think there are two things that need to be asserted. One, people should not be treated as a means to an end. Other people are not their for one to use, be it for sexual gratification or money. Secondly, though, remembering in college many people were uncomfortable about being sexually active, and used the disinhibiting effects of alcohol and drugs to give them the excuse to go do what they wanted.

    I perceived that they were telling themselves "I'm not normally like this, so it is OK to be sexual." and that soberly choosing to be sexual was...bad.

    I think that if your behaviour makes you feel guilty, one should analyze the behaviour. If the guilt is due to harming yourself or others, one should not do the behaviour again. If there is no harm to self or others, stop feeling guilty.

    Should sexual activity or the desire to have sex make one feel guilty? Depends on a lot of things. Consent, the actions, why one is doing it--all sorts of variables. It really depends on the person and their individual morality. Sex per se is not bad or good.

    Certainly though, one should not do unto others what would be hateful to you. And, really, people are not playthings, but living beings who should be treated with kindness and respect. Part of that is bodily autonomy, and maintaining situational awareness to nothing happens to that autonomy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I've had rape discussions in the past and I often see people confusing the situation preceding or surrounding the rape with the act of rape. Going to a bar, dressing up, dancing, stripping, laughing, drinking, kissing, flirting are not rape or an invitation to rape. Are the actions prior to the crime relevant to the crime? Perhaps. Is the drinking relevant to the DUI? Is the purchase of the car?

    I have also seen people try to discuss all rape cases as identical. You can simplify it down to 'not consent' but for practical discussion can you really say an irrational random act by a mentally ill stranger is the same as a premeditated planned act by a trusted family member?

    Expecting "no" to universally prevent rape when it doesn't universally prevent murder or any other crime is a bit unrealistic. Should it? imo, absolutely. But the list of things that 'should' be varies from person to person, church to church and criminal to criminal.

    as for the 'she asked for it' issue? I once had a girl sit down on my lap, look directly into my eyes and say "I've always had a rape fantasy." Some girls do ask for it. Guys can say NO too.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I know I'm a little late coming in here, but I do have something to add that I feel is important.

    Peter, I pretty strongly disagree with you. I think your advice is well-intentioned but ill-informed.

    1. While alcohol and other substances can impede logic and judgement, rapists are typically (not always perhaps, but typically) control freaks. They may PRETEND to lose control in order to put the intended prey off guard, but are generally entirely aware of their actions and their consequences. Rape is an art form, most often involving seduction and coercion as well as physical force.

    2. Crowd mentality. This may play a role in the small minority of rapes that occur in crowds. The VAST MAJORITY of sexual assaults take place either in the home of the perp or the home of the victim, when no one else is around. You might say, "she should not have gone to his home" or "she should not have invited him in", but typically (64% of REPORTED cases, and you can imagine how many of these go unreported) the perp is not a stranger or casual acquaintance. It is her trusted friend, boyfriend, family member, or friend of the family. So should women avoid their families and trusted friends? Should they not have boyfriends or husbands?

    3. Cultural norms. All I can say about this is that cultural norms need to be changed, and everyone of any gender who is aware of it is hopefully working on changing them. By talking or blogging or whatever you can do to point out that it is wrong. Sure, it helps if the woman has a black belt in Judo to back up her "no", should she be out on the town when some asshole decides she's not human. But again, this is NOT the most dangerous situation for her to be in. The most dangerous place she can be is in her own bed!

    In summary, the best thing a woman can do is to live her own life with awareness and mindfulness, and not try to stuff herself into a "proper little lady" box. The odds of her getting assaulted are NOT appreciably changed by how proper she tries to be (or how well she follows your advice). Statics bear this out. The odds may be shifted some in her favor if she is confident about who she is and knows some martial arts (I've not seen any studies on that either way). And more importantly, the perpetrators need to be held accountable for their actions. If this were more often the case, perhaps those who were considering rape wouldn't be so certain they can get away with it.

    And Mulligan, you are right, some women DO ask for it (or ask for a role-play of a rape fantasy, anyhow). And men can say "no" too. Though a man who wanted to pursue it might have done so by asking the girl, "do you want to pursue that with me?", and if she answered "yes", negotiating boundaries and a safe word first. Those negotiated boundaries and safe words make all the difference between role-playing a kinky fantasy and actual rape. That seems obvious to me, but I think in the world at large there may be some confusion about it.

    ReplyDelete

ALL COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. THEY WILL APPEAR AFTER OWNER APPROVAL, WHICH MAY BE DELAYED.