"Rape is about power, not sex"

I'm going to try and grapple with a sensitive issue here. This post concerns the self-protection advice given to women for the purpose of preventing rape, as I feel it is often confounded by political correctness as a backlash against past insensitivity.

The other day I was listening to the latest Bullshido podcast in which they were talking about the issue of rape, with a particular focus on the recent Lloyd Irvin story. They had a Texas State Prosecutor (is that the correct title?) on the show to provide an expert opinion, and she said that rape was nothing to do with sex and it was just about a man asserting his power over the victim.

This is the received wisdom that gets trotted out on a regular basis in discussions about rape and rape prevention. Because rape is about power, not sex (or so the argument goes), it makes no difference what the victim wears or what she does, so advice about clothing or avoiding certain social situations are, at best, misplaced, and at worst, a patriarchal exercise in victim-blaming. However, I think this view is inaccurate and, to be frank, harmful.

The problem is that there are, effectively, two definitions of rape: the colloquial definition and the legal definition. These are often used interchangeably in discussions, which ends up muddying the waters.

The colloquial definition of rape is the act of forcing a woman into sexual intercourse against her will. This is a context in which the alleged "power" motive makes some sense, and one might cite examples of mass rape used as a terror tactic in war-torn countries (e.g. Democratic Republic of the Congo) as cases in point. However, the legal definition is far wider than that. Admittedly I am only speaking from the point of view of English law, so I invite people from other jurisdictions to correct me if need be, but my understanding is that other common law jurisdictions use a similar definition.

Here is the definition of rape in English law under Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

What we can see here is that the legal definition of rape does not just cover the extremely brutal scenarios in which a woman is literally forced into having sex against her will. It also covers scenarios in which the perpetrator does not realise he is committing rape, but the court finds that a reasonable person in his position would have read the signals and realised that the victim did not consent.

It is clear that this second type really is motivated by sex, not power; how can he rape a woman for a power trip if he doesn't even realise that she doesn't consent?

Now, as this is an understandably sensitive topic, let me underline the fact that I am not, in any way shape or form, attempting to exonerate this second type of rapist. However, it's my opinion that an accurate assessment of the motives behind rape will lead to more effective steps being taken to prevent it. And if sex really is the motive, then suggestions like "don't get into bed with a man" or "don't get drunk around men" are eminently sensible.

An important distinction needs to be drawn between pragmatic advice and moral blame. While it is clearly wrong to say, as some do, that a woman "brought it on herself" via her clothes or socialising habits, there is nothing wrong with advising her to take precautions. Compare this to self-defence advice for men as someone like JWT on this forum might provide: he might advise me to avoid rough parts of town or bars full of drunk, testosterone-fuelled young men with a point to prove. He is not saying that, if I get beaten up in a pub, it's my fault for going there; he is simply offering advice to help avoid the situation in the first place.

If we are genuine in our desire to prevent rape rather than just trumpet how progressive and politically correct we are, we need to diagnose the root cause of the problem accurately and with a cool head so that we can actually address the issue.

 

Never mind, English Law will catch up with civiised countries definition of rape one day.

In Scotland resonable belief is defined as clear consent from someone capable of giving it, not lack of objection.

 

Hi Timmy Boy

An interesting and controversial topic. Are you able to provide us with the legal definition of rape in the state of Texas so we can get an idea as to whether that prosecutor is expressing a personal or professional standpoint?

 

I think you can see from the definition provided in the Sexual Offences Act that a mere lack of objection does not, in fact, constitute a reasonable belief in consent. Note that any steps taken by the perpetrator to establish whether or not the victim consents are to be taken into account.

 

Working on it. However, this Texas prosecutor was just one example of what I'm talking about; I've heard this explanation given in this country too.

 

The line between "sensible advice for self protection" and normalising an unacceptable situation is not a hard and fast one. If women (blacks, Jews, gays) hadn't trumpeted their right to go into situations that sensible advice might have called dangerous, then those situations would always have remained so.

If, as you acknowledge, most rape of women is by people they consider friends and even family members, where should they stay to be safe from it? If some rapes are about sex, then a man knows he can get it wherever he sees a skirt of even the most modest length, no?

The apparent success of the "Don't Be that Guy" campaign compared to the failure of women-targeting scare campaigns suggests that changing attitudes in men is an attainable goal even for fairly limited outlay.

P.S. I don't generally believe in "honest mistakes about consent". Personally, when I have sex, I'm getting some active participation from the other person. I shudder to think of the implications for the sex lives of the Tory grandees who so regularly stand up and imply the opposite.

 

To be honest I'm not really sure what part of my post you're arguing with here as I'm pretty sure I never suggested otherwise.

 

I'm querying whether advice targeted at the potential victims, as you seem to suggest, is a good approach for addressing the problem. I think efforts to change attitudes and social norms are more than "just trumpet[ing] how progressive and politically correct we are", they're an attempt to tackle the actual root of the disease rather than slightly ameliorating its symptoms.

 

P.S. It's also not a strict dichotomy between the exercise of power and the enjoyment of sex, I don't think. Surely the idea that my power is justifiably paramount is implicit in the enjoyment of sex with someone who is just meekly submitting, let alone fighting back?

 

If it is about power (which IMO it is) then it can still be possible that the actions of the victim can escalate or deescalate the desire to dominate, factors such as clothing and they way they are acting in a social situation, or the dynamic they create.

Victim blaming is an issue that is very valid and should be carefully navigated, however complete exhonoration of blame doesn't really help the prevention of future occurrences.

Something of a case of defining the line between bashing and blaming a persons actions and perpetuating negative feelings of selfworth and exploring the problems so that positive actions can be taken from it for both themselves and others to avoid repeats of the crime.

 

It is also important to distinguish between "stranger rape" and so called "date rape" scenarios. It is typically the former where individuals come from the "power and dominance" orientation; in the same way killers who engage in a fit of pique with a blade often mask a sexual frustration or manifestation

It is not a coincidence that prisoners will often assert control and dominance over other inmates with forced sexual acts, but they will deny being gay if questioned.

It really is one of those issues where the waters get very muddy very quickly when looking for motive and causation.

"Consent" is the key to it - it is pretty standard that if somewhat either does not consent or significantly CANNOT give consent (age, mental impairment, intoxicated, unconcious) then the offence is completed

 

Rape has to be penetration with the penis per mouth, per anus or per vagina

With an object it is "Assault by penetration"

 

From what I've come to understand the trope that "Rape is about power, not about sex" is a little dated and doesn't always reflect the reality of rape - as you have pointed out -. Often the problem is you have a guy who has not checked for consent "properly" and goes along with the whole "if she takes you home to her bedroom then says no, she really means yes" thing.

With regards to "don't get drunk around men" etc, these are often not acceptable pieces of advice to give for a number of reasons but the most prominent is that while it would prevent rape it is representative of a fairly disturbing trend in gender politics.

Now don't get me wrong here, I know feminists who will do everything short of knee you in the balls if you - as a man, who never has to experience the threat of rape - suggest that women shouldn't get drunk around men if they want to avoid rape even though these feminists often take precautions themselves.

The point is that those kind of pre-cautions are useful but they are personal choices... they are choices which we not be normalised. A world where these choices are made normal rather than disappointingly practical suggests that men are like poorly trained sexual dobermans who, if your in the wrong place in the wrong time, might just suddenly snap and rape you. Instead of changing the way men view women and think about their boundaries, we put the focus on women and effectively tell them "stay at home at night unless you have a chaperone". (Which often fails as a preventative measure because rapists are often known to the victim anyway)

Secondly if we're going to give that kind of advice to women, how are they supposed to have sexual autonomy. I mean, I as man have risked rape, kidnap, murder, robbery a number of times just by going home with a girl I didn't know. It's not entirely the same, but taking that "high suspicion of strange men" as your norm, must make it very difficult to get some "nookie", and indeed that does often hamper women's sex lives. I know a lot of my female friends often turn guys down when invited back "to his place" because well... they have no idea who that guy could be.

Thirdly there is a cultural context at play, if I am at a cash machine while drunk in the middle of the night and someone jumps me from behind and takes my money very few people would say that I've done something wrong. Where-as if a woman gets drunk, goes home with a guy, then changes her mind... and he rapes her anyway. There is always a whole chorus of -usually- men ready to ignore the rapist and start counter-factually talking about the woman could of done, under the pretence that they "just want the woman to be safe". No one needs to warn the woman that she might get raped at night, she's a woman and in this society that means that she is probably already painfully aware of that possibility and telling her "you know you should consider drinking less because rape" only contributes to the culture in which rape is used to control women.

The problem with victim blaming is not really anything to do with whether the "advice" prevents rape as some of it does and some of it doesn't. People are free to take it upon themselves to take personal measures; but the trend of telling women "stay at home at night unless you are escorted"; "don't drink with men"; "don't flirt with men who you don't want to have sex with" enforces some fairly nasty and sexist cultural norms about what is expected of women and men and the fact that in discussions of rape the topic dis-proportionally becomes "what did the woman do wrong" makes feminists like me extremely sceptical of the paradigms overall usefulness.

 

Under the sexual offences act of 2003, it would be classed as assault by penetration rather than rape.

 

IMHO even rape that is about sex is also, inextricably, linked to power too.
"I want sex with that woman and I'm going to get it no matter what"
It's exercising a priviliged position (that being the physically stronger person in a culture that is still partriarchal and sexist) for your own ends.
Desire for money and greed might be the underlying reason for me to go and mug someone but it will ultimately be an exercise in power that enables me to do so.
IMHO rape (and all violence really) should be approached in the same way as a disease. We can take, and advise, sensible precautions to avoid it but ALSO try and eradicate it and never blame the person for getting struck down by it.

Whenever anyone brings up not dressing sexily, or getting drunk, or going to a bad part of town or bar as a way of reducing the risk of rape I always think of the amount of OAP's raped, often in their own homes.
They would be the epitome of someone employing target hardening and yet it happens an alarming amount.

 

Whilst there is truth to this you are incorrect in the assertion that "no-one will say i did anything wrong". You wouldn't in the act itself, but you would have exercised poor judgement. That does not excuse the robbery/mugging/assault, but leaving your car unlocked or with a phone on the dash does not ask for a theft either - common sense just says you don't do it

"Target hardening" is a commonly touted phrase; it has nothing to do with power or control and everything to do with making yourself as safe as possible. Only the individual can decide how far they harden themselves as a target.

"Do not do this because of rape" is no more controlling over women than "do not do this because you may be robbed" is controlling - it is identifying a risk and taking measures to mitigate as much as you choose to.

In many cases it is not so much about "blame" on a victim so much as "what can we do to help minimize occurences going forward" (a form of "refelctive practice")

 

I think dressing sexily is a red herring - it shouldn't have any bearing on matters of rape. However, if you're looking to stay safe, it's surely a pretty good idea to avoid getting wasted, avoid known bad areas and avoid being alone with people that you don't know well enough to trust with your safety.

 

Power/control as HOW it is acheived in those cases; the MOTIVATION is separate - this is where the semantics usually enter.

I can rape you because I am acting out of a sexual urge that I will not control OR I can rape you to show I am in a position of power of you...the method is the same in both cases even where the motivation is not.

 

I think you've missed the point I was trying to make.

This is part of a larger cultural context hinging on a disproportionate focus on the victim. I'm not saying that advice wouldn't help someone, but that in comparison to a robbery the number of people chiming in about what the victim did wrong is massive. And no "I just want to minimize rape" will change that.

I have literally had my card stolen on Union Street in Aberdeen from behind my back. I was drunk and I put my card in a cash machine and before I could enter my pin a girl hugged me from behind, I realised I knew her and completely forgot about my card for 5 seconds and while I hugged her it had been taken.. I turned round and.. BANG... card is gone and I'm left rather red-faced in-front of a girl I like because I was drunk and not paying attention as I took my money out.

I've told that story a number of times and no one has ever considered to question my vigilance, I messed up, I know that and I paid the price, game over. It almost never goes like that with rape.

Furthermore common-sense isn't a bottom out answer, just because something is perceived as common sense doesn't mean that it's actually sensible, fair or appropriate. In most cases it is about blame, most of the time when I've seen this reasoning creep up it's not in a neutral setting discussing personal safety but in regards to a woman getting raped and people making it her fault rather than the guys. "Oh she was leading him on" etc