Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Rape is assault, not sexuality

Washinton Post story on rape
Cleveland Rape case
East Coast rapist

What do all these stories have in common? Besides being disturbing to read, they all classify rape as a sexual act. Why is this an issue? I think that when we label an assault as "sexual", we change how we consider it and prosecute it. The real problem is that rape is not about fulfilling a healthy sexual need. It is not about desire, lust, or love. It is about power, humiliation, and sadism.

Consider this: If I accused a man of poking my eye out with a knife, and there was medical evidence to back this accusation up, would anyone say I wanted that to happen? Would anyone ask what I was wearing? But if the same man poked my vagina with a knife, my clothes would suddenly have relevance. If the tool was a penis, my intentions and desires would suddenly have relevance.

Rape is assault with a sexual organ. The term "sexual assault" is, in fact, accurate. But I think it does damage our ability to understand the full impact of the crime. And I think it adds an element of sexism to the discussion. Consider priests who sexually assault altar boys. Does anyone say "Well, that boy looked like he was 18 at the time." I don't think so. But if the priest assaulted a middle school girl who had finished puberty, then that's exactly what would be said by someone. Just read the articles about the Cleveland gang rape of an 11 year old, who by all reports, "looked" older than 11.

Mixing up sexuality with rape, sodomy, forced fellatio, and other acts of abuse bring sexism and victim blaming to the table. What's the answer? I'm not sure. Let me know your thoughts!

6 comments:

  1. Perhaps one reason that historically the victim's appearance and clothing have been questioned is that rape or "sexual assault" is, by its nature, a crime that usually has no witnesses besides the accused and the accuser. If the accused's defense is consent, aren't the victim's appearance and clothing probative? Through our judicial system, we as a society have determined that they are more prejudicial than probative. Nevertheless, an outside observer will still take them into consideration when trying to determine if a crime has been committed. That may be unfair, but it does demonstrate that sexual assault is a unique crime.

    I recommend "Lucky" by Alice Sebold and "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Er, Wes, the clothes someone is wearing (or not wearing) has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they said, "Yes, you can have sex with me." Their clothes do not give permission.

    Their physical appearance, how sexy they are, or how big their breasts are also are not relevant when the issue is about whether or not they said, "Yes, your penis may enter my mouth/vagina/anus."

    I am more than a bit disturbed by your comment, and hope that you give it a lot more thought.

    - Rachel

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wes, you just perfectly made my point. Consent is only an issue because we believe sexual assault is linked to healthy sexuality. It is not. It is a violent act of domination.
    You are right that we have come to understand that clothing is more prejudicial than probative. But again, I think the very fact we had to "find that out" is a symptom of sexism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I appreciate the feedback on my comment! I have given the matter of sexual assault a lot of thought, so let me clarify my comment:

    Most sexual assaults are "acquaintance rapes" -- crimes of violence, but not a crime perpetrated by a stranger. Consent may be given without the statement, "Yes, your penis may enter my..." (and usually is). If the accused claims the accuser did consent, but the accuser claims that she did not, and there were no other witnesses to the event, what then?

    In that case, the police, the prosecutors, and ultimately perhaps a jury must look at a lot of physical and circumstantial evidence to determine if the accuser is a victim of sexual assault. Torn clothing, injuries, and the circumstances of the encounter could all be important clues. The victim's clothing and appearance are "probative" in the sense that they tend to prove something. On the issue of consent, they prove very little. But the outside observer struggles to try to piece together what happened. He or she will try to evaluate the situation with respect to his or her own beliefs and experiences. Right or wrong, sexist or not, he or she will use those facts to try and figure out "What happened?"

    From a legal standpoint, the alleged victim's appearance and clothing are inadmissible. Similarly, the alleged victim's sexual history is inadmissible. Yet, outside the courtroom, wouldn't an observer be more likely to believe that the accuser did not consent if she were a virgin than if she were a prostitute? Again, right or wrong, he or she will use those facts to try and figure out "What happened?"

    We've come a long way from a time when rape of a woman by her husband was a legal impossibility, women with multiple sex partners were considered inherently not credible, and criminal defense attorneys were permitted to cross-examine accusers in open court about their clothing, appearance, and prior sexual history. However, social expectations are still out there, and most people judge based on their own beliefs and experiences.

    Elaine, I agree that sexual assault is always unhealthy and always violent. Is it an act of domination? It is, most of the time. Those cases are easier to figure out. The tricky ones are those where the victim genuinely *did not consent*, but the perpetrator *genuinely thought she did.* Legally, that is a forcible rape. That sort of incident may reflect problems in the way our society understands sex, but I don't think it's driven by the same "domination" motive as a rapist who attacks intending to inflict violent sexual abuse without consent.

    I certainly don't want to disturb or offend anyone with my comments on this very sensitive topic. As many do, I struggle with the prosecution of sexual assault, because it does not fit neatly into the box that we use to prosecute other crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wes, you make good points. But here's something to think about: sexism affects how we prosecute this crime, and your post underlines that.
    When a priest sodomizes an altar boy, it is also an acquaintance rape. Yet no one wonders if the altar boy gave permission, even if, as is often the case, the abuse has gone on for some time and the boy continues to be alone with the priest voluntarily.
    The fact is, there is an underlying sexism assumption about women, men, and rape. This is because we equate rape with healthy sex. The minute a girl resists, a man with healthy sexuality will stop. The minute he doesn't stop, the situation changes from a sexual encounter to an assault.

    ReplyDelete
  6. An analogous situation to your altar boy example is that of the female teacher who sexually abuses an underage male student. Although people recoil in disgust at priests who abuse altar boys, common reactions to the female teacher-male student scenario are how "hot" the teacher is and how "lucky" the male student is. That situation clearly demonstrates a sexist double-standard.

    ReplyDelete