MASSIVE MASSIVE TRIGGER WARNINGS FOR RAPE, ASSAULT, SEXUAL VIOLENCE, VICTIM BLAMING AND LEGAL SYSTEM FAILURE.
_____________________________________
Part One: The Shortcomings of Law
I apologise that this post is going to be rather UK centric, given that my knowledge of the law in this area doesn’t extend much outside of my own country, but I think many of the points will be universal. The law, in many ways, is a good and useful thing. However, it is also important to acknowledge its significant limitations.
If you know me in real life or you’ve been reading my blog for more than, say, three seconds, you’ll know that I class myself as a rape survivor. Whether I would be in the eyes of the legal system, though, is…. questionable.
Under Section 1(1) of Sexual Offences Act (SOA) 2003 a defendent, A, is guilty of rape if:
A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;
B does not consent to the penetration; and,
A does not reasonably believe that B consents.[1]
Okay. Fair enough, in so far as it goes. I’m sure that none of us would dispute that the situation outlined in the above section of legislation is definitely rape. However, it’s really only the beginning, and limiting and problematic in multiple ways.
To begin with, it specifically states that it is only rape if a penis is involved. While it is true that the majority of rapes are carried out by men (primarily on women, but also on other men,) this legislation effectively states that ONLY men can be rapists. Sexual violence perpetrated by women is often seen by society as lesser, not important, and not a real issue (because men would never say no, and the idea of a woman raping another woman is just ludicrous, right?) But how is it okay to state in law that only one gender can be rapists? What about sexual violence perpetrated by any gender that includes penetration with an object or body part other than a penis? Technically, according to UK law, that’s assault but not actually rape. This outdated law presents a heterosexist and phallocentric model of sex, in which essentially nobody except a cisgendered[2] man can be a perpetrator, and erases the experience of all the people who are survivors of sexual violence where a penis, or possibly even penetration, was not involved.
The ‘does not reasonably believe that B consents’ is clever legal wording, but massively damaging to survivors when it comes to getting justice, because it can be manipulated and misused on so many levels. My rapist has come out and said, quite publicly, that he never raped me. I am quite certain that this is what he actually believes. I struggle to believe that he forgets that all the fucked up sexual interactions we had in our six years together ever happened, but somehow he has justified it – because he seems to think I was consenting, because we were partners and I owed him, because I mostly kept quiet during to avoid getting thrown out of the house or worse, because we had had consensual sex in the past? I don’t know the reasons. But what this effectively means is that, if I were ever to take my story to a court of law, I doubt it’d meet the legal definition of rape significantly to secure a conviction, because he’d just say “I though she consented!” And how can anyone prove beyond reasonable doubt that he didn’t?
This phrasing also means that bullshit defences like “she didn’t fight back strongly enough” actually sometimes (read: frequently) get rapists acquitted in the face of significant evidence.
People say to me, and to survivors everywhere, “why didn’t you just go to the police?” To illustrate just why, I’m going to come out with a story that I haven’t told publicly before. I have another ex who tried to rape me. When he was arrested on charges of physical and sexual assault, I went to the police, effectively to back up and support the story of a woman I hardly knew. Why? Because it was right, and because I knew what he was capable of from bitter experience. It took me getting passed through several different officers and indeed three entirely separate departments (one in Hampshire and one in Oxfordshire, before finally getting passed on to one in London) before anyone would even sit down with me and take me seriously, and EVEN THEN I believe they mostly did so because an older, assertive male (Nomad) was with me at the time. What happened? They told me it was useless. That he was going to be out within days and all charges would be dropped. That I could pursue my own case if I really wanted, but it was a waste of time because my name would be dragged through the mud and he’d only get away with it anyway because I didn’t have the all important physical evidence. This is why I did not go to the police. The fact that my community have largely turned their backs on me when I even speak out unofficially is why I don’t go to the police. The societal implications that nice girls keep quiet, smile sweetly when their ex-abuser is around and happy move on is why I don’t go to the police.
We survivors don’t go to the police because the law is fucked up. It isn’t on our side. The very wording of the very brief bit of legislation defining rape in this country effectively gives perpetrators a ‘get out of jail free’ card.
__________________________________________________________________________
Part Two: Towards a Social Definition
We like to think, within the little bubbles of our supposedly radical communities, that we can police ourselves – we don’t need the legal system, which is mostly against us from the off, to do it for us. Right?
Well, this is where things get really interesting. We’ve established that the law isn’t on the side of survivors, but very bitter experience has taught me that I can’t, as a survivor, necessarily rely on these communities to be on my side, either. How many of us don’t know a woman who’s been pushed out of one social group or another (more often than not, a supposedly progressive space like polyamorous or BDSM community) because she spoke up about rape or assault?
Why is this? Sometimes, it’s because these groups make exactly the same mistakes as the legal system makes, dissecting every detail of a case in a desperate attempt to decide that it wasn’t really rape – or that the victim (usually a woman, though let’s not generalise) was to blame in some way. This isn’t because these people are evil, or actually believe in sexual violence. It is because they are afraid beyond measure of admitting that rapists exist in society and in their community, and that they are not creepy, leering predators lurking in dark alleyways waiting to pounce, but ostensibly “nice guys” with jobs and partners and families. It’s very simple psychology to understand that people want to blame the victim because, if they can convince themselves that victims are responsible in some way for theur own assaults, they feel safer in the assurance that they can prevent it from happening to them.
In BDSM community, it’s often ‘well, she shouldn’t have played with him, she knew he played hard and didn’t do safewords,’ or even more sickeningly, ‘if she was a real sub, she’d have shut up and taken it.’ In polyamorous and other GSM[3] circles, at least the ones I’m directly or indirectly familiar with, it’s more often simply ‘well, no-one can really know what happened, perhaps she provoked him, things were said on both sides…’ at best, or ‘did she expect to get away with not having sex when they were in a relationship?’ at worst. Either way, it’s messed up. But I’ve ranted about that before.
What I’m interested in here is looking at ways in which we in minority communities which purport to have the best interests of survivors at heart can actually do better – and the first thing I propose is that we stop, stop, STOP dissecting whether a situation can fit the legal definition of rape, and instead look at a more realistic, fluid, social definition.
Surely we cannot accept a definition in which only one gender can be rapists? Surely we must see that it is Messed Up that it doesn’t count as rape if a woman forces a man (or another woman) to have sex against their will, or that it’s not Real Rape Rape if they’re in a relationship, or if the victim agreed to let themselves be tied up, or if one or both of them was drunk?
We need to agree that sex, of any form and between people of any genders, that is forced, coerced or otherwise not performed with freely given and enthusiastic consent on all sides is Rape. Not grey rape, not date rape, not maybe/maybe not, but Actual, Real Rape. And rape is a crime, always, even if there exists some legal technicality via which the perpetrator can get away scott-free.
Then, once we have this social definition in place and stop playing these was it, wasn’t it? games, THEN we can begin to be truly radical in the support of our survivors and, if we choose, the effective rehabilitation of our perpetrators, meaning that there will in the long run be fewer rapes overall, full accountability for the rapist as well as support for the survivor, and none of the bullshit victim blaming that is so prevalent as things stand at the moment.
_____________________________________________________
[1] Source: http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk
[2] Is it “cisgender” or “cisgendered?” I’m never sure, and I’d like to get it right.
[3] Gender and Sexual Minorities.
I’d say “cisgender” rather than “cisgendered”, but “cissexual” would be even more accurate, since it’s the body you’re talking about, not gender identification, and “person with a penis” would be most accurate of all (though the overwhelmingly vast majority is perpetrated by cissexual men).
So sorry that your community isn’t being supportive. As you probably know this is really common. :/ I hope you have some people in your life who believe you and who are prepared to stand up for you, as and when you want them to!
I don’t know if you’ve read much Catharine MacKinnon, but a lot of what you’ve written here resonated with some of MacKinnon’s writing. I’ll include a few quotes, in case you’re interested, or in case it helps to have a widely published woman backing you up!
Catharine MacKinnon, Sex and Violence: A Perspective (1981), in Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (Harvard University Press, 1987), p87
Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Harvard University Press, 1989), p180
Thanks, Lisa. I haven’t read any MacKinnon… I will be sure to check out her work, sounds like she has lots of wise things to say on this topic!
A fair warning on MacKinnon. If you are going to read her anti-porn stuff, especially anything she’s done with Andrea Dworkin, they like to have survivors detail their horrific experiences with rape and molestation to prove there’s a link between porn and rape/molestation. I read some of their stuff for an essay on pornography I did and it was intensely triggering with no warnings.
And Andrea Dworkin is intensely transphobic. So there’s that.
Nice post, hon. Thanks for writing this.
I am saddened by the nearly complete lack of support that you have received from a community that was once so very important to you. These are people that can get all militantly up in arms about something as trivial as mentioning “men” and “women” in a slogan… but when there’s an accusation of rape? Better not touch that with a thirty-nine and a half foot pole! Despite all their talk of being more enlightened and a safer place than the mainstream society, they have copied its response — or lack thereof — perfectly. Your earlier post on this topic was excellent, as I have told you several times already. (Oddly enough, it is also the only post in well over half a year to receive no comments whatsoever.)
As you say, the expectation is that “nice girls keep quiet, smile sweetly when their ex-abuser is around”. I was stunned that this expectation is so comprehensive that you were actually asked to sleep in the same room as your rapist. How can anyone with more than two brain cells think that this is a reasonable request?? The mind truly boggles.
Thank you, Sweetheart. For your support both here, and all through the last two years of all of this. For believing me unquestioningly. I love you xxx <3
Sorry for your ordeal. But I’d like to thank you for the acknowledgement that the legislation effectively states that ONLY men can be rapists, is at it core wrong.
I am glad you point out that women can rape men just as much as men can rape women. I would go farther and say that rape doesn’t always have to be physical. If rape is essentially abusing power to force vulnerability or to destroy personal boundaries, you can do that in emotional or social ways too. Women do that a lot more than they do physical rape.
Most modern feminists and polyamorists I know recognize that a huge problem in relationship dynamics is a power imbalance or pure disempowerment. When there’s huge rules about how a sex should act, you block yourself and then feel you’re “owed” something. Equality means everyone can ask for what they want and no (in any form it takes) means no in all areas, including non physical ones.
Hi, Matthew. Thank you for your comments.
I both agree and disagree with your points. While I feel that you are right that there are many different types of boundary violation and misuse of power, and that they all need to be acknowledged and recognised and talked about…. I think equating anything that is not specifically sexual violence with rape is wrong.
Rape is a very specific crime (even more specific in law than in people’s experience, as I have outlined in this post.) It effects survivors in profound and highly specific and often unique ways… though the after-effects are different for everyone, I doubt anyone who has experienced rape and also another type of boundary violation would agree that the two can reasonably be equated.
I do agree with your final point that power imbalances in relationships are a real issue and a thing that needs addressing, EVEN WHEN the person with more power in the relationship (due to, perhaps, gendered or economic or class or race or any other type of inherent societal privilege) has no interest whatsoever in wielding said power over the less powerful person in the dynamic.
We need to question and address all systems of power misuse, inequality, boundary-violating and abuse. What we do not need is to lump them all together under one word which has and will most likely continue to have a very specific meaning, particularly to the survivors of the horror it connotes.
I have been in a male survivors group for a part of my life and talked to counsellors afterwards, The general consensus was that just as much trauma can occur from non-physical repeated violation (which is not “rape” in your terminology) as a physical rape. And how it’s reacted to by the caregivers is so important – is it hushed up? Are real emotions invalidated, and thus suppressed? I don’t think asking “what’s worse” is really helpful at all, because it also invalidates. I personally think emotional rape is an accurate term for some strong abuses of power, especially because of the flavor, but it’s hard to understand for those who haven’t experienced it. Much like some people truly don’t understand the trauma of physical rape.
If I walk up to you and punch you in the face, I have acted inappropriately. I have caused you injury. I have violated your basic rights, as well as the law. I may well have caused you significant trauma, especially if I follow that initial punch up with a severe beating. I have abused you and assaulted you.
However, in this illustrative example, what I have _not_ done is rape you. The actions described are not right, and you would have most definitely been violated in a number of ways. But you would not have been raped.
Equating all violations and deciding that they all constitute “rape” of various sorts is belittling, invalidating, and just plain wrong. It can also be deeply damaging, offensive, and re-traumiatising to a rape victim.
I am sorry that you have suffered in abusive situations. I sympathise. That said, from what you have described, I can see nothing that supports that claim that you have been “raped” in any way.
(Honestly, if you really believed that any use of power that violated personal boundaries is rape, then I suppose that you may well have just raped the original poster with your comments. Something to consider, hm?)
Holy crap! I didn’t know this. It’s really sick! I’m really sorry I missed your talk at OpenCon. I am totally humbled. You’ve opened my eyes. Thank you.
Thanks, Hydra. I think my co-facilitators and I are tentatively thinking of re-running the workshop at some point, which was specifically geared towards looking at questions like how a radical/fringe/minority community can deal with issues of this type among our members.
I really look forward to it. I’ll be planning well ahead to make sure I can make it next year too.
I usually am on the other side when I read these sorts of posts, but you kept me right on the fence, so you must be doing something right ^_^
The main thing I disagreed with was the reason people “victim blame.” I hadn’t considered that reason, and you may be right about some (or many) people doing it out of discomfort and to feel secure. However, the reason I try to be really strict about what constitutes rape is because I don’t want a person who isn’t trying to harm someone being punished. I would rather a rapist go free rather than convict a person wrongly accused.
Another big problem for me on the whole rape issue is the idea of equating physical rape to other “non consensual” rape. I agree think sex without consent constitutes rape, but I don’t think it’s as horrible as physically forcing the act.
It seems like you were coerced (you mentioned worrying about getting kicked out), and if you feel it’s rape, then it’s rape. *But*, should he be punished for it? From what you have written, I don’t think he knew (before, during, or after) how you felt about it, and I don’t believe in punished someone for something they didn’t know was wrong or a crime.
My main point is this focus on punishment. Once it has happened, it’s difficult to deal with, and punishing an unsuspecting “rapist” doesn’t help the victim much, and simply punishes a person who thought s/he was doing something normal and innocent.
I can see your argument there, and much as it seems a horrible thing to say, I think many rapes do happen because one party is too oblivious/drunk/stupid/immature to realise that the other party is not freely consenting.
However… I’m sorry but I can’t accept that “I didn’t realise” is a mitigating factor. If you have to coerce someone into having sex with you, then you know damn well that they don’t want to, and the fact that you aren’t physically forcing the act become immaterial. You’re still doing something to someone else that you know (unless you’re brain dead) they don’t particularly want you to do.
Ignorance is very rarely an adequate defence for any sort of crime, and frankly, if you are genuinely incapable of *telling* whether someone genuinely does or doesn’t want to have sex with you then you have no business having physical relationships at all until you’ve worked out the basics of relating to other human beings.
If one person is intoxicated and doesn’t realize the other isn’t consenting, I would still hold them completely responsible for their actions because intoxication is not an excuse for committing a crime.
There was a fictional crime show (I don’t remember what, I was just flipping through channels) concerning the rape of a female soldier. She was in a relationship with the commander (or whatever the correct term is), who wouldn’t let her drive in front of the other vehicles (this duty was rotated among the soldiers, since the vehicle in front would run into mines or get attacked first). At some point, she realized she didn’t want to have sex or be in a relationship, but did not tell him. If she did, he would have (probably) started rotating her in with the rest of the soldiers, a risk she did not wish to take (who would?).
My problem here is that the commander would be charged with rape despite his ignorance of her “unwillingness.” She said yes, so it’s consensual from his point of view, even though it’s not consensual from hers.
This is a rare case, but there are many parallels between it and wives/girlfriends who are scared of losing their home/source of income by refusing sex. I don’t fault them for it, and I don’t blame them for it, but I don’t see how punishing the “rapists” in these sorts of cases (if they aren’t actually threatening to throw the victims out or make them drive in front) would be justified.
These are situations in which the rapist is ignorant of coercing the victim, and it’s something that occurs because of circumstance and/or lack of communication, not because of ill will or lack of intelligence.
I agree with Keran. Ignorance is never a legitimate defence.
Where rape becomes difficult to legislate is that it cannot be defined merely physically as things like theft and assault can be. Given the paradigm that one is innocent until proven guilty, one would have to prove that at that time, consent was not given. That’s a state of mind in the past and memories are not only fallible, but cannot yet be objectively and independently measured.
I have no idea how this can be achieved legally, but that’s also a completely different issue to that of support from the community.
Missamaranth? Would I be correct in saying that appropriate support from the community would have helped more than some legislation that actually could determine rape objectively and independently?
I don’t understand how ignorance isn’t a legitimate defense :/
What if a person died every time we turned on our computers, but we didn’t know? Should we still be held accountable for these deaths? Are we obligated to make sure our computers booting up can’t hurt anyone?
I know it’s a far-removed example, but that’s how I look at the rape/ignorance situation. The only way to fight it would be education and raising awareness. As far as guilt goes, I don’t think a person ignorant of his/her crime should feel as bad as one acting consciously (although, b/c of the way we were made, they would probably feel worse than a knowing criminal).
1. It’s irrelevant because most of the time, we are talking about what the survivor needs. What the survivor needs is not based on the previous state of mind of the rapist. A great way to shut survivors up is to move the focus away from them. That’s what’s happening here.
2. If we are talking about the rapist, the problem is that they lie about being ignorant. They are just lying. On some level they know what they are doing. If they stop, it’s not due to ignorance; it’s because they don’t think women are human. In almost every case, they would recognise what they did, if it was done to them, as rape (in a similar context of massive power imbalance, etc.).
What exactly does the survivor need? Do they need the rapist to be punished? Is that really going to help them heal? If the rapist is conscious of their crime, then I don’t think it matters because they should be punished if it’s not going to hurt the survivor.
I cannot continue this conversation if you really don’t think there is any situation where a rapist can be unwillfully ignorant. My comment regarding the military commander’s plight is a solid example of a situation where he legitimately would not be able to determine if he was raping her. The only way he would be able to avoid it is if he kept rotating her into the front of the line with the other soldiers, and this is something almost no person who loves another would be willing to do.
1. Listen to what survivors ask for.
2. Rape apologists love their hypotheticals. How about dealing in real people? I bet that guy if he was real would be lying, he knows he has sexual power. But he’s not real! He’s made up. Unlike the actual survivor in this actual thread asking for actual support with regard to an actual rapist who you are talking over with your aptly-named devil’s advocacy. Everyone’s suddenly a legal scholar when there’s a survivor they could be supporting instead.
I like hypotheticals because they highlight problems when things are not thought through thoroughly. I am not at all a rape apologist. And who are you to say that he is lying? Who are you to say he was aware of what was going through her head and pretended she was consenting?
If a relationship is dependent on sex, and has always been, how can one person be a rapist if the other is simply scared of ending the relationship (which would happen if s/he refused sex)?
I always try to stay in the middle and be fair to both sides. I agree with pretty much everything she has stated and never disputed her account or her feelings about her experiences. But I always see this push to punish rape through “coercion,” which I agree with (the push that is, not coercion), but I also see how it could harm people unaware of their ‘crime.’
As for being a “legal scholar,” I feel a duty to present the other side and keep people honest. It’s fine to focus on the survivor’s needs, but if one of those “needs” is to get “justice,” then the focus must necessarily shift to the perpetrator.
Yeah, maybe think about what you just said there for a bit. Please re-centre on what the survivor is asking for and stop doing what you are doing. Please just stop. As and when we find ourselves magically teleported to a courtroom, with you the counsel for the defence, we’ll check back in, okay?
My discussion with Amaranth was just that: a discussion. When she expanded on her post, I was quick to agree with her, and that was that.
But you cannot reply to my own comment, disagree with a point, fail to logically support your refutation, and claim the moral high ground by condescendingly asking me to end this debate (which you started) and expect me to dismiss the point I made initially. You weren’t exactly doing what “the survivor is asking for,” either.
Miss Amaranth, if I offended you (or even if I didn’t), my apologies; I often get carried away and lose sight of the big picture :/
It was not my intention to take away from what’s one of the most reasonable articles I have read on this topic.
Hi, Egointhesea; thanks for your comments.
I think there’s a few things going on here. First of all, everything I say in this blog (except the things that are indisputable facts, like the legal stuff, in which case my sources will be cited) is merely speculation and my own opinion, informed by personal experience and discussion and wider reading around the topics. People are absolutely free to disagree with me or tell me I am wrong, and I will attempt to be respectful and polite with any discourse/debate I enter into. That said, this is a very emotive topic for me, so please know that if I come across as a little brusque, it is not personal.
I think there are many reasons why people victim-blame, and the one I suggested is just one of the theories, which I have read in various places and is backed up in my primary source of professional information on this topic (Judith Herman’s book ‘Trauma and Recovery.’)
The “person not trying to harm someone” stuff is…. complicated. Very complicated. I think that’s why the phrasing about “reasonably believing that [B] consents” exists in law. I’m sure none of us (including/especially survivors) want an innocent person punished for a crime as horrible as rape. THAT SAID, as I’ve outlined in the post, that particular wording can essentially far too easily act as a legal loophole. How does one prove beyond reasonable doubt that [A] did NOT believe that [B] consented? This is where the oh-so-popular Grey Areas come into play. In my opinion, if someone is, for example, semi-passed-out drunk, they are clearly incapable of giving consent. The same goes for someone who is obviously severely mentally incapacitated, for example, or
I do think it is vital that we include within our definitions of rape the types that might not necessarily involve physical force. In my case, it was never as simple as my partnert physically ripping my clothes off and holding me down and having non-consensual sex with me. But telling a mentally ill, already severely traumatised sixteen year old that she doesn’t get to say no to you because you’re partners and she’s worthless without putting out, knowing damn well she doesn’t have any other frame of reference to see how fucked up that is? Threatening a 19 year old, who’s just moved with you to a strange city where she doesn’t know anyone, who isn’t working and has no money or resources to her name, that you’ll kick her out of her home if she doesn’t fuck you? HELL YES I think these fall squarely into the category of rape. Mental, phychological force come from just as real a place as physical force, and can be as powerful. I appreciate it’s very easy for people who have not survived these things to say “that wasn’t really rape, she could have just said no.” Fact is, there are situations when a victim truly feels she CAN’T just say no, and these are absolutely as horrible – if not more so – than when the act is simply physically forced. The mindfuck involved is unbelievable.
“Fine, get it over with” and then crying throughout IS NOT actual consent. In any way, shape or form. He absolutely DID know how I really felt about it, as it was pretty clear and obvious, (and if he didn’t, it was damn well his responsibility not to go anywhere near that “fuzzy line.”) Claiming ignorance is not, in my opinion, an excuse.
Do I come across as though I am focussing on punishment in my writings about rape, rape culture and my experiences? I hope not, as this is not actually my intention or my focus. I do think that accountability is really important. I’m not dragging my ex through a court of law, demanding that he be locked up for what he did to me. I’m too much of a realist for that. Rather, I believe more in a social model of justice (note I say “justice,” not “punishment” or “revenge”) in which the perpetrator is shown the consequences of their actions and the effects they have had on another human being, and given the opportunity to atone for their behaviour and do whatever they can to put it right, make things easier for their victim, and ensure that it NEVER happens again.
I’m afraid I think the “unsuspecting rapist” argument is mostly a strawman. It buys into all of the “consent is fuzzy and complicated!” ways of thinking, which I believe are simply untrue. If one thinks consent is complicated, then one bears an EVEN BIGGER responsibility not to go anywhere near that line. Establishing clear, enthusiastic, non-coerced and non-ambiguous consent prior to any sexual activity is not actually a difficult thing to do.
…..Holy crap, that was long! Thanks for reading if you’re still with me.
– Amaranth.
After reading this, I can say I agree with most (if not all) of what you believe. Thank you for sharing your experiences, since I know that must be difficult. If he was threatening kicking you out (or with anything), then it was definitely rape and he’s well aware of what he’s doing, regardless of whether he consciously acknowledges his wrongdoing.
I have a fear of the legal system and the harsh penalties they can enforce. I replied to kerran’s comment, in which I described a couple situations where I don’t see how the “rapists” could have known what they were doing or have prevented it. I understand that this is probably a minority of the cases, but the legal system would do little to prevent it. I think these “rapists” would do all they could to make it up to the victims, once they were shown what has happened and given a chance to make things better (even if they can’t make it right).
After thinking about that theory some more, I think it might be valid. If it is, they are being simply fearful and in denial, two things I hate and fight against (I hate those things, not the people; I am guilty of both on multiple subjects at multiple times).
@Kerran – EXACTLY!! *applauds*
As a survivor, I’m less interested in hearing what other people have to say about my experiences in a variety of ways. I have several experiences of sexual assault without them being done by a penis, but I feel ambivalent about calling them “rape”. I like the freedom to define it my own way. Sometimes I call it “rape”, sometimes I struggle with doing that, but either way, I just don’t want people to define it for me in either way.
Part of my dissertation for my masters discussed sexual assault and violence in Japan, especially sexual harassment. The influence of the West and Western feminists had mixed results because of Japanese women felt very uncomfortable calling what they had gone through “rape”. They preferred other ways of defining it.
What I feel is most important is letting people define their own experiences. That’s important. But what frustrates me is that so many people act like this situation is black and white.
One of my rapists/abusers claims that one of my family members sexually abused him. And the family member he’s named is very close to me and barely ever hugs me or touches me because they themselves were raped/sexually abused on a consistent basis by both of their parents. And my rapist/abuser refuses to admit he did anything to me or to one of my other siblings he abused. I honestly don’t know who or what to believe. I don’t want to doubt someone who’s said they’ve been raped/abused. But the person in this instance raped/abused me? And refuses to admit it? Maybe he thinks because he didn’t use his penis and I didn’t fight that it wasn’t abuse? I don’t know.
He’s allowed to call his experience what it is. But should I stop talking to the family member? As it stands, the family member he’s named is the only family I have left. And as abusive and horrible as they can be towards me, I don’t have any other family. I honestly don’t know what to do about it.
I think the most important thing is to let people have the freedom to define their experiences how they wish. I can understand that my rapist/abuser doesn’t believe what he did to me was sexual assault. But I feel like people who try to police the way I define my own experiences are the worst and that’s always wrong.
@Boldly Go, Of course you should be free to call your experience whatever you want to call it. Perhaps better phrasing on my part would have been “if the survivor says it was rape, then it was rape.”
It appalls me to read again and again, in many books, personal testimonies, etc. that so many people (including myself) have had traumatising sexual experiences. I never called it rape, but I had a 5 year relationship with a man that used psychological and physical violence and sex to subjugate me. It was my first relationship and I remember vividly feeling there was something utterly wrong, but every time I brought it up, he twisted my thoughts and I got lost again in a sea of non-existent self-worth and fear. Eventually I grew enough to see clearly and leave him. 7 years after, I am still dealing with the consequences of those years. However, I don’t see myself as a victim. I have learnt and continue to learn from that experience, and I am a stronger person for that. I have so much respect for those who have experienced this or much worse, and still choose to live and love. However, I am starting to fear that those of us fortunate enough to experience a loving joyful sexual relationship are in the minority, and that for me is a sign of a very ill society. Hearing the voices of those who recover gives me so much hope for humanity. So thank you all for your comments and Love is infinite, for this post.
Thanks for this – really interested article (and discussion).
Just to echo Nomad above tho – not all bad things that happen are rape. Also sex and rape are different things, and IMHO they get conflated far too often, which I think is where the conflict that Boldly Go feels comes from..
You said…
“We need to agree that sex, of any form and between people of any genders, that is forced, coerced or otherwise not performed with freely given and enthusiastic consent on all sides is Rape.
The trouble is that “sex” is very wide ranging – and indeed the same act can be “sex” and “not sex” depending on context. So I would consider (consensual) stroking someone’s tummy “sex” in some circumstances but “not sex” in other circumstances – say a child with a stomache. Even more commonly thoughtof sexual acts can be “sex” or “not sex” – say inserting your fingers into someone’s vagina – it would be “sex” with a lover, but “not sex” with a midwife.
I think its more helpful to seperate out rape from sex completely – to consider it non-consensual penetration (of either gender, by any body part or impliment), which takes it out of the “sex” narrative, and places into the same realm of violation of bodily autonomy as hitting someone unconsensually – that it is a distinct act and it is unwanted.
Mostly for the benefit of other readers, there is a distinction between what’s legally “rape” and what’s morally rape. Part of that is down to the history of the offence in England and Wales, and I’ll put the former in quotes.
Yes, that’s the definition in the SOA 2003.
Previously, oral penetration by a penis was not “rape”. When the change was debated in the House of Lords, there was some appalling ignorance around that one (‘Can’t happen – she would bite…’ stuff). Including anal penetration is recent too, and only happened in 1994.
It is not true that women cannot be found guilty of this: at least one has. Obviously, they were not the one with the penis (as far as the law is concerned) but if they assist someone else’s rape, they can be guilty of “rape”.
The ‘only a penis’ is historical. Section two is ‘Assault by penetration’. It is exactly the same, except that the rapist “intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else” sexually.
So oral penetration doesn’t count (for this), but sexual penetration with a finger, tongue, dildo, or anything else does. The maximum penalty is the same, life imprisonment, and women can be guilty of this directly.
If you ignore for a second oral “rape”, effectively section one is a subset of section two: the body part used is a penis, rather than a finger, tongue, etc etc.
It would indeed have been better to combine the two into one offence. What stopped that was a reluctance to overturn centuries of legal history by including non-penile penetration as “rape” or to face the political consequences of being seen to abolish “rape” as a crime.
The ‘does not reasonably believe that B consents’ bit is there because of a fundamental bit of law. In order to convict someone of an offence, you need to prove that they did it and that they knew they were doing it (or at least doing something naughty).
There are very, very few “strict liability” exceptions to this. Speeding is one: it is sufficient to prove that you were speeding, and there is no defence that you did not know or did not intend to do so. (More controversially, in an attempt to frighten clients of sex workers, there is a strict liability offence to pay for sex with someone who has been lied to by someone else.)
Some years ago, there was a case where the rapist said he had been told by her partner that she would resist, but that it was a pretend struggle and it was really a consensual game. Memory is telling me the case ended up in the House of Lords, where it was confirmed that a genuine belief in consent, however unreasonable, meant it was not “rape”.
How to stop that defence? “Reasonably”.
One of the positive changes in the SOA 2003 was to add a set of presumptions which, if applicable, either put the burden of proof on the rapist or are irrefutable.
These include using violence, or causing fear of immediate violence (to anyone); unlawfully detaining them; their being asleep or otherwise unconscious; their being unable to communicate because of a disability; or non-consensual drug use.
(The irrefutable ones are down to two specific historic cases: lying about the “nature of the act” – some rapist told a young woman that sticking his penis in her was to improve her singing voice – or impersonating someone known to them.)
The Crown Prosecution Service has the right words: “The law does not require the victim to have resisted physically in order to prove a lack of consent. .. We are aware that the meaning of consent can be of particular relevance in rape where there has been, or is, a pre-existing relationship between the defendant and the victim, or where domestic violence has existed prior to the rape”, but do juries convict enough, especially when faced with evidence of a relationship? No. Does speaking out help change that? Yes. Thank you.
(I hope it is clear that none of this is intended to say or imply that you or anyone else was not raped, regardless of whether or not it was reported or if the rapist was questioned, charged or convicted in relation to the rape. I also don’t claim the law makes sense, for fairly obvious reasons…)