The university where I work is hosting yet another "Rape Aggression Defense" class.
I am well and thoroughly sick of this shit.
Earlier tonight, I read a thoughtful blog post from Seanan McGuire where she explained why she will not write a scene where her characters are raped. (Google the post--it's worth reading.) I applaud her stance. I'm sick of the rape that fills urban fantasy novels, as if the only way that a woman can be a strong character is because her body has been violated. McGuire's post got me thinking about rape again, and the email from my university just made me even angrier.
I'm sick of this shit.
I hate the idea of rape defense classes because they put the burden of preventing rape on the victim. You know what the leading cause of rape is? It's not walking alone at night, failing to protect a drink at a party, or wearing a short skirt.
The leading cause of rape is a rapist.
Instead of classes telling our young woman how to defend themselves, we should be teaching how to not rape. That sounds silly, doesn't it? How to not rape. Part of the problem with hosting a class like this is that it acknowledges that anyone can be a rapist. Women can be rapists, too, although that's not something that we really talk about too much. It all depends on the definition of rape. Just over a year ago, the FBI updated its definition of rape. Now, the definition reads: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any
body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another
person, without the consent of the victim.” As you can see, anyone can be a rapist--no penis required. This new definition is not perfect, but it's a start.
Part of the problem with teaching how not to rape is that issue of consent. The new FBI definition allows the states to establish what consent means as a matter of statute. From a legal perspective, that's fine. The problems occur outside of a courtroom, when rape is occurring.
Instead of teaching women how to defend themselves against strangers in the dark, we should be teaching everyone about consent, what it means, and how to respect it. We should be teaching people to only have sex with someone that says "YES!" enthusiastically. Instead of "no means no," we should teach "yes means yes." When someone is at all hesitant and not saying "YES!" that should be an absolute stop sign. Not a yield. Not a "well, let me convince you." We need to teach people to seek out partners that say "yes."
If you want to play consent games, that's one thing. However, that's something that you do with a partner after having established that both of you agree to the consent games (which, in and of itself, is a form of consent that can be revoked at any time).
That gets us back to the issue of rape again. Part of the problem with rape is that it's a crime defined by the victim. Only s/he knows whether or not s/he consented. Despite what some people want to believe, there are very very few false accusations of rape. The problem is that a victim can perceive that s/he has been raped but it may not fit the legal definition of rape (bringing us back to that legal issue again) or the evidence may not be enough to convict someone in a court of law. When the district attorneys choose not to press charges, that does not mean that rape did not occur. It means that they don't think they could win in court.
Since rape is a victim-defined crime, it is entirely possible for someone to rape another person without realizing it. That's where this idea of teaching people not to rape comes into play. It's a way to make all of us--men and women--aware of our partner's (or partners') needs. It's a way to make certain that everyone engaged in sexual activities is willing to do so and to cut down on regret. (Regret and rape are not the same thing. People often try to confuse them in order to lessen the legitimate emotional burden that comes with rape. But that's another blog post.)
It's time to stop telling victims that they could have prevented the rape if only they'd done something differently or fought just a bit harder.
That shit doesn't work.
It's time to talk to the potential rapists out there. Which, honestly, can be any one of us.
3 comments:
No, people should be learning how to fight and defend. That way, it makes things really clear-cut. So, when the victim of alleged rape is asked, "Why did you beat his ass?"
The alleged victim can claim, "Because I was provoked, already discussed that I did not consent, and I felt threatened by his lack of conscious in his volitional acts."
I agree that there is a problem when it comes to what the state/federal government thinks a crime is vs. what a private individual thinks is a crime.
However, I've been studying victim-defined crime as of late, and I think if victims are going to claim that a crime has occurred, they need to prove whether or not that what the individual did against him or her in order to victimize him or her had committed an act that the defendant considers to be within his or her set of immoral acts, thus should be punished. Otherwise, the victim is left to establishment of previous laws in an attempt to persecute the other individual.
Otherwise, on an individual basis, I cannot see why there should be persecution or victim-defined crimes.
Anon 1: I see nothing wrong with defending oneself against attack. The problem is when that's the only thing we teach about rape. That implies that a victim can prevent a rape, if only she (since RAD classes are exclusively taught to women) fought properly. It also implies that rapists are almost another class of human, that they are people that simply cannot be taught how to treat other people.
Anon #2: My response to your writing: You had 68 words in that second sentence of yours. As a writing teacher, I have to tell you that I find it confusing and overly wordy. Consider breaking it up in order to better carry across your meaning. My response to what I think you said: That seems like an awful burden of proof to place on a victim of a crime. It's also possible that what you're talking about brings up the question of a victim's past sexual experiences. In a rape, the only thing that matters is what is happening at that moment. What you seem to be saying is that it's not enough to say "I didn't want to do it right then" but also add "I find those acts to be against my moral code." The problem with that second statement is that, if someone were raped anally, and had to prove that anal sex was "within his or her set of immoral acts," if the victim had ever once consented to anal sex, the victim could not then be raped. Sex without consent is an immoral act, end stop.
Post a Comment