Want to stop rape?
Aug. 25th, 2010 12:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumDon't rape
It's not a great campaign, but the idea is sound. Men rape. Women don't need to change what they do, the people who rape them do.
Yes, I l know the arguments... people need to take care of their surroundings, not do stupid things, etc.
It's all true, and none of it is relevant to the real issue. No one will really say, "it was my fault" if I do something which increases my risk, and I get attacked.
Example: A kid was murdered down the block from me. The word on the street is he was killed over money. What money? Stuff he won in the illegal dice game the folks next door used to run (they stopped, just after the killing... I wonder why).
No one is blaming him for playing in the local game, nor for being on a streetcorner. They blame the people who shot him.
Which is as it should be. They also don't have campaigns up saying, "If you hang on the corner, you are asking to get shot/robbed/thumped." When the Klan rolls into town and beats someone for being "uppity" we (no longer) blame the victim.
But rape... we still do that. She was in the wrong bar. She went out alone. She wore, "provocative" clothing (which is to say, she wore clothes). She "led him on", etc.
All of it is nonsense.
Rape isn't a con-game. It's not a Nigerian scam. It's not a case of the victim being beguiled into doing something. It's a guy who doesn't take no for an answer. It may be force, it may be subterfuge (the "get them drunk" trick). It may be social pressure. It may be any number of things.
But the root of it all, the rapist didn't take no for an answer. It may have been in advance (force, drugs) it may have been soft-pedal ("if you loved me", "you know you want to"), it may have been thoughtless (she says, "maybe this is a bad idea").
The simple fact of the matter... the consent you want, if you are going to avoid rape; the consent we need to teach our sons (before they get confused messages from the culture), the message we need to make the norm...
Consent = enthusiastic consent.
It's that simple. If one's partner is enthusiastic, then the question of rape goes away. If one doesn't pressure, then the question of rape goes away. If one sets rules (when I started having sex, my rule was, "if one of us is impaired, and we don't have an extant physical relationship, we aren't starting one now." As I got more experience with sex, and impairment, I modified it some. I have a pretty good idea when my ability to decide is starting to get fuzzy, and at that point the rule kicks in. For my partner, I do a slightly less nuanced version of this. I look at age, and what I've gleaned from conversation; while not impaired, to decide. I try to err on the side of, "we can wait." First times are, IMO, better sober, in any case).
Enthusiastic consent = no rape.
Non-consent (no matter when, nor how mildly expressed) = rape.
It's that simple. The same way the thief steals, the murderer murders and the liar lies: the rapist rapes.
It's not a great campaign, but the idea is sound. Men rape. Women don't need to change what they do, the people who rape them do.
Yes, I l know the arguments... people need to take care of their surroundings, not do stupid things, etc.
It's all true, and none of it is relevant to the real issue. No one will really say, "it was my fault" if I do something which increases my risk, and I get attacked.
Example: A kid was murdered down the block from me. The word on the street is he was killed over money. What money? Stuff he won in the illegal dice game the folks next door used to run (they stopped, just after the killing... I wonder why).
No one is blaming him for playing in the local game, nor for being on a streetcorner. They blame the people who shot him.
Which is as it should be. They also don't have campaigns up saying, "If you hang on the corner, you are asking to get shot/robbed/thumped." When the Klan rolls into town and beats someone for being "uppity" we (no longer) blame the victim.
But rape... we still do that. She was in the wrong bar. She went out alone. She wore, "provocative" clothing (which is to say, she wore clothes). She "led him on", etc.
All of it is nonsense.
Rape isn't a con-game. It's not a Nigerian scam. It's not a case of the victim being beguiled into doing something. It's a guy who doesn't take no for an answer. It may be force, it may be subterfuge (the "get them drunk" trick). It may be social pressure. It may be any number of things.
But the root of it all, the rapist didn't take no for an answer. It may have been in advance (force, drugs) it may have been soft-pedal ("if you loved me", "you know you want to"), it may have been thoughtless (she says, "maybe this is a bad idea").
The simple fact of the matter... the consent you want, if you are going to avoid rape; the consent we need to teach our sons (before they get confused messages from the culture), the message we need to make the norm...
Consent = enthusiastic consent.
It's that simple. If one's partner is enthusiastic, then the question of rape goes away. If one doesn't pressure, then the question of rape goes away. If one sets rules (when I started having sex, my rule was, "if one of us is impaired, and we don't have an extant physical relationship, we aren't starting one now." As I got more experience with sex, and impairment, I modified it some. I have a pretty good idea when my ability to decide is starting to get fuzzy, and at that point the rule kicks in. For my partner, I do a slightly less nuanced version of this. I look at age, and what I've gleaned from conversation; while not impaired, to decide. I try to err on the side of, "we can wait." First times are, IMO, better sober, in any case).
Enthusiastic consent = no rape.
Non-consent (no matter when, nor how mildly expressed) = rape.
It's that simple. The same way the thief steals, the murderer murders and the liar lies: the rapist rapes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
so much to say, so little of it coherent
Date: 2010-08-25 09:53 pm (UTC)Possibly one of the most painful things about having been the victim of sexual assault was that question right there. When relating the details to a friend the day after it happened, that was her first question. I was stunned, or as stunned as possible considering I was still exhibiting signs of shock. What? Of course I said no. A lot. And he was stronger and holding me down and I was scared shitless and so I didn't struggle, I stopped fighting, I retreated to a place in my head where none of that was happening and when he was done I went someplace safe and tried to pretend it never happened. That lasted about six hours, at which point I went bugnuts and couldn't stop crying and called a cop I knew. Who did NOT ask me if I said no. He took the report and was kind and was pissed when the prosecutor wouldn't bring charges because I wasn't bruised enough. (no lie) Three other women had reported the guy before me, but again, not enough "evidence"
There is a lot wrong with the world where we still (STILL DAMMIT) ask 'did you say no?'. I am pretty sure my sister said no, but she was still murdered. Nobody has blamed her for it.
There is a rant about to happen about the attitude of 'did you say no?' and domestic violence (again a crime where victim blame happens a bunch) and so I will stop cluttering up your LJ and go yike in my own now. But thank you for the food for thought. I'll try to be more of a ray of sunshine next visit. *smile*
Re: so much to say, so little of it coherent
Date: 2010-08-25 11:10 pm (UTC)That's not the point though. What I wanted to say, and I'm sure you know this already, is that stopping fighting, going somewhere else inside your head and doing anything that enables you to survive an attack and minimise risk to yourself is also a valid strategy for surviving assault. If fighting back is not having an effect and you want to get out of a situation alive, or for any other reason, then ceasing to fight is sometimes the most sensible, self-preserving thing you can do. I hope other people have said this to you.
Re: so much to say, so little of it coherent
Date: 2010-08-25 11:31 pm (UTC)Ironically, (I hope I am using that term correctly here) I was at that time a volunteer with the local rape/domestic violence/suicide hotline, that is how I knew the cop I called. ALL of them, the cop, my fellow volunteers, my fellow board members(yeah, I was on the board of directors, go figure) my eventual therapist, all of them said exactly what you have. None of it stopped the process of self hate a victim goes through, but it did speed the process along a bit for me. It was my cop friend(and fellow board member) who kept repeating to me that I did what was needed to survive, that I needed to stop blaming myself and blame the bastard that did it. The 'culture of blame' is one we are all victimized by, I think. More cops like him are needed in the world, he's a good guy.
I have tried since then to NEVER ask that question of a victim of anything.
But thank you for your cyber-support, that has meaning and I appreciate it.
Re: so much to say, so little of it coherent
Date: 2010-08-25 11:33 pm (UTC)Re: so much to say, so little of it coherent
Date: 2010-08-26 12:49 am (UTC)Re: so much to say, so little of it coherent
Date: 2010-08-26 12:50 am (UTC)Re: so much to say, so little of it coherent
Date: 2010-08-26 02:18 am (UTC)Re: so much to say, so little of it coherent
Date: 2010-08-26 01:08 am (UTC)To your friend I say "No, no, no, that is not the right question! Asking if someone said no inherently implies consent as the default. The default should be no consent unless the person gives it and is capable of giving it."
Dammit.
Re: so much to say, so little of it coherent
Date: 2010-08-26 01:52 am (UTC)