Once again I have to say Debs is full of win here...
And I am going to go way out on a limb here and say the following:
When it comes to rape, the person with the ultimate authority on the subject of whether they have been raped or not is the person whom after whatever occurs says I have or I have not been raped. Them alone. Nobody else. No one, and I mean no one, has the authority to make that decision for anyone else, ever.
No one has the right to tell someone they were not raped when they were, and likewise, no one has the right to tell someone they were raped when they were not. And both of these things happen all too often: be it the defense attorney in a courtroom telling a jury someone wasn’t really raped, they wanted it and are now just playing a game “buyer’s remorse” or the professor in a lecture stating they really were raped, but just cannot or will not say so.
I simply do not understand how this issue can even be up for debate. When a person is raped and others tell them they were not, or do not believe them, or endlessly question the validity of their claim, it is an outrage. It is a further affront and source of trauma to the victimized party, and as it should, it angers a great many people. When a person is not raped and others tell them they were, or endlessly assume or allude that they were, and question the validity of their claim it is also an outrage. It is an affront and source of trauma to an otherwise not victimized party, but…crickets….
Debs is right here, people, as is anyone else who has expressed a similar sentiment: If a person does not have the ultimate authority to decide when they have not been raped, then by default that authority is also in question when they decide they have been raped. And that is an authority that should not ever be put in question in either scenario, because it then denies that persons authority in all arenas and renders any choice or decision they make absolutely worthless and subject to disbelief. And that shit? That shit there is a soul-killer. That truly makes any and every person, a victim of rape or not, incapable of rendering any sort of thought towards, authority over, or boundaries to their own body, mind, soul, life, or experiences. And no one, and I mean no one, has the right to do that to another human being. No one has a right to call someone making that call for themselves a liar. No one has the right to make that call for anyone else, ever. Are there people out there who have claimed they were raped when they weren’t? Yes. Are there people out there who have claimed they weren’t raped when they were? Yes. Should the actions of those people then put the claims of anyone and everyone else out there into question? No. Because if they do, or if others are then not believed when they state they have or have not been raped, everyones claims, opinions or authority over their experiences become meaningless. And no one has the right to do that to anyone else.
When a person says they were raped, I believe them. When a person says they were not raped, I also believe them. What I do not understand is how some people, even feminist ones, have such a problem doing that. If you believe a person who says they have been raped, you should be equally predisposed to believing them when they say they have not been.
End of story.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
This was amazing. I have nothing to add other than: I concur.
I think it's mostly because people in general tend to think about how they themselves would react in a situation and assign that reaction as if it's objectively the best way to react in that situation, and anyone who would react differently is just wrong and need to be shown the error of their ways. It's part of the human condition and something I have had to actively work on to get past. There are a lot of things I read on this blog that have made me uncomfortable, or situations where I know I would have responded differently, but I realize we are all the products of our own experiences and attitudes and while my reactions may be right for ME, there are no objective rights or wrongs. Part of the reason I read this blog is I have an odd attitude about porn yet I can't get completely behind the anti-porn feminist view, so I like to read your take on things, even when, or ,maybe especially because, what you write makes me a little squirmy inside. It makes me think and examine my own attitudes.
Your statement is the sort of thing I would wish to completely agree with... but I think it's hugely problematic to let people define whether or not a crime has occurred, just like that without any legal process.
Saying that I was raped implies that a crime occurred, that someone else is a rapist. If we permit dropping the rules of evidence and due process, then I fear the consequence will be that rape will cease to be a crime. And people will start treating "I was raped" as carrying equal weight as "I was offended" - sure I have a right to define my own experience, but without reference to some societally-agreed framework, it's unlikely that anyone will care?
That's what I worry about. Or am I missing something?
E.
anonymous,
I read Ren as talking more about the emotional/personal aspects that the criminal/legal aspects.
Oh and anonymous? Yes, you ARE missing something, bc no one is going to equate "I was raped" with "I was offended." That's just stupidity, flat-out.
I second E.
Speaking as a male, who never wishes to victimize someone unconsensually. (Play between consenting individuals is a different matter.) If the only person who can determine if a crime occurred is the victim after the fact, then how do you avoid committing that crime?
I wholeheartedly agree with the general, overarching principle, one should not allow others to define one's experiences.
Dr. Z.
What E said – are feminists who propose the "believe all rape victims" standard stating that should be an informal standard (eg, somebody who identifies as a rape victim, without accusing a specific person of being a rapist, should not get a line of questioning over it), or are they seriously proposing that as a legal standard, effectively getting rid of "innocent until proven guilty" and "entitled to a defense" for this class of crime?
"Saying that I was raped implies that a crime occurred, that someone else is a rapist. If we permit dropping the rules of evidence and due process, then I fear the consequence will be that rape will cease to be a crime. And people will start treating "I was raped" as carrying equal weight as "I was offended" - sure I have a right to define my own experience, but without reference to some societally-agreed framework, it's unlikely that anyone will care?"
Wow, I never thought of that, and I'm really scared that you might be right.
I think the thing about rape as opposed to most other crimes is that it is so intensely personal. I mean, aside from the fact that there are usually no witnesses so it's the victim's word against the perpetrator and all that - it's incredibly personal, about as personal as you can get, and the courage required to say "I was raped" for the first time is phenomenal. It's like an admission in itself, as though the victim is the guilty party, and I can't think of any other crime where that would be the case. Also, rape is the only crime I can think of which is consistently believed by the public and the courts alike to be the victim's fault.
I think that, despite what Ernest says, which may very well be true, the only way to go is to let the victim name what happened to them for themselves. And for that to happen, the current "societally-agreed framework" should be enough - lack of consent means rape. The reason why it isn't enough is because, too many times, women are not believed.
A very good article - I always enjoy your blog - it is alive!
Arse licking aside (although that can be fun), I would like to respond to E (I assume Ernest).
I think the matter is fairly straightforward. Rape is, in fact, one of the few crimes that is subjective because it hinges on the question of consent. If the person gave consent then it is not rape and, conversely, if there is no consent it is rape. Generally, barring external factors such as physical injury, the only evidence on non-consent is from the person involved. Likewise, even when there is physical injury, the only evidence of consent is the testimony of the person injured. I do not see how any other criteria can be applied.
@ E. :
I think there is a difference between saying "rape has occurred" and "it was a crime under the law".
Without wishing to make very dubious claims about "accidental rape" or whatever (which strikes me as a disgusting term in itself), but in a court of law there is the necessity to demonstrate both "reus actus" and "mens rea" - that is, the guilty act AND the guilty intent. This is why in British law it is a defence that the accused "had reasonable belief" that his (her) partner was consenting. The line where "reasonable belief" is drawn may clearly be shifted one way or the other, and it's to be hoped that the test should be made pretty stringent (e.g. anything less than an enthusiastic "yes" from the partner is suspect).
However, I think the sense of violation, and assault that is associated with rape in particular, can only be questioned in very rare and exceptional cases. I do know of a story through a friend where a malicious claim of rape was made, so yes, it does occasionally happen, but the presumption has to be that the victim is reporting the events as she experienced them - that is, she experienced them as an assault and a violation. And it is that report that one cannot refuse to accept.
For that reason, it may be that there will always be more rapes than there are prosecutable crimes of rape, but with better education of men, hopefully that gap can be narrowed significantly!
FOR THE RECORD:
E and Ernest are Two Different People.
And I was no way speaking about "in a court of law" (see my ever popular Duke Entry for that). I am saying if a woman says to me "I was raped" I am likely to believe her.
And I was no way speaking about "in a court of law" (see my ever popular Duke Entry for that). I am saying if a woman says to me "I was raped" I am likely to believe her.
Y'see, I'd love for this to work in a court of law. But I'm not entirely sure that humans are good enough as a species to handle that. The way the courts are now, it makes sense for false rape accusations to be few and far between: you don't go through the process of accusing someone of an intensely personal crime that will result in your integrity being called into question if the conviction rate is as low as it is. If you're aiming to ruin someone's life with criminal accusations, plant some illegal drugs in hir car, don't accuse hir of rape. In a system where a person's word was enough, though, could result in people--both men and women--accusing others of rape to ruin reputations. Because humans are greedy and selfish and vindictive, usually.
But. I don't care who you are, friend or enemy or random stranger. You tell me you were raped? I'll believe you. I think that's a huge problem we need to get past--I've seen (personally) far too many instances where people are not believed when speaking their experiences--no lawyers or judges or juries involved, just people and their feelings. I don't see what the harm is in just saying, "yes, I believe you" (well, I do in one of the instances in which this happened to me, but that's a different story).
I think that if people knew that by saying, "I was raped," to someone, they would be automatically believed, the whole issue of secrecy and shame could be largely eradicated--and then perhaps we could move further towards making sure women are believed in court, and the conviction rate does become in line with the number of rapes committed. (And then maybe fewer will be committed.) It's a process, but this is how it starts.
Even with as personal as rape is when someone says they are have been raped I not so inclined to automatically believe them because, like any crime that involves two people, I would not be so fast to believe one person over the other when I've only gotten one side. Even without the legal/criminal side of rape it is still a situation involving two people and no amount of activism is gonna convince me that I should just blindly believe one person over another without giving both sides a chance explain.
Thank you, Ren, for clearing up the misunderstanding here. I was kinda horrified at the prospect of having to do it myself, as my views are much closer to yours than to those of the other "E."
I do think the preservation of the presumption of innocence is an absolute must as an element of due process in any criminal proceeding, rape included.
However, I don't think that's the issue on this thread. The issue here, it seems to me, is who gets to decide in the greater sense who is a rape victim and who is not.
IMV, the victim alone makes that decision. No criminal case can go forward if the alleged victim denies being raped (which sadly prevents the prosecution of many rapists). But likewise, no one who gave consent to an act that some third party construes to be rape according to that party's abstract definition of the act should be allowed to overrule the participant's personal assessment of the experience and redefine it on her behalf.
When Gail Dines says that every porn performer is raped in her first scene, she's talking out her ass and turning a terrible crime into a metaphor to describe behavior she just doesn't like a whole, whole lot. In the process, she trashes the agency of performers and adds insult to the injury suffered by self-identified rape victims.
I really believe we're talking about the court of public opinion here rather than courts of law. But in either situation, I believe the person who had the experience is rightly the only one to define it.
Ernest
The post seems to be talking about a court of law at the start,
No one has the right to tell someone they were not raped when they were, and likewise, no one has the right to tell someone they were raped when they were not. And both of these things happen all too often: be it the defense attorney in a courtroom telling a jury someone wasn’t really raped, they wanted it and are now just playing a game “buyer’s remorse”
I don't think an assumption of honesty is a good idea. However this isn't the problem with certain radical feminists and women who like certain kinds of sex. It's not that these women are thought to be lying, that is consciously misrepresenting both the objective realty and their subjective experience. Instead it's that these radfems don't accept the experiences of these women because they dismiss the very capacity of women to consent under patriarchy. That is, they are overwriting a womans subjective experience with how they perceive objective reality.
And I was not way speaking about "in a court of law"
I know, Ren. That's why I said that in context I really want to wholeheartedly agree with you. But it's so easy for statements like yours to be removed out of their context. You are saying you don't want other people who know nothing about your experience to decide that you were raped (or not raped) based on ideological grounds, and I completely agree with that.
But we all know that some people are quick to label any negative experience (say, inadvertent exposure to porn) as "rape" and while that may describe their experience in their own minds, I personally find it difficult to accept all such self-definitions while still maintaining "rape" as a concept that actually means something in a useful way.
There was a similar theory a while back that held that children are always to be believed about abuse, and the result was that satanic ritual abuse daycare center craze/false memory syndrome. The result of all that didn't much improve children's chance to be believed, overall.
I don't know if I'm making sense. What I worry about is that "rape" becomes so broad that the reaction will be "yeah, whatever" because "everyone has been raped one way or another". I don't think we want that.
E. (who is not Ernest)
I do worry about the court of public opinion, because it can become the court of street justice as well; but that's more about the power and risks of accusation (and even disclosure) than about rape, specifically. It applies to a number of things.
That said:
I found myself thinking about this issue a lot over the last several years, after I was partner raped. Due to how it happened -- me the drunk guy, her the sober woman, and no violence involved -- it was the kind of thing that didn't qualify as rape to some people; couldn't qualify, because of the various stereotypes that tend to be drawn in. And because of that, it wasn't really an option to pursue charges. The chance of conviction was much lower than the odds of her acquittal -- and of my humiliation.
So I kept asking myself: does it matter to me that some people don't agree, or wouldn't agree, that I was raped? As far as legal process goes, yeah. It does.
But as far as the court of public opinion?
It's taken me some time to come to a solid position on that. In the end, the answer I found myself giving was: no.
Because there's something more important to me than whether or not someone would agree that it's rape, or reject the label. It's more important to me that they realize that such things have impact. That they cause pain, they leave scars, they change lives.
And it's more important to me that people recognize that my traumas, and my immunities, are not theirs; nor theirs, mine. It's more important to me that people recognize that no act carries meaning only as an act. The act is never divorced from the impact, and the impact is never divorced from the person.
Deny the label, or refuse the term? Outside of court -- because there it's about punishment, not just recognition -- I can live with that. But tell me that I'm suffering when I'm not, or that I shouldn't be when I am, and I'll beg all the gods I don't believe in that the character you have will get branded on your face, painfully, for all and sundry to see.
"When Gail Dines says that every porn performer is raped in her first scene, she's talking out her ass and turning a terrible crime into a metaphor to describe behavior she just doesn't like a whole, whole lot. In the process, she trashes the agency of performers and adds insult to the injury suffered by self-identified rape victims."
A big fat YES to that.
There is a practical usefulness for a legal definition of rape, otherwise, there is no way to bring to justice those who are rapists.
I was raped, and it took a therapist to help me understand the situation I was in, and even though I know how rape was defined for others, because of the trauma, I could not allow it to my own situation. I was blocking out the memory because of my PTSD. So, I believe there are reasons for people, on the outside, to have better insight into a situation of rape.
Hi, I found your blog through Anji. I completely agree with what you have written here. It's actually something I've been meaning to seriously write about myself.
Since becoming feminist the one thing that I have found myself having to explain over and over again is the concept of sisterhood. Sure there are some women who aren't my favourite people in the world, but that doesn't mean I would ever disbelieve them. No matter what my feelings towards a woman, I would always believe her on a subject like this, no matter what the circumstances. There is no other choice from my viewpoint, the other choice of disbelieving a woman has far too grave consequences for me as a feminist to go down that road, no matter unbelievable it may seem.
I find that rape is a lot to do with feeling violated, and that every woman feels violated for different reasons. I've had experiences that I would consider assault and others don't. I've heard others experiences and thought that if it was me, I wouldn't consider it assault, but then the choice ISN'T MINE TO MAKE.
I actually recently posted a post on my LiveJournal about how rape seems to have worked it's way into our culture through slang. I detest the use of the word 'rape' in an incorrect context. I worry that it will cause a trivialisation of rape, and it's something we can't afford to stop being shocked by.
I think you're a very good writer and I look forward to reading your blog much more :-)
Debs: Yeah, when Dines said that in her little speech, I blew a gasket, big time.
Infra; "But tell me that I'm suffering when I'm not, or that I shouldn't be when I am, and I'll beg all the gods I don't believe in that the character you have will get branded on your face, painfully, for all and sundry to see."
AMEN!
NakedFaery: Well, pretty much any friend of Anji's is welcome here, and I agree with the overuse of the word rape lessening it's import as a word that MEANS something.
I would like to say though, that there is a bit of ambiguity within the word "rape", so that when someone comes to you (me, for example, a teacher of 16 year olds) and asks your opinion regarding something that transpired against them, you are forced to give your opinion, and attempt to let said person understand that sex without their consent is not sex, but rape.
"Saying that I was raped implies that a crime occurred, that someone else is a rapist."
Yes? And?
This does not necessarily mean "... and I have enough evidence of this to ensure punishment, legal or otherwise, should occur."
It does mean the person stating they were raped is entitled to support without interrogation or belittlement.
See "I was robbed". Usually people are believe when they say this, even if everyone involved in the conversation knows it's never going to court.
A very interesting post (and thread of comments).
I would have to agree with E. that just blindly accepting someone's testimony would pose important legal (and ethical) issues.
Nonetheless, I too, cannot accept that someone would bully a victim into having them to defend their own representation of their aggression.
A friend of mine recently got sexually assaulted, and is indeed really troubled by this experience, as you can imagine:
part1:
http://mgfiae.weblogs.media.infocrumbs.net/2008/09/her-friends-rape.html
part2:
http://mgfiae.weblogs.media.infocrumbs.net/2008/10/her-friends-rape-2-my-fears-and.html
hexy: It does mean the person stating they were raped is entitled to support without interrogation or belittlement.
See "I was robbed". Usually people are believe when they say this, even if everyone involved in the conversation knows it's never going to court.
Yes on the first part, complete agreement - for certain values of "support". If I seemed to suggest otherwise then I have expressed myself badly.
As for the second part, that's delicate and I can't put it into words very well. My position is something along the line of "I don't necessarily want to validate your cognitive interpretation of the situation, but I accept the reality of your feelings."
To give a somewhat less loaded example; suppose someone says "I was ripped off" as in "I went to watch this movie and it was such a rip-off" - I can accept that they feel like that about the movie without necessarily agreeing that they're entitled to a refund from the theater...
E. who is not Ernest
Non-Ernest E:
Thus far you've compared rape to "being offended" and "being ripped off by paying to see a bad movie". You couldn't make it clearer that you're attempting to trivialise the experience.
hexy:
I didn't make comparisons in order to trivialise the experience. I tried to illustrate that accepting someone's subjective experience as valid doesn't necessarily entail sharing their conceptualisation of it. I think this point stands (or falls) independent of the gravity or the triviality of the experience involved. From the start of my involvement in this thread I've expressed *concern* that watering down the definition of rape would lead to trivialisation of it. If you can read that as me trying to trivialise it, then probably this topic is simply beyond my grasp of English. For that I apologize.
E. (not Ernest)
Can you think of a situation in which a woman says she was raped, and a lawyer legitimately challenges her?
Have you read To Kill a Mockingbird? A Passage to India?
Rules of evidence exist to protect the innocent.
Post a Comment