Menstuff® has compiled the following information on Rape.
When Is It Rape?
Think "no" means "no"?
Rape and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce
"Corrective Rape"
If a Woman Isn’t Bruised and
Bleeding, Will Her Rape Be Counted?
Tell the FBI: Rape is Rape!
Myths and Facts about Male Victims and
Rape
Rape is... - A
documentary
Through a Rapist's Eyes
Teen Slang: Why The Word 'Rape' Should Never
Be Used Casually
Date Rape Drugs
+ Resources
Sleep Assault
Prison Rape
Slut Walk
Books
It also ruled that statements such as "I should go home" constitute an unambiguous "no" on the woman's part. The definition of rape has evolved again.
What are the facts of the case? Seventeen-year-old Laura T. attended an otherwise all-male party at which she did not drink. After allowing two teenaged boys to undress and fondle her in a bedroom -- acts she admitted enjoying -- she had sex with each. Laura did not say the word "no" nor did she resist. Instead, she said, "I have to go home."
Because John Z. continued for approximately four minutes after she first expressed what might have been reluctance, he was convicted of rape.
Rape is an abomination no civilized society can tolerate. But precisely because rape is such a serious crime, it is important to establish explicit and reasonable standards by which to judge the guilt or innocence of those accused.
If a woman (or man) clearly says "stop" during consensual sex, then the partner should be morally and legally constrained to do just that -- stop. But what if the partner proceeds in good faith on the basis of a "yes" given moments before? Common sense dictates that the rescinded "no" must be explicit and that the partner should have a reasonable amount of time to grasp the changed circumstances.
But the court ruled that sex becomes rape the instant the woman rescinds consent and it provided no guidance on what constitutes the withdrawal of consent.
The sole dissenting voice, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, found that none of Laura's statements were "unequivocal." Her requests to go home could have been interpreted as a need for reassurance or a request for greater speed.
This is a nontrivial point. The law assumes that all adults are responsible agents in sexual matters. (Laura T.'s age was not introduced as a significant factor in the court's conclusion.) The law assumes that women and men are able to make their wants known and, so, have a responsibility to do so.
As for the timing issue ... the court relied heavily upon John Z.'s failure to desist immediately. But, as Brown observed, the decision "does not tell us how soon would have been soon enough. Ten seconds? Thirty? A minute? Is persistence the same thing as force?"
John Z.'s attorney, Carol Foster, argued that her client should have been given a "reasonable amount of time" in which to withdraw. This is also nontrivial. If John Z. had a reasonable belief of consent, then he should also have a reasonable amount of time to realize circumstances had changed.
Brown -- the dissenting judge -- continued, "and even if we conclude persistence should be criminalized in this situation, should the penalty be the same as for forcible rape?" In essence, Brown is asking whether consensual sex that becomes nonconsensual at some point should be treated in the same manner as a back alley rape committed at the point of a knife. Or should there be another category of rape, such as negligence, which carries a lesser penalty?
No one wants to return to the '70s when women who took rape cases to trial were emotionally shredded in cross-examinations. None of us long for the days when the reports of a raped woman were summarily dismissed by a cynical police department. But the recent California decision is not a remedy for such problems surrounding the issue of rape.
Sixties feminism deserves a lot of credit for bringing sanity to bear on the crime of rape. They broke down a mythology that claimed only "bad" girls who walked alone at night in tight clothing were raped. Research showed exactly the opposite to be true. Every woman was vulnerable to attack, even in her own home and especially from men she knew.
Sixties feminism attacked a court system that believed rape complainants were less reliable than other victims. Feminists attacked the "reasonable resistance" requirement imposed by most states; that is, rape was not deemed to have occurred unless the woman had manifested strenuous resistance. Meanwhile, other crimes did not require a victim to resist in order for a crime to have occurred.
The prosecution of rape used to be skewed against women. Now it
seems to be skewed against men. No longer is criminal intent
necessary for criminal
guilt
.
No longer is an explicit "no" necessary for the withdrawal of
consent. And men may be well advised to keep a stopwatch as well as
contraceptives by the bedside.
The Laura T. decision may well become a Pandora's Box for false accusations of rape. No longer can the man point to a woman's explicit consent because she can now argue that -- once penetration occurred -- she changed her mind. She need not utter the word "no!" She can merely say, "I have to go home."
As the former mainstream feminist professor Erin O'Connor notes in
her blog
,
"this ruling neatly dispenses with the idea that rape necessarily
involves force, and replaces it with a definition of consent that is
as uncertain and shifting as the woman who wields it."
Source: Wendy McElroy, www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0114.html
Men Against Sexual
Violence: Sexually Abused Males by Joe Kort
A far-reaching anti-choice bill, introduced by Republican Chris Smith and supported by 173 members of the House, includes a provision that could redefine rape and set women's rights back by decades.1
Right now, federal dollars can't be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger.
But according to the New York Times, the Smith bill would narrow that use to "cases of 'forcible' rape but not statutory or coerced rape."2 This could mean cases where women are "drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes" would no longer count as rape.3
As far too many women know, bruises and broken bones do not define rape—a lack of consent does. The Smith bill is scary. And with 173 supporters it already has a frightening chance of passage—unless the public speaks up right away with an outcry that can't be ignored.
Can you sign the petition to Congress today, demanding they oppose the sexist, anti-choice Smith bill?
The petition says: "Bruises and broken bones do not define rape—a lack of consent does. Stand up and oppose the dangerous GOP legislation to redefine rape."
Federal funds are already severely restricted when it comes to reproductive rights and women's health care, a situation that ends up hurting lower-income women in particular, who tend to use federally-funded services more often than wealthy women. The last thing we ought to be doing is legislating to make these laws more stringent.
In addition, the Smith bill is full of dangerous anti-choice provisions as well as the rape redefinition. Called "Stupak on Steroids" by NARAL Pro-Choice America in reference to Rep. Bart Stupak's failed attempt to push stringent restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion during the health care debate, it would "force millions of American families to pay more taxes if their health plan covers abortion care, jeopardizing abortion coverage in the private market."4
The Smith bill is just the first of many attacks on women's rights to come in the new GOP-controlled House.5 If it moves forward, it would set an incredibly dangerous precedent for GOP action in the House for the next two years.
Can you sign the petition asking Congress to denounce the Smith
bill to redefine rape? Click here: pol.moveon.org/smithbill/?id=25965-299027-G0utnUx&t=4
Sources:
1. "The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape," Mother Jones,
January 28, 2011 www.moveon.org/r?r=205936&id=25965-299027-G0utnUx&t=5
"Stupak on Steroids," The Hill, January 25, 2011 www.moveon.org/r?r=205938&id=25965-299027-G0utnUx&t=6
2. "The Two Abortion Wars: A Highly Intrusive Federal Bill,"
New York Times, January 29, 2011 www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/opinion/30sun1.html
http://nyti.ms/eEUJgY
3. "The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape," Mother Jones,
January 28, 2011 www.moveon.org/r?r=205936&id=25965-299027-G0utnUx&t=7
"Stupak on Steroids," The Hill, January 25, 2011 www.moveon.org/r?r=205938&id=25965-299027-G0utnUx&t=8
5. Ibid.
FBI Rape definition expanded to include
male victims
The new definition will increase the number of people counted as rape victims in FBI statistics, but it will not change federal or state laws or alter charges or prosecutions.
The issue received top-level White House attention starting in July, when Vice President Joe Biden raised it at a Cabinet meeting.
Biden, author of the Violence Against Women Act when he was in the Senate, said the new definition is a victory for women and men. "We can't solve it unless we know the full extent of it," the vice president said.
Since 1929, the FBI has defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. The revised definition covers any gender of victim or attacker and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. Physical resistance is not required. The Justice Department said the new definition mirrors the majority of state rape statutes now on the books.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said all rape victims "should have access to the comprehensive services that will help them rebuild their lives."
In November, Leahy introduced legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and provide an increased emphasis on efforts to stop sexual assault.
"We've always had a broad definition of who is eligible for services, and the change could result in additional resources being made available for survivors of rape," said Linda McFarlane, deputy executive director of Just Detention International. The nonprofit human rights organization works to eliminate sexual abuse in prisons and other detention settings.
Congress approved $592 million this year to address violence against women, including sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, under the Violence Against Women Act and Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. The Obama administration had sought $777 million to combat violence against women.
Using the old definition, a total of 84,767 rapes were reported nationwide in 2010, according to the FBI's uniform crime report based on data from 18,000 law enforcement agencies.
Nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in the United States have been
raped at some time in their lives, according to a 2010 survey by the
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Source: This article appeared on page A - 5 of the
San Francisco Chronicle, www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/06/MNDJ1MLTPQ.DTL
(Editor's note: An important piece the
above article left out is the following: "The revised FBI
definition says that rape is “the penetration, no matter how
slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object,”
without the consent of the victim. Also constituting rape under the
new definition is “oral penetration by a sex organ of another
person” without
consent.")
Myths and Facts about Male Victims and
Rape
Rape is an act of violence in which sex becomes the weapon used to control and or harm a victim the rapist perceives as vulnerable.
Myth: Men and boys cannot be raped.
One in six men report having been sexually abused by the time they were 18 (Finkelhor et al., 1990).
Anyone from infants to the elderly, regardless of gender, race, religion, socio-economic status, education, physical appearance, marital status, or culture can be raped. Rapists choose their victims carefully, looking for anything that will make the victim vulnerable and give them the advantage. They isolate their victims from bystanders who could help them, and rely upon shock, surprise, weapons, threats, strength, or positions of authority to counter the victim’s ability to resist.
Myth: Homosexual males perpetrate most sexual abuse of boys.
Men who sexually abuse males are usually pedophiles or persons who prefer a child as their sexual partner, not homosexual males. Most perpetrators know their victims (Groth et al., 1989) (Roesler et al., 1994).
Myth: A man or boy who experiences sexual arousal or orgasm during the abusive act enjoyed it.
Males may respond to stimulation even when it is abusive or violent. A man or boy who experiences sexual arousal may feel shame and guilt, but the arousal does not mean that he was willing or enjoyed it (Gartner, 1999).
Myth: Boys abused by males are or will become homosexual.
A boy may question or be confused about his sexual identity and orientation after having been abused by a male, especially if he experienced sexual arousal. But there is no reason to believe that sexual abuse causes homosexuality (Gartner, 1999).
Myth: Boys who are sexually abused will grow up to be sexual abusers.
While the majority of sexual abusers were abused themselves, the majority of sexually abused boys never become perpetrators (Lisak et al., 1996).
Myth: If the perpetrator is a female, the boy should consider himself lucky, not abused.
Our societal norms encourage a boy to deny any negative or traumatic responses to having been “so lucky,” to having earned a “badge of honor.” But, having been coerced or manipulated into sex by an older girl or woman is always abusive and often damaging (Lisak et al., 1996).
Comments:
Monika said...
Great myth busting, and great link. (It seems to be linked incorrectly, however, on your post; I think blogger sometimes does that).
There are also some great books out there for male survivors. An
autobiography I read that I found particularly moving was Sheldon
Kennedy's "Why I didn't say anything" www.amazon.ca/Why-Didnt-Say-Anything-Sheldon/dp/1897178077
Kennedy did a great job of showing the complexities male survivors (and survivors in general) experience.
In my experience (I am a sexual assault/abuse therapist), men and boys are really hit with the "you are going to be an offender" myth, as well as homophobia / "you are going to turn out gay" - both of which are often well internalized.
Just as there needs to be greater awareness about sexual violence in general, so does there need to be greater awareness about male survivors, specifically.
Thanks for the education!
Source: straightguise.blogspot.com/2008/01/men-against-sexual-violence-sexually.html
This excludes rapes involving forced anal sex and/or oral sex, vaginal or anal fisting, rape with an object (even if serious injuries result), rapes of men and transgender people and other injurious and degrading sexual assaults. Also, because the definition includes the word “forcibly,” police departments often interpret the rule (against UCR guidelines) as leaving out rapes of women with physical or mental disabilities and those who were unconscious or under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
A recent Ms. investigation revealed that the archaic definition plays a key role in the vast underreporting of rape in the U.S.:
Without an accurate definition, we won't have accurate statistics about rape, and without accurate statistics, we will never have adequate funding for law enforcement to solve these crimes. A change in the definition of rape would lead to better law enforcement response and could thus reduce dramatically the incidence of rape.
It’s high time for a change. For rape survivors, a modern definition of rape at the federal level would acknowledge, once and for all, that rape is rape—and that the stories and experiences of all rape survivors (women and men, gay or straight) count.
Make sure that all rapes are counted. Sign this petition to tell FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Eric Holder to update the overly narrow, outdated “forcible rape” definition.
Read Petition Letter
Change the "forcible" rape definition
Greetings,
I was shocked to learn that the FBI uses an archaic definition of rape (“The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will”) to gather statistics for the Uniform Crime Report. This definition, drafted more than 80 years ago, is problematic for many reasons, chief among them that it excludes victims of forced anal or oral sex, rape with an object, statutory rape, and male rape. Moreover, this definition is often used by law enforcement to exclude rapes of women whose ability to give consent has been diminished by drugs or alcohol.
This poses several problems:
1. This archaic definition of what constitutes "real rape" affects perception of the crime by law enforcement, and likely impacts the treatment of rape victims
2. With such an incomplete description, the FBI has undercounted rapes by hundreds of thousands of cases, resulting in an inaccurate understanding of the scope of the problem.
3. Without accurate rape statistics, allocation of funding to (and within) local law enforcement to combat and investigate crime will be misdirected away from this terrible crime.
It’s high time for the FBI to recognize this error and modernize the definition to reflect the reality of rape in the United States. Please update the Uniform Crime Report so that the definition of rape includes all victims. Every rape should be counted.
I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
Source: www.change.org/petitions/tell-the-fbi-rape-is-rape?utm_medium=email&alert_id=WqIorhKQzm_XhWolTRbyr&utm_source=action_alert
If a Woman Isn’t Bruised and
Bleeding, Will Her Rape Be Counted?
After a week of intense pressure, Rep. Smith dropped the term “forcible” from the controversial bill. Problem solved? Hardly.
In fact, the concept of “forcible rape” has long been used and is still being used to limit the reporting of rape at the federal level. Since 1929, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR), which tallies all crimes reported to local law enforcement each year, has used this archaic definition of rape: “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”
That counts some rapes, certainly. But what gets left out?
Plenty. The UCR’s definition excludes victims of nonconsensual sodomy and oral sex, and those raped with fingers, fists or objects. And all male victims, of course. Also, because the definition includes the word “forcibly,” police departments often interpret the rule (against UCR guidelines) as leaving out rapes of women with physical or mental disabilities and those who were unconscious or under the influence of drugs and alcohol (despite the fact that at least 22 percent of all rapes involve those substances or incapacitated victims—and some studies put the number as high as 77 percent). The assumption, strangely, is that those women weren’t “forced.”
The UCR definition, both in its wording and its effect on police practices, thus omits a large number of rapes—which then impacts the investigation and prosecution of rapists. Some studies have shown that 90 to 95 percent of rapes are committed by serial rapists. If those serial predators are not prosecuted, they’re free to rape again and again.
And that’s why a change in the definition of rape would lead to better law enforcement response and could thus reduce dramatically the incidence of rape. A modern definition would include sex of all kinds without consent. It would embrace victims regardless of sex, gender, age, disability, consciousness or level of intoxication. And it would encompass incest; rape with an object, finger or fist; and sodomy or oral copulation without consent.
Joanne Archambault, a sexual-assault-investigation expert and founder of the nonprofit End Violence Against Women International, insists that the UCR’s definition of rape sends a frightening message to society about what types of sexual assaults matter.
“The fact that it only tracks forced penile-vaginal rape says a lot,” she points out. “Are we saying all those other ones aren’t important? Of course they are.”
She adds that the UCR definition feeds into social stereotypes about who is a “real” rape victim, which have a huge impact on rape reporting. “When they’re first assaulted,” she says, “[rape survivors] aren’t thinking of law enforcement; they’re thinking of safety. They go to their friends, loved ones, family first.” If a rape survivor isn’t validated by her community, she’s less likely to report the crime.
It’s high time for a change. For rape survivors, a modern definition of rape at the federal level would acknowledge, once and for all, that rape is rape—and that the stories and experiences of all rape survivors count.
This is an excerpt from the cover story in the Spring issue of Ms. magazine. For the entire story, look for Ms. on your newsstands or join the Ms. community and have a copy of the magazine delivered to your door.
Comments on this piece? We want to hear them! Send to letterstotheeditor@msmagazine.com. To have your letter considered for publication, please include your city and state.
Want to help fight rape in your own community? Join the No More
Excuses! campaign of the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms.
magazine and demand that the FBI change its outmoded definition of
rape, that city police departments test every rape kit in their
backlog and that cities make sure untested kits don’t accumulate
again. Go to our online campaign headquarters where you’ll be
directed to letters you can send to FBI director Robert Mueller and
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. You can also order a local
take-action package that includes a dramatic video about the rape-kit
backlog by Lorraine Sheinberg and Susan Rubin and ideas for making a
difference on this vital issue.
Source: msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/05/23/if-a-woman-isnt-bruised-and-bleeding-will-her-rape-be-counted/
Teen Slang: Why The Word 'Rape' Should Never Be Used
Casually
Words, like most other teenage cultural expressions, go in and out of fashion. And though certain phrases we use on a daily basis can leave older generations perplexed, they are often harmless and insignificant. However, the increasing use of the weighted word “rape” as a casual slang term threatens to do much more than raise a few parental eyebrows.
The word “rape” is generally used by high school students either negatively, to represent mental or physical injury or damage, (“Wow, that math test totally raped me.”) or positively, to represent beating, winning, or acing something. (“Oh yeah, I just raped that math test.”).
The use of “rape” in such a casual way misrepresents the gravity of sexual assault. Rape is no laughing matter. In the United States, approximately 16 percent of women and three percent of men have been victims of attempted or completed rape. Fifteen percent of sexual assault victims are under 12. Sexual assault victims are three times more likely to suffer from depression and four times more likely to contemplate suicide than non-victims.
Therefore, the use of rape as a positive term is confusing and worrying. How can committing an act of rape be equated to winning or doing something well? There is nothing glamorous about rape, and nothing “cool” about committing sexual assault. The negative use of the word ”rape” is not much better. Losing a sports game or doing badly on a test is nowhere near comparable to being a victim of rape. Imagine how a victim of sexual assault would feel hearing the word thrown around so casually.
Sure, rape is not the only word used in this context. “Kill” has often been used in exactly the same way, and complaints about it are few and far between. The use of murder in this context, however, is not as problematic as that of rape. The two words, while perhaps interchangeable in a sentence, are different entities with different histories.
For the last several centuries, murder has been universally accepted as the horrible crime that it is. When a murder is reported, it is always investigated and taken seriously. Even young children know and understand that killing is wrong.
Rape, however, still has a long way to go in terms of awareness, understanding, and prosecution. Almost all rapists (94 percent) do not spend even a day in jail. On average for the past five years, 60 percent of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Even when a rape is reported, there is only a 50.8 percent chance of an arrest being made, and 31 percent of those convicted of a felony for rape will not spend time in jail.
In addition, rape prevention efforts and the recognition of marital rape as a crime did not come about until fairly recently, contrary to what one might assume. The first legally incorporated rape crisis center was not established until 1972. Every U.S. state had a marital rape exemption law, which stated that a husband raping his wife was not a crime, until 1975, when South Dakota became the first to remove it. The last state to remove this exemption, North Carolina, did not do so until 1992. Many countries today still do not view rape within marriage as a crime.
In just four decades, the United States has come a long way in terms of assistance for rape victims, education about rape, and prosecution of rapists. But there is still a long way to go in both our own country and others. We need to start by treating rape as the serious issue that it is. How can students in our generation understand the damage and severity of rape when it is thrown around in every other sentence? How can the 60 percent of sexual assault victims who do not report the crime to the police find the courage to do so when “rape” is used jokingly and treated as “nothing”?
I know that the students who use the word “rape” in a casual way usually do not mean anything by it. They do not condone rape or think that it is a good thing. I know that there have been times I’ve used the word more lightly that I should have. But in this case, intention doesn’t count. Even if you don’t think rape is insignificant or funny, using it as a slang term sends the message that you do.
There is nothing funny, glamorous, or casual about rape.
Committing an act of rape does not make you cool, powerful, or
superior. As high schoolers, we should know this. So why can’t
our vocabulary reflect that knowledge?
Source: www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/teen-slang-why-the-word-r_n_1194059.html?ref=high-school&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl17%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D12605
Perhaps rape itself is a gesture, a violent repudiation of
the female, in the assertion of maleness that would seem to require
nothing beyond physical gratification of the crudest kind. The
supreme macho gesture - like knocking out an opponent and standing
over his fallen body, gloves raised in triumph. - Joyce Carol
Oates
|
|
 |
