Anna's dilemma

One of my Christmas presents was a Downton Abbey desk calendar. What a wonderful series that was! The entry in this calendar for the weekend of April 30 is on Social Mores, Customs, and Practices, and notes that in the 1920s "a damaging theory reared its head among psychoanalysts and "sexologists," which argued that men were innately aggressive and women were innately masochistic." This theory was supported by Havelock Ellis, who was progressive enough to recognize homosexuality as a condition, rather than a disease or a crime, and who first identified the condition that later came to be known as transgender. But in supporting this theory of innate aggression and masochism, he and others of his day contributed "to a blame-the-victim mentality that kept many women from speaking up against their attackers." (Downton Abbey Color Page-A-Day Calendar 2016. New York: Workman Publishing Co.)
I am sure that fans of the series remember the terrible scene in episode three of season four where Mr. Green, Lord Gillingham's valet, rapes Anna Bates (played by Joanne Froggatt). Anna chooses not to tell her husband, for fear that he will hunt down Green and kill him, placing him once more in danger of the gallows. But this is unrealistic, because given the mindset of the day, it is far more likely that what would have held Anna back from telling Mr. Bates is that he would be likely to blame her for having been raped.
And the practice of blaming the victim is alive and well today. Several women from Brigham Young University have recently come forward claiming that, in response to their reporting having been raped or sexually assaulted, they were themselves punished for violating the BYU honor code (which stipulates. inter alia, that students live a "chaste and virtuous life").
It is for this reason that, despite many other topics I want to write about (such as understanding the scientific method, and the war on political correctness), I feel we must consider the topic of sexual assault, and rape. Just yesterday, we learned of yet another case, this time in France, of a politician who appears to view women as sex objects.
And this is a topic I feel qualified to write about.
For I have been sexually assaulted.
And raped.

Rape Myths

"Rape myths are one way in which sexual violence has been sustained and justified through history and modern times" (Turchik & Edwards, 2011; p. 221).

Martha Burt, in her seminal 1980 paper Cultural Myths and Supports for Rape, provided one of the earliest discussions of how rape myths contribute to social downplaying of rape and to blaming the victim, and introduced the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. In its most recent form, the Updated Illinois rape Myth Acceptance Scale, there are four subscales: "She asked for it", "He didn't mean to", "It wasn't really rape", and "She lied." Even within these descriptions, a major rape myth has been inadvertently enshrined; can you spot it?
Unfortunately, these myths are quite broadly accepted, and have considerable impact on the way the legal system had traditionally treated rape. Let's consider each of these in turn.

She asked for it.

When girls are drunk, or wear "slutty" clothes, or go to a room alone with a boy at a party, they are asking for sex. They shouldn't complain when they get it. It's an age-old story, the role of the female as the temptress, forcing us men to sin simply by offering us fruit. It starts in Genesis 3:6, and continues in Genesis 19:30-38.

The latter passage, the story of Lot's daughters getting their father drunk and thus raping him while he was incapacitated, is particularly important. Whether we assume the story to be historical or not--for example, it provides a convenient way of explaining how the Moabites and Ammonites were all conceived in sin and so it is right for the Israelites to conquer them, and kill them--it does not ring true. Ryan Stollar provides an excellent discussion of how this passage represents an early case of shifting the blame for rape onto the victims; it is well worth the ten minutes to read it. Remember that Lot had already offered up his daughters to the townspeople for rape. And he chose to live alone with them in a cave, rather than to stay in Zoar. Perhaps he was afraid to stay because he was known to be prone to drink and the attractions of girls.

This blaming of the temptation presented by women has continued into modern times. We can see the extreme version of this by the requirement in some societies for women to dress "modestly," the ultimate being the requirement to cover everything but the eyes. The argument is that men are unable to control their impulses when confronted by womanly charms, so it's the woman's fault if she displays such charms and is assaulted.

A variant of this myth occurs when the victim is in what we might call an "erotic" profession, such as an escort, erotic dancer, or prostitute. It's reasoned that since these women have already compromised their morals, whatever happens to them is their fault. Once again, we blame the victim of assault.

He didn't mean to.

Remember the theory from the 1920s that men are inherently aggressive and women are inherently masochistic? This myth instantiates that theory: men have a strong need for sex, so when they force a woman to have sex it's because they simply can't help themselves. For this reason, it is argued, they really shouldn't be held accountable. Add to this the influence of alcohol: if both people are drunk, it can't really be considered rape.
The Thames Valley Police, in classic English understatement, blast this myth to pieces by explaining how consent to sex is like accepting the offer of a cup of tea in the video shown below. It's short: go ahead and watch. This is a refutation of the myth that so many young men have been taught: "when a girl says 'no,' she really means 'yes.' She just doesn't want to seem too eager."
Copyright ©2015 Emmeline May and Blue Seat Studios. http://rockstardinosaurpirateprincess.com/2015/03/02/consent-not-actually-that-complicated/

It wasn't really rape.

Here, the legal system has until very recently been at fault. To prove that a woman did not want to have sex, it was required to prove that she actively resisted. To constitute rape, the alleged offender must have used force to overcome her resistance. My 1995 copy of the Manual for Courts Martial, under Article 120--Rape and carnal knowledge--explains that "force and lack of consent are necessary to the offense. Thus, if the victim consents to the act, it is not rape. The lack of consent required, however, is more than mere lack of acquiescence. If a victim in possession of his or her mental faculties fails to make lack of consent reasonably manifest by taking such measures of resistance as are called for by the circumstances, the inference may be drawn that the victim did consent."

There is at least concession to the possibility of futility of consent (such as when the alleged offender is holding a knife to the victims throat). But the bottom line is that consent is implied unless forcefully withheld. Unless I tell you "I really, really don't want any tea" and push your arm away with sufficient force to cause bruising, it could have been considered that your forcing the tea down my throat was perfectly reasonable and legal. Indeed, the manual goes on to say that "if there is actual consent, although obtained by fraud, the act is not rape." So long as I trick you into consenting, it's OK.

This distinction between active, violent resistance and more passive acquiescence has given rise to the notion of "legitimate rape." This was most famously invoked recently by Representative Todd Akin in the discussion on abortion, when he stated that he had "heard that" (whatever that means), in cases of legitimate rape, the female body can “shut down” a pregnancy before it occurs after a rape. In a future essay, I will be considering the place of science in politics. This is a classic case where science should be invoked, but when it interferes with our political viewpoint, we choose to ignore it.
Fortunately, the requirement for vigorous resistance has changed, at least in military law. In the most recent version of Article 120, it states that "the term 'consent' means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent."

The question of whether a man can rape his wife also falls in this category. Previously, it had been considered that "the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his
lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract." (Sir Matthew Hale, 1736.) It is only since the 1970s that the the law has changed, and a man can be charged with raping his wife, although it is still handled differently from other rapes in several states.

There have been cases where an investigation was halted because the alleged offender and the victim had a previous, consensual, sexual relationship, and on the occasion in question, both had been drinking. In the eyes of the investigators, this "wasn't really rape." Again, this has fortunately changed recently in military law: "A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent." Also, "A sleeping, unconscious, or incompetent person cannot consent." There remains the question of a person who is drunk, as in a recent case at the U.S. Naval academy. In the end, the judge ruled that there had been no rape. And this brings us to, perhaps, the most pervasive myth:

She lied.

Many of us consider it not uncommon that a woman will use a claim of rape to cover up a consensual sexual encounter that she later regretted, or to get back at a man for some minor slight. Indeed, "justice system officials are highly skeptical of women who claim to have been raped by acquaintances" (Bryden & Lengnick, 1997; pp. 1195-1196). (See below on the issue of acquaintance rape vs. stranger rape.) There are frequently no witnesses to a rape, so the case can easily become one of "he said, she said." However, "false reports of rape are no more common than of other crimes" (ibid., p. 1195).

We have seen this claim in almost every one of the highly-publicized accusations of rape at the service academies in recent years. And it isn't only those on the conservative side of the political spectrum who fall prey to this myth. Richard Dawkins, the outspoken critic of Intelligent Design, engaged in a flurry of tweets criticizing a woman who had alleged that she was raped while too drunk to give consent. Not only did he assert that she was probably lying, he also engaged in another standard victim-blaming tactic: if she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have gotten drunk.
Rape is one of the most under-reported crimes.
The reasons for not reporting differ between men and women. (Oh yes, men can be raped: we'll come to that later.) "Whereas men fail to report rape when it jeopardizes their masculine self-identity, women fail to report rape when the rape does not fit the classic stereotypical rape situation" (Pino & Meier, 1999; p.979). In the 2006 Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members, the most commonly given reasons for women not to report an unwanted sexual contact was that they felt uncomfortable making the report, that they thought they would be labeled a troublemaker, or that they did not want anyone to know (i.e. felt shame). Additionally, the rape victim has been traumatized, and it is in the nature of trauma not to be able to speak about it. Victims of traumatic assault often carry irrational guilt (consider children who have been abused, and blame themselves). And rape creates a serious disruption in one's perception of the world as being safe. To step forward and report the rape, to draw all of that scrutiny onto themselves, requires them to feel safe; so it's a really difficult step to take in a world that has just been demonstrated to be unsafe.
Let us return briefly to the question of rape and women in the erotic industries. We are going to be discussing how rape is an exercise of power (it's not really about sex). In interacting with men, strippers and prostitutes consider themselves to be the one in the power position: they are the ones manipulating the sexual impulses of their clients, within strictly maintained boundaries. The women are in control. So when that power and control is forcibly taken away from them through rape, they find themselves doubting their own power, their own ability to control any situation. This is not a mindset conducive to entering into new risky behaviour, such as reporting having been raped.
Given all the reasons that women find it so difficult to report having been raped, it is surprising that we seem very ready to dismiss as false the few reports that are made. And yet not so long ago we find standard jury instructions such as these (from California in the 1970s): "A charge such as that made against the defendant in this case is one which is easily made and, once made, difficult to defend against, even if the person accused is innocent. Therefore the law requires that you examine the testimony of the female person named in the information with caution" (Le Grand, 1973; p. 932; quoted in Gavey: Just Sex: The Cultural Scaffolding of Rape).

So what are we to think when celebrities are accused of rape? I must admit that I find myself doubting the stories of women who make such accusations. It seems very tempting to bring an accusation of rape in the hope of a huge out-of-court settlement. And when several other women subsequently allege that they too were raped, it feels like they are attempting to ensure that they aren't left out of any settlement, because once we believe that the celebrity raped one person, it's going to be very easy to believe that he raped others.
But I have to keep remembering that it takes a great deal of courage to report having been raped, and to face the consequences of that report. On balance, I think we need to start from the assumption that the accuser may be telling the truth. This is difficult, because we also have to hold the assumption that the accused is innocent, at least until he is proven guilty. But it is possible to do both: it requires us to respect the accuser, since the accusation may be true, while also respecting the accused, since the accusation may be false. And then to avoid our own, uninformed judgments until the legal system has, in its imperfect way, elucidated something close to the truth.
Meanwhile, when a man has sexually assaulted a woman, the chances are high that he has done so before, and will do so again. There are scientific reasons why this is so, mostly concerning stable traits of men likely to engage in sexual aggression. For example, in the Confluence Model, two factors appear to contribute: hostile masculinity, and treating sex impersonally; these may be moderated by the ability to feel empathy for potential victims. This means that we should be less dubious when, after one person accuses a celebrity of rape, other victims start coming forward. We should expect there to be other victims, and finding out that they are not alone in having been assaulted gives each of them more confidence to come forward.
This short TED talk presents a brilliant system for confidential reporting of sexual assault on college campuses, which uses the fact that offenders usually offend multiple times. No human (other than the reporter) knows that a report has been made until there are at least two reports about the same alleged offender. At that point, the system notifies authorities to begin an investigation.

Other myths.

Burt didn't include all the myths that we now recognize in her original research. For example, did you spot that she assumes the rapist is a man, and the victim a woman? Let's look at these other myths:

Rape is committed by strangers.

Usually in dark alleys (or, we seem to be assuming these days, in restrooms by people pretending to be transgender).
There are cases of sexual assault by strangers. Nancy Venable Raine, in her courageous book After Silence: Rape & My Journey Back, was raped by a stranger. A dear friend of mine from university was sexually assaulted by a stranger on her way back to college.
The man who sexually assaulted me when I was about 12 was a stranger. It was on a crowded London Underground train on my way home from school. He was well-dressed, and a very polite man. Except for the part where he repeatedly fondled my genitals.
But, contrary to the common assumption, rape or sexual assault by a stranger is not the only, or even most common, form. Results from the study Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008 indicate that only 24.9% of reported single-offender cases of rape or sexual assault were committed by a stranger (see Table 43). (And remember that people are more likely to report rape by a stranger than by an acquaintance, because that more closely fits the stereotype for rape.) Almost half the cases (48.2%) were by a person who was well-known, but not related, to the victim. 6.6% were by relatives, including 3.7% by spouses. This last figure shows that another common myth, that husbands cannot rape their wives, is also false.
Unfortunately sexual abuse within families is all too common, and under-reported. The case of Lot's daughters may well be an example not only of the long history of family sexual abuse, but also of the propensity to shift the blame for the abuse onto the female child, as discussed in Ilan Kutz' article in the British Medical Journal.

Men can't be raped.

Early research into rape and sexual aggression was driven by feminist theory. Women are the most common victims of sexual aggression, and all too often are blamed for having been assaulted. Thus it is natural that the bulk of research has concentrated on the sexual victimization of women by men, and that this research was fueled by feminism. After all, men were quite happy believing the myths. Additionally, it was not until recently that the law even recognized the possibility that a victim of rape could be male. It was assumed that rape was the result of the unequal power roles between men and women, and thus male rape was impossible. In Britain, for example, this didn't change until "the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which criminalised male rape for the very first time" (Javaid, 2104; p. 4).
However, we now know that between 5 and 10% of rape victims are male. Admittedly, many of these cases happen in prison, and we have been content with dismissing this as inevitable, or even deserved. But just as it took feminism to bring to light the mechanism of male sexual domination over women, we have to recognize that there is also male sexual domination over men, and that this is just as much "real rape." And this is not a case of homosexuals forcing themselves on straight men. Heterosexual men have long used rape as a way of exerting dominance: over women, and over men. There is growing consensus that this is the reason for the passages in the bible, known as the "clobber passages", most often quoted as expressing God's condemnation of homosexuality.

OK, but men can't be raped by women.

Consider this scenario:

A young man, really a boy since he is 15 years old, is at a party with his friends. Let's call him Richard for now. Richard is rather hoping to "score" with Pamela, who is the sister of his closest friend Paul. There are a very few adults supervising the party, but one who was there was Paul and Pamela's mother, Mrs. R. Now, Mrs. R. likes Richard: after all, he's very polite and intelligent; really rather charming. Richard has always been severely introverted, and feels unable to approach Pamela, or any of the other girls at the party. He and Mrs. R. sit alone in a corner, while he talks about his difficulties. She listens, all the time keeping him supplied with gin, and rubbing his back to console him. Eventually, she suggests that they go upstairs. Richard is a virgin, but both eager to put into practice what he has learned from reading The Happy Hooker, and very drunk. So he agrees.
The next day, he feels terrible about what has happened. It was entirely out of his control, and feels deeply disturbing. What makes it worse, is that he has a vital exam for school the next day, and concentrating is almost impossible. It takes him almost 40 years to realize that, in fact, he was raped.

Richard's not really the right name for him: we should call him Robie. Because that young man was me. (The exam was Computer Science, my first 'A'-level paper. I kept falling asleep in the middle of writing sentences! It still amazes me that I passed.)

So many myths are busted here. I fell into the 48.2% of victims raped by someone they knew well but was not a relative. I was a male victim. The rapist was female.
But was it really rape? This exposes one of the biggest problems with male victims of rape by women: we may be able to dismiss the myth that women who are raped actually wanted sex, but don't men always want sex? Is it even physically possible to have sex with an unwilling man? This is probably why it took me 40 years to understand that what happened was rape. But in both a legal and a moral sense, I had not consented; and if we learn anything from this discussion, it is that when it comes to sex, positive consent is essential. Legally, I was under the age of consent (which was 16 in Britain at the time). And, despite what Richard Dawkins thinks, plying a victim with alcohol actually does remove their ability to provide meaningful consent. Indeed, when I look back, I can see many hallmarks of  the grooming of victims. However, as you will see if you watch the video at the end, this case still does not meet the legal definition of rape in England, which requires that the offender penetrate an orifice of the victim with his penis. Mrs. R. did not have a penis.
There's another problem. This was a case of a woman getting a man drunk and, in the language of the King James bible, "knowing" him. Why am I blaming the woman in this case, but the man in the case of Lot's daughters which, at this level, is identical? For one thing, I know what happened in my case. But the most important difference lies at the heart of sexual assault. Rape and sexual assault are about the power differential: about the offender exerting his (or her) power over the victim, using sex as the mechanism. In the case of two daughters living alone with their father in a strongly patriarchal society, the father wields the power. The power differential in the case of an adult woman with a 15-year old boy may be more ambiguous, but legally she was the adult in the situation. And again, I know what happened.

Identification with the victim or alleged offender

While not strictly a myth, we need to discuss the different responses of the public to different characteristics of the victim and the alleged offender.
In 2002, Elizabeth Smart was abducted by Brian David Mitchell, assisted by Wanda Ileen Barzee. She was held for nine months, during which time she was repeatedly raped, frequently several times a day.
This was a terrible ordeal. But it was also one that was almost custom made for the media. The victim (through no fault of her own) was a young, very pretty blond girl. It is easy to see her as the victim. The alleged offender was a wild-looking, bizarre religious non-conformer, who was unknown to his victim. This case fit all the stereotypes for rape.

But what if the victim had been a heroin addict (a part the wonderful actress Keeley Forsyth, pictured at left, seems typecast to play)? And what if the alleged offender was a prominent businessman, with all the good looks of George Clooney? The media would be far less likely to cover the story. And we would be far less likely to believe the victim. We can identify with the alleged offender, and so are more likely to trust his side of the story.
The case of the alleged rape in To Kill a Mockingbird is interesting. In this case, a black man is accused of raping a young white woman in a small town in Alabama during the 1930s.  The novel addresses the stereotype in that place at that time that a young black man will take every opportunity to rape a virtuous young white woman. It was easy, initially, for the residents of Maycomb, Alabama to identify with the white victim, and castigate the black alleged offender. But again, rape is often about power differential. There is a power differential between male and female, with the male being dominant--hence the preponderance of male offenders and female victims. But in this case, the power differential is more ambiguous. It was far more likely that the white female was in the power position, with the black male being subservient. [Spoiler alert]. Despite Atticus Finch's best attempts to convince the jury of this fact, the accused is, wrongly, convicted.

"Definitions of rape have historically been carefully policed and deployed in ways that allowed strict societal condemnation for certain kinds of rapes (violent attacks by strangers) committed on certain kinds of women (white, "respectable," and sexually chaste) by certain kinds of men (Black, working-class, deviant) ... . reports of rapes that fell outside these parameters were more vulnerable to being dismissed by police and others as instances of sex rather than rape, or as simply untrue." (Gavey: Just Sex: The Cultural Scaffolding of Rape; p. 18).

Speak Out!

We've talked a lot here about rape and sexual assault. I have even revealed some deeply personal history. Why? Isn't it better just to keep quiet, to avoid ruffling any feathers?

In her TED Talk, Elizabeth Smart addresses this issue. She points out that keeping quiet allows one's assailant more control, more power. She says "it is so important to come forward, to share your stories, to speak out about it." (In a different talk, she also has a few choice words to say on abstinence education.)

Rape and sexual assault live in the shadows. By being open about this topic, we rob the rapist of power. By speaking out about what was done to us, we remove the influence our assailant has long held over us.

By speaking out, we empower others to address what had been done to them.

This is my message: be aware of the myths around rape, and don't fall prey to them; be ready to believe a person who asserts that she (or he) has been raped; and if, God forbid, you have yourself suffered rape or sexual assault, speak out! Take the power back from the person who robbed you of your innocence.

Finally, here is a lengthy (about one hour) panel discussion that covers much of the ground we have discussed here: