I'm sorry, this is going to be a long one. But I think it's important.
But here in the UK (and indeed in much of the Western world), we need to have a discussion that focuses on why the majority of rapes go unreported and why, of those that are reported, conviction rates hover around 6-7%.
In other countries around the world, there are cultural and legal reasons why women don't report rape; in some societies women are by law to blame, and can be punished for adultery if their rapist was married, or ostracised by their communities.
We don't have that problem here. And yet, by and large, victims (women and men) don't report sexual assault, and when they do, the perpetrators are seldom punished. Why is this and what can we do about it?
I have more answers for the former question than the latter. As to conviction rates: in order to be found guilty, it must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the crime was committed. The vast majority of rapes (around 80%) are committed by someone known to the victim. This means that some of the more obvious signs of a violent crime - a break and enter into the house, a weapon, physical trauma - may be absent.
In cases where drugs or alcohol are involved, there are likely to be even fewer physical signs that a victim resisted (since they might be physically unable). So when it comes to evidence before a judge or jury, rape cases often come down to 'he-said-she-said', and as long as the alleged rapist says it was consensual, well, there's doubt. Evidently a lot of doubt, given the dismal conviction rates.
While a not-guilty verdict based on the 'proven beyond a shadow of a doubt' criteria doesn't necessarily mean that the judge or jury doesn't believe the victim, it is an element to consider. And this idea that the victim is lying - that she simply regrets consensual sex, that she was just too drunk to remember consenting, that she's trying to exact revenge for some reason, that she was some how at fault because of the way she dressed, because of her sexual history, because she led the guy on - it's pervasive. Anecdotal evidence from women who have gone to the police over sexual assault claims suggest that many women (in every country) are asked questions or otherwise treated in a way to suggest that they aren't to be believed.
So we need to have a conversation that looks at several things: we need to dispel some of the myths around sexual assault, we need to understand why we are so reluctant to believe that someone could be a rapist, and we need to figure out how to change the way our police and justice systems deal with victims.
As the SlutWalk phenomenon spread from Canada, I trawled through comments on news forums, many of which genuinely did not understand the outrage toward the police officer's comments that women should avoid dressing like sluts in order to avoid being raped. Isn't that common sense?, many asked. Isn't provocative clothing going to provoke? Isn't it like flashing valuables about only to complain about being robbed? Misguided people, I thought, but surely just a minority.
But no. After speaking to people I know - people who come from across the spectrum in terms of education and upbringing - I realised that this is not a minority view. Most people don't mean it in a malicious way. They aren't saying a girl in a short skirt deserves to be raped. But they do think that it makes her more likely to be raped. They've never heard the studies that say that rapists don't remember what their victims were wearing, and they don't consider the hundreds of women who are raped in institutions and care homes, or the elderly, or women raped wearing jeans or track suits or in some areas of the world burkas.
Rape is not a crime of passion and lust, it's a crime of power. Rapists don't attack their victims because they're 'sexy' or seem available. They attack them because they're vulnerable or perceived as weak, and because the rapist wants to exert their own power.
Even in a situation where one person has maybe gone home with another from the bar, possibly insinuating that sex will happen, and then changed their mind. Sure, the perpetrator may have initially been attracted to the person. But where a normal person would understand that no means no, and simply leave it at that (disappointed, sure), a rapist becomes angry that he has not gotten what he wanted. When he has sex with the person anyway, despite them saying no, he is not doing it because he finds them irresistibly sexy. He's doing it because he wants to exert his power to take something from them that they don't want to give. And this would be as true of a woman in a track suit as it is a woman in a low-cut top.
And yet, despite these facts, we still have Sandra Parsons in today's Daily Mail saying, 'Let’s be clear: rape can never be excused. Never. Yet I defy anyone to look at a group of teenage girls out on the town on a Saturday night, tottering drunkenly through the streets in micro-dresses designed to show as much thigh and fake-tanned cleavage as possible, and not feel a tremor of foreboding about how their night might end...the fact remains that dressing in such an overtly sexual manner appears to send a signal that the wearer is at the very least hoping to excite and provoke any men she encounters.'
And there it is. A girl dressing in a sexual manner sends the signal that she's available for sex. How stupid of her. She's provoking men. And men, well, they can't help themselves, can they? A man takes one look at someone dressed provocatively and his inner rapist just jumps right out?
Parsons misses the point. Women can dress however they please, and send whatever signals they want. Maybe they are showing themselves as sexually available, maybe they are out looking for someone to go home with. And they can choose who that someone is. Just because a woman is sexually available, it doesn't mean she's sexually available to all who apply. And the vast majority of men will understand that. They might ogle, they might make crude comments, they might try to buy her a drink and chat her up. But if she's not interested, they won't try to have sex with her. Those that would, would with anyone. They won't pick a girl tottering around in a group of friends, just because her dress is the shortest. They'll pick a girl who is walking home on her own wearing her work uniform, because she's the easiest target.
But again, Parsons' view about provocative dress is widespread. And it's part of the reason we're so reluctant to believe that certain men could be rapists. The myth goes: if a woman is dressed like a slut, she probably is one. She's probably slept with loads of people, she's not very discerning. So she went out, dressed like that, got drunk, met this guy...why wouldn't she have sex with him, same as she's probably had sex with a bunch of guys before him? Wasn't he right to expect that, given her dress and behaviour? And isn't it true that tons of women just claim rape the morning after, when they're ashamed of what they've done? (I'm not saying that's what Parsons believes - she makes it clear that she's not making excuses for rape in her article. But this is the victim-doubting thought process that stems from believing that what a woman wears matters.)
Well, first of all, no, it isn't true that tons of women make false rape claims. The false reporting rate is about 4%, which is similar to other crimes. Still, so many people believe that if a woman wasn't held down at knifepoint by a stranger in a dark alley, then we need more information besides the fact that she said no. If she knew the attacker, we need to know how well, in what capacity, and did she ever flirt with him? We need to know her sexual history, we need to know how drunk she was, we need to know if she's a 'slut'. Basically, we need to look for reasons he might have thought no means yes. We need to look for the fact that she's often said yes in the past, so, she probably said yes this time.
No always, always, always means no, whether it's to a stranger, a co-worker, a husband/boyfriend, a date, a person you've brought home from the bar, a careworker, a john, a family member. No always, always, always means no, regardless of what you're wearing, whether you've had sex before, whether you've been kissing, whether you've been drinking, whether you're in the middle of having sex. There are no exceptions.
So the discussion we really need to have is why, when people report sexual assault, society automatically begins looking for exceptions. We need to discuss why these prejudices exist in relation to rape, and why they are so effectively exploited in the legal system to let 93% of people off the hook. And we need to have this discussion with young people, so they understand as they grow up that there aren't any exceptions. Only when the myths around rape, which all serve to blame the victim in some way or another (too slutty, too drunk, too flirty, leading on, lying, money-grabbing) are brought to the forefront and dispelled, not least within police forces and the judicial system, can victims begin to feel both safe in reporting sexual assaults and confident that something will be done about it.
For that to happen, this conversation has to go far beyond this blog, newspaper comment sections, women's groups, and those who pretended to be outraged about Ken Clarke for a microsecond, to reach into communities, schools, institutions and people's homes. At the very least, if the SlutWalks make a few people sit up and question the myths society believes in, they'll have achieved some purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment