I've started to wonder whether rape is
worse in our society than it might otherwise be because of how we
view sex. So imagine a group of pre-linguistic humans (yes, homo
sapiens existed for a very long time without language) who are
hunter-gatherers: they have a community and community rules, but
fewer ways of enforcing those rules than we do now, and less severe
consequences. Actually, you could probably just picture a group of
chimps and get more or less the same idea how social dynamics would
work in a group of inherently intelligent and social beings who lack
language.
Now, let's try to separate out things
that are inherently bad about rape from things that are culturally
bad about rape. I would imagine that in this group of pre-linguistic
humans, rape would still be awful, because it's 1) physical assault,
often painful, and 2) could possibly get you pregnant with the child
of someone whose baby you did not want. This #2 is almost the same
thing as pointing out that you should be able to choose your sexual
partners, since birth control did not used to exist, and people
choose sexual partners (attractiveness based on pheromones, immune
system compatibility, traits that make one a good mate like being
able to bring home the bacon, being kind, etc) in very similar ways
to how they choose parents for their children. Possibly we could
include a 3) Violation of personal choice in a very intimate,
traumatizing way, but I would argue that this is probably more
cultural and less innate.
What affects cultural attitudes about
rape? For one thing, sex is shameful in our Western, puritanical
culture. This makes a whole bunch of things more shameful than they
might “naturally” be, with such concepts as shaming girls who
like to have lots of sex as “sluts,” and, at best, relegating sex
to something sacred and only to be shared with serious, long-term
significant others, or after marriage. So this makes rape more
shameful, too – rape survivors are sometimes seen as dirty or
soiled, and there's a stigma against even admitting that one has been
a victim of rape.
Why this stigma? I suggest that there
are three parts to it: the first part I'll just say is unexplainable
and stupid (simply because I think it's more complicated than my
other two points alone). Society doesn't stigmatize being the victim
of other crimes, so maybe it's just part of our many weird attitudes
about sex. Part two is that people (often subconsciously) blame the
victim for not standing up for themselves, with a thought processes
of roughly “Well, if I were
in that situation, I would do everything possible
to get out of it, like kicking him in the balls, running away, and
calling the police.” This view ignores the fact that most rape is
more complicated than that: it is most often not a scary stranger man
jumping out of the bushes at night, but is done by friends and
boyfriends, people you wouldn't want to hurt or have arrested even if
they're being coercive, plying you with drinks, or being oddly
aggressive. Maybe the victims would wish after the fact that they had
stood up for themselves more, but in the moment few people would have
the instinct to kick your good friend in the balls. All I will say
about that is I don't think any of us have the right to say how we
would act in that situation unless we've actually been there. (By the
way, this part of the stigma would explain why even fewer male
victims report the crime than women. The fact that I'm primarily
talking about women in this post doesn't mean I'm trying to ignore
male victims here!)
Part 3 of my explanation for the stigma
is that rape victims seem to be required by society to be perfectly
pure, virginal, desire-less beings in order for anyone to accept that
they did not, in fact, “want it.” (I have some texts from my GWS
class I could cite, if anyone is curious.) Rape cases are rarely
taken to court, but when they are, victims are questioned along the
lines of “But you were kissing him earlier.” “Why did you go to
the railroad tracks with him if you didn't want to have sex with
him?” “But you said in this facebook correspondence that you
'love bjs' so clearly you like sex. How can you prove you didn't want
it?” etc. Essentially, as soon as one admits that a woman has
sexuality/desires (not something that our culture does), she loses
the right to choose who she wants to have sex with, because clearly
if you like sex, all sex is good, right? Logic. So rape victims are
generally seen, at least in some – often unspoken – way, as dirty
because they “wanted it”.
On a more broad and direct level (okay,
I'm adding a part 4), it might be shameful just because of the
overall stigma against sex. If sex is taboo and shameful, and people
who have sex are dirty or shameful people, then rape victims,
prostitutes, “sluts” (see above: this is just a derogatory term
for women who like sex, which shouldn't be derogatory at all), and
anybody else who has sex before marriage are all grouped into the
same category, a very broad and meaningless category one could fall
into via very, very different situations.
This stigma probably makes sex seem
even more intimate than it already is. Naturally, it is intimate
because having sex with someone could result in having their child,
so we're programmed to be somewhat selective about it. But there's no
inherent reason the organs under our clothes should be so taboo, and
I'm fairly certain in any hunter-gatherer culture they would be far
less taboo if not completely acceptable. Therefore, if we've made
holy temples out of our nether regions, to be shared with only a
select few, doesn't that make the invasion of that space even worse
than other kinds of assault on less taboo places? Isn't that what
separates rape from other kinds of assault and taking without
permission, like mugging someone or beating them up? By this
reasoning, rape in our pre-linguistic society would still be worse
than mugging or being beaten up, because there is some inherent
intimacy to sex, but would not be worse by as much as it is today.
Let's all agree that rape is inherently
bad and should be avoided by all costs because it's very damaging to
a lot of people for some natural reasons and some cultural reasons.
(This is the sentence I will direct you to if anyone starts screaming
about how I don't understand how horrible rape is and how could I
possibly say any of this.) Now that that's been said, doesn't it seem
like ending slut-shaming and being a sex-positive culture would
actually help rape victims
immensely, even if it doesn't stop rape? This is not a very
conventional way to link these two different feminist issues, but I
think they're incredibly related and that gives us even more cause to
fight for both at the same time. And as one last side-note in a post
riddled with parenthetical clauses, increasing sex-positivity would
likely decrease rates of rape, because girls are pressured into
denying wanting sex, which might make some men pay less attention to
explicit consent. Essentially, because it's hard for girls to say
“yes” since they aren't supposed to want sex, that makes consent
seem fuzzier, and sometimes “no” is interpreted as playing hard
to get, or being coy “like women do”. If we manage to be more
sex-positive as a culture, and educate people openly about their
choices instead of treating it as a shameful taboo, then I
hypothesize that it would not only be awesome in many other ways, but
would also decrease rates of rape and sexual assault AND make the
experience (specifically, the aftermath) of rape less horrible and
traumatizing for women. Naturally, I would much rather stop rape
entirely – but just because one hopes to find a cure for cancer
doesn't mean we should stop trying to find ways to manage and treat
it.