Rape
By:
Stephanie Hoover
Dr.
Nancy A. Schaefer
May
3, 2012
Soc.
360
Some people argue that rape as a whole is very black and
white as well as simple to define, however the following research will state
the contrary. The complexities of rape will
start with the legal definition of rape, which is still being altered to this
day, as well as how anyone, female or male, single or married, may fall victim
to rape, as well as how one’s perception of dating, according to the sexual
social exchange theory, may or may not justify the act of rape in today’s
society.
Since
the issue of rape has come about the very definition seems to be continually
changing. The legal definition of rape is when a person uses force, or the
threat of force, to have some form of sexual intercourse (vaginal, oral, or
anal) with another person (Schaefer 2012). Bonthuys
explains why rape was defined as an act that could only happen to women, “The
majority judgment’s discussion of the common law definition of rape was prefaced
by an acknowledgment that, in the past, the crime served patriarchal interests
and aimed ‘to protect the economic interests of the father, husband or guardian
of the female survivor of rape, to perpetuate stereotypes, male dominance and
power and to refer to females as objects’’’ (Bonthuys
251). This is due to the fact
that the U.S. has stemmed from a patriarchal society where women were not only
seen as unequal, but as property of men. Though this very idea is not something
new, it has been around quite some time; in Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus Titus asks the emperor of Rome, “Was it well done
of rash Virginus| to slay his daughter with his own right hand,| because she
was enforced, stained, and deflowered?” to which the emperor responded with,
“It was…Because the girl should not survive her shame,| And by her presence
still renew his sorrow” (Titus Andronicus 187). Titus’ daughter was raped to
hurt him, because a woman wasn’t seen
as her own person, but the property of the men in her family. Furthermore Bonthuys’ definition of rape states that rape is
not simply an act of sexual gratification, but one of physical domination. It is
in this domination that men are trying to prove that they are more powerful
than women and that men can do and take what they will because their society
dictates that they are the supreme gender (Bonthuys
251).
Though,
Bonthuys shows that not all people have a clear definition of what they
conclude rape to be. Rumney and Morgan-Taylor distinguish two opposing
perceptions about the nature of rape: ‘one views rape as an inherently gendered
act: something men do to women’ while the other views it as ‘a violation of the
bodily integrity of male and female persons’ (Bonthuys
253). One definition holds very
strong on the patriarchal view, while the other shows that rape is not only a
woman’s problem, but one of dominance on all persons. It seems that since our
society is still slowly shifting from a patriarchal society to an equal gender
model people think that men cannot be raped just as women can. According to Bonthuys
this idea of broadening who can be labeled a victim of rape is slowly changing,
but only as the society changes from the old patriarchal definition of
rape and onto more of a new definition in which women are seen more as equals
in power putting them on equal ground to be victimized (253).
This
brings me to the next point that not only can women be victims of rape, but men
can also. When the majority of people hear “rape” they instinctively think of a
man raping a woman such as Rumney and Morgan-Taylor’s first definition of rape:
what men do to women. According to Bonthuys
there was a dispute in simply
defining rape. The biggest problem in the Masiya judgment was whether the
current South African definition of rape “non-consensual penetration of a vagina
by a penis” should be altered to include anal penetration of both female and
male victims since men can also be victims of unwanted penetration (Bonthuys 249). The rise in men being raped
seemed to stem from rape in prisons, but this also applies to younger boys who
were continually being bullied; perhaps sexually assaulted as well; this is why
the change in the definition was so important. Currently the definition in the
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Bill [50B-03],
which is currently before Parliament, followed the Law Reform Commission
proposal to widen the definition of rape to include ‘‘causing penetration by
body parts other than a penis and penetration by objects” (250). This not only
protects men under the term rape, but it doesn’t limit rape to insertion of a
penis; which broadens the scope so that women can also be deemed perpetrators
of rape if that be the case.
Changing
the definition is just one small step, the bigger problem that persists is now
that men are included in the definition will they report their rape? According
to Renzetti and Curran men are less likely than women to report that they have
been raped because men are supposed to be able to defend themselves and it’s
still seen as emasculating for a man to be “taken” (or raped) just like a woman
(Renzetti and Curran 281). This makes it even more difficult for gay men to
report a rape, because much like women, people may say that these gay men
secretly wanted to be “taken.” Bonthuys
stated that two judges deliberated on the matter of including men in the
definition, but finally came to the conclusion that rape traumatizes male
victims in the same way as it does women and that the definition should be
extended to protect men as well (Bonthuys
250-251). Where many still seem to view rape as merely a crime against women,
Bonthuys indicated that the minority of judges deliberating on changing the
definition grasped the concept that the groups of men who are most often the
survivors of rape are: young boys, prisoners, and homosexuals; who are, like
women, also vulnerable groups in society. Moreover these groups are raped
precisely because of the gendered nature of the crime. They are dominated in
the same manner and for the same reason that women are dominated; because of a
need for male gender supremacy (254).
This idea of male gender supremacy has stemmed from another
common myth of rape: marital rape. Marital rape is thinking that just because
two people are lawfully wed means that the wife is the husband’s property and
he may do with her (sexually in this case) what he will (Renzetti and Curran
283). Similarly, according to Duarn, Moya and Megias’ article titled “Benevolent Sexism and the
Justification of Traditional Sexual Roles,” they first defined sexism in their
research about marital rape as a prejudice toward women defined by hostility;
which could easily be transferred as hostility toward young boys, prisoners,
and homosexuals in the case of men (Duarn, Moya and Megias 470-471). Their
research shows that there are a few different kinds of sexism, the main one of
which this paper will be focusing on is hostile sexism. Hostile sexism (HS) is
regarded as a negative and derogatory attitude toward women who are viewed as
challenging men or usurping men’s power” (471). Renzetti and
Curran seem to agree with this definition in stating that martial rape is a
brutal physical assault that may have a graver impact on a victim than rape by
a stranger (Renzetti and Curran 283). According to Bergen (1996) and Campbell
& Soeken (1999) the rape of someone close being more harmful than a
stranger is because given the assailant is a person whom she knows and loved as
well as trusted it can be more damaging in her trusting other people whom she
knows and loved (283). This idea is mirrored in Duarn, Moya and Megias’ research stating
that if the victim was raped during an act of infidelity (an episode conveying
that the woman was not behaving as a good wife should) then it was not seen as
rape, but as the wife not doing her duty (470).
Though,
in a patriarchal society, with women still fighting to stand on equal ground with
men, according to Bergen marital rape is any unwanted intercourse or
penetration (vaginal, anal, or oral) obtained by force, threat of force, or when
the wife is unable to consent (Duarn, Moya and Megias 471). This states that just
because a man and woman are married consent is not given nor does the man have rights to force intercourse on his
wife. Comparatively according to Finkelhor & Yllo and Peacock in the recent
past, it was commonly known and agreed upon that once married a woman lost the
right to refuse sex since marriage granted the husband full access to the
wife’s body (471).
What’s
troubling is that according to many studies in the area of sexual violence it’s
shown that as the victim–offender relationship becomes more intimate, the
attribution of blame to the victim increases (471). This means the more someone
knows their rapist the less likely it will be seen as a “true rape” and the
rapist could easily argue that it was more consensual than what the victim
claimed and get away with the crime. This makes it more difficult for married
women to claim rape because according to this study it is considered that this
distorted perception of rape in marriages may be supported by the perception of
marital rights and marital duties related to sexuality (472).
Along
those same lines Darcy McMullin and Jacquelyn W. White state that dependent
upon how well the victim knew the rapist the victim may be more reluctant to
label the incident as rape than if she were raped by a stranger (McMullin and
White 97). It’s also specified that the victim may shy away from labeling what
happened to them as rape due to how much physical force or restraint was
involved (97). Here it’s shown that rape is not as easily labeled as one might
label a thief of robbing them; there are so many variables in which people, men
and women, do not see rape as so black and white. McMullin and White also point out a woman’s
failure to identify a rape committed by an acquaintance or boyfriend as rape
may be due to her experience not fitting her script of rape (McMullin and White
97). This is due to what Renzetti and Curran label as “one common rape myth” in
which the woman may have felt she was too inviting to call what happened
assault (Renzetti and Curran 281). This gets even more complicated as it’s
explained that the victim must show emotional as well as physical trauma for
what happened to be labeled as rape (281).
This
brings up the final point and what is now being coined as “gray rape” or as Susan
A. Basow and Alexandra Minieri’s research refers to it as the “sexual social
exchange theory.” This theory was applied to perceptions of a date rape by
manipulating the cost of the date and who paid in vignettes presented to 188
U.S. college students, who then rated the characters’ sexual expectations,
blame, responsibility, and rape justifiability (Basow and Minieri 479). This
means that when men paid for an expensive date he expected sexual intercourse
in return, whereas when a women paid for half of (even an inexpensive) date
more women agreed that there should be no sexual expectations (479). The more
women are seen as objects and not as equals to men, the more justified men feel
in “getting what they paid for.” It’s stated in sexual social exchange theory
(Baumeister & Vohs, 2004) that female sexuality is assumed to have exchange
value (such as for money, support, protection), whereas male sexuality is
viewed as relatively worthless (480). This theory suggests that a man’s sexual
coercion may appear relatively more understandable in dating situations in
which he feels he is “owed” something for his efforts; similarly, a woman who
has accepted his offerings may be perceived as “owing” him something as well
(480). Again, this is not a new theory, according to Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus the queen’s two sons
are squabbling over whom should “have” Titus’ daughter, Lavina.
“Why
makes thou it so strange?| She is a woman, therefore she may be wooed;| She is
a woman, therefore she may be won;| She is Lavina, therefore must be loved”
(Titus Andronicus 110).
Though what they had in mind had little to do
with love they still spoke of Lavinia
as if she were a fish which just needed be lured. According to Renzetti and
Curran this idea that women owe something
to men is not only a problem for people whom are dating, like in the sexual
social exchange theory, but it’s also problematic for acquaintance rape,
marital rape, and even in upholding the rights of prostitutes and drug addicts
who have experienced rape as well (Renzetti and Curran 282-283).
The
biggest problem in the case of the sexual social exchange theory seems to be
that men and women see dating just as differently as they use language
differently. The sexual social exchange theory may be an unspoken component of
dating scripts, in which men are more likely than women to think of a first date
in sexual terms, especially when the date is initiated by a man (Morr Serewicz
& Gale, 2008). In contrast, women view first dates more in romantic social
terms than do men (Basow and Minieri 493). Also women’s liberation has seemed
to confuse men into thinking that “she wants it just as bad, but know she isn’t
supposed to.” In Basow and Minieri’s
findings they stated that men may have believed Katie’s “no” was not meant seriously
but was part of what a woman was supposed to do on a date to avoid appearing
too sexually available (493). This shows why when many women say no men think
it’s just part of what women are “supposed to do” or say to not seem so “easy;”
this way she can say she said no, but
eventually give in to what she really wants.
With
the seemingly never-ending variables there are in defining rape the evidence
shows that one must first come to a solid, reliable definition of what rape is
while not being too narrow to exclude any one person from being able to claim
rape if it so occurred. The Women’s Rights movement also helped in making
marital rape illegal by showing that just because one is married it does not
make one person another’s property. Also just because one misinterprets someone
else’s body language, dress, or actions as being inviting of sexual intercourse
when someone says “no” it means “no;” no gender excluded.
Works
Cited
Basow,
Susan A., and And Alexandra Minier Minieri. "''You Owe Me'': Effects of
Date Cost, Who Pays, Participant Gender, and Rape Myth Beliefs on Perceptions
of Rape. "Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29 (2010): 479-97. Web.
Bonthuys, Elsje. "Putting Gender Into The Definition Of
Rape Or Taking It Out?." Feminist Legal Studies 16.2 (2008): 249-260.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Apr. 2012.
Duran, Mercedes; Moya, Miguel; Megias, Jesus L.. Journal of Sex Research, Sep/Oct2011,
Vol. 48 Issue 5, p470-478, 9p
McMullin, Darcy, and
Jacquelyn W. White. "Long-Term Effects Of Labeling A Rape
Experience." Psychology Of Women
Quarterly 30.1 (2006): 96-105. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Apr.
2012.
Renzetti, Claire M. and
Daniel J. Curran. 2003. Women, Men, and
Society. Allyn and Bacon (5th ed.)
Schaefer,
Nancy. "Gender, Power, and Violence." Gender, Power, and Violence.
Western Illinois University, Moline. 2012. Lecture.
Shakespeare,
William, and Eugene M. Waith. Titus
Andronicus. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment