rax | So How Do We Talk About Rape?

Entry tags:

So How Do We Talk About Rape?

Lately I've been working on talking about things when I think it's important to talk about them, even when doing so makes me uncomfortable. I've also, very recently, been trying to be more frank about what I don't know, and willing to be publically uncertain. So here's a post that contains a bunch of things that make me uncomfortable to share, and that I have absolutely no idea what to do about. As such, it might also contain a lot of things other people have said before or said better; I might be totally off base or missing something obvious. Please let me know if so.

I roll with a pack of genderheads, and sometimes conversation turns to rape[1].I usually refrain from talking about my own experiences. Frustratingly, not talking about my experiences makes me feel like I am silencing myself; I often am actively preventing myself from participating in conversations. However, when I do come in and bring up my own experiences, I feel both silenced and silencing. If a conversation is theoretical or about a specific issue of policy or behavior, and I say "This one time that I was sexually assaulted, the following things happened," conversation often shifts radically to be centered around my own personal experiences of sexual assault. Everyone is so sorry that I had to deal with that, and I have no idea how to respond. How did it happen? What have you done about it? Who did it, so I can be mean to them? That's not actually what I wanted to talk about. I didn't share the anecdote because I was looking for sympathy; I gave you details because they were relevant. I wasn't trying to win the argument, I was trying to relate to the issue the only way I know how, as someone with personal experience. At best when this has happened I've felt like the thread of conversation got lost in people tripping over themselves to make sure I knew they thought what happened to me was terrible; at worst I've felt like I accidentally used "I've been raped" as a thought-terminating cliche, winning an irrelevant argument, and felt guilty about bringing it up at all.

At the same time, when someone says "I'm sorry that happened to you," I do appreciate it. And I've gotten used to it. I don't know what it would feel like to be talking with a group of friends and just be frank about my experiences and have everyone take it for granted. What if it actually felt really horrible? I don't want to take rape and sexual assault for granted, I don't want that sort of statement to be just part of the scenery, and I don't want my experiences glossed over as if they aren't important, either. If this sounds like I want it both ways, it's because I do; I want every assault to be treated as unacceptable but I want to be able to discuss them calmly and impersonally. I have no idea how to do that.

At this point, anyone sufficiently on the Internet to read this post shouldn't need me to tell them that rape happens to many people, regardless of age, color, creed... There are various blog posts and forums and LJ communities where survivors (I'm pretty sure that's the right term? I'm not really a part of this community) get together and discuss their experiences, and anyone who wants to have an absolutely depressing and reality-inducing evening can go and read them. Hopefully you already know that a number of the people in your social group have been victims of rape, and most likely some of them have been perpetrators, too. You'll note I didn't list gender; for the most part these collections of rape stories are very gendered. Partially this is because rape itself, as a cultural phenomenon, as an exercise of power, is gendered. What we know both anecdotally and statistically suggests that this is true: The lion's share of rapes and sexual assaults have male perpetrators and female victims.

I recently read something someone I didn't know wrote that said something like "No discussion of rape is complete without referencing the Ceretapost." (I don't remember exactly where it was, or I would reference it.) This sort of bothered me. I don't know

cereta , and I think that her original post --- about men and rape culture --- was valuable and worth reading. The comments made me really upset, though. I didn't read all 4000 because, well, I have a job, but there were a few themes I picked out, that I've also seen other places where this topic comes up in conversation:

The idea that women shouldn't have to feel unsafe walking alone at night, because most rapes are committed by friends and acquaintances. Yes, thank you, I know this; what I'm concerned with here is a feeling of safety, something that can't just be rationalized away, because most is so, so far from all, and even if I'm not likely to be raped, I may very well be harassed.
The idea that considering men dangerous or as potential rapists first is bad. I really want to agree, but I have a lot of difficulty doing so. There's a part of me that thinks this is one of the ways sexism hurts men and that I don't want to be part of perpetuating that in the name of feminism, and a part of me that looks at the other part and says "Are you crazy? Can you really afford to give men the benefit of the doubt like that?" The answer is, I don't know.
A small number of people came up with things like "What about men raped by women, or same-sex rape? Where does that fit into this?" To which the answer was "That doesn't fit into the topic of this post," with a side of "You're derailing." Now, a couple of those posters actually were derailing, but is the idea derailing? I don't know. Having been raped by a woman, and raped while not everyone around me considered me a woman, I feel left behind by this argument, actively pushed out of the conversation. At the same time, I just said above that I wanted there to be room for serious conversations about specific elements of rape issues that weren't focused on my experience. So shouldn't I be glad that this conversation didn't apply to all of my assault experiences, not angry at being excluded? Isn't it important to have these conversations that happen in broad sweeping gendered terms, even if they leave some people or experiences out? (I think part of the problem with that is that the same people get left out, time and time again, but I don't have a good solution for that, or even know if it's true.)

I recently had a personal conversation with a good friend after having talked about one of my assault experiences. She felt strongly that I should push my friends to terminate connection with my assaulter, and to call my assaulter out on their behavior. I did not and do not want to do this; I do not feel the energy spent in making a big deal out of it is actually worth what little I might gain. After all, even if 100 people walk up to this person and tell them "You raped

rax and you're an asshole," I'm not going to be unraped. So I'd rather just let it slide and get on with my life. At first, I thought my friend was bringing it up on my behalf, and I tried to explain that it just wasn't worth it to me. After a while, I understood that it wasn't just about my experience --- it was also about her anxiety and her anger that someone could hurt me like that, and feeling of powerlessness in the face of horrible things happening to people she cared about. She expressed that she wished she knew who in her life had done such things so that she could call them out and ostracize them, and that it was difficult to not be able to, knowing that people she associated with regularly had gotten away with rape. And I feel bad, now, to be contributing to that; to some extent, it's like I'm defending and protecting them by not revealing them, even though what I'm trying to do is defend and protect myself. Oh, cultural systems of power, how clever you are at preserving yourselves!

So what do I want from people when I tell them this has happened to me? Mostly I want them to keep seeing me as a person, not as a "victim," not as someone needing physical or emotional protection, not as a shrill man-hater. Really it depends on context; I'm not averse to expressions of sympathy but if that takes away from the conversation, can we save it for later? Also, it's important to keep in mind --- but it's the sort of thing that I might forget if I didn't write it down here --- that not everyone's desires and needs in this space will be anything like mine. Maybe some people really want and hunger for that sympathy, that focus. Maybe some people feel very strongly that it should go completely unremarked, as if saying "Many years ago, I ate a sandwich." All of these things and more are valid, and I don't know how to handle them any better than anyone else, except when it comes to myself, really. [2]

So, given this, how do we talk about rape? How can we normalize these conversations so that we can be comfortable and make real progress? How can those of us with experiences share our experiences without centering them and without denying the trauma they contain? How can those of us without experiences express our opinions and participate in the conversation? How can we silence no one?

[1] I'm going to use "rape" here as shorthand for "rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault" both because it's convenient and because having a four-letter word to cover that seems valuable and maybe "rape" should be it? I don't know. I could write a whole post on that too except no thank you I have spent enough time on this already.

[2] What I do know is how I'd like you to respond to this post: Please, please don't comment and tell you how sorry you are that I was raped. I consider it safe to assume that you are displeased. If you really want to tell me anyway, send me a private message or an email. I'm much more interested in talking here about how we talk about rape and handle these conversations than in the particulars of my experiences or how terrible they must have been. Thank you.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

I think... we have to be able to distinguish between Support Conversations and Theory Conversations and Policy Conversations.

For instance, a Scenario:

Boy and Girl are hanging out. They end up somewhere private. Boy makes a move; Girl doesn't respond clearly; Boy has sex with Girl, who doesn't say no.

Boy figures he had sex with a cold fish.
Girl figures she was raped; she was too afraid to turn him down clearly when he made the move, and she shut down when he started to have sex with her, and could not respond.

If I'm in a support conversation with Girl, then I figure if she feels raped, she was raped; the important bit about people taking psych damage is that it's all about their own perceptions.

If I'm in a theory conversation, then I'm interested in the fact that Girl was raped -- she didn't consent to the sex -- but Boy didn't know he was raping her. Isn't that interesting? I think that's really interesting, and I wish the conversation could make a space with this. You can rape someone and not know it. Wow. Bring this up in a dynamic forum and watch the condemnation rain down on your head... people *suck* at thinking theoretically about rape, like they can't think theoretically about terrorism or child porn, as if understanding it would be condemning it. But you've also got questions here about "what if both people are impaired?" and "what should a person's level of responsibility be around sex?" and "how can we help all the different kinds of sexualities determine and communicate consent, because most people just are not ready for Enthusiastic Consent or any of the other theoretical constructs."

If I'm in a policy conversation, then I'm interested in what society should do about rape, whether by constructing laws or inducements or education. Here is where generalizations are absolutely necessary; you don't make policy for individuals. I'd be trying to change assumptions and challenge sexism, and I will pretty much not give a rat's ass about Poor Men Who Would Never Rape (although I am very, very sympathetic to Men Who Are Raped; I think policy needs to address this population, and that the numbers are probably way higher than we know.)

So, I guess... I'd want to know what conversation I'm having, so I know how to respond to disclosures. I think people are not good at figuring out what conversation they're having, and that some disclosures tend to make everyone shift into a Support conversation. After all, for you it's old news, but for them it's the first time they heard; it's a fresh shock. Ideally, you could calmly accept condolences and then move back onto the topic. Maybe there's some communication tricks where you can give the audience a moment to respond and then guide everyone back to the real point, before they get derailed into a litany of suffering and sympathy?

I dunno. I do know that, while my personal story is not like your story, people do react way more strongly than I would have expected. I'm also only recently discovering the goodness that comes with discussing it; I hadn't really talked about it, because it seemed like it was long ago, not that big a deal, and didn't really matter. Now I see echoes of it and have talked about it a bit, and it's helped. So I think it would be fantastic if we could find ways to welcome peoples' stories without making it into A Big Deal.

It is A Big Deal. It also is just a fact of life for millions of people; and in fact, it almost has to become Not A Big Deal, so that it doesn't control a person's life.

(and yes, the terminology is "survivor", and from what I can tell the same peoples' experiences are consistently left out of the conversation, and yes at least part of that is because it seems like the only people who bring them up in non-trivial ways are trolls of one sort of another.)

over the char limit!

(digression: I would like education to expand into Teaching Women About Their Bodies, in addition to all the Sex For Men: How Not To Rape education. If women know it shouldn't hurt, and if women know how to make sex good, I think they'll be more in touch with themselves and able to communicate consent better. This is often called Victim Blaming, and that annoys me. How Not To Rape is incredibly important education and we should all take the class. But we should also take Clear Communication And Assertiveness Training. I think a lot of rape is the Clueless Asshole kind; where people aren't responsive, people are trained that nonresponsive is normal, and don't know they're raping when someone's not responding. I think a lot of assholes are more likely to stop if the victim is screaming "stop raping me!" although, of course, a lot aren't. mumble mumble, can't address rape without addressing rape culture; can't address rape culture just by addressing one gender; mumble, mumble grr.)

The man who (thinks he) just enjoys sex with the cold fish might look at the title and figure he doesn't need How Not To Rape, and that sounds like an unpleasant title that isn't exactly going to draw voluntary participants, either.

Be careful with Clear Communication and Assertiveness that those who are naturally assertive don't miss the point about how some people aren't anywhere near as assertive as they are.

You're taking that over-literally; I wouldn't title the classes that, and it wouldn't necessarily be classes; even this conversation involve education.

Er. I mean, "as if understanding it would be condoning it". Sheesh. :)

And yet, I get the impression that the legislators in our government (aren't they the folks who write policy?) actually want to know about individual experiences moreso than general theory, both from things I have heard from one of them, and a letter I got from another in response to one of my letters.

That could be. Hopefully they also seek out information in the aggregate, aka data. People are imperfect, and like Stirring Anecdotes. But from what I can tell, laws and using laws are all about trying to apply general principles to specific cases, and creating laws is (ideally) all about trying to craft general principles that do the right thing in the majority of cases. (all laws are both too broad and too narrow, in the real world.)

Legislators want examples they can throw before the public that are illustrative and make good soundbites. The policy isn't usually based on the examples - the examples are used to justify the policy. (yes, sometimes it does go the other way around, but then we usually get bad policy - i.e. Terry Schaivo (thankfully that did not end up going much of anywhere))

So, I guess... I'd want to know what conversation I'm having, so I know how to respond to disclosures. I think people are not good at figuring out what conversation they're having, and that some disclosures tend to make everyone shift into a Support conversation. After all, for you it's old news, but for them it's the first time they heard; it's a fresh shock. Ideally, you could calmly accept condolences and then move back onto the topic. Maybe there's some communication tricks where you can give the audience a moment to respond and then guide everyone back to the real point, before they get derailed into a litany of suffering and sympathy?

This. In

rax's post here, she framed the issue for us to talk about, what sort of conversation she wants in this space. But in real life it's not always so clear and most people aren't experienced working with rape survivors and able to figure out, and sensitively inquire, what sort of conversation everyone wants to be having.

Also, I don't know what others think, but I'm having issues with referring to women as "cold fish," especially in reference to "sexually non-responsive." This brings up images of fish as an analogy for women's genitals (actually a derogatory term for a woman in some cultures), as well as "frigid" for not being interested in sex (with all those negative connotations). Also women are not food.

Also, I don't know what others think, but I'm having issues with referring to women as "cold fish," especially in reference to "sexually non-responsive." This brings up images of fish as an analogy for women's genitals (actually a derogatory term for a woman in some cultures), as well as "frigid" for not being interested in sex (with all those negative connotations). Also women are not food.

I'm torn between "yeah actually that's not a way I like being described" and "that's a really useful bit of cultural shorthand for a certain set of behaviors that made me instantly know what

cshiley was talking about."

I'm sorry to use a phrase that annoyed you. I was trying to get at what the theoretical guy might think; I do not think women are fish or food. Unless they want to be.

Using cold as an insult for women is problematic in all kinds of ways; basically, for women to be good quality women, they have to be sexually prepared for whatever advances men might make on them. If they're not, they're ice queens, frigid, cold fish, etc. It sucks. I think it's also an important part of the cultural narrative, for my example.

Hm, yeah, OK. The term in quotes with a footnote explaining that you are using it for the purpose of describing it as the way a theoretical guy might be thinking (or how it's a part of the cultural narrative in your case) would have been clearer and less issue-pinging for me (since I have a real personal issue with the women/cold/bad thing. Personal "ish" alert. ^_^). It is part of the cultural narrative. It's also a way of thinking/speaking that even well-meaning people in my life have used in a way that's caused me a lot of pain.

Using cold as an insult for women is problematic in all kinds of ways; basically, for women to be good quality women, they have to be sexually prepared for whatever advances men might make on them. If they're not, they're ice queens, frigid, cold fish, etc. You're right, but it also gets to how women are supposed to want, and enthusiastically want, whatever sexual advances men make towards them, and if they don't, they're disordered. IMO, one can't really feel "no" is a fully valid option when too many "nos" means "there must be something wrong with you/you must have a disorder." A "hot" woman is not just a sexy woman, she's a woman who wants the advances.

So overall I'm thinking, even though there are men who are using this term to refer to women, is this a term that women should ever be using ourselves to refer to other women, even in a hypothetical context? We can describe what men are thinking, but doesn't our choosing to adopt that term into our lexicons (along with "ice queen" and "frigid") also work against women as a whole at the same time? (Hence why I suggested the quotation marks and footnote.)

Anyway, I won't derail this conversation further.

I'm sorry I triggered you.

I do feel, though, that we can't actually asterisk everything that might trigger anyone. I... well, I'm caught between "obviously we should try not to hurt anyone's feelings ever" and "but I kind of like edgy obnoxious possibly evil speech and I often think it's funny and useful and can exist without actually hurting people"*.

I'm generally uncomfortable with deciding that nobody should ever say something ever. Even the things that I think nobody should ever say.

Maybe I think it's because it's better we let people say it sometimes so we know they're still thinking it. The problem is that people think it, right, not just that they say it? Probably both. I dunno.

* with a dose of "was it really necessary for thirty of you to pile on me for using 'drink the kool-aid' after I apologized?" And no I won't stop using it, although I try not to use any language around people it may upset, but I rather like the phrase and do not think it means I'm actually calling people suicide cultists.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject