Rape Myth #6 - Stranger Rape

[polimicks]

Ok, so this should actually be a later number than 6, but I quit numbering at five and I'm too lazy to go back and re-number, so this is six. Just add some .5's and .25's to the rest of the rape posts. Edited to fix numbers. I fail at numbering.

Now, way back when, in Rape Myth #1 I think, we covered that 73% of all reported rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. Which means that of all rapes reported, a little over a quarter are/may have been committed by a stranger. Now, that's only of reported rapes. I don't know if research bears this out, but I have a sneaky suspicion that if you could look at all rapes, that a lot of the unreported ones go unreported BECAUSE the victim knew the rapist.

Now, since 3/4 of reported rapes are committed by someone the victim knows, why on earth is the "Stranger Rapist" the standard, if you will, of real rape?

Ready for the theories?

First of all, by creating this bogeyman of the "Stranger Rapist" this allows women to set up (demonstrably false) safeguards to protect themselves. They'd never invite a stranger into their home. They don't walk alone after dark. They don't walk near bushes. They carry pepper spray. Etc... As I've mentioned before it's like with people who seem to think that being thin is some talisman against ill health who are utterly shocked when they have a heart attack at 45 in spite of having a perfect BMI or some shit.

Second, no one wants to think they know someone who would rape anyone, let alone them. And this is where the victim-blaming really gets bad. You know Guy A, Guy A rapes Girl B. Girl B reports it, but YOU KNOW Guy A, and he would never do something like that because you would KNOW if he were that kind of guy, and wouldn't hang out with him. So obviously that whore is falsely accusing him, or she tempted him into it, or did something to deserve it, or, or, or...

Look, everyone knows someone. Every rapist has a mother and a father, probably siblings, co-workers, acquaintances, that guy at the corner store who sells them their cigarettes or fruit smoothies, the nice old lady down the street they do chores for. Rapists do not exist in some sort of bizarre Rapist Dimension and get teleported over here to victimize people out of the blue. They don't, they're here all the time and you probably know at least one. And you won't know it. And this will lead to another post on "You can't spot a rapist."

You are far more at risk of being raped hanging out somewhere familiar with someone you know, than when you're walking down the street. You just are. Granted, I am not advocating walking down dark streets alone, because apart from rape there's also just plain assault, robbery and muggings to worry about, not to mention getting hit by some asshole who isn't paying attention to his driving. But seriously, you can take all the safeguards in the world, and while it might lower your chances of being raped, it won't erase them entirely.

And I can't even tell you that you can do it by avoiding men entirely, because women can rape as well.

So you'd pretty much have to just live in an iron box to which no one else had access ever, ever, ever, to insure that you didn't get raped. But that's neither very practical, nor does it sound very fun.

But that's essentially what people are advocating when they put the responsibility of avoiding rape on the shoulders of its victims. Rape is never the fault of the victim, it is the fault of the rapist. And I don't know if I will ever be able to repeat that enough. Even if the rapist is Arnold from next door who is the nicest boy and carries groceries for Old Mrs. McGregor and is an Eagle Scout.

See, acquaintance rapists rely on the stereotype of the "Stranger Rapist" to shield them. How could they have raped Girl (or Boy) X, they knew them, dated them even. Why that's just laughable. They're not some maniac leaping out of the bushes in a deserted park in the middle of the night. They were just chillin' in X's rec room watching videos and one thing led to another, and well, they understand X is ashamed of what happened, but rape?

Yeah, it's pretty fucking insidious, isn't it? And so lulling. And so very, very wrong.

Comments

[zabieru.livejournal.com]

Another point is that if you say your car was stolen, the first thing that happens is the cops start investigating the theft of your car.

If you say I took it, they won't necessarily arrest me right off the bat, but they'll start from the assumption that your car was stolen unless they have some kind of concrete evidence that it wasn't stolen. If they come 'round my place and it's parked in front of my house and I say you let me borrow it, they'll continue to investigate me for the theft of your car unless I have something in writing or a witness or other backup for my story.

If you say I raped you, the first thing that happens is you get investigated.

That's fucked up. No one will try to tell you that your car wasn't stolen. No one will suggest that maybe you just had a few too many and you wanted to lend it. No one will tell you not to report the theft. No one will suggest that I'm not really the car-thievin' sort, so you should just give me a pass on this one because I really am an okay guy.*

Those things are said to rape victims.

So yeah, I think we should investigate accusations of rape just the same as we do any other accusation of a crime. And yeah, later stages of that process are going to be trying for the victim, because I wouldn't want to live in a society that didn't give defendants the right to challenge the case against them. It sucks that in this situation that's often going to boil down to "Prove you didn't say yes" because that's an awful thing to have to prove, but there's really no way around that short of just locking up anyone suspected of rape who doesn't have an alibi.

But there's no reason why we should consider an accusation of rape so different from any other accusation. If you report almost any other crime, you are treated as a victim until proven a perpetrator. No one starts off investigating the victim of an assault or burglary for false accusation or insurance fraud, or trying to unfound the crime before they even investigate. Victims of domestic violence used to be treated that way, but that has largely changed.

The question isn't really "should we consider this an accusation or a fact?" I don't think you're doing this on purpose, but you've raised up a straw man there. Re-read carefully. You're looking for the part where anyone in this conversation said "accusations of rape are proof enough for anything, we should skip straight over interviews and trial and just sentence anyone who's ever been accused of rape." It's not there, of course. No one holds that position.

The fact is, you don't need to pass any hurdles to be proven worthy to report a car theft. But if you want to report a rape, you will be tested and only if you pass those tests to the satisfaction of whoever's taking the report will your accusation even be treated as an accusation, rather than the morning-after regret of a woman not virtuous enough to deserve society's protection.

*Okay, if you accused your brother or something, some people would say that stuff to you, but even in that case there's a material difference: If your brother steals your car, he can return it. There is an argument to be made that the harm done by having your brother arrested for GTA is greater than the harm done by not having your car for three days. That argument really, really doesn't apply to rape.

[polimicks.livejournal.com]

Thanks for being far more articulate about this than I managed.

[polimicks.livejournal.com]

And have I mentioned lately how very much I adore you?

[rae-beta.livejournal.com]

YES. THANK YOU.