I feel somewhat out of my element writing this post. It's a more volatile subject than I usually address. I'm almost considering not posting it. I'm a shy and docile language nerd, exploring a highly controversial social issue from the perspective of language, and I'm afraid I may get in over my head.
Reading articles and blog entries on controversial subjects often depresses me. Especially when I read the comments on the article. And most especially when it's an article relating to gender issues of any kind. Everyone seems to have a very specific, individual view of what "sexist" means, and everyone seems all too ready to label anyone who doesn't agree as a crazy extremist or a bigoted chauvinist or even both.
Whenever I read any discussion about a rape trial, for instance, I feel overwhelmed by the volatile war of opinions on what constitutes rape, how it should be prosecuted, and who should be blamed. I'm not even sure of my own opinion, because it is a very difficult crime to prove, and there doesn't seem to be any way to ensure that there won't be a lot of unjust convictions or unjust acquittals. The majority of people debating it, however, seem absolutely convinced that there must be a simple, straightforward solution, and that anyone who sees shades of gray is insane or evil.
But there's one thing that always seems to cloud the debate more than anything else: the definition of rape as "sex with someone who doesn't want it."
Now, at first glance, most people see that definition as clearly accurate. But both the law and common sense define it differently: as "sex with someone who does not consent."
There's a distinct difference between these two concepts. You can want sex without consenting, and you can consent to sex without wanting it. Consent-- saying "yes" instead of "no"-- is what gives another person the information that you are willing to have sex, regardless of whether you actually want it.
I think that some rapists actually do not believe that they have committed a rape, because they have been taught that rape is "unwanted sex" as opposed to "unconsenting sex." A while ago I read a description of a sex act (quoted second-or-third-hand) that had supposedly been written on the blog of a famous sports player or musician or something. He told the story of sleeping with a woman who afterwards accused him of raping her. He described her as seeming to enjoy the experience, although she "whispered 'no' a few times." He said he was shocked to hear that she considered it rape.
I don't think this celebrity would have posted such a story online if he was actually aware that he had committed rape in the eyes of the law. I can't find it on Google now, which might mean it's been taken down. I think he believed that his experience with the woman was perfectly legal, because he thought he could tell that she wanted it, even though she was not consenting. I think many men who commit rape actually think their victims want the experience despite saying "no," and they don't understand that the act of saying "no" is what matters legally, not the perceived desire. Other people can't always tell accurately what you want-- and even if they could, you can physically desire sex and still have a good reason to say no to it.
On the other side of the field, you can hate the idea of sex and still say yes to it. I once spoke with a woman who claimed to have been raped, and then went on to describe something that sounded not like a rape, but like her boyfriend begging her for sex until she reluctantly consented. I think she was confused because she defined rape as unwanted sex, and she did not realize that her consent made the act legal even if she didn't actually desire it.
For an educated person, it may be hard to imagine being unclear on whether a rape is happening, but many people involved in rapes do not have a high level of education or intellect. Logical thought will tell you that the law can't actually work with nebulous concepts like whether someone wanted something, and that it has to rely on distinct information like whether someone said "no"-- but people often don't give these things logical thought until after the fact.
I'm definitely not saying that such lack of clarity explains all or even most rapes. Of course a huge number of rapes happen with full awareness on both sides that the act is both unwanted and unconsenting. But I think that explaining the definition clearly to young people, instead of leaving it inaccurate or indistinct, would prevent some of the gray-area encounters that are at least partially caused by misunderstanding. I think there is genuine value in teaching teenagers and young adults that "no" means "no."
No comments:
Post a Comment