2 comments on “A Parody of Anti-Rape Culture Posters Raises Objections.”
(This letter to the Edmonton Journal was in response to Paula Simons commentary)
A major issue with this article is that in pointing out a seemingly obvious problem with women getting too intoxicated to ensure their own safety and that some women may bend the truth about poor sexual decision-making, we actually lose ground in a hard-won battle: we start to again blame the victim.
In the case of one person deciding to become so intoxicated that he or she is unable to physically defend him or herself or say “no,” someone else has to make the decision to sexually take advantage of that person. Can we not place the blame, all of it, on the person who made that poor decision?
The article suggests it is somehow the intoxicated person’s own actions that contribute to the rape. Perhaps the intoxicated person (1) is an alcoholic; or (2) (unbeknownst to them) can’t metabolize alcohol as most people can; or (3) was drugged; or (4) drank too much because of stress or miscalculation of alcohol content; or (5) simply drank too much.
Are any of these reasons sufficient to label the intoxicated person “damned stupid” enough to share the blame with the assaulter? Have we not also all agreed that alcoholism is a disease that is not the person’s fault?
Admittedly, many rape situations run into an unfortunate “he said, she said” conundrum. The article argues that some women may not know what they want, or change their story later because of shame or fear for reputation.
Simply by printing these hearsay rape excuses, you are giving them some credence for readers who, without a thorough, independent understanding of rape and sexual assault issues, take your word for it.
I understand the want for empowered feminism, and for equal responsibility and expectations of both genders in sexual relations, but in the case of rape, where most women are at a ridiculous physical disadvantage, can we not give women the benefit of the doubt?
Proof of a sexual assault is next to impossible to differentiate from a consensual experience (no broken glass, no fingerprints, no dead bodies), but there is a victim. And we should take that victim at his or her word.
Rather than focus on the chance of a false accusation (look up the evidence-supported false accusation rate; you’ll be shocked at how low it is), consider that it probably isn’t easy talking to people you don’t know (police, emergency personnel) about being sexually attacked. Telling such a personal and likely painful story to strangers in seeking help and justice seems like a bizarre way to overcome “embarrassment” after a regretted sexual encounter.
Finally, while I understand it’s frustrating to always see women as the victims in propaganda to fight sexual assault, such as the original Don’t Be That Guy campaign, this might be because women make up the majority of people who come forward as victims of sexual assault.
Sexual assaults may very well occur just as often with females as aggressors toward men, or in same-sex couples, but at this point in trying to prevent rapes, campaigns such as that from Sexual Assault Voices of Edmonton have to go with the statistics. Non-profit groups often have to base their programs on statistics and real outcomes. Can’t we focus on what this campaign is doing right (such as a 10-per-cent decrease in Vancouver’s sexual assault rate) rather than its shortcomings in an ideal world of gender equality?
We’re not there yet, and articles that mix valid, clearly reasoned arguments for gender equality with neofeminist criticisms that blame vulnerable women who may not have the power to avoid dangerous situations, blur the dialogue for what should be a clear-cut opinion on rape: it’s never the victim’s fault.
COMMUNICATING IS SENDING AND RECEIVING
A noted author once said,”We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality” That encapsulates completely the problem with the new dogma from earnest commentators on sexual assault. This ideological line, presented in Shannon Harrington’s Letter in Friday’s Journal, takes the stance that no victim of sexual assault has any responsibility (as in zero) for their victimization. This is simply not reality and by ignoring it, you help perpetuate the awful consequences of sexual assault.
For political correctness I should preface my comments here. The terms male and female may be used interchangeably. I’m operating from the modern viewpoint that some females actually want sex. I’m not talking about violent unprovoked assaults by a stranger but social situations where consensual sex may be a reasonable outcome.
Many studies have been done on verbal vs. non-verbal communication but the work of Albert Mehrabian is some of the most well known. Research consistently shows that our non-verbal cues are far more important in communication than our verbal. Mehrabian has said that only 7% of our communication comes from the literal meaning of words and 55% of the meaning is communicated by body language, the balance by tone. Those that insist that no means no are completely ignoring reality in situations where a barrage of communication, perhaps delivered over hours, saying “I’m seeking sex” can be immediately and effectively countered by simply saying “no”.
The efforts of the people who created the “Don’t be that guy” campaign to educate males on receiving and interpreting female communication around sexuality is well-directed and commendable. Men need to understand when consent for sex is given or withdrawn and the line must not be forced.
Females, on the other hand, must understand that in sexually charged situations they may be sending a massive amount of non-verbal communication regarding interest in sex. As research has decisively shown, what you wear is communication, how you act is communicating. If your appearance, your actions and your words communicate sexual willingness or even promiscuity, expecting that a concise verbal “no” delivered when the effects of excess alcohol have reached a peak will promptly reverse the message is a risky bet. Although crudely presented, that is part of the message presented by the parody anti-rape posters.
We certainly need to continue to educate males on how they interpret what they see and hear from females about sexual willingness. A failure to educate females about the messages they send, or even worse, to tell them those messages don’t matter, is ignoring reality. Why risk such harsh consequences?
From The Boulevard 
(This letter to the Edmonton Journal was in response to Paula Simons commentary)
A major issue with this article is that in pointing out a seemingly obvious problem with women getting too intoxicated to ensure their own safety and that some women may bend the truth about poor sexual decision-making, we actually lose ground in a hard-won battle: we start to again blame the victim.
In the case of one person deciding to become so intoxicated that he or she is unable to physically defend him or herself or say “no,” someone else has to make the decision to sexually take advantage of that person. Can we not place the blame, all of it, on the person who made that poor decision?
The article suggests it is somehow the intoxicated person’s own actions that contribute to the rape. Perhaps the intoxicated person (1) is an alcoholic; or (2) (unbeknownst to them) can’t metabolize alcohol as most people can; or (3) was drugged; or (4) drank too much because of stress or miscalculation of alcohol content; or (5) simply drank too much.
Are any of these reasons sufficient to label the intoxicated person “damned stupid” enough to share the blame with the assaulter? Have we not also all agreed that alcoholism is a disease that is not the person’s fault?
Admittedly, many rape situations run into an unfortunate “he said, she said” conundrum. The article argues that some women may not know what they want, or change their story later because of shame or fear for reputation.
Simply by printing these hearsay rape excuses, you are giving them some credence for readers who, without a thorough, independent understanding of rape and sexual assault issues, take your word for it.
I understand the want for empowered feminism, and for equal responsibility and expectations of both genders in sexual relations, but in the case of rape, where most women are at a ridiculous physical disadvantage, can we not give women the benefit of the doubt?
Proof of a sexual assault is next to impossible to differentiate from a consensual experience (no broken glass, no fingerprints, no dead bodies), but there is a victim. And we should take that victim at his or her word.
Rather than focus on the chance of a false accusation (look up the evidence-supported false accusation rate; you’ll be shocked at how low it is), consider that it probably isn’t easy talking to people you don’t know (police, emergency personnel) about being sexually attacked. Telling such a personal and likely painful story to strangers in seeking help and justice seems like a bizarre way to overcome “embarrassment” after a regretted sexual encounter.
Finally, while I understand it’s frustrating to always see women as the victims in propaganda to fight sexual assault, such as the original Don’t Be That Guy campaign, this might be because women make up the majority of people who come forward as victims of sexual assault.
Sexual assaults may very well occur just as often with females as aggressors toward men, or in same-sex couples, but at this point in trying to prevent rapes, campaigns such as that from Sexual Assault Voices of Edmonton have to go with the statistics. Non-profit groups often have to base their programs on statistics and real outcomes. Can’t we focus on what this campaign is doing right (such as a 10-per-cent decrease in Vancouver’s sexual assault rate) rather than its shortcomings in an ideal world of gender equality?
We’re not there yet, and articles that mix valid, clearly reasoned arguments for gender equality with neofeminist criticisms that blame vulnerable women who may not have the power to avoid dangerous situations, blur the dialogue for what should be a clear-cut opinion on rape: it’s never the victim’s fault.
Shannon Harrington, Edmonton
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal
COMMUNICATING IS SENDING AND RECEIVING
A noted author once said,”We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality” That encapsulates completely the problem with the new dogma from earnest commentators on sexual assault. This ideological line, presented in Shannon Harrington’s Letter in Friday’s Journal, takes the stance that no victim of sexual assault has any responsibility (as in zero) for their victimization. This is simply not reality and by ignoring it, you help perpetuate the awful consequences of sexual assault.
For political correctness I should preface my comments here. The terms male and female may be used interchangeably. I’m operating from the modern viewpoint that some females actually want sex. I’m not talking about violent unprovoked assaults by a stranger but social situations where consensual sex may be a reasonable outcome.
Many studies have been done on verbal vs. non-verbal communication but the work of Albert Mehrabian is some of the most well known. Research consistently shows that our non-verbal cues are far more important in communication than our verbal. Mehrabian has said that only 7% of our communication comes from the literal meaning of words and 55% of the meaning is communicated by body language, the balance by tone. Those that insist that no means no are completely ignoring reality in situations where a barrage of communication, perhaps delivered over hours, saying “I’m seeking sex” can be immediately and effectively countered by simply saying “no”.
The efforts of the people who created the “Don’t be that guy” campaign to educate males on receiving and interpreting female communication around sexuality is well-directed and commendable. Men need to understand when consent for sex is given or withdrawn and the line must not be forced.
Females, on the other hand, must understand that in sexually charged situations they may be sending a massive amount of non-verbal communication regarding interest in sex. As research has decisively shown, what you wear is communication, how you act is communicating. If your appearance, your actions and your words communicate sexual willingness or even promiscuity, expecting that a concise verbal “no” delivered when the effects of excess alcohol have reached a peak will promptly reverse the message is a risky bet. Although crudely presented, that is part of the message presented by the parody anti-rape posters.
We certainly need to continue to educate males on how they interpret what they see and hear from females about sexual willingness. A failure to educate females about the messages they send, or even worse, to tell them those messages don’t matter, is ignoring reality. Why risk such harsh consequences?