You asked for it
Continuing on in the same vein as my last post:
Women run a risk of being raped. This is an unfortunate fact about being a woman. The risk of being raped if you are a woman is much greater than the risk of being raped if you are a man. Overprotective parents are known to treat their daughters differently than their sons on these grounds. And people write articles like "Underage Women Sidle Up to Barroom Risks". Such articles are not well received by feminist bloggers, as this summary of reactions indicates. Although the article linked above touches on many themes, a common point of criticism in the replies is that the end of the article seems to imply that women who are raped are sometimes partly responsible for it, in virtue of engaging in behavior that (supposedly) increases the level of risk to which they are exposed--behaviors such as wearing revealing clothing, drinking alcohol, and walking alone at night (I wouldn't want to endorse the view that these are actually risk factors for being raped unless there was empirical evidence to back it up, but many people find it plausible that they are).
There is a fine line to walk between noting that women run a non-negligible risk of being raped and that some situations may increase that risk, and implying that women who are raped are sometimes partly to blame due to incautiousness. That latter is clearly always unacceptable. The former may be a form of prudence. It is not clear to me that the article linked above crosses the line. Nevertheless, the unacceptable implication is so often intended in discussions like this one that the reaction of the bloggers is understandable. Even if the author was trying to toe the line, it may also be prudent to avoid even the appearance of the suggestion that women are to blame for crimes committed against them, since that view is not uncommon and it is imperative to avoid reinforcing it.
Really, though, I mention all this because it strikes me that a related line of argument is rarely pursued. Consider: men who engage in sexual activity run a risk of being accused of rape. Certain factors increase this risk, such as drinking alcohol, having sex with someone who is clearly intoxicated, and failing to secure explicit consent. It is at least prudent for men to avoid putting themselves in situations in which there is a high risk of being accused to rape (to say nothing of raping someone, intentionally or otherwise). For example, it would be prudent for a man (or boy) to avoid the all-too-common situation of engaging in sexual activity at parties that involve lots of alcohol and other drugs being consumed by very young people. Indeed, it is just such a situation that lead to both of the allegations considered in my last post (it is not clear that there was any physical sexual activity at the Duke lacrosse party, but the evidence seems to indicate that there was some sexual harassment going on at the very least, though I'm sure this is sadly viewed as just an unremarkably common event in the life of an exotic dancer).
It is a fact about some rapes that there was never any intention to do harm on the part of the rapist. There are some cases in which the fault is one of negligence--a failure to secure consent that is taken for granted, perhaps compounded by an failure to see signs of lack of consent (or a failure on the part of the victim to indicate lack of consent, which is importantly not the same thing as consent, especially but not only in cases where the failure is due to incapacitation or fear). But such negligence does not excuse the behavior.
Why isn't it pointed out that men bear a responsibility to reduce their own risk of being accused of rape or sexual assault by avoiding engaging in risky and potentially negligent behavior? Why isn't it often emphasized that men (everyone, really) must take it upon themselves to secure consent to sex? Why is it, instead, often implied that it is women who are negligent who engage in such normal behavior as drinking alcohol, wearing somewhat revealing clothing, and walking home at night?
There is even a crucial moral and legal difference between the two forms of prudence considered here. A woman who goes to a bar, gets drunk, walks home alone in the dark, and is raped may very well regret having done those things, on the grounds that had she not done so, she would not have been raped. But she would most certainly be wrong to blame herself for what happened to her. By contrast, a man who goes to a bar, gets drunk, goes home with an equally drunk woman, has sex with her without knowing whether she is in a sufficiently lucid state to properly give consent (even if she fails to say "no"), and is later accused of raping her may very well regret having engaged in those behaviors, on the grounds that had he not done so, he would not have been accused. But he would also certainly be right to wonder whether his behavior was not morally negligent, whether he hadn't at the very least taken advantage of someone, and whether he wasn't actually to blame for raping her.
I suspect that in situations like the one described above, not everyone's intuitive judgment would be that the rape accusation was well-founded, or, even if it is, that the man in the story deserves a punishment of the severity accorded to more violent rapists. I also imagine that, in situations like the one described above, it would be very difficult to convict the man of rape. But I think there is no question that the man in such a situation would have done something morally wrong. I still suspect that some, like perhaps Sullivan's e-mailer, would refuse to assign any moral blame to the man. I wonder whether it's not the case that individuals who think the man in this sort of case deserves no moral blame believe that because they wish to preserve the power to coerce women into having sex with them in the traditional ways (by getting them drunk and applying peer pressure, for example, or by the now-discarded assumption that a wife does not have the right to withhold consent from her husband). For "who surrenders social or legal power willingly?", to quote Sullivan's e-mailer.
Women run a risk of being raped. This is an unfortunate fact about being a woman. The risk of being raped if you are a woman is much greater than the risk of being raped if you are a man. Overprotective parents are known to treat their daughters differently than their sons on these grounds. And people write articles like "Underage Women Sidle Up to Barroom Risks". Such articles are not well received by feminist bloggers, as this summary of reactions indicates. Although the article linked above touches on many themes, a common point of criticism in the replies is that the end of the article seems to imply that women who are raped are sometimes partly responsible for it, in virtue of engaging in behavior that (supposedly) increases the level of risk to which they are exposed--behaviors such as wearing revealing clothing, drinking alcohol, and walking alone at night (I wouldn't want to endorse the view that these are actually risk factors for being raped unless there was empirical evidence to back it up, but many people find it plausible that they are).
There is a fine line to walk between noting that women run a non-negligible risk of being raped and that some situations may increase that risk, and implying that women who are raped are sometimes partly to blame due to incautiousness. That latter is clearly always unacceptable. The former may be a form of prudence. It is not clear to me that the article linked above crosses the line. Nevertheless, the unacceptable implication is so often intended in discussions like this one that the reaction of the bloggers is understandable. Even if the author was trying to toe the line, it may also be prudent to avoid even the appearance of the suggestion that women are to blame for crimes committed against them, since that view is not uncommon and it is imperative to avoid reinforcing it.
Really, though, I mention all this because it strikes me that a related line of argument is rarely pursued. Consider: men who engage in sexual activity run a risk of being accused of rape. Certain factors increase this risk, such as drinking alcohol, having sex with someone who is clearly intoxicated, and failing to secure explicit consent. It is at least prudent for men to avoid putting themselves in situations in which there is a high risk of being accused to rape (to say nothing of raping someone, intentionally or otherwise). For example, it would be prudent for a man (or boy) to avoid the all-too-common situation of engaging in sexual activity at parties that involve lots of alcohol and other drugs being consumed by very young people. Indeed, it is just such a situation that lead to both of the allegations considered in my last post (it is not clear that there was any physical sexual activity at the Duke lacrosse party, but the evidence seems to indicate that there was some sexual harassment going on at the very least, though I'm sure this is sadly viewed as just an unremarkably common event in the life of an exotic dancer).
It is a fact about some rapes that there was never any intention to do harm on the part of the rapist. There are some cases in which the fault is one of negligence--a failure to secure consent that is taken for granted, perhaps compounded by an failure to see signs of lack of consent (or a failure on the part of the victim to indicate lack of consent, which is importantly not the same thing as consent, especially but not only in cases where the failure is due to incapacitation or fear). But such negligence does not excuse the behavior.
Why isn't it pointed out that men bear a responsibility to reduce their own risk of being accused of rape or sexual assault by avoiding engaging in risky and potentially negligent behavior? Why isn't it often emphasized that men (everyone, really) must take it upon themselves to secure consent to sex? Why is it, instead, often implied that it is women who are negligent who engage in such normal behavior as drinking alcohol, wearing somewhat revealing clothing, and walking home at night?
There is even a crucial moral and legal difference between the two forms of prudence considered here. A woman who goes to a bar, gets drunk, walks home alone in the dark, and is raped may very well regret having done those things, on the grounds that had she not done so, she would not have been raped. But she would most certainly be wrong to blame herself for what happened to her. By contrast, a man who goes to a bar, gets drunk, goes home with an equally drunk woman, has sex with her without knowing whether she is in a sufficiently lucid state to properly give consent (even if she fails to say "no"), and is later accused of raping her may very well regret having engaged in those behaviors, on the grounds that had he not done so, he would not have been accused. But he would also certainly be right to wonder whether his behavior was not morally negligent, whether he hadn't at the very least taken advantage of someone, and whether he wasn't actually to blame for raping her.
I suspect that in situations like the one described above, not everyone's intuitive judgment would be that the rape accusation was well-founded, or, even if it is, that the man in the story deserves a punishment of the severity accorded to more violent rapists. I also imagine that, in situations like the one described above, it would be very difficult to convict the man of rape. But I think there is no question that the man in such a situation would have done something morally wrong. I still suspect that some, like perhaps Sullivan's e-mailer, would refuse to assign any moral blame to the man. I wonder whether it's not the case that individuals who think the man in this sort of case deserves no moral blame believe that because they wish to preserve the power to coerce women into having sex with them in the traditional ways (by getting them drunk and applying peer pressure, for example, or by the now-discarded assumption that a wife does not have the right to withhold consent from her husband). For "who surrenders social or legal power willingly?", to quote Sullivan's e-mailer.
posted by gregates at 4:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home