Common Myths About Rape, Part 2

In part 1 of this article, I discussed several classic rape myths. Here, I have more of those, as well some new ones to boot. It seems there are more myths and misunderstandings being formed every day.

If everyone knows she's a slut, she can't be raped.

Here we go with entitlement again. We would never consider a man with a diverse sexual history to be "fair game" for anyone who wanted to use his body sexually, so why should we apply this standard to women?

If she has a relationship with her attacker, it isn't rape.

I believe this myth is founded in the idea that no one would rape someone they are familiar with. However, most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows, because in many cases, it is this familiarity and the violation of trust which make up a substantial part of the thrill for the rapist. Having a relationship with the victim also helps insure safety from prosecution, as it turns the question of guilt into a he said/she said situation.

There's such a thing as "gray rape."

The concept of "gray rape" is a relatively new myth, one that was started by a writer for a prominent women's magazine. It refers to situations in which two people start to explore physical intimacy, but one partner wants to stop short of sex but is forced into it anyway. Situations like this are usually referred to as "date rape," but the term "gray rape" has been coined to imply that somehow, it isn't "real" rape. Why not? Don't ask me.

If he talks her into doing something she doesn't want to do, that's rape.

What, is he supposed to be psychic?

Look, if we are going to respect women's authority over our own bodies to say "no," we must expect that women have responsibility when we say "yes." Talking is not coercion (unless it involves threats, blackmail, etc.), and coercion is a requirement for rape.

If she's had anything to drink, it's rape.

It's pretty safe to call it rape if she's too drunk to be conscious, or to know what's going on, and many rapes are committed under these circumstances. Awareness of this issue has lead to a lot of unnecessary paranoia around the idea that any amount of intoxication makes legitimate consent impossible.

Yes, alcohol does cause the lowering of inhibitions and can make us do things we'll later regret, but it can also encourage us to do things we'll later be glad we did. It can be wise to say "no" to someone who's interested in sex because of alcohol consumption, but not because they are unable to give consent. She may not be sober enough to drive, but if she's sober enough to give clear, enthusiastic consent and to participate in sex, then her actions remain her responsibility.

It's impossible for women to sexually assault men.

If you pay attention to the news, you'll find that there are, in fact, recorded cases of women sexually assaulting men, in both statutory adult/minor and adult/adult circumstances. Rarer though these crimes may be, they tell us something vital about gender relations and the type of entitlement that a female rapist feels towards a man or boy's body. Whereas male rapists may have internalized the idea that women are objects to be used and dominated, a female rapist's sense of justification perhaps comes from the idea that men are not allowed to deny women sex and must perform on demand. This same social pressure places a stigma on males who are victims of female-perpetrated sexual assault and blames the victim, not necessarily for the crime itself, but for considering the act a crime at all.

Women cannot withdraw consent after the start of sex. If a man continues after she's told him to stop, it's not rape.

This myth was recently upheld - then shot down - in the court systems of the state of Maryland. This is another case of people confusing matters of sexual etiquette with matters of sex crimes and consent; the argument I've heard in favor of this idea is usually a bunch of nonsense about how it's "not nice for a woman to leave a guy hanging."

No, it's not nice. In theory, it's also not nice to invite people over to a dinner party at your house and then tell them to leave without serving them any food. Yet we haven't used this justification to try to make laws interfering with someone's right to decide when guests are and are not allowed to in their house. So why has our society even entertained the absurd notion that we can limit a woman's right to decide the same things about her own body?

Most rape accusations are false.

When I started seeing and hearing this myth floating around in discussions, I couldn't, at first, figure out where it was coming from. Eventually, however, the people perpetuating it started citing courtroom statistics about the low percentages of rape accusations resulting in convictions, and I realized how many people have a fundamental misunderstanding about how our legal system works.

It is true that rape is a very difficult crime to prove in a court of law. This is because proving rape rather than consensual can require proof of intention. Also, in recent years, juries have been so influenced by popular forensics-based TV dramas (such as CSI) that they expect to see hard physical evidence and often will not convict if they don't.

This, combined with the many myths about rape and rape victims, means that less than 29% of rape charges result in conviction. This, however, does NOT mean that the accused rapists have been in any way "proven innocent." It only means that juries find that there is insufficient evidence to convict them.

This does not, of course, mean that false accusations never happen. But to those who believe that there is an epidemic of fake charges being brought against men by women, I would urge you to take a good, hard look at the realities of shame and blame that rape victims have to face and ask yourself, "How likely is it, really, that many woman would want to fake this?"