Most Rapists Don't Know They're Rapists

The idea for this post came from a conversation I had after I posted this link on Facebook yesterday. I was then met with some comments that surprised me, such as:

"Those who rape know damn well that no means no. That's what makes it worthwhile for them. They're not confused by the idea that some women are supposed to play hard to get."

and

"Rapists are sensitive to labeling themselves as such. However, they invariably know, and enjoy, the fact that they're forcing the woman."

and

"The typical rapist attacks serially and is only stopped with a jail sentence, but yes, the 1st time he has non-consensual sex makes him a rapist, and not just "technically."

and

"I've heard from a couple of different sources that rapists are like hunters stalking for their next victim. I heard a statistic that although about 7% of men have attempted or committed rape, the number of women raped is much higher because these men have more than one victim. This statistic comes from a study of young men that ask about some of their behaviors, like, do you get excited/hopeful/aroused when a woman gets sloppy drunk. The study does not use the word rape because, as you point out, even the East Coast Rapist can't call himself that. However, the 7% of the men's answers point to raping behaviors."

To which, I had to respond:

I'm going to try and find some empirical sources, but until then I'll supplement with my own anecdotal evidence. I have a number of friends that have been raped. I also know quite a few people that work for the Sexual Assault Response Prevention Program (SARPP) at my school.

Recently, my school participated in The Clothesline Project which involved survivors of sexual assault writing on t-shirts and hanging them up for all to see. By the end of the day there were hundreds. Some of them were talking about how they didn't let the assault break them, some were talking about how they can't trust men anymore. But most of them involved calling attention to their attacker, either by name, fraternity, or some other means. Almost all of them mentioned that this guy was a friend. I couldn't even count the number of times I saw written "my rapist doesn't know he's a rapist." Because rapes are underreported. 

Why? Because most of the time, they cannot be proven. And people do not want to believe that the quarterback, the valedictorian, or the shy kid could take advantage of a girl. But they do. These men are not predators in the sense that they consciously hold a hatred of women, get off on hurting people, or sit waiting for their next victim. No, these are merely men to whom the notion of consent doesn't matter. 

Part of this is because our culture has inculcated the idea of "playing hard to get" as the article mentions. Regardless of whether or not women do this, most men have the idea that women do. And this means that when they are met with resistance, they just push harder. It is very different from "I am planning on raping someone tonight because that's what turns me on." Those types are rare. It is rather, "But if she didn't want to have sex then why was she making out with me? She totally wanted it, I just helped convince her."

This is misogynistic thinking fueled by the simple idea that women are there for us to consume and use; that they are not autonomous beings who have their own beliefs, desires, and fears. And in that moment, they believe that you're not going to stop, they're afraid that they're right, and they desire to get out. There isn't the black and white line between "rapists" and "everyone else" that most people think there is. To claim that is to be part of the problem; to be a rape denier. To deny the fact that hundreds and thousands of women are assaulted every year by their acquaintances, friends, and even partners. To claim that "rapists" are merely psychopaths as opposed to regular males who merely don't understand consent and happen to be in a situation to exercise their power is blind yourself to the majority of sexual assaults.

The Long Reach of Belief

Often I am asked, why do you care what other people believe? Well, the simple answer is that people tend to act on their beliefs. I know lots of people who don't believe in new age mysticism or God or any host of other supernatural elements, yet they just do not understand why another person's beliefs should effect me. If an individual believes that gay marriage is wrong--forbidden in the bible or otherwise--then he might actually speak out against it, protest gay rights, or use political power to rally against equality.

The issue with many of the beliefs that people hold is that they're not simple matters of taste. I may dislike Nickelback as a band, but the fact that certain people enjoy Nickelback is of no concern to me. Why? Because people liking Nickelback has no effect on my life or that of anyone else who may dislike them. Now we have established a criterion for when beliefs held by others should matter: if the beliefs cause people to act in ways that they otherwise would not.

For example, if a person is secretly racist we may find this deplorable, but if they never act on it, in what way could we know? The chances of someone actually being racist and never acting on it are probably impossible, since these beliefs manifest themselves in subtle ways that we are generally not aware of. But the point is that beliefs lead to actions. And if these actions can hurt, oppress, and generally cause harm to society, then there is warrant for us to care what other people believe.

I've had people tell me that I am just as bad and intolerant of the people I am speaking out against. They've told me that just because I disagree with someone doesn't make them bad, or wrong, or give me a reason to question their beliefs. Let me illustrate a picture: does a person who is racist (something we in the liberal western world tend to think is pretty bad) have the right to say that an anti-racist is discriminating against them? That doesn't really make any sense. The people who fought to free the slaves and for civil rights aren't people we look back on and say "Geez, couldn't they just leave other people's beliefs alone?" I speak out when I think people are being oppressed or harmed.

How do we define harm? There are various ways, so I'll give some examples. When children are taught that humans walked with dinosaurs, the KKK were nice people, and gay people are as awful as rapists and child molesters, their education is harming them. When parents allow their children to die by refusing medical treatment in favor of prayer, their spiritual belief is harming them. When psychics rob people of their money by claiming they can perform spiritual healing, claim they can talk to dead loved ones, or just provide false info to further their personal gain, their credulity in charlatans is harming them. This is just a short list. I could write about a hundred more ways in which people are harmed every day due to the nature of their beliefs.

I can imagine someone saying at this point, "Okay, so some people believe some stupid things. But my beliefs don't harm anyone. For example, I don't believe in evolution and it doesn't hurt anyone."

I will attempt to illustrate that the effects of holding a view such as creationism aren't immediately obvious, but just because they aren't immediately obvious doesn't mean there can't be latent harm. For example, if there were only one person who didn't believe in evolution we wouldn't have a problem, but the fact remains that half of Americans reject evolutionary theory. And furthermore, any argument that goes, "Well, me alone doing this action isn't hurting anyone, therefore it is fine," is not justifiable when we imagine the consequences, were everyone to do it. This known as the tragedy of the commons. Therefore, yes, if you and just you alone decide to litter, you won't destroy the world, but if everyone does? Well, we're still trying to fix that mistake.

An anticipated objection at this point is "I understand that littering is bad, but you haven't demonstrated that not believing in evolution is bad."

Allow me to do so.

So we have this thing called scientific progress, where we find out more about the world and because we know more about the world we can do neat things. These include little things like medicine that makes it possible for us to live three times as long as we could a few hundred years ago (thank you biology). All the food and drink that you enjoy, all the pills you pop and the drugs you take (thank you chemistry). That little GPS in your car and in your phone that allows you to find your way (thank you physics). So what does this have to do with evolution? Two things: the first is the smaller point that the understanding of evolution allows us to create medicine such as antibiotics and helps us discover disease-causing genes. The larger point is that the denial of evolution is part of a more substantial problem: the denial of scientific curiosity. If you say to yourself, "I refuse to believe in evolution because it contradicts the bible," then you are liable to say that you refuse to believe in a great number of scientific concepts. And if you don't believe in these things, you won't have an interest in science (you might even disdain it) despite the fact that the life you enjoy today is owed to many things that wouldn't be possible without science. But hey, that's fine, no one is forcing you to become a biologist. But if we all suddenly became incurious and stopped exploring, well, we don't have to imagine what life would be like since history has done a fine job of documenting the dark ages.

Sometimes the harm of a belief is that it manages to oppress a group for no other reason than to oppress them. For example, to argue that racists are oppressed by civil rights would be quite silly. The oppressors do not get to say they are being oppressed when people speak out against them. Otherwise we would have an infinite regress of each person claiming that their rights were violated when another person disagreed with them. The buck has to stop somewhere, and it stops at the opposition. You don't get to simply oppose those who disagree with you ad infinitum; you defend your original position. So when people have beliefs such as an idea that a particular race is inferior their own, they might do something like enslave that race. Even after slavery has ended, the dominant group might continue to oppress that race. We clearly understand the link here between belief and action, and while it isn't one person who keeps the wheels of oppression turning, the mindset that "Racism is okay, even if I'm not a racist" does nothing to help those who are oppressed - it does just the opposite.

So here's how the argument breaks down: sometimes the effect of a belief is apparent, as in:

Racist beliefs --> Racist behavior 

Sometimes it's way more latent, as in:

Science denial --> Kids dying from parent's belief in spiritual healing and lack of belief in modern medicine

Sometimes the path has many stops, as in:

 Evolution denier --> Uninterested in science --> Not enough employment science/technology related fields --> No cure for cancer yet

Sometimes it's a small part of a larger problem, as in:

No issue with racist beliefs --> A system that continues to run based on oppression

In short, beliefs matter a lot.  They have an effect we are unable to see most of the time. We should not write them off as necessarily harmless for that reason alone. I consider myself a feminist, yet for so long I spent time participating in behavior quite clearly anti-feminist and lo and behold, I was completely unaware of it. It wasn't until my consciousness was raised by the efforts of other individuals that I was able to implement change.

Don't be afraid to question things. It's the only way we can get true social change.

Slut Shaming and Why It Needs To Stop

What is slut shaming? It is a very simple and subtle thing that many of us do without even being aware of it. It is the process of making women (and men) feel bad about their sexual choices. Often it's the word "slut" or its many synonyms used in conjuncture with a derogatory comment or tone. As in,

"Look at what that girl is wearing, what a slut."

When that is said, several implicit assumptions are made:
1) Girls who wear more "revealing" outfits are "sluts"
2) Being a slut is a bad thing

So let's get a working definition of slut then, since it would be impossible to call it a bad thing if we don't even know what one is!

The simplest definition I can seem to find is someone who has an open sociosexual orientation. This means that they are open to the idea of having sex without being in a committed, monogamous, romantic relationship. Now, most people seem to agree on this definition. But here's the problem: most of us then, by definition, are sluts. What?! How can this be? Sluts are a terrible awful no-good very bad thing... right?

The word "slut" is pejorative, meaning that it can have positive or negative connotations depending on the group that it is used in. A good way to think about this is to talk about America's other favorite set of pejorative words.

In the middle school years, kids are prone to use words like "gay" to talk about things that they don't like. They might say, "this class is so gay," or "I hate this band, they're so gay," when neither the class nor the band contain any homosexuals nor homosexual behavior. Are these kids confused about the meaning of the word? No. If you ask them, they get it right. But when asked why they use the word like that, they'll probably shrug. Everyone knows that when they say something is gay it doesn't mean actually gay. Right. But if the connotation is that "gay" is a synonym for "things that are bad," suddenly this doesn't seem okay anymore. Most progressive teens start getting aware of this around high school and stop calling things gay. They even might call out others that use it, stating that use of the word in that pejorative sense is homophobic. What predicts this kind of pro-LGBT behavior? Knowing someone who is gay. That is why gay rights campaigns urge people to come out of the closet if they can. The single biggest aid to fighting homophobia has been the realization that, hey, lots of people are gay, and they're just people like the rest of us.

What does this have to do with slut shaming? Well, because when it comes to the word "slut," we're still in middle school. We know what it means, but we use it talk about people we don't like, almost exclusively women. In fact, when men are called sluts, it's usually in the form of the euphemistic "man whore." It is far more acceptable for men to be sexually promiscuous and open about their exploits than it is for women. So instead, we have lots of women who are sexually free in this sense, but they feel bad about their own behavior. They feel bad because we have taught them to feel bad. They slut shame themselves. This is because they're in the slut closet and don't want to come out into a world that disdains what they do. But where does this slut shaming come from?

There are evolutionary reasons why men and women have different sexual preferences and strategies. It our ancestral past, it was an adaptive strategy for women to be very choosy with whom they mated with. This was because they would bear the burden of carrying a child to term, being unable to mate in the interim, and then raising said child. So it made sense that women would care more: their investment was higher. Men invested a few minutes of work, and that was all they needed to pass their genes on.

The truth is that these behaviors are rooted in human nature, but reinforced by our society. Because we subvert human nature all the time. Why do we like to eat, often to the point of it being unhealthy? Because it was adaptive in our past to eat as much as we could because food was scare. Now we have obesity, an unintended side effect of this drive. Likewise, most of the sex in we have as a species in this contemporary age is not for procreation. But that's what sex is biologically for. It feels good because those who enjoyed it had more offspring, so we have a species that loves to fuck, and that most of the time is not thinking about having children.

Today we have a set of men and women who seem to police women who might not be as choosy about their sex partners. If you asked them why, they probably couldn't tell you. Evolutionary theory gives us some clues, but its not the entire story. The fact is that when people engage in slut shaming, they are not thinking, "Look at that silly girl! By not being more choosy about her sexual partners and waiting to invest in a man who will also invest in her, she is liable to make a mistake and possibly end up with a poor genetic recombination with a man who will not aid in raising the child!"

There are many dark, undesirable sides of human nature. The fact that it may have been adaptive to be misogynistic, xenophobic, and violent in our past does not mean that because they have some "natural" origin, that they get a free moral pass. We are able to evaluate behaviors in a way that we couldn't then. We are not bound by the chains of human nature; our society allows us to move past it, most people just never consider it.

The idea of taking the word back is appealing to some people. This is what happened with the gay community. Nowadays, you might hear someone describe their friend as "gay", and it will mean just that: that their friend prefers to engage in sex with people of the same gender. So could we do the same with slut? Could slut just mean someone that enjoys sex and doesn't need the restrictions of a traditional relationship to engage in it?

I want to now ask what I feel is the most important question of all: what, if anything, is wrong with being a slut?

I think the people over www.slutsunite.org get it right.

Most people would agree with what is written there. And then suddenly, given that, what's wrong with being a slut?

It's your sex life. As long as you are being safe, sane, consensual, then do what you want. Life is too short to feel bad about doing what feels good.