Women and Rape Culture
Jon Krakauer wrote the book, "Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town.” Much of the book concerned the alleged rape of student Cecilia Washburn by Jordan Johnson, quarterback on the University of Montana football team. Johnson claimed the sex was consensual. I found the book very one-sided and biased against Johnson, even resorting to ad hominem attacks against Johnson, his supporters, and his lawyers. (Many of the following details concerning the case are gleaned from Krakauer's book, so may be slanted against Johnson.) The school dropped him from the football team and moved to expel him. Johnson appealed the expulsion several times and it was eventually stopped. Johnson also was prosecuted by Missoula County for "sexual intercourse without consent," a crime which could have sent him to prison for life. One of his lawyers happened to be a woman who very recently had been the chief prosecutor of sexual assaults in Missoula County. The jury returned a "not guilty" verdict after deliberating for less than 2 and 1/2 hours. Johnson then sued the university for violations of his civil rights and due process, sexual discrimination, negligence, and that the Dean of Students had destroyed evidence. He settled out of court with the state of Montana, which paid him $245,000.
This is just one example of the current witch hunt which is going on in our colleges concerning sexual assault. In this case, even though Johnson suffered great reputational, emotional and financial harm, the result could have been much worse. He could have gone to jail for a long time. Who knows how many men have not fared as well against this witch hunt? Activists are portraying a rape and sexual assault epidemic in our colleges and demanding severe punishment and little due process for those accused. Feminists have long equated the severity of rape with murder. (The phrase "rape and murder" has often been used to instill fear and dread. And rape victims are called "survivors.") But now, feminists are equating all sexual assaults with rape, and therefore murder. So now, any sexual violation, no matter how minor, is considered as bad as rape, and therefore as bad as murder. This not only increases the demand for severe punishment for all sexual violations, but also increases the emotional pain of victims. How are victims of sexual violations, even minor ones, supposed to feel when activists convince them that these violations are equivalent to being murdered? Is it any wonder many victims develop PTSD?
Of course, if a man jumps out of the bushes, rapes and savagely beats a woman, he should get at least twenty or thirty years in prison. But few rapes are like this. Date rape is much more nuanced and complex and full of context. Yet, rape activists still want the guilty thrown in jail forever, no matter the circumstances. Take the Johnson/Washburn case, for example. As I said, he could have gone to jail for life if convicted. But what should his punishment have been if he had been convicted? They had dated and texted each other off and on for over a year. They had made out a few times during that period, but hadn't had sex. One night at a campus dance she said to him, "I would do you anytime." The next night they got together to watch a movie on her bed. They made out on the bed, including some grinding. They removed each other's shirts. Here's where their versions depart. His version: she helped him remove her pants. He asked if she had a condom. She didn't and said, "That's okay." He removed his pants. They had sex in the missionary position for a bit. He flipped her over so he could enter from the rear. She joked, "Oh, you're bad." He pulled out and finished in his hands. Her version: he forcefully removed her pants, forced sex on her from the front, told her to flip over or he would make her, had sex with her from the rear, and finished in his hands. All this time she was physically resisting and telling him "No, not tonight." When he went into the bathroom, she texted her male housemate, who was sitting this whole time in the living room a few feet outside her bedroom door. She texted "I think I might have just gotten raped." She then drove Johnson home.
I think most would agree that even if Washburn's account is true, that extenuating circumstances make this rape less severe than a man jumping out of the bushes. But, certainly if Washburn's version is true, Johnson should serve some jail time. But how much? One month, one year, five years, ten years, life? Again, rape activists, who are leading the charge for the most severe punishment for all sexual violations no matter how small, would probably demand life in prison. But, how long is more reasonable? In any case, the jury (seven women and five men) unanimously believed his version and acquitted. And the state paid him $245,000 in a discrimination settlement. But, I'm betting that the feminist sisterhood and Jon Krakauer still think he is guilty.
Rape activists are using distorted and manufactured statistics to invent this so-called epidemic of sexual assault on campuses. The recent AAU study is a case in point. [1] The survey concluded that 26.1% of senior college women are raped or sexually assaulted during their college days. This has led to shouting that 1 of every 4 college women are raped or sexually assaulted. Of course, this is often shortened to 1 out of 4 college women are raped---a deliberate distortion to increase our sympathy. A closer look at the survey reveals that these claims are wild distortions of the truth and are pure propaganda.
First of all, it was a survey. People answered questions any way they wanted and there was no checking the veracity of their answers. As I have shown before, women often lie, especially about sex. [2] And in the current climate, I would not be surprised to find that women may exaggerate their victimization. Some women believe that they have been raped or assaulted when they have not been. [3] And I have given examples of many women who, for political reasons, have falsely claimed rape. [4] I have even noted that a large percentage of women enjoy rape fantasies, which may also contribute to false reports. [5] So, women falsely claiming sexual assaults in a survey is a strong possibility.
The survey has other problems. It was a voluntary, online survey for all students at 27 universities. And it was not a short survey, taking a long time to complete. But because only an average of 19.3% of the students completed the survey (22.9% of females and 15.6% of males), the survey results are probably subject to strong non-response bias, i.e., people who were not raped or sexually assaulted were more likely not to take the survey. Therefore, the numbers of students found to be sexually assaulted in the survey are probably much higher than reality. Also, there was a wide variation in the results between universities. This would also imply inaccurate results. The wide variation in results between schools might have been a consequence of the wide variation in the participation rates between schools (7% to 53%.)
Another indication of inaccurate results was the fact that 50% of those labeled as victims of serious offenses in the survey did not feel the incidents were serious enough to report to the authorities. This certainly lends to the idea that the organizers of the survey tried to inflate the numbers as high as possible.
The definitions used in the survey also indicate a bias toward female victims. Offenses were divided into two groups: penetration---penis, finger or object in vagina or anus, or contact between genitals and mouth or tongue; and sexual touching---kissing, or touching breast, chest, crotch, groin, butt, or grabbing, groping, rubbing sexually even over clothes. Tactics were divided into four categories: 1.) physical force or threat of physical force 2.) incapacitation---alcohol, drugs, or sleeping 3.) coercion---reward or non-physical harm 4.) no affirmative consent. Penetration or sexual touching using physical force or incapacitation were considered violations of law---rape and sexual battery. Penetration or sexual touching with coercion or without affirmative consent were considered violations of student codes.
I suppose any definition can lead to problems, but these definitions appear to exaggerate the number of female victims and rule out most male victims. They also lead to a lot of interpretation by survey takers. Note that fingering or kissing genitals are not usually considered rape, but could be in this survey. Also note that being held down by body weight was considered one definition of physical force---the missionary position and countless other sexual positions could be interpreted as physical force by this definition. And if a man accidentally brushes up against a woman, the woman may consider this sexual touching. Even some dancing could be considered violations. She may even consider this to be sexual battery if she has been drinking. She may also consider that physical force was used, also leading to sexual battery. The amount of incapacitation could also be problematic. Similar amounts of alcohol during sex may justify a rape charge by some women, while other women would not even consider such a thing. Survey takers were encouraged to answer questions about incidents while intoxicated even if they were not sure what happened. As with intoxication, threat of physical force also requires interpretation. Some women might see a threat of physical force where others would not for the same incident.
Coercion is also a fuzzy concept. Examples of coercion in the study include threatening a bad grade or trouble at work, threatening to share damaging information with others or online, or rewarding with good grades or promotions. I suppose in a survey about sexual assault, only men would be considered offenders of these tactics, but, of course, women are also perfectly capable of these behaviors. Also, if a male professor gave a female student a better grade for having sex with him, wouldn't she be an offender as well for accepting such a deal? I bet she would not cop to it on the survey. And why stop there? Couldn't dinner and a show for sex be considered coercion---and prostitution? I suspect all college seniors are guilty of this form of coercion. But this is not included in the survey because it would result in many female offenders.
Affirmative consent is a very new concept. I suspect most every senior in college has experienced sexual activity without affirmative consent.
Note that the word "penetration" implies male offender and female victim and is therefore biased. Other researchers have tried to reduce the effects of this semantic problem by also including wording such as "forced to penetrate" to include male victims in the results. One such researcher found that men are raped as often as women. [6] But the AAU study did not use such wording. These and other problems with this study could easily have led to inflated numbers of female victims in the results. Yet, rape activists and the media constantly exaggerate the exaggerated numbers in the study by proclaiming that 1 out of 4 college women are raped.
I believe that these distortions, biased definitions, subversions of Title IX, inflating all sexual assaults to rape level, and lies are systemic and intentional. Many feminists have long theorized that all heterosexual sex is rape, and that most all men are, therefore, rapists. I believe that the radical feminists that seem to control the feminist movement are trying to turn this theory into reality. They are trying to criminalize all men as rapists. And they are succeeding, bit by bit. For example, when Antioch College first instituted affirmative consent, it was seen as absurd by most. Now it is the law in many states.
I have heard feminists complain that prosecutors in rape cases must prove that the woman did not consent, while in other crimes, such as robbery, prosecutors do not have to prove consent, i.e., they do not have to prove that the robbery victim did not want to be robbed. Feminists argue from this that prosecutors in rape cases should not have to prove that she did not consent---it should be assumed as in robbery. This has got to be one of the stupidest arguments south of the Milky Way. First of all, robbery is NEVER wanted, while sex is wanted by millions, maybe billions, of people every day. Second, whether someone wants sex is the critical difference between a glorious, pleasurable experience and rape. Robbery is NEVER a glorious, pleasurable experience. Proving a lack of consent, or that a woman did not want sex, is crucial for any idea of due process in rape cases. (A Tennessee judge recently shot down this feminist concept which is the basis of affirmative consent legislation. [7])
A joke I heard in junior high school was "The difference between rape and rapture is merely the salesmanship." Crude, yes. But it makes a point. Sex is a 10-octave activity. It can go from a glorious, pleasurable high to a deep, depressing low. From rapture to rape. And the only difference between the two may be the person's attitude. (Is it odd that someone can go to prison for a very long time based on another's attitude?) Usually, a woman is clear about her attitude. Usually, a man is able to read it. But sometimes the woman's message is ambiguous or confusing. Women can be coy and mysterious. Sometimes the guy isn't a very good reader. Misunderstandings happen. Throw in some people who are not sexually experienced and some alcohol, and misunderstandings are likely. Sex is complicated. But feminists insist that everything is black and white, that there aren't 50 shades of gray, and that all of those accused of rape should be locked up forever.
As I mentioned, dinner and a show for sex could be considered a form of prostitution. But it probably is a legal form. The implicit rather than explicit nature of the bartering probably keeps it legal. But that doesn't mean there aren't problems associated with it. Men are constantly being teased by women's sexual appearance so that the women can receive free drinks, dinners, and shows. Or business women may be sexual to increase their sales or tips. These things are bound to result in unfortunate unintentional side effects. For example, sometimes women accept the benefits of the implicit barter but then have no intention of following through on the sex part of the deal. This has to be frustrating for men. (It is probably even more frustrating than the fact that it is a bad deal for men to start with---he needs to give her things so that then they can both enjoy sex.) And what about nerdy or poor men who are exposed to the sexual appearance of women on the prowl, but then have no game or money to participate? This also must be frustrating. Frustration leads to anger which leads to violence. Of course, most men can cope with the situation without resorting to violence. But some don't.
Feminists complain that men viewing pornography leads to women being seen as sexual objects which leads to rape. Why can't feminists then criticize women for portraying themselves as sexual objects which leads to rape?
As I have said before, it is very hypocritical for women to be very sexual while not allowing men any sexual behavior. A woman can wear very sexual clothing while complaining of sexual harassment by a man if he tells a sexual joke or even compliments her clothing. It is such a double standard. A further issue with this double standard is that feminists will condemn any criticism of a rape victim's clothing. If a rape victim is criticized for wearing a sexy outfit which supposedly provokes the rape, feminists get very upset. Feminists deny any connection and insist that women should be allowed to wear whatever they want. This is ridiculous. It is not so much that a man sees a woman in provocative clothing and therefore rapes her. It is more systemic than that. It involves all of the sexually-provocative women that a man has seen throughout his life and the frustration that may have built up. When a man sexually harasses a woman, it is usually very directed---one man with one woman. But when a woman wears sexual clothing to entice a particular man, she sexually harasses every man within eyesight. (It is traditional for women to communicate sexual availability through their appearance. It is then men's job to initiate a relationship.) Some of these men within eyesight may approach her, only to be frustrated with a "Buzz off, Jerk" or worse.
I believe this is why female jurors are harder on rape victims than male jurors are. Women know, even if they won't admit it, that they are playing with fire with their sexual appearance. And they want to know that they won't be burned. So they must find that a rape victim has done something extraordinarily sexual to provoke the rape. This allows the female juror to continue her "more normal" sexual appearance with less fear that she may be provoking her own rape. But, again, I do not think it is as immediate as man sees woman with short skirt, man rapes woman. The female juror may have contributed in her own small way with her "normal" sexual appearance to the frustration of one or more rapists. But thousands of other women may also have contributed to that frustration in their "normal" sexual appearance and teasing. This may contribute to, dare I say the phrase, a "rape culture" which is caused by women. Men frustrated by this rape culture may be provoked into rape by a woman in provocative clothing. But maybe not. Maybe he will look for a more vulnerable, easier victim. Perhaps a young girl. Women, think about that when you put on your yoga pants and your breasts are popping out of your top. I know that we are not allowed to hold women responsible for anything, but we should consider it if we really want to solve the problem of rape.
In every aspect of rape, from causes and contributing factors to solutions, feminists focus on sex, specifically male sexuality. But when women's sexual appearance is criticized, feminists state that rape is not about sex, but power. This is ridiculous. Rape is about both. It is a consequence of the sexual power that women hold over men. It appears to be a power that women refuse to give up.
[1] The September 2015 Association of American Universities Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct,
https://www.aau.edu/uploadedFiles/AAU_Publications/AAU_Reports/Sexual_Assault_Campus_Survey/Report%20on%20the%20AAU%20Campus%20Climate%20Survey%20on%20Sexual%20Assault%20and%20Sexual%20Misconduct.pdf
[2] researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sexsurv.htm
[3] www.ncherm.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/An-Open-Letter-from-The-NCHERM-Group.pdf
[4] From "Self-Indulgent, Delusional and Misandrist": "Mariam Kashani, Desiree Nall, Michelle Gretzinger, Tanya Borachi, Mindy Brickman, Meg Lanker-Simons, and Michaela Morales"
[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18321031
[6] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/violence-crime/the-sexual-victimization-of-men-in-america-new-data-challenge-old-assumptions/
[7] http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/12/student-wrongfully-expelled-for-rape-tri
