Trigger warning: The following op-ed contains discussion of rape, including some graphic details.
When I heard that two rapists in the Steubenville, Ohio case were convicted and sentenced to jail, I’ll admit part of me felt a sense of relief. According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), only 3% of rapists ever spend a night in prison. It feels good to see rapists fall into that 3%. But the more I consider this case, the more I realize that no prosecution, verdict or sentence can solve the problem.
The men who were convicted raped a 16-year old girl — digitally penetrated her while she was drunk, vulnerable and unconscious. Photographs of the girl’s naked body were taken and shared without her consent. These acts are appalling violations of the right to control one’s own body, the most basic principle of liberty. Rape and sexual assault violate that right in the most personal, damaging and invasive way.
If only the bystanders who witnessed the assault had understood this. It happened at a party. Many peers of the victim and the perpetrators witnessed the assault as it happened and posted videos and tweets about it online. One boy spoke up in the victim’s defense, but was laughed at and did not successfully stop the assault.
Evan Westlake testified at trial that he saw one of the perpetrators, Trent Mays, smacking the victim’s hip with his penis. He also saw Ma’lik Richmond, the other perpetrator, penetrating the victim’s vagina with two of his fingers. When asked why he didn’t intervene, he answered “it wasn’t violent. I didn’t know exactly what rape was. I always pictured it as forcing yourself on someone.”
What Westlake witnessed was violence. It entailed physically violating another person’s boundaries. But, as is often the case in real rapes, there was no struggle, no armed stranger in the bushes, no screaming victim. What Westlake witnessed was rape. But it wasn’t the comparatively rare stranger rape that haunts the popular imagination. So Westlake did not even recognize it.
We need to change that. In a culture that educated young people about respecting boundaries and treating other people’s bodily autonomy as sacrosanct, Westlake would have known exactly what rape was, and he would have intervened. Throughout the night, when boys assaulted the victim, joked about raping her, and carried her unconscious body between rooms, multiple people would have intervened. But evidently, we don’t live in that culture.
Special Judge Thomas Lipps did little to bring us closer to that culture. Even as he convicted and sentenced the rapists, he made several troubling statements. For example, he claimed that this case shows alcohol is “a particular danger to our teenage youth.” Alcohol was not the problem here; rape was. People can drink alcohol voluntarily and consensually. Drunk people have the right to have their boundaries respected.
Focusing on underage drinking enables victim blaming. In the Steubenville case, a litany of sexists blamed the victim, one even suggesting that the state should prosecute her for underage drinking. Victim blaming has also played a role in threats the victim has received throughout this case. By shifting the focus from boundaries and consent to consensual alcohol consumption, Lipps’s comments enable this attitude.
Lipps also advised teenagers “to have discussions about how you talk to your friends; how you record things on the social media so prevalent today; and how you conduct yourself when drinking is put upon you by your friends.” Social media was not the problem here. In fact it provided vital evidence. Rather than advising teenagers to not rape, Lipps advised them on how to avoid getting caught.
With such from the judge, one wonders whether the rapists will learn anything. By the age of 21, both will have been released from juvenile detention. I doubt that prison will teach them to respect others’ bodies and rights. As an institution, prison is built on coercion, on systematically violating people’s bodies. Sexual violence is rampant in juvenile detention centers, and is disproportionately directed against LGBT detainees and survivors of prior sexual assault. The Steubenville rapists might continue to rape captive victims in detention centers, and be released with even less respect for bodily autonomy than they started with.
If prosecutions and prisons won’t stop rape, what will? A good start is educating people, especially young boys, about what rape is, why it’s wrong, and the ethics and practice of bystander intervention. Future Steubenvilles can be prevented by creating a culture where people stand up for each other’s basic rights and take issues of consent seriously.
Citations to this article:
- Nathan Goodman, Prisons can’t stop rape culture, only grassroots intervention can, Libby, Montana Western News, 03/26/13
- Nathan Goodman, Sexual violence misconceptions, Hernando [Florida] Today, 03/28/13
- Nathan Goodman, Prisons Can’t Stop Rape Culture, Grassroots Intervention Can, Eastside Sun, 03/28/13
This article is excellent, Nathan.
You might as well say we have an "alcoholic culture" because a lot of teens get absolutely shitfaced on beer. Speaking of, "I didn't know it was rape" sounds a lot better than "I was drunk as hell and wanted to see some poontang."
I don't buy "rape culture" and I don't buy this kid's story. Though I wholeheartedly support drilling good virtues into our children.
Well, we do have a culture that accepts drinking and to a certain extent accepts the behavior of alcoholics. The reason I don't give this a similar name is that I don't consider this to be a problem in the same way having a culture that gives rapists social license to operate is.
The fact that so many teenagers thought it was acceptable to watch a rape happen, not intervene, and mock the victim over social media suggests that we do have a culture where rapists are given social license to operate. The fact that one witness to the rape did not recognize it as rape suggests that we live in a culture where people are ignorant about issues regarding rape. The fact that people sent death threats to the victim rather than sending her support or sympathy suggests we do have a culture that blames victims and discourages them from reporting. The judge's comments suggest that we have a society that treats peripheral issues of voluntary substance use as relevant to the core human rights violation involved in rape.
Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that these sorts of attitudes are not unique to Steubenville. For example, this British poll shows that victim blaming attitudes are shockingly prevalent. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8515592.stm Multiple peer reviewed studies have also shown appalling levels of social acceptance for rape. http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html
Maybe you have some concrete arguments against using the phrase "rape culture" to describe these cultural attitudes and practices. But regardless of whether we call these things rape culture, they are serious problems that need to be addressed.
"For example, he claimed that this case shows alcohol is “a particular danger to our teenage youth.” Alcohol was not the problem here; rape was. People can drink alcohol voluntarily and consensually. Drunk people have the right to have their boundaries respected."
I assume Thomas Lipps meant that it was a problem that the perpetrators were drunk (were they drunk?), not that the victim was drunk. Of course the problem would not be that people get drunk as Lipps suggests, but rather that people tolerate drunk people committing rape.
My recent post War, Peace, and the State | Murray Rothbard
We certainly don't have a culture that accepts underage drinking. Oh, come on. If a woman who's drunk cannot really "choose" sex, do you really expect me to believe that those teenagers were thinking clearly and making a decision to ignore it based on their value set?
"Almost three quarters of the women who believed this said if a victim got into bed with the assailant before an attack they should accept some responsibility.
One-third blamed victims who had dressed provocatively or gone back to the attacker's house for a drink."
I don't think expecting "some responsibility" is all that unreasonable. If I stroll into a ghetto in a cadillac with several valuable positions and leave my car unattended and unlocked I think that most people would agree that I bear SOME responsibility if I'm robbed.
Furthermore, rape is meaningless without an idea of consent. If we really have a "rape culture" where drunken advances are considered legit, is it not a violation of the non-aggression-principle to lock people up for taking up these "offers"?
Reaction–
You said:
"If a woman who's drunk cannot really "choose" sex, do you really expect me to believe that those teenagers were thinking clearly and making a decision to ignore it based on their value set?"
The victim in this case was being carried around by the perpetrators and taken advantage of because she was UNCONSCIOUS. She was not just a little drunk, she was totally out of it. So do you still think it was o.k. for these little turds to treat her as a play thing. And then brag about it on social media? You are either unfamiliar with this case or you are a monster.
Then you said:
"If I stroll into a ghetto in a cadillac with several valuable positions (sic) and leave my car unattended and unlocked I think that most people would agree that I bear SOME responsibility if I'm robbed."
In this case, you might have made yourself an easier target, but you are not culpable. There is a difference. You should have the right to leave a car unattended and unlocked even if it's not the most security-conscious thing to do. That doesn't mean you if you are victimized you had it coming. Likewise, people should be able to drink or wear "provocative" attire without being attacked by thugs and perverts.
But your example still fails because this girl was not conscious and she was molested. All of this makes you sound kinda sorta like a rape apologist
The moniker REACTION is quite appropriate for you, by the way.
I've already discussed this with Mr Goodman, who labelled me a Rape Apologist (GASP!) for insinuating that in general sexual negotiation is non-verbal and relies on other cues. Mr Goodman seems to be under the impression sexual congress requires some sort of specific verbal contract before it is initiated, which has certainly not been the experience of myself or any of the general public. Adding alcohol to the situation of an intense non-verbal sexual situation will obviously worsen miscommunications in general. Perhaps a more detailed discussion of how sex is initiated between the average person is in order.
Additionally, this entire premise constitutes the same exact sort of harping you'd expect from a Southern Baptist rolling into a Sunday sermon on morality and youth: "Oh Lord, we'd sho have less rape if your UnGodly children would only come to respect the Holy Scripture and the Sacred Doctrine of your Property Norms!" In choosing to rail against immature drunks failing to properly perceive property norms, he's taken the essential Christian stance on this issue.
The simultaneous reaction that "those poor boys were drunk, c'mon, they couldn't be culpable for rape" and "that slut was drunk, she brought it on herself," IS rape culture.
Well … consistency.
Either all parties are responsible for what they do, even if they're drunk, or none of them are responsible for what they do, if they're drunk.
It's sad, but not surprising, that some of the comments here further illustrate the concept of a "rape culture." It's also sad that there was only a single decent human being at that party (who was "laughed at and did not successfully stop the assault"). If he'd had a pistol, maybe instead of this story we'd be reading about two dead scumbags.
Nathan, your comments at the end highlight a line I've heard many times on cop shows, latest on The Mentalist, where it's said the murderer they caught "won't have to pay for dates in prison" insinuating he will be raped (if that is not rape culture, I don't know what would be). Aside from the horror of wishing rape on anyone, rapists in prison are probably more likely to continue raping people (in this case of prisoners) than being victims of it. How does this help? I don't know the solution, but that surely is not it.
"The victim in this case was being carried around by the perpetrators and taken advantage of because she was UNCONSCIOUS. She was not just a little drunk, she was totally out of it. So do you still think it was o.k. for these little turds to treat her as a play thing. And then brag about it on social media? You are either unfamiliar with this case or you are a monster."
No, you just fail at reading. I said that the fact that they didn't do anything is not an indicator of rape cultured, because when people are bombed out of their skulls on beer they're not very cultured.
"In this case, you might have made yourself an easier target, but you are not culpable. There is a difference. You should have the right to leave a car unattended and unlocked even if it's not the most security-conscious thing to do. That doesn't mean you if you are victimized you had it coming."
I think that's silly. How much effort is it to lock your damn car doors or not jump into bed with a drunk dude? That's what we're talking about. Nothing about provocative clothing – though I think a woman's a fool if she strolls in a dangerous area at night wearing provocative clothing. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat the criminals harshly, we should. I'm a proponent of draconian law.
"But your example still fails because this girl was not conscious and she was molested. All of this makes you sound kinda sorta like a rape apologist "
Again, you fail at reading at what I said. I was responding to the polls that Mr. Goodman cited, not this case in particular.
Except that's not what I said.
But it's apples and oranges. The question isn't whether the girl was too drunk to be morally culpable for anything, but whether she was capable of consent. And from eyewitness accounts, she was basically unconscious — unable to consent to anything. The boys, on the other hand — drunk or not — were sober enough to do a lot of hooting and hollering and molest her, and apparently savor the memory of it afterward.
My recent post Table of Contents
Unfortunately, we would probably also be reading a far less publicized story of him being sent to prison for homicide, especially given that the town rallied around the perpetrators in this case due to their football prestige.
Sadly, the state has incarcerated many women for using guns to defend themselves from abuse. One organization that documents this very well is the Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project. http://www.umich.edu/~clemency/
The alleged victim says she doesn't remember anything after a certain point, and the cameras weren't rolling the whole time (or at least not all the material has come to public view if so), so we have no way of knowing whether she formally consented or not, and neither does she (assuming she's being truthful, and I have no reason to assume otherwise).
"in general sexual negotiation is non-verbal and relies on other cues" But is it neccessarily so, or due to a more general shame, fear, and or ignorance of sexual congress?
We could argue that Americans are shy about sex more than other cultures, and possibly less direct about demanding it, but this is not proof of a mythical "rape culture". It seems to suggest Americans have an infantile view of sex in general, which few people would dispute. However, I'm not sure people would take kindly to the idea that "they're doing sex wrong" by only doing it sober, with verbal consent/written contract, etc. A lot of people are turned on by sexual aggression in their partner, whether they be male or female.