"Date Rape" - a Working Title.

My friends know that I have a dark sense of humour; I am constantly repressing a stream of nonsense which could very seriously offend the uninitiated. For instance, when I hear the term "date rape", my brain - my pitch black brain - chimes in with: "Well, at least she got a free dinner!"

I'm sorry if that offends you. What offends me is the term "date rape", and the associations we unthinkingly hold, which inform our thoughts, words, and actions.

Putting "date rape" (used interchangeably with the, in my mind, equally redundant "acquaintance rape") aside for a moment, what then is this other rape, this... real rape? I have asked people for their thoughts: they talk about hooded men in the dark, jumping out of bushes, or in alleyways, armed and violent; they talk about a struggle. Sometimes called "stranger rape", this is seen as indubitably a crime, committed against an innocent victim who could not have prevented it. Victims of "stranger rape" are expected to go to the police, their stories are largely believed, and they receive society's sympathy.

This is not the case for victims of "date rape".

Judging by some of 2014's news, to many people, "date rape" is not real rape, not real rapists, not real victims. Society's message to the "date raped" is: "Why did you let that happen?!"

Possibly the most poisonous, victim-blaming trope here is that of The Drunk Slag Who Takes Her Knickers Off, Jumps Into Bed, And Then Screams Rape. In November, this was executed exquisitely by Nick Conrad, BBC Radio Norfolk's real life Alan Partridge, who actually suggested that, to avoid rape, women should "keep your knickers on and not get into bed" - OH, IF ONLY WE'D KNOWN IT WAS SO SIMPLE! This convenient piece of fiction allows society at large to not engage with the concept of "date rape", lays the fault with the victim, and excuses the rapists as Normal, Red-Blooded Males.

An article by Kevin Shoesmith, for local paper the Hull Daily Mail in July (tellingly, this story did not make the national news), gave a horrifying example of the judiciary's failure to properly recognise the realities of rape. Lee Setford, who raped an unconscious woman, was told by Judge Michael Mettyear: "I do not regard you as a classic rapist. I do not think you are a general danger to strangers. You are not the type who goes searching for a woman to rape... This was a case where you just lost control of normal restraint." Despite being legislatively bound to sentence Setford to five years in prison, Mettyear made his sympathies very clear: "She was a pretty girl who you fancied. You simply could not resist. You had sex* with her." Judge Michael Mettyear, it seems, believes in the Bogeyman Rapist, lurking in alleys.

An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales collates government statistics on rape, and other crimes of sexual violence: 

"Around 90 per cent of victims... knew the perpetrator"

 - in other words, 90% of rape is "date rape".

So, why do we persist in using this false dichotomy?

Calling these rapes "date rape" suggests that this is something that happens at the end of a date, whereas, in reality, the term is used to describe any rape in which the perpetrator is known to the victim. According to this classification, then, I was "date raped", as was the courageous 18 year old reader who shared their story with this blog. Both of us were raped. By rapists. Neither of us could have stopped it. It was not our fault. I see no further classification as being required.

To me, this language of "date rape" is tied up with the idea of** male/female relationships as being inherently transactional: the man's material possessions traded for the woman's body, with neither party wanting to yield. If, then, we couch rape in "date" terminology, surely it is only fair? The Man sat through a tedious evening of spending money and listening to Her talk, now it is time for The Woman to let Him get on with the real business of the evening. And how dare She object? Doesn't She realise that's all He turned up for?

I don't think many people today would actively argue the case for male entitlement over the female body, but it is precisely that argument we are supporting if we do not take "date rape" seriously.

July was a busy month for rape apologists, as Richard Dawkins tried to play a logic game with Twitter, using rape as the ball: "Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think."***

Now, I understand the game. I understand that Dawkins considers himself to be the most objective and logical of all humans, and perhaps feels that he is doing a service to Twitter's hard-of-thinking hordes. I just disagree with him.

Dawkins seems almost to have a mental continuum in mind, with rape which leaves one dead at one end, and rape which is merely a slight inconvenience (as you were hoping to get to the bank before it shut) at the other. 

"Date rape" - that is, being raped by a person one knows - can be every bit as terrifying and painful as when the perpetrator is unknown. In fact, approximately 45% of women raped by a current or former partner suffer additional injuries, whereas for women raped by a stranger the figure is 24% (Maria Eriksson, Defining Rape, 2011). However, I find the fixation on injuries bizarre, personally: to me, rape itself - physically breaching the boundary of a person's body - is the most violent act there is.

If the perpetrator is a friend, colleague, partner, or relative, there are additional layers of confusion and betrayal. Why are they doing this? Have they been planning this all along? Did I do something to cause this?

A stranger with a knife (although, known rapists use weapons to ensure compliance, too) will run away after they have raped you. You will not have to work with them, live with them, see them socially, leave your children in their care. For a victim of "date rape", the person who raped them is likely to remain in their lives, unless the rapist is successfully prosecuted. I personally know many strong, intelligent women who were raped by somebody they knew; none of them has sought prosecution.

Without Consent, an HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate report on rape, states that an estimated 75-95% of rapes are never reported to the police: "Studies show that the decision not to report is often based on a combination of factors and that many of these are connected to the notion of ‘real rape’ – that is, committed by a stranger, in a public place or in the context of a break-in, and involving force and injury." Not talking about one's experience of sexual violence means depriving oneself of the opportunity to recover, potentially living with a lifetime of mental and physical health repercussions. This is so often the fate of the "date rape" victim.

Rape is rape. Every person's experience will be different, and will be difficult in different ways. For Richard Dawkins to proclaim one kind of rape as "worse" than another is not only a gross oversimplification, it is devoid of logic. In the words of the wonderful Ash Beckham: "There is no harder, there is just hard."

...

So, how about for 2015 (along with getting enough sleep and remembering which is bin day), we all resolve to stop talking about "date rape", and instead start talking about rape. Let's talk openly and frankly with those we trust, and challenge the rape apologists when they wheel out the Knickerless Slag nonsense. Let's let those we love share their stories if they wish, and listen without judgement. And let's remember: these are not our secrets.

...

* I've taught my son (now 13) that rape is to sex as a punch in the face is to a handshake. If only Mother Mettyear had done the same.

** Hetronormativity ahoy! The statistics show that the overwhelming majority of rapes are committed by men against women, hence the wording here. This is not meant to erase anyone's experiences.

*** He then went on to talk about "mild paedophilia", which is off topic, and frankly more than I have the energy to unpack at present. Perhaps another day!

Terminology

I love words. I have a two volume dictionary in my living room, along with various key texts of linguistic pedantry. But, I don't love all words. Some words I positively despise: fresh, portion, and prepare all make my skin crawl, for no obvious reason. Perhaps it goes back to a particularly stern home economics teacher...

Of course there are other words that I dislike, and for rather more valid reasons. Unfortunately, in beginning this blog, I have run smack into terminology that I usually avoid using. In a conversation about sexual violence, I am able to skate (wafflingly) around these words, or say them with "air quotes" and eye-rolling, to distance myself from them. Not so online.

So, I want to discuss some of the terminology I'm using (and not using) in this blog. I'll alphabetise the list, and add to it when more come to mind.

Child abuse: This term is appropriate when talking, in general terms, about maltreatment of children. It is inappropriate when it is used as a euphemism for the rape of a child. In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "'Child abuse' is really a silly and pathetic euphemism for what has been going on: we are talking about the systematic rape and torture of children" (God is Not Great, 2007).

Date rape: To me, this term trivialises an act of violence. Rape is rape. An estimated 90% of rapes and sexual assaults are committed by a perpetrator known to the victim. So, it could be said that most rape is "date rape". I could write an entire post on this, and I fully intend to! I'll put a link to it here, as soon as there is one... Edit: Tada! Here it is!

"My" rapist/abuser/etc: I personally prefer not to talk about the people who committed crimes against me in a way that implies relationship. I would not refer to "my burglar", and so I talk about "the woman who abused me", not "my abuser". Clunky, yes. But it feels better to me.

Survivor: When used by individuals who have experienced sexual violence, I completely respect their right to describe themselves in this way. However, to me it seems glib when used by others as a blanket term. For the decade after I was raped, survival was a pretty precarious business. Telling, for instance, an individual suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, "You are a survivor! You have survived!" strikes me as rather missing the point.

Victim: I hate using this word; I have enormous issues with it. The mindset of "victimhood" has been written about by many people, with the emphasis on ceasing to see oneself as a victim, and reclaiming control over one's life. The reality of crimes of sexual violence, however, is that the perpetrator took control. While it is important to feel in control of life, day to day, I think that recognising that temporary, non-consensual loss of control is an important part of coming to terms with one's experience of sexual violence. So, I would not say, "I am a victim of sexual violence" but, when talking about the crimes that were committed against me, I might say, "I was a victim of sexual violence". 

However, far more important than the words we use when talking about sexual violence is whether we talk about it at all. Because talking about sexual violence, and drowning out the silence, is of vital importance. Because these are not our secrets.

And! A word on gender.

I am a cis woman. I absolutely understand that crimes of sexual violence are committed against people of all genders. According to current statistics, rape is predominantly a crime committed by men, against women: a 2012 datasheet from the USA's Center for Disease Control estimates that 18.3% of women and 1.4% men have experienced rape. This is not to say that all men are rapists, or that all rapists are men. I was sexually abused by a woman, sexually assaulted by a man, and raped by a teenage boy. 

If I talk about sexual violence in a way that seems exclusionary, please forgive me. My perspective comes from my experiences, but I am very open to discussion on the topic.

What do you think of these words? Are there words that you avoid when talking about sexual violence? Please comment below (anonymously, if you'd like) - I'd love to know.