The Reality of Rape
This week, everybody has been arguing about rape, and what it means. Following the Assange case, standing in the crowd to hear him deliver his Evita speech from the balcony of the Ecuadorean embassy, debating with men and women online, I've heard a great many people from all parts of the political spectrum tell me that the women who accused the WikiLeaks founder of sexual assault were lying, or they were duped, or they were "honey traps", or, most worryingly and increasingly often, that their definition of rape is inaccurate.
The people saying this are not all prize imbeciles like George Galloway or frothing wingnuts like the Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin. Some of them are just everyday internet idiots who happen to believe that if a man you have previously consented to sex with holds you down and fucks you, that isn't rape. If you were wearing a short skirt and flirting, that isn't rape. If a man penetrates you without a condom while you're asleep, against your will, that isn't rape, not, in Akin's words, "legitimate rape".
Old, white, powerful men know what rape is, much better, it seems, than rape victims. They are lining up to inform us that women – the discussion has centred around women and their lies even though 9 per cent of rape victims are men – do not need "to be asked prior to each insertion". Thanks for that, George, not that it's just you.
There's an army of commentators who also believe "that's not real rape" is both a valid defence of a specific political asylum-seeker and objective truth. Women lie, they say. Women lie about rape, about sexual assault, they do it because they're stupid or wicked or attention-seeking or deluded. The observation that the rate of fraud in rape cases remains as low as the rate of fraud in any other criminal allegation – between 2 and 4 per cent – has no impact. Women lie, and they do it to ruin men in positions of power.
As a culture, we still refuse collectively to accept that most rapes are committed by ordinary men, men who have friends and families, men who may even have done great or admirable things with their lives. We refuse to accept that nice guys rape, and they do it often. Part of the reason we haven't accepted it is that it's a painful thing to contemplate – far easier to keep on believing that only evil men rape, only violent, psychotic men lurking in alleyways with pantomime-villain moustaches and knives, than to consider that rape might be something that ordinary men do. Men who might be our friends or colleagues or people we look up to. We don't want that to be the case. Hell, I don't want that to be the case. So, we all pretend it isn't. Justice, see?
Actually, rape is very common. Ninety thousand people reported rape in the United States in 2008 alone, and it is estimated that over half of rape victims never go to the police, making the true figure close to 200,000. Between 10 and 20 per cent of women have experienced rape or sexual assault. It's so common that – sorry if this hurts to hear – there's a good chance you know somebody who might have raped someone else. And there's more than a small chance he doesn't even think he did anything wrong, that he believes that what he did wasn't rape, couldn't be rape, because, after all, he's not a bad guy.
The man who raped me wasn't a bad guy. He was in his early 30s, a well-liked and well-respected member of a social circle of which I am no longer a part, a fun-loving, chap who was friends with a number of strong women I admired. I was 19. I admired him too.
One night, I went with friends to a big party in a hotel. Afterwards, a few of the older guests, including this man, invited me up to the room they had rented. I knew that some drinking and kissing and groping might happen. I started to feel ill, and asked if it would be alright if I went to sleep in the room – and I felt safe, because other people were still there. I wasn't planning to have sex with this man or with anyone else that night, but if I had been, that wouldn't have made it OK for him to push his penis inside me without a condom or my consent.
The next thing I remember is waking up to find myself being penetrated, and realising that my body wasn't doing what I told it to. Either I was being held down or – more likely – I was too sick to move. I've never been great at drinking, which is why I don't really do it any more, but this feeling was more profound, and to this day I don't know if somebody put something in my drink.
I was horrified at the way his face looked, fucking me, contorted and sweating. My head spun. I couldn't move. I was frightened, but he was already inside me, and I decided it was simplest to turn my face away and let him finish. When he did, I crawled to the corner of the enormous bed and lay there until the sun came up.
In the morning I got up, feeling sick and hurting inside, and took a long shower in the hotel's fancy bathroom. The man who had fucked me without my consent was awake when I came out. He tried to push me down on the bed for oral, but I stood up quickly and put on my dress and shoes. I asked him if he had used a condom. He told me that he "wasn't into latex", and asked if I was on the Pill.
I don't remember thinking "I have just been raped". After all, this guy wasn't behaving in the manner I had learnt to associate with rapists. Rapists are evil people. They're not nice blokes whom everybody respects who simply happen to think it's OK to stick your dick in a teenager who's sleeping in the same bed as you, without a condom. This guy seemed, if anything, confused as to why I was scrabbling for my things and bolting out the door. He even sent me an email a few days later, chiding me for being rude.
When I walked home, it didn't occur to me that I had been raped. The next day, when I told a mutual friend what had happened, the girl who had introduced me to the man in question, I didn't use that word. By that time, I was in some pain between my legs, a different sort of pain, and I was terrified that I had Aids. I had to wait two weeks for test results which showed that the man who raped me had given me a curable infection. I told my friend that I felt dirty and ashamed of myself. She said she was sorry I felt that way. Everybody else in that circle seemed to agree that by going to that hotel room and taking off my dress I had asked for whatever happened next, and so I dropped the issue. Did I go to the police? Did I hell. I thought it was my fault.
My experience was common enough, and it was also years ago. Looking back, being raped wasn't the worst thing that ever happened to me, although the experience of speaking out and not being believed, the experience of feeling so ashamed and alone, stayed with me for a long time, and changed how I relate to other humans. But I got over it. I rarely think about it. For some people, though, experiencing rape is a life-changing trauma.
Yes, even when it's not "legitimate" rape. Being raped by a man who you liked, trusted, even loved – 30 per cent of rape victims are attacked by a boyfriend or husband – is an entirely different experience from being raped by a stranger in an alley, but that doesn't mean it's any less damaging. Particularly not if others imply you are a lying bitch. Sorry if that hurts to hear.
You know what also hurts to hear? People telling you that your experience didn't happen, that you asked for it. That you hate men. That you're against freedom of speech. That's what hundreds of thousands of women all over the world are hearing when they hear respected commentators – not just Galloway or Akin – saying that the allegations made against Julian Assange "aren't really rape".
The idea that fucking a woman in her sleep, without a condom, or holding a woman down and shoving your cock inside her after a previous instance of consensual sex, is just "bad bedroom etiquette" – thanks again, George – the idea that good guys don't rape, that idea has two effects. One: it fosters the fantasy that there's only one kind of rape, and it happens in the proverbial alley with the perennial knife and certainly not to anyone you know. That's what is most disturbing about the discussion going on right now. There are many young men, most of them extremely well-meaning, trying to figure out a way to negotiate boundaries without hurting themselves or others, and those men are being told that sometimes women say things are rape when they aren't really. Two: it makes any man or woman who has ever been raped by a nice guy suspect, yet again, that it's all their fault. It makes rape victims less likely to come forward and report. I didn't report my rape. It took me months even to understand it as rape. I stopped talking about it, because I was sick of being called a liar, and I got the shut-up message fairly fast. I tried to stop thinking about it.
But this week brought it all up again. I'm definitely not the only one who has been revisiting those scenes in my head, playing them over like CCTV footage. I'm probably not the only one, either, who went quietly back to a few friends from the old days to talk about what happened. And what one of those former friends told me was: I wish I'd taken you more seriously, because I think it happened to somebody else.
This isn't about Julian Assange any more. It's becoming an excuse to wrench the definition of rape back to a time when consent was unimportant, just when some of us had begun to speak up, and it's happening right now, and what's worse, what's so, so much worse, is that it's happening in the name of truth and justice, in the name of freedom of speech.
If those principles are to mean anything, this vitriol, this rape-redefining in the name of conscience and whistleblowing and WikiLeaks and Julian Assange – it has to stop. Non-consensual sex is rape, real rape, and good guys do it too, all the time. Sorry if that hurts to hear, but you've heard it now, and there are things that hurt much more, and for longer, and for lifetimes. Those things need to stop.
A longer version of this piece appears at www.penny-red.com



Thank you, Laurie
By Lee, Terri at Aug 28, 2012 14:52 PM
I don't know about Assange's guilt or innocence on the matter -- none of us do -- but I do agree with you completely on this: "Non-consensual sex is rape, real rape, and good guys do it too, all the time. Sorry if that hurts to hear, but you've heard it now, and there are things that hurt much more, and for longer, and for lifetimes. Those things need to stop."
Thank you for this important, informative and enlightening essay.
Reply this comment
Assange
By Brussel, Morton k. at Aug 27, 2012 04:04 AM
It is an unfortunate reference about someone who has done immeauarable good as a whistleblower and is being persecuted for embarassing the empire.
As for the rest, she has a case, albeit crudely presented.
Reply this comment
Re: Assange
By Annabel, Patrick at Aug 27, 2012 07:08 AM
10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-swedenYes, Assange should answer to these charges, especially the one about coercion.
Penny Red makes her point about non-consensual sex. She also makes her point about coercion and realizing what coercion is after the fact...
Being such a highly politicized case it's sad that Assange cannot answer to the charges without the possibility of losing hiscivil liberties.
Michael Moore and Oliver Stone wrote a piece for the NYT:
"...Most Americans, Britons and Swedes are unaware that Sweden has not formally charged Mr. Assange with any crime. Rather, it has issued a warrant for his arrest to question him about allegations of sexual assault in 2010.
All such allegations must be thoroughly investigated before Mr. Assange moves to a country that might put him beyond the reach of the Swedish justice system. But it is the British and Swedish governments that stand in the way of an investigation, not Mr. Assange.
Swedish authorities have traveled to other countries to conduct interrogations when needed, and the WikiLeaks founder has made clear his willingness to be questioned in London. Moreover, the Ecuadorean government made a direct offer to Sweden to allow Mr. Assange to be interviewed within Ecuador’s embassy. In both instances, Sweden refused..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/wikileaks-and-the-global-future-of-free-speech.html?_r=1
Glenn Greenwald did a very interesting piece titled; "
The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange
It is possible to protect the rights of the complainants in Sweden and Assange's rights against political persecution, but a vindictive thirst for vengeance is preventing that..."
"...Time and again, "Correa said Ecuador never intended to stop Assange from facing justice in Sweden. 'What we've asked for is guarantees that he won't be extradited to a third country,' he said." Both Britain and Sweden have steadfastly refused even to discuss any agreement that could safeguard both the rights of the complainants and Assange's rights not to be imprisoned for basic journalism.
These facts – and they are facts – pose a lethal threat to the key false narrative that Assange and his defenders are motivated by a desire to evade his facing the sex assault allegations in Sweden. So these facts need to be impugned..."http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt
I liked Penny's Opinion piece dated August 22nd that seemed better focused in my opinion and ended by saying; "...
It all comes down to justice and accountability. Those are not things that world governments can currently be trusted to deliver at an international level, not for women, and not for the victims of war. Julian Assange should be held to account, and the system to do so fairly while protecting the work of Wikileaks does not exist, and anyone who believes in freedom needs to fight for both.
It is not only possible to defend both women’s rights and freedom of speech. It is morally inconsistent to defend one without the other. Cultures of secrecy, covert violence and unaccountability need to be exposed. That’s what Wikileaks is supposed to be about, and it’s also what feminism is about, and right now, governments are terrified of both. That, if nothing else, should tell us where the lines of power are really drawn."http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/laurie-penny-if-you-really-believe-in-wikileaks-you-must-want-assange-to-face-up-to-justice-8069906.html
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Assange
By Emersberger, Joe at Aug 27, 2012 17:31 PM
Annabel
The "facts" you link to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
are presented by the Guardian whose intense hatred for Assange is impossible to miss: Only recently, has there been anay significant content in the Guardian pusing back against the relentless demonization of Assange.
Judging by this account in a newspaper relentlesly hostile to Assange, it is clear that the evidence against him is extremely weak. And there are no "charges" against Assange as you erroniously wrote, only allegations. No Swedish court has ruled that the evidence is sufficient to warrant that charges be pressed and a trial be held.
In the op-ed by L Penny that you said was superior to this one she wrote
"I believe women when they say that their sexual consent is infringed, violently and coercively, by men they trust and admire, as well as by strangers."
She's entitled to believe what she wants, but if you believe the state should dispense with the presumption of innocence whenever a woman makes an allegation, then you've handed the state a powerful tool to use against anyone it doesn't like (very much including womem if you give it a bit of thought). Don't like a female dissident? No problem, just railroad her husband/brother/ son/father into prison on bogus sex crime allegations.
Is that is what L Penny means by a system where "women are respected"? I hope not, but by also claiming to say she wants Assange "held to account" (i.e. presumed guilty) it certainly seems that way.
Of course she is prefectly entitled to presume anyone guilty if she wants to(the state is another matter entirely), but I'm entitled to point out that it is ridiculous to assume that any women who makes a rape allegation has a strong case and is telling the truth.
Corporate pundits like Laurie Penny who insist that the case be taken seriously, should be all over the Swedish authorities for refusing to question Assange in the UK. They should be aggressively denouncing Sweden for refusing to provide assurace to Assange that he will not be extradited to the USA. .
Swedens's refusal exposes a total lack of interest in the facts of the case. How can it make sense to give a suspect years to think about how he woud answer the police if they are really interested in conducting a credible investigation - especially in a case where testimony is basically all there is for evidence? Sweden's behavior suggest the facts are of no interest becasue the fix is in for conviction or the fix is in extradition to the USA or both.
Here is a piece by Women Against Rape
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange
We are Women Against Rape but we do not want Julian Assange extradited
For decades we have campaigned to get rapists caught, charged and convicted. But the pursuit of Assange is political.
Reply this comment
the pursuit of Assange is political.
By Lee, Terri at Aug 28, 2012 23:21 PM
'the pursuit of Assange is political' can only be verified if and when he goes through the legal proceedings and is found innocent -- until that time occurs, we cannot know with certain that the pursuit was purely political.
None of us were there and none know what the woman experienced.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Assange
By Lee, Terri at Aug 29, 2012 00:44 AM
Hi Joe -- you write: she wants Assange "held to account" (i.e. presumed guilty) it certainly seems that way.
She is not saying I hope Assange is 'found guilty'. She is saying he should be 'accountable' -- meaning to go through the judicial process.
You are on a very slippery slope whe you say "it certainly seems that way" -- you are reading more into it.
Shouldn't Assange have to go through the legal proceedings? Of course he should. Why woudn't he or any man accused of rape be exempt?
It seems you are reading things into Penny's passage that are not there. She is NOT accusing him.
She isYou
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Assange
By Lee, Terri at Aug 29, 2012 00:53 AM
Joe -- The piece by Women Against Rape is NOT suggesting that Assange is innocent JUST BECAUSE it has turned 'political'. Women Against Rape are not declaring Assange innocent, they are saying the system is corrupt and neither Assange nor the women are being treated justly -- it's all been politicized.
From the article:
Assange has made it clear for months that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step to their investigation? What are they afraid of?
Swedish and British courts are responsible for how the women's allegations have been handled. As with every rape case, the women are not in charge of the case, the state is.
Whether or not Assange is guilty of sexual violence, we do not believe that is why he is being pursued. Once again women's fury and frustration at the prevalence of rape and other violence, is being used by politicians to advance their own purposes
________________
Women Against Rape (like Penny's article) are targeting the system and systemic injustice they are making no claims that the woman' claims are erroneous nor are they making claims about Assange's guilt or innocence.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Assange
By Emersberger, Joe at Aug 29, 2012 11:39 AM
You wrote
“The piece by Women Against Rape is NOT suggesting that Assange is innocent JUST BECAUSE it has turned 'political'. Women Against Rape are not declaring Assange innocent, they are saying the system is corrupt and neither Assange nor the women are being treated justly -- it's all been politicized.”
I agree. That’s basically what Women Against Rape said and I agree with what they said. Sweden, the UK and USA have all revealed that they are unwilling to treating Assange fairly and that is why people (rightly) applauded Rafael Correa for granting Assange asylum – and publicly urged him to do so before that decision was made.
Nobody can know for certain if Assange is guilty or innocent of sex offences. That shouldn’t prevent anyone from acknowledging that the case against him is very weak. Of course, there can be true allegations for which evidence is weak - just as there can be false allegations for which evidence is strong. Below this I’ve posted a key excerpts about the allegations based on police reports that were leaked to the Guardian, a newspaper whose editors and reporters despise Assange. It is very hard to see how these allegations could ever be proven in court unless the presumption of innocence is thrown out the window.
I’ll stress again, the evidence against Assange (whatever you make of it) has no bearing on the overwhelming evidence that Sweden, the UK and the USA cannot be trusted to treat him fairly. Both Assange (and Ecuador) have made a very huge concession by agreeing to return to Sweden to answer these allegations provided assurances are given that he will not be extradited to the USA. By now Assange would be fully justified in refusing to take any chance on Sweden’s judiciary treating him fairly.
As for L. Penny, she did declare Assange guilty in her Aug 22 piece.
http://www.independent.co.uk/hei-fi/views/laurie-penny-the-problem-of-assange-8072676.html?origin=internalSearch
The only way she could have done more clearly was to write “I think Assange is guilty”.
In case you didn’t see what I wrote below about her Aug 22 piece:
LP:"I believe women when they say that their sexual consent is infringed, violently and by coercion, by men they trust and admire, as well as by strangers. I believe that rape and sexual violence are wilfully ignored and misunderstood by governments, except when they happen to be accusing radical transparency campaigners of assault."
"I believe that it is possible to believe women and to support WikiLeaks at the same time without moral hypocrisy,"
LP believes women who make rape allegations. These women have made rape allegations against Assange. Therefore she must believe the women who made the rape allegations against Asange.
LP: "Nobody should be forced to choose between defending investigative journalism and freedom of speech, and fighting for justice in the global war on women's bodies. So please don't ask if one alleged sex attacker out of hundreds of millions currently walking free and unpursued across three continents should be made to answer for his actions in a court of law when all that distinguishes him from the rest of the army of decent men doing despicable things to women without facing the consequences is the fact that he happens to have personally embarrassed several governments. Please don't ask, because the answer hurts."
Note how the word "alleged" in beginning of the second sentence get subtly dropped by the end of the sentence. Assange is an "alleged" sex attacker but at the same time the "only" thing that distinguishes him from the guilty ones ("decent men doing despicable things to women") is that he has embarrassed powerful governments. Well if that is the "only" that distinguishes him from the guilty, then Assange is obviously guilty in LP’s opinion.
KEY EXCERPTS FROM GUARDIAN ABOUT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ASSANGE
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
“…police material held in Stockholm to which the Guardian received unauthorised access….”
“Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.
According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing…..”
“Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when ‘he agreed unwillingly to use a condom’.
Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. ‘According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' ‘ but ‘she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before.’”
Reply this comment
Re: Assange
By Lee, Terri at Aug 28, 2012 17:55 PM
I did not take her writing to mean that she is assuming anything -- she is sharing her story to illustrate, I think, that even 'nice' (cordial, polite, socially skilled) men rape. She is also indicating that it could even be a 'man that you know'. It seems that the sharing of her own story suggests that it's possible that Assange has raped -- perhaps with conditions similar to her own (a person with whom she was familiar and in a social setting).
Again, I don't see one thing accusatory in this well written essay.
-Terri
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Assange
By Emersberger, Joe at Aug 28, 2012 19:27 PM
Do you seen anything accusatory or problematic about this one by L Penny?
http://www.independent.co.uk/hei-fi/views/laurie-penny-the-problem-of-assange-8072676.html?origin=internalSearch
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Assange
By Lee, Terri at Aug 28, 2012 22:59 PM
No, I don't see anything either accusatory nor problematic in that one by Penny -- she makes a good argument and raises goo points.
Terri
And
' Do "
"
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Assange
By Emersberger, Joe at Aug 28, 2012 23:41 PM
Reply this comment