So occasionally one gets into arguments in which "She asked for it" is the primary position of the opposition, usually said in reference to things like tube tops and miniskirts. Because apparently the idea that an item of clothing might spontaneously start speaking and making request which just happens to satisfy the desires of some guys doesn't strike anybody else as rather odd, does it? Especially when the woman herself might logically object to being outshouted by her clothing, if anybody would listen to her?
And yet when women likewise 'ask for' rights, opportunities, raises, parity, and so on, sudden deafness afflicts the same sort of men who are very attuned to starting a dialogue with one's clothing.
This type of thinking is more popular amongst certain political persuasions than others, depending, of course, on what they think of women. Sadly, while conservative men are more likely to possess this view, it crosses all social classes and politicial affiliations, indicating that it is an attractive option for all sorts of men.
And they do not wish to talk about it and what other beliefs support this seemingly-simple belief. Ever. At all.
And in case you didn't note my disclaimer I'm going to say it again: this is my analysis of what those beliefs are, of how rapists and the people who make excuses for them think. No victim blaming will be permitted, and if you blame anybody but the rapist, you're at the very least making excuses, at worst blaming the victim. I'm discussing one specific myth, one phrase, but this can be applied to a lot of the myths about rape. I can provide a bibliography if people are interested. It won't be pleasant reading.
The funny thing is, as a feminist, it seems I have a far higher opinion of men than do many men.
That 'some' guys up there? That's all the qualification you get, given the fact that from now on I am analyzing the viewpoint behind those who make this argument (in the mistaken notion that it gets men off the hook for their actions). The thinking described in this post is not therefore my own; it is me attempting to parse out the beliefs that are necessary to support a worldview that would find an offense in what many other men would find attractive, and which any sensible person finds unoffensive.
The 'she asked for it' myth always starts with a mini skirt. And a tube top. Or maybe a halter top. Or a tank top. Whatever. The exact length of the skirt is never specified. Knee length? Butt length? Above the knee? What about shorts? What about the fact that women in long skirts get raped? What about the fact that most rapes are commited by men known to the victim? How about the fact that babies, old women, nuns, and coma patients have been raped? No, let's ignore those facts. When one has demolished this argument easily enough, other factors are introduced as the goal posts get dug up, and cement gets poured for their new location. The most obvious thing about rape is not the clothing of the victim, but the presence of a rapist.
She asked for it goes something like this: a woman wearing skimpy clothes wants attention, though she denies it. And therefore, she is asking for whatever she gets, any and all attention, and cannot blame anyone but herself for anything that happens to her. (The habit of using passive voice to describe sexual assault is extremely interesting, isn't it?) This indicates that wherever she is, her outfit arouses great hostility amongst so many men that apparently they are not able to be controlled----or maybe nobody tries. Maybe this feeling is shared by authorities. The naturalness and completeness of this response to her outfit is never questioned. When one examines the notion that this will be the inevitable response to her outfit, one is given the impression that she is at risk from huge crowds of men, and that there is no hope of appeal or escape, that she can be safe anywhere, because her dress arouses great hostility in men. Oh, another thing: the apologists will say that it's not hostility, it's lust, but rape is not an act of passion.
She is in danger, end of subject, that's it. And it's all her fault. It is not the fault of the men who attack her in some fashion, you notice. She is accused of 'waving a red flag before a bull, meat before a starving dog....etc., etc., The red flag is a myth; the bull responds to any movement. And the steak and starving dog comparison indicates an involuntary response to a need that has been denied---and compares a human being to a piece of meat. Do these guys realize that they're labeling themselves as people who don't ever get laid with that analogy? (Let a woman use this on them, however, and they're offended.) If it's an involuntary response, a reflex, then why aren't these guys fitted with shock collars or something? And if it's the clothing that's responsible.....what happens when they go by shop windows?
Anybody who tries the 'involuntary starving dog, etc., etc.,etc.,' is really almost beyond help and is too misogynistic to bother with. However, one has to call these things out in the hope of influencing others around who may be salvageable. As noted, these things reveal either what they think of themselves, or that they have never even thought about the meaning of what they're saying. That they think of excuse after excuse indicates some ability at reasoning----but only in some directions. They refuse to entertain any thought that would question their beliefs.
Note that nowhere does this entire scenario of irresistible clothing take into account the weather, the fact that maybe she's just feeling good, that she might not give a damn what any male in the vicinity might think, or that she's gay. Wearing skimpy clothing, shockingly enough, might not have anything to do whatsoever with men. This is an idea that really infuriates some people. Any women (and many men) who were harassed in school can speak to how the desire to just be left alone was regarded with great hostility and sadism by the school's bullies, who----to the last woman I have ever talked to, and quite a lot of men as well-----were utterly ignored by teachers until the victim attempted to fight back. This is also the common lot of woman anywhere in the world, who find that even when they're covered from toe to head they still cannot escape the harassment of men who find something in their dress just as offensive as does the beleagured American man, afflicted by a provocative woman wandering around scantily dressed. What is the common factor here? Men who want to be offended by a woman, who are hostile to her, and a woman who by just about any fair standard is doing nothing wrong. The claims of uncontrollable responses, instincts, what have you, are used to make excuses for claiming that sexual assault is natural in nature, and therefore the woman is at fault for not taking precautions to avoid this totallynatural and normal response on the part of the male. In fact, by not doing so, she is stupidly, perhaps arrogantly, exposing the man to arrest and trial, even though she was the one doing something wrong and he was just acting naturally.
Oh, can you hear that? There's the cement truck coming to move the goal posts. Originally, the excuse was the woman asking for it by being scantily dressed. Once one presses for details, the defenders of this myth start to sweat. "But that's just the way things are!" This is where a guy or more unusually a woman argues that the male response to this miniskirt-clad offender is inevitable. This implies a few things; that the risk of men attacking is so great that a woman dressed like this cannot avoid it; that it's just accepted---insert vague, lame, limp, 'but of course I'm not saying this is okay excuse right about here, after which they blame the victim----and finally they imply that the woman is either incredibly stupid or enjoys this brouhaha, but lies about it so as to be able to claim victimhood.
Consent to one thing---say, harmless glances---- is not a blanket release to any guy in the vicinity to physically attack her. Consent to various things is assumed based on highly subjective opinions about clothing and what it indicates about women and from there all sorts of far more serious things are justified based on her initial mistake----acting like she could walk around, willy nilly, in a skimpy outfit. Moreover, this theory assumes that the woman does this deliberately, knowingly, and really, maliciously, so as to taunt and tease men and then take off without giving them the orgasm that her actions have caused. This assumes that women either don't like sex or are whores who want to have sex with lots of men----while maintaining the reputation of a virtuous woman. I'll get to that a bit later.
There is hostility in this theory. There is bated breath, as if the defender of such thinking has been waiting for a reason to attack such a woman. It's all her fault, goes the argument. Or it's partially her fault. Many limp, lame, half hearted, pallid, skimpy qualifications are made that no rape victim deserves it or causes it.....but.....there is always a but, and it contradicts the never-convincing qualifications. In fact, it completely negates the qualifications to the point where the speaker then goes on to speak, usually, not of the attacker at all, but entirely about the victim and what she did wrong. Oh, the rapist? Oh, of course, rape is bad. But not bad enough to do anything about, it seems. And not bad enough to whole heartedly blame the rapist for it---and only the rapist.
No woman dressed in such a way can expect safety, is the thinking that underlies this theory. Why? Let's look at the word 'provocative', which gets used a lot. While the defenders of this type of thinking sometimes move on from mere skirts to then blaming rape on some kind of sexual teasing and arousal---for which the man is not responsible in the slightest----one cannot truly understand the mindset unless one understands that there's a huge measure of pure hostility and offense in responses to skimpily dressed women. Not lust. Hostility. Hatred. LOoking an attractive member of whatever gender you like should be pleasant. As described in Tim Beneke's "Men on Rape", a woman's attractiveness is just about an assault on the rapist, and a reminder that he can't have everything he wants in life. "When I see a really pretty girl, wow, she just hits me with it, I can't think of anything else!" In that book---sadly not yet on Kindle----men repeatedly describe a woman's appearance an assault upon mens' senses that women do deliberately, that women do to arouse men, that women do because they enjoy taunting men.
When one points out rightly, that this provocation theory only works if one assumes that a woman can go nowhere without encountering rapists, one is declared hostile to men, despite the fact that many of the defenders of this line of thought are in fact men, and that they are painting a picture of a world where rapists are everywhere. Thus, drawing a line between men and rapists is difficult, if they're going to insist that so much danger lurks at every corner for women from men who have no control over their erections. Nothing will get one accused of hating men faster than pointing out that they're the ones arguing that rapists are everywhere, that this argues that most men are rapists, and that the whole 'uncontrollable' thing does not flatter men. An interesting sidelight is this: abusers and rapists (who share many characteristics) believe that there are far more abusers out there than there really are.This makes them feel less guilty if there are so many of them. Why, if that many men are rapists, then it's the norm, not a crime. This leads to the next excuse: this is just a natural thing, that rape is natural, so that women can neither complain about it, nor do anything but treat it as a part of life and surrender large sections of the world to men. And again, this argument is based on the notion that rapists are so common as to be practically unavoidable. *But only men may say this in defense of restricting womens' freedom. If one points out this inability to control the urge to rape should result in increased supervision and suspicion of men, then one is a nasty man-hating feminazi. A funny thing: despite this stated mighty arousal, I know of no rapes which have been attempted next to a policeman. Nonetheless the argument is, at bottom, that men are uncontrollable sexual beasts. Note: it is very often men making this argument. Not women. Men.
If rape is so common because rapists are unavoidable, then false accusations about rape would be just about non-existent. (More so---less so?---than they are now.) But by the logic of people who blame sexual assault on mini skirts, false accusations are a worse scourge than anything, including rape. Yet they're saying rape is instinctual, so common as to be nearly unavoidable, and that many if not most men are rapists. And often in the next breath they'll say that their best friend was falsely accused of rape.....even though rape is so common that it's difficult to avoid. Huh?
They argue that rape is natural because they think this reduces their responsibility for raping someone who should have known better than to toy with, and ignore such a basic fact of life, to wit: men are sexual volcanoes. Yet they are not so uncontrollable that women are not in fact supposed to be a kind of gatekeeper, always defending their own sexuality against onslaught, with no desire of their own, it seems. (Good women, that is. Bad girls like sex. More on that later.) I always suspect that these are the guys who have those trucknutz on their oversized vehicles, myself. "I'm gonna let the Monster out," says one guy in a movie. "And you gonna do what it wants." This is a guy who has an elevated sense of his own impressiveness, and not only that, his brain is not the one driving the vehicle there. He's willingly and avoidably ceded control over to his lesser half. It's not going to secede, it doesn't get its own zip code, it doesn't get its own social security number. Yet just try suggesting that if the guy in question will not control his little friend, you'd be more than happy to do so----perhaps with something like a ballpeen hammer. That's not the response Mr. Trucknutz wants to hear.
So that is another foundation stone that supports this belief system: rapists are so common that it is simply impossible to fight them, that all women can do is avoid them, live lesser lives, and depend on still other men for protection. This lets guys who don't commit rape define themselves as 'some of the few good guys' when all they're doing is just not being criminals. That's not being a good person. That's just neutral. Given the way rape remains a horribly under-prosecuted crime, simply not committing one is not enough. One has to work to end it or substantially reduce it. Rape is a huge problem for society, and yet often peoples' first impulse is to blame the victim.
Moving on, rape itself cannot be argued with, in effect, because it is natural and therefore unchangeable. It is how the species propagates itself. The survival of the species depends on it. Sometimes the argument goes that the rapist is a superman who triumphs over not just his female victim, but other men, too, by proving he's a more awesome man than they are. Evolutionary psychology makes big use of this kind of thing.
A woman walking around freely like she doesn't fear rape is therefore, indeed, being provocative, in that she obviously doesn't believe that most men are awe-inspiring heroes who are going to spread their seed to helpless women and triumph over lesser men. And note here that the 'rape is natural, unavoidable, and just a part of life' argument comes very very close to arguing that rape is a good thing, while resisting it is bad. After all, honey, it's a part of nature. (Insert dodgey scientific research here, which often gives the impression of being typed one-handed, if you know what I mean.)
Also, the only form of sex these guys recognize is some kind of penetrative activity which results in male orgasm, which the women owes the man. This is apparently based on the feeling of entitlement to sexual services from a scantily-clad woman, who, according to this line of thought, is offering herself to any and all male passers-by. Good women---defined as women with little to no sexual experience-----do not casually walk about freely. Who walks about like that? Women who have had sex and aren't afraid of it. Or women who sellsex, who advertise this by wearing skimpy clothing, and because they have placed a price on it, can only be robbed, not raped. Briefly, if anything illustrates how society really views women, it's the dehumanization of prostitutes, who----when I worked at a twenty-four dirty bookstore----were perfectly nice people who sometimes chose the life if they weren't drug addicts.
This whole belief system as based on exceptionally ancient ideas about women and rape. Most rapes do not occur in dark alleys---which are the next place the goal posts will be placed----and sometimes babies, seniors, coma patients, and unconscious women are raped. Most rapists do not wear handy signs that say, "Hi, I'm a rapist! Ask me how!" Nor do they show up on first dates and say, "Hi, my name is John, and I'm going to act totally normal and charming till I either surreptitiously keep filling your glass or put something in it or get you alone and attack you." Rapists are the guy next door, the guy in the next cubicle, and the boyfriend of six months or six years. They are often the guy who claims he was falsely accused of rape. They can be your best friend's husband----or your own husband.
This is an extremely threatening concept, which is why one often sees 'othering' of rapists and promises of outlandish revenge, assuming a rapist may be found who matches the ideal criteria: armed, preferably 'different'-looking, a career criminal, who somehow finds a virgin schoolgirl on her way to church....in a dark alley. She has to be, in other words, a Bill Napoli-approved victim:
"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life." Bill Napoli, who has thought about this. A lot. A little too much. Most people find the subject uncomfortable to discuss, as they are discussing an intimate violation of a person. I'd hate to be the one to have to look under Napoli's mattress.
Othering is when one turns a human being into an other, a monster, a creature, a thing, who is safely different from one's self or one's peer group, or that of any group one has sympathy for. That way their actions can then be blamed on the quality that makes them 'the other' and will require no examination of the ordinary people who do the same horrible things. In his own way, Napoli othered rape victims by restating the age-old belief that women are valuable only as long as they're pure undamaged goods. As a woman gets more and more 'used', she gets less and less valuable. Then abuses against her become less and less serious, as she's regarded as damaged goods already. This is why murders of prostitutes are greeted with such disinterest. Women are more of a commodity than people to some people, and the notion that they can have a say in their use is laughable to these individuals---and groups. Women used to have owners. Now they claim to own themselves. In this system, they are negligent in not managing their resources better, and all they've got is sexuality.
The notion that rapists are ordinary guys is threatening because one has to ask why so many ordinary guys commit so many rapes----and get away with it. Discussing this is often the object of strenuous objections and protestations of helplessness. "Well, it's just the way it is!" This basically cedes over large parts of the world to men. I'm not going to specify rapists here because men benefit from this usurpation of territory, and because so many men will react not with outrage that women are being raped and blamed for it, but that men are the ones being assigned responsibility for their own actions, of all things. In addition, when the topic of discussion is rape and one gets responses----as I and pretty much every other feminist blogger have-----that the really important thing about rape is how it makes it harder for men to get dates, one starts becoming less forgiving. "You know, I'm a nice guy, but it's a real pain when I come up behind a woman on a dark street and she acts all afraid and stuff. I'm just trying to say hello!"
Note here, too, how another minimizing stereotype of women comes into play, which is as old as Freud, at least: Woman! What does she want?!
The reluctance to ask an actual woman this question is striking. This reluctance seems to spring from the fact---sometimes stated openly---that those damned women are all different, and that's so unfair. Why can't you gals get together and agree on something? That would be so great if women were all alike. Then they'd be easier to discriminate against and attack. There is also the assumption---so convenient----that women lie as a matter of course. This is at least as old as Potiphar's wife, who in the Bible was described as first trying to seduce Joseph, then claiming to her husband that he'd attempted to rape her when Joseph rejected her advances.
Asking a woman what she wants also eliminates the 'she asked for it' excuse, because in fact, she did not. If you don't ask, you can pretend anything you want.
The belief that women are of value only when unused also supports the myth that false rape accusations are common. Sometimes the underlying belief is that women are whores and that they fear losing their value so they lie about consensual sex. Frequently it is charged that women want revenge....and so they choose to subject themselves to a horribly invasive medical exam, often-unsympathetic police, and a distant shot at conviction rate that basically lets most rapists off with at least one freebie, not to mention being subjected to defense lawyers in court who seem to take a particularly sadistic pleasure in attacking rape victims on their client's behalf. Yeah, that'll teach him.
The idea that women lie about rape is ignores the fact thatmany women who tell the truth are often called liars and later proven correct. Sometimes the rapists are, in fact, the very people who are supposed to catch rapists, the police. The latter case involved an incident where a woman was raped by a burglar and the cops didn't believe her. They demanded a polygraph-----a sign that a department has sexist tendencies, because giving a polygraph to a woman who's just been raped is about as cruel and stupid as you can get. The victim failed. A month later another woman was raped by the same rapist...and this time he was caught. A few years later, the skeptical detective was himself arrested, tried, and convicted for sexual assaults. He got a slap on the wrist, and nobody asked him how many rape victims he'd scared off from filing reports, how many rapists he'd allowed to roam free to rape other women. If anybody tries to argue that false rape incidents are actually some outlandish figure---keep in mind that I'll laugh at you because I've read that study and that it makes you look like a slimebag.
Nor do I much buy into the idea that a charge of rape stains a man for life. Mike Tyson has a TV show, and while Kobe Bryant himself admitted that he 'could understand why she'd call it rape' it hasn't seemed to reduced his pay. Rape victims on the other hand are subjected to some of the most vicious tactics allowed, despite the rape shield laws, which defense lawyers like to try and get around.
People are predisposed to believe that women lie because of the beliefs that underlie much of our unquestioned theories about rape. The myth that women are prone to lie is based in part on their subordinate, unequal status and the fact that it makes life incredibly easy for men. It's also based on the idea that women are used up and devalued with 'use' so to retain their value they must lie. Eliminating the double standard would eliminate whatever false rape accusations there are. One has to wonder why no one wants to discuss the use of rape itself as revenge. But what else is this topic about?
The people who argue that skimpy clothes provoke men into rape therefore cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that men are uncontrollable and yet should be given control of high office and arms and be allowed to roam without supervision. Yet if a woman makes such an argument---turning this classic piece of sexism against its defenders----as I have said, and as others can attest, nothing could be more resented.
Once the idea that skimpy clothing is to blame for rape is demolished, the goalposts get moved to dark nights and dark alleys. While the people arguing that skimpy clothes are to blame will laugh at any and all of what I've said here, they inadvertantly prove me right when they move on to the nearly inevitable next stage: comparing a rapist to a car thief or a burglar.
What's the problem with such an argument?
Cars thieves and burglars steal objects. (This is a variant of the starving dog/meat scenario.) Also, no matter how careless one is with one's car keys or house door, neither criminal is released on the grounds that the victim asked for it. Comparing rape to theft of property......well, that doesn't confirm my theory at all, does it? A woman is just an object that has a finite value and should be locked up to preserve her mint condition.
It also introduces a not-entirely new argument, that women are raped because they are foolish, and wander into dangerous territory stupidly. This is more commonly implied in the beginning, but in later innings it gets explictly stated. Thus rape is envisioned as something that happens to careless women who wander into the wrong places. Yet earlier the sole factor was the length of her skirt, anywhere, and she was to blame for making nice guys rape her. Rape does not happen in the right places, is the unspoken corollary, thus othering rapists yet again. By refusing to deal with actual rapists, blame is placed solely on the victim, and surrendering some territory to rapists is passively endorsed, as well as accepting that rape is so common that women must just deal with it, like the weather. Rape is easy to prevent, just like rain is easy to deal with, as long as one is 'prepared'. And men can go wherever they choose and face no risks whatsoever.
Still another argument is based on the burglar theme. Wearing skimpy clothes is akin to waving around hundred dollar bills and 'walking through a bad neighborhood in a thousand dollar suit.' Note the implied racism! Again, women are compared to property, and some unnamed poor neighborhood, presumably full of 'those people', is assumed to be full of people who will rob any person with expensive belongings. At least in this scenario, the woman is a Rolex. In the others, she's used merchandise, somewhat disgusting, who got above herself and got righteously smacked down for it. She's not allowed to value herself, you notice; men get to do that, and a woman must abide by that judgement.
Yet this fantasy of the blameworthy victim reveals what men are truly hostile to: the woman who does not fear them, who asserts--ironically-- by her actions that she does not believe that most men are rapists, that men are not uncontrollable beasts, and who in fact is making a claim on new territory when she tries to live a larger life than cowering at home in a blanket-like outfit. For all that men claim they hate the rape myths, they profit by them as well, and they must like them if they argue on their behalf. Any man or woman who uses these arguments is basically saying that rape is not something they care to fight, much less inform themselves about.
And don't even make me deal with the issue of 'rape-prevention' advice. Just don't.
All right, I'm going to re-iterate here for those who were too busy getting outraged that this is not my opinion of men but rather my analysis of the beliefs that underly some of the most pernicious forms of victim-blaming. These beliefs are layered and ancient, and need to be excavated and destroyed.
In an odd way, when people get defensive about this type of analysis, it reminds me of how some guys complain that men are always shown as fat schlubs on TV and in commercials. Yet they ignore two things: those TV shows and commercials are written mostly by men, and they contain some additional messages: that even a schlubby hubby can have and is entitled to a hot wife who adores picking up after him, and that men not doing housework or childcare is just the way of things, so quitcherbitchin', ladies. It's not going to change because its the natural order of things. Blaming women for 'getting raped' because they were 'asking for it' upon examination ultimately reveals some glaringly obvious beliefs that unwittingly place the blame squarely where it belongs----on the rapist. These are the things that rapist apologists expose when they talk about rape.
Updated by ginmar at Thu May 19, 2011 at 02:13 AM PDT
ETA I cannot get over how there are guys in the comments making these very arguments like they never read the damned post. I mean, just about word for word. But...but...they're just trying to help by giving us poor stupid women their considered advice which amounts to....don't walk at night and wear miniskirts. Here's a clue; that is rapist apology. YOU are the guys I was talking about if you make these arguments.