‘Is Rape Sex or Violence? Conceptual Issues and Implications’
Muelenhard,
Danoff-Burg and Powch
The central question of this paper: Is rape sex or is it violence?
One obvious response: Why can’t it be both? Why can’t it be a form of violent sex? (In the end, the authors will defend that it ought to be viewed as both)
Part of the issue concerns what we mean by ‘sex’ and what we mean by ‘violence’.
In class, we examined the question: What is sex? (like the question, ‘What is a woman?’). I tried to argue that the concept of sex (the activity) is complicated in much the same way that the category ‘woman’ is complicated.
Examples: Is oral sex a form of sex? One would think so. After all, it’s called oral sex. And yet, one can remain a virgin even though one has had oral sex. So perhaps it is not really sex after all. How do we decide whether it is sex or not? Is there a fact of the matter? Other questions: Is solitary self-satisfaction a form of sex? Is it sex if there is no penetration? Is it sex if there is no orgasm? All of these questions seem to admit of considerable controversy. And there appears to be no way we can answer the questions (i.e. the concept ‘sex’ doesn’t have any answers for us – it has let us down).
It is interesting to notice, however, that there are
prevailing cultural beliefs about what constitutes sex (beliefs which seem
analogous to the ‘natural attitude about gender’). For example, it seems that
male-female sexual intercourse (penetration) is taken as the main and most
legitimate form of sex. But why should it be? While this kind of sex may have
an importance in terms of procreation, it need not have any special role in
terms of sex for romantic and/or recreational purposes. Yet this kind of sex is
selected as determinative of whether one is a virgin (contrast with oral or
anal sex). So, socially it has a very special role. We can say that it is part
of the ‘game’. In other words, it seems that sex (the activity) is to some
degree socially constructed. This has an important bearing on the way that rape
is likewise constructed. For example,
Why might somebody believe that rape was not sex? If sex requires mutuality and consent (i.e. this is part of the very concept of sex), then rape could not be sex.
On the other hand: One might argue that what distinguishes rape from other forms of violence is that it is sexual. Hence – it needs to be described as sexual violence.
The other question: ‘What do we mean by ‘violence’?’ was not treated in depth in class discussion. However, there are clear cases of rape that involve extreme physical violence. The question here is whether rape insofar as it is nonconsensual itself constitutes a form of violence. (So does rape when violence is either threatened, implied, or possibly not in play at all constitute a form of violence owing to the fact that a person’s wishes were violated?).
It is important to understand that the starting point of the authors is to avoid conceptual philosophical dispute that goes nowhere. We can spend forever debating the question whether rape is sex or not. There may be no fact of the matter (as there is no fact of the matter whether a person with female genitalia and XY karyotype is female). If so – there is no answer (of the type that Socrates would have wanted). And so there is no point in disputing the matter.
However, often when there is no fact of the matter, the question is then determined on political/practical grounds. For example, whether a 17 year-old person is an ‘adult’ is basically a practical/political decision. There is no deep philosophical answer.
So the authors are interested in the different answers that different people give, and the benefits and disadvantages involved in conceptualizing rape that way.
Important Point: Rapists and survivors view rape in radically different ways. We may need two different words to describe it.
(1) The Survivor’s Perspective: The authors argue that from the perspective of the survivor, rape is often viewed as violence (NOT sex). One reason for this is that it doesn’t seem to be a SEXUAL EXPERIENCE from the point of view of the survivor.
I made a point in class which I think might be relevant. From the perspective of sexual pleasure (or a person deriving sexual pleasure), sex seems to be inherently good (i.e. pleasurable). However, it is also possible to have very BAD sex (painful, unsatisfying, unwanted, uncomfortable, etc.) What to one person may seem like good sex, to another might seems like very bad sex. However- if one thought that what was going on was SO bad, then perhaps it might not count as sex at all anymore.
This being said, the authors bring out an important point: Sometimes women who have been survivors of date-rape may not identify what has happened as rape (especially if they identify rape with violence). She may think that it involved nothing but a ‘miscommunication’. Yet it may be rape, nonetheless. And the survivor may experience many of the same emotional consequences.
(2) The Perpetrator’s Perspective: The authors do not have much to say on this point. It is difficult because perpetrators may have different motivations (and they may be unconscious). I will, however, point out that there exist clear cut cases in which rape is intended as a form of violence. It has been used as a tool in warfare, and it has been used as a form of racial oppression (i.e. white ‘masters’ raping their black ‘slaves’).
(3) The Perspective of All Women and Men: This involves a feminist perspective, and ‘stepping back’ to view how rape plays a role in ‘the game’ overall. Who does it benefit? Notice that in a culture in which rape of women by men is common, women lose the privilege of walking alone (at night), of living in certain locations. It therefore establishes a possible dependency relationship of women upon men. Because behavior and dress can be taken to justify or excuse rape, women’s behavior and dress and be restricted (i.e. controlled) owing to the cultural phenomenon of rape.
The authors then examine the pros and cons of viewing rape as sex and as violence:
Rape as Sex (not violence)
Prior to feminist interventions, views about men and women made it very hard to identify rape as rape (since it resembled sex so much). For example, it was considered impossible for a husband to rape his wife, since it was his right as a husband to have sex with his wife whenever he wanted to. Also – consider old beliefs that women are submissive and masochistic; ‘they want to be raped’, they ‘invite sex’ though their behavior, etc. If this is just taken as part of regular sex, then it will be important to reveal a certain activity as rape to deny that it is sex (and to point out that it is violence). By viewing rape as sex, all of these things seemed to be made possible.
However there are some advantages to viewing rape as sex: (1) We may be enabled to understand how this is ‘sexualized’ from the perpetrator’s vantage point; (2) By comparing the similarities we may see ways in which ‘normal sex’ is to some degree coercive; (3) By distinguishing normal sex and violent rape, the coercive character of some ‘normal sex’ may be erased.
Rape as Violence (not sex)
Some advantages: (1) Lives of survivors seem to be improved by viewing it as violence (rather than sex) - this avoids any possible ‘blaming the victim’. (2) The blame is clearly placed on the perpetrator; (3) Rape survivors are given a framework for understanding what happened (i.e. as a traumatic event, ptsd). (4) We can identify rape as a form of overall social control.
Some disadvantages: (1) If rape is identified with violence, then it is hard to convince a jury that coercive sex is violence if not a lot of additional violence was involved; (2) Survivors may not identify what happened as rape – because it did not involve overt violence
Rape as both Sex and Violence.
Authors argue that given the preceding considerations, this is the most useful way of viewing rape.
They also stress to importance of moving beyond the issue of violence and focusing on issues of control.