"If you can rape a woman for dressing like a whore, why can't you shoot a man for dressing like a thug?" - Adele Lang & Susi Rajah

Rape.

A simple four letter word. Personally, I like four letter words. They're the only ones I manage to come up with when playing Scrabble. But unfortunately 'rape' is not simple.

Chapter four in "Virgins: A Cultural History" by Anke Bernau really stood out. One of the topics she covers under the chapter heading 'Repugnant to the Common Good' is indeed rape. At first I thought she was going to dissect the evils of being raped back in the Middle Ages. She does cover this but also makes a connection to modern times. During her discussion on the legal issues facing victims of rape she comes to a rather vile conclusion: there is such a thing as a 'true' rape victim. In order to be considered truly raped a woman must be able to meet five basic criteria:

(a) either be virginal or chaste; (b) be clear-headed enough to pursue or cause
others to pursue her offender shortly after her violation; (c) ensure she is
raped in a remote place; (d) ensure that her attacker flees the scene of the
crime; (e) make sure that, despite the remoteness of the location, there are
others who can testify to her good character and her version of the events (p.
165).

In actuality these characteristics were created by a 17th century judge by the name of Sir Matthew Hale. For centuries he has been the best friend of rapists everywhere. He argues, as well as his followers, that a large percent of the rapes cases are actually false charges. Women cry rape in cases of revenge, in cases where there is a great shame of losing her virtue (outside of marriage) and so the blame on the man, in cases of avoiding disgrace due to pregnancy, and in cases of many other lowly schemes. Thus, when a rape charge comes to trial it is insisted that juries keep in mind 'innocent until proven guilty.' In fact there are laws in many countries that protect rapists and sex offenders alike. Yes, it is rather democratic in believing 'innocent until proven guilty' but why would a woman cries rape?

The act of rape is extremely draining emotionally. Obviously there is trauma for the women concerning the events leading up to the rape and the rape itself. There is also trauma during the entire process of convicting a rapist. In front of a variety of people a woman must critically explain the rape in detail and defend herself time after time as to why the event was actually a rape. During this process she becomes dehumanized after exposing private aspects of her life and discussing an intimately traumatic event. Why would a woman want purposely put herself through all of this?

"It is therefore not surprising that many women are afraid to report having been raped" (p.165). Even though some laws exist that prevent questioning of a woman's sexual past during a rape trial, a woman's reputation is still scrutinized. Thus the victim is punished for breaking the silence (p.165). But this 'punishment' is actually an improvement from what the consequences of rape was centuries ago. During the Middle Ages virginity was put on a pedestal, it was the ultimate essence of purity. A rape during that time was considered very tragic. Though, tragedy was only applied to virgins of high standing (p.156). At various times throughout the Middle Ages and the centuries that followed, known prostitutes who cried rape were disregarded. Similarly to today, a woman's history was scrutinized, but it was much worse. Depending on the case, rapes were sometimes solved by having the rapist and victim marry (p.156). The level of damage felt by the victim was determined by social standing. Compensation for the rape was also determined by social status along with the success of the trial (p.159).

In general women were believed to by untrustworthy. They were not believed even if rape threatened the precious virginity of the Middle Ages. Generally it was believed that a woman was "by nature sensual and lascivious [and] because of her perceived 'instinct for pleasure'" (p.157) a woman would likely end up enjoying the 'rape.' It was also believed that "women who say no do not always mean no" (p.158). Keep in mind that during that time period a "woman's sexuality was most usually described in a language that associated it with sinfulness and, by extension, with whoredome" (p.159) making anything remotely sexual about a woman under suspect. But has anything really changed in these past centuries?

One of my favorite books is "I'm Not a Feminist, But..." by Adele Lang & Susi Rajah. It's just a compilation of questions and doesn't have any heavy text to it. But the questions are very thought provoking. (fyi: the titles for my posts are quotes from this book) In addition to the controversies Bernau brought up I would like to bring up a few more via question from this book:

• If women get raped because they ask for it, why don't they ever get the equal pay, equal opportunities, and other things they ask for?
  
• If women are so much more "easy" these days, why are date-rape drugs so popular?


• Is it because Rohypnol, the date-rape drug, costs less than five dollars a pop that men think women who have sex on the first date are "cheap"?


• Why is it less of a crime to rape a woman if the rapist takes her out to dinner first?


• Why are women warned to stay in at night for their own safety when home is the place they're most likely to be assaulted?


• Why do even the female victims of rape or murder have to be attractive to get media attention?