I agree that there are downsides to using such terminology, but you are discounting the benefits out of hand, I think.
I would argue I am not discounting the benefits out of hand, because I am relating the very experiences which lead me to believe it lacks merit. Lets review:
Definition: Rape is the use of force, overt or implied violence (as well as intentionally usurping a person's will through drugging because resistance is expected), in order to use a person sexually (though the more important aspect is gaining control and/or humiliation).
Problem: The stereotype of rape does not match its actual demographic nature. It is less caused by strangers then by aquaintances, and in part this is reinforced by social attitudes regarding forced sex within relationships.
Proposed Solution #1: Use new terms which add the relationship of the perp-victim to the original term.
Proposed Solution #2: Get the message out that our stereotypes of how rape occurs does not match demographics, and explain (through examples) that our definitions of rape can apply to various relationships between perp-victim.
I honestly do not see how #1 has any additional benefits than #2, and I have certainly seen the downside which #2 does not have.
2)This is from a the American Academy of Pediatrics survey:
"In a survey of college males 43% of college-aged men admitted to using coercive behavior to have sex, including ignoring a woman's protest, using physical aggression, and forcing intercourse, but did not admit that it was rape. 15% acknowledged they had committed acquaintance rape; 11% acknowledged using physical restraints to force a woman to have sex."
My point in listing this stat is that a sizeable minority of the men surveyed above were using coersion and/or physical force or aggression to have sex but don't even consider it rape.
First of all I do not believe that study was valid. It sounds a bit ludicrous to me, but for sake of argument (and since I don't have it to look at) I will assume it is completely accurate.
Rather than seeing that a sizable amount of men use force, or are willing to use some form of coercion and don't consider it rape, perhaps you should be noting that you just provided evidence for exactly what I was talking about.
For those that did admit to rape, they admitted to "aquaintance rape" category. Could that be because they view that as different, and lesser than rape? It'd be interesting to see that same study involve perceptions of one version of rape vs another.
But we can even ignore that. What does it show regarding how new terminology would effect their behavior?
The JD doesn't use the term "really common", I do.
"The FBI estimates that 72 of every 100,000 females in the United States wereraped last year. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996.)"
72 out of 100,000 during one year is "really common" to you? Honestly? I view that as extremely uncommon.
If 72 out of 100,000 abortions ended in a death of the woman, would you consider the charge that maternal death from abortion is "really common"?
Please don't confuse your distaste for the "victim culture" with the fact that people ARE victimized.
This is a semantics issue to some degree, so let me try and explain. Yes, people can be victimized. I
was a victim.
The victim culture involves consistently identifying people based on whether they have been, are now, or may be a victim. It is a way of looking at the world where people are sorted into "Potential Victim" and "Actual Victim" categories. Once a victim, that is what is repeated as their condition and used to justify policies which the "victim" might have no interest in.
Thus those involved in the WTC tragedy were victims, but their memories are extended as if that is all they were, and used to justify irrational actions in their name (like attacking Iraq). Suddenly the numerical victims can be revictimized by a political oppressor.
What's worse, the status of "victim" becomes somewhat sacred and weak people will capitalize on this notion.
We need less victims.
This makes you a survivor, and that is a fact. Your distaste with how the "victim culture" treats survivors does not erase the fact that you recovered after your assaults.
Just one assault to be clear. In any case, despite being a "victim" I pretty much reject the "survivor" label. Once we get to the point of saying when one has been treated badly by someone one has been a victim and if you have overcome the emotional trauma one is a survivor, then we have diluted those terms to nothing. In that case we are all victims and survivors. I think that is an unhealthy way of looking at the world.
I did have some trauma and dealt with it. I have had much worse traumas, including completely nonsexual ones (though they generally involved deception/force/violence). That does not mean I "survived" or should be identified as a "survivor"
Indeed if I went through my other, much worse, traumas I am sure some would trigger you to wonder why I took it so badly and definitely not list me as a survivor... even if I had been victimized.
Some rape victims would be properly classified as survivors depending on the nature of their ordeal. I would not begin to put my case in with theirs. I am glad I did not go through an intense violent ordeal with grave physical damage.
That makes them part of your past, thus part of who you are today.
Yes, but not much. Thankfully I was openminded about sex in general so I wasn't as upset as I could have been (a homophobe would have had to have come out of that much worse for the wear). It was degrading and humiliating and painful. It was traumatic and I can remember that it was bad.
However it does not haunt me, with the exception of when I see someone say society needs to do X, and then cites that event in my life as a reason why. That is not an argument at all, it is further victimization.
Let's say you someone in school beat the hell out of you and took your lunch money. Would you say a person should still view themselves as a victim and a survivor? That is other than a nominal yes at one time I was victimized and got over the incident?
But the past victimization and survival really did happen, right?
Yes, and I have drawn my own conclusions from my experiences. However others use stats of which I am a part, and then say they are working to defend "those people", which means me, and then completely reject what I have to say. And worse still, some will invent ways to be called victims in order to have their voices carry more weight... as if they are one of "those people."
"Those people" generally have their own voices and can tell you what they think is needed to protect them in the future. Some cannot, that is true, but many can and it is degrading to use them to push any specific agenda.
The merits of any legislation or other policy should stand or fall on its own.
I still do not see the merits of adding "date" to "rape", and alluding to all of the cases of aquaintances raping people they know is not going to change that.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
