Rape myths in Britain are alive and well - New Statesman

The results of a survey published [Monday] suggest that more than half (54 per cent) of women think that rape victims are sometimes to blame for the crime.

Of these women, 71 per cent thought that the victim should accept responsibility if they got into the same bed as their attacker, compared with 57 per cent of men. Nearly a fifth (19 per cent) of women said that the victim should accept partial responsibility if they went back to the attacker's house. 23 per cent thought that a victim who danced suggestively on a night out was to blame if they were subsequently raped, and 31 per cent thought the same of those wearing provocative clothes.

These statistics -- gathered in an online survey for Havens sexual assault referral centres -- are sadly indicative of the culture of blame and disbelief that still surrounds rape. It is particularly worrying that the youngest age group -- those between 18 and 24 -- were the least forgiving, showing that these attitudes are not undergoing any positive generational shift.

Indeed, if this survey is cross-referenced to a similar poll five years ago, it appears that attitudes may have actually hardened -- then, a minority of British people blamed women for rape, although there was no notable difference between the genders. On specifics, results were similar: 30 per cent thought that a woman was at least partially responsible for being raped if she was drunk, and 22 per cent if she had had many sexual partners.

These results are depressing, but perhaps not wholly surprising. Why are people -- and women specifically -- so keen to blame the victim? These entrenched social attitudes may well be tied into the culture of disbelief in the justice system, and in the media. I have blogged before about the fact that the UK has the lowest conviction rates in Europe -- just 6.5 per cent of reported cases, compared with 34 per cent of other crimes.

It is also notable that cases of false accusations receive a disproportionate amount of newspaper coverage. A quick internet search yields innumerable results, although Rape Crisis estimates that false reporting rates for rape are around 6-8 per cent, exactly the same as for other crimes. This excessive coverage was reflected in the survey, where 18 per cent of respondents said that they thought most accusations of rape are probably false.

But the fact is, if so many people are ready to believe that a woman is culpable in her own violation, jury trials will inevitably be affected: it is a self-perpetuating, vicious circle. While the majority of people in the Havens poll were keen to assign partial blame to the victim, one in five women said that they would not report it to the police if they were raped, saying that they would be ashamed, or would not be believed. This feeling is justified -- just last year a freedom of information request showed that some police forces were failing to record more than 40 per cent of reported rape cases -- but we have no hope of changing police attitudes if these attitudes continue to proliferate across society.

We urgently need education; a high profile campaign, starting with schools, to educate the public and eradicate the view that rape is sometimes deserved.

In response to the survey, the BBC had reactions from rape victims, including these from victims whose rapists groomed them into relationships before the attacks.

I was raped by my husband as he became increasingly possessive and violent. How can you blame a woman who has gotten into bed with the person beforehand? Where there is violent, intimidation, where you feel obliged to get into bed with the person just to quell their temper like I did. I never went to the police because I am glad to have escaped my husband. Now, I want to forget it.

Anonymous, Bristol

  My ex-boyfriend tried to rape me. I had got into bed with him at the end of night, I told him I didn't want sex (or anything) and if we were going to become an item again then I wanted to take things slow. He tried to force himself on me and I was screaming and fighting him when my housemates came in and pulled him off of me. I may have been naïve but I was not responsible for his inability to control himself.

K, London

Daily Vidette Rape Myth Of The Month

Sexual assault myth of the month
Gail Trimpe-Morrow, M.S., L.P.C., Coordinator, Sexual Assault Prevention and Survivor Services

Myth: Most rapes or sexual assaults are committed by strangers.Fact: Over 80 percent of sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows. On the ISU campus over 85 percent of sexual assaults are committed by an acquaintance.

The most common perception of a sexual predator is the "stranger lurking in the dark." As children, we are all cautioned about "stranger danger" and learn about "good touches and bad touches." We are warned not to walk alone at night, to be wary of strangers and to stick to well-lit paths. These safeguards, though good advice, provide us with a false sense of safety and reinforce the idea that if we are cautious enough we can prevent bad things from happening.

There is no doubt we can reduce the risk of violence, but prevention lies in the hands of those who commit such acts. We exercise caution with the unkempt stranger, but we don't exercise the same caution when interacting or partying with acquaintances.

If the number of acquaintance rapes is so high, why do we continue to visualize the rapist as a stranger? The "myth" of the stranger rapist is perpetuated by the media - we see the stranger rapist scenario on TV and in the movies, and we are more likely to read about a stranger rape in the newspaper or hear it on the news. It is easier to think about the stranger as the perpetrator of violence. It is very frightening to think about people we know being capable of sexual violence.

The reality is familiar people and places are more dangerous. The greatest risk of a sexual assault is from someone you know - someone you met at a party, a friend, a date, a partner - not a stranger. Sexual assaults occurring on-campus are most likely to occur in the residence halls.

Although the incidence of acquaintance rape is high, there are ways to decrease the risk. These strategies apply to both men and women in the context of any relationship or encounter.

Sex without consent is rape. Make sure you have sober consent for any sexual activity. Consent cannot be given when drunk. If you choose to use alcohol, know your limit and stick to it. Risk for an unwanted sexual experience is increased with the excessive use of alcohol.

Go out in groups and return in groups; do not leave friends behind or allow them to wander off with someone they just met. If you see someone putting themselves at risk or making a poor choice - say something, actively intervene or find someone who will. Do not wait for others to act. It is likely others are having the same thoughts and concerns as you.

If you or someone you know has been the victim of an unwanted sexual experience, talk to someone. Ignoring it will not make it go away. Help is free and confidential. Contact the Sexual Assault Prevention and Survivor Services program in Student Counseling Services at 438-7948 or 438-3566, or visit the website at counseling.ilstu.edu.

Nevada denies rape victims compensation because of "contributory conduct"

Rape still a crime where victim can share blame
State ‘contributory conduct’ rule used to deny financial assistance
Abigail Goldman - Las Vegas Sun

Susan woke up with this guy all over her like an animal. By the time she realized what was happening, he had stopped. He let go of her shorts, looked at her and said, “I messed up real bad, didn’t I?” Then he told her to make him breakfast.

Susan has no idea what she cooked. She had no idea what to tell the officer who said, “But you don’t look like someone that’s been raped.” She had no idea what to say when, several weeks later, she got a letter from a state program that helps victims of crime pay medical bills stating she’d been denied funding because of “contributory conduct.”

Susan was denied, the logic goes, because she was partly responsible for her own rape. She’d used methamphetamine 30 hours before the attack — this was her “contributory conduct.” She is one of nine sexual assault victims confirmed to have been denied assistance from Nevada’s Victims of Crime Compensation Program because of contributory conduct. Eight of the nine were teens.

Many advocates for victims think there have been more than nine such denials. They say records do not reveal the true extent of the problem. But in any case, they say, denying assistance to even one rape victim on these grounds would be an outrage.

For many, it cuts too close to antiquated notions that women can invite or encourage rape, and are therefore responsible if it occurs. And, advocates for victims emphasize, alcohol and drugs are often instruments of sexual assault. “No” means “no,” they say, no matter what.

The “no” that victims are hearing from the compensation program officials may be driven as much by fiscal concerns as by philosophy, however. Ever-growing numbers of victims are asking for assistance from a program that doesn’t have enough money to help them all, asking for help from a program that may be looking for reasons to deny them so that it can stretch its budget.

That’s how Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto sees it. She leads a committee that in January began a careful survey of the victim compensation program and its policies.

Last month, percolating concerns about contributory conduct boiled over. At a July 7 meeting of the committee that oversees Masto’s smaller group, several attendees sat in quiet shock as Bryan Nix, coordinator of the compensation program, explained the contributory conduct policy.

Speaking of intoxicated sexual assault victims, Nix told commission members, “You know, their behavior alone oftentimes excludes them from participation in this program because they’re not, under our guidelines, innocent victims of crime. They participated in the crime on some level.”

Since that July meeting, the compensation program has come under fire from victim and civil rights advocates who feel the troubles run deeper than poorly written policy. The real issue here is the fundamental differences of opinion about whether a rape or sexual assault victim should ever share the burden of blame. Nevada’s contributory conduct clause is a small step, many fear, into a dark hole where women in short skirts or low-cut blouses are blamed for attracting negative attention, for “asking for it.”

Of the criticism, Nix says, “I think it’s a little misguided. Someone goes to a bar, slams down numerous cocktails, ends up with someone in the bar, goes to their hotel room to ‘watch TV’ in a very drunken, intoxicated state and ends up ‘waking up raped.’ ”

The rationale behind Nevada’s contributory conduct policy is simple — prevent drunken people who pick bar fights from getting compensation, keep burglars who break their ankles kicking in a door from having their medical bills paid with state money. These matters are pretty black and white. It’s when contributory conduct falls into the gray area of sexual assault and rape that the problems start.

Statewide, 2,017, or 27 percent, of the 7,357 compensation claims accepted from January 2005 to January 2007 were submitted by victims of rape and sexual assault who, in turn, had more than $1.28 million in medical or counseling expenses paid by the program. It’s a considerable sum, but less than the $34 million paid for 2,750 general assault victims, or the $5.5 million in compensation allocated to 1,065 domestic violence victims.

In the past four years, 592 rape and sexual assault victims have been denied compensation program funding for a variety of reasons. The vast majority of these victims, 494, were denied for “failure to cooperate,” meaning the victim didn’t complete required paperwork, follow up with compensation officers or keep appointments. For at least 12 rape and sexual assault victims, the reason for denial is unknown. Program records are incomplete. The records also do not indicate how many victims appealed their denials and were awarded funding after a fight.
Most victims don’t challenge the rejection. This has more to do with emotional exhaustion than laziness: Some victims would rather forget than put themselves through a detailed application process, let alone argue over the outcome, according to Rape Crisis Center Executive Director Louise Torres. The average victim gives her account of the crime 57 times to various officials before the case even lands in court, Torres says.

The nine victims who were denied for contributory conduct, which Nix says doesn’t necessarily mean intoxication, represent such a small percentage of all denials that “it’s hardly worth a lot of discussion,” he said. Nix is quick to insist that the disqualifying factor is not the presence of drugs or alcohol, but the resulting behavior; not merely being intoxicated, but being intoxicated and making a bad decision as a result.

Some scoff at this distinction.

“Being violently assaulted by someone, inebriated or not, is a violation of your personhood,” said Andrea Sundburg, director of the Nevada Coalition Against Sexual Violence. Whether the victim had been drinking is irrelevant, she added.

Those who question the policy also note that it is not applied consistently, so while one intoxicated victim gets funding, another does not. Nix points to this case-by-case approach as an example of the program’s success. Compensation officers consider the nuances of each case, interview victims and read police reports before reaching determinations. In fact, Nix noted, a considerable number of sexual assault and rape victims applying for compensation report being intoxicated at the time of the crime, and the program regularly provides them assistance regardless of the fact.

In some cases, Nix noted, the compensation officer thinks a line has been crossed. Where that line lies, however, is unclear. For some, this is extremely problematic.

“The idea that you are going to sit around and figure out what percentage of the blame you are going to ascribe to the victim themselves is just completely misguided and improper,” said Gary Peck, executive director of the Nevada American Civil Liberties Union.

Lee Rowland, Nevada ACLU northern coordinator, added: “A case-by-case review is only as good as the rules that govern that review. Discretion vested in officials should not turn into a character assassination of the victim, or be used to play out archaic gender stereotypes.”
Masto’s committee is studying whether changes must be made to compensation program policy.

The contributory conduct rules were adopted years ago by the state Board of Examiners, composed of the governor, the attorney general and the secretary of state. The rules mandate that claims for compensation must be denied if the victim “used poor judgment because of intoxication or drugs.”

Whether compensation officers should be determining what is and isn’t poor judgment, Masto said, is also up for consideration. Masto’s committee has been asked to provide Supreme Court Justice James Hardesty, chairman of the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice, with recommendations for changes to the program, legislative or otherwise.

If the committee looks to neighboring states, it will find that compensation officers in Utah, California and New Mexico, among others, do not consider intoxication a contributory factor in sexual assault or rape cases. Members of New Mexico’s Crime Victims Reparation Commission decided 10 years ago that they “just would not look at drugs and alcohol on sexual assault cases,” according to current Commission Director Larry Tackman.

Victims who undergo a sexual assault forensic exam from the hospital — like every Nevada victim must to be eligible for assistance — demonstrate by action alone that no matter how inebriated they were, something serious enough to warrant assistance likely occurred, Tackman said.

If the committee looks around the globe, it will see that England’s Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has been under fire for cutting the standard $20,516 crime compensation payment for 14 rape victims by as much as 25 percent in the past year alone. All of these victims were told the deduction was because of contributory conduct — alcohol consumption.

This revelation sparked furious condemnation from citizens and politicians.
The British compensation authority has since issued a statement acknowledging the deductions should not have been made. A 25-year-old victim who challenged the reduced compensation recently got the full award, and the government has called the compensation authority to review the other cases in question.

Many of the best arguments against contributory conduct flip the policy on its head. If victims can be penalized for becoming intoxicated before they were raped, does that mean the rapist on trial should have his sentence mitigated because he had a partner in crime?

Justice Hardesty extends the argument: Does this mean someone under the influence of alcohol who is shot by a robber cannot qualify for assistance? There is a disconnect between the criminal law that makes a perpetrator guilty and the policies of the victims compensation program, Hardesty says.

At least part of the problem with the compensation program can be traced back to financial strain. Despite laws indicating it is the policy of Nevada to provide care to victims of crime, the program does not receive any money from the state’s general fund. Instead, the program gets its money from criminal fines, restitution paid by convicts, government grants and a handful of other sources. The result: The compensation program received more than $8.8 million in funding during the 2006-07 fiscal year, the most recent data available.The income is hard to reconcile with the costs. From January 2005 through January 2008, the compensation program was billed almost $50 million on behalf of victims.
In a presentation to Hardesty and the advisory committee of which he is chairman, Masto said, “due to limited crime compensation funding, it appears that (compensation officers) are forced to look for reasons not to provide funds rather than reasons to provide funds.”

Nevada has three compensation officers. A fourth position is open, but because of a government hiring freeze, it has gone unfilled for three months. The program has a backlog of roughly 1,000 cases, applications on hold because additional information is needed. Nix thinks he can solve the problem by handing much of the paperwork back to victims’ advocates, such as counselors at rape crisis centers.

To achieve this goal, he is revamping the application process. Traditionally, victims have been asked to submit one sheet of information to state compensation officers, who would seek out additional information on their behalf. Now Nix wants victims to fill out an 11-page application, full of information compensation officers will no longer have to get on their own. This will speed up the process, Nix says.
But the new application is still just a proposal, and not every victim’s advocate is excited at the prospect of more work.
This is where things would get nasty, if things weren’t so politely political.
Delicately, Nix notes that his nine denials for contributory conduct are nothing compared with the almost 500 sexual assault and rape victims who were denied for failure to cooperate. These people have slipped through the cracks, Nix subtly suggested in an e-mail to the Sun, because advocates didn’t take enough time to help victims through the process. “The elephant in the room is not the issue of denial because of contributory conduct,” Nix wrote.
This implication, not surprisingly, makes victim’s advocates a little angry.
“When you start putting blame on other people, without looking at your own internal procedures, there is a problem,” Sundburg said. “Advocates are just as busy as victims of crime compensation. We all need to work together to make sure victims are getting the help they need.”
Susan had to be persuaded to file for victim’s assistance, convinced that revisiting the crime in interviews and applications was worth the stress. After the rape, scared to stay at her home, she landed in a series of women’s shelters. She had nightmares, was always looking over her shoulder, and suffered from that free-floating, endless and almost sourceless anxiety that haunts some victims. Susan was raped by a man she thought she knew. He invited her and some other friends over to do meth. She crashed at his house, in a guest bedroom.
Later, in a hospital gown, naked from the waist down, she told police the whole story, even admitting she had been an addict off and on for about two years. When she left the hospital, she drove around for hours in a daze, and finally, at the age of 39, called her parents and asked if she could go stay with them.

So when the rejection letter came, Susan was furious. “’Cause I used meth, it’s OK for someone to rape me,” she said. “That’s how I felt.”

Susan decided she would fight the rejection. In May, she appealed the decision. The denial was upheld, so she took it to the next level. In June, Susan made her case before an appeals officer, an attorney appointed by the governor.

Eleven months after she got her first letter of rejection, Susan’s application for assistance was approved. She was awarded $3,000 for counseling, so now therapists and psychiatrists — the people writing Susan’s new prescriptions for depression and anxiety — can bill their services directly to the compensation program.

In light of everything that led up to this, its hard to know whether Susan should celebrate.

Australian rape advocates denounce police for implying victims deserve blame

Rape expert slams police who said women drink too much
From The Daily Telegraph

NSW RAPE crisis experts have blasted police for claiming that fewer sex attacks would happen if women drank less.

Police in Cairns sparked controversy by speaking out on the issue, saying women need to take responsibility for their actions, get less drunk and stop wandering off with strangers.
Some victims of sex crimes in the Queensland party town were so drunk they could not remember what had happened, police said.

But Karen Willis, manager of NSW Rape Crisis Centre, was scathing in her response. “Saying that a woman is asking for or deserved it or somehow participated in sexual violence is an antiquated way of thinking,” she said. "The responsibility is totally and utterly with the perpetrator. Women should not have to spend their lives doing or not doing something to avoid sexual assault."

Earlier today, The Cairns Post reported local officers said sex attacks in the Cairns CBD could be reduced if revellers took care not to drink too much and not wander off with people they have just met.

Ms Willis said in 70 per cent of cases, the attacker is well known to the victim - being a family friend or a school friend - and alcohol isn’t a factor. "I’d be very surprised if police said the same thing if a young man had a few drinks and was sexually assaulted, that young men shouldn’t drink, yet they are quite happy to say that sort of thing when it comes to women."

She said suggesting that women somehow ask for it is a "myth" that has two roles: to blame the victim and to give the perpetrator excuses. "In no other crime do we ask ‘where was she, what was she wearing, what was she saying or doing’. What we should be asking is where the hell does he get off thinking he can do that?" she said. “I’m sure rape crisis services in Queensland would be more than happy to give police some training.”

U of Minn student writes about rape for her school newspaper

A rape victim's advocate at the University of Minnesota, where there have been two high profile rapes in the past few months, has written a letter to the editor of the Minnesota Daily, stating that the high (20 to 25%) incidents of rape means that acquaintances should be the ones to watch out for. She also takes on the role that rape myths about stranger vs. acquaintance victimization and the victim blaiming that takes place.

Sexual assault thoughts

The past month or two of my life as a sexual assault advocate have been fairly routine. I've seen about the same number of clients, and I've wished about as hard as I usually do for more to come in and speak up. The only difference between now and, say, six months ago, is that "rape" has suddenly become a topic of serious discussion, something that makes eyes widen instead of roll.

Suddenly we're talking about needing more security because "more rapes occurred on campus last month than in all of 2007." Despite knowing quite well the rarity of stranger assault, even I find myself walking a little faster and looking over my shoulder a little more frequently lately.

The sad truth is that there weren't more rapes occurring this year, there were just more that got your attention.

According to the National Institute of Justice, one in four or five women will be sexually assaulted during college. That means, of your four or five closest female friends, one will be raped. Do you know someone who was attacked by a shadowy figure who jumped out from the bushes? Maybe not. But unless you know less than four women in college, it's a statistical certainty that you know more than a few victims of rape. If you want to dismiss the numbers as some sort of "feminist agenda," take it from someone who hears the stories firsthand from the people who lived them, whose lives were destroyed by them.

I hear a lot of people say that rape isn't a problem on this campus (remember those rolling eyes?), aside from the recent burst of incidents on and off campus. That's because rape is happening behind closed doors, among acquaintances, where one person uses guilt, social pressure, or intoxicated opportunities to take advantage of another. The victim is then left to fight an uphill battle against someone she or he likely cares about, the opinions and rude comments of mutual friends, and a society whose first questions are why she was in his room in the first place or what she was expecting by drinking. No wonder rape is underreported.

And what do these kinds of situations mean for life in general? If you're a woman, you better not have the audacity to walk down the street, wear a short skirt or drink at a party. After all, if you get attacked, it was your own fault for putting yourself in that position in the first place, right? If you're a man, women are going to look twice at you and wonder if you'll really listen if they say, "I'm not sure about this," or just pretend you didn't hear.

It's scary to think that someone might knock down your door, put a knife to your throat and rape you. But preventing these sorts of nightmares starts at standing up and speaking before they happen, by refusing to condone the disrespect, double standards, and victim-blaming in our society that fosters rape in the first place.

Jackie Heard
University student

Windsor, Ontario date rape research shown attitude of blame for some victims

Don Lajoie, The Windsor Star Published: Wednesday, May 14, 2008

From the frat house to the jury room, victims of date rape who voluntarily used drugs or alcohol prior to their assault are judged more harshly than those whose drinks were deliberately "spiked" by their attackers, says a University of Windsor researcher.

Doctoral student April Girard, who wrote the report in conjunction with her project supervisor, psychology professor Charlene Senn, said the results of the four-year study that surveyed 280 male and female undergraduate students showed the "she-was-asking-for-it" mentality still persists on campus and in society. Voluntary drug use by a woman, Girard said, "decreases perceptions of her worth as a crime victim."

While her paper, The Role of the New Date Rape Drugs in Attributions About Date Rape, to be published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, found that the "perpetrator" is still held responsible for the sexual assault, his actions are "marginally excused" in cases where the victims voluntarily may have drunk to excess or taken illegal drugs before the crime was committed.

"Women's voluntary consumption of drugs prior to a sexual assault reduced perceptions of perpetrator responsibility and blame and increased blame to the victim compared with other situations," the paper's conclusions state.

"Our attitudes remain harsh on women who behave in a way society does not approve of," said Senn. "It remains a real obstacle to justice.... We have to do more education to make sure our criminal justice system, the police and judiciary are not operating from those biases as well."

The participants, who were canvassed about their own sexual experiences, alcohol and drug use and beliefs in rape myths, were asked to read various scenarios involving sex assaults, and then to rate based on percentages how much each person's actions were responsible for the outcome of the incident.
In one scenario both the victim and the attacker are sober. In a second, the victim and the perpetrator have both been drinking the same amount of alcohol. In a third, the perpetrator is surreptitiously mixing the victim's drinks three-times stronger than his own. In the next, the victim has been slipped the date-rape drug GHB. In the final scenario, both are taking drugs.
In all the scenarios, the participants assigned the highest blame to the perpetrator. However levels of blame for the victim increased in the scenarios where they consumed drugs voluntarily. In the involuntary drug scenario the perpetrator was assigned 91 per cent of the blame. Results varied but In the voluntary drug use category, the perpetrator was given 79 per cent of the blame.
There was no significant spread in response depending upon the gender of the participant. However, Girard pointed out, the men were more likely to subscribe to "rape acceptance myths" such as a victim is more responsible if she wears provocative clothing.
Senn added that "in a very tiny minority" of cases, some participants blamed the victim 100 per cent for a rape if she had been voluntarily using drugs before the attack.
"Unfortunately, the results didn't surprise me," said Girard, a doctoral psychology student. "It lives up to stereotypical attitudes. 'She was wearing provocative clothes, what was she doing out at night?' So it's not surprising that people would question her drinking and not conclude a rape is a rape, is a rape."
She said background information she accessed in her research also showed that those same attitudes, to one degree or another, extend into jury rooms and into perceptions in the general population. The Belle River native added that interest in the study has been strong from women on and off campus.

Girard said she came up with the idea for the study because of stories related to her by female friends. She said one friend even ended up so intoxicated she had to be taken home from a Windsor bar despite being the designated driver and drinking only water that night. She suspected drugs were slipped into her glass.

"I thought she shouldn't have to stand guard over her drink just to ensure she's not sexually assaulted," said Girard. "It didn't make sense to me."

Unfortunately, she added, the lesson she learned was, fair or not, young women still need to be vigilant in bars.

"Women already have a difficult enough time coming forward when they've been raped," she said. "We need to educate people further as a way to continue to fight attitudes where people hold women responsible for rape."

The Daily Vidette, Illinois State University's paper, debunks rape myths

The Daily Vidette, the Illinois State University newspaper, has an ongoing series about rape myths. Gail Trimpe-Morrow, M.S., L.P.C.: Coordinator Sexual Assault Prevention and Survivor Services talks about the high prevalance of rape, the fact that most rape victims don't report, and about how people blame victims, not perps.

The Daily Vidette's Sexual Assault Myth Of The Month