Domestic abuse against men

Not only women are victims of Domestic Abuse. Men can be, and frequently are, also victims of abuse in the home, either at the hands of their female or, in the case of same-sex relationships, their male partner. Abuse is a control issue – abusers believe they have the right to manipulate, control and humilate another person, and this belief is not only held by some men but also by some women.

Every year, 1,510,455 women and 834,732 men are victims of physical violence by an intimate. This is according to a Nov. 1998 Department of Justice report on the National Violence Against Women Survey. What does that mean?
Every 37.8 seconds a man is beaten. The data show that men are more likely to have a knife used on them or to be threatened with a knife, hit with an object, kicked, bitten or have something thrown at them.

Domestic violence is: Any incident or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or are family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.

Abuse affects all dimensions of human development and existence

Physical and neurobiological

In addition to such direct results of trauma as broken bones or ruptured internal organs, physically abused children often display retarded physical growth and poor coordination. Malnutrition may slow the development of the brain as well as produce such dietary deficiency diseases as rickets. In both children and adults, repeated trauma produces changes in the neurochemistry of the brain that affect memory formation. Instead of memories being formed in the normal way, which allows them to be modified by later experiences and integrated into the person’s ongoing life, traumatic memories are stored as chaotic fragments of emotion and sensation that are sealed off from ordinary consciousness. These traumatic memories may then erupt from time to time in the form of flashbacks.

Cognitive and emotional

Abused children develop distorted patterns of cognition (knowing) because they are stressed emotionally by abuse. As adults, they may suffer from cognitive distortions that make it hard for them to distinguish between normal occurrences and abnormal ones, or between important matters and relatively trivial ones. They often misinterpret other people’s behavior and refuse to trust them. Emotional distortions include such patterns as being unable to handle strong feelings, or being unusually tolerant of behavior from others that most people would protest.

Social and educational

The cognitive and emotional aftereffects of abuse have a powerful impact on adult educational, social, and occupational functioning. Children who are abused are often in physical and emotional pain at school; they cannot concentrate on schoolwork, and consequently fall behind in their grades. They often find it hard to make or keep friends, and may be victimized by bullies or become bullies themselves. In adult life, abuse survivors are at risk of repeating childhood patterns through forming relationships with abusive spouses, employers, or professionals. Even though a survivor may consciously want to avoid re-abuse, the individual is often unconsciously attracted to people who remind him or her of the family of origin. Abused adults are also likely to fail to complete their education, or they accept employment that is significantly below their actual level of abilit.

The social function of rape myths

I have written a few times about the myths surrounding the topic of rape, but I’ve never written about why these myths have survived for so long and the social functions that they serve. Rape myths allow people to feel safe by letting them believe that rape rarely happens, and that when it does, it is because the person secretly wanted it or that they were “asking for it”. The myths enable us to maintain the belief that we live in a just world. They allow us to believe we can prevent future rapes. And in some cases they even maintain the Adam-and-Eve tradition of our culture, in which man s believed to be the innocent victim of the evil temptress – women.

Myths provide a false security

When we are confronted with the story of a rape, the easiest way to maintain our feelings of safety and invulnerability and to believe that what we are heating is indeed a work of fiction, not a true story. If we believe “many rape reports are false”, then we significantly lower our perceived chance of becoming a victim too. In 1976 a survey evaluating the acceptance of rape myths was conducted at the University of Minnesota School of Social Research. Most participants believed tht more than half of the women who claim to be raped lie about it because they are “angry at the man and want to get even”, or “they are pregnant and want to protect their reputation”. More than 49% reported believing that woman who say they are raped are “lying to call attention to themselves”.

There have been a few cases where women have recanted there stories, as happened in the widely publicised 1985 Gary Dotson/Cathleen Webb case in Illinois. However, the vast majority of women who report being raped are telling the truth. Even a woman who recants my not have lied about being raped. She may have decided to change her story for a number of reasons: such as to end threats from the rapist family or friends, or due to pressure from a religious leader who urges her to “forgive and forget”. Battered women often recant to the police in order to get the assailant out of jail, after he begs for their forgives and perhaps even offers to change his ways or to repay her in another manor.

The implication behind many myths is that there may have been sexual intercourse, but not rape. For example, the myth that “a woman can run faster with her skirt up that a man can with hos pants down” is simple enough. People who believe or quote this myth believe that a woman shuld be able to run away from and escape from any rapist, and if she does not, then she can’t have really wanted to get away. This fails to take into account such bodily reactions to fear as immobility, as well as the fear that if you do not do what he wants he may hurt or even kill you.

Many people believe that a rape has not occurred unless the woman fights to the point of exhaustion and sustains physical injuries, such as cuts, bruises, or torn clothing as proof of her resistance. A 1979 study completed at Iowa State University found an interesting difference between male and female attitudes towards rape survivors who did or did not fight back. In cases where the survivor resisted forcibly, male participants believed that the woman was more inelegant and less to blame than if they had not fought. But the women participants believed the inverse to be true.

According to the researchers, the findings supported established societal norms. The participants interpreted the survivors behaviour according to norms for their own sex: Men are taught to fight back and defend themselves, and see this as the intelligent, responsible thing to do; women are taught that men will be good to them and won’t hurt them if they do as they are told. The result is that many women believe if a woman is foolish enough not to follow a man’s directions, she “deserves what she gets”. The Iowa State University study also found that because they expect women to resist physical aggression, the men were less likely to believe a crime – a rape – had really been committed when the woman did not fight back. They were more likely to blame the nonresisting woman and to believe the rape was her own fault.

Some people concede that a man may have used force but still maintain that the woman “really wanted it anyway”.  More than 70% of the general public responding to a survey in 1978 believed that women are raped because, out of an unconscious wish to be raped, they do such things as dress provocatively. Rapist, however, know that this is not true. When a group of convicted rapists were surveyed only 7% said that the rape was the survivors fault.

Myths maintain our belief in a just world

We would all like to be able to believe that we live in a just world in which people get what they deserve. It would be nice to think that if we are good people and do the “right” things, then “bad” things will not happen to us. However, following this reasoning, if a woman is raped, then it must mean that she is bad or that she has done something wrong that makes her deserve it. Unfortunately though, all women, no matter how “good”, can be vulnerable to rape and other bad things. This can be hard for us to accept as it requires us to see ourselves as vulnerable.

Some women feel that if they can find what they did wrong to “cause” the rape and never do it again, they will not be vulnerable to being raped in the future. It is, however, important to separate the issue of vulnerability from blame. Indeed, there may be something you or someone else did that made you more vulnerable, or an easier target, such as leaving a door unlocked. However, that does not mean that you are to blame. Only the rapist is to blame for the ape. The fact that they took advantage of your vulnerability does not make you to blame.

Angela dropped her keys as she reached her apartment door. When she bent down to pick them up, a man grabbed her and forced her into her apartment, then raped her. Ever since, she has been extremely careful about having her keys securely in her hand because, she says “If I hadn’t dropped my keys, then he wouldn’t have raped me, and I don’t want it to happen again.”

Finding “the thing” that you did “wrong” and not doing it again may actually provide a false sense of security. While no one is ever entirely safe there are things that we can do to make ourselves less vulnerable. And recognising and being aware that you are vulnerable is one of those things, afterall how can we take steps to limit our vulnerbility unless we know that we are vulnerable in the first place?

When rape statments are withdrawn

Where the complainant does not wish to give evidence the case could not normally proceed. With intimates, withdrawal sometimes happens because the complainant is reunited with the suspect. Emotional and financial dependence was felt by police and lawyers to be a common reason for a woman feeling unable to pursue the allegation. In one case a complainant’s statement revealed that she wished to withdraw her allegation, although she still maintained that she had been raped: if her husband went to prison and lost his job, she would lose everything.

In interviews with police officers, it was suggested that it was important for them to warn the complainant about possible evidential difficulties with her case and what would happen if she went to court. The following quotes make the same basic point, but with different emphasis.

“We would always explain to them that they are going to get a hard time, we don’t sort of paint a rosy picture especially if… it’s one of consent but we’ll say that we will support them as much as we can and we are behind them. And we sort of prep a re them for what they are going to face and a lot of them realise that.”

“… if you do really think that it is going to be very difficult to prove, is it worth putting the victim through that and going to court and for them to find a jury don’t convict the person and then sometimes they could end up well nobody’s believed me at the end of the day, which is another sort of trauma for her.”

In warning complainants about the difficulty of securing a conviction, the police might put complainants off pursuing their case without meaning to. The four complainants who were interviewed felt that the police had actively encouraged them to withdraw their allegations. One complainant was told in no uncertain terms that the evidence in her case was weak, even given her injuries:

“I showed them my bruises right… and do you know what they said, ‘your bruises are not good enough’. I went ‘well what do you mean my bruises are not good enough? ’ – ‘your bruises ain’t good enough, you’ve got no case.’”

The manner in which the police deal with a complainant will obviously affect the way she feels. Even if they do not tell her to withdraw her allegation in so many words, she might be left feeling that it is her only option. An extreme example of this involved one complainant who recalled being taken to the police station where two male CID officers sat with her in a room and questioned her; she said that suggestions were made to her that sometimes women allege rape when it is not in fact true, and that her experience was likely to have been consensual given that the suspect was an ex-boyfriend of hers. Further, she alleged that, as far as they were concerned, blood which was found at the scene of the incident was seen as indicative only of ‘rough sex’ having occurred. At no point did the officers apparently take a statement from her, apart from recording her eventual decision to withdraw.

“They didn’t actually let me speak, I never wrote a statement with them, only to retract my complaint, that’s all I did. And that wasn’t my idea.”

Police and CPS law ye rs cited other fa c t o rs which might encourage rape complainants to withdraw their allegations. They thought that certain ethnic communities and religious groups put pressure on complainants to withdraw their allegations. Orthodox Jews were mentioned as one example. It was suggested that there needs to be more specific police training, so that they are better equipped to deal with sensitivities of this sort. As one lawyer put it:

“It may be difficult in [a big city] to cope with the diversity sometimes… police are not always experienced enough or trained enough to deal with pressures from cultural groups.”

Each of the complainants spoken to maintained that if they were raped again they would not report the attack to the police. Of course, too few complainants were interviewed to be able to generalise from their experiences. However, other research supports these findings. A study by Jennifer Temkin (1999), for example, documents the negative perception of rape victims about the way their cases were dealt with. Most complaints were of the disbelieving attitudes of the police and the insensitive ways in which cases were handled.

It should be pointed out that some stations attach a high priority to the care and support given to rape victims. This is reflected in initiatives such as the introduction of victim suites, often away from police premises, the appointment of chaperones in some forces, improved channels of communication to keep victims updated, improved training for officers of both genders and specialist help provided through Victim Support. However, until such initiatives become the rule as opposed to the exception and involve all those concerned, the task of improving police services is not yet complete (Adler, 1991; Temkin, 1999; Victim Support, 1996).

women, rape and the legal system

For a legal system to be fair it is vital that the rights of the defendant to a fair trial are upheld, but it is equally important for the complainants to obtain justice. The rights of both defendants and complainants must be balanced. Women should be enabled to obtain justice without jeopardising the rights of the accused. In rape trials though this is rarely the case, the defendant is too advantaged, allowing men guilty of sexual assault to go free.

Over the last few decades, the legal system has taken a rapping with freeing defendant after defendant following wrongful conviction: the Guildford four, the Birmingham six and Judith Ward, to name a few.  As shocking as these miscarriages are, miscarriages of justice resulting from wrongful acquittals should not be forgotten. It is an injustice not only when the innocent are convicted but also when the guilty go free, or when a case never gets to court at all.

The plight of the rape victim remains as acute as ever. They are viewed in and out of court with suspicion and hostility, and facilities which are meant to aid them are few and far between (Temkin 1987). In the US too, conviction rates are low. According to the FBI in only 16% of reported rapes end in conviction (Steketee and Austen). Consequently the courts have been described as a “disaster area” for rape victims (Bart and Moran 1993) and many of the reforms enacted have had a very limited effect (Allison and Wrightsman 1993). In Europe too, rape trials are an area of particular controversy (Pitch 1995). For example in Switzerland it has been estimated that only 2% of reported rape cases lead to a conviction (1994).

In the 1970s there were campaigns aimed at dispelling the myths surrounding rape. All sorts of myths were challenged: that rape was an expression of sexual desire; that rape was due to the irresistible urge of male sexuality; that rapists were crazed psychopaths; that rapists were black; that rape was a mere misunderstanding, etc… However, today many of these myths still exist strongly in many peoples minds, along with a few “new” myths.

One such prevalent myth is that men need protection from women who are prone to make false allegations for all sorts of reasons, ranging from spite and revenge through to fantasy and pretence (as a means of hiding their infidelity or sexual adventures) to confusing bed sex with rape. Or it is argued that a woman could have avoided the rape if she had not laid herself open to attack (victim precipitation), or she asked for it and secretly enjoyed it (victim participation). Myths about the nature of rape are contradictory, on the one hand rape is often seen as easy to get over, or as an experience that women should “lay back and enjoy”; and on the other hand, it is seen as a very serious crime. Rape is the ultimate form of objectification, in which the womans consent is overruled and her humanity denied. The offence poses a threat to physical integrity and this is compounded by humiliation and deprivation of privacy and autonomy. Yet rape is trivialised by women as well as men. It is argued that some rapes are not as bad as others. It is obviously true that there are different reactions to rape, as to any other trauma, but to argue that therefore rape should be graded according to its gravity misses the point. Rape is the ultimate denial of female subjectivity in a culture where a whole range of sexual practices operates in male interests.

Societal expectations concerning rape reporting are also contradictory. One view is that if a woman is raped, she should be too upset and ashamed to report it; the other that she will be so upset that she defiantly will report it. Both views exist simultaneously, but it is the latter that is written into law. Any delay in reporting is therefore used against her. There is further contradiction in that the complainant should appear upset as a victim but controlled and calm as a court witness. If in court she appears lucid as a witness she may not be seen s a victim. If she appears too upset, she runs the risk of being seen as hysterical and therefore not believable.

One common theme throughout many of these myths is that they absolve men from responsibility for rape. Such myths are important, as rapists draw on them to justify their violence. In Scully and Marolla (1985), men convicted of rape were interviewed; one argued “she semi-struggled but deep down inside I think she felt it was a fantasy come true”. Rapists do not invent their rationalisations; they draw on social myths reflecting ideas that they have every reason to believe that others will find acceptable (Grubin and Gunn 1990).

Women have been accused of lying about rape from time immemorial, and some women do make false allegations of physical battery. According to police statistics, approximately 8% of rape, as compared to 2% of reports of other crimes, are false or lack supporting evidence.

Even if 8% of women do lie about rape, they are the exception, not the rule. If there is any rule, it is that sexual assault is by far the most underreported crime in the United States (national crime centre 1992).

Myths about women making false allegations override commonsense explanations of why they should run naked into the street, cry compulsively, spend the night in police stations for fear of retribution for taking the case to court, change their name, move home, or even go into hiding. The phase “false allegations” needs up-picking, the malicious woman who concocts a false story to take revenge on a past lover would not get very far in the legal system, where a past sexual relationship usually precludes cases even getting to court. It is possible that on rare occasions women who have perhaps been raped or abused in the past may allege that it has happened again, but it is unlikely that a sensitive investigator would not be able to uncover this. Temkin (1987) points out that there is no evidence that fabricated allegations happen more often in rape cases than for any other type of crime.

Most commonly, however, false allegations refer to the woman’s words pitted against the defendant’s protestation that she consented. In most trials, the fact of sexual intercourse is not disputed; the issue is the meaning of consent. Men’s exaggerated fear of false allegation is perhaps more about men’s fantasies of women. It reflects a society where forced sex is far more common than imagined and where women who are forced into sex often do not name it as rape.

Two Scottish researchers found that reasons given by the police for complainant fabrication included the following: to explain a pregnancy; as an excuse for getting home late; spite; hyperactive imagination; and remorse (Chambers and Millr 1987). Similar arguments are often presented in court by the defence.

Although the FBI estimates that only 10% of rapes are not reported, police data and the results of national surveys of sexual assault centres indicate that 50% are not reported (Hall 1995). In the UK this issue is even more pronounced with 60% of rapes not being reported.

However, many experts feel that these figures grossly underestimate the degree of underreporting. Underreporting is especially prevalent among illegal and recent immigrants, among women from cultural backgrounds that value sexual chastity, and among women who were attacked by someone they knew (Petrak and Hedge 2002)

The limited information available indicates that African-American and Hispanic survivors, as compared to European and American survivors, face more negative social reaction if they disclose attempted or completed rape (Crawford and Unger 2000). Of all groups, Hispanic women have been found to have the highest rates of staying silent and the lowest rates of asking for help from others. Sexual assault is considered such a stigma that many suffer in silence rather than risk social disapproval and rejection (Ullman and Filipas 2001).

The anti-rape movement of the 1970s resulted in greater public awareness of sexual assault and improved recording procedures and legislation, making it easier for women to come forward. However within less than 2 decades, this process started to be, and continues to be, undermined by a backlash that dismisses sexual assault as “rape hype” and feminist propaganda. This movement also alleges that researchers exaggerate statistics (Media Education Foundation 1992) and that date-rape victims “cry rape” as an excuse for “bad sex” (Roiphe 1993)

Women who regained memories of childhood abuse were accused of lying to gain attention, financial compensation or of waging a personal vendetta against a family member. There have even been efforts to eliminate federal funding for rape crisis centres (Gilbert 1993).

These and other forms of backlash have silenced and continue to silence women who have been sexually attacked, causing some women (at times myself included) to wish that they had been mutilated physically as well as raped, so that they would be believed and respected as truth-tellers and not ridiculed and alienated as liars.

Women may regret having sex (the morning after phenomenon), but this does not cause them to “cry rape”. Women may reluctantly agree to have sex, but there is no evidence that they cannot distinguish such occasions from when they do not consent and are raped. In 1991 a study was carried out by Painter which indicated that it is more common for women not not recognise certain situations, including being “coerced into sex”, as rape than to “cry rape” when dissatisfied with sex. Rather than being eager to classify themselves as having been raped, the opposite appeared to be the case. In other words, when they were raped, they were often disinclined to see it as rape. Painter concluded, firmly, that women are unlikely to “cry rape”. It is important to be clear that consenting to sex, however reluctantly, is different from being raped. Additionally not resisting in response to threats or coercion is also distinct from consenting. The focus of trials should not be placed so heavily on whether or not the woman resisted, but on what lead the defendant to the belief that she consented. It is for this reason that it is (or should be) essential for the defendant to give evidence, or at least to justify his failure to do so.

The police treatment of rape cases has radically changed in the last few decades. The catalyst for this was, in part, an episode of the BBC television series police in 1982, in which police officers were seen in a live investigation of a woman reporting a rape. The brought to the public’s attention the harsh interrogation techniques rape complainants were subjected to and provided the impetus for the police to reform the procedures (Scott and Dickens, 1989). As a result of pressure from the Womans National Commission following publication of its report “violence against women” (1985), the Home Office issued a circular calling for improved police training to deal with rape and sexual assault, the appointment of more women police surgeons and the provision of better facilities for medical examination of women who had been attacked. Police handling of rape and sexual assault complainants, if not perfect, has greatly improved. Most police officers now have had some training (although this is often fairly minimal) and a chaperonage system is in place in many stations.

The number of women reporting rape and sexual assault to the police has doubled over the past decade in Britain, but the proportion of reported rapes resulting in a conviction has more than halved there are possible reasons why more women are reporting rape: confidence that the police will believe them has undoubtedly increased and greater acknowledgement of the prevalence of violence against women within the community could well have had an effect; but there could also have been an actual increase in the prevalence of rape.

	1	2	3	3a	4	4a	5	5a
	Total number of cases reported to the police	Total number of cases proceeded against at magistrates court	Total number of trials committed for trial	Percentage of cases that that did not proceed from 2 to 3	Number of cases appearing at crown court	Percentage of cases that do not get from 3 to 4	Total found guilty	Percentage of  guilty who got conviction of “rape”	Percentage of reported cases that end in conviction
1985	1842	884	758	10.2%	569	25%	450	53.3%	24.4%
1986	2288	927	804	13.3%	593	26.2%	415	44.8	18.1%
1987	2471	1048	867	17.3%	649	25.1%	453	43%	18.3%
1988	2855	1288	1082	16%	799	26.2%	540	42.9%	18.9%
1989	3305	1400	1140	18.6%	930	18.4%	613	43.8%	18.5%
1990	3391	1467	1147	22%	914	20.3%	561	38%	16.5%
1991	4045	1711	1323	22.7%	961	27.7%	559	32.6%	13.8%
1992	4142	1648	1184	28.2%	933	21.2%	485	29.4%	11.7%
1993	4589	1704	1202	29.5	892	26%	455	26.7%	9.9%
1994	5039	1782	1266	29%	940	26%	425	25%	8.4%

This trend has continued, and in 2008 the percentage of reported cases which ended in conviction was at an all time low of 6%.

In 1993 a study was done by Lees and Gregory in which women who had not reported their rape where asked why. The most common reason (57%) was a lack of confidence that the police would believe them, or take them seriously, particularly if they knew their attacker. Other reasons were fear of further attack from the assailant or his friends (18%), fear that the man would return, as he knew where they lived (14%), fear that if the man was of professional status he would the advantage over them (in one case the assailant was a high-ranking police officer). Several women did not report the event as they felt, or were made to feel, that the rape was their fault because they had gone willingly to the man’s home. Finally, 15 women were put off from reporting because they did not want to testify in court. Reasons including belief that a conviction was unlikely; belief that she, the victim, would be “on trial”; fear of reprisals by the man; not wishing to involve relatives; and not wishing other people to find out what happened. The reality of woman’s fear of retaliation were brought home by the case in 1995 of a husband who was acquitted of raping his wife only to return to their home days later where he beat her to death in front of their children.

Have you ever asked a woman who has been raped if she enjoyed it? Have you ever asked her if she was asking for it by wearing short skirts? Have you ever asked her if her shoes are not real leather but a “cheap” fake, implying that she may be too? Have you ever asked her to describe loudly in detail what happened in front of room of people? Have you ever asked her why she did not fight back more strenuously? Have you ever asked her whether she has ever had an abortion? Asked her about past sexual relationships? Ever demanded details of her menstrual cycle? Probably not… but these are all questions that have been asked in court. In fact these questions are encouraged on the grounds that they are the only way to protect men from false allegations. These questions also have the side effect of destroying the womans credibility.

So, if only 6% of rape cases end in conviction does this imply that the other 84% are examples of false accusations? Well I don’t think so… especially after myself reporting a rape a few years ago and never getting to court at all… women often put themselves through all the above only to have the defendant acquitted and walk free.

I will leave you with an example of this, which occurred in 1984 when Alister Winter (not real name) was accused by Julie (not real name) of rape. Julie was living with her parents in Sussex and had a boyfriend. One night she went to a Christmas party and got talking to a man there, when she went to leave he claimed that his car would not start and asked if she could give him a lift, thinking that it was a simple good deed she agreed. When they got to his home he insisted that she come in for a Christmas drink to say thankyou. She agreed to go to his flat and once there, the mans mood changed. He offered her drugs, which she refused, saying she had to go as she had to up early the next day. He physically stopped her from leaving, blocking the door and gripping her wrists. The more scared she got the more he seemed to enjoy what was happening/ he threatened to break her arm if she resisted, she pleaded with him and pretended to have an asthma attack. He pushed he down and raped her. After the rape he kept saying how he was not finished with her.

Julie managed to convince him that she needed her inhaler from her car, he made her leave her bag and shoes in his flat to ensure that he would return. When they got to her car Julie managed to leep in and lock the doors before he stopped her. She then drove off with him following her until she got to the police station; half naked, with no shoes and no bag.

Julie was covered in bruises and cuts, and had gotten a STI. She attempted suicide and ended up in psychiatric treatment. But Alister Winter was acquitted, although the judge unusually made an order for him to pay his legal costs of £15000. A friend of Winter was quoted in the media as saying “he used to have any woman he fancied, and has probably raped many times and gotten away with it”.

In 1993 Winter again appeared in court. It transcended that he had been taking women and raping them showing them the newspaper cutting from the previous trial as a method of making sure they did not tell as he would only be acquitted anyway. On this occasion he was found guilty of rape, buggery and administering controlled substances to have sex with female clients.

The “rape controversy”

Had an unfun week… many arguments with many people, mainly on the topic of rape… on people lying about being raped, using it to punish men… which is odd as last time I checked rape was not gender specific, men can be raped too and women can be rapists.
So thought would take some time to discuss the topic here.

Now firstly I know I am biased, I hate the idea of anyone lying about having being raped for several reasons, the major one being that it makes people question the truth of the stories of those of us who HAVE been raped. I don’t think that people who spread these ideas of people lying about it realise how much it hurts to have people call you a liar. When you are raped all control is lost, your perception of the world is shattered, it’s no longer a kind, nice, safe place, suddenly it becomes a unknown, scary place full of danger and dangerous people. You blame yourself, and you’re convinced that others will blame you too, that they will judge you, pick the event apart and find a way to confirm that, yes, it was your fault.

Imagine if you left your car parked outside your home, that you always leave it in that place, but then one day you go outside and its been broken into. Then you go to the police and instead of helping they say “well you shouldn’t have left it in the street”. Now yes, that may be a valid point, but it’s not really helpful is it? Instead of being helpful advice it instead makes it seem as if you caused the burglary rather than that you could have prevented it.

Last week someone also said to me that if there is no evidence then no crime occurred :/ , seriously? So therefore we can all do whatever we like as long as we are clever and don’t leave evidence? I could murder someone by pushing them off a bridge and be totally innocent as the evidence may point to suicide.
How many trials do you think have ended due to insuffient evidence? In fact most legal systems do not even use the word “innocent” in part for this reason, a lack of evidence may be grounds to end a trial but a lack of evidence by no means proves innocence… a lack of evidence is just that, no proof neither of innocence nor guilt.

In the cases of rape this idea of evidence can be even more complicated. For a start few (if any) rapists are stupid enough to commit the act in the middle of a crowded street, so that’s witnesses out of the question. That and the fact of bystander apathy, I mean how many times have you (the reader) walked past a man screaming at his partner, a woman crying on the floor, etc, and not intervened? How many people do you think have been cornered crying out for help only for no one to come? I can even give a few examples of this, the most well known of which has to be the story of the “good Samaritan”, which to be honest I expect most of you will have heard, but for those who have not I’ll give a quick overview: in this tale a man is mugged and left hurt in the road, as he lay there people walked past crossing over to the other side of the road and ignored his plight. Eventually a man came along and helped the man, hence the name of the story of “the good Samaritan”. Another example of this is that of Kitty Genovese, who in 1964 was walking to her car in New York when a man attacked her with a knife, she yelled out and as lights turned on in a nearby building the man fled, when no one appeared on the scene though he returned to continue the attack. The whole incident lasted over half an hour during which time she managed to drag herself to the door of a building and was witnessed by thirty-eight, but not one person intervened or even called the police.
In college all the women had to attend rape safety sessions, in which we were told that if we were ever in a situation where we needed help never to shout “help” nor “rape” but instead to call “fire” as people are more likely to come!!!
And even when there are witnesses how often do you think they actually come forward? Even when they do they get treated like liars or criminals themselves for not intervening, told that if what was happening was wrong then they would have done something wouldn’t they? So obviously they are lying or exaggerating. Let’s just ignore the idea that a person can be scared, let’s ignore the idea of self preservation, let’s ignore that the person may not have known what to do, instead obviously they are just lying.

How about DNA? Surely there is DNA evidence isn’t there? Well not all rapes leave DNA evidence, using an object is technically rape, and objects do not have DNA. Also rapists are not stupid, they do know that they have DNA, they do know that they will leave evidence. Some will even force their victim to shower after the event, or will put things in place to ensure that they cannot report the event for a period of time which will limit the available evidence. Even without this though it can take a person a whole fully comprehend what happened, and even longer before they feel able to talk about or admit it. After being raped you’re not thinking about the evidence, in fact you’ll do anything to not think about anything involving the incident at all. But you can still smell them, still feel them, feel the dirt on you, slowly working its way through your skin into your very being. All you want to do is clean it off, to clean them off, to forget about it, to get rid of anything and everything involving it, in the hope that maybe, just maybe, if you clean enough and deny it enough, then maybe it didn’t happen, maybe it was not real.

In fact quite often the main source of evidence comes from character witnesses, and on the basis of a few people saying that the accused is a “nice person” many cases are dropped… as if no person if capable of being nice but also committing a crime… as if any wrong doing can be forgiven or ignored due to a lifetime of “niceness”. If I was to shoplift and then have a few people say “no, she couldn’t have, she’s too nice for that” no one would drop the case, and the fact would be that I had still shoplifted, still committed a crime, and it’s almost a character requirement of abusers to be able to live a double life, otherwise, well they wouldn’t be able to abuse anyone would they? Abusers are masters of deception, able to seem perfectly kind, normal and functional to the outside world, maybe even respected, yet as soon as that front door closes become mean, violent and abusive. How often do we hear on the news neighbours of convicted criminals and abusers say how shocked they are as “they always seemed so nice”?
This can sort of be seen as an example of the “halo effect”. People strive to maintain consistency in their beliefs, often at the expense of the truth. If a person has some salient trait that is good, it tends to colour the way in which all his/her other characteristics are seen. In the eyes of other people they are distorted to fit in with the one estimable trait. People are unwilling to accept that others may be a mixture of good and bad: they try to see them as a consistent whole. So in this case as the character witnesses describe all the persons good traits and list any good deeds they have done people are less likely to be able to imagine them ever doing something bad, especially not something as bad as rape. This is exacerbated by the tendency of the victims character flaws and past sexual history being questioned and enforcised to portray them as “immoral” or “promiscuous”.

One other thing people bring up during this discussion is that some people report a rape only to revoke their statement at a later date, people then interperate this as meaning that the rape never occurred and the initial report was a lie. But you have to take into account how hard and stressful a court case is, especially when you have been raped and so already feel vulnerable. When you report a rape every aspect of your life is picked apart, people imply that you are lying, people take small aspects of your life and blow them up to turn you into the bad one, it’s a painful and stressful experience, and many people just cannot cope with it. Add to this the fact that you have to see the person who did this to you, have to sit in the same room as them, here them accuse your testimony as a life, listen to them blow up every character flaw, all while you have to relive the event over and over both in your mind and through describing it to others.

Ok, now let’s have a think about why on earth anyone would lie about such a thing. Revenge? Honestly what the hell would anyone have to do to you for you to think that the best revenge would be to accuse them of rape? There are a million and one ways to get revenge on someone, who on earth would jump to a rape accusation as their first revenge plan?

Let’s now move on to the statistics, I hate statistics… you can use statistics to prove or disprove basically anything, you can manipulate them to say whatever you want. Also statistics on the topic of rape are difficult to acquire, a lot of people never report what happened to them which naturally messes with the numbers. A lot of people don’t report what happened but do speak to anonymous helplines and charities, so we can get an idea of the figures from adding these to the police reports, but even then we cannot get a definite idea of exactly how many people have been raped. Another thing which often screws with the data is that some reports take children into account whereas others do not which obviously messes with the numbers.
If we were to assume that the 1 in 5 statistic is correct though is this really “fear mongering”. As I was told it was last week? I mean ok, 1 in 5 is a lot, but that still means that 4 in 5 (i.e. the majority) will never experience rape… in fact all the 1 in 5 statistic really means is that pretty much everyone at some point in their lives will know someone who has been raped.

Right… now for the bit that I’ve been putting off… the idea of justifications for rape… when I told someone that I had been raped more than once the person decided that obviously I was a pole-dancer or a hooker, so therefore is it ok to rape people in these professions? Personally I think not, I do not think that you can say that people working in the sex-trade are ok to rape, no one should be ok to rape, because rape is not ok.
Some people seem to think that it’s a woman’s own fault if they were wearing revealing clothing, drunk, alone, etc. But I think that is ridiculous… so what? Men are not responsible at all? Men are just these creatures who cannot help but have sex with anyone who has some skin on show or who has been drinking? I honestly think that this way of thinking is not only hurtful to women, but actually demeaning to men, men are not just masses of instinct who cannot help themselves, and implying that they are is sort of implying that they are a lower being than women…

I have never heard these excuses in the case of male rape though… nor in cases of female rapists. So what can we gather from this? Maybe that people in general either do not believe or think about rape being anything but a man raping a woman, or maybe people think it’s ok to rape women but that the idea of raping a man or of a woman raping someone is not ok? In either of these ideas isn’t the route the same? A bit of a sexist stance?
In fact the idea that all women should not go out (or deserve to be raped if they do) in certain outfits, should not drink, should not go to certain places, etc. is not really too large a leap from “get back in the kitchen” is it? So we should live in a world where men can do whatever they like but if a woman does anything on their own or feel sexually liberated then they are in the wrong and should be raped? In fact that sounds a lot like the world one of my abusers would have liked to have lived in, he used to use sexual violence as a form of “punishment” if/when I did wrong. I’ve lived in that world, and I never want to go back to it, nor would I ever wish that world on to anyone.

The other ridiculous argument I’ve heard in the last week is that the idea of and the statistics surrounding rape are a “feminist propaganda” spreading fear and hatred of men… I don’t even know where to start with this… As I’ve already said rape is not limited to men attacking women, but can be men attacking men, women attacking women, and women attacking men. Also, feminism isn’t about hating men, I’m not going to write a essay on what feminism is right now but basically anyone who thinks it’s about hating men really doesn’t know much about the topic.
Also, if we quickly think of the logistics of this we’ll see that it’s not really feasible; this idea relies on a MALE DOMIATED police force altering the statistics of reported rapes. Actually, to be honest I don’t think I need to continue that point as I think it speaks for itself.

Adverse Childhood Experiences

The  adverse childhood experiences study population included 9,367 (54%) women and 7,970 (46%) men (total sample=17,337). Their mean age was 56 years. Seventy-five percent were white, 39% were college graduates, 36% had some college education, and 18% were high school graduates. Only 7% had not graduated from high school.1,13
The Study assessed 10 categories of stressful or traumatic childhood experiences (seen below). The experiences chosen for study were based upon prior research that has shown them to have significant adverse health or social implications, and for which efforts in the public and private sector exist to reduce the frequency and consequences of their occurrence.
Prior research into the effects of childhood maltreatment and related experiences (including witnessing domestic violence) has tended to focus on only one or two categories of experience, such as physical or sexual abuse or domestic violence, and has generally focused on a limited range of outcomes. The ACE Study is unique not only because of its size, but because it was also designed to assess the relationships of a broad range of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) to a wide range of health and social consequences.

• Childhood abuse

-Emotional

-Physical

-Sexual

• Neglect

-Emotional

-Physical

• Growing up in a seriously dysfunctional household as evidenced by:

-Witnessing domestic violence

-Alcohol or other substance abuse in the home

- Mentally ill or suicidal household members

- Parental marital discord (as evidenced by separation or divorce)

- Crime in the home (as evidenced by having a household member imprisoned)

The first important conclusion to be drawn is that adverse childhood experiences are very common. Moreover, ACE Study estimates of the prevalence of childhood exposures to physical and sexual abuse are similar to population-based surveys. A national telephone survey of adults conducted by Finkelhor et al. used similar criteria for childhood sexual abuse and determined that 16% of men and 27% of women had been sexually abused; in the ACE Study cohort 16% of men and 25% of women in our sample had experienced contact childhood sexual abuse. In our study, 30% of the men had been physically abused as boys; this closely parallels the 31% prevalence recently found in a similarly structured population-based study of Canadian men. The similarity of the estimates from the ACE Study to those of population-based studies suggests that findings would be applicable in other settings.

The other findings from this study are detailed below:

The effects of ACEs are long-term, powerful, cumulative, and likely to be invisible to health care providers, educators, social service organizations, and policy makers because the linkage between cause and effect is concealed by time, the inability to “see” the process of neurodevelopment, and because effects of the original traumatic insults may not become manifest until much later in life. When a child is wounded, the pain and negative long-term effects reverberate as an echo of the lives of people they grew up with—and then they grow up, at risk for taking on the same characteristics and behaviors—thereby sustaining the cycle of abuse, neglect, violence and substance abuse, and mental illness.

References
Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Walker J, Whitfield, CL, Bremner JD, Perry BD, Dube SR, Giles WH. The Enduring Effects of Abuse and Related Adverse Experiences in Childhood: A Convergence of Evidence from Neurobiology and Epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 2006; 256(3):174-86
Dube SR, Miller JW, Brown DW, Giles WH, Felitti VJ, Dong M, Anda RF. Adverse Childhood Experiences and the Association with Ever Using Alcohol and Initiating Alcohol Use During Adolescence. . Journal of Adolescent Health, 2006;38(4):444.e1-444.e10.
Anda, RF, Felitti, VJ, Brown, DW, Chapman, D, Dong, M, Dube, SR, Edwards, VJ, Giles, WH. (2006) Insights Into Intimate Partner Violence From the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. In PR Salber and E Taliaferro, eds. The Physician’s Guide to Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse, Volcano, CA: Volcano Press; 2006.

Effects of childhood abuse

The effects as an adult can be severe and take years to work through. Often survivors spend years in therapy to overcome the effects of their childhood abuse that has crippled them from functioning normally as adults (Wiehe, 1997). Poor self esteem is a common effect. As children, victims of sibling sexual abuse tend to feel worthless, unwanted, inferior, unloved, and inadequate.

These feelings of worthlessness are often associated with guilt and shame which frequently leads to self-blame for the abuse. These kinds of symptoms can affect a person’s psychological development. Survivors can become overly sensitive to comments or criticism. Even looking for hidden negative meanings in positive messages.

Difficulty with interpersonal relationships and relationships with the gender of the offender are common problems of adult survivors of sibling sexual abuse. (Wiehe, 1997) Survivors tend to be suspicious and untrusting of others. They find it hard to become close to someone and trust them and often have problems controlling anger. Often survivors repeat the victim role in other relationships and enter into abusive relationships with both friends and romantic partners. Even as adults it can be difficult to view negative relationships as abusive because they tend to normalise

their abuse. Survivors can also have the opposite reaction and transfer their emotions about their experience of abuse to the offending gender in general. For example, they may feel fearful or hateful towards all men because the abuse was perpetrated by a brother who is also a man.

Self-blame and guilt are common emotions connected to sibling sexual abuse. The survivor feels that they had somehow allowed themselves to be abused and feel shameful and guilty for not being able to prevent the abuse from occurring. Often survivors blame themselves into adulthood.

These feelings can be made worse if during disclosure, a victim is blamed or not believed. (Wiehe)

Survivors often have extreme anger about the abuse which can be expressed in angry outbursts, anger at men, or anger provoked by various situations. Most survivors have to continually work towards controlling their anger especially when it is being directed inappropriately. Anger at their siblings or other family members can make it difficult to maintain relationships with the family of origin. (Wiehe, 1997) This can be very difficult for a survivor who may experience feelings of grief and loss due to the changes in the relationships in the family.

Sexual dysfunction is a common effect of sexual abuse. Survivors tend towards two paths; avoidance of all sexual contact or sexual compulsiveness or promiscuity. (Wiehe) Even though it is not as common, some victims of sexual abuse can act out and abuse others. This is called “repetition compulsion” and is an attempt for the victim to take him or herself out of the victim role and into a new role where he/she is no longer powerless. Boys who have been molested tend to repeat the abuse as girls tend to repeat the abuse as victims. Girls do not assume the role of sexual aggressor as often as boys but research shows that those who do usually have a background of lengthy and extreme abuse. The more common reaction of sexual compulsiveness or promiscuity could be viewed as an unconscious effort to overcome or deny their feelings of powerlessness, shame, and anger. Abuse contains elements of distrust, secrecy, danger, and physical or emotional abuse which is often recreated in the survivors’ promiscuous encounters in adulthood. It can also be seen as a confusion of boundaries between affection, sex, and abuse. It happens as a result of the developmentally inappropriate and personally dysfunctional ways a child’s sexuality was shaped. (Wiehe, 1997)

Some survivors also react by turning to drugs, alcohol, or eating disorders. These are used as coping mechanisms and eating disorders stem for a need to have control.

The emotional or psychological problems most commonly associated with sexual abuse are depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Depression can be evident in a child shortly after the initial incidence of abuse. The severity of the abuse is NOT correlated with the intensity of depression. Incidents of depression as adults are high. According a survey by Vernon Wiehe, 26% of survivors experienced depression that required hospitalization and 68% had attempted suicide, with 50% of those having more than one attempt. Anger and depression are often seen together. Depression can be defined as anger turned on oneself. PTSD is associated with symptoms of depression, general anxiety, anxiety attacks, and flashbacks. These symptoms can be triggered by events that remind them of abuse such as sexual activity or being alone at night or when in the presence of the perpetrator. Because survivors tend to push abuse out of their memory, repress, disassociate, or block-out memories, PTSD is an anxiety disorder which the survivor re-experiences the abuse. This can be a full flashback, or an emotional or physical memory or it may even be re-experienced in dreams (Wiehe, 1997).

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder can appear in children shortly after abuse or many years later as adults. PTSD is an anxiety disorder that can occur after someone has been through a traumatic event. SECASA defines PTSD as having the following criteria:

1. The person has experienced an event that is outside the range of usual human experience and that would be markedly distressing to almost anyone.

2. The re-experiencing of the trauma in at least one of the following ways:

a. Recurrent and intrusive recollections of the event.

b. Recurrent distressing dreams of the event.

c. Sudden acting or feeling as if the event were recurring.

d. Intense psychological distress at exposure to events that symbolise or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event.

3. A numbing of responsiveness or reduced involvement in the external world some time after the trauma, indicated by;

a. Diminished interest in activities and/or

b.Feelings of detachment or estrangement from others and/or

c. Constricted affect; unable to have loving feelings or to feel anger

4. In addition, at least two of the following symptoms must be present

a. Hyper-alertness or being easily startled.

b. Sleep problems.

c. Guilt about surviving or behavior required to survive.

d. Problems with memory or concentration.

e. Avoidance of activities that arouse recollection.

f. Intensification of symptoms if events symbolize or resemble the traumatic event.

The national center of PTSD states that symptoms of PTSD can be terrifying and can disrupt one’s daily life. PTSD symptoms usually start soon after the traumatic event, but they may not happen until months or even years later. They may also come and go over a period of many years. Many people who develop PTSD get better over time but some (about 1 out of 3) may continue to have symptoms and need to seek treatment to better cope. There are four symptoms of PTSD; reliving

the event, avoidance, numbing, and feeling “keyed up” or hyperarousal. People  experiencing PTSD may also have problems with drinking or drugs, feelings of hopelessness, shame, or despair, employment and/or relationship problems (including violence and divorce), and physical symptoms. Treatment for PTSD is available including cognitive-behavioral therapy, EMDR (eye movement desensitization and repressing), medication such as SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor)

Major depressive disorder, commonly known as depression, is another common psychological effect of sexual abuse. This can be in combination with PTSD or other emotional disorders.

Depression can severely disrupt one’s life, affecting your appetite, sleep, work, and relationships.

Symptoms of depression include;

• Constant feelings of sadness, irritability, or tension
• Decreased interest or pleasure in usual activities or hobbies
• Loss of energy, feeling tired despite lack of activity
• A change in appetite, with significant weight loss or gain
• A change in sleeping patterns, such as difficulty sleeping, early morning awakening, or sleeping too much.
• Restlessness or feeling slowed down
• Decreased ability to make decisions or concentrate
• Feelings of worthlessness, hopelessness, or guilt
• Thoughts of suicide

What causes Abuse?

The causes of interpersonal abuse are complex and overlapping. However, the following are widely regarded to be some of the most important factors:

• Early learning experiences: This factor is sometimes described as the “life cycle” of abuse. Many abusive parents were themselves abused as children and have learned to see hurtful behavior as normal childrearing. At the other end of the life cycle, some adults who abuse their elderly parent are paying back the parent for abusing them in their early years.
• Ignorance of developmental timetables: Some parents have unrealistic expectations of children in terms of the appropriate age for toilet training, feeding themselves, and similar milestones, and attack their children for not meeting these expectations.
• Economic stress: Many caregivers cannot afford part-time day care for children or dependent elderly parents, which would relieve some of their emotional strain. Even middle-class families can be financially stressed if they find themselves responsible for the costs of caring for elderly parents before their own children are financially independent.
• Lack of social support or social resources: Caregivers who have the support of an extended family, religious group, or close friends and neighbors are less likely to lose their self-control under stress.
• Substance abuse: Alcohol and mood-altering drugs do not cause abuse directly, but they weaken or remove a person’s inhibitions against violence toward others. In addition, the cost of a drug habit often gives a substance addict another reason for resenting the needs of the dependent person. A majority of workplace bullies are substance addicts.
• Mental disorders: Depression, personality disorders, dissociative disorders, and anxiety disorders can all affect parents’ ability to care for their children appropriately. A small percentage of abusive parents or spouses are psychotic.
• Belief systems: Many men still think that they have a “right” to a relationship with a woman; and many people regard parents’ rights over children as absolute.
• The role of bystanders: Research in the social sciences has shown that one factor that encourages abusers to continue their hurtful behavior is discovering that people who know about or suspect the abuse are reluctant to get involved. In most cases, bystanders are afraid of possible physical, social, or legal consequences for reporting abuse. The result, however, is that many abusers come to see themselves as invulnerable.

Child abuse linked to early menarche (onset of menstrual periods before age 12)

A study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health, examined the prevalence of sexual and physical abuse in childhood among more than 35,000 African-American women aged 21-69 years participating in the Black Women’s Health Study, a national prospective cohort study.

The study found that a high proportion of participants reported a history of childhood abuse: 43% reported physical abuse and 18% reported sexual abuse. Women who reported a higher frequency of childhood sexual abuse had a higher likelihood of early menarche: a 26% increased risk of early menarche for 1-3 incidents of sexual abuse and a 34% increased risk of early menarche for four or more incidents, compared with women reporting no childhood abuse. There was a weaker association between physical abuse and early menarche.

The study used a considerably larger sample than any of the previous studies; examined African-American women, who have been underrepresented in earlier investigations; controlled for potential confounders that were not controlled previously; and simultaneously accounted for sexual and physical abuse in all analyses. An important limitation was the retrospective nature of data collection, which prevented establishment of the temporal relationship between abuse onset and menarche.

According to lead author Lauren A. Wise, ScD, an epidemiologist at the Slone Epidemiology Center and an assistant professor of epidemiology at Boston University School of Public Health, it is biologically plausible that childhood sexual abuse could influence age of menarche. Wise noted that “A link between sexual abuse and early menarche, if real, could have important public health implications because early menarche is associated with earlier age at initiation of sexual activity and first pregnancy, and is a risk factor for several adult conditions, including gynecologic disorders, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.”