Domestic abuse against men

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

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.

The social function of rape myths

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

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?

women, rape and the legal system

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

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”

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

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.

What causes Abuse?

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

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.

Domestic violence against men study

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

The recent report from Scotland provides no new information for those familiar with the issue of domestic violence against men. Many of the more recent studies and research has found that male victims make up a significant amount of the victims of domestic violence, but the lack of support services, anti-male bias in the support community and cultural bias against male victims keeps men silent.

This does not often sit well with the domestic violence community, and several within the community are quick to dismiss any findings of high rates of violence against men. However, what the Scotland research showed is difficult to deny:

Interviewees were asked about their experience of physical or psychological partner abuse both since the age of 16 and within the preceding 12 months. The findings included:

• 18% of adults who had had at least one partner since the age of 16 reported having experienced at least one form of partner abuse. The figure for women was 20.9% and for men 15.3%.

• However, in the most recent 12 months the figure for both men and women was 5%.

• The data for the last 12 months showed that young men aged 16-24 experienced physical and/or psychological abuse more often than young women and more often than any other demographic group.

• For persons experiencing partner abuse in the last 12 months, 48% of the perpetrators were male and 45% were female.

• Police came to know about 35% of incidents of partner abuse reported by women in the preceding 12 months but only 8% of incidents in which a man was on the receiving end. 40% of men told no-one compared to 21% of women.

Again, there are those who would dismiss those findings. However, the problem with the research the domestic violence community prefers is that the language of some of those studies portrays the respondents as victims, and many men do not view themselves as victims. Part of this is because of the cultural narrative that women cannot hurt men, but part of it comes from the domestic violence community itself and its framing of domestic violence as a man-on-woman only crime. Nevertheless, the language issue can seriously impact the results of a study. As was noted in the article:

[John Forsyth said,]“The research has to be commended for its rigour. When asked whether they had been subject to domestic abuse since the age of 16, only 3% of men and 14% of women said yes. However, when asked to report specific conduct by a partner that falls within the definition of partner abuse, the number for men rose 5 times to 15% and for women by half to 20.9%. This is hardly surprising given the tens of millions that has been spent by successive Scottish administrations on campaigns, support services and organisations targeted at women, encouraging them to recognise and report domestic abuse. In the same period precisely nothing has been spent on efforts to encourage men to recognise and report domestic abuse.”

My emphasis. The shift in the reporting rate shows how damaging ignoring male victimization can be and specifically why domestic violence should not be presented as a crime against women. As more research is done and as more male victims come forward, it is beginning to appear that the actual rates of violence between men and women is not significantly different.

There is no harm in acknowledging that, but there is harm in not acknowledging male victims. Maintaining the double standard established by the domestic violence community leads to instances in which women who violently assault their male partners get slaps on the wrist even as the judge acknowledges the double standard at play. One constantly hears there is never an excuse for violence against women, yet the narrative coming from those same people is that violence against men is minimal, unimportant and excusable. Numbers like those above contradict those notions and organizations like The One in Three Campaign can help fight for the recognition of male victims.

Myths and realities of eating disorders.

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

Myths	Realities
Only teenage girls suffer from eating disorders.	Many eating disorders do begin in the teenage years, but children, men, older women and just about anyone can fall victim to this terrible disorder.
You can never fully recover from an eating disorder.	Recovery takes a long time, but with hard work and the proper treatment,  you can fully recover from your eating disorder.
Men with eating disorders are always gay.	Someone’s sexual preference has  nothing to do with them developing an eating disorder.
Eating disorders are solely a problem with food.	With all eating disorders, weight is the focus of life. By focusing on food, weight and calories, a person is able to block out or numb painful feelings and emotions. Some use food as a way to comfort themselves. Eating disorders are NOT a problem with food. They are in fact onlya symptom of underlying problems.
Bulimics always purge by  vomiting.	Not all bulimics try to rid themselves of the calories they have consumed by vomiting. Purging can take the form of laxatives, diuretics, exercising, or fasting.
You can always tell someone is anorexic by their appearance.	Not all anorexics look like the extreme cases shown on talk shows, etc. Some anorexics may be anywhere from 5 to 15 lbs. underweight. They look thin, but they do not have what society considers to be the “anorexic” look. Just because someone does not look emaciated, does not mean they are not anorexic or that their health is not in danger.
Anorexics do not eat candy,  chocolate, etc.	Many anorexics do avoid such foods, but  some do eat them on a regular basis. If an anorexic decides to only allow him/herself 300 calories a day, they may very well choose to eat a chocolate bar, candy, etc.
Anorexics do not binge or purge	Many anorexics will go on occasional binges and purge. Some anorexics can become so fearful of any food or drink that they will purge whatever they put into their system, including water.
You cannot die from bulimia.	Bulimics are at a high risk for dying, especially if they are purging, using laxatives and doing excessive exercise. Many bulimics have died from cardiac arrest which is usually caused by low potassium or an electrolyte imbalance. Others have died from a ruptured  esophagus.
People with eating disorders do this to hurt their family and friends.	People with eating disorders are doing this to themselves. They are usually very upset when they know the people around them are worried or hurt by their eating disorder.
Compulsive eating is not an eating disorder.	It is very much an eating disorder and is just as serious as anorexia and bulimia.
Compulsive eaters are just lazy people.	Compulsive eating is a way to cope just like anorexia and bulimia are. A person uses food as a way to comfort or numb themselves, block out feelings and emotions, etc. They are not lazy! They are people in emotional pain trying to cope using the only way they know how. Like anorexia and bulimia, they need proper treatment to overcome it. They do not need to be sent to health spas and diet clinics.
People cannot have more than one eating disorder.	Many people have more than one eating disorder. It is very common for someone to suffer with more than one eating disorder. That just proves that the eating behaviors are only the symptoms, not the problem.

Rape Myths

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

In Scotland, only 2.9% of rapes recorded by the police currently lead to a conviction, and the humiliation experienced by female complainers in court is well documented.

Despite recent efforts to help women who have been raped to receive justice, societal attitudes continue to play a significant role in limiting justice for women who have experienced this crime.

Several reviews (including one by the Crown Office in Scotland) and other pieces of research conducted over the last few years have highlighted consistently and alarmingly a range of prejudicial attitudes held by the public which blame women for their victimisation and compound an already traumatic experience by attributing the assault in whole or in part to some aspect of their demeanour or behaviour.

This is particularly true where women have been drinking before being raped, if they dress in a manner deemed to be ‘provocative’, or if they have engaged in some level of intimacy with their attacker before an assault. Women who suffer rape in the context of a marriage or other intimate partnership are also seriously disadvantaged by public attitudes, which often support the view that by entering into this marriage or relationship, they have somehow given up their right to refuse consent to sex.

The myth persists that only rape by a stranger counts as ‘real rape’, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of attacks are carried out by someone known to the victim, (often her husband or partner) and are every bit as damaging.

Women NEVER invite rape, whatever relationship they are in, whatever decisions they have made around drink or dress and whatever level of intimacy they have already engaged in with their attackers. We need to replace the blame and condemnation we currently offer to women who have been raped with support and justice. And we need to assign responsibility where it really belongs – with rapists.

MYTH

Rape is commited by crazed strangers

FACT

most women are raped by “normal” acquaintances

MYTH

A woman who gets raped deserved it, esspeically if she agreed to get in his car or go to his home

FACT

No one deserves to be raped. Being in someones car of home is not the same as agreeing to have sex

MYTH

Women who don’t fight back have not been raped

FACT

To be raped means to be forced into sex against your will, weither you fight or not

MYTH

If there is no gun or knife you have notbeen raped

FACT

It’s rape no matter how the rapist forces you to have sex with them. They could use a weapon, their fists, verbal threats, drugs, alcohol, physical isolation, or even just his own weight to overcome you.

MYTH

It’s not rape if the person was not a virgin.

FACT

Firstly… what the hell people???? Secondly rape is rape

MYTH

If a man buys a woman dinner then she owes him

FACT

No one owes sex as payment to anyone, no matter how expensive the date.

MYTH

Agreeing to kissing or having sex on a previous occation with them is the same as agreeing to have intercourse

FACT

Everyone has the right to say “NO” to sexual activity, regardles of what has preceded it