For
those of us on the front lines in the fight to end sexual violence, prevention
efforts that target offenders often offer a breath of fresh air. The This Is Not an Invitation to Rape Me initiative, for example, exposes the absurd
rationale behind common rape “excuses.” Then there’s the Don’t Be That Guy campaign:
a project that suggests – shockingly enough – that “just because she’s drinking
doesn’t mean she wants sex.” There’s also this video that cycled through the
blogosphere awhile back, promoting the painfully simple notion that caring for
someone in a vulnerable position is a sensible alternative to violating them. Examples
like these serve to humanize potential victims of rape and place responsibility
for sexual assault where it belongs – squarely on the shoulders of would-be
perpetrators. Instead of telling women and girls what to do to avoid being
assaulted, these campaigns encourage men to get smart, get serious, and tap into
both compassion and common sense to ensure their participation in consensual
sex. Good stuff, right? But what to make of enterprises like this one that also
send the “don’t rape” message yet offer significantly different motivations for
doing so?
Have sex with
someone who hasn’t said yes to it, and the next place you enter could be
prison.
My
initial reaction to this message was one of exasperation. If the primary
incentive to not rape is to avoid prison, how will our society ever learn to
respect women? More accurately: Have
sex with someone who hasn’t said yes to it, and you are robbing them of their
humanity. But then I paused. I breathed. I reasoned: We’re sadly a long way
off from worldwide equality and respect, so perhaps campaigns like this one offer
an important band-aid solution to our country’s sexual assault epidemic while
others continue the long-term work of uprooting the underlying causes of sexual
violence. To borrow an old social work analogy, it’s like pulling drowning
people from a river one by one while others move upstream to keep them from
jumping in.
Philosophically,
I tend to side with harm reduction models. If a campaign like this stops just
one potential rapist from raping just one person, I fully believe in its value.
But what if ads like this don’t actually prevent rape at all, but instead make
perpetrators more adept at evading the consequences of their crimes? Have sex with someone who hasn’t said yes to
it, and the next place you enter could be prison. Fair enough. You could go to prison for having sex with
someone who hasn’t said yes to it, but will
you? Statistics suggest that this is a slim possibility, what with 97% of
rapists in the U.S. never spending a day in jail [1]. And we already know
that perpetrators often intentionally target vulnerable populations –
individuals who lack the social credibility required for successful prosecution.
Could it be that messages like this actually encourage offenders to seek out
victims with little likelihood of being believed if they report a rape? And
what about the photographic content of this ad? Just because a woman’s wearing
only underwear in no way gives someone license to rape her, but the use of a
headless female image with an emphasis on her genital area seems to promote the
idea of objectification (which leads to violence) while ostensibly communicating
an anti-violent message. I also find the ad’s reference to “entering” to be,
well, just plain offensive.
Last
but not least, this campaign makes the age-old error of conflating sex and rape
– a common societal malapropism that effectively minimizes the seriousness of
sexually violent crimes. Have sex with someone who hasn’t said yes to it,
and you aren’t having sex with them at all – you’re raping them. The distinction is crucial
to the movement to end sexual violence.
[1] (U.S.
Department of Justice. National Crime Victimization Survey. 2010; FBI, Uniform
Crime Reports: 2010; National Center for Policy Analysis, Crime and Punishment in America, 1999;
Department of Justice, Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties: average of
2002-2006).







