Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T05:01:15.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Victim-blame as a symptom of rape myth acceptance? Another look at how young people in England understand sexual consent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

David Gurnham
David Gurnham*
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
*
David Gurnham, Associate Professor in Law, Southampton Law School, Faculty of Business, Law and Art, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK. Email: d.gurnham@soton.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is no doubt that being ‘critical’ about victim-blame requires ensuring first that it is the perpetrator and not the victim who is held responsible for sexual offending. At the same time, engagement with this topic requires critical acuity as to how victim-blame is identified, and to the boundary between raising legitimate questions about the presence or absence of consent in less than ideal circumstances, and falling back on to myths and stereotypes that are unfair to complainants and damaging to victims. This paper identifies and critiques three purported intersections of rape myths and victim-blame that have gained widespread acknowledgement within feminist legal studies: first, that a woman is blamed for voluntarily putting herself into circumstances in which ‘rape happens’; secondly, that a woman is blamed for ‘miscommunicating’ her refusal; and, thirdly, that consent is wrongly understood to have been given in circumstances where a woman in fact lacked the freedom to do so. This critique of methodological and analytical approaches to identifying victim-blame as a symptom of rape myth acceptance focuses on research published recently by the Office of the Children's Commissioner, ‘“Sex Without Consent, I Suppose That Is Rape”: How Young People in England Understand Sexual Consent’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 258 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers, as well as the following friends and colleagues, for comments and feedback on previous drafts of this paper: Harry Annison, Ummni Khan, Imogen Jones and Helen Reece.

References

1. Gray, NB, Palileo, GJ and Johnson, D ‘Explaining rape victim-blame: a test of attribution theory’ (1993) 13 Sociol Spectrum 377;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Duran, M et al ‘Social perceptions of rape victims in dating and married relationships: the role of perpetrator's benevolent sexism’ (2010) 62 Sex Roles 505;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Allison, R and Risman, BJ ‘A double standard for “hooking up”: how far have we come toward gender equality?’ (2013) 42(5) Soc Sci Res 1191–1206;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Rudman, LA, Fetterolf, JC and Sanchez, DT ‘What motivates the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female control theory’ (2013) 39(2) Pers Soc Psychol Bull 250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Newcombe, PA et al ‘Attributions of responsibility for rape: differences across familiarity of situation, gender, and acceptance of rape myths’ (2008) 38(7) J Appl Soc Psychol 1736;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ellison, L and Munro, V ‘Better the devil you know? “Real rape” stereotypes and the relevance of a previous relationship in (mock) juror deliberations’ (2013) 17(4) Int'l J Evidence & Proof 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Finch, E and Munro, V ‘Demon drink and the demonized woman: socio-sexual stereotypes and responsibility attribution in rape trials involving intoxicants’ (2007) 16(4) Soc & Legal Stud 591;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gunby, C, Carline, A and Beynon, C ‘Alcohol-related rape cases: barristers’ perspectives on the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and its impact on practice’ (2010) 74(6) J Crim L 579;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Wallerstein, S ‘“A drunken consent is still consent” – or is it? A critical analysis of the law on a drunken consent to sex following Bree ’ (2009) 73(4) J Crim L 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Ringrose, J and Renold, E ‘Slut-shaming, girl power and “sexualisation”: thinking through the politics of the international SlutWalks with teen girls’ (2012) 24(3) Gender & Educ 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Masser, B, Lees, K and McKimmie, BM ‘Bad woman, bad victim? Disentangling the effects of victim stereotypicality, gender stereotypicality and benevolent sexism on acquaintance rape victim-blame’ (2009) 62 Sex Roles 494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Hickman, SE and Muehlenhard, CL ‘“By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom”: how young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations’ (1999) 36(3) J Sex Res 258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. See generally Carline, A and Easteal, P Shades of Grey – Domestic and Sexual Violence Against Women (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014) pp 159–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Women are ‘frequently judged and considered to be blameworthy due to their behaviour’. Russell, B, Oswald, DL and Kraus, SW ‘Evaluations of sexual assault: perceptions of guilt and legal elements for male and female aggressors using various coercive strategies’ (2011) 26(6) Violence and Victims 799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. A perception understood to warrant the publication of model directions for directing Crown Court juries to counter ‘entrenched … stereotypical opinions’: see Carline and Easteal, above n 7, p 160.

9. J May ‘NHS & Home Office: remove all copies of this victim-blaming poster’ Change.org; available at https://www.change.org/p/jeremy-hunt-nhs-home-office-remove-all-copies-of-this-victim-blaming-poster (accessed 22 July 2015).

10. Gerger, H et al ‘The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression scale: development and validation in German and English’ (2007) 33 Aggress Behav 422–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Burton, M ‘How different are “false” allegations of rape from false complaints of GBH?’ (2013) 3 Crim L Rev 203;Google Scholar Littleton, H ‘Rape myths and beyond: a commentary on Edwards and colleagues (2011)’ (2011) 65 Sex Roles 792;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ryan, KM ‘The relationship between rape myths and sexual scripts: the social construction of rape’ (2011) 65 Sex Roles 774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Carline and Easteal, above, n 7, p 163ff.

13. Amnesty International ‘UK: new poll finds a third of people believe women who flirt partially responsible for being raped’; available at http://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-new-poll-finds-third-people-believe-women-who-flirt-partially-responsible-being (accessed 22 July 2015).

14. Quoting Ellison and Munro, above n 2 [at fn 4]. See also Gray et al, above n 1, who also draw conclusions about ‘blame’ from having asked questions about ‘responsibility’ (see esp p 380).

15. Rudman et al, above n 1, represents that first strand; Littleton, above n 11, represents the second.

16. Hickman and Muehlenhard, above n 6.

17. For a more wide-ranging critical review, see Reece, H ‘Rape myths: is elite opinion right and popular opinion wrong?’ (2013) 33(3) Oxford J Legal Stud 445;CrossRefGoogle Scholar see also Gurnham, D ‘A critique of carceral feminist arguments on rape myths and sexual scripts’ New Crim L Rev, forthcoming.Google Scholar

18. Coy, M et al ‘Sex Without Consent, I Suppose That Is Rape’: How Young People in England Understand Sexual Consent (London: Office of the Children's Commissioner, 2013); available at http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/publications/sex-without-consent-i-suppose-rape-how-young-people-england-understand-sexual-consent (accessed 23 July 2015).Google Scholar

19. See eg Ellison, L and Munro, V ‘Of “normal sex” and “real rape”: exploring the use of socio-sexual scripts in (mock) jury deliberation’ (2009) 18(3) Soc & Legal Stud 291;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Littleton, H et al ‘Risky situation or harmless fun? A qualitative examination of college women's bad hook-up and rape scripts’ (2009) 60 Sex Roles 793–804;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gunby, C, Carline, A and Beynon, C ‘Regretting it after? Focus group perspectives on alcohol consumption, nonconsensual sex and false allegations of rape’ (2013) 22(1) Soc & Legal Stud 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Gray et al, above n 1, whose eight-item scale to test for rape myth acceptance includes statements such as: ‘When females go around braless or wearing short skirts and tight tops, they are asking for trouble.’ By using the phrases ‘go around’ and ‘asking for trouble’, the researchers seem to be interested in victim-blaming attitudes. However, the statement may be broad and vague enough also to catch people who (correctly) perceive an increased risk of assault, but without regarding such females as culpable. The same might be said of another of the eight items on that scale, namely: ‘Many females who get raped have done something to provoke it.’

21. Littleton et al, above n 19, at 794.

22. Krahé, B , Bieneck, S and Scheinberger-Olwig, R ‘Adolescents’ sexual scripts: schematic representations of consensual and nonconsensual heterosexual interactions (2007) 44 J Sex Res 316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. Coy et al, above n 18, pp 21–36.

24. Littleton, above n 11, at 793: ‘[W]omen who are more sexually assertive/aggressive or who engage in less common sexual acts are particularly likely to be viewed in a negative stigmatized manner.’

25. Ibid: ‘Women who are labelled in this manner [as ‘sluts’ or as ‘easy’] are often regarded as appropriate targets for aggressive sexual advances by men and as having fewer rights to refuse these advances.’

26. See eg Reece, above n 17.

27. As Wallerstein (above n 3) puts it: ‘the law should be designed to protect the vulnerable even if they got into this vulnerable position stupidly and by their own doing. The fact that a woman takes a risk does not mean that she now is responsible for all the normal consequences of her actions …’ (at 327).

28. Littleton et al, above n 19.

29. Turchik, JA et al ‘Personality, sexuality, and substance use as predictors of sexual risk taking in college students’ (2010) 47 J Sex Res 411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

30. Littleton, above n 11, at 795.

31. See Gurnham, above n 17; Reece, above n 17.

32. Coy et al, above n 18, p 21.

33. Ibid, p 22.

34. Ibid, p 26 (my emphasis).

35. Ibid, p 21.

36. Panichas, GE ‘Simple rape and the risks of sex’ (2006) 25 Law & Phil 613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Clark, MD and Carroll, MH ‘Acquaintance rape scripts of women and men: similarities and differences’ (2008) 58 Sex Roles 619 at 623;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hickman and Muehlenhard, above n 6.

38. Gunby et al, above n 19.

39. Coy et al, above n 18, p 33.

40. Beres, M ‘Sexual miscommunication? Untangling assumptions about sexual communication between casual sex partners’ (2010) 12(1) Culture Health & Sexuality 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

41. Kitzinger, C and Frith, H ‘Just say no? The use of conversation analysis in developing a feminist perspective on sexual refusal’ (1999) 10(3) Discourse & Soc'y 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42. Jozkowski, KN and Peterson, ZD ‘College students and sexual consent: unique insights’ (2013) 50 J Sex Res 517 at 521–522;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Beres, above n 39; Kitzinger and Frith, above n 41; Hansen, S, O'Byrne, R and Rapely, M ‘Young heterosexual men's use of the miscommunication model in explaining acquaintance rape’ (2010) 7 Sexuality Res & Soc Pol'y 45;CrossRefGoogle Scholar O'Byrne, M, Rapely, M and Hansen, S ‘“You couldn't say ‘No’, could you?” Young men's understandings of sexual refusal’ (2006) 16 Feminism & Psychol 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. Muehlenhard, C and Hollabaugh, L ‘Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex’ (1988) 54 J Personality & Soc Psychol 872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed In Texas, 39% of 610 female students reported using ‘token resistance’. Muehlenhard, CL and McCoy, ML ‘Double-standard double bind – the sexual double-standard and women's communication about sex’ (1991) 15 Psychol Women Q 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Of the 403 female respondents, 37.2% had used scripted refusals with a new partner. The key question asked of respondents was: ‘You were with a guy who wanted to engage in sexual intercourse and you wanted to also, but for some reason you indicated that you didn't want to, although you had every intention to and were willing to engage in sexual intercourse. In other words, you indicated “no” and you meant “yes.”’

44. Ellison and Munro, above n 19.

45. That is, 15.4% of women and 12.5% of men: Muehlenhard, CL and Rogers, CS ‘Token resistance to sex: new perspectives on an old stereotype’ (1998) 22 Psychol Women Q 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Peterson, ZD and Muehlenhard, CL ‘Conceptualizing the “wantedness” of women's consensual and nonconsensual sexual experiences: implications for how women label their experiences with rape’ (2007) 44(1) J Sex Res 72;Google ScholarPubMed Hickman and Muehlenhard, above n 6; Humphreys, T ‘Perceptions of sexual consent: the impact of relationship history and gender’ (2007) 44(4) J Sex Res 307;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Jozkowski and Peterson, above n 42; Lim, GY and Roloff, ME ‘Attributing sexual consent’ (1999) 27 J Appl Comm Res 1;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Vannier, SA and O'Sullivan, LF ‘Communicating interest in sex: verbal and nonverbal initiation of sexual activity in young adults’ romantic dating relationships’ (2011) 40(5) Arch Sexual Behav 961;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Cameron-Lewis, V and Allen, L ‘Teaching pleasure and danger in sexuality education’ (2013) 13(2) Sex Educ 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. Beres, above n 40, at 5–6, 8–9. For example, to quote Beres on the subject of ‘tacit knowledge’: ‘When participants were asked about how they understand their partner's willingness to engage in certain sexual activities, almost all participants responded by saying that it is easy to determine when someone was interested in casual sex – “you just know”’ (at 5).

48. Ibid, at 10.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid.

51. Jozkowski and Peterson, above n 42, at 520.

52. Ibid, at 521.

53. Kitzinger and Frith, above n 41.

54. Ellison and Munro, above n 19.

55. Ibid, at 299.

56. Coy et al, above n 18, p 27.

57. Ibid, pp 29–31. Examples of such contributions included the following: ‘“she didn't open her mouth, she can talk herself can't she? She's got her own mouth, if she didn't want to she didn't have to do it …’ (female, aged 16); ‘why didn't she just go “well you can have my phone then, I'm not screwing all three of you”’ (male, aged 17)’.

58. Ibid, p 31.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid, pp 31–32.

61. Obviously Sabrina's young age makes her consent invalid in any case, but this is also true of Amir. On the potential for ambiguity in interpreting limited information about sexual behaviours and attitudes, see Jozkowski and Peterson, above n 42, p 521, who suggest that men who report being prepared to use force in a sexual encounter ‘may be imprecisely referring to direct, assertive, or passionate initiation with a sexual partner during a sexual encounter rather than actual physical force’.

62. Coy et al, above n 18, p 34.

63. For a scholarly defence of the possibility of ‘choice’ under compromised circumstances, see Dripps, D ‘Men, women and rape’ (1994) 63(1) Fordham L Rev 125 at 139–147.Google Scholar The question of whether the law itself engages in victim-blame arose in the wake of R v Bree [2007] All ER (D) 412 (Mar), in which Sir Igor Judge P ruled, at para 34, that: ‘[W]here the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.’ For a critique of this judgment that engages in victim-blaming on the basis of a woman's ‘prior fault’ in voluntarily getting drunk, see Wallerstein, above n 3, particularly pp 324–328.

64. Section 74 defines consent as being where a person ‘agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice’; s 75 lists six circumstances (s 75(2)(a–f)) in which there is an evidential presumption that the complainant did not consent.

65. A position that in English law derives from the pre-SOA case of R v Olugboja [1982] QB 320.

66. See Dripps, above n 63.

67. Busby, K ‘Every breath you take: erotic asphyxiation, vengeful wives, and other enduring myths in spousal sexual assault prosecutions’ (2012) 24 Can J Women & L 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. Coy, M, Thiara, R and Kelly, L Boys Think Girls Are Toys? An Evaluation of the NIA Project Prevention Programme on Sexual Exploitation, Final report (London: Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit, London Metropolitan University, 2011) (my emphasis).Google Scholar

69. Beres, above n 40.

70. Gotell, L ‘Governing heterosexuality through specific consent: interrogating the governmental effects of R. v. J.A .’ (2012) 24 Can J Women & L 360;Google Scholar Craig, E ‘Consent to a sexual risk’ (2014) 17(1) New Crim L Rev 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For empirical research on attitudes towards the use of pressure and the traditional sexual script, see eg Strang, E et al ‘Discrepant responding across self-report measure of men's coercive and aggressive sexual strategies’ (2013) 50(5) J Sex Res 458;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed also Clark and Carroll, above n 37.

71. See Khan, U Vicarious Kinks: S/M in the Socio-Legal Imaginary (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014) pp. 265–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72. Coy et al, above n 18, p 23.

73. Feinberg, J The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, vol IV: Harmless Wrongdoing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988) chs 31, 32.Google Scholar

74. Coy et al, above n 18, p 25.

75. MacKinnon, C Are Women Human? And Other International Dialogues (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006);Google Scholar Waltman, M ‘Prohibiting sex purchasing and ending trafficking: the Swedish prostitution law’ (2011–2012) 33 Mich J Int'l L 133.Google Scholar For a critique of the so-called ‘Swedish’ model and efforts to implement it in other countries, see Global Network of Sex Work Projects The Criminalisation of Clients, Briefing Paper 2 (Edinburgh: NSWP); available at http://www.nswp.org/sites/nswp.org/files/Criminalisation%20of%20Clients-c.pdf (accessed 18 February 2014).Google Scholar

76. Khan, above n 71.

77. Coy et al, above n 18, p 25.

78. Muehlenhard and Rogers, above n 45. See also Peterson and Muehlenhard, above n 46, who demonstrate some ways in which individuals may consent to unwanted sex and conversely desire sex that is non-consensual.

79. Wallerstein, above n 3, at 325.

80. On this point, see further H Reece ‘Debating rape myths’, LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers (21/2014); available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2497844 (accessed 9 July 2015).