helping

A Man’s Guide to helping a Woman 

who has been raped 

"How this guide will help. 

 Rape is an act of violence which occurs when someone takes control over another by the use of physical threats or force, or by exploiting another person’s inability to give or withhold 

consent for sex. While it is true that both women and men can be raped, it is most commonly done to females by males. Sexual assault (and attempted rape) is the fastest-growing crime in 

America, yet receives little helpful attention by media, educators, or politicians. Since rapes are usually unreported, nobody knows exactly how many actually happen each year, but estimates are that more than a half-million occur annually, or about 78 per hour. 

 Even though there is little public attention to rape, there are many scientific studies about rape, rapists, and effective forms of helping survivors. As a result, public awareness is improving, rape myths are being challenged, and survivors are finding better help today than in years past. 

 As you might expect, most resources to help rape survivors come from crisis centers, police stations, and specialized counseling programs. However, rape does not only affect the woman, but also her family, friends, and other loved ones. Because of this, people in relationships with rape survivors are called secondary survivors; we are not the ones who were attacked, yet we are still hurt and affected. Secondary survivors sometimes need help dealing with the trauma too, and our role as the victim’s helpers makes it important that we prepare ourselves with education and counseling whenever needed. 

 I am a licensed clinical therapist, and in my practice I have worked with many men affected by the issue of the rape of women. This booklet can help explain some of the things rape 

survivors have described as the most effective ways men can help."

Full booklet: http://www.capefearpsych.org/documents/Rape-mensguide.pdf

brown

 

Article taken from: http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2012/11/chris-brown-still-unrepentant/

 please note, the following may be triggering to some.

 

"Anyone who has a passing association with social media will probably be aware that singer Chris Brown has suspended his Twitter account after hurling misogynistic and sexualised insults at comedian Jenny Johnson. To see the full transcript of Brown’s NSFW tweets, you can go here, and it’s likely you will be pretty disgusted. A few brave commentators have pointed out that Johnson has been aiming derogatory comments at Brown ever since his 2009 conviction for his vicious assault against then-partner Rihanna, and that she started this particular exchange by calling him a ‘worthless piece of shit’. Others have added that this is mere publicity-seeking on the part of Johnson. But even if it is, Brown’s reponse – where he threatens to defecate in Johnson’s eye/mouth, calls her a ‘worthless bitch’ ‘a bushpig’ and tells her to ‘suck my dick YOU HOE’ (sic) – has proven exactly what Johnson and countless other appalled women and men have been saying for years. Namely that, far from being a ‘reformed character’ just because he ‘served his sentence’ (and more on why that’s SUCH an inadequate defence, later), Brown remains a total misogynist, and one with a frightening lack of self-awareness to boot.

 

Twitter trolls are at best annoying, and at worst severely disruptive to one’s life and sanity. However, the solution to them remains in our hands – ignore and block. Brown could have blocked Johnson long ago, but egotist that he is, he chose to engage and show his true colours instead. He could have responded with some dignity or at least attempted to defend himself in a reasoned way. But I guess a man who bites, punches and throttles a woman while screaming “I’m going to kill you!” perhaps isn’t particularly schooled in the nuances of having a mature debate with another person, and not using any excuse to rise to the bait. While I don’t believe in ‘trial by social media’, I do believe in winding your bloody neck in when the thing you’re most renowned for is a vile, violent, inexcusable assault on the person you’re supposed to love, rather than repeatedly behaving like an obnoxious twat and then making out you’re just soooo bafflingly oppressed by ‘haterz’. And don’t even get me started on Brown’s use of social media to label his legion of followers ‘Team Breezy’, as if to somehow imply that his crimes are something that we should all be ‘super casual’ and ‘mellow’ about.

 

To those then, who will inevitably come back with the ‘He served his sentence and said he was sorry’ defence, sorry but no dice. That defence will only stand when we live in a world where violence against women is adequately punished, and all the evidence at hand shows that this is far from the case. I remember over a decade ago, how Mike Tyson’s supporters clamoured to defend him when he was barred from entering Britain on grounds of his rape conviction. Women and men were vox-popped on the evening news bleating ‘But he’s done his time, forget it, move on’. Oh sure, Tyson did his time for raping Desiree Washington. He was sentenced to 6 years, but served 3. If you were an average sized woman forced into sex by someone with the physical strength, power and capacity for violence of Mike Tyson, would you think that an adequate sentence? Not to mention if you had to go through the media circus and complete annihilation of your character that would follow the (extremely brave) action of accusing one of the world’s most famous and admired men, as Tyson was at the time? It’s pitiful, that out of the very few rape cases that actually reach court, sentences remain so light, and it defies logic to think that a man who thinks he can use force to dominate a woman is going to be magically reformed by undergoing such a sentence.

 

This is illustrated perfectly by Chris Brown’s behaviour. His sentence was a joke, and whatever public ‘apology’ he was forced to issue for PR reasons, his behaviour since 2009 implies he is utterly unremorseful. He served no jail time, and got a mere 5 year’s probation with 6 months community labour. Reading the description of the frenzied, possibly murderous assault Brown unleashed on Rihanna, I think most of us would agree that this is in no way proportionate to the terror and pain his victim underwent and will probably continue to undergo in the aftermath. When someone punches you repeatedly in the head and then squeezes on your carotid artery while you scream for help, you don’t just get over that overnight, or in a year, or even five years. I’d wager it stays with you for life.

 

And whether Rihanna herself appears forgiving of Brown is irrelevant. We’ve all heard the term Stockholm Syndrome, and anyone who has done the slightest bit of research on domestic violence, or worse, experienced it themselves, will tell you that victims regularly defend and make excuses for their attacker. Even if Rihanna and Brown actually do start up a relationship again, this is in no way evidence that Brown is magically ‘reformed’, and could end up being quite the opposite – the average domestic abuse victim will leave their abuser only to return to them 7 times before managing to leave for good. It’s also worth bearing in mind that domestic abuse victims will usually endure repeated beatings before even calling the police. Had Brown’s attack on Rihanna not occurred in public, whereby worried bystanders overheard Rihanna’s screams and called the police, the story could have played out very differently. Brown’s victim deciding she wants to forgive him or still wants to be in a relationship with him does not negate what he did, or improve his character, or erase the surrounding culture of victim-blaming and apologism for violence against women.

 

Ah yes, that culture. That culture whereby a rich, powerful man who is looked up to by millions describes another man’s violence against a woman as a ‘mistake’ and demands that we give that man ‘a break’. That culture whereby Rihanna being punched, choked and bitten is merely a punchline in a primetime panel quiz show (which was also tastefully broadcast on International Stop Violence Against Women Day), and where complaints against such filth are dismissed on grounds of ‘varying tastes of humour’. In such a culture, there is no punishment harsh enough, no disgust deep enough, no grudge held long enough against the likes of Brown. Served his time, my backside. And if you think I’m being unfair, imagine what happened to Rihanna happening to your wife, girlfriend, sister, daughter, mother or friend, and tell me how forgiving you’d feel four years later, when the man who had beaten, strangled and bloodied the woman you care about is rich, successful and hurling vile abuse at another woman on social media. Somehow I doubt you’d be rushing to defend delusional misogynist Brown either."

 

 

Catherine Scott is a freelance feminist writer who has worked for Ms Magazine and the BBC. She has also written for Bitch magazine, the Independent and the Times Literary Supplement. Read her full bio at cathscott.co.uk.

hope

 

a list of useful websites for help and advice about domestic violence:

 

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/default.asp

 

http://refuge.org.uk/get-help-now/

 

https://www.gov.uk/report-domestic-abuse

 

http://www.ncdv.org.uk/

 

http://www.mensadviceline.org.uk/mens_advice.php

 

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/abuse/Pages/domestic-violence-help.aspx

 

http://www.brokenrainbow.org.uk/

 

http://www.mankind.org.uk/

 

http://www.speakouttoday.co.uk/

 

http://nour-dv.org.uk/?gclid=CNP9pKmY97MCFanItAodE30AGg

 

http://www.domesticviolencehelp.us/

 

http://www.thehotline.org/get-help/

 

http://www.purpleberets.org/violence_police_families.html

 

 

 



p t s d

 What is PTSD?

PTSD is a reaction to being exposed to an event which is outside the range of normal human experience. Sometimes it is referred to as post traumatic rape syndrome too. It is a normal human emotional reaction to an abnormal situation. Everyone reacts differently to different situations and it doesn't have to be a life threatening experience for someone to respond in this way. It just has to be perceived by the victim as a traumatic event. It is a psychological phenomenon. It is an emotional condition, from which it is possible to make a full and complete recovery.

PTSD affects hundreds of thousands of people who have been exposed to violent events such as rape, domestic violence, child abuse, war, accidents, natural disasters and political torture. It is normal to be affected by trauma. There is help, and it is ok to ask for help. PTSD is not rare. It is not unusual. It is not weak to have PTSD.

Traumatic experiences bring to the fore survival skills which are valuable and useful at the time of the trauma, but which usually become less valuable, less useful and less effective with time. Sometimes survivors become stuck in problem behaviours when their pain is not acknowledged, heard, respected, or understood. Denial plays a great part here (it didn't happen, or it shouldn't affect you). Put-downs, dismissal of the pain, mis-diagnosis and other forms of secondary wounding keep survivors stuck.

Symptoms may come on soon after the trauma or fifty years later. That is what is meant by the post in PTSD. It is normal too for symptoms to come up again when faced by further trauma and in very stressful times. It is normal to be affected by trauma.

Society has it's own way of dealing with trauma which can both be belittling or denying. For a survivor to be told that what happened to them wasn't that bad, or was no big deal or continually being told it was time that they were over it, or just try and forget it ever happened cause secondary wounding in trauma survivors. It reinforces the mistrust of everyone and everything that trauma evokes in all survivors who no longer can believe that the universe is fair or just.

This ability to do whatever it takes to survive is instinctive. We all have it, and in traumatic enough situations, it will come out or we die. Extreme situations which trigger this reaction again and again may cause survivors to do things in order to survive which can be hard to look back on later.

Similarly shutting down feelings in order to do whatever it takes to survive, or do your job and help others survive, is a reality based survival skill. Numbness is the answer. It is effective. It will help you live.

Unfortunately when survivors numb their fear, despair and anger, all their feelings, even good ones, are numbed. Numbness is comfortable. Thinking about what they have been through is so painful survivors wind up avoiding thinking about, feeling, or doing anything that reminds them of the trauma. For example, if they feel the trauma was their fault they may spend the rest of their life having to be right so they won't ever be at fault again. If they were happy when the trauma hit, they may avoid happiness forever.

Recovery

Recovery is a slow process which doesn't come easily or without pain. The survivor must be heard, feel they are understood, believed and find the ability to reconnect to a community. Recovery takes time. The survivor sets the pace. Recovery is not a race, and can't be given a set time limit. Recovery doesn't erase the trauma as if it had never happened, it just makes it easier to deal with.

Further trauma will always affect survivors. PTSD symptoms may come back during times of further stress, but the negative effects can be minimised as the survivor learns what they are and feels able to take care of themselves.. True healing is knowing it is okay to ask for help again.

Recovery is about learning better ways of coping with trauma and letting go of fear, even fear of change. Slow growth is good growth.

You can't rush survivors and we must not dismiss their pain. Instead of comparing pain, survivors and survivor groups are encouraged to respect each others pain and to focus on what they have in common and to share recovery. Each person's unique experience and pain is respected.

PTSD symptoms, numbing, hyper vigilance and flashbacks, are strong hints that you need to get help! They helped you survive, but they do not go away by themselves. People have to alter their lives to control them. They can become both ineffective and a source of constant pain.

It takes time to get better. Getting better is the reward for taking the time to recover. Getting better, however, is a slow process. The state of almost constant physiological arousal which many trauma survivors live in makes it difficult for them to take in the kind of information needed to heal. This is part of the brain chemistry of survivors. It is not resistance or stubbornness on their part. People can talk about changing but all survivors may see is their lips moving. The words and concepts make no sense. They are incapable of taking what is being said on board because they are too busy taking in information for their survival. Things like who is in the room, where are they sitting, where is the door, which is the quickest way out, do they look hostile or friendly, how are they reacting to me?

Until they start to feel safe a survivor won't be able to react to anything or anyone. They have to feel safe and feel as though there is an element of trust there. When they have been treated with respect, not discounted, not pushed to hurry up and recover, which are secondary wounding experiences and make PTSD worse, they will feel safe and know it because they will be able to hear and understand what the therapist or group is saying in a new way.

When they can hear, survivors can begin to work on safety issues. They can begin to understand and protect themselves from triggers. They can learn to handle emotions such as anger and fear. Survivors can develop the capacity to respond rather than react, like having a pause button instead of an on-off switch. 

Searching for the right help is important. You need to be comfortable enough with the therapist or group. On the other hand searching for the perfect group or a therapist who will never make a mistake can put off recovery for life. The therapist or group is not going to fix you. They will however provide you with information and a variety of coping skills, but it is you who does the work and heals.

Each person heals in their own way, there are no hard and fast rules, just as there is no pill that can cure PTSD. Yes drugs can be used to help with the side effects of PTSD, like helping sleeplessness or hyper arousal. Unfortunately there is no simple clear cut solution for such a complex phenomenon. I firmly believe that survivors have to confront what has happened to them, and by repeating this confrontation, learn to accept the trauma as part of their past. There is no magic wand. However counselling and therapy can help to find an easier path through the trauma and set you on the path to healing.

information taken from: http://www.aaets.org/article178.htm

ptsd

What is post-traumatic stress disorder?

The term post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSS) is used to name a range of symptoms you may develop in response to experiencing a traumatic event, which is outside of your 'normal' human experience. It is often a delayed response.

Just hearing news of events, such as the London bombings in July 2005, incidents in the war in Afghanistan, or the Hillsborough football stadium disaster, can have a lasting effect on you. If you are actually present during a disaster of this nature it’s likely that you will become extremely distressed.

Likewise, if you are involved in, or witness, events such as road accidents, muggings, and sexual or physical assaults, these experiences may also cause you deep emotional injury. There is no doubt that the reactions that may follow can seriously hamper and interfere with your life.

Some survivors have objected to the use of the term ‘disorder’, because they see such reactions as an entirely normal and understandable response to abnormal events. But regardless of whether the term ‘disorder’ or ‘syndrome’ is used, the diagnosis recognises that there are events and experiences that are beyond our control, and which may fill us with fear or horror, and can cause extremely disturbing psychological symptoms.

What are the symptoms?

If you have faced a traumatic experience, you may simply feel emotionally numb to begin with, and feelings of distress may not emerge straight away. But sooner or later, you are likely to develop emotional and physical reactions, and changes in behaviour, which may include some of the following: http://www.mind.org.uk/help/diagnoses_and_conditions/post-traumatic_stress_disorder

 These are all quite common reactions to a traumatic event, and many people find the symptoms will disappear in a relatively short period of time. But if they last for longer than a month, or they are very extreme, you may be given a diagnosis of PTSD.

You may also have other symptoms, such as severe anxiety, a phobia or depression. You may develop a dissociative disorder (see Mind’s booklet Understanding dissociative disorders) and suicidal feelings. There’s no time limit on distress, and some survivors may not develop post-traumatic symptoms until many years after the event.

Fearing for your life

Events in which others die, or where you thought you were going to die, may lead to more long-lasting stress responses. A study of Falkland War veterans found that people who had actually been involved in combat were most likely to get PTSD.

Harmful intentions

Man-made disasters, particularly those involving deliberate acts of violence, terrorism, or exploitation, seem to cause longer-lasting and more painful emotional consequences than natural disasters. The crucial factor may be that such experiences destroys people’s trust in others, particularly if they involve someone you have depended on.

Conscious memories

People who remain conscious throughout the experience are more vulnerable to PTSD because of the horrific memories etched on the mind, whereas those who lose consciousness or suffer head injury are protected.

Personal circumstances

Your personal history can make you more prone to PTSD. If a traumatic event triggers memories of an earlier distressing experience, the effect may be much worse. Similarly, if you are already going through emotional problems, you are also much more vulnerable.

Guilt feelings

Sometimes survivors of trauma feel guilty, as though they were responsible for the event, or could have done more to save themselves or others. One study showed that those who blamed themselves in some way for the outcome of the disaster were more at risk of severe and long-term distress.

How can I deal with a traumatic event?

After a traumatic event, people often feel numb, dazed and disorientated. Talking about what has happened to them may be the last thing they want to do. Many survivors have said that what they found most useful, to begin with, was practical advice, followed by information and support with day-to-day tasks.

Talking about your feelings may be the best way of coming to terms with the experience. Everyone will have their own unique responses, and will need to proceed at their own pace. You may turn to friends, relatives and colleagues, or seek professional help when you decide you do want to talk about what you’ve been through.

It is important that you have an opportunity to talk to someone when you are ready to do so. However, you should not be made to talk before you are ready, or even at all, if you do not want to. Research has shown that debriefing immediately after traumatic events, by making you describe every detail, may make PTSD more likely, because it may help to establish memories of the event by bringing them into the conscious mind, increasing the risk of flashbacks or nightmares.

Many people go through a period of denial after a bereavement or a traumatic event. Researchers have suggested that this allows you time away from the trauma, similar to unconsciousness. This research also suggests that challenging or interrupting this by insisting you talk about the trauma is harmful. It is also possible that while you are apparently ‘in denial’, you may subconsciously be beginning to face the trauma.

However, if you bottle up stress responses over months or years, they may become deeply ingrained and cause serious problems. You may remain in a state of extreme tension long after the trauma has passed. You may find yourself avoiding situations, in case they remind you of the trauma, so that life becomes increasingly restricted. Not uncommonly, you may turn to alcohol or drugs in an attempt to avoid painful feelings and memories. In trying to avoid the problem though, you are also avoiding getting appropriate help. There are various organisations that can provide the details of counsellors experienced in treating PTSD. For more information, see ‘Useful contacts’.

It can be very helpful for you to share your experiences with others who have been through something similar. This can be an extremely important step in moving away from isolation and towards regaining control of your life. You may find it especially useful to contact an organisation specialising in your particular type of experience; for example, soldiers who have seen combat, victims of violent crime or sexual assault, and people who have been tortured or who are refugees. (see ‘Useful contacts’).

partner rape

 

 

warning: some of the following information may be triggering.

 

It is still a widely held myth that women cannot be raped by their husbands or partners.

Many people believe that sexual intercourse without consent, in this context, doesn’t really constitute rape at all, or if they do, that it is somehow not as serious as an assault carried out by a stranger.

The belief that by marrying or co-habiting with her attacker a woman has somehow given up her right to say no and should be expected to comply with his sexual demands is commonplace and causes great harm to women who suffer assault in this context.

The damage done when a woman is raped by her partner can be extremely serious. The experience of rape for a woman in this situation is compounded by a complete breach of trust by someone once loved – often the foundation of her personal life and security. Inevitably, this can leave her fearful of what confronting that might mean.

Sexual assault by a partner can be very difficult not only for women to disclose or walk away from, but even, sometimes, because of circumstantial pressures, to fully admit to themselves.

A significant minority (13%) of the broad cross-section of the Scottish population (700 interviewees) who took part in research carried out by Progressive on behalf of Rape Crisis Scotland in August 2007 believed that most women who are raped are raped by strangers.

Other research findings give the lie to this in the clearest possible way:

• In 2002 the UK Home Office published the findings of a British Crime Survey to which 6,944 women had responded. Nearly half (45%) of rapes reported to the survey were committed by perpetrators who were victims’ partners at the time of the attack. Strangers were responsible for only 8% of rapes reported to the survey
• The survey also found that partner rape entails the highest occurrence of multiple rape (62%) and attacks by partners and ex-partners are more than twice as likely to result in some injury to the victim (39%) as attacks by strangers (19%)
• In her landmark study Rape and Marriage (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990), Diana Russell reported on interviews with a random sample of 930 women in the San Francisco area. Of all the women who had been married, 14% had been raped by their spouses at least once. Of these, 1/3 reported being raped once; 1/3 reported between 2 and 20 incidents; and 1/3 said they had been raped by their spouses more than 20 times.
• Another study estimated that 10 to 14% of all married women have been or will be raped by their spouses (Finkelhor, D., and Yllo, K., License to rape: sexual abuse of wives. The Free Press, New York, 1985)
 

”It was very clear to me. He raped me. He ripped off my pyjamas, he beat me up. I mean, some scumbag down the street would do that to me. So to me, it wasn't any different because I was married to him, it was rape — real clear what it was.

It emotionally hurt worse. I mean you can compartmentalise it as stranger rape — you were at the wrong place at the wrong time. You can manage to get over it differently. But here, you're at home with your husband and you don't expect that. I was under constant terror even if he didn't do it.”

 

 

http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/relationships/#myth_tab

 

 'Force-only' rape is usually understood to include only enough force used on the part of the abuser to control or hold his wife in position, eg holding down the victim by her arms or wrists to prevent her defending herself or escaping. This form of rape is common where there is a larger contrast between the physical size and strength of abuser and victim, or in abusive relationships where physical violence is infrequent or non-existent (insofar as one does not categorise sexual assault itself as a violent act). In most cases of 'force-only' rape, coercion plays a large part. The victim may also be so confused and numbed by constant emotional abuse, that she simply does not know how to act or react when sex is forced on her.'

 

 

some useful links about partner rape:

 

http://www.pandys.org/partnerrapesurvivors.html

 

http://www.aphroditewounded.org/definitions.html

 

http://www.pandys.org/articles/intimatepartnerrape.html

 

 

Partner rape is real rape.
It may happen once or many times.
It may involve coercive pressure or battery and torture.
It happens in very violent relationships, or in those that are otherwise respectful. Women are raped by men they love.

 

http://www.aphroditewounded.org/loustory.html

http://survive.org.uk/maritalrape.html

 

 http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/marital_rape.html

 http://www.voicesandfaces.org/survivor_victoria.asp

c o n s e n t

An  article on consent by Philippa Willitts for http://www.thefword.org.uk

Jack Tweed and Anthony Davis have been found not guilty of raping a teenage girl.

While this verdict has now been passed, and I therefore cannot suggest that either of them are guilty, I do want to challenge the idea that a woman not saying no means that you are able to just fuck them.

In Davis's testimony, it turns out that; The court heard that in the police interview Mr Davis said he saw his friend having sex with the woman against a window and that "she didn't protest it".

"She didn't say 'stop'. She didn't say anything to suggest she didn't want it to happen," he added. "She didn't say anything at all. I just got closer and closer. She didn't say anything."

It is never ok for a man to presume that he can fuck a woman based on the fact that she is being fucked by someone else, and that when he approaches she doesn't say anything.

Hugo Schwyzer says, “The opposite of rape is not consent. The opposite of rape is enthusiasm”, and there is a lot of truth in that.

Davis went on to say  "If a girl had been assaulted or raped, she would have come out of that room traumatised. "She would have been screaming, surely someone would have heard something."

This is a common misconception, and one which contributes to the low conviction rates of rapists in this country. That rape victims behave in a certain way. If she is not screaming and crying, if she doesn't instantly call the police, then she can't have really been raped.

Women cope in whatever way they can in order to survive. This can include denial and withdrawal as much as anger and seeking justice. There is a lot of shame for rape survivors, and a lot of self-questioning, which can mean that women do not immediately tell people - least of all the police, who don't have a great reputation for sensitivity in these situations - what has happened. This does not mean it did not happen!

aest.org have an article about Rape Trauma Syndrome which outlines and explains some of the many possible reactions that people who have been raped can experience and display.

I can't comment on Tweed and Davis being found not guilty. But I am using some details of their testimony to challenge some commonly-used assumptions about women's reactions to male violence, which apply in many rape cases we see.

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/04/silence_does_no

--------------------

a handful of interviews about rape, rape myths, consent, trial issues and victim support..

--------------------

The Day I Faced My Rapist In Court

The morning I was to read the statement in the courtroom would be the second time that the man who raped me and I were going to be in the same room. But unlike that day, we were in a room open to the public, and I could say what I felt and what I thought.
The assailant had pleaded guilty to the two rapes, so there was no need for the trial. I was given the option of sending my statement or reading it in the courtroom. I decided to read it in person. Four years had passed since the assault, two and a half years to find the rapist, a year before I decided to press charges, and several months to indict him.
I entered at the back of the room, and sat in the second or third row. He entered by the front, on the right, and sat in the first row. He was looking down and I could only see his back. Earlier, the district attorney made sure I wasn't going to shout at him or call him names. She hadn't read the statement I'd written in advance. She sat me at a table in the front of the courtroom. I began to speak, but nobody understood me. M told me to start again, to speak up, and to speak more slowly. I did. The room quieted, and after I finished, there was complete silence:
"In the act of presenting charges, my identity is revealed. I have a name, I am recognized as a subject, a person. This should make my assailant aware that I am a person and of the damage of his violent act upon me. But it also implies that he knows who has presented the charges. I fear I could be attacked again."
Instead of blaming him, I calmly analyzed the damage done by his abuse. I explained how my relationship suffered and eventually ended. How for years I felt like a refugee without a home. How I lost self-confidence and hope. How I was constantly sad and lacked enthusiasm. How I felt unconnected to others and ended up isolating myself. How my perception of life had changed: I no longer looked forward to the future, I didn't enjoy my present and often thought about death. How I continually lived in fear. I wanted the rapist to listen to the effect of his action upon me, and also I wanted the judge to understand that the rape had not used an excess of cruelty and violence. I shared the fears I had for my life, my concern that other women would be raped, and brought up my fears about the length of sentences:
"This crime is not a rational thing. I was held in my own house, forced to be contained, silenced, and raped. He applied cruelty—threatening death and humiliation, making me an object, raped—but no more than was necessary to get what he wanted, not in excess. It was a violent act, because rape is a violent act, but he wasn't aggressive. I do not hate him as a person but I do hate what he did. It is not only that this is illegal, it is that it is also unfair and wrong. But still complexity must remain, and the knowledge that each of us is a person and must be treated as such. Believing in the force of humanity for changing an individual and a world, I express my will of the sentence to have no excess and to be rather short than long."
I understood the legal system as a way of settling matters, of drawing a line and moving forward. I faced the risk that my argument would be misinterpreted as implying I hadn't been raped. But I didn't want to simplify the issues because I was the victim. I wanted to be as fair as if it hadn't happened to me, not to fall into the temptation of excess, now that I had the opportunity to speak. I did it from fear, but also out of fairness. By requesting that the sentence be short rather than long, I may have risked that my attacker would come after me sooner rather than later, while I was very tired of living in fear. When I left the room, I felt as if I was untouchable.


Excerpted from Rape New York by Jana Leo. Available now from Feminist Press.

http://jezebel.com/5769530/the-day-i-faced-my-rapist-in-court

i found it particularly interesting (in relation to rape/ trauma and its after-effects) what she says around 9:00 onwards...

-----------------

“For the first time in history, children are growing up whose earliest sexual imprinting derives not from a living human being, or fantasies of their own; since the 1960s pornographic upsurge, the sexuality of children has begun to be shaped in response to cues that are no longer human. Nothing comparable has ever happened in the history of our species; it dislodges Freud. Today's children and young men and women have sexual identities that spiral around paper and celluloid phantoms: from Playboy to music videos to the blank females torsos in women's magazines, features obscured and eyes extinguished, they are being imprinted with a sexuality that is mass-produced, deliberately dehumanising and inhuman.”

Naomi Woolf

lighter fluid

Nancy Venable Raine describes finding the pair of underwear that she was wearing when she was raped, and her subsequent experience with anger:

"I stood up slowly, as if not to wake the forces that I had unwrapped, and went to the kitchen for a baking sheet, a can of lighter fluid, a box of long kitchen matches, and a soup spoon. I put the newspaper and its contents on the tray and slipped down the stairs and out the back hallway door. I carried everything outside to a corner of the garden near the pond where the ducks were gliding on the dark, still water. I placed the wood and the underpants on top of the newspaper, doused them with lighter fluid, and struck a match. I watched what happened.

Then I imagined the worst thing I have ever imagined: the man who had raped me burning up alive. I imagined his screams of agony, his hideous pain. I saw the fat under his dirty skin crackling in the flames. A terrible pleasure consumed me. "Die," I said, over and over.

Until this moment, I had not allowed myself to feel my hatred. Now my body felt huge and powerful. It felt good to be a monster, very good. My mind-all thoughts and feelings-seemed to vanish into the pleasure of the pain I gave him. His pain, my pleasure made a perfect desolation. I relished it...I thought I was fine now that I had killed my underpants."


-------


What felt [safe] was to tell her how furious I was that the rapist had driven me to a shrink. It was his fault I was falling apart. I told Helen that my rape was 'worse than death,' and that I felt the rapist had destroyed my life, that I could never rebuild it. 'Never, never,' I said. I hate him with my entire being. I wanted to see him dead. I wanted to kill him myself. I had never expressed my rage to another human being this directly. It was no longer deflected onto someone or something else in my life. It was the rapist I hated that night.

N. Raine

--------

 

“To live in a culture in which women are routinely naked where men aren't is to learn inequality in little ways all day long. So even if we agree that sexual imagery is in fact a language, it is clearly one that is already heavily edited to protect men's sexual--and hence social--confidence while undermining that of women.”

------

One result of turning a blind eye to the horrors of the world, because you can stand only so much, is that you end up forgetting that each individual who is subjected to heinous suffering is your fellow, your equal, and that you could have been in their shoes, and that he or she could one day have become your friend.

Michel Fitoussi Stolen Lives: Twenty

Years in a Desert Jail

------

women did not invent dust. the sticky residue that collects on the kettle does not come out of women's vaginas. it is not oestrogen that covers the dinner plates in tomato sauce, fishfinger crumbs and bits of mash. my uterus did not run upstairs and throw all of the kids' clothes on the floor and put jam on the banister. and it's not my tits that have skewed the global economy towards domestic work for women.

caitlin moran

victim training

 from susan brownmiller's Against Our Will:

i strongly recommend this book to everyone, whether you're a victim of rape & abuse or not..
it's very insightful..

women are trained to be rape victims. to simply learn the word 'rape' is to take instruction in the power relationship between males and females. to talk about rape, even with nervous laughter, is to acknowledge a woman's special victim status.

we hear the whispers when we are children: girls get raped. not boys. the message becomes clear. rape has something to do with our sex. rape is something awful that happens to females: it is the dark at the top of the stairs, the undefinable abyss that is just around the corner, and unless we watch our step it might just become our destiny.

rape seeps into our childhood conscoiusness by imperceptible degrees. even before we learn to read we have become indoctrinated into a victim mentality. fairy tales are full of a vague dread, a catastrophe that seems to befall only little girls.

sweet, feminine little red riding hood is off to visit her dear old grandmother in the woods. the wolf lurks in the shadows, contemplating a tender morsel. red riding hood and her grandmother, we learn, are equally defenseless before the male wolf's strength and cunning. the wolf swallows both females with no sign of a struggle.

but enter the huntsman - he will right this egregious wrong. the kindly huntsman's strength and cunning are superior the the wolf's. with the twist of the knife red riding hood and her grandmother are rescued from inside the wolf's stomach. 'oh, it was so dark in there,' red riding hood wimpers. 'i will never wander off into the forest as long as i live.'

red riding hood is a parable of rape. there are frightening male figures abroad int he woods and females are helpless before them.

better stick close to the path, better not be adventurous. if you are lucky a frindly male may be able to save you from certain disaster. ('funny, every man i meet wants to protect me,' says mae west 'i can't figure outy what from.')

those who doubt that the tale of red riding hood contains this subliminal message should consider how well peter fared when he met his wolf, or even better, the survival tactics of the three little (male) pigs. who's afraid of the big bad wolf? not they.

the utter passivity of red riding hood in the teeth of the wolf is outdone by sleeping beauty, who lay immoblie for one hundred years before she was awakened by the kiss of the prince. as a lesson in female sexuality, sleeping beauty's message is clear. the beauteous princess remains unresponsive until mr. right comes along.

snow white in her glass coffin also remains immobile until her prince appears. cinderella, too, needs a prince to extricate her from her miserable environment. thus is female sexuality defined. beautiful passivity.

wait, just wait, prince charming will soon be by; and if it is not prince charming but the big bad wolf who stands at the door, then proper feminine behavior still commands you to stay immobile. the wolf is bigger and stronger than you are. why try to fight back?  

susan brownmiller

-------

'every summer, my mother would set jam jar traps for wasps near the dustbins in our driveway. baited with smears of stickiness and primed with water and a drop of detergent, the poor insects would be tempted, tumble in and drown. but not if ...i was there. i would sit among the buzzing throng and offer my little fingers as lifelines to the doomed creatures. soon i learned that wasps would never sting their rescuer, just climb up, clean up, shake off the water and buzz off. my reward was to meet a little animal that no one else seemed to want to know. black and yellowin simple but startlingsymmetry, so neat, so purposeful - a triumph of form and function, a beautiful piece of deco design. with a face of fury and superlative predatory prowess, it performs essential duties, creates a nest of extraordinary delicacy and yet is universally loathed and ruthlessly persecuted because of complete ignorance. but the common wasp, vespula vulgaris, is one of my oldest and best friends. in saving those doomed individuals i learned to love wasps. and i learned to love life - all life.
it was much later that i learned why life has a collective value; why each and every organism is implicitly important to the community and ecosystem that it has evolved a niche in.'

c. packham

 a post taken from http://www.2ndcouncilhouse.co.uk/blog/

It was Germaine Greer who said that women never really know how much men hate them. Thanks to the internet we’re starting to find out, as “banter” comes out of the backrooms and spews itself over the web. Unilad has just been shut down after it pointed out approvingly that rapists have rather good odds, with the “lads” blaming humourless feminazis for spoiling their fun. A week or so ago, a friend posted up a list of the things that Mens Rights Activists quote out of context to demonstrate how nutty feminists are. Among them was a quote attributed to Marilyn French stating “all men are rapists“. This statement as a view of how feminists see men is often given as evidence of the misanderous nature of feminism and how ludicrous it is, but the full quote, given below, which comes from “The Women’s Room” and is spoken by Val – a radical feminist character in the novel, bears further inspection. Over the years, I have argued many times with (primarily male) comrades as to the meaning of this statement, with many taking considerable offense at the implication that I consider them individually to be rapists/potential rapists. Frequently accompanied by denials of individual responsibility and/or temperament to commit something which is – at least in name – so transgressive and stigmatised.

‘…all men are rapists and that’s all they are: they rape us with their eyes their laws and their codes.’

The contextualisation given in the full quote above demonstrates the structural nature of male sexual violence, and it is well worth unpacking the eyes, laws and codes which entrap men to this role. Mere denial, is simply a refusal to see, yet the gaze lives on; assertions of legal behaviour does not negate the judicial structure which enables violation, and a cultural stance in opposition does not challenge the codes which sustains it. Only by a careful examination of the power structure which sustains patriarchal heterosexual relations is there the opportunity to destroy it. The concept of “the Gaze” originates with Satre. Satre explore the concept of “The Other” – that which is not us. That when we are alone, we are a self-contained active subject, but when we share space with someone else we become aware of ourselves as an object in the Other’s environment. Because we objectify the world around us, we are aware that “The Other” as a sentient being, does likewise, and we view ourselves no longer as purely an active subject but as an object which is gazed upon. Lacan took this concept further, Lacan’s gaze does not require the physical existence of another, as the gaze is not something which belongs to the other, but is within ourselves, as a perception of being viewed. Thus it is not the act of being seen which creates the gaze in our heads, but the epistemic knowledge that it is possible that we may be; and from that there is no escape. Laura Mulvery coined the term the “Male Gaze” in the context of film studies, exploring how film makers produce narrative from the point of view of male subjects. Yet it has a broader application to all forms of media. Men are the primary producers of media, and the texts they produce primarily for a male audience while women are the spectacle to be gazed upon. When women consume male orientated media, they must adopt the gaze as intended, yet at the same time identify with the female. They see themselves as Others see them, this gift given not by a theological God, but by the omniscient patriarchy, eradicating the foolish notion that they may be active subjects in a world controlled by men. Women internalise the Male Gaze, everywhere they go and in everything they do they are subject to the knowledge that they are the objects viewed through a patriarchal lens which dictates their behaviour and the limits of their agency. Until the Male Gaze is castrated, free and genuine consent is impossible in a world where the agency of the subject is constrained.

‘because penetration by males is what women are for, if we are raped we have to prove not just that we didn’t say yes, which is impossible to prove, but that we specifically and emphatically said no, which is also impossible to prove..’

Women exist in a legal state of permanent consent. Consent is an automatic defense to a charge of rape and unless there is sound evidence that consent was withdrawn, it is frequently assumed that it was not. If a woman did not actively withdraw her consent, there is no case to answer – the legal status of a woman is that of consent to sexual intercourse. Furthermore, the presumption of innocence over guilt in effect means that it is insufficient for a conviction to be upheld purely on the basis that a woman asserts that she withdrew her consent in the absence of such evidence. For some women, the withdrawal of consent becomes in effect a legal non-option. Crimes of sexual violence against sex-workers are notoriously difficult to prosecute, as the assumption is that they payment has brought the agreement not to withdraw consent. Any evidence that a woman may not have withdrawn consent, is evidence of the innocence of the accused. Such evidence may include payment; sexually arousing dress; prior sexual activity; drug or alcohol use; being asleep; being sexually unattractive, or being insufficiently aware of danger. Up until 1991 the majority of women lived within a formal legal state which denied her the right to remove her consent: a woman could not withdraw consent to sexual intercourse from her husband; marriage was an automatic defense. Although that has thankfully been repealed, most married women today, entered into a legal contract which removed their right to say “no”. Within such a legal framework, consent is compromised. If you are a sex worker and you know that there is little chance of obtaining retribution because you were paid, there is equally little point withdrawing it. In circumstances where you know that what will be done to you will be seen as quite acceptable in the eyes of the law, resistance is futile. When your consent is irrelevant, why bother withdrawing it. Until the legal state of permanent consent is revoked, free and genuine consent is impossible in a world where that consent is a legal irrelevance.

‘A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm… This violence, however, is neither biologically nor divinely ordained. Much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.’

The term “rape culture” was first coined in the mid-70s, but has gained a new popularity recently as feminists have looked to the cultural modes which sustain and perpetuate sexual violence. Much of the money devoted to popular campaigns to prevent sexual violence has focused on what women should or should not do to avoid becoming victims – seeking to impose limitations on their dress, behaviour, alcohol consumption and travel arrangements. By implication transgressing these rules implies a recklessness which has invited attack and any public sympathy or support for such transgressive women who meets with such violence is tempered with an “I told you so” undertone and restatement of how important it is to follow the rules. Related to this is the sexual epithets, “prude” and “slut”. Two sides of the same coin they seek to define women’s sexuality in reference to the patriarchal power structure – they are not opposing descriptions of womens sexual behaviour, but demands upon it. The “slut” challenges patriarchal norms which consider women to be the gatekeepers of sexuality, that sex is something done to women. The slut, as an identified sexually active woman is [an] easy [victim]. The “prude” challenges patriarchal norms which considers the purpose of women as being for fucking. The prude, as an identified sexually inactive woman is [a] frigid [bitch]. The effect of rape culture is to deny women control over their sexuality in combination with excusing male violations of female sexual boundaries; to reinforce the patriarchal definition of the purpose of women as being for fucking while simultaneously reinforcing the patriarchal definition of fucking as something done to women. Until rape culture is overcome, free and genuine consent is impossible in a world which indoctrinates women to be the objects of male sexuality. This combination of the male gaze, the permanent legal state of consent and rape culture conspires to produce an unhealthy sexual environment within which all individual sexual encounters take place. When McKinnon said “In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent”, it is the weight of the eyes, laws and codes which bear down on each interaction, shaping its direction.