While a postmodern paradigm is not the answer, it provides feminists with very effective analytical tools to deconstruct gender inequality and generate positive social change. Postmodernism helps to negotiate knowledge production in an unjust world by appreciating complexity and exposing the “socially constructed nature of reality and the varied interests that are served by particular constructions” (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2007, 98). This particular paper will tackle the phenomenon of date rape between heterosexual partners, in a Western context, from a feminist post-modern perspective. Therefore, rather than trying to uncover a universal truth about how date rape is experienced, I will address its socio-political context. I will challenge the understanding of sexuality as part of the personal realm by revealing the social structures at its roots. As a survivor of date rape, and as a radical queer feminist woman, I acknowledge my biases and my political goals of improving people’s experience of sexuality and preventing sexual violence. However, I believe that my experience and subjectivity will lead me to make a solidly grounded argument.
Date rape is legally defined as “nonaggravated sexual assault, non-consensual sex that does not involve physical injury or the explicit threat of physical injury” and I will argue that it is enabled by the perpetuation of gendered sexual scripts (Pineau, 1989, p.1). More specifically, I will demonstrate how hegemonic masculinity leads to a contractual and commodity model of sex. Lastly, I will propose, a shift away from the contractual model of sex towards Lois Pineau’s (1989) alternative, the communicative or active model.
Firstly, I will begin by defining exactly what I mean by hegemonic masculinity. The dominant discourse on male sexuality produces an ideal and normative form of masculinity that all men are expected to live up to. The dominant masculine gender norm is to have an insatiable, uncontrollable, animal-like, purely physical, and predatory sexuality (Steedman, 1987, Ehrlich, 2001, Powell, 2010, Pineau, 1989). This narrative constructs men as purely sexually motivated beings, and positions them as the aggressive initiators of sexual activity.
Inherent in these masculine gender norms is also the heteronormative construction of women’s sexuality as opposing and complementary. Therefore, in contrast to the dominant image of men who have an “irrepressible biological need for sex”, women’s sexuality is assumed to be passive and almost completely emotionally driven (Powell, 2010, 64). Women are expected to draw pleasure primarily from being the objects of male desire, and from emotional intimacy rather than bodily pleasures. Therefore, their sexual drive is assumed to need a man with exceptional sexual prowess in order for it to be summoned (Steedman, 1987, Powell, 2010, Pineau, 1989). Powell finds that this assumption is echoed in the experiences and beliefs of many of the participants in her focus groups and interviews with young men and women aged 18-24. However, she questions whether the young women who talk about their sexual experiences in emotional terms are accurately representing their experiences or if this is simply the only acceptable way women can discuss their sexuality. She concludes that while we cannot negate the very real pleasures women experience from emotional intimacy, the missing discourse of female sexuality in physical terms leads many women to embody this gender norm.
It is therefore evident that sex and sexual desire are not the purely biological functions that they are commonly considered to be; regarding it as such ignores the complex negotiation between agency and social structure. Sex does not manifest itself in a vacuum; it occurs within the context of patriarchal power relations. The act of sex is not excluded from hegemonic male dominance as “aspects of women’s subordination continue to be played out in the bedroom” (Steedman, p.85). Moreover, it is gender norms that provide the building blocks with which heteronormative sexual scripts are forged, which in turn, provide the act of sex with a normalized formula to be carried out by heterosexual partners.
The dominant sexual narrative, recognized by scholars such as Steedman (1987), Ehrlich (2001), Powell (2010) and Pineau (1989), feeds off the gender norms of female passivity and male aggression to position women as the prey of men’s sexuality. As feminist litigator Thomas Macaulay Millar illustrates, in the book Yes Means Yes!, “sex is like a ticket; women have it and men try to get it” (Valenti and Friedman, 2008, 30). In this commodity model of sexuality, women act as the gate-keepers of sexual activity. They are taught to be vigilant about in what context, to whom, and to how many she grants a “ticket” to. Her commodified sexuality operates in a sexual market just like any other, ruled by supply and demand. The value of her “ticket” diminishing the more men she grants it to. A common example of this type of mentality is that frequently, women who have multiple sexual partners are told to ‘have some self-respect’. Adherers to the commodity model of sexuality are disconcerted when a woman willingly devalues her “ticket”.
When we plug all these assumed constants into the sexual formula, men’s insatiable sexual drive, women’s passive sexuality and her reluctance to engage in sexual activity for fear of devaluing her “ticket”, the result is that “what is sexual assault is often mistaken for seduction” (Pineau, 1989, 2). I draw this radical notion from Pineau’s seminal article Date Rape: A Feminist Analysis, where she explains this phenomenon by pointing to the assumptions that male aggression and female reluctance are normal parts of seduction. By means of her extensive experience with rape trials as an attorney, and as a survivor of sexual assault, she has concluded that these assumptions often lead a woman’s “no” to be misread for the performance of her reluctance in the game of seduction. Pineau coins these sexual scripts as rape myths and states that “rape myths aren’t just popular, however, but often emerge in the arguments of judges who acquit date rapists, and of policemen who refuse to lay charges” (1989, 10). Moreover, some men’s coercive tactics are perceived to be appropriate considering women’s presumed passive sexuality and especially when sexual consent is understood to be the absence of vehement opposition, as it most commonly is.
Pineau deconstructs the sexual model even further to determine that hegemonic masculinity is at the root of understanding sex to be a contractual agreement. She argues that men feel entitled to escalate sexual activity until their eventual orgasm because their sexuality is assumed to be so uncontrollable by nature. A contractual relationship is formed when a woman is perceived by a man to arouse his beast-like sexual drive. Once this point has been reached for a man, Ehrlich, Pineau and Reitan agree that many women may feel pressure to submit to sex because they would otherwise feel guilty for causing him sexual frustration. The “blue balls” narrative cautions against the painful effects of sexual frustration, akin to suffering for a man. All in all, these gendered sexual narratives teach us that denying a man sexual access is analogous to breaking an agreement that a woman enters with her provocative behaviour or appearance and that a man’s entitlement to sexual release outweighs a woman’s disinclination to have sex.
While improvements have been made since the time of Pineau’s article in how the courts and society at large perceive rape, Ehrlich argues that victim-blaming is still the pervasive mentality. In her analysis of two sexual assault hearings that took place in Canada in the early 2000s where the accused was acquitted, she finds that “while not held accountable for rape on the basis of their ‘provocative’ dress or their ‘promiscuous’ sexual past, the complainants discussed in this study were nonetheless held accountable for not communicating their lack of consent clearly and unambiguously” (121). One of the complainants, Marg (pseudonym), was criticized at length for her faulty communication of non-consent, but at no point was the defendant, Matt (pseudonym), criticized for “faulty or inaccurate interpretation of signals” (132). In fact, Marg tried communicating non-consent by leaving the room to get a friend to tell him that she felt like he was taking advantage of her, by telling him that she was tired and that under different circumstances she would consider having sex with him. However, Ehrlich argues that because the interlocutors and the defendant interpreted the situation from a male vantage point, and with a definition of consent as the absence of clear opposition, they could not see these attempts at communication as strategic acts of resistance. Instead, they discussed how Marg’s actions could be indicators of consent. For example, in this excerpt of the hearing, Matt declares that because she got back into her own bed after bringing her friend in to intervene, this meant that she was without a doubt consenting:
Matt: I don’t understand the logic of…no I’m sorry. I do not think that it’s appropriate to get back into a bed with somebody who you claim was taking advantage of you.
Interlocutor: So you felt when she got back into bed that that was a consent to other activities?
Matt: At that point when she comes back to bed, at that point I wasn’t even looking for consent.
Interlocutor: You at that point you didn’t believe that she didn’t want you to do this?
Matt: Of course not. (125)
This passage clearly demonstrates the entitlement that Matt feels when Marg makes the perceived “provocative” move of getting back into her own bed and that he shows little regard for any reluctance she may convey at a future point. Ehrlich hits the needle on the head when she states that “Matt has not invented his rationalizations; on the contrary, he has the cultural weight of a sexist and androcentric belief-system informing and authorizing his (mis)interpretations” (148).
Moreover, Ehrlich challenges the aforementioned definition of consent as it negates the way refusals are actually performed in every day conversation. If a man expects a vehement and direct statement of non-consent from a woman as the only indication to stop, he may never get one. Ehrlich cites Kitzinger and Frith’s work which suggests that women communicate their refusals indirectly and rarely refer to their lack of desire to have sex. Commonly, and as we saw in Marg’s case, women use compliments to ease the abruptness of a refusal, “I like you but…” or “it’s really flattering of you to ask but…”.
It seems fairly safe to then deduce that most men who engage in date rape cannot be pathologized to have criminally deranged minds. On the contrary, I argue that date rapists are embodying and interpreting certain messages that our culture sends all too well and that to a certain extent -I do not want to negate the existence of agency- they are products of our socio-political climate. Diana Russel also came to a similar conclusion in her book, The Politics of Rape, where she argued that “rape was not a deviant male act but one that conformed to typical notions of masculinity in our patriarchal society” (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2007, 39). Essentially, many of these men are only acting out their prescribed gender role of persuading the sexual gate-keeper to accord him the sexual ticket he most likely already feels entitled to. However, if this appalling behaviour is a product of our culture, it is then urgent that we abolish these gender roles, establish a new model of sexuality and redefine consent.
Therefore, as my concluding argument, I would like to take this opportunity to demonstrate that an alternative sexual model is possible, one that is based on the enthusiastic consent of all partners involved, and on their mutual enjoyment. As Reitan (2001) demonstrates, feminists have already generated significant progress from the once conceived definition of rape “as the violation of the property rights of men” (p.43). They have contributed the widening of the definition to include the experiences of women and as Powell demonstrates in her recent work, laws have changed for the better. One way to envision this change, would be the shifting of the burden of proof (Pineau, 1989 Ehrlich, 2001). Currently, as seen above, date rape trials are focused on women having to provide evidence that they expressed their non-consent to the best of their ability and perpetrators are rarely scrutinized or criticized for their (sometimes intentional) reckless disregard for their partner’s level of enjoyment. However, Pineau envisions a rape trial where a cross-examiner would ask the defendent questions like “Did he ask her what she liked? If she was using contraceptives? If he should? What tone of voice did he use? How did she answer? Did she make any demands? Did she ask for penetration? How was that desire conveyed? Did he ever let up the pressure long enough to see if she was really interested? Did he ask which position she preferred?” (p.24). In a communicative or active model of sex, the partners involved have an obligation to check in, whenever there is any ambiguity, that there partners are enjoying themselves. Consent shifts away from simply being the absence of violent resistance to the responsibility of ensuring an enthusiastic desire on the part of a partner. A very real resistance and counter-argument for the communicative model of sex is from men “who recognize that, under these new definitions, their own sexual behaviours might qualify as rape” (Reitan, 2001, p.44). This tension is materialized in Clark and Caroll’s content analysis of men and women’s rape scripts in which they found that men were less likely to identify a date rape as rape and were more likely to place responsibility on the woman to assertively communicate non-consent. Therefore, essential to this shift, is also the encouragement of alternative masculinities (Powell, 2001).
To conclude, sexual scripts represent many norms, cultural assumptions and beliefs operating simultaneously. I argue that gender norms are the foundation upon which these dominant sexual narratives are built. Without them, a man’s manipulative, coercive and aggressive sexual tactics would not be understood as seduction, but as assault.
However, I have used many generalizations about culture and gender norms and the way they are embodied. Due to the limited scope of this paper, I have neglected to address the all the complexities that occur in the instances of date rape. However, the goal of this paper was merely to highlight a problem and propose the beginnings of a solution. With the knowledge gained from this paper, I encourage readers to recognize the problematic discourse which supports rape culture and to work towards a communicative model of sexuality.
References
Bordo, S. (1992). Eating Disorders: The feminist challenge to the concept of pathology. In Leder, D. (Ed.), The body in medical thought and practice (pp.197-212). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Clark, M.D., Carroll, M. H. (2007). Aquaintance Rape Scripts of Women and Men: Similarities and Differences. Sex Roles, 58, 616-625. DOI 10.1007/s11199-007-9373-3
Hesse-Biber, S.N., Leavy, P. L. (Eds.) (2007). Feminist Research Practice: A Primer. Sage Publications, 2007.
Ehrlich, S. (2001). Representing rape: Language and Sexual Consent. New York, NY: Routledge.
Francis, L. (Ed.). (1996). Date rape: Feminism, philosophy and the law. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.#
Friedman, J., Valenti, J. (2008). Yes means yes: Visions of female sexual power and a world without rape. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.
Powell, A. (2010). Sex, power and consent: Youth culture and the unwritten rules. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reitan, E. (2001). Rape as an essentially contested concept. Hypatia, 16(2), 43-66. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810542
Steedman, M. (1987). Who’s on top? Heterosexual practices and male domination during the sex act. In Hamilton, K. (Ed.), Who’s on top? The politics of heterosexuality (pp.83-111). Toronto: Garamond Press
