Thoughts on the Illinois Rape Case

Shakes here… Via LeMew, the recently discussed rape case in Illinois, during which the presiding judge threatened to jail the victim for refusing to watch a video of the incident, has ended in an acquittal.

The verdict appalled victims' rights advocates, who said the defense sought to affirm every rape myth.

"We're down to those same stereotypes--she was drinking, she was asking for it," said Linda Healy, executive director of Mutual Ground, a suburban counseling program for sexual assault victims.

The video admitted into evidence showed two men, one of whom was the defendant in the case, having sex with the then-16 year old woman, then spitting on her and writing vulgar words on her naked body with a marker. The defense contended that the woman’s having put her hand on the accused’s head, kissing him, and smiling was indicative of consent—even though she was drunk, only semi-conscious, and remembers nothing of the incident.

What I find particularly odious about this case is that is is indicative of a disturbing trend, in which the woman bears a greater burden to stop an unwanted sexual advance than does a man to not take advantage of a woman in a compromised position. There is seemingly very little empathy for a woman who is either partially or wholly incapacitated, or whose judgment is somehow impaired, and almost no respect for her right to be free from coercion under such circumstances—even if she is underage. The merest hint that she may have been remotely aware of what was happening to her is now construed as consent.

Additionally troubling is that, somehow, the failure to be brutalized during the course of a coerced or forcible sexual encounter has also begun to suggest consent. It’s a retrograde notion of rape—that of a woman held at knifepoint by a dark stranger and beaten within an inch of her life, and anything else is not really rape. But the reality is that most rapes are not done by strangers, and most don’t leave their victims with life-threatening physical injuries. Coercive and opportunistic rape are extremely common, and extremely difficult to prove, as they often come down to a she-said/he-said scenario. If a woman doesn’t remember the attack, consent is all too often assumed, with very little reason to do so.

We tell women to protect themselves—be smart, be aware, don’t leave yourself in a vulnerable situation. Women take self-defense courses, just in case. At two different employers, I sat through safety seminars on how women can protect themselves, got given free samples of Mace to attach to my keychain. And yet, when I was raped, I was 16 years old, wide awake with no alcohol or drugs in my system, in my parents’ basement, with the boy I was dating. Mace wouldn’t have helped me. Being aware of “stranger danger” wouldn’t have made a damn bit of difference.

Has his employer ever paid for a seminar on not forcibly raping women? Or how about even not taking advantage of women of dubious consciousness? Or about what constitutes clear consent?

She said. He said.

That’s what it comes down to in a courtroom. But before it ever gets there, it’s the woman’s responsibility to avoid rape to the best of her ability. If she is not completely coherent, and her consent or dissent signals aren’t clear, that’s her fault—and the reason that belief is sustainable is because we don’t expect enough of men in these situations; we don’t burden them with the same responsibility to not take advantage of a situation that we burden women with preventing in the first place. Her mixed signals, not his misinterpretation of them. That soft bigotry of low expectations strikes me as an insult to the men who would never take advantage of a vulnerable woman, as well as the women who are unlucky to find themselves in the presence of a man who would.