Does "Rape Culture" exist?

[DrZoidberg]

The closest references to this culture that I could find were in the following articles:

http://www.marshall.edu/wcenter/sexual-assault/rape-culture/


http://thefeministwire.com/2013/06/we-live-in-a-rape-culture/


That is as extensively as those concepts are mentioned -- no explanation of how those characteristics contribute to sexual violence. Is there even any evidence that such characteristics are more prevalent among rapists than among the non-rapist populace? Do these writers have anything more than a hypothesis?

I've just explained the fullest extent to my understanding of this theory. I am at the moment sleeping with a researcher in gender studies. I can ask her for more info. She seems to know fucking everything on this topic. Even the bizarre and amusing angry-feminist theories. I'll get back to you on this.

edit: It just struck me, that there's no way we could set up a reliable experiment for this. There's just too many factors. I mean... we can't even trust that the numbers of rape cases between countries reflect actual rapes. Potential reasons for victims not to press charges are many and varied.

This research adds yet another layer of complexity. So the rape culture theory couldn't... even hypothetically... be more than a lot of estimating and guesswork. A lack of evidence does not mean it isn't true. Taking that view would be unfair and unfortunate IMHO.

There are things science can't measure. Things science can't measure can still be true.

 

[bigfield]

It just struck me, that there's no way we could set up a reliable experiment for this. There's just too many factors. I mean... we can't even trust that the numbers of rape cases between countries reflect actual rapes. Potential reasons for victims not to press charges are many and varied.

This research adds yet another layer of complexity. So the rape culture theory couldn't... even hypothetically... be more than a lot of estimating and guesswork. A lack of evidence does not mean it isn't true. Taking that view would be unfair and unfortunate IMHO.

There are things science can't measure. Things science can't measure can still be true.

Edited:
What is rape culture if not a sociological theory? If it can't make meaningful, testable predictions about society then it is not even a theory.

 

[dystopian]

Investigate, yes. Yet I'm being accused of being a rape apologist for saying it should be investigated rather than his guilt assumed.

That's not why people are being accused of being part of the problem. Saying that it should be properly investigated is fine. Of course it should be. That is not, however, the job of random people of the public, such as you or me. If someone standing on the sidelines is constantly shouting 'maybe he didn't do it! let's investigate! I don't believe she got raped! Let's investigate! Investigate!'; while at the same fucking time the police are in fact doing exactly that, what kind of message do you think that sends? That shouting person may genuinely believe he's being fair and balanced, but to everyone else he just sounds like an asshole with an agenda.

What good would the rape kit do? Likewise the tox screen?

Are you... serious?

"Let's ignore potential evidence, cause what good would it do? I mean sure, it could find serious tearing as a result of violent penetration, but maybe she wanted that. And the tox screen? Pfft, that could just show she ingested GHB or something."

It boggles my mind that you´re advocating we investigate rapes before judging someone, but then turn around and argue that the gathering of potentially vital evidence is pointless. Even if you think that it´s pointless, it doesn´t mean that it actually is. The more facts the investigators have the better.

Except we've had people convicted in nothing but a he-said/she-said.

I seriously doubt that has ever actually happened, regardless of what twist the media might give a case. As broken as I think the US system of law is, I rather doubt it´s THAT incompetent. More than likely there´s going to have been actual evidence in those cases you´re just glossing over.

 

[dystopian]

That's why I asked whether exponents of rape culture have nothing more than a hypothesis. The concept that is described in the articles I have read is vague and doesn't make precise, testable predictions.

I don´t think it´s a theory or actual ´definable culture´ so much as a pervasive societal kind of response to the issue. ´Rape culture´ isn´t a scientific term, nor should it be taken as such. It´s a term used to point out problematic behavior. In some societies, ´rape culture´ might come in the form of families literally executing daughters that get raped in order to get back their family ´honor´. In other societies, ´rape culture´ might be the tendency to sweep the issue under the rug and just pretend it didn´t happen. Or instead it might be the tendency to shame and heckle the victim with people loudly fighting on behalf of the accused.

Does there have to be a solid underlying scientific framework to a term before we can use it to describe problematic behavior?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Edited:
What is rape culture if not a sociological theory? If it can't make meaningful, testable predictions about society then it is not even a theory.

How would you test a sociological theory? How would you set up the control? How would you control the environment? It's a soft science. Very soft. But that's not the same thing as saying that it's worthless. That's like saying that all political parties will behave randomly, so why bother voting. Or that the value of money can only be measured indirectly via highly questionable metrics, therefore all money is worthless. Well... not quite. Same thing with this theory.

Here is a good illustation:
http://xkcd.com/451/

 

[bigfield]

I don´t think it´s a theory or actual ´definable culture´ so much as a pervasive societal kind of response to the issue. ´Rape culture´ isn´t a scientific term, nor should it be taken as such. It´s a term used to point out problematic behavior. In some societies, ´rape culture´ might come in the form of families literally executing daughters that get raped in order to get back their family ´honor´. In other societies, ´rape culture´ might be the tendency to sweep the issue under the rug and just pretend it didn´t happen. Or instead it might be the tendency to shame and heckle the victim with people loudly fighting on behalf of the accused.

Does there have to be a solid underlying scientific framework to a term before we can use it to describe problematic behavior?

If you are describing a series of problematic behaviours then you aren't actually talking about a culture at all. Unless of course you are suggesting that those problematic behaviours are characteristic of the society.

Other writers, including this anonymous source at Marshall University that I linked earlier, define the normalisation and excusing of rape as characteristic of US society:

Rape Culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture. Rape culture is perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women’s bodies, and the glamorization of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards women’s rights and safety.

That doesn't reconcile with the definition that you've given, and neither do other sources. The goalposts are keep moving when it comes to the question "does rape culture exist?" I'm not accusing you of being consistent, simply that from my point of view the term is nebulous and therefore meaningless.

 

[bigfield]

How would you test a sociological theory? How would you set up the control? How would you control the environment? It's a soft science. Very soft. But that's not the same thing as saying that it's worthless. That's like saying that all political parties will behave randomly, so why bother voting. Or that the value of money can only be measured indirectly via highly questionable metrics, therefore all money is worthless. Well... not quite. Same thing with this theory.

You can test the theory by seeing if the claims it makes holds up to reality. Sociology is a soft science but it still supposed to be science, albeit one that depends heavily on observation.

E.g.
Does the objectification of women correlate with the prevalence of rape when comparing societies which have differing levels of objectification?
Does the extent to which men are taught to be sexually aggressive and dominant correlate positively with the prevalence of rape?

If no-one knows the answers to these questions then how can anyone conclude that such societal attitudes contribute to rape?

 

[The Paul]

Translation: "No."

No, Derec. I'm not incapable of doing any given thing simply because I don't do it. For instance, maybe it's a non-trivial effort and I don't see any purpose in it.

I've seen you called out on this by various people various times. There's no one left for me to prove it to. The only person left who seems to be unaware is you. Or maybe you're under the misapprehension that your denial of it will be believed?

I could walk outside with a camera, point up, and take a picture. But no one actually needs evidence the sky is blue so I'm not going to do it.

The take home message is don't bother acting all outraged because someone accuses you of acting callously towards rape victims. After years of very publicly acting callously towards rape victims it is now impossible for you to receive any sympathy in this regard.

 

[dystopian]

If you are describing a series of problematic behaviours then you aren't actually talking about a culture at all. Unless of course you are suggesting that those problematic behaviours are characteristic of the society.

That is exactly what people are saying, actually; that these behaviors are pervasive enough among large enough groups of the population that they can, colloqially, be described as part of the cultural landscape. Doesn't mean you can easily scientifically quantify it. If every time a rape case comes up, there's a loud segment of the population trying to trivialize the situation or shame the victim in some way, then you really don't have much choice but to consider that part of the culture. Unless you are of the opinion that only behavior that is shared by every member (or even just the majority) of a society can qualify. If so, does that mean if you don't like baseball you're not culturally American, or that I'm not culturally Dutch just because I don't like speedskating?

Other writers, including this anonymous source at Marshall University that I linked earlier, define the normalisation and excusing of rape as characteristic of US society:

They're not wrong exactly; these are indeed fairly characteristic features of the public debate in the US whenever a rape case comes forward. Just because activitists tend to over/understate things in accordance with their cause, doesn't mean their basic points aren't accurate.

That doesn't reconcile with the definition that you've given, and neither do other sources. The goalposts are keep moving when it comes to the question "does rape culture exist?" I'm not accusing you of being consistent, simply that from my point of view the term is nebulous and therefore meaningless.

A term being nebulous does not in any way make it meaningless, that's absurd. I think it's also rather absurd to say the goalposts keep moving in regards to this particular question; I certainly haven't seen any of that in this conversation; just as you say, different people using different definitions of the term; which might be annoying to you, but doesn't really justify dismissal of the central issue.

- - - Updated - - -

You can test the theory by seeing if the claims it makes holds up to reality. Sociology is a soft science but it still supposed to be science, albeit one that depends heavily on observation.

E.g.
Does the objectification of women correlate with the prevalence of rape when comparing societies which have differing levels of objectification?
Does the extent to which men are taught to be sexually aggressive and dominant correlate positively with the prevalence of rape?

If no-one knows the answers to these questions then how can anyone conclude that such societal attitudes contribute to rape?

Should we reject the idea that water makes things wet until a peer-reviewed study proves it as well?

 

[fromderinside]

So if a woman decides that a man she had sex with would not make a suitable father, then she can withdraw consent? Am I understanding your position correctly?

Yes.

I'd appreciate if you could refer me to those statutes.

 Assault

What makes you think I belonged to a fraternity? Fraternities don't even exist where I live.

Sorry. That was NobleSavage in the OP being quoted by DrZoidberg in the post after yours.

 

[bigfield]

That is exactly what people are saying, actually; that these behaviors are pervasive enough among large enough groups of the population that they can, colloqially, be described as part of the cultural landscape. Doesn't mean you can easily scientifically quantify it. If every time a rape case comes up, there's a loud segment of the population trying to trivialize the situation or shame the victim in some way, then you really don't have much choice but to consider that part of the culture. Unless you are of the opinion that only behavior that is shared by every member (or even just the majority) of a society can qualify. If so, does that mean if you don't like baseball you're not culturally American, or that I'm not culturally Dutch just because I don't like speedskating?

If your position is in fact that the people who holds such views are numerous enough to be characteristic of the society as a whole then yes, "culture" is a fair description.

They're not wrong exactly; these are indeed fairly characteristic features of the public debate in the US whenever a rape case comes forward. Just because activitists tend to over/understate things in accordance with their cause, doesn't mean their basic points aren't accurate.

Not wrong exactly?

A term being nebulous does not in any way make it meaningless, that's absurd. I think it's also rather absurd to say the goalposts keep moving in regards to this particular question; I certainly haven't seen any of that in this conversation; just as you say, different people using different definitions of the term; which might be annoying to you, but doesn't really justify dismissal of the central issue.

It's like trying to address claims of the existence of god; unless there is agreement on what "god" is then it's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

Should we reject the idea that water makes things wet until a peer-reviewed study proves it as well?

Wetness is by definition the presence of water. How do things like dominance and sexual aggression obviously linked to rape? Do you think all sexually dominant and aggressive men commit rape?

What about other claims made by exponents of rape culture? Are sexually explicit jokes obviously a cause of rape?

 

[The Paul]

So if a woman decides that a man she had sex with would not make a suitable father, then she can withdraw consent? Am I understanding your position correctly?

Yes.

Wow. Is there a time limit on that?

 

[fromderinside]

I do agree he should be liable for the cost of an abortion if she conceived. That's a civil matter, though, not a crime.

It should be administrative based on her report of the event and subsequent confirmation. I see no reason for wasting money in his protests here.

 

[dystopian]

If your position is in fact that the people who holds such views are numerous enough to be characteristic of the society as a whole then yes, "culture" is a fair description.

Oh, good. Because that is in fact my position. I was actually worried there for a moment.

It's like trying to address claims of the existence of god; unless there is agreement on what "god" is then it's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

Not really. It is perfectly possible to have a meaningful discussion on most subjects so long as the different definitions of the central term are 'close enough'. The only time when you need to have an exact definition is when you're doing math or something that relies on it.

How do things like dominance and sexual aggression obviously linked to rape?

Are you joking? You have to be. I find it hard to believe that a person in possession of a brain with human level intelligence or the equivalent thereof could seriously ask such a question. What the hell do you think rape *is*? An act of submission and sexual passiveness?!

Do you think all sexually dominant and aggressive men commit rape?

You're setting up a strawman argument.

You were originally trying to argue that if "no one knows..." ('no one' according to whom?) "...whether or not women being objectified/men being taught to be sexually aggressive and dominate has a correlation to the prevalence of rape, then no one can conclude that these attitudes contribute to rape." I responded to that by asking you if we should wait for proof that water's wet before believing it; I could have just as easily asked if I should wait for proof that being hit by a speeding train is lethal before stepping out of the way. Rather than try and be cute by picking apart the argument by saying what wetness is defined as the presence of water (which in fact, is not even technically true but that's irrelevant to the point), you should've addressed the question of whether or not a notion can be obvious enough for us to take action without definitive proof (the answer to that question btw, is yes).

The question you posed instead would work as an argument, if only it wasn't in response to an argument *I* made in response to *your* suggestion that we can't conclude there's a *correlation*. My position is that we can indeed conclude that these things lead to an increased prevalance, with or without hard evidence; it is NOT the position that it is leads to an absolute increase of a 100%.

Are sexually explicit jokes obviously a cause of rape?

Don't be absurd. Nobody seriously makes that claim, you're making a caricature of people's actual positions.

 

[Toni]

How would you test a sociological theory? How would you set up the control? How would you control the environment? It's a soft science. Very soft. But that's not the same thing as saying that it's worthless. That's like saying that all political parties will behave randomly, so why bother voting. Or that the value of money can only be measured indirectly via highly questionable metrics, therefore all money is worthless. Well... not quite. Same thing with this theory.

Here is a good illustation:
http://xkcd.com/451/

Sociologists gather data and perform data analysis. Collect and compare data collected under a particular set of conditions with data collected under slightly different, definable characteristics, one can eventually see what components actually cause particular effects.

 

[Metaphor]

Wow. Is there a time limit on that?

fromderinside's post says until the child comes 'of age'.

The implications of this are that fromderinside supports a man being financially responsible for any child he co-creates, but his rights to visit and father the child are at the whims of the biological mother, and the biological mother can 'withdraw' the parental rights until the child is 18.

If I understand the position correctly, it's nearly as ludicrous as 'all penis in vagina sex is rape' theory.

 

[fromderinside]

Wow. Is there a time limit on that?

Eyup. When the foetus is viable and delivered!

 

[The Paul]

fromderinside's post says until the child comes 'of age'.

The implications of this are that fromderinside supports a man being financially responsible for any child he co-creates, but his rights to visit and father the child are at the whims of the biological mother, and the biological mother can 'withdraw' the parental rights until the child is 18.

If I understand the position correctly, it's nearly as ludicrous as 'all penis in vagina sex is rape' theory.

Looking back, I think the correct answer to bigfields question may have actually been "no."

I don't know why someone would answer that question with "yes" when the answer is "no" but it sorta doesn't track...

...on the other hand, people do believe crazy things.

 

[fromderinside]

The implications of this are that fromderinside supports a man being financially responsible for any child he co-creates, but his rights to visit and father the child are at the whims of the biological mother, and the biological mother can 'withdraw' the parental rights until the child is 18.

You are correct within about 18 years two months or so. Since the hook lasts until the foetus is viable and delivered there would some issues with the biological father visiting the child during that time.

You weren't intentionally misstating my stuff were you?

 

[fromderinside]

I don't know why someone would answer that question with "yes" when the answer is "no" but it sorta doesn't track...

I was referring to the delivery of a viable foetus.

The woman should be advantaged following birth given the way our society is constructed (US) in relation to the man because norms are women generally raise children and fathers generally support children.