(This post contains candid discussion of rape and sexual violence.)
As some of you may know, I experienced two different sexual assaults when I wasn't yet in my teens within just one year of one another. The second time I was assaulted, my experience ticked all of the boxes there currently are in our culture for what is so often -- now, anyway, easily considered a "real" or "bonafide" sexual assault, or what Whoopi Goldberg, to my great disappointment, would call "rape-rape."
I was a girl, and one with body parts universally recognized as "girl parts." My attackers were guys. Even worse when it comes to the rape cliché all too often (misre)presented as universal truth, I was a white girl raped by guys of color. I did not know any of the perpetrators: they were all strangers. It was violent. It was forceful. I said no, I yelled, I tried to run, and I fought, but I lost. I was conscious until I was knocked unconscious. I hadn't been drinking or doing recreational drugs, nor had I ever even tried either. I sustained physical injuries. I wasn't a sex worker. I didn't have mental illness or a developmental disability. I wasn't dressed "provocatively," (despite a police officer's notion that any length shorts were provocative), I wasn't wearing lipstick or high heels, I wasn't on a date or at a bar, and beyond some very rudimentary, fully-clothed juvenile fumbling, I hadn't been sexually active.
The first time around was different: I was much more confused about what had happened. I knew the person who assaulted me: he was the "sweet old man" who cut our hair. I froze in fear and shock: I wasn't able to move or utter a sound, including "no," despite feeling no loudly in my skin. I was wearing, that day, an outfit I thought was a "pretty" outfit. My attacker told me I liked what he was doing, and he said "nice" things to me, rather than calling me names. He told me how pretty I was. I didn't get any injuries. It wasn't violent. I threw up several times when I walked home: I knew it wasn't right, but I didn't know it was wrong, or why. Nor did I know it was sexual violence. I didn't even try to tell anyone.
But shortly after the second assault, it was clear what had happened, both times. I still didn't have and wasn't provided any sound words (nor help) for it at the time, but I knew that first incident was just as wrong as the second; knew they were the same at their core. Once I tried again to tell someone about the second assault a couple years later, I got the information and words I needed to better start to understand I had been raped, and all that could mean. I then realized what should have been obvious: I was raped that first time too, not just the second.
If that second rape had been more like most rapes, and if I had been anyone but someone with a vagina, given so much of the messaging out there then, and, though to a lesser degree, still out there now, I might not have figured out what happened to me until many, many years had passed, something which would have set me back immeasurably, and to my great detriment, in my healing process. I meet survivors like that, any of us who work in support for survivors do: it is so, so much harder for them to heal than it could be, than it should be.
This should all be so far past obvious to anyone by now. Even though some folks still lazily, callously, dangerously and sometimes even maliciously cling to and broadcast myths about sexual violence -- plenty will likely do so in reaction to the terminology change I'm going to talk about -- this should all be clear by now, especially from federal justice agencies who are supposed to support victims, not render them invisible.
There's a lot that's changed for the better around sexual violence and victim advocacy since I was assaulted in the early 80s, and plenty that's changed since I started actively working with survivors over the last ten years. The mere fact that what happened with my second assault would now so readily be classified as assault, and most likely treated so differently than it was by police and everyone else around me speaks volumes. But one thing that really hasn't changed, especially in lowest-common-denominator attitudes, attitudes which were very unfortunately still reflected in the longstanding definition of rape from the FBI, is the notion that only assaults like the second one I experienced were or are "real" rape; that only victims like I was then are "real" victims. That's a strange and hurtful notion for many reasons, but one of the biggest is that that kind of assault is the LEAST common way rape occurs, not the most common. And that's not late-breaking news: data and information has been gathered which makes that clear for decades: millions of survivors have bravely told their stories over the years which illustrates this clearly. And yet.
At the very least, our justice departments should be clear and inclusive about what rape and other kinds of sexual abuse are, and at the very least, those definitions should include and privilege the most common ways and contexts per how rape occurs, not just the least common to the exclusion of all else.
And now, we've finally got some of that important, needed clarity. The FBI finally dumped a definition of rape which had over eight decades of dust on it, and adopted a new, far sounder definition. To say I'm elated and deeply grateful is a pretty serious understatement.
Before you look at the new definition, take a look at the old one: The previous definition was "The carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will." "Carnal knowledge" is a term that expressly and exclusively means penis-in-vagina intercourse.
Who didn't that include? Often, people assaulted by those known to them, even closest to them, which accounts for the majority of sexual assaults of all people and most commonly doesn't involve physical force, but coercion and other kinds of manipulation. Men and boys. Women who were not assigned female sex at birth. Women sexually assaulted by other women. People whose assaults did not involve vaginal intercourse. People who were assaulted sexually in such a way that did not involve a penis. People who were not conscious or fully conscious when assaulted. People who did not give their consent, or whose nonconsent was ignored. All of these victims and survivors and more were not included in the previous definition. That old definition didn't include the majority of people who have been raped.
As someone who educates, counsels and supports a wide range of rape survivors every week, I all too often hear from survivors who can't even get started healing because they feel they have "no right" to call their assault what it was, mostly either because they fear they'll invalidate the experiences of "real" survivors and victims, because they do not want to hold someone else responsible for something they are not responsible for, and/or because one or both of those concerns dovetail all too nicely with victim-blaming, rape-enabling mentalities the world is plastered with. I'll sometimes pull out my own experiences and say that I believe them, that I don't feel invalidated because we did not have the same experiences with rape, and as someone who has experienced rape in different ways, I know all too well rape is rape is rape. But I shouldn't have to do that, and no one should need me to, especially when I'm saying what I am to counter not just what they hear from uneducated people, but from justice agencies, who know all of this better than anyone.
Now it seems I just might need to have discussions like that a lot less, or have them only when backing up what our federal justice bureau says themselves.
The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
As the FBI explains (bolding mine):
The revised definition includes any gender of victim or perpetrator, and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, including due to the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with state statute. Physical resistance from the victim is not required to demonstrate lack of consent.
"The revised definition of rape sends an important message to the broad range of rape victims that they are supported and to perpetrators that they will be held accountable," said Justice Department Director of the Office on Violence Against Women Susan B. Carbon. "We are grateful for the dedicated work of all those involved in making and implementing the changes that reflect more accurately the devastating crime of rape."
The new definition is more inclusive, better reflects state criminal codes and focuses on the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape.
"These long overdue updates to the definition of rape will help ensure justice for those whose lives have been devastated by sexual violence and reflect the Department of Justice’s commitment to standing with rape victims," Attorney General Holder said. "This new, more inclusive definition will provide us with a more accurate understanding of the scope and volume of these crimes."
Police departments submit data on reported crimes and arrests to the UCR. The UCR data are reported nationally and used to measure and understand crime trends. In addition, the UCR program will also collect data based on the historical definition of rape, enabling law enforcement to track consistent trend data until the statistical differences between the old and new definitions are more fully understood. The revised definition of rape is within FBI’s UCR Summary Reporting System Program. The new definition is supported by leading law enforcement agencies and advocates and reflects the work of the FBI’s CJIS Advisory Policy Board.
It's still not perfect, but it is so, so, very much closer then we have ever had before, and fine-tuning it from here should be a lot easier than it was getting from the old definition to this new one.
Not knowing something has happened to you when it has is often awful, especially with something like rape where feelings of confusion on the part of a victim are so often used to dismiss or deny assault. Feeling like you can't even voice what happened to you or express what you're feeling because your assault, compared to the rarest kind of assault so often seen as the only "real" kind is a horrible way to feel. Healing from abuse and assault is often a long, demanding and challenging process, but you can't even really get started until you have some basic words for and sense of what was done to you, a clarity that what someone chose to do to you was a serious crime, a crime where you were a victim.
I really cannot express how grateful I am for this change: grateful to FBI Director Robert Mueller and to the many individuals and initiatives (like The Feminist Majority Foundation, Ms. Magazine and Change.org) who pushed and kept pushing tirelessly for more than ten years for this positive, important change.
Thank you. Thank you.
By all means, how the FBI defines sexual violence can't control how everyone does, nor magically erase myths and misrepresentation of perpetrators and victims. We're still going to all have to keep doing a lot of work to turn around the dangerous and damaging mythology about sexual violence, its perpetrators and its victims. We're still going to have to do a lot of work to keep holding the line when it comes to consent and the necessity of real consent, and for everyone, not just certain individuals or groups: for everyone. We still have a lot to do to address and change bystanding and victim-blaming and a whole bunch of other stuff that's going to take time and the efforts of everyone, not just one big agency or advocacy organizations, but absolutely everyone, to rid our world of rape culture.
However, I think having a standard set like this is going to make all of that much easier. This change is powerful for those who will report and seek justice. It's powerful even for those who do not, but can know that if they choose not to report or press charges, it's not because a crime wasn't committed, but because they are making a choice not to pursue justice for that crime. Powerful because survivors can see, in clear language from a major justice organization, what what has happened to them as exactly what it is, not what those who want to deny it would call it. They can have a sense of what rape is which is current and based on all we know now, not an archaic relic from an era decades before the civil rights movement, and a time when women had only had the right to vote for less than ten years (and when raping a woman you were married to -- including violently -- was legal in every state of the union and not acknowledged as "real" rape at all, because wives were very much considered, legally and socially, the sexual property of their husbands). It's powerful when it comes to doing a better job collecting data on sexual assault so that everyone can begin to have a very real sense of how big a problem rape is and what we need to do to most effectively keep working to end sexual violence. Powerful for anyone, as well, who needs to know how very important and integral consent is, and how very much harm it can do to suggest it's irrelevant, or say nothing about it at all.
And having these words from an authority as powerful as the FBI? That has serious power. The power to answer statements like, "But I didn't say no," "But I didn't fight," "But I was drinking," "But she didn't have a weapon," "But it was my boyfriend/coach/teacher/parent," "But I'm a guy," "But I was wearing a short skirt," "But I froze and didn't do or say anything," and other common statements reflective of a wide range of victims and survivors with a so-about-time definition that makes perfectly clear how none of those things mean that someone who was raped was not.
Me and my boyfriend have been together for 9 months. I'm 17 and he's 22. Everything is going great! We never really fight and my family likes him, too, which is rare. Only problem is he travels a lot for work, he will be gone for 2 weeks at at time. I don't mind, but he asked me to help make his trip better...he wanted me to take nude pictures of myself. I said I would but only because I do love and care about him a lot and thought it would be good for the both of us. But I HATE pictures as it is...I tried to take them for him but I HATE every picture I take and it makes me feel even more self-conscious than I do already. I would rather walk around naked for him all day then take pictures of myself. I know it sounds stupid, but it's just really hard for me. I trust him and know he wouldn't do anything with those pictures but it's hard explaining to him why I don't like pictures, he doesn't get it...should I just suck it up and take em?
I want to know what the government considers sex. When they say age of consent what kind of sex are they talking about?
With everyone talking about it so much lately, thought I'd reprise the topic with some questions Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon.com asked me about sexting a few months ago, and the whole of my answers. To see her finished piece, you can meander over here.
Q: Where does "sexting" -- or for that matter, taking nude self- portraits or videos that they may or may not share with a significant other, friends or a crush -- fall within teenage sexual development?
I'd lump television in with the 'net and other new media when I say that with the media presence being what it has become, the need or desire to seen -- already a typical part of young adult development as well as human existence -- has become huge. And that's not just about sex, but because sexual development and exploration is also a big part of being a teen, as well as a part of life, period, and something that's still treated as provocative, particularly when in any way public, sex enters into this.
You're asking about teens using these kinds of media in terms of sex, but we could just as easily be talking about anything else. Teens tend to be creative and expressive, and teens often feel invisible in many ways, so doing things to be more visible has always been typical. When it comes to sex, this is hardly the first time we've seen young people publicize their sexuality: before we had this media, we had video cameras, before that film cameras, before that the written word, and all throughout, public or semi-public sex, ways of proclaiming to peers that one is sexually active, available to become so OR that a person is simply a sexual person, even if they've not intent of engaging in sexual activities with others. I'd say this is pretty normal behavior when it actually happens: teens just using the current media at hand to do the kinds of things young people exploring their sexuality and sexual identities have always done.
People forget that at the turn of the century, in the 20's, in the 50's and 60's, in the 80's and 90's... there has always been something like this, some way young people were expressing or publicizing sexuality that adults were freaking out about, quick to proclaim as abnormal, and quick to state as something new that had never gone on before. Not hardly! I've no doubt we could find dirty telegrams from way back when if we looked for them. People express things through available media. Sex is one thing people may express.
Mind, it may be becoming a little (and I do mean a little) more pervasive, simply because a) the media we have is so much more accessible and easy to distribute than what we have had before b) it's a lot easier to get that 15 minutes of fame for the average Joe or Jane than it has been in the past, and c) the advent of porn available en masse, so easily, as it is now and has been for most of their lives is going to make all of this feel very nonprovocative for some and very common. Then again, it may not: this'd hardly be the first time adults made a big fuss about something they say young people are doing en masse without actually consulting with young people to find out what the real deal is. I think more adults are talking about 9and doing) sexting than young people are.
Q: Can it be a healthy form of teenage sexual self-expression?
I'd say so, but I think when we're looking at whether or not something is healthy, we need to look at and ask about individual motives.
Is someone doing it to freely express themselves or share reciprocal (and I'd say that's important) levels of intimacy with a partner? Is it coming from a place, for them, that feels positive? Does it feel authentic, liberating, freeing? Is it a choice being made informedly when it comes to the risks? Are there some smart boundaries, including firm agreements about privacy? If so, I'd say we're probably looking at healthy behavior.
Or, is someone doing it out of a need to prove something to someone else, to try and earn love or attention? Does it feel like an act or like it's required? Is it being done to try and gain social status or due to peer pressure? Out of a self-injury impulse, to try and do themselves harm or get into trouble? Is it happening in the context of anything exploitive or abusive? If so, I'd say we should consider this may not be healthy.
Q: Is it reasonable or fair to allow that some teenagers will have sex but not that they will engage in this type of sexual experimentation?
Oh, absolutely. Just like it's fair or reasonable to say that a young person who "dresses like" (whatever arbitrary thing that means at the time) she is sexually active or talks about sex (in general, not "I had sex last week,") should not be assumed to be having any kind of partnered sex.
Q: Nowadays, how does the Internet and other technology play a role in teenagers' sexual development?
It's tough to say if it's any more or less than other types of media have in the past, but I think we can say that in a media-saturated culture, this has an impact. For one thing, teens hear and see more and more messages about sex from more and more sources, which is not necessarily negative: that can be positive, negative or neutral, depending on what the messages are, how much meaning they have to a teen, and what kind of protective factors a given teen has to filter those messages through, like intelligence, community or family support and involvement, self-esteem, education.
Another thing to bear in mind is how many teens are having relationships now which are only or partially online, and so sometimes this IS the way they are having sex in those relationships: via photos, webcams, phone or cybersex. Again, while I know that these relationships have their own pitfalls, and adults have fears about them, I think we have to be careful about being too hasty to approach them with fear. After all, those kinds of sex don't present any risks of pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections, and may also involve greater communication than in-person sex does and teens report positive experiences with online relationships just lie with in-person ones.
I think we, as adults, often forget that teens today grew up with these tools: they're not new to them. This is the life they know, and a culture that's familiar.
Q: What are the main dangers of "sexting" and how should parents address concerns about that type of behavior?
We would be remiss not to talk about the law, because it's a big issue.
According to the legal definitions of child pornography, a photograph of a nude minor distributed WILL fall under that umbrella, leaving the teen who made it and distributed it and the others who look at it and distribute it open to very serious criminal charges. These recent cases are not the first time teens have been held responsible in this way.
Obviously, that's a huge danger all by itself: child pornography is nothing close to a misdemeanor. Personally, when I have had teens ask me about this or talk about doing this, my own advice is that given the world that we live in -- both due to the legal ramifications, as well as the fact that we know this stuff can come back to haunt a person, especially women, far later in life than one'd expect, I advise against it, and suggest finding other ways, safer ways, less permanent ways, to express sexuality, especially before one is a legal adult.
Another is the fact that many teens aren't so great about respecting privacy or understanding that intimacy is...well, intimate.
In other words, Judy takes these photos and passes them to her boyfriend Joey. Joey thinks they are so hot and gets such an esteem-rush from Judy doing this for him that he sends them over to his friend, who thinks Judy is actually a big freak or a slut (or whatever a person's sexual pejorative term of choice is) and so sends it to a handful of people. Then the train has left the station and those photos can wind up in everyone's hands very fast.
Too, the velocity of young adult relationship is such that be it with this or any other kind of sex or intimacy, some teens wind up exposing a whole lot very soon, well before they've established if the person they are doing it for or with is trustworthy. Teen relationships also tend to start fast and end fast, so photos given to a partner can quickly belong to an ex, and many of teens don't exactly handle breakups well: some may use old nude photos to retaliate.
So, there is certainly a lot of room for serious betrayal or embarrassment, and something that felt good and liberating when done could really quickly turn into something that leaves the person who did it feeling very bad about themselves or their sexuality.
My advice to parents is pretty much the same no matter what kind of sexual behavior with teens we're talking about: ask questions, try and do so without issuing judgment, and just freaking listen. A parent can ask a teen, for instance, why this is something they're doing, and how they feel it benefits them. They can address the serious legal implications as well as the possible social issues to be sure a teen knows what the real deal is, and even make suggestions as to less risky ways to express sexuality or share intimacy with a partner. A parent can express their concerns and set limits and boundaries without going to a place that's about shaming sexuality or sexual expression, but rather, about helping a teen to make choices that don't derail their lives or put them at serious risk.
Parents might also do well to remember what ways they and/or their friends may have publicly or privately expressed their sexuality.
Q: Is there any difference in the way this behavior potentially impacts girls as opposed to boys?
I'd say so, simply because we still live in a sexist world, and a lot of the archaic double-standards about sex and women still have yet to go away. A girl who does this stuff is still likely to be presented by many as a slut, a boy, a stud, and I'd say you're less likely to see guys doing this in the first place. So far, far more girls are sexting than guys. When we do hear from teens about this who are engaging in this (which is rare), it seems it's much more often women than men, and much more often something women do for men than women do for female partners. I also more often hear young women expressing that this is asked for by male partners than I hear things the other way around.
Suffice it to say, there are more inherent dangers in a young woman appearing to be sexually available or sexual than there are for young men, both interpersonally and socially. The idea that a young woman is putting herself out there sexually -- especially for mass consumption, even if that wasn't her intent -- hasn't stopped carrying any of the same weight or heavy judgment than it has had in the past. If only.
We still are not in the historical or cultural place where a woman can fully express her sexuality for herself, by herself, whatever that may look like, and have that be supported, as supported as it is for men.
Want more from the cutting room floor? Check out The Cutting Room Floor: Masculinity, Gender and Orientation.
Hi, my boyfriend and I both live in Florida and have been dating for a little over 7 months now. We are sexually active. I'm 16 and he's 20, can he get in trouble for being with me ?
My girlfriend is 17, and I am 19. We had unprotected sex a few days after she finished her period. I know its foolish to not use protection, however we both decided we didn't want anything in between us. I made certain that I didn't ejaculate inside her. She might be pregnant, but right now I'm really just looking at all the options. The state we live in, Virginia, requires one parent to be notified of a decision to get an abortion. However, in Washington D.C. there are no rules saying a minor has to contact or notify her parents or anything. I've read that it is illegal to transport or drive the minor across state lines to get an abortion. Is that true? If yes, could she drive the car and I be a passenger? Or follow her in my car? If she is pregnant, I know she wouldn't want to get her abortion alone... so what is the current laws on this? I have the money to pay for it!