Damn it! Again, children, “rape” is not “having sex”
|
Posted by Jennifer L Pozner July 9th, 2007 |
On Thursday, in response to a crime story headlined, “2 accused of sex with unconscious woman,” I blogged that:
I am seriously tired of writing articles, op-eds and blog posts — and arguing with reporters, editors, and cable news hosts — about the journalistic responsibility to not describe non-consensual, criminal sexual assault as “rape” or “sexual assualt,” not simply “having sex.”
And yet, here I go again. Here’s the headline Florida Today gave to an incredibly disturbing A.P. story about a group of young men who gang raped, sodomized and beat a woman, tortured her 12-year-old son by pouring cleaning liquids into his eyes, and then forced the child to join them in raping his own mother: “Woman forced to have sex with son.”
Oh, holy hell. If it’s not bad enough that they used the phrase “have sex with” to describe the sexual assault on the mother and on the boy, who was also a victim, here — the headline didn’t even bother to mention the gang rape.
What, should I be happy that they threw the word “forced” in there?
Many outlets’ headers did mention the gang rape, but reverted to the neutral “have sex with” in reference to the son being forced to assault his mom. (For example, a quick search shows the A.P.’s piece got quite a bit of pickup in local and regional outlets, often with this headline: “2 teens accused of raping woman, forcing her to have sex with son.”)
At least a couple of outlets did title their reportage more respsonsibly, such as the Herald Tribune’s “Two teens held in gang rape of mother, torture of son.”
Like I wrote last week, this shouldn’t be a tough distinction for editors. But, since there seems to be some sort of collective headline writers’ and editors’ mental block on the subjecy, here’s the basic rule:
WHEN A STORY IS ABOUT ANY HUMAN BEING BEING FORCED TO HAVE SEX AGAINST HER OR HIS WILL — THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY IS “RAPE” OR “SEXUAL ASSAULT” — NOT “HAVING SEX.” It’s a criminal act. It’s a violent attack. It’s inappropriate to use the same language to describe it as you would use to describe consensual nookie.
Seriously, how is it that this rule hasn’t made it into the style guides?
July 9th, 2007 11:58
[…] [H/T Jennifer Pozner.] […]
July 9th, 2007 18:51
interesting choice of absolutes…it is either having sex or it is rape when the sex act is concerned, or is it?
What is RAPE? I don’t think the etymology or definition is clear at all…although, euphemistically speaking, I guess it is clear for victims and victim’s advocates. I find the word incredibly politicized.
Working in the crim defense community, I can tell you that people (juries, in this case,) feel differently about each word: rape, sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, having sex, making love, fucking, screwing, incest, pandering, etc.
So, I am interested in this for more than simply linguistic reasons. (And I am not unsympathetic to your claim at all, btw.) We often fight hard to limit the use of certain words in the court room for many good reasons.
I think the paper you quote seems unable to decide how to represent the scene. It isn’t a typical rape scene and one certainly wouldn’t accuse the son of rape. Maybe a gutless editorial decision. Yet, I can sympathize with an author trying to accurately tell the story.
And I would hope that we wouldn’t make the use of the word rape a rule. Who decides what and when…and what does such a decision serve? Rape is a concept that has no definite value–I mean, it is purely situational. And it is an accusation that works in more than one direction. The accused and accuser receive often undue examination before, during, and after a trial.
How should the press handle the son penetrating the mother against both mother’s and son’s will? Is that Rape, too? Or some other assault that is prurient in nature but not involved with the sex act itself?
cheers…gary
July 9th, 2007 20:54
Gary, it’s near midnight so I will be brief. You say:
“What is RAPE? I don’t think the etymology or definition is clear at all…although, euphemistically speaking, I guess it is clear for victims and victim’s advocates. I find the word incredibly politicized.”
You also say: “Rape is a concept that has no definite value.”
Rape has no definite value? Leave it to a defense attourney.
There is nothing euphemistic, or unclear, about what rape is and what it isn’t. (What can be unclear is whether or not a rape happened.) But definitions? If sex is forced against someone’s will, that is rape. If a person is penetrated orally, vaginally or anally with a body part or a foreign object, that is rape. It is criminal. You should know this. I understand that as a criminal defense lawyer it is your job to muddy up these waters. But as a journalist, it is my job to clear them up.
I was also clear that it was the headline, not the story, that used inappropriate language. The AP story itself made it clear that the boy and his mother were both sexually assaulted in this hideous attack.
As for your question about the boy, I mentioned in my post that press coverage should be reflecting that this was also a sexual assault on the boy, who was a victim when made to rape his mother.
July 10th, 2007 05:21
“Rape is a concept that has no definite value”
Bull. Rape is sex without the consent of one of the parties. Pretty simple, actually.
Here’s a tip: That woman and her son were raped.
I don’t see this squeamishness when it comes to theft or robbery. No one dithers about well, what is robbery after all and who’s to say and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
July 10th, 2007 07:02
[…] We hate to be repetitive, but we will be, as many times as necessary. When women are raped, gang-raped or sexually assaulted in any way, it is wrong and grossly inappropriate to refer to it as “having sex”. Thanks once again to Jenn Pozner of Women in Media and News for catching this Florida Today violation of the above caveat, […]
July 10th, 2007 07:51
Bull. Rape is sex without the consent of one of the parties. Pretty simple, actually.
I’ll also add that in this case, and cases like this, rape is forced or coerced sex. In this case, it’s been perpetrated on both the mother and the son.
I’d like to know why the papers brought out all of the gory details about this story. Why not wait until the trial? Does the kid or his mother really need this to be rehashed in public?
July 10th, 2007 11:17
cite: “Rape is sex without the consent of one of the parties.”
I don’t think this is always settled. Most accusations are simply not this clear. It would be nice, I suppose.
But from a Victim’s Advocacy POV, you’re spot on.
July 10th, 2007 13:32
Gary, then it’s not “settled” that robbery is “really” robbery since golly, that guy gave me the money and just changed his mind after.
But yes, it’s “robbery” from a Victim’s Advocacy POV.
July 11th, 2007 17:48
Gary, Gary, Gary, are we still having this conversation in 2007? I began working at the second oldest rape crisis center in the U.S. in 1976 so you can imagine how I was catapulted back to the stone age after reading your question, “What is rape”? It’s when you want to have sex with someone and they don’t, and you force them. As you know legally there are degrees of rape and every one of them is crystal clear to the victim.
Gary, it is by choice that you have remained unclear about how it is defined. A woman doesn’t get a little bit raped just like she doesn’t get a little bit pregnant. Even by replying to your questions I feel like I have colluded in a way that keeps the dialogue moving forward. I found your words to be a distraction from the larger more serious problem: According to a 2003 report by the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), One in Three© women around the world will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime, and countries are not doing enough to Stop the Violence. The report called Not A Minute More: Ending Violence Against Women finds that ‘’despite progress at the international, national and grassroots level to address gender-based violence, there has not been a dramatic reduction in violence against women.'’ www.oneinthreewomen.com
July 15th, 2007 14:53
I don’t think I’m going to help clear up the muddied waters here. But if we are to have a dialogue bereft of misplaced absolutes, then sadly, semantics is our playground.
I’d say that if the definition of “rape” is “sexual intercourse without consent” or “sexual intercourse against the will of one or both of the parties,” common sense (and semantics) indicates that rape IS sex, just the kind which involves coercion and/or force.
Put another way, in a mathematical and scientific way, is it that sex - consent = rape, or rape + consent = sex? The law, traditionally, has used the paradigm that sex + force/coercion = rape, with the corollary that rape - force/coercion = sex. That middle, ambiguous, hazy ground, is often the source of contention in an uncertain world, where women, as the traditional passive party where sex is concerned, are worried that men, the traditional aggressive party, will ignore rape when it occurs, because of the absence of clear force or coercion. Conversely, men worry that a consent-based paradigm presumes that there is rape in every sex act, unless consent is affirmative and unambiguous. Thus, as the paradigm has shifted, we are left with an equation that reads something like sex - force/coercion = rape + consent; proving the presence or absence of one on either side of the equation creates the conclusion of the presence or absence of another on the other side of the equation. But this isn’t altogether logical, and definitely isn’t altogether fair.
But back to the point at hand, which is that the term “have sex with” implies a consensual act. The preposition “with” ends up being the sticking point, because the victim of a sex attack is having something done TO him/her, or has a sex act performed ON him/her. I get that distinction, but the style guides aren’t designed for full accuracy any more than the ever-devolving grammatical rules are. Thus, the phrase “forced to have sex with” disproves the presumption of consent, and although not as descriptive as “sexually penetrated by force,” it is certainly less graphic.
In the case of the boy being forced to perform a sex act on his mother, I’d say that characterizing that as “forced to join them in raping his own mother” does a disservice to the male victim by characterizing him as an assailant, as “forced to sexually assault her own son” would similarly disserve an accurate retelling of the portrayal in regard to the mother.
But I’ve digressed fully. I can certainly agree that news outlets should be more sensitive and less sensational when it comes to presenting news stories, but the truth is, language is infused with society’s own allusions and connotations, and sometimes, the decision to “sanitize” stories by not using strong language is an editorial decision that is motivated by something other than an attempt to downplay victimization. We hope that, at least in most instances, the devil ISN’T in the details.
July 15th, 2007 17:37
Mike, the mathematical equation breaks down thus:
You’re right that you could fairly say that “sex - consent = rape,”
but you cannot fairly say that “rape + consent = sex” because the definition of rape means that there is no consent. Simply put, there is no such thing as “rape plus consent.” If consent is there, then there is no rape. (Unless you’re talking about statutory rape i cases where a 16 year old has consensual sex with their boyfriend/girlfriend who is 18 - at which point the law might consider it rape but no traditionally understood rape (ie, act of coersion or force) has taken place.)
Also, numerous people seem to have missed the fact that I mention in this point that the boy was also a victim of this crime. However, it would be more accurate to say that the victimization he suffered was via being forced to rape his mother, because that is what he was forced to do.
August 14th, 2007 00:08
I agree with almost everything that the author has said.
My gripe however is with the criminals involved may they suffer in ways I can only see in the deepest parts of my psyche.