What Is Sexual Assault ( Destroying The Myths)

Darren Laur · Post by **Darren Laur** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 1:32 am

What is sexual assault:

Sexual assault involves any unwanted sexual touching, ranging from forced kissing to breast fondling to forced intercourse, and could include serious injuries and even death. Consent is a key issue in determining whether a sexual assault has taken place. Here in my country, Canada, a person cannot consent to sexual activity if impaired by alcohol or drugs. Also, consent must be clearly and freely given; i.e., a definite “yes”, and cannot be given by anyone under the age of 14yrs of age (not 16yrs, as many people mistakenly believe).

The statistics regarding this crime in Canada are startling:

· 50% of females in Canada have been victims of one or more unwanted sexual acts
· Almost 60% of women who experienced a sexual assault were the targets of more than one such incident
· A woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes in Canada, and every 7 minutes involving forced sexual intercourse
· Survivors of sexual assault range in age from 4 months to over 90 years of age
· The largest target group is young women aged 14-24 years (dating years )
· 49% of all sexual assaults occur in broad daylight
· The number one place where sexual assaults occur is in the home. The number two place is in a vehicle (these two places are where dates usually end up in )
· 25% of all sexual assaults involving forced intercourse occur after the offender has made a “legitimate” contact with the woman
· 83% of all sexual assaults on women are committed by a male they either know, love or trust
· 50% of incidents involve couples either married or cohabitating at the time of the assault
· 99% of sexual offenders are male
· Sexual offenders overwhelmingly represent the “average” male. The vast majority of men who sexually assault women in Canada are white (72%) and Canadian born (63%)
· Only about 10% of sexual assaults are reported to police
· Only about 1% of women who have been assaulted by an acquaintance report the crime to police

Sexual Assault Myths:

One possible factor contributing to the high incidence of sexual assault may be the many myths that surround the issue. These myths are still believed by a large proportion of the population, including some women. Each time I teach and lecture on this topic, I am amazed that these fallacies never seem to die. They have to be recognized for what they are, “LIES”, and need to be dealt with as such. They include:
· The way a woman looks, dresses, or acts can promote a sexual assault
· A woman’s reputation can promote a sexual assault
· Some women or some situations are safe
· Women must accept a certain amount of risk when they participate in certain activities, i.e., going to bars
· Women, especially those who are young, elderly, or disabled, are incapable of protecting themselves and resisting an assault
· An assailant will always cause more injury if the woman resists
· Most women are lucky if they successfully defend themselves and get away
· Resisting an assault who has a weapon will result in certain death
· A woman can tell who her attacker may be by the way the attacker looks
· Men cannot control themselves sexually in certain situations
· Assaults are usually committed by strangers
· Some assaults should be taken more seriously than others
· Women often cry rape to get even with men or to protect their reputations
· If a woman is kissing or consenting to some physical touching, it means that she is willing to have sexual intercourse
· A woman should be able to see a sexual assault coming and should know better than to place herself in that type of situation, or to “lead a man on”
· A woman should never go out alone after dark because if she does, she is just asking for trouble
· Sexual assault is a crime of passion and lust
· You cannot be sexually assaulted against your will
· A person who has been sexually assaulted will be hysterical
· Sexual assault is an impulsive act
· Only young, pretty women are sexually assaulted
· If you do not use physical force to resist an attack, then you have not been sexually assaulted
· All rapists are crazy and sexually frustrated

Remember, a sexual assault, no matter what the circumstance, is “NEVER” the survivor’s fault. Examine your own attitudes about this crime, and help destroy these all-to-common myths. Speak out and educate. Insist that perpetrators be held accountable for their actions, and join initiatives aimed at reducing violence against women.

Strength and Honor

Darren Laur
Integrated Street Combatives

Dana Sheets · Post by **Dana Sheets** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:15 am

A wonderful and sobering post.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

· Women must accept a certain amount of risk when they participate in certain activities, i.e., going to bars

And if they happen to have a couple of drinks while at the bar....what was that Jodie Foster film...."The Accused"?? Maybe some of the lawyers can weigh in and let we women know what kinds of things to keep track of in order to report a sexually assault?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>· Assaults are usually committed by strangers
· Some assaults should be taken more seriously than others<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why many assaults go unreported. Women are slow to turn in those they love that may be abusing them. Often the police are slow to believe.

Dana

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Fri Mar 01, 2002 11:36 pm

***This is more a clarification than a disagreement. I wholly agree with the intentions of the post, and that assaults are always wrong and never the fault of the victim.***

"consent must be clearly and freely given; i.e., a definite “yes”, and cannot be given by anyone under the age of 14yrs of age (not 16yrs, as many people mistakenly believe)."

Actually, there are mature kids who can give their own consent (say, for medical therapy, a less charged subject--would you say a minor one day underage who's skipped 3 grades and lives on her own is unable to consent to surgery? It's a bigger deal than sex, but we wouldn't infantilize her by making it the parent's decision). There are adults who can't (low IQ, etc). What matters is ability to comprehend consequences and weigh alternatives, and this is NOT perfectly designated by age. Age is a legal and not an ethical or moral distinction. And here in the USA, it ain't *14* in many states.

"The statistics regarding this crime in Canada are startling; 50% of females in Canada have been victims of one or more unwanted sexual acts."

But we have to clarify what this means. When doing research on spousal abuse, I came across similar stats for domestic abuse. Then read the fine print and find out--they including saying a woman is FAT was domestic abuse (emotional). Well, I tell my patients they're overweight, and its out of concern! A kiss, a touch, might be cruel or hurtful in some cases, but I think lumping them in with outright rape (as per some other sources) really waters down what more serious sexual assault means to the victim.

"Some assaults should be taken more seriously than others."

If that means a rape is worse than a kiss or grope, then my god, yes!

"The way a woman looks, dresses, or acts can promote a sexual assault; a woman’s reputation can promote a sexual assault"

These are not Lies, they're EXCUSES. A woman's behavior absolutely can influence her risk of attack--else, why would we bother training them to avoid danger?? We'd have to tell women they're helpless targets if they couldn't avoid risks. We have to make a distinction between taking what we know are risks and being responsible. Even if a woman takes a risk by walking down a dark alley drunk and naked, (or more often, by staying with an abuser) what happens is NEVER her fault.

"Some women or some situations are safe."

Some are. We can always get hit by a meteor, but if nothing is safe, the word safe means just that--nothing.

**Again, I totally agree with Mr. Laur and just about everything he has written about self defense on this site (and thanks for writing them!), I'm just arguing a few semantics for clarity's sake.**

Darren Laur · Post by **Darren Laur** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 1:03 am

Ian:

Points taken. Interesting comments

Strength and Honor

Darren Laur

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 2:10 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Even if a woman takes a risk by walking down a dark alley drunk and naked, (or more often, by staying with an abuser) what happens is NEVER her fault.

I think we need to be clear on this Fault thing__ because the word emotionally highjacks and confounds women.

Fault defines as follows:

1] A character weakness

2]To commit a mistake or an error.

If a woman remains with an abuser, many people will argue that no. 1 should apply.

If drunk and naked in a dark alley we may argue that both 1 and 2 apply.

Also no.3 __ stupidity __ my own definition of fault.

Talk about asking for it.

------------------
Van Canna

Tony-San · Post by **Tony-San** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 2:29 am

Lets discuss the attributes that lead to fault. Here are a couple:

1]Haphazard, wreckless behavior

2]foolishness

3]Delusions

4]Carelessness

Any more to add?

These conditions can lead to what Van defined as "fault". While this can happen in Men as well as women, Women must be extra careful to guard against them. why? because as has been discussed already, women ARE targets by nutcases because their shallow minds percieve them (the women) as being weak.

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:14 pm

When a woman takes risks like those above, she may suffer an asssault she may otherwise have avoided.

But when "fault" is used in these settings I believe it connotes responsibility and blame. As in, she MADE it happen, so she's RESPONSIBLE, and to BLAME. And by extension if she bears some responsibility and blame the attacker bears LESS. That is, it's now LESS of a crime to attack a drunk woman, or a woman doing something risky, than it is to attack a proper chaste and sober woman knitting in her bedroom.

However everyone has the right to personal safety and that right is not waived even 1% by taking mind altering substances or doing stupid things.

The responsibility, blame, and FAULT then remain 100% on the attacker. People can fail to avoid attacks, but they don't make them happen.

This applies to men too. Some idiot got picked on by some thug sized stupid collegiates down at uva a few years back, and he mouthed off at one, a substantially larger guy, who proceeded to punch him hard enough to land him in the hospital.

He could have avoided the assault, but no matter how annoying someone is your right to attack when no threat is posed is zero, and your responsibility is 100%.

Saying attacked women have any amount of blame, fault or responsibility for what happens to them can lead to their being devalued by the attack (wouldn't have happened to a good girl) which makes it easy for an attacker to say the crime was no big deal. Women get deprived of their equality under the law and their right to safety by this use of the word, so I strongly believe that no matter how stupid a woman is, or how drunk, the word FAULT should never be applied to her.

Dana Sheets · Post by **Dana Sheets** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 12:38 pm

Ian,

Very nice take on the concept of "fault".

I like your phrase "the right to attack."
A woman wearing revealing outfits may raise her risk but it certinally doesn't give anyone more of a right to attack her.

A woman who gets drunk at a party raises her risk of being attacked, but no person has the right to attack her.

A woman walking alone in a dangerous neighborhood at night has chosen to raise her risk of being attacked, but she has not given anyone the right to attack her.

What this leads me to is the thought that:

A difference should be made between blaming the woman for bad choices versus blaming a woman for someone else's actions.

Dana

[This message has been edited by Dana Sheets (edited March 04, 2002).]

Cecil · Post by **Cecil** » Mon Mar 04, 2002 4:30 pm

HEre is an analogy I have started to use for certain topics. It's an unpopular, very politically incorrect one, but it makes a point:

I'm a black man. Should I show up at a KKK or Nazi meeting with a white woman on my arm? Now, the KKK or Nazi don't have the RIGHT to string me up, do they? Heck, I could even show up to one of those with said woman and nothing may happen more than a few rude stares and comments. But, by attending that particular meeting, in that manner, do I not take a certain risk?

If I were on the jury, judging that situation, of course I'd vote to lock up every KKK and Nazi member responsible if an assault or murder took place. I'd feel that they did not have the right to do that. I'd want to send a message and so forth, so that it never happened again.

My point: we have to take certain responsibilities and face some hard truths in order to make ourselves safer. NO, we can NEVER be absolutely safe, but if we do what we can, that's all we can ask for. Don't we lock our car doors and front doors?

I don't mean to be cavalier about the topic of rape. I also don't want to sell any young women a bill of goods about their rights that in reality, could get them hurt by people who don't care about rights and wrongs.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Tue Mar 05, 2002 4:15 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Women get deprived of their equality under the law and their right to safety by this use of the word.

I agree. But what good are rights if they are not recognized?

An intelligent person uses discretion in exercising “rights” __ many a “righteous “ person has been killed over “righteous behavior” __

Let’s be careful with these discussions, lest we send the wrong message.

So your attractive daughter wears a short miniskirt and no underwear__ no bra__ and gets into a seedy bar secure in her rights. So what are rights for?

On her way to the ladies room she gets dragged in the men’s room and raped by two punks over a toilet seat, who don’t give a S *** about her rights.

Not her fault..Sure..But certainly pretty stupid and most likely a character flaw.

You have a right to free speech, but think of how many people have been killed exercising that right.

------------------
Van Canna

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Tue Mar 05, 2002 3:18 pm

Don Rearic wrote this on my forum, different thread, but very applicable here:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Perhaps they should be taught personal responsibility instead of looking to someone else for their safety.
Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid. You are on your own. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is an intelligent way and a stupid way to exercise your rights.

By the demeanor of some people today in public, men, or women, you’d swear stupidity is queen.

I witnessed an incident once, in an airport in southern Italy, where an American woman proceeded to berate a local airport porter in public, about her “rights” as a passenger. The husband tried to admonish her, and told her to shut up because he saw the look on the porter’s face.

About twenty minutes later, as the woman was outside the airport, she got a glimpse of the porter shadowing her. I saw her turning white with fear and run headlong in a stream of traffic trying to cross the street carrying her bags.

Pretty stupid woman, rights, and all.

------------------
Van Canna

Cecil · Post by **Cecil** » Tue Mar 05, 2002 4:17 pm

"You have a right to free speech, but think of how many people have been killed exercising that right."

That is what gets me about this topic. Sure, we have rights and there are channels we can exercise if our rights are violated. But, I'd like to spare myself and others as much pain as possible in life. Justice comes AFTER the fact. We live in a society that wants us to be happy about being burgularized, assaulted, raped or whatever just because we can see the person locked up after it happens. Forget that! I don't want it to happen in the first place.

It is impossible to counteract and prevent everything. But, at least if we try, we can increase our odds. Just like how exercise does not guarantee us perfect health, but if we have stronger bodies, we are more able to fight off an illness.

We can argue that the Toilet Punks in Van's scenario may not necessarily need to see a woman wearing no underwear in order to rape her. But, I'd gamble that given the choice between a woman wearing underwear and one who is not, they'd pick the one who is not.

Another thing that gets me mad is how some of the same people who will argue loudly about what rights someone is supposed to have are the very same ones who will NOT be there to pick up the pieces of the tragedy.

If it were up to me, every school girl in the US would have mandatory self-defense training. Okay, I know I'm dreaming now.

Dana Sheets · Post by **Dana Sheets** » Tue Mar 05, 2002 4:25 pm

Van,

I understand very clearly that when a woman is getting attacked there are many, many reasons why it happens.

Attackers (usually male, but not always) attack for different reasons.

Women - even more than men because current numbers indicate that they are attacked under what Mr. Lauer frames as "sexual assault", should be very aware of steps they can take to lower their risk of being attacked. Many of those things have been outlined in the past by people who know more about it than I do.

The way fault is assigned in a court, vs how it is assigned by insurance companies vs how it is assigned by people in daily life are very different things. Fault means different things to different people.

I am not advocating that women should taken on a mentality of denial or unrealistic invulnerablility. What you've called a "Peter Pan" mindset in the past. I think women need to be very tuned in to the choices they make that affect their safety.

These choices include things like:
What we wear.
What we say.
How much we allow our brains to be clouded by drugs or alcohol by things we chose to imbibe.
The people we spend our time with
The locations we visit.
Our "body language" how we carry ourselves, the non-verbal mesages we send by our posture, our gestures, our eye contact.
How we say "no."

A woman conscious of all these choices can better understand, through research and training and education, how to make choices that lessen her risk of being attack.

It would be stupid and shallow of me to say that no matter what a woman does she shouldn't be at risk -- because that is simply not realistic.

But at no point do her actions give someone the right to attack her.

Dana

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Tue Mar 05, 2002 4:40 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

But at no point do her actions give someone the right to attack her.

But of course. And anyone who believes this __has probably a "loose wingnut" in whatever brain circuitry he/she has left.

The main problem I see is that some people get lost in the discourse of rights vs. stupid behavior.

You see some of this stuff at the workplace:

women dressed up with short skirts, low cut blouse etc. __ then complaining of "unwanted attention" and sexual harassement.

I have investigated quite a few of these situations.

The men complained of being sexually harassed
themselves, due to the provocative dressing of women at work.

Where do we draw the line?

------------------
Van Canna

Maygan · Post by **Maygan** » Sun May 12, 2002 1:48 pm

Ok so I know this is old and all but I have something to say. I'm 17 and I live in Australia. The legal consent age for sex here is 16 for girls. Three months ago I was sexually assaulted by my best friends step father. Is it my FAULT because I stayed the night there? because I trusted him and believed him? I mean ok I live in a small town where this kind of stuff never happens and if it does it is kept quiet. My best friends mum knew and told me not to tell anyone I didn't is that my fault too? I didn't say no? He is always fighting with me and winning should I have fought back? Ok after this has happened to me I am more careful and I don't really trust anyone as much except for my closest friends and I guess the black belts I train with. I am the only girl in my monday night Karate class and I am the only non black belt does that mean that if I am sexually assaulted by one of them that I asked for it because I still go to my classes even though I am weaker and the only girl?