Ignorance is Not Bliss
BY MOLLY PROTHERO
My seventh grade health class included a one-day activity discussing when sex is okay. We were given a sheet with various scenarios, and asked to talk about each one. Each contained various degrees of mutual consent, and the one I remember most clearly went something like this:
A teenage couple has been dating for a long time, and they decide they want to have sex. They’ve bought protection and are finally ready. They’re very romantic about it, putting candles out, turning on music, and getting dressed up for a nice dinner beforehand. As they start having sex, the girl panics. She starts to cry and begs her boyfriend to stop, but he keeps going until he finishes. How do you think he should have acted?
Our general class consensus was that she’d already given consent. I mean, they were already having sex when she changed her mind. Ideally it would have been good for him to stop. But he’s a guy; he’s been waiting for a while. It’s not his fault.
And as far as I remember, my teacher moved on, doing little to dispel this consensus.
For me, it was not until watching the performance of The Date during orientation week at Washington University that the topics of sexual assault and rape resurfaced. For many students, that may be the first time that these issues are opened up at all. Reacting to the play, many people expressed frustration at the discussion leaders’ insistence that the woman from the main story line was a victim of rape. The man had no intention of hurting her; he thought she wanted it as much as he did. He never meant to rape her. But according to legal definition, his actions did constitute rape.
The recent case in Steubenville, Ohio, reflects this misconception in many ways. Two boys, ages 16 and 17, were convicted of raping a 16-year-old girl. The rape gained attention after evidence was posted on the Internet, including a photograph of the two boys carrying the passed-out girl by her ankles and wrists. A video also surfaced in which another boy is laughing and making jokes about the assault. And throughout the trial, the two defendants gave off the impression that they did not think they had committed rape at the time. If they had known, if they had understood the impacts of their actions, they never would have done it. At the time , however, it was just a funny, stupid joke. No one involved ever thought that such actions could result in not only psychological implications for the survivor (survivors of rape and sexual assault have one of the highest rates of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for any group, with estimates ranging up to 66%), but also legal and psychological implications for the perpetrators.
News channels repeatedly played the emotional video of the perpetrators’ apologies, in which Ma’lik Richmond breaks down as he speaks to the survivor and her family, saying, “I had no intentions to do anything like that.” CNN received a lot of criticism for portraying the perpetrators in a sympathetic light without focusing on the survivor. Though a large portion of media coverage of the case was very problematic, it is hard not to feel a certain degree of sympathy for the perpetrators. In our society, it is painfully easy to believe that young men (and women) could actually not know when or if they commit rape.
It is hard for it to be otherwise when consent, much less rape, is so rarely talked about. Many Washington University students do not remember any talk of consent in their health classes, and it was not until after hearing about the Steubenville case that I recalled my education in consent and recognized its dangerous implications. In such a society, ignorance, unfortunately, is considered a legitimate defense. And until more effective and wide-spread rape and consent education is implemented, continuing to have the conversations that began during orientation week of freshman year may be the best way to raise awareness and protect others from confusion and ignorance when it comes to sexual assault and rape.