Everyone is familiar with the term Sexual Assault or Rape. The word creates frightening images of force, violence, power, and control. It is evident that this type of violence is widespread and permanently alters the meaning of life for survivors of sexual assault. Over the past twenty years, "rape" has been placed in the forefront of political arguments and public scrutiny. Rape has been classified, broken-down into various typologies, and analyzed.
The truth is that anyone can be sexually assaulted. According to a study by the National Victim's Center, approximately 680,000 women were raped in 1990. It has been estimated that 40-50% of women raped knew their attacker (Bartol, 1993). Though rape itself has been classified into many typologies -- two major divisions have been stranger rape and aquaintance rape. Though both are similar in terms of impact on the victim with regard to physical, emotional, and psychological violation, it is the context in which the assault occurs and the existing relationships between offender and victim that is different. A rape by an acquaintance is not abrupt or committed by a stranger. This attack occurs after an element of trust has been established between rapist/victim. In earlier research, acquaintance/date rape had been referred to as "confidence rape" (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1991). With acquaintance rape, the perpetrator may be trusted by the victim, even loved. It is usally a peer, colleague, a date, a friend.
The problem with acquaintance rape is how its perceived by public. There still are common misperceptions about the crime of rape. For more information see this link on rape myths.The media for example, has used it to distinguish between severity of rapes (Wiehl & Richards, 1995). Stranger rape is usually presented as more serious. "Stranger rape" is usually presented as being more real, more serious, than if the victim knew her attacker. The problem is that "rape" should be defined by the act itself. The severity should be judges with regard to threat or injury, not in terms of the existing relationship.
In 1974, Burgess and Holmstrom conducted a study on rape victims. From this research developed rape trauma syndrome. In their research, much of their conclusions were drawn from other studies focusing on two types of rapes:blitz rapes andconfidence rapes. Blitz rapes are parallel to stranger rapes. Victims are unknown by offenders, they are usually randomly selected. Confidence rapes, are done primarily by someone known to the vitim including: a girlfriend, wife, acquaintance. It was a broad term used to include a broad spectrum of relationships. From this research it was concluded that women who suffer from confidence rapes were more likely to engage in risk taking behavior prior to the rape (drinking, using drugs, getting in to his car, going up to his apartment, etc.). Most of these women noted that they felt more anger at the time of the attack, rather than fear. Finally, they were less likely to seek out medical and legal assistance due to the fact they knew their assailant (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1991). As time, research, and public attention has focused more on this topic, classifications of rape have become more specialized and compartimentalized. However, the rape-myths still persist.
There are several common myths about acquaintance rape that exist. One myth, which is a source of controversy, is that the victim is responsible. Victim precipitation has been used to define contributory behavior in crime. Essentially, it says, "an unlawful act has been committeed, but had the victim behaved in a different fashion, the crime in question might have been avaoided" (Brownmiller, 1975, 400). Another myth is that when a women says "no",she really means "yes". It is based on this myth that many believe a woman likes to "tease" men, and is dishonest about her sexual intentions. Thus, men tend to misperceive cues from women.
A third myth is that women can always resist forced sex. When placed in a position of being forced to have unwanted sex, a woman is expected to resist and defend herself. A common statement heard by those treating victims and by defense attorneys is that the woman "submitted to", not "consented to" sex (Wiehl & Richards, 1995,79). A last myth regarding acquaintace rape is that once men are sexualy aroused, sex is inevitable (Sanday, 1996). Although sexual arousal may be a precursos to rape, the way men cognitively handle their sexual arousal determines the outcome of their behavior. Alcohol and drugs can influence their situation significantly. These and other myths have been set up as expectations for many men, and especially can influence young males in the college environment because of other factors (lack of parental supervision, peer pressure, etc.).
Contrary to public opinion, the impact of rape from a known and trusted offender may have additional consequences than a sexual assault from a total stranger (Wiehl & Richards, 1995).According to the recent special report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics(September, 1997), females are more likely to be victimized by friends or acquaintances (this accounts for 40% of rapes and sexual assaults). As well, women are more likely to be victimized at a private home (their own, or that of a neighbor, friend, or relative)than in any other place.(BJS,9/97). These are very disturbing statistics that continue to raise questions about how the criminal justice system and the general public look at and address sexual violence -- specifically date and acquaintance rape. There are several common myths about acquaintance rape. These concerns regarding fraternity and athletic membership are rising within the mainstream public and media. According to the Department of Justice's statistic office, a male fraternity member was named as the aggressor in 93% of all university-related reported rapes between 1984-1993 (Washington Post, 1993). In terms of geographic locality, more alleged rapes happen within the existing property lines of fraternity/sority housing than any other area in the U.S.(this excludes prisons and military areas). As well, A 1990 national survey of over 12,000 students by the Campus Violence Prevention Center at Townson State University, found that almost half (50%) of acquaintance rapes were committed by althetes and fraternity members (U.S. News & World Report, 10/7/91).
The area of acquaintance rape, and its existence and prevalence on college campuses should continue to be of growing concern. The campus environment creates a specialized set of problems because of the contained environment (i.e., the victim constantly sees the perpetrator, attend the same classes, have the same circle of friends, etc.). This ranges depending on campus size and other variables.
A nation-wide study by Koss (1985) surveyed over 6,000 students on their sexual experiences on college campuses. The study found 1 in 8 women were "victims" of rape(Koss, et al.,1985,1987,1992).As well, 1 in every 12 men admitted to forcing a woman to have intercourse or attempting to through physical or psychological coercion. Interestingly enough, none of these men identified themselves as rapists.
The first civil lawsuit brought under the 1994 Violence Against Women Act was brought against Virginia Tech. The victim claimed she had been assaulted by two members of the football team. One was exonerated by the Universitiy's disciplinary board, and the other was suspended, which was lifted right before the commencement of the football season. Other recent cases include: Alex Kelly (1997), William Kennedy Smith (1991), the St.John's University's Lacrosse Team(1990)[Sanday's book covers the case], and the mid-1980's case at Duke University where campus officials moved against the Beta Phi Zeta fraternity, when it was discovered that senior members assigned a pledge the task of "finding a drunk woman for a gang-bang"(Sanday, 1996).Gang rapes, as well as individual sexual assaults are still a big problem, especially in college communities. For a look at collective cases of incidents on this topic, see this link,Campus Watch. Our society still believes in the myths of rape. It is important to look at the history of rape in our culture to see what can be done to prevent these types of crimes from happening to others. It is important to understand the impact of acquaintance rape in order to begin the recovery process.
What is the public's attitude on date/acquaintance rape? Is it considered a real crime? When looking at sexual violence occurring on a college campus, do we really believe that athletes and fraternity members are more likely than other college men to engage in sexual assault or even other forms of violence against women. If its true, what features are the most conducive to this type of behavior?
To help students achieve success and individual growth, it is important to understand the impact of college culture and organizations on defining and/or changing students' attitudes and values. The specific role that athletics, fraternities/sororities play in the developing and shaping attitudes of college students has been a critial point of debate. Theories have circulated that a Greek culture and male-athletic memberships foster a group ethos which debases and often objectifies women through language, physical aggression, and reinforces group loyalty through united behavior, even if antisocial and illegal (Warshaw, 1988).
The truth is that anyone can be sexually assaulted. According to a study by the National Victim's Center, approximately 680,000 women were raped in 1990. It has been estimated that 40-50% of women raped knew their attacker (Bartol, 1993). Though rape itself has been classified into many typologies -- two major divisions have been stranger rape and aquaintance rape. Though both are similar in terms of impact on the victim with regard to physical, emotional, and psychological violation, it is the context in which the assault occurs and the existing relationships between offender and victim that is different. A rape by an acquaintance is not abrupt or committed by a stranger. This attack occurs after an element of trust has been established between rapist/victim. In earlier research, acquaintance/date rape had been referred to as "confidence rape" (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1991). With acquaintance rape, the perpetrator may be trusted by the victim, even loved. It is usally a peer, colleague, a date, a friend.
The problem with acquaintance rape is how its perceived by public. There still are common misperceptions about the crime of rape. For more information see this link on rape myths.The media for example, has used it to distinguish between severity of rapes (Wiehl & Richards, 1995). Stranger rape is usually presented as more serious. "Stranger rape" is usually presented as being more real, more serious, than if the victim knew her attacker. The problem is that "rape" should be defined by the act itself. The severity should be judges with regard to threat or injury, not in terms of the existing relationship.
In 1974, Burgess and Holmstrom conducted a study on rape victims. From this research developed rape trauma syndrome. In their research, much of their conclusions were drawn from other studies focusing on two types of rapes:blitz rapes andconfidence rapes. Blitz rapes are parallel to stranger rapes. Victims are unknown by offenders, they are usually randomly selected. Confidence rapes, are done primarily by someone known to the vitim including: a girlfriend, wife, acquaintance. It was a broad term used to include a broad spectrum of relationships. From this research it was concluded that women who suffer from confidence rapes were more likely to engage in risk taking behavior prior to the rape (drinking, using drugs, getting in to his car, going up to his apartment, etc.). Most of these women noted that they felt more anger at the time of the attack, rather than fear. Finally, they were less likely to seek out medical and legal assistance due to the fact they knew their assailant (Burgess & Holmstrom, 1991). As time, research, and public attention has focused more on this topic, classifications of rape have become more specialized and compartimentalized. However, the rape-myths still persist.
There are several common myths about acquaintance rape that exist. One myth, which is a source of controversy, is that the victim is responsible. Victim precipitation has been used to define contributory behavior in crime. Essentially, it says, "an unlawful act has been committeed, but had the victim behaved in a different fashion, the crime in question might have been avaoided" (Brownmiller, 1975, 400). Another myth is that when a women says "no",she really means "yes". It is based on this myth that many believe a woman likes to "tease" men, and is dishonest about her sexual intentions. Thus, men tend to misperceive cues from women.
A third myth is that women can always resist forced sex. When placed in a position of being forced to have unwanted sex, a woman is expected to resist and defend herself. A common statement heard by those treating victims and by defense attorneys is that the woman "submitted to", not "consented to" sex (Wiehl & Richards, 1995,79). A last myth regarding acquaintace rape is that once men are sexualy aroused, sex is inevitable (Sanday, 1996). Although sexual arousal may be a precursos to rape, the way men cognitively handle their sexual arousal determines the outcome of their behavior. Alcohol and drugs can influence their situation significantly. These and other myths have been set up as expectations for many men, and especially can influence young males in the college environment because of other factors (lack of parental supervision, peer pressure, etc.).
Contrary to public opinion, the impact of rape from a known and trusted offender may have additional consequences than a sexual assault from a total stranger (Wiehl & Richards, 1995).According to the recent special report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics(September, 1997), females are more likely to be victimized by friends or acquaintances (this accounts for 40% of rapes and sexual assaults). As well, women are more likely to be victimized at a private home (their own, or that of a neighbor, friend, or relative)than in any other place.(BJS,9/97). These are very disturbing statistics that continue to raise questions about how the criminal justice system and the general public look at and address sexual violence -- specifically date and acquaintance rape. There are several common myths about acquaintance rape. These concerns regarding fraternity and athletic membership are rising within the mainstream public and media. According to the Department of Justice's statistic office, a male fraternity member was named as the aggressor in 93% of all university-related reported rapes between 1984-1993 (Washington Post, 1993). In terms of geographic locality, more alleged rapes happen within the existing property lines of fraternity/sority housing than any other area in the U.S.(this excludes prisons and military areas). As well, A 1990 national survey of over 12,000 students by the Campus Violence Prevention Center at Townson State University, found that almost half (50%) of acquaintance rapes were committed by althetes and fraternity members (U.S. News & World Report, 10/7/91).
The area of acquaintance rape, and its existence and prevalence on college campuses should continue to be of growing concern. The campus environment creates a specialized set of problems because of the contained environment (i.e., the victim constantly sees the perpetrator, attend the same classes, have the same circle of friends, etc.). This ranges depending on campus size and other variables.
A nation-wide study by Koss (1985) surveyed over 6,000 students on their sexual experiences on college campuses. The study found 1 in 8 women were "victims" of rape(Koss, et al.,1985,1987,1992).As well, 1 in every 12 men admitted to forcing a woman to have intercourse or attempting to through physical or psychological coercion. Interestingly enough, none of these men identified themselves as rapists.
The first civil lawsuit brought under the 1994 Violence Against Women Act was brought against Virginia Tech. The victim claimed she had been assaulted by two members of the football team. One was exonerated by the Universitiy's disciplinary board, and the other was suspended, which was lifted right before the commencement of the football season. Other recent cases include: Alex Kelly (1997), William Kennedy Smith (1991), the St.John's University's Lacrosse Team(1990)[Sanday's book covers the case], and the mid-1980's case at Duke University where campus officials moved against the Beta Phi Zeta fraternity, when it was discovered that senior members assigned a pledge the task of "finding a drunk woman for a gang-bang"(Sanday, 1996).Gang rapes, as well as individual sexual assaults are still a big problem, especially in college communities. For a look at collective cases of incidents on this topic, see this link,Campus Watch. Our society still believes in the myths of rape. It is important to look at the history of rape in our culture to see what can be done to prevent these types of crimes from happening to others. It is important to understand the impact of acquaintance rape in order to begin the recovery process.
What is the public's attitude on date/acquaintance rape? Is it considered a real crime? When looking at sexual violence occurring on a college campus, do we really believe that athletes and fraternity members are more likely than other college men to engage in sexual assault or even other forms of violence against women. If its true, what features are the most conducive to this type of behavior?
To help students achieve success and individual growth, it is important to understand the impact of college culture and organizations on defining and/or changing students' attitudes and values. The specific role that athletics, fraternities/sororities play in the developing and shaping attitudes of college students has been a critial point of debate. Theories have circulated that a Greek culture and male-athletic memberships foster a group ethos which debases and often objectifies women through language, physical aggression, and reinforces group loyalty through united behavior, even if antisocial and illegal (Warshaw, 1988).
