A Critique of Carceral Feminist Arguments on Rape Myths and Sexual Scripts

Abstract

Given the seriousness for both women and men of misunderstanding or miscategorising sexual victimization and coercion, scholarly engagement with this topic must be self-critical and careful about its methods and conclusions. This article seeks to test the plausibility and justifiability of some key claims made within feminist scholarship as regards the implications of the traditional sexual script and the prevalence and impact of the ''real rape'' myth. The criticisms offered below with respect to these claims identify three problems: (a) that evidence that would challenge carceral feminists' framing of the traditional sexual script as essentially a blueprint for rape is either marginalized or excluded from consideration altogether; (b) that within that framing the scripted roles of the coercive male and the passive female who is victimized have been allowed to solidify into immovable and immutable stereotypes; (c) that studies purporting to show that rape myth acceptance is highly prevalent and influential on popular attitudes are flawed in ways hitherto not fully acknowledged or explored.

Ched Evans, rape myths and Medusa's gaze: a story of mirrors and windows

“…This 'just-world view' may be at the foundation of the belief that it is only 'bad girls' (that is, women who fail to conform to traditional feminine expectations of good behaviour) who get raped by bringing the violation on themselves (Abrams et al, 2003). These views and beliefs have been elsewhere identified in legal judgments on sexual offending (Ellison, 2010;Wallerstein, 2009) (Gurnham 2016;Gurnham 2016a). In this particular case however, one reason to fear that allowing the consensual sex evidence to be admitted at trial would be particularly damaging to the complainant's credibility is that the evidence also serves to demonstrate her violation of traditional feminine norms.…”

“…Genesis after all reports only that 'Adam knew Eve', not the other way around. 21 Susan Sontag (1977) similarly uses a gendered language of sexual possession and penetration to describe photography as 19 For a critical review of feminist rape-myth acceptance scholarship more generally, see Gurnham (2016) and Gurnham (2016a). 20 For further development of this idea, see also Pugliese 2002 andCarrabine 2014, p.136.…”