“If a girl doesn't say ‘no’…”: young men, rape and claims of ‘insufficient knowledge’

Abstract

Most psychological theories of rape tend to stress factors internal to both rapists and their victims in accounting for the phenomenon. Unlike such theories, social psychological and feminist accounts have drawn attention to social and cultural factors as productive of rape, and have criticized psychological accounts on the grounds that they often serve, paradoxically, to cement pre-existing 'common-sense'. In this paper we examine the ways in which young Australian men draw upon widely culturally shared accounts, or interpretative repertoires, of rape to exculpate rapists. In particular, we discuss the reliance placed on a 'lay' version of Tannen's (1992) 'miscommunication model' of (acquaintance) rape and detail the use of this account-the claim that rape is a consequence of men's 'not knowing'-as a device to accomplish exculpation. Implications of our methods for capturing young people's understanding of sexual coercion, rape and consent, and for the design of 'rape prevention' programmes, are discussed.

What constitutes a “reasonable belief” in consent to sex? A thematic analysis

“…The means of conveying consent or refusal mentioned by these participants are similar to previous findings (e.g. Beres, 2010;O'Byrne et al, 2006) that have demonstrated that non-verbal communication of consent and refusal is well understood by both young men and young women (Kitzinger & Frith, 1999;O'Byrne et al, 2006;O'Byrne et al, 2008). However, they also recognise that other people might read more into these behaviours (see 'Interpreting Consent' theme, below), and they also went on to emphasise the importance to them of verbal consent and refusal.…”

“…However, a common perception was that any man might hope or expect that he was going to have sex with a woman, based on the behaviours discussed, but that this was different to believing that the woman consented. This provides further support for the arguments made against the miscommunication model (Kitzinger & Frith, 1999;O'Byrne et al, 2006;O'Byrne et al, 2008), as these participants gave accounts that suggested that any such claim was grounded in an insincere attempt by a 'bad guy' to justify sexually coercive behaviour, rather than genuine miscommunication.…”

“…These similarities may therefore contribute to the difficulty in establishing the boundary between expectation and consent. For some, ideas such as miscommunication and claimed ignorance of the normative ways of conveying consent or refusal (O'Byrne et al, 2008) may be drawn upon to excuse the defendant. This is explored further in the next sub-theme 'good guys/bad guys', but more research is necessary to explore this distinction between expectation and consent, to understand what constitutes a reasonable belief in consent.…”

“…They also indicate that the 'miscommunication' model (Tannen, 1992) is too simplistic, and that miscommunication is not the underlying problem as both men and women communicate and understand consent through a variety of subtle and indirect signals. O'Byrne et al (2008) found that young men in their focus groups both used and understood normative styles of refusal that did not involve the use of the word 'no'.…”

“…It is well established that sexual consent or refusal may be undertaken verbally and non-verbally, and that very subtle indicators are used and understood by both men and women (Beres, 2010;Beres, Herold & Maitland, 2004;Kitzinger & Frith, 1999;O'Byrne, Hansen & Rapley, 2008;O'Byrne, et al, 2006), even in casual sexual relationships (Beres, 2010). In his sample of US college students, Hall (1998) found that consent was most frequently communicated non-verbally, and that consent is usually not specifically given for individual sexual acts that are part of an ongoing sequence.…”