I agree generally with the premise here, but as with many pieces on the subject it misses the mark in its explanation/solution. Yes, rape is presented badly in fiction most of the time, either in the monster sense or plot device sense. However, I'm less convinced by this argument:
About 90% of rape cases involve an existing relationship—often with a friend or romantic partner. Only about 5% of those committing rape would be considered psychotic, and only a minority would be considered psychologically abnormal. In many instances, no physical force of violence is used during the rape. It's terrible and terrifying that rape is committed by those who should be trustworthy, and it's deeply unsettling that rapists are rarely maniacs or monsters...
...the overwhelming presence of "demonic rapists" teaches a mythology that makes rape all about evil people
rather than major societal problems.
This is the part that gives me, and I think most people sympathetic to this issue/argument, a bit of pause. I think that making rape all about social problems politicizes it in a way that is no more truthful or helpful than the monster mythology. It IS a scary notion that very few rapists are actually psychotic and I think it makes victims' advocates very uncomfortable to think ostensibly normal people could commit such an act in such numbers. As a result, they reach for explanations that are more palatable and controllable... ie. that rape is committed because of social problems, namely sexism.
The argument goes that because of "rape culture," men (I'm going to generally use male-on-female rape because it's the most common statistically and the type discussed at length in the article of the topic) feel some rape is ok (or illegitimate), or classify things that are rape as not being rape. This is a much more comforting idea than accepting the possibility that most of these rapists didn't do it because society said it was ok, but rather did it because they were horny and knew it was wrong but in the moment they just didn't care. If you believe the former, you can tell who is "rapey" by casting it in terms of publicly taken political stances that are easily identified and tell yourself that the path to being safe is "awareness" and "education" of men. If you believe the latter, you can never tell who is rapey because ANYONE could be if they lose themselves in the moment, and the only path to being safe is to never be around a guy that's in the moment (and by extension, probably avoid a few moments leading up) unless you're 100% sure he can handle the moment.
It also backfires because it excludes men's voices from the conversation, and men's voices are VERY necessary to changing the behavior of other men. We listen to our mothers but we learn "how to be men" from our fathers. It's borderline insulting to insinuate that these 90% of non-psychotic rapists were so malleable they engaged in the proverbial jumping off a bridge just because their friends said it was ok. It's also frustrating to apply a political test to determine who is part of the rape culture... so that one's stance on totally separate matters (like workplace compensation) somehow gets tied to their views on a horrific crime. Rape becomes completely intertwined with political feminism, which does a disservice to both issues even though they are related.
The frightening truth is 90-95% of rapists aren't psychopaths, they're normal guys that did not control their urges. For some, it was a one-time error for which they will carry guilt and shame the rest of their lives (whether they are caught and punished or not). For others, a personality flaw that will lead them to offend repeatedly. But the bottom line is that almost every man alive KNOWS what it's like to feel out of control. Testosterone is a powerful hormone that can affect you like a drug... every one of us has been 16-24 and with a woman and it's not far off from being very drunk. I've literally had to come up for air before. I also, like the poster above, have had times where looking back I am not proud to say I probably pressured too much in the moment and it was probably not quite rape, but was a long way off from eager consent. I'm what most would describe as a bookish nice guy, a far cry from the stereotypically cavalier fraternity date rapist. The latter is the monster mentioned in this blog, whereas the reality is probably much closer to me... that most rapists if you could speak to them candidly would say they wished they'd gone home for a cold shower, but that somewhere along the way they convinced themselves that the lack of a firm and assertive no meant ok and even if they knew it was wrong the second they were done, they want badly to believe it WAS consensual. For every 5-10% saying "she wanted it because she wore a skirt" or something similar, there are 50-50% that would tell you they'd have sworn in the moment she was saying yes even though they know looking back that wasn't true and they just didn't see the signs and can't figure out how they missed them.
Part of the trouble is the way the debate is framed, as a social/political one instead of a personal/criminal one, renders those men who might be on the edge from speaking honestly about how they feel and thus getting honest feedback about ways to ensure they maintain control and obtain consent. I'm sure many would read my above paragraph and say I'm being a rape apologist that's trying to rationalize my serial rapery and trivialize it. Maybe I am? But is casting me as a social rape culture supporter really any different from calling me a monster for it? Both are cheap attempts to score points off a tragedy, one for "art" one for politics. Deliberately ignoring male arousal because some of the implications are uncomfortable is not going to solve the problem. It leads to lumping things together... suddenly staring at a beautiful woman, a perfectly normal biological reaction in 90% of males (estimate based on the gay population being 10% and more inclined to stare at handsome men) becomes an act that can get you lumped in with actual rapists, because you're both objectifying women and thus both enabling rape culture. This makes it very hard for men to establish a healthy sexuality, let alone pass it on to the next generation because we can't talk openly about how where to draw the line in our lust because to do so would see us condemned for having the lust in the first place. Just as wearing a short skirt doesn't make it ok to rape someone, doing a second take at the short skirt doesn't make one a monster or pig.
Most of us learn where to draw the line between staring and forcing, but that line between pursuit and harassment/rape can be very confusing when you're young and on your own for the first time and (as is so frequently is the case) alcohol is involved. When acknowledging that confusion can get you condemned as if you'd acted on it, it's easier to bury it. When things get buried, they fester, or fall victim to bad advice because the advice of the actually wise has been silenced pre-emptively.
This bring me back to literature... casting it as a problem of society/sexism is too simplistic. For instance, the YA novel Speak was an excellent and landmark book about rape from the perspective of a hs girl raped by a popular person she knew. While it did a great job handling her side of the story (the isolation, social pressure to keep quiet about, unbelieving friends, etc.), even that novel fell into the "monster" trap of making the actual rapist a guy that was essentially a cardboard cutout of entitled jock that sees no problem with the act. This book was written by a woman and fell victim to some of the same flaws as this article, despite the fact that the author would almost undoubtedly be described as a someone highly sensitive to - and even directly trying to address - rape as a social problem. To be honest, I can't imagine a book from the opposite perspective - one that attempted to analyze a rape from the perspective of a man that did something he knew was wrong and tried to come to terms with where he went wrong a la Crime and Punishment - receiving anything but universal condemnation and revulsion (particularly from this article's author), even though it would likely be much closer to the truth of most rape cases.
I mean truly, when the premise of your article is that rape is simplified in lit by demonizing rapists, you can't have the solution be that everyone embrace a socio-political perspective that equates humanizing rapists with being a rape culture apologist.
