Nonviolent Responses to Sexual Assault

I have been thinking about the idea of nonviolent resistance to sexual assault/rape for at least a year, trying to gather my thoughts in a way that will avoid the criticism that will likely result from taking on such a sensitive subject. I guess it's not something that most people, particularly men, devote their minds to, but it's relevant to the work I do as a nonviolence theorist, a feminist activist, and a crisis counselor for the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN).

I strive for consistency, even though I agree with Gandhi that truth is more important. Nonetheless I believe that what I am about to say is both true and consistent.

It is consistent with my stance on violence in general: I believe that violence is inherently destructive and cannot, in the long run (and usually the short run as well), lead to any sense of peace, security, or unity. And when I say "violence" I mean the intentional harming of the body or the dignity of another human being through words or actions. Of course there are other forms of violence, many of which tie into the conditions that allow sexual assault to exist, but for the purposes of this essay, I will hold to the aforementioned definition.

A woman under the threat of sexual assault or rape who strikes her attacker is committing a violent act under my definition. Her attacker, denoted by the label, is also guilty of such. I'm not concerned here with what many people might refer to as "legitimate self-defense" on the part of the woman in distress. I will preface my argument for nonviolence under the threat of rape by saying that I would prefer the woman kill her rapist rather than submit to the indignity of the assault. I say this boldly so that a reader who has not studied the theory and/or practice of nonviolent resistance does not misunderstand my argument. I am not advocating inaction or passivity. Such a brutal attack on the body and on the dignity of a human being must be resisted and only the most reactionary elements of society would argue otherwise. The question is how it should be resisted.

The first turning-point in my crisis counseling career came during a late night conversation with a woman who had just recently been raped by an ex-boyfriend in a secluded area he drove her to in the middle of the night. He had never raped her before, so she couldn't have known what was in store before she got into his truck. She was caught off guard and submitted with little resistance. She said she eventually felt distance from what was happening, as if her mind had come away from her body. Afterward, she had few options and ended up accepting a ride home from him, suffering another indignity on top of the rape.

I would propose that in this scenario fighting back would have failed both in the short run and in the long run. I don't think I have to elaborate: Her ex-boyfriend was a military man. It's highly unlikely that she could have fought him off. And even if she had, where would she go all alone in the middle of the night knowing that he's out there? Assuming she could get away and make it home somehow, what if he decided to come after her later? She was in a very tight spot to say the least.

In my view the only way a man can rape a woman (or another man) is if he sees her as less than human - as an object, as someone to dominate and oppress, as a means to an end. If she could have stayed calm right when he started trying to kiss her (as the story went), looked him in the eye, and told him that while she cared about him and was happy to see him, she was not interested in kissing him at that moment, she might have defused the situation. She could then insist that he drive her home. All the while it would be crucial for her not to show fear, as fear only reinforces the victim/perpetrator relationship.

By pulling away from him swiftly, he might feel somehow inadequate or rejected. This would likely escalate the situation. By going ahead with the kiss that she does not want to participate in, she is encouraging him to take what he wants without asking. This would be a dangerous mistake. Men are often rewarded for aggressive behavior in American culture. They are asked in the morning by their fellows if they "got some." The question of what it took to "get some" is hardly ever asked. It is easy to see how a woman, or even another, weaker man, can become a means to an end with this in mind. When you couple this with a man's supposed lack of sentiment and the need to be "macho," it becomes clear how deep the problem is (and make no mistake, rape is a MAN's problem. Women almost never rape) and how difficult it is to solve it.

So the answer is not to pull away or to submit but to assert oneself and one's right to determine how one's body is used. This ideally should be done in all situations where a man seeks to impose his will, even if it is only a small, but unwanted, touch. The nonviolent resistance must start long before a rape situation occurs and continue long afterward.

But I am not attempting to divert attention from the original case. It is quite possible that the woman's attempts to humanize herself and her attacker could fail. He might not listen to her at all.

Nonetheless, is it not worth an attempt? Rape, after all, is about power. Men have a lot of physical power, but women tend to be stronger when it comes to the heart. The darkness of a bad man can certainly be converted by the light of a good woman. This is so true it's become a cliche.

It is almost never in a woman's heart to fight back violently just as it is almost never in a man's heart to do nothing, to surrender. Why not find the middle ground? There is another way.