Why The "Stranger in the Bushes" Myth is so Prevalent - and Why It's a Problem

The stranger in the bushes myth is the idea that most rapes are perpetrated by sketchy nutjobs who jump out of their hiding place, drag a woman into a dark alley or a thicket of bushes, hold a knife to her throat, and brutally rape her as she screams. The reality is that you're more likely to be raped by someone you know, inside a house or apartment.

1) It helps women feel safe
It seems so easy to prevent getting raped by the mythical Stranger in the Bushes. Don't walk alone at night, don't wear a short skirt, stay sober, walk defensively, know how to defend against a violent attacker, carry pepper spray and you'll be fine! Sadly, there's no kick or punch that can defend against subtle coercion.

On the flipside, it opens the floodgates for victim-blaming. And there's always victim-blaming. even if a woman is attacked by the Stranger, someone is bound to say "well you shouldn't have . . ." or "but you were . . ." or "why on Earth would you . . ." And if you can blame a woman for being raped by a guy she barely knew simply by walking in the wrong place or wearing the wrong clothing, you can definitely blame a woman for being raped by someone she's actually met before. She should have "known" he was a rapist and avoided him. Because clearly, rapists are always easy to spot and women aren't expected to give people the benefit of the doubt- oh wait!

2) It's the most clear-cut, blameless example
A woman who's raped by the Stranger in the Bushes has never met the guy, so there was no way for her to give any "sign" that she was into him and wanted it, nor is there any reason why she'd want to "get back at him" with a false rape accusation. It's the "least" consensual form of rape, the only situation where a woman is most definitely raped. Even if you do blame her for wearing a short skirt, you'd call it rape - not unwanted sex, not "regret sex," not a drunken mistake, not anything other than rape.

3) It allows for "othering" among men
The Stranger in the Bushes is cold, psychotic, evil, violent human being. The lowest of the low, a criminal comparable to a serial killer due to the nature of his work. Because of this, a guy can easily say he's not a rapist because he's not "that kind of guy."

Just the term "rapist" conjures up an image of a sleeze ball hiding in the bushes with a knife, not a guy acting as though he is entitled to sex because he's in a relationship with the woman in question, or because he bought her dinner; nor does the word conjure up a socially awkward guy who thinks that unwanted touching and constant nagging for sex is the normal way to get laid; nor does the word "rapist" conjure up a guy who thinks that because a woman wears X and does Y, that means she definitely wants to screw him, and thus acts accordingly without actually asking to confirm. You get the point. The truth us, there are many rape situations that don't involve a crazy, knife-wielding psychopath, but you never consider them rape because they don't fit the Stranger in the Bushes mold. You wouldn't consider a guy to be a real rapist if he is well dressed, intelligent,, well spoken, seemingly sane, and well liked.

4) It keeps women in line
Don't party too late, you might get raped. Don't drink or do drugs, you might get raped. Dress modestly or you might get raped. We use rape as a tool to make women afraid to do things that may be toeing a moral line. The Stranger in the Bushes myth also dismisses all date rapes and intimate partner rapes as not "real rape," giving validity to the idea that a woman is an object that belongs to her male partner (or date).

Of course, the Stranger in the Bushes scenario happens. We hear about it on the news, especially when it's the same guy going after multiple women. We only hear about other forms of rape when they're perpetrated by high profile individuals such as athletes and politicians, and of course, articles covering the allegations are sure to mention what the woman was wearing, her sexual track record, and whether or not she may be a sex worker - coupled with a description of how "good" the man is. How innocent he is. How much good he does for the community. How much women like him and his friends, family, and colleagues adore him. How he swears the allegations are not true and he will go to any length to prove that she's just a lying tramp. After all, it's not like that guy to jump out of the bushes and rape a woman.

No Such Thing as a Bad Excuse

I'm tired of people saying that having a headache is not an excuse not to have sex. Look, I get that an orgasm can relieve a headache, but all that means is that if I want to have sex, a headache shouldn't stop me. If I don't want to have sex, for any reason, I shouldn't have to have sex. The idea that there are bad or invalid excuses only reinforces the idea that you need a "good reason" not to have sex, and if you don't, you'd better spread 'em for your guy.

Now, there's traditionally been a missing discourse of desire in our society - basically, it's been assumed that women do not want sex, and merely have sex out of obligation or wanting to please her partner, or because she's pressured. We know that some women still have sex mainly for those reasons. In order to combat this, many sex-positivists instead assert that women actually really want sex. A lot. All the time. Now there's a myth that women are really horny little monsters who are ready and willing all the time, unless they adopt a pure lifestyle, in which case they really need to be liberated because they must be oppressed. Because a healthy, sane woman would never choose abstinence, right? This new myth assumes that if a woman doesn't want to have sex, there must either be something wrong with her, with the guy she's with, or with the relationship - and if that's fixed, she'll fuck away!

This only opens the door for coercion. If it is assumed that all women want sex all the time, it only gives merit to the idea that a woman saying "no" is only trying to play hard to get, or trying to get the guy to work a little harder, or just following a social script - she doesn't really mean it. And if she does persist, a little work on his part to get rid of whatever problem she's having is really all it takes. Once the problem's resolved, her excuse is gone, right? The new myth that women are extremely sexual beings also poses coercion as a favor to the one being convinced. Often someone will legitimately believe they know what's best for the other person, they "know" what will feel good for them even if the person insists they have no desire to do it. There are men, my ex included, who feel that a woman rejecting sex doesn't fully understand what she's turning down, and that she'll thank him for talking her into it later. Women are actually encouraged to talk their male partners into trying anal play, even if they vehemently reject the idea.

I'm gonna get a little personal here. I get that anal play does feel good for a lot of men, and it's a shame so few are closed to the idea because they feel such sex acts are gay and emasculating. However, if my partner says he doesn't want anything in his butt, I'm not going to try to coax him into trying it, nor am I going to stick my finger in there when we're fooling around, sure that once it's in there he'll change his mind. Why? Because I know firsthand how it feels to have someone penetrate you without asking first. It's not fun, the words "disrespected," "violated," and "raped" are among the first come to mind. Also, I can understand that just because a sex act feels good for a lot of people doesn't mean it's right for everyone - for some, even a mainstream sex act can be more painful or just more weird than pleasurable. To each their own, leave it at that and move on. If they change their minds on their own, they can say so themselves.

Coercion is never okay. Even if you mean well, even if you really think your partner will thoroughly enjoy whatever you're trying to get them to do, it's not okay to coerce them. No means no, it doesn't - it at least shouldn't - have any other inherent or assumed meanings. No doesn't mean "try harder," it doesn't mean "I really shouldn't," it doesn't necessarily mean "I don't like you" or "I don't want to date you" or "I want to break up," it just means "I don't want to have sex." And it's entirely possible for a sane, emotionally and sexually healthy person to simply not be up for sex once in a while. Once we recognize that everyone's sexuality is different - that some people want it more often than others - we will understand that the word "no" needs to be taken much more seriously than it is, and that one need not give a "good reason" why not.

The Rhetoric of Rape Culture

I'll admit it, I'm addicted to Secret Life of the American Teenager. Have been since the show's premiere in July, 2008 - almost three years ago. In the first episode, Amy admits to her friends that she had sex. She also explains that she didn't know what was going on, and didn't even know it was sex until it was over. Yet in the many seasons of the show since its premiere, no one has called it rape.

Technically, Amy was raped. She didn't know what was going on, so while she may have been making out with Ricky, clearly she didn't consent to sex. And she didn't think to tell him to stop because she didn't know they were even having sex. Because she didn't even know what Ricky was doing, she wasn't in a position to give consent. Not to mention the fact that, depending on what state she was in, it was probably statutory rape as well.

And yet, no one says she was raped. She doesn't say she was raped, her friends don't say she was raped. The only thing people occasionally say is that Ricky "took advantage" of her. But for the most part, she is vilified for having sex, despite her lack of consent.

"Taking advantage of someone" is one of the few phrases we as a culture often use as a softer way of discussing sexual assault. Make no mistake, taking advantage of someone - whether its their intoxication, their age, their naivete, or their lack of ability to make an informed decision regarding what's going on - is sexual assault, and when it involves penetration, it's rape. But we don't use those words. "Sexual assault" and "rape" are so strong, so severe. Instead, we use phrases like "unwanted sex" when discussing rape; "he took advantage of me" or "that guy groped me" when discussing sexual assault.

Perhaps a contributing factor is our fear of universalizing rape. If we call all instanced of unwanted sex "rape," we're admitting that rape is more common than we want it to be, and that more men are rapists than we're comfortable with. Instead, we socially categorize rape as an overtly violent act, where a creepy man jumps out of the bushes and forcefully rapes an innocent jogger (or a not-so-innocent girl walking home from the bar), or where a physically and verbally abusive boyfriend holds his girlfriend down and savagely rapes her - in both instances, the rapist is violently forceful, and the woman screams, unable to fight him off.

What our culture rarely recognizes as rape is the whispered coercion that takes place in the next dorm, or the friend whose boyfriend had sex with her when she told him she just wanted to make out. We don't call it rape when a woman complies with a pushy partner because she feels she has no other viable option. When consent is unclear, we call it "gray rape" - because it's not considered "real" rape unless it fits the violent, dramatic image the word conjures up for us.

Another problem is that women who don't give in are often demonized by our rape culture. If a woman fools around with a guy, but stops short of sex because she's not comfortable actually having him inside her, or even if she just wears a short skirt and flirts with a guy without intending to sleep with him, she's a "tease." If a woman doesn't put out because she's waiting for marriage, or a certain level of commitment, or until she's more comfortable with her partner, she's "holding out" on him, "using sex" as a tool to get what she wants. If a woman consents but then asks her partner to stop because she feels uncomfortable or she's in pain, or if she says she wants to have sex later that night but ends up changing her mind, she's a liar and can't be trusted. If a woman doesn't want to have sex after her partner buys her a fancy meal, or works hard all day to bring home the bacon, or goes down on her, or does any other seemingly selfless task to make her happy, she's ungrateful. Some might even call women like those above selfish, for putting their own comfort levels or moral standards ahead of the men who want sexual gratification.

The commodification of sex and women's bodies is a huge aspect of rape culture. Our society still treats sex as something one person does for another - typically something a woman does for a man, and something done for his pleasure rather than a mutually pleasurable experience. Sex is seen as something that is traded for goods or favors, or a way to pay someone back for their generosity. There's the idea that dating is a legal form of prostitution - women are "bought" with drinks, dates, and jewelry, and in return give the guy their time, their company, and their bodies. When we reduce sex to a commodity rather than an activity, something given rather than shared, we in turn see nothing wrong of demanding sex when it is arguably owed or earned; or "taking" it without asking.

We may have liberated women from the kitchen, but there is an overwhelmingly persistent cultural myth that a woman's place is in the bedroom, and her role in her romantic and sexual relationships is that of a pleaser. Perhaps this is why people who support the purity movement prevent their daughters from dating at all, because sex is seen as an inevitable part of dating, and a mandatory aspect of a romantic relationship. I remember when I was struggling with vaginismus, a condition that makes vaginal intercourse very painful, and for that reason my relationships with men contained very little sexual intimacy - and someone insisted that sex had to be a part of a relationship, and if I wasn't willing to have sex I shouldn't be in a relationship with anyone.

Now I get that sex is part of a healthy relationship, as long as the parties involved are emotionally ready to handle it of course. It's a little silly to say every high school couple that isn't having sex doesn't have a health relationship, and it's also silly to assume that of people who choose to wait until marriage or until they've been romantically involved long enough. Also, a healthy sexual relationship means respect - respecting someone when they say "no," for any reason, even if that reason seems silly, and a truly loving partner would make sure their significant other is comfortable during the experience. The mere presence of sex in a relationship is hardly an indicator of health, especially when it's done out of obligation or coercion.

Thoughts on Abstinence

My dad said to wait until marriage. My mom said to wait until college. Me? I just wanted to wait until I was in love.

One big target of feminism is the purity movement: abstinence-only classes, lies about sex, purity balls, slut-shaming, all that bad stuff.

But in our fight for a sex-positive society, people tend to get confused and think we're all against abstinence and pushing girls to become sexual.

Make no mistake, that's not the case.

I, for one, am not a virgin, but I see nothing wrong with the choice to abstain from sex, and our society should be just as accepting of abstinence as it is of sex.

My only issue with abstinence is when it's done for the wrong reasons. Whether a person becomes sexually active should be a personal decision. If a girl decides not to have sex, it should be because of her own values, not because the men in her life - father, priest, teachers, politicians, or future husband - expect it of her. My problem with purity balls is that a girl is basically giving her personal autonomy over to her father, rather than maintaining it.

Conversely, if a girl decides to have sex, it's because she's ready, and it's in accordance with her own personal values, be them secular or spiritual (there's a difference between blind adherence to religious dogma and sincerely believing that sex is sacred and should be saved for certain situations, be it marriage or just a committed, loving relationship) - NOT because her boyfriend wants it and she feels obligated to please him.

Whether a woman chooses to be sexual should also have no impact on her value as a human being. The problem is, many see women as valuable only if they are sexual - look sexy, act sexy, and put out for their male partners - and most others only value women who are pure and virginal. In either case, reduction of a woman to her sexuality is based on her willingness to obey and please a man, be it her older authority figures who expect her to save her flower for marriage, or her same-age male peers who expect sexual gratification from her, is detrimental to her personal autonomy.

If a woman makes the decision on her own, and has the gall to claim ownership over her own body, well, that's a different story - she's either a whore or a frigid bitch, depending on who she's refusing to submit her autonomy to.

Gay women can't win either way in the virgin-whore dichotomy because either way, they're not pleasing men. They're pissing off their male authority figures by simply being lesbians, and they're frustrating their male peers by not having sex with them - the only way they can be accepted by their horny male peers is if they're a) hot and b) willing to make out in front of guys, make lesbian pornography, or engage in threesomes. Otherwise, they're scorned because they're seen as worthless.

The problem with this current society is that a woman can't win. Why? Because she can't please everyone, and pleasing everyone is what women are supposedly here for. If they give their bodies over to their fathers, male religious figures, and future husbands and promise to be pure until marriage, they're prudes in the eyes of anyone who expects sex or has simply has different sexual values. If a woman chooses to have sex before marriage, she's a slut in the eyes of those who expect the former behavior. If a woman refuses to have sex in any one instance because she simply doesn't want to, she's a bitch in the eyes of the man she rejects; but if she gives into the pressure and has sex unwillingly, she has no self respect.

The phrase self-respect is thrown around a lot when discussing sex, specifically abstinence. This is particularly true in urban areas where misogyny runs rampant and women are reduced to sexual objects in a culture fueled by hip-hip and rap, infamous for their sexist and degrading themes. In such a culture, using self-respect as a means of female empowerment sounds great - the problem is, it's assumed that every girl who has sex is doing it because of low self-esteem rather than making a personal choice of her own free will. Not always the case. It's sometimes hard to decipher a woman's motive to do anything these days - is she dressing that way because she thinks she should, or because she wants to? Did she have sex because she wanted to, or because the pressure got to her?

And really, can you blame any girl for succumbing to pressure? Why not blame the guy who coerced her in the first place? Why not focus more on hammering home ideas such as "no means no" and "silence is not consent," rather than tell girls to just say no? Saying no isn't enough in a world where, to many guys, no means "I shouldn't" rather than "I don't want to," and that a no can easily be turned into a yes with enough persuasion. Saying "no" would be enough if guys knew to take it seriously.

In general, it takes ovaries of steel for a woman, much less a teenage girl, to rise above society's expectations of her.

I'm also not implying that two people should stay together if they have different values regarding sex. If a girl wants to wait until marriage to have sex, she should either date someone who's also waiting, or a guy who isn't necessarily waiting, but willing to abstain from sex as long as he's with her. If someone wants sex to be a part of the relationship, they should date others who want the same thing.

Abstinence is a perfectly legitimate choice if made for personal reasons. The purity movement would be fine in the eyes of feminists if all it did was promote acceptance of the choice to remain abstinent until marriage, but it's not about choice. The purity movement is one side of the spectrum of sexualization, reducing a woman's value to her virginity, and her willingness to sacrifice her sexual autonomy to the male authority figures in her life, and demonizes women who claim their bodies for themselves.

Asking For It - The Ethics & Erotics of Sexual Consent [Clip] - Coming S...

I just posted something on this, and while I don't want to use my blog as a showcase for other people's words and works, this is something I think everyone should see.