By Abi Smith
We should always be careful with language; it can be a powerfully reckless thing.
Following the campus’ December sexual assault, the Department of Public Safety and others have referred to the incident as a “stranger rape,” the likes of which has not occurred at the University of Louisville since 1968. For purposes of classification, distinguishing between two types of sexual assualt is necessary. The problem, though, is that the separation creates a distinction without a meaningful difference and distorts our understanding of rape, rapists and rape victims in the process.
The “stranger rape” label is myopic and can give people a false sense of security. Women start looking around for scruffy jerks who seem out of place. Campus police begin closely monitoring parking garages and dimly lit areas that might attract an outside predator.
But what gets neglected is the fact that campus-grown date rapists are lurking. And there exists no difference between the man who lies in wait for a random victim and the man who opportunistically violates the trust of a girl he knows. Both are rapists. So while enumerable misogynistic enemies certainly exist without, more than a few are to be found within.
Furthermore, lending too much credence to the “stranger rape” distinction only deepens vacuous, peanut gallery assessments of rape victims. “Date rape” incidents always seem to culminate in the accuser’s integrity and reputation being questioned. The victim of a “stranger rape,” on the other hand – where suspicious circumstances are absent – instantly receives sympathy. “If she didn’t know him, then he must be guilty,” we think. This atrocious methodology of assessing the believability of another human being is fueled by the aforementioned differentiation between rapes. And heaven help the “date rape” victim who’s telling the truth.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it can be argued that the rape distinction – as it relates to the last month’s incident – has spawned unintentional insensitivity to any victims at U of L who were acquainted with their attackers. As recently reported in The Cardinal, DPS director Wayne Hall has stated, “Usually the victims know who commits the rape. I’ve been here 14 years and there hasn’t been anything like this since I’ve been here.”
My initial reaction concurred with Hall’s; considering the three-decade time span between the “stranger rapes,” one cannot help but focus on the shocking singularity. But how awful must it be for the campus’ acquaintance-assault victims to have their experiences made sub-par simply because the person who committed this latest violation was foreign to his prey? Why are these victims made to feel as though their experiences were usual and customary while December’s case was somehow special? The pain of every rape victim is the same. And since there is no emotional difference between types of rape, there is also no difference between the targets.
Between all of these women, there exists an unfortunate kinship. And this should be remembered by those of us on the outside of their bond.
Abi Smith is a graduate student in Political Science and a columnist for The Cardinal.
E-mail her at: [email protected]
