Victims are not to blame in sexual assault situations

According to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, one in six women and one in 33 men are sexually assaulted in their lifetime. In addition to enduring the pain and difficulties of being sexually violated, many of these women and men may face additional trauma in being blamed for their assault.

Often times when a man rapes a woman, the public, and especially the media, places blame on the victim. News stories portray women who are raped as highly sexual and provocative individuals. Women are frequently blamed for "putting themselves" in dangerous situations by walking alone or drinking too much.

At George Washington University, for example, a student entered residence halls early one morning looking for open doors, behind which he sexually assaulted several women.

After news of the assaults broke, The Hatchet, GWU's campus newspaper, printed an editorial stating that the event should serve as a "valuable reminder of the necessity for students to lock their doors at all times and to take responsibility for guests [brought] into residence halls." What the paper failed to address was the issue of sexual assault perpetration, instead targeting the victims specifically.

Although it may seem like all sexual assault victims are women, men too can be victimized by sexual assault and subsequent blame. There are cases of men being assaulted by women as well as other men, but such incidents are seldom reported.

Victims are usually associated with female stereotypes, so admitting victimization may challenge a male's sense of masculinity. In our society, a "real man" is expected to be strong and to be able to protect himself. Male victims may feel as though they deserved to be sexually assaulted because they were unable to protect themselves. They may place blame upon themselves and as result, fail to report such attacks.

Many sexual assault victims hide what happened to them because they feel ashamed and place partial blame upon themselves. It's shocking to realize that even today – in a culture that so heavily emphasizes equality between women and men – sexual assault victims are often disregarded or even held responsible for simply living their lives. Compounding the problem is society's expectation that men should be invulnerable – always perpetrators, never victims.

As a result of victim blame, women are told to drink less and to be more careful going out. Men are not warned of risks, and if they should encounter a dangerous situation, they are expected to be able to fight off assailants. The victim-blaming implications are clear – if a woman doesn't act stereotypically feminine or a man doesn't act stereotypically masculine, then assault is their punishment.

No one asks to be sexually violated, and it is not the behaviors of the victims that need modification – it is the behaviors of the assailants. Rapists make the choice to commit a crime, and victims do not choose to be harmed. Sexual assaults do not occur because of how a victim looks or acts; they occur when an assailant disregards another's person's basic human rights.

This piece was submitted by students who attended the Facilitator Training for the Sexual Assault Teach-In sessions.

Senior class special election announcement

This past weekend, the Undergraduate Student Association Elections Committee received complaints from a number of seniors regarding the Fall 2010 special elections for the Class of 2011 officers. Because of an unforeseen error, seniors who might have voted in the elections on Oct. 20 - 21 received the e-mail reminder to vote on Friday Oct. 22, the day after voting ended.

"It is the responsibility of the USAEC to make sure all student elections are fair and balanced, and it is the USAEC's responsibility to advertise such events," wrote USAEC chair Tyler Ocon in a letter to The Lamron. "Due to circumstances outside of USAEC's control, the senior class was unaware of the special election for their class office until it was too late," Ocon wrote. "The USAEC finds this unacceptable and this issue will be resolved in an expeditious manner."

As a result of this error, Ocon has invalidated the first senior class special election and decided that a second special election will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 3 and Thursday, Nov. 4.

"The USAEC will be advertising this second election extensively to the senior class, and I will personally make sure all listserv messages regarding the election are distributed to the class of 2011 in a timely manner in order to avoid a repeat of this error," Ocon wrote.

Letters to the Editor

First off, I am sincerely sorry that the movie Easy A hurt your feelings and made you feel targeted; that it actually brought you to tears is also sad to hear. The premise of your article, however, that the movie is a "brutal, ignorant and disgustingly heavy-handed attack on Christianity" that brings Christians "to the slaughter" seems heavily overstated and more reflective of your own insecurities or preconceptions about society's present culture war than the movie itself.

After skimming through parts of the film online, it seemed in spite of your feral language to be little more than an adaptation of an extremely successful historic novel (Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter) into the modern romantic comedy genre with catty high school gossipers in the place of steely-eyed Puritans. The film, just like the book, treats issues such as sexual morality, Christian sin, and persecution. Given the history and present culture of the United States, the absence of Bible-thumping Christians would've been glaring in this type of social drama. So too, as you say, would be the absence of more moderate Christians, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Perhaps I am going too far, but it just seemed natural to assume that everyone in the film besides those who were bitterly attacking the protagonist were in fact moderate Christians themselves.

And if that's the case, ignorant though well-meaning statements like, "I [Alanna Smith] accept everyone and so do most other Christians I know. It's in our doctrine, for crying out loud," were never really necessary to begin with.

I agree that the movie's character development was lacking, but proscribe that more to genre than any anti-Christian "agenda." Alanna, if you're looking for anti-religious prejudice in America, try wearing the scarlet 'A' of an Atheist - even here, around campus. Anti-Christian prejudice exists, but I'll be damned if this isn't a David and Goliath story.

-Mike Terreri, '12In response to Alanna Smith's Sept. 23 article.

On Sept. 23, I walked from the Interfaith Center where I heard [retired Col.] Ann Wright speak about her opposition to the Iraq War to the College Union to attend the Walter Harding Lecture. It was a pleasant walk past old and new buildings.

I was saddened to see students carrying guns and swords. I learned that they were playing a game called Humans vs. Zombies. I spoke to one student about playing with guns. I said he should be learning how to live in a peaceful world. He said that there will always be war. I said he should have hope that one day we could live in peace.

I looked up the rules for playing Humans vs. Zombies and the first safety rule stated that "no realistic looking weaponry" should be used.

If students need something to do in their free time your newspaper has several groups listed on the Goings On page. I would be glad to put folks in touch with groups that are working to promote peace.

-Lucille Kane, '60

Letters to the Editor may be submitted to lamron@geneseo.edu or lamron.opinion@gmail.com, as well as to Box 42 10 MacVittie Circle, Geneseo, NY, 14454. Letters must be submitted no later than the Tuesday before publication. The Lamron reserves the right to edit for copy or reject any letter for any reason.