On March 27, Parker Gilbert was found not guilty of rape; specifically, he was found not guilty of vaginal penetration through force, vaginal penetration through concealment or by the element of surprise before the complainant had an adequate chance to flee or resist, vaginal penetration when the complainant was physically helpless to resist because she was sleeping, vaginal penetration without free consent, anal penetration without free consent and criminal trespass.
However, much of the testimony throughout the trial makes me suspicious that what happened was not simply “drunken, awkward, college sex.” The prosecution argued hat Gilbert had entered the complainant’s room uninvited and initiated sexual contact that included vaginal penetration with her while she was asleep. The defense, in closing arguments, voiced the claim that they had interacted in the hall before they had sex. This implicitly suggested and, more importantly, conveniently hindered interrogation of the allegation that she must have been awake when the sex started.
Obsession with the volume of the complainant’s resistance and her presence on social media, among other things, have obscured (and ingeniously so) this glaring point of contention and, moreover, have made clear that our society is in desperate need of education about what exactly constitutes sexual assault as a crime. And while the Gilbert trial is unsettling, to say the least, reactions to it have been even more disturbing. Some have simply hailed it as a victory for men falsely accused of sexual violence. Others, like Joe Asch ’79 of Dartblog, who was met with considerable student support, used the trial as a justification for condemning those who supposedly “do harm to themselves” by engaging in the hook-up culture and, consequently, invite sexual assault.
Asch argues that “sluts,” women who engage in sexual interactions with acquaintances, should be shamed. While he attempts to make this philosophy gender-neutral by applying it to “playas,” his idea of a male counterpart, as well, his doing so demonstrates a profound ignorance of these terms’ implicit sexism.
“Slut” is never a positive label; it is used pejoratively to describe women (and often gay men) who are perceived as disgustingly promiscuous. These women, who are simply exercising sexual freedom that does not conform to idealized notions of romance, are understood as having lost any claim to respectability, a concept rooted in the sexist ideology of purity and virginity that has been forced upon them for ages. Women are called “easy,” are accused of asking to be “used” by men and are thus robbed of their own sexual agency. It is this logic that continues to disempower women and allows survivors of sexual assault to be portrayed as deserving of the violence enacted against them.
“Playa,” on the other hand, is in no way equivalent to “slut.” A man who can hook up with a lot of women is often praised for his supposed charm and sexual prowess. Asch proposes that we condemn these men as well, but the key difference is that “playas” are not already shamed as “sluts” are. Shaming both parties is hardly a solution, because, again, these men are simply exercising sexual freedom and should not be deprived of their own sexual agency.
Asch goes on to argue that acquaintances, in casually hooking up, increase the risk of sexual assault. This incredibly problematic view assumes that sexual assault mostly occurs between relative strangers and not between persons in committed relationships. In addition, no one, and I mean no one, ever asks to be sexually assaulted.
We need to promote a culture that understands sex as an interaction in which both parties are awake and constantly affirming their enthusiastic consent. Furthermore, we cannot continue to take arguments that play upon the stereotypical misconceptions surrounding sexual violence for granted. Slut-shaming and insisting that a victim must loudly resist her attacker (and loud is a relative term here) are the sorts of uneducated reactions that defenders of perpetrators of sexual violence want to elicit from us. We must realize that such arguments still fail to explain, excuse or demonstrate the absence of sexual violence. They merely serve to perpetuate a culture that is hostile to survivors and, consequently, allows sexual assault to continue.
