Category Archives: Media

Sexual Assault on Big Brother Brasil: How Could This Happen?

Posted on by

As reality television has taken a hold on worldwide audiences, we have seen the rise of nearly every kind of show you could imagine. From feats of strength to incredible tests of willpower, unfamiliar conditions to intolerable housemates, we put reality television stars through inconceivable things. But should they have to endure sexual assault? That’s the question sweeping the globe as news of the potential rape of a cast member on the Brazilian version of the television show “Big Brother” comes to light. The contestant in question, 23-year-old Monique Amin, was shown on live videotape being subjected to what appeared to be rape by her housemate, 30-year-old Daniel Echaniz. The video shows the woman passed out after a long night of drinking, and Echaniz getting into bed with her. The next seven minutes show movement underneath the blanket evocative of sexual activity — but Amin barely stirs. She does not react when Echaniz gets into bed, nor when he leaves, and any movement during the act appears to be a direct result of Echaniz’s movement. The next morning, Amin was questioned about the incident in the confessional set up for contestants, and appeared to know almost nothing about what had happened. She expressed confusion about the occurrence, as well distress at the fact that she had gotten so intoxicated she couldn’t remember anything. She is quoted by The Guardian as saying “We kissed, I remember one kiss, he said there were two…Sex?…No. Only if he was a real scumbag and did it while I was sleeping.” Seven minutes for two kisses? Seems unlikely. When Amin approached Echaniz about the incident, he informed her that they had “only kissed” and advised her to “let it go.” Even more startling, the petition site Change.org reports that Amin has not been allowed access to the tapes of the event, and told very little about what actually happened.

Though Echaniz was found guilty of “inappropriate behavior” following a police investigation and removed from the show, there are still many who call for some accountability on the part of Globo Network, the company that produces the show. How is it possible that the cameras could capture a relatively prolonged sexual assault, and nothing was done about it? No staff member was sent in to check that the act was consensual? Yes, reality television is a bizarre world, in which many contestants, including those on Big Brother Brasil, are encouraged to do outrageous things. “The company has often been criticized for ‘baiting’ its contestants with alcohol and thrusting them into situations seemingly designed to cause conflict” says The Telegraph. However, there must be a line drawn. When something looks like sexual assault, it must be assumed that it is sexual assault rather than the opposite. In a house full of cameras, how was an assault allowed to go on unimpeded? It would seem to be an implied value of civilized society to prevent our fellow man from being raped for our entertainment. So why, then, did television ratings become more important than the safety of a young woman, if only for a brief period of time?

Currently, Amin denies that she was raped and does not wish to press charges. She was medically examined following the incident, but details of the examination have not been made public. Police chief Ricardo Nunes stated that his department had collected the underwear worn by Amin and Echaniz, and would assess the state of the sheets for semen traces as well as evaluate the video footage based on the testimonies of the contestants. But is this enough? Reactive investigation would not have been necessary if somebody from Globo Network had prevented this shocking incident from happening in the first place. While reality television is often criticized for dehumanizing contestants to allow them to better serve as entertainment, this incident takes that to unimaginable lengths. While it may not be true that the producers were aware of the assault and allowed it to happen, or even staged it for publicity purposes, there should’ve been far more precautionary measures to prevent it from happening in the first place. Women, especially women whose lives are broadcast to thousands of viewers, should not have to fear rape as the result of excessive drinking. It is time for Globo Network producers to question their actions as well as the continued existence of such television shows, and perhaps time for us as viewers to question exactly what we can do to stop the runaway train of reality television.

 

FBI Finally Votes to Expand Definition of Rape

Posted on by

It’s that time of year again (MIDTERMS!), so I’m pretty behind on everything right now. But! I’ve got some fantastic news to report that I really should have blogged about over a week ago. Last month, the New York Times lambasted the FBI for its appallingly outdated definition of rape, which effectively excludes swaths of survivors, such as men and people whose experience did not involve vaginal penetration. It seems that the FBI FINALLY got the message, because, according to GOOD, “a subcommittee unanimously voted to update the FBI’s definition of rape” on October 19. Thank God.

In other (exciting!) news, SAFER has raised ALMOST $4,000 since we launched our fundraising campaign to support training and mentoring two weeks ago. We’re trying to raise $7,000, so we still need your help! Please spread the word and donate a few bucks if you can!

Hold Up: Bystander Intervention on The Real World?

Posted on by

I’m home sick today, and as I have spent many sick days I am spending this one in front of the TV, catching up with my old friends: really annoying but somehow compelling people on reality shows. Apparently the Real World is still a thing, and a new season just started! Just as I flipped the channel to MTV this scene from the season premiere was on:

Dude roommate 1: I found out that Nate, like, forcibly kissed Priscilla last night. She was like, “oh you know, I let him kiss me for a few minutes buy ya know, I didn’t want want to, he grabbed my face.” That’s so out of line. It just like, really doesn’t sit well with me.

Lady roommate: That makes sense…I mean, you’re a guy and you’re protective.

Enter Dude roommate 2, apparently Nate

Dude roommate 2: WHAT’S UP?

Dude roommate 1 confessional interview: I’m thinking, am I going to confront him right now? I mean it’s so early on.

Dude roommate 1: So what happened between you and Priscilla last night?

Dude roommate 2: We made out

Dude roommate 1: Did you like, grab her face?

Dude roommate 2: Like passionately, or like angry?

Dude roommate 1: Aggressively

Dude roommate 2: I mean, I don’t think so, I’m not like…I’m not aggressive

Dude roommate 2 inner monologue: There’s no way, rhyme or reason that I would take advantage of a girl, I mean, that makes me sick to even think about.

Dude roommate 1: OK

Lady Roommate: It’s hard for people to know like, where their line is vs. where yours is

Dude roommate 1: Yeah, especially cause like, we don’t even know each other. I didn’t mean to like…

Dude roommate 2: No, it’s cool, I understand, I mean I’d be just as worried as you

I didn’t see the scene where Nate and Priscilla kiss, so I don’t know what that actually looked like, but I’m so down with this conversation. I’m so psyched that Dude 1 actually brought up that that kind of behavior would have been appropriate, Dude 2 agreed that it would have been fucked up and was OK with being called out, and together these two Dudes and a Lady acknowledged that it’s hard but important to negotiate boundaries when folks don’t know each other that well.

Of course, most of this is totally negated in the next scene where Dude 2 and a third Dude talk shit to each other about how Dude 1 totally overreacted AND ohmygod Dude 1 is maybe bisexual and if he brings home a dude that’s gonna be SO GROSS. Not to mention that as this episode continues Dude 1 seems to be to be a jealous and controlling creep. BUT. For about 15 seconds I was really jazzed. These conversations do happen, and they don’t have to be all that scary.

Joe Biden Launches New Campaign to End Sexual Assault on College Campuses

Posted on by

Yesterday, on the 17th anniversary of the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, Vice President Joe Biden released this video to kick off his new campaign, 1 is 2 many, which encourages students to share their ideas about ending violence against young women in high schools and on college campuses. Folks can submit their ideas about making college campuses safer for all students here until September 27.

Biden deserves major props for conveying the importance of primary prevention in his video message, although he never explicitly says “primary prevention.” Too often, mainstream media focuses on “preventing” rape by insisting that women “protect themselves” from big, bad, unknowable rapists. Biden mentions nary a risk reduction strategy in this video. Instead, he directly addresses POTENTIAL PERPETRATORS. Huzzah! Here’s an excerpt:

And you guys have to understand a very simple rule: No means no. No means no if she’s drunk or sober. No means no if she’s in a dorm room or on the street. No means no even if she said yes first and changed her mind. No means no, no matter what. Assault is assault. Rape is rape is rape and it’s a crime.

[Insert primary-prevention happy dance here.]

The downside is that Biden’s appeal is heteronormative to the max and excludes male and gender non-conforming survivors. But, otherwise, this is some good stuff, people, some really good stuff. I’ve transcribed the video below. You can get involved by visiting this website or using #1is2many.

 

Hello. The reason I’m talking to you today is that I need your help. We’ve got a big problem in the United States. The problem is that too many young women are getting victimized by sexual assault and rape. It is happening way too frequently in high schools and on college campuses. Every young woman going back to school has an absolute right to be free of sexual assault and rape, but, unfortunately, too many young women are victimized by their dates and their classmates. The research statistics are staggering. 1 in 5 young women will be a victim of sexual assault while they’re in college. 1 in 10 teens will be hurt on purpose by someone they’re dating; and 1 in 9 teen girls will be forced to have sex. You don’t know these women as statistics. You know them as your classmates, as your friend, as your sister, the person you study with and hang out with. And you also know that they need help; and one of the ways to help is when you know what’s happening or happened intervene, step up. There’s no such thing as an innocent bystander when it comes to the abuse of a woman. If you know of it, if you see it, you have an absolute obligation to stop it. And the only way we’re going to stop it is for all of us to speak up and act and make it clear that violence against women will not be tolerated at your school, on your campus, at any time, for any reason. Period. No man has a right to raise his hand to a woman. And you guys have to understand a very simple rule: No means no. No means no if she’s drunk or sober. No means no if she’s in a dorm room or on the street. No means no even if she said yes first and changed her mind. No means no, no matter what. Assault is assault. Rape is rape is rape and it’s a crime. I’m asking all of you, all of you to help get this message out all across the country on every single college campus in the country. I want you to know, and I want to know from you, actually, what has your school done to make you feel safer? What could they do that they’re not doing to make you feel safer? What ideas do you have to help prevent dating violence and sexual assault and make campuses safer for everyone? We all have an obligation to stop sexual assault. We have an obligation that any woman who has been assaulted knows she’s not alone. So talk to me. Let me know what you think, because we have to act and act now. Since I wrote the Violence Against Women Act way back in 1990, violence against women has gone down by 50%. But it’s gone up lately in the category of teens and college women. And there’s no reason why we can’t make the same progress in that area with young girls and women as we have overall. So start talking about this on campus. Let me know what else we should be doing by visiting whitehouse.gov/1is2many. Tell us what you think. Or use the hashtag #1is2many to share your idea on Twitter. Finally, if you’ve been abused or need help, please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE and they’ll direct you to help in your area immediately. One more thing guys: If you know somebody’s being abused or see someone being abused, be a man. Step up. It could be your sister. It’s your obligation. Thanks guys. We need your help. We’ve got to stop this. So be in touch. Let me know what you think. Thank you.

The Potential (and Failure) of a Cable TV Trigger Warning

Posted on by

Last weekend my roommate and I were settling in to watch Splice on HBO. (I should warn you that this post will give away major plot points of the movie in case you were planning on watching it. In which case I should also tell you it’s a TERRIBLE film.)

If you’ve ever watched a movie on a pay-television channel (HBO, Showtime, etc etc) you’re familiar with “content descriptors.” I didn’t know that’s what they were called, but you know: “This program contains Adult Language (AL), Adult Content (AC), Graphic Violence (GV), Nudity (N), etc etc.” These have been around since 1994 so I’ve grown up with them, which was why I was really surprised to see that before Splice I warned not only about AC, V, and N, but also RP—Rape. The RP rating is described as follows:

This denotes the film or program may contain graphic scenes of forced sexual intercourse, depicted in a realistic and often violent, but fictional nature. Any program that contains such content is not suitable for children under the age of 18, or anyone who objects and/or is uncomfortable with scenes containing rape. The use of this content descriptor is strictly exclusive to films that are rated “R” or television series rated “TV-MA”, but is rarely used unless the program contains scenes of rape.

In theory, this is a super idea. It’s basically like a trigger warning, which I know a lot of folks would appreciate—they’re excited to sit down and watch a cheesey sci-fi thriller, they didn’t necessarily expect there to be rape involved, and with the RP rating they get to decide if they can deal with that.

HOWEVER, the problem with the RP descriptor is with its use. Or rather, its lack of use. I really cannot for the life of me remember seeing an RP rating before, and I watch a lot of cable TV. Correct me if I’m wrong, but True Blood, Game of Thrones…HBO has a number of shows (and movies) with explicit sexual violence that don’t get this rating. I tried to find a list of when that rating has been used, but one doesn’t seem to exist.

So what is different about Splice that it actually merits an RP? (description of the rape scene follows). Well, about 20 minutes into the movie I figured it out and was immediately really frustrated. Splice gets a rape warning because the rape in Splice is not only explicitly violent and forced (the woman was running from her attacker, the attacker pins her to the ground, etc), but the perpetrator is not entirely human. Dren is a mixture of human and animal DNA who, within the course of the film, switches genders from female to male, and with that transition becomes extremely strong, animalistic, and aggressive (yeah, I know). At the time of the rape, Dren is looking more animal than human, has sprouted dragon-like wings, and rapes the female protagonist with a venomous tail after having killed three other male characters.

Basically, it couldn’t be much more disgusting, violent, or removed from reality. So I have this theory. Maybe it’s super cynical, and the RP descriptor is used far more often than I think. But something tells me that somewhere in an office is a group of folks sitting around discussing what descriptors need to be used for a given film/program, and when it comes to rape there is a discussion going on about whether or not a given act of sexual violence is “actually forced.” You know, as in “well, is it really rape-rape?”

What do you think? Is the RP more common than I think? Is there an argument to be made for art being “open to interpretation” and not labeling experiences? (But in that case, why do we get to define “violence” right?) I’ll keep my eyes open for other “RP” uses, but I’d love to hear if you see it anywhere. (Update: see comments for info on the lack of an RP in an HBO show just last night)

On Strauss-Kahn and “Scandals”

Posted on by

This is not going to be an exhaustive post on the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case. There are a number of things to say about the charges and the reactions to them from various national and international quarters—not to mention the fact that the case has sparked some awareness about the sexual assault risks faced by hotel staff as a class. There are some good pieces out there on these aspects of the case and more, but here I want to talk about something that may seem minor—but really isn’t.

Unless you’ve been avoiding all forms of news media for the past month, you know that the Strauss Kahn case broke a mere two days before reports of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s marital infidelity surfaced in the Los Angeles Times. Both have been big stories here in the U.S., and as you’ve probably noticed (again, unless you’ve been living under a rock since early May) reporters, pundits, and all manner of media commentators have often spoken of them in the same breath. Usually it’s in an offhand way, as a convenient transition between the two stories or simply a reminder that two “sex scandals” are making headlines these days. And there have been some think pieces too (see here for the New York Times’s contribution and here for that of the L.A. Times) , that link them under a “men who take advantage” framework. But these remarks, casual and deliberate, do the work of erasing a crucial fact about the two stories: one of them is not like the other. In a really, really important sense.

Bear with me. I know you be may thinking, “This does not seem like that big of a deal. What’s important is that Strauss-Kahn’s alleged victim get justice, and that if he’s guilty, Strauss Kahn’s enormous power and privilege doesn’t prevent that justice.” And you’d be right. That is what matters most. (You may also be thinking that the Schwarzenegger story raises troubling questions about power and inequality in ostensibly consensual sexual relationships, as Gregory Rodriguez does in one of the pieces linked above. You’d be right there too.  That discussion is outside the scope of this post, but I welcome  comments.) But how we talk about the case matters, too—and it tells us a lot about how sexual assault is perceived. Here’s what I’m saying: these two stories are profoundly different, and when we join them together under the sign of the salacious, we say (whether we mean to or not) that rape is a scandal rather than a (violent) crime. Now, I know it’s not semantically incorrect to call the Strauss-Kahn case a “scandal.” One meaning of the word, after all, is “damage to reputation; rumour or general comment inurious to reputation.” and that’s certainly true here: Strauss-Kahn’s reputation has been irrevocably damaged, and there has cetainly been plenty of “general comment” accomplishing that.

But notice what the term scandal directs our attention toward: the accused’s reputation or honor. The story of the scandal is the story of a fall from grace, or a “rise” into infamy. When we talk about a scandal, that’s what we’re talking about. That’s why the term can also mean “malicious gossip.” (These definitions are from the Oxford English Dictionary, by the way.) In other words, a scandal is “dirt” on someone or something—it’s sensational, perhaps even salacious. We use it frequently to describe stories that arouse what the Supreme Court likes to call our “prurient interest.” There can even be a kind of lewd or perverse pleasure in observing the scandal. So that’s why it’s a term w so often used to describe infidelity, illicit liaisons, and births that we have (thankfully) stopped calling “illegitimate.” And you know what? Rape doesn’t belong in this category. A case of sexual assault is not a dirty story, it’s an act of violence and hostility. It’s not about sexual mores, any more than aggravated assault is an offense against politeness. We wouldn’t group the latter with failure to return a dinner invitation or other etiquette violations, and we shouldn’t subsume sexual assault under the same rubric as the Schwarzenegger/Shriver divorce.

And this matters, I believe, because being accurate about what rape is matters. When we think of it as a scandal, as gossip—in a culture where “gossip” is big business, revolving mostly around celebrity excesses and exploits—we minimize it. We excuse those who don’t take it seriously. We make victim-blaming questions (What was she wearing? How much did she drink? Why did she go there alone?) seem relevant. It’s not that we need to be correct for the sake of etymology, or for the sake of “correctness” itself. It’s that the terms we use both reveal and reinforce common perceptions. The way we talk about sexual assault tells us a lot about what we think it is and how seriously we take it. And the references I hear to the Strauss-Kahn case that place it alongside stories like Schwarzenegger’s remind me that too often we still minimize it, just as too often we doubt and disparage survivors.

Today Show Only Covers Stories with Black Rapists

Posted on by

Apparently the producers at the Today Show did not read my last post about the lack of diversity in campus rape stories.

They highlighted the stories of two women survivors – one at Indiana University and the other at Wake Forest University. They had this weird thing where they felt that during an 8 minute clip they had to keep showing pictures of these (Big Bad Black)  rapists OVER AND OVER during their narratives. It is so sad that there is so much focus on the images of the perpetrators when I still think it should be about the ramifications of violence on the survivors. I wish there was more emphasis on the consequences of not properly handling campus sexual assault- not just on an individual level, but what it means for our society as a whole.

 

I think we should start doing a NEW trend in covering campus sexual assault: Media Turns Blind Eye to Campus Rape Stories that Don’t Perfectly Fit into What They Want (okay I may have to work on the title more). But I am becoming increasingly inclined to just ignore further media coverage of campus rape. I feel like the coverage is shallow and does little (if anything) to solve the problem.

By concentrating on certain types cases, I feel that many colleges feel like they will not have to worry about media pressure since so many cases do not even go as far as we see on TV: many don’t bother reporting, many file a report but get it ignored, many aren’t raped by a popular black athlete, many get to the point of a hearing, but  the perpetrators don’t get punished AT ALL, etc.

The impact of sexual violence is just so much more than what we’re seeing.  The thing about campus rape is that often the perpetrator isn’t a felon; they are someone who is a boyfriend, a classmate, a friend. Sometimes the perpetrator may even be *gasp* white! But as long as producers and reporters feel like they have to craft the perfect combination of demonization, sensationalizing, and pity instead of actually caring about the end of sexual violence, many will continue to be marginalized and silenced.

You can view the clip on the Huffington Post (but you’ve been warned).

Why Does the Media Ignore Women of Colour Survivors?

Posted on by

Excuse my language, but where the fuck are the women of colour survivors?

Two weeks ago I watched the 60 Minutes segment about a survivor’s experience with campus sexual violence. It has been bittersweet for me to see the increased attention on campus sexual violence: I see the attention by the mainstream media to be an asset, but oftentimes mainstream portrayals of serious, complex issues (like, oh, rape) end up not educating, but sensationalizing, and perpetuating stereotypes.

As a college rape survivor, I feel like I have a personal investment in every portrayal of campus sexual violence (which may or may not be bad; I am still deciding), but I don’t think I’ve never gotten angry so quickly at a 60 minutes segment as I did when I watched the episode that week.

There’s the usual spiel: They gush about how beautiful and smart this young (white) woman is – as if it were any other way her rape would not be as much of a tragedy.

And THEN they show us photos of the men punished for raping her– and that’s when my blood REALLY starts to boil – the photos of two black men appear on the screen.

REALLY? We’re still doing the big bad black man rapist on the innocent, pure, lovely white girl thing? Can we STOP?

I not only felt uncomfortable about this portrayal of a story that upholds this racist FALSE stereotype of most rapes are black men raping white women. Most rapes are intraracial – NOT interracial. Why do the faces of perpetrators even have to be put on screen? What does that do? Honestly, I feel like my story is more about me and my experiences, not about plastering the senior photo of my perpetrator on prime time TV…but that’s just me. Instead of demonizing perpetrators, I think we should be focusing more on the impact sexual violence has on the lives of survivors.

Seriously, fuck this shit. I am tired of not being good enough for my voice to be heard. I mean…not even my rape is good enough!? Is this just an extension of the Missing White Girl Syndrome– where little white girls get months of media coverage when children of colour are missing every day?

We need to fucking mix up the narrative. I, for one, am tired of trying to talk to mainstream reporters or producers trying to convince them that, hey, my story is important too. During all this coverage of campus sexual violence survivors I have not seen a SINGLE black (or trans or male or Asian or anything-that-isn’t-pretty-middle-to-upper-class-white-girl) survivor portrayed. While I am sure there are a lot of reasons outside the reporters’ control, I know personally I have spoken to MULTIPLE who are very interested in my story, but then it just isn’t “perfect” enough and they move on.

A big contributor to the perpetuation sexual violence is SILENCE. By refusing to get a diverse voice out there about a problem of affects one in 4 women, mainstream media is doing a disservice to survivors and the anti-violence movement as a whole.

So what do we do from here? Unfortunately, I do not know. The media is overwhelmingly controlled by men and white people. I personally am sick of opening myself up to strangers only to be deemed not worthy of attention (hmm sounds just like when my old school ignored my rape report). All I can do, though, is implore all the producers and reporters out there to give us non-white girls a chance.

We need a broader, more diverse narrative if we truly want to say that all bodies are valued.