On January 24, the Osgoode Hall Law School of York University held a campus safety information session. The session consisted of one campus security guard and two Toronto cops from 31 Division. According to an Osgoode student government representative, one cop, later identified as Constable Michael Sanguinetti, had the following advice for women in danger of sexual assault: “You know, I think we’re beating around the bush here. I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this, however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” Constable Sanguinetti later issued an official apology, citing his “embarrassment” over the comment, and apologizing for any “ill feelings” that it may have incited.
On February 23, in Manitoba, Justice Robert Dewar of Queen’s Bench Court sentenced Kenneth Rhodes, who was convicted of sexual assault in an incident that occurred five years ago. Justice Dewar sentenced Rhodes with a two-year conditional sentence that allows him to avoid jail time, justifying the decision with crude remarks that have some calling for his immediate removal. According to Dewar, Rhodes was simply a “clumsy Don Juan,” also citing that the victim wore a tube top without a bra, high heels, and liberal amounts of makeup, in his justification of this instance of rape as “…a case of misunderstood signals and inconsiderate behaviour.” Thus far, no apology has been issued, although his comments are under review by the Canadian Judicial Council.
The underlying attitude of both incidents seems to be that rape victims have the ability to avoid their fate, if only they would desexualize themselves through their dress and self-presentation. This attitude is afflicted with misogyny.
Let’s look at that opinion a little bit more closely: Yes, men sexualize sluts. It is in their nature, and thus, men are not at fault. Therefore, if a girl doesn’t want to have sex with a guy, the solution is simple: do not exude sexuality, do not wear makeup, and do not make yourself traditionally “attractive” or “sexy” in any way. The word “slut” has only ever been used to shame a woman because of her sexuality. It exists to discourage women from expressing a sexual desire that deviates from that which is accepted in society at large. Even more so, it exists to discourage women from indicating that they have more sexual partners than is socially acceptable. The term “slut” is an ambiguous and condemning term that blames and stigmatizes a woman for her derivation from what is considered “acceptable.” The use of this term reinforces a society that hates and stigmatizes its women for their sexuality. This is what is called misogyny and oppression. In this instance, and the instance of the opinion expressed above, a woman is denied simple individual rights on the basis that the power structures of our society will not afford her the right to wear certain clothes, or to behave in a particular way on account of a patriarchal system — unless she gives up the protection of that society and that society’s laws.
By applying — or indeed implying — this term to rape victims, especially after the aggressor has been convicted (as in the case of Kenneth Rhodes), the rape victim has become complicit in the crime committed against them. The victim is at fault for incurring this crime.
Consider a man who is dressed in an expensive suit with an expensive watch. He is walking home from work, and he is robbed and physically assaulted. The perpetrators are later caught and convicted. Consider a judge reducing the sentence on these perpetrators on the basis that the man was complicit in incurring the crime due to his dress. Consider a cop advising men that wearing expensive suits is the cause of physical assault and robbery. Would this be considered acceptable in a court of law as a justification for a shorter sentence for the perpetrator? Would this crime be considered a “misunderstanding”?
No, the robbery victim would never be considered the cause of the crime, largely because the man’s dress is considered acceptable in our patriarchal society. Further still, all crimes are more complicated than a simple matter of cause and effect. People who are robbed do not have the appearance of being rich. Women who are not dressed in tube tops are still raped. There is no statistical evidence to suggest that what is termed Western “sluttiness” is directly related to the rates of sexual assault.
Crimes are, instead, related to the material and social conditions of the environment in which they are committed, as well as to the psychological makeup of the aggressor. They do not follow the rules of conventional logic. To think otherwise is not only to severely simplify the nature of sexual assault — but also of all crime.
Justice Robert Dewar in Manitoba is comfortable enough to imply that a rape victim is a “slut” on the basis of her attire and makeup. This thereby nullifies the crime that has been committed against her, because of the stigmatization of “slut.” To be a “slut” in our society is, apparently, to be a lower-class citizen. To be a woman with, or with the appearance of, an “inappropriate” sex drive, is to be a person unworthy of the protection of the law.
Is it logical to subvert law on the basis of the victim’s compliance with patriarchal, normative restrictions of female sexuality? Are we intending to set the legal precedent that all victims of crime have incited their aggressors in some way and are, therefore, at fault? Or simply that those victims who have not acted in accordance with the societal norm may be considered to be at fault for any crimes committed against them? This subverts and undermines the very notion of law, and allows it to be dictated by societal whim to the point that it becomes meaningless and absurd. The misogynistic view that rape victims are at fault for the crimes committed against them only serves to reinforce the fear and hatred of female sexuality which already underlies the structure of our society, as well as to over-simplify the nature of crime to the point that perpetrators are no longer responsible for their own actions.
