Distractions to Avoid Discussing Sexual Assault: A Response to the New York Times

Recently, the New York Times published an article about encouraging  bystander intervention to stop sexual assault on college campuses.  It came across my newsfeed, and I thought to myself: "Yes! Prevention in the New York Times!  This is amazing!"  As I began reading, my excitement faded within the first few paragraphs.

Bystander intervention has been proven to be very effective.  Programs like Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) have been promoting bystander intervention for years, especially in communities like college athletics, Greek life, the military, among others.  This program helps individuals think through a range of options in advance so they feel prepared to actively intervene when they see acts of violence or oppression occurring in their communities.  Depending on the situation, someone's level of comfort, relation to the victim or the perpetrator, and other factors, these programs help to identify a range of possibilities for a bystander to get involved.  The focus is that you should never do nothing, but that even something little can make a huge difference.  Some of the tactics include: seeking help from officials (police, guidance counselors, coaches, parents, etc.), getting the victim alone and checking in with them, providing information and options to the victim, talking to the perpetrator/aggressor directly about their actions, as well as distraction techniques.

The Times article begins by describing scenes from a party that might lead to sexual assault and some ways in which bystanders can intervene.  The main problem, to me, from these scenarios is that all the options focus on distraction.  Tactics like asking someone for a tampon to "kill the mood", or turning on the lights and shutting off the music.  Distraction can be a very handy addition to your toolkit for bystander intervention, but it cannot be the main technique if we are really to see a shift in attitudes on campuses — and probably won't lessen the number of assaults in the long-run.

Admittedly, the article goes on to provide examples of how campuses are addressing sexual assault and name some great programs that are being implemented, such as MVP and the UMatter at UMass campaign.  And the article ends with uplifting stories from some of the college-aged folks who are doing great work in the bystander arena.  But the opening examples of bystander intervention via distraction are just that — distractions from addressing the larger culture of sexual assault and the epidemic of violence against women.  All these problematic parts to the article unfortunately come at the beginning, which I fear may negatively impact a reader’s introduction to bystander intervention. You will find my responses to certain excerpts from the article below:

"The goal is to stop bad behavior before it crosses the line from drunken partying to sexual assault. “We’re definitely not looking to create Captain Bystander here,” Ms. Stapleton says. In the best of circumstances, a drunken aggressor won’t realize he’s been had."

While I understand the need for distraction techniques to maintain safety in some cases (avoiding direct confrontation with a drunk aggressor), using only distraction means the behavior is never addressed as inappropriate.  One example highlighted in the article is someone telling a teammate that "there is another girl who is into you downstairs" to get him away from the one he was with at the moment.  While there was no "girl downstairs", the message of "move on to someone else" is still not entirely what we're looking for with bystander intervention.

Why can't we name what's happening to our friends and teammates?  For example, "Hey dude. She's not into it.  You should probably leave her alone."  Or, "You're kind of crossing a line here, maybe we should take a walk," may have been a better option.  We should also be opening up dialogues about the fact that sexual assault happens on campuses at alarming rates and what messaging, social construction, and/or largely held beliefs are supporting the continuation and grand-scale acceptance of this behavior.

"Men as well as women are being called upon to make it work. While the public discussion on sexual violence has primarily focused on the physical and emotional damage done to women, it is also true that getting arrested for sexual assault can mark a young man for life."

This is just problematic.  Yes, it is damaging for young men to get arrested for sexual assault.  But it is because they are feeling the repercussions for sexually assaulting someone.  It is reeking heavily with the "boys will be boys" attitude that is so detrimental to this work, focusing on other members of the community to prevent boys from acting in ways that are "inherent" for their gender.  That is not only problematic, but I would argue that it is insulting to men and boys to imply that they cannot control their sexual urges and conduct.

"Sgt. Richard Cournoyer, a Connecticut state trooper, has investigated a dozen sexual assault cases in the last few years involving University of Connecticut students. “These aren’t people jumping out of the bushes,” he says. “For the most part, they’re boys who had too much to drink and have done something stupid. When we show up to question them, you can see the terror in their eyes.”

People who have been involved in sexual and domestic violence work have known for a while now that the majority of rapes are not perpetrated by people hiding in bushes or dark alleys. While stranger assault does happen, the majority of sexual assault happens by someone the victim knows, someone they trust. And yes, these people often take advantage of a situation that is infused with alcohol where consent cannot be given. That is what rape is. The fact that the Sergeant is distinguishing between “rapists hiding in bushes” and these boys indicates that there is a separate category for young men on college campuses that commit sexual assault and “real rapists”.

It seems that the bystander model discussed here is merely to prevention boys from doing "something stupid".  This is the wrong frame for this work. We do not need to intervene and stop these young men from making a mistake.
We need to be addressing the culture of our society that tells them that it is okay to take advantage of a girl in a compromising position.
We need to teach boys that not saying no does not mean yes.
We need to teach boys, and all children for that matter, how to truly engage in respectful and caring interactions with all other human beings.
We need to teach the beauty and strength of vulnerability and connection.

Additionally, insinuating that the boy is doing "something stupid" immensely takes away  from the traumatic experience on the other side of the supposedly "stupid" incident.  When we minimize the problem as a stupid mistake, it is also minimizing the victim.  Calling something a stupid mistake when it drastically changes the quality of life for the victim is just not okay.  A stupid mistake is forgetting to pay the meter and getting a ticket.  Bouncing a check.  Forgetting that you had a paper due that was worth 50% of your grade.

Sexual assault is not a stupid mistake.  It is assault.  

There have been many other writers who have denounced the "boys will be boys" mentality, and this specific excerpt from the NYT article is dripping with the insinuation that boys cannot control themselves and make mistakes when drunk — like, you know, sexually assaulting someone.

"At one party, a guy was all over her friend, so Ms. Ngor put an arm around her and told him, “She’s mine, you can’t have her.” When he suggested a threesome, she declined. “No way you can handle all this,” she said."

Again -- while I understand the need for (and legitimacy of) less risky affronts to drunken men at a party, this seems like something that may re-enforce inappropriate behavior.  It is sexually suggestive instead of assertive and boundary-establishing.  It also could be dangerous if seen as a challenge by a drunk man.  There have been many accounts of assault in order to assert dominance, power, masculinity, and enforce conformity (trigger warning for link: information about "corrective rape") as defined by our society.

It is so promising that an article about bystander intervention was published in the New York Times, but I still think there is a long way to go regarding how we intervene in our communities if we truly want to bring about a safer, healthier world.  It is okay to establish boundaries and be assertive.  It is okay to tell someone, "Stop. Please leave me alone.", "No, thank you", or "Hey. You might be too drunk to make this decision."  Sure, it might be awkward at first.  But the more we practice, the easier it will be to Say Something.
 


Laura Penney is the Community Engagement Coordinator at Safe Passage and the project director of the Say Something Prevention Initiative.