Now that we live in a society that doesn’t label sexuality (assuming you read my manifesto), where people can be who they are, love who they want to love, without being judged for it AND we’ve made sure that there can no longer be any miscommunication about consent (make sure to read this article about consent and communication first), we’ve solved all problems.
Well, no. There are problems with sexual behaviour that are not the result of miscommunication. There is also the dark side, the criminal side, where someone hurts someone intentionally. Where one chooses to use force, in any way, shape or form – physical, emotional or even digital – against another.
TL;DR
It’s accidents vs. malicious intent, cancerous sex‑based roles, sectional power imbalances and individual choices – connected, yes. The same, no.
Inequality matters. Marginalized people are at higher risk. Closing those divides would get rid of a lot of victims, but it won’t get rid of rapists or predators. In the end, it’s always one person choosing to hurt another. Society doesn’t determine shit; it just fosters it. From intrusive flirting to rape, the element of choice is there. Everyone is responsible for their own choices.
Solutions must match the problem: educate where there’s ignorance, enforce where there’s criminal intent, empower the disempowered. And laws must catch up – “online rape”, algorithmic grooming and revenge porn matter as much as street safety.
All factors must be addressed simultaneously, but independently. Education alone won’t stop predators. Policing alone won’t fix culture. Equality alone won’t erase evil. But together?
Criminal behaviour, and how it’s vastly different.
In the first article we discussed consent and communication, and how people’s communication and ideas are sometimes misaligned, leading to misunderstandings. But let’s be clear. There is no misunderstanding about rape, molesting someone, or, as the current president of the United States once put it, about “grabbing them by the pussy”.
Molesting someone who is cycling home is hardly a matter of miscommunication. Raping someone after putting something in their drink seems somewhat intentional. And having sex with someone who is too drunk to stand up makes it somewhat questionable to argue the person fully and enthusiastically consented. These are not products of miscommunication, nor of cultural differences or a lack of sexual education. These are products of rapists, criminals, those who only care about themselves. People who deliberately choose to hurt someone for their own, selfish benefits.
The same is true for a lot of sexual misconduct through social media and other digital forms of communication. Is it okay to slide into someone’s DMs to flirt? Sure, if you do it with respect. Is it okay to share nudes of your ex on Telegram? Fuck no! Sexual misconduct is not just limited to rape. It’s a whole shit show of various forms of sexual acts that can take physical, emotional, but also digital forms. Especially since a lot of physical sexual misconduct is preceded by digital acts: grooming teenagers through TikTok, digital blackmail, and installing shame and (gender) roles – propaganda, really – where young people are led to believe something that lays the groundwork for sexual misconduct (think, Andrew Tate for example).
Although seemingly part of the same spectrum as normal sexual behaviour, it’s important that we keep differentiating between beliefs that behaviour is okay where it isn’t and outright raping, molesting, intimidating or other harmful sexual misconduct. Because telling rapists to follow “F.R.I.E.S.” before dragging someone into a dark alley is not going to make much of a difference. However, equally so, telling young people, who may only have been educated about sex through porn and influencers, that not asking repeatedly for enthusiastic consent equals rape is also not going to achieve much improvement. Both will fall on the deaf ears of the people who need to hear it. Both will also lead to others arguing extremities over solutions.
Intent vs. accident
What differentiates miscommunication from misconduct is the intent. Where behaviour is understood as normal, there is no ill intent. For example, if you think it’s normal to flirt aggressively, you may not understand that this is hurting the other person and that the person is just too afraid to say no. Aggressive flirting may just be what you learned was the way to do it. This is often true where people from different cultures come together. One person is used to being (too) forward (i.e. thinks it’s normal), while the other is not used to being approached in such a way (i.e. thinks it’s aggressive).
However, when someone doesn’t care about the other person, or simply refuses to learn about the differences in needs and wishes – ranging from intrusive behaviour on the streets to stalking someone online – it’s a whole different story. Someone may have learned to flirt from Andrew Tate’s online misogyny, but that doesn’t mean you can’t read the other person’s reaction. At that point, “I learned this from Tate” is no longer an innocent explanation; it’s a chosen ideology that justifies ignoring consent – I want what I want, and you don’t matter. Pretty much where someone just keeps pushing, to show dominance, or keeps trying to fuck, where someone forces the other, without any regard for what the other person wants, the intent is harmful at best.
Men vs. women
In this context, people often speak about sexual misconduct or violence by men against women – that it’s a “men’s problem”. I do not think it’s a men’s problem. It is a rapists’ problem. It’s a molesters’ problem. It’s a problem caused by those who utterly disregard others, feeling entitled to harm someone else. Blanket blame directed at people because of their sex is not a solution. It’s just more sexism. Although it’s often not meant that way, it puts blame on men who have done nothing wrong. By doing so it only causes division, and at the same time, it places women in a place of victimhood where they do not belong either.
However, denying that a divide exists is also untrue. In most societies, there is a power divide based on sex. Women and men are assigned roles based on their sex, leading to a power imbalance and forcing certain behaviours. A patriarchal hierarchy is in place, one that also plays an important part in sexual misconduct. However, this imbalance will not be solved by hammering it into place by placing blame on one group and victimhood on the other.
What I’m saying is that sexism is not going to solve sexism, and in turn, sexism is not going to solve sexual misconduct, let alone rape. Yes, it is true that most victims of sexual crimes are women. Yes, most victims of sexual crimes are women. Yes, most perpetrators are men. Yes, women feel unsafe due to the actions of men. And yes, it’s mostly young girls who are victims of revenge porn. But it’s also true that most men have never done anything wrong. It’s also true that not just women, but men, are victims of sexual misconduct and violence as well.
Although averages and outright examples justify the arguments of men hurting women, in the end what matters – what does the damage – is one individual hurting another. It’s individual actions that cause the damage. Better said: it’s one individual choosing to hurt another. Why this matters is that, to solve these problems, we need a constructive discussion that leads to actionable solutions. And to do that, we cannot oversimplify these problems based on a person’s sex.
Then again, we have created a society where sex-based roles are present and, to a degree, foster sexual misconduct. A pointless divide often still exists: men are expected to be tough and women to be caring. Men are praised for sleeping around and women are shamed for doing the same. Some still believe that the man needs to take care of the woman and the woman is there to take care of the man. These beliefs lay the groundwork for people to act in ways that are not natural, even though many believe that these roles are. It lays the foundation for some men choosing to hurt women based on a failed notion of having to prove themselves, physically and emotionally. And equally lays the ground for some women being hurt by men based on a failed notion of being less powerful.
Hammering this divide into place by blaming men for violence against women is not going to solve the divide. If anything, it’s likely to widen it, by anchoring it further in place and fostering more hurtful behaviour. Because in the end, it’s someone’s individual actions that do the harm.
Sectional power imbalances
The power imbalance is perhaps most visible – or perhaps most talked about – when it concerns the divide between men and women. However, many other factors can also play a role. People from a poor background, without much to fall back on, are less likely to report sexual misconduct at work out of fear of losing their job. People who suffer from racial discrimination might not be taken seriously when they file a report. People who suffer from homophobic discrimination might just be told that they should have chosen a different lifestyle. And teenagers from difficult homes, just looking for someone to understand their struggle, make easy targets for grooming.
Studies show that people from marginalized groups tend to be at higher risks of sexual misconduct (for example, see this article). It pretty much boils down to the fact that people who fall into social blind spots are, on the one hand, more dependent on, for example, their job due to financial struggles, but may also depend emotionally more on others due to psychological issues. The more dependent someone is, the easier a target they become. On the other hand, people belonging to marginalized groups are often taken less seriously, or not taken seriously at all, when reporting sexual misconduct. Sometimes they are even blamed for what was done to them.
Making sure fewer people become victims, won’t make the perpetrators disappear.
What I believe is that we can get rid of a lot of sexual misconduct by closing any power divide that is still entrenched in our societies. However, equality will not get rid of rapists. It will not get rid of all people sharing revenge porn. It will not stop assholes preying on vulnerable teenagers. But it will get rid of a lot of victims. Closing the divides instead of accepting them would fix the problems of marginalized people being at higher risk of sexual misconduct, simply by making sure that they are not marginalized anymore.
The thing is, if you ask me, we keep insisting that every situation is new. But it’s pretty much the same story all over again. When you look at inequality from a more abstract point of view, it is the same over and over again. It doesn’t matter if it’s racism, homophobia, sexism – basically any phobia or ism. Even other forms of inequality, such as income inequality, lack of access to healthcare, mental health problems – the list goes on. Pretty much anything that makes people more dependent on other people, and with that, sometimes the wrong people. It’s all about a power divide where one can impose their will on the other for their own benefit.
With respect to sexual misconduct, this results in more sexual misconduct. The weaker we, as a society, make a person, the easier this person becomes a victim. Hence, sexual misconduct, from aggressive advances and revenge porn up to and including rape, is perhaps not caused by, i.e. inherent to, inequality, but it does appear to be correlated with it.
Then again, this is only a part of the problem of sexual misconduct and not the foundation. Someone’s lack of income does not guarantee that they will be a victim, in the same sense that someone’s high‑earning job does not guarantee that this person is protected from it. Or vice versa. Similar to what I stated about how sexism is not going to solve sexism and rape, the same can be said about intersectional power imbalances.
Because what remains true is that, even if societal imbalances were to cease to exist altogether, sexual misconduct in various forms and degrees would not. If that were true, it would suggest that the opposite is true as well: that power imbalances cause sexual misconduct. In turn that would imply the element of choice the perpetrators have is mitigated as well; the rapists don’t choose to rape, but are merely acting the part society forced on them.
People are not forced to rape; they are forced to be raped. People aren’t forced to humiliate their ex with revenge porn; their ex is forced to be humiliated. Equally, when someone is in a perceived position of power, it doesn’t mean they are immune to sexual misconduct. This perceived power can shift in a heartbeat; the powerful become the overpowered and a victim there and then.
Yes, societal equality will get rid of a lot of victims, because societal equality gets rid of a lot of individual power imbalances, meaning that one individual is better equipped to stand up against another. Because, in the end, sexual misconduct is about one person against another. You don’t get harassed on average by an average, and the increased empowerment of your demographic doesn’t do much when you’re being groped in a nightclub.
My two cents: society doesn’t determine shit; it just fosters it. On the perpetrator’s side, the element of choice is very much there, available to everyone to use for good or bad. This is true for all variants – degrees, if you will – from intrusive flirting to rape. It’s always a choice, and we are each responsible for our own choices. On the victim’s side, average empowerment doesn’t mean much if individual empowerment isn’t enough.
Solutions that fit
Circling back to the beginning of this two‑part series, about the differences between intent and accidents. The way I see it, at the top level we have two different issues: malicious intent versus unwanted accidents. When we dig deeper, malicious intent has different layers: cancerous sex-based roles fostering unnatural behaviour; power imbalances that groom victims for victimhood; and people who consciously make choices to hurt others. All connected? Yes, somewhat, for sure. The same? No.
Where people are criminals, where people choose to hurt others, we need a solution fitting to counter crime. Where people are uneducated, we need a solution fitting to counter a lack of education. The latter will not solve the former, but it will contribute – only to a certain degree. Where sex-based roles (sub)consciously foster behaviour, we need to start treating this cancer. Where power imbalances based on any factor are still present, we need to empower those who are not. What I mean is, to solve sexual misconduct, all factors need to be addressed simultaneously, but independently.
Proper sexual education, at an age where teenagers become sexually active, in schools, through media and at home, is a no‑brainer. Where differences of opinion are relevant, where cultures mix, we need to address this in a similar fashion. What’s acceptable to one might not be to another. This is not just relevant where people migrate to a new culture, but equally within cultures that have different attitudes to what is acceptable, especially where there are hierarchies and forms of power imbalances based on sex or other demographic aspects. Hence, proper sexual education, regardless of age, sex, culture, religion or whatever, teaching everyone who needs to coexist with another how to do so, is a no‑brainer.
Those, however, who refuse to be educated, those that think that they do not have to take the other person into account; those that think their desires, their urges, their believes, their need to control and hurt others are all that is important; those who think they can take advantage of their power over others, over people from fragile beginnings, marginalized from the get‑go – those need to be handled, not through education, but through enforcement and protective actions. Dedicated law enforcement combined with safer public AND digital spaces would be a combination of both. Simultaneously, each society should protect potential victims by understanding what made them victims in the first place, through knowledge of both the victim and the culprit.
Last, but certainly not least, we need to adapt. We need to adapt in the sense that laws are lagging behind reality. Sexual misconduct is not just about penetrating someone’s body without consent. It’s about all forms of physical and emotional harm. It’s about offline AND online misconduct. From harassment on the street to harassment online, and from rape to revenge porn. Similar to how we approach the problem, we should equally approach the solutions. We should strive to see what hurts the individual and fix that for all individuals. To do so, lawmakers need to understand not just how “penetrative rape” happens, but also how “online rape” happens equally: how influencers use social algorithms to lure victims into their webs; how teenagers end up being exposed to tens of thousands on Telegram; and how the manosphere is setting the scene of physical and emotional damage to women, and men alike. This is as important as understanding whether a street is safe to be on at night.