One of the most common myths about rape and sexual assault, regarding victim stereotypes, is that only “pretty” and “attractive” women get assaulted. This again frames rape within a sex/sexual context and not as a violent crime where sex is used as a weapon.
It’s a myth that builds upon and reinforces the “what were you wearing?” myth/argument i.e., that rapists are men who simply can’t control their sexual urges/impulses, and when confronted with a “good looking” woman, who may or not be dressed “seductively”, they can’t control themselves and are compelled to assault/rape them.
Brock Turner, in all likelihood, selected the woman he victimized on the basis that he had easy access to her and was able to control her. Opportunity was more important to him than anything.
Much has been made of serial killer Ted Bundy’s selection of women who wore their hair in a pony-tail with a center-parting, and whilst there may be some truth to this type of hairstyle having something to do with his victim selection process, it is also worth noting that this was an extremely popular hairstyle at the time he was offending.
In 1981, the criminologist Nils Christie, in his book, “Limits to Pain”, coined the term, and looked at the idea, of there being an “ideal victim”, and how this related to the Criminal Justice System (CJS) . His argument was that the CJS focused its efforts on what it saw as “ideal” victims e.g., those who appeared helpless, vulnerable, and blameless etc.
He put forward the case, that this led to certain groups being marginalized within the system e.g., a thirteen-year-old schoolgirl, from a good, respectable, middle-class family who was raped by a 240 pound, 6 ft 2” stranger, whilst running errands for her mother, in a public setting, was likely to get more attention and sympathy than a sexually active university student (from a poorer neighborhood), who was sexually assaulted by her slightly built ex-partner, in her dorm room, whilst intoxicated etc.
Christie listed six components that went to creating the “ideal victim”. These are:
1. They are physically weak – a thirteen-year-old girl, compared to a fully grown woman.
2. Carrying out a respectable project – running errands, versus drinking.
3. Not to be blamed – The university student is sexually active, the schoolgirl isn’t.
4. “Big Bad Offender” – a 240-pound, 6 ft 2” offender, against a slightly built one.
5. Offender is a stranger – the schoolgirl did not know her offender, the university student did.
Christie’s argument is that the CJS (Criminal Justice System) sees the schoolgirl’s assault as being straightforward and simple, with a weak, innocent target engaged in a respectable project (“heroine”), who was targeted by an obvious “villain” – the “Ideal Offender”. What the CJS wants when dealing with a sexual assault is a classic “damsel in distress” story/incident .
One group whose “stories” don’t adhere to such simplistic narratives but who are at a very high risk of violence (including homicide ), and which both the Criminal Justice System and the general public have little empathy or sympathy for, are sex-workers .
There is a commonly held view that those working in prostitution cannot be raped, and/or a client who refuses to pay a sex-worker (or forcibly takes their money back afterwards) hasn’t committed a sex-crime, even though the conditions under which the worker gave consent, relied upon a financial transaction etc.
Neither the sex-worker, or the sexually active student, are seen as “ideal” victims, and if not fully blamed for their experiences/assaults, may likely be looked on as creating the situations that led to them.
A British Amnesty International Poll in 2005, found that of those surveyed, 22% believed that a woman was partially or fully responsible for being raped, if she had many sexual partners . So, the idea of the ideal victim is not just found in the Criminal Justice System, it exists in society too.
The truth is, that a woman who is sexually active, who may have many partners, and a long history of being “promiscuous”, may find herself in situations when she doesn’t consent to sex (for any number of reasons), and if this isn’t respected, then what occurs is a rape or sexual assault, for which she is not blame.
The idea of the “ideal victim” is supported by the Just World Theory. That events in life are “fair” e.g., the thirteen-year-old schoolgirl is sexually innocent where the college student isn’t and therefore it’s more just/fair that the student is sexually assaulted, even though both of them have been victimized in the same way.
The Just World Theory
The Just World Theory (proposed by M. J. Lerner, in 1980), is a cognitive bias, that suggests many people see the world as ultimately being “just” and “fair” i.e., people get what they deserve: bad things happen to bad people, good things happen to good people etc.
It suggests that people either succeed or fail, based on their own actions; everyone controls their own destiny and what happens to them. For many people this idea is comforting and allows them to have an optimistic outlook e.g., if you study hard and work hard life will be good for you. It also allows people to justify certain inequalities, such as why some people in some countries live in poverty ; if they hadn’t voted for certain governments, then they wouldn’t be in that situation.
The idea is supported by the argument that everyone is playing on a “level playing field” (that there are no structural injustices or inequalities in society). Unfortunately, the Just World Theory, as a cognitive bias, tends to encourage and result in implicit victim blaming e.g., “what happened to her would never happen to me.”
Because the theory puts control and outcomes at the individual level, a person who is raped or sexually assaulted, must have done something that resulted in this happening to them. This results in victim-blaming and a lack of empathy for survivors of rape and sexual assault. It is worth noting that often those who have been raped/sexually assaulted, use Just World Theory arguments to blame themselves for what happened e.g., they believe that they put themselves in the situation that led to them being raped, and must therefore be to blame .
This is one of the reasons why women often don’t contact law-enforcement after being assaulted or withdraw from the criminal justice process at some point during the investigation into their case .
Race and ethnicity have also played a part in developing long-standing “sexual” stereotypes, with black female victims, often being portrayed as hypersexual, promiscuous, “Jezebels” who exploit (white) male sexual weaknesses and urges .
These viewpoints echo the idea, that either offenders – such as male family members who commit assaults - are the “real” victims of rape, or that the victim somehow, plays some part in, and is somewhat responsible, for their own assault.
Whilst in many societies there is now a better understanding of rape and sexual assault (due largely to criticisms in the 1970’s and 1980’s about how police and the Criminal Justice System handled/treated complainants of rape and sexual assault ), often these “historical” ideas stick around and/or change and evolve somewhat in order to seem more reasonable and palatable e.g., the intoxicated and unconscious woman wasn’t to blame for being raped but if she hadn’t been drinking, the assault wouldn’t have occurred etc.