Feminist Framework Plus

Abstract

The radical–liberal feminist perspective on rape posits that the assault is motivated by power and control rather than sexual gratification and is a violent rather than a sexual act. However, rape is a complex act. Relying on only one early strand of feminist thought to explain the etiology of rape limits feminists’ understanding of rape and the practice based upon the theory. The history of the adoption of the “power, not sex” theory is presented and the model critiqued. A more integrated model is developed and presented, the Feminist Framework Plus, which knits together five feminist theories into a comprehensive model that better explains the depth and breadth of the etiology of rape. Empirical evidence that supports each theory is detailed as well as the implications of the model on service provision, education, and advocacy.

Keywords

rape sexual assault feminist theories evidence-based practice theory-knitting theory development

In all affairs it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.

Bertrand Russell

Introduction

At almost every rape training utilizing a feminist perspective, the mantra that “rape is not about sex, it is about violence or power/control” will be articulated. It is most often stated as a fact with no citation or empirical evidence offered. Where does this statement of belief come from? If once strategically useful in advancing the cause of the antirape movement, does it continue to be useful today, and was it ever accurate?

Feminist advocates and activists have been at the forefront of the antirape movement during the second wave of the women’s movement in the 1970s. Brownmiller (1975) states, “that women should organize to combat rape was a women’s movement invention” (p. 397). Frontline feminist activists became very active in theory building, research, prevention, education, training, advocacy, and service delivery through the creation of rape crisis centers (Bevacqua, 2000; Campbell, Baker, & Mazurek, 1998; Griffin, 1971; Russell, 1982b; Russell & Howell, 1983). Shaw and Cambell (2011) report that the early rape crisis centers were built on two key foundations and one of those was that rape is used as a form of social control over women. This adoption of a single-factor theory of rape discounted other theories, including other feminist theories. The radical feminist theory of rape, that rape occurs due to motivations of power and control, rather than sex, while very important and groundbreaking in its time, does not wholly account for the etiology of sexual assault.

The primary goal of this article is to build a more comprehensive and useful feminist model of rape, entitled the Feminist Framework Plus (FFP), by employing a method of theory development entitled “theory-knitting” (Kalmar & Sternberg, 1988, p. 154). A secondary goal is for the conceptual framework to build a helpful bridge between feminist theorists and the frontline rape practitioners who deserve a theoretical foundation that can fully support and inform their work. The article briefly reviews the history of rape theorizing and then describes and analyzes multiple feminist theories to start the construction of the framework. Empirical evidence for the expanded feminist model is cited to support the framework while also examining additional factors (the “Plus”) from outside the feminist perspective. The article ends with a discussion of the implications of the FFP and how it can better inform practice.

History of Theorizing Rape

Although it is beyond the scope of this article to provide a detailed history of rape (see Bevacqua, 2000; Brownmiller, 1975, Donat & D’Emilio, 1992), a brief overview of how rape was understood historically is helpful in providing context. Rape was once considered a property crime against the father since virginity was prized and when stolen became an economic loss to the father (Donat & D’Emilio, 1992). Later, the focus turned to the male perpetrator whose act was increasingly viewed as criminal.

Early Psychological Theories of Rape

When psychoanalytic theories gained prominence in the 20th century, “rape was conceptualized primarily as an act of sex rather than an act of violence” (Donat & D’Emilio, 1992, p. 12). Rapists began to be viewed as psychological deviants rather than criminals, a process Scully (1990) terms the “medicalization of rape” (p. 35). Early psychological theorizing on rape tended to focus on clinical explanations including blaming poor parenting, castration anxiety and repressed homosexual inclinations, lack of social skills, and being sexually starved or sexually insatiable (Bryden & Grier, 2011).

Early conceptualizations of women’s sexual nature was often one of asexuality, however, in the 20th century women were increasingly recognized as sexual beings with their own desires. Unfortunately, this emerging view contributed to the belief that women were complicit in their own sexual victimization. “Therefore, if a woman was raped, she must have ‘asked for it’” (Donat & D’Emilio, 1992, p. 13). Amir, an early, and now discredited, researcher in the field introduced the concept of “victim-precipitated rape,” which held the victim partially culpable, stating “the contingencies of events may not make the victim solely responsible for what becomes the unfortunate event; at least she is a complementary partner” (Amir, 1971, p. 260).

When rape was understood to be sexually motivated, the victim’s sexual history was viewed as relevant (Hegeman & Meikle, 1980). A focus on the sexuality of the victim subsequently led to the adoption of laws that increasingly dissected the victim’s sexual history in the press and the courtroom, required physical evidence of penetration and force, and the need for corroboration of her story by a witness (Bevacqua, 2000). The burden shifted to the victim to prove her innocence rather than the prosecutor to prove the perpetrator’s guilt.

Feminist Theorizing on Rape

With the advent of the second wave of the women’s movement in the 1970s, women began to share their experiences of rape in consciousness-raising groups. Women realized that their individual experiences and fears of rape were widely shared (Donat & D’Emilio, 1992). Radical feminists originated these grassroots groups and wrote groundbreaking documents such as the New York Radical Feminists Manifesto (1971, July), which stated, “when more than two people have suffered the same oppression the problem is no longer personal but political—and rape is a political matter” (Manhart & Rush, 1974, p. i).

This acknowledgment of the “personal being political” shifted the focus from individual experiences, violations, and psychopathologies to a cultural and systemic level. “The act of rape was seen not as an end in itself, but as a means of enforcing gender roles in society and maintaining the hierarchy in which men retained control” (Donat & D’Emilio, 1992, p. 14). Rape was no longer viewed as an outcome of an individual deviant, but a product of a larger rape culture that condoned and excused male violence.

By 1973, the more mainstream liberal branch of the women’s movement took up the cause and adopted the radical feminist theory of rape¹ (Bevacqua, 2000). However, liberal feminists worked on incremental change within existing structures, while radical feminists worked to eliminate those very structures and the hierarchies they produced (Saulnier, 1996). Griffin (1971) articulates the radical feminist perspective, “rape is not an isolated act that can be rooted out from patriarchy without ending patriarchy itself” (p. 35). Radical feminists and women of color feminists criticized the liberal feminist antirape agenda, which failed to address racism, classism, imperialism, and poverty. For example, Loretta Ross and other women of color feminists in the antirape movement were skeptical of making a partner of the criminal justice system, which disproportionally policed and incarcerated men of color (Bevacqua, 2000).

While frontline feminist activists developed new theories, advocated for legal reforms, and provided victim services, feminist researchers in the academy began building empirical knowledge. Their research revealed that rape was not the relatively rare event it was once thought to be but was instead quite common, that rape was less likely to be perpetrated by a stranger than a person known to the victim, including a husband, and that a percentage of ordinary men said they were likely to rape if they could go undetected (Cahill, 2001; Koss, 1985; Malamuth, 1981; Russell, 1982a, 1982b; Russell & Howell, 1983; Warshaw, 1988).

Later Psychological Theorizing on Rape

As feminists continued to work with victims, psychologists often worked with rapists. This wave of psychological theorizing often sought to classify rapists using a typology, which most often included a sexual component while minimizing the cultural factors identified by feminists. An early typology of rapists by Groth and Birnbaum (1979) defined rape as “a sexual behavior in the primary service of nonsexual needs” (p. 13). Rapists were divided into three groups based on their intent: anger rapists, power rapists, and sadistic rapists, the latter being a fusion between sexual and aggressive motives. A well-validated taxonomy of rapists termed the Massachusetts Treatment Center Rapist Typology (MTC: R3) identified four primary motivations for rape: opportunity, pervasive anger, sexual gratification, and vindictiveness (Knight, 1999).

The sexual behavior of “undetected” rapists has consistently demonstrated that they are usually sexual at an earlier age compared to most men, they are more sexually active, and their sexual activity is an important part of their identity (Lisak, 2002). They also may be more likely to belong to sexually violent subcultures (i.e., fraternities and gangs) where sexual conquest of multiple partners is a goal. Current psychological research focuses less on the motivations of rapists and more on common risk factors and pathways to sexual offending (Ward, Polaschek, & Beech, 2006).

Single-factor theories of sexual assault etiology focus on one factor associated with sexual offending including the role of cognitive distortions, deficient victim empathy, or deviant sexual preferences, while other theories are multifactorial in nature (Ward et al., 2006). Multifactor theories integrate a range of etiological variables in order to offer deeper explanatory accounts of sexual assault. While many integrated multifactorial theories minimize cultural factors, two theories specifically include them. First, Marshall and Barbaree’s (1990) Integrated Theory connects developmental, biological, and feminist/cultural theories to describe pathways to sexually offending. They note that the inability to control aggressive impulses during sexual experiences arises from early negative developmental experiences. When these males feel inadequate, they are more likely to accept cultural messages of male superiority and the use of power and dominance over women.

Second, Malamuth’s Confluence Model of Sexual Aggression (1996) combines feminist, social learning, and evolutionary theories to describe how the pathways of sexual promiscuity (preference for impersonal sex) and hostile masculinity (hostile, dominating, and controlling characteristics) converge to produce sexually aggressive behavior. However, for this pathway to be activated, specific environmental factors must also be present such as experiencing childhood abuse, involvement in delinquent subcultures, a disinterest in developing affection-based bonds with women, and a lack of mature interpersonal skills. Abbey, Jacques-Tiura, and LeBreton (2011) add to the Confluence Model by finding other significant direct and indirect effects of sexual aggression including misperception of sexual intent, childhood victimization, adolescent delinquency, psychopathy–related personality traits, and heavy alcohol consumption.

Evolutionary psychology offers still another perspective on the motivations for rape. Thornhill and Palmer (2000) argue that rape is rooted in biology and is an adaptive male mating strategy to increase chances of reproductive success. Thus, they view all rape as sexually motivated and criticize feminist assertions that rape is due to nonsexual motives such as power and control. Bryden and Grier also criticize feminist reliance on power/control as the sole motivator for rape, as well as misplaced attention on motivation more generally, concluding “we believe the weight of the evidence indicates that sexual gratification is rapists’ most common (if not universal) goal” (2011, p. 276).

Feminist Theories of Rape

Bryden and Grier (2011) note that, “during the 1970s, as part of their critique of patriarchy, feminists developed a set of theories about rape; they soon replaced psychologists as the recognized experts on its causes and motivations” (p. 184). Since feminists were the frontline workers in rape crisis centers, they became responsible for educating the public about sexual assault dynamics and prevention. Therefore, the mantra “rape is about power and control, not sex” became widely adopted, becoming, in fact, conventional wisdom. Over the years this concept has not been widely subjected to analysis or critique within feminist circles, with the few exceptions to be explored later (Cahill, 2001; MacKinnon, 1989; Scully, 1990).

The next section will again briefly review the radical/liberal feminist theory of rape and analyze its strengths and weaknesses. Because its weaknesses are multiple, the author will begin knitting the threads of the FFP together, which adds additional feminist and nonfeminist theories to better account for sexual assault motivations and dynamics.

Patriarchal power and control

The radical/liberal feminist perspective holds that “rape is fundamentally an aggressive rather than a sexual act, that its motivation and dynamics arise out of hostility rather than sexual need” (Melani & Fodaski, 1974, p. 82). Susan Brownmiller’s book, Against our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (1975), is most often credited with introducing radical feminist ideas to a mainstream audience. Her book provided a detailed history of rape, put the act of rape into a social and political context, reframed rape from a sexual act to one motivated by male domination and female degradation, and changed rape from an individual act to a political one (Cahill, 2001). Brownmiller contended that all rape is an exercise in power and that the function of rape is “nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” (Brownmiller, 1975, p. 15, italics in the original).

Strengths and empirical support

The theoretical shift to view rape as motivated by power instead of sex played an important role in shifting blame away from female victims, and as a consequence, the physical attractiveness and sexual history of rape survivors became less relevant (although clearly vestiges of the practice remain today). Terminology also began to change, with the terms “victims” being supplanted by “survivors,” and “rape” being replaced by “sexual assault” in an attempt to focus on the violence of the assault rather than its sexual nature. This shift in terminology and practice also resulted in the crime of rape and its consequences to be taken more seriously by the criminal justice system, although it must be noted that the attrition of rape cases in the criminal justice system remains quite high (Lonsway & Archambault, 2012).

There is abundant empirical evidence for the radical/liberal feminist theory of rape as a gender-based crime that supports patriarchal structures. A study of rape victims from 1992 to 2000 found that female victims comprised 94% of all completed rapes, 91% of all attempted rapes, and 89% of all completed and attempted sexual assaults (Rennison, 2002). Another study found that nearly 1 in 5 of women (18.3%) compared to 1 in 71 men (1.4%) have been raped at some point in their lives (Black et al., 2011).

Burt (1980) was one of the first researchers to empirically test the theoretical underpinnings of the Patriarchal Power and Control theory by demonstrating that the general public held high levels of rape myth belief defined as “prejudicial, stereotyped, or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists” (p. 217). Belief in rape myths was correlated with sex role stereotyping, adversarial sexual beliefs (distrust in the opposite sex), and acceptance of interpersonal violence, which combined to create a rape-supportive culture. Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1995) refined Burt’s scale and found that hostility toward women was also an antecedent of rape myth acceptance, especially for men.

Murnen, Wright, and Kaluzny (2002) conducted a meta-analysis of 39 studies that measured the relationships between masculine ideology and sexual aggression and concluded that the most effective measure would be one that combines hostile masculinity and patriarchal ideology. Sanday’s (1981) classic study on rape also found support for the radical/liberal theory of rape by being able to distinguish between “rape-prone” and “rape-free” societies. Her cross-cultural study of 95 tribal and band societies found that rape-prone societies were associated with interpersonal violence, male social dominance, and the subordination of women. In contrast, rape-free societies were characterized by respect for female authority and decision making and the near absence of interpersonal violence. Also, research identified multiple gendered cultural factors associated with sexually aggressive men including acceptance of the use of violence against women; hostility toward women; belief in traditional sex roles, a gender hierarchy, patriarchal ideology, impersonal sex, and male control of women; male sexual entitlement; and adversarial attitudes toward women (Burt, 1980; Jewkes, Sikweyiya, Morrell, & Dunkle, 2011; Koss, Dinero, Seibel, & Cox, 1988; Muehlengard & Falcon, 1990; Murnen, Wright, & Kaluzny, 2002).

Weaknesses

The primary weaknesses of the Patriarchal Power and Control perspective is that it narrows perpetrators’ motivations to a singular goal of power/control and views rape solely as a violent rather than a sexual act. Ward, Polaschek, and Beech (2006) note that while the radical/liberal feminist theory proposes to offer a comprehensive theory of rape, it instead offers a limited focus on cultural and social factors, which classifies it as a single-factor theory. The researchers add that the radical/liberal feminist claim that all men have power over all women is an oversimplification and fails to acknowledge male diversity. The researchers also suggest that if all men are at risk to sexually assault women, then a great majority of men would rape women rather than the minority of men that do. The patriarchal power and control model also explains the rapes of women by men but not the rapes of men by women, women by women, or men by men.

Defining motive as “a conscious or unconscious goal” (p. 198), Bryden and Grier (2011) criticize the feminist failure to define motive and their “frequent use of vague and evasive locutions” (p. 197). Gavey argues, “it is not always clear in these debates whether sex, power, or violence are being invoked as motivations, means, or in some cases effects” (Gavey, 2005, p. 31, italics added). See Figure 1. Motivations for any single sexual or violent act are complex, multiple, and even unconscious. For example, Meston and Buss (2007) identified 237 distinct reasons why college students have consensual sex, the top three for both men and women included “I was attracted to the person, I wanted to experience the physical pleasure, and It feels good” (p. 481). Less frequently endorsed reasons for engaging in sex included wanting to harm another person, attempting to attain resources, or out of pressure or duty. If there are multiple reasons given for consensual sex, one might argue that nonconsensual sex would have multiple motivations as well. Groth and Birnbaum (1979) describes the heterogeneity of rapists, stating, “in some cases, similar acts occur for different reasons, and in other cases, different acts serve similar purposes” (p. 12). In a review of the literature this author has found 82 cited motivations for rape.²

Figure 1.

Relationship between power/control, sexual gratification, motivations, means, and effects.

Additionally, Gavey (2005) provides an illustrative example that demonstrates the limitations of the radical/liberal feminist conceptualization of rape. Gavey led a group discussion in a college class about a scene from the movie White Palace (Mandoki, 1990) in which Susan Sarandon’s character begins to perform oral sex on a sleeping man she has just met, who initially resists her sexual advances. In debating whether this is a scene of rape or seduction, one student stated, “well, I guess it’s rape, it’s a power thing isn’t it? It’s aggression, it’s nothing to do with sexual satisfaction” (p. 206). Gavey concludes that this limited interpretation demonstrates the risk of applying feminist formulaic understandings, slogans, or definitions of rape that do not take into account the specificities of a situation.

The final critique of the “violence, not sex” perspective comes surprisingly from Susan Brownmiller herself, who stated, “I never said that rape was not involved with sex. Obviously, it uses the sex organs. What the women’s movement did say, starting in the 1970s, was that rape was not sexy” (quoted in Lloyd, 2001, p. 1553). Therefore, Brownmiller attempts to correct the historical record by acknowledging that rape is sexual, but not “sexy.”

Normative heterosexuality perspective

Legal theorist Catherine MacKinnon writes extensively on violence against women and although her perspective is often categorized as a radical feminist viewpoint,³ to differentiate her perspective from the earlier forms of radical feminist thought, this perspective will be termed the normative heterosexuality perspective.

MacKinnon states that, “rape is not an isolated event or moral transgression or individual interchange gone wrong but an act of terrorism and torture within a systemic context of group subjugation, like lynching” (1989, p. 172). Although this view initially seems identical to the radical/liberal feminist perspective, she parts ways with that perspective by interweaving sex and violence, that is, noting that they are “mutually definitive rather than mutually exclusive” (p. 174). She criticizes earlier radical/liberal feminist notions that seek to separate the two:

Nor can the meaning of practices of sexual violence be categorized away as violence not sex. The male sex role … centers on aggressive intrusion on those with less power. Such acts of dominance are experienced as sexually arousing, as sex itself. They therefore are. (p. 127)

MacKinnon believes that aggression against those with less power is often experienced as sexual pleasure, an entitlement of masculinity that creates and maintains a sexual/gender hierarchy. In MacKinnon’s view there is commonality between heterosexual intercourse and the act of rape, although they appear on different points on the same continuum. MacKinnon denies that her theory can be simplified into the notion that “all sex is rape,” a frequent interpretation by critics. McKinnon states, “so as long as we say that those things are abuses of violence, not sex, we fail to criticize what has been made of sex, what has been done to us through sex” (1981, pp. 86–87, italics in the original). Therefore, MacKinnon believes that the fight against rape is not only a fight against sexual violation, but also a fight for women to determine, control, and define their sexuality.

Strengths and empirical support

Malamuth’s (1981) work provides empirical support for the normative heterosexuality perspective, finding that about one third of college men indicate the likelihood that they would be willing to rape if they could be assured of not being caught or punished. Gavey (2005) observes:

the fact that so many men are willing to report that they could imagine themselves raping does at the least endorse feminist arguments that the building blocks of rape exist within or alongside normative heterosexuality, rather than being the preserve of only an isolated deviant few. (p. 43)

In a study of the sexual experiences of college women, Koss (1985) found that 43% of women whom researchers categorized as being highly sexually victimized, that is, meeting the legal definition of rape, did not identify themselves as rape victims. She termed this subset of women “unacknowledged rape victims,” and 76% were romantically involved with their perpetrators. Koss found that the sexual assault was less likely to be termed “rape” when the victim and offender were closely acquainted and had previously been sexually intimate.

Weaknesses

Cahill (2001) believes most women can tell the difference between being raped and engaging in voluntary heterosexual intercourse. She notes that this theory robs women of their sexual agency, that is, it pits female sexual agency against female sexuality. Additionally, Lisak and Miller (2002) found that among the 1,882 college men in their study, only 6.4% met the criteria for rape or attempted rape and repeat rapists averaged 5.8 rapes each. This evidence on undetected rapists seems to provide empirical evidence that contradicts the normative heterosexuality, perspective, since a small group of men are perpetrating serial rape.

At the intersections perspective

The at the intersections perspective draws primarily from the work of women of color feminist theorists.⁴ Davis believes that the issue of rape cannot be examined without looking first at its historical context; “the license to rape emanated from and facilitated the ruthless economic domination that was the gruesome hallmark of slavery” (1981, p. 175). Davis (1981) expands the history of rape by connecting the antirape work conducted by Black women, including Ida B. Wells, Mary Church Terrell, and Mary Talbert in the 1890s, with the anti-lynching movement. That is, the political and economic motivations of fraudulent rape charges are exposed as a pretext for lynching Black men, rationalized as a need to protect White southern womanhood. Davis also indicts the class structure of capitalism as providing incentives to rape since powerful men believe their maleness accords them the privilege to rape women, while working class men are offered rape as a compensation for their powerlessness.

Building on this work 10 years later, Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991) created the term “intersectionality” to illustrate the realities of multiple inequalities. Crenshaw details that since feminism focuses on gender and antiracism focuses on men of color, women of color are marginalized in both discourses. Crenshaw’s intersectionality framework (2003) examines the interactive effects of discrimination, that is, rather than being separate and mutually exclusive, they overlap in complex ways.

Intersections are created where these routes of power, gender, race, age, and class cross while traffic is the activity of discrimination, decisions, and policies that affect the people who stand at the crossroads. She writes, “without a lens focused on the interactive nature of subordination, we function with a partial view of what sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. really look like—as if we were squinting at the world with one eye closed” (2003, p. 56, italics in the original). Crenshaw’s intersectional analysis argues that racial and sexual subordination are mutually reinforcing, which leads to a sexual hierarchy that values certain female bodies over others, with the bodies of women of color devalued.

Crenshaw (2003) notes that due to structural inequalities, women of color who approach social service agencies for support after being battered or raped may require more services than White women, due to differences in poverty and unemployment as well as a lack of housing, childcare, and job skills. Standing in the crossroads also results in less credibility for women of color survivors as well as longer prison terms for rapists of color.

Strengths and empirical support

At the intersections perspective’s primary strength is the ability to bring complexity and multiple oppressions into the explanatory model of sexual assault. The model brings an important historical analysis to the topic of rape. The perspective also places previously marginalized women at the front and center of the analysis, prioritizing their experiences and the unique obstacles they face. Additionally, at the intersections highlights the diversity of women beyond race and gender, including class, age, disability, and sexual identity. Not only does the perspective bring attention to the race and class of women who are assaulted, but it also acknowledges how the race and class of the perpetrator can impact motivation.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (2010) Summary report (Black et al., 2011) found that approximately one in five Black (22.0%) and White (18.8%) women and one in seven Latinas (14.6%) have experienced a rape sometime during their lifetimes. Those numbers rose to one in four American Indian or Alaskan native and one in three women who identified as multi-racial. The lower rates for Latinas has been hypothesized to be the result of the closer supervision of young women, including chaperones on dates (Sorenson & Siegel, 1992) or alternately, the lack of culturally competent research methods that decrease the recruitment of Latinas into studies (Ahrens, Isas, & Viveros, 2011). Other factors that may impact the rate of rape disclosure by Latinas include cultural values such as male privilege, respect for authority, female subordination, shame, traditional gender roles, familialism, acculturation levels, taboos about talking about sex and rape, and a desire to protect the family (Ahrens, Rios-Mandel, Isas, & Lopez, 2010).

Empirical support for Davis’ and Crenshaw’s model has been slow to develop as previous research has often not taken into consideration the different experiences of women of color who have been sexually victimized. This lack of research implicitly supports the claim of the marginalization of women of color in the area of sexual assault. One study that explicitly supports Crenshaw’s notion of a victim hierarchy is the work of Foley, Evancic, Karnick, King, and Parks (1995) that found college students were more likely to think date rape was serious and that the perpetrator should be held legally accountable when the victim was a White, rather than a Black, woman.

In her study, comparing a sample of African American women and White women who had experienced rape, Wyatt, (1992) found that Black women were much less likely than White women to report their assaults despite similar rates of rape between the two groups, and Black women were more likely to see themselves at greater risk for rape than White women. In her analysis of the mainstream media coverage of sex crimes, Benedict (1993) found that rapes perpetrated by Black men against White women receive a disproportionate amount of coverage, while the rapes of Black women are largely overlooked.

Weaknesses

When speaking of such broad categories of race, gender, and class, it can be easy to fall into essentialism, that is, the notion that for any group of people there is a set of attributes that are necessary to their identity and function. This view also emphasizes the differences between groups of women rather than the commonalities among them or the differences within group membership.

Doing masculinity, doing rape perspective

On the heels of the second wave of the feminist movement, the field of gender studies largely adopted the notion that gender and gender roles are socially constructed rather than inherent essences rooted in biological mandates. West and Zimmerman (1987) conceive gender as “not simply an aspect of what one is, but, more fundamentally, it is something that one does, and does recurrently, in interaction with others” (p. 140, italics in the original). Individuals are subsequently held accountable for their gender performance based on their sex category and the cultural context. Gender thus becomes a verb rather than a noun, an activity rather than a natural essence.

The theory of social construction emerges in Scully’s (1990) work with convicted rapists in prison. As a result of interviews with rapists she theorized that rape is due to cultural factors, is a learned behavior, and, from the rapist’s perspective, serves a purpose. Scully acknowledges that from the perspective of some rapists, rape is about sex. She writes:

Rape is a violent act, but it is also a sexual act, and it is this fact that differentiates it from other crimes. Further, it is illogical to argue, on the one hand, that rape is an extension of normative male sexual behavior and, on the other hand, that rape is not sexual. (1990, p. 143)

Scully and Marolla (1985) describe the many purposes rape serves for men including revenge and/or punishment (against an individual woman, women as a group, or revenge against a man), an added bonus in the commission of another crime, sexual access to unwilling or unavailable women, sexual conquest, a desire to have impersonal sex, to fulfill a rape fantasy, a form of recreation or adventure, to pursue a challenge, power, control and dominance, to feel good, to show camaraderie with other guys, and to prove masculinity.

Cossins (2000) notes that Scully’s work on rape suggests that rape is related to culturally dominant scripts for the reproduction of masculinity or masculinities and that rather than being a deviant sexual practice, rape is related to normative masculine practices. Drawing on the sociology of masculinities, Cossins theorizes that men are not men due to biological processes but rather social ones. Therefore, men are in a constant process of engaging in masculine social practices in order to prove their manhood. Cossins⁵ describes the term “masculinities” as power relations between men and notes that these relations of power are mediated by race, class, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality. For instance, Cossins (2000) posits that sexual offending is the method by which some men attempt to alleviate experiences of powerlessness and establish their masculinity and power over other men as well as women. James Messerschmidt’s (2000) important work, structured action theory, also uses the complex lens of feminism, masculinities studies, and criminology to examine the use of violence by some men as a masculine resource for responding to masculine challenges in order to construct a more “manly” masculinity.

Strengths and empirical support

The strength of the doing masculinity, doing rape perspective is that it moves away from a single motive for rape. This theory details individual men’s motivations to perpetrate rape in their attempts to achieve masculinity rather than placing all men in a single class with a single motive. The theory acknowledges that men have different levels of power within male hierarchies, often based on other identities such as race, class, age, and sexual orientation. The perspective also allows that some men rape, not because they feel powerful, but rather because they feel powerless. The empirical support derives from Scully and Marolla’s (1985) interviews with convicted rapists, previously detailed, on their multiple motives for rape.

Weaknesses

A weakness of the socially constructed perspective of rapists’ motivations is that many rapists offer rationales for their crime, such as forces outside of their control or blaming the victim (Scully & Marolla, 1984). Ward et al. (2006) found that the majority of sexual offenders offer cognitive distortions, that is, rationalizations after the event for their behavior that excused or minimized their actions. Therefore, relying on the self-reported motivations of rapists for understanding rape and building theory can be problematic.

The embodied sexual practice perspective

Feminist philosopher Ann Cahill critiques traditional feminist theories of understanding rape in her book, Rethinking Rape (2001). Cahill writes:

rape cannot be defined or understood as theft, mere assault, or virtually identical to other forms of heterosexual intercourse. Rather, it is a sexually specific act that destroys (if only temporarily) the intersubjectivity, embodied agency and therefore personhood of a woman. (p. 13)

To develop her embodied theory of rape, Cahill draws on the work of queer, postmodern theorists, and French feminists while positing three main premises. First, rather than deny the sexual nature of rape, Cahill makes the case that rape is a sexually specific act with sexual consequences for the victim due to the fact that sexualized body parts are eroticized weapons used for the purpose of sexual domination. She also notes that many victims suffer sexual shame and difficulties following the assault. She states:

Defining rape as primarily violence, not sex, implied that rape was significantly similar to other types of assault, and that its sexual nature was relatively irrelevant to the experience. Yet few women would agree that being raped is essentially equivalent to being hit in the face or otherwise physically assaulted. (2001, p. 3)

Cahill is quick to acknowledge that the sexual nature of the crime should in no way undermine the recognition of the crime as horrific and violent. Cahill notes the sexual paradox of rape, that is, the assailant has had sex with the victim, but the victim has not had sex with the assailant, and the experience is sexual, but it is not sex itself.

The second premise of the embodied sexual practice perspective is that because every body is different, rape is not experienced the same by all women. Rape is specific and situated, depending upon the body acted upon. These differences include sexual differences as well as ones of class, race, sexual orientation, age, disability, and relationship to the offender.

In her third premise, Cahill (2001) argues that the rape experience leads to a violent destabilization of the existing self. “The self is at once denied and, by the totality of this denial, stilled, silenced, overcome” (p. 132). Therefore, it is an assault on a survivor’s very being and personhood. Cahill says, “to know oneself as not only rapable, but as raped, is to become a different self” (p. 133).

Strengths and empirical support

In direct contrast to the radical/liberal feminist perspectives, Cahill acknowledges the sexual dynamics of rape that impact perpetrator motivations and victim ramifications. Rape research pioneers Holmstrom and Burgess (1980) agree that power and anger are primary motivators of rape, but found in their study that the sexual offenses also involved fellatio and cunnilingus, kissing, masturbation, and licking. Some victims were forced to (fake) orgasm, dance nude, and perform sexually with another woman. These very sexual acts, beyond what is needed to demonstrate power and control, seem to substantiate Cahill’s supposition of the sexual motivations of rape. Additionally, McCabe and Wauchope (2005) found that 31.5% of the sexual assaults in their study included kissing and fondling, which suggests that the rapists may be trying to convince themselves that the assault was mutually enjoyable and consensual. Although some of the words uttered by the rapists during the assault demonstrated motives of power/control, other utterances seemed to make the sexual motives explicit, including “I won’t hurt you, I just want sex,” “I want you to enjoy this,” “I’m sorry, I want anal sex,” “I can give you the wildest sex of your life,” and “you have sex written all over your face” (p. 241).

A study of over 10,000 men in nine sites and six countries across Asia and the Pacific found the top three reasons given for rape, in order, were sexual entitlement, seeking of entertainment, and punishment (Jewkes, Fulu, Roselli, & Garcia-Moreno, 2013). Additionally, Chapleau and Oswald’s research (2010) found that sexually aggressive men have a stronger implicit power–sex association, that is, “a well-learned mental connection between the concepts of power and sex” (p. 67) than nonaggressive men. The stronger the mental association between power and sex, the more likely men endorsed rape myths and reported a higher likelihood that they would rape.

Another important aspect of Cahill’s embodied sexual practice perspective is that it specifically includes a focus on sexual orientation and disability, which are often neglected by other perspectives. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), approximately one (13%) in eight lesbian women, nearly half of bisexual women (46%), and one (17%) in six heterosexual women are raped in their lifetimes (Walters, Chen & Breiding, 2013). A national study on transgender discrimination (Grant et al., 2011) found that 12% of transgender individuals had been sexually assaulted within the K–12 grade school environment, 2% were sexually assaulted by police officers, and 15% were sexually assaulted in prison. Additionally, a study on women with disabilities found the risk of rape was more than four times greater than that of women without disabilities (Martin et al., 2006).

Weaknesses

A major weakness of postmodern feminist conceptualization of rape is the very dense language and complexity of the concepts that make them difficult to translate into applied practice by frontline practitioners. Also, in focusing on the sexual nature of sexual assault, Cahill (2001) claims that most women can easily distinguish between acts of rape and consensual, mutually desired heterosexual sex. However, Gavey (2005) disputes that notion, noting that many women experience a sexual situation that “falls uncomfortably into the cracks, between these two possibilities” (p. 2). Additionally, Cahill offers a weakness of her own, asking, “how does one account for sexually differentiated bodies without reducing women to their bodies (essentialism) or rendering impossible a commonality among women (relativism)?” (p. 69).

The FFP: Theory Development and Overview

Currently, among frontline practitioners in the antirape field, who are primarily responsible for much of the rape training, prevention, education, service provision, and advocacy work in the field, the radical/liberal feminist theory predominates. However, this article outlined the weaknesses of this theory, which lacks explanatory and predictive value, the very work of a theory. Since the radical/liberal theory does have historical merit and empirical support, rather than discarding the theory, it is helpful to add additional theories to more comprehensively explain the nature of rape from a feminist perspective.

Theory-Knitting

Kalmar and Sternberg (1988) offer a theory-knitting approach to theory development, whereby the best aspects of existing theories in a given domain are integrated within a new framework. Theory-knitting is offered as an alternative to more traditional approaches to theory-building whereby theories are segregated and compete for primacy. Kalmar and Sternberg claim that theory-knitting moves in the direction of increasing explanation with a goal of developing a new, different, and hopefully, superior theory. For instance, the FFP acknowledges multiple motivations, including sexual ones, and an increased focus on the intersectionality of identities. The FFP knits multiple theories into a single framework, providing the feminist model with greater internal coherence, unifying power, and explanatory depth, a few of the characteristics of useful theory as outlined by Ward et al. (2006).

Overview of the Feminist Framework (FF)

The FF is constructed by knitting five feminist theories together as summarized in Table 1. As seen in the table, each of the five theories are named, the prominent theorist(s) identified, the underlying feminist(s) theory provided, the primary premises listed, and a representational graphic provided to visually depict the theory. There are five primary concepts that flow from the FF. The first concept is the acknowledgment of rape as a sexual act, upon and by specific bodies, with sexual consequences for the survivor. As a sexual act rape is on the same continuum as normative heterosexuality, with its focus on male sexual domination and female sexual submission. However, acknowledging rape as a sexual act in no way blames the victim, for as Cahill (2001) was previously cited, in these acts the perpetrator has had sex with the victim, but the victim has not had sex with the perpetrator. Although some might fear that a new emphasis on the sexual nature of rape might increase victim blaming, the reality is that victim blaming already occurs when the sexual nature of the act is denied (Campbell et al., 1999).

Table 1.

Feminist Framework Plus: Theory-Knitting a Feminist Model of Sexual Assault Etiology.

Row	Title	Patriarchal Power and Control	Normative Heterosexuality	At the Intersections	Doing Masculinity, Doing Rape	Embodied Sexual Practice
1	Feminist perspective	Radical/liberal	Radical²	Women of Color/Intersectionality	Social construction	Postmodern/Queer/French
2	Primary theorist(s)	New York Radical Feminists & Susan Brownmiller	Catherine MacKinnon	Angela Davis & Kimberlé Crenshaw	Diana Scully, Anne Cossins, James Messerschmidt	Ann Cahill
3	Theory premise	Rape is a political act due to motives of power/control in order to preserve male domination and female subordination.	Rape is a continuation of normative heterosexuality where violence is eroticized and female subjugation ensured.	Rape occurs at the interactional nexus of race, class, gender, and other identities with unique consequences for women of color and others at intersections.	Rape is a way for men to achieve masculinity; thus, motives are multiple.	Rape is a sexually specific act upon the body/self; bodies are different, so rape is specific –the specific bodies and relationships matter.
4	Graphic representation
5	Theoretical overlap	Relations of power, cultural/patriarchal influences, gender dynamics, feminist perspective
6	Empirically-derived gender factors	Sexual entitlement, hostility towards women, belief in rape myths and traditional gender roles, emphasized heterosexuality, existence of patriarchy and gender inequality
7	Additional level of Analysis	Historical	Interactional	Historical	Interactional	Individual
8	Plus	Empirically derived individual risk factors for sexual assault (compiled from bibliographic sources)
	Psychological	Low self-esteem, low-empathy, subclinical psychopathic traits, deviant sexual arousal and scripts, poor mental health, deviant fantasy, cognitive distortions
	Environmental	Childhood abuse (sexual & physical), parental intimate partner violence
	Developmental	Attachment disorders, early sexual initiation, peer pressure, intimacy deficits
	Situational	Alcohol & drug use/misuse, firearms, gang membership, juvenile delinquency, multiple sexual partners
	Biological	Genetic factors, Gene × Environmental factors, androgens, neurological deficits

The second major concept is the acknowledgment that rape occurs due to multiple motives rather than the single motivation of power/control. The multiple motivations include, but are not limited to, sexual gratification, revenge, recreation, power/control, and attempts to achieve or perform masculinity. Power/control remain an important component of rape but may be the motivation, the means, and/or the result.

A third concept is the importance of understanding rape at the political level of the patriarchy while also acknowledging the specificity of rape at the bodily level. The theory acknowledges rape as a political, aggregate act whereby men as a group dominate and control women as a group, but also as a very personal, intimate act in which the body of a singular person is violated by another person(s). For instance, while Davis (1981) focuses on the political and historical dimensions of race and class at the aggregate level, Cahill (2001) looks at those intersections at the level of the body.

The fourth major concept is the emphasis on intersectionality of oppression and identities as identified by Cahill (2001), Davis (1981), and Crenshaw (2003). Each of these social categories has specific and particular ramifications. For example, if a lesbian woman is raped by a man in an attempt to “correct” her sexual orientation or if a man is raped by another man in prison to assert his masculinity, the motivations and consequences can vary greatly. These social categorical intersections of the victim and perpetrator, such as race and class, are important at the political, personal, and historical levels. The absence of this concept front and center in a feminist theory of rape creates the default rape victim as a White, cisgender, heterosexual, upper class, able-bodied woman.

The fifth major concept to emerge from the framework is the great harm rape can impose upon a survivor. As Cahill (2001) describes, rape is a violent destabilization of the survivor’s existing self, their very personhood. Although such an acknowledgment will not be news to frontline rape crisis workers or counselors, this important recognition has not been a central component of feminist theories of rape.

The two primary results of the FFP is that it can better theoretically account for a range of rape motivations and dynamics unaccounted by the single-factor theory of the radical/liberal feminist lens, including gang rape and the rape of men by men. Additionally, the FFP leads to new practices in the areas of education, advocacy, and victim services, which will be discussed in later sections.

Overlapping and Nonoverlapping Dimensions

An important step in the process of knitting theories together for theory development is identifying the mutual overlapping and nonoverlapping dimensions of the theories, that is, identifying the similar and dissimilar constructs that the theories use as explanatory tools (Kalmar & Sternberg, 1988). An important overlap in the FF is that each of the five theories have vital common denominators including a feminist perspective, a focus on power relations, a focus on gender, and acknowledging the cultural context, that is, the patriarchal structural arrangements of society (see Table 2). The normative heterosexuality and embodied sexual practice perspectives have an important overlap in that they explicitly acknowledge the sexual component of rape as well as the power dynamics. Additionally, the patriarchal power and control and at the intersections theories both place great importance on the history of rape and how history affects rape dynamics in modern times. The normative heterosexuality and doing masculinity, doing gender perspectives both acknowledge that men rape due to normative male practices, whether sexual or otherwise.

Table 2.

Overlapping and Nonoverlapping Factors in Theory-Knitting the FFP.

Theories of the FFP	Feminist Perspective	Intersectionality Focus	Historical Focus	Rape is Motivated by Power/Control	Rape is Motivated by Power & Sex	Power Analysis	Rape is Normative	Gender Analysis	Individual- Level Focus	Interactional- Level Focus	Cultural-Level Focus
Patriarchal power and control	✓		✓	✓		✓	✓	✓			✓
Normative heterosexuality	✓				✓	✓	✓	✓			✓
At the intersections	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓		✓
Doing gender, Doing rape	✓	✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Embodied sexual practice	✓	✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Plus factors					✓				✓

Note. FFP = Feminist Framework Plus.

The at the intersections, doing masculinity, doing rape, and embodied sexual practice perspectives all focus on the importance of the interactions of identities and acknowledge the differences within groups as well as between them. Instead of a sole focus on the category of gender, these models also include the intersections of race, class, sexual identity, disability, and age. These factors both complicate and explicate the importance of how the experience of rape can be compounded by the victim’s and perpetrator’s specific bodies and identities.

Identification of how the theories do not overlap is also important. The patriarchal power and control theory offers a single motivation, while the doing masculinity, doing rape theory acknowledges multiple motivations including revenge, boredom, and male camaraderie. White and Post (2003) make the case about the importance of levels of analysis in a theoretical framework. Row 7 in Table 1 distinguishes among levels of analysis, ranging from sociocultural to the intrapersonal. The patriarchal power and control perspective invokes men and women as classes of people as viewed from afar necessitating a telescope, while the embodied sexual practice perspective requires a microscope to examine individual differences of both the perpetrator and the victim and how that impacts the specificity of the situation.

The Plus: Acknowledging other disciplines’ factors in rape

While the FF expands feminist theoretical explanations for rape, the framework remains only one piece of an even larger puzzle. Ward and Siegert (2002) note:

A comprehensive explanation of any human phenomenon is likely to be multifactorial in nature and involve a variety of different causal mechanisms. These may include factors associated with our early evolutionary history as well as cultural, developmental, physiological, and psychological causal mechanisms.(p. 157)

Feminist theories of sexual assault etiology and dynamics, such as those in the FF, largely focus on cultural/societal explanations of sexual assault, while minimizing developmental, biological, environmental, situational, and psychological causal mechanisms. These “Plus” factors detailed in Table 1 are significantly associated with sexually aggressive men (Jewkes, 2012; Jewkes et al., 2013; Polaschek, Ward, & Hudson, 1997; Ward et al., 2006) and when combined with the FF yield the final model, the FFP.

The factors are numerous, empirically supported, and can be loosely divided into five categories. The first category is psychological factors that include low self-esteem, low empathy, subclinical psychopathic traits, cognitive distortions, deviant sexual arousal and scripts, poor mental health, emotional dysregulation, and deviant fantasy (Abbey, Parkhill, Clinton-Sherrod, & Zawacki, 2007; Beech & Ward, 2004; Brown & Forth, 1997; Chesire, 2004; Maniglio, 2010; Thornton, 2002). The second category is environmental and includes child abuse (sexual and physical) and parental intimate partner violence (Beech & Mitchell, 2005; Malamuth, Linz, Heavey, Barnes, & Acker, 1995). The third category is developmental and includes attachment disorders, early sexual initiation, intimacy deficits, and peer pressure (Abbey et al., 2007; Beech & Mitchell, 2005; Burk & Burkhart, 2003; Prentky et al., 1989). The fourth category is situational and involves alcohol and drug use and misuse, firearms, gang membership, juvenile delinquency, and having multiple sexual partners (Abbey & McAuslan, 2004; Jewkes et al., 2011). The fifth category is biological and includes genetic factors, the interaction between gene and environmental factors, androgens, and neurological deficits (Johansson et al., 2008; Siegert & Ward, 2003; Ward & Beech, 2006).

Feminist advocates, educators, and service providers working on the front lines of the antirape field should have a basic understanding of these additional factors in order to better inform their work with survivors and education of the community. Being able to place the feminist perspective within the larger discipline of the field of sexual offending adds to the knowledge base and elevates the level of practitioner expertise. It also allows feminists working in the field to better collaborate with researchers, practitioners, and theorists from other disciplines to craft more comprehensive interventions, advocacy efforts, survivor services, and educational programming.

Implications for Practice

Good practice is guided by strong theories with empirical support. Therefore, choosing a theoretical orientation has implications for all that follows: intervention, treatment, service delivery, education, and advocacy. If feminist practitioners do not acknowledge the sexual nature of some sexual assaults, then preventive education programs will be ineffective. If nonfeminist practitioners only acknowledge the psychological and biological realms while ignoring cultural factors, again interventions will fall short. The implications of adopting the FFP are primarily found in three practice areas: increased expertise of frontline workers in the antirape field, increased explanatory power of feminist theories of sexual assault, and expanded educational efforts.

Expertise of Frontline Practitioners

Although rape researchers and academics are expanding the knowledge base about rape through their empirical and theoretical work, this work often does not reach the frontline advocates and activists working in communities (Wandersman et al., 2008). This situation is unfortunate as frontline antirape advocates are often the individuals teaching antirape prevention programs in schools and communities, advocating for changes in laws in the policy arena, and providing victim/survivor services in rape crisis centers (Campbell et al., 1998; Martin, 2005). For example, Chasteen’s study (2001) demonstrated the power of feminist discourses on rape. When female participants in the study were asked about their everyday understanding of rape, they volunteered feminist conceptualizations of rape, including acknowledging the prevalence and harms of rape, the greater likelihood of acquaintance over stranger rape, and issues of consent.

Therefore, when frontline antirape workers transmit faulty or incomplete knowledge to students, legislators, and clients, it has a big impact. In addition, they risk losing their status as rape experts for teaching only the radical/liberal feminist perspective although additional perspectives exist and are supported by empirical evidence. Frontline workers could also lose professional respect and collaborative opportunities from colleagues doing similar work in other institutions and disciplines if they are not aware of diverse theories and factors articulated in the FFP.

The model also provides additional tools to frontline workers to increase their practice expertise. The model’s intersectional focus leads to a method of analysis suggested by Crenshaw (2003) that asks, “What is the element of racism in this? “What is the heterosexism in this? or “Is there an age element—or a class, or (dis)ability bias, etc. operating here?” (p. 56). Also, the model suggests that frontline practitioners become more familiar with the study of masculinities since “doing or achieving masculinity” becomes an important part of the paradigm (Connell, 2005; Kimmel, Hearn, & Connell, 2005; Messerschmidt, 2000; Pascoe, 2012).

Cahill’s embodied sexual practice theory determines that rape destroys the agency and personhood of the victim/survivor, if only temporarily. In the past, rape crisis centers have primarily focused on supportive services, peer counseling and education often based on feminist ideology without providing evidenced-based interventions (Gornick, Burt, & Pittman, 1985). However, acknowledging the severe impact of rape upon the victim requires more specialized evidenced-based, trauma-informed approach, a trend that is already occurring (Foa, Hembree, & Rothbaum, 2007; Resnick & Schnicke, 1993). Practitioners may require additional training in order to meet the needs of rape trauma survivors.

Additionally, across all fields there is a renewed call for evidence-based practice to close the gap between research and practice while increasing the dissemination efforts of new science (Wandersman et al., 2008). Often funders and other stakeholders want to know if rape and domestic violence programs are effective in producing desired outcomes and making a difference (NRCDV, 2014). Although many of these expectations center on evidence-based programs and practices, it is also important to have empirical evidence that supports the program’s theoretical underpinnings or conceptual frameworks. The FFP brings this dimension into the antirape field by connecting empirical support for the theories that ground the work. Additionally, the FFP can be helpful in preparing grants or reports.

The FFP could be incorporated into the training of frontline workers and volunteers across the nation. For instance, the Office for Victims of Crime within the U.S. Department of Justice offers rape advocate/counselor training, but it provides no theoretical foundation, explanations of motives, or history of rape theories (OJP, 2014). The FFP can provide a helpful foundation for practitioners entering the field.

Increased Explanatory Power

An important implication of the FFP is the broadened explanatory power for understanding rape since the single-factor radical/liberal feminist understanding of rape does not explain multiple instances of sexual assault. For example, some rapists report that they did not rape because they wanted power or control over an individual woman, but instead she was an object to be used to prove their manhood to their male companions (Scully & Marolla, 1985). The doing masculinity, doing rape perspective offers multiple motives, thereby increasing explanatory power. Also, the patriarchal power and control perspective does not explain same-sex male rape, while the doing masculinity, doing rape perspective takes into account power differentials between men based on other identities including class and race.

Another example of the lack of explanatory power of the patriarchal power and control perspective is that it does not distinguish between perpetrators. Research reveals that rape victims and the general public react differently when the perpetrator is a stranger or acquaintance (Koss, et al. 1988; Warshaw, 1988). The embodied sexual practice perspective acknowledges the importance of the specificity of the bodies of the perpetrator and victim, including the importance of the prior relationship between the two. Also, the patriarchal power and control perspective denies the sexual implications of rape, treating the assault as if it were like any other physical assault, such as a punch in the face. However, the embodied sexual practice perspective acknowledges the unique sexual nature of the assault and explains why victim/survivors might have trouble enjoying consensual sexual relations with a desired partner in the future.

Additionally, this model offers increased explanatory power to victim/survivors who are attempting to make meaning of their rape. For some survivors the alleged power/control motivation of their perpetrator does not fit their experience and having a broader model allows them room to better understand and make meaning of the assault (Personal communication with rape survivor, July 22, 2014).

Expanded Educational Efforts

In their review of the literature on prevention efforts, Knight and Sims-Knight (2009) conclude that the majority of college-based rape prevention programs that focus on acquaintance rape are not ideal since they reach young men too late and focus on attitudes without addressing the broader traits that may cause or maintain those attitudes. Young men may be more apt to listen to rape prevention programs if the content addresses their sexual desires, rather than a sole focus on power/control as a motivator for rape. Anderson and Swainson (2001) found that most college students believe that both female and male rape is motivated more by sex than power, with men endorsing the view that rape is motivated by both sex and power to a greater extent than women. However, if a rape educator insists that rape is solely motivated by power and control, they may lose their opportunity to impact their audience. A more comprehensive prevention program for college students could acknowledge sexual motives and develop curriculum that focuses on making sex safer, more pleasurable, and consensual in one comprehensive training (McPhail, 2010, unpublished curriculum).

The FFP leads to expanded interventions and education to include a focus on healthy parenting to prevent physical and sexual abuse of boys as well as girls due to a better understanding of biological, developmental, and psychological factors. Additionally, Gavey (2005) suggests a broad educational agenda, including challenging heteronormativity; transforming the ritualized nature of sexual relationships between men and women; encouraging women to develop and experience physical strength, pleasure and desire; adopting sexual education programs that erode the notion of compulsory heterosexuality and the double standard; challenging the notion of male sexual entitlement, and encouraging female sexuality that is as active and agentic as male sexuality. A helpful book in this regard is Yes Means Yes!: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape (Friedman & Valenti, 2008) where the editors articulate their goals, “to explore how creating a culture that values genuine female sexual pleasure can help stop rape, and how the cultures and systems that support rape in the United States rob us of our right to sexual power” (p. 7).

Limitations

The FFP does have limitations and lacks explanatory power in the area of female sexual offenders and same-sex female rape. Less than 10% of both adult and juvenile sexual offenders are female and the research is underdeveloped, making conclusions difficult to draw (Gigure & Bumby, 2007). Like male offenders, female offenders are heterogeneous, with male and female sexual offenders showing some similarities (poor coping skills and relationship difficulties) and some differences (women are more likely to have sexual victimization histories and commit sexual offenses with a co-offending male). The FFP does not provide a theoretical explanation for female sexual offenders.

Another limitation is the increased complexity of the model. Rather than only offering power/control as a singular motive, the model offers multiple motives and adds race, class, and other identities into the framework. Teaching and understanding the model will take more time and effort. However, rape is a complicated act and the theory is likely to be similarly complex to account for the specificity of sexual assault. As Gavey (2005) was cited earlier, there are risks when applying feminist formulaic understandings, slogans, or definitions of rape that do not take into account the specificities of a situation.

As with other new frameworks and models, there is the need for future research to further support or challenge the model as well as more research on elements related to broader understandings of factors related to sexual assault. Additionally, if feminist practitioners put this model into practice, the implications for advocacy, education, and service provision will be tested and, hopefully, further developed.

Conclusion

The FFP builds on the feminist understanding of rape by knitting multiple feminist theories together to increase explanatory power. The framework bridges theory and research, thereby contributing to evidence-based practice. The FFP provides a firmer foundation for the work of frontline rape advocates, educators, and activists. The framework also provides a useful way to organize existing theories and research.

The feminist agenda on rape is broad and the work is difficult. In 1975, Brownmiller closed her foundational book with the words, “my purpose in this book has been to give rape a history. Now we must deny it a future” (p. 404). Almost 40 years later, denying rape a future continues to be the long-term goal that unites researchers, theorists, academics, activists, advocates, and educators in the field. The FFP aspires to move the field one step forward in achieving that end.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Dr. Noël Busch-Armendariz, Dr. Montse Feu, and Dr. Ann Cahill for their early review of the article and support of this work. Also, thank-you to Justin Kulish for his helpful comments on a later version and Kevin Kulish for his work on the graphics.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abbey

Jacques-Tiura

A. J.

LeBreton

J. M.

(2011). Risk factors for sexual aggression in young men: An expansion of the confluence model. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 450–464.

Abbey

McAuslan

(2004). A longitudinal examination of male college student’s perpetration of sexual assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 747–756.

Abbey

Parkhill

M. R.

Clinton-Sherrod

A. M.

Zawacki

(2007). A comparison on men who committed different types of sexual assault in a community sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1567–1580.

Ahrens

C. E.

Isas

Viveros

(2011). Enhancing Latinas participation in research on sexual assault: Cultural considerations in the design and implementation of research in the Latino community. Violence Against Women, 17, 177–188.

Ahrens

C. E.

Rios-Mandel

L. C.

Isas

Lopez

M. D. C.

(2010). Talking about interpersonal violence: Cultural influences on Latinas’ identification and disclosure of rape and intimate partner violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 2, 284–295.

Amir

(1971). Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago, IL. University of Chicago.

Anderson

Swainson

(2001). Perceived motivations for rape: Gender differences in beliefs about female and male rape. Current Issues in Social Psychology, 6, 107–123.

Beech

A. R.

Mitchell

I. J.

(2005). A neurobiological perspective on attachment problems in sexual offenders and the role of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors in treatment of such problems. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 153–182.

Beech

A. R.

Ward

(2004). The integration of etiology and risk in sex offenders: A theoretical model. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 31–63.

10.

Benedict

(1993). Virgin or Vamp: How the press covers sex crimes. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.

11.

Bevacqua

(2000). Rape on the public agenda: Feminism and the politics of sexual assault. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

12.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

L. L.

Merrick

M. T.,

… Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survye (NISVS): Summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Center for Disease Control.

13.

Brown

S. L.

Forth

A. E.

(1997). Psychopathy and sexual assault: Static risk factors, emotional precursors, and rapist subtypes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 848–857.

14.

Brownmiller

(1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

15.

Bryden

D. P.

Grier

M. M.

(2011). The search for rapists’ “real” motives. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 101, 171–278.

16.

Burk

L. R.

Burkhart

B. R.

(2003). Disorganized attachment as a diathesis for sexual deviance developmental experience and the motivation for sexual offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 487–511.

17.

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230.

18.

Cahill

A. J.

(2001). Rethinking rape. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

19.

Campbell

Baker

C. K.

Mazurek

T. L.

(1998). Remaining radical? Organizational predictors of rape crisis centers’ social change. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 457–483.

20.

Campbell

Sefl

Barnes

H. E.

Ahrens

C. E.

Wasco

S. M.

Zargoza-Diesfeld

(1999). Community services for rape survivors: Enhancing psychological well-being or increasing trauma? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 847–858.

21.

Chapleau

K. M.

Oswald

D. L.

(2010). Power, sex, and rape myth acceptance: Testing two models of rape proclivity. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 66–78.

22.

Chasteen

A. L.

(2001). Constructing rape: Feminism, change, and women’s everyday understandings of sexual assault. Sociological Spectrum, 21, 101–139.

23.

Chesire

J. D.

(2004). Review, critique, and synthesis of personality theory in motivation to sexually assault. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 633–644.

24.

Connell

R. W.

(2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

25.

Cossins

(2000). Masculinities, sexualities, and child sexual abuse. The Hague, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

26.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.

27.

Crenshaw

(2003). Traffic as the crossroads: Multiple oppressions. In Morgan

(Ed.), Sisterhood is forever: The women’s anthology for a new millennium (pp. 43–57). New York, NY: Washington Square Press.

28.

Davis

A. Y.

(1981). Women, race, & class. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

29.

Donat

P. L. N.

D’Emilio

(1992). A feminist redefinition of rape and sexual assault: Historical foundations and change. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 9–22.

30.

Foa

E. B.

Hembree

E. A.

Rothbaum

B. O.

(2007). Prolonged exposure therapy for PTSD: Emotional processing of traumatic experiences: Therapist guide (Treatments that Work series). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

31.

Foley

L. A.

Evancic

Karnick

King

Parks

(1995). Date rape: Effects of race of assailant and victim and gender of subjects on perceptions. Journal of Black Psychology, 21, 6–18.

32.

Friedman

Valenti

(Eds.). (2008). Yes means yes!: Visions of female sexual power & a world without rape. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.

33.

Gavey

(2005). Just sex?: The cultural scaffolding of rape. London, England: Routledge.

34.

Gigure

Bumby

(2007). Female sex offenders. Washington, DC: Center for Sex Offender Management. A project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

35.

Gornick

Burt

M. R.

Pittman

K. J.

(1985). Structure and activities of rape crisis centers in the early 1980s. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 247–268.

36.

Grant

J. M.

Mottet

L. A.

Tanis

Harrison

Herman

J. L.

Keisling

(2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the National transgender discrimination survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

37.

Griffin

(1971, 9). Rape the All-American crime. Ramparts Magazine, 10, 26–35.

38.

Groth

A. N.

Birnbaum

H. J.

(1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

39.

Hegeman

Meikle

(1980). Motives and attitudes of rapists. Canadian Journal of Behavioural and Science, 12, 359–372.

40.

Holmstrom

L. L.

Burgess

A. W.

(1980). Sexual behavior of assailants during reported rapes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 9, 427–439.

41.

Jewkes

(2012). Rape perpetration: A review. Pretoria, South Africa: Sexual Violence Research Initiative.

42.

Jewkes

Fulu

Roselli

Garcia-Moreno

(2013). Prevalence of and factors associated with non-partner rape perpetration: Findings from the UN multi-country cross-sectional study of men and violence in Asia and the Pacific. Lancet Global Health, 1, e208–e218.

43.

Jewkes

Sikweyiya

Morrell

Dunkle

(2011). Gender inequitable masculinity and sexual entitlement in rape perpetration South Africa: Findings of a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE, 6, e29590. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029590

44.

Johansson

Santtila

Harlaar

von der Pahlen

Witting

Algars

M.,

… Sandnabba

N. K.

(2008). Genetic effects on male sexual coercion. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 190–202.

45.

Kalmar

D. A.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1988). Theory-knitting: An integrative approach to theory development. Philosophical Psychology, 1, 153–169.

46.

Kimmel

Hearn

Connell

R. W.

(2005). Handbook on studies of men & masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

47.

Knight

R. A.

(1999). Validation of a typology for rapists. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14, 303–330.

48.

Knight

R. A.

Sims-Knight

(2009, 9). Using rape risk factors to set an agenda for rape prevention. VawNet: Applied Research Forum, National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women. Retrieved from www.vawnet.org

49.

Koss

M. P.

(1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situational characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193–212.

50.

Koss

M. P.

Dinero

T. E.

Seibel

C. A.

Cox

S. L.

(1988). Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim’s experiences? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 1–24.

51.

Lisak

(2002). The undetected rapists. White Paper. Boston: University of Massachusetts. Author.

52.

Lisak

Miller

P. M.

(2002). Repeat rape and multiple offending among undetected rapists. Violence and Victims, 17, 73–83.

53.

Lonsway

K. A.

Archambault

(2012). The ‘justice gap” for sexual assault cases: Future directions for research and reform. Violence Against Women, 18, 145–168.

54.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704–711.

55.

Lloyd

E. A.

(2001). Science gone astray: Evolution and rape. Michigan Law Review, 99, 1536–1559.

56.

MacKinnon

C. A.

(1981). Sex and violence: A perspective. In MacKinnon

C. A.

(Ed.), Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law (1987) (pp. 85–92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

57.

MacKinnon

C. A.

(1989). Rape: On coercion and consent. In MacKinnon

C. A.

(Ed.), Toward a feminist theory of the state (pp. 171–182). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

58.

Malamuth

N. M.

(1981). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 138–157.

59.

Malamuth

N. M.

(1996). The confluence model of sexual aggression: Feminist and evolutionary perspectives. In Buss

D. M.

Malamuth

N. M.

(Eds), Sex, power conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 269–295). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

60.

Malamuth

N. M.

Linz

Heavey

C. L.

Barnes

Acker

(1995). Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A 10 year follow up study. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69, 353–369.

61.

Mandoki

(Director). (1990). White Palace, United States, Universal Pictures.

62.

Manhart

M. A.

Rush

(1974). New York radical feminists manifesto. In Connell

Wilson

(Eds.), Rape: The first sourcebook for women (pp. i–ii). New York, NY: New American Library.

63.

Maniglio

(2010). The role of deviant sexual fantasy in the etiopathogenesis of sexual homicide: A systemic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 294–302.

64.

Marshall

W. L.

Barbaree

H. E.

(1990). An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual offending. In Marshall

W. L.

Laws

D. R.

Barbaree

H. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 257–275). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

65.

Martin

P. Y.

(2005). Rape work: Victims, gender, and emotions in organization and community context. New York, NY: Routledge.

66.

Martin

S. L.

Ray

Sotres-Alvarez

Kupper

Moracco

K. E.

Dickens

P. A.

Gizlice

(2006). Physical and sexual assault of women with disabilities. Violence Against Women, 12, 823–837.

67.

McCabe

M. P.

Wauchope

(2005). Behavior characteristics of rapists. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11, 235–247.

68.

McPhail

B. A.

(2010). A question of consent. Rape prevention curriculum for college men. Houston, TX: University of Houston. Available upon request from the author.

69.

Melani

Fodaski

(1974). The psychology of the rapist and his victim. In Connell

Wilson

(Eds.), Rape: The first sourcebook for women (pp. 82–93). New York, NY: New American Library.

70.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2000). Nine lives: Adolescent masculinities, the body, and violence. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

71.

Meston

C. M.

Buss

D. M.

(2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477–507.

72.

Murnen

S. K.

Wright

Kaluzny

(2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims?: A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46, 359–375.

73.

Muehlengard

C. L.

Falcon

P. L.

(1990). Men’s heterosexual skill and attitudes toward women as predictors of verbal sexual coercion and forceful rape. Sex Roles, 23, 241–259.

74.

National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (2010). NISVS: An Overview of 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Division of Violence Prevention.

75.

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. (2014). The domestic violence evidence project. Retrieved April 29, 2014, from http://www.dvevidenceproject.org

76.

Office of Justice Programs. (2014). Rape advocate/counselor training. Washington, DC: Office for Victims of Crime Training and Technical Assistance Center, Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved April 29, 2014, from https://www.ovcttac.gov/saact/

77.

Pascoe

C. J.

(2012). Dude, You’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school (2nd ed.). Berkeley. University of California Press.

78.

Polaschek

D. L. L.

Ward

Hudson

S. M.

(1997). Rape and rapists: Theory and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 117–144.

79.

Prentky

R. A.

Knight

R. A.

Sims-Knight

J. E.

Straus

Rokous

Cerce

(1989). Developmental antecendents of sexual aggression. Developmental and Psychopathology, 1, 153–169.

80.

Rennison

C. M.

(2002). Rape and sexual assault: Reporting to police and medical attention, 1992–2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 194530.

81.

Resnick

Schnicke

(1993). Cognitive processing therapy for rape victims: A treatment manual. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

82.

Russell

D. E. H.

(1982a). Rape in marriage. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing.

83.

Russell

D. E. H.

(1982b). The prevalence and incidence of forcible rape and attempted rape of females. Victimology: An International Journal, 7, 81–93.

84.

Russell

D. E. H.

Howell

(1983). The prevalence of rape in the United States Revisited. Signs, 8, 688–695.

85.

Sanday

P. R.

(1981). The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 5–27.

86.

Saulnier

C. F.

(1996). Feminist theories in social work: Approaches and applications. New York, NY: The Haworth Press.

87.

Scully

(1990). Understanding sexual violence. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

88.

Scully

Marolla

(1984). Convicted rapists’ vocabulary of motive: Excuses and justifications. Social Problems, 31, 530–44.

89.

Scully

Marolla

(1985). Riding the bull at Gilley’s: Convicted rapists describe the rewards of rape. Social Problems, 32, 251–263.

90.

Shaw

Cambell

(2011). Rape crisis centers: Serving survivors and their communities. In Bryant-Davis

Thelma

(Ed.), Surviving sexual violence: A guide to recovery and empowerment (pp. 112–128). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

91.

Siegert

R. J.

Ward

(2003). Back to the future: Evolutionary explanations of rape. In Ward

Laws

D. R.

Hudson

S. M.

(Eds.), Sexual deviance: Issues and controversies (pp. 45–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

92.

Sorenson

S. B.

Siegel

J. M.

(1992). Gender, ethnicity, and sexual assault: Findings from a Los Angeles study. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 93–104.

93.

Thornhill

Palmer

C. T.

(2000). A natural history of rape: Biological bases of sexual coercion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

94.

Thornton

(2002). Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment. Sexual Abuse, 14, 139–154.

95.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Breiding

M. J.

(2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

96.

Wandersman

Duffy

Flaspohler

Noonan

Lubell

Stillman

L.,

… Saul

(2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171–181.

97.

Ward

Beech

(2006). An integrated theory of sexual offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 44–63.

98.

Ward

Polaschek

D. L. L.

Beech

A. R.

(2006). Theories of sexual offending. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.

99.

Ward

Siegert

(2002). Rape and evolutionary psychology: A critique of Thornhill’s and Palmer’s theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 145–168.

100.

Warshaw

(1988). I never called it rape: The Ms. report on recognizing, fighting, and surviving date and acquaintance rape. New York, NY: Ms. Foundation, Lazin Books, & Harper and Row.

101.

West

Zimmerman

D. H.

(1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151.

102.

White

J. W.

Post

L. A.

(2003). Understanding rape: A metatheoretical framework. In Travis

C. B.

(Ed.), Evolution, gender, and rape (pp. 383–411). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

103.

Wyatt

G. E.

(1992). The sociocultural context of African American and White American women’s rape. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 77–91.