A Popular 1970's Advice on Resisting Rape
Storaska claimed that other programs endangered rather than protected women
Frederic Storaska designed a program to prevent the murder of women and reduce the likelihood of long-term physical injury. His second concern was to reduce the number of rapes. We want to clarify that we neither condemn nor advocate this program. We have argued that initiatives to curtail crime have at least three features worth considering. First, any program to reduce crime has underlying assumptions about the causes of crime. Second, any such program has substance, that is, how it seeks to reduce crime (e.g. radars on highways to prevent speeding). Third, once implemented, this program has an effect on society. Storaska and his rape prevention program provide a window to study all three. In this post, we explore the substance of his program.
(We are not specialists in crime prevention nor in rape prevention. We do not know whether this advice is any good. We do think understanding crime prevention programs requires getting into the recommendations and actions these programs call for.)
What is Storaska’s Program Actually About?
Storaska thought that conventional wisdom about rape was, at best, erroneous. He argued that concurrent rape prevention programs actually endangered women rather than protect them. Storaska advised women to have a strategy that always works or that at least does not make it worse. Unlike these programs, he urged women (and potential male victims) to abide by the following principles (Miller, 1975):
Don’t antagonize and “Do nothing that can hurt you”: Storaska claimed that most rapists are already angry, and making them angrier is counterproductive. Women were often advised to scream and resist. While he recognized that screaming and using force can, on occasion, work; he thought these strategies made the assailant more likely to use violence.
“Don’t commit to your behavior.” He thought that potential victims should buy themselves time so that they can react in the best possible way. Thus, he claimed that using force to resist, establishes violence as acceptable. Storaska argued that you can always use violence later, but once a potential victim has used force, there is no going back.
In contrast to these principles, Storaksa offered some actions that potential victims could take. He provided examples for each of these. For example,
“Retain or regain emotional stability.” Storaska asked potential victims not to commit to a behavior so they could have time to think clearly and assess their options (p.48).
“Treat the rapist as a human being.” Storaska claimed that treating them this way could calm them down, prevent them from being violent, and even stop them from attempting rape (p.49). There is some important nuance here. In part, Storaska does think that rapists have been harmed by society’s norms and structures. It is precisely this idea that shapes how he thinks potential victims should react. This reaction thus is mostly strategic. He wrote, “But why on earth should you apologize to a rapist? This is why: you’re in a difficult, maybe even desperate situation; what you need to do is halt any violence before it begins, to keep the danger at a minimum. If you can trade an apology or two for the wholeness of limb or body, you’re making a good deal” (p.56).
“Gain his confidence.” Storaska thinks that potential rapists have underlying problems. One of the ways in which potential victims can reduce the likelihood of severe harm is by gaining their attackers confidence, so that they let their guard down. This way, a potential victim can find space to react even if this includes the use of strategic violence.
“Go along until you can safely react.” Much like the rest of his advice this principle is based on two assumptions. First, committing to certain behaviors will cause the attacker to behave in certain ways. Second, potential rapists act in this way because of certain causes. Storaska thought that going along can help identify when to best react (p.51). Hence, a potential victim could gain the time and space so that screaming, running, or other acts are safe. Storaska made clear he was not asking victims to allow themselves to be abused, “I’m not saying that you should go along sexually, though that may be necessary” (p.52).
“Use your imagination and good judgment.” Storaska claims that women can dissuade rapists through creative role-playing.
How to Say No to a Rapist and Survive by Frederik Storaska.
Storaska shared some anecdotes which he claimed showed ways in which women could dissuade potential rapists. Many of these are bizarre and Storaska intended some of them to be funny. This is in part why his program was controversial. One was of a woman who thought her partner was gonna assault her and made herself vomit, which prevented an attack at home. Another anecdote was about a woman who was attacked on her way home and told the rapist she was pregnant, even though she wasn't, which stopped him. Storaska also said that a woman convinced an assailant that it was better to go to her house and that she would bring her car around, he waited, and she never returned. In another case, one woman dropped to the garden and pretended to be a cow. Storaska argued that these strategies would not always work, but at least, they would not make it worse.
Storaska hoped to convince everyone that a “victim of rape is truly a victim and in no way a perpetrator” (p.189). While he very clearly claims that women are never and in no way perpetrators; his program does imply that how a person reacts to a potential assailant strongly affects the outcome of that attack. How can one resolve this tension?
Conclusions
Storaska widely popular program recommended women take some actions and avoid others based on his understanding of why men raped. He developed this program as a reaction to other initiatives which he thought endangered women rather than protecting them. However, the substance of his program appears to imply that victims have agency over the outcome of an attack, as opposed to his claims regarding who bears responsibility.
Understanding how societies attempt to reduce crime demands exploring the mechanisms they used. These interventions reflect assumptions about the cause of undesired behavior. Storaska’s program allows us to understand how these factors interact and the public discourse around crime reducing efforts.