The myth of the ‘perfect victim’

In the month leading to International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, which we commemorate on Nov. 25, an allegation of sexual assault at a prestigious university has re-ignited discussion about the safety of women, the requirements of consent and the rape myths that create the idea of the “perfect victim.” The incident concerning the so-called “Cornell 7” reached international news upon the filing of a civil case by the alleged victim, who claimed that seven fraternity members allegedly drugged and sexually assaulted her over several hours in October 2024. The civil lawsuit, coupled with other reports as well as statements from Cornell – which had conducted its own investigation after the events, which is also currently under scrutiny – allows a timeline to be created that shows the nature of the circumstances as we know it surrounding the incident in October 2024:

The woman who filed the suit, referred to as Jane Doe, drank alcohol at her sorority house and at the bar where the fraternity party was taking place, where she was allegedly served alcohol despite saying she was underage. Later that night she arrived at the fraternity house “visibly intoxicated” and says that she was pressured into taking ketamine by two fraternity brothers who then propositioned a threesome. Afterwards, one of the men allegedly sends a message to the fraternity’s Snapchat group of more than 50 men, suggesting that she was available for “free” sex; another member later asked “Shop still open?” and received the response, “Yea.”

Multiple fraternity members allegedly show up and rape her over several hours, even “pouring lines of Ketamine all over her body and snorting them,” before the woman loses consciousness. The woman sent some apparently friendly texts to members of the fraternity for a few days after, but that quickly changes and around two weeks later she reports the incident to the campus police, where she states that “I can say with 100 percent confidence I was raped” – but it is now known that the campus police omitted this in the report they sent to the prosecutor.

Cornell University commenced what is known as a Title IX investigation, holding multiple hearings over a four-week period, and eventually two of the accused were expelled, two suspended for at least two semesters, one had already graduated before any punishment could be handed down and two were found not to be responsible for sexual misconduct. Allegedly, at least some of the accused were directed to undergo training and “write reflective essays” and none of the accused are criminally prosecuted. However, Jane Doe was not informed of the results of the investigation. She filed her civil lawsuit in September this year.

The allegations made by Jane Doe and the failure of institutional action that followed is horrific to me and to many others, and yet while much of the reaction to the case was of condemnation and calls for action, the circumstances attendant to the event and all that surrounded it provided, unfortunately, fertile ground for victim blaming and a regurgitation of myths and misconceptions about rape and consent.

Those who would excuse the assault point to Jane Doe’s initial willing consumption of alcohol as somehow disqualifying her claim to have been mentally incapacitated by drugs or drink – a position that has been codified into law in certain places, including New York where the alleged assault took place.

As happens all too frequently, there was also no shortage of people that went after the character of Jane Doe herself – the differing tenor of her accounts of what happened, or her choice to drink or attend the party in the first place, such as an opinion piece in USA Today which ended with the line: “Regretting one’s bad decisions is a far cry from rape.” The persistence and prevalence of these opinions – and the belief that something is not “real rape” unless it adheres to strict conditions, which include the pristine virtue of the victim – show how much work still has to be done to explain the concept of consent and the inherent and equal dignity of women.

A woman is not property, to be passed around or offered to others like a bag of chips. A woman’s refusal is not of less value than a man’s request, nor can it be presumed to encompass more than anything explicitly said. A woman’s right to her body is in no way lessened by what she wears, by whom she has chosen to sleep with in the past, by her looks, job, social class or disposition.

A helpful acronym that has been used to understand the nature of consents is that of F-R-I-E-S. Consent must be:

• Freely given; not a product of deception, intoxication, coercion or pressure;

• Reversible at any time; a yes only lasts until it becomes a no, there is no such thing as “touch move;”

• Informed; it must be given with full knowledge of what is being agreed to, and what was agreed to cannot be changed without consent being required anew;

• Enthusiastic; uncertainty is not consent, nor is acquiescence because of expectation or peer pressure – it must come from a genuine desire to say yes.

• Specific; there is no room for hidden meanings – a yes to a date is not a yes to sex, a yes to sex is not a yes to film it.

What makes the Cornell 7 case resonate with so many is not because it is rare, it is because that such treatment of women and the manner by which these acts are defended is all too common, and a sign of the underlying misogyny that must be rooted out.

The attitude that allows men in private groups to talk about women like property is the same that leads to men trafficking Filipino women as “mail-order-brides,” then forcing them to work as prostitutes. These attitudes are not harmless, or traditional, or something that can be excused by “boys will be boys.”

Boys, and girls, will be how we raise them to be. It is our job to raise them to understand consent, women’s equality and basic human dignity. Or else acts of violence against women will remain commonplace, and that is unacceptable.

Consent and sexual education must be a priority of our schools, and schools and workplaces both must have zero tolerance for cultures of misogyny.