Rape and the Art of Storytelling

So, I was watching a video at church the other day, and the subject turned to rape. Specifically, the man and woman being interviewed knew both the victim and the perpetrator before the rape happened. 

And the man in the video said, and I paraphrase: "As much as I wanted to hate him [the perpetrator], I couldn't, insofar as his life would also never be the same." 

This is about rape. And the stories we tell:

[Insert name here] had such a promising future as a [football star - leader - contributing member of society]. But then he raped someone. And now his life will never be the same. 

Or, “These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives."

See also, Steubenville.

This story has been told before. It will be told again. 

The story follows a simple before and after structure: 

Before raping someone: Promising future

After raping someone: Life never the same

Given how many different narratives we could impose on rape, why is this narrative so pervasive? 

I don't know. 

Logically, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and it tends to elide or gloss over the very crux of the story: 

[Perpetrator] raped [victim]

The before/after narrative conceals the key cause/effect relationship in the story: 

Cause: Committed rape

Effect: Life never the same

This has the odd effect of conflating raping with being raped, as in "his life would also never be the same."

"I was raped": my life will never be the same. 

"I raped someone": my life will never be the same. 

I would argue that this is a false equivalence. Raping and being raped are not the same thing. The promising-future/life-never-the-same narrative obscures, almost denies, the key difference between raping and being raped: 

Choice. Volition. Will. 

If we take that away, we are left with a rapist who rapes through no active choice of his own. Rape is something that "just happens" to young men with promising futures, like a cholera outbreak or a really bad blind date.

To return to the first story: At what point in time was the perpetrator's life never the same--was it the moment when he decided to rape someone? During? Immediately after? When he was arrested? The first time he appeared in court? 

And the boys from Steubenville, at what point in time were their lives changed forever--after texting an incriminating picture to friends? Before the party was over? Upon conviction and sentencing? 

I would argue that the timeline is false, the before/after formula invalid. 

In any way that really matters, if you rape someone--if you are the kind of person who would rape someone--your life is already f----.

Ironically (or logically), narratives about rape victims tend to give them a great deal of the very quality rapists are denied--

She chose to wear that, she was sexually active, she willfully tweeted that alluring image. 

Cause. Effect. [You can also substitute CHOICE and CONSEQUENCE]

Cause: Wearing a mini-skirt

Effect: Being raped. 

Or,

Cause: Walking alone at night in a bad part of town.

Effect: Being raped. 

Or, 

Cause: Getting drunk at a party.

Effect: Being raped. 

Or, 

Cause: Being overtly sexual. Flirting.

Effect: Being raped. 

I could go on, unfortunately.

We impose the cause/effect story on rape victims while simultaneously bewailing the before/after tragedy of rapists. 

Seems a bit backwards to me.