Whatever Happened to Rape Jokes
when we try to talk about hard things
On November 24, 1976, Tex Antoine, a weatherman working for ABC’s Eyewitness News (then the nation’s premiere media outlet) went on-air immediately following the report of an eight-year-old girl who narrowly escaped a sexual predator in Yonkers, NY. Before presenting that evening’s forecast, Antoine commented on the attack: “With rape so predominant in the news lately, it is well to remember the words of Confucius: ‘If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it.’”
How I wish I could tell you this was an urban myth.
During the commercial break, the news director called down to the studio and demanded that Antoine apologize. The weatherman’s feeble attempt (“If I offended you with the Confucius saying, I apologize”) failed to satisfy irate viewers, predominantly female, and complaints continued to pour into the station. WABC-TV issued its own apology, calling the remark “an inexcusable lapse in judgement.” Antoine was suspended and later fired.
What’s noteworthy is that media coverage of the incident repeatedly referred to Antoine’s comment as a “rape joke” or “rape quip.” Not a tasteless comment. Not a heinous comment. Not a comment so heinous one can barely wrap one’s mind around it (as in most heinous comment ever). This was a comment about an eight-year-old girl, and it was referred to as a rape joke. The very idea that there’s a full brand of humor known as “rape jokes” is beyond. Along with knock-knock jokes and Dad jokes, there are rape jokes. Who knew?
Indeed, rape jokes were a thing and quite possibly Antoine’s greatest offense was that he’d told such a joke in a public arena where women newly empowered by second wave feminism could hear him.
Rape jokes were still being told publicly, and getting attention, well into the late 1970s. On November 3, 1979, a few years after Tex Antoine’s dismissal from Eyewitness News, Chancellor George Russell of University of Missouri-Kansas City opened a Women in Public Leadership Seminar at the university’s law school with a “joke” about an intruder breaking into a home and announcing to the male homeowner that he’s a rapist; the husband then says he’ll call his wife. There was unsurprising pushback from the school’s feminist community.1 The chancellor apologized, then went on a three-week trip to China. When he returned, he found the controversy still very much alive and eventually joined an on-campus anti-rape march as penance.
After John Rideout was indicted for raping his wife, testing rape reform laws against longstanding spousal immunity, Bob Wilson, a California State Senator, is reported to have openly “quipped,” “If you can’t rape your wife, then who can you rape?”2
Rape jokes drew the ire of feminists, but they also strengthened growing evidence that misconceptions about rape were “deeply imbedded” within the culture and helped broaden the discussion.3 A three-year study by Australia’s Royal Commission on Human Relations (established by the House of Representatives in 1973), included an examination of rape jokes, which were found to be premised “on the assumption that women, although not wanting to consent to intercourse, really want to be raped.”4
That assumption and the language that surrounded sexual assault were at the heart of rape reform advocacy, but the narrative coming out of the 1970s—where the women’s movement had been really making ground—was being undercut by other forces in pop culture.
While feminists were kicking rape jokes to the curb, along with the men who told them publicly, a large swath of American women were entertaining themselves with a particular erotic fantasy. Throughout the 1970s, sales of romance novels were growing steadily, and the latter half of the decade brought bodice rippers, defined as paperbacks with plots having the female protagonist raped by the man who would then become her love interest.5
There were theories floating around. “A lack of romance in the average woman’s life. Easy reading – an escape from everyday chores.”6 There was also openly acknowledged sexual fantasy.7 Bodice rippers were an immensely popular subgenre of romance, written by women and for women.8 The paperbacks were derided by feminists, but they were very much a part of the same culture that had women battling rape jokes.
The popularity of bodice rippers, normalizing the language of “rape fantasy,” was concerning, potentially subverting the discourse on rape reform. And then the late 1970s gave America the storyline of Luke and Laura.
ABC’s long running, and then-ailing soap opera, General Hospital, had brought in Gloria Monty as Executive Producer. Ms. Monty focused on boosting the show’s pace and bringing in younger characters to attract a younger viewership. Laura Webber, teen-age daughter of Dr. Lesley Webber, was introduced as a steady character on the soap in February 1977. There were immediate machinations (an affair with her father’s best friend, where Laura accidentally causes his death and the ensuing murder trial where her mother is wrongly convicted) but by age 17, Laura was settling down with Scotty Baldwin, a law student, and working at a nightclub run by Luke Spenser, which was when things turned thorny.
In October 1979, the character of Luke Spenser rapes the character of Laura Webber. The matter was handled with some sensitivity. Laura, dazed in the aftermath, was found by a police officer and brought to the hospital, where she received counseling. But the producers of General Hospital saw an onscreen spark between Luke and Laura and the plotline veered off, with Luke and Laura becoming the era’s most popular daytime TV couple. The November 17, 1981 episode featuring their wedding (where Elizabeth Taylor, a fan of the soap, was a guest star) brought in 30 million viewers and remains the highest-rated soap opera episode in American daytime television history.
During the late 1970s, rape was among the more significant feminist issues and the language of rape and what it meant to say “no” was integral to legal and social reform. Yet Gloria Monty, in an effort to skirt Luke’s rape of Laura (where she had clearly said “no” and had clearly been traumatized) had taken to calling the assault a seduction, as if words could shade the issue of consent. No one questioned that at the time. The reckoning did arrive, but it was so long after the soap’s popularity and by then, so beyond the point.
Gloria Steinem knew that feminism was a long game. A very long game. “Any change is fearful, especially one affecting both politics and sex roles.”
The frustrations of incremental reform were endemic to the efforts of second wave feminism. In all my research on media and second wave feminism, one of my favorite finds was the description of young women discovering Bobbi Gibb infiltrating the male-only Boston Marathon in 1966. (“Like a spark down a wire, the word spread to all of us lining the route that a woman was running the course…”)
I was caught by the excitement of young women watching a display of athleticism and defiance and spirit but it’s the words that close out the recollection of Bobbi Gibb’s run that I want to pay close attention to here.
“We didn’t know just how long and hard a struggle it would be for the women who would follow Bobbi Gibb.” (emphasis added)
I think that’s what defined the end of the 1970s and the striving of the women’s movement. For every gain, even torpedoing rape jokes, there were back steps. Firm victories were elusive. Gradual change in place of immediate vindication was a deeply felt disappointment and whenever progress fell short, it was so easy to shift the focus on men instead of looking at the complexities of American culture. Today, the word choices are different. Consent and boundaries instead of consciousness raising and female power. We talk about rape culture. Some say “it’s as American as apple pie,” which is a way to say the demeaning treatment of women is embedded in every vein of our culture, as if the 1970s achieved nothing.
Under the big tent of toxic masculinity is a focus on the language young men use.
“Why is Sexual Violence a Man’s Issue: What Men Can Do”
Be aware of language. Words are very powerful. Referring to a woman as “bitch,” “freak,” “whore,” “baby,” or “dog”, or telling sexist jokes, makes it easier to see women as less than human. Demeaning others makes it easier to harm them and disregard their rights.
Of course, young men, the statistically more aggressive of the two sexes, should hear the female perspective.9 But here’s a small window into the male POV on feminist education efforts and finger pointing. On a recent episode of the Modern Wisdom podcast, Chris Williamson and his guest, Dr. Mike Israetel, were conversing on a topic having absolutely nothing to do with feminism (discussing the range of personality types and corresponding work ethics), when the podcaster used anti-sexual assault campaigns (“no means no”) as an example of the folly of preaching to the choir. Their comments are included here because this was expressed as an understood truth:
“The guys that didn’t take ‘no for no’ aren’t going to be stopped by that, and the dudes that never needed to be reminded that ‘no meant no’ are going to be f*#king terrified.”10
Credit to both the women’s movement for pressing a fair and just narrative, and to men who respect women enough to insert what they see as a given (“no means no”) randomly into their conversation. Though Williamson and his guest seem to question the efficacy of anti-sexual assault campaigns, theirs was hardly the tone that set off the rape crisis movement in the 1970s. What’s the takeaway, then, about today’s advocacy?
Some corners of feminism have long ignored the “dudes that never needed to be reminded that no meant no,” still feeling a crisis in the language/messaging/discourse on consent, even with the ethos of Tex Antoine firmly in the past, and instead continue talk of a rape culture and what sounds like “reeducation” for all men. If the discussion is about language, why is the audience limited? The messaging by the 1970s women’s movement was well-intentioned and targeted but ultimately fell sway to an array of social and cultural influences.
Bodice rippers, for example, have endured in popularity and are making a visible comeback with a new “look.” There’s currently a bookstore, the Ripped Bodice, with locations in Los Angeles and Brooklyn; its mission is “advocating for a genre that is often looked down upon, encouraging readers to reduce stigma in their own lives and moving the genre forward by spotlighting gaps in diversity.” Current versions of the genre are labeled female empowering.11 The merits of bodice rippers (past and present) aren’t what this discussion is really about. It’s not a claim that any literature is at the root of rape, or that women either reading or writing fantasy fiction are to blame for someone else’s bad behavior. Let me just say that a whole bunch of times. I am not blaming or accusing. This isn’t about censoring anything. But if bodice rippers (present) have been reimagined, why is that significant? We’re told the content of bodice rippers (past) was problematic. Is that the point? Acknowledging the content as problematic and revitalizing the genre, leaving it there—or should there be a look back to ask more questions?
Was the content impactful?
Is it worth asking whether the plotlines of 1970s romance novels and the publicly accepted use of terms like “seduction” to sweep actual rape under the carpet (shout out to General Hospital) were more than problematic—did they contribute to a very muddy narrative about what consent actually meant? “No means no” was a powerful statement that hadn’t been sufficiently heard or respected within the culture, but just as it was gaining steam, it was pitted against a popular brand of fiction. “No means no” unless…
“Then his arms closed around her in savage possession…She backed away struggling as he advanced, crushing her against the window….”12
Talking about rape is serious. Patricia Lockwood’s “Rape Joke,” a longform narrative published online, is “built around the phenomenon of the rape joke” and raises critical questions of “moral community” and “moral accountability.”
Suggesting that social trends such as popular “women’s fiction” (rife with sexual power imbalances) and the scourge of language that minimizes sexual violence exist in entirely separate spheres, and that the latter is the fault of all men, is unserious.
Here’s a thought experiment. What if the most honest conversation on the intersection of “women’s fiction” and its impact on male behavior came from humorist, Dave Barry, a man who actually thought to raise some questions about what he was seeing in the culture. Confused at the immense popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey among female readers (the protagonist’s employer and eventual romantic partner “starts stalking her and pressuring her to engage in” sexual activity that includes ropes and handcuffs and shackles and blindfolds and flogging) and curious on what the basic plotline said about female desire, Barry dedicated himself to reading and thinking deeply about the novel. He concludes that the only way to determine if that sort of engagement is what a woman wants, the only way to determine what a woman wants in general, is to have “an honest, ‘no holds barred’ conversation.”
What Barry identifies (so simple) is that concerns about boundaries and consent would be better served by loosening the grip of anger against men, and replacing what feels like a reeducation movement with an atmosphere that encourages open discourse. Less sexual politics and more breathing room.
Episode Notes
This Week’s Recommended Reading
“The [Green Bay] Packers’ Love Affair with Romantic Comedies”
This Week’s Recommended Music
“All of Me” by Willie Nelson (on Spotify and Amazon Music)
Just One More Thing
All questions and comments welcome, but here is a question for this week:
This felt overwhelming (at times) to write. Please share how you felt. Do men and women agree more than they disagree?
“UMKC Chancellor Regrets Rape Joke,” The Kansas City Star, December 6, 1979.
Freeman, Michael D. A (1981), “But If You Can’t Rape Your Wife, Who[m] Can You Rape?: The Marital Rape Exemption Re-Examined.” Family Law Quarterly.
“Jokes About Rape Not That Funny,” The Desert Sun, November 24, 1978.
“A Profile of the Rapist,” The Age (Melbourne), December 15, 1977.
“Hot Reading,” The Tampa Tribune, October 29, 1985.
“Pulp Romances Predictable but Profitable for the Authors,” The Times, January 10, 1982.
“Confessions of a Bodice Ripper Reader,” The San Francisco Examiner, February 19, 1979.
“Reveling in Romance,” Reading Evening Post, December 30, 1981.
See, Rob Henderson on “Understanding the Young Male Syndrome” (more on this in coming posts)
Modern Wisdom podcast (at 1 hour 48 minutes)
“Why We Still Call Them Bodice Rippers,” Racked, October 31, 2017.
Excerpt from Savage Surrender, “Bodice Rippers: The Books That Sell Romantic Fantasy,” The Billings Gazette, (February 10, 1981).
Wow, Tex Antoine, that’s a blast from the past, I remember that “incident” well. I didn’t watch GH, but knew of Luke and Laura as the “it” couple of their day, had no idea the plot line started either SA. Thanks for another illuminating read, Melanie!
"Rape jokes" generally told by not-very-good male comedians, are a sign of desperation. He's dying on stage and he blurts out something that is not only offensive, it fails that ultimate test of comedy: being FUNNY. Because the punchline is just a woman getting assaulted. That's not actually a joke. I bet Joan Rivers could have told a good one though.