communications 2

Communicating/Muting Date Rape: A Co-Cultural Theoretical Analysis of Communication Factors Related to Rape Culture on a College Campus Ann Burnett, Jody L. Mattern, Liliana L. Herakova, David H. Kahl, Jr., Cloy Tobola & Susan E. Bornsen

Previous studies suggest that college campuses foster a rape culture in which date rape

(most commonly, rape of women) is an accepted part of campus activity (Buchwald,

Fletcher, & Roth, 1993; Sanday, 2007). In focus groups at a Midwestern university,

researchers asked students about rape as they experienced it or knew about it on campus.

The study revealed attitudes and perspectives about rape communicated from cultural,

social, and individual levels. Co-researchers’ comments indicated such attitudes exist in

relation to and are expressed through behaviors preceding potential incidences of rape,

during rape itself, and in response after rape occurs. Throughout this process, college

students, especially females, were muted, potentially contributing to the creation and

perpetuation of a campus rape culture.

Keywords: Date Rape; Co-cultural Theory; Muted Group Theory

Every two minutes in the United States, someone is raped, and the chances of being that

victim are four times greater for a college female student than for any other age group

(‘‘Statistics,’’ 2009). Whereas national crime statistics indicate that incidences of violent

rape are decreasing, rape continues to be underreported (‘‘Statistics’’). Over one-half of

the rapes that occur each year are not reported (‘‘Reporting Rates,’’ 2009). The purpose

of this study is to understand rape on college campuses by viewing it as a

communication phenomenon, in which communication about sex and rape, the

All authors were initially located at North Dakota State University. Dr Mattern has since graduated and is a

faculty member at Minnesota State University-Moorhead; Herakova is now a PhD student at the University of

Massachusetts; Kahl is a faculty member at Penn State at Erie, The Behrend College and Bornsen is now staff

member at Concordia College. Correspondence to: Ann Burnett, Communication Department, 200 Minard,

Fargo, ND 58105, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 0090-9882 (print)/ISSN 1479-5752 (online) # 2009 National Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/00909880903233150

Journal of Applied Communication Research

Vol. 37, No. 4, November 2009, pp. 465�485

possibility of rape, the negotiation of consent, the rape itself, the aftermath of rape, and

the reaction to date rape, are central to defining a rape culture on campus. Using a

co-cultural theoretical paradigm that relies heavily on muted group theory, we aim to

provide insight into how a rape culture on college campuses is created and perpetuated.

Rape Culture and Its Influence on Sexual Violence on College Campuses

Rape Culture

Despite an abundance of prevention efforts on college campuses, multiple studies

demonstrate the continuous prevalence of rape, especially acquaintance rape (Adams-

Curtis & Forbes, 2004; Boswell & Spade, 1996). One explanation is that college

campuses foster date rape cultures, which are environments that support beliefs

conducive to rape and increase risk factors related to sexual violence (Buchwald,

Fletcher, & Roth, 1993; Sanday, 2007). Despite attempts to dismantle rape culture on

college campuses, for the most part, such cultures remain intact for a variety of

reasons (Sanday, 2007).

First, myths contribute to rape culture in that attitudes about rape help explain

how people behave toward its victims and perpetrators (Frese, Moya, & Megias,

2004). Rape myths ‘‘deny or minimize victim injury or blame the victims for their

own victimization’’ (Carmody & Washington, 2001, p. 424). Some examples of rape

myths include notions such as the idea that ‘‘no’’ really means ‘‘yes;’’ that women can

resist rape if they wish; that in most cases the victim is promiscuous; and that women

falsely report rape to protect their reputations or because they are angry at someone

(Burt, 1980; Carmody & Washington). Ingroup social norms tend to make rape

myths seem like normal belief patterns, further engraining the myths. Although rape

myths are a social and cultural phenomenon that exists beyond the college campus,

research suggests that athletics and fraternal organizations, replete on college

campuses, are related to stronger rape-supportive attitudes, based on such myths

(Bleecker & Murnen, 2005; Sanday, 2007).

Second, men’s athletics can foster a rape culture because they are sex-segregated,

the nature of sport is to be dominant, and students involved in a college sport,

particularly men, gain prestige from being physically dominating (Crosset, Benedict,

& McDonald, 1995). College men who play aggressive sports in high school are more

likely to accept rape myths, are more accepting of violence, and engage in more sexual

coercion toward dating partners compared to other college men (Forbes, Adams-

Curtis, Pakalka, & White, 2006). In NCAA Division I schools, such as the university

in this study, more male athletes are reported to student judicial boards for sexual

assault than any other students (Crosset et al., 1995).

Likewise, the fraternity culture fosters discussion and beliefs about women and

sexuality that are different from those outside the fraternity (Bleecker & Murnen,

2005). Fraternity membership creates a double standard wherein men who have sex

are ‘‘studs,’’ and women who have sex are ‘‘sluts’’ (Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004).

This double standard is perpetuated by some fraternities more than others; Boswell

466 A. Burnett et al.

and Spade (1996) found that college women were able to identify differences between

high and low risk fraternities on their campus.

Next, fraternity men and sorority women are more likely than independent men and

women to use alcohol before having sex (Lanza-Kaduce, Capece, & Alden, 2006), which

may contribute further to the perpetuation of rape culture on college campuses.

Previous research has found a correlation between alcohol consumption, sexual

violence, and rape culture. Alcohol abuse on college campuses runs rampant (National

Center, 2007). When studying unwanted sexual experiences on college campuses,

including date rape, Banyard et al. (2005) reported that almost half of unwanted sexual

experiences involved alcohol use. Benson, Gohm, and Gross (2007) found that 78.7% of

study participants reported alcohol use at the time of the assault. Even small amounts of

alcohol affect college women’s judgment of date rape risk (Loiselle & Fuqua, 2007).

Lastly, the presence of rape culture influences not only the risk factors related to

sexual violence, it influences post-rape behaviors, so as to conceal and perpetuate

rape and the culture of rape. Importantly, rape culture appears to foster silencing.

A national survey of college women found that fewer than 5% of sexual offenses are

reported to law enforcement (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000). The presence of alcohol

makes victims less likely to report an assault because of fear that others will perceive

the rape was their fault (Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003). Low rates of

reporting may mark existing rape culture and perpetuate it, since not reporting

protects the perpetrators and creates a sense of tolerance toward rape. Overall,

women in a rape culture may be unlikely to label their unwanted sexual experiences

as rape because of social acceptance of rape myths (victim blaming), the presence of

fraternal organizations, alcohol or drug use, or through silencing or diminishing the

importance of their experiences (Harned, 2005).

The absence of rape reporting on college campuses occurs partly because normal

sexual negotiations have not occurred within interpersonal interactions that result in

date rape (Adams-Curtis & Forbes, 2004). Thus, after the rape, perhaps due to the

ambiguity about what might constitute rape, consent, and responsibility, survivors

may question their pre-rape communication and be uncertain of whether their

experience was rape or not. Adams-Curtis and Forbes (2004) argue the progression

from sexual negotiation to coercion is commonplace in the college setting. To better

understand this progression of events, we now turn our attention to an examination

of the role of communication in date rape situations.

Model of Date Rape Factors

According to Weitz (2002b), ‘‘The crux of the social problem of date rape is rooted in

the sex offenders’ personality and socialization’’ (n.p.). Therefore, Weitz argues that

we need to better understand the male sexual perpetrator so that we can design

strategies to stop future offenses. Weitz proposes a preventative strategy. He offers a

nested model of date rape factors situated within four contextual levels in order to

explain and illustrate the overlapping influences that affect and often cause a date

rape: the culture at large (the most general level), the perpetrator’s individual frame

How Date Rape is Communicated 467

of reference (psychological and sociological), the immediate interpersonal context

(the situation), and the date rape ‘‘event’’ itself (the most specific context). In short,

Weitz argues that factors from all four levels overlap to produce or impact a

sequential context of date rape (the immediate ‘‘event’’). In some instances, a victim’s

miscommunication and, vastly more often, the perpetrator’s misperception lead to

sexual assault. Therefore, he suggests direct and explicit verbal communication

training (e.g., ‘‘Stop. I do not want to have sex with you.’’) may be the appropriate

strategy for date rape prevention.

Weitz (2002a) recognizes that the psychological/sociological, the situational, and

the sequential contexts are nested within the ‘‘culture at large.’’ He argues that

psychological factors such as self-centered personalities and aversions to personal

relationships, coupled with sociological factors of masculinity and control contribute

to the proclivity to rape. Further, situational factors such as alcohol consumption and

going back to the perpetrator’s apartment, though not pivotal, may affect the rape

context. The psychological, sociological and situational factors all contribute to the

sequential context that leads to rape.

Whereas Weitz (2002a, 2002b) seeks to understand the factors that allow the

‘‘event’’ of date rape to occur, we utilize his model in understanding the factors that

foster rape culture on college campuses. We believe that if campus rape culture exists,

it is the product of social processes encompassing more than just perpetrators and

victims. Therefore, we sought the perspective of college students, both male and

female, without attempting to categorize this perspective as a (potential) perpetrator’s

or (potential) survivor’s point of view. Guided by Weitz’s finding that miscommu-

nication and/or misperception often immediately precede individual date rape cases,

we considered how and if students talk about sex and rape, how they negotiate

consent, and how they communicatively react to cases of date. As both college

students and women (who, statistically, are more often rape victims than men)

constitute co-cultures in more than one way, and this study is concerned with the link

between rape culture and communication, co-cultural theory (Orbe, 1996, 1998b,

2004) guided the present investigation.

Theorizing from a Co-cultural Perspective

Co-cultural theory develops from and extends standpoint (Hartsock, 1983) and

muted group (Kramarae, 1981) theories. Broadly, the co-cultural paradigm posits

that, in contexts where their experiences are marginalized, co-cultures participate in

and negotiate their status within the dominant discourse by using particular

communicative strategies (Orbe, 1996, 1998b, 2004, 2005). Co-cultures can be

defined as pariah in respect to dominant social groups (Orbe, 1998b). In patriarchal

societies, women traditionally constitute a co-culture.

As one avenue to examine how co-cultures function, standpoint theories are

concerned with recognizing the plurality of human experiences and truths

(Hawkesworth, 2006), while recognizing that knowledge and perception are

structured by power relations (O’Brien Hallstein, 1999). In this social location,

468 A. Burnett et al.

dominant groups have ‘‘partial and perverse’’ (Hartsock, 1983, p. 285) views of

reality, because to them the reality of marginalized groups is invisible. Conversely,

co-cultures have the privilege of a more complete social knowledge and experience,

which grounds the need for research to specifically explore co-cultural experiences

that are traditionally excluded from dominant scholarly discourse.

According to anthropologists Edwin and Shirley Ardener, language does not serve

all groups equally, since group members do not have an equal share in formulating

language. In positing muted group theory, they argue that dominant groups solely

determine the appropriate communicative systems. In effect, subordinate groups

become inarticulate because they are forced to use the language of the dominant

groups (E. W. Ardener, 1978; S. Ardener, 1975) and, as Kramarae (1981) explains,

‘‘experiences peculiar to the subordinate group have not yet been encoded in a

language’’ (p. 7). Kramarae (2005) emphasizes the need to focus on language as being

central to muted groups, particularly women, as generally words are no longer

created or contested to a great extent. Men and women experience the world

differently, and in patriarchal societies, the male view is dominant and the female

view is subordinate (Kramerae, 1981). Thus, if they want to participate in discourse,

women must adopt the male communicative system (Henley & Kramerae, 1994;

Kramarae, 1981; Orbe, 1998b, 2005). Some scholars have found no differences in

general language use patterns between men and women (e.g., Canary & Dindia, 1998;

Weatherall, 1996), or argue that men do not intend to dominate language (e.g.,

Tannen, 1984). However, Orbe suggests nondominant groups are not only aware of

the muting potential of dominant groups, they also actively use communication

strategies to attempt to participate in dominant society (e.g., Orbe, 1996, 1998b,

2004, 2005).

Women have been muted in a multitude of ways, including the methods in which

women tell stories, through male-controlled media, in ways women’s bodies are

portrayed and analyzed, and through censorship of women’s voices (Houston &

Kramarae, 1991). Men, on the other hand, not only feel more comfortable and

confident in using the dominant communicative system, they also trust institutions

more than women do, since institutions are created and named by men. To resist this

process, muted group theory has been used as a feminist activism tool to encourage

women to create meaning through their own language while acknowledging that they

must do so because they are muted.

This naming, as a communication act, grounds co-cultural theorizing (Orbe, 1996,

1998b, 2005), so that muted groups can find language strategies to overcome their

mutedness (Orbe, 1996) and, thus, ‘‘reinforce, manage, alter, and overcome a societal

position that renders them outside the centers of power’’ (Orbe, 2005, p. 65). These

strategies are guided by three major communication orientations, as defined by the

desired outcome in relation to the dominant group: assimilation, accommodation, or

separation (Orbe, 1998b). Assimilation aims at eliminating perceptions of cultural

differences. Accommodation expects dominant structures to change to encompass

the life experiences of each co-cultural group (Orbe, 1996). Separation opposes

How Date Rape is Communicated 469

forming a bond with the dominant culture or with other co-cultures, so as to

maintain a unique group identity.

Understanding the factors that influence co-cultures’ use of certain communica-

tion strategies can foster dialogue between dominant and nondominant groups as the

primary practical application of the theory (Orbe, 2004). Co-cultural research has

suggested that knowledge and understanding of co-cultural practices will be of most

benefit to dominant groups because co-cultural communication strategies ultimately

give voice to what might be traditionally ‘‘muted’’ in dominant discourse. The

purpose of this study is to examine rape culture on a Midwestern college campus as it

exists in and is formulated by student communication about sex and rape. Following

and exploring in more depth the muted group vein of co-cultural theory, it is possible

that, as a co-culture, female college students are muted with respect to date rape, but

they may try to combat this (successfully or not) by using co-cultural communication

strategies. Based on co-cultural theory’s practical application (e.g., Orbe, 2004) and

Weitz’s (2002a, 2002b) model of date rape factors, understanding the co-cultural

strategies that female college students employ when communicating about date rape

may be a first step toward preventing the formation and continuation of a campus

rape culture. Toward this end, this study sets out to explore how date rape is

communicated about and described on a college campus.

Methodology

This study is phenomenological in nature. Hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry is

a human science that explores the lived experiences of people who have participated

in a particular phenomenon (Lanigan, 1979; Merleau-Ponty, 1962; van Manen, 1990).

Researchers look for the essence or central underlying themes related to the

experience and derive general or universal meanings (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas,

1994).

The phenomenological research approach involves three steps:

1. Gathering descriptions of lived experiences.

2. Reviewing capta to reveal essential themes; and

3. Determining the interrelatedness of themes (Nelson, 1989; Orbe, 1996; van Manen,

1990).

The process is not exact, and interpretations of the same materials could vary

(Merleau-Ponty, 1962). In addition, de Laurentis (1984) cautions that the

phenomenon being examined is not fixed; the construction of memories and

experiences may change. According to Orbe (1998a), ‘‘Because phenomenological

researchers are consciously engaged in their own lifeworld, interpretations change the

instant that they view the finished product and begin to reflect on it’’ (p. 237). This

fluidity of interpretation, however, is not necessarily a limitation, as it contextualizes

interpretations, making them implicitly reflective of one’s own positionality in

470 A. Burnett et al.

relation to dominant discourse. Thus, the phenomenological approach has proven to

be an effective research tool when working with co-cultural groups (Orbe, 1996).

Capta Gathering

Capta were collected through nine focus groups conducted at a mid-sized Midwestern

university. The university’s student population is approximately 12,000; there are 15

national fraternities and sororities on campus, and the athletics program is Division 1.

The 2007 ‘‘Personal Safety and Security on the Campus’’ brochure listed four sexual

assaults reported that year; the brochure lists ways to protect oneself from attack, but

does not discuss date rape. The student affairs division at this campus engages in

comprehensive alcohol and drug awareness training.

Using Orbe’s (1998a) terminology, we considered our participants as co-

researchers, as they were the experts informing us about their culture. The co-

researchers were recruited from communication classes including the introductory

class, which is required for students of all majors. Of the nine focus groups, five were

comprised of only females, two consisted of only men, and two were comprised of

males and females. Some of the recruitment was purposeful in nature in order to

ensure specific groups were included. Two groups consisted of fraternity members

and one was comprised of sorority members. One of the mixed groups and one all-

female group were made up of student athletes. 1

The remaining focus groups were

volunteers who did not fit in any of the above categories.

The recruitment process did not specify that students must be rape victims to

participate, although one co-researcher voluntarily disclosed that she had been raped.

Members of the research team moderated the focus groups. Care was taken that

female and male groups were moderated by persons of the same sex in order to

increase comfort levels and increase participation in discussions. Mixed-sex groups

were moderated by female interviewees who were trained to adapt to the context. All

of the sessions were audiotaped and transcribed for analysis.

The research team developed a topical protocol (interview guide) to guide the focus

group moderators and to ensure that all relevant topics were covered. Moderators used

an open-ended conversational approach to encourage participation (Nelson, 1989).

Topics discussed included definitions of rape, reasons for rape, the role of alcohol in

rape, options after rape occurs, reasons rape is not reported, avoiding potential rape

situations, and the prevalence of rape on that university’s campus.

Reduction of Capta

The second step in the research process consisted of the reduction of capta. During

this phase, researchers examined the transcripts independently and then collectively

to identify emerging central themes. Using a process called imaginative free variation

(Lanigan, 1988; Nelson, 1989), researchers reflected on the co-researchers’ experi-

ences, systematically identifying the elements that were essential to the experience and

eliminating those that were not. In the final phase of the phenomenological research

How Date Rape is Communicated 471

process, the researchers attached meaning to the information attained in the

reduction process.

Model Development

The meaning of the information emerged through comparing and contrasting different

co-researchers’ experiences and discussing how the identified themes contributed to the

experience. During this discussion, it became clear to the researchers that ambiguities in

meaning were attached to date rape and not stranger rape, and that only date rape was

relevant to this study. After re-reading the transcripts, the research team met for several

one-hour sessions to discuss the main theme that emerged and develop a model that

reflected the findings. We created a model, guided by Weitz (2002a, 2002b), and based

on our co-researchers’ experiences because, as Nelson (1989) suggests, when examining

phenomenon essentially focused on women, the phenomenon must guide the methods

and procedure from that particular experience under investigation. Creswell (2007)

concurs, suggesting that explaining qualitative approaches separately is a heuristic

device, not meant to constrain the researcher; in this case, our phenomenological

investigation led to the creation of a model instead of mere description. The model was

limited to factors the researchers agreed were vital to the co-researchers’ lived

experiences in relation to date rape.

Results

Our primary interest is in how date rape is communicated about and described on a

college campus. The results demonstrate the ambiguity surrounding date rape mutes

not only actual and potential date rape victims, but potentially marginalizes

meaningful discourse on the topic and further entrenches rape culture on campus.

When talking about date rape, students had difficulty defining it, feeling that

situational factors may affect interpretation of the event. Although declaration of

consent to have sex was suggested as a decisive factor, co-researchers questioned

exactly what verbal and nonverbal behaviors constituted consent. Their comments

about events and contexts prior to the potential occurrence of rape suggest

communication focuses on individual responsibility for one’s safety. Co-researchers

talked about the importance of being careful in potential date rape situations, the

danger of mixing alcohol and drugs with social gatherings, and how difficult it is to

label an act ‘‘date rape.’’ When talking about the immediate context of date rape,

co-researchers reported it is important to consider how and whether the victim

communicated consent during the rape. Finally, co-researchers’ comments indicated

that, in their understanding, after a rape has occurred (post-rape context), there is

little communication either interpersonally or publicly about the rape. Female

students especially reported feeling muted.

Considering comments by the co-researchers, we propose a circular model

illustrating the perpetuation of a rape culture and the process of how date rape is

communicated on college campuses (see Figure 1), demonstrating that within college

472 A. Burnett et al.

rape culture, rape victims are muted before date rape occurs, during a situation in

which rape is possible, and following an actual experience of rape. Within this time

continuum, the perpetuation of mutedness regarding the college rape culture exists

on four levels: the cultural context, the individual context, the situational/

Figure 1. Date rape model.

How Date Rape is Communicated 473

interpersonal context, and the immediate context where date rape occurs, following

Weitz’s model (2002a, 2002b). Therefore, not only female rape victims are muted, so

is the college administration and other students. Before- and after-rape experiences at

each of these levels compound themselves to ultimately lead to more ambiguity and

mutedness. We next detail the answers to our research question in our discussion of

the emergent model.

Pre-Date Rape (Awareness)

The cultural context. The first and broadest factor that plays a role in college

students’, particularly female victims, mutedness about rape, is the culture of which

they are a part. This culture includes the college campus, surrounding community,

and society at large. At this level, ambiguity exists about what constitutes date rape.

The campus culture does not provide students with an exact definition of date rape.

For example, when asked about the definition of date rape, one female student

responded, ‘‘How and when you say ‘no’ matters,’’ whereas another felt, ‘‘Consent

does not have to be verbalized.’’

Although consent seemed to be essential in co-researchers’ definitions of rape,

neither male nor female students could clearly pinpoint what consent meant in

regard to date rape. They were unsure how to handle situations leading to sexual

intercourse and did not know how to interpret consent. Additional students

confirmed the ambiguity of rape by saying, ‘‘Rape is hard to define’’ and often

adding the disclaimer, ‘‘It depends.’’ Thus, at the cultural level, female students must

attempt to rationalize and explain their perceptions of what constitutes rape, since it

is not given to them by their culture. As the dominant cultural discourse, the ‘‘it

depends’’ mentality opens the door for uncertainty that supports an inability to

articulate a definition of rape.

The individual context. In addition to the cultural level, one’s individual thoughts

and experiences play a role in the ambiguity of rape and women’s mutedness

regarding it. The individual frame of reference consists of two contexts: a

psychological context and a sociological context (Weitz, 2002a). The psychological

context is based on personality, intent, and mentality. The sociological context

includes social gender norms, control, social exchange, and peer group pressure.

On the psychological level, the dominant discourse often casts alleged rape victims,

especially females, as ‘‘sluts’’ who were ‘‘looking for it.’’ It was not uncommon for

male and even female co-researchers to use this dominant language. One woman

stated, ‘‘Behaviors and a woman’s dress can suggest consent.’’ Another commented,

‘‘Men having multiple sex partners are heroes, but women doing the same are sluts.’’

‘‘There is a ‘they get around’ attitude regarding women,’’ and ‘‘Women with multiple

partners are known for being dirty,’’ reported another female student, reflecting some

of the rape myths prevalent in our society (Burt, 1980; Carmody & Washington,

2001). These comments indicate that men’s dominant place in society has allowed

them privileges to create and control the language and belief system regarding date

474 A. Burnett et al.

rape. Accepting this language indicates the acceptance of a subjugated position,

muting the unique, personal interpretation of a date rape situation.

On the sociological level, women feel male college students expect sex in return for

paying for dates or bringing drinks, similar to the social exchange mentality in Weitz’s

model (2002a). One comment from a female student was supported by the whole

focus group of other females: ‘‘My experience is, ‘Well, I got you a drink’ . . . ‘Now

what are you going to do?’. . . If they’re not a friend, it’s like they expect something in

return.’’ Another woman indicated that, ‘‘Guys expect to party at college, and they

expect to score.’’ Such statements demonstrate women’s understanding of a dominant

discourse of which they do not necessarily approve. However, other comments from

female co-researchers, such as, ‘‘Sex is common on the first date,’’ support a notion

that women transform their individual beliefs to fit the dominant discourse about sex

and relationships. Thus, they follow dominant expectations, uncertain whether or not

their unwanted sexual experience constitutes rape.

Female respondents also indicated that peer pressure may contribute to the

creation of a rape culture. One remarked, ‘‘There is pressure because everybody else is

doing it. You have sex to fit in.’’ Another added, ‘‘Sometimes you don’t say no because

you don’t want to look stupid.’’ Male co-researchers’ comments supported that peer

pressure to have sex is part of the dominant discourse. One co-researcher

remembered, ‘‘When I was 15�16 . . . all the guys were like . . . ‘You’re still a virgin?’ That was the peer pressure I got.’’ Expectations such as these, for both men and

women to have sex, may perpetuate the rape culture among college students.

The situational/interpersonal context. The ambiguity of rape and corresponding

mutedness of female college students from the first two categories*culture at large and individual frame of reference*affect thoughts and behaviors in situations where the possibility of date rape is heightened, such as college parties. Many female

students commented on the danger of such an environment with regard to the

possibility of date rape occurring. Although college women realize the danger of this

type of environment, they still participate in it, feeling or hoping that they can

prepare for the situation. As date rape has no clear definition and is, thus, the

invisible enemy, we describe efforts to minimize the possibility of it happening as

‘‘shadowboxing’’ date rape, similar to the way in which boxers train against an

imaginary partner. Although co-researchers were not asked how they protect

themselves from date rape, they talked about it nonetheless in each focus group.

The most common shadowboxing strategy for women was going to parties with

trusted friends. One woman described her protection system as ‘‘a group of friends

you trust and [who] look out for one another.’’ Another female co-researcher

remarked, ‘‘I feel more comfortable when I go to a party at a friend’s house than at a

fraternity party, but my friends are always there . . . we always look for one another if

there would be . . . a bad situation.’’ Co-researchers also indicated friends were there

to keep each other from drinking too much at parties.

Both men and women cited being under the influence as the most common gray

area with respect to date rape. One co-researcher indicated, ‘‘Alcohol impairs

How Date Rape is Communicated 475

judgment and provides for situations that might lead to rape.’’ Alcohol perpetuates

the ambiguity of date rape, as consenting under the influence might not be an entirely

conscious decision. Again, women take on the language of male perpetrators, saying,

‘‘The guy might not pick up on the signals’’ or ‘‘Guys get that way [drunk], and

having sex makes them heroes.’’ Most commonly, female co-researchers indicated

they shadowbox the danger of alcohol-impaired rape by making their own drinks and

not taking drinks from strangers.

However successful such shadowboxing strategies as preparation against date rape,

they may further mute actual and potential date rape victims by highlighting an

individual responsibility for self-protection. Taking the precautions to prevent date

rape means the individual will also need to take on the responsibility if something

were to happen. In other words, if an individual takes responsibility for the

preparation to avoid date rape, then, by default, that individual must take the blame

if rape occurs. This individualistic mentality affects behaviors in and interpretations

of contexts where the possibility of date rape is immediate.

Immediate Context/Possibility of Date Rape

The culture at large, the individual frame of reference, and beliefs about the

interpersonal/situational context culminate in determining how one behaves in the

face of an immediate date rape situation and/or evaluates other’s behavior in such a

situation. Since the concept of ‘‘consent,’’ regardless of interpretations, is the central

element in defining rape, the communication of consent is the focus of the immediate

context. Thus, an occurrence of date rape indicates a breakdown in the commu-

nication of consent based upon ambiguity and mutedness constructed through

experiences in each of the previous contexts.

During a sexually violent act, women find it difficult to assert their lack of consent,

as they feel they have already failed to do so, to diffuse the possible rape before it

happens. One co-researcher shared her friend’s explanation of giving up the fight of

consent, ‘‘He was already doing it, so I just lay there.’’ Another female student

remarked, ‘‘guys might think it’s unfair to stop in the middle.’’ Others talked about

the peer pressure to have sex or the need to ‘‘prove to a male that you like him.’’ This

conformity reflects the dominant view on consensual sex, as articulated by some male

co-researchers, assuming consenting is a one-time act rather than a process allowing

for a change of mind.

Because the immediate pre-rape context is charged with communicative expecta-

tions and attempts to diffuse the possible act of sexual violence, the immediate post-

rape context is often filled with questioning of how rape could happen. In the direct

aftermath of date rape or learning about it, female co-researchers tended to put on

trial their own effective communication of consent. Female co-researchers commonly

responded to learning about a date rape case by questioning one’s behavior, ‘‘Did you

say it forcefully? Did you try to get off or have him get off of you?’’ Even though

asking such questions may simply be an attempt to understand what happened, the

476 A. Burnett et al.

act of questioning casts the first stone at the victim and perpetuates rape culture by

seemingly letting the perpetrator off the hook.

Post-date Rape (Awareness)

Although answering questions and reporting date rape may reduce the ambiguity

surrounding a particular case, both sexes agreed reporting is stifled by another

ambiguity with respect to date rape*not knowing the steps of dealing with it and not knowing what others’ reactions will be. Co-researchers expected the only certainty to

be heightened attention. In the words of one female student, ‘‘It would be a big issue

and everyone would talk about it and everyone would have their opinions.’’ Another

student said, ‘‘I don’t want this remembered on a piece of paper,’’ and still another

participant added she did not want to ‘‘stand out.’’ Through this expectation of an

unequivocal response and a potential backlash, the post-date rape confusion carries

out to the larger contexts of interpersonal relations, individual frame of reference,

and the culture at large to perpetuate the cycle of keeping female victims, college

students, and college administrators muted.

The interpersonal context. Building a trusted support group was essential for

shadowboxing date rape in the pre-rape interpersonal context, but the post-rape

interpersonal context is marked by the rapid deterioration of that trust. One female

respondent, who had actually experienced and reported date rape, admitted she did

not even tell her mother until quite some time after the event. She explained her

secrecy: ‘‘I was so sure that she’d say, ‘Why are you even with him?’ and when I told

one of my friends, he said, ‘Well, how was he in a position where he could have done

that?’’’

Support from other co-researchers in the dominant discourse may theoretically

validate an experience; however, the unpredictability of reaction to date rape only

increases confusion and ambiguity. One co-researcher only shared her story with ‘‘the

people [she] most counted on being supportive,’’ and even then ‘‘got such completely

different reactions from them and they were sort of backwards from what [she]

expected.’’ Through this ambiguity, date rape ruptures trust not only in respect to the

specific perpetrator, but also in relation to friends. This decrease in trust, coupled

with the desire not to relive a physically and emotionally violent experience, leads the

victim to an avoidance response on two interpersonal levels: (1) avoiding sharing the

experience with friends and (2) avoiding contact with the perpetrator and his or her

friends, because ‘‘The guy is going to hate you and all his friends are going to hate you

and they’ll bug you about it.’’

This avoidance silences both the victims and the few close friends who might know

what happened. As one male co-researcher put it, if victims feel they can ‘‘only

confide in two people and want them to keep it a secret . . . it leaves it at the students being tolerant with it and trying to help their friends the best they can,’’ with only a

‘‘select few individuals in the student body that are going to know.’’ As a result,

mutedness is perpetuated in the post-date rape interpersonal context, also affecting

one’s individual frame of reference.

How Date Rape is Communicated 477

The individual frame of reference. Co-researchers of both sexes hypothesized that

self-concept will change post rape. As a reflection of the (pre)dominant thinking

among college students, capta suggest an expectation for the victim to feel dirty and

ashamed after rape, including date rape. Statements such as, ‘‘By saying you’re a rape

victim that spells it out for you that you’re not a pure girl any more’’ were quite

common among both female and male co-researchers. Remembering that the pre-

rape individual psychological frame of reference casts date rape victims as ‘‘sluts,’’ it is

no wonder date rape stains one’s self-concept, focusing on the individual

characteristics and behaviors.

This change of self-concept in a negative direction couples with a perception that

other people will know what happened and judge the victim. Expecting questions

such as, ‘‘What were you doing? What were you wearing?’’, one female co-researcher

represented not reporting as self-preservation: ‘‘And if you know the people around.

And if you know people who know that person. Yeah, you don’t really want to make

yourself stand out.’’ Post-rape silence is just as much a social expectation as is pre-

rape peer pressure to have sex. The fear of victim-blaming further isolates individuals

who have been date raped or who know victims choosing to stay quiet.

Responding to a question about what one should do after a rape, one female co-

researcher summarized the feelings of isolation and desperation: ‘‘I wouldn’t know the

steps. If I were attacked, I would probably crawl up into a ball and die.’’ A more

powerful group, school administration, also can silence individuals. Since, in

comparison to students, administration is clearly the dominant group on college

campuses, it has the power to validate date rape experiences by preventative education

and post-rape support, but co-researchers did not feel such validation existed. Because

the dominant discourse does not openly recognize the legitimacy of experiencing date

rape, the individual feels a need to try to explain that experience away so as not to

contradict the mainstream. These explaining-away attempts flow back into the larger

cultural context, enabling the continuous ambiguity associated with date rape.

The cultural context. With respect to campus culture, perhaps the most obvious

‘‘evidence’’ of muted groups in relation to date rape is the lack of date rape reports. With

respect to date rape in college, co-researchers of both sexes suspected, ‘‘There’s more

that goes on than a lot of people know,’’ with many cases remaining unreported.

Ultimately, the lack of reports perpetuates the ambiguity in defining and understanding

the reality of date rape, creating a culture that allows for its continuous occurrence.

In the context of such culture, male respondents, as the dominant group,

maintained that date rape should be reported, regardless of possible consequences.

One male student asserted, ‘‘If something like that were to happen to me . . . I know I

wouldn’t keep my mouth shut. And that’s what I’d like to think that everybody

[would do].’’ More trusting in dominant structures, males also believed the

experience of rape is private, and certain (dominant) channels for reporting it

should be followed. One male respondent remembered someone talking about being

raped in an informal situation, an experience so uncomfortable for him, he thought,

‘‘Whoaaa! You’ve got some issues if you’re going to tell me that right off the bat.’’

478 A. Burnett et al.

Male students also relied on the legal system to legitimize the occurrence of date rape.

Some male co-researchers asserted that when the perpetrator is found guilty, ‘‘then for a

fact she was raped.’’ From the male perspective, speaking the dominant discourse and

following the dominant structures legitimizes a rape case because if it ‘‘didn’t go to

court, people would say, ‘You know it’s obviously not that big of a deal. It’s not even

going to go to court, you know. Maybe she’s just trying to stir up a little bit of trouble.’’’

Female co-researchers, on the other hand, were both more supportive of silence

with respect to rape and more skeptical as to the just power of dominant social

structures. They believed the victim ‘‘needs to feel comfortable if she wants to report

it’’*comfort difficult to achieve with the expectations for victim-blaming and isolation discussed earlier. Furthermore, women see reporting as pointless because

men’s superior social position skews justice. One co-researcher explained not

reporting an actual date rape case: ‘‘Are you going to believe us or are you going to

believe him? He was really, really popular; we weren’t . . . it’s his word against ours.’’ Such comments support the muted groups’ theoretical framework on two levels: First,

by supporting silence, females mirror and maintain the dominant discourse; second,

the expression of skepticism supports the notion that the dominant communicative

system is insufficient to articulate the female experience with date rape.

Date rape ruptures the neat categorization of who does what and why in a

relationship. For victims, rape is a physical violation, as well as an intrusion into one’s

psychosocial life. However, even for nonvictims, the very awareness of an actual date

rape case violates the ‘‘normal’’ picture of trust-based relationships. Thus,

co-researchers made efforts to explain date rape away, perpetuating mutedness

across the four levels of influence: immediate context, interpersonal context,

individual frame of reference, and cultural context.

Conclusions

In this study, we sought to discover how college students experience and describe rape

and how such communication about rape may foster a campus rape culture, using

the co-cultural theory framework with focus on muted groups. In focus groups with

co-researchers, we discovered that date rape survivors, who are more often female

than male (‘‘Statistics,’’ 2009), are muted before, during, and after the experience of

date rape. Both male and female students contribute to muting women, thus

perpetuating a rape culture in which rape becomes an expectation, or part of the

social milieu.

Before rape occurs, students (and others) on campus say they are unclear about

what rape is, particularly date rape. In fact, training and awareness about stranger

rape appears to be common practice on college campuses (‘‘Statistics,’’ 2009), but

when discussion turns to date rape, the notion of consent is unclear. The inability to

define ‘‘date rape’’ and ‘‘consent’’ mutes women victims as well as college students

who might want to communicate about these issues

Following a date rape situation, the cultural variable of ambiguity mutes women.

Women are aware of the ambiguity surrounding date rape, and after experiencing a

How Date Rape is Communicated 479

sexual act, they do not have the knowledge to discern if they were actually raped.

Rape myths, such as ‘‘women who have sex are sluts,’’ might make it easier to decide

to keep quiet rather than come forward. Female co-researchers felt that keeping silent

about rape might protect their self-image by not drawing attention to their behavior

in an ambiguously violent situation; for male co-researchers, legal trials have the

power to end the ambiguity around rape. In a patriarchal society, men trust the court

system to confirm the reality of rape because it speaks in their dominant language

(McKerrow, 1989). Alternately, women do not refer to dominant structures like the

court system as an immediate response. For them, as the muted group, dominant

language does not provide the best articulation of their experiences (Kramerae, 1981).

While the event of date rape may be real and concrete, women are muted in the

inability to articulate a concrete definition of this very real experience. For male co-

researchers, proof, alluding to some sort of legal standard, eliminates such difficulty,

but the lack of proof only makes the case more ambiguous.

On the individual level, the ambiguity and confusion regarding possible rape

created at the cultural level often lead to denial of the reality of rape (‘‘She didn’t

think anything happened’’). Paradoxically, this assertion mixes with taking the blame

for what happened, and for the break in communicating consent. One female co-

researcher described a date rape case she knew, saying, ‘‘She knew the guy and so, she

thought it was her fault for not asserting herself enough, so she didn’t even think it

was rape . . . She thought it was her fault and she didn’t think anything wrong happened.’’

In the aftermath of date rape or learning about it, female participants tend to put

on trial their own effective communication of consent. Female co-researchers

commonly responded to learning about a date rape case by questioning the victim’s

behavior, ‘‘Did you say it forcefully? Did you try to get off or have him get off of

you?’’ For women, individual experience and behavior seem to be the decisive factors

in calling something ‘‘rape,’’ whereas male participants avoid immediate judgments

and turn to the ‘‘hard’’ evidence legitimized by dominant structures.

In the interpersonal context, women often reflect on their expectations of what

should occur in social situations where date rape is possible. They also reflect on what

the male’s expectations may have been. As a result, they ‘‘shadowbox,’’ making mental

preparations for how to protect themselves. After the rape occurs, both women and

male acquaintances blame the victim for not being more ‘‘sensible.’’ This vicious

circle mutes women by making them feel badly for not ‘‘doing enough’’ to protect

themselves, but sadly, the ambiguity arises, what is ‘‘enough’’?

Co-researchers reported female victims utilize a combination of Orbe’s (1996,

1998a) communicative practices. For example, separation strategies*in which the co-cultural group decides to remain strong, reinforce stereotypes of themselves, or

perhaps even attack the dominant group*might allow the co-cultural group to be strong and establish a new culture. In this study, however, we found no such examples

of separation.

Orbe’s (1998b) second main category of co-cultural responses, accommodation,

occurred only in terms of intragroup networking. Female students described seeking

480 A. Burnett et al.

other friends with whom to attend parties. However, in many instances these friends

reported their inability to remain together for an entire party, and were not always

supportive of the victim after she was raped. Therefore, co-researchers made few

attempts to accommodate, and generally, such attempts did not appear to be fruitful.

For the most part, co-researchers reported female victims and others appear to

assimilate into the dominant culture (Orbe, 1998b). Orbe described nonassertive

assimilation strategies such as self-censorship and averting controversy, which co-

researchers all reported using. For example, victims or victims’ friends censored

themselves by not admitting a rape had taken place, and, by contending rape was

ambiguous, they avoided controversy. Orbe describes assertive assimilation in

strategies such as overcompensation, which occurred when co-researchers put on a

strong ‘‘face,’’ or stereotype manipulation, as even female co-researchers made

negative comments about women they knew who had been raped. Co-researchers

also used aggressive assimilation strategies (Orbe, 1998b) by mirroring the language

of the dominant group, or by strategically distancing themselves from the person who

had been raped.

In a rape culture in which date rapes are common and participants are muted by the

dominant culture, and in which the process of group muting is ongoing, it is no

wonder that individuals use assimilation as their main communicative response. As

Figure 1 suggests, the process of muting is perpetual. The message from the dominant

culture is that stranger rape is wrong, but date rape is a situation that should and can

be avoided. No wonder, then, that the most comfortable way to respond is to cover up

the controversy or talk about its shame. When the culture, society, and individual

levels of influence perpetuate ambiguity and shame, co-cultural members have little

choice but to attempt to quietly assimilate their experiences with societal expectations.

At each level of Weitz’s (2002a, 2002b) sequential contexts, muting occurs and

perpetuates the silence of a date rape culture. The broad cultural message that

encourages assimilation filters onto college campuses in which administrators may

not have open discussions or policies about date rape, and college police may not

appear concerned about date rape; societal expectations mute these college personnel.

College students, as a group, then, become muted as they are not free to acknowledge

or talk about the problem. In turn, they assimilate and mute each other, particularly

female victims, who end up silenced.

Such assimilation, however, proves harmful. Its direct result is a rape culture that is

fed and perpetuated by the victims themselves. Orbe (1998b) suggests that

nonassertive assimilation may negatively affect self-concepts and reinforce the power

of the dominant group. It may seem logical to demand or suggest that women begin

to challenge the dominant culture by speaking out and educating others about the

horrors of date rape, but that suggestion is not realistic. Further, whereas rape

prevention programs on college campuses seem like a good idea, unless the co-culture

stops assimilating, changing the culture will be difficult.

We believe this study provides new insight into how communication creates a

dominant date rape culture on college campuses. However, there are limitations to

this project. First, we studied only the culture on one campus and cannot assume

How Date Rape is Communicated 481

other date rape cultures appear the same. Further, we focus on heterosexual date rape,

ignoring the tremendous ramifications of same-sex rape culture. In fact, with only

one exception, our co-researchers only talked about cross-sex rape, which

undoubtedly impacts our results, but also underscores the hegemonic heterosexuality

in our society. Finally, we examine how the culture of college students, particularly

females, on campus responds to date rape, but we do not examine how particular co-

cultures respond. For example, Women’s Centers may help create different

communication strategies; the campus under investigation does not have a Women’s

Center. Other campus co-cultures, such as health and wellness groups and student

organizations, also may have alternative communication strategies that were not

tapped in this study. An area of additional research ought to be the impact that other

co-cultures have on date rape culture.

Although this study provides some preliminary indications that co-cultures on

college campuses work to perpetuate and reinforce a date rape culture, further research

is required. The capta from this study suggest that male college students who are raped

also might be muted, but differently from women. For example, some co-researchers

said that men do not report rape because it is not the masculine thing to do. However,

these capta were limited; future researchers ought to explore these differences. In

addition, whereas this study offers important information about how this culture is

reified, even more critical is to gain an understanding of types of communication that

resist such cultures. The next scholarly step is to investigate the date rape phenomenon

on a wide range of colleges and universities to ascertain the types of communication

strategies on campuses that have minimal to no recognizable rape cultures, if such

campuses exist. For example, why do women not use separation strategies in the face

of such traumatic experiences? Are accommodation strategies ineffective in addressing

date rape culture? Delving into specific co-cultural communication patterns could be

useful in learning about how to teach healthier responses and break the patterns that

may be inherent in date rape cultures. After attaining that knowledge, personnel on

college campuses, such as the one described in this study, could implement and test the

efficacy of different rape culture resistance strategies.

Practical Applications

Perhaps this investigation of rape culture from a co-cultural, muted group perspective

will be a step toward changing the rape culture on college campuses. The knowledge

that the co-culture is muted at every stage in the process, from pre-rape, through

the actual occurrence, to post-rape, allows practitioners to examine how commu-

nication processes may be altered at any point. This study, then, points to some

shortfalls in current acquaintance rape education. Whereas most of the current

education efforts occur in the pre-rape phase (e.g., watch your drink, go to parties

with friends, etc.), our model suggests that education ought to occur throughout the

process. Some educators are beginning to address the actual occurrence through

resistance training because, contrary to popular thought, victims are not physically

harmed more if they resist (Rozee & Koss, 2001).

482 A. Burnett et al.

Further, co-cultural theory suggests that prevention efforts should combine

education for both how to fight date rape if it is about to happen (from a potential

survivor’s perspective), and how to properly ‘‘read’’ a situation from a potential

perpetrator’s perspective. In fact, some suggest date rape prevention should focus on

males, because it is not women who are deficient in communication, but men who do

not understand women’s language (O’Bryne, Rapley, & Hansen, 2006).

In particular, we recommend that organizations such as RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and

Incest National Network) begin to accept the notion that date rape is an ambiguous

concept, but when someone reports it, it should be taken as seriously as stranger rape.

Additionally, we support a new focus on the individual frame of reference in which

both psychological and societal notions of what rape is are altered to include date

rape so that a new culture that does not tolerate date rape can be created.

Investigation into the practical use and workability of Weitz’s (2002a) upfront, pre-

date statements ought to occur. The cultural changes at any level must be based on

different communication about date rape.

Although we wish we could offer more tangible solutions to the problem, this

study provides the first step toward examining the crucial role of communication in

creating and perpetuating a rape culture. We hope other researchers and social

marketing professionals will use this information to develop and test materials that

address the miscommunications and misperceptions that occur at each level. Perhaps,

if organizations began to communicate different messages about date rape so that,

ultimately, college students as a whole as well as university officials were not muted in

discussing the matter, we might discover (again) the real power of communication.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Deanna Baranko, Linda Short, and Mary Frances

Casper for their assistance with the focus groups, as well as the anonymous reviewers

for their feedback.

Note

[1] We chose to interview female athletes as a unique group of college women who may have

experienced the rape culture as victims or as perpetrators. We were not able to secure a

similar group of male athletes.

References

Adams-Curtis, L. E., & Forbes, G. B. (2004). College women’s experiences of sexual coercion: A

review of cultural, perpetrator, victim, and situational variables. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse,

5, 91�122. Ardener, E. W. (1978). Some outstanding problems in the analysis of events. In I. G. Schwinner

(Ed.), The yearbook of symbolic anthropology (pp. 103�121). Montreal, Canada: McGill- Queen’s University Press.

Ardener, S. (1975). Perceiving women. London: Malaby/Dent.

How Date Rape is Communicated 483

Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., Cohn, E. S., Moorhead, C., Ward, S., & Walsh, W. (2005). Revisiting

unwanted sexual experiences on campus: A 12-year follow-up. Violence Against Women, 11,

426�446. Benson, B. J., Gohm, C. L., & Gross, A. M. (2007). College women and sexual assault: The role of

sex-related alcohol expectancies. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 341�351. Bleecker, E. T., & Murnen, S. K. (2005). Fraternity membership, the display of degrading sexual

images of women, and rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 53, 487�493. Boswell, A. A., & Spade, J. Z. (1996). Fraternities and collegiate rape culture: Why are some

fraternities more dangerous places for women? Gender and Society, 10, 133�147. Buchwald, E., Fletcher, P., & Roth, M. (1993). Transforming a rape culture. Minneapolis, MN:

Milkweed Editions.

Burt, M. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

38, 217�230. Canary, D. J., & Dindia, K. (1998). Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays

and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc.

Carmody, D. C., & Washington, L. M. (2001). Rape myth acceptance among college women: The

impact of race and prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 424�436. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crosset, T. W., Benedict, J. R., & McDonald, M. A. (1995). Male student-athletes reported for sexual

assault: A survey of campus police departments and judicial affairs offices. Journal of Sport

and Social Issues, 19, 126�140. De Laurentis, T. (1984). Feminist studies/critical studies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. US

Department of Justice. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from http://securityoncampus.org/

schools/research/182369.pdf

Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2003). Reporting sexual victimization to

the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice

and Behavior, 30, 6�38. Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., Pakalka, A. H., & White, K. B. (2006). Dating aggression, sexual

coercion, and aggression-supporting attitudes among college men as a function of

participation in aggressive high school sports. Violence Against Women, 12, 441�455. Frese, B., Moya, M., & Megias, J. L. (2004). Social perception of rape: How rape myth acceptance

modulates the influence of situational factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 143�161. Harned, M. S. (2005). Understanding women’s labeling of unwanted sexual experiences with dating

partners: A qualitative analysis. Violence Against Women, 11, 374�413. Hartsock, N. C. M. (1983). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically

feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding & M. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality:

Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (pp.

283�310). Boston: D. Reidel. Hawkesworth, M. (2006). Feminist inquiry: From political conviction to methodological innovation.

New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Henley, N. M., & Kramerae, C. (1994). Gender, power, and miscommunication. In C. Roman, S.

Juhasz, & C. Miller (Eds.), The women and language debate: A sourcebook (pp. 383�406). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Houston, M., & Kramarae, C. (1991). Speaking from silence: Methods of silencing and of Klaw

resistance. Discourse and Society, 2, 387�399. Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking. Boston: Newbury House.

Kramarae, C. (2005). Muted group theory and communication: Asking dangerous questions.

Women and Language, 28, 55�61. Lanigan, R. L. (1979). The phenomenology of communication. Philosophy Today, 23, 3�15.

484 A. Burnett et al.

Lanigan, R. L. (1988). Phenomenology of communication: Merleau-Ponty’s thematics in commu-

nicology and semiology. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Lanza-Kaduce, L., Capece, M., & Alden, H. (2006). Liquor is quicker: Gender and social learning

among college students. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 127�143. Loiselle, M., & Fuqua, W. R. (2007). Alcohol’s effects on women’s risk detection in a date-rape

vignette. Journal of American College Health, 55, 261�266. McKerrow, R. E. (1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and practice. Communication Monographs, 56,

91�111. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (F. Williams, trans.). London: Routledge

Kegan Paul.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. (2007).

Wasting the best and the brightest: Substance abuse at America’s Colleges and Universities. New

York: Author.

Nelson, J. (1989). Phenomenology as feminist methodology: Explicating interviews. In K. Carter &

C. Spitzack (Eds.), Doing research on women’s communication: Perspectives on theory and

method (pp. 221�241). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. O’Brien Hallstein, D. L. (1999). A postmodern caring: Feminist standpoint theories, revisioned

caring, and communication ethics. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 32�56. O’Bryne, R., Rapley, M., & Hansen, S. (2006). ‘‘You couldn’t say ‘no’, could you?’’: Young men’s

understandings of sexual refusal. Feminism and Psychology, 16, 133�154. Orbe, M. (1996). Laying the foundation for co-cultural communication theory: An inductive

approach to studying ‘‘non-dominant’’ communication strategies and the factors that

influence them. Communication Studies, 47, 157�176. Orbe, M. (1998a). An outsider within perspective to organizational communication. Management

Communication Quarterly, 12, 230�279. Orbe, M. (1998b). From the standpoint(s) of traditionally muted groups: Explicating a co-cultural

communication theory model. Communication Theory, 8, 1�26. Orbe, M. (2004). Co-cultural theory and the spirit of dialogue. International and Intercultural

Communication Annual, 27, 191�213. Orbe, M. (2005). Continuing the legacy of theorizing from the margins: Conceptualizations of co-

cultural theory. Women and Language, 28, 65�66. Reporting Rates. (2009). Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from

http://www.rainn.org

Rozee, P. D., & Koss, M. P. (2001). Rape: A century of resistance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25,

295�311. Sanday, P. R. (2007). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus (2nd ed). New

York: New York University Press.

Statistics. (2009). Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. Retrieved May 21, 2009, from http://

www.rainn.org

Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Publishing.

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for action pedagogy. Ontario,

Canada: State University of New York Press.

Weatherall, A. (1996). Language about women and men: An example from popular culture. Journal

of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 59�75. Weitz, A. J. (2002a). Communicative and perceptual factors contributing to date rape: Interviews with

perpetrators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale,

IL.

Weitz, A. J. (2002b). Date rape prevention. Retrieved July 31, 2008, from http://www2.truman.edu/

�aweitz/prevent_date_rape/

How Date Rape is Communicated 485