Psychology of Rape in India

In all my experience as a psychologist, I can safely say that the one key to comprehend human nature is to understand that there is never a ‘one key explanation’ for any human behavior. It’s always a combination of several keys. Our challenge is to find the largely functional master key of explanation of an issue.

 Largely, it’s because of three main reasons:

1. The biological make-up (predispositions, temperament, etc.),
2. Present and Past environment and individual experiences;
3. And most importantly our own thinking patterns which govern our behavior choices. (That’s why we hold people accountable for their actions.)

The above factors can have varying degrees of influence depending upon what we are talking about.

Since there are no reliable ways to check and correct certain rape fantasies, neurological collapse in empathy and regret, relationship with aggression, we have very limited scope of change in the persons biology and past experiences.

However, we are not slaves to our anatomies. Biological understanding of a problem just helps us maintain a problem-solving perspective.

In the context of rape, analyzing Delhi’s culture, even on the face of it, gives you an understanding that it is a precarious soup of the four strongly male chauvinistic cultures of Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh.

Now, the first tenet of male chauvinism is that men are superior to women. This ideology gives rise to an entitlement and privileged mentality: men deserve better and more in terms of pleasure and prosperity than a woman. Women are merely the instruments through which to achieve those desires. When this claim to power is thwarted, men believe they have the right to express their frustration and anger by forcefully asserting their dominance in a violent sexual act.

Now add to this mixture the warped traditional and religious projections of a proper woman: a non-ambitious, non-adventurous, non-assertive, non-person. Woman having been created from a man’s rib and the promises of virgins in heaven as reward and skies full of seducing apsaras like Menaka and Rambha, who have no apparently real purpose in life but to entertain and distract men.  Then there is also that bromide of what acche ghar ki ladkiya (women of good character) should do.

In fact, this purposeless and chattel-like status of women is clear in the old understanding of the word ‘rape’ itself, which in its Latin roots, “rapere” means ‘to steal or seize’ property.

Yet another ingredient to this poisonous soup is the lack of a rational education in sex and emotions. This results in a woefully underdeveloped regulatory mechanism in individuals, which is essential for personal and societal development. Our faulty understanding of what it means to be a “masculine” man also can make us look at this deficiency of a human regulation on an animal brain, as a good thing, as a real “male” thing.

Asli Mard toh (aisa) hi hota hai. Real men are supposed to be like this. Substitute “this” with whatever comes to mind and you will identify a dominant belief of a culture. We might get several answers from the chai stalls to board rooms to movies like DEV D and Rowdy Rathore, where its okay to pinch a woman’s waist because the character of Akshay Kumar had no regulatory mechanism over his animal instincts.

Emotional and sexual education is very important for us to know that a girl’s dress is not a ‘yes,’ that the time of the night and your mood (in or outside the influence of alcohol) are no licenses to violate another person’s body, and that an iron rod cannot compensate for the self-worth you have attached to your penis size and that a woman’s moans and cries under you are no mark of your greatness as a male-bodied person.

Low self-esteem and the entitlement mind-set among men who are sexually repressed and immature and who live with misogynistic ideas are crucibles of explosive mixtures of beliefs that lead to undesirable behaviors.

Patriarchy is not restricted only to the mind-set of men; most often, we find that women are willing subscribers to the patriarchy of society. Many Indian women not only believe in such ideas, they also have warped the idea of what it means to be feminine—to the point that women are complicit in the impoverished state they hold in society.

What should we do as a society?

From a psychological perspective, stop telling the girl that her life is over, that her victimhood is her shame. Yes, rape is horrible, but it is simply not the end of his or her life. An attitude of shame only instills guilt and responsibility further into the already struggling victim. The shame and the dishonor, properly, belongs to the rapist—the man who deigned to become animal.

As a nation we really need to improve our understanding of sex. Our relationship with sexuality is very immature and unhealthy. A healthy and safe society cannot be created without having an open and frank conversation and understanding about human sexuality. Given the fact that there is no innate knowledge about the facts of the universe: even though we feel the effects of gravity throughout our lives, but for gravity to be understood and used for our benefit needs to be studied extensively.

The basic goals that sex education in India need to fulfill, is not just to be a class on anatomy of humans reproductive system; while the information is important it doesn’t solve even the most basic of our questions about our sex lives leave alone addressing the issue of rape and other forms of violence against women and sexual minorities. What sex education needs to achieve, as larger umbrella goal is to ensure that our youth understands the importance of their own bodies and establish a healthy and respectful relationship with it, the present religio-cultural understanding of body and mind dualism has done much harm to us for too long. Our understanding of body being somewhat squalid and not to be understood and our mind always being in an adversarial relationship with it, as opposed to, the more rational and scientific one of body and mind working in tandem with each other. Understanding and respecting our body is the pre-requisite of doing the same with other people.

One also recognizes that parenting has the major role to play in any young and adolescent. Parenting has to undergo a sea change. Modeling is the best way forward. Children learn from the way the mothers and sisters are treated in the house, more than most things. Honest and frank conversations about sex and sexuality without guilt and shame attached to the matter, is another unavoidable change we have to bring in to bring about desired change. Sex might be very dangerous in bedroom when its not discussed in the living room.

All in all, the responsibility of a society that is safe for women and other sexual minorities, the responsibility lies with each one of us, to model the change we wish to see in others around us. As parents, teachers, media and politicians will have to recognize the urgency and importance of the change. Laws don’t change the cultures, but change in culture can definitely pave the way for reformed laws. It is important to know that social struggles like these are not won one half as much in the court rooms, but in the hearts and minds of the people we live with.

Deepak Kashyap is Counselling Psychologist with a private practice in Mumbai, who deals with the issues of trauma, gender sensitivity and sexuality and relationships. He can be reached at Deepak.j.kashyap@gamil.com

The Joys of Being Interested in Yourself

The Joys of Being Interested in Yourself

Interest is the prerequisite for achieving meaningful awareness about anything and anyone and its place in the world. The same principle applies to us in relation to our ‘selves’ and our place in the world around us.

When I say take interest in yourself I don’t mean it in a narcissistic way, where you cannot see the world beyond your nose. What I mean is that you should be extremely interested in the functioning of your own mind. Imagine if we spent even half of the energy in thinking about our own views of ourselves, others and life, than what people think of us, others and life. I am certain that when the focus of our study is our ‘selves,’ we’ll be able to tap into the most exquisite and beautiful layers and complexities of our minds.

“Why do I do this?” “Why do I do it this way?” “Are my reactions to the unpleasant realities, equally unpleasant for me?” “What are the ideas behind my emotional responses to people and things and events?” “Do I ask for enough evidence before I say, I ‘believe’…?” It’s important to ask these questions without an unkind word or a phrase for oneself. Sentences like “I am so stupid/dumb/f*%&$/helpless” are counterproductive.

Try resisting the pull to moralize and concentrate to analyze.

This enquiry into the inner world is successful only when it’s compassionate and accepting of our ‘selves’. When you turn the light of awareness about the ‘self’ brighter, you’ll discover all sorts of things about yourselves; some amazing, some not so amazing and some areas which need immediate and loving attention and fixing. Most people would avoid self-awareness because of the dangers of knowing things they have been actively avoiding about themselves and of facing the thoughts they won’t even admit to themselves. However, the other powerful side of self-awareness that is not understood is that, it comes with the realization of the tremendous power one has, to alter aspects of oneself.

Even if one finds out major areas of disappointments and “disgrace,” one should accept them and work towards changing them. Acceptance of negative aspects of oneself or one’s behavior is not the same as appreciating them. Acceptance is the first sympathetic and kind step to changing the undesirable attitudes and habits one might have developed as a case of neglect and abandonment of one’s ‘self.’ Once these ineffective and undesirable facets are brought in the light then changing them is only a matter of time and practice, sometimes even with the assistance of professional help of a psychological counselor.

I reiterate that kindness, self-acceptance and compassion are the only tools that will truly make this journey of being interested and aware in oneself joyful.

Homosexuality, Science and Present Myth of Ex-Gay Movement

Homosexuality, Science and Present Myth of Ex-Gay Movement

Why is the scientific method more valid a tool to find out truths about our world, both internal and external, as opposed to purely emotional reasoning? As rhetorical as this question might sound to many, it still remains a valid and confusing question in the minds of many others. All most all of us go through the phases of emotional reasoning, especially when we encounter something counter-intuitive or plain contradictory to our most cherished and strongly held beliefs.

In the interest of my article I would very briefly explain the difference between science and interpretation of science via emotional reasoning. The major difference is that in scientific approach, regardless of the emotions accompanying a hypothesis, an individual constantly tries to challenge and falsify his own theories as opposed to primarily an emotional approach to reasoning, where the individual insists on maintaining the old theories (sometimes even to a level of prejudices) regardless of the contrary evidence being provided to his rational faculties, largely because of the following reasons; they don’t “feel” right or it goes against everything else they have “believed” in or  “that” had been “taught” to be right in social contexts or, the classic, it has been believed to be true by “so many people for so long.”

Emotional reasoning on the face of it seems to have a logical process, but it merely is a way of rehearsing one’s prejudices and strengthening them over time, sometimes by gaining support from other similar minded individuals.

Why would we rather maintain our old ideas even in the face of new ones that are supported by evidence?

Accepting a new idea requires us to leave the familiarity of the old one and whenever we encounter something new, be it an idea, a person or a situation, we require new mental skills to deal with it. Acquiring new skills is mentally a harder and more inconvenient thing to do as opposed to just staying with the familiarity of events, ideas and people.  Since with humans, thinking is automatic but critical thinking is a chosen skill, subconsciously we end up choosing the easier path and show resistance to change and to new ideas and different people, more often then we would like to admit.

As a gay man, I too can succumb to emotional reasoning when I am out there defending my political and social rights. I may, too, accept a scientific theory that supports my instincts or my political agenda despite the lack of conclusive evidence. The same is possible to those with contrary views, when they encounter overwhelmingly conclusive evidence regarding homosexuality being natural and normal variation of human sexuality, because it doesn’t agree with their religious or social views.

Since in scientific approach the beliefs follow from reason and not the other way round, scientific method always give room for assessing and reassessing the present theories and hypothesis. However, for the one who places the emotional cart before the horse of reason, no evidence is ever enough or substantial to even rethink their position on homosexuality.

Whether or not homosexual orientation can be changed is perhaps one of the most burning questions of our time, the answer to which appears in the affirmative only in the minds of the ex-gay evangelists.  These ministers have made it their sole purpose to “change and reorient” homosexuals, because they see it as a disorder of mental and social nature. Even though the question of possible reorientation therapies has a social implication, the answer to it largely falls under the domain of the medical and biological sciences.

Exodus international and NARTH (National Association for the Reparative Therapy for Homosexuality) are the two fat cats in the business of sexual reorientation “therapies”. Even though neither have been able to come out with a consistent form of therapy or revealed the name(s) of any particular drug that they might have come across which can be tested for the validity of its claim.

Before discussing anything more about the Exodus International and NARTH, I would like to talk about the curious case of Robert Spitzer, a former Columbia Professor and eminent psychiatrist. Spitzer was among the pioneers who spearheaded the declassifying of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. It was seen as a welcome change, especially by the homosexual community and its social impact was larger then the ripples it created in the world of psychologists and psychiatrists, because just four years before the declassification, the LGBT community had kick started their political rights from revolutionary Stonewall movement.

Spitzer being a true scientist again conducted a study, almost three decades after the de-pathologizing of homosexuality, about whether change in an individual’s sexual orientation is possible; and the study confirmed the hypothesis. Even though the sample size of 200 telephonic interviewees was large enough, the study did not make any claims about the rates of success of any kind of “reparative or reorientation” therapy. 43% + 23% of the participants were provided by ex-gay ministries and NARTH respectively and most of the data was in the form of self-report.

The study stated that for a group of highly motivated individuals the efforts at changing sexual orientation worked. There was no substantial data regarding the time period the “change” lasted in the tiny number of individuals that it occurred in the first place.

The way the above results were interpreted in the larger socio-religious environments was: Spitzer, the man behind the de-pathologizing of homosexuality, a man who could not have been biased against the gays and lesbians, has validated ex-gay therapies.

What was actually biased was the understanding and interpretations of the results. Claiming that change might be possible is one thing and claiming that I have found out the therapeutic way to do it is quite another. Especially when there are no researches available and no objective way of testing how long the changes lasted, if there were any at all, in the sexual orientation and no clear distinction between behavior (what you do?) and orientation (what you desire?).

Spitzer himself concluded that change might be possible but it is probably very rare. He also was skeptic about the participant telling the truth.

The problem is that ex-gay associations and therapy clinics still cite Spritzer’s study on sexual orientation change, even thought the study itself was criticized and disavowed by APA (American Psychological Association).

So coming back to NARTH and Exodus International; the problems that occurs with their claims to changing people’s orientation are the following

1. Almost all of these instances of changes are self-reports and not objectively testable data, so a client there is almost no protection against a client lying about the alleged change (such data is generally extremely hard to get in similar research anyway)
2. The fact of clients’ “past” bisexuality and its percentage is seldom highlighted.
3. No clear and prominent distinction made between behavior (what you do?) and orientation (what you desire). So one might be successfully having intercourse with the opposite sex and have developed friendly feelings for them, but still deep down may desire the touch and romantic company of the same sex partner.
4. Kinsey scale existence of sexual orientation is almost neglected; which consistently shows that human sexuality exists on a spectrum.
5. Based on researches, which have no substantial evidential backing.

So it’s not surprising that the drop out rates of their clients with no apparent change is way above 90 percent.

In a recently published article called My So-Called Ex-Gay Life in The American Prospect, excerpts of the interview with Robert Spitzer were published, referring to the supplying of sample for his 2001 study, he said,  “In all the years of doing ex-gay therapy, you’d think Nicolosi (the then President of NARTH) would have been able to provide more success stories. He only sent me nine patients.”

In the interview Spitzer made it very clear that he never wanted anyone to go for “reorientation” therapies. His goal was only to figure out the truth of the negative hypothesis that no one has ever changed his or her sexual orientation. Note he nowhere claim to have found out any means through which one could change their sexual orientation.

Now octogenarian Spitzer expresses his worries, which he shares with the APA official paper  about the present efforts to changing sexual orientation of people and says that they “can be quite harmful.”

It turns out that in this particular case, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence against them, the ex-gay movement seem to not pay heed to it and more often then not, completely deny it. They seemed to be mired so much in their hatred towards homosexuality, regardless of how they express it, that they fall prey to emotional reasoning and blind themselves to the obvious biological facts.

I quote some astonishing excerpts from the above-mentioned article regarding the on goings within some of these ex-gay organizations  “John Paulk, Love Won Out founder, chair of the board of Exodus International, and husband of Anne Paulk, was spotted and photographed at a Washington, D.C., gay bar. Richard Cohen, the founder of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays)—intended as the ex-gay counterpart to PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)—was expelled from the American Counseling Association for ethics violations. Michael Johnston, the founder of “National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day,” was revealed to have infected men he’d met on the Internet with HIV through unprotected sex.”

All of that would have been still been less incriminating and no focus of public interest, if in the process of their sometimes well intentioned efforts to change sexual orientation these organizations did not end up instilling guilt, shame and self-hatred among its clients. These programs run the risk of increased danger of pushing the client into clinical neuroses like anxiety, depression and recurrent suicidal thoughts.

APA in their longitudinally conducted review noted the following about the ex-gay movement. “It provided false hope, which can be devastating,” it also said. “It harmed self-esteem and self-regard by focusing on the psychopathology of homosexuality.” APA strongly desists people from going for such therapies and hormone treatments for changing their sexual reorientation.

LGBT people do not require an absence of a reparative therapy for their political rights to be ensured, what they require to fight for their political rights is the basis of self-ownership. The philosophy that says, I and not the government owns my body and my heart, so they don’t get the right to tell me whom I can have sex with or/and love and marry.

If tomorrow we do discover the most unnecessary methods to change sexual orientations then too, no body can be forced to take the therapy or stay away from the therapy. People would still be and always should be left with a choice, to do what they want to do with their bodies and minds. This would ensure the human rights of all, gay and straight alike, cause I know a lot my straight male friends who’d rather be gay but are not, I am sure they too would quite happily opt for a “reorientation” and become gay if they could.

Up until then, let’s all know that there no therapy or method which we know of that has produced any results that are lasting or worth considering.

So I guess the only two choices we have now is to accept and enjoy who we are or sit and moan about what you can’t be. Pick your choice.

The article was written by Deepak Kashyap

He is a practicing counselling psychologist and a life skills trainer in Mumbai

deepak.j.kashyap@gmail.com