FICTIONAL CONSENT AND RAPE CULTURE MEET THE INTERNET
In the age of technological development, patriarchy adapts and makes its way into new forms. One such example is the non-consensual distribution of intimate material, a form of online gender-based violence (OBGV). This issue has been prevalent in Italy for some time and affects women, significantly impacting their social relationships and professional lives, due to the associated social stigma. This phenomenon can have traumatic and severe consequences on the individuals involved, leading to social and professional ostracization, and in extreme cases, even murder or suicide.
Italian jurisprudence began to criminalize the phenomenon only in 2019, following the launch of #IntimitàViolata petition. This petition called for a change in the law. Prior to this, the issue was inadequately addressed by existing norms such as the crime of defamation, of obscene publications or of violation of privacy. Despite the introduction of a specific law in the Criminal Code, as of 2024 the state does not safeguard women whose sensitive contents have been shared without their consent. Neither does it guarantee adequate prevention measures or punishment for the perpetrators.
The facts of 2020 are proof of this. In 2020 over 40 thousand Italian men sent sexually explicit photos and videos of women and young girls to each other without their knowledge in Telegram group-chats. They created those group-chats with that specific goal, to exchange, or sell, photos and videos as if they were stickers in an album. Next to the videos and photos then, there was no shortage of slimy and vulgar comments about what those women deserved and what those men would do to them.
At the start of 2020, there were 21 group-chats, with around 30,000 messages per day. This number grew to 190 the following year. Neither the Italian law on the non-consensual sharing of intimate material, complaints to the postal police, nor appeals to the Telegram platform were effective in halting this growing phenomenon, which is still growing.
Millions of men from diverse ages and social classes engage in this daily behaviour on the internet, yet no action is taken against this form of violence. The default answer from institutions to this organized online gang-rape is sexting prevention for women, without imposing any consequences for men.
A primary reason for this in Italy is its patriarchal cultural background. It normalizes violence against women in both digital and non-digital spaces and shapes a particular perception of female nudity in society.
Men are known to frequent pornographic sites and support the pornographic industry. However, outside of this context, women who choose to present themselves naked are often insulted and stigmatised. This raises the question: is there a legitimate space for women to represent themselves as sexual beings?
The answer is hardly surprising: men have profited from women’s sexualization in industries such as pornography, films, music, advertising, and entertainment. This is the only space where women’s sexuality is permitted but under male control. If a woman deviates from this control and societal norms, men resort to the disturbing practice of online gang-rape on Telegram to reassert control.
To date, there is a lack of tools and interest in addressing the non-consensual distribution of intimate material. This apathy is due to the refusal to recognize the phenomenon as genuine sexual violence, given that it occurs in the digital realm of the Internet. However, this does not lessen the impact on the women affected. A physical rape may be experienced once, but its memory can linger indefinitely. In the case of online rape, the rapist is not just one person, but as many as have seen, spread and derived excitement from the videos and photos. As a result, women experience it repeatedly and on various occasions. Even without physical contact, online sexual comments are just as violent, objectifying and open to abuse. The Internet mirrors the social structures and power dynamics that are present in the real world. Therefore, it is only logical to regard the non-consensual distribution of intimate material as an actual sexual assault.
The underestimation of the phenomenon is exacerbated by the common and accepted terms used to describe it. These terms distract from the act’s severity and implicitly suggest the sentences for both the woman and the man.
Our language significantly influences our mindset and perception of reality, underscoring the importance of mindful communication. Strategic renaming can serve as a potent advocacy tool. The term ‘revenge porn’ is a good example of this, as it is problematic for two reasons: firstly, it suggests that the fact is a deserved punishment for the women, thereby reinforcing victim-blaming mechanisms; secondly, it associates the disseminated material with pornographic content. It’s important to distinguish between the two, because pornographic contents are created for public consumption with explicit content. However, private videos and photos, disseminated without consent of the depicted person, do not fall into this category. It’s essential to comprehend the sexually explicit isn’t automatically pornographic. The consent of the person depicted is the defining factor.
Beyond that, there are numerous reasons for the non-consensual sharing of intimate material. Men don't only distribute photos of their ex-girlfriends as a form of revenge. They do it simply because they can, and no one stops them. It's about exercising power over women and exerting control of their lives, including their sexuality.
The non-consensual distribution of intimate material is a punitive action against sexually active women. Society often views this as a fault and a cause for shame, even though it shouldn’t be.
Violence is frequently blamed on the women, leading to victim blaming, slut blaming, and hate speech.
Hate speech increases the social stigma against women who express themselves as sexual beings, limiting their freedom of expression. This includes their ability to express one’s sexuality, without negative consequences or unsolicited external judgement. This discourse, particularly about female sexual desires, is not yet widely accepted in society. Women are often belittled and insulted for their perceived sexual activities due to a “sex-negative cultural belief that the exposure of [women’s] nudity, sex acts, or sexual expression is deeply shameful and, therefore, that [women] should [make] greater effort to protect their sexual modesty”. The intention is to silence, intimidate and stigmatize the woman, making them feel like they deserve it. Notably, this does not apply to men.
Indeed, there is a double standard concerning the behaviour, depending on whether it is exhibited by men or women. Any expression of female sexuality is seen as a transgressive space that must not be occupied, whereas male sexual desires and impulses are viewed as “dangerous, misogynistic and predatory”. Men are seldom blamed for these behaviours.
The system often validates male sexual desires. For instance, if a man asks for nudes, it is normally accepted, and the expectation is for the woman to comply. However, if she indulges him and the man shares those photos with others, she is often blamed for the breach of trust. Likewise, if then the woman sends nudes without being asked, she is likely to face public scrutiny.
Journalists always ask women affected by non-consensual sharing of intimate material why they sent their nudes or why they have those photos on their phones. This line of questioning suggests that such actions are either sacrilegious or a matter of public concern. However, journalists should refrain from this. The woman did it because she wanted to, and no further explanation is required.
The phrase ‘boys will be boys’ is often used to excuse men’s behaviour, while women are encouraged to behave appropriately to avoid violence. In this context, preventing the non-consensual distribution of intimate material is perceived as the repression and mutilation of female desire. The focus is on avoidance rather than consent, which continues to criminalise women’s sexuality.
An important distinction to note is the difference between being sexual and being sexualized. Women’s bodies are often sexualised and erotized, regardless of whether they’re nude or not. For instance, in the Telegram group chats mentioned earlier, men were not only sexually fantasizing about female nudes, but also sharing women’s selfies, imagining violating them.
Consent, not nudity is the determining factor.
Being sexual is empowering as it is a free choice; being sexualized, however, is harmful. Nudity is not the main issue. Regardless of a woman’s attire actions, or words, they may be perceived as an invitation to male sexual attention. In this sense, being sexualized is harmful as it is outside a woman's control and will. This reflects patriarchal culture’s ownership of female sexuality, which dictates when and how women can be sexual and shames women who independently express their sexuality for their pleasure.
This male-centric mindset is so ingrained in society that women often feel their sexuality is only accepted when they are sexualized by men, thereby reducing them to a singular version of themselves, as dictated by a patriarchal system. It is a harmful dynamic that prioritizes male pleasure and relegates female pleasure to a submissive role.
The responsibility for this system lies with a culture that justifies such facts, normalizes them, and obstructs change. However, our focus should be on promoting a positive culture that is free from judgment, and based on consensus and mutual respect. The responsibility for women’s safety should be shifted to those who perpetrate violence against women.
In this system, women are often cast in the role of guilty victims. However, many women refuse to apologize for their actions. They are fully conscious of their actions, and their rights and, most importantly, they identify the true perpetrators: men who commit acts of violence. These men need to understand consent and realise they do not have the liberty to act as they please in both digital and non-digital spaces.
References:
Change.org 2018: #INTIMITAVIOLATA – Chiediamo una legge contro il revenge porn, in “change.org”, consulted in June 2023, available at www.change.org/p/intimitaviolata-chiediamo-una-legge-contro-il-revenge-porn-roberto-fico-pres-casellati-montecitorio-senatostampa
Dodge 2021: A. Dodge ‘Try not to be embarrassed’: A Sex Positive Analysis of Nonconsensual Pornography Case Law, in “Feminist Legal Studies”, 2021, 29, pp. 23-41.
Dueck-Read 2020: A. Dueck-Read Judicial Constructions of Responsibility in Revenge Porn: Judicial Discourse in Non-Consensual Intimate Distribution Cases – A Feminist Analysis, in “Manitoba Law Journal”, 2020, 43(3), pp. 357-390.
Fontana 2020: Dentro il più grande network italiano di revenge porn, su Telegram, in “WIRED”, consulted in June 2023, available at www.wired.it/internet/web/2020/04/03/revenge-porn-network-telegram/
Fonte 2022: V. Fonte Ne uccide più la lingua, De Agostini Libri S.r.l., Milano.
Frenda, Ghanem, Montes-y-Gómez & Rosso 2019: S. Frenda, B. Ghanem, M. Montes-y-Gómez & P. Rosso (ed. by), Online Hate Speech against Women: Automatic Identification of Misogyny and Sexism on Twitter, in “Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems”, 2019, 36, pp. 4743-4752.
Jackson 2021: Being Sexual VS. Being Sexualized, in “Her Campus”, consulted in June 2023, available at www.hercampus.com/school/fsu/being-sexual-vs-being-sexualized/
Longo 2020: Telegram covo di pornografia non consensuale e revenge porn, in “la Repubblica”, consulted in June 2023, available at www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/11/25/news/telegram_covo_di_pornografia_non_consensuale_e_revenge_porn_-275647052/
Maddocks 2018: S. Maddocks From Non-consensual Pornography to Image-based Sexual Abuse: Charting the Course of a Problem with Many Names, in “Australian Feminist Studies”, 2018, 33(97), pp. 345-361.
Meo 2021: Sono raddoppiati i canali Telegram dove si condividono foto e video intimi senza consenso, in “WIRED”, consulted in June 2023, available at www.wired.it/article/telegram-violenza-online-canali-revenge-porn/
Nemesu 2021: A. V. Nemesu Victim blaming and slut blaming: when the victim is criminalised, not the sex offender, in “Rivista di Psicopatologia Forense, Medicina Legale, Criminologia”, 2021, 26(632), pp. 84-92.
O’Connell & Bakina 2020: A. O’Connell & K. Bakina (ed. by), Using IP rights to protect human rights: copyright for ‘revenge porn’ removal, in “Legal Studies”, 2020, 40, pp. 442-457.
Pornhub Insights 2022: Pornhub 2022 year in review, in “Purnhub.com”, consulted in March 2024, available at https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2022-year-in-review#gender-demographics
Valtorta, Sacino, Baldissarri & Volpato 2016: R. R. Valtorta, A. Sacino, C. Baldissarri & C. Volpato (ed. by), L’eterno femminino. Stereotipi di genere e sessualizzazione nella pubblicità televisiva, in “Psicologia sociale”, 2016, 2, pp. 159-188.
About The Author:
Benedetta de Rosa is an intersectional feminist focused on women’s sexual rights and violence against women. I recently completed a master's program in Human rights and multi-level governance with a thesis on reproductive coercion as a result of restrictive abortion policies in Italy, and hold a bachelor's in Foreign languages and cultures. Throughout my professional career, I committed myself to empowering women through research, digital activism, and collaborations with national and international entities. I serve as a women's rights researcher at Global Human Rights Defence and a program assistant at SET Padova. Additionally, I am part of the Knowledge Management Working Group within menABLE project, providing insights and recommendations to combat gender-based violence online. With my initiatives, I promote a positive culture, free from judgment, violence against women and taboos on female sexuality.
