One of the arguments most commonly made by rape apologists is: ‘The Dog and the Steak’ argument, which relies on a basis of temptation, and urges that rapists just cannot resist.

It depends on the idea that, when faced with a strong enough temptation, humans just cannot resist, and is comparable to the following analogy.

  1. A dog sees a steak on a kitchen table, naturally, the dog craves the steak, and eyes it greedily.
  2. If there is no obstacle to stop the dog, such as a very high table or a person in the way protecting the steak, the dog will cease the steak. Even if this disregards instructions the dog was given to not touch the steak.
  3. When the dog is found with the steak, he is likely scolded, but, inevitably excused, because he is a dog, and taking steak is simply in its nature.

For a dog, this argument is fine, we don’t see dogs as being as intellectually and emotionally advanced as ourselves. In fact, as a species we pride ourselves on our high intellectual and emotional understanding. We are not animals.

Why do we find it excusable, for this reason, for rapists to not control their temptations? Why do we tell victims of rape that they need to consider behaving in a less tempting way?

Rapists are not animals, they are people, who have made the conscious decision to hurt another person in a most horrific way. We cant allow these people to be excused by an argument claiming animal behaviour, and then turn around and differentiate ourselves from animals.

– The Woman In The Room