Sexual Assault of College Women: A Feminist Interpretation of a Routine Activities Analysis

Abstract

Sexual assault has been a frequent topic of research for several decades, especially for feminist researchers. Generally, feminist research suggest that there are high levels of sexual assault against women because of a patriarchal, rape-supportive culture. However, not all women have the same heightened risk for sexual assault victimization. Wh the feminist perspective does not adequately account for are the variations in rape victimization rates across the female population. This is where the importance of theory that focuses on individual statuses and lifestyles becomes important. By combining the two perspectives, explanations of sexual assault victimization can be made more vigorous and instructive. The data in this article come from 674 college and university women in 12 southern postsecondary institutions in eight states who completed an in-depth survey. Analyses focused on sexual assault in general and an more serious forms of sexual assault. Findings suggest tat the combination of feminism and routine activity theory enhances explanation of sexual assault victimization risks. Sexual assault victimization risks were influenced primarily by the amount of exposure that respondents had to potential offenders, especially to rape-supportive male per groups. Additionally, the finding between the models of differing degrees of sexual assault victimization are not particularly different.

Victims’ Routine Activities and Sex Offenders’ Target Selection Scripts: A Latent Class Analysis

“…Looking more specifically at the notion of suitable targets, the routine activities approach also assumes that criminal victimization is not randomly distributed in society and that actual crime-commission is a function of the convergence of lifestyles and criminal opportunity. Hence, daily activities and lifestyles nurture a criminal opportunity structure by enhancing the exposure and proximity of crime targets to motivated offenders (Felson & Cohen, 1980;Miethe & Meier, 1990;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002). When looking at victimization, studies have shown that it is the activities and lifestyles of individuals that carry them through contexts and interactions that will, in return, modify their likelihood of being victimized (Miethe & Meier, 1990;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002;Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2003).…”

“…As proposed by Kaufman et al (2006), "opportunities are most directly influenced by the victim's situation (e.g., walking alone), target location (e.g., parks), and the involvement of facilitators" (p. 112). For example, studies have consistently shown that engaging in social activities away from home or spending a good proportion of time in places where strangers aggregate is associated with an increased risk of criminal victimization (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002;Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2003). Offenders are likely to decide on a suitable area in which to offend, based on the likelihood of finding suitable targets, the latter being a function of the number of potential targets in one location (Bernasco & Nieuwbeerta, 2005).…”

Consistency in crime site selection: An investigation of crime sites used by serial sex offenders across crime series

“…-and aware of), as well as the distribution of targets (Beauregard, Proulx, & Rossmo, 2005;Clarke & Felson, 1993;Deslauriers-Varin & Beauregard, 2010;Eck & Weisburd, 1995). Indeed, daily activities and lifestyles will nurture a criminal opportunity structure by enhancing the exposure and proximity of crime targets to motivated offenders (i.e., crime concentration) (Felson & Cohen, 1980;Miethe & Meier, 1990;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002).…”

An Assessment of The Role of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) in Campus Safety

“…Students' lifestyle and routine activities have been extensively examined as the correlates of campus crime in previous literature. These studies have revealed that students' characteristics and lifestyles, such as their relationship behaviors and alcohol drinking habits, are important determinants of their victimization (Siegel & Raymond, 1992;Wolkvein et al, 1995;Fisher et al, 1998;Henson & Stone, 1999;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002;Sloan et al, 2000;Dowdall, 2013;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2013). …”

“…(1) Much of the extant research on campus safety are either descriptive studies, providing estimations of campus crime (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000;Kilpatrick, Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, & McCauley, 2007;Stewart & Fisher, 2013;Belknap & Erez, 2013) or explanatory research examining the factors that contribute to campus crime occurrence (Siegel & Raymond, 1992;Fisher & Nasar, 1992;Nasar & Fisher, 1993;Wolkvein, Szelest & Lizotte, 1995;Fisher, Sloan, Cullen & Lu, 1998;Henson & Stone, 1999;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002;Sloan, Lanier, & Beer, 2000;Dowdall, 2013;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2013). The existing body of research is lacking an evaluation perspective focusing on the effectiveness of policies and programs designed for campus safety.…”