Should I 'out' myself as a rape victim?

It totally comes down to how comfortable you feel doing it. Don't think, for now, about other people, you're doing enough just by telling your story be told.

If you think there's even a chance that you'll regret this, I wouldn't do it.

If you do not want to be identified as "the rape victim", I think you are well within your rights (and it makes sense) to not have your face shown.

However, I think it would be very naive to say that refusing to show your face wouldn't stigmatize rape victims in some circles. I don't think there's a panacea for this particular question; it boils down to me to "do what you feel most comfortable with".

(xpost with milo)

What Dan said (I was looking for the words, and his are fine ones).

i'd be as conservative about it as possible, because you don't know how it would affect you later on. but that's just me. you don't have to feel responsible for 'stigmas' or anything because of that - you deserve to make life as easy for yourself as possible.

When I said about being identified as 'the rape victimn' , obviously, with this story, that's what I'm identified as, because it's about being a rape survivor. But going into the future, I'm concerned that's it's ALL people will know about me and therefore that my life and the fact I was raped will become inexorably intertwined. A lot of survivors retreat into agonised silence. Other survivors do seem to get over it by dedicating themselves to being 'rape crusaders', something I don't want to be. It's part of me, it's just not what defines me.

However, all the 'veiling the victim ' stuff in the media conflicts with my belief that it ISN'T something that should stigmatise people. I wouldn't be asked if I felt 'defiled' if I'd survived the Soho nail bomb or the Madrid nail bomb for example, or been mugged. So I guess it boils down to my principles vs. my desire for a quiet life. Argh.

Yes, good advice: err on the side of caution here. I think you can be proud about speaking about this anyway, and you don't have to show your face to everyone to justify that. It isn't about being ashamed, it can simply be about not wanting loads of people (including for instance work colleagues and acquaintances) to be looking at you with that at the front of their minds, or wanting to talk about it. I think if it were me, I would prefer not to have my picture there, but I'd certainly be going through the same thoughts as you. I think doing it would be very brave and very difficult, but that emphatically does NOT mean that choosing not to do it is a bad thing.

Oh no, I totally understand (this coming from the perspective of being the person who was always asked "What do black people think of [issue x]?" pretty much throughout high school and as a result has become fucking tired of being put into positions of being the Ambassador To Black America, PARTICULARLY considering that my upbringing makes me about as qualified for that position as Craig Kilborn). I'm saying that regadless of what you do, someone will view it in a manner that stygmatizes rape victims, so I would remove that concern from the equation and do what feels most comfortable. If neither option wins that comparison, do what takes the least amount of effort.

I think whatever you choose, you should try to remember that there's no right way to handle this. Whatever you decide, do your best to live with (rather pablum advice I know).

I find it hard to believe that people would colleagues and friends would stigmatise you, but maybe I'm just naive. A more likely pain in the arse might be that if peopole find out they'll be so scared of saying the wrong thing that they'll just be weird with you.

In the long-term you might feel good for having done it, I dunno.

As everyone else says, whichever you choose, don't feel bad about it.

Hmm, one vaguely similar thing: one of the reasons I am open about my bisexuality, including at work and so on, is that I think it a bad thing that it is hard for people to be so open, and I hope the more who are open, the easier it might get. But I have had far less hassle or nuisance from that, and I'm not trying to compare it - and I very much do not blame anyone at all who doesn't want to announce their sexuality, and I entirely understand in our world why many who aren't heterosexual don't. I think it would be a difficult thing for you to do, and while it might possibly make some tiny, incremental difference, I don't think it's your responsibility to have to do it. Some people are nasty or insensitive or, as Nick says, just weird with people who have been raped, and you don't have to expose yourself to them.

If you want to show your face, show it. If not, don't. This is all about you; while you're telling your story maybe to help other women, other survivors, ultimately it is your story.

You know how hard it will be to show your face, but you also know how valuable it might be to others if you do.

As you said, it boils down to principles vs. a quiet life

Thanks for responses; helps. Re. Luna's post I was wondering if it was really about about feeding my ego and telling my story for me, not others, but I don't think, on reflection, that it's the main reason. It was painful and invasive telling it, and it wasn't therapy - I pay for that and get that elsewhere. The main reason was I remember how desperately I needed to read other survivor's stories after it happened to me, because I took great comfort from it. Lights further up the path leading the way. Gave me strength, made me realise others had got through it, so I could too. There weren't many survivors whose stories I read who showed their identities and faces. That said something to me about stigma and shame. The ones who did go public were even more of an inspiration. But I don't know if I can hack the responsibilty of living up to my ideals and principles in this case. However, what's the point of havinbg a principle if you don't act on it? If you don't act on it, it's not a principle, it's an opinion. Hum.

Will a lot of people you know definitely be reading the magazine? Is your real name being included in the article, or details like where you live/work now? Maybe if your face is shown but your name and specific details are hidden, that gives a personal feeling for other survivors who need to read your story, but a little bit of protection from being identified by the people who know you. Some people you know will certainly think they recognize you, but they may not know it's you for sure unless they ask you. If they're prepared to do that, then they've been able to deal with the possibility in their own minds. But those who don't know for sure might end up having to look at the way they behave towards "a rape victim" versus "not a rape victim" (erm, wishful thinking perhaps!)

Actually, if you ask for them to use a psuedonym and drastically alter your makeup, odds are people won't connect YOU to the story. I do understand that this is about half a step away from having a stand-in take the picture, though.

Keep this in mind too: even if you *are* doing it for ego reasons, so what? There is NOTHING wrong with this at all; any discomfort you feel on that level is unnecessary, because you're not victimizing anyone by telling your story. It is, I'd say, all to the good that you are. And remember also that there are countless victims of sexual assault and worse; in a way, putting your face out there is akin to telling the world that you're real, and that what you're writing about (both specific to your situation and the problem of rape generally) is real, and that it's nothing to be ashamed of in and of itself. It isn't your fault you were raped and it isn't anyone else's fault they were/are, either. To my mind, there's no reason to be ashamed of putting the story forth, nor would there be to showing your face--and there isn't any reason to be ashamed of NOT showing your face, either.

I really hope that made sense; it sort of dissolved into gobbledygook, didn't it? Sorry about that. The point is that what you're doing is fine and you shouldn't worry at all about it. And that whichever face-showing decision you make is and/or should be equally fine.

I am curious about one thing, though, because I'm a professional writer: did you choose not to be paid for the piece? And if so, why? I'm definitely of the mind that if you write for a paying publication (and this piece sounds like it's for one), you should be paid for it. But maybe I missed something above.

For what it's worth, and not to sound flip, substitute "principles" for "rules" in the adage "Rules are made to be broken." As the others here have said, it's your choice to be made. Don't beat yourself up, whatever you decide.

one zillion x-posts later:

Do you have some copy approval here? It's not unusual, given that this is for charity, some obligations like this can be met out of respect for your situation. If no, a July issue of a mainstream mag is probably close to end of production so if you want to check it out get the charity's PR to help you out. That's what s/he's there for.

Would some of your friends and colleagues you haven't told be disappointed not having prior knowledge about your experience and take it as a demotion of sorts if you didn't confide in them or at least give them the heads-up that the article is to appear, if it did appear as your own story?

For people who are likely to be both uncomfortable with the information (I refuse to use the word 'confession' to describe what you'd tell them) but disappointed both ways by not hearing it from you, it's important to emphasise that you're doing it to help a charity you support. That makes you proactive and not a victim. Anyone further outside your circle isn't really a priority, and for all the aggrandizing journalists do about themselves and how centrale they are this is a human interest story with limited shelf time, probably a one-off, and a potential employer is probably not going to see it in his or her dentist's office anyway, or just plain not retain the information if they do. If you came into my office I'd respect you, if I'd read it and it stuck with me.

The difficulty I have with anonymity is that journalists, especially in MOR women's publications, tend to use you to construct an archetype if your identity is secret. I'm a writer for magazines and worry that the media use really hackneyed archetypes to create empathy in female readers, and even the best journalists and writers get sucked into certain agendas completely by accident. I'm constantly policing myself for this. It's less likely you'll know what they've written in the anon situ, but more likely to be posited as archetypal, or just kind of OTT triumph over adversity cliche, meant well nonetheless.

Did you read Alice Sebold's 'Lucky'? - it's amazing and you should. She was raped and went public with her story in this book and it's a harrowing read, and you think she's so strong yet when you meet her at a launch (apols, but relevant) she seems both spooked and a wee bit spooky in her shyness. But it is also incredibly incisive, especially with regard to her own cynicism about the whole construct of the good girl, and having to play up to it in excelsis to achieve a result.