"Forced to have sex" Really?!

[FuzzyWizard]

How is it possible to write an article like this and not use the word rape once?!

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/14/islamic-state-leader-raped-kayla-muller-abu-bakr-baghdadi

[FuzzyWizard]

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/14/islamic-state-leader-raped-kayla-muller-abu-bakr-baghdadi

[Charis1]

haven't read the article, but surely that is the word "rape" right there in the title?

[FuzzyWizard]

In the URL but not in the title of the article or the article itself

[AuntieStella]

It does say 'raped' in the name of the article as you have linked it.

It says 'forced to have sex' twice in the actual article. It uses no euphemisms.

I find the words 'forced to have sex' clear and accurate.

[RedCrayons]

They are reporting what her parents were told, maybe that's the phrase they used.

[AskBasil]

"Forced to have sex" is only clear and accurate, if you perceive sex and rape as being the same thing.

For me, "have sex" implies a level of involvement and participation, which rape doesn't.

It's not possible to force someone to "have sex" because by doing so, you'd have to force them to consent and actively participate in it, which of course is impossible.

[AuntieStella]

I see it differently. Sex is the physical act and can be forced or welcomed.

And it adds clarity, because the definitions of rape vary depending on the jurisdiction. And in ISIS controlled territory, this wouldn't be rape; and the State a Department, who released this information, are writing to the global population.

This is a deliberate release of info, and is therefore likely to have been considered carefully for its PsyOps value for specific target audiences.

[AskBasil]

No, penetration is the physical act.

Sex is kissing, touching with hands, licking, nibbling, whispering, holding, embracing etc.

Penetration by a penis is just one small part of sex, for some people, irrespective of what patriarchy tells us.

[AskBasil]

"Forced penetration" is a perfectly clear term.

"Forced sex" is an oxymoron AFAIC.

[AuntieStella]

Much more to sex than penetration.

[BakingCookiesAndShit]

Yes Fuzzy that gave me the rage too

[AskBasil]

Exactly.

[BakingCookiesAndShit]

Plus of course, the original article said she was raped, and at some point overnight, the language was changed.

[Mide7]

According to the dictionary sex is just sexual activity, including intercourse.

[BathtimeFunkster]

And in ISIS controlled territory, this wouldn't be rape

Yes it would.

Lunatic religious fanatics don't get to redefine words and have those definitions accepted.

[FuzzyWizard]

Like Basil I see sex and rape as completely different.
For me sex is something in which two people are active participants- you have sex with someone.
Rape on the other hand is an act where only one of you has any agency- you are raped by someone.
It also just annoyed me that they went to all the effort of using four words for it when we have one word that sums up perfectly well what happened to her.

[knittingdad]

I thought this was a bit weird, so I wrote an email to the Readers' Editor about it asking why the word "rape" was not used in place of "forced to have sex". I'll let you know if I get a reply.

[sashh]

Lunatic religious fanatics don't get to redefine words and have those definitions accepted.

Er it's not just fanatics who define rape but all countries have their own laws. I believe Kayla Muller was held in Jordan.

Under Jordanian law this was not rape as she was 'married' to her rapist.

The wording makes it clear that she was forced, that she was assaulted, that this is unacceptable regardless of whether it was/is legal in that country.

Incidentally in 1980s UK rape was legal in marriage. Rape did not include oral sex, or penetration with an object or penetration of the anus.

Rape has different legal definitions around the world, until there is only one definition it sometimes needs to be spelled out in other words.

[LastingLight]

The article has been changed now, it says she was raped.

[tribpot]

I agree - this is excessive legal quibbling. They could have noted 'Jordanian law would not regard this as rape'.

[meditrina]

The article never said just "sex".

It said "forced sex" throughout.

So it seems a bit straw man to compare sex and rape when the article does not use the former term in isolation at any point.

BBC page uses 'rape' (yes, with inverted commas: presumably because intercourse in marriage is not legally classified as rape in the places where it occurred).

[BakingCookiesAndShit]

Glad the article has been changed back to it's original wording now

[BathtimeFunkster]

Under Jordanian law this was not rape as she was 'married' to her rapist.

The Guardian is not a Jordanian newspaper, and the misogynist laws of that country don't change the fact that this woman was raped.

Or that her rapist did not magically become her husband through the act f taping her.

[WhirlpoolGalaxyM51]

The word rape is not a word that only has a legal meaning. It has a general meaning as well that is well understood. And it is commonly used out of a legal context. So the quibbles over using it in this article seem a bit strange.

I see that the guardian had updated the article to make clear that she was raped so that is good. And they don't share the concerns of some on this thread over using the word rape to describe rape.

Op I agree there's no need for this in the press and it just serves to soften and sometimes to shift attention from the perpetrator. "Child prostitute" is one that comes up a lot. And like those girls who were kidnapped and reported to have been "forced to marry" their captors which seemed like a very weak description of what was being done to them.

Language is important.