not a nice topic, but been annoying me all day

Why did you not clarify that the EP, rather than suggesting the other elements of the definition were at fault? Why would you want to do that?

You're obviously very concerned about rape, so why don't you use that concern by reading up on what is said by the experts who have taken a lead from actual rape victims and listened to their voices. It seems to me that this would be much better use for your concern. Rather than telling rape victims they are wrong. You wouldn't want that concern to inadvertently cause problems, would you.

I linked to some stats on another thread. They were based on interviews done on college campuses in California(?) in the 90s. There were the ususal numbers of unreported rapes . What was interesting was the figures on how many women actually identified what happened to them as rape when it fit the legal definition of rape.

Rape is still seen as being predominately the stranger attacking a lone woman in the street/park/alley. Not only does this mean that women are encouraged to be disproportionately fearful of those situations (walking alone after dark), it also means that women as well as men are reluctant to identify many situations as rape.

It's all those rape myths. Rape doesn't always involve violence, rape doesn't always mean the victim is screaming no etc.

I think the common image of rape also leads to a commonly held image of a rapist. A rapist is a man who lurks in shadows and preys on women. It's not the attractive man in the nice suit. It's not the man that you drink with in the pub or the bloke you sit near at the football. That must make rape convictions a lot more difficult.

What is rape, then, in your opinion?

From the SOA 2003:

1Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if?

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

I feel terrible, trying to explain personal feelings is difficult and I was trying to make sense of the thoughts in my head, not very well obviously, or perhaps I'm just showing my complete ignorance.
I don't think I'm better than a woman who has had lots of partners, nor do I think that women shouldn't have casual sex/modify their dress to deter rapists or any nonsense like that, I was simply explaining that having just the one partner is very important to me personally, I don't intend to ever have sex with anyone else, so to have that taken away from me ( even though I totally understand that rape isn't sex) would be pretty much the most devastating and destructive thing that could happen to me , but to a much lesser extent than a virgin being raped, or a child, in my head at any rate.
I also think it would be "worse" for my (adult) DD to be raped than myself
( she's had more partners than me) , but that's just maternal instinct I suppose and I don't think that it would be worse for my husband to be raped than myself - he thinks that it would be worse for DD, then me, then him .
I absolutely wasn't saying that a prostitute is worth less than anyone else, or not be affected by rape, just that maybe her trauma would be less severe because she was used to having sex that she didn't actually want.

I do believe that all rape should be treated equally in law, with the same sentence for a man who has raped his wife or male partner as a man who has grabbed a woman (or man) on the street, (although child rape should carry a heavier punishment imho) - I certainly don't think that a rapist should get a lighter sentence for raping a prostitute than a "respectable" married woman for example. If a man is guilty, he is guilty.

"Logically and legally, then, one rape is one act of penetration without consent. The circumstances and gender of the victim are irrelevant. What you are saying, I think, is that it's "worse" to suffer more than one crime at once. A court would agree". Yes.

At least a man who is raped is believed and is thus more likely to see his rapist punished by law.

The non-punishment of rapists of women means that women are dealt a duble injustice.

Comparing rape to being stabbed is very telling.

Rape is rape. If there is also violence, kidnapping etc then those things are separate additional charges.

Rape is the penetration of a woman without her consent. All the argument about degrees of rape serves to do is dismiss the seriousness of acquaintance and date rape - which make up the vast majority of rapes - and perpetuate the idea that 'proper' rape is about a woman being attacked by a stranger with violence or the threat of violence. Which then leads to the kind of attitudes expressed by the men in the OP and sadly by Malificence - that some rapes are 'worse' than others.

I'd dispute that bit, Lenin. Doing something to another person's body without permission is aggressive.

"I shall accept this is yet another tabboo subject upon which the party line of the radical feminists of the board must be toed."

Radical feminist?! FFS. Go and google Ken Clarke and rape.

It's the same as when you hear a prostitute has been murdered. They always mention that she is a prostitute, however the same logic is not applied to the murderer. Ie a man who pays prostitutes to have sex with him, has been remanded in custody............

I agree with Aye and Garlic.
Very depressing.

Yes, as Aye and futter say: aggressive penetration is seen as "less bad" when done to a woman than to a man or a child - and that is the core of misogyny.

That last sentence made no sense. They don't have empathy and do have misogynistic attitudes which then leaves them free to create that hierarchy.

As for the OP, I think the attitude of those men touches on something I wanted to post on the PIV thread but didn't because it went crazy - that the act of penetration is seen by some men as powerful in and of itself. They clearly recognise that being penetrated without your consent is traumatising. That they don't have the empathy and do have the misogyny to create a hierarchy is depressingly familiar and obviously not confined to men.

I don't know if he knew at the time he raped her.

They stayed together until he died at the age of 80. He cheated on her for most of their marriage too.

She was in the French Resistance when she was gang raped.

She is 84 now and suffers from debilitating depression.

Beach. Did he know she had been raped? Poor woman - please tell me she got away from her DH?

I've been burlged six times, four times I was in the property. Only the last time was I remotely affected and that's because they stole food and so we had to throw away everything and disinfect the house. I still have no lasting affect.

I don't know when any act of predatory sexual violence is appropriate, it seems to be culturally more acceptable for male sexual predation against women, rather than male:male or adult:child.

It is the core of misongyny and very depressing.

chibi wrote: if rapists are convicted there is scope to take in to account associated levels of violence when sentencing - and I agree with that.

I get your arguments, Phoebe, but the 'badness' of a crime is subjective to the victim. IF you're trying to evaluate the suffering of victims - you can't, because it is subjective. To take a less emotive example, many people are seriously traumatised by burglary. They feel violated to the extent they never feel safe at home again. It doesn't affect me that way: I've been burgled and, apart from being angry and inconvenienced, suffer no ill effects.

Aye reiterates, correctly, that violence is not part of the definition for rape. The only criterion is consent. If a woman is raped and strangled, she's suffered two crimes - rape and attempted murder. If a woman is raped by a gang of five, she's suffered five rapes or more.

Logically and legally, then, one rape is one act of penetration without consent. The circumstances and gender of the victim are irrelevant. What you are saying, I think, is that it's "worse" to suffer more than one crime at once. A court would agree.