Rapist has sentence reduced as judge says there is no indication that it was anything other than a 'single impusive act'

Well perhaps i am not understanding how a violent act can require no violence rufus ?

Nope not you cad i thought your post made sense in a legal...sense (too many sense )

My comment is more regarding its posts

Rufus Seemingly your comments is related to my posts. In turn my post was commenting on It'llallbefine's last sentence of her post at 10:02.

No one is saying that rape has to require violence, where has someone said that

I am genuinely confused

I think men and women can experience violence differently

A man can use his size and his ability to physically overpower me to intimidate me this can feel violently threatening

Of course this can be done to another man less likely to as they will view them as more of an equal in terms of physical strength

Bath I think you have misinterpreted by words. All I say at 11:02 is that the statutory definition of rape in E&W does not include the need to prove that any violence as occurred per se.

I didn't realise there was a male way of defining violence. I must have missed that day off school.

The definition is merely insertion of a penis coupled with a lack of consent.

And that is an act of violence.

It is an act of violence by definition. It is a violation of bodily autonomy.

Arguing about whether it is like other acts of violence is insulting.

You might as well argue that Harold Shipman's victims had nice gentle deaths.

You want to define violence in a male way - as a brutal act that causes immediate pain and visible harm.

But I reject that definition of violence. It is violent to do harm to people's bodies, even if you do that harm with a penis the person is too young/unconscious/desperate/naive to know is where it should not be.

Requiring that violence is a pre requisite of any claim of rape is not helpful...

In English & Welsh law there is no such pre-requisite. The definition is merely insertion of a penis coupled with a lack of consent.

i fully expect any replies will now focus entirely on the fact that kissing someone on the forehead is not the same as rape and will ignore any other points I have raised, so i regret using that example. it was simply intended to get the heart of what it is about the penis and the vagina that makes the act violent.

Oh good God, you are either spectacularly hard of understanding or arguing something that I don't understand why you are arguing.

Funny, this is exactly how I feel !

Statutory rape would be another example where the female participates, in this case enthusiastically perhaps with a sports star she idolises. You have to make quite the mental contortion to say that this involved violence. I've read of prostitutes who "consent" to sex that i still classify as rape, hating themselves all the more because they didn't hate every second of it.

There is a problem where women who have not apparently suffered violence are not believed to have been raped. There are two solutions to this - the first is to insist that violence is a part of any rape regardless of the circumstances, the second is to simply remove the requirement that rape has to involve violence.

It is ridiculous to assert, as has been done here that anyone doing the latter, hates women, is a man, a rape apologist, stupid and hard of thinking. Sadly I am not surprised that any slight deviation from what some "feminists" think leads to an attempt to shut down debate by hurling the most awful insults around, it's bloody typical.

Kissing someone on the forehead without their consent does not become a violent act because I didn't consent to it. Saying that because a penis was involved therefore something special was taken from the victim and this makes it violent isn't logical. Not consenting to an act does not make the act violent. Requiring that violence is a pre requisite of any claim of rape is not helpful...i do not see what is so controversial about this view.

in all seriuosness I dont think she is being goady and she is obviously misreading just about everyones post

But perhaps this is honestly upsetting to her

itllallbefine according to itllallbefine has been accused of being a man on another thread

Not surprised with what has been posted on this thread

How on earth do some people still trot out the "women should fight back when being raped" line. When they have been on this forum, for the amount of time you have been It, how can those words actually leave your mouth/fingers?

I'm baffled that you can think this.

Rape is and always will be, in and of itself, a violent act.

Yes there can be additional ('gratuitous', I suppose) violence on top of that which can up the sentence.

I'm sorry I cross posted a lot of people 'cause I took too long write my post.

So I missed some posts that made the same points I did but more eloquently.

I previously couldnt decide if itallbe was a GF or just a sad scary fucker?

However having read their latest comments…I'm going sad sad git.

If they are really female how sad it is to hate your own sex so much

Twisting again.

I have and always will maintain that a man 'placing' his penis in the vagina/anus/mouth of a woman who has not openly, freely and joyfully consented is in itself an act of violence. (Or in the mouth/anus of a man)

You don't need to be slapped,punched or kicked, having a penis in any of these that you did not consent to, is in itself an act of violence.

It is people saying that a penis in a vagina or else where without permission isn't always'violent' that makes women doubt themselves (and same for male victims for that matter).

At the end of the day if you did not freely consent to the act it doesn't matter if there isn't a mark on you or you've been beaten black and blue.
Doesn't matter if you've only meet the person an hour earlier, or been in a relationship for 40 years.
If you're married or not, if you earn more/less than them, if you vote Tory and they vote Lib Dem.

At the end of it all

Lack of active consent = rape.

Rape = violence

Didn't scream and fight, but didn't obviously / freely consent = rape.
Married for 1,5,or 45 years, no consent, still rape.

Was in to it at the start changed your mind and said stop and they didn't , yeap that's rape too.

This is a short list of reasons I have personally heard that were used as justification for rape.

She Wore a short skirt/sexy clothes, worked as a lap dancer, is a lesbian or bi, is/was a virgin,cheated on them. 'Known' to have had multiple sexual partners. Chatted nicely to them. Invited them for a drink/coffee/dinner. Gave them a book/video/DVDs that they expressed an interest in.

Amazing how some men can see these subtle signs as an 'invitation' to sex but can't see a woman terrified/motionless/emotionless as signs that she doesn't want to have sex.

To the sensible people on here, no I don't have a very scarey set of friends, I heard the 'excuses' above in a professional setting.

What has showing resistance got to do with being raped

Oh good God, you are either spectacularly hard of understanding or arguing something that I don't understand why you are arguing.

Rape is a violent act, REGARDLESS of physical force used. REGARDLESS of resistance by the woman. It just IS a violent act. It has forced someone to undergo something they did not actively want, it has violated their person, it is a violent act.
Gratuitous additional violence upgrades the sentence the rapist receives; lack of it doesn't make it a non-violent act.

No - they are saying it is all violent. They have to say this since they have equated rape and violence. Coercion is not violence, your position is that if you are coerced then you are a victim of violence. In common parlance rapists drug their victims so that they do not have to use violence. The act of "putting" a penis somewhere is not violent, the act of punching someone is always violent whether the person consented to be punched or not. There is clearly a difference. Not all women resist sex that they are coerced into.

YY this " No it's people defining rape as violent or not

When you are raped you are violated your choice is taken away that in itself is a violent act"

Lots

itllall - you appear to be the one who is "grading" rape, no one else. Everyone else is saying it's ALL rape.

No it's people defining rape as violent or not

When you are raped you are violated your choice is taken away that in itself is a violent act

great - so women who feel guilty because their rapes weren't violent given the common usage and understanding of that word, are batshit crazy. Nice, bigjock its sure great to be on your team.

When I googled non violent rape what came up was women confused and questioning had they been raped

Women changing their minds, women drunk, women having had sex before with their parent thought that they best go along with it again

The man has still inserted his penis into her without consent, knowing she was not wanting him to so

So yes that is violent he is violating her

Rape is rape it's a violent act

NRTFT - the sentencing guidelines for rape in the Uk here state sentences of 4-19 years. The judge is stating, based on these guidelines why he went from 9 years to 7 years.
Judges can only work within these guidelines, do not blame him, blame them.