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

The point is that if you are unconscious or drugged then it would be "forcing a penis into a vagina".

Or that it doesn't count as rape unless it was sore ?

FFS - here we go. Did i say :

"My position is that "forcing a penis into a vagina" is not in and of itself an act of violence" ??

No, i did not.

As usual Posie you are being all outraged and angry about something that is not even controversial. The act of putting a penis into a vagina is not by definition violent, the act of punching someone in the face is. If this were not the case then all men would always be violent rapists. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that a man committing date rape is thrusting more violently or forcing himself onto the women with more damaging force than if the women had fully consented. Are you saying that unless you clamp up your vagina like a vice you someone weren't resisting at all ?

My position is that "putting a penis into a vagina" is not in and of itself an act of violence

Have you ever had anything forced in to your vagina??

It hurts---- alot!

Vaginas are not this gaping hole that you can just poke something in.
They are a muscular canal with a fragile mucous membrane. Forcing anything in there can cause a lot of pain and damage.

Personally having experienced both I'd always pick the punch in the face

I think there's still thinking that rape is sex, that he must have wanted to fuck the woman, he fancied her.....

He wanted to rape her, he hated her and wanted to put his dick inside her because he hated her, not because he was horny.

"My position is that "putting a penis into a vagina" is not in and of itself an act of violence"

Sorry? Putting an unwanted object into a woman's vagina isn't violence?

WTAF?

You wonder if these judges would think it was more serious if it was a 5" wooden pole as opposed to a penis.

bigjock - agree with everything you say.

Or is it not violence to punch someone in the face if they are unconscious?
Err straw man anyone ?

My position is that "putting a penis into a vagina" is not in and of itself an act of violence. Punching someone in the face on the other hand, is. You would need to define what you consider to be an act of violence - i accept it could be a psychologically a violent act, but it is not physically violent. Even the odd language that posters use such as "putting the penis into" suggests it is somehow placed there as if lifted up and put down inside the vagina.

This is partly why the anal rape thing is viewed the way it is - because a man would have to be physically beaten into submission. Seriously?

Yes, i think that men do not understand how some one could rape you and leave no physical evidence that they caused any harm. I'm not saying they are right to hold this view, i am saying they hold it (NAMALT of course).

This is partly why the anal rape thing is viewed the way it is - because a man would have to be physically beaten into submission

And this idea is one of the many many reasons that male rape is under-reported.

Men, just like women can experience 'freezing'.

If the general thoughts are that a 'real' man has to be beaten in to submission, if he freezes does that mean he wasn't really raped? Did he actually want it? is it no wonder that it is under reported?

And is it this thought process that 'allows' people to believe that vaginal rape can't be that bad because if it was they would have fought. . (not ignoring that fact as stated above that in an average fight a woman will come off a lot worse and would be unlikely to be able to beat a man to a point where she could escape)

itallbefine Have you read any accounts by rape victims? It's very easy to say it's a good idea to fight, but you just don't know how you'll react. Humans have three responses to threat- fight, flight and freeze. You don't get to choose, instinct takes over. Spend a while on the relationships section of MN, it's a real eye opener.

So if I punched or kicked someone repeatedly while they were unconscious or drugged, that would not be violent?

Putting the fact that a lot of rape victims freeze to one side, I don't think I'd be capable of doing any/much damage to most men I know. I'm pathetically small. I certainly couldn't break a man's jaw. I also probably wouldn't want to take the risk that he wouldn't stab/strangle otherwise threaten my life.

This is partly why the anal rape thing is viewed the way it is - because a man would have to be physically beaten into submission. Seriously?

I'm not sure that all rape is a violent act, what about someone who is drugged or unconscious for example ?

Putting your penis into a vagina where it is welcome is an act of violence.

Or is it not violence to punch someone in the face if they are unconscious?

I'm not sure that all rape is a violent act, what about someone who is drugged or unconscious for example ?

I actually believe that fighting back is decent advice at times, it strikes me that a lot of men who commit rape don't really thing they have, they just needed to be persuasive or persistent. This is particularly the case with so called "date rape", I have a feeling a lot of men who might be able to convince themselves a women actually wants sex would have a harder time actually physically beating her into submission. This is partly why the anal rape thing is viewed the way it is - because a man would have to be physically beaten into submission.

If they had to beat you or leave any physical evidence that they had forced you to submit, they would think twice, they'd have a harder time denying that they punched you in the face when you have a broken jaw than saying that oh the sex was consensual, you see how she is physically unharmed ?

I think it must be something along the lines of 'Sex feels good. Rape is a type of sex. It might be a bit unpleasant but not awful, because that's what the vagina is for.' Coupled with the deep-seated belief that 'if the woman really didn't want it they would fight.'

Personally, I do believe that rape is an extremely violent act, in and of itself. It's a deliberate over-riding of the other person's right to bodily autonomy.

BigJock, I was just wondering myself why vaginal rape is viewed as not that bad. Maybe it's because in their heart of hearts some people think women either deserve it (for being out alone, wearing a short skirt, leaving the house, or whatever); or because they think women are secretly into it and enjoy it; or maybe because they think 'well, that is the purpose of the vagina. So it can't be that bad.' Or maybe there's another reason I can't think of. I don't know.

I'm not going to be very eloquent here so bear with me (I'm fuming about something else)

But anyway there still seem be a lot of people that think that vaginal rape is not necessarily a violent act. That the vagina is in a state of constant readiness and that for it not to hurt all the woman needs to do is relax.......

They are of course all idiots.

I say vaginal rape as in my limited observation anal rape is seen as a violent act, I could hypothesise that this is because anal rape can happen to both sexes and vaginal to only one......

I did put this theory to 2 men and a woman once, the woman thought about it and agreed. The 2 men nicely explained to silly old me that anal rape (of a man) was always going to be more violent as they would have to be beat unconscious before they'd 'allow' that to happen.

Because it talks of multiple acts of extreme violence. The applicant committed a rape - an act of violence - for which he has now received a custodial sentence of 7 years with an extended license period. However, whilst there is no doubt it was violent it wasn't in my view, extremely violent either. Nor is there any evidence that he has committed more than one act - in order to qualify for the plural 'acts' on other occasions - so for that reason, I don't believe that Bathtime is correctly describing this particular rapist.

Why did you ask if that describes the applicant? It is agreed he raped 'on impulse' isn't it? I thought you might be questioning whether rape is an act of violence.

He did plan it, that's why he got his mates to fuck off having used them to lure her into trusting them.

WilLiAm - Yes I do.

Shouldn't rapists who plan their attacks expect a greater sentence ?

"Surely someone who impulsively commits extreme acts of violence is extremely dangerous?"

And does this describe the Applicant in this case, do you think ?

Do you not think rape is an act of violence?

And does this describe the Applicant in this case, do you think?

Clearly.

The fact that he committed his rale impulsively seems to be accepted by the court.

Rape is an act of extreme violence.

It's difficult to see what other way he could be described unless you think it is acceptable that the level of violence needed to do your raping is given legal protection for rapists.

Thank you cad, that's helpful.

If it's any standard lower than "beyond reasonable doubt", then I stand by my initial assessment that the appeal judges have bent over backwards to give the most favourable assessment to the offender on each point.

It's particularly obvious in this judgement because we have their interpretation of evidence about the victim to compare to their interpretation of evidence about the offender. And the double standard is glaring.

Don't have time to set it all out right now - but looks like others are already doing so!