Trigger warning: Germain Greer's opinion on rape...

[LokiBear]

I can't actually get my head around this. How can a woman think like this? I have two daughters and comments like hers frighten me. I teach consent to 15 year olds and this goes against everything I try to teach them. I just dont get how anyone can think like this.

news.sky.com/story/germaine-greer-says-most-rape-is-bad-sex-not-violent-crime-11390855

Pengggwn We read the quote completely differently. You seem to read it as minimisimg rape, and I read her quote as arguing that we need to broaden our idea of rape to include all the instances of non-consensual sex that is currently written off as 'bad sex'.

Instead of thinking of rape as a spectacularly violent crime and some rapes are, think about it as non consensual

This is Greer emphasising that the defining factor of rape is lack of consent, not accompanying violence. Again, many people think it isn't rape without violence.

… that is bad sex,” she added. “Sex where there is no communication, no tenderness, no mention of love.

This is Greer expanding on the first lines and describing the kind of rape that doesn't get treated as rape. It makes it difficult that we can't hear tone, and are relying on a journalist who clearly lifted sensationalist quotes. I wonder if this may have been clearer in context. Did she go on to speak about the standard of enthusiastic consent?

You are - if I am not mistaken - supporting a proposal that says the crime of rape shouldn't always be the crime of rape..

NO. And I have no idea where you got this from.

I've had lots of amazing consensual sex involving all of the above factors, so that can't be what defines rape.

No, it defines a specific rape - a non-violent, coercive rape.

JamieVardysHavingAParty

I'm really sorry but I really feel people who are interpreting it that way are either being disingenuous, haven't read it properly or have problems with reading. There is no possible way I could agree that this is what she is saying.

AutumnMadness

Then I apologise. I may have seen you as being 'on that side' of the argument because you are (seemingly) agreeing with posters who (I believe) are saying exactly that. But that was unfair of me.

What do you think of GG's proposal then?

Pengggwn. Thank you for your acknowledgement.

However, I already wrote a rather extensive post about what I think about GG's proposal.

Instead of thinking of rape as a spectacularly violent crime and some rapes are, think about it as non consensual … that is bad sex,” she added. “Sex where there is no communication, no tenderness, no mention of love.”
So she's applying her standards of what "good sex" is, which isn't "good sex" to everyone. Why is she saying that communication, tenderness and love are needed? Does that make sex without those things, rape?
She's saying it's just "bad sex." But bad sex isn't rape! People have lots of bad sex that's consensual! Non consensual sex is rape. Why is she conflating bad sex, and non consensual sex? That's just confusing.
And why is she taking this minimising attitude towards it, and downplaying it, resulting in "non violent rape" being conflated with "bad sex"?
Rape is (roughly) : any sex where a person does not consent, or removes consent, and the perpetrator can be believed to have known this, and continued anyway.
Bad, good, tender, violent, gentle, "loving" (in the perpetrator's mind,) - none of that is relevant whatsoever. Consent is all that matters.
So why didn't she say that? Why did she so vigorously conflate rape with bad sex, and appear to minimise its seriousness at every turn, when she could have just said: Rape is a crime based on lack of consent, not feelings, or violence, or prior relationship. It is about a man not thinking he needs permission to use a woman's body as he wants sexually - whether because of maliciousness or entitlement. And that attitude needs to be stamped out.

I totally agree with Greer. There has been a sensationalisation of rape through TV and Film that has led to the attitude that rape is always violent and physically traumatic.

I consider myself to have been raped by an ex-partner because he would demand sex whenever he wanted it and would not wait for my consent. It wasn’t violent but it was emotionally manipulative.

I never really talk about it because I know that pretty much no one else would consider it rape. He would be very surprised if I accused him of rape. There’s no way the police would take it seriously.

The problem is that we as a society still see rape as strangers in dark alleys forcing themselves on the unsuspecting. But of the four rapes I know of in my friendship circle, none were of this kind. Two involved date rape drugs and not memory of what happened. None have resulted in successful convictions.

So maybe we need to change the narrative around rape. If consent is key then it should be able to stand or fall on the word of the victim. So, logically, the sentence should be lighter and the conviction rate should be much higher.

Pengggwn
And really, regardless of what GG meant, the fact that we are getting that message from what she said is a huge issue, in and of itself, because we are (clearly, from the internet furor,) not the only ones who have understood her words as a minimisation.
Even if that's not what she meant, it's worrying that so many people can only interpret her words as being minimisation. It comes across terribly, and it doesn't help women imo - it in fact hurts our cause.

Pengggwn As you wish. You are entitled to your view.

Good point Jamie - I think you’re right - as I said upthread, I was at the Hay and heard GG’s speech first hand - much easier to understand what she was saying when you can hear her tone, body language and the context of the words, and are not relying on the interpretation of a journalist simply highlighting soundbites.

scrumplestilskin @curioussamphire wrote a really good few posts at the start of this thread about GG and sound bites, it’s absolutely true. But I think it’s just a lack of critical thinking to assume she meant ‘all rape is just bad sex’ because that’s patently not true.

Well said MissSusan

Sorry, that’s not a dig at you personally, just at the furor, as you say.

Luisa27 Think what would have happened if she had told an anecdote about helping around a family farm as a child, including helping her uncle Jack to dismount his horse.

Imagine if a reporter had mucked up the punctuation on that.

I’ve been raped by three different men in theee very different ways. For me, two of those ways were less bad than the other. One of those ways was even lesser than the other two. Only one has truly traumatised me and I have ptsd from it and blocked a lot out, one of those ways I will occasionally get a flashback when a discussion such as this one happens. One of them I didn’t realise was rape until a few years after, thanks to mumsnet actually. Two I didn’t fight back at all and one I used to but it was often violent (physically using fists etc) so I stopped fighting back. I don’t have a problem with someone saying some rapes aren’t as bad as others, because to me, that is true.

I don’t have a problem with someone saying some rapes aren’t as bad as others, because to me, that is true.

That’s absolutely your opinion and of course you’re totally right to have it, but actually, I disagree with this. I hate the idea of serious/non serious rape, it honestly goes against everything I believe as a feminist. BUT I’m also realistic in regcognising that a rape carried out on a woman who previously consented or one who was nagged into it, is very very unlikely to result in any kind of punishment for the rapist. And it’s that I’d like to see challenged.

So in an ideal world, that would come from absolutely everyone agreeing that rape equals rape and that’s it - but short of that happening, maybe having reduced tariffs for sexual offences would result in more convictions and a greater understanding of the scale of the problem? I don’t know if it would, but I’m glad we’re talking about it.

AutumnMadness

Sorry, I do not see that. Could you post the time of that post and I can re-read?

Pumperthepumper, I don't think that QuackPorridgeBacon meant "not as bad" as "not as serious" (QuackPorridgeBacon, please correct me if I am wrong). I think she meant "not as traumatic". And things can certainly be not traumatic but still serious.

In terms of reduced tariffs - I do believe that as a huge proportion of women experience rape at some point in their lives, a huge proportion of men commit rape at some point in their lives. And it's just not possible to lock up a huge proportion of men for a minimum of 5 years each (current sentencing guidelines as quoted by another poster earlier).

Pumperthepumper

Can you explain how it might lead to more convictions? I keep hearing this, but I still have no idea how calling some rapes 'acquaintance rape' (for example) or 'non-consensual sex' would actually increase the chances of proving it happened. How would that work?

Pengggwn, it's Mon 04-Jun-18 11:17:02. I am pretty sure you read this post as you did react to it.

Autumn:

Perhaps you're the one who needs to re-read it, then... It doesn't say anywhere whether you agree with GG's suggestion that we think of some rapes as 'bad sex' and reduce the punishment for perpetrators.

In terms of reduced tariffs - I do believe that as a huge proportion of women experience rape at some point in their lives, a huge proportion of men commit rape at some point in their lives. And it's just not possible to lock up a huge proportion of men for a minimum of 5 years each (current sentencing guidelines as quoted by another poster earlier).

Yes, I agree with you. I’ve said this a few times on this thread but what we actually need in a change in how society views rape, and I’m not sure how we can do that without prosecuting more rapists. Chicken and egg.

Pengggwn, it sounds like you are saying that I did not not include into my post what you think GG said. I don't agree with your interpretation of what GG said, so of course I did not include it in my post.

I don't think GG said that we need to think of some rapes as bad sex. I think she was arguing that we should not define rape through trauma.

As for reducing the punishment, for the third time now: I believe that as a huge proportion of women experience rape at some point in their lives, a huge proportion of men commit rape at some point in their lives. And it's just not possible to lock up a huge proportion of men for a minimum of 5 years each.

I don't know whether this translates into shorter sentences, but the present situation is not working.

Pumperthepumper, perhaps decoupling trauma from rape, as GG suggests, would result in more successful prosecutions because rape victims will not have to perform trauma at the witness stand in order to be seen as a credible victim and secure a conviction.