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

The thing is, I don’t think we do have one discourse about rape any more. I agree that the stranger rape narrative led to the effect that there was no room to talk about other types of rape. But I think the law recognises many ways women can be raped now and that is correct. I don’t think only one response is prescribed but I do think know. However, what you are saying seems to be that you welcome the discussion that not all rape is violent, stranger rape. I agree with that.

I think where I don’t agree is how what Greer said is interpreted at points on this thread.

I also think one advantage of a discourse that assumes harm and services which provide support for that harm, is that the individual woman can make the decision what she needs to access. The idea that some rapes or situations do not cause harm, as part of a narrative beyond the individual, eroded that understanding and provision (which is already threatened by funding cuts).

Anyway, I wish peace to you all and healing to those who need it .

Katana, I don’t think it was you that was presenting as offended, the cross posting isn’t helping the flow here!

I did notice the little comment above from pengggwn with the brackets questioning my own experience, and that’s my point. My experience is doubted because women don’t say it out loud, that they were raped and not harmed. I would guess it’s not that unusual an experience to not feel harmed, and that women are thinking it and not saying it during any discussion about rape. Because saying it gets you thrown out of the sisterhood or patronised as not understanding your own experience. So it is never discussed, never challenged. I want my thoughts on the subject challenged, they have formed over 20 years in the echo chamber of my own head, and need brought out into the open to be tested. I’m thankful to GG for starting the conversation.

My experiences very much felt like “bad sex,” rather than an assault so understand why she used the term. I want to think about the consequences of that though, for women as a group, and for the legal framework around sexual assault.

That should read ‘but I do not know’
and ‘erodes’ not eroded.

Clearly time to stop now.

CuriousaboutSamphire

Can you please stop being so cryptic and tell me what you think my "agenda" is?

AltogetherAndrews

I was not doubting your experience. I was declining to define it.

Ok, fair enough, pengwwwn. That’s the problem with written argument, it’s easy to misinterpret and difficult to clarify

I think maybe the issue here is that the law and the punishment should not be based on the harm caused, as that can be so variable. But I don’t know how else it can be framed

AltogetherAndrews I hesitate to comment further. The only thing I think, speaking personally, is that I have definitely had bad sex, but I do not remember it very much at all. So carrying something with you for twenty years is different (I think), that may not be harm, but it is a burden.

I have been supported by a Rape Crisis counsellor as I have been raped by two men, the second in marriage. One thing she said was that I did not have to feel a certain way about one rape because it was not the same as the others. In other words, it was still rape but it was fine that my feelings were different (I think both did harm, but my responses to the perpetrators were different). I did not get the feeling that there was one discursive path I should be following. That is all I wanted to say, that people will have different feelings and the Rape Crisis service I access acknowledge this. So, maybe that is important to know.

Katara, it’s fair comment. Bad sex would be more easily forgotten. One of these incidences was how I lost my virginity tho, so maybe not. I certainly didn’t think about it much for many many years, it’s only as I got older and thought more about my experiences in general, and because my line of work involves dealing with sexual offenders that I have really given it any headspace.

t I do think what we have now isn’t working, it’s failing too many victims.

And not just failing but victimises them further. Damages them further. I know a few women that have been more traumatised by a trial than the rape itself.
Women that were denied mental health help and support in case it "muddies the water".
Women and GIRLS portrayed as predatory,vindictive,easy,promiscuous etc.
Women being badgered and hounded and every single step and action analysed and twisted to show why it wasn't rape.
Women being shunned,excluded,threatened and attacked for saying "it was rape".

And all for what? For a "not guilty"? For society to turn around and say "ha,I knew you were lying!". For society to turn around and demand prosecution of victims if the man was found not guilty? For women to still be told , that despite their experience and what happened, "well he was found not guilty,he's innocent". Fuck that!! Fucking fuckity fuck that!!

Maybe GG's way is flawed and awful and completely wrong. There's no denying though that the system as it is now just doesn't fucking work.

I think there is some merit in what GG has said also.

The current judicial system is not working & rape is nigh on impossible to prove sadly. There was a very active thread on the recent Ulster rugby trial & a lot of old rape myths were trotted out; there was outrage at the way the trial went. We discussed an alternative to 'rape' as a charge as the wording of the law is something along the lines of the belief of having consent.

As in the Ched Evans case where on appeal he was found not guilty, imo this can be interpreted as the jury believing that he was stupid enough to belief that he had consent to have sex with someone he has never spoken to (& she didn't even know he was in the room I think), although most reasonable people wouldn't think this.

I thought rather than GG saying marital rape wasn't that bad she was highlighted that all unwanted sex was rape. I also think there is a difference between a rape situation where someone hasn't given active consent & gone along with it & a rape situation where the victim is held down by force & has other physical violence in addition to penetration. Levels of trauma suffered will be different from person to person for the same experience so I don't know how sentencing would be decided to each situation. I don't think it's minimising rape, but having categories may help prosecutions to be made. I do understand that it may seem like top trumps which could be unpalatable.

Another problem seems to be that the public can't seem to reconcile e.g. nice boy, well brought up and successful sports player with rapist on a par with a stranger in the Park scenario.

Primarily, I think education is key to changing societal attitudes & active consent encouraged. The current system for prosecution is not working. I think a year ago I would probably have been outraged at this by GG but my thinking has changed in light of some recent trials.

also think there is a difference between a rape situation where someone hasn't given active consent & gone along with it & a rape situation where the victim is held down by force & has other physical violence in addition to penetration.

Woah. not given active consent and gone along with it What is that?

And then 'held down by force'?

At some point between the two, the crime of rape is committed.

That's my point-a potential situation that will have different interpretations by the man & woman. There are plenty of threads on here where women have been raped & yet when they were vulnerable & it was happening, or just after, they haven't been certain, hence 'was I raped?' Threads

buckeejit

But the law defines it. I have never, ever read one of those posts and thought 'Do you know what? I just don't know if they were raped.'

There is no 'grey area'. That is part of rape mythology.

I think she has a point. Perhaps it would lead to more convictions.

Perhaps it would lead to more convictions.

How, exactly?

It might lead to more convictions -
If it was a lesser offence when the rapee was too drunk to remember what happened perhaps. Better the rapist was branded a rapist than walk away with no conviction. Juries seem less likely to find young men guilty and imprison them for long periods. If I was raped and the guy got off I'd feel angrier than if he got a lesser sentence but was found guilty.

Fflamingo

So, because jurors get it 100% wrong and victim-blame, we should structure the law to accommodate their prejudices?

On what ethical basis should the law be based, that makes it a lesser offence to rape a comatose woman than a sober woman?

What is the difference between saying jurors don't like convicting young men of rape so we should make their crimes less serious, and saying jurors don't like convicting old men of child abuse so we should make their crimes less serious?

Never heard such nonsense in my life.

pengggwn it’s really frustrating that you’re jumping on people for their word choice rather than taking one second to think about the discussion people are trying to have - it’s totally dominating what could have been a really interesting thread. Nobody on here has said ‘some rape is not rape’. Nobody who is interested in this discussion thinks that. So could we please, please move on to discuss what GG is actually proposing?

Tell me, are you happy with the way things stand just now? Are you happy with the trial and outcome of CE and the Ulster rugby team? Is there not a single thing you might want done differently?

Her starting premise is that she wants more sexual encounters to be defined as rape and more rapists to be convicted. I can't see how you get from there to her being a rape apologist.

The law classifies some rapes (aggravated rape) as requiring longer sentences than non-aggravated rapes.

If it was a lesser offence when the rapee was too drunk to remember what happened perhaps. Better the rapist was branded a rapist than walk away with no conviction. Juries seem less likely to find young men guilty and imprison them for long periods. If I was raped and the guy got off I'd feel angrier than if he got a lesser sentence but was found guilty.

So, it sickens me to agree to a lesser sentence for any rape under any circumstances- but I agree with you. If there’s going to be no punishment at all in the vast majority of cases (like now) then I’d prefer more convictions, even if the punishment is lessened. I’m not saying that’s an ideal situation, in an ideal situation we’d have everyone agree that rape is rape, and they’d have the full force of the law thrown at them. But that’s not happening and too many victims are being completely let down as it stands now.

Fflamingo

So, because jurors get it 100% wrong and victim-blame, we should structure the law to accommodate their prejudices

Errrrr, yes.

saying jurors don't like convicting old men of child abuse so we should make their crimes less serious

Bad example, I'm sure juries love locking up old men for child abuse, it's the young men who could be your son/nephew they seem to have trouble with.

There is a fine line but the problem comes when people falsely accused others of rape

Woman or men who falsely shoot rape should receive heavy prison sentences and face years in jail

An incredibly small number of reported rapes are made up, it’s very rare. That’s not why most rapists get away with it. Its also not in any way the point of this thread - how are you feeling about the conviction rates for rapists just now?