Rape -Judy Finnegan

[HiawathaDidntBotherTooMuch]

DH and I were talking about this earlier. I hadn't heard anything about it, but he said 'Judy Finnegan got into trouble earlier for what she said about that footballer, going on to recount what she had said. Then he said 'you can understand what she meant though, there are different types of rape ...'. I flew off the handle, and said that I was offended and disgusted by what he had said.

He then went on and in about how sentences can vary to reflect the degrees of violence in rapes. I again flew off the handle and said that all rapes are violent.

He tried to explain what he meant. Which was that all rapes are disgusting, and every rapist should go to prison for their actions. But that some rapes involved more violence than others, just like some murders are more violent than others. He wanted to discuss it with me, but I couldn't speak to him, I was so disgusted. He has stormed off saying that I am pathetic and weird for not discussing what he had tried to explain.

I cannot get my head around what he is saying.

Im sorry if i upset anyone I see all rape as a violation including coerced sex.

You said they are violence and never over for the victim, no matter what. I am so sorry you have suffered this too, and that you felt / feel this way. I am just saying that as a previous victim, I don't feel this way- so there are obviously different levels and experiences of what is always a horrific act, which is what the OPs husband was saying I think.

I can't stay awake anymore to contribute so hope OP calms down and can discuss with husband then.

Darkest eyes-

All rape is absolutely a violation.

However, not all rapes include the same level of violence. Looking specifically at violence, some rapes are absolutely more violent than others.

All rapes are horrific, however!

thats what i meant grump. Im still shocked that Judy has come out with what she has.

I was raped by an ex partner.

I agree with your husband.

Of course all rape is rape, however I didn't have a knife held to me, there was no gang.

There is rape and then there is rape plus...

I think the difficulty lies with the implication (or maybe just inference) that a non violent rape is 'better' if it is not violent. Is grooming someone to accept rape better? No because the damage is then done to the person's mind and can be harder for them to recover than physical injury. Different yes, but there isn't a sliding scale!

And I don't understand trying to equate it with murder. The victim is still dead, and the murderer intended to kill them. If there were additional crimes commited as well (other injuries, kidnapping, torture, drugging, threats, blackmail, etc.) then the perpetrators also have to be tried for those too and that should be made clear at the point of the verdicts and any sentencing.

He's right. You were being weird. Are you unable to have objective conversations? Of course the level of violence affects the sentence. Same for most crimes - what's contentious about saying that? You sound rather melodramatic.

FWIW I think Judy F made a dreadfully crass, offensive, ill-judged though I'm not sure she should be strung up for it. She had a point of view, that's her right, although clearly she should have said nothing at all. Of course hinting at "degrees of rape" is wrong because it does look like you are minimising what this thug did and that sends a hideous message to those who follow and look up to him.

You'd think Judy would know this. After a lifetime in the media, I'm surprised the "on-message" light didn't flick in her brain. I guess she's out of practice and out of touch.

Rape is rape.

Sometimes other crimes like ABH, abduction etc are committed at the same time and the sentences reflect that if so.

I hope there is no confusion here between the meaning of the word violation and the word violent. Get a dictionary asap if there is.

To put it another way, it's like saying murder is murder.

Well, in one sense yes - murder is murder. A life is taken.

But if you think that there is no difference between a person who kills in self-defence and a person who tortures their victim over days, slowly, violently for their own sexual gratification and then murders them, then you are not just misguided but wrong. And this is demonstrated by the way that sentences for the guilty differ.

Just as if you think there is no difference between the rapes that grumpasaur describes. It's misguided to think that the experiences of all rape victims are the same.

Are Judy F's comments as bad as the ones made by Alan Titmarshes? She doesn't seem to be getting the same critisizm that he received.

They both seemed very stupid to me.

I feel a little bit sorry for her, first day back on tv, huge step back into the limelight, clearly a nervous person...and she ruins it on day 1 when all the media bods are watching, Daily Mail champing at the bit to get a shot of her wobbly hands and "aged" face...she hands it to them on a plate.

I'm disappointed in her and feel sorry for her. So shoot me.

"a person who kills in self-defence "

This may well not be murder.

*

All crimes have aggravating or mitigating factors that impact sentencing eg shoplifting to get money for drugs/shoplifting to get food for starving family.The crime is the same.

All crimes have aggravating or mitigating factors

Exactly. Sounds like this was the point made by OPs husband. Apparently the OP failed to grasp this and now is "so disgusted" that she wouldn't discuss it and won't even speak to him.

My vote is OP is a bit unreasonable I'm afraid.

I disagree with you, Self.

This thread seems like its just here to cause a reaction!

OP says something they think most MNers agree with
"DH" says something preposterous like Alan Titchmarsh
OP is incandescent with rage

Stand back and read people's responses

Rape is rape, it's always wrong but it isn't always violent, where violence = with physical force.
Rape = penetration without the victim's consent - but the doesn't always require violence on the part of the perpetrator to achieve it, and it isn't always done in anger. It IS always about control and about the perpetrator being "in charge" - but it isn't always violent.

Rape is always bad. But there is bad and then there is awful.

Since your DH was talking about sentencing, have a look at the current rape sentencing guidelines particularly aggravating factors. You and DH may both be surprised (I was - recent law student)

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/sentencing/#a2

Rape itself is a physical assault. It is a violent crime.

If I punch you on the skull and it doesn't hurt much vs if I punch you in the stomach and it hurts a lot, both are crimes of violence.

SelfLoathing All rape IS violent.

Definition of violence : using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Physical force is ALWAYS used to rape. Ergo, ALL rape is violent.

I think much here depends upon your personal definition of violence. I personally feel that rape in itself is a form of violence but obviously that some acts of rape have additional factors.

I think Judy Finnigan was misguided in her comments, to put it mildly.

OP unless there is something in your past that meant this topic was especially painful for you to discuss, I think you have overreacted with regards to your dh. You should be able to have a debate without ending up in separate rooms.

My dh and I have discussed this issue a few times and we don't agree on all points. However it doesn't descend into a major rift.

I was raped when I was 5. There was no violence involved just coercion. I was underage so didn't consent but I wasn't held down or forced into it. I'm not saying that I wasn't scarred by the experience, I am. But not physically. This is a conversation that I would happily have with anyone because these things are much less black and white than one might imagine and many people like the OP are a bit ignorant on the subject. Getting hot under the collar and calling people disgusting just entrenches positions and is unhelpful IMHO.

I also think YABU. You couldn't even discuss this rationally with your DH?

There are aggravated versions of all crimes. Why is rape different? As one poster described, shockingly, up thread, some rapes are physically worse than others. That doesn't mean the rapist of the less physical one is less culpable. But a violent gang rape would attract a more severe sentence. As would a more violent assault.

I don't agree with JF's comments. But we have now entered the realm where no one can even discuss rape calmly? That won't help anyone.

I don't really get why rape+a beating gets more respect than rape alone. Rape in and of itself should attract a long, long jail sentence because rape alone IS "bad enough" to warrant a harsh punishment. I reject the idea that some rapes are worthy of more respect than others on the basis of how much blood is shed. In fact I find that view flesh-crawlingly revolting, creepy, and fetishistic. By all means charge men who administer a beating alongside the rape with GBH/ABH as well, but the whole idea of a rape scale with coercion at the lower end and physical injuries at the high end makes me feel a bit sick. Frankly I think it demonstrates that people enjoy thinking about rape and the more "material" there is to think about, the more exciting it is. Who wants to read about boring old non-consensual penetration? Give us some nice big bruises to salivate over! Women's dignity counts for nothing so its violation alone also counts for pretty much nothing. It's got to be visible to really matter.

If I murdered someone by swapping their indigestion tablets for digitalin or injecting air into their veins when they were sleeping, would anyone commenting on my crimes say, "ah well, but they weren't violent murders?"

No, because people don't think of murder like that.

There are two issues here.

One is about the issue of rape itself, and to what extent it is violent. My own view is that it is always an issue of violence, and I tend to agree with the OP on this.

The second issue (and this surely is the 'relationships' one) is about our reactions to somebody who expresses a different view to us on a controversial issue. The OPs reaction is one of anger and incomprehension that her husband did not share her opinion, and, in her own words, "He wanted to discuss it with me, but I couldn't speak to him, I was so disgusted." It is only through discussion of our opinions, and trying to understand the perspective of others with whom we may disagree, and trying to explain to them why we feel and take the view that we do, that we are able to make progress either in personal relationships or in society more generally.

I would urge the OP to go back to DH, and explain, without 'losing it', why she feels so strongly and the reasons for her opinion. But I would also urge her to listen to her DHs point of view and at least try to understand where he's coming from. You might, in the end, 'agree to disagree' (but at least have become more informed). One of you might be persuaded by the others arguments, or you might both see some validity in both perspectives.