not a nice topic, but been annoying me all day

[ButWhyIsTheGinGone]

Hello All,

I've been dithering whether to post this as it's not really an "issue," and it's not the nicest of subjects, but I've been thinking about it all day.
After reading and watching the fantastic "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" film, I was talking with a male friend in the pub about the horiffic scene where Lisbeth Salander (possibly my favourite fictional character ever) was attacked and anally raped by her guardian.

This led to a discussion bout how appalling an act that is, at which my friend claimed it would be far "worse for a man." I couldn't quite believe this and he said he couldn't explain it and I "really wouldn't understand." At this point a second man (drunk and not intelligent) pointed out that "women do it all the time." I didn't even acknowledge this fairly disgusting comment and the conversation changed.

But it's been bugging me all day. My friend is a sensible and intelligent man and would never say anything to deliberatly hurt or offend, but this view has shocked me and got me thinking. If a woman who has previously had consensual anal intercourse is attacked in this way....is it less "horiffic" than if a man is similarly attacked who has not?

Would be interested to hear any opinions - I'm no feminist expert but am lurkng around this board a lot more and finding a lot of the discussion really interesting.

homogenising rape? WTF?

A man being anally raped is as horrendous as a woman being raped....that's the discussion.

The broader discussion is that this is a feminist issue, the fact that men consider violating crimes against themselves as worse than those against women is a feminist issue.

A member of DH's family was gang raped during WWII - she was pretty much left for dead.

When her DH got back from the war he raped her.

She is the only person who can judge how damaged or traumatised she was by her rapes. She does describe one as being more traumatising than the other, and that is her right and hers alone.

There can be no scale imposed by others.

The SOA 2003 does not list violence as a criteria for rape to have been committed.

Some responses on this thread demonstrate the reasoning of juries who will often not find a rapist guilty of rape if violence wasn't used and hence why the police and CPS only pursue those rapes that are likely to result in conviction by juries.

chibi wrote: if rapists are convicted there is scope to take in to account associated levels of violence when sentencing - and I agree with that.

I get your arguments, Phoebe, but the 'badness' of a crime is subjective to the victim. IF you're trying to evaluate the suffering of victims - you can't, because it is subjective. To take a less emotive example, many people are seriously traumatised by burglary. They feel violated to the extent they never feel safe at home again. It doesn't affect me that way: I've been burgled and, apart from being angry and inconvenienced, suffer no ill effects.

Aye reiterates, correctly, that violence is not part of the definition for rape. The only criterion is consent. If a woman is raped and strangled, she's suffered two crimes - rape and attempted murder. If a woman is raped by a gang of five, she's suffered five rapes or more.

Logically and legally, then, one rape is one act of penetration without consent. The circumstances and gender of the victim are irrelevant. What you are saying, I think, is that it's "worse" to suffer more than one crime at once. A court would agree.

I don't know when any act of predatory sexual violence is appropriate, it seems to be culturally more acceptable for male sexual predation against women, rather than male:male or adult:child.

It is the core of misongyny and very depressing.

I've been burlged six times, four times I was in the property. Only the last time was I remotely affected and that's because they stole food and so we had to throw away everything and disinfect the house. I still have no lasting affect.

Beach. Did he know she had been raped? Poor woman - please tell me she got away from her DH?

I don't know if he knew at the time he raped her.

They stayed together until he died at the age of 80. He cheated on her for most of their marriage too.

She was in the French Resistance when she was gang raped.

She is 84 now and suffers from debilitating depression.

As for the OP, I think the attitude of those men touches on something I wanted to post on the PIV thread but didn't because it went crazy - that the act of penetration is seen by some men as powerful in and of itself. They clearly recognise that being penetrated without your consent is traumatising. That they don't have the empathy and do have the misogyny to create a hierarchy is depressingly familiar and obviously not confined to men.

That last sentence made no sense. They don't have empathy and do have misogynistic attitudes which then leaves them free to create that hierarchy.

Yes, as Aye and futter say: aggressive penetration is seen as "less bad" when done to a woman than to a man or a child - and that is the core of misogyny.

I agree with Aye and Garlic.
Very depressing.

It's the same as when you hear a prostitute has been murdered. They always mention that she is a prostitute, however the same logic is not applied to the murderer. Ie a man who pays prostitutes to have sex with him, has been remanded in custody............

"I shall accept this is yet another tabboo subject upon which the party line of the radical feminists of the board must be toed."

Radical feminist?! FFS. Go and google Ken Clarke and rape.

I'd dispute that bit, Lenin. Doing something to another person's body without permission is aggressive.

Comparing rape to being stabbed is very telling.

Rape is rape. If there is also violence, kidnapping etc then those things are separate additional charges.

Rape is the penetration of a woman without her consent. All the argument about degrees of rape serves to do is dismiss the seriousness of acquaintance and date rape - which make up the vast majority of rapes - and perpetuate the idea that 'proper' rape is about a woman being attacked by a stranger with violence or the threat of violence. Which then leads to the kind of attitudes expressed by the men in the OP and sadly by Malificence - that some rapes are 'worse' than others.

At least a man who is raped is believed and is thus more likely to see his rapist punished by law.

The non-punishment of rapists of women means that women are dealt a duble injustice.

I feel terrible, trying to explain personal feelings is difficult and I was trying to make sense of the thoughts in my head, not very well obviously, or perhaps I'm just showing my complete ignorance.
I don't think I'm better than a woman who has had lots of partners, nor do I think that women shouldn't have casual sex/modify their dress to deter rapists or any nonsense like that, I was simply explaining that having just the one partner is very important to me personally, I don't intend to ever have sex with anyone else, so to have that taken away from me ( even though I totally understand that rape isn't sex) would be pretty much the most devastating and destructive thing that could happen to me , but to a much lesser extent than a virgin being raped, or a child, in my head at any rate.
I also think it would be "worse" for my (adult) DD to be raped than myself
( she's had more partners than me) , but that's just maternal instinct I suppose and I don't think that it would be worse for my husband to be raped than myself - he thinks that it would be worse for DD, then me, then him .
I absolutely wasn't saying that a prostitute is worth less than anyone else, or not be affected by rape, just that maybe her trauma would be less severe because she was used to having sex that she didn't actually want.

I do believe that all rape should be treated equally in law, with the same sentence for a man who has raped his wife or male partner as a man who has grabbed a woman (or man) on the street, (although child rape should carry a heavier punishment imho) - I certainly don't think that a rapist should get a lighter sentence for raping a prostitute than a "respectable" married woman for example. If a man is guilty, he is guilty.

"Logically and legally, then, one rape is one act of penetration without consent. The circumstances and gender of the victim are irrelevant. What you are saying, I think, is that it's "worse" to suffer more than one crime at once. A court would agree". Yes.

What is rape, then, in your opinion?

From the SOA 2003:

1Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if?

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.