Possibly triggering thread; why do people fail to think of rape as violence?

[FrothyDragon]

As some of you know, I spent last night tweeting in an effort to silence rape apologists on the #ibelieveher tag. But one tweet has stuck in my mind; although the tweeter in question is a reknowned rape apologist, he asked why Ched Evans is being associated with violence.

Some people really fail to understand, and it's not just the Ched Evans fans, that rape is violence. Why is that?

Because the term violence is misunderstood to mean something that causes actual visible physical harm. They expect to be able to measure it in terms of bruises etc.

Probably what glasgowwean said.

Also, a lot of men probably don't realise that sex can hurt a woman A LOT (that's besides any additional violence - holding her down, hitting etc). They probably just view rape as something that maybe she didn't want but that the act itself wasn't painful.

Actually I suspect it's the same reason there are so many threads that kick off here. A lot of people don't equate emotional abuse as domestic violence. A lot of people think rape means a physically brutal attack. I suspect that when these phrases are used in feminism, you're referring to the broader and correct definition. It's not how they're generally used in RL

I've often thought that a glossary of commonly used terms for this section would be helpful so that people understand what is being said instead of what they think is being said. It's quite often clear hundreds of posts in that there isn't a difference of opinion - it's a different understanding of the terminology

I suspect that when these phrases are used in feminism, you're referring to the broader and correct definition. It's not how they're generally used in RL

IMO its the RL definitions that count though, as they are the ones more generally understood.

What terms are you thinking of glasgowwean?

I dunno.....
Rape - the legal definition - might counter the idea of scary man in back alley as being 'correct' type of rape
Domestic violence - to show it's emotional and physical
Feminism - a brief general outline of basic premises
Prostitution
Pornography
Violence
Patriarchy
Sex positive
Antifeminism
MRA
Rape myths
Oppression
Abuse

God, there Are so many. It would be so much easier to refer back to that instead of the thread being derailed and getting heated trying to explain

I think part of the problem is that not all of those can be strictly defined.

Look at the hoo-ha over "anti-feminist" at the moment.

One person's anti-feminist is another person's sex positive feminist.

I agree yellow but even if it was a paragraph or so for some of it then at least it would give a starting point.

Whatme - I get that but a disclaimer like the AIBU one saying something along the lines of if you wanna post in here check out the terms in Feminism 101 and accept that it will be assumed that your posts are on the basis of that terminology.

A basic premise of posting in here should be that you accept that the terminology used may be quite rigid and not as used in real life. It's obvious that that really isn't clear

i suppose because your average joe thinks of violence as something that leaves evidence of physical harm where physical force is used

Which was its original meaning, and we used other words like "intimidation" for threatening harm etc. I think that is till the way it is understood in RL.

imho, any rape is violent and brutal!

But that leads to the ability to deliberately misunderstand, in that it can be argued (and clearly is being here) that it wasn't violent, and so allows people to effectively derail the issue.

IMO the absolutely critical thing is to be correctly understood in RL without having to say "well, when we say X we mean....". That way you lose before you've even begun..

I personally believe that conflating terms helps no one, we now have to use words like "physical violence" to say "violence", and for eg "domestic violence" can mean physical harm but also a bunch of other things, and because they are fuzzy definitions it allows a lot of wriggle room.

Thanks for bringing that up OP. Whenever I read the phrase "violent rape" I get mad and have always thought "how the hell do you have a non-violent rape"? Is it one where the rapist says "excuse me I am going to rape you - are you OK with that?"

I agree with those who suggested that in general, people think of violence as a deliberate act that causes physical harm to someone or something. A riot in the street is considered violent if damage is done. Otherwise it's a "demonstration" (although, to be fair, the media will sometimes still describe it as violent to make a political point . . . )

Also, I think there are folks who feel the need to minimise the impact of rape by believing that some of them "aren't as bad as others." In some cases, that's because they refuse to accept that rape is as pervasive as it is and/or feel entitled to sex and don't want what they do to be regarded as rape. In some cases though, I think it can be a sort of "self-protection" mechanism, particularly if you have been raped, but perhaps feel you'll feel better about it if you tell yourself it could have been worse (i.e. "at least I wasn't beaten up,") or conversely, I've known some folks who've experienced considerable physical damage associated with rape who feel the need to assert that theirs was a "real" rape - again, I think a sort of self-protection thing, perhaps to feel justified in their suffering or something.

I would like to see a major shift in all our understanding about the nature of harm - that there are many horrific things that happen in life that don't leave physical scars that you can see. Many people still have more understanding and sympathy when someone has a physical illness and but not a mental illness. Bullying can be devastating, even where the perpetrator never lays a finger on you or perhaps when you've never even met - like through cyberbullying.

If we could get that shift, so that more people acknowledge that harm doesn't have to result from physical damage to the person, then perhaps there wouldn't be the need to convince folks that all rapes are "violent."

All rapes are a violation, all rapes are about power and control, all rapes are wrong and the total responsibility of the rapist. The experience of the survivor will be unique to him or her, doesn't follow any set pattern and it's important to acknowledge the validity of their experience. One can be raped even where no one is brought to justice (just as you can have your car stolen or your house burnt down without anyone being convicted for the crimes.)

Kritiq, very true about some rapes not being scene as being as bad as others.

See Whoopi Goldberg's assertion that what Polanski did "wasn't RAPE rape".

Is it because the weapon is a penis? Without going into the feminist political implications of that, most men - and, by extension, women - hold a sort of reverence for the penis. It's supposed to be an organ that creates pleasure and can procreate. So far, so good, like a vagina ... I'm trying to imagine how people might feel if vaginas were used as weapons, and I can't even get to first base!!

I think, perhaps, because it's an assault that mimics sex, most people associate it with the consensual act and cannot get their head round the fact that it's purely assault. Much as yrc said.

Rape is still called a "sex crime" in general use. Sex, to most people, is a good thing so [flippancy warning] it might raise similar dissonance to a "chocolate crime" where people were beaten up with bars of Galaxy - you might be a nicer person than me, but I'm afraid I'd giggle while also feeling sorry for the victim

As a very young woman, I had to dwell on the news that rape is only about power, not 'sex'. It did set up an emotional conflict: even though I'd already experienced sexual assaults by then, it really hadn't clicked that it wasn't personal, iyswim. I just happened to be a convenient representation of "women" to that attacker at that time; there was no element of individual desire. The assaults I'd suffered until then had registered in my own mind as extra-bad versions of me turning down a sexual proposition.

I think this is still how most people 'feel' about rape; it fits with our usual understanding of things that happen (and don't happen) when a man's genitals engage with a woman's. To see rape as the violent crime it is, people would have to grasp that it's nothing to do with "sex" as we know it.