Rapist has sentence reduced as judge says there is no indication that it was anything other than a 'single impusive act'

[treaclesoda]

link to newspaper report here

I came across this newspaper report and I couldn't believe what I was reading. A man who rapes a stranger in a car park sounds to me like the very definition of someone who is a danger to women, not just someone who made a minor impulsive error of judgement. Such a horrible crime totally minimised.

This is partly why the anal rape thing is viewed the way it is - because a man would have to be physically beaten into submission

And this idea is one of the many many reasons that male rape is under-reported.

Men, just like women can experience 'freezing'.

If the general thoughts are that a 'real' man has to be beaten in to submission, if he freezes does that mean he wasn't really raped? Did he actually want it? is it no wonder that it is under reported?

And is it this thought process that 'allows' people to believe that vaginal rape can't be that bad because if it was they would have fought. . (not ignoring that fact as stated above that in an average fight a woman will come off a lot worse and would be unlikely to be able to beat a man to a point where she could escape)

Or is it not violence to punch someone in the face if they are unconscious?
Err straw man anyone ?

My position is that "putting a penis into a vagina" is not in and of itself an act of violence. Punching someone in the face on the other hand, is. You would need to define what you consider to be an act of violence - i accept it could be a psychologically a violent act, but it is not physically violent. Even the odd language that posters use such as "putting the penis into" suggests it is somehow placed there as if lifted up and put down inside the vagina.

This is partly why the anal rape thing is viewed the way it is - because a man would have to be physically beaten into submission. Seriously?

Yes, i think that men do not understand how some one could rape you and leave no physical evidence that they caused any harm. I'm not saying they are right to hold this view, i am saying they hold it (NAMALT of course).

bigjock - agree with everything you say.

You wonder if these judges would think it was more serious if it was a 5" wooden pole as opposed to a penis.

"My position is that "putting a penis into a vagina" is not in and of itself an act of violence"

Sorry? Putting an unwanted object into a woman's vagina isn't violence?

WTAF?

I think there's still thinking that rape is sex, that he must have wanted to fuck the woman, he fancied her.....

He wanted to rape her, he hated her and wanted to put his dick inside her because he hated her, not because he was horny.

My position is that "putting a penis into a vagina" is not in and of itself an act of violence

Have you ever had anything forced in to your vagina??

It hurts---- alot!

Vaginas are not this gaping hole that you can just poke something in.
They are a muscular canal with a fragile mucous membrane. Forcing anything in there can cause a lot of pain and damage.

Personally having experienced both I'd always pick the punch in the face

FFS - here we go. Did i say :

"My position is that "forcing a penis into a vagina" is not in and of itself an act of violence" ??

No, i did not.

As usual Posie you are being all outraged and angry about something that is not even controversial. The act of putting a penis into a vagina is not by definition violent, the act of punching someone in the face is. If this were not the case then all men would always be violent rapists. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that a man committing date rape is thrusting more violently or forcing himself onto the women with more damaging force than if the women had fully consented. Are you saying that unless you clamp up your vagina like a vice you someone weren't resisting at all ?

Or that it doesn't count as rape unless it was sore ?

The point is that if you are unconscious or drugged then it would be "forcing a penis into a vagina".

I'm staggered that you would believe otherwise. Are you a woman?

The act of putting a penis into a vagina is only not violent if and only if the woman wants it there.

"
I actually believe that fighting back is decent advice at times, it strikes me that a lot of men who commit rape don't really thing they have, they just needed to be persuasive or persistent."
Better advice would v
don't rape

It really is that simple and puts the onus on he perpetrator rather than victim.

FFS.

We are on a thread about rape, logic states that we are not talking about a well lubricated vagina that has expanded to allow consensual sex to take place.

While the body may as a method of self protection produce fluids to try to prevent tearing, some force will be require to get the penis fully in to the vagina.

And even women who have been d raped when unconscious either by drugs or trauma report pain.

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that a man committing date rape is thrusting more violently or forcing himself onto the women with more damaging force than if the women had fully consented.

Are you fucking kidding me? If a woman has been drugged of COURSE he will have to enter her with more "damaging force". Will her vagina be sufficiently lubricated as a conscious, consenting woman's would be? Will she be in a position conducive to him entering her?
No, he'll probably have to pull her about until she's where he wants her then rape her. Sorry for being blunt but that was an awful comment you made. [ngry]

so big jock you are saying that if you weren't hurt it doesn't count....and I'm the fucking rape apologist.

Draenor It depends upon when she withdrew consent and how she was feeling just before it. You are the one who is defining parameters and insisting on the usage of words that have very well defined meanings.

stealth No - it does not.

and why use the verb "put" to describe a forced entry - wtf is that all about ?

so big jock you are saying that if you weren't hurt it doesn't count....and I'm the fucking rape apologist.

Where did I say that?

As far as I can see I said that force will always be required even if the woman is unconcious

To quote myself I said And even women who have been raped when unconscious either by drugs or trauma, report pain

EKL, I suppose the sentence for murder would be reduced if it didn't involve gratuitous violence, just enough to ensure that the victim was dead.

You stated: There is no evidence that I'm aware of that a man committing date rape is thrusting more violently or forcing himself onto the women with more damaging force than if the women had fully consented

I pointed out that even when a rapist can physically manipulate a woman in to any position because she is unconscious women still report pain after the crime had taken place. Pain because even though they were unconscious force was still required

Draenor It depends upon when she withdrew consent and how she was feeling just before it. You are the one who is defining parameters and insisting on the usage of words that have very well defined meanings.

What the hell are you talking about?! If she's been drugged and is out cold she CANNOT consent! Or is this kind of rape "not the bad kind?"

so big jock you are saying that if you weren't hurt it doesn't count....and I'm the fucking rape apologist.

Hang on, you accused me of straw man then come out with this shit?

I suppose the sentence for murder would be reduced if it didn't involve gratuitous violence, just enough to ensure that the victim was dead

Yes - lucky guess was it ?

Ok it wasn't my post you quoted but the point still stands. BigJock said no such thing.

To quote myself I said And even women who have been raped when unconscious either by drugs or trauma, report pain

So what - if you don't experience pain, then what ? Doesn't it count ?