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.

And where are you reading that?

Draenor I don't know what fucking thread you are reading, or why you think I am rape apologist.

Google "violence"

Now, if I was raped and I did not suffer pain, and my vagina was lubricated because perhaps i had agreed to another sex act I enjoyed, etc... simply stating that every rape is violent is not all that helpful... it doesn't matter whether it is violent or not for it to be rape.

the act of forcing a penis into a vagina IS a violent act...."putting" one in, which is the fucking term used on here unchallenged ad. infinitium. is not violent in the standard english usage of the word.

I haven't once called you a rape apologist. But I maintain that putting a penis inside someone's vagina, mouth or anus when they don't want it, or cannot consent to it being there is inherently a violent act.

Talking of pain, its interesting then that the penis has evolved such that it's particularly insensitive to pain - or touch, feeling hot or cold for that matter.

Quite the stoic.

Rape is a most violent act

a man is totally over powering you by forcing a part of himself inside you

How can that not be violent

A punch in the face a kick in the stomach are also violent acts but it's the power that at that point he has total control that is so frightening

And as for fighting back well the fear of death is more frighting than they fear of being raped how may times do we read about women not screaming as they feared they were going to be killed if they did

itllallbefine

You're twisting words and comments now, both your own and others.

No one has said that if it doesn't hurt it isn't rape so stop accusing others of this.

I find you implying that I am fucking rape apologist typical of a .................. fucking rape apologist.

itllallbefine - I am curious about whether you would consider the anal rape of a drugged or unconscious man to be violent?

"Ruling on his appeal against the sentence, Sir Declan accepted the attack involved violence, but not a gratuitous type."

Is it just me, or is that nonsense? The definition of "gratuitous" is "Done without good reason, uncalled for". How could this have been anything but gratuitous?

It'll.

Clearly not really outraged by you. I find your opinions pretty low on the whole.

It is violent to put your penis into an orifice where it's not wanted.

The person is violated. They are treated with violence.

Are you a woman itllallbefine?

I think it's important, if not essential, to know the sex of someone when discussing with them, what is and is not violent about a man putting their penis in you without your consent.

It's the old adage of men defining what constitutes as violence against a woman, GruntledOne.

This is not the first thread where i have been "accused" of being a man.

let me give you another example.

A trafficked woman, prostituted by a violent gang. Some dickhead pays to have sex with her, in my view that is rape. However, there is no violence involved in the act of sex, she does not resist, the man may be gentle, but it still rape.

And out of interest, why would a women not hold these opinions scallops - are they not the correct flavour of female views is that it ?

GruntledOne I think it helps if you remember the purpose of the exercise - to decide upon the length of sentence to be served. For the violence inherent in the commission of rape where there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, then the starting point is five years. If there is any excessive violence over and above that necessary to carry out the crime, then the defendant would be looking at an increase in sentence beyond the initial five years It's this second level of violence which is sometimes called gratuitous violence .

Did you get a chance to think about Wil's question, itll?

I am curious about whether you would consider the anal rape of a drugged or unconscious man to be violent?

Sorry - draenor no i would not consider it to be violent in that instance.

Now - would you care to share your own thoughts on my example - is that violent ? Is it not rape - is it rape and therefore violent because all rape has to be violent or is not rape ?

For me, in your example, that's a violent act. Mostly because it's fucking damaging to the poor woman in question. Maybe not in terms of her vagina, but in terms of her mental health. He's contributed to the damage of her mental wellbeing. And, ask yourself, how many men pay for a trafficked woman and fuck them "gently?"

Your response to the drugged man question disgusts me.

You are being totally unreasonable and illogical, and I don't give a shit whether i disgust you or not. On the one hand you accept that an act of rape can be conducted under circumstances where the sexual act itself is not physically violent, then on the other you state that such an admittance is disgusting....make your f'in mind up.

And stop using the verb "putting" to describe how an unwanted penis gets into a vagina if you are so sure it always involves violence.

I'll use whatever verb I like.
Anyone who claims the anal rape of a drugged human is not a violent act is a disgrace to humanity.

I am finding it very difficult to understand how anyone can find anal rape of an unconscious person non-violent

Or vaginal rape for that matter

I understand that legally there may be "levels" of violence

You were the one that picked that as presumably you do not believe that things can be put up an unconscious persons bum without the use of violence. Try telling that to a doctor. the problem you have is that it involves a penis and you, for whatever reason, cannot accept that it is possible to be raped without the use of violence. I cannot understand your insistence on this position especially when i presume you also believe that women should not be judged for not requiring their rapists to use violence to commit the rape ? the mind boggles...anyway this is pointless.

its

One hopes the doctor had consent

Erm, I didn't pick the example.
No, it is not possible to be raped without violence. You can't rape someone gently.
You have just stated on a public forum that if a drugged person were anally raped it would not be a violent act. Once again, you're disgusting. And as your ravings are illogical and barely coherent, I won't be carrying on. Absolutely foul.

www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/violence
Worth a read, especially where "do violence to" is included = "Damage or adversely affect".

I think that covers the fact that ANY unwanted penetration by a penis qualifies as an act of violence, and therefore is rape.

most of the dictionary definitions i have looked at use the word "force" which obvioulsy makes it a violent act

The legal definition is just "without consent" which i assume is meant to cover people deemed not to be able to give consent