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.

WilLiaM - I had a very similar experience.

I think the rapist who raped me would blame my (genuine) virginity) on how hard he had to try to penetrate me in my sleep.

I didn't hurt afterwards.

Well other than the pregnancy and subsequent abortion.

But no, how non-violent it was for him to stick his penis in me without my consent.

Its, I understand what you're trying to say. But wouldn't you agree, as a matter of ordinary English, that every single rape involves someone being violated? And that, by extension, as a matter of ordinary english, each involves violence?

Unlike some posters here, I don't have a difficulty with the idea that, whilst all rapes are appalling crimes, some are even worse than others, and should be punished as such. But I also think that talking about a category of 'non-violent rape' is dangerously minimising.

Or to look at it another way (and with apologies for the imagery), sticking something inside someone else's body against their wishes, whether in a sexual context or otherwise, is pretty much by definition a violent act. In fact I think there needs to be some serious mental gymnastics to think of it as anything else.

hysterically? Itll? No one is acting hysterically (which is misogynistic btw). You, however are showing you true colours using words like that to dismiss women's experiences..

And views.

And you are disputing a fact, not an idea.

Thank you everyone. Sorry for mini-outburst.

Bathtime

Don't be sorry WilLiAm

Its awful what happened to you

I've given examples of rape that i believe to be non violent, either because the victim is drugged and therefore no force is required, or because the victim was under age and participated with some enthusiasm or gave consent in situation where they were coerced etc.

The word violence can have different meanings. In the traditional sense of an act of strong physical force that causes physical injury or damage, then you can have rapes that do not involve this kind of violence, such as the "statutory rape" example you mention.

But the term can also be used to mean that something is very bad with very bad effects. Think of "emotional violence" or "financial violence". It does not always mean physical force/damage etc.

I'm really sorry you had the experience you did Will. I think it's more common than people a lot of people want to admit.

The bottom line here is that a penis inserted into any orifice where consent hasn't been freely given, without coercion, is absolutely an act of violence. It beggars belief that anyone could think otherwise.

It's part of the definition of the word, rape has always been seen as violation. I wonder when we started to split rape into real, proper rape, ok rape and not quite as bad as real proper rape, but still rape rape?

The distinctions are used to dismiss women's experiences, every single time.

The bottom line here is that a penis inserted into any orifice where consent hasn't been freely given, without coercion, is absolutely an act of violence. It beggars belief that anyone could think otherwise.

Your bottom line model needs some re-modelling. The exact thing as described above happened to me. I was in a parked car, in the driver's seat and a female work colleague was in the passenger seat. We'd been to a party. I was very drunk as to be almost passing out. I closed my eyes for a moment and when I opened them again to speak to this woman, I was more than a little surprised that she wasn't in the seat. It took a couple of seconds to realise that she had bent over onto my lap and was giving me a BJ.

Funny thing, though, it has never occurred to me that was an act of violence as you postulate. Back to the drawing board ?

I suspect your first thought will be to try to dismiss men's (aka menz) experiences.

Funny thing, though, it has never occurred to me that was an act of violence as you postulate.

So you are telling us all, that as the owner of a penis, you get to decide whether it is an act of violence to have something inserted in your vagina without your consent?

Is this the ultimate in mansplaining?

Ladies,

You think you know what it's like to have a vagina and many of you even think you know what it's like to be raped.

But think again. I'm here with my cock and a story about a surprise blow job to teach you all a thing or two.

Can judges be struck off? What's the process for that?

i give up, i am obviously just a self loathing, misogynistic women with no clue as to the machinations of the world, hell bent on minimising rape. You learn something new about yourself every day.

*woman even, ffs, anyway good day.

i am obviously just a self loathing, misogynistic women with no clue as to the machinations of the world, hell bent on minimising rape.

That's the smartest thing you've written on this thread.

cad

You are obviously struggling with this, penis in vagina without consent equals violent act

Thats what this thread is about

I am sure if you start your own thread with your own experience you will get lots of relevant comments

Oh and penis in mouth without consent of the mouth owner is also a violent act

What happened to you sounds like sexual assualt so I would personally say that was a violent act as well

Rufus

Yes, it was a sexual assault - no question of it. However, I still did not consider it violent and neither did the woman. Palmer - thought opinions such as ours would beggar belief.

The woman in case, is now a professor at a UK University but I suspect there is very little need to worry for the young men in her care.

Bathtime - coming from someone who apparently thinks there is "male violence" and "female violence" - your insult, although intended to cause me psychological distress (and therefore, a violent act according to your own definition), didn't have the intended consequences. You can fuck right off.

You are now boasting about the career of the woman who did a nice gentle sexual assault on you.

And this is relevant to a discussion about rape because...?

If you and your college professor assailant agree that her assault of you wasn't violent that proves a point about whether rapes are violent?

Mansplaining is usually at least clear.

I didn't intend to cause you psychological distress. I have no interest in you.

And I didn't say there was male violence and female violence, rather that your attempt to define violence as something that left marks and caused physical pain privileged a macho worldview.

It doenst matter if both you and she think it wasnt violent

Sexual assault is a violent act...clue being in the word assault

You dont get to say "some rape is not violent because i dont think it is"

Rape is a violent act

Sorry that was to cad

Not that I think there was any point