General News Discussion

[LondonTom]

I don't like this "forced rape" reference though. Rape by definition is forced isn't it?Whether physical or coerced

[metallimuse]

What if its just fetish play

[metallimuse]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/eve-ensler/todd-akin-rape_b_1812930.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

A powerful and moving account of rape from a victim and how she feels hearing Akin's terminology and comments.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

The sad thing is many probably agree with him, the British political system is nowhere near perfect but I am pretty confident if any labour/lib dem or tory candidate came out with a comment like that, they wouldnt be a candidate for long.

[eFestivals]

What about Ken Clarke and his comment that there are serious rapes and less serious.

I think Ken was rather harshly treated over that comment.

His words were far from perfect - and that's how the offence was caused - but i'd say it takes a rather dim person to fail to understand what he was getting at and so take offence at his words, despite their imperfections.

We all say things at times where we make a presumption that the hearer is on the same wavelength as we are with what we say. If it becomes clear that they're not then further explanation is needed to give those initial words their full clarity and context.

Ken, when challenged, gave that full context, but some people wish to remain fixed on that one sentence as tho everything he meant is only within those particular words and not in anything he said afterwards to give those initial words clarity and context. Those people are either extremely stupid, or determined to try and nail someone up on a false basis.

For anyone who still doesn't get it, there's "rape with violence" and then there's (just) "rape". One is a more serious offence (or, to be precise, 'offences') than the other.

Edited August 21, 2012 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

Ken Clarke's comments aren't really comparable. Ken was saying that statutory rape, eg. 2 15 year olds having consensual sex, isn't as serious as someone attacking and forcing themselves on a victim, which is right. The way he said it was stupid, but the actual concept he was trying to express was sensible.

Unlike this whackjob.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

For anyone who still doesn't get it, there's "rape with violence" and then there's (just) "rape". One is a more serious offence (or, to be precise, 'offences') than the other.

[eFestivals]

There is just one charge and that is "Rape". England got rid of a requirement for violence and for the victim to physically resist. But not to worry. The woman that has been drugged and is unable to resist will be happy she was "just" raped. The woman who has been put under duress should be comfortable it was "just" rape. The daughter that does not really want to sleep with dad but he loves her must be ecstatic it was "just" rape. The bloke who is a little slow who does not understand what is going on "just" rape. The old woman at home that is unable to cry out or move. Just rape.

well, you might like to have the shit beaten out of you before you're also raped, but I'd prefer to be just raped of the two, thanks all the same.

A crime might always be the same. The severity of a crime and how a potential victim or actual victim might feel about that severity is not.

[kaosmark2]

well, you might like to have the shit beaten out of you before you're also raped, but I'd prefer to be just raped of the two, thanks all the same.

A crime might always be the same. The severity of a crime and how a potential victim or actual victim might feel about that severity is not.

[TheGayTent]

You don't appear to know too much about rape Neil.

There are many rape victims that wish they had been beaten as well as raped. Many don't put up a fight because they freeze they're so scared.

Afterwards they often feel guilty they didn't try to fend off their attacker. They worry people won't believe them as they don't have the bruises they believe others will think they must have received if they were raped.

There are rape victims that weren't beaten as well as raped that wish they had have been beaten. Sad but true.

[eFestivals]

So if someone was trying to rape you would you not put up some resistance?

Personally, yes. But just because I would doesn't mean that every victim has to.

[eFestivals]

You don't appear to know too much about rape Neil.

Do you think each and every person fears all things at an identical level?

Edited August 21, 2012 by eFestivals

[TheGayTent]

Can't be arsed to debate if you're just going to edit your comments afterwards

[eFestivals]

Can't be arsed to debate if you're just going to edit your comments afterwards

... all I did was removed a typo'd "you" between "person" and "fears".

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Ken Clarke's comments aren't really comparable. Ken was saying that statutory rape, eg. 2 15 year olds having consensual sex, isn't as serious as someone attacking and forcing themselves on a victim, which is right. The way he said it was stupid, but the actual concept he was trying to express was sensible.

Unlike this whackjob.

[kaosmark2]

To be pedantic the example Ken Clarke gave and your example is not statutory rape. The age of a child for that is 13. Ken Clarke gave an example of a 15 year old and an 18 year old. If the girl gave informed consent, and that was accepted, the lad would not be charged with rape, but a lesser charge of unlawful sex, if any at all. However Ken did go on to discuss "date rape" and how some are worse than others.

For someone that is legally qualified and in a position of authority one would expect better. Not only did he show his ignorance of the law, but by his comment he not only offends but he seems to trivialise the subject.

[feral chile]

There is just one charge and that is "Rape". England got rid of a requirement for violence and for the victim to physically resist. But not to worry. The woman that has been drugged and is unable to resist will be happy she was "just" raped. The woman who has been put under duress should be comfortable it was "just" rape. The daughter that does not really want to sleep with dad but he loves her must be ecstatic it was "just" rape. The bloke who is a little slow who does not understand what is going on "just" rape. The old woman at home that is unable to cry out or move. Just rape.

[feral chile]

I think Ken was rather harshly treated over that comment.

His words were far from perfect - and that's how the offence was caused - but i'd say it takes a rather dim person to fail to understand what he was getting at and so take offence at his words, despite their imperfections.

We all say things at times where we make a presumption that the hearer is on the same wavelength as we are with what we say. If it becomes clear that they're not then further explanation is needed to give those initial words their full clarity and context.

Ken, when challenged, gave that full context, but some people wish to remain fixed on that one sentence as tho everything he meant is only within those particular words and not in anything he said afterwards to give those initial words clarity and context. Those people are either extremely stupid, or determined to try and nail someone up on a false basis.

For anyone who still doesn't get it, there's "rape with violence" and then there's (just) "rape". One is a more serious offence (or, to be precise, 'offences') than the other.

[eFestivals]

For someone that is legally qualified and in a position of authority one would expect better. Not only did he show his ignorance of the law, but by his comment he not only offends but he seems to trivialise the subject.

there's the law, and then there's how people feel (both before and after being a victim, not necessarily in the same place) about what would be the worst circumstances and least-worst circumstances to be subjected to that crime.

The crime in a legal sense is always the same. How a person feels about the various possible circumstances around that one crime is not.

I only caught a little of the comeback that Ken suffered from his comments, but I took his words to be about the second of those things (how people view what has happened), and not a strictly legal take. It was perhaps dumb of him to do that as a law minister within govt, but that doesn't stop him having opinions on such things no different to any other person (and which doesn't get to mean that he's trivialising anything).

[eFestivals]

I'd agree that there's a grey area - when a woman's pressured into sex, she feels raped, the man thinks he's just good at verbal persuasion. Or times when there's a genuine misunderstanding between the two parties.

Particularly with drunken sex. It's perfectly possible for a woman to have a blackout, 'wake up' during sex, and from her perspective she was unconscious. But from the man's perspective, she was a willing partner.

But I don't think use of violence should be the dividing line. It should be intent.

I'm not trying to address any grey area.

Rape is always rape. But how people feel about the circumstances around a rape varies with those circumstances (not all in the same way).

Edited August 22, 2012 by eFestivals

[The Nal]

Prince Harry. What a legend.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Prince Harry. What a legend.

[Ed209]

Prince Harry. What a legend.

[Spartacus Mars]

I'm not trying to address any grey area. Rape is always rape.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Spartacus Mars

[lost]

Another example, being awoken to sex for which explicit permission was not granted. I've certainly awoken to sex in the morning by a person I'd met only the previous night. That's the same rape Assange is accused of (not charged, by the way, he's wanted for questioning - no charges have been made).

Neither of these examples are rape... except legally they are.