rape isnt always rape?

[Smoking Joe]

I cant understand this guys reasoning. I thought from the headline that the issue was about FALSE rape accusations ..but it isnt. Im very hard to offend generally , but this HAS pissed me off. What a society !

"Nick Ross was forced to defend himself over controversial remarks suggesting "rape isnt always rape"..The former Crimewatch presenter claimed half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not believe they have been raped.
Mr Ross said it had become sacrilege to suggest that there can be any gradation.
The victims know otherwise."

Maybe he means being beaten half to death and raped is worse than just being raped?

[curious]

I cant understand this guys reasoning. I thought from the headline that the issue was about FALSE rape accusations ..but it isnt. Im very hard to offend generally , but this HAS pissed me off. What a society !

"Nick Ross was forced to defend himself over controversial remarks suggesting "rape isnt always rape"..The former Crimewatch presenter claimed half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not believe they have been raped.
Mr Ross said it had become sacrilege to suggest that there can be any gradation.
The victims know otherwise."

Maybe he means being beaten half to death and raped is worse than just being raped?

Hi, Smoking Joe,
Maybe he means that the half who do not believe they were raped either:

1. are blocking the thought because of how they believe "rape" should play out -- say a stranger grabbing a victim, etc.

2. If it's date rape, perhaps the woman doesn't think she made it clear that was NOT what she wanted, or she knows she allowed things to progress further than a smart person would have . . .

3. I know a woman who married a man who she said raped her then made her feel so bad about herself and it was all her fault, etc. that for many years and several children, she believed it to be her fault. Her mother-in-law hated her for "trapping" the husband when he had raped the woman in the first place, then gotten pregnant. . . . how's that for messed up?

I believe there is a gradation . . . and I'm a woman.

curious

[Errata]

I cant understand this guys reasoning. I thought from the headline that the issue was about FALSE rape accusations ..but it isnt. Im very hard to offend generally , but this HAS pissed me off. What a society !

"Nick Ross was forced to defend himself over controversial remarks suggesting "rape isnt always rape"..The former Crimewatch presenter claimed half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not believe they have been raped.
Mr Ross said it had become sacrilege to suggest that there can be any gradation.
The victims know otherwise."

Maybe he means being beaten half to death and raped is worse than just being raped?

Well, there is a gradation, but that isn't it. Necessarily.
I know any number of women who have had sex with people they didn't want to have sex with. They didn't want to have sex before they started drinking, thought it was a fantastic idea when they were drunk, an upon sobering up were once again not a fan of the idea. They didn't want to have sex, but they did it willingly under the influence. That's not rape, that's poor impulse control. Now in most states if a man is sober and a woman is blitzed he can be charged with rape. But typically both parties are not sober, so it isn't rape. It's just really embarrassing.
I have heard some stories in my day where really all I can think was "Well what did you think would happen?" (and sometimes "please god never let this person breed). To speak bluntly, if you give him permission to "put the tip in" and it results in full penetration, I'm sorry you feel violated by that, but if you had talked any other living soul about that plan they would have told you what would happen. It's very hard for me to see that as an argument of rape. That's just being epically stupid.
There is also such a thing now as conditional rape, and that's a tough one. For example, if a woman consents to sex on the condition that he wears a condom, and he does not, that can be rape. If a disease is transmitted it's assault, and if AIDS is transmitted it's attempted murder. I'm a fan of this idea, the problem I have with it is that it absolves the woman of just checking to see he really put one on. Which come on how hard is that? I mean, we recognize that a driver is not at fault if they hit someone who just lunges into traffic.
But what it really boils down to is that 50 percent of women who have been raped don't want to have been raped. So instead of an assault, it's a "misunderstanding". And I'm not saying legitimate misunderstandings don't happen. I had an appalling one with my male best friend in High School. And it was not a one sided thing. He asked me if I wanted to, but in my drunken literal state I thought he was asking if he could crash next to me on the only bed in the house, which I was fine with. Seriously, I need diagrams when I'm hammered, since subtlety and you know, slang, are completely lost on me. Genuine misunderstanding. But because it was genuine, because he was interested in a willing partner, he stopped. I find it hard to fathom how a genuine misunderstanding ends in penetration. Because if you expect a willing partner, a crying woman should tingle the spidey-senses so to speak. These rape victims just don't want to have been raped. They make excuses and usually what happens is they allow these guys to do it again, either to them again or another unsuspecting woman.

[Smoking Joe]

Curious +Errata Well I am looking at it from a mans point of view,and knowing that women say no when they really mean yes and vice versa but....as regards sex if its "no I dont want to ",then as far as Id be concerned its NO.
But the key word in the report was "women who UNWILLINGLY had sex"didnt believe they had been raped....doesnt make much sense to me.Maybe Im thick.
But as you are both females,You can see the subtle differences I guess. But maybe, just maybe ,views like his,if accepted can become the thin end of the wedge (excuse the pun).....such as is the rape, a rape ,or a minor rape?To me rape, is a hell of a crime and to excuse certain kinds of rape seems almost to take the Jack-a-lad view of "well she must have enjoyed it too"
Oh well...

[curious]

Curious +Errata Well I am looking at it from a mans point of view,and knowing that women say no when they really mean yes and vice versa but....as regards sex if its "no I dont want to ",then as far as Id be concerned its NO.
But the key word in the report was "women who UNWILLINGLY had sex"didnt believe they had been raped....doesnt make much sense to me.Maybe Im thick.
But as you are both females,You can see the subtle differences I guess. But maybe, just maybe ,views like his,if accepted can become the thin end of the wedge (excuse the pun).....such as is the rape, a rape ,or a minor rape?To me rape, is a hell of a crime and to excuse certain kinds of rape seems almost to take the Jack-a-lad view of "well she must have enjoyed it too"
Oh well...

Joe,
Actually, the way you feel about rape is very smart for a guy -- and like you I think if a girl says "no" that is what the guy has to respect.

It seems to me to be too dangerous to think a woman "sometimes means Yes when she says no."

To prevent even the possibility of trouble, it is in everyone's best interest that men believe what you believe.

I suspect both Errata and I were replying to the research that indicates that 50 percent of women who have been raped believe they have not . . .

curious

[kensei]

This is a massively sensitive issue, but everyone seems to be just diving in and voicing their opinions unabashedly so I guess I will do the same. Rape is rape if one person says no and the other person won't take no for an answer, period. This is so for any combination- man on woman, woman on man, man on man or woman on woman. There's an analogy that's always come to mind since I saw Mariel Hemingway in a movie (can't recall the title of it now) playing a woman who was drunk out of her mind and offered herself to a whole long line of men, who all stood and waited their turn with her. If a woman (drunk or sober) was to do that with a hundred men, and had consensual sex with the first 50, and then FOR WHATEVER REASON she said no to #51 but he forced himself on her anyway, and then after that she continued to have consensual sex with the next 49, then #51 is a rapist who deserves to go to prison.

However, when is rape not rape? Well there is of course the whole gray area of statutory rape, where it is illegal to have sex with someone who is below the age of consent. There are men forced to register for life as sex offenders purely because they had girlfriends who were younger than 18 and the girl's parents found out and didn't like it. There are "rape cases" in which the so-called victim (who may in fact have been the initiator) is having to be practically restrained in the background pleading, "No, he didn't rape me, I love him!" Sometimes they even get married after the guy gets out of prison and live happily ever after. I completely understand and support the need to protect the innocence of children of course, but after puberty the fact that different states hold different ages to be the "age of consent" shows what a gray area this is. There are laws that state that even if a teenage girl is the initiator and seduces a boy, if she is too young she isn't mentally capable of consent. I feel that trivializes the whole concept of rape which is a horrible crime, and is a slap in the face to real rape victims. Make it illegal if you feel you must, but don't call it rape, because it's not.

[Errata]

However, when is rape not rape? Well there is of course the whole gray area of statutory rape, where it is illegal to have sex with someone who is below the age of consent. There are men forced to register for life as sex offenders purely because they had girlfriends who were younger than 18 and the girl's parents found out and didn't like it. There are "rape cases" in which the so-called victim (who may in fact have been the initiator) is having to be practically restrained in the background pleading, "No, he didn't rape me, I love him!" Sometimes they even get married after the guy gets out of prison and live happily ever after. I completely understand and support the need to protect the innocence of children of course, but after puberty the fact that different states hold different ages to be the "age of consent" shows what a gray area this is. There are laws that state that even if a teenage girl is the initiator and seduces a boy, if she is too young she isn't mentally capable of consent. I feel that trivializes the whole concept of rape which is a horrible crime, and is a slap in the face to real rape victims. Make it illegal if you feel you must, but don't call it rape, because it's not.

Statutory rape is a many faceted issue. Some states do simple age limits. Some states do age differences. So if an 18 year old girl is having sex with her 17 year old boyfriend, that's fine. But if a 25 year old woman is having sex with her 15 year old boyfriend, that's rape. The age of consent in each state has less to do with rape laws and more to do with marriage laws. Until recently, a 13 year old girl could marry in this state with parental consent. So 13 had to be the age of consent. Which it still is, but 13 is a turning point in most states. In most states, if you have sex with someone younger than 13 it's child rape. 13 earns you statutory rape, or sexual assault of a minor. There are a couple of points about statutory rape that I think are vital, but today it is far more often used by pissed off parents than by anyone concerned about the ability to consent.
Statutory rape charges reinforce informed consent, which I think is key. It's the difference between "Do you want to try something?" and "do you want to have sex?". It is important that we realize that people have the right to know exactly what they are consenting to. A 14 year old is incapable of informed consent. Their brain actually has not developed the necessary functions. And in this age of abysmal sex education, there are any number of teenagers who don't actually know what sex is. It is not uncommon for a teenage girl to be convinced that what they are doing is not in fact sex. Sad but true.
Statutory rape also recognizes that undue influence is coercion. A 25 year old has no business dating a high schooler. The age difference ensures that they will be the authority in the relationship, that what they say goes. Not a lot of teenagers have the ability to willingly sacrifice a relationship with someone they have come to utterly depend on because they don't want to have sex.
I think those are important thing in rape law. But yeah, sometimes the way it shakes down is a little ridiculous.

[caz]

I cant understand this guys reasoning. I thought from the headline that the issue was about FALSE rape accusations ..but it isnt. Im very hard to offend generally , but this HAS pissed me off. What a society !

"Nick Ross was forced to defend himself over controversial remarks suggesting "rape isnt always rape"..The former Crimewatch presenter claimed half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not believe they have been raped.
Mr Ross said it had become sacrilege to suggest that there can be any gradation.
The victims know otherwise."

Maybe he means being beaten half to death and raped is worse than just being raped?

I'm not defending Nick Ross, and I don't know how he went on to defend himself over his undoubtedly controversial remarks, but could it be that he was referring to women who have allowed penetrative sex when they didn't really want it? In other words they may have done it to please a partner rather than themselves, and may have regretted it afterwards, or even felt violated? It wouldn't be rape if the woman pretended to be willing when she wasn't, but it could still feel like it after the event, and it would then be entirely wrong for the woman to claim she had been raped.

Love,

Caz
X

[Smoking Joe]

I'm not defending Nick Ross, and I don't know how he went on to defend himself over his undoubtedly controversial remarks, but could it be that he was referring to women who have allowed penetrative sex when they didn't really want it? In other words they may have done it to please a partner rather than themselves, and may have regretted it afterwards, or even felt violated? It wouldn't be rape if the woman pretended to be willing when she wasn't, but it could still feel like it after the event, and it would then be entirely wrong for the woman to claim she had been raped.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, could be I suppose ,but if that is what he meant he should have made himself a whole lot clearer .
Personally,and its straying a little,Ive never understood a particular Rape statistic whereby its accepted that 50% (or whatever the figure is) of women who are raped never report it.How could anyone fix any kind of percentage of non reported rapes if they are not reported? Educated guesswork perhaps? Seems rather silly to me.
Statutory rape? I wonder how many pop stars and celebrities must be worrying themselves sick in case any of the groupies they indulged themselves with, were under 16 (while probabley seeming a whole lot older).I think a lot of these Historic rape charges in the news at present are because of this. Maybe that was what he was getting at?
I mean,Ken Barlow raping someone? His supposed victims must have felt as though they were being attacked by a dead Butterfly ,and a boring dead Butterfly at that.

[Errata]

Yes, could be I suppose ,but if that is what he meant he should have made himself a whole lot clearer .
Personally,and its straying a little,Ive never understood a particular Rape statistic whereby its accepted that 50% (or whatever the figure is) of women who are raped never report it.How could anyone fix any kind of percentage of non reported rapes if they are not reported? Educated guesswork perhaps? Seems rather silly to me.
Statutory rape? I wonder how many pop stars and celebrities must be worrying themselves sick in case any of the groupies they indulged themselves with, were under 16 (while probabley seeming a whole lot older).I think a lot of these Historic rape charges in the news at present are because of this. Maybe that was what he was getting at?
I mean,Ken Barlow raping someone? His supposed victims must have felt as though they were being attacked by a dead Butterfly ,and a boring dead Butterfly at that.

The official 50% is an educated guess, coming from the number of women that go to a hospital to be treated for injuries caused by a rape, but refuse to admit the rape, or refuse to give a statement to the police. Given that hospital worthy injury occurs in about 25% percent of reported rapes, and women rarely come to the ER for emergency contraception without explaining why they came in, you add together rape injuries with no report and women who will not give a reason for the need for emergency contraception, you get about 35% (if I recall correctly) and then they add in some to cover women who were not seriously injured and do not seek emergency contraception.
But studies have been done to back up that number. Women will admit to being raped and not reporting it in an anonymous questionnaire given to them by a sociologist of psychiatrist. Some surveys that were regional specific have the number as high as 70% (In the US southwest and Midwest I think). I thought it might be higher here in the South as well, but evidently it still holds true that you do not mess with southern women. We came in a little lower than the national average.

[RivkahChaya]

Maybe he means being beaten half to death and raped is worse than just being raped?

A woman who has been raped and beaten half to death has been the victim of two separate crimes, each one heinous. It doesn't matter whether the beating was by way of forcing her to "allow" penetration, convince her not to go to the police afterwards, an attempt to actually kill her that failed, or just something that particular rapist happened to enjoy doing to women, in addition to raping them.

It's not "worse" to be raped and beaten than it is to be simply raped by someone who put something in your drink, or took advantage of you when you were very young, but it's quantitatively different. It's like the difference between being in a car accident that totals your car, but being OK, or having your car totaled, and your leg broken.

I think rape is a really terrible crime, unforgivable, most of the time, but I favor the justice system treating it as a lesser crime than murder, because I don't want rapists to kill their victims just because the punishment is the same.

I'm not defending Nick Ross, and I don't know how he went on to defend himself over his undoubtedly controversial remarks, but could it be that he was referring to women who have allowed penetrative sex when they didn't really want it? In other words they may have done it to please a partner rather than themselves, and may have regretted it afterwards, or even felt violated? It wouldn't be rape if the woman pretended to be willing when she wasn't, but it could still feel like it after the event, and it would then be entirely wrong for the woman to claim she had been raped.

A man who coerces sex through threat of violence is clearly wrong, but some men coerce sex by the threat of ending the relationship. A lot of women feel violated when it's happening, and guilty the next day. Depending on the situation, they may feel they need the relationship. Some women have their self-image wrapped up in having a man. Some women with small children aren't in a position to support themselves. When the man knows that, can you call it rape? Legally, it isn't, but I think it's very questionable moral behavior. Then, I know some women in relationships, sometimes marriages, who give in to sex because their husbands pester them. They may start early in the evening, and won't physically leave her alone, even when she's tired and wants to go to bed early. She says no, but he literally won't leave her alone, and she gives in as the path of least resistance to eventually getting to sleep at a decent hour. I wouldn't call that rape, but I think the guy is still being a jerk.

And that doesn't even touch the whole issue of the fact that, yes, some women on a visceral level would like to have sex, but they have made up their minds not to before marriage, or on a first date, or without the both of you getting HIV tests, or whatever the line is for that particular woman. So it's true that women say "No" when they really would like to, but that isn't the same thing as "saying 'No,' and meaning 'Yes.'" I have said "No," when I wanted to. I have never said "No" when I intended to. Begging and cajoling is not my idea of foreplay, and I don't say "No" because I want to hear how much you want it, or how pretty I am, or how you'll still respect me, first.

[jason_c]

Yes, could be I suppose ,but if that is what he meant he should have made himself a whole lot clearer .
Personally,and its straying a little,Ive never understood a particular Rape statistic whereby its accepted that 50% (or whatever the figure is) of women who are raped never report it.How could anyone fix any kind of percentage of non reported rapes if they are not reported? Educated guesswork perhaps? Seems rather silly to me.
Statutory rape? I wonder how many pop stars and celebrities must be worrying themselves sick in case any of the groupies they indulged themselves with, were under 16 (while probabley seeming a whole lot older).I think a lot of these Historic rape charges in the news at present are because of this. Maybe that was what he was getting at?
I mean,Ken Barlow raping someone? His supposed victims must have felt as though they were being attacked by a dead Butterfly ,and a boring dead Butterfly at that.

The rape cases against these 1970's celebs are interesting. What is noticeable is they by and large are against actor/celebrities of a certain type. Rock stars seem not to be caught up in this round of allegations. I rather doubt 1970's rock stars such as Jimmy Page and Roger Daltrey were engaging in underage sex any less than mid level celebs of the Jimmy Tarbuck and Bill Roache variety.

And as far as rape goes the stats are kinda muddied by one night drunken sex with strangers. It really is a fine line of who is in control of their senses and who is not when drunken sex takes place.

[RivkahChaya]

Providing alcohol to a minor is a crime all by itself in the US, and a pretty serious one.

Also, a lot of the "unreported rape" stats go back the Kinsey report on women's sexuality. It was conducted by the Kinsey Institute on Human Sexuality, which is located at the university where I got my degree. One survey, about rape, was given the thousands of women of different ages, and came up with different percentages of non-report for different situations, and then gave an average. At the time, marital rape was not a crime, but the level of report for acquaintance rape was almost zero if the woman didn't think pregnancy would result. At that time the overall percentage of non-reporting was lower than 50%, with "fear of not being believed by the police" cited as a reason for not reporting even stranger rape.

The rape survey was repeated again about 10 or 15 years later (I'm working from memory, but I had a friend who did data entry and filing at the Kinsey Institute, and used to talk about this a lot). Marital rape reports showed up for the first time, because it was finally a crime, but unless women were legally separated, or had also been beaten, they still didn't report it. The report rate was very low, bringing down the average. The stranger rate was very high, because in the interim, there had been a lot of police education about how to treat rape victims, there were more women on the force, and you could go to the hospital for treatment, and let them call the police. Acquaintance rape reports were up, although not as much. All-in-all, the average did not change that much.

There are also extrapolations from men convicted of rape. Sometimes researchers ask them about other rapes outside the statute of limitations, and find out that for every conviction, a particular rapist gets away with a certain number of other rapes. That doesn't mean they were unreported, just unsolved, but it's more data to back up other numbers.

[Limehouse]

My feelings about this are quite clear. No means no. End of story. If a man (or a woman) takes things further and has sex without consent then it's rape. Simple.

It matters not what the injured party is wearing or whether they are wearing nothing at all. If they are standing naked or half-clothed in front of the accused but they say no - it means no. No excuses.

Rape is a violent crime. Sometimes it happens when things get out of hand and the rapist feels angry and frustrated and ends up imposing his/herself on the victim. In other circumstances the rapist and victim are unknown to each other and the rapist acts as a predator and strikes when the victim is unaware. In these cases the rapist often has a personality disorder and is a serial offender. No one can judge the levels of distress that may be caused to the victim in these differing circumstances.

With regard to celebs and under-age sex, adult famous people are bound to attract attention and adoration. It is their responsibility to act with caution and to avoid sexual encounters with unknown fans unless they are certain that the other party is old enough to give consent and they should be certain beyond doubt that consent is being given. 'Looking old enough' is not good enough.

[RivkahChaya]

Having sex with a drunken person you don't know well is a very, very bad idea, because of the very fact that you don't know the person well. While I don't know from personal experience, I have a feeling it would be a little like going into a BDSM experience without a safe word.

With your regular partner, it's different. When you have been married to someone for 15 years you know that the person does, or does not, like drunk sex, and when he comes home with a six pack of Trojans and a 12-pack of hard cider, not much needs to be said. (FWIW, DH doesn't get drunk, but he drinks on special occasions, and those are often days when he doesn't have to get up the next morning, which are also good nights for late-night sex).

That goes for a lot of things. When your spouse of many years says "No" once, you know him or her well enough to know whether asking a second time will spark a fight, and if saying "I'll get the boychik ready by myself in the morning, so you don't have to get up," might make her change her mind. I don't consider it threatening when my husband asks twice, but if someone I had just started dating did that, it would set off alarms.

Don't get me wrong. I am not preaching monogamy, and I'm not against other people hooking up, if that's what turns them on. I'm just saying the interpersonal dynamics between people who are related, or who know each other very well, and have for a long time, are different from those of people who do not know each other well.