Sunday, 7 October 2012
Thursday, 30 August 2012
Brendan O Neill says:
"But it is wrong. More than that, the idea that all "non-consensual sex is rape", as Galloway himself has now said in his clarification of his defence of Assange, represents a dangerous rewriting of what rape really means."It doesn't, because rape has always meant that. He is confusing rape with the 'crime of rape'. The dictionary definition doesn't change depending on whether it is a crime. There is a standard dictionary definition: sex without consent. Because a sleeping woman cannot consent, it is rape. It doesn't have to be a crime of rape though. What he really means is: when considering what actions to make a crime, using the definition "all non consensual sex" to define rape in law is dangerous. I agree with that. I would actually prefer there to be no relationship rape law for a few reasons. It gives women a false sense of security; that the law protects them. One of the motivations for the rapist is the power he gets knowing that he has raped the woman and she can do nothing about it; that there is a social pressure on her to pursue justice even though very few women want to go through the justice system. It also means that rape becomes a taboo topic because everyone assumes that it is the government's job to handle it and deal with the aftermath of it, not the people or society's job. So that is why a lot of women who have been raped do not want to discuss it; they feel that people will just tell them to go to the police and then blame them when they do not go. So they feel more isolated and alone. Which again gives the rapist power.
Link: It Is Wrong to Say 'Sex Without Consent is Rape'. Brendan O Neill, Huffington Post. 29/08/2012 00:00
Posted by James at 12:14
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
Comment on Guardian article which illustrates why relationship rape laws are not a good thing:
Interesting. ran a youth program a few years ago. A party occurred, girl drank a lot, got 'flirtatious' (her term) found a likely young man, initiated sex, then 'started acting weird' (his term) so they stopped. next day, girl went home and mother questioned her apparent sadness. Girl felt she 'might have been raped, but couldn't remember' (her words). Boy contacted. His story exactly the same as the girls (except the bits she didn't remember, e.g. the flirtation and dragging him into a room (he's known as a shy boy, everybody saw...)). Police called in. Rape test performed (negative, but only tests for insemination). result: boy stigmatized for rape; girl stigmatized as a 'cry wolf liar' by all their mutual friends, male and female. Still 'can't remember', left college and now lives with Mum, who wants 'someone' (not necessarily the original 'co-operative' boy) punished. there have been death threats and suicide threats. . The problem in this type of scenario is not even that awkward or bad or non-consensual sex (partially) took place.. it's that the mix of sexual excitement, alcohol (and probably grass) and 'amnesia' seem to be very common as the rationale of why A or B was guilty or not guilty of rape (depending on your point of view). the same events can equally be interpreted as teenage stupidity, 'life's like that' or rape. The police I spoke to (as I knew both kids and the social group) dropped the case, and all 'grey area' cases like this, as they said usually they only act on clear cases of coercion or violence... glaringly, it is the girl in this case who has been most marked.This kind of half/half situation (leaving 'amnesia' aside) is very common indeed, when both young people start something, then one (in this case the girl) changes their mind. In this case, the boy stopped all intimacy, but the booze, a bad night's sleep and a worried parent took the whole situation into kafkaesque realms.So, my question to you: did rape take place?Link: How do we teach young people what sexual consent really means? comment rustypooh 28 August 2012 6:16AM
Posted by James at 04:51
Friday, 24 August 2012
Posted by James at 20:50
Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Firstly an explanation of what the position of rape deniers really is.
This is the true position of so called rape deniers.
I think they do consider what Assange (allegedly) did was rape. They know it is rape under the law. It is a fact it is rape under the law. It is a fact it is rape under the dictionary definition. If a woman does not want it to happen, it is rape.
However, you can agree it is rape but also think there shouldn't be a law against what happened in this particular instance (relationship rape); that you should be arrested and punished for it.
People seem not to realise you can agree that what Assange did was wrong but also at the same time thiink there shouldn't be a law against what is called relationship rape.
It would be a lot less upsetting to people for whom this has happened and who consider it rape and a traumatising event, if you acknowledged that it was rape. Because it is. Rather than denying it is rape.
In reality Galloway thinks that there shouldn't be a law against what assange did. My point is that his real position is that he knows it is rape under the dictionary definition but that he thinks there should be no law against what Assange did, even though it is rape.
I believe that is what most 'rape denier's real position is.
I believe that is what most 'rape denier's real position is.
Regarding Steve Brookstein - he waded into the controversy on twitter last night. I wish to distance myself from Brookstein and the way he handled things. He was incredibly insensitive to rape victims and was basically laughing at them. He was also verbally abusive towards a number of women who had the courage to challenge him. His basic position was him and his wife had an understanding regarding what was acceptable and what was not.
Even though I think he handled the situation badly and there was no need for the insults and unsympathetic attitude towards rape victims, it did bolster my argument that having a law against relationship rape is not helpful. It also bolsters my argument that Jewish men on the whole tend to be more misogynistic.
Posted by James at 00:07