Most rape cases are just bad sex, says feminist Germaine Greer

[soon]

5 minutes ago, killuridols said:

I think this kind of fragmention happens to all social movements, at some point. But IMO, there's always an essence that is common to all the sub-groups of a whole.

In the case of feminism, the basis is freedom for women and equal rights: to move around in our own terms, to have the same opportunities as men in all aspects, and to have a right to decide on our own bodies.

 

Outta likes. I agree with both points!

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

So if you force your dick into a woman and forcefully fuck her, dry. Rape. That's not a violent act? What the fuck? 

It is violent if it causes physical damage, isn't it? And I dont think sex without consent necessarily have to result in physical damage. But hey, I am not an expert on rape. 

[killuridols]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is violent if it causes physical damage, isn't it? And I dont think sex without consent necessarily have to result in physical damage. But hey, I am not an expert on rape. 

Wow. Are you being serious here?

If you are, I am completely baffled and if you are not, then your jokes are pretty distasteful.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, killuridols said:

Wow. Are you being serious here?

If you are, I am completely baffled and if you are not, then your jokes are pretty distasteful.

No, I am of course being serious. Maybe it's a definition thing? To me, violence means that physical damage must happen. I didn't know that every case of non-consensual sex (=rape) necessarily had to result in physical damage. Mental damage, sure, because it is a violation of consent, but physical, well that really depends on the details, wouldn't it.

And don't get me wrong, I am not at all trivializing rape. Non-consensual sex is of course wrong regardless of how violent it is, and the more violent the worse. I just think we have to agree on definitions if we are to discuss such a serious thing, and it seemed to me that maybe some of the people here had slightly different understanding of what rape is.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Oldest Goat said:

To rape someone is to physically overpower/dominate that person, against their wishes. 

See, we have different definitions. To me, rape is just non-consensual. It doesn't have to involve any physical domination at all, although that is very frequent. It includes being fucked while asleep, while heavily intoxicated, while in a coma, all of which are examples where the victim doesn't have to be physically subdued; but also all the cases when a threat of violence means that a person succumbs to unwanted sex, etc, and does whatever is required to not get physically harmed, and this example is very typical in established relationships. There are SO MANY examples of non-consensual sex where there is no physical damage, really, but which I still consider rape according to my definition, and my definition aligns with the legal definition in my country.

[EvanG]

If a guy puts a gun to a girl's head and threatens to kill her if she won't have sex with him, and the girl has no choice but to let the guy do his thing, then there is probably no physical damage, but it's still rape obviously. I think that is what is being implied here.

Edited June 1, 2018 by EvanG

[killuridols]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, I am of course being serious. Maybe it's a definition thing? To me, violence means that physical damage must happen. I didn't know that every case of non-consensual sex (=rape) necessarily had to result in physical damage. Mental damage, sure, because it is a violation of consent, but physical, well that really depends on the details, wouldn't it.

And don't get me wrong, I am not at all trivializing rape. Non-consensual sex is of course wrong regardless of how violent it is, and the more violent the worse. I just think we have to agree on definitions if we are to discuss such a serious thing, and it seemed to me that maybe some of the people here had slightly different understanding of what rape is.

Physical damage does happen everytime a man forces their genitals on a woman who is not ready to receive it. I don't want to become gross and having to explain to you why the damage happens. Besides, I assume you are a grown up man and you must know what I am talking about.

As a said before, rape is not exclusive of adult women. It happens and much more often to children, teenagers and even adult men. There is no rape without violence and physical damage. Go ask around personnel that works in hospitals, when they receive a victim of rape, especially in a small baby or child, if physical damage has not occured. Some kids die because of it. It is a HORROR.

 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, EvanG said:

If a guy puts a gun on a girl's head and threatens to kill her if she won't have sex with him, and the girl has no choice but to let the guy do his thing, then there is probably no physical damage, but it's still rape obviously. I think that is what is being implied here.

Absolutely.

I didn't want to be crass and crude, to try to get the point across. But here goes: If I lubed up a finger and carefully showed it up someone's ass against their will,that WOULD comprise rape according to my country's laws, but it wouldn't at all (necessarily) mean physical damage.

2 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Physical damage does happen everytime a man forces their genitals on a woman who is not ready to receive it. 

No, it doesn't. It depends on respective sizes, unwilling arousal and to what extent chemical or physical lubrication has been applied. A small, well-lubricated finger inserted into the vagina of a woman who is aroused, but doesn't want sex, is still rape even if she isn't physically hurt. Jeez.  

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, killuridols said:

There is no rape without violence and physical damage. Go ask around personnel that works in hospitals, when they receive a victim of rape, especially in a small baby or child, if physical damage has not occured. Some kids die because of it. It is a HORROR.

Jeez woman. Rape isn't only horrific acts upon children. Rape isn't always full-on violent. Most rape victims who go to hospital DO HAVE physical injuries, but not all. Those who don't have injuries, typically don't go to hospitals either.

[killuridols]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, it doesn't. It depends on respective sizes, unwilling arousal and to what extent chemical or physical lubrication has been applied. A small, well-lubricated finger inserted into the vagina of a woman who is aroused, but doesn't want sex, is still rape even if she isn't physically hurt. Jeez.  

 

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Jeez woman. Rape isn't only horrific acts upon children. Rape isn't always full-on violent. Most rape victims who go to hospital DO HAVE physical injuries, but not all. Those who don't have injuries, typically don't go to hospitals either.

Even if you don't go to hospital, if it was forced upon you, it does hurt and what the hell would you know? Are you woman?

 

[SoulMonster]

Urk. Having to read up on 'physical injuries in rape victims' is not something I wanted. Anyway, according to Slaughter and Brown (1992), of women who went to hospital, 87 % had physical injuries upon colposcopic investigation, the remaining had no physical injuries. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, killuridols said:

Even if you don't go to hospital, if it was forced upon you, it does hurt and what the hell would you know? Are you woman?

Are you for real?

[action]

42 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

As long as the definition of rape is sex without consent, then rape doesn't have to be violent, does it?

agreed, but don't forget the element of proof.

if there was no violence, whatsoever, involved, then it becomes hard to prove rape. So even though it might juridically still be rape, it will be hard to prove it.

[SoulMonster]

I fear that be defining rape as only those cases of non-consensual sex where physical injuries result, means that all the other cases or non-consensual sex is considered less serious. It shouldn't be. Forcing sex upojn another human being, regardless of how it is done and whether physical injuries happen, is horrible. And yes, of course it is worse when there is physical trauma, too. But for most rape victims, it is the mental trauma that lingers. The mind often takes longer to heal than the body. 

I have noticed with concern this movement to redefine rape to only include cases with physical trauma. And I say "redefine" because in most countries, any unwanted sex is rape regardless of physical injuries. I don't really know why so many people, especially men, seem to think that only those cases where someone bleeds, is rape. But I fear that this will trivialize all the other cases of non-consensual sex, since they aren't considered rape anymore... and then they can't be that bad, can they?

[killuridols]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Are you for real?

Are you for real?

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Urk. Having to read up on 'physical injuries in rape victims' is not something I wanted. Anyway, according to Slaughter and Brown (1992), of women who went to hospital, 87 % had physical injuries upon colposcopic investigation, the remaining had no physical injuries. 

Are you really digging on stadistics from 1992? Where from??? Lol, do you realize there are millions of hospitals around the world?

Whether the physical injuries are located inside the area or the external parts, if it's non-consensual sex there has to be some resistance involved and you can get injuries in your arms, legs, face, anywhere... when they are pulling you, pushing you, grabbing you by the arms and hands.

I don't think any victim completely gives in to their rapist, without some level of resistance. If it is a husband raping his wife, there is resistance involved, otherwise it would be consensual and wanted.

The rapist oftenly gets injured as well, from the victim resistance.

[action]

41 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

So if you force your dick into a woman and forcefully fuck her, dry. Rape. That's not a violent act? What the fuck? 

I dont think soulmonster said it wasn't, to be fair

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, action said:

agreed, but don't forget the element of proof.

if there was no violence, whatsoever, involved, then it becomes hard to prove rape. So even though it might juridically still be rape, it will be hard to prove it.

Yes, exactly. And that's why there is so much focus on injuries. If you can prove an injury, you can prove rape. Which is why many victims of rape who hasn't suffered physical trauma won't bother to report it, it becomes word against word.

1 minute ago, killuridols said:

I don't think any victim completely gives in to their rapist, without some level of resistance. If it is a husband raping his wife, there is resistance involved, otherwise it would be consensual and wanted.

Wow, just wow. Mind blown.

[action]

when a woman says "no" but doesnt put up much resistance to the rapist, then no violence was involved and it becomes hard for the authorities to prove their case of the "united states vs john brown" or whatever

according to the law it was rape, acording to any sane person it was rape, but when no proof, then no conviction. dura lex, sed lex. it's the price we pay for living in a constitutional, democratic society. in India, these fellas get shot in the head without much of an issue. don't agree with how our justice system works? well, see you next election, or move to a country with a less democratic justice system

[action]

10 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, exactly. And that's why there is so much focus on injuries. If you can prove an injury, you can prove rape. Which is why many victims of rape who hasn't suffered physical trauma won't bother to report it, it becomes word against word.

 

not necessarily. if the authorities find sperm, and the offender denies any sex at all, and is confronted with his dna, then it's end of story

[EvanG]

9 minutes ago, killuridols said:

I don't think any victim completely gives in to their rapist, without some level of resistance.

That's probably true in most situations, but there are always situations when this doesn't happen. Like I already said, when someone is being threatened by their rapist and are too terrified to show resistance, or when someone is drugged, etc.

[killuridols]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Wow, just wow. Mind blown.

What happened? How did you blow your mind?

Listen, I do understand what you are trying to say about victims who apparently have no physical damage in their bodies to use as a proof to accuse their rapists and I agree that it is unfair for them, as it is most likely that the rapist will get away with it.

I am not sure how many victims do not resist to rape or abuse, though. I understand that there are situations where the line is blurred between consensual and non-consensual sex, but are those situations pretty regular? or an exception? I am being honest here, I do not really know.

Anyway, I think that in the case of victims without physical injuries, other elements could help in determining if a rape might have occured. There could be witnesses, phone calls, emails, chats, photographs and even videos that could help elucidate a difficult case.

[action]

1 minute ago, EvanG said:

That's probably true in most situations, but there are always situations when this doesn't happen. Like I already said, when someone is being threatened by their rapist and are too terrified to show resistance, or when someone is drugged, etc.

if the victim is drugged, the authorities will find drugs in her blood. boom, there is your evidence

[EvanG]

3 minutes ago, action said:

if the victim is drugged, the authorities will find drugs in her blood. boom, there is your evidence

Yes, but I'm only responding to the argument that not in every rape case there will be physical damage.

[SoulMonster]

I am still absolutely shocked. So I kept on reading.

There is a study from 2005 by Bowyer and Dalton (both female doctors, by the way, because, you know, we men can't know anything about such things), where 83 women who had (allegedly) been raped were carefulle examined for any physical injuries. You can read the whole paper here: https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11543.x

Anyway, seven had had forced anal intercourse, two had been unsuccessfully strangled, three had been vaginally fisted or had had clothing inserted. More detailed:

42 had injuries on their arms. 36 on their upper legs. 22 on their necks. 17 on their chests. 16 on their lower legs. 15 on their head. 14 on their back. 14 on their knees. 10 on their shoulders. 13 on their hands.  7 on their buttocks. All consistent with fighting back, I assume, or resisting. Yet, 15 had no injuries whatsoever.

By investigating their genitals, again, not all had suffered injuries. If we look at the literature in general, the frequency of genital injuries varies from only 10 to 87 %. So there is no study where every (alleged) rape victim, every one of them, has suffered injuries. Not from recent times, not from decades ago.

Studies	Year	No. injured	Type of injury
Amir12	1971	38/73 (52)	Genital injury
Cameron13	1983	14/33 (42)	‘Slight’ genital trauma
Cartwright14	1987	70/440 (16)	Vulva contusions, hymeneal and vaginal lacerations, laceration of posterior fomix
Everett & Jimerson15	1977	22/117 (19)	Minor lacerations/ abrasions of genitalia
		8/117 (7)	Major vaginal or perineal lacerations
Lauber & Souma16	1982	10/22 (45)	Genital injury with toluidine blue staining
Lloyd & Walmsley17
Cases leading to conviction in 1973		49/217 (23)	Vaginal cuts and bruises
		38/217 (18)	Ruptured hymen
		17/217 (8)	Anal cuts and bruises
Cases leading to conviction in 1985		58/356 (16)	Vaginal cuts and bruises
		33/356 (9)	Ruptured hymen
		25/356 (7)	Anal cuts and bruises
Manser18	1992	38/103 (37)	Genital injury
		11/103 (11)	Anal injury
Mc Cauley et al.19	1987	14/24 (58)	Genital injury (contusions) with toluidine blue staining
Olusanya et al.20	1986	53/330 (16)	Genital injury
Ramin et al.21	1992	56/129 (43)	Postmenopausal abrasions, haematomas & lacerations
		23/129 (18)	Premenopausal
Slaughter & Brown22	1992	114/131 (87)	Colposcopic genital injury findings
Solala et al.11	1983	137/621 (22)	Mostly minor genital injuries

Here is a conclusion from this paper:

Quote

Most of the genital injuries described in this study were minor, consisting of tears, bruises, scratches and grazes. If forced anal intercourse had also occurred, injury was much more likely. Recent studies14, 21 of larger series of premenopausal women examined physically only agree that the minority of rape victims sustain genital injury, the frequency being < 30%. In our study the incidence was 27%; we included anal and vulval/vaginal injuries. Postmenopausal women are more likely to suffer genital injury after rape; even then, more than half will have no demonstrable injury.

Not only that, but many of the genital injuries observed, are also found in consensual intercourse!  

Edited June 1, 2018 by SoulMonster

[action]

2 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Yes, but I'm only responding to the argument that not in every rape case there will be physical damage.

yeah I know. I'm pointing out that in your examples, proof can be derived from other elements.

physical damage is an important element of proof, but not necessary nor the only one (though like I said, without injuries it becomes harder for the authorities to make a case)

Edited June 1, 2018 by action