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

[action]

ironically, the cases where the offender denies any sex are sometimes the easiest to prove: with rape, there will always be sperm, or in other words DNA.

someone who claims not to have had sex with the victim will have a field day trying to explain his sperm on her then

a real scumbag will confess about having had sex (hence the sperm) but will deny having done so without consent

[SoulMonster]

I am probably beating a dead horse. Anyway, a recent (2017) study of 1266 women who reported to have been raped, showed that in only 24.5 % of the cases of (alleged) vaginal rape was there any observable injuries (increasing to 52.1 % if the victim was a virgin), and for only 27.0 % for (alleged) victims of anal rape. The frequency of injury increased for cases where "multiple types of penetrants" were used, but decreased when the victim was sedated. 

My point is not to make rape seem less horrific by pointing to these facts. Neither is it the point of the authors of the various studies (if anything, they stress the fact that absence of injuries cannot be used by courts to conclude that no rape took place, hence increasing the importance of other kinds of evidence). But rather to dispel any notion that if it didn't result in injuries then it wasn't rape. If we do redefine rape to only cover the violent cases, then I fear we have no effective legal weapon to punish all those people who coerce, threaten, and manipulate others into non-consensual sex. 

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@SoulMonster Do you have an upcoming book launch by any chance?

Most clumsily formed point/argument I've ever seen from you tbh.

Book launch? What are you talking about?

Oh well, as long as I got the message across then I can live with clumsy delivery.

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

At first it sounded like you were saying the opposite, that rape isn't necessarily violent.

But rape isn't necessarily violent (as in causing injuries). In fact, only in about half of the cases of (alleged) rape are any injuries observed that are significant from what is common in consensual sex.

Have I really been vague about this? I thought I had been hammering in this point repeatedly in my last 5-6 posts. People shouldn't read my posts and be confused as to what I mean. Here you have it in caps: RAPE DOESN'T ALWAYS LEAD TO PHYSICAL INJURIES. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

10 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Don't you dare all-caps me.

Rape supposedly not causing physical injury every time is not the same as saying rape isn't necessarily violent - which is a stupid thing to say.

Already in my second post I explicitly said that I considered "violent" as something that causes physical injury. Or rather, I asked you if you wouldn't agree ("It is violent if it causes physical damage, isn't it?") If it doesn't cause injury, then it really isn't violent, imo. You followed up by saying that rape is to "physically overpower/dominate that person", which seemed to me that you only considered non-consensual sex where violence is used, as rape. Again, I and a few others here have posted examples of non-consensual sex where no violence really takes place (against sleeping people, against people who are threatened to sex), which are, legally, just as much rape as cases where someone is physically hurt. But sure, if just doint something to someone without their explicit consent, is considered a "violent act", then all rapes are violent.

Anyway, this is just semantics.  And similarly, an armed robbery is only violent, as I see it, if actual violence is used. Just pointing a gun at someone isn't a violent act, imo. But again, pure semantics. My definition of this might deviate from most people who have English as their primary language. It isn't really my point in this discussion. My point is to point out this seemingly narrowing definition of what rape is, in peoples minds, where only non-consensual sex with injuries is included, whereas all the cases of non-violent (in not leaving injuries ) non-consensual sex is somehow free from being legally charged as rape.

[killuridols]

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But rape isn't necessarily violent (as in causing injuries). In fact, only in about half of the cases of (alleged) rape are any injuries observed that are significant from what is common in consensual sex.

I find it strange that you focus on details that are not significant to the main problem.

You choose to emphasize the anecdotal parts and that's why people dont understand what you mean. 

Started by saying "rape is not always violent". Putting it that way is oversimplifying the matter. You want to get technical about some aspects, almost mathematical, but we are talking about people here, not numbers and I'm sure most victims of rape would agree their rape was violent, even if there are no physical trace of it. If it was non-consensual, it was violent.

39 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Have I really been vague about this? I thought I had been hammering in this point repeatedly in my last 5-6 posts. People shouldn't read my posts and be confused as to what I mean. Here you have it in caps: RAPE DOESN'T ALWAYS LEAD TO PHYSICAL INJURIES. 

Yes, you have and what you are highlighting in caps is not getting any better.

It is a small part of what should be a larger message: when rape does not leave physical injuries on the victim, it becomes harder to make a case and incriminate the perpetrator. However, proof can be derived from other elements present at the moment of the occurrence.

 

[SoulMonster]

Regarding Merriam-Webster, the definition can be broken down into three cases:

1) Forcibly (which is violent, of course).

2) Under threats (which I don't think constitutes violence)

3) Against people who are drunk, asleep, handicapped, so that they cannot express non-consent (again, not necessarily violent as I see it).

This is also corraborated by wikipedia's definition:

Quote

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability or is below the legal age of consent

Again, the focus is on non-consent, not how it is achieved.

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Started by saying "rape is not always violent". Putting it that way is oversimplifying the matter. You want to get technical about some aspects, almost mathematical, but we are talking about people here, not numbers and I'm sure most victims of rape would agree their rape was violent, even if there are no physical trace of it. If it was non-consensual, it was violent.

I disagree. On the contrary, saying that all acts of rape are violent, implies that all the non-violent occasions of non-consensual sex (kids being tricked over social media, people being fucked while asleep or drugged, people who aren't mentally able to give consent, spouses being coerced to sex, etc) are somehow not rape, and that's a dangerous precedent. And it disagrees with normal definitions of 'rape' and most countries' laws. I think you are the one who is conflating the issue, and thus doing a disservice to all victims of non-violent, non-consensual sex.

Edited June 1, 2018 by SoulMonster

[killuridols]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I disagree. On the contrary, saying that all acts of rape are violent, implies that all the non-violent occasions of non-consensual sex (kids being tricked over social media, people being fucked while asleep or drugged, people who aren't mentally able to give consent, spouses being coerced to sex, etc) are somehow not rape, and that's a dangerous precedent. And it disagrees with normal definitions of 'rape' and most countries' laws.

There is something called symbolic violence, you should give it a read.

Kids being tricked over social media is called 'grooming' where I live and there's an specific typification for it. It is not rape if the adult did not have sexual contact with the child, but they can still be charged for sexual abuse or pedophilia.

In my country, not everything is considered rape, as the simple definition of non-consensual sex. There are different categories for it. If it does not involve sexual intercourse, it is called abuse or dishonest abuse. Also, categories vary depending on the age of the person, mental state, and relationship with the rapist/abuser.

[killuridols]

23 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And similarly, an armed robbery is only violent, as I see it, if actual violence is used. Just pointing a gun at someone isn't a violent act, imo.

Does this mean that for you is pretty normal that someone puts a gun against your head and you wouldnt even flinch at it? 

[EvanG]

I looked up the definition of the word violent.

1) using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

2) (especially of an emotion or a destructive natural force) very strong or powerful.

So yes, all acts of rape are violent, even without physical injuries.

 

 

[SoulMonster]

13 hours ago, killuridols said:

Does this mean that for you is pretty normal that someone puts a gun against your head and you wouldnt even flinch at it? 

I wouldn't call it "violent".

Anyway. Picture this scenario:

A party, young kids. Lots of drinking. A boy hits on a girl. She says no. She gets really drunk and goes to sleep in a bedroom in the house. The boy comes in there, sees the girl, and climbs in the bed. He undresses her and fucks her without she being conscious. Her body even responds with arousal. Was it rape? There were no injuries, no violence. But she didn't want to. She absolutely didn't want to have sex with him. Upon learning of it she was mortified, ashamed, violated. According to most countries I know of, this was rape.

And what about this: A pedo mimics a young cute girl online. Fools a young boy to undress and masturbate before webcam. The man threatens to send the film to his parents, to all his friends, unless he has sex with him. The boy is more afraid of the humiliation of the footage being released than being fucked by the man, so he accepts. Again, no violence, no injuries. The man was careful and, as far as the act went, considerate. But the boy was ruined for life, numerous issues. Was it rape? Well, again, no injuries and no violence (although one can always discuss whether the threat of releasing the footage was a "violent act"). And again, according to law it was rape.

My point remains, we shouldn't focus on whether violence is used, or whether it fits "violent acts", or whether injuries occur, the main point of rape, as peer definitions, is that it is non-consensual.

13 hours ago, EvanG said:

I looked up the definition of the word violent.

1) using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

2) (especially of an emotion or a destructive natural force) very strong or powerful.

So yes, all acts of rape are violent, even without physical injuries.

How does that fit with my last two examples (the sleeping girl and the boy being coerced into sex)? 

Edited June 2, 2018 by SoulMonster

[EvanG]

Dude, I don't know anymore... it's 2am in the morning and I'm looking up definitions of words. Evidently that word is also used in situations when no physical injuries occur. So apparently when two people are having a heated discussion without physically touching each other, you can still speak of violence. Then I guess when you rape someone under the circumstances you gave, it's still violence. Or am I wrong here? Where are those annoying Brits when you need them?

[SoulMonster]

Just now, EvanG said:

Dude, I don't know anymore... it's 2am in the morning and I'm looking up definitions of words. Evidently that word is also used in situations when no physical injuries occur. So apparently when two people are having a heated discussion without physically touching each other, you can still speak of violence. Then I guess when you rape someone under the circumstances you gave, it's still violence. Or am I wrong here? Where are those annoying Brits when you need them?

I would never consider the example with the sleeping girl a "violent act", but I am not English-speaking , either Anyway, this is beside my point and just annoying semantics. Hopefully we all agree that those two examples I mentioned constituted rape (be ause legally they are), regardless of whether it fits our definitions of "violent acts" and regardless of the fact that no physical harm occurred.

Rape, non-consensual sex, can take so many different shapes and I was just afraid we were kind of forgetting about some in this discussion. We shouldn't, out of respect for all the victims.

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I would never consider the example with the sleeping girl a "violent act", but I am not English-speaking , either Anyway, this is beside my point and just annoying semantics. Hopefully we all agree that those two examples I mentioned constituted rape (be ause legally they are), regardless of whether it fits our definitions of "violent acts" and regardless of the fact that no physical harm occurred.

Rape, non-consensual sex, can take so many different shapes and I was just afraid we were kind of forgetting about some in this discussion. We shouldn't, out of respect for all the victims.

It's probably a lingo thing.

I agree with everything you're saying. 

 

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

I wouldn't call it "violent".

It is violent. I invite you to the streets of Southamerica. I'll see you changing your definition of violence in a heartbeat

Can you seriously say all that situation wasn't violent for the tourist? This happened in Buenos Aires a couple of years ago.

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

A party, young kids. Lots of drinking. A boy hits on a girl. She says no. She gets really drunk and goes to sleep in a bedroom in the house. The boy comes in there, sees the girl, and climbs in the bed. He undresses her and fucks her without she being conscious. Her body even responds with arousal. Was it rape? There were no injuries, no violence. But she didn't want to. She absolutely didn't want to have sex with him. Upon learning of it she was mortified, ashamed, violated. According to most countries I know of, this was rape.

A similar situation happened in my country. Not so young kids, though. People in their 20's. Girl denounced rape. It took 3 years to demonstrate it but she won. It was considered rape. The guy was sentenced to 6 years and a half even though she asked for 12 years. 

But in your made up scenario I find it hard to believe that a woman would get aroused from the raping.

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

And what about this: A pedo mimics a young cute girl online. Fools a young boy to undress and masturbate before webcam. The man threatens to send the film to his parents, to all his friends, unless he has sex with him. The boy is more afraid of the humiliation of the footage being released than being fucked by the man, so he accepts. Again, no violence, no injuries. The man was careful and, as far as the act went, considerate. But the boy was ruined for life, numerous issues. Was it rape? Well, again, no injuries and no violence (although one can always discuss whether the threat of releasing the footage was a "violent act"). And again, according to law it was violent.

I think it was not rape but the man could be charged with grooming, pedophilia, dishonest abuse of a minor and threatening. Again, it will all depend on the country or jurisdiction where the case belongs. Unfortunately, the law is not the same everywhere in the world and also, things get judged according to the interpretation of a few.

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by killuridols

[action]

violence does not equal physical damage. the law requires the former, but not the latter in order to speak of rape.

likewise, not all sex involving physical damage is rape: SM between consenting adults. Even with consent, it's still a criminal offense. Not under the banner of rape, but under the general crime of "physical harm". You can't agree to be physically harmed. otherwise, I could kill you with your consent and I wouldnt be punisheable.

rape should also not be confused with underage sex: . there are two kinds of underage sex: with or without consent. it doesn't matter: both are criminal offenses. But in this case, violence is not required in order to have "rape" (technically it's not called rape, but underage sex).

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, killuridols said:

But in your made up scenario I find it hard to believe that a woman would get aroused from the raping.

Just going to comment on this. Involuntary arousal is quite common. Looking back, it seems like I spent large parts of my puberty years trying to suppress erections in socially awkward situations, with various degrees of success. Mind over matter

It is also not unheard of in rape. Of course it depends upon how that rape happens, and for most (though not everybody) violence will act as a suppressor of arousal. That's why it wouldn't be completely implausible in the above described scenario where sleep, intoxication and reality gets blurred and she might dream having sex with someone she actually was attracted to). Anyway, we are in taboo land now and I don't know exactly how frequent involuntary sexual arousal in rape is, but it is common enough to cause many victims of rape additional burden when they feel betrayed by their bodies, and also ashamed for responding the way they did. Pure therapy session fodder, this. It also might confuse the rapist and even present a sort of defense ("but she wanted it!"), and for this reason be something the victim is not likely to talk about.

Of course, even if it does happen to a few victims, at some stage, to some extent, it doesn't reduce the severity of rape. But it does cause confusion in our minds, and it might add severe burden to the victim when this must be emotionally resolved. 

[I also believe, but now I am in speculation-land -- so take it more as a hypothesis than based on actual clinical studies -- that failure to resolve issues arising from traumatic events like rape, especially during sexually formative periods (for instance when underage and not being sexually experienced), might create some abnormal neural connections between sexual arousal and gender, pain, humiliation, etc, that could affect sexual preferences later in life if not psychologically resolved. Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong in any of this as long as it is between consenting adults -- and such things I am sure also develops without any such traumatic events -- I am just speculating upon the mechanisms behind developments and the prevalence of some sexual preferences.]

[SoulMonster]

Just to follow-up on my last post: According to a meta study in 2004, 4-5 % of rape victims report having experienced orgasm [https://www.jflmjournal.org/article/S1353-1131(03)00153-6/fulltext]. A clinician in the paper said the following: "I (have) met quite a lot of victims (males) who had the full sexual response during sexual abuse…I (have) met several female victims of incest and rape who had lubrication and orgasm."

A child therapist engaged in an 'I Am A' on Reddit and said the following: "I've assisted more young women than I can count with this very issue…There have been very few studies on orgasm during rape, but the research so far shows numbers from 10% to over 50% having this experience. In my experience as a therapist, it has been somewhat less than half of the girls/women I've worked with. (For the record, I have worked with very few boys/men who reported this.) In professional discussions, colleagues report similar numbers."

Of course, victims who experience involuntary sexual arousal during rape are more likely to seek therapy, skewing the numbers in that direction.

Anyway, based on all of this I think we can agree that it does happen. 

Again, doesn't AT ALL mitigate rape.

[action]

it's really irrelevant if the victims gets aroused or not, both legally and conceptually.

Not sure what it adds to the discussion.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

it's really irrelevant if the victims gets aroused or not, both legally and conceptually.

Not sure what it adds to the discussion.

Absolutely.

I think it came about because my scenario of the sleeping girl being raped was described in such a way that physical injury was less likely to occur because she was sexually aroused (because we were discussing whether a rape had to be violent), something to which killuridols rejected as possible.

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, action said:

violence does not equal physical damage. the law requires the former, but not the latter in order to speak of rape.

So according to that law (what jurisdiction are we talking about?), would my two examples be considered rape or not? I see no violence in either scenario.

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

So according to that law (what jurisdiction are we talking about?), would my two examples be considered rape or not? I see no violence in either scenario.

it all depends on consent / no consent. sex without consent = violence, but violence =/=physical damage

sexual arousal is not incompatible with a lack of consent, hence why it is irrelevant

[action]

the law does not describe the concept of violence either way. it only requires "no consent".

the law has it's own concept of violence, and it equals the mere absence of consent

in the public view, violence is necessary in any shape or form, while that is not true of course.

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, action said:

sex without consent = violence

I have a much more restrictive understanding of what violence is, where it requires the use of physical force or power in the intention of harming someone. And thus, the sleeping girl, although she would have been raped (because it was non-consensual) would not have been a subject to violence. 

But this is definition stuff and as such not really interesting.

[action]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I have a much more restrictive understanding of what violence is, where it requires the use of physical force or power in the intention of harming someone. And thus, the sleeping girl, although she would have been raped (because it was non-consensual) would not have been a subject to violence. 

But this is definition stuff and as such not really interesting.

even though the woman slept, "violence" was still be used, in a legal way. even "deceit" can be viewed as "violence" in a legal way.

but in daily language it wasn't violence, but to the law it was. that's why I come back to my initial post: rape is not what a feminist says rape is, but what the law says.