I think it goes without saying how I feel about Todd Akin and his remarks on rape and pregnancy. However, if it doesn't, he's a total moron- He should be given a class in sexual reproduction and rape awareness. Clearly if a man of Todd Akin's age and status is so confused about the female reproductive system, comprehensive sex education should be in schools. That is that. Regardless of my personal beliefs, I don't get in to uproars about abortion issues because, call me naive, but I do not foresee access to abortion being overturned any time soon. I just don't. So why even bring it up then? Because the tangential issue being discussed here is rape. And I have VERY large and outspoken opinions about rape.
It seems to be a trend among republican candidates to define (or redefine*, as the case may be) rape as the gruesome, at knife point, stranger rape event that one usually sees on Law and Order SVU. They show (cough.feign.cough) sympathy for the victims of such occurrences (usually termed "forcible rape"). When Todd Akin referred to this type of rape as "legitimate rape," he implied that any rape not fitting that particular description is not actually rape, this not deserving of the sympathy. People are blithely unaware of what rape actually is and how often it occurs. According to Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (RAINN):
Rape is forced sexual intercourse including vaginal, anal, or oral penetration. Penetration may be by a body part or an object.
Therefore, I made a list I believe everyone should read and know. I encourage you to put your additions to the lists in the comments- for this specific sensitive topic I will allow anonymous comments so long as they are pertinent and not hostile.
Is it Rape (Yes, I realize the set up of this list is rather redundant, but for the sake of clarity, deal with it)?
Again, please feel free to list your own, "what is rape" statements in the comments. The next installment will be more focused on the statistics of who is being sexually assaulted, who is doing the sexual assaulting, and the effects. Stay tuned.
*I've heard of bills to redefine rape being introduced. By men. Seriously? It boggles my mind that men feel so entitled to make decisions and create definitions surrounding issues in which the affected population is largely female. I saw this quote by President Obama earlier this week: "We shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making healthcare decisions on behalf of women."
It seems to be a trend among republican candidates to define (or redefine*, as the case may be) rape as the gruesome, at knife point, stranger rape event that one usually sees on Law and Order SVU. They show (cough.feign.cough) sympathy for the victims of such occurrences (usually termed "forcible rape"). When Todd Akin referred to this type of rape as "legitimate rape," he implied that any rape not fitting that particular description is not actually rape, this not deserving of the sympathy. People are blithely unaware of what rape actually is and how often it occurs. According to Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (RAINN):
Rape is forced sexual intercourse including vaginal, anal, or oral penetration. Penetration may be by a body part or an object.
Therefore, I made a list I believe everyone should read and know. I encourage you to put your additions to the lists in the comments- for this specific sensitive topic I will allow anonymous comments so long as they are pertinent and not hostile.
Is it Rape (Yes, I realize the set up of this list is rather redundant, but for the sake of clarity, deal with it)?
- If one party is not old enough to consent (this varies by state), it is rape.
- If one party does not have the capacity to consent, it is rape. Being without the capacity to consent includes but is not limited to:
- being drunk
- being intoxicated by drugs (prescribed or not)
- being asleep
- having a disability that interferes with mental capacity
- If one party says no before the act, it is rape.
- If one party says no or stop during the act and the act continues, it is rape.
- If one of the previous conditions has occurred but the victim is married to the assailant, it is rape.
- If one of the previous conditions has occurred but the victim is not female, it is rape.
- If one of the previous conditions has occurred but the assailant is not male, it is rape.
- If one of the previous conditions has occured but the victim knows the assaulting person, it is STILL rape.
Again, please feel free to list your own, "what is rape" statements in the comments. The next installment will be more focused on the statistics of who is being sexually assaulted, who is doing the sexual assaulting, and the effects. Stay tuned.
*I've heard of bills to redefine rape being introduced. By men. Seriously? It boggles my mind that men feel so entitled to make decisions and create definitions surrounding issues in which the affected population is largely female. I saw this quote by President Obama earlier this week: "We shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making healthcare decisions on behalf of women."
11 comments:
Amen to that!
You may not like what I'm about to write but it is pertinent.
You are mixing two thing. One, the crime of rape and, two, the act or assault of rape.
The crime isn't against the woman in the common law jurisdictions it is against the State. In that the actor is out of law by assaulting.
Think of it this way. Abe Lincoln freed the slaves. That is the statement that is instilled into kids. Words like Manumission tongue-twists the little ones. But at core, in common law, there is the notion that slavery IS a valid concept in law, still.
Now, since you are seen as an animal, as is the man, in the common law jurisdictions rape is seen as a crime of theft. Much like if you allowed your appaloosa stallion into a neighbours field with her racehorse. That it has migrated to where it is today doesn't change the core reasoning behind it.
That is one side, the legal side. There is another legal side, one which causes profound confusion. That of Citizen. As citizen you are seen as fully human. You own yourself in that you are fully Sovereign. You make the call as to who and how you breed or play with those areas of yourself, subject only to not damaging another Citizen.
On a postscript. I've been reading a good bit on this over these last few days.
One that has come up more than any other is the sleeping sex/rape. The divide is unusual with a predominance of men saying that it is an assault and women saying it isn't. They are also split on the drunken sex/rape where both are inebriated, with women saying it isn't. But think it is if the man if sober.
Vince,
I'll be honest, I can't see what you're saying. All rape is assault. The force may not be physical and the wounds not visible, but all rape is assault. Whatever the legal/law aspect of it, quite frankly, is irrelevant to me in terms of victims. I care about the laws only to change them to support and help victims.
One, the law is ancient, mid-Saxon crossed with Imperial Rome. It doesn't see you as having any position. You are simply a vessel that has an owner. Filling that vessel was to make it valueless. Further, in the past rape was only of virgin girls and resulted in their social destruction. This is the kernel of the 'current' laws on rape.
While we continue to view rape in this way, with the lenses of the Common Law, we will always have areas of debate when we should have none.
My point about slaves in the USA. You cannot free those who were never enslaved. All you do in those circumstances is to affirm their citizenship. Freeing allows for the legal right to enslave in the first place.
And to stick in a oar on the Roe v Wade. This is allowable from a SCOTUS ruling. But who has called on the SCOTUS to affirm the 'citizenship' of the unborn. Not their life, their legal position, even if this is in potential.
Vince,
Your comments are so badly written that I really can't tell what you are trying to express, however from what I can tell your logic seems incredibly poor. This post is about what constitutes rape (an act), which is also a crime. There is, as you say, a "mixing of two thing" because they are inherently linked. You wouldn't suggest that someone robbing a store was different from the crime of robbery. Rape is a crime, end of story.
Vince,
Can you do me a favor and define what you think the Common Law on Rape is. And define for all that are confused on what common Law means. Although modern laws all were based off of what was ancient laws. Doesnt by any means reflect the modern law on rape. Everything had a beggining, things change. As does the definition of rape withen the eyes of the law. No longer just applies to virgins.
He [Vince] speaks/writes like my dad...so let me help clarify what I believe he is saying. Firstly...kindly remove your "I am a woman-things are unfair for our sex" glasses. That way you shant be offended. He is providing a history lesson. The issue hasn't changed because the vocabulary hasn't changed. Women HAVE changed. Blacks HAVE changed. But the definitions used have not. Vince wrote about Lincoln "freeing the slaves" but in reality he did not. He writes about abortion but the definitions of life are still skewed. And he writes about the "old" view of women. Not to be condescending but, I believe, to explain how there are sooo many out there that do not share the view you provided. He is being devils advocate. Growing up I would get so infuriated by things my dad would say and how he would say them. If you can actually get past his words and listen for his message - there is a lot of truth in what was written. Don't jump to wrongful conclusions because he is a man...you don't want wrongful conclusions to be made because you are a woman
So it appears that my comment didnt Post. So here it goes again.
Vince,
IF you could do me a favor and define what you think the common law on Rape is. And define what the term common law means. Although all of our laws may have been based on ancient laws. I refuse to agree with the concept that it reflects the modern law on rape. As everything has a beggining, we change and evolve with the times. As with change Rape no longer applies to only vigins. There is no seperation between the two as you Said. The act of rape fulfilles the crime of rape. You cannot have one without the other. Therfore they cannot be viewed as sperates. Much like having two sides of a coin. You may have heads and tails. But they both belong to the same Coin. So while you may see them as two differnt things. They still belong as one.
Liz,
I disagree that the issue or vocabulary of rape hasn't changed. If he is in fact providing a history lesson, then history shows us that the issue of rape has changed... a lot. Just a slavery was once legal and no longer is, much of what we would now consider rape used to be legal. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people actually have the option (and what I mean here is that their "opinion" is condoned by our society) to "not share the view you provided." It was wrong hundreds/thousands of years ago for rape to be legal in whatever sense, and rape is still wrong. This blog post provides some pretty concrete definitions of rape, and it boggles my mind that anyone would think that the examples given do not constitute rape.
Anonymous -
What I believe Vince was trying to portray was that during the times in history that these viewpoints were considered "normal" is because they were legal. The morality of it didn't matter throughout history (as evidence by what was, in fact, legal - NOT by my opinion but by opinions of those that lived during that time). Maybe I am giving Vince too much credit, but the idea he is presenting actually has SOME merit. The history lesson I believe he provided was a snapshot lesson, not a continuous evolution of thought.
Please do not take my words incorrectly, rape (in ALL the terms Blythe outlined) is my #1 fear (outside of my children being stolen).
Definitions may have changed in some law books, and in most people's minds, but because the physical act of rape still exists...maybe society hasn't changed all that much? People still believe they can dominate and control and take what they want from others they believe should give it to them.
We need to be able to speak up and also know that the law will protect us (but there are still too many loopholes that allow those defilers to not be held accountable for their actions)
By the way...we all have the option to "not share the view you provided" - constitutionally speaking. But, wait, we no longer have a valid constitution. But that is another can of worms. Because those with the power and the authority can rewrite anything to fit their needs and their benefit.
Yes Liz, that is exactly what I'm getting at.
We err when we think as Citizens that the Law looks at us in that way as sovereign, it doesn't. It views us as it always has, as animal. In fact, in the USA and in the republic of Ireland the natural development of the common law was halted when we declared independence. You have aspects of 17C laws that were revised or totally removed in the UK. And it is the very same here. In the 1940 our Supreme Court made a declaration of status quo anti bellum.
And Danial, crime, any crime is against the State, not the person. Yes, it may happen 'to' the person but the woman doesn't carry the accused before the bench, the state does.
Let me put it like this, the crime is against the rule of law. So when the Law says that you cannot Rape a woman, rob a shop, drive dangerously, it is not the act that is the crime but that is has been prescribed and you acted against that script.
And while we continue to view the crime as against the State we will continue to have indistinct boundaries. But, should we decide to vindicate the sovereignty of the citizen in the sphere of the Law then we would ideally view everyone as sovereign.
Just to add a historical FYI. The Common Law was one of the better con jobs in history. You had invaders, the Normans, making laws to control the native English. And you had the English caring the accused before a red judge who heard the case. But and here's the twist, the jury was made up of native English.
Of course it was somewhat better that what went before. Check out Drawn and Waste.
Post a Comment