Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments

[Tips_of_Fingers]

Okie dokie, here's the story: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15089751,00.html

Basically, what the guy was trying to say is that not all forms of rape are the same, and that sentences should be carried out depending on the nature of the crime. I agree.

Unfortunately, people got up in arms about this claim and argued that "rape is rape". I'm sorry but issues in life are very rarely black and white. People need to remove their blinders and just think for a second before turning to outrage whenever someone makes a point about a contentious issue.

And that's exactly what rape is; a highly contentious issue. No one likes to talk about it because it is such an abhorrent crime, but let's face it, there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

I'm sick of politicians having to attach their blinders and lie through their teeth just to appease the populace. "Vivienne Hayes, head of the Women's Resource Centre, said Clarke's comments 'smack not only of ignorance but of outright misogyny.'" Fuck her. She's the ignorant one for believing that rape is rape is rape. And it's people like her that are stopping our Politicians from making intelligent arguments in public; people like her that are making public figures afraid to speak their minds.

Well, I've made my position on the story clear (I think), what about you guys??

TL;DR: Rape is a very bad thing, but people need to realise that there is always lesser forms of a crime, deserving more lenient punishments.

 

[Houi]

Yeah I'm with you on this. I've always found the way many crimes are all pidgeon holed into one senticing structure to be silly and your examples above are good ones. Obviously serious offenses should be dealt with harshly, but the lact of flexibility to those who do relatively minor versions of the offense does irritate me.

Also, the way some people give those knee-jerk reactions towards something controvesial sounding is extra annoying. If they're going to make a statement then the least they can do is be civil in their response.

 

[Tips_of_Fingers]

Yeah I'm with you on this. I've always found the way many crimes are all pidgeon holed into one senticing structure to be silly and your examples above are good ones. Obviously serious offenses should be dealt with harshly, but the lact of flexibility to those who do relatively minor versions of the offense does irritate me.

Technically tea-bagging counts as rape but I don't see people getting 5 years for that shit.

 

[staika]

I agree, I'm not saying some rape is okay but some rape isn't as bad as different types of rape. I also like the example he gave that statutory rape with someone who's underage but they consented shouldn't be punished the same as regular rape because she consented, to which I agree because it wasn't forced and isn't as bad as forced rape and you should be given a punishment accordingly.

 

[Pipotchi]

Just to confirm though, Ken Clarkes example that a 17 year old having sex with a consenting 15 year old is different to a rape with violence is correct.

However this is exactly why under English law the 17 year old would not be charged with Rape but an entirely separate crime, namely unlawful sex with a minor (I think)

Therefore his example is null and void, If you are charged with rape then you raped someone and you should go down for the full seven year term

 

[Tips_of_Fingers]

Let's face it, there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Second: coercing a fifteen-year-old (and it is coercing) to have sex with you (rape them) might be less physically damaging, but I don't like the general feel of this OP. I know you're not saying it's okay - in fact you are saying it isn't, it's just lesser - it just rubs me the wrong way.

More on topic: there is a reason there are many, many, many different rape charges and greatly varying sentences.

*faceplam at this one*

The example that Clark uses is a 17 year-old having sex with a 15 year-old. Are you implying that 15 year-olds are so stupid and impressionable that they can't agree to have sex with someone over the age of consent?? It'll always be coercion?? What if this 15 year-old has been like a parent to their siblings because of a drunken mother and imprisoned father???

I also agee that men can be raped; it's always bothered me that the dictionary definition of a rapist is: a man who commits rape.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Let's face it, there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Second: coercing a fifteen-year-old (and it is coercing) to have sex with you (rape them) might be less physically damaging, but I don't like the general feel of this OP. I know you're not saying it's okay - in fact you are saying it isn't, it's just lesser - it just rubs me the wrong way.

More on topic: there is a reason there are many, many, many different rape charges and greatly varying sentences.

*faceplam at this one*

Theres sometimes no Coercing. If you have sex with a 15 year old and you are 16 years old you are a rapist. End of story. You are tried and convicted under the law of the same crime as pinning down a woman and brutally forcing yourself on her. Even if she agreed, initiated it or even forced the issue you are seen under the law as a violent rapist. This is obviously wrong and this man made a very valid point. That woman should be punched in her stupid face for thinking these two are THE EXACT SAME.

 

[Tips_of_Fingers]

In that case, it looks like statutory rape. Father figure has sex with lonely child? Ehhhh.

Haha, as a response that actually made me laugh out loud. I think it's the tone of voice that I imagined you saying it in.

OT: My point was basically that a teenager who can do everything to look after and uphold their home-life, should be able to intelligently decide whether or not to have sex with someone slightly older than they are. It's not always coercing, nothing is ever that straight forward.

 

[SckizoBoy]

What he's trying to explain (basically statutory rape), I get, but his language was so obtuse it just invited flaming.

I agree with the content, just not the manner, since he gave the interview in a very blasé way which made light of the subject matter.

Which brings me to a question: what think the Escapist of 'Romeo & Juliet' laws? Since in a lot of jurisdictions if two minors have consenting sex, they both get punished, even if there is overwhelming evidence proving consent.

 

[Leole]

Yes, Rape depends on the situation. Yes, Rape should not be "Only a man can commit rape", that's plain sexist. Yes, people are stupid.

I agree with you, man.

I didn't say "man" to empower us, the males, over the females, it's not an offence, it's not sexist, it's just a slang. (I actually got nagged about this a few months back, what the heck?)

 

[evilstonermonkey]

there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

Uh, yeah, there is... one is rape, and the other is statutory rape, which depending on jurisdiction and circumstances have different consequences. For the topic on the whole, I think every case (be it theft, rape or murder) needs to be weighed by it's individual details. But I cannot think of a single situation in which rape, meaning forced, nonconsensual sex, might be considered less of a crime.

Additionally: a lot of places have what are often referred to as 'Romeo & Juliet' laws, which work to lessen or eliminate criminal charges brought about by two minors having sex (since otherwise both would technically be 'raping' each other). In some places this is a little broader, meaning that someone just over age of consent can legally have consensual sex with someone just under.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

Yeah I'm with you on this. I've always found the way many crimes are all pidgeon holed into one senticing structure to be silly and your examples above are good ones. Obviously serious offenses should be dealt with harshly, but the lact of flexibility to those who do relatively minor versions of the offense does irritate me.

Technically tea-bagging counts as rape but I don't see people getting 5 years for that shit.

I just the hilarious mental image of a hung-over college dude crying in a witness stand pointing to his friend and sobbing out "he put his nuts on my face..."

 

[Mikaze]

Let's face it, there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Second: coercing a fifteen-year-old (and it is coercing) to have sex with you (rape them) might be less physically damaging, but I don't like the general feel of this OP. I know you're not saying it's okay - in fact you are saying it isn't, it's just lesser - it just rubs me the wrong way.

More on topic: there is a reason there are many, many, many different rape charges and greatly varying sentences.

*faceplam at this one*

I don't know where the OP is from, but the age of consent here in Australia is 16, so theoretically a 16 or 17 year old having 'consentual' sex with their still-underage partner is legally a form of rape and, if pursued, will be treated as such. Now excuse me while I go off on a bit of a mental tangent and curse the stupidity of arbitrary ages for things.

 

[Griffolion]

Let's face it, there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Second: coercing a fifteen-year-old (and it is coercing) to have sex with you (rape them) might be less physically damaging, but I don't like the general feel of this OP. I know you're not saying it's okay - in fact you are saying it isn't, it's just lesser - it just rubs me the wrong way.

More on topic: there is a reason there are many, many, many different rape charges and greatly varying sentences.

*faceplam at this one*

The example that Clark uses is a 17 year-old having sex with a 15 year-old. Are you implying that 15 year-olds are so stupid and impressionable that they can't agree to have sex with someone over the age of consent?? It'll always be coercion?? What if this 15 year-old has been like a parent to their siblings because of a drunken mother and imprisoned father???

I also agee that men can be raped; it's always bothered me that the dictionary definition of a rapist is: a man who commits rape.

It's technically counted as rape because the English law states up to 16 years of age, a minor technically cannot think or make decisions for themselves. Therefore, it is classed as coercion, despite the fact that 15 year old has made the very conscious decision to do so.

PS - Check out Ireland's take on under age sex, you'll find it... interesting.

 

[Jonluw]

Clarke is very much right here.

argued that the figures were skewed because they included sentencing for date rape, "17-year-olds having intercourse with 15-year-olds."

Clarke argued that statutory rape was not the same as the rape of an adult

"I don't think many judges give five years for a forcible rape, frankly. The tariff is longer than that," he said. "And a serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman, the tariff is much longer than that."

Then Derbyshire interjected: "Rape is rape, with respect."

"No, it's not," Clarke replied.

If you honestly don't think there's a difference between forcibly and violently raping a person and having 'consentual' sex with a person who is one year below the age of consent you need to have someone take a look at your head.

One mentally and physically scars the victim for life. The other arguably doesn't even have a victim.

 

[evilstonermonkey]

Let's face it, there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Second: coercing a fifteen-year-old (and it is coercing) to have sex with you (rape them) might be less physically damaging, but I don't like the general feel of this OP. I know you're not saying it's okay - in fact you are saying it isn't, it's just lesser - it just rubs me the wrong way.

More on topic: there is a reason there are many, many, many different rape charges and greatly varying sentences.

*faceplam at this one*

I don't know where the OP is from, but the age of consent here in Australia is 16, so theoretically a 16 or 17 year old having 'consentual' sex with their still-underage partner is legally a form of rape and, if pursued, will be treated as such. Now excuse me while I go off on a bit of a mental tangent and curse the stupidity of arbitrary ages for things.

90% sure on this (I haven't looked at age of consent laws since I became old enough for them to no longer mean banging me was illegal) but there is a leeway of 2 years - i.e. a 16yo can have sex with anyone as young as 14.