"And what is a kiss, specifically? A pledge properly sealed, a promise seasoned to taste, a vow stamped with the immediacy of a lip, a rosy circle drawn around the verb 'to love.' A kiss is a message too intimate for the ear, infinity captured in the bee's brief visit to a flower, secular communication with an aftertaste of heaven, the pulse rising from the heart to utter its name on a lover's lip: 'Forever.'"
- Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Act 3
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Rape is Rape
Ken Clarke, the cuddly face of Conservatism, has spent most of today running round television studios putting his foot in his mouth.
Why?
Well, because as part of the discussions regarding prison over-crowding & whether prison works or not there is the possibility of rapists being able to reduce their sentences by pleading guilty. The idea behind this is - possibly - motivated by sympathy. Get the rapist to plead guilty & victim doesn't have to face a difficult & unpleasent trial but that is a subject for another blog entirely. I will also skip quietly past Ken's apparent confusion about 'statutory rape' & 'date rape', which seems to indicate a certain lack of deep thought on the subject or an understanding of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Demonstrating that Ken is the very model of a modern Justice Secretary.
Ken's belief that rape is a different offense if carried out by a stranger in a dark alleyway somewhere than if it 'date' rape. The implication being that one is worse than the other. That the latter is somehow deserving of a lesser sentence because it is the lesser crime. It's a surprisingly common belief tied in with two other classics: "No doesn't always mean no" & "She was asking for it". The idea that it is even vaguely possible to decide whether one type of rape is worse than another is a bizzare one. I wouldn't know & I wouldn't pretend to know but it seems to me that both types of rape are simply rape.
And yes, from a male point of view that might sometimes make life difficult. If the woman you stumbled into bed with after a few drinks decides enough is enough then it is enough. If your wife does not want to have sex with you then you do not have the right to take it by force. However 'mild' the force. "One thing led to another" is not a justification for rape. Being drunk is not a justification for rape. Being married is not a justification for rape.
Rape is rape.
Yes, from a man's point of view that means that sometimes it's confusing, uncomfortable and it feels like rejection but a damaged ego is better than two damaged lives.
Ken's comment's are just an echo of that long held male belief that control over the time & place for sex is ours, not theirs. That women don't enjoy sex as much as men do anyway so it doesn't matter if she's not in the mood & any one of a hundred other myths & claims about human sexuality. The truth is that whilst the level of violence involved might differ the basic crime itself is no different.
Rape is rape.
Let's not pretend otherwise.
Why?
Well, because as part of the discussions regarding prison over-crowding & whether prison works or not there is the possibility of rapists being able to reduce their sentences by pleading guilty. The idea behind this is - possibly - motivated by sympathy. Get the rapist to plead guilty & victim doesn't have to face a difficult & unpleasent trial but that is a subject for another blog entirely. I will also skip quietly past Ken's apparent confusion about 'statutory rape' & 'date rape', which seems to indicate a certain lack of deep thought on the subject or an understanding of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Demonstrating that Ken is the very model of a modern Justice Secretary.
Ken's belief that rape is a different offense if carried out by a stranger in a dark alleyway somewhere than if it 'date' rape. The implication being that one is worse than the other. That the latter is somehow deserving of a lesser sentence because it is the lesser crime. It's a surprisingly common belief tied in with two other classics: "No doesn't always mean no" & "She was asking for it". The idea that it is even vaguely possible to decide whether one type of rape is worse than another is a bizzare one. I wouldn't know & I wouldn't pretend to know but it seems to me that both types of rape are simply rape.
And yes, from a male point of view that might sometimes make life difficult. If the woman you stumbled into bed with after a few drinks decides enough is enough then it is enough. If your wife does not want to have sex with you then you do not have the right to take it by force. However 'mild' the force. "One thing led to another" is not a justification for rape. Being drunk is not a justification for rape. Being married is not a justification for rape.
Rape is rape.
Yes, from a man's point of view that means that sometimes it's confusing, uncomfortable and it feels like rejection but a damaged ego is better than two damaged lives.
Ken's comment's are just an echo of that long held male belief that control over the time & place for sex is ours, not theirs. That women don't enjoy sex as much as men do anyway so it doesn't matter if she's not in the mood & any one of a hundred other myths & claims about human sexuality. The truth is that whilst the level of violence involved might differ the basic crime itself is no different.
Rape is rape.
Let's not pretend otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)