A rape apologist says, "None of us want men to rape women ..."

In its strong form, this is demonstrably false. In fact, I would contend that by any definition of "us" that includes the speaker himself, the statement is false.

And if he bruises her in the struggle, also a lover's quarrel.

And if he flat out hits her, lover's quarrel.

And if he beats her until she's hospitalized, still a lover's quarrel.

And if he kills her and dumps her body in a ditch, well, you know, sometimes couples disagree.

Abuse is abuse is abuse. When it's done by a loved one it's even worse. There is a difference between stranger rape and acquaintance rape-- but the difference is that it's easier to recover from stranger rape, because at least no one's telling you it was just a little disagreement and you're blowing it out of proportion.

In my Violence in the Family class last summer, we learned that the majority of sexual assualts occur between people WHO KNOW EACH OTHER [thus not stranger rape].

So this fact weighs in how... WTF?!??

Well, Nessa, apparently that means "real rape" is extremely rare!
What are the feminists complaining about?!
What you are describing is actually a high incidence of lovers quarrels. Those crazy kids!
So you see, the world is much safer for women than you think!

/sarcasm

Oooooh, I hope this ruins his career and he has to resign and go live in shame now.

Rape is unreasonable in every context and knowing one's attacker makes it no different. Regardless of geographical location, lack of consent is lack of consent. To assume on a legislative level that knowing one's attacker gives them license to "do whatever" only reifies patriarchal norms and further marginalizes women's sexual agency. Although, clearly, that's more or less their purpose. Ugh.

ahhh that explains it. If most rapes are ones where the victim knows the attacker, then it's not REALLY rape, and if it's not really rape then rape does NOT REALLY happen.

oh gee that makes so much sense!! I am forever thankful to John for making this so painstrikingly clear.

Now excuse me.. I'm going to go meet as many men as I can because then I'll never be raped....

"a man using unreasonable force to assault a woman" - Implying that there's a REASONABLE amount of force? Grr.

I love the fact that this starts out with, "None of us want men to rape women...". But, y'know, it's totally cool if she knows who he is and consents to a date or is dating the douchebag who would even consider raping her. 'Cos then she's just askin' for it.

GottaBeMe: I doubt this'll do any harm to his career, to be honest (sadly). We even almost had him for prime minister once, heaven help us.

"Now excuse me.. I'm going to go meet as many men as I can because then I'll never be raped...."

Hehe. Thanks, Nessa - that momentarily eased my desire to get all stabby. :)

This sounds like a sleezy messed up way to claim a victory in rape convictions. What sort of rapes are most likely to go to court? I don't know, maybe ones where the woman actually knows who the rapist is, as opposed to some stranger who might have been wearing a mask/left no DNA evidence, ran off into the night/ whatever. So, the woman who was raped and knows her rapist is more likely to get a court date than the woman who has to have the police find her rapist. Then, she gets into court and its he said/she said, and there isn't a conviction. Therefore, low conviction rate on rapes brought to trial. How can creepy judges fix this problem and make it seem like rapists don't just get away with raping women? Only deal with "real" rape, which probably only gets to trial if there is excellent eye witness testimony linking the person to the crime and DNA evidence. Sure convictions for all who were "really raped" and able to find their rapist. Hurray!! ::headdesk::

Camille Paglia wrote this shit more than twenty years ago. She also used an example in which a woman is compared to a set of car keys--you wouldn't leave your car keys on a park bench and be shocked if your car gets stolen, why would you drink at a party and be shocked if you are raped? Sometimes I swear we are regressing socially.

This politician is gravely confused when he suggests that "a disagreement between two lovers over whether there was consent on one particular occasion" constitutes rape.

It's very simple: either the woman objectively manifested assent in a way that a reasonable person in the position of the male would have construed as consent -- whether by words or implied in her actions -- or she did not. If she did manifest such assent, it doesn't matter if there is a subsequent "disagreement" between them over whether there was consent -- there was not consent, and it was not rape. If she did NOT objectively manifest assent, again it doesn't matter if there was a subsequent disagreement between them as to whether there was consent -- there was not consent, and it is rape. What is so hard to understand about that? Why must the politicians muddy up legal concepts, in this case consent, that have been settled for centuries? Consent really means consent, and it doesn't matter if the people have been intimate with each other for years (although lack of consent in that instance is usually extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt).

CORRECT TYPO

This politician is gravely confused when he suggests that "a disagreement between two lovers over whether there was consent on one particular occasion" constitutes rape.

It's very simple: either the woman objectively manifested assent in a way that a reasonable person in the position of the male would have construed as consent -- whether by words or implied in her actions -- or she did not. If she did manifest such assent, it doesn't matter if there is a subsequent "disagreement" between them over whether there was consent -- there WAS consent, and it was not rape. If she did NOT objectively manifest assent, again it doesn't matter if there was a subsequent disagreement between them as to whether there was consent -- there was not consent, and it is rape. What is so hard to understand about that? Why must the politicians muddy up legal concepts, in this case consent, that have been settled for centuries? Consent really means consent, and it doesn't matter if the people have been intimate with each other for years (although lack of consent in that instance is usually extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt).

This line bothered me a lot: ""They [Labour] decided to set date rape alongside stranger rape."

I don't know how it is in the UK, but just yesterday there was a discussion elsewhere about rape statistics and someone pointed out that in the US 73% of female victims knew their attacker, 28% of those were attacks by an intimate partner, 38% were by a friend/acquaintance. Only 26% of rapes were by a stranger. So, I guess in the US at least only 26% of rapes would be "real rapes" because the woman did not know her attacker?

If there is no consent, then it is rape. Bottom line. It doesn't matter who the attacker or the victim is. It's RAPE! Why is that so hard to understand?

Thanks Jade for pointing out the stats that I was referring to in my original post. I knew it was something incredibly obvious and ridiculous like 73 to 28. I didn't have any of my course work/notes on hand :)

I read this and I was so shocked. Why do we have politicians who still believe this shit in the UK? Rape is rape. It is the same whether or not you know your attacker. What matters is that the victim did not consent. That is what we should be focussing on.

tim, not to quibble because i agree with the essence of your argument, but what constitutes "objective manifestation of consent" is far from a simple legal question.

A lovers' quarrel is an argument. Words only, maybe some slamming doors and storming out. But no physical contact between lovers. What an asshat.

I guess his example would be a "lovers' quarrel". And rape (which one would think this would be the central theme). I'm not sure why he seems to think a the former mitigates the latter.

I guess I might have some kind of understanding of his point if he was saying that if a woman initially gives consent and then withdraws it after the sexual act begins, that's not rape-- I wouldn't agree with it, but it would at least make sense. But the image we have of rape-- a man violently grabbing a woman and forcing her to the ground, that sort of thing-- happens the EXACT same way between couples at times. It can be just as violent, just as damaging. I wonder if he thinks that spousal rape is just man wants sex, woman says no, man presses her, woman doesn't say yes but doesn't stop him. While that's still rape, there is an argument that that's not on the same level as violent rape (regardless of who does it, stranger, acquaintance or lover).

I don't know, does anyone else think that might have been what he meant?

Basiorana- To avoid the internet tone-of-voice problem, I'm going to assume you mean "If a woman gives consent, sex starts, a woman removes consent and then sex stops, that's not rape" vs "If a woman gives consent, sex starts, and a woman removes consent and then sex doesn't stop, that's not rape".
In which case you are right, and trace amounts of sperm and incriminating DNA will still be on the woman, and if she didn't want sex the whole time but said yes at first, and goes to court, the man could still be found guilty and he wouldn't be because he stopped when she said to stop. But who the hell would lie about being raped and accuse the man if he stopped?
I also think that spousal rape is just as bad as violent rape. Violent rape just also happens to include some other types of assault too.

The first boyfriend that I ever had when I was 16 raped me a couple of times during the relationship. It wasn't what most would consider violent rape, he didn't beat me up or hit me at all, he was just a lot stronger than me.

It's only been the past couple of years that I've finally started to heal from it all (and I'm 30 now). I still have issues with it and I imaging I will for the rest of my life.

I fought with myself for years after, telling myself that it wasn't really rape and that after the first one it was my fault for staying. I've come to grips with the entire situation now and admitting that it was rape and wasn't my fault has been a tremendous tool for helping me to heal.

Rape is rape regardless of the situation and it's something that the victim will have to live with for the rest of their lives. Anyone who takes that power away from the victim by telling them that they weren't really raped (like this guy) is doing just as much damage as the rapist imho.

Why do we even BOTHER with the subject of "CONSENT"???

If in every "man's word vs woman's word" it's ALWAYS going to be THE MAN IS RIGHT, WHY THE FUCK DO WE EVEN DISCUSS ABOUT CONSENT???

GAHH, I AM SO ANNOYED!

Wow. What I see here are two age-old misogynistic myths: 1. Your female partner's body belongs to you, so you can't *really* rape her, becuase if she gives consent once she shouldn't be able to say no later. And 2. We should doubt women who say they were raped by partners; they are probably out for revenge.

I met a friend of a friend at a party last year who's ex-boyfriend broke into her house and raped her while she was in the shower. Call me an idiot, but I thought that situations like these were very clearly rape. Not according to the former cabinet minister of the UK though! Oh no! It was just a "lover's quarrel". What an asshole.

geeky_girl: Part of my point was that acquaintance rape CAN be violent rape; any time there is actual physical force used it's violent rape, even if there is no bruising. I think it's all rape and should be tried equally, of course. I'm just trying to understand what he was thinking so I can best formulate a response (an important skill when actually talking with people who think like this).

There was a case at a nearby college campus a few years ago where two people, both a bit drunk, were having sex and according to the guy, when he was about to climax she moaned something and he finished, thinking she was just enjoying herself; according to the girl she said "no, wait, stop" and thus she accused him of rape. Clearly his judgment was faulty in that he did not clarify what she said (again, alcohol) but is that rape? It completely divided the campus, some said it should be treated as rape, some thought he should be charged, but get a lesser sentence, and some thought that he was being unfairly treated. I don't remember the outcome (I believe the guy was not incarcerated but was expelled and completely ostracized or something), but it does illustrate that there are gray areas, and that this man might be thinking of that sort of thing rather than actual emotional and/or physical abuse.

However, if that is the case he is ignoring the vast majority of acquaintance rapes and should probably read accounts of rape trials or something. I think people like this have a very naive view of the world-- either she was walking down the street and out of nowhere a guy comes out and rapes her, or she's in a long term relationship with a guy and takes offense because he wants to have sex all the time; and actually most are somewhere in between.

Wait, aren't murders, like rapes, committed significantly more often between people who know eachother? I know! Why don't we make it so that if any crime is committed against anyone where there is any prior relationship, friendship, acquaintances, or otherwise, then the crime doesn't count! Makes just as much sense.

I'm reminded of the way many children are told that if someone touches your butt and it hurts, it's molestation...

...unless it's your mom or dad hitting your butt, then your mom or dad is OK and you were bad.

Mina: Come on. Spanking is not child molestation. Argue that it is abuse if you must, but it's not molestation because the parents, and the child, have absolutely no sexual feelings about it.

WTF. According to this theory I guess domestic violence doesn't count as physical assault or murder either. Just a lover's quarrel. And since when is there a disagreement about consent in date rape cases??? If a woman says no or there is no way for a woman to say no, like if she was threatened or drugged in the situation, then she was raped. Period. It has nothing to do with his word against hers.

The he-said-she-said is about whether she said no or not. Sometimes a woman will say she said no while a man will say she said yes. That's not the same thing as drug-induced rape.

Oh. My. God. vomit vomit vomit vomit I'M SO GLAD I'M ABOUT TO TAKE A SHOWER RIGHT NOW.

All rape is the same to the victim. The victim's experience is paramount. Therefore, trying to categorize some rapes as more or less serious than others is lunacy. I don't know if that is oversimplifying things, but I can't imagine that the victim of an acquaintance rape feels any less violated and abused than the victim of a stranger rape. I understand that, like other violent crimes, factors like premeditation change the severity of rape in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't make the perpetrator any less of a rapist and the victim any less raped, or mean that the victim somehow does not deserve justice.

TALK TO WOMEN. LISTEN TO WOMEN. TRUST WOMEN. I feel like if people did those three things more often, then it would be so much easier to explain to the average apathetic asshat why the views expressed by Redwood are abhorrent.

Basiorana I get it now. I still think the grey seeming cases count, but IF he was arguing these types of cases, misunderstood non-consent, unheard withdrawal of consent, then he isn't beyond talking sensibly and being convinced that rape is rape.
But then, these guys never are arguing the "grey" cases. It's fairly apparent that he's talking about wives who say no, women who associate on a friendship basis with men and that type of thing.
And obviously since wives must obey their husbands, and women who associate with men are sluts, we shouldn't take their rapes seriously.

geeky_girl: Yeah, I know, he's probably just being a jerk, but I was just curious as to what people thought because I have known guys who say "it should only be rape by a stranger" because they just genuinely don't get that women are violently or coercively raped by people they know too. They just don't get it; they've been misinformed too long.

"I'm reminded of the way many children are told that if someone touches your butt and it hurts, it's molestation...

"...unless it's your mom or dad hitting your butt, then your mom or dad is OK and you were bad."

"Mina: Come on. Spanking is not child molestation. Argue that it is abuse if you must, but it's not molestation because the parents, and the child, have absolutely no sexual feelings about it."

When I was a kid and got the warnings about molestation, my parents and teachers said that if someone touches your butt and it hurts then that's molestation. They didn't add any "unless he or she doesn't have sexual feelings about touching you" stuff in the warnings.

Meanwhile, when my parents occasionally hit me, at least they hit me in the arms.