Let’s talk about rape for a moment.

What a good way to start a conversation. Or a post. Or whatever. Either way, a contentious topic.

Wait, did I say contentious? I meant not contentious at all. What I meant to say was ‘horrible’; that’s the right word.

So yes, if you happen to live in England and have been paying attention over the last couple of days you will no doubt have seen, heard, tasted or otherwise become aware of this particular furor: OH SHIT SON.

Long story short, Ken Clarke - the justice secretary - made something of a booboo in an on-air discussion about rape. And by ‘boo-boo’ read he made a distinction between ‘serious’ rape and presumably non-serious rape, and is now being asked to resign. That kind of boo-boo.

Now, if one wanted to play devil’s advocate one could surely dredge up instances when, in the past, one has meant one thing and said quite another - you know what you mean, but words just don’t seem to come out right. That’s normal. However, what he does seems to reflect what he must feel inside; that rape comes in degrees.

Let’s set this out. I am not a woman and I have never been raped - so all of this is coming purely from speculative opinion - but I’m going to go out on a limb here and state outright that rape does not come in degrees of severity. Call me controversial.

In essence this is nicely simple; rape is rape and rape is shitty. Should one be convicted, one should be punished with little lieneincy…leienicy? Fuck. But yeah, little of THAT afforded. Like mercy only more judicial sounding.

But what if it was only a ‘lite’ rape? Screw you, there’s no such thing.

What if it wasn’t particularly violent? Yay, go to jail.

What if it was very violent? Huzzah, you get a hefty helping of ‘assault’ charges and go away from even longer. See how that works?

An oversimplification, I’m sure, but infinitely better then what Ken Clarke did. God, the more I think about it the more it boggles me. How can you say - even by accident! - that some instances of rape are less severe than others? How do you rationalise that? Do you measure the seriousness of a rape by the violence involved and if so, why? Is a rape that leaves no bruises not as bad as one that does? How do you arrive at that conclusion? Have you been raped? Can you shrug it off as “Just sex”, a la that BNP shithead and if so what planet do you live on? Are there women there? Do you talk to them?


Okay, maybe I spoke in haste. Having discovered a full transcript of the interview which started this whole mess it becomes devastatingly plain that what Ken Clarke is trying to - desperately, while trying not to put his foot in it (useless as it transpires) - draw distinctions between how different forms of rape are addressed in a LEGAL fashion. Which is to say, he brings up date rape, sex between consenting teenagers and violent rape as contrasting examples (roughly).

The only, only, ONLY instance where ‘rape’ becomes something less than serious and horrific is when two consenting teenagers go at it, as that is rape in a legal sense rather then the literal sense. If you get me? Oh God, digging my own hole. But yes, in that instance both people are raring to go but the law frowns - in the other instances, everyone frowns.

I feel I should also say straight up that point of this is NOT to badmouth Ken Clarke - though Lord knows he made a mess of things - but rather to draw attention to the ludicrous notion that some rapes are more serious or less serious than others. If that hasn’t come across clearly, let me say it again: Rape is rape. Straight up. Rape is a bad thing. Violent rape is a bad thing, non-violent rape is a bad thing, date-rape is a bad thing; rape is BAD.

Between partners? Unimportant. Violent? Also unimportant. It’s RAPE. That’s the point. Rape first and foremost, anything else afterwards. Was it violent? Adjust sentence accordingly. Family member? Still rape, though maybe incest laws will pop up. I don’t know. It’s rape, damnit; RAPE!

I can understand how the moral, ethical and social demands of a human conscience will crash roughly against the unfeeling, rule-bound structure of the legislature (e.g. every case is unique but the law can’t be made for every single case, get me?) but the underlying notion that some forms of rape are more ‘acceptable’ than others needs knocking down. Among other things…

I hope that cleared things up. If not, I will sigh.


So yes, Ken Clarke is in deep shit with calls for him to resign being thrown about the place like so much loose trout. Should he? I don’t know. Who would step in? Would they be better? Does one mistake condemn a man’s entire career? Would depend on the mistake, really. I’m sure it’ll work out to someone’s benefit, and the coverage will fizzle out soon enough. What a shame.

Either way, stupid, stupid, STUPID ideas about rape persist for some goddamn reason. I think people are dumb, really, and lack empathy. Or, you know, the ability to think for two fucking seconds.


Also, addendum, women who accuse men of rape when no-such rape has occured also attract my ire. As mentioned, rape is a bit of a serious issues and when women simply decide to wield it as an indiscriminate weapon against men who have ‘wronged’ them they damage everyone else who is actually, properly raped (the serious kind; SATIRE).

Seriously though, that woman can fuck herself. You don’t go around crying rape for no goddamn reason, steal a guy’s shit and then just…argh! How do you do that?! Real people get raped, you know! It actually happens! And shit like this DOESN’T HELP!


PS: On a lighter note, a man with a horse.

  1. fromfloortoceiling posted this