Given that rape rarely has any thing to do with sex.
i.e.
a. Most Criminologists, psychologists, generally believe that for the rapist it's nearly always about Power not the sex
b. For the victim it isn't about intercourse but denial of power, violence and a sense of violation.

Therefore shouldn't we honour the equality of sexes before the law and make the charge one of Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH)

In most cases the effect is the same extreme trauma.
PST is common to both.
Long lasting psychological effects
Easier to prove.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Dear Examinator,

Why should the laws governing rape be de-sexualised
when the very nature of the crime is sexual?

I agree that Rape is a crime of violence, not of passion -
however it is forcible sexual intercourse against the will
of the victim. It is a terrifying, brutal, and sometimes
life-threatening crime, one that often leaves deep,
long-term psychological scars.

Making it simply a crime
of "grievious bodily harm," (when it is in fact much
more then that) would greatly diminish the legal
impact of the crime.

One reason that rape is so under-reported is that many
victims are unwilling to relive the experience by
submitting to police interrogation, medical examination,
and court proceedings.

Rape is an intolerable crime and should remain as such
under the law. To change the law would send the message
to victims - "Your responsibility is to satisfy me,
you are not my equal, don't compete, your real value is
your body..."

People don't need to be encouraged
to further indulge in uninvited and unwanted sexual advances.
They need to be discouraged. We don't need to water-down
the law concerning rape victims because
the incidence of rape is increasing. We need stronger not
weaker laws and rape is definitely more then just
"grievious bodily harm!"

Weird Exam… my thoughts would be rape is all about sex because it is the use of sex to degrade or take power.

I’d have to ask people who have been raped at one time and grievously harmed in another. They might know the difference. Often it is GBH + Rape.

It would mean changing child abuse laws as well so that sexual abuse becomes part of physical abuse. Oh the menz would spew on their stats being messed with.

It just went from weird to interesting. It may take the stigma away from being raped or molested. Or stigmatize being physically hurt.

I dont believe all this "its not about sex it is about power" talk. If it was just power and domination these scum were after there are much better ways to achieve such ends. Kidnapping and imprisonment, standover crimes, extreme bullying, slavery etc would seem a much more likely type of crime for such a person to commit.

Rapists are frustrated, selfish, spiteful people with no self control and no empathy for other people. They feel it is somehow a right to have sex and they deserve to be able to just take it they see fit. The power and domination is just a secondary effect of the act of taking sex without the other persons consent.

I think the whole "power' trip has been a mistake by people who are highly educated and well meaning but have over analyzed the motivation and drives that lead someone to commit rape. It is much more simple than that and is driven by testosterone, rejection, withdrawal and just plain nastiness and evil.

I dont understand why or how you could "desexualise" rape and I think any attack on another person or their autonomy in any way should be treated very harshly.

No, I don't believe we can de-sexualise the crime of rape and call it grevious bodily harm.

There have been many instances of rape that involved unwanted sexual penetration that resulted in little or no actual injury.

Many of these women/men just froze and lay there in terror. How could this be labeled as grevious bodily harm?
This is most definitely a crime of sexual violation.

I believe that if a woman (or man) is raped, and bashed or hurt physically in any way, then the perpetrator should be charged with BOTH rape and grevious bodily harm.

Well said Suzeonline.

You have addressed my feelings on Examinator's suggestion exactly.

There is a reason rape is a separate crime to others, to eradicate this distinct difference would mean that rapists are not charged as such, therefore, records would be distorted with all sexual assualts going under the umbrella of 'grievous bodily harm'.

I am surprised that someone with Examinator's background in counselling would even suggest this as a topic. As someone who has been raped, I find this suggestion to be extremely upsetting. This is my first and final post to this unnecessary topic.

All
Mikk's point might seem to have an element of truth in it,however you need to consider the following male on male rape....i.e. say a colourfully dress slight built male is raped by Bikkie types. The point of the assault was to belittle the victim. (because he wasn't like them clearly a dominance/power issue). Not to enjoy sex.

Closer examination of the serial rapists reveals that the 'perps' get off on the humiliation rather than the sex act.

Even listening to date rapists their concern is more about being denied something they want.
"How dare she lead me on and then stop at that moment....I showed her (implied who's boss)".
Or "She was asking for it" (implied) And *I* gave it to her).

The footy-boys gang rape...(implied) WE privileged her we're important.
or (implied) I was maintaining my position in the group. they are all essentially power based.

My point was that we should punish the cause i.e. discourage the power abuse not sex per se. Currently the perps are being punished for the act of penetration (the sex).

Suzie on line, there is a distinction between Assault and Assault and battery occasioning grievous bodily harm (GBH). A matter of years in prison length. there is also leeway in the the degree of sentencing within the category.

I am definitely NOT trivialising or suggesting that the crime be down graded.

This is in fact an attempt to punish the perpetrator and not stigmatise the victim. The implications are that it would tend to make court actions less invasively traumatic for the victim.

Consider the differences with male rape.

If you think about the issue much of the victim's trauma is culturally/religiously based.
A look at my last post in 'where do you draw the line" explains the context as clearly as I can.

The Pied Piper: "Weird Exam… my thoughts would be rape is all about sex because it is the use of sex to degrade or take power."

That is a standard feminist line but I am a little surprised it came from you.

Look - I'll tell you some things you already know. Point 1: men love sex, will do anything to get sex - some will even screw goats if there are no woman handy. Men also love variety in sex. Every man has dreamt of sleeping with a different woman every night.

Point 2: some men are prepared to use violence to get what they want - money, drugs, food, sex or whatever. In these terms "Power" is simply an alias for "I can take what I want without fighting for it". It is not an end - it is a means to an end.

Combine those two things and you get rape. Its dead simple. Don't make things more complex than they are. Leave that to the feminist thinkers in their ivory towers.

Suzeonline has got the finger on the pulse on this.

Examinator,

Desexualize it?. The only benefit that would have would be for the benefit of the perpetraitor. What's next, paedophlies?. If people are raped then the perpetraitor's criminal record should state what sort of scum bag they are.

Exam said "If you think about the issue much of the victim's trauma is culturally/religiously based." - regarding rape of a male.

You mean because of the sodomy issue?. You're kidding me right?

It is just something I never thought about it before – what Suzy said seems more correct in cases where the victim freezes and there is no bodily damage as such. These must also be the difficult rape cases to prove.

I don’t think Exam would have meant to cause any hurt Fractelle. Foxy’s “legal impact” comment I guess is what Exam was asking about – the wording of the crime or title or something. Maybe he was getting at the fact that all this talk of it not being about sex is rubbish.

A bizarre encounter: Night time and I am walking past a counsel park type thing and this dude grabs me, hand over mouth pulls me back through the bushes and throws me on the ground. He goes to grab me again and his eyes met mine and he says “f’ck Julie I didn’t know it was you”. I said a few choice words and he walked me home – since it wasn’t safe to be out at night walking on my own.

I was a teenager but bloody hell, it was one of the stranger things to happen in my life.

Dear examinator,

I agree with you in that -
the extent of rape seems to depend on cultural
factors. Rape prone societies accord women
low status, and encourage aggressiveness in boys.
In rape as in other aspects of human behaviour,
the conduct of the individual is influenced by
the norms of the surrounding society.

I also agree that defense lawyers in rape cases
typically try to shift the burden of guilt from
the accused to the victim. They often try to show
that the woman is "loose," implying that if she
has consented to any man before, she must have
been willing on this occasion also. Or utilizing
the myth that women somehow enjoy being raped,
they may claim that the victim consciously or
subconsciously encouraged the assault. They may even
argue that she was provocatively dressed and was at fault -
another example of the way in which responsibility for the
control of male advances is shifted to the female.

Such lines of defence are unique to the crime of rape.
A well dressed man stepping from an expensive limo
would never be accused of thereby tempting someone to
mug him.

Laws regarding this crime should not be de-sexualised
until we treat both sexes with great respect, and admire
nurturant rather than aggressive traits.

RStuart:“The Pied Piper: "Weird Exam… my thoughts would be rape is all about sex because it is the use of sex to degrade or take power."

That is a standard feminist line but I am a little surprised it came from you.”

I completely missed this before. Sorry Mr Stuart. Husband is trying to explain to me where you are right or what you mean. He is saying it isn’t about sex but is an element of the act because if it was purely about violence they would just go and beat someone and if it was about power it is the power to make someone submit to your will.

I understand neither of you. I feel it is a sexual act no matter the motivation. To the victim isn’t it the sex that is more upsetting than just getting beaten up?

Given that you and hubby are attempting to get me to understand I am getting a horrible feeling that my brain isn’t working properly.

But if men do it then men get to explain the motivation. But for the victim does the motivation matter or the impact and which should the law acknowlege?

Dear Piper,

You're absolutely correct.

The Crimes Act clarifies the concept of consent
and reaffirms the fundamental right of a person
to elect not to engage in sexual activity.

The Law says that unlawful sexual penetration
(i.e. rape) occurs when someone does not agree
to any penetration of the vagina, mouth, or anus...

Assault is in a totally different category.

And, you make an excellent point about the victim.
What victim would really care about what the motive
was for the crime committed against them. The fact
remains, sexual penetration did take place without
their permisssion, and this is against the law.
De-sexualizing a sex crime?
To whose advantage? Certainly not the victims!

Foxy:"To whose advantage? Certainly not the victims!"

What advantage do they gain by having it sexualised?

Foxy:”The Crimes Act clarifies the concept of consent
and reaffirms the fundamental right of a person
to elect not to engage in sexual activity.”

So the law is really clear about force being used. Are laws in general about the effect on a victim in the case of rape? Or are laws more about what constitutes a crime rather than what causes more damage or more hurt?

Foxy:”What victim would really care about what the motive
was for the crime committed against them. The fact
remains, sexual penetration did take place without
their permisssion, and this is against the law.
De-sexualizing a sex crime?
To whose advantage? Certainly not the victims!”

I know little about victims compensation but I would say given that an impact statement is made then it makes me guess that the effect more than the motivation does have more meaning in a courtroom.

It’s actually a confusing topic and seems really similar to Exams other thread that I have only just had a read of.

I may be reaching a little there, I understand the other one is about incest which to me seems more like interfamily rape. And again more about using sex in conjunction with power and wishing to dominate by degradation.

OLO seems rife with threads on sex crimes at the moment. I could see you weren’t very happy in the other thread Foxy and I’m hardly having many happy thoughts lately with such a prevalent theme going at the moment.

On this thread I’d have to say no – rape is about sex and it can’t be watered down by saying the offenders incentive should be considered.

The law should not sexualize a crime that involves sex.

Exterminator.

a. Most Criminologists, psychologists, generally believe that for the rapist it's nearly always about Power not the sex.

I'll deal with (a) first. "It's always about the power." We need to have a look at the history of this statement.

At the very first Womens Conference in Lima, in the 70s, The groups of women were given different tasks to examin. One set of wonen had the task of examining rape. They took old Court Records and perused them. They found a common theme. Almost all of the rape victims said, "I felt powerless/ I had no control over what was happening to me, etc." Notice. The women said "I". This group of women then deduced that Men wanted to take away the womens power & control them. This report was tabled & rejected. "And that's when the fight started." If anyone remembers the Lima conference broke up after 4000 women got into a barny in the Great Hall. They were thrown out of Peru & just about every country they have had a Conference in since Lima. China was very notable. The fight started on the first day & the Chinese through them out of the Country after a week. (my old next door neighbour attended it.)

A female British Psychologist ran a study in British jails. She interviewd every rapest in jail with a very comprehensive set of tests. Her conclusion was, "It was not about Power or Control these men just wanted to have sex, it could have been anyone who was unlucky enough to be in the area at the time." British feminist groups were outraged by her report, so much so that they lobbied to have her struck off. ---->

<---
An American Psychologist & Reporter reported from several warring African Nations where she asked the rapist there the Question, Was it about "Control & Power" They all said NO it was about the need to release the Adrenaline rush after the battle. I saw the initial report. Later reports had that bit missing from them.

There are many reports that have rebuffed the Power & Control therory, but sadly they have all been suppresses or ignored. It is eaiser to go with an established, well advertized Myth.

b. For the victim it isn't about intercourse but denial of power, violence and a sense of violation.

Exactly. As I have stated above. It is the Victim who feels Powerless & not in Control & at having been violated. It was not the intent of the rapist to take away the victims Power or Control. The rapist was not thinking of the feeling of the victim at any time. The rapists motifs were entirely selfish. He was only thinking of his own gratification.

I know this will upset the feminists, but the truth always hurts.

What is the punishment for a man who rapes?

Many years on jail, where he is likely to be anally raped many many times by his fellow male prisoners.

Not so much an eye-for-an-eye... but an eye-for-an-penny. Men are massively over-punished.

But a women (say a school teacher) who rapes a child (she is also a pedophime) is unlikely to serve jail time.

Fair?

PartTimeParent@pobox.com

Oh now I am really confused – plus I see I made an error in my last post and it should have read that I didn’t think a crime that involves sex should be de-sexualized.

JayB why would women want the sex bit ignored and for it to be only about power and control..?

Is it the intent or the result that matters? If you try to kill someone but fail you do not get done for murder but you do get in a lot of trouble for your efforts. Attmepted murder being a lesser charge?

Partimer, surely no one wants prisoners to be raped, that is not an official part of any punishment.

And yes women school teachers do get punished and do go to prison.

Is your complaint that female prisons are a nicer place to be?

I am wondering what the consequences are and how they differ for pedophiles and rapists.

Jayb,StG and all

If 'The victim feels powerless' then by definition the perpetrator is *abusing* their power. Merely exercising power over another isn't the problem the police do it daily without people developing issues as a consequences.

The Key is ABUSE of power.

In most of our criminal acts it is the ABUSE of power that defines the crime.
I'm advocate punish the abuse of power not sex per se.

BTW l your reasoning is gender biased. both you need consider.
1.The Mormon male who was packed raped by bikkie women ('to make a man of him').
2.Try telling female who was sodomised that she wasn't raped.
3.so is forced oral sex a form of rape.
4.not all M on M rape occurs in the absence of women(jail) Nor the perpetrators necessarily h/bisexual.
5.Rape can be more subtle than overt force.

When I said de-sexualised I three interpretations of that non word in mind.

1. De sensationalise it in law . Limit salacious or detailed reporting.

2.Reduce the impacts on victims in legal cases and religiously influenced cultural laws .
That induced stigmatising aftermath. Particularly in the mind of the victims.
A friend handled a series of calls where a girl had been (packed) raped. While walking home with her sister across a park at night.
One of youths is alleged to have encouraged her rape ' because ugly and would be grateful for the F* by good Aussie studs.
She froze, to them that meant she agreed to the sex. The sister was simply held out of sight of the assault.

They even used the sister's statement in court to confirm that there wasn't a 'no!'. They claimed that she was known to have had sex (incorrectly) with other youths.
Two got three year the other 2 years in juvenile detention.
She was rejected by her religious community because she had been raped and whispers about why her, not her prettier sister and why didn't she scream fight etc.
A month after the trial she suicided.

3. To de-gender the systemic legal bias.

Partimeparent, I am not quite sure what you were getting at with the comment < "Men are massively over-punished. But a women (say a school teacher) who rapes a child (she is also a pedophime) is unlikely to serve jail time. Fair?"?

Are you comparing men raping adult women with paedophile women?
Sorry, I can't see the connection.

If rapists are raped by other men in jail, I believe that is another crime that should be dealt with by the prison authorities. I must admit I do not feel too sorry for these men though. Karma.

There have been some cases of women being jailed for having sex with children. It isn't as common as male paedophiles though, so that is why we don't hear about them often.

You may well have some sort of problems with women in general by the sounds of it partimeparent, but surely you don't believe that male rapists are punished too much?

examinator: "The Key is ABUSE of power."

Key to what? Its not the key to understanding why men rape. I think Jayb spelt out in fairly simple and authoritative terms what the keys to that are.

The key to understand why rape is bad? Surely not. Quite apart from anything else, abuse and bad are almost synonymous, so it is a circular definition yielding no new insight.

If you want a reasonable definition look up Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_act Notice it doesn't contain the word "abuse".

Actually, defining a criminal act as a abuse as you did must be an abuse of the language, or at least logic. Does that make you a criminal?

partTimeParent: "But a women (say a school teacher) who rapes a child (she is also a pedophime) is unlikely to serve jail time."

Which is as it should be, assuming the opposite gender is raped. We usually equate the severity of the punishment with the harm caused. A reasonable person understands the harm caused by a male raping a female is very different to the reverse. I'd bet if a woman violently rapped a young girl the punishment would be similar to a man doing the same thing, assuming you could convince the court it actually happened.

examinator: "BTW l your reasoning is gender biased."

As it should be. The genders behave differently, and any reasoning must take that into account.

Jayb: "I know this will upset the feminists"

Everybody upsets the feminists - even the feminists upset the feminists. So what's the problem, surely you don't want to be treated specially?

Rstuart,
Trolling again I see.
Should be gender biased?

The male on male rape I was referring to was one where a youth who was dressed in the fashion of the day was pack raped by 3 drunk bikkie types as he tried to use a public phone box.
What is your reaction to his rape sodomised and other?

I'll bet that victim and the Mormon are glad you're neither a police officer nor a judge.

Dear Piper,

My step father passed away on Sunday evening.
His funeral is on Friday morning.
There's so much to do before then, so I won't
be posting for a while.

Take care.

Kia kaha Foxy,

I wish for your memories of him to be complete and the choice he made for release a quiet reflection on a man you held in your regard.

Kind wishes to your mother and her family.

Dear Foxy, so sorry for your loss.
Hope to see you back here in print soon.
Best wishes, Sue.

examinator: "I'll bet that victim and the Mormon are glad you're neither a police officer nor a judge."

If I were choosing, punishments would be based purely minimising future harms, not on the harm just perpetrated. I realise is unusual, although not that unusual - you occasionally see parents that aren't that interested in vengeance. A short term jail sentence is deterrence enough for most, but if the odds of a repeat offence are high and the potential harm is great throw away the key.

As for how good a judge I'd be - I hope I would have the fortitude to put aside my own prejudices and act as an impartial arbiter of the law. As for whether the victim would like that - I hope they would, as it is the best they can hope for. If I could not be a good judge, then I guess how much the victim like me would depend largely on how much they wanted personal vengeance.

As for how good I would be at policing - I don't know. More to the point I don't see how you could know from my comments here. They seem to imply you think the police are also judge, jury and executioner. They aren't - their job is merely to encourage people not to break the law, and find people who do so.

I see male rape as no different from the other indignities we males often inflict on each other. I recall male students were made to run through the city naked one being delivered naked to their parents house, with a capped beer bottle rammed up their bum, and another getting seriously injured from being bashed for no good reason outside of a pub. As I recall none were treated too seriously. I personally only treat the last, which had the potential to inflict long term bodily harm, as seriously as male female rape. Male rape doesn't fall into that category.

And me trolling? It is true I was trying to provoke a response. But I also meant: "I think you were wrong".

The Pied Piper: "I completely missed this before. Sorry Mr Stuart."

I am afraid I did the same thing with your post.

As for the confusion - I think it may be about the two different points of view - male and female.

When you said "my thoughts would be rape is all about sex because it is the use of sex to degrade or take power". It appears from what Jayb said that is how a female perceives it. Maybe the thing females hate is loosing the final say on who has sex with them; who fathers their children, perhaps? I don't know, as I ain't a girl and don't think like that. But it seems reasonable to assume that this loss of control is viewed by you girls as men taking power that is rightfully yours. So you deduce men want the power, and this is what motivates them.

What I am telling you is that is wrong. When a man rapes a women he isn't thinking about taking power. Sure he does take that power, but that is only because he has to get what he really wants, which is sex.

As your husband said, if they wanted something else there are far more efficient and less risky ways of doing it than rape. Why leave a DNA sample behind if you just want to see her scream in pain - just set her on fire. If mental pain gets the kicks, torturer her kids. If its power, put them on a chain. In reality, these things almost never happen. Once in a year perhaps, in a world of 6 billion. In contrast rape is once a day in your big city.

As for de-sexualising rape - I actually agree in one way. Crime should not be about sex - it should be about harms caused. The complication with rape the harm is caused by sex, and the harm varies depending on which sex is being raped. It is the very essence of a sex crime, so does de-sexualising it make sense?

Rstuart and others
I too misunderstood what you meant.

Then again your example of the beer bottle is hardly justification for different laws for F/M.

It does however prove my underlying point that this instance had more to do with regressive tribalism means of power driven sexual humiliation ('man up' crap). To then say this is males differences is to assume that we are the sum of our genes. Which is a gross over statement of the dominance of genes. This attitude ignores in influences of nurture and the frontal cortex. All of which added together create factorial computations of Combinations/permeations to the variations and degrees of possible consequences.

Regarding the pack M/M (penile)sodomy of an unwilling stranger, the idea that it engendered anything less than lastingly traumatic consequences, comparable to that of similar act or rape of a woman is nonsense. It is obsolete legal speak/attitudes and a perversion of the principal of blind (non biased) justice in gender, race etc.

Notwithstanding, I think almost every one is looking at it from an emotional religious driven cultural mores (RDCM,indoctrination/ conditioning), perspective. Not an analytic drilled down as intended..

From this perspective it is irrelevant as to what either the perpetrator (self rationalised)or the victim's emotional response I was aiming for a non RDCM status of the act.
At this level sex is a biological function including the odd fetish so what is actually taking place is that is so abhorrent? I therefore agree that the Power Abuse, force to assert their desires OVER those of the victim is the crime.

I then argued that by changing the law we would then send a message to the community that SEX per se isn't a big deal ...less salacious reporting/ ads/ movies in short attempt to de sensationalise sex.

Focus on the the real crime rather than just the sexual side of it.

Additionally it would have the (most important) benefits of de-stigmatising the victim but punish the perpetrator for their ABUSE of Power by force/coercion etc.
I have modified my original views slightly.

Exam:“Focus on the the real crime rather than just the sexual side of it.”

Okay. Umm…. Can’t. Can’t see it. Totally confused. I bet a victim keeps asking why as well. They would want to know - oh ya know what – a victim would want to know there was something wrong with that person otherwise they would internalize the whole thing and the act would become about them not the perpetrator.

“Real” would be perspective yeah?

“Additionally it would have the (most important) benefits of de-stigmatising the victim but punish the perpetrator for their ABUSE of Power by force/coercion etc. I have modified my original views slightly.”

Me too. Or I think I have, Mr Stuart is making more sense to me although I agree with you about de-stigmatising it being of more benefit to the victim. And even that I don’t understand because calling them a victim is a bit of a stigma anyway.

MrStuart:”...Sure he does take that power, but that is only because he has to get what he really wants, which is sex.”

So are we talking about a drive and not say someone who has a particular fetish like a serial rapist has who isn’t happy any other way. And right there I think we are back to the law being about the impact on the victim and not the intent.

The injured party has to be acknowledged and I would say they are usually female and they feel someone just had sex with them without their consent. They need a sexualized law to back them up. The male who forced sex needs to have that acknowledged (like a diagnoses to receive counseling/services)that he did to it in a way, as you suggested, that also denied another human of any control and therefore power in the situation.

Bullying I think it is called in a milder way. Bigger, stronger, take what you want. Incest, statutory rape, pedophilia, date rape, child sexual abuse... selfish, cruel and made by choice.

The Pied Piper: "So are we talking about a drive."

Precisely. I wasn't trying to discuss the topic examinator raised. I was taking exception to the feminist concept of "for men rape is about power". It simply isn't - even for serial rapists. The idea that rape for men is about power ranks right up their with Freud's theory of mental problems in the majority of women being caused by penis envy.

As for examinator's proposition, maybe it arose because as the rise and rise of sex is casual demonstrates, today unwanted sex is of almost no consequence. What, physically is the difference between this and say the man forcing a long tongue kiss? Today with universal contraception, and RU-486 is it very small.

The difference in psychologically is huge of course. Women's attitudes and reactions to sex were fashioned during the millions of years where contraception didn't exist and casual sex was unheard of.

Thus the reaction you get from women is because it was sex that was stolen, as opposed to say their handbag. So if it is all the fuss over rape caused by peoples instincts towards sex what hope have you got of removing it from consideration? Much as I like the idea that the punishment should match the physical harms caused, and I agree those physical harms of rape have been reduce to almost that of physical assault, the idea has about as much chance of flying as a lead balloon.

Actually, studies of women's reaction to rape is fully of surprises. For instance, it turns out the emotional impact of rape reduces with outward signs of physical harm - well up to a point anyway. Thus the more a woman can demonstrate she struggled and was physically forced to have sex, the better off she will be emotionally after the rape. (For those of you who follow ninaf - this dovetails nicely with her repeated descriptions of her own injuries.) A woman is also more likely to get pregnant to a rapist than her own husband. You women are weird creatures at times.

Mr Stuart,
You have still missed the point,
You are still looking at it from a cultural perspective(which has been influenced by Religion.)

You are a tad egocentric aren't you, note the address and the deliberate second line for the last sentence. It was to signify to all topic.(perhaps it could have been a separate para).

What it meant for you that I'll expand the definition was trying to clarify my views.

The problem as I was attempting to argue it goes like this
Religion influences Culture (attitudes) defines the Law.
Religion causes SEX and gender bias in Culture.
This creates encourages an over exaggerated Gender differentiation in matters other than the Physical(animalization of humans...ignores the roles of Prefrontal Cortex, circumstance etc.)
Therefore Religion therefore influences the Law to be gender and SEX biased.
I believe everyone has the right to PERSONAL religion etc
Therefore Religious bias from the Law and you change Attitudes in Culture.

In the final analysis The observer needs to look beyond religious/cultural values but above the animalisation of human for the truth. There is more than the two extremes to the topic.
IMO discussions in extremes is pointless, particularly on this topic.

'I have modified my opinion' meant I concede that most people don't understand (that DOESN'T imply anything pejorative). Just that I accept the consensus as the limits for these topics on OLO.

examinator: "note the address and the deliberate second line for the last sentence."

Sorry, I don't know what words you are referring to. If you really are referring to lines beware they will be displayed differently on different computer screens.

examinator: "The problem as I was attempting to argue it goes like this ... most people don't understand"

I will happily be included with the most people who don't understand. Whatever point you are trying to make is beyond me.

Your original point was that rape should be considered "Grievous Bodily Harm". I am not a lawyer and could not be bothered looking it up at the time, but it seemed to me Grievous Bodily Harm must involve some sort of physical injury. Now it I look it up on Wikipedia, it appears that is exactly what it means. Wikipedia says Grievous Bodily Harm involves inflicting a wound, where wound is legally defined as "an injury that breaks the continuity of the skin".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievous_bodily_harm

So if I were to take your proposal at face value, you were in simplistic terms suggesting we limit definition of harm caused by rape to the amount of skin breaking that went on. You support this by saying it would make rape (and I quote) "Easier to prove". That is both true and obviously absurd.

So then you introduce religion, and cultural values and other things and assert how women perceive rape is determined by those things. Well it might be influenced by those things, but the reaction is common across cultures, religion and centuries. It obviously goes far deeper - which is another way of saying your assertion is just plain wrong.

It is pretty clear we treat rape as seriously as we do because because it cuts into our deepest animal instincts. It is also pretty clear that is not going to change. I don't see how any attempt to separate the two could succeed, and I don't understand your arguments on why we should attempt it.

Rstuart,

Not every culture perceives sex with the over emphasis that some of the larger organized religion do.
Our culture could be considered as obsessed with sex to the point where sex is inculcated into everything. ads, fashions, even foods as for the media ...well!

In some other cultures rape is perceived in the same terms as 'GBH'.
Victims of sexual crimes aren't singled out for sensationalism and stigmatising like they are in ours.

I found in counseling victims much of the psychological problems suffered by victims, including men, were obvious projections (perceptions) induced by Religiously influenced Cultures.

History is full of examples of why it was important to cultures to be able to prove parentage. It isn't biological but learned/conditioned.
I am not saying totally but the bulk of it is.

Consider why lesbians were never criminalised yet male homo sexuality was. Apparently Queen Victoria was appalled by male on male but wouldn't accept that women would be homosexual. The bill was altered and passed accordingly. The link between the two is the religious perception of sex.

My intention is/was to stop the sensationalising and deep stigmatising of sexual crime victims.

My reasoning to eliminate the traumas a victim must deal with both in the courts and self perceptional stigmatising afterwards.

In time this may de-condition the public to get vicarious pleasure from either the details of sexual violence or the extreme religious inspired vigilante mentality.

In some instance the punishment for rapist is disproportional to the circumstances.

If this means re-writing GBH descriptions where's the big deal. Changes to the crimes act are common.

It seems to me that to get bogged down in cultural perceptions or bogus 'animalised' instincts are two extremes missing the workable truth. Either extreme are unworkable because one has to deal with irrelevant baggage the other is determinism on speed.

I hope this explains where and why I offered this topic.
In hind sight I wouldn't have bothered given the now apparent uniqueness of my non cultural reasoning processes. Also given the level of commitment to religious influenced cultural reasoning.

PartTimeParent here. Sorry if I was not clear.

I am talking about the "female sentencing discount" (Google it). Women who commit crime, especially women who commit sexual crimes, are given shorter sentences than men, and women are far more likely than men to get a 'non-custodial' or 'suspended' sentence.. meaning that they don't go to jail at all.

And women journalists go to great lengths to excuse a female pedophile... "it was a cry for help", "she was looking for love", "she was a victim of childhood abuse", or the worst "he asked for it" (what hypocracy from feminist journalists to blame the victim!) Yet a male pedophile is justifyibly vilified, regardless of his childhood of serial sexual abuse...

Men die younger (mostly from preventable causes), do worse at school (although 20 years ago they did as well as women), Consequently almost two-thirrd of uni students are women. 90% of ADHD children are boys. Men are more likely to be obese (also preventable), drug abusers (also preventable), victims of violence (and perpetrators for violence, as men live in a more violent world than women).

For the same qualifications and years of work, men earn LESS than women, per hour. Especially if you consider that almost all the dirty, dangerous, remote and 'low-status' jobs are done by men. Men are UNDER-paid, compared to women. In fact, for Australians aged less than 30, women earn MORE than men... THe only reason that all men have a higher average income is because few women have a serious commitment to PAID work after they have kids, since the prefer to have a plesant "work-life balance", leaving their husbands to do the overtime and pay the mortgage.

I'm not making this up, research citations available.
PartTimeParent@pobox.co