Being the nosey kind when I got a pingback on a previous post which explored the constructs which support rape, I immediately took a shifty. At first I thought the blogger had just misunderstood the kind of assumptions that women live under compared with men, but once the comments started it became crystal clear that that she and clearly much of her readership had no idea what rape actually was.
And wow. Just wow.
Lets start with Scottish Law. Up until three years ago, rape in Scotland was only considered to have occurred through non-consensual penile-vaginal intercourse. Only men could rape, and only women could be raped. In In 2009 the law changed to acknowledge the existance of male rape. Rape is defined in Scots Law at present as
Rape
(1) If a person (“A”), with A’s penis—
(a) without another person (“B”) consenting, and
(b) without any reasonable belief that B consents,
penetrates to any extent, either intending to do so or reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of B then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of rape.
I accept that this definition is still problematic – it does not take recognise rape with an implement and while the Opinion of the Lord Justice has acknowledged active consent as a basis of belief, the existence of the second clause provides a major loophole in the prosecution. But the act of penetration is prominent. The international definition of rape given by the World Health Organisation is much more inclusive.
physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object
Note however that the penetration is still the critical marker of rape.Several commenters on the link appear to believe that penetration is not required for the act of rape. That envelopment, as they term it, where a someone forces the body part of another inside them is also rape.
I suspect the confusion has come from older laws, written by men from male perspectives, which talk of “cardinal knowledge” and “sexual intercourse” without consent. Written by men, to be read by men, this “cardinal knowledge” and “sexual intercourse” means penile-vaginal intercourse, and as such implicitly suggests penetration – as the conception of “sexual intercourse” is of something which is done to women by men. As feminism has readdressed that to acknowledge that “sexual intercourse” is mutual, rather than something one person does to another, the implied penetration has been made explicit. These older statutes however have been interpreted by mens rights activists and others to talk of “rape by envelopment”.
There is no such thing.
The suggestion that unwanted penetration and unwanted envelopement are in someway equivalent or just as serious as one another is a nonsense. Compare and contrast unwanted and non-consensual penetration with unwanted and non-consensual envelopement.
Unwanted Penetration
- Involves invasion of body
- Can lead to external injuries
- Can lead to severe internal injuries
- Can lead to unwanted pregancy
- Can cause death
Unwanted Envelopement
- Involves invasion of bodily space
- Can lead to minor external injuries
- Cannot lead to internal injuries
- Cannot lead to unwanted pregnancy
- Cannot cause death.
The concept promoted by Clarissa and other commentators that any unwanted sexual contact or intercourse is rape is ridiculous. Penetration is fundamentally different from envelopement, but there is an equivalency being promoted by Mens Rights Activists who regard those who are forced or coerced by a sexual partner to penetrate them as being rape victims. The whole idea is so bizarre it hardly bears thinking about.
I do accept that there are narratives which can support the sexual assault of men by women through envelopement – that a real man is always desirous of sex, that men are stronger than women and thus able to physically resist any such sexual assault and that men cannot penetrate unless desirous and hence consent is automatic, but the ridiculous notion promoted by the link above that these are in some way equivalent, and should be treated as such is contemptable.
The reason that there is a specific word for sexual assault which involves penetration is because this form of sexual assault is more invasive, more likely to lead to injury, may lead to unwanted pregancy and can cause death.
That word is rape.
7 comments
March 2, 2012 at 8:30 am
*Facepalm*
I think this post is rather dissmissive of something quite important. Feelings. We’re human beings and we all have them. If a person FEELS they have been raped, then they have been invaded. Full stop. There is no need for this post, and dismissal of entire groups of people. For instance: those raped by women.
You’ll see I’ve used the word raped, because, if that’s what the VICTIM feels happened to them, that is what happened.
Also, ‘Unwanted Envelopement’ as you like to call it, could result in death. How you think otherwise is beyond me.
I think you’re looking at this from a very closed minded perspective and it’s made me think of you, and your blog in a completely different, quite dim light. I hope you re-think your opinions on this one, because they’re wrong.
March 2, 2012 at 3:36 pm
This is ultimately a legal question. Do you have a distinct crime of rape – or do you have a generalised crime of sexual violence (as they do in Canada) whether you call it sexual assault or rape. And if you are going to distinguish between sexual assault and rape, on what basis do you do so.
Doing so on the basis of people’s feelings about the act is unproductive – as crimes are set by actions not by effects which are taken into account in sentancing. So one person may be more affected by a sexual assault which does not involve penetration than someone else by a sexual assault which does, just as someone may be more affected by a general assault than someone else who has suffered grevious bodily harm, based on their resiliance and circumstances.
Making no distinction between the two means that they are legally equivalent, which does not take into account the additional risks associated with sexual assault by penetration. I really struggle to find any circumstances in which unwanted envelopement could result in death, but people can and do die through unwanted penetration horrifically frequently particularly in warzones.
March 2, 2012 at 4:26 pm
I see there is no making you see sense, so maybe I shouldn’t even try, but the law is fucking useless for many things – and it’s understanding of rape/ prosecuting techniques for rapists are some of these things.
I do not think it’s your place to be telling victims of rape/sexual assault what did or did not happen to them. Do you not think these victims have enough on their plate without having to deal with ignorant people like you telling them what they experienced was not in fact rape (even though you were not involved in the slightest in their ordeal?)
The law often leaves people distraught when it refuses to see something that was a terrifying ordeal as rape. Whether you’re male or female, if your body has been invaded sexually in any way, without your consent, this is rape.
Instead of spending your time telling victims of these horrific crimes that what happened to THEM was not actually what they KNOW it to be, maybe you could spend your time HELPING them get back on track.
Telling someone they were not raped doesn’t benefit anyone. So what’s your fucking point?
March 2, 2012 at 6:47 pm
Internationally there are three ways in which rape is treated
– Scots Law – penetration by penis
– WHO definition – penetration
– Canada – no distinct crime of rape, amalgamated with sexual assault.
I think that scots law is inadequate, and that it should be brought into line with the majority of other countries in recognising rape by impliment.
Mens Rights Activists are currently pushing for a Canadian approach, based on non-consensual sexual activity to be classified as rape. I’ll repeat the link in the blog here.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/manufacturing-female-victimhood-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/
They allege that the requirement for penetration victimises men, who they claim should rape be redefined as non-consensual sexual activity and quote stats based on those reporting non-consensual sexual activity, which are:
1% – female perp, female victim
49% – male perp, female victim
10% – male perp, male victim
40% – female perp, male victim
breakdown of victims
50% male; 50% female
breakdown of perps
40% female; 60% male
Go down this road, and you are basically stating that men are raped at an equal rate to women, and that the perpetrators of their rapes are four times more likely to be a woman than a man.
I’m not doubting that there is unwanted sexual activity perpetrated by women, what I am doubting is that men and women are raped in equal numbers and that rapists are (almost) gender balanced, which would be the case should rape be redefined to get rid of the requirement of penetration.
Moreover by changing rape from unwanted penetration to unwanted sexual activity you would be eliminating much of the worst forms of rape, perpetrated as part of warzones and state institution, which are not part of sexual activity, but systematic torture.
Rape is a crime of violence with a theme of power, not a theme of sexual activity. The violence associated with unwanted envelopment is not the same as unwanted penetration, while it is sexual assault, it is not rape as it does not carry the same level of violence or risk as unwanted penetration.
International definitions of rape recognise this and so distinguish between sexual violence involving penetration and sexual violence not involving penetration. Getting rid of that distinction is a dangerous route to go down.
March 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm
How could you stand in front of a rape victim and tell them that what THEY WENT THROUGH wasn’t rape at all? You’d have to be completely heartless.
March 3, 2012 at 12:42 pm
I agree that women are raped more often than men, but you can’t then deny the minority of men who have been raped by women or women who have been raped by women, the right to call what happened to them rape. To do so would be outrageous – but it seems you’re fine with that.
Rape = your body has been violated sexually without your consent. To take sex out of the equation, would surely just make it violence. If it’s got nothing to do with sexual activity, as you’re suggesting, then surely no one gets raped. Which is again, ridiculous.
It is not up to you to decide whether someone has or has not been raped, understand this please.
March 4, 2012 at 1:52 am
In Scotland,women cannot be arrested, tried or convicted of rape. Personally I think that is wrong, I think women *can* rape through impliment, because I see the key act of rape as being unwanted penetration.
I dont agree that the key act is sexual activity – many unwanted penetrations take place outwith a sexual context state torture, warzones – even in the classic stranger rape, although sexual gratification may be the motive, the act is generally unsexualised.
If you define rape in the way that you have done above, you effectively include all sexual assault within the definition of rape.
You say that its not up to me to decide whether or not someone has been raped. You’re right, its for the law to decide and if I was called as a jury member my finding would be based on the law that I was expected to be judging on. Which is why the legal definition is so critical.
We currently have a conviction rate of rape of less than 5%, with between 70%-90% of rapes (under the current definition of rape as penetration by penis) going unreported. This is the primary issue with rape – that it happens, it is commonplace and it is both not-reported and has no consequence.