The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Very recently, I found myself arguing with a friend about rape laws in the UK. I found this rather strange, as usually most arguments about rape laws tend to go something like along the following lines:
"Rape laws aren't really good enough as they stand; too many men are getting away with rape and too many women are suffering as a result"
'Yeah, you're right there'
And that's where it usually ends. This time however, it was pointed out quite forcibly to me that saying things are unfair as they stand isn't really good enough. If we know it's unfair, and if everyone seems to accept that, then why are there still such low conviction rates for rape, and why is this crime still so prevalent? Do we acknowledge the seriousness of the problem? Are we willing to something beyond talking about it? Or is this just proof that we live in a mans world; men are always the perpetrators, and suffer rape far less often than women and so are less inclined to do anything about the problem.
One of the biggest problems is that rape is a crime that remains hidden. We occasionally hear of situations in some Islamic cultures where rape is considered a matter of shame for the victim and her family. If you're anything like as condescending as I am, you may find yourself shaking your head in bewilderment that any society could consider rape to be the fault of the victim. You may even start to feel faintly superior as you live in a country where rapists are widely and rightly regarded with contempt. Well, much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, as things stand the UK is equally as bad in it's treatment of victims of rape.
Of the women whom I've met and befriended in the last 10 or so years, roughly 1 in 10 of them has told me that they have been raped or sexually assaulted. None of their attackers were convicted of any crime, or even arrested for it. And that is just the women who have admitted to being raped. Who knows how many more of my friends keep silent about it? Scary, isn't it?
Personally, I find it absolutely horrifying that someone can be raped in this country with seeming impunity. Either a few men have a voracious appetite for forced sex, or there are a lot more inadequate little scumbags around than we'd like to admit to.
A common retort to the lack of rape convictions is "Well, why don't more women go to the police?" My question is, why should they? After all, of those cases that actually make it as far as court, less than 10% result in a conviction and sentences can be as low as 180 hours community service. Can you imagine that? Going through the horror of reliving being raped, with the man who did it sat a few metres away from you, and an arrogant, wig wearing git tries to make you feel like the Wh0re of Babylon for having had sex with more than one man in your whole life? And then, after having got through the judicial ordeal, to then see the man guilty of raping you walking from the court having received no more than a slapped wrist? It doesn't exactly encourage women to come forward and report the crime, does it?
I should point out that my line of argument at this point in the debate with my friend was something like "Well, yes things are bad right now. But they will change. I admit, they'll probably change slowly because the legal process always grinds along, but so many people of our generation and below realise how horrendous the crime of rape is, and so convictions will increase". My friend’s response was "How the hell do you know that? What if it never changes?".
Though I didn't think it at the time, I'm starting to wonder whether she had a point. If anything, rape convictions are falling. A small part (a VERY small part) of the blame must be attributed to the stunningly idiotic women who falsely accuse someone of rape (Nadine Milroy-Sloane, come on down!). They don't exactly help in encourage women to come forward and report rape. But the vast majority of the problem would seem to lie in society's attitude toward women.
For example, a woman's sexual history can be legitimately raised by the defence in a rape trial. What that means in practice is that if a woman has been anything less than a saintly virgin, it will be implied that she is no better than a ladywhore who probably wanted it anyway, and is now spitefully trying to ruin a mans life. Basically, the underlying theme of many of these rape defences seems to be that a promiscuous woman cannot be raped, as she is not capable of not consenting to sex. The even more sinister unspoken thought behind this is "And even if she was raped, she deserved it for being such a slapper".
Now the reason that this sort of defence is allowed to succeed so often is that the upper echelons of the judiciary (judges etc) are old and old fashioned in their view of women. That anachronistic view of the world is exploited by barristers to a rapist’s advantage. So, in theory, as new judges replace the old ones, we should start to see the end of that attitude. But will we really? After all, most of us still tend to regard promiscuous women with...well, if not scorn then we certainly think rather less of them than we would if they are not promiscuous. And that is a ridiculous way to view women. And what is more, people tend only to act in matters that concern them directly. Male rape is a rarity, and most of society's movers and shakers (and, most importantly, legislators) are men. Why should they worry about a change in rape laws, or an increase in convictions, when it isn't going to win them the next election? It tends to suggest that my initial assessment, that change will happen slowly, was wide of the mark. Change will still happen, but a lot slower than anyone apart from a rapist would like it to be.
More than anything, I would say that increased respect for women is the only way to ensure rape becomes a rarely committed (and then, punished in draconian fashion) crime. We need, as a society, to stop classifying women as either virgins or available orifices with no allowance for anything else. Unless we do, 1 in 10 women will continue to be raped, and only 1 in 10 rapists will suffer any degree of punishment. I defy anyone to tell me that that is a satisfactory state of affairs.
"Rape laws aren't really good enough as they stand; too many men are getting away with rape and too many women are suffering as a result"
'Yeah, you're right there'
And that's where it usually ends. This time however, it was pointed out quite forcibly to me that saying things are unfair as they stand isn't really good enough. If we know it's unfair, and if everyone seems to accept that, then why are there still such low conviction rates for rape, and why is this crime still so prevalent? Do we acknowledge the seriousness of the problem? Are we willing to something beyond talking about it? Or is this just proof that we live in a mans world; men are always the perpetrators, and suffer rape far less often than women and so are less inclined to do anything about the problem.
One of the biggest problems is that rape is a crime that remains hidden. We occasionally hear of situations in some Islamic cultures where rape is considered a matter of shame for the victim and her family. If you're anything like as condescending as I am, you may find yourself shaking your head in bewilderment that any society could consider rape to be the fault of the victim. You may even start to feel faintly superior as you live in a country where rapists are widely and rightly regarded with contempt. Well, much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, as things stand the UK is equally as bad in it's treatment of victims of rape.
Of the women whom I've met and befriended in the last 10 or so years, roughly 1 in 10 of them has told me that they have been raped or sexually assaulted. None of their attackers were convicted of any crime, or even arrested for it. And that is just the women who have admitted to being raped. Who knows how many more of my friends keep silent about it? Scary, isn't it?
Personally, I find it absolutely horrifying that someone can be raped in this country with seeming impunity. Either a few men have a voracious appetite for forced sex, or there are a lot more inadequate little scumbags around than we'd like to admit to.
A common retort to the lack of rape convictions is "Well, why don't more women go to the police?" My question is, why should they? After all, of those cases that actually make it as far as court, less than 10% result in a conviction and sentences can be as low as 180 hours community service. Can you imagine that? Going through the horror of reliving being raped, with the man who did it sat a few metres away from you, and an arrogant, wig wearing git tries to make you feel like the Wh0re of Babylon for having had sex with more than one man in your whole life? And then, after having got through the judicial ordeal, to then see the man guilty of raping you walking from the court having received no more than a slapped wrist? It doesn't exactly encourage women to come forward and report the crime, does it?
I should point out that my line of argument at this point in the debate with my friend was something like "Well, yes things are bad right now. But they will change. I admit, they'll probably change slowly because the legal process always grinds along, but so many people of our generation and below realise how horrendous the crime of rape is, and so convictions will increase". My friend’s response was "How the hell do you know that? What if it never changes?".
Though I didn't think it at the time, I'm starting to wonder whether she had a point. If anything, rape convictions are falling. A small part (a VERY small part) of the blame must be attributed to the stunningly idiotic women who falsely accuse someone of rape (Nadine Milroy-Sloane, come on down!). They don't exactly help in encourage women to come forward and report rape. But the vast majority of the problem would seem to lie in society's attitude toward women.
For example, a woman's sexual history can be legitimately raised by the defence in a rape trial. What that means in practice is that if a woman has been anything less than a saintly virgin, it will be implied that she is no better than a ladywhore who probably wanted it anyway, and is now spitefully trying to ruin a mans life. Basically, the underlying theme of many of these rape defences seems to be that a promiscuous woman cannot be raped, as she is not capable of not consenting to sex. The even more sinister unspoken thought behind this is "And even if she was raped, she deserved it for being such a slapper".
Now the reason that this sort of defence is allowed to succeed so often is that the upper echelons of the judiciary (judges etc) are old and old fashioned in their view of women. That anachronistic view of the world is exploited by barristers to a rapist’s advantage. So, in theory, as new judges replace the old ones, we should start to see the end of that attitude. But will we really? After all, most of us still tend to regard promiscuous women with...well, if not scorn then we certainly think rather less of them than we would if they are not promiscuous. And that is a ridiculous way to view women. And what is more, people tend only to act in matters that concern them directly. Male rape is a rarity, and most of society's movers and shakers (and, most importantly, legislators) are men. Why should they worry about a change in rape laws, or an increase in convictions, when it isn't going to win them the next election? It tends to suggest that my initial assessment, that change will happen slowly, was wide of the mark. Change will still happen, but a lot slower than anyone apart from a rapist would like it to be.
More than anything, I would say that increased respect for women is the only way to ensure rape becomes a rarely committed (and then, punished in draconian fashion) crime. We need, as a society, to stop classifying women as either virgins or available orifices with no allowance for anything else. Unless we do, 1 in 10 women will continue to be raped, and only 1 in 10 rapists will suffer any degree of punishment. I defy anyone to tell me that that is a satisfactory state of affairs.
Page:
Thanks I will.
I'll still pop in though. I can't tear myself away from this place.
I'll still pop in though. I can't tear myself away from this place.
Not really but feel you shouldn't waste the vote. However, as it's your vote you can do what you want with it.
By the way - enjoy your time off :)
By the way - enjoy your time off :)
Are you going to be cross if I vote for you
*cowers*
*cowers*
Oh now I'm sorry - I didn't mean to make you frown. Cheer up.
Sorry, It wasn't meant to be funny.
:(
:(
Rosalind wrote:
> Why does the Victim need to be named?
>
> I have no idea how these things work.
Like Dr Duck said it wouldn't be much of a story and to be honest I'm not 100% sure how it works. I do know that whenever I catch anything on the news or in the paper it often gives the victims name but says that the rapists name is protected.
... and change you're blinking tagline. That's not funny.
> Why does the Victim need to be named?
>
> I have no idea how these things work.
Like Dr Duck said it wouldn't be much of a story and to be honest I'm not 100% sure how it works. I do know that whenever I catch anything on the news or in the paper it often gives the victims name but says that the rapists name is protected.
... and change you're blinking tagline. That's not funny.
If you don't name either you don't have much of a story...
Not that it should be a priority, but nevertheless it is.
Not that it should be a priority, but nevertheless it is.
Why does the Victim need to be named?
I have no idea how these things work.
I have no idea how these things work.
I'm sure not sure on this view, you have to be really careful. I used to believe that when reports were released to the press that it was very frustrating for the victim to be named but the accused rapist to have his identity protected and kept secret.
I have now completely changed my mine and for the reason someone mentioned previously. It is too easy to accuse a man of rape and get him arrested. Being charged with rape does not mean you are guilty and I am not talking about the high profile cases but the everyday local cases.
Imagine you have dumped a girl and she is very possessive or angry and vindictive. She could accuse you of rape even though you are innocent. The local paper gets the story and releases her name. Now imagine the situation you would be in if you were named. You would be tried by the local public and press before you could prove your innocence and it would stay with you for a long time.
It can be very damaging, it is a difficult situation.
I have now completely changed my mine and for the reason someone mentioned previously. It is too easy to accuse a man of rape and get him arrested. Being charged with rape does not mean you are guilty and I am not talking about the high profile cases but the everyday local cases.
Imagine you have dumped a girl and she is very possessive or angry and vindictive. She could accuse you of rape even though you are innocent. The local paper gets the story and releases her name. Now imagine the situation you would be in if you were named. You would be tried by the local public and press before you could prove your innocence and it would stay with you for a long time.
It can be very damaging, it is a difficult situation.
Blank wrote:
> I believe that at least some of the trauma generated from rape comes
> from the image and being socialised into that way of thinking, so
> here's my question - should the media present a better view of rape? I
> want to say positive, but that's not what I mean. I mean present it as
> a less traumatic experience....I can't really explain what i mean
> fully, I hope you know what I'm getting at. If you don't, just ignore
> me. I won't mind.
I don't think that's something that anyone who hasn't been raped is qualified to comment on to be honest. All I can tell you is that, of my friends who told me what had happened to them, it sounds to me like one of the most traumatic experiences that anyone can go through. In fact, I would say that the media don't go far enough in describing it as traumatic.
> I believe that at least some of the trauma generated from rape comes
> from the image and being socialised into that way of thinking, so
> here's my question - should the media present a better view of rape? I
> want to say positive, but that's not what I mean. I mean present it as
> a less traumatic experience....I can't really explain what i mean
> fully, I hope you know what I'm getting at. If you don't, just ignore
> me. I won't mind.
I don't think that's something that anyone who hasn't been raped is qualified to comment on to be honest. All I can tell you is that, of my friends who told me what had happened to them, it sounds to me like one of the most traumatic experiences that anyone can go through. In fact, I would say that the media don't go far enough in describing it as traumatic.
Page: