Rape IS Rape: Giving Ken Clarke the Keys to a Special Level of Hell

It's been a while since I banished anyone to a special level of hell. However, Jane Austen and those who use the word 'frape' have a new hellmate* (see what I did there?) Ken Clarke, our esteemed Justice Secretary has today given the victims of date rape and any form of non-violent rape a kick in the teeth by declaring that these crimes are 'not as serious' as violent rapes.

Serious rape is violent rape. It plays upon the myriad of stereotypes that continue to plague the victims of rape; indeed, Craig Palmer would love it. We all know what rape is. It's that dodgy looking creep who stalks the city streets late at night, preying on vulnerable young women. Heaven forbid that it be a woman's partner, or that she is coerced by non-violent means. Who'll take her seriously unless there are hand marks around her neck?

It's not even just a question of evidence in a trial though, it is another way to blame the victim. If she isn't covered in marks and bruises then she must have assented - he wasn't being violent towards her so how could she not have stopped it? She must have wanted it.

Clarke is explicit in his belief that there is a hierarchy of rape - when faced with the statement "Rape is rape" he replies "No it's not". As for Date rape, well: "Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes". Can be, not is, and when did the government introduce a Top 10 Worst Rapes countdown?!

To be fair to Clarke (an extraordinary difficult attitude to take when faced with such an idiot), the other issue he points out is that of underage sex. In Scotland, at least, there is a difference between statutory rape and underage sex, the former being the crime pursued regardless of issues of consent with a child aged 13 or under, and the latter referring to those between 14 and the age of consent. Underage sex is a less serious crime, as is reflected in Scottish law, and if there is no distinction in English law then perhaps Clarke should have thought about dealing with that before opening his trap and spouting a crock of dangerous idiocy.

Rape in the "ordinary, conventional sense" that Clarke talks about - violent rape by a stranger, is a terrible crime, but rape is rape. Even if you know that person. Even if you are coerced by non-violent means. Rape is Rape. To have the Justice Secretary disagree with such a statement is to perpetuate the myths that rape victims have to tackle daily. That is an injustice. That is a disgrace. That is why Ken Clarke should resign with immediate effect.

* Also, for anyone keeping count of those banished to hell, Nadine Dorries is there for her ridiculous opinion that child sex abuse victims brought it on themselves. A twisted misogynist who will fit right in.

48 Women an Hour Raped in Congo

It is now two years since I first began studying rape, and over those years I have inevitably come across some awful stories and statistics. Some of them I've published on the blog - from the fact that a South African woman is more likely to be raped than learn to read, to the Pakistani statistic of a woman raped every hour, every second attack is on a minor and every fourth a gang rape. I've raged about defence lawyers' tactics - women wearing skinny jeans couldn't possibly be raped (an Italian example only recently rejected by the courts), women pinned down by the weight of a man is engaged in the missionary position (Assange's lawyers) and the opening gambit of one trial in America a few decades ago where a lawyer span a Cola bottle around and attempted to insert a pencil into the neck. Obviously a woman who doesn't want to be raped can fight back(!) Academic studies which ask women how violent their attack was, delusional muppets claiming to be academics and a textbook which finished a section on sadistic rape with a paragraph on victim impact which began "if the victim survives...".

All terrible things that have led me to rant and rave, and in many cases cry.

But as I stumbled across a Guardian article this afternoon, I had to take a deep breath before reading the article:

Forty-eight women raped every hour in Congo

The systematic use of rape as a weapon of war is not a new discovery, particularly in Congo, but the assertions that rape is beginning to creep outwith the areas of the fiercest conflict and especially into the home are disturbing.

12% of the female population of Congo have been raped, whilst 3% of the female population were raped in a single year between 2006 and 2007, rising to 7% in one province. More than a fifth have been forced to perform sex acts on their partners.

These statistics are even thought by some researchers to even underestimate the problem.

:(

The Puffa Paradox: Victim Blaming and Fashion Dilemmas

It would seem that women just can't catch a break this week.

First we hear that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised", according to a Canadian policeman giving students a talk on personal safety. Well blow me down with a feather. Or not, because the long-johns, jeans, camisole, vest, t-shirt, long sleeved top, jumper, cardigan and ankle length puffa jacket with Doc Martens is quite a heavy ensemble, and as I don't want to be raped I thought I'd take extra precautions. However, such an outfit would cause me to faint with the weight and heat generated, so I've had to make do with a little less.

But, wearing less could get me raped. So what do I do? Is there a cut off as to how much clothing is not 'sluttish'? Could I wear jeans and a t-shirt and not get raped? What about skirts? Heaven forfend that I advertise my vulnerability in something that is associated with femininity. Is there an accepted length of skirt? Should all skirts fall below the knee, or is that too much leg on show? And what about how form-fitting my clothes are?

Or, is it less about how much of me is on show, but on how attractive the clothing is? Perhaps a knee-length wool skirt won't get me raped, but a knee-length leather one will? Scoop neck v V neck?

What about the elderly women attacked by Delroy Grant? Did they dress too sluttishly for him to resist?

Clearly women are all undergoing the dilemma posed in this excellent advert by Rape Crisis Scotland.

Of course, there is a deeper subtext to the use of the word 'slut'. Women across the Anglophone world have had the word flung at them because they are comfortable with their own sexuality, revealing the double standards applied to women and men. Sleep with too many men? Slut. Yet reverse the genders and the almost reverent 'stud' comes into play. Sanguinetti is making it clear that women should be subject to a moral code, for their own good of course. They shouldn't sleep with lots of men, and to advertise their 'services' in the way they dress means that they shouldn't be surprised when men take advantage of them.

So, women who like sex, or dress in a way which might possibly make someone think they do, are fair game for your neighbourhood rapist.

But nobody asks to be raped. Not ever. And if Michael Sanguinetti finds it difficult to resist victimizing and raping women who dress 'sluttishly' then he should bloody well seek help.

Women who like sex with men are fair game, but, so it seems, women who don't like sex with men (although lesbianism is obviously not equated with this) are also OK to rape too. I've blogged before about the horrifying cases of correctional rape in South Africa - where men try to 'cure' lesbians by raping them. But reading this article which gives an estimate of 10 rapes and gang rapes a week in Cape Town alone brings a shudder to my spine.

As a women, you can neither like sex with men, nor sex with women, lest you be raped. And then it would be your own fault. Dress in a way which might advertise either of these facts and you are asking to be raped. Oh, and if you have been raped, then you'll have done something to deserve it - your sexual history will be debated, your alcohol consumption questioned and your honesty doubted - but somewhere along the line you will have done something to deserve it.

Difficult being a woman, eh?