Ignoring Relationships In Rape

[Note: The following is yet another example of the way in which feminist-controlled judges, lawyers and academics collude together to deceive the public on matters to do with sex-assault.]

In this particular piece I want to focus on the thoroughly contemptible notion being adopted by the UK's Sentencing Advisory Panel and by many other legislative organs in western countries which suggests that a woman raped by an intimate necessarily suffers the same degree of 'trauma' as does a woman who has been raped by a complete stranger and that the sentence upon conviction should, therefore, be the same. 

The Panel appears to have come to this preposterous conclusion on the basis of one of the most bogus pieces of 'research' imaginable. In essence, this 'research' simply involved asking groups of women how they would feel if raped by an intimate or by a stranger.

Furthermore, in what I can only believe is either astonishing incompetence or sheer dishonesty, the women who were asked this question were not ordinary women. They were women who had volunteered to take part in research on 'rape' and/or were women who had alleged rape in the past.

At the outset, therefore, we know that any conclusions drawn from this piece of 'research' are based almost wholly on the highly-prejudiced opinions of politically-motivated men-hating feminist women - who would have been dragooned into taking part in such 'research' by their feminist overlords - and by women who have made allegations of rape in the past. And, with regard to the latter, nearly all of these would either have been genuine victims of rape who had failed to 'get a conviction' (because some 95% of UK rape allegations made to the police result in no convictions) or they would have been false accusers - i.e. liars, exaggerators or hysterics -  from whom the majority of rape accusations in the UK are actually made; e.g. see Rape Baloney2.

 the Sentencing Advisory Panel will have based its ... sentencing advice, on the opinions of politically-motivated feminists, aggrieved rape victims who failed to get convictions, and false accusers!

In a nutshell; the Sentencing Advisory Panel will have based its 'research' and, hence, its sentencing advice, on the opinions of politically-motivated feminists, aggrieved rape victims who failed to get convictions, and false accusers!

One can hardly imagine a more biased sample of human subjects on which to base any piece of social research; let alone one that will result in serious changes to the law, and in serious consequences for many men. Unfortunately, however, conducting completely bogus research in order to justify some new law or policy is one of the main ways in which feminists and their whipping boys further their man-hating agenda.

The main factor that the Sentencing Advisory Panel brought to bear on the issue to justify treating Relationship Rape just as harshly as Stranger Rape was the breach of 'trust' that allegedly occurs (without fail) when an intimate is raped. This breach of trust, apparently, brings the 'severity' of Relationship Rape up to the same level as the severity of Stranger Rape. Here is what the Panel said, ... 

Although ‘stranger rape’ is seen as a more frightening and potentially dangerous experience, the breach of trust involved in ‘relationship rape’ or ‘acquaintance rape’ makes it equally serious. 

Now, of course, one can certainly imagine situations where this might be true, but the notion that this is mostly the case is utter nonsense, and it is based purely on the wailing and whining of feminists and women's groups that are forever desperate to portray women as being hapless victims in the face of men.

For example, if a man gropes his wife's bottom in bed for five minutes despite her protests and obvious dissent, is this 'crime' really as serious as would be the case if a man did the same to a woman who happened to be standing at the bus stop?

If a drunken man lies upon his wife and refuses to stop for the next five minutes, is he really committing the same degree of offence as a man who does the same to a woman whom he has never met before?

Of course these situations are not the same. They are nowhere near the same. The whole notion is perverse and untenable. 

Indeed, if 'trust' was truly the most significant factor when it comes to rape severity then it would follow that the longer that a relationship has been maintained, the greater should be the punishment for rape!

As such, Stranger Rape should probably be seen to be less severe than Relationship Rape! And, for example, a man who drunkenly lay upon his wife of 20 years should receive a far harsher sentence than a man who did the same to his girlfriend of one week! 

Clearly, it makes no sense at all to assume at the outset that 'trust' is the major factor when it comes to the severity of a rape.

Why should 'trust' be singled out as the only factor of significance?

Furthermore, of all the myriad ins and outs that occur within established relationships, why should 'trust' be singled out as the only factor of significance when it comes to this particular issue? Why not, for example, 'familiarity'.

For example, the physical boundaries that normal people set for those with whom they have relationships are completely different from those that they set for complete strangers. But, if you can possibly believe it, this hugely important factor was barely addressed in the Panel's report.

According to the Sentencing Advisory Panel, the difference between having a stranger's genitals thrust inside you under duress and those of your partner is of comparatively little significance.

The issue of 'trust' alone trumped everything. 

But slapping, touching, fondling, kissing, insulting, groping, shoving, shouting at, swearing at, taking advantage of, going overboard with ... a passing stranger, is not the same as doing any of these things to someone with whom one has a close relationship.

It is only the preposterous nonsense propounded by feminists and their lackey boys that suggests otherwise.

Furthermore, when men and women are having bad relationships - and this is when most Relationship Rape accusations are made - it is highly likely that those women who make allegations of rape will have a long history of grievances built up over the relationship period (something that women are prone to do) and it is highly likely that these grievances rather than any alleged rape incident would likely be the factors that propelled them into making allegations of rape - false or otherwise - in the first place.

Furthermore, the levels of 'hurt' that women in these bad relationships claim to experience will likely be inspired more by thoughts of revenge rather than anything else.

And please do not think otherwise, because it takes some significant degree of hatred for a woman to go to a court solely in order to have the man with whom she has had an established relationship sent to prison merely for having had non-violent non-consensual sex with her. And so vindictiveness (justified or otherwise) is clearly a factor of some import.

In other words, a multitude of grievances, vindictiveness and a thirst for revenge are very likely to have very much to do with any differences between Stranger Rape and Relationship Rape.

But, no. There was no suggestion at all by the Panel that these factors - obvious to the entire human race - were particularly relevant to the issue.

The Panel decided that a breach of 'trust' was the only real issue worthy of focus.

How can these people get away with such blatant dishonesty?

And, needless to say, the issue of a breach of trust when it comes to rape was only considered in the sense that the man could break it. What was not considered was the breach of trust that might be taking place when a woman in a relationship makes an allegation of rape - even where one has occurred.

After all, if my wife was to slap me once, and I reported her to the police for domestic violence, I think that most people would see this as a breach of trust on my part; despite the fact that she had, in fact, been violent towards me. The argument is the same when it comes to trivial rape situations. 

most of what is nowadays called 'rape' in the UK is decidedly trivial.

And I should add that most of what is nowadays called 'rape' in the UK is decidedly trivial.

Here is Carol Sarler (The Observer 9/4/2000). She reminds us of the ... "Bristol woman who changed her mind during sexual intercourse. She was making love with her fiancé, in the middle of which she asked him to stop. He didn't. She lived with him for a further two months, then he (yes, he) broke off their engagement. She took a further three months to stew over this, then accused him of rape. He went to jail."

Indeed, when it comes to the issue of trust and to non-violent rape between intimates, there is a strong argument for the view that a woman making an allegation of rape is just as likely as the man to be breaching any trust between the partners and, further, that this is indicative of her vindictive nature - as, in my view, the above example from Carol Sarler demonstrates.

That man was not imprisoned for causing any form of rape trauma. He was imprisoned to satisfy a woman's thirst for revenge.

In its report, the Panel says, ...

As some of the victims interviewed in the Panel's research study pointed out, marriage implies reciprocity in terms of loving, caring and protecting, which is incompatible with the use of force by one partner.

But "loving, caring and protecting", presumably, cut both ways. As such, the very fact that some woman is standing in a courtroom trying to get her husband incarcerated for five years on the basis that he allegedly raped her, might be more of a reflection of her lack of being "loving, caring and protecting" in the relationship than it is of his. And if the rape is non-violent and trivial - once again as per the example above - then the very fact that the woman is wishing to see her partner imprisoned should weigh against her to some significant degree.

Furthermore, of course, anyone who seriously believes that all marriages are made in Heaven, and that 'trust' and love - especially young love - never involve tussles, disputes or coercion (mental or physical) needs to have their head examined. Marriage is clearly not the sweet and assured route to harmony that the Panel tries to suggest. Most people understand this. The Panel, however, did not - and purposely so, would be my guess.

Putting all this much more simply: The Panel wants the law to assume in advance that the woman who has accused her partner of Relationship Rape has been further traumatised by a breach of trust, whereas, in fact, in the UK, it is more likely that she is sitting in the dock thinking, "Ha. Ha. Ha. I've got you, you b#astard. And I've got the kids, the house, the new boyfriend and the ..."

when you look at these women, you will mostly find that they are very dysfunctional in some way

Of course, I am not suggesting that most women would do such a terrible thing - but, as far as this 'research' is concerned, we are not talking about most women! Among others, we are talking about that very small group of women who have accused their partners of rape. And when you look at these women, you will mostly find that they are very dysfunctional in some way and, further, that they are inordinately vindictive, and that they are simply seeking to hurt their partners - often for no justifiable reason at all. Indeed, many of them will likely have some significant personality disorder which makes them prone to making false accusations - something which is found in some 1 million UK women.

And yet - though it is almost too incredible for words - these are the very women that the Panel chose to give the most credence to.

A higher level of incompetence or dishonesty when it comes to research such as this can scarcely be imagined. Not even an undergraduate would be so stupid as to give credence to such a flagrantly biased piece of 'research'.

But, of course, this is just another example of our laws being formulated and shaped by vindictive men haters; because, collectively, man-hatred is exactly what these women represent.

Imagine, for the moment, that the issue was divorce, and that the women who were asked to take part in the associated research were drawn from religious groups who thought that divorce was a mortal sin (the feminists) or were women who were so upset by their own divorces that they had gone to victim-support groups following a divorce (women who have failed to get convictions). On the basis of the evidence that these particular women would provide, researchers of the appalling calibre attended to by the Panel would undoubtedly conclude that divorces would ruin the lives of any women who had them, and that divorce should, therefore, be outlawed!

The public, of course, would see through such nonsense immediately. They would realise that the research sample was grossly biased.

But, so secretive and prejudiced - and, quite frankly, deceitful - are so many of those who 'investigate' matters of 'abuse' that the public continues to remain unaware of the truth about them. And so they get away with their phony 'research' in a way that they could never do if the issue was something more observable such as divorce.

A further point worth noting is that the members of the Panel can have no idea at all about the typical impact of "Relationship Rape" on normal women because normal women did not take part in the research.

All in all, therefore, for the justice system to claim that Relationship Rape is at the outset to be regarded as the equivalent of Stranger Rape is nothing less than outrageous. But this kind of feminist-inspired corruption is taking place throughout the entire justice system when it comes to dealing with relationship matters. And much of it is justified to the public by conducting bogus research such as this and then pandering to the hatred towards men that a relatively small minority of women wish to promulgate.

Nearly all the 'research' in the area of the law and sex-assault in western countries is derived from the testimony of women who are either aggrieved, unbalanced, vengeful, malicious, deluded or politically-motivated. And it is absolutely outrageous that all men have to endure the consequences that arise from feminist-fearing western governments rushing to pander to the hatefulness towards men that these particularly dysfunctional women are forever promoting.

Indeed, as further proof of just how corrupt, dishonest and prejudiced against men was the Panel one only has to look at what it said about anal rape. It decided that anal rape was no worse than vaginal rape - despite the fact that the anus and the colon are not designed to receive a penis whereas the vagina and its surrounding muscle are.

"treating anal rape of a woman as worse than vaginal rape would imply that male rape was always more serious than female rape."

What the Panel is saying here is this.

Regardless of what women might feel about anal rape and no matter how much worse this might be for them, the Panel would not suggest that anal rape was more serious than vaginal rape ... because this ... would imply that male rape was always more serious than female rape," - and we certainly cannot have this, can we?

 men must never be seen to be suffering more than women

In other words, the feelings of women suddenly do not count any more.  What counts now is that men must never be seen to be suffering more than women - even if this is the case! 

The whole report produced by the Panel is clearly feminist politics through and through. And it has absolutely nothing to do with justice and nothing to do with the true feelings of normal women.

In summary, UK laws are now to be corrupted even further on the basis of bogus research carried out by incompetent and/or dishonest academics who have fraudulently based their findings wholesale on precious little more than the various comments of women who have been indoctrinated against men and/or who have been drawn from a particular group of women who have failed to secure prosecutions against men, and within which there will be an extremely large percentage of women who are, most likely, liars, exaggerators or hysterics; i.e. false accusers. 

Furthermore, in order to buttress their phony arguments, these 'researchers' then focus almost exclusively on the factor of 'trust' within relationships and ignore every other factor that is likely to be highly relevant to Relationship Rape situations - because, of course, these other factors would clearly expose the degree of dishonesty contained in the notion that Stranger Rape is equivalent to Relationship Rape.

And then, suddenly, they do an about turn. When it comes to anal rape, the views of these women are suddenly dismissed and the issue of import becomes the dreadful possibility that men might actually be hurt more than women when it comes to rape.

Such a notion is completely unacceptable to these supposedly impartial 'researchers'. Thus, even it is the case that men are, indeed, far more hurt by anal rape than are women by vaginal rape - and this might well be the case -  who knows? - it is, nevertheless, not permitted for any law to entertain such a possibility.

This is politics, not justice. 

Indeed, the following statement alone exposes the hidden agenda of these charlatans ...

"treating anal rape of a woman as worse than vaginal rape would imply that male rape was always more serious than female rape."

Finally, I would ask any man reading this to ask their partners this question. "Which would upset you more? Me getting drunk and forcing myself inside you, or some stranger doing the same?"

My guess is that the vast majority of normal women would claim that a stranger rape would upset them much more. 

"There are lots of women who make complaints of rape who would sleep with the local donkey" - a female barrister in the UK who deals with rape cases; quoted by Professor Jennifer Temkin from the University of Sussex.

Also see, ...

Judges