Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments

[funguy2121]

snip

The children, the children! People love to self-affirm by thinking of the goddamn children. When I was 15 I wanted to fuck everything that moves, and y'know what I've realized since then? We have a lot more in common with women than not.

Lucky for me, I'm no longer attracted to a woman younger than 19 once she opens her mouth. But I don't think a 19-year-old consummating his relationship with his 16-year-old girlfriend should even be considered comparable to a 40-year-old getting touchy with a 10-year-old, or a date rapist, or a rape rapist.

So, to all the puritanical moralists out there: if we don't understand the crime, how are we to go about preventing it? Do we really want to view date rape, forcible rape, pedophilia and ephebophilia through the same lense?

Hey, ephebophilia ain't in the DSM-IV. Know why? Because every man on this planet looked with allure upon Hayden Panettiere, even before she turned 18. That doesn't make us weird, it makes us men.

Edited for grammar: my tongue is an asshole

The most humorous reply so far. And it actually makes a damn good point. *applaudes*

Thanks. That serves the need for approval that I have as a comedian (sincerely).

 

[Tips_of_Fingers]

I also agee that men can be raped; it's always bothered me that the dictionary definition of a rapist is: a man who commits rape.

Since when is that that the definition of rapist? Last time I knew, it was a person who commits rape.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1259&bih=626&q=define+rapist&rlz=1W1TSEA_en-GB___GB358&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= Look at the first result. Trust me, when I say that the Oxford English Dictionary has it's definition of a rapist as "a man who commits rape." I'm well aware that other defintions use the word "person" instead of "man" but I'm just pointing out that there is in fact a definition floating around that only deems men rapists.

It's not right, and I agree with the other parts of your comment. : )

 

[LadyMint]

There's not much for me to say here except that I agree. It is my personal policy to try and take all aspects of life on a case by case basis. That doesn't always happen of course, but generalizing situations tends to villainize people who are not actually villains. Like the teen couple who happen to be a few years apart. I dunno, it just seems to me like people hear the word "rape" and the worst case scenario comes to their mind (a woman being forced on), rather than the legal definition which has much more of a broad definition (a man being forced on, a child being forced on, teenage girls and their older boyfriends, etc.).

 

[madster11]

Dulcinea, your opinion is wrong.

No, i don't need to elaborate. Any reasonable person will go over your posts and see that you have no understanding of human sexuality or general nature, and thus will do that job for me.


Now, OT, everyone - just start using Tasman laws, but with the general 16yo instead of 17.
- Your partner was 15 or older and you're not more than 5 years older
- Your partner was 12 or older and you're not more than 3 years older


As for the US laws of 18 or older, that's a joke.
You can operate 6500lbs+ of steel at speeds of up to 80mph within the law, passing within a few hundred feet of a preschool when you're 16, but apparently cannot decide if you want to have sex with a person.

 

[Trilby]

The other thing Ken Clarke claimed on the radio was that 'date rape' and 'serious rape' were different crimes; because 'serious rape' is a 'violent attack' and 'that's what we're really talking about when we talk about rape'.

Anyone going to weigh in on that one?

Yeah, listen to the whole thing, or read a transcript. I've even included a link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13444770

At the time he was talking specifically about the rape of adults (the interviewer had said "if I was raped", and she's definitely not a minor), and he tried to bring the subject back to topic when she kept trying to derail his argument. In doing so he made a minor verbal slip.

For those who can't be bothered to read the whole thing, I'll summarise:

--------------------------------

CLARKE: My plan is to allow rapists and other criminals to decrease their sentence by a greater amount than that currently allowed if they plead guilty early and thus avoid the trial. This saves the woman from being accused of lying in court.

INTERVIEWER: But this means that if I was raped, the rapist could be free again in a year and a bit. Clearly you love rapists!

CLARKE: How the hell did you get that figure? It's ridiculous.

INTERVIEWER: The average rape sentence is five years, which could be reduced to 1.6 years under your plan.

CLARKE: That figure is too low for the case we were discussing, as it includes statutory rape, which usually carries a lower sentence. We were discussing "serious rapes". I mean, more serious rapes involving two adults and violence, which have much higher sentences.

INTERVIEWER: HAHAHAHAHAHA I have you now you RAPIST.

INTERNET FLAMEWAR AND MEDIA STORM exits stage Left, pursued by Pedobear.

----------------------------------

If you don't believe me, read the damn script.

 

[Shiv595]

Snip

The worst thing is that dirtbag Ed Miliband jumping on the bandwagon to smear other parties. That guy makes me need a shower sfter just READING about him.

 

[Soylent Dave]

Which isn't a problem because teenagers don't stay on the sex offenders register for life, they stay on it until they become adults.
So if you're an 18 year old who just has to sleep with his 15 year old girlfriend, then you'll end up on the register - but you're already a bit too creepy for me to want you working with vulnerable kids anyway, so that's probably a good thing.

Well, i can't speak to British law, but in the US (at least in most states), it is for life. There has been much talk over the past few years of changing it, since there are thousands of guys around the country who can never get a job or a home because they committed the unforgivable crime of getting it on with their girlfriends when they were 16.

Most offences of record committed when you're a minor in the UK get waived when you turn 18 (although they do make exceptions for high profile cases), mainly for reasons of rehabilitation (i.e. it's pretty hard - and pointless - to rehabilitate a 17 year old if he's been marked for life as a sex offender)

But I can't say I have a massive amount of pity for people dumb enough to break what they know are really serious laws that are going to have a lasting impact on their lives...

Ok, so my girlfriend is underage where I live. I'm only a year older than her and in fact she becomes legal tomorrow! but anyway, she's underage. Now we're on pretty good terms but if she was so inclined she could go to the police, tell them we'd had sex and I would get charged with rape even if the sex was consensual. Why should I get charged the same as someone who pins a non consensual woman down and forcibly rapes her? It's absurd.

That would be why they're different crimes in the UK (if you have sex with a (non-intoxicated) minor, over the age of 13, then it's an 'unlawful sex act').

The other thing Ken Clarke claimed on the radio was that 'date rape' and 'serious rape' were different crimes; because 'serious rape' is a 'violent attack' and 'that's what we're really talking about when we talk about rape'.

Anyone going to weigh in on that one?

Yeah, listen to the whole thing, or read a transcript. I've even included a link:


At the time he was talking specifically about the rape of adults (the interviewer had said "if I was raped", and she's definitely not a minor), and he tried to bring the subject back to topic when she kept trying to derail his argument. In doing so he made a minor verbal slip.

For those who can't be bothered to read the whole thing, I'll summarise:

[snip]
CLARKE: That figure is too low for the case we were discussing, as it includes statutory rape, which usually carries a lower sentence. We were discussing "serious rapes". I mean, more serious rapes involving two adults and violence, which have much higher sentences.

He said :

Derbyshire: Hang on a minute. Five years on average, yes they do Mr Clarke, yes they do.

Clarke: That includes date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15-year-olds...

That would be the point at which Ken Clarke, Justice Secretary and former lawyer, explicitly stated that the felt 'unlawful sex with a minor' and 'date rape' were equivalent; and also, by extension, that 'date rape' isn't 'serious rape' (and so it's okay to only sentence date rapists to 5 years).

(Even though most rape counsellors agree that it's in many ways more distressing to be raped by someone you know and trust, rather than a stranger (without wanting to start a 'which kind of rape is worst?' discussion; I think everyone can agree that date rape is very bad even when there's no violence involved))

Just to clarify his stance, he followed it up with

And a serious rape where, you know, [there's] violence and an unwilling woman, the tariff's much longer

Not that he's out of touch or anything.

 

[Brandon237]

Every case should be judged individually and given an APPROPRIATE sentence, if in a couple one is 16 and one 15 and things that shouldn't have happened do but no one is hurt and both consented, then the sentence should not be anywhere near the sentence if it was violent rape with a victim. Two very different things needing very different punishments. One on the level of a caning, the other a life sentence. BIG difference.

And this applies to all crimes.

And women can rape men (the dictionary is sexist. WTH?).

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I sort of agree that not all rapes are the same according to circumstances, but I think that 2 and a half year sentences are too small for any case of rape.

 

[kickyourass]

I'm not entirely sure if I agree or not with this. Yes I agree that lesser crimes deserve lesser punishmenst, but I just can't think of "lesser" forms of rape.

 

[Grospoliner]

I agree that not all forms of rape are in fact rape.

Non-consensual sex is rape, period. Coercion is rape, period. Taking advantage of an incapacitated person is rape, period. Corruption of innocence is more grey. Consensual sex between an 18 year old and his 16 year old girlfriend, is not rape, even though the state will try and convict you of statutory rape even though it was consensual.

 

[Trilby]

Derbyshire: Hang on a minute. Five years on average, yes they do Mr Clarke, yes they do.

Clarke: That includes date rape, 17-year-olds having intercourse with 15-year-olds...

That would be the point at which Ken Clarke, Justice Secretary and former lawyer, explicitly stated that the felt 'unlawful sex with a minor' and 'date rape' were equivalent; and also, by extension, that 'date rape' isn't 'serious rape' (and so it's okay to only sentence date rapists to 5 years).

No, that would be the point where he said that the 5 year claim was an average that included sentencing for statutory rape and date rape (which, rightly or wrongly, are often given lower sentences), and so was rather lower than the figure that would have been appropriate for the case they were discussing.

Just to clarify his stance, he followed it up with

And a serious rape where, you know, [there's] violence and an unwilling woman, the tariff's much longer

Not that he's out of touch or anything.

Sorry, how is that out of touch? That's a perfectly accurate statement of fact. Violent rapes are, on average, punished with a much harsher sentence than statutory or date rape. That's not to say one's worse than the other, but simply that violent rape convictions often include the assault, bodily harm, etc. charges that go with the violence.

The only bit which is objectionable is the fact that he uses the phrase "serious rape". He has since clarified that phrase as a slip of the tongue (using serious as a synonym for violent), and that all rape is, of course, serious:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13436429

Bad phrasing, yes. But it's pretty hard to see it as more than that without taking things out of context.

 

[KyoraSan]

I sort of agree that not all rapes are the same according to circumstances, but I think that 2 and a half year sentences are too small for any case of rape.

Especially when you consider the various penalties for crimes such as, say, music piracy. There is a reason for it, but I don't think that belongs in this topic.

 

[Cavehybrid]

well yeh isn't all situations different to eachother?

and his point is valid statuatory rape is different to rape.

You'd think that women's rights chick would understand that!

God yeh I agree those 2 cases are different and a different sentence should be for each.

 

[FOXGEAR]

EDIT: And women are not the only ones who can be raped, whatever the hell the ignorant feminists want to spout off. If a woman came up to me and hit me and tore my pants off, I would not like it one bit. I would yell for help and try to fight her off. Unfortunately, it probably wouldn't work because I am a complete weakling, and I don't even pretend to try and act macho. I am a bi-sexual man, and I don't care whether it is a woman or man being raped, it is STILL RAPE.

I'm a SUPER feminist, and I'm not going to tell you men can't be raped. That's stupid, provably untrue and, again, crazy sexist. Anyone who purports to be a feminist and has that opinion is a whack job. Real feminists believe in EQUALITY, which, sometimes irritatingly, is a two way street.

I just checked the law in Louisiana (current personal residence), and you guys are ok. In no way does the statue exclude you from prosecuting rape (though check out number 3, weird)
http://www.babcockpartners.com/resources/statutes/louisiana-simple-rape-law

I apologize if you were insulted by my words, but I will be damned if I am called a sexist for it. I am simply going off of what I have heard from multiple feminists.

Also, off topic from the original point, the whole feminism movement is a load of crap. Women go around asking for equal rights, which I am all for, but that isn't what "Real" feminists want. It's what rational feminist's such as yourself want, but the large majority want to be payed equally and not be treated as a lesser person, but in some areas be treated better.

Back to topic; While in theory the rape laws cover men (I live in Arkansas, btw), in practice it's not so true. Because of the standards that have been set down from previous generations, where American men should be macho and tough, cops will look at you like you have lost your mind. I know, I have seen it happen. A lot of people in law enforcement will laugh at you, though under law they have to do an *ahem* investigation. But that's if you gather the nerve to go to the police station. Because they will laugh and call you a pussy to all of the towns people, and from then on you are known as the village pussy. I do live in a very small town, so it might be different in bigger cities, but from what I have seen everything is still very gender biased.

 

[Fappy]

Yeah I'm with you on this. I've always found the way many crimes are all pidgeon holed into one senticing structure to be silly and your examples above are good ones. Obviously serious offenses should be dealt with harshly, but the lact of flexibility to those who do relatively minor versions of the offense does irritate me.

Technically tea-bagging counts as rape but I don't see people getting 5 years for that shit.

I would love to see that play out in court. Lol.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

I lol'd at this. It's an absurdity to say that girls require a longer wait time for consent than guys. IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.

Women mature sexually slower than men. In fact, most women don't start the serious stages of puberty until well after men have begun them. The biological reason for this is simple: men need to grow fast in order to be able to fend off attackers, gather and hunt for food, and to mate as often and as productively as possible. In fact, in most all animals species this is the case, not just humans.

I fucking lol'd my ass off.

Women, on average, enter puberty faster than males and it also on averages ends before males. Most of us learn this in a standard comprehensive sexual education class. There are five stages of puberty and they are as follows:

Women --

1. Age Range: Usually 8-11
In Stage 1 there are no outside signs of development, but a girl?s ovaries are enlarging and hormone production is beginning.

2. Age Range: Usually 8-14. Average: 11-12
The first sign is typically the beginning of breast growth, including ?breast buds.? A girl may also grow considerable height and weight. The first signs of pubic hair start out fine and straight, rather than curly.

3. Age Range: Usually 9-15. Average: 12-13
Breast growth continues, and pubic hair coarsens and becomes darker, but there still isn?t a lot of it. Your body is still growing, and your vagina is enlarging and may begin to produce a clear or whitish discharge, which is a normal self-cleansing process. Some girls get their first menstrual periods late in this stage.

4. Age Range: Usually 10-16. Average: 13-14
Pubic hair growth takes on the triangular shape of adulthood, but doesn?t quite cover the entire area. Underarm hair is likely to appear in this stage, as is menarche. Ovulation (release of egg cells) begins in some girls, but typically not in a regular monthly routine until Stage 5.

5. Age Range: Usually 12-19. Average: 15
This is the final stage of development, when a girl is physically an adult. Breast and pubic hair growth are complete, and your full height is usually attained by this point. Menstrual periods are well established, and ovulation occurs monthly.

Men --

1. Normal Age Range: 9-12, Average: about 10
Male hormones are becoming active, but there are hardly, if any, outside signs of development. Testicles are maturing, and some boys start a period of rapid growth late in this stage.

2.Normal Age Range: 9-15, Average: 12-13
Testicles and scrotum begin to enlarge, but penis size doesn?t increase much. Very little, if any, pubic hair at the base of the penis. Increase in height and change in body shape.

3.Normal Age Range: 11-16, Average: 13-14
Penis starts to grow in length, but not much in width. Testicles and scrotum still growing. Pubic hair starts to get darker and coarser and is spreading towards the legs. Height growth continues and body/face shape look more adult. Voice begins to deepen (and crack). Some hair around the anus grows.

4.Normal Age Range: 11-17, Average: 14-15
Penis width increases, as well as length. Testicles and scrotum still growing. Pubic hair begins to take adult texture, although covers a smaller area. Most boys have first ejaculations. Underarm hair develops. Facial hair increases on chin and upper lip. Voice gets deeper and skin gets more oily.

5.Normal Age Range: 14-18, Average: around 16
Nearing full adult height and physique. Pubic hair and genitals have adult appearance. Facial hair grows more completely and shaving may begin now or soon. During the late teens and early twenties, some men grow a bit more and develop more body hair, especially chest hair.

As you can see, women are typically a stage ahead of most boys and are physically adults long before men are.

Get yo facts straight, son!

OT: Most likely because the politician has such a poor word choice. I do agree with the sentiment that there are lesser forms of the crime and should be punished to a lesser extent. Although, reading EvilCat's post shows I don't know as much on the issue of rape, and the convictions that happen, as I should. I'll have to read up more on it.

 

[Soylent Dave]

Sorry, how is that out of touch? That's a perfectly accurate statement of fact. Violent rapes are, on average, punished with a much harsher sentence than statutory or date rape. That's not to say one's worse than the other, but simply that violent rape convictions often include the assault, bodily harm, etc. charges that go with the violence.

The only bit which is objectionable is the fact that he uses the phrase "serious rape". He has since clarified that phrase as a slip of the tongue (using serious as a synonym for violent), and that all rape is, of course, serious:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13436429

Bad phrasing, yes. But it's pretty hard to see it as more than that without taking things out of context.

It's only a slip of the tongue if his tongue just kept on slipping throughout that interview and several subsequent interviews. And the fact remains that he still considers violent rape (where the victim is 'forcibly' raped) to be a more serious crime than, say, coercive rape or date rape; I say he's out of touch because most people (by which I mean 'people polled' by which I probably mean 'people who read tabloids', but they're still voters) don't draw that same distinction, and think that rape sentencing is currently too lax, if anything.

I normally like Clarke; he's one of the few Tories (never mind politicians) who seems to genuinely believe in something - but he's definitely lost the plot a little here.

 

[IndianaJonny]

Which isn't a problem because teenagers don't stay on the sex offenders register for life, they stay on it until they become adults.
So if you're an 18 year old who just has to sleep with his 15 year old girlfriend, then you'll end up on the register - but you're already a bit too creepy for me to want you working with vulnerable kids anyway, so that's probably a good thing.

Well, i can't speak to British law, but in the US (at least in most states), it is for life. There has been much talk over the past few years of changing it, since there are thousands of guys around the country who can never get a job or a home because they committed the unforgivable crime of getting it on with their girlfriends when they were 16.

Some added context here would be that the Coalition government is considering altering the sentence-cut for a guilty plee from a 1/3 to as much as a 1/2 in some cases such as rape. Hence why some people have seen such a stance to be "on the side of the rapist".

 

[Tips_of_Fingers]

I went to the shop earlier and noticed that this story has made front page in The Sun. The rape victim who was on the radio show with him has stated that Clarke is "dangerous to women". As a rape victim you think she'd know what's dangerous to a women...and Ken Clarke is not it.

Also, he's on Question Time later on BBC2 and I imagine that the issue is going to come up. Unfortunately I can't watch it, but if anyone happens to catch it, could you let me know how much people whale on him?? Poor bugger.