Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments

[Soylent Dave]

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.

He's on Question Time in Wormwood Scrubs.

That's the best timing of any TV schedule ever.

 

[Tips_of_Fingers]

He's on Question Time in Wormwood Scrubs.

That's the best timing of any TV schedule ever.

I see Clarke has already been charged of rape >.>

Raping my funny bone!

^.^

 

[KyoraSan]

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.

You're...you're just wrong, man. You're really just wrong.

Firstly, don't confuse the loudest with "most." It'd be like if I said all...oh, let's say, Gamers were 12 year old little shits who spent all day on Call of Duty trolling and being douchebags. To be a feminist, you must think the following proposition is true: "I believe men and women should be given equal opportunity to achieve the exact same things in life." That's it, and that alone. Any thoughts on what that entails are up to you. This means that, like it or not, you're technically a feminist - you just admitted it.

Most people ARE like this. They just don't think of that baseline, they only think of the crazy, and it's hurting the movement, especially with how important it is. They also forget that real, logical feminists see a lot of issues for men that need to be fixed too.

Secondly, you're also wrong about the problems. The fact that women are not getting as much pay (and are somehow mystically being kept form the upper echelons of business) as men isn't just something you can go "Oh, well, yeah, that's legitimate, but they shouldn't make a fuss" to, especially when women are the ones most often left as single parents. Call it hysteria if you want (which is a sexist term in and of itself, at its roots XD), but we DO live in a massively male-dominated culture.
Don't believe it? How much do you know about the Bechdel Test? If you're unaware, it's a duo of questions you can ask to gauge whether or not a story has a female perspective. The questions are as follows: Is there more then one female in this work, and do they talk to each other about something other then men. It's not a gold test for feminism, but using it we can generally tell where we are. Movie after movie after show after movie after game all FAIL this test. That alone should upset us. Why is it men are more relateable then women? The Genders are not as different as people like to think they are. Male stereotypes are harmful too, but at least they're expanded on. No one can deny that.

Am I blaming this on anyone? Not anyone in particular, no. It's something engrained in us from the beginning, from millennia of precedence. We can only fix it by becoming aware of it, and those that have unfortunately usually get exposed from sources that are pointing at the wrong thing. Hence the "Crazy Feminists".

Now, say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but both parties (or the parts of which didn't like her) would flip flop between calling her a butch, manly lesbian or too womanly and weak to do anything. If you honestly think about that, it doesn't make any sense.
You get what I'm saying? There are problems. BIG problems. The very reason this topic exists is because of those societal problems.

 

[FOXGEAR]

@KyoraSan I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying, or perhaps I just didn't phrase it properly. I hate bias on any level, whether it be sexuality, gender, race, etc. If she had won, I would have actually voted for Hillary. I'm not saying that so it will seem I am on your side, it's true.

As for the loudest is not the majority, that may be true, but they are THE LOUDEST. If these aren't real feminists, then set them straight or make them shut up and quit being a nuisance.

Also, instead of having single sects of "-isms", why not start grouping everything in together? Instead of a group just pertaining to women's right, have a group for all rights. It sickens me that I live in a country that is supposed to be civilized and equal, and yet there is constant bigotry everywhere you look.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Okie dokie, here's the story: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15089751,00.html

Basically, what the guy was trying to say is that not all forms of rape are the same, and that sentences should be carried out depending on the nature of the crime. I agree.

Unfortunately, people got up in arms about this claim and argued that "rape is rape". I'm sorry but issues in life are very rarely black and white. People need to remove their blinders and just think for a second

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd that's where I stopped. If I am to believe anything about the human race, it's that the ability to rationally think is rarely employed and even rarer to be acted upon, no matter the circumstance.

 

[Tips_of_Fingers]

Ok so I've managed to catch a bit of Clarke on question time. He's handling himself nicely, I think. He's apologised and admitted that what he said on the radio show was simply using the wrong words.

He's outlined that he does not and has never had any plans to reduce sentencing for crimes (including rape), but does want a much clearer distinction between the varying forms of rape and their attached punishments. Everyone on the panel seems to have agreed with him.

What I disagree with is his use of the term "discount" to describe how offenders can reduce their sentence by showing remorse and pleading guilty.

A scene: Two inmates talking about their crimes

"What are you in for?"

"Raping a woman and beating her to a pulp...but it's alright, I got a discount because I fessed up straight away."

"Shit, I wish I'd got that coupon in the post, cos I only had sex with my 15 year-old girlfriend and I'm in here longer than you."

Bullshit. Utter bullshit.

Apart from that though, well done Ken Clarke despite being in a prison (literally as well as figuratively) and surrounded by a lot of people who are trying to humiliate him for a little slip of the tongue which he has explained away beautifully.

As an aside, isn't Jack Straw a weird-looking man?? He'd definitely be at home in Brink.

EDIT:

Most people ARE like this. They just don't think of that baseline, they only think of the crazy, and it's hurting the movement, especially with how important it is. They also forget that real, logical feminists see a lot of issues for men that need to be fixed too.

Sorry, I just have to say that although Feminism is still an important issue, it has become overtaken by the more inclusionary Gender Studies/Theories that discuss femininity and masculinity. Most feminists moved onto theories of gender because it's more progressive and doesn't have the stigmas often associated with Feminism. It's also sometime referred to as pre-feminism or 3rd wave feminism (a term I disagree with).

 

[KyoraSan]

@KyoraSan I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying, or perhaps I just didn't phrase it properly. I hate bias on any level, whether it be sexuality, gender, race, etc. If she had won, I would have actually voted for Hillary. I'm not saying that so it will seem I am on your side, it's true.

As for the loudest is not the majority, that may be true, but they are THE LOUDEST. If these aren't real feminists, then set them straight or make them shut up and quit being a nuisance.

Also, instead of having single sects of "-isms", why not start grouping everything in together? Instead of a group just pertaining to women's right, have a group for all rights. It sickens me that I live in a country that is supposed to be civilized and equal, and yet there is constant bigotry everywhere you look.

Okay. But first, let's fix the problems with the 12 Year-Old Brat Stereotype Gamers who play FPSs and clot up the system with tea-baggings, douchebaggery, and general adolescent stupidity.

What? Too much?

You can't tell someone when they can or can't do, and those who are crazy or misinformed to a degree that the refuse to be corrected cannot easily be changed. You can punish them for doing the things that make you look bad, exclude them from sections of what you're doing, whatever, but in the end a crazy hyper anti-man feminist is going to be just that. If you kick them out they'll make their own organizations. Just look at PETA. Normal Animal Rights groups don't like the utterly crazy people who bomb animal labs, so they marginalized them, and so they just went out and made their own group FOR crazy people, that's STILL the loudest.

So I can't change them. So what do I do instead? I tell people they're not the majority when they make such a statement, and then I explain what it really means to be a feminist (Admittedly, I did go on a bit of a longer tirade then usual this time XD). Instead of trying to push the Rock of Sysaphis up a hill by attack the crazies, I try to cut down the mountain. I correct the misconceptions everyone else has. If I can't change the crazies, I'll change the people who point to the crazies.

And we do have groups for all manners of rights. They're called "Civil Rights Groups," and for me, I see these as all subsections of that. Because in the end, discrimination is all the same and all the result of the same things. It just takes different shapes and targets.

 

[magnuslion]

A statutory "rapist" will not receive as severe a prison sentence as a violent rapist, but he will still land on the sex offender registry for the rest of his life. And therein lies the problem.

Statutory rape (and it is rape) is a very serious offense. I see no problem with someone being forced onto the sex offenders registry for committing a sex crime.

"He said, putting forth only his personal opinion, not backing it with anything remotely related to research or fact."

Luckily for you, the internet exists and you can put your uninformed, highly egocentric opinion out there without being humiliated in front of dozens of people. enjoy it while it lasts.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. That statutory rape isn't... rape? I'm not sure how statutory rape is not a form of rape and thus a sex crime, but whatever evidence you have to prove this claim would be most welcome. I am also sure the legal offices would like to see it so they can fix their laws.

On a side note: I'm not sure why you felt the need to insult me and trivialize myself on the forum. If I have done something you think merits such behavior, I would gladly discuss it in a personal message. Otherwise I've no clue why this sardonic attack on me was needed.

Perhaps that you should let people who actually study sociology, crime, and punishment and whether or not it is effective ((it is not)) to decide what is what. You have stated an opinion as fact and backed it up with nothing.

 

[FOXGEAR]

@KyoraSan I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying, or perhaps I just didn't phrase it properly. I hate bias on any level, whether it be sexuality, gender, race, etc. If she had won, I would have actually voted for Hillary. I'm not saying that so it will seem I am on your side, it's true.

As for the loudest is not the majority, that may be true, but they are THE LOUDEST. If these aren't real feminists, then set them straight or make them shut up and quit being a nuisance.

Also, instead of having single sects of "-isms", why not start grouping everything in together? Instead of a group just pertaining to women's right, have a group for all rights. It sickens me that I live in a country that is supposed to be civilized and equal, and yet there is constant bigotry everywhere you look.

Okay. But first, let's fix the problems with the 12 Year-Old Brat Stereotype Gamers who play FPSs and clot up the system with tea-baggings, douchebaggery, and general adolescent stupidity.

What? Too much?

You can't tell someone when they can or can't do, and those who are crazy or misinformed to a degree that the refuse to be corrected cannot easily be changed. You can punish them for doing the things that make you look bad, exclude them from sections of what you're doing, whatever, but in the end a crazy hyper anti-man feminist is going to be just that. If you kick them out they'll make their own organizations. Just look at PETA. Normal Animal Rights groups don't like the utterly crazy people who bomb animal labs, so they marginalized them, and so they just went out and made their own group FOR crazy people, that's STILL the loudest.

So I can't change them. So what do I do instead? I tell people they're not the majority when they make such a statement, and then I explain what it really means to be a feminist (Admittedly, I did go on a bit of a longer tirade then usual this time XD). Instead of trying to push the Rock of Sysaphis up a hill by attack the crazies, I try to cut down the mountain. I correct the misconceptions everyone else has. If I can't change the crazies, I'll change the people who point to the crazies.

And we do have groups for all manners of rights. They're called "Civil Rights Groups," and for me, I see these as all subsections of that. Because in the end, discrimination is all the same and all the result of the same things. It just takes different shapes and targets.

I apologize, it is hard to convey sarcasm through text. I realize most of the things brought up were completely unreasonable, it was a half vent\half rant type thing. I am just trying to get you to realize that there are indeed quite a lot of feminists that are like that, and whilst you can't change them, the good ones need to come out and let their voices be heard, instead of standing aside passively and waiting for someone to get the information wrong.

Side note: Did you know there are a lot of people in feminist forums that encourage the man hating to such a degree they try to convince new members to be lesbians? Being gay myself, I have no problem with it, but jeezum crowe is that just a little bit ridiculous. Once again, I realize those are the crazy, not the rational fems such as yourself.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I agree, that there should be a conditional sentence on rape, but there should definitely be a sentence.

its like everything really. Punishment in accordance to the crime.

 

[PatSilverFox]

:/
Yeah, the whole Age of Consent thing gets on my nerves sometimes.

 

[Biosophilogical]

And this is why age of consent should be lowered to 13. I´m still annoyed that I can´t make my own descision just because I´m 2 years younger then a 15 year old.

]spoiler=For awesomeClaw, spoilered for length]Well actually, by physiological standards, the average age of puberty for males is a two-ish year span between about 13 and 17[footnote]If I'm remembering what my lecturer was saying accurately[/footnote] (with the obvious existence of extreme outliers). So chances are that while you can ejaculate and have developed a sex drive, you are not a physically mature male (and that's not even touching on psychological maturity and the effects that different social conditions can have on that).

And then of course, there is the role of sex within society. Sure, it has recreational use ('rumour' has it that orgasms are rather pleasant), but sexual activity can force the development of emotional bonds that may not have formed from a purely social relationship[footnote]Which can raise the issue of if someone of your age is at a stage of mental development where they truly appreciate the gravity of the situation, and therefore if they are mature enough to make a properly weighted decision.[/footnote], then there is the raging hormones, which can adversely affect judgement[footnote]Which has parallels with the old saying "One is not a good judge of one's own sanity". How can you know you are ready when you can't trust your own state of mind to have rational integrity?[/footnote], and then there is the physical risks involved, which raises two more issues;
1. In the previously mentioned context of rational instability, should someone be permitted to risk the well-being of their future selves in a very permanent and detrimental manner (STDs/STIs) AND
2. Given the combination of social and physical imaturities, is someone of your age (just as an example) capable of fully accepting and realising their responsibility to any child that may be conceived as a result of their hormone-driven actions?

So while there logically would be a handful of people who are both physically, socially and psychologically mature enough to fully grasp sex at your age, there wouldn't be many.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not trying to single you out, but I read your post and it was not only convenient, but also raised an important point that is rarely able to be addressed in a proper context.[/spoiler]

OT: I haven't read the article just yet (bear with me), but from what I've heard, it seems like the 'general idea' is good, but his personal expression and view on the matter is somewhat ... inaccurate (that word will have to do).

EDIT: Okay, just read the article. He sounds like he used the wrong terminology (*cough*date rape*cough*), but otherwise his point is good, but misunderstood. He's just saying that there are different forms of rape, and just because they are called rape doesn't mean they instantly are some heinous abomination against humanity. It's basically a statement against the knee-jerk reaction, and to view a situation as a situation, rather than as its name.

 

[zeldagirl]

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.

You're...you're just wrong, man. You're really just wrong.

Firstly, don't confuse the loudest with "most." It'd be like if I said all...oh, let's say, Gamers were 12 year old little shits who spent all day on Call of Duty trolling and being douchebags. To be a feminist, you must think the following proposition is true: "I believe men and women should be given equal opportunity to achieve the exact same things in life." That's it, and that alone. Any thoughts on what that entails are up to you. This means that, like it or not, you're technically a feminist - you just admitted it.

Most people ARE like this. They just don't think of that baseline, they only think of the crazy, and it's hurting the movement, especially with how important it is. They also forget that real, logical feminists see a lot of issues for men that need to be fixed too.

Secondly, you're also wrong about the problems. The fact that women are not getting as much pay (and are somehow mystically being kept form the upper echelons of business) as men isn't just something you can go "Oh, well, yeah, that's legitimate, but they shouldn't make a fuss" to, especially when women are the ones most often left as single parents. Call it hysteria if you want (which is a sexist term in and of itself, at its roots XD), but we DO live in a massively male-dominated culture.
Don't believe it? How much do you know about the Bechdel Test? If you're unaware, it's a duo of questions you can ask to gauge whether or not a story has a female perspective. The questions are as follows: Is there more then one female in this work, and do they talk to each other about something other then men. It's not a gold test for feminism, but using it we can generally tell where we are. Movie after movie after show after movie after game all FAIL this test. That alone should upset us. Why is it men are more relateable then women? The Genders are not as different as people like to think they are. Male stereotypes are harmful too, but at least they're expanded on. No one can deny that.

Am I blaming this on anyone? Not anyone in particular, no. It's something engrained in us from the beginning, from millennia of precedence. We can only fix it by becoming aware of it, and those that have unfortunately usually get exposed from sources that are pointing at the wrong thing. Hence the "Crazy Feminists".

Now, say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but both parties (or the parts of which didn't like her) would flip flop between calling her a butch, manly lesbian or too womanly and weak to do anything. If you honestly think about that, it doesn't make any sense.
You get what I'm saying? There are problems. BIG problems. The very reason this topic exists is because of those societal problems.

You, keep on bein' awesome.

Side note: Did you know there are a lot of people in feminist forums that encourage the man hating to such a degree they try to convince new members to be lesbians? Being gay myself, I have no problem with it, but jeezum crowe is that just a little bit ridiculous. Once again, I realize those are the crazy, not the rational fems such as yourself.

I am cutting in here to say two things: firstly - where? I've never seen them, though perhaps this is a fortunate thing.

Secondly, you potentially get people like that ANYWHERE. I spent not even 10 minutes on The Escapist (a forum that seems to host fairly intelligent people) before witnessing first hand a shit-storm of women-hate (much of it directed at me for being a woman and having an opinion. Yes, that was actually said to me - someone asked for a woman's opinion, not expecting to get something contrary to their view, and when I disagreed, I was promptly told by other posters "no one cares about your stupid opinion, we wanted to hear from girls who weren't crazy (and who agreed with us)." So, there you go.).

Basically, extremists are very loud, and particularly on the internet and under the cover of relative anonymity, very obnoxious and toxic. Overall, though, I'm willing to say MOST feminists (not the very loud vocal minority) are quite reasonable individuals, and not misandrists.

 

[zeldagirl]

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.

Cutting in to say that this...might be a little insensitive, though I doubt you meant it that way. It seems to be implying that there is a way to tell who is a rapist and who is not - that there is some sort of look of a rapist. And considering that many rapes are acquaintance rapes, where the victim knows and even trusts the rapist, it's a bit misleading, and sort of perpetuates the myth of the rapist being the man hiding in the bushes or down the dark alleyway. It also seems to suggest that if you raped once, you should know what your rapist is like, and therefore be able to prepare yourself for any kind of rape again - and that's not really how rape works. Rapists don't come in pre-set molds. ANY PERSON can be a rapist - man, woman, Ken Clarke, even myself. It's just a matter of crossing the line of consent. Again, I'm sure you didn't mean for it to be read that way, but...well...

Also, the phrasing just seems to be a little insensitive towards the rape victim herself. A lot of victims of rape DO struggling with blaming themselves over not knowing they were going to be attacked, or wishing that they had done something different, or known to not interact with the rapist. And that ventures into the territory of self-blame and potentially even victim-blaming, when really we shouldn't focus on that, but rather just blame the rapist.

I hope what I'm saying makes sense. Again, this isn't an attack, just pointing out that your language is ambiguous, and insensitive.

 

[Hlain]

To you talking about age of consent; if you look at it biologically, the consenting shouldn't be set to some specific age. It would be when the girl start getting her period, and the boy produces sperm. Then their bodies are able and ready to produce child.

However, I can see how this would be mistreated. 13-year-olds can be... manipulated.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Just to confirm though, Ken Clarkes example that a 17 year old having sex with a consenting 15 year old is different to a rape with violence is correct.

However this is exactly why under English law the 17 year old would not be charged with Rape but an entirely separate crime, namely unlawful sex with a minor (I think)

Therefore his example is null and void, If you are charged with rape then you raped someone and you should go down for the full seven year term

That's generally what happens, yeah. Judges are smart, they sentence people on a case by case basis. Hell, that's where the saying "case by case basis" comes from.

 

[Karma168]

I'm sick of politicians having to attach their blinders and lie through their teeth just to appease the populace. "Vivienne Hayes, head of the Women's Resource Centre, said Clarke's comments 'smack not only of ignorance but of outright misogyny.'" Fuck her. She's the ignorant one for believing that rape is rape is rape. And it's people like her that are stopping our Politicians from making intelligent arguments in public; people like her that are making public figures afraid to speak their minds.

rape is rape If you force a woman to have sex against her will you deserve to have the offending weapon removed with rusty garden shears, regardless.

But I will argue against morning after regret, if you decide the next day that you wouldn't have slept with this person you cant then cry rape (unless you were drugged)

 

[FireCoroner]

By that logic:
Rape is Rape
Theft is Theft
Killing is Killing
Crime is Crime

I didn't actually bother to read the article but does the politician look or sound anything like Rorschach?

 

[zeldagirl]

But I will argue against morning after regret, if you decide the next day that you wouldn't have slept with this person you cant then cry rape (unless you were drugged)

To be fair, a thought question: if there is even a niggling of doubt or regret about the actions, what do you think that perhaps says about the consent of the individual the night before? I ask this not to challenge you, but just thinking out loud and your post provided a segue. If there is absolute, enthusiastic consent, how likely is regret to be present?


Bear with me while I think aloud:


Often, there may be regret if a person had sex while under the influence of alcohol. In several US states, an intoxicated person CANNOT consent. So, that would fall under a gray rape area.

Perhaps there is regret over a lack of contraception. That could potentially raise questions about the stipulations of the sexual act - was the use of contraception discussed, or did the act simply happen. Is it possible within that framework to have doubt or even feelings of non-consent?

Or another issue: was there VERBAL consent? Did the participant who regrets the act want to have sex, or did they just get caught up and felt that they COULDN'T say no? Consent relies not on the negative, but on the positive - the active consent of both parties must be given. That means there must be a present of yes, be it verbal or through cooperative non-verbal cues.


I think out loud and posit these ideas mainly to point out that it's not necessarily so easy to just dismiss someone who 'regrets' the day after the sex act happens. Sometimes, things just feel WRONG. You may not realize until after the fact that you didn't actually say YES, but you felt that you couldn't say NO. And these are important situations that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis carefully, and not necessarily outright dismissed.

Not that this will always be the case, necessarily. Sometimes, people just make decisions that they think are right for them in the moment, and end up being bad decisions. But, I think often there is more to tease out from that scenario.

Again, not attacking you - just thinking (typing) aloud.