Rape vs Other Injuries

jimmycrackcorm · 15-07-2015 2:25am #1

I've been curious for some time why rape gets so much attention vs other crimes against the person. For example - if you are raped you can turn to the rape crisis centre. With counselling you can very potentially put it behind and move on with your life.

However, if you get attacked in an example where you lose your eyesight or have your leg amputated, why does that not get the equivalent support? If you end up paralysed like Guido Nasi, why do we have a rape crisis centre instead of a victim crisis centre?

Even in a non crime setting, we have people like Guido but who are in the same position because of an accident, suffering but without the equivalent support system.

My point is if you get raped or stabbed, its very traumatic. But rape is held up singularly more than if you nearly die from blood loss. Is this not questionable?

The Corinthian · 15-07-2015 12:15pm

A large factor in the attention any issue gets is the lobby groups that campaign to bring it to the fore. Rape is seen as principally a women's issue (that it can occur to men, especially in prison, is generally tacked on as an afterthought) and there is a strong women's rights lobby in existence to highlight this.

More generic cases of violent assault can't be tied in as easily to any specific constituency, so there the interest in raising awareness is less strong. The same can be said for issues that affect constituencies that have weak lobby groups - they may have an interest in raising awareness, but lack the power to do so.

zeffabelli · 16-07-2015 8:07am

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I've been curious for some time why rape gets so much attention vs other crimes against the person. For example - if you are raped you can turn to the rape crisis centre. With counselling you can very potentially put it behind and move on with your life.

However, if you get attacked in an example where you lose your eyesight or have your leg amputated, why does that not get the equivalent support? If you end up paralysed like Guido Nasi, why do we have a rape crisis centre instead of a victim crisis centre?

Even in a non crime setting, we have people like Guido but who are in the same position because of an accident, suffering but without the equivalent support system.

My point is if you get raped or stabbed, its very traumatic. But rape is held up singularly more than if you nearly die from blood loss. Is this not questionable?

Yes you are right. I don't begrudge the rape crisis centre but there is a huge deficit in this country for post traumatic counselling.

It's a very specific need with specialised therapies, not just talk it out with a sympathetic ear, but someone who knows what they are doing and the physiological long and short term responses to trauma.

A positive solution to this would some kind of victim response unit.

Once upon a time rape was not seen as traumatic, about time the other stuff caught up.

raah! · 16-07-2015 7:14pm

I think rape tends to be more psychologically harmful. There is not the same level of shame or long lasting mental perturbation associated with being punched in the face. You often hear of people being suicidal after being raped. Also rape is not just an injury, rape is somethign that is done to you by another person for reasons which are difficult to deal with. Also you could be raped and not injured (physically) at all.

The Corinthian · 17-07-2015 6:12am

raah! wrote: »

I think rape tends to be more psychologically harmful. There is not the same level of shame or long lasting mental perturbation associated with being punched in the face.

It really is trivializing physical assault to suggest it is nothing more than a punch in the face. A friend of mine was jumped years ago by a random group of lads simply looking for a fight and woke up two days later in a hospital, having been kicked in the face repeatedly while wearing glasses, which resulted in his losing sight in one eye - what do you think the psychological consequences of that might be?

The reason we focus on one and not the other type of attack really comes down to the fact that the former is discussed far more, is pushed as being horrendous far more. Does anyone really want to suggest that rape does not effectively get vastly more 'airtime' than other forms of violence with a straight face?

Unfortunately, that's the answer to the OP's question.

zeffabelli · 17-07-2015 7:47am

Rape is a little different conviction wise. Going through the legal process after a rape can add to the trauma.

I might not mind power point presentations of facial injury up on a screen in a courtroom, but having evidence of a rape up on a screen for public scrutiny is a whole other thing.

The Corinthian · 17-07-2015 8:22am

zeffabelli wrote: »

Rape is a little different conviction wise. Going through the legal process after a rape can add to the trauma.

I agree and am not in any way trivializing rape, but I am pointing out that the neither should other forms of violent assault be trivialized as simply a punch in the face, as has happened here. Imagine what reaction that poster would get had they suggested that rape was just some fun that got out of hand?

The question posed in this discussion is why is there such a chasm in how we perceive and deal with rape and other forms of violence? Even if we were to agree that rape is always worse than any violent attack (which is highly dubious) it still wouldn't explain the size of this chasm.

Unfortunately, the only explanation for this is, in a word, politics.

Unless, someone would care to proffer another reason?

zeffabelli · 17-07-2015 8:35am

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree and am not in any way trivializing rape, but I am pointing out that the neither should other forms of violent assault be trivialized as simply a punch in the face, as has happened here. Imagine what reaction that poster would get had they suggested that rape was just some fun that got out of hand?

The question posed in this discussion is why is there such a chasm in how we perceive and deal with rape and other forms of violence? Even if we were to agree that rape is always worse than any violent attack (which is highly dubious) it still wouldn't explain the size of this chasm.

Unfortunately, the only explanation for this is, in a word, politics.

Unless, someone would care to proffer another reason?

That makes sense.

I think also violence is written into the male script, we are desensitised to it, thanks to history and culture but male on female violence is seen as an abuse of power.

Years ago, not in Ireland there was a famous case of a rape and murder of a teenage girl in New York. It was highly politicised as a rape case.

Local word though was that it was rough sex gone wrong. He strangled her with her underpants. There were witnesses who watched the whole thing but their parents sent them to Europe for the summer to stay out of it.

He did end up with a murder charge in the end.

Intimate violence, whether domestic or rape, snowballed politically because it became a kind of paradigm for activist groups to claim rape is the articulation of men's attitude to women in general.

Rape became a metaphor in what I'd view as political theatre.

I don't mean to diminish its severity here either, but I think these are some of the reasons it secured the spotlight.

raah! · 17-07-2015 12:16pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

It really is trivializing physical assault to suggest it is nothing more than a punch in the face.

Allow me to ammend my statement: "There is not the same level of shame or long lasting mental perturbation associated with, for example, being punched in the face". Being punched in the face is one form of physical assault which can be considered trivial. In terms of long lasting psychological damage, I think rape is different. All forms of rape cause lasting mental disturbance, not all types of physical assault do.

A friend of mine was jumped years ago by a random group of lads simply looking for a fight and woke up two days later in a hospital, having been kicked in the face repeatedly while wearing glasses, which resulted in his losing sight in one eye - what do you think the psychological consequences of that might be?

Whatever they were I'm sure they would have been worse if he were raped. If you take on average for all people the consequences of rape versus the consequences of plain old assault, you'll find that rape has the much longer lasting psychological damage on people.

Whatever mental trauma arises from this attack this guy has, would also arise with a rape, but then with the rape there would be alot more possible ones. They both have fears of safety and mistrust of strangers and all things like this, but with rape you are far more likely to get all this added stuff about how disgusting the act it.

Furthermore, it is only the most extreme cases of normal attacks that can be compared with most rapes in terms of long term psychological trauma. Even a small bit of fiddling, without a large amount of physical abuse, will cause psychological damage.

A small amount of physical abuse should not cause too much psychological damage, and it doesn't. People are (for example

) punched in the face every day, but there are only certain individuals who would be permanently scarred by this. In that case it is some disposition particular to the person and not the assault, and therefore these few people do not warrant the existence of a centre. For the extreme caes of physical assault which are more likely to cause extreme psychological trauma, again these are particular cases of general physical assault, and do not therefore warrant the existence of a centre for all physical assault.

The reason we focus on one and not the other type of attack really comes down to the fact that the former is discussed far more, is pushed as being horrendous far more. Does anyone really want to suggest that rape does not effectively get vastly more 'airtime' than other forms of violence with a straight face?

Unfortunately, that's the answer to the OP's question.

More people commit suicide/etc. over rape than your assorted plain physical assaults (amongst adults) , they are not doing this because it is "talked about more" or because it's being sold to them in a particular way but because it affects them more seriously and in a unique way.

That rape has these more severe and distinct psychological consequences to regular attacks, warrants the existence of these separate centres for dealing with these separate and more severe cases of mental trauma.

The Corinthian · 17-07-2015 12:58pm

raah! wrote: »

Allow me to ammend my statement: "There is not the same level of shame or long lasting mental perturbation associated with, for example, being punched in the face". Being punched in the face is one form of physical assault which can be considered trivial. In terms of long lasting psychological damage, I think rape is different. All forms of rape cause lasting mental disturbance, not all types of physical assault do.

No but what you wrote, and are now doing a U-turn on, did not say that. TBH, given even your most recent post, I don't think it was a typo. I really do think that you consider all other forms of violent, no matter how damaging or deadly to be subordinate to rape.

Whatever they were I'm sure they would have been worse if he were raped.

I'd disagree with you and I'm pretty sure so would he. I would not want to suffer rape or what he went through (and still does), but given the choice, I'd rather have both my eyes and pick rape, thank you.

A small amount of physical abuse should not cause too much psychological damage, and it doesn't.

Why are you constantly trivializing it? You're focusing on lesser assaults and essentially telling us to focus on those and ignore the serious ones. That's quite disingenuous.

jimmycrackcorm · 17-07-2015 1:21pm

raah! wrote: »

Allow me to ammend my statement: "There is not the same level of shame or long lasting mental perturbation associated with, for example, being punched in the face". Being punched in the face is one form of physical assault which can be considered trivial. In terms of long lasting psychological damage, I think rape is different. All forms of rape cause lasting mental disturbance, not all types of physical assault do.

Whatever they were I'm sure they would have been worse if he were raped. If you take on average for all people the consequences of rape versus the consequences of plain old assault, you'll find that rape has the much longer lasting psychological damage on people.

That rape has these more severe and distinct psychological consequences to regular attacks, warrants the existence of these separate centres for dealing with these separate and more severe cases of mental trauma.

While many regular attacks do have consequences that are shorter, I'd argue that people who have resulted in physical damage e.g. facial scarring, where they have a visual reminder every day would find it more traumatic. Not just from attacks, but severe accident trauma also.

raah! · 17-07-2015 1:34pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

No but what you wrote, and are now doing a U-turn on, did not say that. TBH, given even your most recent post, I don't think it was a typo. I really do think that you consider all other forms of violent, no matter how damaging or deadly to be subordinate to rape.

Well that was more or less the whole point of my post. And what I wrote also in no way suggested that "all physical violence is no more than a punch in the face". And what I wrote did say what I amended it to, of course it did. Stick a "for example" does not change the meaning of what said. I was humouring your terrible argument and poor understanding with that, because it was not necessary for us to bicker over semantics. But if we did, you'd be wrong. I picked out a particular trivial case, on my way to making a point about how there are less and more serious cases of physical abuses and these warrent less or more psychological help, but nearly all cases of rape warrent it. Furthermore, in the subsequent post, I very explicitly deal with different magnitudes of violence.

I'd disagree with you and I'm pretty sure so would he. I would not want to suffer rape or what he went through (and still does), but given the choice, I'd rather have both my eyes and pick rape, thank you.

Well I actually didn't see that he had lost an eye. But the equivalent is getting gang raped. Which is also pretty bad. Either way the rape/assault balance in this particular case is not relevant to my argument. As you see in the next part I start talking about "on average" and the different types of assault and the different types of rape.

Why are you constantly trivializing it? You're focusing on lesser assaults and essentially telling us to focus on those and ignore the serious ones. That's quite disingenuous.

Wow. It's very handy to quote half a bit of a sentence, ridiculously misinterpret it, and then ignore the rest of the paragraph that it's contained in. Here's an important part from the rest of the paragraph wherein I specifically address serious assaults:

For the extreme caes of physical assault which are more likely to cause extreme psychological trauma, again these are particular cases of general physical assault, and do not therefore warrant the existence of a centre for all physical assault.

I also very very very clearly say here "small abuse" not "all abuse". What I have said is "trivial assaults are trivial" not "all physical assault is trivial". I very very clearly also draw the distinction between heavy forms of assault and light ones, and that difference drawn between them was in fact central to the argument I made, which you obviously did not understand or even read if this is your response. The point was that on the smaller scale, just being punched on the face, it is more or less trivial compared to the lightest rapes.

raah! · 17-07-2015 1:47pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

While many regular attacks do have consequences that are shorter, I'd argue that people who have resulted in physical damage e.g. facial scarring, where they have a visual reminder every day would find it more traumatic. Not just from attacks, but severe accident trauma also.

Again the point is this:

Small physical assaults are very unlikely to cause any psychological trauma, scarring or no, especially if they are simply like a car accident in which you are uninjured.
(the psychological damage that would be cause in both a rape and an assault has to do with it's being done to you by a person, not as an accident)

Most rapes case serious psychological trauma.

It is only the most extreme cases of assault which can be compared with rape in terms of lasting psychological damage (damage that requires counselling of a particular kind).

So, why should there be a rape crisis centre and not a "any form of violence perpetrated to anyone centre" ?

All rapes are likely to cause significant psychological damage, therefore any person who is raped would benefit from going there. Furthermore, people who are raped require a particular kind of counselling (probably to do with being ashamed or dirty, or emasculated or what have you)

Not all regular assaults cause this damage, people who have been assaulted physically and need counselling are either particular sensitive to trivial trauma, or have suffered from a particularly extreme trauma.

Not all people who have been assaulted would benefit from going to such a place. Furthermore, the sort of psychological distress caused by these accidents is similar in many cases to that caused other normal sorts of accidents.

> In the case of rape, specific counselling centres are warranted, but in the case of "other injuries" where the types of psychological damage may vary from person to person and the types of injury too, the help these people need, if they need any, can not all be gathered in one roof, and therefore there should not be an "Injury crisis centre".

eviltwin · 17-07-2015 1:53pm

The Corinthian · 17-07-2015 1:54pm

raah! wrote: »

And what I wrote also in no way suggested that "all physical violence is no more than a punch in the face".

I'm sorry, but that's exactly what you implied in what you wrote. Not semantics, just English. Your subsequent post began as a climb down and then you spent the rest of it turning the focus on lesser assaults, as if serious ones didn't exist.

Well I actually didn't see that he had lost an eye.

More correctly he lost sight in an eye. 98%. Blind. Does it make a difference that the eyeball is still there?

But the equivalent is getting gang raped. Which is also pretty bad. Either way the rape/assault balance in this particular case is not relevant to my argument. As you see in the next part I start talking about "on average" and the different types of assault and the different types of rape.

Feel free to let us know what the average actually is then. And then explain how that stacks up against the chasm of difference in which assault and rape are treated, as outlined in the OP.

So, presuming that you are no dismissing the seriousness of assault, why would you say that it is barely catered to as rape is? That is the question posed in this thread, after all.

Penny Tration · 17-07-2015 1:56pm

eviltwin wrote: »

removed out of respect for eviltwin deleting her post.

This. Yes, any physical assault is awful and can absolutely lead to trauma.

But being brutally attacked, while awful, doesn't leave the same sense of indignity that rape does. Having something forcibly put into your body over and over, hearing the grunts of pleasure that your body is unwillingly giving to the person.. It's just not the same. When you're beaten up, you do not give up the use of your most intimate body parts during the act. You don't have to hear the sexual pleasure the perpetrator is gaining from violating you.

It's not just a violation of your body. It's a violation of your intimate parts.

raah! · 17-07-2015 2:07pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's exactly what you implied in what you wrote. Not semantics, just English. Your subsequent post began as a climb down and then you spent the rest of it turning the focus on lesser assaults, as if serious ones didn't exist.

Please take my posts to mean what I say they meant rather than what your poor ability to communicate leads you to believe they mean. If you want to argue against the point "every form of physical abuse is the same as a punch in the face", go ahead, but that is irrelevant to the point of the thread, and not what I meant.

More correctly he lost sight in an eye. 98%. Blind. Does it make a difference that the eyeball is still there?

No, it would be worthlessly pedantic for me to say that wouldn't it.

Feel free to let us know what the average actually is then. And then explain how that stacks up against the chasm of difference in which assault and rape are treated, as outlined in the OP.

So, presuming that you are no dismissing the seriousness of assault, why would you say that it is barely catered to as rape is? That is the question posed in this thread, after all.

Please see my posts, where I explicitly reference extreme cases of assault (as I pointed out to you in a response to your last response to my post which you also didn't read), and then explicitly say why it cannot be catered to in the same way that rape was. It doesn't seem like you are able to read them at all.

Sleepy · 17-07-2015 2:27pm

I have to admit this is one that's always somewhat puzzled me too. I suspect it largely stems from the thinking that sex is something that's sinful / wrong / disgusting in the first instance. When you have that as a starting point, of course non-consensual sex is going to be a horrifying concept.

Add the historical context of a woman being considered a man's property and the impossibility of knowing whether any resultant child would be his or the rapists and it's easy understand why rape was considered such an abomination by many men in the past too.

There's quite a spectrum of rape ranging from the "didn't say no but didn't express consent either" / drunk and taken advantage of date-rape scenarios all the way through to violent gang rape and battery yet this distinction is rarely made when discussing the topic. If you're going to compare the lower ends of that spectrum with the lower ends of assault (a punch let's say) then, yeah, I'd personally rather take the punch but if you're contrasting the lower end of that spectrum to a more savage assault like that suffered by The Corinthian's friend, or being on the receiving end of a glass / bottle that hypothetical choice becomes a lot harder to make. Even ruling out the possibility of the loss of sight in one eye (which for someone who has astigmatism like myself could result in me being legally blind) I'm still not sure I'd prefer to take a beating of that magnitude than to be the victim of a non-violent rape.

It may be easier for me to consider such a choice as a man however, for the purely biological reason that should I be raped, I can't get pregnant. Even in modern Ireland, a woman is forced to go abroad to abort such an unwanted pregnancy. For many this may not even be considered an option (whether as a result of their own personal beliefs or the religious orders control of our education having forced the anti-abortion message down their throats in their formative years).

The Corinthian · 17-07-2015 2:32pm

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

But being brutally attacked, while awful, doesn't leave the same sense of indignity that rape does.

I suspect Guido Nasi might disagree with you. In fact, there are quite a few brutal attacks that one can suffer who's consequences are so extreme that I could see myself preferring rape if that was the alternative.

No one is suggesting that rape is not a heinous act, but that the 'fate worse than death' will always be worse of any other possible act, no matter how brutal, no matter what the physical or psychological consequences are, just doesn't wash.

There, I've said Jehovah.

raah! wrote: »

Please take my posts to mean what I say they meant rather than what your poor ability to communicate leads you to believe they mean.

If you're going to relay on personal attacks to defend yourself, there's not much more we have to discuss. I take your posts to mean what they say, not what you backtrack to or your own poor ability to communicate in the unlikely event that you actually did originally mean something different.

But seeing as outside of insult there's little more to your posts I'll give them the response they deserve from this point on.

raah! · 17-07-2015 2:37pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you're going to relay on personal attacks to defend yourself, there's not much more we have to discuss. I take your posts to mean what they say, not what you backtrack to or your own poor ability to communicate in the unlikely event that you actually did originally mean something different.

Yeah you're right, all along the only thing I said is that all physical assault is the same as a single punch in the face.

Either way, I've pointed out clearly why rape is given different treatment to "other injuries" in several posts. It is because rape is inherently different to other types of violence, and not the feminist conspiracy you seem to believe it is.

Sleepy · 17-07-2015 2:40pm

raah! wrote: »

Either way, I've pointed out clearly why rape is given different treatment to "other injuries" in several posts. It is because rape is inherently different to other types of violence, and not the feminist conspiracy you see to believe it is.

Honestly, you haven't proven that at all. Simply stated it with an implied "FACT!" at the end of your sentences.

raah! · 17-07-2015 2:44pm

Sleepy wrote: »

Honestly, you haven't proven that at all. Simply stated it with an implied "FACT!" at the end of your sentences.

Well I never put a "fact!" at the end of anything, but I gave reasons why it would be treated differently. If my posts took that tone it was only with respect to responding to things which were saying "your whole argument is that being punched in the face is the same as every other form of assault". This is something that I can infact say is wrong. With a fact at the end. If the only response to my arguments rely on a misinterpretation of them, then I can say that they have not been responded to and so stand and then the argument is over.

And also I think I did show that rape is different, as well as others in the thread. The type and magnitude of psychological trauma are different and more severe on average, across the rape spectrum, than they are across the spectrum of regular physical assault. Both the differentness and the severeness warrant separate and unique treatment in the cases of rape.

jobbridge4life · 17-07-2015 2:59pm

I agree with Corinthian’s analysis. I think there are more elements involved in the mix. Our attitude to sex overall is responsible for the special position afforded rape in society. Unlike other physical assaults which are a violation of our person, rape is a violation of our sexual person which in general is regarded as being on an even more intimate, personal level than the rest of our bodies or lives. To a large degree much of this has to do with historical patriarchal views on female sexuality. A woman’s worth was intrinsically linked to her sexuality. To rape a woman was to deprive her of her virginity or to breach her sexual possession by her husband, the sources of her value to man. So in this case we can easily see why rape was of much greater concern and consequence than other physical assaults.
I think the trend towards medicalization of victimhood has also contributed to the issue. Rape along with other sexual assaults have increasingly been seen as hugely traumatizing experiences with a list of expected reactions that are treated like symptoms of a disease and assumed to be ubiquitous among survivors. I want to be really clear I am not questioning that rape is deeply traumatic but I believe a model has been espoused for how it must affect one and to deviate from that even as a victim is not really acceptable. We see a similar dynamic regarding other sexual crimes and at the moment sex work.

jjC123 · 17-07-2015 3:12pm

Rape is a completely different crime to violent assault.

This isn't an attempt to trivialise assault, I have a good friend who was burned in an attack and I can attest that it took a truly, unimaginably horrific toll on him.
But rape is something else, along with being a brutal and violent assault, it comes with a sense of shame, of being dirty, a loss of power, a deep sense of emasculation in male rape victims. It's one of the most awful violations of a person imaginable.

An attack is horrific but there isn't any shame in being attacked. A person with a burn or a wound or a black eye receive immediate empathy from those around them (and rightly so). Rape isn't always visible and comes with a sense of mistrust from some people - were you 'asking for it', were you drunk, what were you wearing, men can't be raped, you deserved it (particularly relevent for prison rape), it doesn't count if it was a huband/wife/partner etc. The psychological aspect of rape is so complex and difficult that the rape crisis centre needs to be just that - for rape victims.

Victims of assault have a different set of needs and should have their own support network for counselling etc. But bear in mind that many assaults take place in the home and domestic abuse supports are quite good (from what I know of them) and the number of violent assaults is, I imagine, much less than that of rape? Seeing as assault is mostly reported and rape more often than not isn't?

It's not a trivialisation of assault, but to compare it to rape is farcical - they are two very different crimes.
Also, as a side note, I wonder how many of the people here who would chose 'light' rape (?!?!?!?!) over a grievous assault are men?

zeffabelli · 17-07-2015 3:13pm

raah! wrote: »

Well I never put a "fact!" at the end of anything, but I gave reasons why it would be treated differently. If my posts took that tone it was only with respect to responding to things which were saying "your whole argument is that being punched in the face is the same as every other form of assault". This is something that I can infact say is wrong. With a fact at the end. If the only response to my arguments rely on a misinterpretation of them, then I can say that they have not been responded to and so stand and then the argument is over.

And also I think I did show that rape is different, as well as others in the thread. The type and magnitude of psychological trauma are different and more severe on average, across the rape spectrum, than they are across the spectrum of regular physical assault. Both the differentness and the severeness warrant separate and unique treatment in the cases of rape.

Do you have any studies to back this up?

Are you seriously claiming that a rape victim has suffered more trauma than a soldier in war time?

Or watching a family member get sliced with a machete?

How do you have any certainty of these speculative claims of your?

The Corinthian · 17-07-2015 3:21pm

jjC123 wrote: »

An attack is horrific but there isn't any shame in being attacked.

Are you sure about this? The theme of powerlessness at being beaten to a pulp is not uncommon in the tales of those who have been victims to brutal assaults.

A person with a burn or a wound or a black eye receive immediate empathy from those around them (and rightly so).

And those who have injuries that will never heal, like Guido Nasi? Why is it that all assaults seem to have to be little more than punches in the face when one is demonstrating that rape is so much more serious?

So you seriously think that a rape that results in no long lasting physical consequence is still going to be more serious than what happened to Guido Nasi?

Also, as a side note, I wonder how many of the people here who would chose 'light' rape (?!?!?!?!) over a grievous assault are men?

Sorry, but what are you suggesting?

jjC123 · 17-07-2015 3:24pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Do you have any studies to back this up?

Are you seriously claiming that a rape victim has suffered more trauma than a soldier in war time?

Or watching a family member get sliced with a machete?

How do you have any certainty of these speculative claims of your?

I don't think anyone is trying to say that. But the attacks you mention are on the end of the violent assault 'spectrum' as the previous poster put it. Soldiers have their own specific supports as far as I know btw, as war is something very different. But how many people in this country experience an attack such as 'watching a family member get sliced with a machete'? And then compare that number with how many get violently raped?

The rape crisis centre is there for rape victims. Simple. That's not to say assault victims don't deserve support, they do. And they usually get it, because more often than not, it gets reported. Rape doesn't, which is why the rape crisis centre is so high profile.

Sleepy · 17-07-2015 3:25pm

jjC123 wrote: »

Also, as a side note, I wonder how many of the people here who would chose 'light' rape (?!?!?!?!) over a grievous assault are men?

This actually demonstrates the hysteria with which rape is treated perfectly imo.

The only use of the word "light" to describe rape in this thread until your post was by rah in a fashion that insinuated that such a thing couldn't exist. I did make the point that there is a spectrum of severity of the types of rape one can suffer. I trust you can agree with this without the need for a gruesome game of "which would you rather have happen to you"?

If so, I think it's a bit disingenuous to argue that a rape which causes no physical harm is a worse crime than an assault that leaves one permanently maimed or otherwise disfigured.

The very claiming of the term "survivor" rather than the word "victim" by many of those who've suffered being raped would tell you that it's something that can be endured, that the psyche is capable of recovering from. True the woman who's burned in an acid attack may come to terms with this over time but it's my guess (and fortunately, not my knowledge) that such an assault would be far harder to get back to living a "normal" life from than a non-violent rape.

raah! · 17-07-2015 3:27pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Do you have any studies to back this up?

Are you seriously claiming that a rape victim has suffered more trauma than a soldier in war time?

Or watching a family member get sliced with a machete?

How do you have any certainty of these speculative claims of your?

We all have experience of physical trauma, both in our lives and in the news. I would hope that you draw on your own experiences and those you have read about. If a study which purports to be about a part of the world does not reflect yours or others' experiences of that same part of the world, then that study is likely not correct. There is nothing magic about observation. Every time you were injured can be considered an experiment performed by you on the nature of injury. The "certainty" I have comes from a basic capacity to observe the world around me (in a scientific manner) and also to empathise with other people.

With comparisons of different extreme cases it will of course depend on the extreme cases being compared.

With respect to soliders at war time they should of course receive the counselling specific to what they have experienced, and just like with rape crisis centres, this can be collected in one place and those places should exist, and they do.

I think good example to show the difference in type, and in severity, of the trauma caused to rape victims is this:

Consider any act of physical assault. - This is bad

Now consider that the perpetrator of that assault took some enjoyment from causing the harm to the person. - This is normally considered worse

Now consider that the enjoyment took the form of sexual pleasure - Again this is considered worse, and especially for the victim.

As to studies, look up how men in prison who are raped commit suicide. Look up how abused children tend to abuse themselves.

All of this , and more, warrants there being a distinct treatment of rape. Whether or not being raped is worse than a particular physical assault (and I would be of the opinion that in most cases it is) , it is most definitely different, and with different consequences, and needs to be dealt with differently.

jjC123 · 17-07-2015 3:33pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you sure about this? The theme of powerlessness at being beaten to a pulp is not uncommon in the tales of those who have been victims to brutal assaults.

And those who have injuries that will never heal, like Guido Nasi? Why is it that all assaults seem to have to be little more than punches in the face when one is demonstrating that rape is so much more serious?

So you seriously think that a rape that results in no long lasting physical consequence is still going to be more serious than what happened to Guido Nasi?

Sorry, but what are you suggesting?

I'm suggesting that because rape is a crime that is usually perpetrated against women that the lack of understanding shown in such ridiculous wording as 'light rape' is coming from men.

And I never suggested that assault isn't serious, psychologically damaging or scarring. At all. I am saying that rape has different psychological implications because it is a very different crime. I highly doubt anyone would object to an organisation that supports victims of violent assault but I don't think that it should be some sort of merging with the rape crisis centre.

The rape crisis centre is high profile because a) rape is extremely common b) rape often goes unreported so victims don't get the support they need and c) for a long time rape wasn't seen as serious a crime as it is so an organisation that attempts to change attitudes towards rape is extremely important.

zeffabelli · 17-07-2015 3:35pm

raah! wrote: »

We all have experience of physical trauma, both in our lives and in the news. I would hope that you draw on your own experiences and those you have read about. If a study which purports to be about a part of the world does not reflect yours or others' experiences of that same part of the world, then that study is likely not correct. There is nothing magic about observation. Every time you were injured can be considered an experiment performed by you on the nature of injury. The "certainty" I have comes from a basic capacity to observe the world around me (in a scientific manner) and also to empathise with other people.

With comparisons of different extreme cases it will of course depend on the extreme cases being compared.

With respect to soliders at war time they should of course receive the counselling specific to what they have experienced, and just like with rape crisis centres, this can be collected in one place and those places should exist, and they do.

I think good example to show the difference in type, and in severity, of the trauma caused to rape victims is this:

Consider any act of physical assault. - This is bad

Now consider that the perpetrator of that assault took some enjoyment from causing the harm to the person. - This is normally considered worse

Now consider that the enjoyment took the form of sexual pleasure - Again this is considered worse, and especially for the victim.

As to studies, look up how men in prison who are raped commit suicide. Look up how abused children tend to abuse themselves.

All of this , and more, warrants there being a distinct treatment of rape. Whether or not being raped is worse than a particular physical assault (and I would be of the opinion that in most cases it is) , it is most definitely different, and with different consequences, and needs to be dealt with differently.

Of course I have, but I'm not going to draw universal abstractions from my own experience. And neither should you unless you have something to inform what you are saying.

I do know that trauma is very complicated and varies from individual to individual, whether the trauma was repeated, or a once off and how memory has calibrated the experiences.

Sleepy · 17-07-2015 3:37pm

I have to agree that I do see validity in having distinct counselling services for different types of trauma: rape / assault / PTSD etc.

What I disagree with is that being raped is inherently worse than any other form of assault.

There are instances where it's far worse e.g. most would rather be slapped than raped and there are others where it may not be (to use a non-violent assault as an example for a change): to be deliberately falsely accused of having abused a child could lead to someone being completely ostracized within their community, to having their marriage end, to not being allowed to see their children without the supervision of a social worker, to lose their job and to become the victim of regular actual or threatened assaults.

While rape is a horrible thing, there are worse things that one can endure and the "fate worse than death" scenario presented by many diminishes their cause greatly.

The Corinthian · 17-07-2015 3:38pm

jjC123 wrote: »

I'm suggesting that because rape is a crime that is usually perpetrated against women that the lack of understanding shown in such ridiculous wording as 'light rape' is coming from men.

And statements like that are typically perpetrated my misandrist fanatics who are so caught up in their own ideological reality that they will see any questioning of it as a heresy.

Basically, you've invalidate the opinions of others on the basis of gender. Because men can't get raped and we naturally cannot understand it. Well done.

The Corinthian · 17-07-2015 3:40pm

Sleepy wrote: »

I have to agree that I do see validity in having distinct counselling services for different types of trauma: rape / assault / PTSD etc.

No one's suggested it shouldn't. The question posed in the OP was "why rape gets so much attention vs other crimes against the person"? Don't get bogged down by other people's straw men.

Sleepy · 17-07-2015 3:42pm

jjC123 wrote: »

I'm suggesting that because rape is a crime that is usually perpetrated against women that the lack of understanding shown in such ridiculous wording as 'light rape' is coming from men.

And as I've already pointed out. The only uses of the phrase "light rape" in this thread were by yourself and raah!

jjC123 · 17-07-2015 3:45pm

Sleepy wrote: »

I have to agree that I do see validity in having distinct counselling services for different types of trauma: rape / assault / PTSD etc.

What I disagree with is that being raped is inherently worse than any other form of assault.

There are instances where it's far worse e.g. most would rather be slapped than raped and there are others where it may not be (to use a non-violent assault as an example for a change): to be deliberately falsely accused of having abused a child could lead to someone being completely ostracized within their community, to having their marriage end, to not being allowed to see their children without the supervision of a social worker, to lose their job and to become the victim of regular actual or threatened assaults.

While rape is a horrible thing, there are worse things that one can endure and the "fate worse than death" scenario presented by many diminishes their cause greatly.

But trying to compare violent, damaging, crimes is ridiculous. The effect that a crime has on someone, be it a rape, a stabbing or an acid attack is going to vary massively depending on the victim.

Would you prefer to be raped or shot? I reckon I'd say shot, someone else might say rape and a sensible person would say don't be a dope.

All victims deserve support. Duh. But different types of victims get different supports and supporting one in no way diminishes the needs of the other.

raah! · 17-07-2015 3:47pm

If you define a scale of severity, there is going to be descriptions on this scale of "lgiht-heavy", "severe-unsevere" etc. There is no difference between saying "light rape" and saying "there is a scale of severity". To say that rape always has to be prefaced with some term like "still horrible terrible" and then "but less bad on thsi scale" is ridiculous.

Banning the use of language like that will completely disable any discussion by saying that no thing can be worse than any other. Thankfully the idea that different traumas (rape or otherwise) cannot be compared is not one which is accepted outside of people trying to push a particular agenda

jjC123 · 17-07-2015 3:49pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

And statements like that are typically perpetrated my misandrist fanatics who are so caught up in their own ideological reality that they will see any questioning of it as a heresy.

Basically, you've invalidate the opinions of others on the basis of gender. Because men can't get raped and we naturally cannot understand it. Well done.

I think you'll see from my first post that I fully accept that men can be rape victims.

Sleepy · 17-07-2015 3:52pm

If you define a scale of severity, there is going to be descriptions on this scale of "lgiht-heavy", "severe-unsevere" etc. There is no difference between saying "light rape" and saying "there is a scale of severity". To say that rape always has to be prefaced with some term like "still horrible terrible" and then "but less bad on thsi scale" is ridiculous.

That's a fair point, if you want to use insensitive language, there clearly is such a thing as a "lighter rape" and a "heavier rape". However, the only ones to use such language were you and jjC123 and that, as such, jjC123 using such language as an illustration of "the lack of understanding shown" by men to the topic of rape is rather disingenuous / a strawman argument.

But trying to compare violent, damaging, crimes is ridiculous.

Then why do different violent, damaging crimes attract different prison sentences?

jjC123 · 17-07-2015 4:05pm

Sleepy wrote: »

That's a fair point, if you want to use insensitive language, there clearly is such a thing as a "lighter rape" and a "heavier rape". However, the only ones to use such language were you and jjC123 and that, as such, jjC123 using such language as an illustration of "the lack of understanding shown" by men to the topic of rape is rather disingenuous / a strawman argument.

Then why do different violent, damaging crimes attract different prison sentences?

How does a judge decide on a sentence?
When considering what sentence to impose on you, the judge follows a two-step procedure:

Decide what the sentence should be in light of the seriousness of the offence.
Reduce that sentence in the light of any mitigating or excusing factors given on your behalf.
There are a number of important factors that a judge must have regard to, when sentencing you. It is a matter for your solicitor or barrister, on your behalf, to urge the judge to consider these factors and what weight or importance should be given to each.

When deciding which sentence to impose on you, the judge considers:

Whether or not you pleaded guilty to the offence
The facts of the offence - the circumstances in which the offence occurred
Whether there were any aggravating factors in relation to the offence - such as particularly violent or cruel behaviour
Your previous criminal record
Your character
Your age
Your family circumstances
Whether you are employed
Whether you are sorry for what you have done
Whether certain types of treatment may help or reform you
The impact of the offence on the victim
Any other relevant information about you (for example, if you are in bad health)

Source: citizensinformation.ie

I've bolded the impact of the offence on the victim because I think it further illustrated that there's no point in comparing crimes like rape and assault because the impact (psychologically anyway) will vary according to the victim.

In reference to 'light rape', yes, I agree some rapes are more 'severe' than others though I think the term 'light rape' is particularly bad but my main point was that I take issue with previous posters saying I'd take 'light rape', 'non-violent rape' etc over "insert horrible crime here".

Sleepy · 17-07-2015 4:14pm

Ok, so you take issue with people expressing the opinion that there are worse things to suffer than being raped? I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me.

The very fact that the impact of different crimes on different victims (psychologically or otherwise) will be different would imply that the sentencing should be based on the circumstances of each individual case (along with all the other factors you've listed).

Yet we frequently hear calls for minimum sentencing (or the more rabble rousing "chop his balls off" / "chemical castration" stuff that comes up) whenever rape is discussed. It seems, to me at least, that many behave irrationally as soon as the word "rape" is mentioned. Though, in truth, I think most people behave irrationally as soon as sex of any kind is the topic at hand.

The Corinthian · 17-07-2015 4:18pm

jjC123 wrote: »

I think you'll see from my first post that I fully accept that men can be rape victims.

But from your subsequent post you also go on to suggest that men cannot understand rape. So is that just men need to be raped before they can understand it?

Or is that just people who bring up 'light' rape? That would be you and raah!, BTW.

The Corinthian · 17-07-2015 4:23pm

Sleepy wrote: »

Ok, so you take issue with people expressing the opinion that there are worse things to suffer than being raped? I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me.

Think of it more as an article of faith than a rational position.

jjC123 · 17-07-2015 4:29pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

But from your subsequent post you also go on to suggest that men cannot understand rape. So is that just men need to be raped before they can understand it?

Or is that just people who bring up 'light' rape? That would be you and raah!, BTW.

I admit, the wording was somewhat sexist. And I in no way think that men cannot understand rape. But I do think women are more sensitive to it, because they've been taught to fear it (you could argue that men are taught to fear violence seeing as they're more often victims of it I suppose). A girl leaves a party the response from her friends is 'don't walk home alone, you might get raped'. A boy is told 'don't walk alone at night, you might be attacked.'

So when I see a post saying "I think I'd rather be raped ('light rape' or non violent rape or whatever wording you chose) than...." my immediate assumption would be that it comes from a man. Not because of malice but because they aren't conditioned to fear rape the way women are.

Aimead · 17-07-2015 4:39pm

I simply cannot wrap my head around someone claiming that rape, in all instances thereof, is worse than assault, in all instances thereof. To me that is crazy talk.

The people in my life who have experienced both and talked to me about it are my uncles, who suffered at the hands of the Christian Brothers. The got both buggered and battered. When I seen this thread I thought I’d ask them about it, and both are adamant that the beatings were far far worse than the buggering. I’m paraphrasing “When you got the belt or the bar it would sting like nettles for days after. One bad <snipped> busted my leg and I could hardly walk for weeks. When you’re pissing pain and can’t sleep for days you canna think of nothing else.”

I kinda knew what their answer was going to be, and given the severity of the assaults in their particular case their opinion shouldn’t really be controversial.

Others have already mentioned this theme but I think it bears repeating. If given the choice between getting forcibly raped but not seriously injured physically and being beaten into a vegetative state I would have to choose the former.

As to the answer to the OP’s question, I’ll reiterate similar sentiments to others but in a less diplomatic fashion. The answer is that there are opportunistic feckers who use the topic as both a tool for political ends and as a convenient stick to beat others with. You can see this in the US with the narrative of “campuses are rife with rape culture”. It really is the ultimate stick to beat your political opponents with. Whenever someone tries to speak sense in opposition you just accuse them of “promoting rape culture”. Tactics that ‘work’ tend to get used, and exploiting a topic like this (callous as it is) seems to be ‘working’ very well.

The Corinthian · 17-07-2015 4:42pm

jjC123 wrote: »

But I do think women are more sensitive to it, because they've been taught to fear it

Bollocks. Sorry, but bollocks. You decided to put down people's opinion on the basis of gender. Rationalizing that does not change that nor make your statement any less chauvinist.

As Sleepy pointed out, there seems to be a position by some whereby it is unacceptable to even question whether any other crime could (gods forbid) be worse than rape. The origins of this are likely patriarchal, but second wave feminism has been more than happy to carry the torch nonetheless. Basically, it's the politics of opportunism.

Long and the short of it, rape gets the lion's share the attention and, subsequently, resources and if you question this... well, you answered that yourself.

And there we have a response to the OP's question.

zeffabelli · 17-07-2015 4:43pm

Sleepy wrote: »

Ok, so you take issue with people expressing the opinion that there are worse things to suffer than being raped? I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me.

The very fact that the impact of different crimes on different victims (psychologically or otherwise) will be different would imply that the sentencing should be based on the circumstances of each individual case (along with all the other factors you've listed).

Yet we frequently hear calls for minimum sentencing (or the more rabble rousing "chop his balls off" / "chemical castration" stuff that comes up) whenever rape is discussed. It seems, to me at least, that many behave irrationally as soon as the word "rape" is mentioned. Though, in truth, I think most people behave irrationally as soon as sex of any kind is the topic at hand.

People are completely irrational about it.

I dared suggest once that even if someone makes a mistake once that does not make them a "rapist." Not of they didn't force themselves the other gazillion times they had sex and there was one time they did something cruel or stupid.

I also met at a party a very high profile young man who had an accusation and a trial where he was found not guilty. I made a very conscious choice to treat him like any other person because the jury has spoken and that's that and I don't know what really happened.and that's how he should be treated. What else can you do?

But the shadow of rapist follows him, public lust to demonise. It's like they're popping out of the trees.

jjC123 · 17-07-2015 5:00pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Bollocks. Sorry, but bollocks. You decided to put down people's opinion on the basis of gender. Rationalizing that does not change that nor make your statement any less chauvinist.

As Sleepy pointed out, there seems to be a position by some whereby it is unacceptable to even question whether any other crime could (gods forbid) be worse than rape. The origins of this are likely patriarchal, but second wave feminism has been more than happy to carry the torch nonetheless. Basically, it's the politics of opportunism.

Long and the short of it, rape gets the lion's share the attention and, subsequently, resources and if you question this... well, you answered that yourself.

And there we have a response to the OP's question.

But I never questioned that rape gets the lions share of media attention and resources? It does. But I mentioned multiple times that this isn't anything to do with rape being "worse" than a violent crime. I'll say it again for clarification, I don't think that rape is worse than violent assault. I think it's a different crime, with a different psychology with different impacts on different victims.

AGAIN, the Rape Crisis Centre is so high profile because a)Rape is a common crime b)it goes unreported and encouraging victims to seek help is good
and c) changing attitudes to rape is important. None of this implies that rape is worse than violent crime.

Also, the Rape Crisis Centres government funding was recently cut resulting in more media coverage.

Sleepy · 17-07-2015 5:11pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Think of it more as an article of faith than a rational position.

Ah, faith, no wonder I'm confused by it

Aimead · 17-07-2015 6:43pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Bollocks. Sorry, but bollocks.

I’m not defending the other poster, but I do think they have a point.

Let me try to illustrate that point by using a less controversial topic as an analogy. My da taught me a bit of mechanicing when I was younger. So if my car has a minor problem I can generally do a decent job. Door window gone astray? I can open the compartment up and bent the holders into shape to fix it. Flat tyre? I can whip out the jack and change it. In my area there is a good chance that I’m the only one who would even attempt those minor fixes. When people I know get a flat tyre they’ll either ring a garage or otherwise get a man to do it. To me that is insane. There seems as if there is a collective ‘learned helplessness’.

To a large extent how we perceive certain situations is learned. What I think the other poster was getting at (and expressing it poorly) is that there is a culture that seems to perpetuate the idea that getting raped is in some way ‘life-ending’, and that being a victim is lifelong. Make no mistake about it, having your body used in a manner against your will is a heinous thing. But this idea that the experience will forever prevent you from being whole is both wrong and unhelpful.

zeffabelli · 19-07-2015 9:03pm

Rape is a charged word that sets off alarms and panic.

To the extent in North America they call it canola oil, not rapeseed oil, due to the negative connotations.

Yet beheadings are now a TV and Internet pastime. No one blinks at the violence.

Rape vs Other Injuries

Comments