Norway woman convicted for rape

Nando19

Norway woman convicted for rape

OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- A Norwegian court has sentenced a woman to nine months in jail for raping a man, the first such conviction in the Scandinavian country that prides itself for its egalitarianism.

The 31-year-old man fell asleep on a sofa at a party in January last year and told the court in the western city of Bergen he woke to find the 23-year-old woman was having oral sex with him.

Under Norwegian law, all sexual acts with someone who is "unconscious or for other reasons unable to oppose the act" are considered rape.

The court sentenced the woman on Wednesday to nine months in jail and ordered her to pay 40,000 Norwegian crowns ($6,355) in compensation.

"This is a very harsh sentence," the woman's lawyer, Per Magne Kristiansen, told the Norwegian news agency NTB. The woman argued the man had been awake and consented.

The prosecutor had sought a 10-month sentence and argued the court should not be more lenient with a woman than a man. It was Norway's first conviction of a woman for rape.

Norway has long traditions of equality -- 40 percent of the cabinet of Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik, for instance, are women.

kasintahan

Poor guy :rolleyes:

uberwolf

kasintahan wrote:

Poor guy :rolleyes:

wow - you just condoned rape.

kjt

Jeez Thats damn harsh, he probably was consious for some of it...
and really, its not like it hurt or he's going to have scaring memories of this.

Over the top!!

Iago

kjt wrote:

Jeez Thats damn harsh, he probably was consious for some of it...
and really, its not like it hurt or he's going to have scaring memories of this.

Over the top!!

How do you know whether it hurt or not? Or the emotional and mental scars that may be left as a result of it? How different is it to a woman waking up to find a man having sex with her? Is it because there is penetration that you beleive it's more serious or aggresive?

rape and abuse is unacceptable whether it's male on female or female on male, it should be punished and a clear deterrant set out to prevent it happening again.

bizmark

kjt wrote:

Jeez Thats damn harsh, he probably was consious for some of it...
and really, its not like it hurt or he's going to have scaring memories of this.

Over the top!!

Omg the double stander's are alive and well i see Man gets raped = ok Women gets raped = biggest evil on the planet If a man did this he would be in prison and rightfuly so a women is sent to jail for it to.

Silent Grape

why is it over the top? if i woke up and found a man going down on me, i would be very distressed, probably suffer from anxiety after the incident, and i would definetely report him for sexual assault. why should a man feel any less violated.

i enjoy oral sex, just like men do, but that doesnt mean i would enjoy a random stranger doing it to me, against my will, while im unconscious.

just like i enjoy sex very much, doesnt mean i enjoyed having a man have sex with me while i was unconscious.

Giblet

I bet she wasn't hot.

Goodshape

^^ rofl. So very true.

kasintahan

uberwolf wrote:

wow - you just condoned rape.

I don't condone it but it's not rape IMO.

1. Men and women regard sex differently (with regards to the separation of the physical and emotional aspects of it). There is no getting away from this.
2. It wasn't against his will at the time of the occurrece only possibly against his will. I would consider the probability that the average male would accede to such a request a mitigating factor.
3. It was only oral (still rape yes, but less so).

Of course, as with everything I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
In fact given that I highly regard Scandic society I would expect to have my opinions changed on this.

seamus

Perhaps the incident distressed him, or otherwise caused him hassle. I know if I woke up and some bint sucking me off, I'd be worried 1. What I might catch off her and 2. what would happen if my girlfriend found out - "She did it without my consent" wouldn't wash with most girlfriends.

[Edit - It also only said "He awoke to find her having oral sex with him". How do we know he didn't wake up with a mouthful of fur? I know that'd distress me.]

Gilgamesh

Giblet wrote:

I bet she wasn't hot.

was kinda thinking the same, but then again, he was asleep,

AARRRGH

Interesting. If I fancied the girl before hand and awake to this I would be very happy. If it was a random stranger who was ugly I'd tell her what the ****. If it was a random stranger who was pretty I'd probably let her continue.

In all cases I would not report her to the police.

However, I understand I am not everyone.

MorningStar

Double standards indeed. You don't even know the purpose she had intended. Isn't there a case of a gay woman doing something similar to get sperm? She had a baby with said sperm and then sued him for child support!
The woman could be HIV positive he could be married and one for the simple minded she could have been ugly. :eek:

Iago

kasintahan wrote:

I don't condone it but it's not rape IMO.

rape1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.
The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.

1. Men and women regard sex differently (with regards to the separation of the physical and emotional aspects of it). There is no getting away from this.

regardless of whether you feel that men are capable of seperating emotion and sex, that's hardly relevant in this case. At best it's invasion of space and body, at worst it's also deeply embarrassing and a mental and physical violation.

2. It wasn't against his will at the time of the occurrece only possibly against his will. I would consider the probability that the average male would accede to such a request a mitigating factor.

She didn' wake him to ask him was he up for it did she? No, she took advantage of him when he wasn't in a position to defend himself. How different is this to a girl waking to a guy on top of her?

3. It was only oral (still rape yes, but less so).

What makes you think it was less traumatic or invasive? Do you think that the act of penetration causes greater emotional and mental damage than being forced to subject to other sexual acts? I would argue that the kind of attitude and thought process that would bring you to that conclusion is immature at the very least and shows a complete lack of awareness as to the impact that any kind of a sexual or phsyical assault has on a person

seamus

In fact, another question. Would this be more criminal if the man was gay, or it was a hetero woman she was performing the act on?

Repli

Maybe he was gay.. nobody think of that?

Zombrex

kjt wrote:

Jeez Thats damn harsh, he probably was consious for some of it...
and really, its not like it hurt or he's going to have scaring memories of this.

Yeah and sure most women who are "raped" are really sluts who are up for it and then have second thoughts ... :rolleyes: :mad:

i think it is about time there was a ruling like this.

AARRRGH

MorningStar wrote:

The woman could be HIV positive he could be married and one for the simple minded she could have been ugly. :eek:

Not trying to go off-topic here, but you can't get HIV from "normal" oral sex.

By "normal" I mean your penis is not bleeding, and her mouth is not bleeding.

bizmark

seamus wrote:

In fact, another question. Would this be more criminal if the man was gay, or it was a hetero woman she was performing the act on?

The only real question you need ask youself is what would happened if a man did this to a women ? and i think we all know the answer to that plus this thread wouldnt be here with insane people claiming the woman wasnt raped because it was "only" oral

Zombrex

kasintahan wrote:

2. It wasn't against his will at the time of the occurrece only possibly against his will. I would consider the probability that the average male would accede to such a request a mitigating factor.

WTF?

That arugment is right up there with saying a girl in a sexy dress is asking to get raped.

kasintahan wrote:

3. It was only oral (still rape yes, but less so).

It was only sexual assault then

rubadub

kasintahan wrote:

I don't condone it but it's not rape IMO.

what would you call it then, sexual assault? It is rape in the courts definition

kasintahan wrote:

1. Men and women regard sex differently (with regards to the separation of the physical and emotional aspects of it). There is no getting away from this.

So you think rape laws should be sexually discriminate? what about other laws? Are there any crimes you think men should be sentenced to less than women?

kasintahan wrote:

2. It wasn't against his will at the time of the occurrece only possibly against his will. I would consider the probability that the average male would accede to such a request a mitigating factor.

Reminds me of the old "she was asking for it" line. She was wearing a low cut top so there was a high probability she wouldnt mind me licking the box off her while she slept, your honour....

kasintahan wrote:

3. It was only oral (still rape yes, but less so).

now you sound like bill clinton

kasintahan

Iago wrote:

rape1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.
The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.

Sure, but even your definition eludes the common understanding that rape is generally accepted as being penetrative. The penetration I would consider a lot more violent.
As a crude example I would ask you whether, hypothetically, you would prefer to be sucked off or penetrated?

Iago wrote:

regardless of whether you feel that men are capable of seperating emotion and sex, that's hardly relevant in this case. At best it's invasion of space and body, at worst it's also deeply embarrassing and a mental and physical violation.

Agreed, I do believe what she did was wrong.

Iago wrote:

She didn' wake him to ask him was he up for it did she? No, she took advantage of him when he wasn't in a position to defend himself. How different is this to a girl waking to a guy on top of her?

Penetrative rape is much more involved and requires the physical domination of another human. Men are usually bigger and stronger. It's not like he woke up and knew he couldn't stop her.

Iago wrote:

Do you think that the act of penetration causes greater emotional and mental damage than being forced to subject to other sexual acts?

Yes. Not to mention physical damage.

Zombrex

kasintahan wrote:

Penetrative rape is much more involved and requires the physical domination of another human. Men are usually bigger and stronger. It's not like he woke up and knew he couldn't stop her.

The guy was asleep. If you sexually assault a woman while she is asleep, are you saying that is not that bad? What if a priest sexually assaults a boy? Is that not that bad because penetration doesn't take place?

Rape is type of sexual assault. ALL types of sexual assault is just as horrible

kasintahan

Wicknight wrote:

WTF?
It was only sexual assault then

The are different, both crimes, but different. That's how our law sees it.

MorningStar

dublindude wrote:

Not trying to go off-topic here, but you can't get HIV from "normal" oral sex.

By "normal" I mean your penis is not bleeding, and her mouth is not bleeding.

Agreed it is unlikely but would it freak you out! And this does not sound like "normal" oral sex so it definitley would cross your mind.

kasintahan

Wicknight wrote:

The guy was asleep. If you sexually assault a woman while she is asleep, are you saying that is not that bad? What if a priest sexually assaults a boy? Is that not that bad because penetration doesn't take place?

I believe that if priest A (or whoever) is caught with his hand on the alterboys knee and priest B inserted up to the hilt - that they have both comitted different crimes, yes.

Zombrex

kasintahan wrote:

I believe that if priest A (or whoever) is caught with his hand on the alterboys knee and priest B inserted up to the hilt - that they have both comitted different crimes, yes.

What if a priest is caught with the boys genitals in his mouth and if he is caught penetrating the boy. Technically they are different actions, but I think you would be a long time trying to convince people that the first action is not as bad as the second.

rubadub

So if the woman had been penetrating him with a dildo while he was sleeping do you think she should have got a longer sentence?

Or would he again have been a "poor guy :rolleyes: "

Reminds me of the female schoolteacher cases where they molest male pupils, "jesus the lucky little bastard"

humanji

Well, what should put a stop to the "whether it was rape or not" argument is the paragraph that says:

Under Norwegian law, all sexual acts with someone who is "unconscious or for other reasons unable to oppose the act" are considered rape.

Therefore she raped him!

koneko

kasintahan wrote:

Sure, but even your definition eludes the common understanding that rape is generally accepted as being penetrative. The penetration I would consider a lot more violent.
As a crude example I would ask you whether, hypothetically, you would prefer to be sucked off or penetrated?

So if your mother or little sister woke up to find some man sucking their vagina, or fingering them, this wouldn't be a problem?

If she rammed a dildo up his behind would that have made it okay? Or if he woke up to find a man with his penis in the victims mouth? Where do you draw the line exactly? Or is it acceptable to you because the victim is a man and the rapist a woman, and he's supposed to love it anyway?

Double standards indeed.

It's not like he woke up and knew he couldn't stop her.

What difference does that make? Does that mean that if a woman manages to get a rapist off her while he's doing it (by spraying mace in his eyes or whatever) - it's okay? She should just run along home and forget about it, because he didn't get to finish what he started?

kasintahan

Wicknight wrote:

What if a priest is caught with the boys genitals in his mouth and if he is caught penetrating the boy. Technically they are different actions, but I think you would be a long time trying to convince people that the first action is not as bad as the second.

Both cases involve a more dominant aggressor...

koneko wrote:

So if your mother or little sister woke up to find some man sucking their vagina, or fingering them, this wouldn't be a problem?

And again, more dominant aggressor...

rubadub wrote:

Reminds me of the female schoolteacher cases where they molest male pupils, "jesus the lucky little bastard"

And again, more dominant aggressor... You've all comparing apples and oranges

koneko wrote:

If she rammed a dildo up his behind would that have made it okay? Or if he woke up to find a man with his penis in the victims mouth? Where do you draw the line exactly? Or is it acceptable to you because the victim is a man and the rapist a woman, and he's supposed to love it anyway?

Double standards indeed.

... Complete misinterpretation, I never said what she did was okay...

koneko wrote:

What difference does that make? Does that mean that if a woman manages to get a rapist off her while he's doing it (by spraying mace in his eyes or whatever) - it's okay? She should just run along home and forget about it, because he didn't get to finish what he started?

Given the choice, would you rather be attacked by a 4 foot 50 pound imp or a 7 foot 250 pound gorilla. Surely you recognise the balance of power as something which modifies the trauma to the injured party?

koneko

kasintahan wrote:

Given the choice, would you rather be attacked by a 4 foot 50 pound imp or a 7 foot 250 pound gorilla. Surely you recognise the balance of power as something which modifies the trauma to the injured party?

It's rape. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter to me if he's heavier than she is or not. He was unconscious and she decided FOR him what was going to happen.

Would it make you feel better if she was really fat and he was a skinny frail little man? You're condoning rape.

uberwolf

rape is often about power. Removing someones right to decide is an exercise in power. Fear is a different thing altogether.

you're arguing over shades of gray here in IMO. You made a flippant remark, one which betrayed an indefensible attitude prevalent in society. You're now struggling to defend that remark to save face rather than due to convictions you hold.

kasintahan

uberwolf wrote:

rape is often about power. Removing someones right to decide is an exercise in power. Fear is a different thing altogether.

you're arguing over shades of gray here in IMO. You made a flippant remark, one which betrayed an indefensible attitude prevalent in society. You're now struggling to defend that remark to save face rather than due to convictions you hold.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said it wasn't rape - because technically it was.

But I do not for one instant think it was as bad as a man penetratively raping a woman. Not for one instant.
However, it was a crime.

Shades of grey? Of course, but that's what the law is, shades of grey.

kasintahan

koneko wrote:

You're condoning rape.

Condoning? :rolleyes: I have repeatedly said it was wrong, just not as bad.

koneko

kasintahan wrote:

Poor guy :rolleyes:

Your initial reaction. It really conveys how sorry you feel for this man who was raped.

Actually, wow... reading it again, it almost seems like he should have been enjoying it instead of crying "rape" like he did. What a stupid man!

Zombrex

kasintahan wrote:

But I do not for one instant think it was as bad as a man penetratively raping a woman. Not for one instant.
However, it was a crime.

How "bad" the action is is decide by how it effects the victim. A woman who is penetrative raped can turn her life around (Torri Amos) while a woman who is merely sexually assaulted can commit suicide.

You have absolutly no idea how this effect the man. You rather disgustingly assumed he didn't actually mind that much.

rubadub

kasintahan wrote:

Given the choice, would you rather be attacked by a 4 foot 50 pound imp or a 7 foot 250 pound gorilla. Surely you recognise the balance of power as something which modifies the trauma to the injured party?

If I was asleep and a woman dropped a brick on my head or a 20 stone wrestler dropped it, it would cause me the same trauma.
A man who, say, ties up a sleeping woman and causes extreme anal tearing by sodomising her with a dildo will usually get more than the 9 months she got. A woman who does the same to a man should get the same sentence in my book. The "power" in this case is the same as the victim is helpless, the trauma is also the same, physically and mentally.

the "poor guy :rolleyes:" comment was the flippant sexist remark people took offence to. I doubt very much you would have made a "poor girl :rolleyes: " remark if you heard something similar happening to your sister

MrPudding

kasintahan wrote:

And again, more dominant aggressor... You've all comparing apples and oranges



... Complete misinterpretation, I never said what she did was okay...


Given the choice, would you rather be attacked by a 4 foot 50 pound imp or a 7 foot 250 pound gorilla. Surely you recognise the balance of power as something which modifies the trauma to the injured party?

I haven't seen any pictures of either the victim or the rapist. Do you have information to suggest that he was much bigger than her and coul dhave easily pushed her off or are you assuming he was bigger "cos most blokes are?"

MrP

kasintahan

koneko wrote:

Your initial reaction. It really conveys how sorry you feel for this man who was raped.

Actually, wow... reading it again, it almost seems like he should have been enjoying it instead of crying "rape" like he did. What a stupid man!

:rolleyes:

Wicknight wrote:

How "bad" the action is is decide by how it effects the victim. A woman who is penetrative raped can turn her life around (Torri Amos) while a woman who is merely sexually assaulted can commit suicide.

You have absolutly no idea how this effect the man. You rather disgustingly assumed he didn't actually mind that much.

A man who wife cheats on him may commit suicide too. It doesn't mean what she did was worse than cheating.

rubadub wrote:

If I was asleep and a woman dropped a brick on my head or a 20 stone wrestler dropped it, it would cause me the same trauma.

The the victim in your example had no defence against the brick no matter who released it. A better example would be a pebble or a brick, one causing minor pain the other major damage.

rubadub wrote:

A man who, say, ties up a sleeping woman and causes extreme anal tearing by sodomising her with a dildo will usually get more than the 9 months she got. A woman who does the same to a man should get the same sentence in my book. The "power" in this case is the same as the victim is helpless, the trauma is also the same, physically and mentally.

I agree. But that wasn't the case here.

rubadub wrote:

the "poor guy :rolleyes:" comment was the flippant sexist remark people took offence to. I doubt very much you would have made a "poor girl :rolleyes: " remark if you heard something similar happening to your sister

My sister isn't male.

MrPudding wrote:

I haven't seen any pictures of either the victim or the rapist. Do you have information to suggest that he was much bigger than her and coul dhave easily pushed her off or are you assuming he was bigger "cos most blokes are?"

MrP

That's fair enough. I am making that assumption. It is generally accepted that men are stroger than women, in our particular example he may not have been.

Bri

kasintahan wrote:

That's fair enough. I am making that assumption.

Indeed, you've been making assumptions from the start...it's pretty much flawed your argument throughout. I'm not going to bore with the potential "what ifs" to undermine what your saying - just consider the fact that you can't know them and for that very reason the law needs to be egalitarian.

Actually I can't resist - what if the guy had been raped in the same manner as a child?

kasintahan

Bri wrote:

an't resist - what if the guy had been raped in the same manner as a child?

Elaborate further

uberwolf

one party made significant sexual contact with another whilst they weren't in a position to prevent it happening. His situation was such that it mattered not a damn if she were 400 lbs - he couldn't stop her - he was unconcious.

Now to be completely honest with you, if it were me and I were single, and she wasn't a destitute death-whore of some description I'd probably be happy enough with the scenario. But he wasn't happy, so didn't forgive her minor oversight in failing to alert him to her interfering with him. So it was rape.

Any form of argument about victim impact is utterly irrelevant. You're not in a position, thankfully, to gauge how he felt after it. Hell some women cum during being raped, does that mean they enjoy the experience?

BuffyBot

more dominant aggressor

Do tell us how you know that the woman wasn't the more dominant aggressor in this case?

rubadub

kasintahan wrote:

:The the victim in your example had no defence against the brick no matter who released it. A better example would be a pebble or a brick, one causing minor pain the other major damage.

There was no mention of force at all. It says "The woman argued the man had been awake and consented", sounds like he woke up and asked her to stop.

kasintahan wrote:

My sister isn't male.

Hmmm great answer... No doubt you understood the question but didnt want to answer.
What if your sister said she woke up to find some puny defenceless guy with 2 broken arms and 2 broken legs giving her oral sex, she wakes up and asks him to stop and he does immediately, apologising saying he thought she was awake and consented. No force, she is obviously able to push him off if he tried to continue. Would you think "poor girl :rolleyes:"

Talliesin

kasintahan wrote:

1. Men and women regard sex differently (with regards to the separation of the physical and emotional aspects of it). There is no getting away from this.

Since I know and have known more than one man and more than one woman well enough to discuss how they emotionally view their sexuality I'd have to say, yes men and women regard sex differently, and so do different men and different women.

There are women that are quite happy to go to swinger clubs and there are men who couldn't imagine having sex outside of a context of a long-term loving monogamous relationship based on mutal love and respect. None of which makes a damn bit of difference if somebody rapes them.

While men getting raped by women are rare men getting raped by men isn't (though still rarer than women getting raped by men). Do you seriously suggest that this is somehow okay, or only not okay because it's same-sex?

kasintahan wrote:

2. It wasn't against his will at the time of the occurrece only possibly against his will. I would consider the probability that the average male would accede to such a request a mitigating factor.

Consent is not a difficult concept to understand. Get a ****ing clue.

kasintahan wrote:

3. It was only oral (still rape yes, but less so).

Under Irish law performing oral sex on someone who does not consent would be sexual assault rather than rape, but that's really not getting the point.

Without knowing the specifics of the case I'm not going to comment on what actually happened in this case (though the fact that such a case is almost unheard of whereas men raping women is horrifically common is noteworthy in itself) but your argument really comes down to constructing male sexuality as nothing beyond a simplistic drive to ejaculate into any human body they can manage to do so, unattached from any other emotion or thought, which is essentially the same ****ed up concept of male sexuality used to justify the actions of those men who commit rape.

The Corinthian

Priceless, you just can’t make up idiocy like this:

kasintahan wrote:

2. It wasn't against his will at the time of the occurrece only possibly against his will.

“Your honour, she was out cold on the couch so I couldn’t really ask her if she fancied doing anal, but she didn’t object either, so it can’t really be rape...”

I would consider the probability that the average male would accede to such a request a mitigating factor.

“Your honour, they’re all asking for it, the little sluts”

:rolleyes:

Syth

Men have gotten raped by women. It usually involves objects.

spudington16

If rape is considered (rightfully) to be wrong and evil is a man does it to a woman then, by the equality laws that women campaigned so hard for, and indeed, by common sense, the woman who performs said act to a man must be made an example and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That there is any division over the clarity of this issue is just foolishness.

Thrasher

kasintahan wrote:

I don't condone it but it's not rape IMO.

1. Men and women regard sex differently (with regards to the separation of the physical and emotional aspects of it). There is no getting away from this.
2. It wasn't against his will at the time of the occurrece only possibly against his will. I would consider the probability that the average male would accede to such a request a mitigating factor.
3. It was only oral (still rape yes, but less so).

My goodness. Three arguments. Nul points.

1. Yes there is. It's called equality in the eyes of the law. If you enjoy random acts of unwanted sex thrust upon you, tell your girlfriend.

2. Possibly against his will, because you are a bloke and you'd love it to happen to you? Reverse the genders and see how ridiculous that argument is. ("She wasn't protesting, my lord, she was asleep....")

3. I'm not sure if she could have done something more degrading, if he wasn't up for it. ("only oral" indeed. In some cultures it's still outlawed. Don't transpose your own values onto what is clearly a legal milestone).

/T