Statutory rape isn’t the same as forcible rape, and the secretary was pointing that out.
Wow, I strongly disagree. That’s not rape. As I understand it, rape requires one of two things:
-A clear lack of consent (physical or verbal, or unconsciousness, or other inability to give consent); or
-An initial threat that a reasonable person would understand as a threat of bad action if sex doesn’t occur.
Mindreading isn’t part of the definition of rape. If a conscious woman has sex with a man but never struggles, says no, or otherwise indicates unambiguously that she’s not interested, and if the man doesn’t use some sort of threat (“Have sex with me or you can walk miles home through a dangerous section of town”), there’s no way it’s rape.
That’s not shades of gray, that’s a woman who needs to learn how to speak.
I suppose there could be shades of gray:
-If a woman and a man make out naked in bed, fall asleep, and then one of them wakes up and starts doing something sexual to the sleeping one, is that rape?
-If a guy thinks a woman wouldn’t have sex with him, and plies her with drinks until she’s really buzzed, and then pressures her (without threats or physical force, just pestering her) until she consents, is that rape?
But mindreading doesn’t enter into it.
My work here is done.
No, it is not. Not even close to it.
(my emphasis)
While it’s certainly a dickhead move, I don’t think saying “I’m only giving you a lift home if you have sex with me” is rape, and I’ve never heard anyone claim that it is, or should be.
With regard to the OP, I fully agree with the Justice Secretary that there are different degrees of seriousness of rape, and that sentencing should reflect this. The press is making an issue out of absolutely nothing.
This is what he said about date rape btw:
Seems reasonable enough. Certainly not worth resigning over.
I was paraphrasing something I saw in a recent thread, and left out a key part, I suppose: the situation referenced was one in which a guy offered a girl a lift home, then midway through the lift told her she could either have sex with him or get out and walk. Refusing to give someone a ride when they’re in a place they’ve chosen to be in unless they put out is dickish; forcing someone out of the car unless they put out could endanger their safety, and is enough of a threat under certain circumstances to qualify the sex as rape.
OK, maybe she thought her body language was clear enough, but he didn’t pick up on it. Or maybe she muttered “no” under her breath. Or maybe one person was being sarcastic and the other didn’t pick up on it, or vice-versa. If the situation as presented doesn’t meet your threshold of “rape”, it can be tweaked until it does.
I’m not trying to give you a hard time, but none of these are good enough, IMO, to tweak it into gray areas. Assuming no clear threats are made, there are two responsibilities: the potential rapist needs to back off once it’s clear that the potential victim isn’t interested, and the potential victim needs to make it clear that they’re not interested.
If the potential victim engages in sarcasm, expect body language to be sufficient, or mutters under her breath, she’s not meeting her responsibility. Clear communication through body language goes beyond what’s normally considered body language: running away, pushing the other person away, etc. Unless the potential victim cannot speak, it really ought to be accompanied by clear, loud, unambiguous communication: “Stop!” or “No!” or something even stronger.
Everyone knows what unambiguous communication looks like and sounds like. My two-year-old can hit me if she doesn’t like what I’m doing, can run away if she doesn’t want to be picked up, can say, “Daddy, stop singing that song!” if she wants it to be quiet. A grownup can certainly do the same things.
If someone isn’t interested in sex but fails to communicate their lack of interest in an unambiguous clear manner, then absent some threat or condition that precluded such clear communication, there’s no rape.