posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sigelphoenix at 01:04pm on 05/05/2006 under c.o.r.e., feminism and sexism, sexual violence and harassment
sigelphoenix at 01:04pm on 05/05/2006 under c.o.r.e., feminism and sexism, sexual violence and harassmentAt my most recent training session with CORE, a King County prosecutor came to talk about the legal treatment of rape in Washington state. Now, the man himself was nice - but some of the stuff he told us? Was shit.
Rape in the second degree: This is rape that involves forcible compulsion, which is defined as "physical force which overcomes resistance, or a threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of death or physical injury to herself or himself or another person, or in fear that she or he or another person will be kidnapped." However, we all* know that rape can occur via other methods than physical force. Accordingly, rape 2 does include other circumstances of non-forcible compulsion, such as if the victim is incapacitated. But read the definitions and you can see what other scenarios are included, and you'll also notice that something is missing.
What happens if a rapist threatens a victim in a non-physical way? That is, the rapist doesn't say, "I'll kill/maim you," but says something like, "Have sex with me or I'll make you lose your job." "Have sex with me or I'll make you lose custody of your kids." "Have sex with me or I'll out you to your family." "Have sex with me or I'll tell the police about a crime you committed." These are very real and pressing threats to some people - but they aren't covered under the law.
Apparently, sex under force of psychological or emotional threats do not count as rape. It does in some other states, such as California - but not here.
Rape in the third degree: This is rape that does not involve forcible compulsion, but which occurs with a lack of consent. Simple, right? If the person doesn't want to have sex and you have sex with them, that's rape.
But wait. Read carefully. "A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when [...] such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person, not married to the perpetrator ..."
Oh, you poor silly women, thinking you could say no to sex with your husband! Tsk.
And there's more: that "lack of consent" must be "clearly expressed by the victim's words or conduct." Or else there's no rape. You had to either say "no" or try to fight the person off - never mind if you were scared out of your mind and froze up, or chose not to resist because you were afraid that the rapist might kill you. Nope - that means you wanted it, obviously.
*snarl* You know, next time I hear some whiny-ass entitlement-minded fuckwit complaining about how haaaard it is for men to have sex, because it's soooo easy for women to charge them with rape - I will rip him a new asshole. With joy.
Oh, and there's more! Remember that case a few years ago, about the man filming up women's skirts? Remember how it was ruled that he didn't commit a crime? Well, that's because voyeurism only occurs if it's in a place where the victim "would have a reasonable expectation of privacy" - which, apparently doesn't include underneath a woman's skirt.
Luckily, that law has since been changed. But let's think about this - it's legal to attack a person who trespasses on your property, because we're so obsessed with thinking of our home as our fucking castle - but for a long time it wasn't logical that a woman could expect to protect her privacy when it came to her body? (Just because she was wearing a skirt, the little whore.)
Yeah. This is how we treat women in this bluer-than-blue state of Washington. And make no mistake, these laws do affect women - because women are more likely than men to be the victims, and also because we're more likely to use these laws to fuel our biases against women in cases involving sex crimes.
Jeez, and people wonder why we feminists get so worked up about things - I mean, men and women are treated equally now, aren't they? What do we have to complain about anymore?
*Except for the dipshits who continue to believe that "it's not rape" if the woman wasn't attacked by a stranger who leaped out of the bushes and held a gun to her head, and she didn't fight tooth and nail the whole time. Also, if she wasn't a religious virgin wearing a chastity belt.
Rape in the second degree: This is rape that involves forcible compulsion, which is defined as "physical force which overcomes resistance, or a threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of death or physical injury to herself or himself or another person, or in fear that she or he or another person will be kidnapped." However, we all* know that rape can occur via other methods than physical force. Accordingly, rape 2 does include other circumstances of non-forcible compulsion, such as if the victim is incapacitated. But read the definitions and you can see what other scenarios are included, and you'll also notice that something is missing.
What happens if a rapist threatens a victim in a non-physical way? That is, the rapist doesn't say, "I'll kill/maim you," but says something like, "Have sex with me or I'll make you lose your job." "Have sex with me or I'll make you lose custody of your kids." "Have sex with me or I'll out you to your family." "Have sex with me or I'll tell the police about a crime you committed." These are very real and pressing threats to some people - but they aren't covered under the law.
Apparently, sex under force of psychological or emotional threats do not count as rape. It does in some other states, such as California - but not here.
Rape in the third degree: This is rape that does not involve forcible compulsion, but which occurs with a lack of consent. Simple, right? If the person doesn't want to have sex and you have sex with them, that's rape.
But wait. Read carefully. "A person is guilty of rape in the third degree when [...] such person engages in sexual intercourse with another person, not married to the perpetrator ..."
Oh, you poor silly women, thinking you could say no to sex with your husband! Tsk.
And there's more: that "lack of consent" must be "clearly expressed by the victim's words or conduct." Or else there's no rape. You had to either say "no" or try to fight the person off - never mind if you were scared out of your mind and froze up, or chose not to resist because you were afraid that the rapist might kill you. Nope - that means you wanted it, obviously.
*snarl* You know, next time I hear some whiny-ass entitlement-minded fuckwit complaining about how haaaard it is for men to have sex, because it's soooo easy for women to charge them with rape - I will rip him a new asshole. With joy.
Oh, and there's more! Remember that case a few years ago, about the man filming up women's skirts? Remember how it was ruled that he didn't commit a crime? Well, that's because voyeurism only occurs if it's in a place where the victim "would have a reasonable expectation of privacy" - which, apparently doesn't include underneath a woman's skirt.
Luckily, that law has since been changed. But let's think about this - it's legal to attack a person who trespasses on your property, because we're so obsessed with thinking of our home as our fucking castle - but for a long time it wasn't logical that a woman could expect to protect her privacy when it came to her body? (Just because she was wearing a skirt, the little whore.)
Yeah. This is how we treat women in this bluer-than-blue state of Washington. And make no mistake, these laws do affect women - because women are more likely than men to be the victims, and also because we're more likely to use these laws to fuel our biases against women in cases involving sex crimes.
Jeez, and people wonder why we feminists get so worked up about things - I mean, men and women are treated equally now, aren't they? What do we have to complain about anymore?
*Except for the dipshits who continue to believe that "it's not rape" if the woman wasn't attacked by a stranger who leaped out of the bushes and held a gun to her head, and she didn't fight tooth and nail the whole time. Also, if she wasn't a religious virgin wearing a chastity belt.