{"id":69,"date":"2004-06-13T23:01:26","date_gmt":"2004-06-14T04:01:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/server97.snhdns.com\/~ravik\/wp\/?p=69"},"modified":"2004-06-13T23:01:26","modified_gmt":"2004-06-14T04:01:26","slug":"when-is-a-rape-a-rape","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ravikiran.com\/blog\/classic\/200406\/when-is-a-rape-a-rape\/","title":{"rendered":"When is a rape a rape?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Having successfully turned Jivha’s comment thread<\/a> into a flame war by making sexist comments at feminists (Well? Can you<\/i> resist making sexist comments at feminists?) I will now post a serious rejoinder to Jivha.
\n
\nI’ll start with the easiest part first. Jivha says<\/p>\n

Connecting past behaviour to such a crime is not just wrong, but also unjust to the victims. It is almost as if we’re telling a rape victim, “Sorry. We’d still like to continue believing the stereotype that rapists are typically strangers…your story about your husband\/boyfriend\/father\/teacher raping you just doesn’t sound convincing. You’ll need much more than just a bruised vagina to convince us!<\/b>” [Emphasis mine]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now perhaps Jivha has not read this part of my post<\/a>?<\/p>\n

However, it would be a an ad hominem argument if we persist in disbelieving in a claim even if there is other evidence to back it up, solely because of the credibility of the person making it<\/b><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oh no! He has actually read it and agreed with it<\/p>\n

Ravikiran is absolutely correct when he says that the argument is “ad hominem” when and if an alleged rape victim produces “evidence” of his\/her rape and is still disbelieved<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And then he cleanly forgets about it a few paragraphs down the line!<\/i> <\/p>\n

No matter, happens to the best of us, especially when we testosterone-charged males seek the thrill of combat in an argument rather than think of it as a dispassionate search for the truth. We get seduced by rhetorical flourishes that sound good, but lead us into a trap. We live and learn. Today I learnt that Jivha must be very good at Maths. (Don’t make me explain the twisted logic of the last statement. I am trying to be polite<\/i>)<\/p>\n

To be fair to Jivha, that statement was rhetorical overheating. The main part of his argument does respond to my points without misrepresenting them. I was essentially claiming that when it is a question of his word against hers, it matters whether they’ve had consensual sex before.<\/i> Obviously, if we are talking of husband and wife the dynamics would change a lot more.<\/p>\n

But the argument Jivha makes is really strange. He ends up arguing that it should be possible to convict a husband for raping his wife, with no evidence at all.<\/b> In fact, the husband may not be even in a position to know that he is raping his wife!<\/b><\/p>\n

This strange result comes about because of two strange generalisations that Jivha makes. Once again, to be fair to Jivha, these sloppy generalisations are made by all feminists.<\/p>\n

First, “had sex with the accused the previous night”<\/b> goes under the general heading of past sexual history. <\/b> Is Jivha saying that this is a valid generalisation to make? Are no details lost while making the generalisation?<\/p>\n

Second, husbands and boyfriends<\/b> are lumped into the general category of acquaintances<\/b> or members of the family.<\/b> The former group would include everyone the woman knows, including the waiter at her favourite restaurant. The latter group includes her father, brother, brother-in-law, father-in-law, etc. Is Jivha really saying that there is no need to distinguish among these? <\/p>\n

Let’s look at Jivha’s argument.<\/p>\n

And why should the past sexual history of a rape victim be “irrelevant” you ask. I’ll use two examples to illustrate my point:<\/p>\n

Example A: Alley Rape – a woman is going down a dark alley in a relatively dangerous section of town and is attacked by a person and subsequently raped. Let us assume that the victims name is A and her attackers, B.<\/p>\n

Example B: Date Rape\/Acquaintence Rape\/Marriage Rape – a married woman does not want to have sex with her husband one particular night but her husband still forces himself upon her. The married woman is C and her husband, D.<\/p>\n

If we assume that it is OK and “relevant” to bring in the past sexual behaviour of a person into every rape case, C would clearly need to show much more evidence of having put up a fight(to her husband, mind you) than A. For the same reason, D would have a much more lenient hearing than B.<\/p>\n

The link between a past event(s) or past behaviour of a person and a present case involving rape rests on an assumption that can be simply paraphrased as “If A or B had consensual sex with C or D in the past, why would it not be consensual in this case?” In short, the bar for proving rape is set higher when the accused is known to the victim!<\/b>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Note the silent (and probably unthinking) generalisation from “husband” to “accused is known to the victim” But let that pass for now. Jivha finds it strange that the bar for proving rape should be set higher when the accused is the husband. Is it really so strange? <\/p>\n

Let’s take a non-rape crime. Suppose a husband accuses his wife of stealing his expensive pen. The uncontested facts of the case are that the pen is his, and that the pen has been found in his wife’s handbag. <\/p>\n

Can you really say with a straight face that there is no difference in the burden of proof required whether the accused were the wife or someone else? I know that I am stating the obvious, but aren’t there differences related to
\n