Rape is rape...isn't it?

[Ree]

A recent comment made on CS has made me do some thinking.
A member made a joking comment about prison rape, and someone was offended by it.

It hadn't really occurred to me, but I started to think about it.
Why does society find the mental image of guy-on-guy rape in a prison setting to be funny?

People joke about it all the time and never think twice.

Comedians and satirists crack jokes, TV shows and movies have scenes where someone ends up in jail by mistake, or for some other reason (a bar fight or some other thing) only to have some big muscular dude named "Bubba" sizing them up to be his "prison bitch".

Why is it funny?

[Boozy]

Why does society find the mental image of guy-on-guy rape in a prison setting to be funny?

I think its the juxtaposition of a big tough guy engaged in the stereotypically "feminine" act of gay sex. The rape part is particularly funny to some people because there's the "just desserts" thing too - the theory that they are in this situation because they were bad people.

So you've got irony, and you've got "justice", which are the makings of age-old stories.

Personally, I find off-hand comments about prison rape to be neither funny nor offensive. I prefer my humour to be a bit wittier and my offensive material a bit grittier. :)

[Giggle Goose]

I took a class on gender and communication; and when we were learning about gender and violence my professor had a police officer come speak to us about how our state defines "rape." We also had some pretty frank discussions and things got really complicated.

A lot of people thought like Ree, who thinks "rape is rape," and rightfully so. But there's so much involved, including gender, how well you know each other, etc. According to Maryland state law, "rape" has to involve one penis and one vagina. Anything else is defined differently; even though penalties are assessed similarly.

Just thought it was kind of odd that a man forcing himself on another man can't even be called "rape."

[Seshat]

NOTE: In the following post, I ask whether a victim was raped. I am not seeking a legal answer (according to Giggle Goose' post, Maryland state law clearly provides a 'no' to one of them), but a moral answer. I'm not intending to raise questions about specific acts (what if he uses a broomstick instead?), but about the thorny issues that different circumstances can bring (what if the victim never says no?).


While all rape is a violation and a traumatising thing for the victim, there are definitely complications.

Sometimes the 'rapist' purely and honestly misreads the victim's intent, and the victim - for whatever reason - never makes any sort of unambiguous 'no' statement or action. This is scarily common among the type of teenager who doesn't want to admit to sex but is feeling peer pressure to have sex.

In boys, the peer pressure is along the lines of 'be a man' or 'go for it'; and I can all-too-clearly envisage a situation where a bunch of boys take a virgin or presumed-virgin friend, and an enthusiastic "school slut" (more on THAT in a different thread), and shove them in a room together. Imagine the rest of the boy's school life if he refuses the girl! Is that rape? And who does the raping? What about if the girl honestly doesn't know he's unwilling, and thinks he's just shy? Who's raped him then? The other boys, who may not have touched him at all?

If the girl knew he was unwilling, it's clearly rape. She did it, the other boys were accomplices.

If the girl was told he was willing but shy and new to sex, and neither the boy nor his body language gave her any indication otherwise, then we have a strange situation on our hands. The boy was raped - but in my opinion, she was not a rapist.

In fact, I consider the girl also a victim. Not of rape - she wasn't raped - but of a crime which I don't know the name for. It may not have a name. But imagine what she'll go through, if/when she discovers that he wasn't willing. He was raped - and she was the one who actually performed the act, even if she didn't knowingly do so.



So onto another situation. This one, unfortunately, isn't hypothetical.

I know a woman who desperately needed to see a doctor. She was in a remote area, so her choice of doctors was limited. She was new in the area, so she didn't know many people and had never seen the local doctors.

Anyway, for various reasons, she ended up with a choice of a couple of doctors. Neither would see her without a pap smear being done - even though the issue she had was completely unrelated.

She had no risk factors for cervical problems. Not even a history of sexual activity - completely virgin. She protested. She made it very, very clear that she did not want a pap smear, and did not need a pap smear. They made it very, very clear that without a pap smear, her urgent medical issue would not be treated.

Explicit description of a pap smear follows. Highlight to read:

As all the women here know, and most of the men probably don't, a pap smear involves a doctor sticking a metal speculum - hell, basically a metal expandable dildo - up you. Opening it up, peering inside, and poking you in the cervix with a swab.

Even if the doctor is kind and gentle, it can be a painful and embarassing experience. If the doctor isn't, or thinks you 'need to learn a lesson', there are a lot of ways to make it worse.

More black-on-black:
A cold speculum. A too-large speculum. Insufficient lubrication. Rough insertion. Opening it roughly, or further than needed. Poking hard, rather than stroking the swab gently across the cervix.

Out of necessity - out of blackmail, essentially - she let them do the pap smear. Was she raped?

Does the doctor's probable motivation, or the fact that it was a speculum and not a penis, reduce her trauma?


Should I continue to pose tricky scenarios?

I think it's very clear to everyone that a stranger shoving a gun into a woman's side, commanding her to get in the car, taking her someplace private and raping her is rape. I don't think anyone sane would ever argue otherwise.

But there are a lot of other kinds of rape. I just posed two of the most awkward, the ones that keep judges awake at night. There're a lot of tricky ones between the clear-cut and these two.

[Norton]

The OPs question made me think of the song "Date Rape", by Sublime. The summary is that a guy gets a woman drunk and forces himself on her. She gets the police involved, takes him to court and he gets sent to prison where he in turn is raped by inmates.

I think Boozy hit it when she said it has to do with just desserts. From what I hear, inmates will often target rapists and child molesters for prison rape. Poetic justice has a degree of dark humor to it. Sort of a "Haha, how do you like it?" thing.

I personally don't find it funny - only ironic in some situations.

[Lace Neil Singer]

There's also cases of consensual sex happening in prison; people don't like to think about that, but it happens. Also, some guys would prefer to just have one guy doing them as opposed to constant gang rape and offer sex in return for protection. If this is the case, it doesn't count as rape.

A lot of prison rape has more to do with power and showing a weaker inmate that you're stronger than them than with having to have sex with men cuz there's no women around, which is what a lot of people seem to think. It's a primeval way of expressing your strength, without causing any obvious injury or death to an inmate, therefore extending your sentence.

A graphic depiction of this system can be found in Carl Panzram's biography; well worth a read if you're into delving into the murky depths of a serial killer's mind; not just a standard killer, but one with absolutely zero regard for human life, including his own.

[crazylegs]

As I've said in another post UK law recognises rape as the insertion of the penis (without consent) into either the mouth OR the anus OR the vagina, so by forcing your victim to do all three could result in three seperate rape charges.

So it does answer the thorny issue of can a man be raped, well in UK law yes he can.

However, rape is very rarely the expression of a sexual lust, it is an expression of power over a different individual and not just in prison either.

The issue of lack of consent is a very tricky one within UK law, someone who is so drunk and has passed out is clearly incapable of giving informed consent, however what about the person who has only had a few drinks and it has only lowered their inhibitions which they later regret in the morning but was a willing partner the night before?

[Lace Neil Singer]

I also stated in another thread that a woman using a dildo on an inconsience man would be committing rape; it's sexual activity that he didn't consent to and as disgusting as it might sound, a lot of rapists use instruments to further humilate their victim and empower themselves.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I dont' think people think it's so much funny as they find it kind of kathartic (is that a word?)

People like the idea of a criminal being humiliated and victimized. I'd argue that most people feel helpless and outraged by crime. When someone who victimizes other people is victimized himself, people like it. It gives them a sense of justice. They can feel satisfied that karma made that guy pay in kind.

I doubt the situation would have the same impact if you read about I dunno, a petty shoplifter getting prison raped by a 300 pound murderer. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. A rapist, strongarm robber, pedophile getting beaten up and violated? Yeah, we're human. It restores an ability to believe there is order and justice in the world. Now granted, nobody is sentenced to rape when they go to prison. But most people think that going to prison isn't a harsh enough punishment for those that victimize others, so we enjoy being able to think about such people getting a taste of their own nightmare.

[BlaqueKatt]

Just thought it was kind of odd that a man forcing himself on another man can't even be called "rape."


that is usually charged under the sodomy laws(that the gay community is trying to have removed from all states), that is the purpose of the sodomy laws.

NOT to make any act between consenting adults illegal, it's to cover non male on female vaginal penetration(by a penis) sexual contact(prosecuting consenting adults for what they're doing in their own houses would violate illegal search, which in the US is protected by the constitution-as you would need evidence and witnesses).

If the sodomy laws are abolished, and the legal definition of rape remains the same, anything other than male-on-female vaginal penetration of a penis-could not be prosecuted, as there would be no laws against it. This is what happens when people do not understand the laws-and have knee-jerk reactions to them, or what someone else tells them.


I would also recommend reading the interview of "Donnie the Punk" by Jim Goad-Donnie was thrown into the "violent" wing of a prison for not paying a $25 fine after being arrested at a protest-he was raped (by his count) over 100 times-he told his story publicly and was accosted by NOW(national orginization or women)-because "men especially criminals, can't be raped, only women"

[Seshat]

RecoveringKinkoid: it is a word, and it's spelled cathartic.



If the sodomy laws are abolished, and the legal definition of rape remains the same, anything other than male-on-female vaginal penetration of a penis-could not be prosecuted, as there would be no laws against it.

Then the laws are broken, and need to be repaired. And it could be prosecuted as assault, even without repairing the rape/molestation/abuse laws.

Just because one law is broken (the rape law, apparently) doesn't mean you need to patch it with another broken law (the sodomy law).

In this case, you can fix it by broadening the definition of rape or adding a law about molestation, abuse, or some other term that means 'any rape that isn't specifically heterosexual penis-in-vagina rape'.

Having a law on the books which says sodomy is always illegal regardless of consent is an open invitation to abuse of the law.

Not having a law which covers rape other than the very specific form means there's a wide range of rape which isn't covered: and patchworks like the sodomy law usually leave a lot of stuff not covered.

he was raped (by his count) over 100 times-he told his story publicly and was accosted by NOW(national orginization or women)-because "men especially criminals, can't be raped, only women"

That's just ridiculous.

[Boozy]

I would also recommend reading the interview of "Donnie the Punk" by Jim Goad-Donnie was thrown into the "violent" wing of a prison for not paying a $25 fine after being arrested at a protest-he was raped (by his count) over 100 times-he told his story publicly and was accosted by NOW(national orginization or women)-because "men especially criminals, can't be raped, only women"

I've been Googling for about 30 minutes now, and I can find absolutely nothing on the internet about these alleged comments from NOW.

Do you have a link?

[BlaqueKatt]

Having a law on the books which says sodomy is always illegal regardless of consent is an open invitation to abuse of the law.


show me one recent conviction under any state's sodomy law where the act in question was between two conseting adults in their own home.
You can't. You need evidence to prosecute a crime and gathering evidence of that would require violation of the 4th and 5th amendments of the constitution(Illegal search, violation of privacy, and self-incrimination). Heck Ron Jeremy and how many other pron stars would be in prison for life-they have VIDEOTAPE of them breaking sodomy laws. No charges filed yet.

They are add on charges to be used as leverage for plea bargins-nothing more. The man that assualted me plea bargined because he was facing 7 counts of sodomy-he knew he couldn't be charged with rape, but was not prepared for 7 counts(and I couldn't face him in court for a trial if it had come to that)-so he plea-bargined down to a year in jail, a year in counciling, and 5 years probation. Had my state repealed them under the pressure they were getting he wouldn't have been charged with anything.


no to mention this-By the last quarter of the 20th century, 47 out of 50 states had repealed any specifically anti-homosexual-conduct laws, and 37 had repealed all sodomy laws. The remaining anti-homosexual sodomy laws have been invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas

[BlaqueKatt]

Do you have a link?

it's from the jim goad interview out of Answer me volume 4-which has been banned from publication-it can be found here (http://www.jimgoad.net/am4pdf/donny.pdf)

I will warn NSFW pics-and Jim Goad does not pull punches in his writing. Which is why all 4 volumes of answer me is now highly unobtainable(I paid over $150 a piece for them), he is in my opinion, a true journalist.

Donny, who headed SPR(stop prison rape) from 1988 to his death in 1996, was brutally gang-raped in 1973 after being arrested at a Quaker pray-in at the White House.

Donny died July 18, 1996 at the age of 49. His death was caused by an "indeterminate virulent infection complicated by an AIDS-defining condition" contracted as a victim of prisoner rape.


I also recommend the Stop Prisoner Rape (http://www.spr.org/en/survivortestimony/portraits_of_courage.asp) website-Donny started it.

Tell me-is this funny?

Michael was wrongfully convicted for the rape of his high school math tutor when he was only 16 years old and spent more than 24 years behind bars at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. On multiple occasions, corrections officers handcuffed Mr. Williams to the bars of his cell door, allowing other inmates to sexually assault him. Mr. Williams was exonerated in 2005 with the assistance of the Innocence Project.

Michelle is a 62 year old, transgender woman who was arrested in late 2006 and placed in the men’s wing of the Los Angeles County Jail. At the time of her arrest, she had very limited mobility. During Michelle’s confinement, she was denied the use of her wheelchair. Other detainees were prohibited from helping Michelle and she was forced to move about without assistance, falling on multiple occasions. One day while in the shower, she was surrounded and threatened with rape by four other inmates. The attempted sexual assault was interrupted when Michelle’s partner entered the shower and was able to fend off the would-be assailants

After being wrongfully arrested and taken to a Philadelphia lock-up, Erica and her female friend were forced to perform sex acts on one another by a police officer.

[Seshat]

show me one recent conviction under any state's sodomy law where the act in question was between two conseting adults in their own home.

I also can't because I'm not American, haven't done research into the specifics of American law, and am not sufficiently motivated by a single internet discussion to do so.

The fact (assuming you're right) that a broken law is currently not being abused doesn't change the fact that it's an invitation to misuse.

If the laws were corrected, those seven counts of sodomy you're talking about would be seven counts of rape/abuse/molestation/whatever term the lawmakers chose. No difference to the valid use of such a law, just to the invalid use.

[Zyanya]

show me one recent conviction under any state's sodomy law where the act in question was between two conseting adults in their own home.

No convictions, but the laws have been used to arrest and harass.


http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex14.htm

One of the more popular uses is in child custody cases where a homosexual parent is denied visitation rights.

Remember, it had to be brought to court to be struck down. You should look into the Lawrence vs Texas case. It took 5 years for the innocent individuals to be cleared, 5 years of having to fight in court.

[Zyanya]

it's from the jim goad interview out of Answer me volume 4-which has been banned from publication-it can be found here (http://www.jimgoad.net/am4pdf/donny.pdf)

I will warn NSFW pics-and Jim Goad does not pull punches in his writing. Which is why all 4 volumes of answer me is now highly unobtainable(I paid over $150 a piece for them), he is in my opinion, a true journalist.

Whenever anyone claims they've been banned from publication, my scam-dar goes off. There are several hundred self-publishing companies in the US who will publish anything.


And having looked over the linked-to PDF, I'm going to state that the more accurate term would be 'sensationalism', not 'journalism'.

[Boozy]

it's from the jim goad interview out of Answer me volume 4-which has been banned from publication-it can be found here (http://www.jimgoad.net/am4pdf/donny.pdf)

I will warn NSFW pics-and Jim Goad does not pull punches in his writing. Which is why all 4 volumes of answer me is now highly unobtainable(I paid over $150 a piece for them), he is in my opinion, a true journalist.

The first three volumes are hardly "highly unobtainable", in as that you can order them from Amazon.

Issue 4 appears to be out of print, but that isn't quite the same as "banned from publication".

I have just read the entire PDF of volume 4 (thank you for posting the link) and still do not see any reference to the alleged comments from NOW. Goad did allude briefly to some "howling bitches" on some radio show ("true journalist" indeed), but did not specify what, if any, organization they represented, nor did he print any specifics about what was said.

[BlaqueKatt]

Whenever anyone claims they've been banned from publication, my scam-dar goes off. There are several hundred self-publishing companies in the US who will publish anything.

he was prosecuted under the obscenity law in calfornia-as was any vendor that sold his self-published "zines"-so yes basically banned

The first three volumes are hardly "highly unobtainable", in as that you can order them from Amazon.
Issue 4 appears to be out of print, but that isn't quite the same as "banned from publication".

Goad did allude briefly to some "howling bitches" on some radio show ("true journalist" indeed), but did not specify what, if any, organization they represented, nor did he print any specifics about what was said.

the original edition also discussed one of his public appearences where NOW protested-I didn't read the PDF as I have one of the original 1,000 printed copies-I didn't realize it had been reprinted again.


from amazon.com

ANSWER Me! is a big black slab of trouble. Originally released as a series of magazines, then a collected edition which sold thousands before going out of print, ANSWER Me! has been blamed for a White House shooting and a triple suicide. It has been banned in several countries and put on trial for obscenity in the USA.

[Zyanya]

he was prosecuted under the obscenity law in calfornia-as was any vendor that sold his self-published "zines"-so yes basically banned

Cite your source for WHY it was prosecuted. The 'they don't want my story to be told' line doesn't pass the BS detector. I grew up in California and have seen the stuff they can legally sell. Show me the actual articles that covered the case, not his claims. He is a proven liar.

By the way, the article's title was "Let's Hear It for Violence Toward Women!"

"Such a sweet little girl. So annoying. Daddy's little snookums. Now you're wiping the blood off your mouth. What would your father say if he saw me smack the snot out of your nose and onto the walls? Would he cry? Would he call the cops?"

Let's look at this "journalist". He was arrested for beating his girlfriend (claiming his girlfriend begged him to rape her) up while his wife was dying of cancer. He admits to beating his wife but claims she deserved it because she didn't respond to his statement that he was getting angry. He goes out and deliberately provokes people into hitting him. He claims many of the guys arrested for child abuse are in fact innocent, and bases this solely on anecdotal evidence, not on any real statistical data. He loves throwing out racist remarks, such as using the word 'chink' whenever he is referencing someone of Asian heritage, and flat out states he doesn't think black people are as intelligent as white people. He claims he admires Mexicans because of their misogynistic attitude towards women. He has roughly the same opinions as Tom Cruise regarding medication for mental illnesses (mostly because it seems someone diagnosed him with one). He is a violent individual who brags about having beaten various people up and justifies it (including his girlfriend). He has got to be one of the biggest hypocrites on the planet, claiming he hates those who project their guilt but at the same time projecting his own guilt. He thinks beating the shit out of someone is more moral than testifying against someone. He proudly refers to himself as a 'bitch-beater'. In short, he is a complete and total fucktard.

All stuff I found on the first page of google when I searched his name.

And you want us to take something he wrote seriously?

You want us to be upset that he was prosecuted? Someone could light this fucktard on fire and frankly, I'd say he had it coming. To be blunt, the fact that you consider him a journalist is reason enough for me to lose complete respect for anything you have to say.

[BlaqueKatt]

. To be blunt, the fact that you consider him a journalist is reason enough for me to lose complete respect for anything you have to say.


gee seems Sean connery (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=28434) also believes in hitting women-so by your logic anyone that labels him an actor shouldn't be respected.

yes he is a misogynistic asshole-to say the least-and his name is fitting(look up the definition for "Goad")-but his "journalistic style" has awoken alot of people I know from their action-less comas, and into doing something to fix the problems, not just bury their heads in the sand and hope it goes away.

A few nights ago my local news ran a story about a poodle that gave birth to 16 puppies, but nothing on the large amount of break-ins we are experiencing lately. The local police here sent me a self reporting form for a hit and run vs pedestrian accident, and because I Only had 6 out of 7 plate numbers, two witnesses and the make, model and color of the vehicle-they did nothing. They refuse to respond to ANY burglar alarm calls unless the owner of the building verifies that there is an intruder in the building, from on site, but that's not news worthy, a hyper-fertile dog is though-apparently.

I volunteered at a rape crisis center, a crisis pregnancy center, and a battered women's Shelter. But hey I like the writing style of someone who satirizes mainstream tabloids, to deliberately cause offense to people(hence the choice of the name Goad-it's not his real name)-so I must be just a horrible person.

I really don't care-you don't know me and have no right to judge me.

At least he's honest about being a misogynistic asshole-rather than pretending to be something he's not, or pretending he'll ever change.

Personally I question the sanity of any woman would voluntarily be with someone who's that openly violent towards women-you know he's a snake but you lay with him anyway-but she's the "victim"-you can't ever question the victim. I have traded e-mails with Mr. Goad, he's odd to say the least, but I do believe very strongly in the first amendment(I live in the US)-"I may not agree with or like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

[Zyanya]

gee seems Sean connery (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=28434) also believes in hitting women-so by your logic anyone that labels him an actor shouldn't be respected.

Look up the definition of 'actor' and the definition of 'journalist'. Your retort is a strawman. Anyone who tries to say Sean Connery is a good person though, would lose my respect if your assertion is actually true.

yes he is a misogynistic asshole-to say the least-and his name is fitting(look up the definition for "Goad")-but his "journalistic style" has awoken alot of people I know from their action-less comas, and into doing something to fix the problems, not just bury their heads in the sand and hope it goes away.

His 'journalistic' style puts me in mind of Fred Phelps.

The local police here sent me a self reporting form for a hit and run vs pedestrian accident, and because I Only had 6 out of 7 plate numbers, two witnesses and the make, model and color of the vehicle-they did nothing.

There is that pesky 'I don't believe you' radar going off again.

I volunteered at a rape crisis center, a crisis pregnancy center, and a battered women's Shelter. But hey I like the writing style of someone who satirizes mainstream tabloids, to deliberately cause offense to people(hence the choice of the name Goad-it's not his real name)-so I must be just a horrible person.

If you support someone who thinks beating women is okay and claim you've worked those places (though mentioning a scumbag CPC in the same statement as a rape crisis center and a battered women's shelter as though they are equivalent sort of says it all right there) then my scam dar is going off again.

I really don't care-you don't know me and have no right to judge me.

You put yourself out there to be judged.

At least he's honest about being a misogynistic asshole-rather than pretending to be something he's not, or pretending he'll ever change.

Apparently, I know more about your hero than you do. You should try learning a little more about him.

Personally I question the sanity of any woman would voluntarily be with someone who's that openly violent towards women-you know he's a snake but you lay with him anyway-but she's the "victim"-you can't ever question the victim. I have traded e-mails with Mr. Goad, he's odd to say the least, but I do believe very strongly in the first amendment(I live in the US)-"I may not agree with or like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Oh, yeah, it's the woman's fault she got beaten/raped.

Part of freedom of speech is that while Mr. Goad has the right to babble whatever hate-speech he wants, I have the right to call him and anyone who thinks he is worth anything idiots.

[Seshat]

I'm making a formal mod request here.

Please keep the discussion to the issues, not to each other's worth or the worth of each other's thoughts. Part of what keeps this place from becoming a flame-fest is that we discuss the issues, not the person: regardless of what we think of the other person in the silence of our own minds.

If you truly think the other person's arguments are ridiculous, let them stand or fall on their own merits. You don't have to point a neon sign and say 'this person is an idiot!'

And please stay mainly on the thread topic; make new threads for the sub-topics so that people who aren't interested in discussing what is and isn't rape, but are interested in the new topics that are developing, can find them.

But the main mod request here is: discuss the issues, not the individual.

Thank you.