some jurisdictions have aggravated rape as a separate and more serious crime

__________________
she's a haunted house and her windows are broken

What does "aggravated" actually mean? Weird question, I know, but I've never been sure. I thought it meant the same as "provoked" but I'm wondering now if it means the opposite.

just means a more serious version of the same crime. the central crime is the same but things alongside it have aggravated it, made it more serious

__________________
she's a haunted house and her windows are broken

This isn't exactly a new story. Yet even your typical feminist sssh is pretty suspicious of any statistics talking about the public's view of rape. (I guess it's because I'm also a bit of a maths girl). I can so easily imagine the questions being twisted so that even I might end up agreeing, and being one of their 'misogynistic' headline-makers. For instance, I might partially agree that a girl who goes out and gets blind drunk is partially to blame for getting raped. She has drastically overestimated the basic human goodness in this world, which as it stands, is not in plentiful supply - you would have to be incredibly naive, or ignorant, to do this. Not that I see rape as some kind of perverse 'revenge' for this ignorance, obviously. It is still an absolutely terrible thing to happen, but anyone with an eye open to the world should be able to see the risk. However, this doesn't mean that the crime should be taken less seriously, as some people seem to think it gives them licence to do...see policeman mentioned earlier in this thread. I've heard similar stories to this before. Police like that are dangerous.

Rape by a stranger isn't the most common form of rape, it's just that its spectre hovers most strongly over the media and public imagination...I don't have the statistics to hand, but I can safely tell you that most rape is by someone the victim knows and often in their own home.

I don't really know what aggravated means; I'd always assumed it was something to do with 'provoked' too, like, 'victim wearing a short skirt' type thing but hopefully a bit more complex and valid than that. I really hope a lot more complex and valid.

Ah, right. It's a start, I guess. I think you'd get a lot more convictions if the law were more (eww, I'm going to sound like a certain complete snatchhead now ) specific. If there's a clear distinction, a person who made a drunken mistake isn't going to be tarred with the same brush as a violent pervert stalker asshole. I can totally understand juries being loathe to convict someone of anything with "rape" in the title, because of the seriousness of those implications.

I don't know how clear that is. I don't believe that one of two people who fuck when neither of them are sober enough to consent should be on a sex offender's list along with violent rapists, so if I'm on a jury and that's the possibility that's presented to me, I'd imagine I'd find not guilty. And honestly? I don't care if the victim thinks that not harsh enough.

I think the reason for the result of this survey is the perception that we are in a situation already where people can be accused of rape for virtually nothing, for which a handful of very vocal speakers are at least semi-responsible. When people publicly push for the kinds of laws that would go against many people's idea of "common sense", it becomes very easy to forget/ignore the reality.

"Any circumstance attending the commission of a crime or tort which increases its guilt or enormity or adds to its injurious consequences, but which is above and beyond the essential constituents of the crime or tort itself." = aggravation

__________________
she's a haunted house and her windows are broken

never mind. you all type too fast.

never mind. never mind. never mind

__________________
she's a haunted house and her windows are broken

Let's all rape each other!

I partially agree with you. The trouble is, people lump all rapists together, which is pretty naive. There are opportunist rapists who take advantage of drunks (one example), and violent rapists, who are attracted to violence and will rape someone in a sweatsuit who gives no signals of sexual availability whatsoever. Both violate without consent, and both should be held accountable. But the former may be more confused where nonverbal communication is concerned, or perhaps take advantage without VERIFYING consent completely.

I still say that both types are primitive thugs, whether outright violent or simply inept/offensive to women....

Unless one is surrounded by an entourage of people who know you and are looking out for your best interests/protecting you, it's unwise for a young woman to go out looking like a trashy ho. What adolesents don't realize is that certain pop icons dress provocatively because they have bodyguards who can protect them. If you dress like a hooker and no one knows who the hell you are or what you're about, your vulnerability, coupled with your signals of sexual availability, are going to attract unsavory predators. Fact. Why even go there? It's a unfortunate, but why be naive? Save the sexual availability for the privacy of the bedroom, when you really mean it, rather than out in public, which appears rather desperate.

your theft analogy is kind of lame. bodies are not cars or houses.

i wasn't saying that anyone was disputing anything; i was merely pointing something out because i thought it would be useful to the conversation. you don't have to jump down my throat. with the way we talk about rape we hide the identity of the perpetrator. it's not always conscious. it wouldn't be the first time this has been done with language. another example is "slaves" vs. "enslaved people". bring the action home and look at what is really going on. you may think it's insignificant but i think it helps to shift people's consciousnesses.

I am fully aware that bodies are not cars or houses, but does that actually make the meaning of the analogy "lame", or do you just not like how it was expressed? I'm kinda curious because this often happens, we struggle to find a way to say what we mean because people are so sensitive about the subject. My point is that, with every other crime, we are however unfairly critical of those who seem to be inviting it to happen, relative to those who have taken every precaution and still become victims of crime. And so I don't understand why it is this surprising or disgusting to people to discover that anyone has the same attitude towards the crime of rape. We're told that no-one's "asking for it", but no-one "asking" to be mugged either; it's misreading what people mean to assume that anyone who sees any responsibility at all on the part of the victim thinks that they actually wanted to be raped. I think if you asked that question, very few people would say "yes", compared to the number who feel that, for example, the way a person dresses and acts in public contributes to the risk of a crime being committed upon them. That's not a ridiculous statement, really.

Despite how serious rape is, I don't see why it should be held up to a different standard legally or societally. With any other crime, provocation is usually taken into account, and with any other crime, someone who could be seen as indulging in reckless/naïve behaviour, while still deserving of sympathy, is never going to get as much sympathy as someone who can undeniably said to have taken every possible precaution against it happening. I do think this is important, for reasons mentioned in other posts; if the law doesn't sit with public consensus, it breeds resentment in people who would otherwise have no problem.

It's interesting that "slave" is worse than "enslaved people" but "rape victim" is better that "raped people". I'd be wary of this though. Phrase it how you want, but if you try and persuade others to do it, you can end up with problems.

As a crude example, there've been all sorts of little arguments on here about people using the word "black" rather than "African-American". I got told I should say "African-American", which I found quite funny as here "Afro-Carribean" is a lot more appropriate; if I described a second generation Carribean as "African-American", they'd probably be a lot more offended than if I'd described them as "black"!

I don't want to imply that it's "PC gone mad" or anything like that, but I don't know, I think it's partly the same problem, that trying to change the vocabulary is fine, but it won't actually change people's attitudes. There are plenty of people out there who say "African-American" and "Native American" and think they're doing everything they have to, but still wouldn't hire black staff unless they had to, and still see a black person in any position of seniority and think "affirmative action".

(Didn't mean to jump down your throat before, I reworded what I said a few times but couldn't make it sound much better.)

I think that putting yourself at risk and being to blame are two different things. The theft analogy doesn't stand up for me because we're talking about different motivations to commit a crime. You wouldn't say that if someone was in the kitchen with a knife then who ever enters the room is asking to be stabbed.

sssh- I know what you mean about statistics and the media skewing the facts to create a more shocking headline. I'm sure I am more freaked out by these reports because there have been so many attacks in my area recently, we're talking 5 minutes from my front door.

They are. What concerns me is that those who idealistically assert that the way you dress shouldn't make a difference are likely to encourage people to put themselves at risk.

Not sure I fully get that. I don't see that the motivations are different. In either crime, some people will do it opportunistically because they think they'll get away with it, others will spend a long time thinking about it and planning it, but they all do it because they see something they want and don't see any reason why they shouldn't just take it.

Not that I've ever been a rapist or a thief, so I guess I can't claim to know for certain what goes through someone's head, but I'd be surprised if these crimes are committed for vastly different reasons.

but make a difference to what? there's so much confused compounding of the idea of blame and responsibility here

it shouldn't make a difference to the right of the women to not give consent or to the culpability of any rapist that ignores that lack of consent

but it might make people believe that she put herself at risk

i don't know of any crimes where the victim's irresponsibility mitigates the crime and if there are any then it's a very dangerous approach because the ideal is that we can all leave our doors unlocked and ostentatiously wear bling without fear. the fact that the ideal is never met is no excuse to lessen the laws

__________________
she's a haunted house and her windows are broken

women partly blames for being raped. great, bravo.
i hate men