Gang-raped girl was glad of the attention, says woman lawyer

Theoretically, I suppose it is. I've not heard of such a case though.

Rape is a violent act involving forcing unwanted sex on an unwilling victim. So no.

I'm not sure about that, Cartooncat. I did read some research years ago which found that it is possible for some victims to enjoy the act, perhaps in a fetish sort of way. As a rule, however, you're right of course.

Rape fantasies are a common occurrence in women. However, it's more about a desire for the exertion of control over them by a stranger rather than having some violent @!$%# force themselves upon them. These fantasies exist in the controlled environment of the users mind where things like pregnancy and STD's don't exist and every criminal is a misunderstood, sensitive, soul who bears a shocking resemblance to Brad Pitt or Colin Farrell. Actual rape and these sexual daydreams exist at completely different ends of the spectrum...

I've recently seeded an article concerning this issue Link

@Obleo, you're absolutely right in your point.

The research that I read, however, wasn't exploring the experiences of those who had rape fantasies; it was a study of those who had been raped (by very non-Brad Pitt-like offenders, I dare say) and who had, on some level, enjoyed the experience. It wasn't designed, if I recall correctly, to examine rape fantasies but to look at the phenomenon of victims who have enjoyed being raped. I couldn't guess at a proportion of victims, but I imagine it is very, very, very low (and I'm not aware of any immediate cases like I said above). Nonetheless, it is something that happens.

I really must try to remember what the paper was that I read on this, so that I could post a bit more about it.

(Please note that I'm not condoning rape in any form - it's the most heinous of crimes in my opinion - but I am aware of this finding so I thought I would report it.)

There was a court case that a victimizer was trying to use the defense that because the woman admitted to an orgasm during the crime that it was not rape. Fortunately, he was still found guilty. Rape is rape. Forced without consent. If a woman resigns herself that she is being raped and wont be killed it is still rape. These stories of women enjoying the rape fail to describe the impact on the person in the moment and rely mainly on the sex act somewhere after it has started. But in the beginning of the crime wasnt consensual. Rape. The cases Ive heard the woman had resigned themselves to being rape and as a matter of survival and coping dealt with the crime.

Wow! But I am intrigued about the biology of it. How can a woman who's not consenting, now I mean mentally, enjoy rape?

I understand that it is technically rape when she or he says no. However, from the sexual perspective, if you are truly not consenting you should not enjoy it.

I mean, even consenting people fail to enjoy sex don't they?

Would you like some big male to rape you, and then tell us if you enjoyed it?

Would you like some big male to rape you, and then tell us if you enjoyed it?

I certainly wouldn't enjot it being very not gay. And I wouldn't enjoy rape. It does not mean some people wouldn't.

Why do people get emotional about this? I am asking purely from the perspective of curiousity and we're learning from all this.

ah, Oluseye,

the brain and the genitals frequently have failure to communicate. orgasms are partly an autonomic function. maybe they happen if the victim mentally tunes out to cope with the assault. i think that might qualify as a biological explanation.

But that just upends my whole understanding of the female orgasm. Usually I have believed from experience that she has to be into the sexual experience to orgasm. At least the vast majority of women need to be. Am I wrong?

For men, I do know that the brain and the genitals have no connections. That, sir I can attest.

One of the tragedies of sexual abuse is that the body can respond to stimulation, so there is a certain kind of physical betrayal one is left with. It leads to years of guilt, shame, incredible confusion and self hate.

Redruby said it far better than I could. 100% right.

Isn't it possible for rape targets to actually enjoy the attention and the act?

Sort of. Having slept with a woman whose first sexual experience was rape, I'm aware that one way of coping with this trauma is to seek out sexual experiences that mirror the rape scenario. Since those later experiences are voluntary, they can trick themselves into believing that they "chose" the rape as well. In that warped sense, the victim believes the rape was enjoyable. Obviously, not all victims will respond this way, but it does happen.

Why do people get emotional about this?

Probably because of statements like this:

However, from the sexual perspective, if you are truly not consenting you should not enjoy it.

It's a biological reaction. It's really no different from a woman that is having a great time in bed and still can't orgasm. Doesn't mean that she was in pain or not enjoying it or something.

It happens with men as well - men can be and are raped by women. However, one could easily say that these cases are not rape - if he was able to get hard enough to penetrate the woman, he must of been enjoying it, right? And if he's truly not consenting, he should not enjoy it, right? Thus male rape cannot possibly exist.

Most of us react unfavorably because we've seen how these arguments play out time and time again, and eventually it just seems to be yet another attempt to find loopholes that can get people off the hook for crimes of rape and sexual assault.

Probably because of statements like this:

However, from the sexual perspective, if you are truly not consenting you should not enjoy it.

It's a biological reaction. It's really no different from a woman that is having a great time in bed and still can't orgasm. Doesn't mean that she was in pain or not enjoying it or something.

Stacy, are you saying that there does not appear to be a dissonance between a person not consenting who enjoys and act? There clearly is. Just for purely exploratory reasons, I want to know why this would happen. What's there to get emotional about?

So Stacy tell me, am I wrong in thinking women getting orgasms usually involves being invested or at least tuned in emotionally into the sexual episode? That's really what I want to know. Just for the sake of knowledge. I know that men get attracted against their will.

Redruby; my instinct tells me you just made a great point there. I, of course realise that consent means consent, and when somebody verbally expresses non-consent, persisting in a sexual act is rape. This is why I value your addition, in saying that a person who has expressed non-consent may well go ahead and enjoy the act, against the person's will and this I would imagine would be emotionally shattering.

In all I asked this question because I actually taught it impossible for a raped person to enjoy the act.

Oluseye,

It is biologically possible that you could be assaulted (i.e. choked, punched) into submission by a large man. He then decides to perform a hand job on you and you have an orgasm. It is biologically possible. It happens in prisons all across this country and there are even worse scenarios, trust me. Most men in prison are embarrassed and dont report it. There is a considerable amount of shame involved. Similar to a woman rape. How could my body betray me like this? Orgasm is your bodies response to stimuli. You dont necessarily have to be attracted to a person or enjoy the sex act to orgasm. Does it help? Probably but it is not a neccessity. So I would say yes you are wrong in thinking women getting orgasms usually involves being invested or at least tuned in emotionally into the sexual episode

Oluseye, as Chello says above, I think the fact that your body can respond to stimuli does not mean an act of violence is an enjoyable experience.

Stacy, are you saying that there does not appear to be a dissonance between a person not consenting who enjoys and act?

Yes. I think the problem is that you are equating consent with enjoyment. If you were to ask if there is a dissonance between a person that orgasms and then claims not to have to derived any sort of pleasure, that could very possibly be so. But as far as consent goes, I don't think one has anything to do with the other. If I take someone by force and end up knocking their socks off, it doesn't change the fact that I still took their body by force. And that is what consent and the crime of rape are based in, not the how good of a lover someone is, do you see what I'm saying here?

Just for purely exploratory reasons, I want to know why this would happen.

Because that's how our bodies work. Go back to the male rape example. You state that you are aware that men get attracted against their will. But I'm not talking about a situation where some lady comes on to some guy, starts stroking away, and he grows fonder of her as she does so, thus says okay and reacts physically by getting hard. What I'm talking about is a situation that he want nothing to do with, but the fact of the matter is that she's pumping away on his penis, and for some men the penis is going to react to that no matter what mental state he is in.

It's the same thing with the orgasm. You have lubrication and friction going on there, and in some women, no matter what their mental state, this will lead to orgasm.

What's there to get emotional about?

Your statement indicates that a woman that orgasms has consented in some part to sex by default. Keep in mind I'm not accusing you of anything here, it's just that you asked and I tried to give you an answer. It is the question of consent that is being reacted to.

So Stacy tell me, am I wrong in thinking women getting orgasms usually involves being invested or at least tuned in emotionally into the sexual episode? That's really what I want to know. Just for the sake of knowledge.

Can't say for sure, because I haven't really seen the research on it, all I ever hear is people mentioning the research. Aside from the scenarios already provided above, if I had to venture a guess, I'd wonder if it didn't have to do with the misattribution of arousal (there's a ton of stuff on the subject, so I just gave you a google link). Sometimes when we are in a state of arousal, our brains will transfer or attribute that arousal to incorrect things. For example, a woman would probably have a bit of fear in a situation like rape, she would be at a high state of arousal. However, in this situation, the act being performed is also affecting parts of her body that are also commonly attributed to a state of arousal - and one that is overwhelmingly positive in most cases. I wouldn't think it would be unreasonable for the brain to take these two sets of cues - I'm aroused and I have a penis in me - and rationalize that they are related, particularly since the event of rape is so traumatic that the brain might not want to realize the reality of the situation.

Good points Chello. Ok.

RedRuby makes a good point.

Court cases are always brutal. In any kind of court case the opposing attorneys always attempt to discredit the plaintiff or defendant. Some attorneys can become quite theatrical and sensational in their presentations and attempts to influence jurors.

That is likely why many rape victims refuse to testify. But any kind of trial can become just as brutal.

I'm thinking the same. I'm never quite sure how the Mail reports things (well, no more than other media sources I suppose). I would like to know more about this case, and to hear if the defence lawyer had any other information on which to base these claims. I'm rather outraged by what I've seen so far, though.

I would also worry about our criminal justice system allowing for 'interesting' sociological theories to influence serious cases such as rape, however.

Urgh, The Daily Mail.

@generaldecay: I agree that our criminal justice system shouldn't be simply based around "interesting sociological theories", but society must have some impact on any criminal justice system. Otherwise, the criminal justice system is put in a no-win scenario: either they take society into account and are criticised for doing so, or they do not take society into account at all and are criticised for being "out of touch" (a charge levelled against the criminal justice system a lot).

In a case like this, society must be at least mentioned. I am not saying that the barrister was right to make such comments - it is impossible to tell. However, society heavily influences issues such as consent. If consent is raised as a defence then the nature of society has a huge impact on how likely it is that consent occured. If this is not acknowledged then options for the defence counsel are severely limited - and remember the right to a fair trial for the defendant. Yes, there are defences which are out-of-bounds, but consent is certainly not one of them and today's society influences the issue. Having said all that, there is a point where too much emphasis is placed on society, and as a result the defence fails completely as it appears unbelievable.

Like Loco said, though, we don't KNOW the boys are guilty. What evidence we have would seem to indicate it, but we don't know. It could be the girls who are the perps here for falsely accusing the boys. In that circumstance, would you support the defense using any means possible to protect the boys?

And I say this as a woman who has been raped twice as an adult and couldn't even get the one rapist found guilty of trespassing because I was a lightskinned woman raped by a black man in an area where the police and the judges were black.

rape fantasies ARE common among women and are just another example of how sexist our world is

This assumes that people who are strong sexual submissives are culturally programmed. I find that dubious. Biology surely plays a strong role in sexual tastes.

I think you may be projecting your own preference (that pretend rape is disturbing and not arousing) onto society at large.

Meh, not judge. I meant the barrister.

Correct, but if the defendant give the lawyer a statement of their defense then the lawyer has to make a defense plea on the base of the statement made by the defendants.

If we restrict this practice then the defendants are not receiving a fair trial.

The Judge did not halt proceedings.

Many nasty and distasteful things are said in court, the fact this happened in a UK court seems to shock. Where as we see TV programs that relate to American court cases where distastefulness is the norm.

It would seem that the defense lawyer is being put in dock for doing her job of which can be very distasteful if the defendants are truly guilty of the crime.

It would seem the due process of Law was fair

RAPE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE but must be proven!

She had to give the best defense, not the Judge did not stop the proceedings and accepted what was said. Should he/she be also be questioned about ethics in court?

What I believe he's referring to is the fact that thirteen-year-olds are copulating is deplorable to begin with, and rape is just that much worse.

The remarks of the police chief in question were taken completely out of context. He didn't say that people should be allowed to have sex with children: he questioned the extent to which, say, a 17 year old having sex with a 14 year old should be classed and tried as a paedophile. He did not assert that, say, a 34 year old who has sex with a 14 year old should not be classed a paedophile.

The context of his argument was that there is tremendous pressure on the criminal justice system to try paedophiles and rapists (as there should be), and that 17 year olds and 14 year olds having sex is, arguably, a normative behaviour and cannot be compared to the 34 year old having sex with a 14 year old which is in no way a normative or acceptable behaviour. He was trying to start a discourse on the grey area of paedophilia which may need to be redefined, both socially and legally. He also included the salient point of the arbitrary nature of the legal age for sex in the UK.

Anyway, I wanted to make that point because this chap came in for an enormous amount of criticism for things he simply did not say. Also, I'm sure that child porn has been found on police officer's computers all over the world, and not just in the UK. As police forces go, the police service in the UK is little worse or better than it is in other parts of the Western world.

Good points, generaldecay. I think the laws need to be adjusted to account for teens having sex with each other so that it's not criminalized. I guess the problem is what do you set up as a baseline...20 and over? Then it's not a legal issue. Confusing. Can a 40 year old have sex with an 18 year old with impunity? Geez, and if it was a 40 yr old male and an 18 yr old female is that any different than and 18 year old male with a 40 yr old female? These are different times. But, the innocent must be protected. Now, there's a whole other can of worms.

Redruby, it's an incredibly difficult (not to mention emotive) issue. That is why the police chief was trying to start a discourse on it. He was keen to discuss the problem of where to have a cut-off point, and if such a thing would even be realistic. Should 'cut off points' be judged on a case by case basis for example, and if so, how does one legislate on that?

The point is as you say, though: criminliasing young people for engaging in normative behaviours is a really serious problem, and introducing them to the criminal justice system as paedophiles is an even more serious one. However, yes, the innocent must have legal protection also. Many cans of worms!! ;)

You know, I was thinking more about this when I went to bed last night but I can't remember any of my conclusions now! Typical!

I was thinking more about this when I went to bed last night but I can't remember any of my conclusions now!

Let go, it'll come back. Then, let me know.