Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has been heavily criticized for talking about "serious rape" as compared with other types of rape. But can some rapes be viewed as more serious than others?

The word "rape" needs to be differentiated, into "serious rape", "forcible rape", "rape rape" because the word "rape" nowadays means everything.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke saying the truth (video) (which later on he has to retract)

The justice secretary’s remarks suggesting some rapes were worse than others has led to a storm of protest and demands for his resignation from Labour. BBC

Tyrannical political correctness speech code taboos prohibit sensible discussions

Political correctness is a speech code to silence discussion. It erects taboos: don’t talk, don’t question. Making a comment on a taboo topic yields to ad hominem attacks, demands of resignation! Like a medieval church. The topic is taboo, critics are silenced, no discussion is allowed.

In the rape issue, there are stupid anecdotal one sided arguments.

"If we listen to what the victims of rape tell us about its impact, there is no difference between those who have suffered date rape and those who have been attacked by strangers. BBC

What a stupid comment! The "victim-feminists" who claim that a drunk-party-girl-who-next-day-is-sorry-she-consented-rape is the same as the mauled-in-the-forest-at-knife-point-rape are an offense to true forcible rape victims. These are the same people that say: consensual sex with an adolescent minor is rape, the same as violently raping the adolescent minor against her or his will. And such insanity pervades world wide press and politics.

Nation-wide and world wide politics are based on such drivel. Where is the peer reviewed research that supports such statements?

"If we listen to what the victims of rape tell us about its impact, there is no difference between those who have suffered date rape and those who have been attacked by strangers. BBC If we listen to what paralyzed victims of car accidents tell us about its impact, there is no difference between those that were accidentally run over due to a blown tire, a driver’s mistake or those that were run over by a maniac assassin driver. In either case, the victims are equally paralyzed.. The punishment for the perpetrator, though, is very different.

Unlike the car accident example with subsequent paralysis, as shown in the articles linked above, the modern revised definition of "rape" encompasses total different things

Most men have already been raped by a woman, but are unaware of it

I have asked many men: "Have you ever said no to a woman and she continued with sexual activities like oral sex or sex?". Almost all of them said they told a woman "Stop, I am tired" and she just continued.This happens when a man had enough sex but an insatiable woman wants more. It could happen early in the morning when the man wants to sleep.

I believe Britain has a sexist rape law where women can not rape. But by gender neutral rape laws this clearly constitutes rape. By the feminist rape definition that a simple "no" or "stop" in a consensual sexual relationship means "rape". And this is the same as dragging a screaming woman into the forest? Or 5 guys in prison holding down a man to rape him? David Cameron, thank you for your honest truth. Too bad you weaseled out and retracted, though half-heartedly

Kenneth Clark retraction (Video)

"Often the victims of stranger rape will generate more sympathy, which seems to me absurd. We mustn’t ever give out the message that your rape isn’t as bad as someone else’s rape." BBC

One guys says that someone else says. Totally anecdotal. The typical feminist victim attitude where an objectifying gaze hampers women’s intelligence and a consensual-sex-while-drunk or yielding-to-insistent-male-pressure is as bad as forcible rape.

For legal purposes, intent is important

Now let us suppose, this is true. Being dragged into the woods by an armed stranger is the same trauma as changing one’s mind in the middle of consensual sex and the guy does not stop immediately.

Different ways to get run over by a car

A person gets run over by a car and is left paralyzed. In all the following cases, the effect on the victim is the same. Legally, they are very different.

the driver ran him/her over on purpose, with intent to kill

the driver swerved in order not to hit a kitty, and inadvertently ran him over

the driver was drunk and drove badly and ran him over

the driver was going too fast to take his dying father to the hospital and hit you inadvertently

a baby disengaged the parking brake and the car rolled downhill injuring him

the offending car was standing and rear-ended by another car and thus hit him

the car’s wheel came off due to material failure and thus the car crashed, with nobody to blame for All these have different intent and very different punishment (for attempted murder to to involuntary manslaughter to deadly accident. Of course, there are dozens of date rapes

violent forcible rape of a date who clearly resists and is overpowered.

putting Rohypnol into her drink and then having sex with an unconscious girl, almost like a corpse

partying, both are drunk, have clearly consensual sex, and the girl feels sorry the next day and complains of rape Are car theft, carjacking, returning borrowed car past the due hour all equally serious? Unlike rape, where feminists made sure that everything is called rape, our language already differentiates between the above transgressions. If it were for feminist language abuse, all these very different crimes would be called "car robbery". Intent and attitude of the perpetrator are very important

Premeditated carjacking with a gun, or

stealing a car by intentionally breaking a car lock clearly stem from a criminal mind.

If you were habitually borrowing your friend’s car twice a week, and you did not understand that he rescinded that permission, this is not the same crime as car burglary

If your friend, in drunk stupor, tells you to take his car and drive home with it, and then is sorry the next day, what are the consequences? 4 years in jail for invalid consent?

If your friend lets you drive his car, and in the middle of a desert tells you to stop and get out of the car, if you insist on driving till you reach the nearest city, are you a car robber? Imagine, furthermore, that nine years later, your friend could just accuse you of this crime, and you had to prove that 9 years ago she did not withdraw her consent to use the car

withdraw her consent to use the car Or maybe she withdrew consent, but so meekly you did not understand it.

Or you thought she was joking when she told you to stop driving while in the middle of the desert (equivalent to telling a guy to stop in the middle of consensual sex) There is a "battered woman syndrome" that allows women to get away we planned premeditated murder as if it were self-defense, even though they could have simply left and moved out. Nobody clarified the "horny young man syndrome": when a woman tells says "stop" out of the blue, to a testosterone driven 19 year old to stop in the middle of a sex act, that might take some repetition to be believed, to sink in and to be heeded

Interestingly, the main argument is not being made: for a crime, the attitude of the criminal is of prime importance. There are all kind of killing offenses, from premeditated cruel murder to accidentally running over a person in a moment of reduced attention on the street. Nobody gets demands to resign for saying these are not different. Now from the point of view of the "perpetrator" there are very different levels of guilt: criminal intent with planned violence, criminal intent with no violence against people, misunderstanding of speech, unproven possibly false accusations. Now all this language abuse serves a purpose: when everything becomes rape, then Any man can be a rapist? "There is a real mythology about rape – that it’s extremely rare and the perpetrators are crazed strangers who strike on a dark night. People don’t want to accept that ordinary men can rape." Calder agrees: "People separate rape from reality, think of it as a horrendous crime that happens to someone else. If they think of it in this way it takes away the fact that any man can be a rapist." BBC This is the problem. Ordinary men, in ordinary circumstances, don’t rape. So they fiddled so long with rape definitions that finally every ordinary man risks getting charged with rape. Maybe he failed to check the ID, maybe he failed to do a blood alcohol test and mistakenly thought "yes means yes". Or he just gets a false rape accusation and goes to jail for 20 years because "women do not lie" and "ordinary men can rape" or even "every man is a rapist". Rape the new feminist obsession. Rape the new frontier in Gender War In the last half century, rape has been re-defined. First rape is re-defined, so that dozens of crimes that had a different name before, or that did not even exist before, become rape. Almost everything is "rape" see (1) (2) (3) above Pretty soon, having sex with a 20 year old is rape (when the age of consent will reach 21). Harassment and Objectifying gaze might become rape at some time. After all, if a woman feels raped, then it is rape.

Then the dogma "All (these different) types of rape are the same"

Then change due process and make sure every man is "guilty until proven innocent" when accused of rape

Finally the feminist dream becomes reality. Every man is a rapist. And if he is not, he can always be accused, tried, and be convicted of rape. What other purpose can this have, then to scare men away from sexual activities, like the antifeminist incessantly preaches?

Tyrannical political correctness speech code taboos prohibit sensible discussions

Political correctness is a speech code to silence discussion. It erects taboos: don’t talk, don’t question. Making a comment on a taboo topic yields to ad hominem attacks, demands of resignation! Like a medieval church. The topic is taboo, critics are silenced, no discussion is allowed.

Other dogmatic speech restrictions

The Bible is always right and the Bible says the sun revolves around the earth. Detractors will be burned alive or imprisoned. The catholic church apologized to Galileo Galilei in the year 2000! His trial was in 1633!

Compare James Watson and the race and iq controversy

underage sexuality and the Rind Study. The study could be wrong, but even an unanimous vote of the US senate plus congress are not the right way to disprove a peer reviewed study in a quality research journal.

Related articles

Related