Whenever I see a question like this, I know the person asking the question is trying to minimize the impact of rape and is hoping others will chime in supportively with "objective" responses. Once that happens then those who talk about the serious impact of rape can be declared to be overreacting or irrational.
After all, "objective" people have declared rape to be no worse than any other crime. Only those clearly "non-objective" people disagree.
The dismissive way "objective" people talk about rape when raising or answering these sorts of questions supports the rationalizations used by those considering rape. This is true even if a disclaimer is given that the person in no way is attempting to minimize or support rape. Note: if you have to write a disclaimer, whatever you write in your disclaimer is false.
The description of rape by "objective" people becomes so generic that those doing the "objective" quantifying strip away all elements except the movement of one body part. Tab B goes into Slot A. And people get prison time for that?
If we used these methods, we could turn any trauma into far less than it really is.
We could take a father who was mugged by a man who aimed a gun straight at his heart, and who smiled in a way that made it clear that the mugged man's life has no value to him and we could say there was no trauma at all since the man wasn't physically harmed.
It wouldn't matter that this person now knows where his victim lives and now has a picture of his wife and daughters because he has the man's wallet. The only harm is the amount of cash in the wallet and the cost to replace the lost items.
"Objectively" this means that the mugger committed a crime no worse than the man who finds the wallet another man lost and who decides to keep it.
This twisting of reality shows how non-objective this so-called "objectivity" really is.
Labels: Violence Against Women