A deepity too many

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

It’s on a spectrum, you see.

A trans Green MSP has claimed rape exists on a “spectrum”.

Q Manivannan said the “demonisation of rape” led to an overly simplistic idea about what kind of people committed the offence.

The act, the Indian-born poet and academic argued, instead exists on a “spectrum” and is dependent on different “contexts”. Anyone, he said, can commit the offence – including women.

Well, no, because “rape” means what it means. If you want to talk about sexual misconduct that’s not rape then you need a different word. Rape means rape in much the same way women means women.

Isn’t it interesting that it’s the words women need that are getting all this chin-scratching over do we really mean rape when we talk about rape my dear chap?

Rape is rape. Consensual sex in which one person gets violent without consent is something else. Rape is still rape.

Manivannan said the remarks were intended to highlight how society has too narrow a definition of what counts as rape and of the people who are likely to commit it.

No, because if you want to talk about abuse or violent consensual sex or a host of other variations you can, but you don’t need to change the meaning of “rape” to do that. Also, men aren’t the ideal sex to do it.

Susan Smith, co-director of feminist campaign group For Women Scotland, said: “We were very disturbed to hear the comments from Manivannan which betrayed such utter ignorance of the trauma and violation of rape.

“This will be a test of the determination of the Greens to ‘queer’ all boundaries.

“Having decided that gender is fluid and that ‘women’ can have penises, will they now defend the notion that consent and sexual violence are fluid, mutable concepts and that women have to accept rapists’ self-assessment that they are great lads and not to be ‘demonised’?”

This is why Manivannan is not the right person to talk about this. At all.

Comments

11 responses to “A deepity too many”

  1. Artymorty Avatar
    Artymorty

    Indeed, that he’s not the right person to talk about it is, I think, spot on. An extremely charitable reading of his words might be that he meant to say something like, rapists constitute a broader “spectrum” of the population than is understood in the popular imagination (as he imagines it). And maybe by “demonization” he meant to say something like, rape isn’t merely perpetuated by cartoon, demonic thugs out of Central Casting who step into scene fully dressed for the part.

    But even with that charitable reading, he’s badly bungled his words, at a minimum. And given that he’s already a man who violates women’s boundaries as a matter of pride, there’s no reason for anyone to give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s really got no place talking about it at all.

  2. marcel proust Avatar
    marcel proust

    (#1 of 2 comments)

    Ethologist avoid the word “rape” because it is a legal term, the precise meaning of which varies across cultures and across jurisdictions. They speak instead of “coerced copulations”, acts of copulation in which it appears pretty clear that the female is unwilling but unable to avoid the act. These are cases in which one or more (cooperating) males use force or varying harassing maneuvers including physical intimidation, pursuit and herding (ask claude about “coerced copulation” for more info). Species in which it has been reported include:

    – various types of ducks and other water fowl

    – bottlenose dolphins and several species of whales

    – chimpanzees and orangutans

    I am ignorant of the context and background of these remarks and have never previously heard of Manivannan. I think a charitable interpretation of their remarks would be to recognize that rape is merely one kind of coerced copulation, largely the only type that is legally recognized (and therefore against the law). The historically recent example where rape within a marriage was not a legal possibility is an illustration of the problem that the speaker highlights. A decent society would address the larger issue and not just what is rape as it is legally defined.

  3. marcel proust Avatar
    marcel proust

    (#2 of 2 comments)

    I recall a case in the 1970s, one of the weird events associated with 2nd wave feminism. At some university, I think in Britain, 3 women in a car accosted a male pedestrian, dragged him into some bushes and, according to the account, compelled him to have sex with (each?) of them. According to the accounts, he felt he had no choice, perhaps because they were armed, I don’t know.

    In recent years there have been a number of reports of adult women, often in their late 20s or 30s having erotic relationships with underage boys: most often teachers and one of their (jr. high) students. It makes the papers much more often than the common type of statutory rape, a combination of man (woman) bites dog plus sex. The women are typically prosecuted for statutory rape. Google Mary Kay Letourneau for a particularly lurid example from the 90s.

  4. Patrice Avatar
    Patrice

    Rainbows are spectrums of light. Rainbows are nice, spectrums are nice, the spectrum of rape is nice and progressive and just part of the rich tapestry of the rainbow community

  5. Ian Hargreaves Avatar
    Ian Hargreaves

    ” “rape” means what it means. If you want to talk about sexual misconduct that’s not rape then you need a different word.”

    What a very American attitude. See comment on previous blog post.

    Is this pernickety definition slicing a uniquely American thing?

    Because you can’t say “rape is rape” as if it has a single fixed and immutable legal definition worldwide. That’s just false.

    And saying “Rape means rape in much the same way women means women” is just wrong. “Women” has an everyday definition, understood if not accepted by everyone and in the UK at least affirmed by the Supreme Court, that is – biological females. Rape has no such specific settled definition, which is part of why the case of the American rapists tried in Britain under American law (with its far narrower definition) is so egregious.

    But you might well say that “if you want to [introduce nuance] men aren’t the ideal sex to do it”, it’s also pretty clear that Americans of either sex are the last people you should involve.

  6. Ophelia Benson Avatar
    Ophelia Benson

    Sorry bub, I am an American, so if you have contempt for Americans you’re not gonna like this blog.

  7. Ian Hargreaves Avatar
    Ian Hargreaves

    I don’t have contempt for Americans, but the post (and the previous one) concerned the UK, where I live, and in context the observation of the widely differing standards for rape prosecutions between the two places seemed rather relevant, especially in the light of the recent prosecutions of a number of Americans not in British courts, but in US military ones, despite the victims being English, the crimes being committed in England and the original investigations being carried out by English police forces.

    Such contempt as I have is mainly directed at the spineless English police forces bending over when pressured by the American armed forces.

    It should be self-evident and uncontroversial to observe that not all rapes are equal and women are capable of it, but that does require an agreed definition of the word – which English law has, but which does not agree with that in American law, which is where this misunderstanding seems to originate.

  8. Ophelia Benson Avatar
    Ophelia Benson

    “What a very American attitude.”

    That does in fact express contempt for Americans.

  9. marcel proust Avatar
    marcel proust

    When I commented, I was unaware of the situation described in the comment here: https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2026/a-deepity-too-many/#comment-3096240.

    This is likely due to the status of forces agreement and I have heard of sex-offense cases in Okinawa and Germany being handled in ways that sounded like extraterritoriality protections for US servicemen which, quite reasonably, generated a great deal of resentment,

  10. Ophelia Benson Avatar
    Ophelia Benson

    Very understandably indeed.

  11. Starskeptic Avatar
    Starskeptic

    Ethology is the study of animal behavior.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts