Michael Eriksson
A Swede in Germany
Home » Humans » Women » Feminism | About me Impressum Contact Sitemap

The severity of the crime rape

Rape is often abused by feminist by doctoring statistics to e.g. hide the high proportion of false rape-allegations—and often by giving incentives for the false allegations themselves. This is something that anti-feminists tend to attack; however, there is another issue involved that is usually overlooked:

How severe a crime is rape?


Here, and everywhere else, I use “rape” in its actual meaning: Many sexual interactions that some feminist try to push off as rape are typically neither crimes nor unethical. Consider e.g. the “I consented last night, but now I regret it; ergo, he raped me.” idiocy. If this discussion was based on these pseudo-rapes, the below would read very, very differently.

(Let us try “I gave my date cab money last night, but now I regret it; ergo, she robbed me.” instead. Alternatively, see this example of rape claims taken to the extremee—with the tables turned it is a just a joke.)

For another interesting angle on some of the sub-topics, see this article on fascination with sex crimese.

It is very bad, certainly—that is not up for discussion—, but it is far from what it is typically portrayed as. Among the characterizations I have heard over the years, the opinion “Rape is the worst thing that can happen to a woman.” is probably the most commonly voiced. Certainly, when discussions about rape take place, this seems to be a pre-supposition. Notably, when grouped with other crimes, it is typically “rape and murder”, not “rape and robbery” or “rape and assault”. Indeed, feminists often insist that the victim is called a “survivor” instead of a “victim”—as if she somehow is overcoming an attempted murder: The word survivor should be used for those who have escaped a truly life-threatening event (e.g. an aeroplane crash that killed half the passengers) or, in a different meaning, the survivors of a deceased person—it should not be bandied about for rhetorical effect.

Looking realistically at this, the claim that rape is the worst thing that can happen to a woman is manifestly wrong: Consider a woman being burned alive, seeing her children eaten by wolves, or becoming quadriplegic.

Even looking at more common occurrences, the claim does not hold up: Most victims go on to lead normal and happy lives (by the pre-event standard). Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, even many non-exceptions may have problems with trust, fear dark alleys, develop PTSD, and/or be “sexually challenged” (for want of a better phrasing). Yes, even these may require therapy and/or a prolonged period of normalization before they have bounced back. Consider, however, some other crimes: Having a child kidnapped—even if later safely returned. Being robbed at gun point and then brutally beaten. Finding out that a beloved fiancee was running a romance scam and has taken off with a life’s worth of savings on the day before the wedding. What is likely to have the worse short-, mid-, and long-term effects?


PSTDw (post-traumatic stress disorder) is a popular argument among feminists, often in the guise that rape victims and combat veterans both develop it; ergo, being raped is (at least) as bad as being in combat. This line of reasoning is flawed with regard to both frequency and severity of the PSTD; further, it ignores other factors, such as the respective risks of actually being killed.

Those who doubt should have a look at the TV series The Pacificw. Anyone who is willing to put rape on equal footing with combat afterwards (be it with regard to PSTD or in general) must be deemed a complete idiot. Alternatively, read this article on PSTD in WWII veteranse.

Obviously, PSTD is by no means limited to veterans or rape victims, but is sufficiently common that the mere occurrence among rape victims is a non-argument. The many other causes include robberies, car accidents, natural disasters, even divorce and mobbing. (Although the latter two are possibly merely similar in symptoms and claimed as PSTD by laymen. Obviously, for the current discussion, the symptoms are more important than the diagnosis.)

Even non-crimes that happen to far more people, sometimes repeatedly, can do greater harm: There are many a woman (and man) who has been emotionally destroyed for months after a break-up with a SO; many others have been unable to go on after a life-partner of forty years has passed away; countless children have suffered severe long-term damage through divorces or emotional abuse.

Certainly, male rapes in prisons are worse: Apart from the “normal” mental issues, we must now additionally consider the far greater humiliation, the greater potential physical damage, and the risk of completely losing ones standing, if others find out (in my third-hand impressions, standing can be of immense importance in a prison setting). In addition, a male rape will often bring greater mental damage and fear, because the likelihood of a repetition is much greater than for a woman outside of prison.

Certainly, being (unfairly) accused of rape is very often worse: A man that is befallen by this may see his reputation torn to shreds, be viewed as a sex-offender by his neighbours, may have to move, may lose his job (between the loss of confidence and complications caused by the legal process), can see his wife engage divorce proceedings that break his neck, be unable to trust women again, runs the risk of being beaten up, needs to pay a lawyer, ... If he is famous, he may see his career irreparably damaged—as may someone who is e.g. a realtor or a lawyer. Then there is the far from trivial risk that he is actually convicted, even if innocent—which effectively ruins his life: A sizable chunk is removed in a prison sentence (where he, himself, may repeatedly fall victim to real rape, quality of life is low, and no salary is earned), employment chances after release are poor, the chances of finding a long-term partner even worse, ... In the wrong country or context, other problems can ensue, including e.g. a forced castration or registration as a sexual offender in a publicly accessible database. Consider, as an extreme case, William J. Hetheringtone, who has spent more than 20 years in jail, for a crime that he, in all likelihood, did not commit—on the instigation of his ex-wife to give her the upper hand in their divorce. Alternatively, consider the total perversion of the justice systeme alleged of a Maine county. (Yet, for some reason, the crime of false accusation appears to be treated very leniently...)

Certainly, some of the stories I have heard about US men and divorces have shown a man go through consequences that make rape pale in comparison.

How about war? Consider the psychological damage and post-war lives of many veterans—never mind the risk of being killed or losing a limb.

Frankly, rape does not even make it into the top-ten list of “worst things”, not by a long chalk, and should only be given as much attention as it deserves based on actual severity and frequency of occurrence when compared to other crimes—which will be a significant amount, but less than today.

Doing otherwise is falling into a trap where feminists raise rape to a crime on par with murder, with no justification, and thus distort the entire discussion.

My recommendation is to always beware of this rhetorical trick and to counter it by putting rape into its proper perspective. This in particular as this distortion of rape typically goes hand in hand with attempts to broaden the definition of the term to the point of triviality: When feminists simultaneously claim that rape is the worst thing that can happen to a woman and that instances of consensual sex are rape, then we end up with a parody of justice, where men who have done nothing morally or ethically wrong are forced to spend a sizable part of their lives in jail—and see what remains of them ruined.


But what about the women that are beaten or even killed during rape?

That is a different situation that should not be confused with rape it self: If a woman is murdered, then that is the main crime, and the rape just a side-issue. It can even be argued that the rape is next to irrelevant for the evaluation of the total crime, because the victim is not exposed to any of the psychological effects of the rape (which are by far the greater damage done)—and its relevance is reduced to being a gauge of the perpetrator’s mental state, intentions, motivations, and so on.

A simultaneous beating is also (logically, the legal status will likely vary depending on the jurisdiction) a separate crime, and depending on the severity of the beating, as well as the exact circumstances, it may or may not be the greater crime. At any rate, the punishment should be x years for rape and y years for assault—not x+y years for rape.

Similarly, when a woman is threatened at gun-point before and during a rape, fears for her life, and carries mental scars because of that, it is important not to confound this with the concept of rape: When judging how bad a crime rape is, we must focus on rape it self and its side-effects—if it turns out that one particular woman has nightmares due to the fear for her life, rather than the rape, then we must say that she has nightmares after being threatened at gun-point—not that she has nightmares after being raped.