Rape and Forced-feeding: a Legal Discussion

The two contentious issues of ‘rape’ and ‘forced-feeding’ have been chosen for deliberation, as they represent the spectre of potential or actual violation of bodily autonomy by male physical penetration.[1] In both situations the issue of ‘consent’ is relevant to either an immediate violation or the more insidious practice of ensuring submissive conformity to ‘acceptable behaviour’.  This work suggests that legal discourse fails to acknowledge law’s reference to ‘consent’ as a fixed and purely defined term, ignoring a myriad of obfuscated potential interpretations. It further suggests that the dichotomy of reason surrounding the ‘consent’, given or withheld by women facing rape or forced feeding, emanates from a patriarchal legal desire to protect men’s interest in the female body, and its reproductive capacity.

Rape

Consideration of rape raised many points, including inter alia the reasonableness of the honest belief in consent;[2] the statutory limitations defining ‘rape’ as a phallocentric, penile penetrative assault;[3] the diverse relationships between rapists and victims;[4] the responsibility of victims in “asking for it”;[5] and legal discourse’s reconfirmation of stereotypical binary notions of gender.[6] All issues touching upon the quality of ‘consent;’ and the courts determination to deduce female ‘consent’ no matter how exceptional the circumstances.  ‘Consent’ is considered here with reference to threats of immediate violation and fear that induces conformity to ‘acceptable behaviour’.

‘Consent’ faced with an immediate physical violation

“..in trials for rape it is the mental attitude of the female that is open to judgement rather than the actual sexual intercourse forced.”[7]

‘Consent’ is used broadly to cover many situations three of which mentioned in the seminar are considered here.

Capitulation

Notions of capitulating women and strong physically possessive men have formed the basis of Western philosophical eroticism and romance for centuries,[8] fuelling the idea that “women who say no do not always mean no”[9] and that ‘romantic love’ goes hand in hand with erotic possession and female capitulation.