Gender Neutrality, Rape and Trial Talk

Abstract

This article examines the notion of gender neutrality in rape, its meaning and why rape definitions that include females and males as potential victims of rape have become influential in those jurisdictions that have engaged in significant levels of rape law reform over the last four decades. In so doing, several of Annabelle Mooney's criticisms of gender neutral rape laws, published in an earlier article, will be critically examined. The second part of this article draws on themes that have been identified in the linguistic analysis of rape trials involving female complainants and applies those themes to two cases of rape and sexual assault involving male complainants. Finally, this article examines whether the tactics used by defence lawyers during cross-examination can be said to be uniquely 'gendered' or whether similar tactics exist in cases of male rape and sexual assault. Explanations for possible similarities in treatment are also examined.

An Examination of the Gender Inclusiveness of Current Theories of Sexual Violence in Adulthood

“…Many countries still retain consensual sodomy laws (e.g., Joshi, 2010) that make it difficult for victims of same-gender assault to report assaults. Although gender-inclusive sexual assault laws—laws where both men and women can be the potential victim and/or perpetrator—have recently been adopted by many countries and U.S. states (Rumney, 2008), there still exists a number of ways in which male victims and victims of same-gender violence are not protected. For instance, the rape of men is often not defined by law under the same terminology or degree of offense as the rape of women, may have different legal consequences, or may not be acknowledged as a prosecutable type of sexual aggression (see Turchik & Edwards, 2012).…”

Thinking Woman-to-Woman Rape: A Critique of Marcus’s “Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention”

“…Defining rape ''as a sexualized and gendered attack which imposes sexual difference'' (Marcus 1992, p. 397) will not help with this, regardless of the fact that paradigmatic cases adhere to precisely this logic. A more appropriate definition would follow Washington or Michigan State models (Rumney 2008) in delineating a range of forms of forced contact definable as rape while remaining neutral with respect to assailant and victim sex. At least in determining whether an assault has occurred, the focus should be on behaviour over identity (McPhail et al 2007).…”

“…Encouragingly, a number of state bodies have recently displayed movement in this same direction. For instance, Rumney (2008) points to progress made under Washington and Michigan State laws. These jurisdictions have ''adopted an expansive definition of sexual intercourse that includes penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, hand, tongue or inanimate object'' (p. 143).…”

“…For more on violence against and between men, seeIsland and Letellier (1991),Kendall (2005),Knowles (1999),Stermac et al (1996),Sarrel and Masters (1982),Rumney (2001Rumney ( , 2008,Pino and Meier (1999).K. Malinen…”

Problematizing ‘pro-feminist’ depictions of female on male rape: American Horror Story’s ‘Rape of the Monsignor’

“… 13. It is usual to use inverted commas when referring to male victims of coerced sexual congress by a female assailant, because in some legal contexts this is not necessarily recognized as rape. A discussion of gender neutrality in law is beyond the scope of this article (see Rumney, 2007, 2008; Rumney and Morgan-Taylor, 1997a, 1997b). I regard sex without consent as rape, and as such I elect to omit the inverted commas and the trivialization that they imply. …”