rape

Maybe appropriate in legal terms.

“Monstrosity” might come closer in editorial terms.

I think so. Rape seems to encompass all manner of sexual abuse.

I agree. If it were an 11 *month* old and a 14 month old, that would be different, but by 11 years humans can pretty much conceptualize the nature of a violent act.

And then there’s the matter of the failure of parenthood (of the 11 year old).

This child sounds deeply disturbed and had no business to be left caring for a toddler.

ETA: I’ll wager that once you peel back the onion on this case, you’ll find that the child is probably a victim of sexual abuse herself.

“you’ll find that the child is probably a victim of sexual abuse herself.”

That is usually the case. it is learned, most often.

This makes me ill every time I see it written again.

But, yes, I think it is rape–isn’t the definition a forced violent sexual act? Granted, I do believe that “rape” is thrown around a little much these days. In my opinion, it should only be used in circumstances of violence. But I don’t make the rules.

Yes. Chris, I know you’re not suggesting that because there was no penis involved, it’s not rape. Unless the little one just happened to fall on a fencepost, what likely happened there was rape.

I’m not suggesting anything, necessarily – I don’t know enough about the case, really, since very few details were given, but that’s why I thought it was interesting that the word “rape” was used without much detail. I just wanted to throw the question out there to see what sort of responses I got. What I find interesting is that everyone focused on the violence and horrificness of the act to justify it as rape, and not questioning whether or not there was an element of sexuality. I.e. – was there sexual intent on behalf of the 11 year old? Was it mimicry? Was she a sexual abuse victim herself (probably, as noted above)? Would it still be rape if her violent act had been one of bodily mutilation in general (perhaps or perhaps not including the vagina). Does inflicting injury to a sexual organ alone make it rape?

This is purely an academic discussion, of course – one of semantics, but.. I think semantics are important with a word as powerful as rape – do we dilute its meaning as a word that has come to represent an endemic form of sexual violence that represents a real social problem if we apply it everywhere there are sex organs involved, regardless of intent? Probably not, but it’s worth thinking about.

Chris, I appreciate your response, and I also don’t know enough about the case. However, if an adult did the same to another adult, but for purposes of control and domination rather frustrated sexual desire, wouldn’t we still call it rape? I think we would, and do. You’re right, though, that harm to another area of the body (such as the abdomen) would be called assault, not rape. So why do we even have the word rape? Somehow I think there’s something different about assault vs rape, although I can’t articulate it properly.

Well, I think because as much as we all talk like rape is not about sex or desire, that it’s about violence, clearly, that’s not true. I mean, I get the rhetorical strategy in claiming that rape is a violent act, not a sexual act, but there’s a reason the rapist chooses to focus on those body parts–it’s both an act of violence and a sex act; a fucked-up sex act, but a sex act nevertheless.

Disturbing question arising from a disturbing report.

It probably is worth distinguishing rape (non-consensual intromission) and other forms of sexual assault.

The 11 year old’s motivation must have been sexual - there’s no other construction possible, I think - the genitals are a completely sexually charged part of the body, and there’s very little ambiguity about it.

i think it was good that he got raped i hope that he enjoyed it

i feel sorry for the pore guy he probably got the weeny up his but