"Force is present because consent is absent"

In Mackinnon's, "Rape: On Coercion and Consent", she describes rape as "an extension of sexism, and  an extension of dealing with women as an object". There is this idea that women who have had sex have nothing else to lose through rape because they already lost "it". The illusive "it" is yet to be defined and I find troubling the idea that a women's sexuality prior to the rape is considered to be part of her identity which is then taken away in some form, as if each part of her is a separate object. Lise mentions a Law Reform from 1983 that restricts cross examination using past history of the "victim" due to the idea that women who have had sex were more likely to consent. These notions of what a woman (hetero-normative sense) is likely to do because of past sexual history is irrelevant to what is happening right now, what is happening "to her" through the legal system as well as social constructs at that specific moment in time.

This idea that "force is present because consent is absent" is mentioned by Mackinnon, where rape is defined through male sexual terms, there needs to be a distinction between rape and sex  that is clear and not strictly defined  or assessed through a women's will. Mackinnon see's rape and normal sex as the same thing, this eliminates the idea of free choice. What is the line that we draw, when sex with force, in which the extent of force used can not be gauged is normalized. What then is the range at which we say to much force becomes rape if consent is not mentioned?

Our criminal standard focuses on what the act of rape means to the assailant rather than to the "victim". The Strategy of Law Reform is based on the gender inclusive redefinition of rape as it is not considered just a "women's issue". We also have to consider as Lise mentioned who sets the standard for gender neutral treatment? The question of consent is sexualized, consent reflects an image of a masculine agency. When rape is constructed as a crime this determines its meaning, this is problematic for me in a way that focuses on the "crime of rape" versus the "act of rape" seen as a crime? The distinction being the act of rape is the crime itself, the inherent "choice of the act" should be considered the crime. I guess my frustration is not in the absence of a definition of a crime but a definition of rape that is separated from a  common crime.

My CSL placement is at Kindred House and I have yet to figure out how to make this weeks readings relevant to what i see there or hear there. Yes the law is useful and necessary and has improved considerably but what actually has been considered because the way in which these women have been treated through the eyes of the law is not unbiased or regulated. So then how do I look at them and not feel as if the purpose of the law has failed them in some way?