Because rape isn't a crime, you see...

[next_to_normal]

My parents were here this weekend, and since the only time I do anything touristy is when my parents come to visit, we went to the National Museum of Crime and Punishment. The museum itself was really interesting and fun, but I was most fascinated by the glaring omission of anything to do with rape IN A CRIME MUSEUM. I blame Gabs for making me all hypersensitive to feminist issues, lol, because as we were walking up the steps to enter the museum, I thought, "I wonder if they'll address rape at all." And... no. They didn't.

The museum chronicles the history of crime (though it's more of a highlights version than a comprehensive history) that includes medieval times, the Salem witch trials, the Wild West, the "public enemies" of the Depression era, mafia families, and notorious serial killers, as well as sections on crime scene investigation and forensics, imprisonment and famous prisons, capital punishment, cold cases, and America's Most Wanted. There were exhibits about murder, kidnapping, robbery, arson, identity theft, counterfeiting, assassinations, fraud, terrorism, and more - and yet, the only mentions of rape were incidental references in, say, the bio of a serial killer who also raped his victims. No exhibit, no statistics, no profiles of cases. Nothing about other forms of sexual assault or domestic violence.

Not exactly a surprise, but still a disappointment. And unfortunately, completely representative of society's attitudes toward rape.

Comments

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

Though in this text consent doesn't make a difference as it looks like.

It does if the woman is "of full age". The text I quoted actually lays down two separate rules:

Sex with a girl who is underage is illegal whether she consents or not.
Sex with a woman of legal age is illegal if she does not consent.


the consent issue at best came into play to decide how to punish the woman.

Though bear in mind that it worked both ways... the man was guilty of a crime whether the woman consented or not, though he could naturally expect a more severe punishment if she didn't. In effect, canon law prohibited women from giving their consent (outside marriage), it didn't say that they had no right to refuse it (again, except within marriage).

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

It does if the woman is "of full age". The text I quoted actually lays down two separate rules:

Misread something, yes that seems clear enough.

it didn't say that they had no right to refuse it (again, except within marriage).

That's why I asked for that particular situation, because it's where the crucial difference comes in, isn't it? The point where rape is constiuted by nothing but the absence of consent.
I looked it up and it looks like the first account of a law against spousal rape is from 1932, Poland. It becoming widely illegal in the west around 1970.

So in the beginning, it was a violation of property and religious convention, then at some point consent entered the picture and became a more important factor over the years, with finally becoming the defining quality when spousal rape was outlawed.

It really would be an interesting history to see pieced together.