This is a comment stream from and article at the Columbia Journalism review: http://www.cjr.org/minority_reports/rape_case_coverage.php?page=all
What’s wrong with it: the people arguing that classifying digital penetration as rape trivializes the crime for other survivors of rape.
What’s right: actual survivors weighing in (myself included) to say no, actually, that doesn’t trivialize it at all. Calling rape by penis, fingers or anything else is the only thing that makes sense. Classifying rape as rape validates the experience of all survivors.
Who do these people think they are? Why do people refuse to listen to survivors, who are in fact the only true experts on the subject? That was in fact the very reason so many were upset by the Steubenville coverage: no one thought of Jane Doe, or any of the survivors who were so affected by this case because it reflected their own experiences.
People say arguing on the Internet is a losing battle. And they’re probably right. But I’m glad I weighed in here. I’m glad another survivor and an ally supported me. These things need to be said.