Women as property in regards to rape.

Authors Avatar

Women as Property in Regards to Rape

Rape in early modern England was considered a capital crime, however, it constituted about one percent of indicted felonies. The majority of rape trials were held in silence due to the social restraints placed on women. Consequently, the silence of rape victims has resulted in a lack of historical records. Today, one identifies the crime of rape, as a violation of a woman, forcing her to submit against her will to sexual intercourse.  This definition regards the violation in terms of the female victim, but this was not necessarily the case of rape law in early modern England.  Instead, what was witnessed was a legal system that denied women the right to their own sexual autonomy.

In medieval England the majority of felonies were those in accordance with property. Rape crime became much like property crime, a felony that was done to male’s property. Much of the law in England pertaining to rape regarded the act as a violation of a father’s property, and a women’s assertion was viewed to be irrelevant.  Legislations passed in eighteenth century English law reflected a female’s lack of importance and rights, due to the fact that its purpose was for the protection of a father’s property interest in his daughter. Baine’s article states that rape was primarily a crime against property since it concerned the loss of virginity in rape. For instance the punishment of the rapist was dependent on the “quality of damaged property”. The historical movement of rape law in England reflected a shift from the idea of protecting women as a particular form of male property, to preserving women’s integrity and her right to be free from sexual assault.  Although this represented a release from a male dominated legal framework thus posing as improvement for the view of women in society, what may be argued is that the legal system still acted as a vehicle portraying male supremacy. To determine if a shift occurred from female rape victims as property to person during the Medieval to Early Modern periods, the social restrictions placed on women, the laws pertaining to rape, and the way rapists were dealt with will be further examined.

Due to the social restrictions in place women were discouraged to prosecute rape crimes. It was painful and embarrassing for a woman to publicly prove in court that an attack had taken place, and that it was indeed a rape. Only in few cases did women bring rape charges to court. For instance between 1660 and 1800 on average one case was brought to court in a year.  The cases that most commonly came forward had a particular character; either women were seriously injured, or the rape was interrupted by a witness. Also cases came before the courts when women had to seek medical attention and the story would come out. Others very often encouraged the prosecution in those circumstances. The Surrey Assize proceedings suggest that very few women on their own reported to a magistrate. Thus, women were only encouraged to report rape crimes if it damaged a women physically or if there was a witness, not necessarily because it caused the victim emotional distress. Often the cases involving a sexual attack that did come to court were victims found to be children not women. Victims of rape were primarily those of lower social class such as servants. Servants were seen as particularly vulnerable and were often sexually violated. The masters often sexually exploited the female servants, and if they were to get pregnant they were dismissed immediately. Clearly those who were socially inferior were taken advantage of.

Social customs and boundaries at this time in England placed a great deal of emphasis on chastity and women’s obligation to marry within their own class. Any doubt cast on a woman’s chastity would compromise her chances of finding a suitable husband. The parents were forced to consider “whether they could make any match for their daughter other than the match proposed by the extortioner/kidnapper once the daughter’s reputation had been tarnished by her captor”. The possibility of having a sexual violation occurred was sufficient to ruin a women’s reputation and as a “commodity” in the marriage market. Rape was not awful because of the emotional devastation inflicted on the victim but on account of the distress it causes her family and peers. Women were to submit to the authority of their fathers and husbands not only for the well ordering of family life, but to preserve the social order. Clearly women were threatened by their social order to restrain from prosecuting rape crimes merely because it would disrupt her family life. In some instances when women did not report the crime themselves the indictment would be brought through the king’s name or the father’s voice. The father would report that his property is despoiled, which is in fact the loss of his daughter’s virginity. English law from the beginning of the medieval period has primarily been interested with property rights. This emphasis on property is portrayed in rape crime. Evidently statues at that time identified rape as a crime against family property. Thus, the societal restraints and norms placed on women demonstrated that they were in fact property not autonomous individuals.

Join now!

The control of women by either their fathers or husbands invariably led to women becoming restricted within their own space. During Medieval England women were expected to remain within their own boundaries. Men during this time felt the need to enclose women as a method of control, whether it was a women’s husband or father. It was generally assumed that “women who strayed from their designated space might be subject to sexual assault because they were neither under the protection of a responsible male nor in the accustomed space”. Women during this time felt the societal pressure to stay ...

This is a preview of the whole essay