NationStates Jolt Archive

Related to recent threads about rape and victim culpability. Rape is "easy" to define when it's done by a stranger and done by force, but what about when the lines aren't as clear?

Situation B and C are without question rape in English law, and fall within the clear statutory definitions. Situation A is a little bit less certain, as whether Sarah has consented in this situation is a matter of fact for a jury. They would essentially have to decide whether she agreed by choice, with the freedom and capacity to make that choice.

yep.

tho I believe some states here expanded it to penitration in any form. thus covering artifical peni and any opening for any sex.

and I believe that's the definition most lawyers use.

Again, that would depend on where you are. It's not the definition I would use.

True, but aside from that, it did have helpful and relevant bits to the discussion. however, the date rape definition, stopping when told to can mean when penetration has occured (situation C) or the progression of kissing/heavy petting to intercourse. but that's really for the lawyers to argue. :cool:

Nope, Twas not i...

I was just saying that it would be kinda cruel to pin all the blame on the guy in C...

I was Hammered for it...and unfortunately that statement's not as much of a Weapon as id like...

EDIT: you could probably find a quote or two that sounds like it, but, there was some grasping at straws at one point...well, I do agree the blame shouldn't be only on the guy. but that's only my opinion and it's not worth much in the eyes of the law. :p

Hey, you know what I'd do in your scenario?

I'd stop eating the freaking ice cream, because I don't believe I have a right to take someone else's ice cream without their permission. The fact that you believe others' ice cream is there for you to take at will is your problem, not one decent human beings face.

I am so disturbed by the replies in this thread...
I feel your nausea at some of them...

Again, that would depend on where you are. It's not the definition I would use.

true, but unfortunatly, it's the definition the lawyers would use. :cool:

true, but unfortunatly, it's the definition the lawyers would use. :cool:

Should I repeat myself?

Should I repeat myself?

not necessary. Just agreeing with you to a point. I may not agree with the definition. but as I told Skalvia, my opinion doesn't mean much in the eyes of the law.

not necessary. Just agreeing with you to a point. I may not agree with the definition. but as I told Skalvia, my opinion doesn't mean much in the eyes of the law.

Only if you're one of the twelve idiots in the jury box.

not necessary. Just agreeing with you to a point. I may not agree with the definition. but as I told Skalvia, my opinion doesn't mean much in the eyes of the law.

Aye. And your definition is not universal, hence not what the lawyers use everywhere. And I don't use that definition, nor is that the legal definition of rape here.

That was all, I guess.

Isnt it great how we can be all :fluffle: over the definition of rape? lol

Only if you're one of the twelve idiots in the jury box.

ah, but even then, it's not my opinion, but how each lawyer presents the facts.

yep.

tho I believe some states here expanded it to penitration in any form. thus covering artifical peni and any opening for any sex.

and I believe that's the definition most lawyers use.

Which still means that a woman can't rape a man via vaginal intercourse, which is bullshit.

but we got to apply law equally and throwing someone in jail due to them having an unusually long orgasm is pretty fucked up.

and personally it is closer to 15 seconds. 5 seconds is just the cum coming out. though i likely draw the process out because i work out my pubococcygeus muscle

Sure, I'll concede that orgasms last longer than the actual ejaculation if you concede that:

A) The only "uncontrollable" part is the moment of ejaculation (if you are drawing your orgasms out and pulling out before you ejaculate, you obviously still have muscular control)

B) Drawing orgasms out is a willful action and you could just as easily "let go" and finish the moment someone tells you to stop.

That should take no more than 5 seconds, but I'll give you 6 for the sake of compromise. If you can pull out before you ejaculate (as you already said you did) then you have the muscular control to stop having sex.

Involuntary contractions in some parts of your body do not make you completely immobile. So if you can physically stop (as you already said you could and did do by pulling out before ejaculation), your argument boils down to saying that you don't have enough willpower to make yourself stop, which is complete bullshit.

That should take no more than 5 seconds, but I'll give you 6 for the sake of compromise.

And the OP said the woman said no "several times." It would be silly to assume that she did so in that 6 second period particularly as the OP stated she asked before, not during, his.. "finishing up."

So this whole line of reasoning is moot anyway.

Where?

You haven't provided a definition yet, or spelled out which jurisdiction you're pulling it from. Rape can include provisions that make it impossible for a man to rape his spouse...or for a woman to rape anyone. Other rape laws are more like what you and I are probably familiar with in terms of sexual assault laws.

True, in some places it's legally impossible for a man to rape his wife. On a somewhat unrelated note, I just read that in Texas it's legal for a man to kill his wife and her lover if the husband catches them in bed together.

yep.

tho I believe some states here expanded it to penitration in any form. thus covering artifical peni and any opening for any sex.

and I believe that's the definition most lawyers use.

Interesting. So I wonder if, and this is of course a hypothetical, a man used threat and force to perform oral sex on a woman... is that rape?

Constent not given, or given then revoked - hella yes it's rape

involuntary muscle spasms in your penis do not keep you from pulling out and backing off.

I don't think "greed and death" has ever had sex with a real woman before.

To elucidate- All three are rape. Flat out no ifs ands or buts - giving in to avoid getting hurt still makes it rape.

And yes oral sex via force, or threat of force is still rape, so is using tentacles, coke bottles, your fingers, or anything else in a sexual manner. - wether penetration occurs or not.

Which still means that a woman can't rape a man via vaginal intercourse, which is bullshit.
except I think, the wording was changed to mean any opening, thus unwanted anal penetration would be included. but that, I think, goes into each state and their definition of rape.

Interesting. So I wonder if, and this is of course a hypothetical, a man used threat and force to perform oral sex on a woman... is that rape?

interesting query... how much has to be inserted to be considered 'penetration'?

and one wonders how it would be measured?

No, Im not griping about shit, just pointing out what happened...and as far as your Guns Analogy...I ask you, who do Iraqis blame when they get shot?

Seriously? This is where you're going? Okaaaay.

I said "you put up a target and then bitch that people shot at at it." How is that anything LIKE Iraqis being shot? Please tell me you're kidding.

Seriously? This is where you're going? Okaaaay.

I said "you put up a target and then bitch that people shot at at it." How is that anything LIKE Iraqis being shot? Please tell me you're kidding.

Well, i have to answer that with another question...is it Pre Saddam, or Post Saddam?

But, honestly i already bowed out of this one...

Picture of Sklavia

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_nov2003/TargetPractice.jpg

except I think, the wording was changed to mean any opening, thus unwanted anal penetration would be included. but that, I think, goes into each state and their definition of rape.


Anal penetration has what to do with vaginal intercourse? Men can be raped in ways that don't involve their bodies being penetrated.

Picture of Sklavia

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_nov2003/TargetPractice.jpg

How did you discover that? THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE TOP SECRET!!!

Are you spying on us!?

Anal penetration has what to do with vaginal intercourse? Men can be raped in ways that don't involve their bodies being penetrated.

well, it depends on each state's wording of the definition of Rape.

I stated penetration, not specifically vaginal.
the post you quoted stated it.
tho I believe some states here expanded it to penitration in any form. thus covering artifical peni and any opening for any sex.

and yes, I agree that 'Rape' tends to favor the female over the male as victims/accusers.

except I think, the wording was changed to mean any opening, thus unwanted anal penetration would be included. but that, I think, goes into each state and their definition of rape.


Rape is usually prosecuted in the state courts, is it not? I think legal definitions might vary significantly by state.

I answered the OP with California's laws in mind, and under which, all three scenarios would be rape. Men can also be victims of rape, under California law, IIRC.

well, it depends on each state's wording of the definition of Rape.

I stated penetration, not specifically vaginal.
the post you quoted stated it.


What the fuck does that have to do with what I said? Do you not understand non-penetrative rape or something?

Interesting. So I wonder if, and this is of course a hypothetical, a man used threat and force to perform oral sex on a woman... is that rape?In my book, yes. Legally- ask a lawyer.

For us, we all accept that any form of sex without the woman's consent is rape. Unfortunately, in a court of law, it is how the law is worded and/or previous precedent cases were judged.
So even if you were a juror listening for a case, you ARE bound to a certain extent to what decision you can vote for by what is there. Of course, you can still be a trailblazer, but it does make appeal by the accused easier.

In my country at least, only penetration of the vagina by the penis is considered as rape (so technically men can't be raped). Sucks, but that's how it is. Everything else is considered as merely "outraging another's modesty". Oh well.

All three are rape. There is no question about this. And many of the people posting in this thread are completely out of their minds. (I'm not talking about everyone who disagrees here; I've seen a few posts from people who are well-intentioned and sane but still getting it wrong.)

Seriously, folks, there are no "points of view" here. There are the facts of three different situations presented by the original poster, and we're being asked, given those facts, whether a rape occurred. If you're trying to defend the man in any of these cases by saying "maybe it didn't actually happen like that," you're not even answering the question anymore.

It's pretty interesting, I would have to say all three of them though.

Interesting. So I wonder if, and this is of course a hypothetical, a man used threat and force to perform oral sex on a woman... is that rape?
According to local law: Yes.

Answer will differ through different jurisdictions though.


interesting query... how much has to be inserted to be considered 'penetration'?

and one wonders how it would be measured?

I don't think that's a technicality that'll ever pose a problem in the real world. One bases it upon the available evidence and testimony.

I personally think that the word 'rape' is thrown around way too much in our society.

I wonder if you'd think the same if it were YOUR body on the line there... somehow, I am guessing not.

None are rape, and don't think I'm some perverted guy that agrees with, or likes, the scenarios posted here.

All three of the following are RAPE. The reason why not that you give for the first one is why it took soo bloody long for marital rape, (which is what the first case IS) to be considered rape.

A)She gave in, if she didn't seriously want to, she should have fought more.

[QUOTE] B)She may have been originally unconscious, but she awoke. It was her own fault for not acting upon her feelings and fighting to have the guy stop.

Again, even though it has been pointed out before, You CANNOT give consent if you are unconscious. Are you saying that if she had NOT have woken up, it would have been rape? You are calling the woman in the third scenerio wrong for 'saying STOP, NO! in the middle of coitus(sp), ' but are condemning this woman for not doing it.

C)This isn't difficult. Her and her boyfriend/husband or whatever, got into a fight, so they got upset and temporarily went their own ways. It was her decision to first start with the guy, because she wanted to stop in the middle of it, it isn't the guy's fault, it's hers for choosing to cheat on her boyfriend in the first place. And since they mutually agreed to proceed with sex in the first place, she really should have let it go at that point. Some people need to be wise with their decisions, and that's all this is about, it's simply common sense.

Sooo, because she was 'cheating', she deserved to get raped? Stupidity on her part notwithstanding, after the NO, it became rape, or in your worldview is a male INCAPABLE of controlling his own sexual responses?

You may not approve of her reasons for choosing to begin coitus with the second guy, (as a matter of fact, neither do I) HOWEVER, No STILL means no.. the second guy COULD have, and SHOULD have 'pulled out/stopped'. Actually, considering that the second guy OUGHT to have known that it was inappropriate to have started sex in the first place IF he knew about guy one.

Rape is usually prosecuted in the state courts, is it not? I think legal definitions might vary significantly by state.


Yes, and they do vary. For example, IL is one of the few states where its rape definition explicitly states that manner of dress does not indicate consent. Meaning, much to the chagrin of certian NSGers (it would seem...) the "she was dressed like a slut and therefore asking for it!" arguement will fail here.


This state is actually the exception rather then the rule last I checked. In many states, mostly southern states (suprise suprise) that is still a valid defense.

Yes, and they do vary. For example, IL is one of the few states where its rape definition explicitly states that manner of dress does not indicate consent. Meaning, much to the chagrin of certian NSGers (it would seem...) the "she was dressed like a slut and therefore asking for it!" arguement will fail here.


This state is actually the exception rather then the rule last I checked. In many states, mostly southern states (suprise suprise) that is still a valid defense.

Rape in my state

§21-1111. Rape defined.
A. Rape is an act of sexual intercourse involving vaginal or anal penetration accomplished with a male or female who is not the spouse of the perpetrator and who may be of the same or the opposite sex as the perpetrator under any of the following circumstances:
1. Where the victim is under sixteen (16) years of age;
2. Where the victim is incapable through mental illness or any other unsoundness of mind, whether temporary or permanent, of giving legal consent;
3. Where force or violence is used or threatened, accompanied by apparent power of execution to the victim or to another person;
4. Where the victim is intoxicated by a narcotic or anesthetic agent, administered by or with the privity of the accused as a means of forcing the victim to submit;
5. Where the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this fact is known to the accused;
6. Where the victim submits to sexual intercourse under the belief that the person committing the act is a spouse, and this belief is induced by artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused or by the accused in collusion with the spouse with intent to induce that belief. In all cases of collusion between the accused and the spouse to accomplish such act, both the spouse and the accused, upon conviction, shall be deemed guilty of rape;
7. Where the victim is under the legal custody or supervision of a state agency, a federal agency, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision and engages in sexual intercourse with a state, federal, county, municipal or political subdivision employee or an employee of a contractor of the state, the federal government, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision that exercises authority over the victim; or
8. Where the victim is at least sixteen (16) years of age and is less than twenty (20) years of age and is a student, or under the legal custody or supervision of any public or private elementary or secondary school, junior high or high school, or public vocational school, and engages in sexual intercourse with a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is an employee of the same school system.
B. Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a male or female who is the spouse of the perpetrator if force or violence is used or threatened, accompanied by apparent power of execution to the victim or to another person.
R.L. 1910, § 2414. Amended by Laws 1981, c. 325, § 1; Laws 1983, c. 41, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1983; Laws 1984, c. 134, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1984; Laws 1990, c. 224, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1990; Laws 1993, c. 62, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Laws 1995, c. 22, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1995; Laws 1999, c. 309, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 1999; Laws 2001, c. 184, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2001; Laws 2002, c. 22, § 9, emerg. eff. March 8, 2002; Laws 2006, c. 62, § 5, emerg. eff. April 17, 2006.
NOTE: Laws 2001, c. 51, § 4 repealed by Laws 2002, c. 22, § 34, emerg. eff. March 8, 2002.


bold added by me.
Seems to cover A and B......but probably C as well.

Rape in my state



bold added by me.
Seems to cover A and B......but probably C as well.

If my memory for such things serves me right, I believe that the legal ability to withdraw consent in the middle of the act is relativally recent (by which I mean the last 5 years).

That may have just been for IL however.

If my memory for such things serves me right, I believe that the legal ability to withdraw consent in the middle of the act is relativally recent (by which I mean the last 5 years).

That may have just been for IL however.

It's fairly recent (within the last 10 years I think) that anal penetration was added to the rape statute, it used to be under a sodomy law which didn't have as stiff of penalty. I found it interesting that men can be raped in my state (in a legal sense) I know many states in which a man can only be "sexually assaulted".

Rape in my state



bold added by me.
Seems to cover A and B......but probably C as well.

Seems like forced oral sex falls outside that definition.

Seems like forced oral sex falls outside that definition.

Yeah, it's sexual battery. There are like 1,000 different forms of sexual battery in my state that don't count as "rape" but are still very punishable. I'm 90% sure it's a felony. I know that it's a felony to feel someone up in a "lewd manor" without their permission.

There is an activist group trying to get the rape law expanded. For a long time it wasn't illegal for your spouse to rape you, but it is now.

There is an activist group trying to get the rape law expanded. For a long time it wasn't illegal for your spouse to rape you, but it is now.

Minor nitpick, technically saying "it's not illegal for your spouse to rape you" is like saying "it's not illegal for your spouse to murder you". Inherent in the definition of rape (and murder) is illegality. It's not like it wasn't illegal for your spouse to rape you, rather, your souse could not rape you.

If my memory for such things serves me right, I believe that the legal ability to withdraw consent in the middle of the act is relativally recent (by which I mean the last 5 years).

That may have just been for IL however.

It's been the case the entire time I've been at college that consent can be withdrawn.

Sexual coercion with the threat/use of force? Yeah that's ambiguous. Could be rape, could be sugar plums, I'm not too sure.



Sex with someone who is unconscious and cannot possibly consent. Of course it's rape.



She said no, he fucked her anyway. Yes, it's rape.

So wait where's the ambiguous situations I heard about?

Agreed, all 3 are rape.

Minor nitpick, technically saying "it's not illegal for your spouse to rape you" is like saying "it's not illegal for your spouse to murder you". Inherent in the definition of rape (and murder) is illegality. It's not like it wasn't illegal for your spouse to rape you, rather, your souse could not rape you.

True. There has been a lot of back and forth in this thread about rape. People don't seem to distinguish between what the colloquial usage and the legal term is. I wasn't trying to add to the confusion so much as not start that particular discussion again.

True. There has been a lot of back and forth in this thread about rape. People don't seem to distinguish between what the colloquial usage and the legal term is. I wasn't trying to add to the confusion so much as not start that particular discussion again.

According to dictionary.com (probably not great, but its online) rape is the correct word for forced acts of sexual intercourse whether legal or otherwise. I don't know if there is a better word for legal forced sex?

I'm fascinated by people who are dwelling on the "legal" definition.

Really, I am.

It's rape in all three. I could care less what the "legal" definition is.

According to dictionary.com (probably not great, but its online) rape is the correct word for forced acts of sexual intercourse whether legal or otherwise.
Yes, I know. It's not the legal term though, a lot of "debate" in this thread that has been between people who aren't nutjobs has been is it "rape" or "sexual abuse" etc. In the colloquial it's rape because it's forced sexual contact, in legal terms though, well, depending on where you live.......it might not be. If we are dealing specifically in colloquial terms, all three are rape. If we are dealing in legal terms, probably A and B qualify in my state, C would be some form of battery or something.

I don't know if there is a better word for legal forced sex?
Not particularly. Rape/sexual assault have meanings outside of the legal arena, they also have meanings inside the legal arena which is half the confusion of the thread.

I'm fascinated by people who are dwelling on the "legal" definition.

Really, I am.

It's rape in all three. I could care less what the "legal" definition is.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and abortion is murder. :rolleyes: There is a point to the discussion.

Is it wrong to force sex on someone? Always. Even if you are married to them? Always. Is it illegal? Sometimes. Should it be illegal? Absolutely.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and abortion is murder. :rolleyes: There is a point to the discussion.

Is it wrong to force sex on someone? Always. Even if you are married to them? Always. Is it illegal? Sometimes. Should it be illegal? Absolutely.

Obviously, a large number of people in this thread think they can park their erect penis anywhere they feel like, anytime they feel like it, as long as it's not "illegal".

Obviously, a large number of people in this thread think they can park their erect penis anywhere they feel like, anytime they feel like it, as long as it's not "illegal".

Which is why people should be able to separate the legal from the moral. Explaining that rape while a legal term, is also a non-legal term and explaining that rape is rape whether it is legal or not and is wrong, whether the law says so or not, is important.

My morals are not based on the laws, neither are the laws based on my morals.

Which is why people should be able to separate the legal from the moral. Explaining that rape while a legal term, is also a non-legal term and explaining that rape is rape whether it is legal or not and is wrong, whether the law says so or not, is important.

Then that just leads to confusion whether one is using a legal term, or a common term. Which is why I (shockingly I'm sure) prefer to use a legal term over a non legal term, when such a term is defined by law.

Sorry, I can't help it, this is what they do in lawschool, have someone stand over you with black's law dictionary and hit you in the face with it every time you use a term in its non legal fashion.

Then that just leads to confusion whether one is using a legal term, or a common term. Which is why I (shockingly I'm sure) prefer to use a legal term over a non legal term, when such a term is defined by law.

Sorry, I can't help it, this is what they do in lawschool, have someone stand over you with black's law dictionary and hit you in the face every time you use a term in its non legal fashion.

Then I don't expect to hear complaints about my killing of people in combat - because it's perfectly legal, no matter how many times I did it, or how much I enjoyed doing it.

Then that just leads to confusion whether one is using a legal term, or a common term. Which is why I (shockingly I'm sure) prefer to use a legal term over a non legal term, when such a term is defined by law.

Sorry, I can't help it, this is what they do in lawschool, have someone stand over you with black's law dictionary and hit you in the face with it every time you use a term in its non legal fashion.

I agree with you, but most people who don't have an interest in law won't understand the difference unless it's explained to them.

Speaking of... I was helping a neighbor study for the LSAT and I rock! I'm kinda considering taking it for fun........yeah, I'm a nerd.

Then I don't expect to hear complaints about my killing of people in combat

Once again, someone who was actually a lawyer would be able to understand that merely because an act was legal doesn't make it moral. Had you done the acts that you pretend to do, it would have been legal, it still would have made you immoral.

Luckly for you though, you're not a sociopath...you're just a liar.

Then that just leads to confusion whether one is using a legal term, or a common term. Which is why I (shockingly I'm sure) prefer to use a legal term over a non legal term, when such a term is defined by law.

Sorry, I can't help it, this is what they do in lawschool, have someone stand over you with black's law dictionary and hit you in the face with it every time you use a term in its non legal fashion.

Good grief -- you mean that if you took a course in literature and were reading The Rape of Lucrece or The Rape of the Lock, you'd have several bruises on your face?

Sorry, I can't help it, this is what they do in lawschool, have someone stand over you with black's law dictionary and hit you in the face with it every time you use a term in its non legal fashion.

...suddenly I understand why Neesika decided to go to law school.

"Oh, professor? I'm so hungry I could MURDER a sandwich right now..." ;)

...suddenly I understand why Neesika decided to go to law school.

"Oh, professor? I'm so hungry I could MURDER a sandwich right now..." ;)

"Oh YES! ASSAULT me again, don't ESTOP, don't ESTOP!!!"

"Oh YES! ASSAULT me again, don't ESTOP, don't ESTOP!!!"

1) battery, not assault

2) if you consent, it's not a battery :p

1) battery, not assault

Uh...that was my point. We're talking non-legal uses of terms, right? Helloooo?

2) if you consent, it's not a battery :p

Knowing what little I know Neesuhue, that's priceless.

1) battery, not assault

2) if you consent, it's not a battery :p

I do believe getting it wrong is the point. ;)

b) and c) are well-defined and are rape. The man doesn't reasonably think that the woman is consenting to sex. In a) it is not clear what is meant by 'becoming forceful'. If he uses or threatens violence then it is rape. If he is just noisy it isn't; it's still seriously bad but it's not a crime.

Good grief -- you mean that if you took a course in literature and were reading The Rape of Lucrece or The Rape of the Lock, you'd have several bruises on your face?

Little known fact. If you read The Rape of the Lock backwards at midnight while listening to The Wall, you uncover a secret passage in which the lock is sold into sex slavery. To Satan.

Sorry, I can't help it, this is what they do in lawschool, have someone stand over you with black's law dictionary and hit you in the face with it every time you use a term in its non legal fashion.
why am I picturing a scene in a Japanese Temple where the acyoltes are meditating and the head cleric is walking back and forth behind them with the huge paper fan... :D

Little known fact. If you read The Rape of the Lock backwards at midnight while listening to The Wall, you uncover a secret passage in which the lock is sold into sex slavery. To Satan.

Don't do it, doing so is the contract that Satan uses... kinda like the Microsoft EULA that starts with "opening this bag implys..." :eek:

I'm fascinated by people who are dwelling on the "legal" definition.

Really, I am.

It's rape in all three. I could care less what the "legal" definition is.

Why? Are you just choosing to ignore that rape is a legal term?

Is it wrong to force sex on someone? Always. Even if you are married to them? Always. Is it illegal? Sometimes. Should it be illegal? Absolutely.

This.

Personally, I took the OP as asking for our non-legal opinions and have never seen rape defined solely as a legal term, but always as an immoral action that the law sometimes chooses to recognise as harmful. I had never considered it to have the same legal connotation as murder, so I was looking for another term, like "killing" is to "murder", that describes the action in neutral terms with regard to the law, but that still implies wrongness. We don't appear to have one, so "rape + disclaimer" will have to do, but its interesting that we seem to have less shades of grey around forced sex than we do around killing.

edit for clarity: Shades of grey refers to our cultural understanding of the term rape, not to the legal definitions or rape or assault.

They are all rape.

Point A: Attempting to get sex through coersion and violence is rape.

Point B: SHe was unconcious and unable to consent, clearly rape.

Point C: Yes, and as a man I still feel no sympathy for him. There is an alternative called masturbation.

A-Yes: Most obviously, she refused and he became forceful. Sex through intimidation is rape. There is a quantifier in legalities that states that "Once is enough." Which means that if a woman says no, even just once, it's rape. Marriage doesn't somehow superscede that. Plenty of women have consented, or given in, to sex in fear of being hit or attacked. It doesn't make it less then rape.

B- Yes: Consent could not be given. Though unfortunately from a legal perspective it could not be pursued realistically.

C: Yes: This was the hardest for me to agree with. Legally it is definetly rape.. but it's the grey line. If it was at the begining of the intercourse then it's clearer to rape. If it was in the middle.. halfway through... then it is clearly rape as well. If it was within the last few moments of the intercourse... ((A minute or two)) before ejaculation then reasonably he wouldn't have had time ((Someone will argue that upon hearing the word stop he should have halted immediately... but I will grant that in most instances he might have not heard her right away.. or been too lost in the building sensation to halt right away.)) to stop.. Of course it is still rape even so.. See A.. but it's harder to fault him as a rapists.

And while the "in the middle of everything" phrase is used, this could be figuratively or literally meant.

I don't see how any are rape. The first is a husband and wife, the second should have said something or do something but she didn't so there was no reason for her friend to think she didn't want to do it, and in third case she fully consented, otherwise they wouldn't have started in the 1st place.

...the second should have said something or do something but she didn't so there was no reason for her friend to think she didn't want to do it...
Are you just trolling, did you fail to understand that she was unconcious when he started, or are you being serious and really not caring if she consents or not?

Are you just trolling, did you fail to understand that she was unconcious when he started, or are you being serious and really not caring if she consents or not?

Little Column A, little Column C, I think.

EDIT: And roughly 11.5% of those polled agree. Frightening.

I don't see how any are rape.

Really?


The first is a husband and wife

That makes it okay?
She still only agreed because she feared the consequences, not because she wanted to.



the second should have said something or do something but she didn't so there was no reason for her friend to think she didn't want to do it,

No reason for him to think she didn't want to? She was unconscious when he started.
Imagine waking up and that is happening to you, you're actually rather likely to just freeze because of the shock aswell.



and in third case she fully consented, otherwise they wouldn't have started in the 1st place.
She changed her mind and asked him to stop several times, at that point there was hardly any consent anymore, yet he was still "at it". That's rape aswell.


The ammount of people who think either of these situations is fine, is starting to scare me at this point.

Little Column A, little Column C, I think.

I'd say it's a whole lot of column A, which overlaps considerably with column B

It has probably been mentioned before, but all three of those are legally rapes (as well as morally/ethically.)

Most people seem to be having a problem with situation A. Using force, or even just threats qualifies as coercion. If someone holds a gun to your head or a knife to your throat, that is a threat. Likewise, if someone say...threatens to kill the victims child, even though they don't have a weapon, if the victim believes the other party, that's also a threat.

If I walk up to you on a street with a gunshaped object in my pocket and I tell you to give me your wallet or I am going to shoot you, and so you give me your wallet, it wouldn't be considered consensual. Its the same with rape.

Two other things of great importance.

Most rapes are committed by people the victim knows (often times significant others/spouses.)

The majority of rapes are also forced by using threats. It very difficult to rape someone if they do not submit and instead are actively fighting tooth and nail.

Two other things of great importance.

Most rapes are committed by people the victim knows (often times significant others/spouses.)

The majority of rapes are also forced by using threats. It very difficult to rape someone if they do not submit and instead are actively fighting tooth and nail.

Agreed with the first. With the second... I see what you're getting at, but that could be interpreted to mean that most victims of rape "just don't fight back enough". Yanno?

They are all rape. If she said no and he ignored her, it's rape.

Are you just trolling, did you fail to understand that she was unconcious when he started, or are you being serious and really not caring if she consents or not?

Yes, but when she was aware was happening she didn't try to stop him. It said they were friends anyway.

I don't see how any are rape. The first is a husband and wife, the second should have said something or do something but she didn't so there was no reason for her friend to think she didn't want to do it, and in third case she fully consented, otherwise they wouldn't have started in the 1st place.

Why do you even believe consent is needed ? Women after all are only property, sperm recepticles for their devout and hard working husband. She may not refuse him and may not accept others. And if she is still single while a man comes unto her, the Bible clearly states that that man should become her husband after paying the father some moolah. Where does the whole "consent is important" idea come from ;) ?

Anyone who seriously believes the ideas in this post deserves to be tied to a hill of fire ants.

Women don't like sex now? You know, I would wait until you've met an actual woman before making silly assumptions like that.



Nonsense.



For some people, whether Stalin was a bad man or not is ambiguous.

The law is not ambiguous on the subject.

Ok seriously you are a woman u have no idea of the sex drive males can get and rape isint about sex rape is voilent and a power hunger thing

Ok seriously you are a woman u have no idea of the sex drive males can get and rape isint about sex rape is voilent and a power hunger thing
For the life of me I can't tell if your with us or against us. Try posting in English, please. Oh, and with punctuation. Thanks.

C: Yes: This was the hardest for me to agree with. *snip* …but it's harder to fault him as a rapists.

The way I see it, if someone changes their mind mindway then they were probably pressured into consent in the first place.

Try posting in English, please. Oh, and with punctuation. Thanks.

It doesn't need to be in English. It just needs to be written in something Google Translator will recognize. :p

The way I see it, if someone changes their mind mindway then they were probably pressured into consent in the first place.



It doesn't need to be in English. It just needs to be written in something Google Translator will recognize. :p
Well then, our translators are imcompatible. Unless you actually are typing in a mixture of Martian and Dutch. Then I understand perfectly.

So... if you were falling off a balcony, and I yelled "stop!" but you continued to fall, when you hit the ground, I should assume it's suicide?

Some things are very hard to stop. The male state of mind mid-coitus is one that is not fully consciously aware.

Other males might recognize the situation- ever suddenly realize, afterwards, that you gave yourself a nasty friction burn, but you were completely unaware of the pain at the time? This is how it happened.

ahhh, so thats how that happened.

*little jingle* the more you know

Yes, it's so easy for most women to deal with violent drunken husbands. I suppose all those victims of domestic violence just have themselves to blame for not going to the police.

Of course it's rape, even if she consents because she's afraid of violent consequences.

actually, what you said in sarcasm is true.

On topic:

A was the closest i came to saying its not rape. I thought forceful could have meant alot of things, now if he actually used violence or threatened violence, then it'd be raped. however he was just acting like a drunkard, now if his "forceful" actions would reasonably be construed as a threat then it would be rape, to the woman at least.

On which note I'd like to bring up an interesting ethical situation, if i may. Two people come from different cultures, the norms are different and to the man, he was raped and the woman thinks it was consensual, who is right? is it neither?

Little known fact. If you read The Rape of the Lock backwards at midnight while listening to The Wall, you uncover a secret passage in which the lock is sold into sex slavery. To Satan.

Aha. Here I thought that the throbbing pain in my anus and the chains on my ankles meant I was working for Microsoft.

Yes, but when she was aware was happening she didn't try to stop him. It said they were friends anyway.

And that makes it okay exactly how? Have you thought that maybe she froze because she was a mix of shocked and fucking terrified? Of course, with your posting record, I suppose not. Women are just animals anyway, amirite?

And that makes it okay exactly how? Have you thought that maybe she froze because she was a mix of shocked and fucking terrified? Of course, with your posting record, I suppose not. Women are just animals anyway, amirite?

That is exactly what happened to my friend on whom that situation was based. Added to the fact that he was a friend and so even though it's illogical, she didn't want to hurt him or have their mutual friends think badly of either of them by pressing charges. This is alarmingly common when women are raped by men they know, throwing a pretty big monkey wrench into the "crying rape" conspiracy theory.

And that makes it okay exactly how? Have you thought that maybe she froze because she was a mix of shocked and fucking terrified? Of course, with your posting record, I suppose not. Women are just animals anyway, amirite?

look, there's been a number of times I've had sex with guys when I was so drunk I was close to passing out or when I didn't really want to and just wanted to be nice. And I sure has hell wouldn't tell someone to stop if I had said yes at the start. It's just sex, not exactly a huge deal.

look, there's been a number of times I've had sex with guys when I was so drunk I was close to passing out or when I didn't really want to and just wanted to be nice. And I sure has hell wouldn't tell someone to stop if I had said yes at the start. It's just sex, not exactly a huge deal.

Okay, you wouldn't tell someone to stop. The person in the situation did. So your right to your body wasn't being violated because you didn't care. The person in the situation did. Therefore it is a different situation. Your personal view of sex doesn't set the standard for the world. Lucky for us.

Okay, you wouldn't tell someone to stop. The person in the situation did. So your right to your body wasn't being violated because you didn't care. The person in the situation did. Therefore it is a different situation. Your personal view of sex doesn't set the standard for the world. Lucky for us.

Yes, how very fortunate.

look, there's been a number of times I've had sex with guys when I was so drunk I was close to passing out or when I didn't really want to and just wanted to be nice. And I sure has hell wouldn't tell someone to stop if I had said yes at the start. It's just sex, not exactly a huge deal.

:(

How sad. You have my pity.

It's not a huge deal to you, perhaps, but (though I state the obvious) you are not everyone.

ႈ(A) In our country, the married woman's case can be called rape case. Because, even though she is your wife, you can't deny her legal rights. She has right to refuse you to sex with her. She can sue you if she wish. But I think, no woman will sue her husband for that reason. :)

(B) In the case of drunk girl, I don't think it can be considered as rape. Even though she is drunk, at least she is conscious at the time of sex and she didn't show no disagreement. And also he is not doing by force.

(C) Totally not a rape case. Because at the time of sex, she agreed to have sex with him. They have sex with mutual understanding. She only change her mind after the sex.

All three of them.

Yet, I object to the gender bias. Case B was where a reversal of gender would have been plausible. That might have slightly challenged the dominant paradigm (that rape is something a Man does to a Woman.)

I'm sure both the above have been said already (didn't read thread).

I didn't read thread. I shut up now.

ႈ(A) In our country, the married woman's case can be called rape case. Because, even though she is your wife, you can't deny her legal rights. She has right to refuse you to sex with her. She can sue you if she wish. But I think, no woman will sue her husband for that reason. :)

Why wouldn't a woman press charges against her husband for rape?

(B) In the case of drunk girl, I don't think it can be considered as rape. Even though she is drunk, at least she is conscious at the time of sex and she didn't show no disagreement. And also he is not doing by force.

Maybe you were reading a different thread? I believe it said she woke up with someone already having sex with her. So no, she wasn't conscious.

(C) Totally not a rape case. Because at the time of sex, she agreed to have sex with him. They have sex with mutual understanding. She only change her mind after the sex.

Bullshit. She changed her mind during and told him so. At that time, it became rape if he didn't stop.

Why wouldn't a woman press charges against her husband for rape?

In quite a lot of cultures, a husband can by definition not rape his wife, for instance because she is his property or because having sex with him is considered to be her duty.

Sexual coercion with the threat/use of force? Yeah that's ambiguous. Could be rape, could be sugar plums, I'm not too sure.



Sex with someone who is unconscious and cannot possibly consent. Of course it's rape.



She said no, he fucked her anyway. Yes, it's rape.

So wait where's the ambiguous situations I heard about?

Lol! I could have made the same point as you, but you do it in a funnier and probably overall better way. Anyway, I agree 1000 permille.

P.S. The first three sentences are the funniest thing I've read all week.

Ok seriously you are a woman u have no idea of the sex drive males can get and rape isint about sex rape is voilent and a power hunger thing

Your post could be funny.

But it isn't.

It is scary. People like you should feel the powerful do-not-rape-me drive females can have, in the form of a knife through your groin.

Indeed, I am pretty sure that the do-not-rape-me female drive is as hard and powerful as the male sex drive. If you suddenly get the right to forcefully satisfy yours, I hope I get the chance to rightfully satisfy mine too. With a pointy object.

In quite a lot of primitive cultures, an abusive husband cannot by definition rape his wife, for instance because she is his property or because having sex with him is considered to be her duty.

Fixed.

Fixed.

I fear the "abusive" part is incorrect.
With primitive I agree, but that is not really PC.

I fear the "abusive" part is incorrect.
With primitive I agree, but that is not really PC.

PC?

The "abusive" part is open to discussion, indeed.

In quite a lot of cultures, a husband can by definition not rape his wife, for instance because she is his property or because having sex with him is considered to be her duty.

Indeed.

But in a culture where women aren't treated like property, why should a woman refrain from pressing rape charges against her husband?


I fear the "abusive" part is incorrect.
With primitive I agree, but that is not really PC.

I'm confused. You don't think rape would be abusive?

PC?

"Political Correctness" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness)

The first paragraph of this WikiPedia article is probably all you need to get the point.

I'm confused. You don't think rape would be abusive?

TAM seems to be offline so I'll take that up. I think it's quibbling over semantics but that's one of my strongest suits. ;)

My guess is that they mean "it's legal for the husband to rape (as we would see it) his wife in some countries." Because that wouldn't be considered abusive by that law, it probably shouldn't be in the same sentence as a judgement of that country's law.

I could paraphrase perhaps: "An abusive man may legally rape his wife in some countries. Because the law in those countries is wrong."

All three of them.

Yet, I object to the gender bias. Case B was where a reversal of gender would have been plausible. That might have slightly challenged the dominant paradigm (that rape is something a Man does to a Woman.)

I'm sure both the above have been said already (didn't read thread).

I didn't read thread. I shut up now.

Someone did bring that up, but I didn't address it. I chose these situations because they actually happened to people I knew. I could have switched the genders around, or added other scenarios, but I'll be honest--I don't feel comfortable positing a situation in which a man is raped, by either a man or woman, because I am not a man. I would be very interested if someone did present some scenarios that were not of the typical male-raping-female variety.

A drunk girl my frosh year of college once told me she was going to rape me, or wanted to rape me, or something, but she never tried to. It was pretty upsetting, but not as much as my roommate's reaction, which was to think it was 'funny'. Because women can't rape women, and the idea of it is just hilarious! -_-

Consent is vitiated if given under duress.

We don't have 'rape' in Canada, we just have various forms of sexual assault. Nonetheless, consent is never assumed...the accused must prove consent.

Doesn't that violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Or is that just an American thing? Sorry if the answer seems obvious, but I'm no law student.

Doesn't that violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Or is that just an American thing? Sorry if the answer seems obvious, but I'm no law student.

You're on NSG. You're a "law student" until repeatedly proven otherwise.

Doesn't that violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Or is that just an American thing? Sorry if the answer seems obvious, but I'm no law student.

It is a notable exception, certainly. However, in many rape cases the issue at stake is not whether or not sex took place, but under what conditions--whether those conditions equal "rape". So if a woman accuses a man of raping her and he denies having any sexual contact with her, he is assumed to be telling the truth unless evidence is found that he did in fact engage in sex with her.

This often isn't the case, however. Many times men freely admit to having sex with a woman but claim it was not a case of rape. This is where the tables turn. Here you aren't looking for evidence that something happened--both parties admit it did. Instead, you're looking for evidence the sex was not consensual. In this case the law protects the accuser to avoid "putting the victim on trial". This is the reason some people claim that women "cry rape" when it hasn't occurred, even though statistics show that only a small percentage of women falsely accuse someone of rape compared to the number of women who never report an actual rape.

Y'know, after all this thread's posts, I have to return to my first one way back on page one (or so). If you have to ask, it's probably rape.

You're on NSG. You're a "law student" until repeatedly proven otherwise.

Or indeed a talking aubergine, for all we know.

Or indeed a talking aubergine, for all we know.

I prefer "giant, hyper intelligent squirrel"

Doesn't that violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Or is that just an American thing? Sorry if the answer seems obvious, but I'm no law student.

I don't think so.

If something is illegal unless you have consent, it is up to you to provide evidence of that consent.

Suppose you bulldoze my house. I claim you did it maliciously and you claim you had my consent. Unless you can provide a contract or some other clear evidence of my consent, you have committed a crime.

Now, as Ryadn said, you are innocent until proven guilty on whether or not you actually did it. If, instead of claiming you had permission to bulldoze my house, you actually claimed that you were nowhere near it and have never driven a bulldozer, it's up to me to provide proof that it was actually you who did it.

I don't think so.

If something is illegal unless you have consent, it is up to you to provide evidence of that consent.

It's also up to someone to prove that the "something" actually happened. That's not always easy.

How do you imagine one would provide "evidence of consent" ?

A written contract won't do, unless we accept that a woman cannot withdraw consent during the act. I DON'T accept that. She can. As a bloke, I claim the right to stop having sex "part-way through" ... withdrawing my consent. I'd expect my (hypothetical) partner to be pretty pissed at that, but I'd claim it as a right anyway. Hey, I'd make dinner while I tried to think up a plausible reason ;)

Ah, I've got it. Video. Never have sex without recording proceedings with a good-quality camera.

Suppose you bulldoze my house. I claim you did it maliciously and you claim you had my consent. Unless you can provide a contract or some other clear evidence of my consent, you have committed a crime.

Now, as Ryadn said, you are innocent until proven guilty on whether or not you actually did it. If, instead of claiming you had permission to bulldoze my house, you actually claimed that you were nowhere near it and have never driven a bulldozer, it's up to me to provide proof that it was actually you who did it.

My better judgement tells me to leave this "argument by analogy" alone until I have straight what it is meant to illustrate.

Big crashing things, clouds of dust, all the neighbours gawking. The "something" is pretty easy to prove.

Ah, I've got it. Video. Never have sex without recording proceedings with a good-quality camera.

"Butt out, it wasn't your argument Hobos" would be an acceptable answer.

I'd be interested in any ideas any poster has as to how a person could ensure that they have solid evidence of consent throughout an act of sex ... without making a porno movie in the process.

And ... who gets to keep the "evidence?" I'm thinking you'd need two cameras. His and Hers.

look, there's been a number of times I've had sex with guys when I was so drunk I was close to passing out or when I didn't really want to and just wanted to be nice. And I sure has hell wouldn't tell someone to stop if I had said yes at the start. It's just sex, not exactly a huge deal.I'd love to see a world where sex is considered just another act of consent like a conversation or playing backgammon and it's abuse is not classified separately but in a more general way - a la "forced me to play poker with him!" - but it is not on the horizon.

I have lots of friends whose views are not very different than yours - some of them I had sex with just out of mutual boredom (Sundays during summer can be a bitch around here) and at times neither me nor the friend in question was really having sex with each other but just having sex (a more complicated, tiring and mutual masturbation maybe?) and except for a few who moved away, I'm still in touch with them. I'm pretty sure some of those occasions were just out of curiosity or kindness on the girlfriends' part.

Sadly, this is far from the norm for the whole wide world ;) When someone beats me to a pulp, it is assault - when someone has acts of copulation involved in the process, it is a different kind of animal called rape. I certainly don't fully grasp why it is any different than any act of violation but I accept it.

Cheerio!

I'd love to see a world where sex is considered just another act of consent like a conversation or playing backgammon and it's abuse is not classified separately but in a more general way - a la "forced me to play poker with him!" - but it is not on the horizon.

I have lots of friends whose views are not very different than yours - some of them I had sex with just out of mutual boredom (Sundays during summer can be a bitch around here) and at times neither me nor the friend in question was really having sex with each other but just having sex (a more complicated, tiring and mutual masturbation maybe?) and except for a few who moved away, I'm still in touch with them. I'm pretty sure some of those occasions were just out of curiosity or kindness on the girlfriends' part.

Sadly, this is far from the norm for the whole wide world ;) When someone beats me to a pulp, it is assault - when someone has acts of copulation involved in the process, it is a different kind of animal called rape. I certainly don't fully grasp why it is any different than any act of violation but I accept it.

Cheerio!

You've got exactly the same opinion about sex as I do! Great! I don't get why all these people think about it as they do.

You've got exactly the same opinion about sex as I do! Great! I don't get why all these people think about it as they do.

Of course. You both wanted or didn't care about having sex with those people.

When someone you despise or just don't like force himself on you, it is an entire different matter altogether. I'm glad to know noone has ever tried to force themselves upon you.

All of them.
I'm worried about anyone who doesn't think that's obvious....

If you're a heterosexual male, and you suddenly feel a dick in your ass, it probably is rape.

It's also up to someone to prove that the "something" actually happened. That's not always easy.

No, it isn't. Hence the reason that, if someone accused of rape claims that sexual contact never happened, it is up to the prosecution to provide evidence that it did.

How do you imagine one would provide "evidence of consent" ?

In something like bulldozing a house, you'd be expected to have written consent. At the very least, you would likely have a witness to that consent.

In sexual matters, that's more difficult. One of the biggest problems with rape cases - and much of the reason so few end in conviction - is the fact that it all comes down to testimony and who is believed. The only evidence to be provided is testimony and maybe evidence of a struggle. There are generally no witnesses and most people certainly don't sit down and sign any kind of consent form.

Ah, I've got it. Video. Never have sex without recording proceedings with a good-quality camera.

LOL

My better judgement tells me to leave this "argument by analogy" alone until I have straight what it is meant to illustrate.

Big crashing things, clouds of dust, all the neighbours gawking. The "something" is pretty easy to prove.

In that case, the fact that it happened is pretty easy to prove. But, if you say that you didn't do it, the prosecutors don't just have to prove that it happened. They have to prove that you were the one who did it. They'll need witnesses, some way to link you to the bulldozer used, etc.

If, on the other hand, you freely admit to doing it with my permission, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that you had it.

Sadly, this is far from the norm for the whole wide world When someone beats me to a pulp, it is assault - when someone has acts of copulation involved in the process, it is a different kind of animal called rape. I certainly don't fully grasp why it is any different than any act of violation but I accept it.


If someone steals your money, it is theft. If they beat you up, it is assault. If they trick you into giving them money, it is fraud. And so on...

Different crimes have different names. Unless we're going to call it all something like "doing bad shit to people" without categorization, I don't really see your problem here.

I don't think so.

If something is illegal unless you have consent, it is up to you to provide evidence of that consent.

Suppose you bulldoze my house. I claim you did it maliciously and you claim you had my consent. Unless you can provide a contract or some other clear evidence of my consent, you have committed a crime.



Not true.

If this occurs in a circumstance where demolishing houses with a bulldozer is considered normal, such as a contractor clearing an area for new construction, no crime has occured. At most it's a civil case. Tort law and all that stuff. And in a civil suit you do NOT have prove beyond a reasonable doubt- preponderance of evidence is the standard. (recall the two OJ trials) If it were tried at criminal standards, all the bulldozer owner would have to say is something like "well I submitted a bid to clear eight houses, he said can you throw in the ninth for free, I said yes, he said go ahead and start, I'll fax your approval in the morning", and right there, bang, you have reasonable doubt. But it's not criminal, it's civil, and different rules. And different penalties. Neither the bulldozer operator nor his boss face any possibility of prison time- money damages only.

I have seen this sort of thing take place. It happens. If a contractor accidentally rips up your driveway when he is supposed to do your neighbor's, it is a civil suit, he hasn't committed vandalism. Same as a surgeon who operates on the wrong patient- you can hit him for malpractice, but not assault.

It can only be a crime in a circumstance where it was not reasonably normal behavior- your neighbor gets mad at you, rents a bulldozer, flattens your house.

The relevance to rape is this: sex is also an action that commonly occurs under normal, reasonable standards of behavior. In fact, sex without prior written authorization is even more common than demolitions without a signed contract. So you can't mix civil standards of evidence (did he have consent) with criminal codes and penalties (rape, prison).

Although if damages occured as a result of a rape, you could go for a civil trial. You wouldn't be sending the perp to prison, just getting money. (Again, note the difference between the 2 OJ trials.)

By the way, with trusted clients I have engaged in demolitions without clear prior consent. I have a reputation- when there is mutual trust they know I would not take something down unless I really had to. Beginners should not try to do things like that. You have to build the trust.

Sex works sort of the same way.

I don't think so.

If something is illegal unless you have consent, it is up to you to provide evidence of that consent.

Suppose you bulldoze my house. I claim you did it maliciously and you claim you had my consent. Unless you can provide a contract or some other clear evidence of my consent, you have committed a crime.



Not true.

If this occurs in a circumstance where demolishing houses with a bulldozer is considered normal, such as a contractor clearing an area for new construction, no crime has occured. At most it's a civil case. Tort law and all that stuff. And in a civil suit you do NOT have prove beyond a reasonable doubt- preponderance of evidence is the standard. (recall the two OJ trials) If it were tried at criminal standards, all the bulldozer owner would have to say is something like "well I submitted a bid to clear eight houses, he said can you throw in the ninth for free, I said yes, he said go ahead and start, I'll fax your approval in the morning", and right there, bang, you have reasonable doubt. But it's not criminal, it's civil, and different rules. And different penalties. Neither the bulldozer operator nor his boss face any possibility of prison time- money damages only.

I have seen this sort of thing take place. It happens. If a contractor accidentally rips up your driveway when he is supposed to do your neighbor's, it is a civil suit, he hasn't committed vandalism. Same as a surgeon who operates on the wrong patient- you can hit him for malpractice, but not assault.

It can only be a crime in a circumstance where it was not reasonably normal behavior- your neighbor gets mad at you, rents a bulldozer, flattens your house.

The relevance to rape is this: sex is also an action that commonly occurs under normal, reasonable standards of behavior. In fact, sex without prior written authorization is even more common than demolitions without a signed contract. So you can't mix civil standards of evidence (did he have consent) with criminal codes and penalties (rape, prison).

Although if damages occured as a result of a rape, you could go for a civil trial. You wouldn't be sending the perp to prison, just getting money. (Again, note the difference between the 2 OJ trials.)

By the way, with trusted clients I have engaged in demolitions without clear prior consent. I have a reputation- when there is mutual trust they know I would not take something down unless I really had to. Beginners should not try to do things like that. You have to build the trust.

Sex works sort of the same way.

Not true.

If this occurs in a circumstance where demolishing houses with a bulldozer is considered normal, such as a contractor clearing an area for new construction, no crime has occured. At most it's a civil case.

Depends on what you can show of intent. If you have evidence that it was done maliciously - that the contractor intentionally cleared a home he wasn't supposed to, you could make a criminal case. If it was a mistake, it's a civil case.

The type of standard you're describing here sort of gets used in some rape cases as well. If there is a history of sexual contact between two people, it will be harder for the prosecution to make the case that a particular instance of sex was non-consensual.

Situation A: Sarah is married with children. She and her husband generally get on all right and have regular, consensual sex. However, her husband is an alcoholic and a nasty character when he's on a bender. Sarah's husband comes home drunk one night and demands to have sex with her. Sarah is not interested and refuses him, but he persists and becomes forceful. Sarah, afraid of having the situation escalate, gives way and allows him to have sex with her, though she does not want to. Is it rape?

Yes. Consent was given, but under duress.


Situation B: Jenny goes to a party at a friend's house where most of the guests are people she knows well. After far too many drinks, Jenny decides to stay the night at the house and passes out. She wakes up the next day to one of her male friends having sex with her. She freezes up and doesn't move as the man finishes having sex with her, although it is obvious that she is awake and not responding to what he's doing. Is it rape?

Yes. No consent; no-brainer.



Situation C: Rachel, a college student, has just had a serious fight with her boyfriend and left his place quite angry. She goes to see a male friend of hers that she has some chemistry with, although up to this point they have only been good friends. They proceed to make out and then begin to have sex, but in the middle of everything Rachel realizes this is not a solution and not what she wants. She tells her friend she has changed her mind and tells him to stop several times, but he continues until he has ejaculated. Is it rape?

Yes. There must be consent every step of the way. Consent was withdrawn, and Rachel's friend did not withdraw in a timely manner.

I think the fact that we even have to have a debate about this speaks poorly of our culture.

A: It kinda sucks the guy is a drunk, but the wife did give in. She allowed him, but I think it's abuse (not rape).

B: The girl passed out! Yes its rape, however, she did not stop him.

C: Yes its rape. She may of said its okay, but then she changed her mind. Thats fine! Someone said that its hard for a guy to stop when hes half-way done, but come one! The guy should have listened to her and stop. He could have finished himself off, instead he raped her instead.

A: It kinda sucks the guy is a drunk, but the wife did give in. She allowed him, but I think it's abuse (not rape).

"Consent" given under duress is not consent at all.

If it were, a person who held a gun to your head to get you to have sex with them wouldn't be raping you.

A: It kinda sucks the guy is a drunk, but the wife did give in. She allowed him, but I think it's abuse (not rape).

That consent is about as valid as a confession made under torture. Consent given under duress is not really consent.


B: The girl passed out! Yes its rape, however, she did not stop him.

Why should that matter?

Situation A: Sarah is married with children. She and her husband generally get on all right and have regular, consensual sex. However, her husband is an alcoholic and a nasty character when he's on a bender. Sarah's husband comes home drunk one night and demands to have sex with her. Sarah is not interested and refuses him, but he persists and becomes forceful. Sarah, afraid of having the situation escalate, gives way and allows him to have sex with her, though she does not want to. Is it rape?

This is difficult. Depending on what is meant by "forceful," it could go either way. If there were serious threats made, he became violent or abusive, or he actually attempted to force himself on her, then it's rape. If he just became angry and/or continued demanding sex, then no.

Situation B: Jenny goes to a party at a friend's house where most of the guests are people she knows well. After far too many drinks, Jenny decides to stay the night at the house and passes out. She wakes up the next day to one of her male friends having sex with her. She freezes up and doesn't move as the man finishes having sex with her, although it is obvious that she is awake and not responding to what he's doing. Is it rape?

Yes, unless she says otherwise.


Situation C: Rachel, a college student, has just had a serious fight with her boyfriend and left his place quite angry. She goes to see a male friend of hers that she has some chemistry with, although up to this point they have only been good friends. They proceed to make out and then begin to have sex, but in the middle of everything Rachel realizes this is not a solution and not what she wants. She tells her friend she has changed her mind and tells him to stop several times, but he continues until he has ejaculated. Is it rape?

If he forced her to stay for the duration, yes.

<snip>If someone steals your money, it is theft. If they beat you up, it is assault. If they trick you into giving them money, it is fraud. And so on...

Different crimes have different names. Unless we're going to call it all something like "doing bad shit to people" without categorization, I don't really see your problem here.Of course, and no, no problems :) What I was trying - and apparently failing - to say is people (since it is the normal human approach; I'm not saying this is wrong or anything, just that I feel different about it) tend to react much stronger towards rape compared to assault.

When you beat someone, you are usually not categorized as a "beater" but if you rape someone it is a scarlet letter you will carry your whole life.

What I mean is I see no difference there but I understand that there is a difference within human norms. I don't feel any different towards a rapist or someone who enjoys beating up people - they are both criminals and should be treated accordingly - but I have to process it every time as in "he's a rapist and rape is a much more serious crime than assault - right, have to remember that."

This is a different mind set and I know I am in the minority here - I'm not saying "human race should straighten itself" or anything :)

Cheerio!

If you're a heterosexual male, and you suddenly feel a dick in your ass, it probably is rape.

Unless you and your wife/girlfriend are into pegging.

Related to recent threads about rape and victim culpability. Rape is "easy" to define when it's done by a stranger and done by force, but what about when the lines aren't as clear?
Let's take a look...

Situation A: Sarah is married with children. She and her husband generally get on all right and have regular, consensual sex. However, her husband is an alcoholic and a nasty character when he's on a bender. Sarah's husband comes home drunk one night and demands to have sex with her. Sarah is not interested and refuses him, but he persists and becomes forceful. Sarah, afraid of having the situation escalate, gives way and allows him to have sex with her, though she does not want to. Is it rape?
Yes

Situation B: Jenny goes to a party at a friend's house where most of the guests are people she knows well. After far too many drinks, Jenny decides to stay the night at the house and passes out. She wakes up the next day to one of her male friends having sex with her. She freezes up and doesn't move as the man finishes having sex with her, although it is obvious that she is awake and not responding to what he's doing. Is it rape?
Yes

Situation C: Rachel, a college student, has just had a serious fight with her boyfriend and left his place quite angry. She goes to see a male friend of hers that she has some chemistry with, although up to this point they have only been good friends. They proceed to make out and then begin to have sex, but in the middle of everything Rachel realizes this is not a solution and not what she wants. She tells her friend she has changed her mind and tells him to stop several times, but he continues until he has ejaculated. Is it rape?
Yes

Now that wasn't so hard...

In the first two cases the men acted badly, no doubt, and it's possible in the third. But I viewed this as whether I would actually convict someone for rape. In case B, without a doubt. In cases A and C, I'd need more information.

A: The guy is drunk and his wife does consent, even if reluctantly. The prior relationship would lead this man to expect that sex with his wife is OK, and his diminished judgement makes it questionable that he ever noticed her reluctance. Need more information.

B: Yes, it's rape.

C: Half-way could be 5 minutes or 5 seconds. Was there a reasonable amount of time for the guy to stop? Many women are reputed to say things like "No! No! Stop!" during sex, without actually meaning it. In fact, quite a few would get angry if the guy did stop. Did the guy have any reason to believe that this was normal behavior for this woman? Or was there a clear reason to believe that she really meant no? The guy may have acted badly in this case, but the woman is not entirely innocent either. Need more information.

It frightens me how many voted "Yes" for all three cases, without any qualifications. That's political correctness gone mad, and shows tremendously poor judgement.

It frightens me how many voted "Yes" for all three cases, without any qualifications. That's political correctness gone mad, and shows tremendously poor judgement.

How is "The woman said no", therefore it is not consensual sex 'tremenduously poor judgment'?

How is "The woman said no", therefore it is not consensual sex 'tremenduously poor judgment'?

What I said is that the number of people of said Yes in all three cases without qualification, shows tremendously poor judgement. It shows a tendency to jump to conclusions, without wanting to investigate further.

Now, if this woman started saying "No" when the guy was almost finished, and might be "in the zone" and totally oblivious to what she might be saying, then I certainly would not convict him of rape. On the other hand, if they had just started and she made it clear she wanted to stop, and he held her down and continued for the next 10 minutes, then clearly it was rape.

As I pointed out in my previous post, despite all the feminist rhetoric many women do say No when they mean Yes. A friend of mine recently mentioned a lover who - thanks to Catholic guilt - would say "No! No! No!" during sex - so he stopped, and she became upset with him for stopping. In Case C, the woman already knew this man, and if she had a similar reputation he might have heard about it, and not wishing to offend her. . . .

Like I said, I would need more information before actually convicting someone of rape in Cases A and C. For that matter, I would be willing to hear arguments in Case B, but can't imagine a reasonable explanation.

Now, if this woman started saying "No" when the guy was almost finished, and might be "in the zone" and totally oblivious to what she might be saying, then I certainly would not convict him of rape. On the other hand, if they had just started and she made it clear she wanted to stop, and he held her down and continued for the next 10 minutes, then clearly it was rape.

Someone else already tried this argument. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Someone else already tried this argument. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

In that case, there is something seriously wrong and cruel about you.

Situation A: Sarah is married with children. She and her husband generally get on all right and have regular, consensual sex. However, her husband is an alcoholic and a nasty character when he's on a bender. Sarah's husband comes home drunk one night and demands to have sex with her. Sarah is not interested and refuses him, but he persists and becomes forceful. Sarah, afraid of having the situation escalate, gives way and allows him to have sex with her, though she does not want to. Is it rape?

Yep, though she is going to leave it go unreported. Later however, if she goes to court for a divorce or if he starts beating her, she can claim rape. It's happened before in the US, and men have been brought up on charges/convicted from it.



Situation B: Jenny goes to a party at a friend's house where most of the guests are people she knows well. After far too many drinks, Jenny decides to stay the night at the house and passes out. She wakes up the next day to one of her male friends having sex with her. She freezes up and doesn't move as the man finishes having sex with her, although it is obvious that she is awake and not responding to what he's doing. Is it rape?

Hell yes it is. If she isn't awake, she can't give consent.


Situation C: Rachel, a college student, has just had a serious fight with her boyfriend and left his place quite angry. She goes to see a male friend of hers that she has some chemistry with, although up to this point they have only been good friends. They proceed to make out and then begin to have sex, but in the middle of everything Rachel realizes this is not a solution and not what she wants. She tells her friend she has changed her mind and tells him to stop several times, but he continues until he has ejaculated. Is it rape?

Yep. No benifit of doubt either. Why?

Well we can make a few intelligent deductions from this little story.

*The words: "in the middle of"

This means half way between starting and climax. They had been having sex for a while. This wasn't near the end of or the beginning. A guy doesn't keep thrusting after he finishes ejaculating. That's the end of sexual intercourse, so we can deduce that he wasn't near "the point of no return".

* "She tells her friend she has changed her mind and tells him to stop several times"

Ok, so now we have the fact that she has stated, "STOP"...boom instant rape if he keeps going from there. Court cases have convicted men on this before.

Also, look, she tells him to stop several times. Several times...more than twice. Obviously telling him to stop several times is going to take some time to get out, and she probably (though I concede it wasn't stated) was fighting him between the commands to stop, so it wasn't a rapid-fire 'stopstopstopstop' thing.

* he continues until he has ejaculated.

Here is another killer. Guys, if you've had sex, you know you can pull out whenever. I'll freely admit that I had a girlfriend that loved sex but not only made me wear a condom, she also asked that I pull out before I came. It's easy to get right up to ejaculation and still pull out so there is no excuse to keep going and then ejaculate inside after she says stop.


Why should I speak on this issue? Well, in point of fact I had this situation happen to me in college.

A very close friend and I were talking over her breakup with a long-time boyfriend she found out who was cheating on her. We talked for three hours and, she said I was a great listener, kissing me on the cheek, then on the lips. Things escalated and she even waited while I put on a condom. Half way through she said she didn't know if this was a great idea and asked me to stop. I did.

It's not that difficult and there is no excuse for not stopping when told to!

There is no excuse guys and gals, for #3's actions.

BTW: We soon after became a couple and now six years later she is my fiance.

A friend of mine recently mentioned a lover who - thanks to Catholic guilt - would say "No! No! No!" during sex - so he stopped, and she became upset with him for stopping.

Well your friend is setting himself up for jail time. Why do I say that? Well, just on the 'off-in-left-field' far-flung chance that she does get upset at him and decides to get even by claiming rape (It happens all the time. You read about this at least 2-3 times a year, so you know it happens more often...the ones you don't hear of), your friend can be screwed legally.

If he continues to have consensual sex with her and allows her to say ""No! No! No!" during sex, she can claim in court she told him "No! No! No!" and he wouldn't stop. Would he be convicted? maybe-maybe not, but you have to realize that just going to court to face rape charges is going to taint his image in the minds of everyone around him. Tell him to tell her to get some therapy or sit her down and explain that he is getting mixed signals and needs her to knock it off. Otherwise, he is setting him self up for a fall.

In Case C, the woman already knew this man, and if she had a similar reputation he might have heard about it, and not wishing to offend her.

No such information is given (and this is a very rare thing to have a woman say without meaning to, to a first-time partner). The author would have provided that information if he wanted you to argue that point (that she had a history, and because of that he continued on).

Also, you are ignoring the fact that she had explained to him she has changed her mind and wants him to stop. It's not a simple, "NO, STOP" to start. It's a more like a "Mitch, I don't think this is a good idea. I don't want to keep going. Please stop." I'm, of course, putting my own words on it, however it does say she explained why and asked him to stop. You can't argue this point after that.

Well your friend is setting himself up for jail time. Why do I say that? Well, just on the 'off-in-left-field' far-flung chance that she does get upset at him and decides to get even by claiming rape (It happens all the time. You read about this at least 2-3 times a year, so you know it happens more often...the ones you don't hear of), your friend can be screwed legally.

Easiest solution: agree on an actual stop word. Because frankly every girl I have dated liked to say things like stop - and they never meant it (yes - I actually asked. Much to their frustration).

A "stopword" saves a lot of time and problems.

As a bloke, I claim the right to stop having sex "part-way through" ... withdrawing my consent. I'd expect my (hypothetical) partner to be pretty pissed at that, but I'd claim it as a right anyway.

Done it. A gal I was seeing way back during my college years (before I met my fiance) had been married but was divorced (married just after she graduated but then divorced him just before her sophmore year of college). We had sex one night and she kept going on and on about her ex-husband (it was during one of the 'take it slow' periods). I asked her to (politely) shut up about him. She did but then start up again a little later. I got pissed told her to get off and then went to take a shower. Totally killed the mood and I didn't want to keep having sex after that. so yeah...I withdrew my consent.

Guys can say 'No' too.

Easiest solution: agree on an actual stop word. Because frankly every girl I have dated liked to say things like stop - and they never meant it (yes - I actually asked. Much to their frustration).

A "stopword" saves a lot of time and problems.

Good point (though I haven't run into many that were into the whole fake "stop" stuff). Hard to use the 'stopword' defense in court though as he can claim they had one, she can lie and say they didn't. That's more for their consensual playing. (fiance likes to get tied up once in a while, so we have a stop word, but she doesn't get into the fake 'no' 'stop' comments. If she ever said 'no' or 'stop' or the stopword, I would stop in a heartbeat).

Legally, he is still in lukewarm waters. Personally, if it were me, I'd want her to stop sending mixed signals.

If it was within the last few moments of the intercourse... ((A minute or two)) before ejaculation then reasonably he wouldn't have had time ((Someone will argue that upon hearing the word stop he should have halted immediately... but I will grant that in most instances he might have not heard her right away.. or been too lost in the building sensation to halt right away.)) to stop.. Of course it is still rape even so.. See A.. but it's harder to fault him as a rapists.

No, it's not. Even during the building phase, you have your wits about you. Yes, you are getting a really great feeling, but if someone broke into your room with a gun or your parents (or children, or roommate, or significant other) walks in, you can stop.

Heck I've had an old GF ask me right before I came to pull out ...even when using a condom. I was right there on the edge and she said quickly said "Not in me." You just extend the backward movement and stop the forward thrust.

Not. That. Damn. Difficult.To.Do.

If you say otherwise, you are just trying to excuse it.


And while the "in the middle of everything" phrase is used, this could be figuratively or literally meant.

Again, if the original poster stated, "right before he came, she explain she changed her mind and asked him to stop", then MAYBE you have a case of 'too late' but even as a man, I would vote to convict since he wasn't coming at the time. The point of no return is the 'release'. Up until then, you can get out in time.

The way everything was written in his post, he/she meant the literal, in the middle. Half way through. Not close to coming. She had time to say SEVERAL TIMES to stop. I can't see how people keep ignoring these things.

Ok seriously you are a woman u have no idea of the sex drive males can get and rape isint about sex rape is voilent and a power hunger thing

Well, I am a 30 year old man and I can tell you what the sex drive we can get is like and only the perverts and sick rapists can say 'I couldn't stop' or 'I just had to keep going'. Sorry Banuta but your argument is false and doesn't hold-up to the truth.

No, it's not. Even during the building phase, you have your wits about you. Yes, you are getting a really great feeling, but if someone broke into your room with a gun or your parents (or children, or roommate, or significant other) walks in, you can stop.

Heck I've had an old GF ask me right before I came to pull out ...even when using a condom. I was right there on the edge and she said quickly said "Not in me." You just extend the backward movement and stop the forward thrust.

Not. That. Damn. Difficult.To.Do.

If you say otherwise, you are just trying to excuse it.



Again, if the original poster stated, "right before he came, she explain she changed her mind and asked him to stop", then MAYBE you have a case of 'too late' but even as a man, I would vote to convict since he wasn't coming at the time. The point of no return is the 'release'. Up until then, you can get out in time.

The way everything was written in his post, he/she meant the literal, in the middle. Half way through. Not close to coming. She had time to say SEVERAL TIMES to stop. I can't see how people keep ignoring these things.



Well, I am a 30 year old man and I can tell you what the sex drive we can get is like and only the perverts and sick rapists can say 'I couldn't stop' or 'I just had to keep going'. Sorry Banuta but your argument is false and doesn't hold-up to the truth.
I agree completely. I'm an all-grown-up woman who has been sexually active for a long time, and none of my friends (male and female) are virgins, either. I know for a fact that men are perfectly capable of withdrawing for any number of reasons, including involuntary interruptions, voluntary changes of position, impromptu puppet theater, anything they like, at any moment during sex, including at the point of coming. The bottom line is they can do it if they want to. Period.

All these people claiming otherwise are either inexperienced or lying.

And as for how they can keep ignoring the obvious part of scenario 3 where the woman tells the man to stop several times -- well, ignoring inconvenient facts is something people can easily do when they want to, as well.

A: she has the choice: sex or getting beat up, and consciously makes the choice for sex so technically this is not rape, it's a different kind of abuse though and not pretty at all.
B: hell yeah it's rape, that dirty ape should get his ass kicked good.
C: You can't really tell, she asked him to stop several times, if he then forces himself on her to be able to finish up then it's rape, if it's a situation where she doesn't really make clear what she wants then it's not rape. I'll assume it's the first one and go with rape although that is one f**ked up sister giving you all that sugar and then taking it away, maybe think before you act or apply some self-constraint so that later on when you change your goddamn mind the guy doesn't have to.

none of those are rape they all would have been prevented had the woman been under escort of a male relative, and wore a burqa.

A: she has the choice: sex or getting beat up, and consciously makes the choice for sex so technically this is not rape, it's a different kind of abuse though and not pretty at all..

If I point a gun at your head and demand the contents of your wallet, well, you have the choice: losing your money or getting shot in the face. Clearly, if you made the choice to give me your money, I didn't rob you, right? What I did may have been nasty and mean, but you gave up your money freely and therefore it's mine to keep, right?

none Of Those Are Rape They All Would Have Been Prevented Had The Woman Been Under Escort Of A Male Relative, And Wore A Burqa.








...





Fail.

A: she has the choice: sex or getting beat up, and consciously makes the choice for sex so technically this is not rape, it's a different kind of abuse though and not pretty at all.

If someone gives you the choice of either getting beat up or giving them your wallet, does it mean that they haven't stolen from you if you choose the latter?

Ah, Poli beat me to it.

Now that wasn't so hard...

Heeeey, where you been?

In that case, there is something seriously wrong and cruel about you.

Torturing animals is seriously wrong and cruel. Raping people is seriously wrong and cruel. Expecting a man to stop thrusting his pelvis forward when asked is entirely reasonable. I can certainly see "frustrating", but cruel? Give me a break.

A very close friend and I were talking over her breakup with a long-time boyfriend she found out who was cheating on her. We talked for three hours and, she said I was a great listener, kissing me on the cheek, then on the lips. Things escalated and she even waited while I put on a condom. Half way through she said she didn't know if this was a great idea and asked me to stop. I did.

Thank you for sharing that personal experience with us. I appreciate all the sane and honest men on NSG, it buoys my faith in men when a few idiots weaken it. ;)

This situation happened to someone I know and the guy did just as you did. So it's obviously very possible.

Easiest solution: agree on an actual stop word. Because frankly every girl I have dated liked to say things like stop - and they never meant it (yes - I actually asked. Much to their frustration).

Every girl you've dated liked to say "stop" and didn't mean it? That's very interesting. I've never had that urge, but maybe I'm just peculiar (in fact, I've had to be very insistent at times that I really DID mean "yes I want to do this, yes, seriously, why are you still wearing clothes").

Every girl you've dated liked to say "stop" and didn't mean it? That's very interesting. I've never had that urge, but maybe I'm just peculiar (in fact, I've had to be very insistent at times that I really DID mean "yes I want to do this, yes, seriously, why are you still wearing clothes").

Oh, I don't know. Some women might do that as part of sexual teasing. One of my past boyfriends and I used to play a little game when he was feeling randy -- he'd start making moves on me, and I'd tease him by fending him off and saying, "Now, now," as in "now, now, none of that." And he'd come back with "Now, now," as in "open those legs right this minute!" And we'd go back and forth saying nothing but "now" in those different tones of voice, until the energy built enough and we went at it. I teased him in that slight way precisely to increase his randiness.

Obviously, it is extremely important for people to know when their lovers are playing/teasing and when they are serious. This is why, when in doubt, assume they are serious and that "no" means "no."

Oh, I'm human. I'm also not into raping women and then making up shitty excuses. The OP doesn't state anything about her suddenly, and one time only demanding he stop mid-ejaculation. Yet you and others in this thread are for some reason automatically assuming that's the case, so you can say, 'oh, it's impossible to stop ejaculating once you've started, so the poor guy couldn't help himself.'

It's no wonder, then, that over half of all rapes go unreported. Because of shit like this. Always so quick to blame the victim and make excuses for the rapist - any excuse, no matter how flimsy.

lolwut?

No one has as yet definitively said "Thats how it happened without argument", they are saying "what if this were the case" but, perhaps some lessons on critical reading would suit you well, you should realize that these people aren't providing necessary exuses for all (or, in your post, half) rapes that ever occur.

So, you accuse people of generalizations, and then make them yourself, nice.

A: she has the choice: sex or getting beat up, and consciously makes the choice for sex so technically this is not rape, it's a different kind of abuse though and not pretty at all.

This statute follows the common-law definition of rape, and requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed (1) sexual intercourse (2) by force or threat of force and against the will of the victim. See Commonwealth v. Sherry, 386 Mass. 682, 687, 437 N.E.2d 224 (1982) ("The essence of the crime of rape, whether aggravated or unaggravated, is sexual intercourse with another compelled by force and against the victim's will or compelled by threat of bodily injury").


Well...shit

lolwut?

No one has as yet definitively said "Thats how it happened without argument", they are saying "what if this were the case"

But it's NOT the case, and you have people acting like the situations are in some way ambiguous or subjective. They aren't.

but, perhaps some lessons on critical reading would suit you well

OOOH BURN.

BURNNNN!

:rolleyes:

, you should realize that these people aren't providing necessary exuses for all (or, in your post, half) rapes that ever occur.

Nah, they're just posting BS excuses for the rapes in the OP, based on their unfounded assertions of ambiguity or subjectivity. And those excuses are the same sorts that people give for rapists in general. And that this reveals a mentality in society of making excuses for rapists and blaming rape victims which, demonstrably, has a negative effect for the prosecution of justice.

But hey don't let me tear the shit out of your idiotic mis-interpretation of my post.

So, you accuse people of generalizations, and then make them yourself, nice.

So, you don't read what I say, and you come up with these half-assed accusations of hypocrisy and then cluck to yourself about 'reading comprehension' as if you've somehow scored a major point. Ridiculous.

Situation A: Sarah is married with children. She and her husband generally get on all right and have regular, consensual sex. However, her husband is an alcoholic and a nasty character when he's on a bender. Sarah's husband comes home drunk one night and demands to have sex with her. Sarah is not interested and refuses him, but he persists and becomes forceful. Sarah, afraid of having the situation escalate, gives way and allows him to have sex with her, though she does not want to. Is it rape?

Yes, because of the parts I've bolded.


Situation B: Jenny goes to a party at a friend's house where most of the guests are people she knows well. After far too many drinks, Jenny decides to stay the night at the house and passes out. She wakes up the next day to one of her male friends having sex with her. She freezes up and doesn't move as the man finishes having sex with her, although it is obvious that she is awake and not responding to what he's doing. Is it rape?

Yes. Sex began without a clear consent from her part.


Situation C: Rachel, a college student, has just had a serious fight with her boyfriend and left his place quite angry. She goes to see a male friend of hers that she has some chemistry with, although up to this point they have only been good friends. They proceed to make out and then begin to have sex, but in the middle of everything Rachel realizes this is not a solution and not what she wants. She tells her friend she has changed her mind and tells him to stop several times, but he continues until he has ejaculated. Is it rape?

Yes. She clearly withdrew her consent.

The thing with the last one is that us men, unlike women, we LIKE sex. We sorta... can't stop when we've started.

a.women like sex.
b.I can stop.

a.women like sex.
b.I can stop.

Absolutely. So can any man with half a damn brain.

The fact that this thread made it to 400 posts is disconcerting for the state of (largely male) self-control and the defense of crime victims.

none of those are rape they all would have been prevented had the woman been under escort of a male relative, and wore a burqa.

Italy (year 2007, data of the Permanent Observatory on Gender Violence - Ministry of Internal Affairs): more than 70% of violence against women, including rape, are perpetrated by male relatives - husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, even grandfathers.
It must be noted that MOST of the perpetrators call themselves catholic.

Fail, GaD.

I might also point you to "Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books", where is underlined the "peculiar interest" male relatives have on young female relatives, even in "officialy chaste" societies.

Absolutely. So can any man with half a damn brain.

The fact that this thread made it to 400 posts is disconcerting for the state of (largely male) self-control and the defense of crime victims.

Yep, sometimes my fellow boys plot to make me ashamed of my own gender.
Did you read Dune? There is a very interesting definition of human being in the first chapter.

I find amusing this argument of "being unable to control yourself" when having an orgasm. If it were the case the following would not be possible:
Coitus interruptus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_interruptus)
Notice that:
This method has been widely used for at least 2,000 years and was used by an estimated 38 million couples worldwide in 1991.

couldn't find it for men in the 30 seconds i was willing to spend on it. but average length for an orgasm in women is 13 to 51 seconds. Perhaps you should see a doctor or sex counselor it seems your sex life sucks.

3 seconds is very unreasonable and seems to be based off of your poor sex life.

Then you are poor at researching:
Orgasm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgasm)
Physiological responses

In men
During orgasm, a human male experiences rapid, rhythmic contractions of the anal sphincter, the prostate, and the muscles of the penis. The sperm are transmitted up the vas deferens from the testicles, into the prostate gland as well as through the seminal vesicles to produce what is known as semen. The prostate produces a secretion that forms one of the components of ejaculate. Contraction of the sphincter and prostate force stored semen to be expelled through the penis's urethral opening. The process takes from three to ten seconds, and is highly pleasurable.

Omissis...

In women
A typical woman's orgasm lasts much longer than that of a man.

Ok, so you are either:

trolling;
bullshitting;
not a man and thus trolling;
not yet had sex and thus bullshitting;
watching too much porn;
Gianni.

Heeeey, where you been?

Very busy with work :(

The thing with the last one is that us men, unlike women, we LIKE sex. We sorta... can't stop when we've started.

Who's we kemo sabe?
I'm perfectly capable of stopping... I may not want to, but I can.

If you can't then there is something wrong with you.

NO MEANS NO!


If a person allowed another to kill him to save the life of his child, that would still be murder, right?
If a person was about to be stabbed in their sleep/while unconcious, and woke up to experience it happening (without fighting back), that would still be murder, right?
If a person asked to be Euthanized, and changed his mind last minute, but the friend still pulled the trigger, that would still be murder, right?


It ain't consentual if it ain't consentual.

Then you are poor at researching:
Orgasm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgasm)


Ok, so you are either:

trolling;
bullshitting;
not a man and thus trolling;
not yet had sex and thus bullshitting;
watching too much porn;
Gianni.


From what I've seen, I'm guessing #4.

The fact that this thread made it to 400 posts is disconcerting for the state of (largely male) self-control and the defense of crime victims.

The fact that 44% of those who filled out the poll don't think all three are rape is absolutely terrifying.

Related to recent threads about rape and victim culpability. Rape is "easy" to define when it's done by a stranger and done by force, but what about when the lines aren't as clear?


Situation A: Sarah is married with children. She and her husband generally get on all right and have regular, consensual sex. However, her husband is an alcoholic and a nasty character when he's on a bender. Sarah's husband comes home drunk one night and demands to have sex with her. Sarah is not interested and refuses him, but he persists and becomes forceful. Sarah, afraid of having the situation escalate, gives way and allows him to have sex with her, though she does not want to. Is it rape?


Situation B: Jenny goes to a party at a friend's house where most of the guests are people she knows well. After far too many drinks, Jenny decides to stay the night at the house and passes out. She wakes up the next day to one of her male friends having sex with her. She freezes up and doesn't move as the man finishes having sex with her, although it is obvious that she is awake and not responding to what he's doing. Is it rape?


Situation C: Rachel, a college student, has just had a serious fight with her boyfriend and left his place quite angry. She goes to see a male friend of hers that she has some chemistry with, although up to this point they have only been good friends. They proceed to make out and then begin to have sex, but in the middle of everything Rachel realizes this is not a solution and not what she wants. She tells her friend she has changed her mind and tells him to stop several times, but he continues until he has ejaculated. Is it rape?


Poll to follow.

I'm sure you'll have the whole sexual assault crowd but even that is rape. All three situations would constitute in my book.

The fact that 44% of those who filled out the poll don't think all three are rape is absolutely terrifying.

What's more terrifying is the 5% or so who think none of these situations are.

Well you have to remember to take this with a grain of salt. A majority of those five are probably just trolls.

What's more terrifying is the 5% or so who think none of these situations are.

The thing that annoys me the most is the display of would-be-justifications for rape, like "we men are driven by our sexual instincts and cannot stop ourselves from putting our wurstel in any kind of orifice".

I, as a man, feel that my dignity has been insulted by such statements by some oh-so-"manly"-but-sadly-decerebrated male humanoids. To be very clear: THEY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, NOT FOR ALL MALE HUMANS.

About the percentages... I do hope that ALL women here recognize those three examples as rape, but idiocy is sex-undependant.

Another thing, this time on the juridical side of it.
Here in Italy, the maximum sentence for rape is 7 years. Still, to commit rape, most of the times the rapist needs to commit other crimes, like coercition, assault, battery, injuries, threats, kidnapping. The sentence for plain kidnapping in Italy is 6 to 8 years (kidnapping for ransom is 25 to 30 years, or life in jail if the kidnapped dies).
Maybe the sentences against rape would be more severe if the "accessory" crimes would be considered in the prosecution, too.

<snip>A "stopword" saves a lot of time and problems.Pineapple? :D

Cheerio!

About the percentages... I do hope that ALL women here recognize those three examples as rape, but idiocy is sex-undependant.


I'm not usually one to correct peole for stuff like this but: undependant, seriously?

I'm not usually one to correct peole for stuff like this but: undependant, seriously?

He's Italian.

I voted yes to A and B - in A sex was clearly obtained through violence and in B someone took advantage of a drunk woman.

C - well, I'd be pretty pissed off if I was getting on with a woman, she took off her clothes and got naked and made out, and she suddenly turned around and said no.

Yep, sometimes my fellow boys plot to make me ashamed of my own gender.
Did you read Dune? There is a very interesting definition of human being in the first chapter.

I have, but I didn't memorize it. I'll go find a copy and refresh my memory. Anything before Chapterhouse was pretty damned good, for the most part.

I'm not usually one to correct peole for stuff like this but: undependant, seriously?

whoops... sorry, it was late in the night and I was quite tired. damn, I hate losing at grammar naziness!


uh, about Dune and the definition of human being: to sum it up, an animal acts on istincts, a human is able to overcome istincts through reason.

A is rape because she's giving in to the threat of violence
B is rape because wtf, she was asleep
C isn't really rape as she consented to have sex in the first place, but it depends if she said to stop and he went on for 10 seconds, or 10 minutes.

C - well, I'd be pretty pissed off if I was getting on with a woman, she took off her clothes and got naked and made out, and she suddenly turned around and said no.

so its not rape? because you would be pissed off? There's a very large can of worms here.

so its not rape? because you would be pissed off? There's a very large can of worms here.

As opposed to the even larger legal can of worms you would open when you suddenly qualified giving consent and then withdrawing it halfway through sex as rape? I can't see any use for classifying C as rape except to give women a weapon to deliberately lead men (their ex's or whatnot) to "rape" them. She gave her consent and that's that. She should think her actions through better.

I think he's saying its rape, but it sucks to be the guy in a predicament like that.

IRT topic:

A.) Rape
B.) Rape
C.) Rape, but if the guy does stop he gets to call the girl a bitch and spit in her face.

Pineapple? :D

Cheerio!

Armageddon!

It is very simple, all three are rape. The first two for the obvious reasons, the threat of violence and the non-initial consent. The last one is rape only because he carried on after she asked him to stop. The actions before that point only indicate she is stupid, but that dosen't mean she deserves to be raped.

As opposed to the even larger legal can of worms you would open when you suddenly qualified giving consent and then withdrawing it halfway through sex as rape?

It isn't suddenly. It's been that way.

I can't see any use for classifying C as rape except to give women a weapon to deliberately lead men (their ex's or whatnot) to "rape" them. She gave her consent and that's that. She should think her actions through better.

She gave her consent, and then withdrew it. At that point, he had to stop or it was clearly rape.

Unless you're going to take up the "men can't possibly stop what they're doing" argument, there's no trickery about it. Anyone can change their mind during sex and decide that they want to stop. Is it a particularly good situation? No, but it doesn't change the fact that it is their right.

As opposed to the even larger legal can of worms you would open when you suddenly qualified giving consent and then withdrawing it halfway through sex as rape? I can't see any use for classifying C as rape except to give women a weapon to deliberately lead men (their ex's or whatnot) to "rape" them. She gave her consent and that's that. She should think her actions through better.

What you don't seem to get is that C is rape because she withdrew her consent and he kept going.
If he had stopped when she withdrew her consent, then it would not be rape.
Get it now?

Well, the real fumbly point of that one isn't that she changed her mind, but that communication may not have been occurring clearly. The passion of the moment does not always enable clear communication, or appropriate imprecations.

Such as "Rape me! Rape me harder!" - I've heard that one, and I find it appallingly distasteful.

Screams of "No!" or "Don't!" or even "Stop!" are sometimes not understood by a partner as a signal to stop intercourse. As previous posters have indicated, prosecuting a rape charge after giving consent, and then withdrawing the consent mid-act may well cause undeserved trouble; depending on her choice of communications techniques, her partner may not have even understood that she had changed her mind until afterward.

This emphasizes in particular the need for clear and unequivocal communication, and "safe words" that cannot be confused with anything else but have a pre-established meaning. Like ... oh... "Eggplant! Eggplant!"

This emphasizes in particular the need for clear and unequivocal communication, and "safe words" that cannot be confused with anything else but have a pre-established meaning. Like ... oh... "Eggplant! Eggplant!"

I agree on the communication thing.

But I don't think safewords are needed unless you're engaged in some sort of play where saying "Stop!" or "No!" or "We really shouldn't do this" is expected to be normal.

In other words, assume that someone saying something during sex actually means what they are saying, unless you've already discussed otherwise.

Yes, those are all rape.

I agree on the communication thing.

But I don't think safewords are needed unless you're engaged in some sort of play where saying "Stop!" or "No!" or "We really shouldn't do this" is expected to be normal.

In other words, assume that someone saying something during sex actually means what they are saying, unless you've already discussed otherwise.

Agreed. There is also the non verbal element of communication - I would expect a change in her facial expressions and in her body language, such as trying to move away or pushing the male away. It seems bizarre to me that a person might not notice that their partner is trying to stop having sex with them, and it disturbs me that so many seem happy to carry on regardless; its as though the rights and the feelings of the other person don't matter at all...

The responses on this board justifying any one of the three situations described above as not rape absolutely horrify me, but do not surprise me. It is because of attitudes like the ones shown on this board by some posters that so few rapists are convicted and that so many women are reluctant to report rapes in the first place.

I agree on the communication thing.

But I don't think safewords are needed unless you're engaged in some sort of play where saying "Stop!" or "No!" or "We really shouldn't do this" is expected to be normal.
I'm not sure I can agree on the non-necessity of safewords in so-called "normal" sex.

Fourteen or fifteen roommates in the past six years...

"No!" does not seem to be that uncommon a cry, along with "Yes!", "Don't stop!", "Aahh!", and the very similar sounding "Oh!". "No!" and "Don't stop!" in particular go together.

How much noise, jolting, and lack of attention fall between hearing "No! Don't stop!", and hearing "No! Stop!"?

"We really shouldn't do this" is a line that particularly horny individuals may mentally append "but we're doing it anyway" unless backed up by tone of voice and body language, but is in general more effective than a screamed "No!" that is likely to be mistaken as a cry of passion rather than panic.

Virtually any blurted out panicked syllable can be incoherent-sounding, and if she is thrashing and shouting out panicked words incoherently, it is somewhat less likely to constitute effective communication than if she freezes, puts up a hand, and talks.

As Bewilder points out rightly, body language is a very important part of communication, and panic and passion don't just have the letter "p" in common, they're also not always easy to distinguish nonverbally - especially if, as in the stated scenario of (C) suggests, the two haven't had sex before and therefore are unfamiliar with how each other act in moments of great passion.
In other words, assume that someone saying something during sex actually means what they are saying, unless you've already discussed otherwise.
That's an idea I would like to see spread - but that it isn't universal is precisely part of the problem I'm describing. As I said, depending on variables not given in the description, it is quite possible that her partner remained unaware of her sudden withdrawal of consent.

Something quite similar is in play in the case where a fully conscious woman simply doesn't want sex, but is unwilling to actively refuse her partner - whether for fear of angering her partner, social pressure, or whatever else - and so is simply passive, and this unwilling passivity is mistaken for consent.

It's an obvious call to say "rape" from the woman's perspective, but her partner may simply be clueless rather than malicious. Take situation (A) from the OP, remove the drunkenness, the violence, the abuse - any physical force or threat whatsoever - and would you still feel comfortable calling it rape?

He's Italian.

I voted yes to A and B - in A sex was clearly obtained through violence and in B someone took advantage of a drunk woman.

C - well, I'd be pretty pissed off if I was getting on with a woman, she took off her clothes and got naked and made out, and she suddenly turned around and said no.

C- You have the right to be pissed off. She has the right to change her mind. And if she does and you continue, then that is rape.

I'm not sure I can agree on the non-necessity of safewords in so-called "normal" sex.

Meh. I've never needed it.

But then again, I've never engaged in sex with someone I didn't already know well.

As Bewilder points out rightly, body language is a very important part of communication, and panic and passion don't just have the letter "p" in common, they're also not always easy to distinguish nonverbally - especially if, as in the stated scenario of (C) suggests, the two haven't had sex before and therefore are unfamiliar with how each other act in moments of great passion.

Hence the reason that one must be extra careful with a new lover. If it can be interpreted as resistance or a wish to stop, one should make certain before continuing.

That's an idea I would like to see spread - but that it isn't universal is precisely part of the problem I'm describing. As I said, depending on variables not given in the description, it is quite possible that her partner remained unaware of her sudden withdrawal of consent.

And this would be covered in any trial that resulted (although it would be unlikely to ever get that far).

But, in all honesty, I'd rather see the principle made universal than give people a pass for not taking a new lover seriously. If you haven't discussed otherwise, a person should be taken at their word.

Something quite similar is in play in the case where a fully conscious woman simply doesn't want sex, but is unwilling to actively refuse her partner - whether for fear of angering her partner, social pressure, or whatever else - and so is simply passive, and this unwilling passivity is mistaken for consent.

That is a bad situation, I think - and most people can tell when someone actually isn't into it, so I'd likely lay some blame on the will partner. But I wouldn't call it rape in that case unless they actively intimidated the passive partner into doing it.

It's an obvious call to say "rape" from the woman's perspective, but her partner may simply be clueless rather than malicious. Take situation (A) from the OP, remove the drunkenness, the violence, the abuse - any physical force or threat whatsoever - and would you still feel comfortable calling it rape?

Of course not. It is specifically the threat that makes that situation rape.