I consider rape to be compelling someone to have sex through the use or the threat of force. The dictionary definition of rape.
I don't consider obtaining sex through drugging someone, or taking advantage of a drunk person, or through deception to be rape. Those things are wrong, and they're crimes, but they're not rape. They're different crimes.
26 comments
Really? Why don't you come over, I've just come up with a new drink.
You may wake up tomorrow with a very swollen ass, but hey, at least you weren't raped multiple times!
WTH is sex by deception? When you picked up that drag queen prostitute?
@Wyzard
I think that's something like agreeing to have protected sex with someone, but only pretending to put the condom on, since you can't always see your partner, depending on your position.
I would argue that rape is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.
As a personal example, my wife and I end up having sex anyway about half the time she tells me no, and she's never complained about it.
The crucial phrase in my dictionary's definition is "against her will." Doesn't say anything about violence, except in the second definition, which is for cases like the Rape of Nanking. As you are talking about people rather than places, if there are different crimes involved, then we might consider "rape" (what you don't think is rape) and "aggravated rape" (what you do call rape).
"They're different crimes."
Something placed in your drink without your knowledge. A little later you feel woozy, but strangely compliant.
The next morning, you wake up in someone else's bed. You turn over to see that someone else next to you.
A man .
You realise you have a sore arse.
Homosexuality is no longer a crime these days, pal. >:D
I consider rape to be compelling someone to have sex through the use or the threat of force.
I don't care what you "consider" it,you're wrong. Rape is and is defined as, having sex with an adult without their consent (note that, while it's still very illegal, having sex with a juvenile is generally considered a separate crime).
It doesn't matter whether you use force, drugs or drinks or, depending on the details, deception, if she can't or won't give a clear "yes, please" or words to that effect, it's rape.
I agree with molten_dragon.
Non-consensual sexual acts are sexual assault, of which rape is the most severe form; to me, expanding rape to include non-consensual sexuality (especially "dubious consent" situations) is trivialising violence. I also see it as problematic in the case of genuine misunderstandings.
Maybe I am somewhat biased by the terminology in my own language (the German word for rape, Vergewaltigung, is a derivate of Gewalt, which means violence or force, while the more general term is Sexuelle Nötigung, sexual coerciation). And of course, human psychology is more than incomprehensible enough to me without love, shame or sex entering the equation; but to me, this only makes it more obvious that consent is more complicated than "Eagerly stripping down before the question is completed" and "RAPE!!!"
PS: These are merely my opinions, with no sexual, legal, American or neurotypical experience, speaking only from intuition and philosophy. I am also not trying to say sexual coerciation, let alone rape, is not wrong. I just think that the view espoused by many commentators here, as evidenced by listing this not-actually-extremistic (and explicitely subjective) quote here, are too simplistic.
(Also, why is there still no "Sexists* Say The Darndest Things"? I really think the fundie archive suffers from being too all-encompassing, even though RSTDT provides precedence for giving a specific category of bigots a seperate archive. Or possibly expand RSTDT into Bigots STDT.)
*Sexists, of course, would include the Amazons, since the only difference between them and the misogynists is the sex they are sexist against.
For those in the comments, rape by deception is when concent is gained under false pretenses. It helps stop people from walking into the amnesiac's wing of the hospital and choosing who to bang by claiming that your their SO, or screwing your identical twin brother's wife by claiming you're him.
While I don't agree woth some parts of it, this is the general law of the thing.
Why do you need two definitions for having sex without the other person's consent? I'd say it's easier to call them all "rape".
"Sex is like boxing; if one of the participants didn't consent, the other is committing a crime."
Swede: Because sometimes the way a crime is performed is relevant. I mean, whether someone cons you out of one million crowns, blackmails you out of one million crowns, or brutally robbed of one million crowns, in the end, you have lost one million crowns against your will.
(I am not say trying to say that losing one million dollars is like nonconsensual sex.)
This is not a pick-up artist or rape apologist trying to justify himself, it is a criticism of terminology.
Oddly enough, the legal system doesn't give a damn what you consider it, and will continue to prosecute such rapes as rape.
@hudson
"I sincerely hope someone roofies molten_dragon's and mimic octopus drinks..."
Neither of them said they thought it should be legal. They both said it was wrong, and are not in any way defending it as something that anyone should ever do. They are simply disagreeing with the definition of the word "rape".
(In fact, depending on the context of the OP, there's really not a lot to object to.)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.