Mind if I ask when rape is ever justified?
I don't know why I keep coming back to this issue (of rape) knowing it can have emotions flare beyond any possible reasonable discussion, but I guess I like to think it can be discussed without always being filtered through the emotional prism. Like we do with killing another person. Seemingly that can have logic brought to the discussion and not be seen as offending the sensibilities of people.
Given how wrong (be that relative or inherent) that I believe everyone in this thread, and overwhelming majority of the world does think rape is, I would think false accusation of rape would be perhaps the 2nd worst thing one could do. Such that if there were a ranking of worst things you could do to another human, it would be: 1. Rape, 2. False accusation of Rape, 3. Murder.
Tempted to let that point be all there is to this post, but alas I continue.
To me, 'rape' (in quotes) becomes 'justified' when it is filtered as 'nope, that's not rape.' Just like that. If it's not-rape, and it occurred, then probably not a big deal. Could still be to some people, but likely isn't as big of a deal as rape is. Which then leads to topic of accusations of rape.
If you feel sexually violated, deceived into having sex, or coerced against reasonable consent, I'm thinking many would see that as "I was raped." But if anyone comes along, especially 'authority type' and says, 'no what you experienced isn't rape.' Then that's going to justify what happened to you as not rape (foremost) and even if you wish to interpret it as rape, it can be taken down a few notches by all other people in the situation/community. I think historically, this was the case in some instances where rape occurred, but to protect the interests of people or perhaps because rape isn't 100% clear cut in what constitutes that action, it was framed as not rape.
Now, it seems the pendulum has swung the other way (perhaps strictly in America, not sure). Where the accusation is believed regardless of what occurred. I'm not sure I appreciate that, but given the two extremes - not believing it at all, framing it as non-rape in attempt to overcome responsibility vs. accuse first and treat as guilty until innocence is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I do think I prefer the latter. But in general, I don't like the latter. I don't like that we tend to presume guilt based on accusation.
In this thread, that I started, regarding discussion on what actions, if any, are inherently wrong - I do recognize rape is one that is arguably the toughest to consider. I truly believe everyone responding thus far does see it as wrong. Some of us as relatively wrong and some as inherently. Both (or all) seeing it as wrong. Yet, the inherently wrong crowd can't fathom the idea that rape would ever be seen as not inherently wrong. Such that, if they see anyone attempting to say it isn't inherently wrong, they jump to opposite conclusion of, "so you think it's inherently right???????"
To which I, in the relatively wrong crowd wish to say:
No!
But apparently, there may not be text size big enough to communicate that effectively. I do see it as relatively wrong in the way that murder is, in that the action does have ways to be stipulated. Such that not all killings (of another human being) equals murder, so does not all sexual misconduct (that may violate a person's consent, personhood, understandings of proper sexual relations) equals rape. If there were universal agreement on sexual misconduct, I could then see how rape would be inherently wrong. Because there is not, I do see it as relatively wrong. Why the relatively is emphasized more than the wrong part is odd to me, but not so odd when I remember just how emotionally volatile the topic of rape consistently is.
