Rape?

[MysticSang'ha]

edit: Actually, I am changing my answer. If neither extracts some form of sexual gratification from it, it is by definition not a "sexual" activity. If the perpetrator put the rod cause he found it sexy, then it is forced sex.

Are you basing your definition of the crime not by the act, then, but by the appetite of the perpetrator?

 

[Me Myself]

Are you basing your definition of the crime not by the act, then, but by the appetite of the perpetrator?

Not at all. Not of the crime.

You reminded me that legally it is about penetration. I was viewing it as equally bad to kidnap someone and do all and any sort of sexual things to this person without penetration than with penetration, but technically speaking I think that would be some other form of sexual assault, right?

The rape would be sexual if there was sexual gratification, stimulation, arousal, etc. Like in all cases of rape that involve an erect penis. If there is no such a thing but there is still penetration, it is still rape, it would just be the extremely weird case of it not being sexual.

 

[dust1n]

My favorite statistician in the behavioral sciences, Rand R. Wilcox, begins chapter 1.1 of his book on hypothesis testing with "To begin, distributions are never normal." I love this because so many behavioral stats books will barely touch on this and act as if the central limit theorem were some sacrosanct given upon which to build all of behavioral science, while in fact even normal distributions can make the common tests can fail.

He gives (in one of his books) the example of sexual promiscuity, which is just barely tangential to this topic so as to somehow relate a bit but without me having to deal with a topic that I tend to become...upset about very very quickly.

There was a study in the 90s of sexual promiscuity, in which ten billion or two dozen (I have no idea but it was a largish sample size, probably ~100 undergrads) were asked how many sexual partners they wanted. The sample size was large enough to at the very least approximate college males (i.e., it was large enough to "assume" a normal distribution). They found that the average for males was over 50. Why? Mainly because one male said he wanted several thousand sexual partners. Also (and I believe this was the point of the example), even removing this outlier wasn't good enough. Because while it approximated a normal distribution, it did so the wrong way. Almost all the responses were 1 or 2, but then there were several which were a fair amount higher and several which were around 100. Here, a test using the median (something which I have never seen in any behavioral statistics book if memory serves) was a better value for a statistical test than the mean (which is what t tests, ANOVA's, and all the most commonly taught and used parametric tests use).

Most sample size estimates assume an approximately normal distribution, but this alone is not sufficient to say anything much unless you at least test in what way it approximates a normal distribution, because Tukey showed a long time ago that small departures from normality can seriously distort the very tests he developed. The problem was back then your standard computer had less power than many a high school child's calculator (TI 83, or 84, or whatever the top texas instrument calculator is today). Now, a lot of ways to test enormous amounts of data are readily down through R, MATLAB, SAS, and other software packages. However, as most colleges still use SPSS and still preach the gospel of normal distributions, we could have fully functional quantum nanobiosystems computers and it wouldn't matter.

Hey, no one said getting a truly random sample was easy, and sometimes quantities with averages don't match average qualities (it seems that if a full statical model was made, seeing the median, the range, and the mode, would help greatly). Calibrating your sample is indeed not fun; thank goodness I can barely remember how to do it at all! In this example we were talking about, it would be a tad bit easier then figuring out the desire for sexual promiscuity; mainly because there isn't necessary a sliding number scale. If I wanted to find out about a male or a rapists feelings about something, I don't necessarily have to use an infinite number scale when surveying the habits of males or rapists and they reasons they raped or the circumstances.

I'll look more into Wilcox soon. It's been sometime since I've played with statistics.

 

[dust1n]

It`s not? o.o

Oral sex is sex o.o

The oxford says "sexual activity". Then again it does say that intercourse is like the most specific meaning, but I was indeed using the broadest sense of sex as it defined it.

Eh, it's too blurry and unimportant. That's why I deleted the post. Let's go back to statistics. Less blurry.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't have trauma or personal emotions relating to the word. It just strikes me as a rational definition. Insofar as it is useful to have categories for things at all, and to choose words to describe those categories, it is very misleading and confusing for people to put rape in the "sex" category as opposed to the "violence" category. You end up with people assuming lack of sex can turn you into a rapist and other such nonsense.

I suppose I find it potentially more useful for people, male and female, to understand and be aware that rape can arise in a number of different situations and scenarios, and that not everyone who performs an act of rape goes into it being a "rapist." By defining rape as only committed by those whose primary aim is to commit violence, we put them into the category of monster, thus separating the possibility of rape from people. After all , nobody thinks they're dating a rapist, or thinks they are a rapist. If "rapists" are violent monsters, then we can all feel safe that we're not rapists or won't be raped as long as we avoid violent, inhuman rapists.

Some folks are sexually aroused by violence, sure. Some people are sexually aroused by putting on a fuzzy cat suit. Is putting on a fuzzy cat suit sex?

No, but putting your penis into another person for sexual gratification is sex.

 

[Titanic]

I have a question. If you were truly desperate would you go pay someone to have sex with you?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have a question. If you were truly desperate would you go pay someone to have sex with you?

Me? No. If I were "desperate," I'd strike up a conversation with someone I found sexually appealing and see if they liked me and vice-versa. If not, then try again. It's hard for me to say whether I would or not, if I had some type of horrible disfigurement which made it nearly impossible to find someone who would sleep with me. I doubt it, as the primary component for me has always been someone wanting to sleep with me, more than the other way around - but if I didn't have the luxury of having decent sex appeal, I might think differently.

 

[Titanic]

I do not have the exotic sex appeal. I guess though paying for sex is better than getting sex by rape though isn't it? p.s thank's kilgore trout for your reply.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I do not have the exotic sex appeal. I guess though paying for sex is better than getting sex by rape though isn't it? p.s thank's kilgore trout for your reply.

It's awful that you have to ask that question. Rape is never acceptable.

 

[Titanic]

It's awful that you have to ask that question. Rape is never acceptable.

I am sorry if i have offended you.

 

[Alceste]

Intercourse. Penetration. Any definition of sex boils down to that element.

Rape is sex without consent.

Nobody is saying that the sex involved with rape is enjoyable, meaningful, sensual, or any of the positive things associated with consensual sex.

Since when? I think many gay people who don't practice penetration are going to be very surprised to learn they haven't been having sex all this time.

 

[Alceste]

edit: Actually, I am changing my answer. If neither extracts some form of sexual gratification from it, it is by definition not a "sexual" activity. If the perpetrator put the rod cause he found it sexy, then it is forced sex.

You're confused then. Sticking anything (including part of your own body) into another person's orifices against their will is rape whether you get off on it or not.

 

[Alceste]

Not at all. Not of the crime.

You reminded me that legally it is about penetration. I was viewing it as equally bad to kidnap someone and do all and any sort of sexual things to this person without penetration than with penetration, but technically speaking I think that would be some other form of sexual assault, right?

The rape would be sexual if there was sexual gratification, stimulation, arousal, etc. Like in all cases of rape that involve an erect penis. If there is no such a thing but there is still penetration, it is still rape, it would just be the extremely weird case of it not being sexual.

Whoop, there it is. The underlying phallocentric reasoning I suspected all along.

The presence or absence of a penis, erect or otherwise, is a very poor metric for categorizing intentional human behaviors. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Alceste]

I suppose I find it potentially more useful for people, male and female, to understand and be aware that rape can arise in a number of different situations and scenarios, and that not everyone who performs an act of rape goes into it being a "rapist." By defining rape as only committed by those whose primary aim is to commit violence, we put them into the category of monster, thus separating the possibility of rape from people. After all , nobody thinks they're dating a rapist, or thinks they are a rapist. If "rapists" are violent monsters, then we can all feel safe that we're not rapists or won't be raped as long as we avoid violent, inhuman rapists.



No, but putting your penis into another person for sexual gratification is sex.

More phallocentric reasoning in your last sentence. I don't define much in life based on whether or not a penis is involved and what it happens to be doing, but I can understand the emotions driving you to do so.

I know many rape victims and one rapist. I've never picked up any ambiguity from any of them regarding whether or not the act was rape. I'm including the rapist. He raped a girl he was babysitting. She was crying. He knew it was wrong. He knew it was rape. Why do you choose to believe that those who rape or have been raped avoid thinking of the act in those terms? It doesn't seem to be the case based on my experience and psychological profiling of convicted rapists. I once read a whole thread of rapists discussing their assaults on Reddit, and the overwhelming majority of self-professed rapists knew they were raping somebody at the time.

Edited to add: I don't think rape is inhuman. I think it's very human. Unfortunately, humans suck. Legion's posts elaborate on that line of thinking.

 

[Alceste]

I have a question. If you were truly desperate would you go pay someone to have sex with you?

If you're that desperate I'd say you probably have psychological problems (depression, alienation, anger, social anxiety, self-loathing, etc) that are unrelated to sex, and you could benefit greatly from therapy.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

More phallocentric reasoning in your last sentence. I don't define much in life based on whether or not a penis is involved and what it happens to be doing, but I can understand the emotions driving you to do so.

No, it was simply to point out the fallacy of your examples of defining whether something is sex or not. But, I think you know that.

I know many rape victims and one rapist. I've never picked up any ambiguity from any of them regarding whether or not the act was rape. I'm including the rapist. He raped a girl he was babysitting. She was crying. He knew it was wrong. He knew it was rape. Why do you chose to believe that those who rape or have been raped avoid thinking of the act in those terms? It doesn't seem to be the case based on my experience and psychological profiling of convicted rapists. I once read a whole thread of rapists discussing their assaults on Reddit, and the overwhelming majority of self-professed rapists knew they were raping somebody at the time.

The difference is I'm not limiting my scope to anecdotes or one scenario/type of rape. As I've stated previously, on more than on occassion, there are a wide variety of scenarios and situations which can lead to rape, prompted by a variety of motivations and urges. Referring back to your statistic that 70% of rapes are pre-planned, that still leaves a large percentage that aren't, which points to the fact that many of those who ended up perpetrating rape didn't intend to, thereby pointing to the possibility that many of those situations arose during sex or the buildup to sex - further pointing to the possibility that their primary goal was sexual gratification, and not simply to commit violence.

Personally, I think it's detrimental to not make people, male and female, aware that rape can occur in many situations, and by people who might not be particularly violent, or have violence as their motivation. By painting rapists as necessarily violent and criminals, it makes it easy for people to ignore the possibility in themselves or those they are with.

Some may see it differently, and I can generally understand their motivations, but my view on this topic is based on a consistent view of human behaviors and motivations in general, and I find any view which defines absolutes when it comes to human behavior is usually grossly oversimplistic.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Whoop, there it is. The underlying phallocentric reasoning I suspected all along.

The presence or absence of a penis, erect or otherwise, is a very poor metric for categorizing intentional human behaviors. Wouldn't you agree?

I was wondering something similar.

It could be that we have a baseline assumption that sex=erection/ejaculation. Therefore, anything having to do with an erection and/or ejaculation automatically qualifies it first with "sexual", AND that it is the standard for which anything else "sexual" is to be compared to.

I can see why some are so insistent that rape is a form of sex. A deviant or violent form of sex, but sex no less because there is an erection and/or ejaculation involved.

With that kind of logic, it's no wonder why many are under the false assumption that women cannot rape another human being, male or female, young or old. Now, I haven't seen that argument presented here specifically, but I've noticed a stark contrast between qualifying rape as "sexual" when there is a male perpetrator at his sexual peak and qualifying it as not necessarily "sexual" when something other than a penis is used for forceful penetration.

Of course, I see this as symptomatic of a larger issue concerning patriarchal attitudes remaining in social structures, and one that assumes the phallus is the default image for sexual activity and initiation.

 

[Titanic]

If you're that desperate I'd say you probably have psychological problems (depression, alienation, anger, social anxiety, self-loathing, etc) that are unrelated to sex, and you could benefit greatly from therapy.

I try to be fun, am i not fun? anyway's though not joking You are right. I do have depression. I have only had sex a few time's in my life and i miss it. I do not think that is a crime. I think i am a decent nice person. I try to be funny. Maybe that is not helping.

 

[Titanic]

I do not have social anxiety though. I am a actor, i love being around people.

 

[Alceste]

I was wondering something similar.

It could be that we have a baseline assumption that sex=erection/ejaculation. Therefore, anything having to do with an erection and/or ejaculation automatically qualifies it first with "sexual", AND that it is the standard for which anything else "sexual" is to be compared to.

I can see why some are so insistent that rape is a form of sex. A deviant or violent form of sex, but sex no less because there is an erection and/or ejaculation involved.

With that kind of logic, it's no wonder why many are under the false assumption that women cannot rape another human being, male or female, young or old. Now, I haven't seen that argument presented here specifically, but I've noticed a stark contrast between qualifying rape as "sexual" when there is a male perpetrator at his sexual peak and qualifying it as not necessarily "sexual" when something other than a penis is used for forceful penetration.

Of course, I see this as symptomatic of a larger issue concerning patriarchal attitudes remaining in social structures, and one that assumes the phallus is the default image for sexual activity and initiation.

It's not very practical, is it? Many things a penis gets up to during the day are not defined as sex. wet dreams. Surprise public erections. Premature ejaculation. Masturbation. Meanwhile, many things that don't involve anybody's penis at all are still legally (and rationally) deemed rape / molestation / sexual assault.

The trouble with being convinced rape is sex because a penis is sometimes involved is that it leads to silly and ineffective policies like chemical castration, ignorant of the fact that most rapists are perfectly willing to use something other than a penis to commit sexual violence.