Rape?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Apparently some folks think rape fits better in the category "sex" than the category "violence". I know, it seems ridiculous to me as well.

I can't believe I didn't notice that! It's one thing to accidently butt in on a DIR thread because one sees the title and not the thread location, but I can't believe I missed that. And after just writing about how important being aware is. Is there a chance this can be moved? Or should I just stop participating?

Unbelievable.

 

[Alceste]

Personally, I would say that being interested in a problem and how to address it, and then saying so, has meaning. After all, we're dealing a problem that was far worse not long ago because nobody talked about it, nobody wanted to talk about it, and nobody wanted to hear/read others talk about it. By "nobody", I am referring mainly to the various law enforcement organizations, courts, governmental and commercial institutions, as well as countless families and local social groups. With the latter type, we find the "everybody knows, and everybody knows that everyone knows, but everybody pretends they don't know and everyone else pretends they don't know this is an act. In the former, we a much wider set of apathy and willful blindness (or worse, such as a legal system in which a woman can't be raped by her husband because clearly marriage entails husbands "getting laid" whenever they want).

I know, right? Just think of all the rape myths we've been able to destroy since we started talking about it and seriously attempting to determine the psychological cause of sexualized aggression. Where I live, in this day and age, we hardly ever hear about the victim of a sexual assault "asking for it" by donning a short skirt any more. We no longer tolerate the dissection of a rape victim's sexual history and proclivities, which were once thought to be completely relevant to whether or not a confessed act of sexual violence was a criminal offense. (OK, well the court in Canada still has work to do on that front, but the public and the papers are more enlightened). We no longer chemically castrate serial rapists and pedophiles, thinking that if we knock their penises out of action the propensity for sexual violence will magically disappear. We teach our children about the concept of consent, and do our best to make it completely clear what the word "no" means.

Of course, we still have a lot of work to do. There are still benighted corners of the earth where people believe sticking a shapeless bag over women so they can't be seen and prohibiting their participation in public life will magically prevent sexual violence - ironically producing the precisely opposite effect. As is apparent from this thread, there are still a few Western holdouts who still perceive human women as tellers at the Bank of Vagina, and some of us apparently still fail to fully appreciate the heinousness of sexual assaults that don't involve penises.

But all in all, we're steadily inching along toward a more enlightened time, thanks to the fact that people are talking about it, sincerely trying to figure out the cause and making a good faith effort to create effective prevention strategies. By which I mean strategies that hold the assailant fully culpable for the assault and focus on understanding and reforming their psychology and behavior rather than the psychology and behavior of their victims.

 

[Alceste]

I can't believe I didn't notice that! It's one thing to accidently butt in on a DIR thread because one sees the title and not the thread location, but I can't believe I missed that. And after just writing about how important being aware is. Is there a chance this can be moved? Or should I just stop participating?

Unbelievable.

I didn't notice it either, to be honest. It should probably be moved to general debates. It's a weird subject, though, since many of the participants in this discussion do not seem to be able to easily distinguish between rape and sex. I can only assume (hope) that those particular people are approaching the topic of rape from the perspective of their personal, unexpressed sexual fantasies, not their personal experiences. If they'd just admit that, this thread would fit in here just fine. Sexuality is bizarre and diverse, and quite a lot of people fantasize about rape without going out and raping anybody. From the fantasies I've read, though (male and female), consent is implied, so it's not really rape. IOW, the submissive party in most rape fantasies is obviously really into it, but reluctant, repressed, or unable to let go.

 

[Me Myself]

I was just wondering what 'rape' is doing in a sexuality forum???

rape1
Pronunciation: /reɪp/

Translate rape | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of rape
noun
[mass noun]
1the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will:
he denied two charges of rape

Definition of rape in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

 

[Alceste]

rape1
Pronunciation: /reɪp/

Translate rape | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of rape
noun
[mass noun]
1the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will:
he denied two charges of rape

Definition of rape in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

I'm going to bust into your house and burn all your dictionaries. Language is for communicating.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm going to bust into your house and burn all your dictionaries. Language is for communicating.

Apparently you are an expert .

The only difference between rape and non rape when it comes to violence is the fact that rape involves sex.

If you want to say every act of violence perpetrated by someone against another someone for dominance and anger purposes is rape, then Rick shooting Bobby in the face suddenly becomes rape. That completely defeats the purpose of the word. You might as well eliminate it.

 

[Alceste]

Apparently you are an expert .

The only difference between rape and non rape when it comes to violence is the fact that rape involves sex.

If you want to say every act of violence perpetrated by someone against another someone for dominance and anger purposes is rape, then Rick shooting Bobby in the face suddenly becomes rape. That completely defeats the purpose of the word. You might as well eliminate it.

No, the only difference between rape and everything else in the "violence" category is that rape involves non-consensual violence / aggression perpetrated specifically and intentionally on a person's sexual organs or orifices. It doesn't necessarily require that the perpetrator feels horny, aroused or sexual, and it doesn't require coitus. If you stick some object into somebody's anus or vagina against their will, that's rape, whether or not you think it's sexy to do so.

If you think rape is sex, then you must also think Rick shooting Bobby (unarmed) in the face is a gunfight.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Difficulty conceptualizing any act that doesn't involve an ejaculating penis as "sex", and in this case bias toward defining anything that involves an ejaculating penis as "sex", including sexualized violence, molestation, abuse or assault.

Thanks...a quick Google hadn't really helped.

 

[Me Myself]

No, the only difference between rape and everything else in the "violence" category is that rape involves non-consensual violence / aggression perpetrated specifically and intentionally on a person's sexual organs or orifices. It doesn't necessarily require that the perpetrator feels horny, aroused or sexual, and it doesn't require coitus. If you stick some object into somebody's anus or vagina against their will, that's rape, whether or not you think it's sexy to do so.

Ah! So kicking a man in the testicles is rape. I get it now.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It doesn't necessarily require that the perpetrator feels horny, aroused or sexual

You're right. It doesn't necessarily require it.

Also, it doesn't absolutely prohibit it either.

It's possible that the perpetrator MIGHT feel horny, and MIGHT be forcing sexual contact against the victim's will because the perpetrator cannot get it consensually.

That's the point I believe was raised in the OP.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I know, right? Just think of all the rape myths we've been able to destroy since we started talking about it and seriously attempting to determine the psychological cause of sexualized aggression. Where I live, in this day and age, we hardly ever hear about the victim of a sexual assault "asking for it" by donning a short skirt any more. We no longer tolerate the dissection of a rape victim's sexual history and proclivities, which were once thought to be completely relevant to whether or not a confessed act of sexual violence was a criminal offense. (OK, well the court in Canada still has work to do on that front, but the public and the papers are more enlightened). We no longer chemically castrate serial rapists and pedophiles, thinking that if we knock their penises out of action the propensity for sexual violence will magically disappear. We teach our children about the concept of consent, and do our best to make it completely clear what the word "no" means.

Of course, we still have a lot of work to do. There are still benighted corners of the earth where people believe sticking a shapeless bag over women so they can't be seen and prohibiting their participation in public life will magically prevent sexual violence - ironically producing the precisely opposite effect. As is apparent from this thread, there are still a few Western holdouts who still perceive human women as tellers at the Bank of Vagina, and some of us apparently still fail to fully appreciate the heinousness of sexual assaults that don't involve penises.

But all in all, we're steadily inching along toward a more enlightened time, thanks to the fact that people are talking about it, sincerely trying to figure out the cause and making a good faith effort to create effective prevention strategies. By which I mean strategies that hold the assailant fully culpable for the assault and focus on understanding and reforming their psychology and behavior rather than the psychology and behavior of their victims.

:clap Excellent post!

 

[Me Myself]

No, the only difference between rape and everything else in the "violence" category is that rape involves non-consensual violence / aggression perpetrated specifically and intentionally on a person's sexual organs or orifices. It doesn't necessarily require that the perpetrator feels horny, aroused or sexual, and it doesn't require coitus. If you stick some object into somebody's anus or vagina against their will, that's rape, whether or not you think it's sexy to do so.

If you think rape is sex, then you must also think Rick shooting Bobby (unarmed) in the face is a gunfight.

Rape, people:

Spoiler: Men may not want to click.

 

[Alceste]

Thanks...a quick Google hadn't really helped.

Actually, google didn't help me either. I read the phrase in a comment by a very well-read feminist on one of the porn threads and assumed it was a thing. Obviously I've been mulling over what the phrase was supposed to communicate for a while, but this thread gave me a real "AHA" moment. I now think of "ejaculatory bias" as a sub-category of a phallocentric world view. Specifically, the (usually) subconscious conviction that human sexuality centres entirely around where a penis is and what it happens to be doing.

Definition: Phallocentrism

 

[Alceste]

You're right. It doesn't necessarily require it.

Also, it doesn't absolutely prohibit it either.

It's possible that the perpetrator MIGHT feel horny, and MIGHT be forcing sexual contact against the victim's will because the perpetrator cannot get it consensually.

That's the point I believe was raised in the OP.

And yet all the evidence thus far provided supports the hypothesis that a huge majority of convicted rapists SPECIFICALLY desired non-consensual, sexualized aggression as opposed to consensual sex and pursued that end with clear intention and advance planning. Meanwhile, NO evidence has been presented that any single convicted rapist anywhere, ever, went out a-raping due to being really horny for consensual sex.

What we have is a 70+% majority of pre-planned rapes perpetrated specifically as an enactment of a violent / deviant sexual fantasy (not necessarily overlapping since they come from two separate studies), and a 30 % "something else", with no indication of what that "something else" might be, and absolutely no reason to believe it represents people who shrugged their shoulders and settled for rape because they just couldn't get enough consensual sex.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Specifically, the (usually) subconscious conviction that human sexuality centres entirely around where a penis is and what it happens to be doing.

That always causes me problems. They're easy to misplace.

 

[Alceste]

:clap Excellent post!

Why thank you, dear! :hugkiss:

 

[Alceste]

That always causes me problems. They're easy to misplace.

I keep my collection stowed safely away in a drawer, with a spare one in my husband's pants.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm not sure those solutions will work for me though...

 

[Me Myself]

No, the only difference between rape and everything else in the "violence" category is that rape involves non-consensual violence / aggression perpetrated specifically and intentionally on a person's sexual organs or orifices. It doesn't necessarily require that the perpetrator feels horny, aroused or sexual, and it doesn't require coitus. If you stick some object into somebody's anus or vagina against their will, that's rape, whether or not you think it's sexy to do so.

If you think rape is sex, then you must also think Rick shooting Bobby (unarmed) in the face is a gunfight.

Is testicle kicking rape or not?

 

[Alceste]

Is testicle kicking rape or not?

Depends how the law defines rape wherever the testicle kicking occurs. In Canada, we use the word rape at all in our criminal code. We use the term "sexual assault". Sexual assault is specifically defined by the absence of consent (which includes many factors, such as threats, the use of weapons, the abuse of authority, inability to consent, etc). So if the guy getting kicked in the balls did not consent, the act could potentially meet the legal definition of sexual assault. Some guys like getting kicked in the balls. That's a thing. Some people like kicking guys in the balls. That's a thing too. So the presence or absence of consent is the defining factor as to whether a ball-kicking is a criminal assault. Whether or not you tack the word "sexual" onto it doesn't make all that much difference to the penalties you might face.