Rape?

[Alceste]

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

You'd better not be keeping your penis in my husband's pants.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

I wasnt asking Canada, I was asking you. According to the definition you gave for rape, kicking balls is rape.

Would you say anyone who has kicked someone in the balls (without consent of said victim) committed rape and is a rapist?

 

[Alceste]

I wasnt asking Canada, I was asking you. According to the definition you gave for rape, kicking balls is rape.

Would you say anyone who has kicked someone in the balls (without consent of said victim) committed rape and is a rapist?

I've been arguing all along that sexual assault is simply violence, and I'm relatively indifferent to whether or not the adjective "sexual" is attached. I personally use the word (and concept) "sexual assault" as opposed to "rape" to avoid confusing people like yourself, who are too preoccupied with what people's penises are getting up to to understand what a sexual assault actually entails.

Anyway, it the case of a violent attack on a person's testicles, I suppose I would call it a form of rape if the testicles were the specific and intentional target of the violence, and if somebody insisted I use the archaic and misleading word "rape" as opposed to the more accurate "sexual assault".

 

[dust1n]

I have never really thought about it before, but if I was attacked and some just kept kicking me in the balls, I'd consider it rape.

Now, as a self-defense mechanism, it isn't rape, much like accidentally spinning too fast without looking and elbowing a girl's chest isn't rape. But if you were just elbowing someone's breast over and over against their will, I see no reason that there should be a legal distinction.

 

[Me Myself]

I've been arguing all along that sexual assault is simply violence, and I'm relatively indifferent to whether or not the adjective "sexual" is attached. I personally use the word (and concept) "sexual assault" as opposed to "rape" to avoid confusing people like yourself, who are too preoccupied with what people's penises are getting up to to understand what a sexual assault actually entails.

Anyway, it the case of a violent attack on a person's testicles, I suppose I would call it a form of rape if the testicles were the specific and intentional target of the violence, and if somebody insisted I use the archaic and misleading word "rape" as opposed to the more accurate "sexual assault".

you keep saying I dont call it rape unless there is a penis in there, and I can only wonder if it is intentionallly misleading or a lack of reading comprehension. If you quote me the post that gave you that impression, I could easily clarify it for you.

In any case, given most people wouldnt say kicking someone in the testicles is rape, it would be fair to say the concept you gave doesnt work for... how did you put it? "communicating" ?

Rape is a prolonged and/or sufficiently intense act of sexual violence. That is pretty much what rape is. If neither the victim nor the perpetrator feel anything sexual about it, there is no feeling of "rape".

As hurt as a man may feel having had his testicles kicked, he is unlikely to feel anything similar to the kind of psychological violation he would feel if someone inserted a dildo on his butt against his will, worst yet if the perpetrator was doing it clearly out of sexual satisfaction and lust.

A woman deliberately punched or kicked in the boobs would not lickely feel the same kind of psychological violation she would feel if she was caressed and grabbed there on a non physically painful way against her will either.

 

[Me Myself]

I have never really thought about it before, but if I was attacked and some just kept kicking me in the balls, I'd consider it rape.

Now, as a self-defense mechanism, it isn't rape, much like accidentally spinning too fast without looking and elbowing a girl's chest isn't rape. But if you were just elbowing someone's breast over and over against their will, I see no reason that there should be a legal distinction.

Why not just once? a woman kicks Bobby on the testicles once. She is making violence deliberately against bobby`s testicles knowing full well he is not "into that" but with the specific intention of causing him harm?

 

[Alceste]

I have never really thought about it before, but if I was attacked and some just kept kicking me in the balls, I'd consider it rape.

Now, as a self-defense mechanism, it isn't rape, much like accidentally spinning too fast without looking and elbowing a girl's chest isn't rape. But if you were just elbowing someone's breast over and over against their will, I see no reason that there should be a legal distinction.

Exactly. If the genitals, breasts or buttocks are the specific target of the aggression the assault is a sexualized one, hence "sexual assault".

I knew a girl once who got really angry after hearing that her ex had started seeing somebody else. She was a nutcase, and she said right then and there "I'm going to walk into his blues jam and slap him across the face, then spit on him". I assumed it was just the anger talking. Weeks later, though, she did exactly that, exactly as described. She had concocted an angry, violent revenge fantasy and acted it out. It was an assault. If she'd said "I'm going to punch him in the crotch", it would have been a sexual assault. For cases like that, the law doesn't really seem to differentiate all that much between one and the other, nor should it.

 

[Me Myself]

Exactly. If the genitals, breasts or buttocks are the specific target of the aggression the assault is a sexualized one, hence "sexual assault".

I knew a girl once who got really angry after hearing that her ex had started seeing somebody else. She was a nutcase, and she said right then and there "I'm going to walk into his blues jam and slap him across the face, then spit on him". I assumed it was just the anger talking. Weeks later, though, she did exactly that, exactly as described. She had concocted an angry, violent revenge fantasy and acted it out. It was an assault. If she'd said "I'm going to punch him in the crotch", it would have been a sexual assault. For cases like that, the law doesn't really seem to differentiate all that much between one and the other, nor should it.

The law shouldn`t, on that we agree.

 

[Alceste]

you keep saying I dont call it rape unless there is a penis in there, and I can only wonder if it is intentionallly misleading or a lack of reading comprehension. If you quote me the post that gave you that impression, I could easily clarify it for you.

In any case, given most people wouldnt say kicking someone in the testicles is rape, it would be fair to say the concept you gave doesnt work for... how did you put it? "communicating" ?

Rape is a prolonged and/or sufficiently intense act of sexual violence. That is pretty much what rape is. If neither the victim nor the perpetrator feel anything sexual about it, there is no feeling of "rape".

As hurt as a man may feel having had his testicles kicked, he is unlikely to feel anything similar to the kind of psychological violation he would feel if someone inserted a dildo on his butt against his will, worst yet if the perpetrator was doing it clearly out of sexual satisfaction and lust.

A woman deliberately punched or kicked in the boobs would not lickely feel the same kind of psychological violation she would feel if she was caressed and grabbed there on a non physically painful way against her will either.

Like I said, if the kick in the nads was intentional and unprovoked and the nads were the specific target, it is a sexual assault. There's no legal requirement for the authorities to establish how anybody felt about the incident on either side. Behavior is what we prosecute, not motives, although reasonable motives may be a mitigating factor. (For example, if the kick in the balls was in self defense or accidental).

Personally, I'm going to be pretty ****** off if someone intentionally punches me in the tits, and equally ****** off if they grab and squeeze them without my consent. Either way, they're asking for a kick in the junk.

 

[Alceste]

Incidentally, that crazy slapping cow assaulted me too, and earned herself a fist in the solar plexus.

 

[Me Myself]

Incidentally, that crazy slapping cow assaulted me too, and earned herself a fist in the solar plexus.

Slapping cow?

I wasn`t talking about legal action. As I said, there should be no distinction legally cause the grond becomes too shaky.

Drats, I am sure most men and would be surprised if not most women would feel completely different about both very different kinds of violence. I myself would definetely prefer the kick in the nuts, not that I am eager to choose

 

[Poisonshady313]

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.

I think you're arguing against an oddly specific type of situation that I've never presented.

There's nothing casual (i.e. shrugging their shoulders and settling for rape) about what I'm talking about... nor am referring to an individual who "just couldn't get enough".

I'm talking about a desperate individual who can't get any consensual sex, and rather than do without or use a non-living alternative, uses violence to get what he wants.

Is it so hard to imagine, within the scope of human history, that at least one such being might have existed?



An analogy... a human analogy...

A car thief murders a baby.

Presented with this information, it seems like you might automatically assume that this car thief was predisposed to murdering babies, and did so for the sheer thrill of exerting his dominance over his victim.

Meanwhile, the truth is, he did it to prevent the baby from crying. Because he didn't want the crying baby to alert passers by that something bad was happening.

But if I had to guess your take on this situation, using this thread as a standard by which to perceive your judgment, it would be inconceivable and downright ludicrous for you to believe that there could have been any motive other than power/violence/the desire to kill a baby. Because killing a baby is an act of violence. It couldn't possibly have been to shut the baby up so he could get away with his theft. Oh no. He could have unbuckled the baby and gently placed him outside the car. He could have given the baby a pacifier. He could have tried to put the baby to sleep... there's absolutely no reason for him to have murdered that baby unless his motivation were baby murder.

Unfortunately, criminals don't exhaust all reasonable/logical courses of actions just because you think they should.


And yes... my analogy does happen to be a real situation:
Car thief murders baby strapped into stolen 4x4 for crying - Mirror Online

The guy murdered the baby to get what he wanted. To silence the baby so he could successfully steal the car.

Like someone who might commit rape to get what he/she wanted. Sexual contact, regardless of the consequences to the victim.

And again... I'd like to be clear. I'm not saying this is the situation for the average rapist, or for most rapists... certainly not all rapists. I'm saying, some. That is, any number greater than 0, no matter how small that number might be.

 

[dust1n]

Why not just once? a woman kicks Bobby on the testicles once. She is making violence deliberately against bobby`s testicles knowing full well he is not "into that" but with the specific intention of causing him harm?

Then yes. If the specific intentions there are to use violence against my testicles for sake of using violence against my testicles, that is the equivalent to rape to me, and IMO, should be treated the same. It is the same as kicking as a vagina or an anus.

 

[dust1n]

Exactly. If the genitals, breasts or buttocks are the specific target of the aggression the assault is a sexualized one, hence "sexual assault".

I knew a girl once who got really angry after hearing that her ex had started seeing somebody else. She was a nutcase, and she said right then and there "I'm going to walk into his blues jam and slap him across the face, then spit on him". I assumed it was just the anger talking. Weeks later, though, she did exactly that, exactly as described. She had concocted an angry, violent revenge fantasy and acted it out. It was an assault. If she'd said "I'm going to punch him in the crotch", it would have been a sexual assault. For cases like that, the law doesn't really seem to differentiate all that much between one and the other, nor should it.

I guess it all comes down to use has the oldest definition of rape!

rape (v.) late 14c., "seize prey; abduct, take by force," from Anglo-French raper (Old French rapir) "to seize, abduct," a legal term, probably from past participle of Latin rapere "seize, carry off by force, abduct" (see rapid). Latin rapere was used for "sexual violation," but only very rarely; the usual Latin word being stuprum, literally "disgrace." Meaning "to abduct (a woman), ravish;" also "seduce (a man)" is from early 15c. Related: Raped; raping. Uncertain connection to Low German and Dutch rapen in the same sense.

rape (n.1) "forceful seizure; plundering, robbery, extortion," mid-14c., from Anglo-French rap, rape; see rape (v.). Meaning "act of abducting a woman or sexually assaulting her or both" is from early 15c., but perhaps late 13c. in Anglo-Latin.
Online Etymology Dictionary




It checks out! Do I win?!

 

[Me Myself]

Then yes. If the specific intentions there are to use violence against my testicles for sake of using violence against my testicles, that is the equivalent to rape to me, and IMO, should be treated the same. It is the same as kicking as a vagina or an anus.

Its for the intention of you feeling a lot of physical pain.

Then again the question is not of a legal nature. Do you feel it`s the same? (again, this is not a legal question)

 

[dust1n]

Its for the intention of you feeling a lot of physical pain.

Then again the question is not of a legal nature. Do you feel it`s the same? (again, this is not a legal question)

If the intentions are to inflict pain to my testicles against my wills, that is rape, whether I am being kicked in the testicles or tied to a chair and electrocuted via testicles or testicles are being massaged by a mouth.

The term rape is no some solid term that has and always has or always will apply specifically to some set of criteria. It is ultimately a legal question. A rape is a crime. Asking what is rape is asking me what is criminal or not.

 

[Alceste]

I guess it all comes down to use has the oldest definition of rape!

rape (v.) late 14c., "seize prey; abduct, take by force," from Anglo-French raper (Old French rapir) "to seize, abduct," a legal term, probably from past participle of Latin rapere "seize, carry off by force, abduct" (see rapid). Latin rapere was used for "sexual violation," but only very rarely; the usual Latin word being stuprum, literally "disgrace." Meaning "to abduct (a woman), ravish;" also "seduce (a man)" is from early 15c. Related: Raped; raping. Uncertain connection to Low German and Dutch rapen in the same sense.

rape (n.1) "forceful seizure; plundering, robbery, extortion," mid-14c., from Anglo-French rap, rape; see rape (v.). Meaning "act of abducting a woman or sexually assaulting her or both" is from early 15c., but perhaps late 13c. in Anglo-Latin.
Online Etymology Dictionary




It checks out! Do I win?!

You totally win. I'm going to let you keep your dictionary.

 

[Alceste]

I think you're arguing against an oddly specific type of situation that I've never presented.

There's nothing casual (i.e. shrugging their shoulders and settling for rape) about what I'm talking about... nor am referring to an individual who "just couldn't get enough".

I'm talking about a desperate individual who can't get any consensual sex, and rather than do without or use a non-living alternative, uses violence to get what he wants.

Is it so hard to imagine, within the scope of human history, that at least one such being might have existed?



An analogy... a human analogy...

A car thief murders a baby.

Presented with this information, it seems like you might automatically assume that this car thief was predisposed to murdering babies, and did so for the sheer thrill of exerting his dominance over his victim.

Meanwhile, the truth is, he did it to prevent the baby from crying. Because he didn't want the crying baby to alert passers by that something bad was happening.

But if I had to guess your take on this situation, using this thread as a standard by which to perceive your judgment, it would be inconceivable and downright ludicrous for you to believe that there could have been any motive other than power/violence/the desire to kill a baby. Because killing a baby is an act of violence. It couldn't possibly have been to shut the baby up so he could get away with his theft. Oh no. He could have unbuckled the baby and gently placed him outside the car. He could have given the baby a pacifier. He could have tried to put the baby to sleep... there's absolutely no reason for him to have murdered that baby unless his motivation were baby murder.

Unfortunately, criminals don't exhaust all reasonable/logical courses of actions just because you think they should.


And yes... my analogy does happen to be a real situation:
Car thief murders baby strapped into stolen 4x4 for crying - Mirror Online

The guy murdered the baby to get what he wanted. To silence the baby so he could successfully steal the car.

Like someone who might commit rape to get what he/she wanted. Sexual contact, regardless of the consequences to the victim.

And again... I'd like to be clear. I'm not saying this is the situation for the average rapist, or for most rapists... certainly not all rapists. I'm saying, some. That is, any number greater than 0, no matter how small that number might be.

I'm sorry, I just can't be bothered with this. A vagina is not a car, it's not a bag of money, it's not a wallet, it's not a bag of crack cocaine. A woman is not an inconvenient crying baby, a bank teller, an unwitting pedestrian or a dealer that's simply standing between a man and his access to some vagina. If there is a rapist who specifically desired consensual sex but settled for rape simply because consensual sex was not available, I invite you to find go him and report back. Otherwise, this is a total waste of time.

 

[dust1n]

You totally win. I'm going to let you keep your dictionary.

Ya! Definitions only go so far. It shouldn't really matter what one thing should be called or not be called. What matters is that they are just called something so that the crime can be processed through the courts. The true definition of rape is superfluous.

 

[Alceste]

Ya! Definitions only go so far. It shouldn't really matter what one thing should be called or not be called. What matters is that they are just called something so that the crime can be processed through the courts. The true definition of rape is superfluous.

Exactly. Words are tools for the purpose of communicating concepts. The meaning shifts and changes, not only over time and across cultures, but also depending on the context and the concept they are being used to communicate. You can use the word rape to describe sexual assault just like you can use a pair of pliers for a socket wrench. It'll probably get the job done, but a socket wrench is better. Either way it's a legal concept, not a linguistic concept.