Rape?

[Alceste]

I haven't read many of the posts, but a brief glance at the 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' for 50 pages was enough.......

I don't know about Canada (lie!....I bet I do!) but the in the UK rape is sex (plus violence, or threats, or lack of consent, etc etc).

Here we go.......

From:- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdf


Sexual Offences Act 2003
CHAPTER 42
CONTENTS
PART 1
SEXUAL OFFENCES
Rape
1 Rape
Assault
2 Assault by penetration
3 Sexual assault...Causing sexual activity without consent
4 Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent..... Rape and other offences against children under 13
5 Rape of a child under 13
6 Assault of a child under 13 by penetration
7 Sexual assault of a child under 13
8 Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity

and on..... and on.......

If you think our law-writers are daft, just pop down your description of rape and post it up for us. That will be a wonderful piece of work to read.

See? Rape = SEXUAL OFFENCE. Easy. Simple.

We're 52 pages in. I'm not starting over. My responses to the issues you've raised are fully addressed in the many posts you didn't read, but DS sums things up beautifully.

 

[Poisonshady313]

• I think the comparison of rape to satisfy supposed sexual desires to car theft, bank robberies, or organ-selling is inaccurate. Not only are the supposed objects of desire different but the underlying logic seems flawed as well.

I didn't intend for these examples to be direct parallels to rape. The point I was making is that the violence that occurs in any of these situations is a means to an end, and not the end itself.

The car thief didn't steal the car because he was motivated by strangling an infant. He strangled the infant because he was motivated to steal the car (and get away with it).

I am not and have not suggested that every instance of rape is motivated by the same thing.. and I have said several times that I don't even believe it is the case in most situations.


But when the question is asked "can lack of sex EVER lead to rape?"

I think occasionally, it can. It takes a lot more for someone in that position to get to the act of rape. But every once in a while, you've got someone who just couldn't take no for an answer, and obtained the sexual contact he desired by force.


It's wrong, unjustifiable, inexcusable. And while the effect is humiliation and suffering, the initial motivation might have just been incredibly selfish and uncaring, rather than specifically sadistic.

 

[Koldo]

There is an insistence on understanding just how difficult it can be to be the perpetrator.

I haven't seen it anywhere.

There is an insistence on suggesting that someone can be so desperate they can't help themselves, and they just had to violently attack somebody. And that the reasons are that sexual arousal was just in the stratosphere.

Out of curiosity, who is insisting on this?

I don't see it as any motive. I see it as an ancillary feature.

I can certainly think of some situations where it would be a motive.
There are cases where, if sexual gratification wasn't an objective, rape wouldn't happen.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I haven't seen it anywhere.



Out of curiosity, who is insisting on this?

Did you read the OP?

I can certainly think of some situations where it would be a motive.
There are cases where, if sexual gratification wasn't an objective, rape wouldn't happen.

Yeah, see, we continue to disagree. That's a thought that when entertained, we begin to blur the lines between sex and rape, and between consent and non-consent. I see the desire for sexual gratification as merely ancillary, not a motive, not primary, and not an objective. People get turned on all the time, but it takes something distinctly different to rape. It has nothing to do with sex. It's purely violence that leads to rape.

The desire for sexual gratification leads to masturbation or finding a willing partner who consents.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Summary for those new to the thread.

That's not true.

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

Uh, huh.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not!

Yep.

Nope!

Yep!

NOPE!

YEP!

 

[Alceste]

Did you read the OP?



Yeah, see, we continue to disagree. That's a thought that when entertained, we begin to blur the lines between sex and rape, and between consent and non-consent. I see the desire for sexual gratification as merely ancillary, not a motive, not primary, and not an objective. People get turned on all the time, but it takes something distinctly different to rape. It has nothing to do with sex. It's purely violence that leads to rape.

The desire for sexual gratification leads to masturbation or finding a willing partner who consents.

You know, the other thing that is bizarre about filing rape in the "sex" category as opposed to the "violence / aggression" category is that it implies sexuality is inherently violent, or at least that sexuality and violence are so hopelessly intertwined that there's no point trying to distinguish between the two.

I think that's a depressing perspective. There's nothing inherently wrong, bad, evil, violent or abusive about sexual impulses or the desire to have consensual sex. Sexual assault is a crime for all the exact same reasons assault is a crime. Getting hung up on the "sexual" deflects attention from the "assault", which is the real issue. Assault is a very simple category with very clear parameters. "Sexual" could pretty much mean anything.

 

[Alceste]

Summary for those new to the thread.

That's not true.

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

Uh, huh.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not!

Yep.

Nope!

Yep!

NOPE!

YEP!

Where's the bit where you flippantly dismiss all of Mystic's arguments as irrational because she shared the details of her own horrific rape survival story? That was RF gold.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You know, the other thing that is bizarre about filing rape in the "sex" category as opposed to the "violence / aggression" category is that it implies sexuality is inherently violent, or at least that sexuality and violence are so hopelessly intertwined that there's no point trying to distinguish between the two.

I think that's a depressing perspective. There's nothing inherently wrong, bad, evil, violent or abusive about sexual impulses or the desire to have consensual sex. Sexual assault is a crime for all the exact same reasons assault is a crime. Getting hung up on the "sexual" deflects attention from the "assault", which is the real issue. Assault is a very simple category with very clear parameters. "Sexual" could pretty much mean anything.

BINGO!! :clap

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Where's the bit where you flippantly dismiss all of Mystic's arguments as irrational because she shared the details of her own horrific rape survival story? That was RF gold.

No it wasn't!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No it wasn't!

LOL that's funny.

 

[Koldo]

Did you read the OP?

The question on the OP? Yes. Why do you ask?

Yeah, see, we continue to disagree. That's a thought that when entertained, we begin to blur the lines between sex and rape, and between consent and non-consent. I see the desire for sexual gratification as merely ancillary, not a motive, not primary, and not an objective. People get turned on all the time, but it takes something distinctly different to rape. It has nothing to do with sex. It's purely violence that leads to rape.

The desire for sexual gratification leads to masturbation or finding a willing partner who consents.

This is a tricky subject to talk about because, in the same paragraph, i am going to agree completely with some sentences, and completely disagree with others. This may even happen within the same sentence.

So, let's go part by part.

Yeah, see, we continue to disagree. That's a thought that when entertained, we begin to blur the lines between sex and rape, and between consent and non-consent.

Why do you think this way?
Why do you think that it blurs the line between consent and non-consent?

I see the desire for sexual gratification as merely ancillary, not a motive, not primary, and not an objective.

I may point out, for example, to situations where consent is withdrawn during sex, where the rapist is simply interested in getting sexual gratification.

People get turned on all the time, but it takes something distinctly different to rape. It has nothing to do with sex.

Indeed it DOES take something more to rape someone. Otherwise, nearly every man on Earth would be a rapist.

It's purely violence that leads to rape.

Just violence? It seems pretty simplistic to narrow it down to violence.
Perhaps you could say that when objects are inserted in the victims. But what about the other cases?
If it was strictly violence, why rape?
Why not beat someone up? Why not torture someone by another means ? Why not scar someone severely?

I mean, why specifically 'rape' as the method of choice?

 

[Koldo]

You know, the other thing that is bizarre about filing rape in the "sex" category as opposed to the "violence / aggression" category is that it implies sexuality is inherently violent, or at least that sexuality and violence are so hopelessly intertwined that there's no point trying to distinguish between the two.

Which is exactly why it should be included in both ( in many instances ).
Which is exactly why rape is not called merely 'sex', but rather 'forced sex' or 'non-consensual sex'.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The question on the OP? Yes. Why do you ask?

Because you asked the question about whether it's been asked. It was in the OP.

This is a tricky subject to talk about because, in the same paragraph, i am going to agree completely with some sentences, and completely disagree with others. This may even happen within the same sentence.

So, let's go part by part.

Why do you think this way?
Why do you think that it blurs the line between consent and non-consent?

The lines are already blurred. Some people feel as if whenever a victim is unconscious, or if the victim asks for the perpetrator to wear a condom, or if an orgasm occurs, that it isn't rape. My thoughts on the reasoning behind such confusion is because we continue to confuse rape as a subset of sex.

And in this thread, there are numerous examples of those who argue against me and those who agree with me that there is a clear line, and supporters of the OP who take all different variations of what is acceptable and what isn't. Those who have agreed with me are very clear about what is acceptable and what isn't. Those who have supported the OP have also disagreed with each other about what is acceptable and what isn't.

Separating rape from sex entirely gives clarity.

I may point out, for example, to situations where consent is withdrawn during sex, where the rapist is simply interested in getting sexual gratification.

Dangerous example. Non-consensual ejaculation is not sex. That is, if we assume in your example that sexual gratification = ejaculation. (I don't narrow the definition, but if that is where you're coming from, then I still find your example dangerous).

Indeed it DOES take something more to rape someone. Otherwise, nearly every man on Earth would be a rapist.

Why men? Rape is gender-neutral. Anyone is susceptible to commit it or to be victimized by it. This is distinctly why it must be emphasize that rape is not a crime of passion of an out-of-control libido/erection. It is an assault that penetrates another human being's orifices including (but not limited to) the sexual organs.

Just violence? It seems pretty simplistic to narrow it down to violence.
Perhaps you could say that when objects are inserted in the victims. But what about the other cases?
If it was strictly violence, why rape?
Why not beat someone up? Why not torture someone by another means ? Why not scar someone severely?

I mean, why specifically 'rape' as the method of choice?

I guess we could ask the same leading questions when somebody punches somebody in the face. Why the face? Why not punch them in the stomach? Is there something truly interesting about the face or provocative about the face where it needs to be punched?

So, yes. Rape is violence. Period. There is nothing sexual about rape. There is nothing sexual about forcing yourself into another human being. And there is nothing sexual about committing a violent crime, whether it includes the reproductive organs or not.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Which is exactly why it should be included in both ( in many instances ).
Which is exactly why rape is not called merely 'sex', but rather 'forced sex' or 'non-consensual sex'.

Not according to the FBI. Here, I'll post it again:

The new definition of rape is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The definition is used by the FBI to collect information from local law enforcement agencies about reported rapes.

Source: FBI — Attorney General Eric Holder Announces Revisions to the Uniform Crime Report

Your definition is a cultural one, and it's archaic.

 

[Titanic]

Really? I didn't think guys your age could even go a day without a wank.

I meant sex.

 

[Titanic]

So am I a bad person for have creating this thread?

 

[Alceste]

No it wasn't!

Finally, we agree! :highfive:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Finally, we agree! :highfive:

No, we don't!

 

[Koldo]

Because you asked the question about whether it's been asked. It was in the OP.

No. I asked who was insisting on suggesting that someone can be so desperate they can't help themselves, and they just had to violently attack somebody through rape.

The lines are already blurred. Some people feel as if whenever a victim is unconscious, or if the victim asks for the perpetrator to wear a condom, or if an orgasm occurs, that it isn't rape. My thoughts on the reasoning behind such confusion is because we continue to confuse rape as a subset of sex.

And in this thread, there are numerous examples of those who argue against me and those who agree with me that there is a clear line, and supporters of the OP who take all different variations of what is acceptable and what isn't. Those who have agreed with me are very clear about what is acceptable and what isn't. Those who have supported the OP have also disagreed with each other about what is acceptable and what isn't.

Separating rape from sex entirely gives clarity.

You are not being very clear here on what people agree with you because they separate rape from sex entirely. Could you be more specific?

Dangerous example. Non-consensual ejaculation is not sex. That is, if we assume in your example that sexual gratification = ejaculation. (I don't narrow the definition, but if that is where you're coming from, then I still find your example dangerous).

I was not talking about non-consensual ejaculation. But rather non-consensual penetration.

Why men? Rape is gender-neutral. Anyone is susceptible to commit it or to be victimized by it. This is distinctly why it must be emphasize that rape is not a crime of passion of an out-of-control libido/erection. It is an assault that penetrates another human being's orifices including (but not limited to) the sexual organs.

Thanks for reminding me that i shouldn't attempt to use the word 'man' as gender-neutral.

I guess we could ask the same leading questions when somebody punches somebody in the face. Why the face? Why not punch them in the stomach? Is there something truly interesting about the face or provocative about the face where it needs to be punched?

There could be multiple reasons to that.
It is harder to hide a scarring or mark in the face, it is a weak point overall, it is more offensive as your head better represents you than anything else, and so on.

Interestingly, this is a relevant subject on homicide investigations. There is usually a rationale behind the method of choice.

So, yes. Rape is violence. Period. There is nothing sexual about rape. There is nothing sexual about forcing yourself into another human being. And there is nothing sexual about committing a violent crime, whether it includes the reproductive organs or not.

I have to disagree.
There are instances where the sexual part is particularly prominent.

 

[Koldo]

Not according to the FBI. Here, I'll post it again:



Source: FBI — Attorney General Eric Holder Announces Revisions to the Uniform Crime Report

Your definition is a cultural one, and it's archaic.

How exactly does my definition disagree with this one?