Rape?

[Koldo]

The OP, PoisonShady, MeMyself, Kilgore Trout.

One of us needs to buy new glasses then.
And i don't think it is me.

I'm not the only one in this thread who is able to see that sex and rape are two distinctly separate paradigms. Everyone agrees in this thread on one principle: people get turned on.

You said there is a given line that everyone who agrees with you is very clear on what is acceptable and what isn't. What is it that you were talking about? This is what i asked you to be more specific about.

However, what separates rape from sex is not whether the perpetrator gets turned on, but the consideration for consent.

It really is that simple.

Except not everyone agrees with you.

Non-consensual penetration does not equate to sexual gratification. You offered sexual gratification as a motive. If you believe sexual gratification can include non-consensual penetration, this opens the door for legitimizing rape. I suggest re-considering this perspective.

It does not equate to sexual gratification indeed. But it can lead to sexual gratification. And in many cases it does.

I would like to know why you think this opens the door for legitimizing rape.

Whatever rationale is considered, people don't tend to ask if the lack of whatever is considered leads to the homicide. People don't tend to ask something like, "Hey, everyone! Can a lack of having toys lead to arson?"...and then people debating furiously over whether or not it's normal, typical, or even relevant for people committing arson because they didn't have enough toys.

I happen to hear quite often people pondering whether the lack of a parent, good parents or good education as a whole can lead to a criminal life.

But, regardless, what does this have to do with my question?
Why choose rape as form of violence, if it is "just" violence?

I have already said there are reasons to target a particular part of the victim's body on an homicide.

No. It isn't. I find the insistence on defining rape as a form of sex dangerous and unethical. It is a perspective that I continue to offer to our kids and to others. And personally, at this point I have come to the conclusion that the criticisms of my views being seen as "naive" is actually quite complimentary considering the possibilities of how else they might be perceived

Look at it this way, it is far preferable to be thought of as "naive" than to be thought of as "dangerous" or "suspicious."

I might be wrong, but i have the particular feeling that you and Alceste are conflating your views with other's views and making a weird salad out of it.

It is only dangerous and unethical to define rape as a form of sex if we consider all forms of sex to be legitimized. Given many people don't consider all forms of sex to be legitimized, they have no problem at all saying rape is a form of sex.

When you come from the perspective that all sex is legitimized, and add the notion that rape is a form of sex, THAT is when the big mess occurs.

 

[Koldo]

The distinction is consent, not if somebody is turned on. There's your difference.

When did i say consent is irrelevant?

 

[Titanic]

I've read about your upbringing before, and my heart goes out to you given you were led to believe in such things. :flower:

Thank you.

 

[Alceste]

I have noticed that.
My question still remains though: How exactly does my definition disagree with this one?

I dunno, I might have missed your definition. What was it? "Forced sex" or "non-consensual sex"?

If that's what you mean, the FBI definition makes no mention of sex, except that the specific organ being assaulted be a vagina or anus, and the specific type of assault full or partial penetration with an object or body part.

In Canada, the sexual assault section of the criminal code goes even further by abandoning the (absurd, IMO) focus on the penetration of the vagina or anus and using the much more general phrase "sexual contact" of any kind without informed consent.

To be honest, I think our law is a particularly good one, and could be used as a model for all similar laws. Apart from ensuring that assaults that could not be prosecuted under a penetration-focused law are also prosecutable under the general banner of "sexual assault" (for example, the kinds of abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib), it also denies the specific details of any particular act of sexual violence to any titillated voyeurs, which is fundamental to shifting our attitudes about sexual assault. When someone is prosecuted for "sexual assault" in Canada, there is no way for anyone to guess what actually occurred until all the facts come out during a trial, and for the most part, they never do. When they do, there is testimony from the victim's point of view, which makes it difficult to dehumanize them in the context of their own assault. So when you pick up the paper and read that a woman was "sexually assaulted" while jogging, it could mean anything from an uninvited grope to a brutal rape that resulted in serious injuries. There's nothing in that statement that could possibly provoke the sexual imagination of anybody other than the most devoted rape fantasist.

This is important, since the tendency of some in our culture (as you can see in this discussion) is to focus on imagining the particular details of the attack at the expense of recognizing the absolute necessity of informed consent for any acceptable sexual contact. If we're busy trying to picture who did what to who, and how, and where, and for how long, and other such trivial details, we're either going to identify with the perpetrator or the victim. Some people will identify with the perpetrator, and think "I've been really horny too, so I guess I understand where he's coming from, although he went about it the wrong way". That attitude creates a climate of general tolerance for sexual violence, where assailants learn to feel the benefits of sexual assault outweigh the risks.

 

[Father Heathen]

How would the fact that a sociopath might receive sexual gratification from committing a sadistic crime "legitimize" said sadistic crime? Yes, it's about violence and power, but it also involves sexual excitement, so yes it's also about sex. That fact however doesn't "legitimize" any incident where innocent people are violated and victimized.

 

[Titanic]

I am not going to shoot up a school either. It's just that being in my early 20's and not being able to have sex on a regular basis get's me down sometime's. To Alceste I know I am not entitled to a woman. But it does not help the situation though. If I have truly offended anyone on here I am truly sorry. I never had any intent to do that. peace.

 

[Alceste]

If you think this, then I think it explains the piece of the puzzle that you're missing. Many people find a substantial difference between intercourse and masturbation.

The comment I was addressing did not even refer to consensual sex or masturbation. It included exactly two possibilities: hiring a prostitute and raping somebody, specifically for the purpose of obtaining sexual release when no consensual sex is in the offing.

 

[Koldo]

I dunno, I might have missed your definition. What was it? "Forced sex" or "non-consensual sex"?

Did i define rape as forced sex ( or non-consensual sex )?

If that's what you mean, the FBI definition makes no mention of sex, except that the specific organ being assaulted be a vagina or anus, and the specific type of assault full or partial penetration with an object or body part.

It actually also mentions oral penetration with a sex organ of another person, which is a way to define oral sex.

And ''The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object" is a way to define 'sex', although it does involve clearly more than sex.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am not going to shoot up a school either. It's just that being in my early 20's and not being able to have sex on a regular basis get's me down sometime's. To Alceste I know I am not entitled to a woman. But it does not help the situation though. If I have truly offended anyone on here I am truly sorry. I never had any intent to do that. peace.

You can work on socializing and building relationships while masturbating in the interim.

 

[Alceste]

I was raised wrong. I was rasied to believe that sex and women were evil. So I may have some problems in that area.

You've mentioned that before. I really feel for you - I think that upbringing was very destructive and unfair, and will inevitably cause you a few problems in your dealings with women. Not nearly as many as you think it might, though. You're still young. Think of your misogynistic upbringing as a garden choked with weeds and keep tending to it. You'll have a fertile garden of healthy relationships and sexual opportunities before you know it.

Me, I was raised to think girls who liked sex or slept around were dirty sluts (thanks to my culture and peers, not my parents or church, fortunately) and look at me now! I worked my way up into the high double digits before I met my husband, and I don't regret a second of it. A good time was had by all.

What helped me liberate myself from those destructive attitudes was talking to and reading books by feminists. You're talking to two of them right now and it seems like you're listening, so you're on the right track.

:highfive:

 

[Titanic]

You can work on socializing and building relationships while masturbating in the interim.

I guess but it does not make for the most happy life does it? Just masturbating?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

One of us needs to buy new glasses then.
And i don't think it is me.

One of us needs to learn reading comprehension. And I don't think it's me.

Touche.

You said there is a given line that everyone who agrees with you is very clear on what is acceptable and what isn't. What is it that you were talking about? This is what i asked you to be more specific about.

That rape is not sex. There is the clear line.

Except not everyone agrees with you.

Well, only the smart cool ones agree with me.

It does not equate to sexual gratification indeed. But it can lead to sexual gratification. And in many cases it does.

I would like to know why you think this opens the door for legitimizing rape.

It already does legitimize rape in the eyes of many through cultural mores. Ever visit a discussion/debate here at RF that talks about why women should cover up and dress modestly? There is the insistence that the mere sight of a woman's skin or subcutaneous fat will drive a man to rape her.

Too often, the focus is on victim-blaming and legitimizing what that man couldn't help but do based on the fact he got turned on.

I happen to hear quite often people pondering whether the lack of a parent, good parents or good education as a whole can lead to a criminal life.

But, regardless, what does this have to do with my question?
Why choose rape as form of violence, if it is "just" violence?

Well, is rape "just" a criminal assault?

I have already said there are reasons to target a particular part of the victim's body on an homicide.



I might be wrong, but i have the particular feeling that you and Alceste are conflating your views with other's views and making a weird salad out of it.

Not just me and Alceste. We've been here the longest and offering the most responses in the debate against the notion that rape is not sex. But, dust1n, Debater Slayer, Legion, Penumbra, Pegg....I just think we've been getting most of the attention, though. Not that it's good or bad, but we're not the only ones who feel this way.

And, I think you are most definitely wrong. :yes:

It is only dangerous and unethical to define rape as a form of sex if we consider all forms of sex to be legitimized. Given many people don't consider all forms of sex to be legitimized, they have no problem at all saying rape is a form of sex.

When you come from the perspective that all sex is legitimized, and add the notion that rape is a form of sex, THAT is when the big mess occurs.

I argue for the perspective of legitimizing sex that is consensual to be defined as "sex." Anything else that is not consensual is not considered sexual and criminal.

You want a big mess? Look up the Stuebenville, OH rape case. Look up how long it took before marital rape was recognized as a crime. Look up how long it took before people stopped deciding if a girl was "asking for it" based on how she was dressed. These are big messes, and not from the perspective I support, but the perspective based on rape is another form of sex....

Why? Because for so long, consent or none, many times these cases weren't even thought of as rape or prosecuted as such. They were simply considered sex.

 

[Father Heathen]

I guess but it does not make for the most happy life does it? Just masturbating?

No, masturbating while socializing and building relationships that can potentially lead to intimacy.

Or look up an escort service?

 

[Father Heathen]

One of us needs to learn reading comprehension. And I don't think it's me.

Touche.



That rape is not sex. There is the clear line.



Well, only the smart cool ones agree with me.



It already does legitimize rape in the eyes of many through cultural mores. Ever visit a discussion/debate here at RF that talks about why women should cover up and dress modestly? There is the insistence that the mere sight of a woman's skin or subcutaneous fat will drive a man to rape her.

Too often, the focus is on victim-blaming and legitimizing what that man couldn't help but do based on the fact he got turned on.



Well, is rape "just" a criminal assault?



Not just me and Alceste. We've been here the longest and offering the most responses in the debate against the notion that rape is not sex. But, dust1n, Debater Slayer, Legion, Penumbra, Pegg....I just think we've been getting most of the attention, though. Not that it's good or bad, but we're not the only ones who feel this way.

And, I think you are most definitely wrong. :yes:



I argue for the perspective of legitimizing sex that is consensual to be defined as "sex." Anything else that is not consensual is not considered sexual and criminal.

You want a big mess? Look up the Stuebenville, OH rape case. Look up how long it took before marital rape was recognized as a crime. Look up how long it took before people stopped deciding if a girl was "asking for it" based on how she was dressed. These are big messes, and not from the perspective I support, but the perspective based on rape is another form of sex....

Why? Because for so long, consent or none, many times these cases weren't even thought of as rape or prosecuted as such. They were simply considered sex.

Consent or not, copulation is copulation. Semantic games aside however, rape is of course never excusable or justified, ever.

 

[Alceste]

Why choose rape as form of violence, if it is "just" violence?

Why did Karla Homolka use bottles to sexually assault her victims if it was "just" violence? Who cares? Just stick the dangerous, violent criminal in a jail cell so they can't hurt anybody. What on earth is so damn confusing about that? Even if Karla Homolka was super horny, what difference does it make? She raped and murdered people. Whether or not she got off on it sexually is completely irrelevant.

 

[Koldo]

That rape is not sex. There is the clear line.

This is redundant.
I was expecting quite more.

Well, only the smart cool ones agree with me.

:bonk:

It already does legitimize rape in the eyes of many through cultural mores. Ever visit a discussion/debate here at RF that talks about why women should cover up and dress modestly? There is the insistence that the mere sight of a woman's skin or subcutaneous fat will drive a man to rape her.

Too often, the focus is on victim-blaming and legitimizing what that man couldn't help but do based on the fact he got turned on.

But how what i said on that part legitimizes rapes? In what manner?

Well, is rape "just" a criminal assault?

No. But that's the point.

Not just me and Alceste. We've been here the longest and offering the most responses in the debate against the notion that rape is not sex. But, dust1n, Debater Slayer, Legion, Penumbra, Pegg....I just think we've been getting most of the attention, though. Not that it's good or bad, but we're not the only ones who feel this way.

Most of what i have read on this line were yours and Alceste's posts indeed.

And, I think you are most definitely wrong. :yes:

I argue for the perspective of legitimizing sex that is consensual to be defined as "sex." Anything else that is not consensual is not considered sexual and criminal.

I got that part.

You want a big mess? Look up the Stuebenville, OH rape case. Look up how long it took before marital rape was recognized as a crime. Look up how long it took before people stopped deciding if a girl was "asking for it" based on how she was dressed. These are big messes, and not from the perspective I support, but the perspective based on rape is another form of sex....

AND that a husband having sex with his wife is always legitimized.
AND that forcing a woman to have sex with you, because she is wearing what is perceived as provocative clothings by the perpetrator, is legitimized.

We won't have these messes without these 'ANDs'.

Why? Because for so long, consent or none, many times these cases weren't even thought of as rape or prosecuted as such. They were simply considered sex.

I think everyone agrees nowadays that 'consent' ( or rather the lack of ) is a key component of 'rape'.

 

[Alceste]

I guess but it does not make for the most happy life does it? Just masturbating?

If you are feeling depressed, sex isn't going to make you feel happy. (It'll usually make you feel like a nap or a sandwich.) You might get a lift in your self-esteem for a day or two, but lack of sex is not the underlying cause of depression, so obtaining sex will not make you better.

Anyway, nobody's saying you should commit to only masturbating for your entire life and never ever fool around with real live consenting women. If the opportunity arises, go for it. If the opportunity isn't there, find something else to do.

The most effective way of dealing with persistent unhappiness (depression) is to get a lot of exercise. The perk of that approach is that it will also give you a hot bod, which girls like.

One thing it took me a long time to learn when I was your age was that nobody but you can make you happy. It took me a long time and a lot of relationships to figure that out. I think I was around 30 when it finally sunk in, and it was a pretty empowering realization.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why did Karla Homolka use bottles to sexually assault her victims if it was "just" violence? Who cares? Just stick the dangerous, violent criminal in a jail cell so they can't hurt anybody. What on earth is so damn confusing about that? Even if Karla Homolka was super horny, what difference does it make? She raped and murdered people. Whether or not she got off on it sexually is completely irrelevant.

Sexual assault has a far more severe psychological effect on a victim than a simple assault. One can get over a punch to the face, the trauma of rape is clearly another story.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

Does a rapist desire the same "end" as someone who desires consensual sex?

This is the crux of the issue: if the kind of "sexual contact" the rapist supposedly desired was to rape someone, then that's clearly different from most people. How are normal, healthy sexual urges comparable to those of someone who rapes someone and knowingly causes them to suffer and be traumatized (which is known beforehand, so it's not like that's something that's only known after the act has been committed)?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm pretty sure a big part of the miscommunication here is that we're all using different definitions of rape, which are covering varying types of scenarios and situations.

For myself, on one end, you might have a situation where two college freshmen who had a few drinks are in the dorm room, and they start having sex, and, at some point the girl is making it clear that she's not having a good time, but perhaps not obviously or directly enough for the boy to know for sure, or he thinks it's the case, but decides to just finish.

On the other end, you have five guys grab a women off the street into a van, and over the course of several hours, gang rape her, beat her, and dump her on the street.

In between, there are many gradiations of various elements, but I'd say that both scenarios could be defined as rape. However, for situations closer to the first scenario, I don't think committing violence is the prime motivation of the person, whereas in the second scenario, violence is clearly the primary, and perhaps, only motivation.

I can't think of any human behavior which can be boiled down to one motivation, or any behavior that couldn't conceivably have almost any motivation. It's overly simplistic to attempt to reduce the range and scope of human behaviors in this way.