Seems like a good definition to me, and it's how quote a lot of the evil in the world is carried out these days. The force feedings at Guantanamo are a really good example of dispassionate, casual violence in a clinical setting. The doctors don't beat you up. They just take no interest whatsoever in your volition, and if you struggle or resist they call the guards in to kick the tar out of you.
That's how I see it. And from what I can determine the hold up here is whether all acts of rape are driven by violence. I've seemed to reach an agreement that all rape is always the lack on consent. And in terms of physically subjecting someone to one's will, by any means, and despite the outcome, I fail to see how any act of this nature doesn't fall under the definition of violence. Which if that be the case, then all rapists rape because of a motivation to disregard someone's consent and will with physical force, whether real or threatened, and this is innately violent by the definition I provided. If my definition is accepted, then there is no way to divorce "violence" as an motivation or drive or whatever in any instance or rape; even in the case where the frat boy who thinks he heard something but wasn't sure and continued anyways is choosing to ignore the consent of that person (instead just clarifying; a relatively easy thing to do until maybe completely black out drunk [which never excuses a crime]), which, again, is innately violence by my provided definition. I would even venture to say that this is the "primary" motivation, because it is the motivation most directly relevant to the crime itself, and is always present in all cases.
I'm sure people have all sorts of justifications and motives for raping people, some real and some completely false, but none of that means that the act isn't innately violent and that someone engaging in the act isn't intentionally engaging in an act of violence (and willing that to be so, seeing how they did it) or that any other possible motivation is central.
This all hinges on whatever or not the definition I provided for violence was more true and accurate than archaic uses of the term, and it's not my definition, it's one from the World Health Organization on a study about violence.
I do sympathize though with the lack of "male-becoming-rapist" prevention in society, and that ignoring what is internally happening in a male, and failing to identify the causes of rape with men, is only, at best, exacerbating the problem of rape. A lot of focus is placed on education for women, to avoid, deter, report, etc. rape (which is a great thing), but the male sex virtually gets no public education in any of this. And we sit and wonder why in 2013 we are even having to have this conversation at all still.
But that's my two cents. If no one really has an objection to my definition, I guess I'll leave it at that and move unto the next topic.
