Rape?

[Me Myself]

Ideally, yes, but because of the social stigma and pressure surrounding sex and gender, sexual assault has a more difficult psychological aftermath than simple assault.

U to here we agree, I had no idea how to reply to you when you told me you thought at a purposeful sexual assault was no different than a kick in the nuts (and you do understand what I am saying)

This is because of persistent rape myth acceptance in society, where we continue to scrutinize the dress and behavior of the victim in order to try to explain the crime or excuse the perpetrator. That doesn't happen when someone is punching and kicking you. It only happens if they're assaulting you in some way that involves their genitals or yours.

Absolute non sequitor. We always see the things surroundi a fight here, I woulde mighty surprise they dont do it around e world.

Even if they didnt, it just has nothing to do with it. The fact that the violence is sexual is what makes it different and more thraumatic. The fact that it is more about violence against your will of how you manage your own sexuality than violence against our body or physical pain.

I would still want to know dust1n's viewpoint of my post. Does he not want a differentiation to exist legally? I what would ite based? And why?

By your definition of purposefully atacking "sex organs" , slapping someone in the butt or in the breast/nipples is not at all sexual assault.

 

[dust1n]

I agree that purposefully making a physical advance that is considered sexual with knowledge of the renouence by the other party is sexual assault (or rape) .

But I think you are making an affirmation that is too open (do correct me wherever I failed to follow) are you saying that anything physival you do to a person without their consent equals rape? Is punching or fighting in general to be regarded as not less nor more grave than rape charges?

Should a slap in the face be regarded equally than a slap in the butt? Or a hit in the chest? (Of either male or female?)

In other words, you dont want there being any diferentiation like "sexual" assault or "rape" but just "assault" ?

This almost certainly had nothing to do with what I said, in basically anyway. I was responding to someone regarding whether or not rape is inherently violent, or that it is the "main motivation/drive" behind all cases or not... I"m not certain, because it keeps changing.

 

[dust1n]

I would still want to know dust1n's viewpoint of my post. Does he not want a differentiation to exist legally? I what would ite based? And why?

By your definition of purposefully atacking "sex organs" , slapping someone in the butt or in the breast/nipples is not at all sexual assault.

I'll go ahead and answer your questions, but it is unlikely I will continue conversation about this topic further, considering it really has nothing to do with what I was saying, to a few people, to whom I still wait for a reply.

"Does he not want want a differentiation to exist legally? In what would it be based? And why?"

I have no idea what you are even asking.

"By your definition of purposefully attacking "sex organs," slapping someone in the butt or in the best/nipples is not at all sex assault."

I agree! By my definition of purposefully attacking sex organs, slapping someone in the butt or in the breast/nipples (though I'm a little lost on how to slap a nipple) is not necessarily a sexual assault. Unless, of course, you are doing it to someone who has explicitly made it clear that they do not want you to engage in those activities, in which case, it is sexual assault.

"Assault in some US jurisdictions and Scotland is defined more broadly still as any intentional physical contact with another person without their consent; but in the majority of the United States, and in England and Wales and all other common law jurisdictions in the world, this is defined instead as battery. Some jurisdictions have incorporated the definition of civil assault into the definition of the crime making it a criminal assault to intentionally cause another person to apprehend a harmful or offensive contact."

Assault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree that purposefully making a physical advance that is considered sexual with knowledge of the renouence by the other party is sexual assault (or rape) .

But I think you are making an affirmation that is too open

Stop right there. What exactly am I suppose to make of this? Why affirmation did I make, and how can an affirmation be open? What does that even mean?

(do correct me wherever I failed to follow) are you saying that anything physival you do to a person without their consent equals rape?

That would be wrong.

Is punching or fighting in general to be regarded as not less nor more grave than rape charges?

Huh? If I understand what you are asking, rape and assault are not equal in severity... every court case takes details in to consideration after someone is determined guilty for making their prison sentence.

Should a slap in the face be regarded equally than a slap in the butt? Or a hit in the chest? (Of either male or female?)

In other words, you dont want there being any diferentiation like "sexual" assault or "rape" but just "assault" ?

Again, no...

 

[Me Myself]

I'll go ahead and answer your questions, but it is unlikely I will continue conversation about this topic further, considering it really has nothing to do with what I was saying, to a few people, to whom I still wait for a reply.

"Does he not want want a differentiation to exist legally? In what would it be based? And why?"

I have no idea what you are even asking.

"By your definition of purposefully attacking "sex organs," slapping someone in the butt or in the best/nipples is not at all sex assault."

I agree! By my definition of purposefully attacking sex organs, slapping someone in the butt or in the breast/nipples (though I'm a little lost on how to slap a nipple) is not necessarily a sexual assault. Unless, of course, you are doing it to someone who has explicitly made it clear that they do not want you to engage in those activities, in which case, it is sexual assault.

"Assault in some US jurisdictions and Scotland is defined more broadly still as any intentional physical contact with another person without their consent; but in the majority of the United States, and in England and Wales and all other common law jurisdictions in the world, this is defined instead as battery. Some jurisdictions have incorporated the definition of civil assault into the definition of the crime making it a criminal assault to intentionally cause another person to apprehend a harmful or offensive contact."

Assault - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Stop right there. What exactly am I suppose to make of this? Why affirmation did I make, and how can an affirmation be open? What does that even mean?



That would be wrong.



Huh? If I understand what you are asking, rape and assault are not equal in severity... every court case takes details in to consideration after someone is determined guilty for making their prison sentence.



Again, no...

So you do want a differentiations between assaults in general and sexual assaults. On what would them be based? On targeting a sex organ? If you said sex organ, at would exclude butts and nipples by the way, as they have nothing to do with sexual reproduction.

If you want to include them because of the perseption of them being "sexy" then we woulde back at the question why then are we debating it is not about sexual gratification in any way?

Sexual assault is such because the person feels violated in the sense that his/her sexuality has been invaded. Was there no feeling of someone taking advantage of one's sexuality for pleasure in some way, it is unlikely one would feel as scarred.

 

[dust1n]

So you do want a differentiations between assaults in general and sexual assaults. On what would them be based? On targeting a sex organ? If you said sex organ, at would exclude butts and nipples by the way, as they have nothing to do with sexual reproduction.

If you want to include them because of the perseption of them being "sexy" then we woulde back at the question why then are we debating it is not about sexual gratification in any way?

Sexual assault is such because the person feels violated in the sense that his/her sexuality has been invaded. Was there no feeling of someone taking advantage of one's sexuality for pleasure in some way, it is unlikely one would feel as scarred.

Fine, replace sex organ with any action of violence perpetrated on any erogenous zone that is considered to be so by the victim. Again, every crime is differentiated from one and treated differently. Every rape is differentiated from one another, and so is every assault. If you are slapping someone's nipples or pitching their *** against their will, you perpetuating assault and one that obviously sexual in nature.

So there, enjoy my answers, because none of this has anything to do while I am still here, waiting for a reply to some posts of mine, which are addressed to the people they are most relevant to.

 

[Alceste]

U to here we agree, I had no idea how to reply to you when you told me you thought at a purposeful sexual assault was no different than a kick in the nuts (and you do understand what I am saying)



Absolute non sequitor. We always see the things surroundi a fight here, I woulde mighty surprise they dont do it around e world.

Even if they didnt, it just has nothing to do with it. The fact that the violence is sexual is what makes it different and more thraumatic. The fact that it is more about violence against your will of how you manage your own sexuality than violence against our body or physical pain.

I would still want to know dust1n's viewpoint of my post. Does he not want a differentiation to exist legally? I what would ite based? And why?

By your definition of purposefully atacking "sex organs" , slapping someone in the butt or in the breast/nipples is not at all sexual assault.

As Dustin pointed out, the only factor that makes a rape an act of violence is the decision to disregard the victim's volition and physical boundaries. Without that decision, it isn't rape. With that decision, it isn't sex. It's basically masturbating while committing a violent physical assault.

 

[Me Myself]

It's basically masturbating while committing a violent physical assault.

I dont get it, its like on one post you understand sexual gratification has a good deal to do qith it and on the next one you dont

 

[Me Myself]

Fine, replace sex organ with any action of violence perpetrated on any erogenous zone that is considered to be so by the victim. Again, every crime is differentiated from one and treated differently. Every rape is differentiated from one another, and so is every assault. If you are slapping someone's nipples or pitching their *** against their will, you perpetuating assault and one that obviously sexual in nature.

All skin is potentially erogenous.

So you do understand sexual assault is about sexual gratification?

 

[Father Heathen]

Violence. Underlying violence. If you can't see the connection, well??? What can I say?

So watching martial arts, boxing, football (what with the tackling and all), WW2 documentaries, pro rasslin', Ninja Turtles, etc. instills within the average viewer tenancies to rape?

lolno

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Violence. Underlying violence. If you can't see the connection, well??? What can I say?

I can't see the connection. I played football (like...real football. That men play...ahem...), I have studied military history pretty extensively, and probably fit a whole lot of other male stereotypes. I'm physical when I play sports (but within the rules...I'm not a thug...), and completely non-violent in pretty much any way you can name outside that.



I don't think of myself as an outlier.

 

[Father Heathen]

I played football (like...real football. That men play...ahem...),

 

[Vinayaka]

I can't see the connection. I played football (like...real football. That men play...ahem...), I have studied military history pretty extensively, and probably fit a whole lot of other male stereotypes. I'm physical when I play sports (but within the rules...I'm not a thug...), and completely non-violent in pretty much any way you can name outside that.



I don't think of myself as an outlier.

My point was the underlying idea that violence is okay in society, and the media does a great job of portraying it, not necessarily as okay, but just putting the imagery there. I'm not accusing athletes. I was an athlete too. But there are many examples of how the media uses (it sells) testosterone, adrenaline, etc. At a subconscious level, it all filters down as violence is okay in some way. Entitlement too.

As for the media or observation of violence and how it spreads in heads, I can give you a simple example. When I taught, for a couple of years we obliged a local karate school to give a demo in our school, with some students, who attended both schools. The following week schoolyard fights and bullying accelerated dramatically.

Yes, the connection may be subtle to some. MMA, boxing, the more violent ones probably do the most damage. I can't even watch it. It's legalised street fighting, and if you've seen someone smash a broken glass into someone else's face in a street fight, well??? I don't see a whole lot of difference between watching somebody smash their opponent's head repeatedly, to a brutal repeated rape. Of course if, you go ahead and say one is sexual, and the other isn't, then there is a perceived difference. But as Alceste, myself and several others have pointed out repeatedly, rape is violence.

Certainly there are athletes who can separate the two, but what % do we need for those who can't, for the connection to be recognised? Certainly when entire college football programs get cancelled, or a group of players gets expelled for it, it points out a higher % amongst the jock/macho crowd than elsewhere.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm sure most of the women on here are falling head over heals for these guys.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My point was the underlying idea that violence is okay in society, and the media does a great job of portraying it, not necessarily as okay, but just putting the imagery there. I'm not accusing athletes. I was an athlete too. But there are many examples of how the media uses (it sells) testosterone, adrenaline, etc. At a subconscious level, it all filters down as violence is okay in some way. Entitlement too.

As for the media or observation of violence and how it spreads in heads, I can give you a simple example. When I taught, for a couple of years we obliged a local karate school to give a demo in our school, with some students, who attended both schools. The following week schoolyard fights and bullying accelerated dramatically.

Yes, the connection may be subtle to some. MMA, boxing, the more violent ones probably do the most damage. I can't even watch it. It's legalised street fighting, and if you've seen someone smash a broken glass into someone else's face in a street fight, well??? I don't see a whole lot of difference between watching somebody smash their opponent's head repeatedly, to a brutal repeated rape. Of course if, you go ahead and say one is sexual, and the other isn't, then there is a perceived difference. But as Alceste, myself and several others have pointed out repeatedly, rape is violence.

Certainly there are athletes who can separate the two, but what % do we need for those who can't, for the connection to be recognised? Certainly when entire college football programs get cancelled, or a group of players gets expelled for it, it points out a higher % amongst the jock/macho crowd than elsewhere.

I fundamentally disagree.

A few points if I may...
Were the kids who became violent after seeing a karate demonstration the same ones who attended the karate school? Or were they children who only saw the violence and idealised that aspect of it?

There is a clear difference between MMA and glassing at a bar, or rape, or any other form of violence, and that is the mutual acceptance and participation of those involved. I have seen brutal violence, and as I said, I'm very much a pacifist. I'm not a fan of MMA, to be honest. But the only thing you can pull out from either the MMA or karate demonstration example you have given (in my opinion) is that some people shouldn't be provided violent imagery as they are incapable of dealing with it. Fair enough, I agree (up to a point).

I think you're drawing a long bow with the athletes thing, to be honest. I would imagine entitlement and (in some cases, dependant on the sport) group dynamics are to blame moreso than the 'violence' of the sport.

To be honest, I think as a society the sooner we send clear and simple messages about violence, the better.

Violence is wrong. Regardless of who you are, violence will NOT be tolerated.

I was a teacher too...I would be interested to know what your thoughts are around sports and behavioural issues in boys or sports and obesity? I'm struggling to really understand your argument against sport at this time, to be honest.

What is it you think should change about sport?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That is SOOOOOOOOOOOO not real football.

Please find the time to educate yourself here.

Try and fast forward to about the one minute mark if you really want some 'manliness'...*shrugs*

 

[Vinayaka]

Not on this thread, but if you care enough to start a new one, I'd be happy to discuss.

 

[dust1n]

All skin is potentially erogenous.

Indeed.

So you do understand sexual assault is about sexual gratification?

Sometimes it might be or not, but it's entirely irrelevant to what I was saying originally still. Thanks for your questions, I'll be holding off for now.

 

[dust1n]

...

So we know the lack of consent is there in all rape cases, so we can agree upon that. So how is knowingly acting on someone's body not an act of violence?

This is World Health Organization's definition of violence in a study on violence, according to the wiki on violence:

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.[2] This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces.

In either case, whether a drunken frat guy thinks he heard the lack of consent but wasn't sure, or whether it was a planned event, a decision must take place to ignore the consent of the other person and act upon their body. This has to be the primary motivation for rape. It doesn't matter whether someone was horny or wanting revenge or whatever.

If I'm having sex with someone and she stops, and I keep going, my main motivation for ignoring her, no matter how bad I want to ejaculate, is to act regardless of one's will, not to ejaculate to continue sex.

What I'm getting at here, is how can ignoring someone's consent not be the primary drive/motivation when ignoring someone's consent?

And if we agree in any instance that my definition provided by WHO is in any way accurate when describing violence, and if we agree that primary reason/motivation to ignores someone's will and act upon their body is to disregard their will and act upon their body, then main drive to rape is always innately and first-most violent.

There would be difficulty basing that as the "primary drive/motivation" but the wanting to continue past someone's consent is always a drive or motivation prevalent in someone when acting past someone's consent (on their body that is). And wanting to continue on someone's body through the use of force is violence. Whether the motivation is the primary one or not seems rather unimportant when determining if violence is always there.

Your post said:

"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."

Whether or not the former situation's example-person's intentions to ignore one's consent and act on them irrespectively is the "primary drive" or not, it is still there, it is still violence, and it still precedes the rape. And, if I'm understanding the arguments of others, then what they are getting at here, is that this drive, whether primary or not, is always violent, and is always intentional by the person doing it. The drive for "violence" must be present in every case in which someone is acting out violence. Whether that is the primary cause or not seems to be unimportant.

...

We agree that ignoring someone's consent is always present in rape. I guess you're right that it comes down to semantics. So how is willfully ignoring someone's consent to act upon their body not violence? Again...

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.[2] This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces.

Or, is there an objection to this understanding of violence?

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.

Still wondering if anyone wants to touch it... my argument which heavily suggests the motivations of someone committing a rape will always include an element inherent violent, thus making all rape violent and all rapists willfully committing violence.

 

[Alceste]

I dont get it, its like on one post you understand sexual gratification has a good deal to do qith it and on the next one you dont

I'm distinguishing between "sexual" and "sex". Practically anything can be "sexual", but "sex" is something people do together. The victim of a sexual assault is not having sex. They're being assaulted. Whether it's a force feeding, a gay bashing, a rape, or any other form of torture, the experience of the victim is the same during the assault. The heightened trauma of rape is partly the result of revictimization, where society in general tends to seek out reasons to blame the victim for the attack, and partly the result of rape myth internalization, where the victim feels like they should have reacted differently or brought it on themselves.

If we had a society that thought homosexuals were "asking for it" when they are assaulted by anti-gay bigots, we'd see a similar dynamic, but without the adjective "sexual".

 

[Alceste]

All skin is potentially erogenous.

So you do understand sexual assault is about sexual gratification?

You say "do you understand" as if you think that's actually true. It isn't. It's a rape myth. Virtually all convicted sex offenders had the option of consensual sex at the time they committed the crime. So obviously they choose sexual assault for some other reason than sexual gratification.