What is rape, anyway? Do you know?

Based on this suggestion from our good neighbor, Tiassa, I would like to discuss rape some more.

When does consent explicitly exist? Is this consent defensible?

When, if ever, does consent implicitly exist? Is this consent defensible?


Let's take the example of someone who has been drinking. This has been debated heatedly here on SF in a number of threads. Can someone consent if they are inebriated? How inebriated? Is this like drunk driving, in the sense that you can consent until your blood alcohol reaches .05, or .08, or some other arbitrary number? But after that point, your sexual partner is guilty of rape?


Another example, one that has long intrigued me. Statutory rape, in the event of two teenagers. Today, they can consent to have sex, legally. Tomorrow, one of the partners turns 18 (or whatever the applicable age is) Now, the younger partner can not consent. The older partner is guilty of rape by definition.



I understand that laws have to be written somehow, and will always be somewhat arbitrary. But maybe society can do better. If the comments on some other threads are at all representative, the views on these issues are extremely polarized. What do you think? Can we improve the status quo? Are we going forwards or backwards here?



Perhaps before we even discuss these issues, maybe a definition is in order. What exactly is rape, anyway? We seem to have the preconception that we are all talking about the same thing when we speak of "rape". Are we?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

explicit includes written and verbal assent
implicit includes physical and ____________ assent

Most states define legal intoxication as having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 to 0.10 or greater. Many states define intoxication as a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) lower than 0.08 for people under age 18.​

the venues where one can typically be prosecuted is if out in public, in the workplace, operating heavy machinery, a courtroom .....whatnot

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean as opposed to our bedrooms?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Excuse me for a min...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have a psychology degree... and we where told;

''Rape is in fact a power struggle, not only by the rapist but by what he experiences from it. There are sexual undertones, which reflect on the nature of practicing a raping of someone...

... in other words, it's just plain sick!''

 

Reiku, I tried the "rape is about violence, not sex" line in other threads. It seems that opinion is not unanimous. Oh, by the way, thanks for joining. This one is looking good....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But violence can cause sexual attraction... Some people find it, fetish-like to find being raped as something that after reflection, is attractive... as weird as that sounds.

 

So rape is when both implicit and explicit consent are given after a few drinks?

 

If you cannot tell whether your partner is willing or not, you have no business having sex.

 

I don't know what rape is, but I am sure the court is going to tell me...

 

Rape in definition, is when something is not consolidated. However, when in a court, how can one tell that the girl did not enjoy it, and used it as a defence...?

I know about such a girl... and because of that... i hate her, but i am a hypocrite sometimes, because i sit in her company and have a laugh, but only at the expense of 'her'. Does this sound evil? Maybe... but this girl was even more evil in the long run, recieving 10,000 pounds... that would be in american money, around $5000 ... ponder that one.

 

$20,000

 

Ummmm, what happened to the quote from our man, Tiassa? It seems to have disappeared, as if by magic???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Some people just don't like their own words being used in an argument.

 

Mod Hat - Response

Mod Hat — Response

It still exists, elsewhere. However, in trying to salvage this topic in order to accommodate your pathetic whining, I tried to make a useful topic post out of it. As I noted in response to your petulant complaints:

My idea? Sure, whatever you want. All I had to say was that you would find better responses if you went about making your point honestly. And, frankly, you couldn't even manage that. While I appreciate general nod, it is hard to see how the long quote of me lecturing you on good faith served the question at hand. That quotation is included, along with all the off-topic chatter, in the consolidated topic.​

So don't give us this shit. Try paying attention.

Really.

 

This and that

Of course we aren't. Certainly the basic idea is common enough, but as your question suggests, the definition varies from person to person.

Rape is sexual intercourse encountered without appropriate consent. The point of contention, of course, is what the word appropriate means.

To address your propositions at the outset:

Would you let your partner drive? Would you let your partner handle a loaded gun? Is your partner drug free, and if so, how would you react if, after "a few drinks", she thought the idea of shooting heroin sounded like a good idea?

If, after a few drinks, she wanted you to beat her while you fucked her? (Presuming, of course, that this is not part of your regular sexual experience.)

Bells, somewhere in these arguments, raised the issue of what kind of guy is looking for a drunk chick to start with. And if you throw that into the mix, you're getting close to an answer for the proposition.

However, what people pushing this question seem to overlook is the significance that some accused rapist somewhere has used either her, his, or both of their intoxication as a defense. And what this seemingly intentional avoidance suggests is that some men just don't want the responsibility of conducting themselves appropriately. It really is inconvenient, I admit, and can be frustrating as hell.

I came across this really weird e-mail the other day. It was two years old, and I had sent it to myself. It took me a couple of days to figure out what it was, but I finally realized it was an email that I didn't send to a friend, but sent to myself instead in order to follow up on a couple of its points. Part of that e-mail reads:

Best excuse given to cops of late: When the police hit us with the lights and asked who vomited, R_____ volunteered, "I had chowder today". In reality, she apparently remembered only after she took three Vicodin that she's allergic to the drug. Or maybe it could have been the mix of Vics, beers, and rum & cokes.​

At any rate, on that very night just over two years ago, R_____ went home with me after we were finished carousing. My daughter was at her mother's, so I offered my guest the spare room. She declined. We smoked some pot, and we even passed hits mouth-to-mouth. She then took off her pants, revealing an off-white g-string, and climbed into my bed. She had no problem sleeping very close to me, but objected to my hand on her ass, saying simply, "Please don't."

And things were fine from there. I slept well enough, and when I apologized to her a couple days later, she shrugged and said, "What are you sorry about?"

It wasn't that she forgot me trying to feel her up. But that I stopped when she asked me to meant, in her book, that there was nothing to apologize for.

It would have been a delicate situation if we actually had sex. See, the thing is that while I don't particularly care for the "if she's drunk" standard—as I said, a woman has every right to get drunk and go out looking for a shag—the point is also to conduct myself in such a manner that I can answer it if it ever comes up. And, frankly, compared to this particular standard, I probably should, statistically, worry myself more about health concerns than legal. I mean, shit, there comes a point when we return to Bells' question, but how often—really—does that one come up in your life? When you see a stumbling-drunk woman, is your first thought that you ought to go start talking to her 'cause you might get laid?

Your concern, as I see it, is more theoretic than anything else. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it just doesn't come up much in my own life. I can, however, relate a bizarre story. I once worked with a guy who was explaining the history behind his cigarette lighter. He had apparently received it as a gift some years before. As he explained, he took a girl over to a friend's house, got her really fucked up, and then they took turns fucking her. His friend even stole her lighter out of her purse and gave it to him, and that was the lighter I had just lit my cigarette with. And I remember looking at the shit-eating grin on his face and thinking, Holy shit, you're genuinely proud of this! I mean, I've been genuinely proud of some pretty bizarre things, like walking 'shrooms, pot, and a large glass pipe onto an airplane, tearing up the Decatur in New Orleans, and pissing on a Confederate Civil War memorial (all the same trip, incidentally), but fucking-A.

Here's the thing, though: He didn't mince words. He raped the shit out of this girl, and he was proud of that fact. What the fuck are you supposed to do with that?

And then along comes some allegedly well-intended folks who would say that she should have taken more precautions. Hell, if you can't do drugs with your friends, what's the point?

I'm of the opinion that in the question of the intoxicated woman, it's not exactly hard to figure out when the line is crossed. And if that day ever comes that I find myself treading exactly on it, I'll probably make whatever decisions I make.

You want to tell my daughter she's a product of a rape? Fine with me. I'll answer that one if it ever comes up.

So much for the outset, eh?

We used to have a saying that I never learned, but I know one of its parts is that "three gets you five". In Washington state, it's thirty-six months.

In the meantime, the legislature isn't about to start filling up the prison system with a bunch of teenagers having sex, so there's no point in criminalizing sex between the seventeen year-old and fifteen year-old.

They tried once upon a time. But it didn't work out.

I'm of the opinion that if one doesn't foresee the problem in their own relationship, and they get burned by it, that's their own problem.

Well, what do you suggest? Society can always do better, but part of the problem we face is not in the law or the definition, but in people's conduct. In calling for women to take precautions, someone—was it you, Randwolf?—reminded that people should be responsible for their own conduct. And yet now we're left considering the law and definitions.

The challenge is tremendous, but as long as we're dicking around with laws and definitions without pursuing a change of ideology and conduct, we're officially screwed.

 

It is rape if:

the other person says NO or otherwise tells you to stop

he/she is so intoxicated that X (I'm tired of typing he/she) does not know what X is doing or saying. If X is too disoriented to talk properly or understand what you're saying, then X is most likely too disoriented to have sex.

 

What if they consent out of fear ?

 

If it's out of fear, as opposed to because they want to have sex, it's rape.

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

I understand, but how will you know.. ?