sexual assault

[prei]

i've heard of it, but i wonder if there are any genuine, documented cases of a woman forcing a man against his will to engage in sexual intercourse.

[melchizedek]

I remember reading about it in a newspaper about 15 years ago, some guy in FLA.
Boy, she must have been something really rotten to have a man NOT want to....

[wring]

Let's see, there's the famous one of the School teacher (Mary Kay Latourneax ??spelling).
In addition, there's been several cases of women being prosecuted under CSC laws (criminal sexual conduct laws), incidents including a woman attacking another woman, two young girls selling another girl to some guys in exchange for drugs (the two girls are doing substantial time, the guys are doing time and will be deported immediately afterward IIRC).

[scratch1300]

There are numerous taped episodes of such encounters in my local video store -- you know, the one with the frosted-over windows?

[cher3]

Well, it doesn't fit the "classic" stranger with a knife scenario, but on surveys quite a number of men report that they have had sex when they really didn't want to. Usually it involved a woman who used what I guess you would call emotional blackmail--questioning his sexuality, threatening to tell other people, abusing authority-- whatever.

It's not how people usually define rape, and the men rarely report it to anyone--it's hard enough for women to convince people that sex sometimes isn't consensual, but the men do report that they found it upsetting.

[handy]

Talked about here before way way too much....Doesn't that search thing work?

Lots of guys must get excited by guns & knives. Kinky guys.

[Bear_Nenno]

There is no such thing as Sexual Assault in Florida, though the ignorant ass media and newspapers would have you believe otherwise.
An assault is a threat or a failed attempt at some unlawful touching. Like if I swung at you with my fist or a basebal bat but misssed- that would be an assault or aggravated assault respectively.
A battery is an unlawful touching. If I swug at you and HIT you with my fist or a baseball bat, it would be a battery and an aggravated battery respectively.
A sexual assault would be (I'm guessing) some rapist who could not find the hole. :rolleyes:
An act you would consider a common 'rape' is a sexual battery under Florida Statutes.. There is no such thing as a Sexual Assault. I grind my teeth everytime I hear a newsman say it or read it in the paper.
The only thing worse on the ears than that would be 'Attempted Second Degree Murder'... but that explanation is for another thread...

BTW, I have heard several stories* of women raping men. Real forceful rapes to, not just the mind game thing. It is not the man's fault for getting hard!! Just the same, it is not the woman's fault if she gets really wet and orgasms while she is getting raped... these things make a person feel guilty, but it happens, and it is natural. So it is very possible to rape a man at knife point and have him stay hard.

*These were told by detectives at the academy, so they have more merit than 'Someone once told me a story about... '
Most of them occurred in Mental Institutions and things like that... but they occurred elsewhere as well...

[wring]

and of course, there's no physical reason why a woman could not use an object to anally rape a man, too. Aren't you glad you asked this question?

[Bear_Nenno]

Let's not forget hermaphrodites, who rape everybody!

[Hail Ants]

This concept is so simple. Speaking as a guy, let me state that it is impossible for a woman (lacking any, ahem, apparatus) to be guilty of raping a man. No way, no how. Put simply, if a guy's who-ha was at attention, he was asking for it. Physically, emotionally, and ignoring the issue of age, legally.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Hail Ants
This concept is so simple. Speaking as a guy, let me state that it is impossible for a woman (lacking any, ahem, apparatus) to be guilty of raping a man. No way, no how. Put simply, if a guy's who-ha was at attention, he was asking for it. Physically, emotionally, and ignoring the issue of age, legally.
This is completely wrong, for any of a number of reasons. First, rape covers more than just "tab a, slot b": a woman who forces a man to perform cunnilingus, or who forcibly performs fellatio on a man (whether or not erect), commits rape. (You at least mentioned the possibility of the use of objects, but wrongly dismissed it.) Second, men can get erections without even being conscious, let alone willing, so a woman who mounts a sleeping but erect man commits rape. Third, there are men who lack the capacity to grant consent due to age, mental defect, or (temporarily) intoxication; a woman who has sex with such a man commits rape. (You at least admitted that this is possible due to age, but ignored both mental defect and intoxication.) Fourth, the mere fact that a man's penis is tumescent is not proof that he has the conscious desire to have sex with any woman in his vicinity. An erection is not proof of consent. Men (in my experience) do not generally have the ability to cause their penises to rise and fall on command.

[peace]

Bear_Nenno Let's not forget hermaphrodites, who rape everybody!
What does it mean? Do you know, Bear?
[b]Wringwhy a woman could not use an object to anally rape a man
She could, and, if against his will, it would have been an "asault", but where is the "sexual" part? Was she naked? Or you are gay?

Seriously speaking, "sexual asault" (or "battery", Bear) is an oxymoron.
"Usual" rapes are motivated by poorly understood burst of aggressive violence, not sexual urgency.
Released prisonners (after what? years in isolation) are not known to commit rape at a greter rate than "free" people. It's exlusively male crime, so it's thought that testosterone has something to do with it, but the connection is very foggy. It could be a personality disorder: a "typical" rapist is usually sees himself (and orten is) a "failure in life" and rape seems to him the right way to establish himself, to show the world that he is capable of something.

"Date-rape" could be different. It starts as consensual "something". Although every man is capable of stopping at any time physiologically, psychologically, many misjudge and proceed. The other party, hoping that "the friend" will stop any second now that she appeals to his reason, does not (perhaps subconsciesly) resist at the top of her capacity (or is unable because of intoxication).

[Hail Ants]

An erection is not proof of consent
Well, in terms of being in bed, with that woman, um, yes it is. You may have regret later, but your giving consent now.

The issues of mental capacity you mentioned, I agree with. And age, I somewhat agree with. But there is a double standard (albeit a correct one). All other things being equal, a 20 year old guy having sex with a 13 year old girl is absolutely uncomparible to a 20 year old woman having sex with a 13 year old boy. Neither are "good" and the boy certainly may be harmed psychologically, but if the boy was willing enough to be arroused he is not going to even approach the mental trauma that an unwilling 13 year old girl would.

That teacher, Mary Kay something, is mentally ill and should not go unpunished. But that case was not one of "child rape". She is not a "sexual predator". She's more of a manic depressive.

[wring]

Originally posted by peace
Wringwhy a woman could not use an object to anally rape a man[/b]
She could, and, if against his will, it would have been an "asault", but where is the "sexual" part? Was she naked? Or you are gay?[/b] My sexual preference is not part of the equation here. In my state, the laws about CSC states stuff like "the touching of or penetration of" and names orifices, and parts of the body, "for the purposes of sexual gratification", then also goes on to describe other factors (age and relationship -ie if it's parent/child, teacher etc), and other factors (weapon, multiple actors, etc). So, a woman who groped a man, shoved something up an orifice of the man, caused him to place his hands or mouth onto/into her vagina, breast, buttocks etc , placed her hand or mouth onto his sexual organ, buttocks etc. would be charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct.


While you may be correct in that most folks charged with the crime of CSC are male, it is patently true that not all of them are. While I agree that 'rape' is best understood as a crime of aggression, I don't believe you really understand the "released prisonners" thing (how many do you know? I've known thousands, it's what I do for a living) further, your assesment of the "typical rapist" , well, where did you come up with it? doesn't match those I've known very well at all.

Date rapes do not always start out as a "consensual" anything, it's a term often applied when the rapist is some one the victim knows. and once again, I'm wondering where you're getting your assumptions from.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by Hail Ants
Well, in terms of being in bed, with that woman, um, yes it is. You may have regret later, but your giving consent now.

I disagree with that. What if the man goes to bed not expecting a woman to crawl in next to him, and gets an erection because of a wet dream? Is that license for his unexpected bedguest to fuck him? I think not.

How about a woman who impersonate a man's girlfriend in order to obtain sex from him? (This one is legally touchy, but generally consent induced by fraud is void.)

Any sexual contact to which both parties involved did not consent at the time the contact took place is rape (substitute whatever silly phrase your state has chosen to use in place of "rape" here). That includes the case where a party consented to nonsexual contact but not sexual contact, or to sexual contact of a different variety than that which actually happened.

[threemae]

This concept is so simple. Speaking as a guy, let me state that it is impossible for a woman (lacking any, ahem, apparatus) to be guilty of raping a man. No way, no how. Put simply, if a guy's who-ha was at attention, he was asking for it. Physically, emotionally, and ignoring the issue of age, legally.

You chauvanistic little female Nazi.

You are factually incorrect, and propogating a myth just as insidious and virulent as the "Rape Myth." An erection is an entirely autonomic reflex, and it can be controlled not more than you can control your digestion if it is based upon any type of physical touching. People who are otherwise paralysed from the lumbar section of the spinal cord (above where the penis connects) are entirely capable of sexual function, even without feeling it.

You are just plain wrong.

If you want cite's check out David G. Myer's <i>Psychology</i>, 5th edition.

[MrWhy]

Originally posted by Hail Ants
This concept is so simple. Speaking as a guy, let me state that it is impossible for a woman (lacking any, ahem, apparatus) to be guilty of raping a man. No way, no how. Put simply, if a guy's who-ha was at attention, he was asking for it. Physically, emotionally, and ignoring the issue of age, legally.

Are you seriously suggesting that you have never, ever had an involuntary erection? Never ever? Not once? Never woken up with one in the morning? Never have one when you were going through puberty? Never got one from something (pants, bike seat, whatever) rubbing/pressing the wrong way? I'm not trying to be smart but if this was the case I'd honestly think something was wrong.

[peace]

Wring, what I am saying, that sticking objects in man's ass is not "sex" to him, no matter what the law says (I ain't a lawyer). Perhaps, she is satisfied sexually, but what if she sticks something in my ear? Would it be a "sexual" asault? If she is not naked?


Q (how many do you know? I've known thousands, it's what I do for a living)
You beat me here. I do not befriend prisonners for living. Nor do I sosialize with them. I have a good company as is. How many ones of "thousands" of sex-deprived ex-prisonners commited rape? I do not recall a single article about this, so no references.

I can't cite sources in which rape was NOT described as a means of sexual gratification. Perhaps you can provide us with references which prove it (or dismiss aggressive violence).

Q. Date rapes do not always start out as a "consensual" anything, it's a term often applied when the rapist is some one the victim knows. and once again, I'm wondering where you're getting your assumptions from.

Is it a lawyer's terms game? It is implicitly understood here that she knows the man she contests to.
I am getting my assumptions from my head. What about you? I know that you are a lawyer, that's why I am asking (mods, "lawyer" is not an offensive term yet, is it?)

We are not in court, so I am talking about usual cases, statistically, not about any particular case, idlawyer.

[Bear_Nenno]

Originally posted by Hail Ants
This concept is so simple. Speaking as a guy, let me state that it is impossible for a woman (lacking any, ahem, apparatus) to be guilty of raping a man. No way, no how. Put simply, if a guy's who-ha was at attention, he was asking for it. Physically, emotionally, and ignoring the issue of age, legally. Hail, speaking as a guy, let me say that you are a freaking idiot...

I just explained in my previous post how this is completely WRONG!! It is mentality like yours that prevents many men to come forward!! The same mentality says that if the woman was wearing revealing clothes then she was 'asking' for it. A woman is allowed to say 'NO' at any moment. ANY!!! I dont care if she just slobbed your knob, if she says no to the 'sex', it is rape.

BTW, sticking a broom handle up someone's ass is 'sexual battery' in Florida. (Provided victim did not want the broom up his butt in the first place). You do not have to be 'gay' for this to be 'sexual battery'. Any penetration of the anus is rape. Any union or penetration of any object or body part with the vagina is rape. Union of an object or body part with the anus is just battery though.

wring, does your state laws really say "for the purposes of sexual gratification"? Damn... any good lawyer could get a rapist off the hook there. Rapes are not about sexual pleasure (I think someone mentioned this in an earlier post). Raping is a power and control thing... not a sex thing.

[Fretful Porpentine]

All other things being equal, a 20 year old guy having sex with a 13 year old girl is absolutely uncomparible to a 20 year old woman having sex with a 13 year old boy. Neither are "good" and the boy certainly may be harmed psychologically, but if the boy was willing enough to be arroused he is not going to even approach the mental trauma that an unwilling 13 year old girl would.
Yes, he will. I've seen the aftereffects. It's not pretty.

[peace]

(I think someone mentioned this in an earlier post). Raping is a power and control thing... not a sex thing.
Thank you, Bear. I mentioned this. And Wring asked me for my sources. To me (and, I presume, to you), it's "common knowledge" or "common sence", like "people seek sexual gratification because it's pleasurable". But lawyers like to demand explanations well known things, like Clinton demanded the definition of "is".

Union of an object or body part with the anus is just battery though.
BTW, sticking a broom handle up someone's ass is 'sexual battery' in Florida.

To my feeble mind (I ain't a lawyer) these two statesments contradict each other, unless "broom handle" is not an "object, or "ass" is not "anus".

Half way up this page I explained why anything done to a man'a anus ("ass") is not sexual. You seems to agree, and then call it "sexual" again. An unfortunate mistake?

[TubaDiva]

Threemae, that comment was uncalled for.

This is General Questions and not the Pit.

You can disagree on a subject -- discuss it, debate it -- but name calling is out of place. Kindly do not do that again.

This thread has now moved beyond a General Questions kind of situation into what is clearly a debate. So off to Great Debates it goes.

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

[Sterra]

Even getting aroused does not mean consent, but I don't think im stretching too much in thinking that Hail Ants is not a guy, or at least not a normal one.

Though from what I've heard guys actually perform better under circumstances of rape.(ie like 4 women with weapons stand over him and force him to perform.) However you know if you went by Hail Ants standards any woman who was in the least bit attracted to the guy who raped her it was consentual. So lets just throw out rape laws all together.

[Meephead]

Originally posted by Hail Ants
This concept is so simple. Speaking as a guy, let me state that it is impossible for a woman (lacking any, ahem, apparatus) to be guilty of raping a man. No way, no how. Put simply, if a guy's who-ha was at attention, he was asking for it. Physically, emotionally, and ignoring the issue of age, legally.

I feel that you have this all wrong. Allow me to direct you to this: How to rape a man

(link removed by moderator
note: the SDMB frowns upon the inclusion of links that give instructions on how to commit an illegal act, and violent acts are especially reprehensible IMHO
__________________
moderator, «Straight Dope Message Board (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)»)

[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-25-2000 at 12:07 PM]

[threemae]

Threemae's formal apology:

Your right Tuba, my reaction may have been a little over the top. I did not really pay much attention to which forum that I was posting in; I'll try to be little more sensitive next time. But as far as the argument with the autonomic vs. CNS, it still stands, and I think that Hail is wrong.

I did not even know that he was a male, I just did not bother to read the entire post.

Now, knowing that he is a male, I wonder how he could think that it is possible for males to subdue erections anytime that they wish.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by peace
[

Half way up this page I explained why anything done to a man'a anus ("ass") is not sexual. You seems to agree, and then call it "sexual" again. An unfortunate mistake?

Where are you getting this from? I can think of several common sexual practices that involve the male anus. (that are also employed by heterosxual men) There are several books on the subject if you're interested in correct information......

[peace]

I can think of several common sexual practices that involve the male anus

Please, what are you thinking off? I can think of one which is not very common, but the thrill comes not from a physical action per se, but from the entire setup (I keep talking about heterosexual situation). More or less the same or very similar as from sticking the tongue in her mouth (i.e., she is thrilled because she let him inside one of her private orifices).

I cannot confirm my negative statement ("not sexul"). In every book "anorectum" is desribed as defecatin structure, not sexual (as the eye is described as visual structure, not sexual, despite the fact, that the eye can see partner's sexual organs. Well, actually the brain through the eye). I wuold be very interested to learn about alledged "sexuality" of the anorectum. If you'd post short quotes here, they must clearly indicate that the piece relates not to homosexual anorectum.

The entire thrust of your post is rather ambigiuous. First, you talk about "...common sexual practices that involve the male anus.". In the same sentence you parenthetically notice that these practices are aso employed by heterosexual men. If you mean that they are common in homosexual men, it does not belong here, as this thread is about heterosexual rape.

And my comment on another subject touched upon here: penile erection, despite what pornliterature may claim, is totally unvoluntary. Of course, it needs to be present for any peno-vaginal intercourse. Like men, women have other means for sexual gratification (even more than men). "Rape" is a means of expressing agression, revenge, etc., but not sexual desire. Again, do not quote porn literature for confirming the opposite. Any scientific facts are welcome.

[RickJay]

wring, does your state laws really say "for the purposes of sexual gratification"? Damn... any good lawyer could get a rapist off the hook there. Rapes are not about sexual pleasure (I think someone mentioned this in an earlier post). Raping is a power and control thing... not a sex thing. [/B]

This is one of the oldest lines in the book, and yet it's false. Rape very often IS a sex thing; the notion that it isn't is a political urban myth of fairly recent vintage.

That isn't to say that "power and control" aren't part of the sometimes fairly complex motivations to commit rape, but the notion that rape has nothing to do with sexual desire is silly. Someone who drugs his date with rohypnol and rapes her while she's unconscious is probably more interested in getting his rocks off than exerting "power and control." Indeed, the expression of power and control is often the catalyst for sexual gratification.

[Alessan]

Let's see - inserting something in a man's anus isn't rape, so long as he isn't gay.

Huh.

So I guess raping lesbians is OK?

[peace]

Alessan, if you huh me, I never said "isn't" rape, I said "is not sex". Rape is judicial term. It might differ from county to county.
I knowknow that raping lesbians is not OK, but you are the one who introduced lesbians here. In most women anorectum is a secondary sexual zone, like breasts. In some more, in some less. I never read that lesbians are different in this regard. What do you know?

Rick, this ain't "political urban myth". It's called "sociological psychology". Perhaps, you are confusing Hollywood images, like scenes from "Postman always rings twice" or "The Last Tango in Paris" (both are excellent films, BTW) with rape. In other words, rape and violent (consentual) sex are different.

If you have money and self-confidence, you'd take a girl for a dinner and then will have sex with her. If you have neither, you'll give her whatever would make her unconscious and then will have sex with her. Or masturbate, while she is asleep naked.
Rapists rape young attractive girls and not so young and attractive, even 85 y olds, whoever happens to be near.

The other two guys are lawyers. What's your experience? For this MB?

[wring]

Just re-looked up my state's statutes In their wording they use words like "victim" and "person", without gender identifiers. The other terms they use are "sexual penetration" and "sexual contact". The bodily areas include "breast, mouth, vagina, buttocks, anus" etc. So, sticking your elbow in some one's ear would probably fall under "assault & battery" (unlawful touching), vs. sexual contact.

So, from the definitions, it is entirely possible for a female to rape a male. If, for example, the woman commited fellatio (the erectness of the penis would not be an issue), this act could constitute CSC according to MI law, involving sexual penetration (the penis in the mouth), which, depending on other circumstances, may be CSC 1st or CSC 3rd.

And, peace as far as 'if they stuck the guy's ass and as long as it wasn't sex to him....' wouldn't matter, in my state. (by the way, I'm female, not a lawyer, work with ex offenders in community rehabilitation efforts)
I mis remembered the "for means of sexual gratification" part - it simply talks of sticking things in various orifices or the touching of certain areas. It would be CSC if you touched a breast, but not an elbow for example.


Specifics : Here ( http://www.michiganlegislature.org/law/GetObject.asp?objName=750-520b&queryid=804829&highlight=criminal+sexual+conduct)

[Alessan]

Peace, as I understand from your previous posts, anally assaulting a man is not sex, unless that man is a homosexual.

So by the same logic, vaginally assaulting a woman is not sex, unless that woman is heterosexual.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[handy]

"A battery is an unlawful touching"

Are you sure? Im pretty sure that's not it; but its "any unwanted touching"......had a lawyer tell me that & its not the same thing as you said.


BTW, it actually happened here near the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey many years back. A guy said that he went on a date with three women and later they sexual assaulted him.


Of course, then there was the male peanut who got attacked by the female peanut. He was a salted.

[Bear_Nenno]

Union of an object or body part with the anus is just battery though.
BTW, sticking a broom handle up someone's ass is 'sexual battery' in Florida.

To my feeble mind (I ain't a lawyer) these two statesments contradict each other, unless "broom handle" is not an "object, or "ass" is not "anus". Sticking the broom handle UP the ass or into it would be penetration. Penetration of the anus is a sexual battery. However, 'union' of an object and the anus (just touching the outside) is only a battery.

Are you sure? Im pretty sure that's not it; but its "any unwanted touching"......had a lawyer tell me that & its not the same thing as you said. Handy, ya know, I had to read your post several times before I realized that I typed 'unlawful'. DUH!! Unwanted is definitely what I meant to say. Thanks for pointing that one out.

[peace]

{b] Alessan: Peace, as I understand from your previous posts, anally assaulting a man is not sex, unless that man is a homosexual.[/b]
Both clauses are correct, i.e. anal assault is assault, not sex, regardless of sexual proclivity of the victim. See below.

Alessan: So by the same logic, vaginally assaulting a woman is not sex, unless that woman is heterosexual.
Assaulting a woman, vaginally or otherwise, is assalt, not sex. Inserting whatever she asks you into her vagina (or any other body orifice) is "sex".

As far as I understand, "rape", "battery", assault" are judicial terms. If a man or a woman is struck on the head, it's an "assault".
If she is manipulated in or around her genitals or breasts (her primary or secondary organs), it's called "sexual assalt".*

Some female rape victims may experience purely physiologic pleasure during the intercouse. It makes them feel guilty and sometimes, unwilling to press charges, etc. It does not make the rape a pleasurable psychological experience. Consensual anorectal intercorse may be pleasurable to some women more, than to others, but it's unpleasurable to any heterosexsual men, who may tolerate anorectal penetration (doctor's digital exam), but never enjoy it. Therefore, from the victim's point of view, anorectal penetration, with a penis or a broomstick, is not "sexual" assault. From the law"s persrective, or a homosexual assailant perspective, it may be "sexsual". I think that a gay, assaulted by other gays, will not psychologically enjoy the intercourse (like a woman). Wether there might be a physiological component, I do not know.
------------------
* I ask lawyers and other guys and gals to correct me on that. To me "an assault" is an assault, regardless of body parts involved. All assaults are equally painful to the victim. The threshold of pain is lower in and around the genitals than on the head. The punishment is perhaps different. But it's still an assault, not "sex". To me, "sex', without qualifiers, is consensual sex. When I see "forcible sex", it means "rape", i.e., non-consentual sex. Therefore, it's an "assualt", physical, if acccompanied by pain, or psychological, if the victim is subdued by threats.

[Hail Ants]

First off let me say that I've ignored the various gay issues posts because I don't think they concern my post.

Asmodean:However you know if you went by Hail Ants standards any woman who was in the least bit attracted to the guy who raped her it was consentual
That's not what I said at all. I made no mention of what constitues a man raping a women. I believe that a women can so no at any time.


KellyMWhat if the man goes to bed not expecting a woman to crawl in next to him, and gets an erection because of a wet dream? Is that license for his unexpected bedguest to fuck him?
What can I say? This only happens in John Irving novels.


again KellyMHow about a woman who impersonate a man's girlfriend in order to obtain sex from him? (This one is legally touchy, but generally consent induced by fraud is void.)
This only happens in Bridget Fonda mo-. Sorry. This is certainly morally wrong but does not, in my mind, make the women guilty of rape. Rape is a crime of violence. You can't be raped on a technicality.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by peace
Rick, this ain't "political urban myth". It's called "sociological psychology". Perhaps, you are confusing Hollywood images, like scenes from "Postman always rings twice" or "The Last Tango in Paris" (both are excellent films, BTW) with rape. In other words, rape and violent (consentual) sex are different.[/B]

Well, duh. Rape is different from consensual sex in that it isn't consensual.

Saying it's different from consensual sex - which is it definition - is not the same as stating that rape is not a sexual act. Of course it's a sexual act; it's sexual by definition. The post I was replying to, Bear_nenno's, claimed that rape (in general, meaning all rape) was NOT ABOUT sexual gratification, which was what I was skeptical of.

[phouka]

Originally posted by Hail Ants
Rape is a crime of violence. You can't be raped on a technicality.

Apparently, Hail Ants, you aren't aquainted with the legal definition of rape at all.

Violence isn't a necessary element of rape. Lack of consent is all that decides the issue.

Dropping Rohypnol into someone's drink, taking them home, and then having sex with that person while he/she is unconcious does not involve violence, but it certainly is rape.

Threatening to release private details of a person's life unless given sex isn't violent, but it is blackmail and rape.

Having sex with a person under the age of consent isn't violent, but it is rape.

I could go on and on suggesting scenarios, but the point, Hail Ants, is that you have a . . . unique perspective on this matter that matches neither legal or commonly socially accepted understanding of what rape is.

[Kimstu]

peace: Consensual anorectal intercorse may be pleasurable to some women more, than to others, but it's unpleasurable to any heterosexsual men, who may tolerate anorectal penetration (doctor's digital exam), but never enjoy it.

??? No heterosexual men ever enjoy anorectal penetration? peace, I don't know how that assertion got into the place you pulled it out of, but at least I can be sure that you didn't enjoy it! :)

Also, I think your attempts to reserve the term "sex" for consensual sex are doomed to failure. Terms like "sexual assault", "sexual battery", "non-consensual sex", and so forth have widely understood and accepted meanings, both legally and in common usage. You're not likely to get very far insisting that they're inaccurate according to your own personal definition of "sex".

(BTW, I always find it useful to remember that the correct spelling of "consensual", which looks unnecessarily naughty at first glance, comes from the fact that the word is more closely related to "consensus" than to "consent".)

[peace]

Rick, that's OK. There are things which we easily understand, and things that we do not. For instance, I understand about rape, but I do not get the Bing Bang theory. But I will try one more time. Listen close.

If you are extremely horny and want to knock somebody, you start and at some point, she might resist. Verbally and/or physically. Any man, even you, is able to stop*. If you proceed, it is because you made conscious decision to have sex with her and want to show her who is the boss here. You want to show her that you are one strong determined individual. But actually, you can stop at any time. You can even insert and withdraw. In mid stroke. I've "never heard" of it. Go see you friendly doctor. Because something is very wrong with you. Your erection is involuntary. Command or even pain cannot stop it. Sexual intercourse is a voluntary act (like eating), is totally under cortical control. Inability to stop any action started at will may mean very serious condition. Brain tumor, perhaps. Do a check up.
---------------------
*Compare, if you will, with yourself drowning and trying to reach the surface from the bottom. Something (current, weight) pulls you down. You try to go up and nothing can stop you. That's the difference. Capisce?

[crckrrick]

One cold night long ago my girlfriend (ex now) and her sister went out for the evening to have some drinks. I waited up for them, but as the midnught hour arrived I grew tired and went to bed. Alas, at around two my bedroom door opened, a figure entered, the door was closed, shutting out the moment of half-light and leaving us in the dark. I healf-heartedly was awakened by hands rubbing my chest that I thought were my girlfriends. Naturally, the hands kept going and I became focused on my good luck.

A point came, when due to ceartain physical differences that I realized that this woman I was with was not my girlfriend at all, but someone with a much larger bra size! This may not be a normal reaction, but it scared the living hell out of me. I sat up and almost yelled "What the...?" and about a second after that, my door opened again, on come the lights and my girlfriend catches me sitting in bed with her sister's hand around my cookie jar.

Suffice it to say all hell broke loose and to this day my ex thinks I knew it wasn't her and when I see her, we'll go to dinner, have a few drinks, be getting along great, and then she'll get all angry and tell me I'm a horrible jerk because I was unfaithful to her with her own sister. I can understand her thinking, but I still don't think her sister commited a crime. It did cost me one of the best relationships I've had, but I just don't see where there was any malicious intent on the sisters part. Sometimes life's just not fair...

But that's definitly a case of how a woman can take unfair advantage of a man who can be quite aroused and not understand what he is doing.

"The loving swain
Can mountains move if he is resolute,
And though my suit
Is beset by endless obstacles and pain,
I'll not despair,
But one day soar into heavenly air."
-Cervantes from "Don Quixote"

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by phouka

Violence isn't a necessary element of rape. Lack of consent is all that decides the issue.

Dropping Rohypnol into someone's drink, taking them home, and then having sex with that person while he/she is unconcious does not involve violence, but it certainly is rape.

Threatening to release private details of a person's life unless given sex isn't violent, but it is blackmail and rape.
[/B]

Perhaps we should look at all the meanings of violence. My dictionary includes:
"1.Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing. 4. the abusive or unjust exercise of power."



Dropping rohypnol into someones drink is physical force for the purpose of violating, damaging, and abusing.

Threatening to release private details is called coersion, and it is an unjust exercise of power. All of your examples illustrate an unjust exercise of power.

[phouka]

Spooje,

I'll concede your correction with the addition that language is often decided by perception, and many people's initial perception of "violence" (including my own) is the use of brutal manhandling - a stereotypical idea of what rape is. I'm not content to assume that everyone is as enlightened as you are, spooje. That's all. ;)

[Badtz Maru]

crckrrick, I don't see how you can say that's not a crime. What if you reversed the genders? What if some guy tricked your girlfriend into having sex with him, with her thinking it was you?

That was most definitely rape.

Hmm, that thinking could lead further - what if you knew who you were having sex with, but they deceived you about who they were, i.e. a man pretending to be a woman. Should it be a crime if a man leads another man to believe he is a woman to obtain sex from him? This happened to a friend of mine, he was pretty drunk in a club and met a very convincing transvestite who ended up giving him head. He was very traumatized by this when he found out. If one could prove that the man actually claimed to be a woman (otherwise they could just say they assumed the other guy could tell) I think they would have a case.

Take it a step further - what if a man was tricked into having sex with an underage girl, she even had fake ID that he saw...that would be a form of rape in a way.

[peace]

Badtz, yours and Crc... cases are excedeengly rare. A law cannot cover all eventualities. Lawyers here may tell how such cases might be prosecuted, e.g., under extortion, deceprtion, blackmail laws. Almost all laws have "mitigating" and "aggravating" circumstances, and if these episodes cannot be construed as clear cut "rapes", they can be prosecuted as I suggested.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by peace
Badtz, yours and Crc... cases are excedeengly rare. A law cannot cover all eventualities. Lawyers here may tell how such cases might be prosecuted, e.g., under extortion, deceprtion, blackmail laws. Almost all laws have "mitigating" and "aggravating" circumstances, and if these episodes cannot be construed as clear cut "rapes", they can be prosecuted as I suggested.
Frankly, I don't care whether they fall within the scope of "rape" as defined by lawyers. To me, they are all instances of nonconsensual sexual contact, and in my mind that's rape even if the law disagrees.

The law isn't always right, you know.