For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, a ‘wet willy’ is a procedure typically performed by children whereby the perpetrator sneaks up behind the victim, moistens his or her pinky fingers by licking them, then proceeds to shove them into the victim’s ears.
So here we have a procedure that involves the use of an appendage to perform forcible penetration of up to 2 orifices, accompanied by a transference of bodily fluids-- exactly what you would have with rape.
But even though these 2 concepts are essentially identical, our society has a vastly different perception of them. One thing is viewed as the worst thing you can possibly do to a person short of killing them, while the other is viewed a harmless joke that school children play on one another.
I know some of you will try to argue that rape is inherently different because it carries the risk of pregnancy. But would these people contend that a woman who is post-menopausal who gets raped is getting no more than a wet willy? I doubt it. Besides, the pregnancy risk can be eliminated by taking emergency contraceptive within 72 hours of the event.
Others would argue that rape is much worse because of the disease potential. But would these people say that the rape is no big deal if a condom was used, or if the victim didn’t get any diseases?
So exactly what is the logic behind the vast difference in our society’s perceptions of the criminality and victimization level between a rape and a wet willy? Which level of response would be appropriate in order to be consistent-- should we treat wet willy victims like we do rape victims, or should we treat rape victims like we do wet willy victims??
I think you’ve got a point. Say I get drunk, and I hit someone. I hit him with my hand, I hit him with my car…what difference does it make? I still just hit him- same mechanism, me striking him with a blunt object. How come if I hit him with my hand I get to spend a lot less time in jail than if I hit him with my car? That’s not consistant!
The answers so far haven’t been helpful. An alien visitor would probably not understand the difference, but we all know about the emotional baggage that goes along with sexual intercourse. That’s the difference. Social customs.
A wet willy leaves no physical scars and basically no psychological scars either. Most kids and adults don’t regard getting there ears wet as anything more than an annoyance, certainly not a major violation of there person.
Rape generally involves severe coercion, often with the threat of physical violence. It often involves actual physical violence. The victim is traumatized and humiliated to an incredible degree and is often severely injured.
What Larry said - generally speaking, you can’t sneak up on someone and quickly rape them without them noticing - it involves continued force and violation of consent, plus genital interference - unlike the ears, the genitals are considered deeply private by most people.
Larry Borgia- “Rape generally involves severe coercion, often with the threat of physical violence. It often involves actual physical violence. The victim is traumatized and humiliated to an incredible degree and is often severely injured.”
When you use terms like ‘generally’ and ‘often’ it seems as if you can’t come up with an inherent difference between the 2 acts. Is there an inherent difference?
If there is no inherent difference, then cleary they could be equivalent, depending on the circumstances.
It makes no difference whether the person committing the action is “getting off on it.” (There are probably some odd people out there who could “get off” on inflicting a “wet willy.”) The perspective taken is that of the victim.
There are two aspects of sex that set it off from other human activities: the ability to procreate and the ability to engender intimacy. There is a fair amount of specualtion that the second trait is an evolutionary development to ensure that children are raised after the first trait has done its work. However, while such speculations regarding the roles of sexuality and intimacy are not proven, they are addressing a very clearly recognized human emotional state. While you may not see a point in distinguishing between sexual activities and activities not related to sexuality, the reality is that humans do see such a point.
Any activity that will be perceived as sexual will raise similar negative reactions whenever it is imposed on another person. Just as the sight of different parts of the body has been able to arouse lust in people of one cultural setting while failing to arouse even a mild interest among peoples of a different cultural setting who maintained different standards of which body parts should be covered, the definitions of sexual may change from culture to culture. However, any action that employs (or mimics) the activity of a sexual organ is probably going to be regarded as sexual in all societies. Fingertips and ears are not regarded as primarily sexual in our society, so we do not consider a childish prank to be of the same nature as sexual assault.
In what circumstances would you find having an erect penis forcibly, repeatedly shoved into your nether regions equivalent to having a pinkie in your ear for a split second?
