What about the ‘mental pain’ associated with rape – both to the person who is raped and to that person’s family. In addition, there is an expectation that society will react with more severity when responding to some crimes (because of the overall suffering involved) than to others. I don’t see extreme mental pain being a reasonable response to a ‘wet willy’ — I do in the case of rape.
They’re not even analguous. How can they be the same? Just because two phenomena share some traits, doesn’t mean that they share all of them. But I suspect that you know this.
First, rape involves far more physical pain than a wet willy. (I’ve experienced both)
Second, rape involves far more violence than a wet willy. Simply squirming away from a pinkie in the ear is far different than trying to push a rapist off of you.
Third, the psychological repercussions of rape are far more serious than a wet willy. I have never in my adult life wanted to engage in consensual wet willying but I have wanted to engage in consensual intercourse. The latter has been far more difficult than it should be because of my rape.
Fourth, my ears, while not something I want violated, are usually out there in the open for all to see. One’s genetalia is usually tucked away under some clothing - private. For someone to forcibly remove my clothing implies extra violence. Or if you want to argue oral rape (since one’s mouth is not usually covered in clothing) one would have to pry my mouth open. That too implies extra violence/pain.
I think the spirit of the OP was asking, if we shed all of our social customs, what would be the difference?
Most answer so far have used physical differentiators - the length of time, the use of force, the pain. But in all of those, you could just say “what if rape were done quickly and painlessly?” or “what if a wet willy were done painfully and with threat of force?” But even in those cases, they still wouldn’t be the same.
Rape is worse because of our social customs - the mental baggage that goes along with sexual intercourse. And Tigers2B1, that mental pain you’re talking about is just due to this mental baggage.
So the answer: were it not for our social customs, a wet willy would be as grievous an offense as rape.
I’m not sure you are granting sufficient weight to the emotional pain involved. It is not merely social custom like shaking hands or waving. And it is certainly not merely our society which believe rape to be an act of violence. Prohibitions against rape go back a long way (with the possible exception of rape by a husband which I think was not recognized until recently).
If I may suggest, sex is one of the primary functions of life. One of existence’s purest joys. Rape is a complete perversion of that joy. In effect a crime of violence against the ability to enjoy sex.
tanookie, I dedicate my thousandth post to your courageous honesty and dedicated restraint in attempting to edify this juvenile dolt of an OP.
I doubt it is just “mental baggage” as you described. For females at least – I suspect there is a strong genetic based abhorrence to being forced to have sex. Why? Because if a pregnancy results, the mothers life is certainly put in danger – not only because of the dangers directly associated with childbirth but also because she will experience additional problems acquiring the necessities of life during that period. After the child is born she cannot expect the biological father to be around to help during that extended period of human childhood. I would ten to think than – that there is an extreme reaction in females to avoid forced sex -
Haven’t we already had this thread here before?
Ohohohoh! This is an easy one! Let me answer it!
Nobody has ever been called “damaged goods” because of a wet willy. There is no society where a woman is unmarriagable because of a wet willy. Nobody has ever spent a month in total fear of pregancy or an STD because of a wet willy. Nobody has ever taken a four hour long shower to try to get clean from a wet willy. Nobody has ever been afraid to touch their husband, lover, or even get a hug from a friend because of a wet willy. A wet willy has never made anyone distrustful or hateful. It has never inspired shame. Nobody whispers “she asked for it” when you get a wet willy. It has never been a crime that will most likely never be brought to justice, leading to frustration and hopelessness. Most importantly, a wet willy does not hamper anyone’s sexuality- which is basic to humity, their ability to relate to other- which is basic to humanity, and their ability to live with themselves- which is basic to humanity.
Yes, this is largely based on social customs and perceptions (although rape usually does hurt, and there is a certain unique horror to having somebody else inside your body against your will). But those are very real. The phsycological effects of anything related to sex are going to be different than activities that don’t involve sex. That is why, for example, we are so sensitive about sex when children are involved.
If this doen’t clear it up, just ask someone in your life who has bee raped why they are so worked up about it.
Percieved severity of emotional and physical trauma, as others have said. Since when has anyone administered a wet willy at gun- or knife-point? Since when has anyone been threatened with death if they they failed to accept a wet willy? Since when has anyone reported being emotionally traumatized for decades from a wet willy?
Since these acts are not, in point of fact, equivalent to each other, there is no need for ‘consistency’. I should point out, however, that under the law pretty much anywhere in the US, a person administering an unrequested wet willy could be prosecuted for physical assault if the victim wished to do so.
That current society considers rape an especially severe form of assault is a given: see the answers above by persons who have been actual victims of rape. For me, the burden is on the OP to provide a logical rationale showing that this view is incorrect. Equating rape to a wet willy, I’m afraid, doesn’t quite cut it.
Some thoughts on the subject…
It is quite possible that forcing a finger into an ear can cause great pain and long term suffering in the event of bursting the ear drum. I accidentally did such to a friend in a play fight when I was a young teenager, he had to go to hospital to get his ear fixed up.
If we compare such a violation to forcing a finger into someones anus without their concent, we get to the question why is the ear assault, but the anus considered sexual assault?
If a person were to trick another into eating sexual fluids (through disguising them in food for example) what crime would have been commited?
I think CurtC has hit the nail on the head. Physically, the difference between a wet willy (forced kiss, or any other minor assault) and rape is relatively minor. I say ‘rape’ to mean merely non-consentual sex, distinct from the physical assault that often happens. If someone beat you or held a knife to your throat in order to apply a wet willy, that would be pretty traumatizing as well. An act that is nothing more than non-consentual sex will be considered rape even if there is no other physical assault.
Rape holds the place it does in our minds because of our societal customs. If we as a society thought nothing special about sex, rape would be a much lesser crime than it is today. Sex holds a very forward place in our society, everything having to do with sex involves greater scrutiny and emotional attachment.
Think of this scenario, debated on these boards before. Two adults engaged in consentual sex and the woman asks to stop. Many people feel that if the man doesn’t stop immediately, that is rape. For instance, asking for a ‘few more minutes’. Applying this logic to other endeavors does not result in a felony being committed, only a social faux pas. It is sex that causes this act to be a felony.
This seems obvious from the outset: these two acts differ MOSTLY in intent and therein lies the divining issue.
Things dealing with a sexual nature are more sacred…and more private…there for more scarring and damaging when such a thing is violated…
Shoot someone with a rubber band, or shoot them with a .22…both are a shooting…one damages one basically does not…the intent of the Crime thus changes from play to something more serious… its like wise
I disagree. It is our “genetic baggage” – not our ‘emotional baggage’ that causes the reaction that it does – It just makes genetic sense for a woman not to have consensual sex with every Tom, Dick and/or Harry that shows up.
As concerns society’s reaction to rape – or sex in general – I suspect you’ll be hard pressed to find indifference on the subject, in any culture an at any time. There is a reason for that. Sex, our reactions to sex, who we choose to have ‘sex with’ probably have strong genetic motivations.
Is there really a difference between getting someone to sniff their hand and then shoving it into their face, and beating someone so severely they have to live in the ER for a week?
Erek
It’s just ALOT lower on the assault continuum.
A wet willy (or “william” as I like to call them) is still within “it’s ok to give someone ‘the business’” range
along with:
the wedgie
the swirly
native american burns (formerly known as “indian burns”)
ear flicking
dangling spit over the victim’s face while being held prone (is there a name for that?)
playing “stop hitting yourself” with a smaller family member
-these can and usually are done between friends who remain friends afterword.
then we move upward on the scale to the minor assault, not even laughable by the victim anymore (depending on the victim)
the charley horse (charles)
monkey lumps
-things that are still meant in gest, but cause harm and maybe crying.
Then we move up to bullying level (this is where we depart from care for the victim) things such as:
-stealing milk money
beating up a victim.
and so on and so forth till you get to “murder” and “rape” about 15 steps higher on the continuum.
I think the key is that in the earlier stages where one might find a william, the perpetrator and the victim are seen as caring about one another, and each is able to participate at an equal level in the “give and take” of the relationship.
my brother gives me a william, he’s going to get one back when he least expects it.
a total stranger gives me one, he’s either gonna get an ass whooping or a citation.’’
Either way, I’m not going to need therapy.
Which reminds me – my 10 year old cousin and I wrestle around all of the time. I do the “stop hitting yourself” stuff with him. And - on occasion he’ll throw some “real” punches to my mid-section that ‘sort of’ hurt. Not once, during our WWF World Title Wrestling Matches has one of these punches lead to anything more than ‘real’ laughter and more horseplay. So, you’re right – I think the intent – the motivation - always has to be factored and plays a role in how the action is perceived. And in addition, how the action is perceived plays a direct role in whether we suffer mentally from the action -
The definition of rape is sex without consent. That means rape is achieved by violence or the threats thereof. And no, it’s not possible that a finger in the ear could cause an equal amount of pain.
Not on the planet I’m living on. 
The difference between a kid sticking his pinky in someone’s ear and a man forcibly putting his penis into a vagina, anus or mouth is “relatively minor?” Wow.
You’re making a pointless distinction. It’s rape with or without physical assault.
That’s true. Not as much as being raped, but yes, it would be very disturbing.
I guess - no, I really, REALLY hope - that Surreal is being obtuse. Social customes my eye. The differences between rape and a wet willie aren’t complex. They’re the extremely obvious ones that you’re chalking up to societal taboos for some reason.
It’s quite possible to rape a person without physical violence whatsoever. You could have sex with a woman while she’s passed out drunk and you wouldn’t even need to use force.
The perpetrator could do this while using a condom, and the victim may not even be sure whether it happened to her or not.
No trauma, no pregnancy, no disease, no memory…yet she would still be considered the victim of a terrible crime. Does that make sense to you?
Yes, that the victim was unconscious means she was unable to give consent to his actions. A person who went around looking for people to victimize simply because they would be unaware of the crime is no less of a criminal. Also if he drugged her to get her to this state that would be an additional crime.
If I had safe filled with money but I had not counted all of it and you took just a little bit and I never noticed does that make you less of a thief?
On a more personal note … I have no cite for this as it happened to me but I don’t have any documentation. My father preferred to give me drugs and alcohol so that I would be unconscious when he molested me since I didn’t fight back. He explained he was doing me a favor since I didn’t remember everything that happened while I was unconscious… does this somehow help absolve him and make his crimes less heinous?