Do we know for a fact that everyone who gets raped will suffer irreparable psychological damage from the act, agonizing over it for decades?
Is it possible that there are some people who don’t subscribe to our traditional societal values might get raped, realize that something horrible has happened to them, but also realize that there’s no logical reason why that event should prevent them from making a full recovery and leading a normal life?
Because you are taking someone else’s property, of course.
irishgirl- "*Imagine if a person breaks into a house and walks around in the owner’s clothes, rifles through their personal possessions and then puts everything back where they found it. The owner never discovered that they were in the house at all, and no damage was done.
We would still consider that owner to be a victim of a B&E, and the person would be prosecuted for home invasion and tresspass. Even without theft, even without violence.*"
Yes. In my question, I was looking at it from the perspective of the victim, not the perpetrator.
In the situation I gave, I was demonstrating how it is possible to have circumstances where a rape takes place, but where it doesn’t appear to be that tragic of an event for the victim.
Okay, now you’re just being obtuse. No one has claimed that everyone who gets raped “will suffer irreparable psychological damage from the act, agonizing over it for decades,” but they are saying that there are psychological consequences for the victim, period. You yourself confess this: “realize that something horrible has happened to them.” What you’re talking about is the effect of modern psychology on our notions of victimhood, and you could just come right out and ask to explore that issue, instead of trying to win this silly argument you’ve adopted. Of course it’s possible for rape victims to come to the conclusion “that there’s no logical reason why that event should prevent them from making a full recovery and leading a normal life.” That doesn’t, however, make a rape analogous with a wet willy and to say it does negates the perfectly valid experience of those rape victims who do not subscribe to your “get on with life” theory.
In case you aren’t aware, it’s perfectly valid to explore the intersection between psychology and victimhood, you just might want to be careful how you approach it.
Upon review, to say they are analogous also negates the perfectly valid experience of those rape victims who do subscribe to your “get on with life” theory, as I doubt you could find a single person who has been raped who would say, “It was really no different from that time Bobby gave me a wet willy in the 6th grade. shrug”
presidebt it is conjectured that some people have been raped without being aware of the fact, when they are raped whilst unconscious. Such incidents have been reported happening in Dentists in UK (though it may have been the lesser (?) crime of sexual assault) where patients are often completely anaesthetized for minor dental surgery. Until the victim is made aware of the fact of their rape, they are unaware of any suffering certainly less aware of it than they are aware of a playground ‘wet willy’.
So we cannot measure rape solely from the effect on the victim, since unconscious rape is still considered (and rightly so IMHO) as rape.
Is it necessary that a rape required the perpetrator to be engaging in a non consensual act of control and domination of the victim? This to me seems a more necessary condition of rape than the form that victim’s suffering takes.
Is a ‘sexual’ element also necessary for an assault to be rape? This is where I have the grayest area in my understanding.
Can we define rape as
A non consensual act of control and domination a form of rape?
Or as a non consensual act of control and domination combined with a sexual assault?
Please ignore the words ’ a form of rape’ from the penultimate sentance.
I would think the difference would be the motive or ‘power’ or ‘powerlessness’ of the parties involved. If someone comes and gives me a wet willy, I’d kick them in the shins and feel pretty vindicated (or something like that), as I was never powerless to not do anything about it. With rape it’s different. Now I know this is oversimplifying a deep topic, and to say you don’t suffer long term emotional effect is simply a stupid statement. If you suffer for one day because of the acts of someone else, you’ve suffered one day to much, so what is considered long term? I have some pretty close family members who have suffered this way, and some of the effects are still seen…and it’s been about ten years.
I’d like to point out another difference between USA and Canada: we don’t have a crime called “rape,” it’s called “sexual assault.” It’s defined as “an assault that is sexual in nature.” Penetration is not a deciding factor in being sexually assualted. Regarding consent, the Criminal Code
A few comments: first, of course, whether a particular act is “sexual in nature” can be up for debate. But I think it’s better to debate it on a case-by-case basis than to decide that penetration = rape. Which leads me to my second comment:
In the space of a week, I once heard two conversations about the same Facts of Life episode. (bear with me …)
The first conversation was along the lines of: “Do you remember that episode where Blair was almost raped? … phew, what a relief !”
The second was: “Do you remember that episode where Blair was sexually assaulted? … man, that sucked …”
See the difference?
You are comparing a highly hypothetical, extremely improbable occurance to an unfortunately fairly common event.
D’oh! Isn’t non-consentual sex what rape is?
Completely, absolutely, and utterly disagree. As pencilpusher pointed out, rape is dominantly a power issue, not a sexual issue. Rape is often used to “punish” a victim, to humiliate her (sometimes him), to strip the victim of her dignity, to make her into a non-person. Rapes are utterly despicable.
In some areas, rapists are held as lower than the scum on the bottom of your shoe by other prisoners and given “special treatment.”
No. It is the motivation of the “attacker” that makes the difference. A wet willy “attacker” is not motivated by malice, spite, a desire to dominate, to harm, or to inflict pain.
So? It is also possible that somebody got pushed from the roof of a skyscrapper walks away unscathed. What’s your point?
::restrains himself to become snarky::
Yes, there are a lot of possibilities, but possibilities do not construct valid arguments, neither do highly hypothetical situations.
Never? Every wet willie ever given has been meant as a joke?
Let me relate one of my experiences. When I was in junior high, there was a kid on my bus who had it in for me. He’d call me names or try to pick fights with me nearly every chance he got. On one occasion, he jammed a lollipop stick in my mouth.
Now, it wasn’t that different from a wet willie: He inserted a foreign object into a nonsexual part of my body. He was clearly motivated by “malice, spite, a desire to dominate, to harm, or to inflict pain” - probably more than one of those. Would you say he should have been punished as a rapist?
Exceptions cannot be used to construct arguments.
Didn’t I say this from somewhere?
Surely? How would you prove that in a court of law? Were you dominated? Harmed? Been inflicted pain?
Yes, completely hypothetical. I only used it to separate the all too common violent component of rape from the discussion. Why? Because we agree that violence is wrong and using it to argue why rape is wrong confounds the situation. Rape is wrong not because of the violence, but because it is rape.
My point is that these things are true because of our society. You couldn’t dominate a person and strip them of their diginity through sex if sex weren’t important.
I’d bet that many a wet willy has been done in spite, malice and a desire to dominate. Also with wedgies, noogies and other bullying.
The difference is that rape has consequences that “wet willies” don’t. Even if you were to view the two acts in some kind of emotion-free or value-neutral context (not a worthwhile pursuit, IMO), rape can result in pregnancy (in which the woman was not a willing participant in its conception), infection and shock (a side effect of most penetration injuries. A wet willy is momentarily disconcerting and might (but probably won’t) result in an ear infection. Allow the social and emotional tolls, and there’s a whole new dimension of traumas the rape causes, whereas the wet willy just gains a brief sense of oogieness.
It’s like the difference between a hangnail and a sucking chest wound. The only possible way you can avoid making a distinction is because it isn’t happening to you, and you lack empathy for the person it is happening to.
I’m not with you there Krokodil. Pregnancy, infection and shock are certainly concerns, but those concerns are not the reason rape is a crime. One cannot say that they took precautions as part of a rape defense.
The fact remains, completely outside of any physical concerns, having sex without consent is rape. A doctor who uses a sterile, lubricated glove (or condom) to diddle an unconscious patient is still a disgusting criminal. No infection, no pregnancy, no physical damage, no memory, it’s still criminal.
Here are two hypotheticals, I am interested in wether you people here consider, none, one, or both to be rape.
Person A forces person B through threat, intimmidation, and fear to lick their muddied shoes clean. Person B is humilliated and degraded by this experience.
Person A forces person B through threat, intimmidation, and fear to lick their genitals. Person B is humilliated and degraded by this experience.
Why not add
That is the nature of nonconsensual domination, it is implicitly allowed for a parent to do such a thing to their child, or for anyone else in the position of guardian to some other person.
If your child in 3 is humiliated and degraded by this experience then there is something wrong with the act number 3. If they aren’t then none the less the person B in act three has had their freedoms constrained by another, and has been dominated.
I am getting towards the idea that nonconsensual domination of another is a key factor in rape. But can also exist without the crime being rape. This factor of nonconsensual domination needs to be defined as a criminal act in its own rights (including the proviso that such acts within reason are the prerogative of guardians over those that they guard). The fact that nonconsensual domination even without actual physical harm can lead to mental long lasting harm is my reason for this hypothesis.
It is clear that your case 3 is reasonable for a parent to dominate a child this way, but if the action required of the child was more sinister in nature ( steal money from the next-door neighbor for example, though the action need not be illegal to be sinister) it could easily go beyond reasonable parental action and become a criminal (if not necessarily identifiably illegal by current standards) act.
Dominated? Of course. That’s what bullies do.
Inflicted pain? Well, it only hurt a little. But I don’t think you’d allow a rapist to get off with the defense “I only hurt her a little.”