Penetration of a 16 year old girl who cannot legally give consent is somehow more violent than penetration of that same 16 year old girl living in Arkansas (thus capable of legal consent)? Penetration alone, absent other violence, is more violent if I am legally drunk (and unable to give meaningful consent)? Penetration alone becomes violent once I say “stop” (as the example given in that other thread)?
If penetration alone is non-violent, then how does it become so when there is a lack of clear consent?
Yes, it may feel more violent, yes it may be more traumatic, but there is nothing making the actual penetration more forceful, or more violent, other than perception.
I think you are out of line. Never have I failed to “appreciate the inherent sanctity of another person’s body” in fact, I have held it even higher than you by admitting and citing several forms of rape that you fail to recognize.
That I feel that FORCIBLE rape is far worse a crime than statutory rape or non-violent rape is what is at issue here. As I have said repeatedly ALL forms of rape are wrong, all are bad and all are traumatic for the victim.
That I think that one is worse than the other and do not find all of them equal does make me “creepy”.
Not talking about a drunk woman who’s sober enough to give consent. Or a case of statutory rape. I’m talking about putting your penis or fingers into a woman’s vagina. It’s illegal when she hasn’t consented, and it’s legal when she has. A woman who is raped but who isn’t beaten or hit or abused in areas besides the genitals has still been the victim of a violent assault.
Mitzekatze, I will ask you a third time, then. If consent is irrelevant to the violence involved in an act, do you consider surgical operations to be violent acts? If so, don’t you think you are stretching the concept of violence so much it becomes meaningless?
I believe the subject at hand is “rape”. That word has more than on form. Statutory rape is no less a rape than any other…as is other non-violent rape. As I have repeatedly said, all are wrong, all are bad, but they are not all the same.
That is why each case must be judged individually and blanket statements cannot be made.
I apologize, I am not ignoring you, but having a bit of trouble keeping up right now due to outside influences on my attention.
Yes I think that surgical operations are violent, some extremely so (watch a chest being cracked some time and you will agree). The difference is that the violence is necessary and even desired in those situations. Consent doesn’t change the level of violence, it only gives a reason for it.
My definition of violence is simple: physical or verbal force
So there could be “violence” with or without consent, but having not having that consent does not change the amount of force used.
Penetration can be so many things, though. Even if it is forceful, it can just be good sex if the man and woman are both into it. If the woman is saying no, though, even a small amount of force is violent. You don’t appreciate this distinction?
Okay then. I guess that is that. I forgot who I was talking to, and will defer to your supreme and inherent rightness in all things in the future. Thank you for clearing that up for me. :rolleyes:
No I do not, and I am still waiting for the cite that the legal system views all rape (including statutory and intoxication) as violent crimes.
The amount of force used is the amount of force used, whether with or without consent. It is the perception (of the victim) that changes not the level of violence.
The level of physical force may not change, but they are different acts depending on the consent. You can grab a woman’s breast against her will and that’s assault. If you’re her lover, that same act isn’t a crime at all.
But in your mind, what is rape if there’s no other violence? That is, if a man enters a woman and she’s saying no and aside from the vaginal contact, there is no additional violence. You’d consider that a non violent rape?
I am sorry, then you are using a ridiculous definition of violence for someone who has claimed that they are discussing legal distinctions. If a person dies on the operating table, they are not considered to have died a violent death. If they die in a motel room because someone has extracted their kidneys to sell on line, they have died a violent death, despite the fact that the actual act could be identical otherwise.
Surgery is not violent in a legal sense. Non consensual penetration is. I don’t care if it is with a knife, finger or penis, it is still violent.
Yeah, but it’s irrelevant to the thread, since the OP has repeatedly tried to make it clear that she was talking about forcible rape. She’s basically tried to stipulate that she’s talking about acts that, for the sake of argument, are essentially the same in terms of force and violence, and asking whether it’s makes any difference whether the victim is known to the rapist. Talking about stuff like statutory rape is just fighting the hypotical.
To simplify, is a guy who takes a woman out to dinner, brings her back home, then holds her down and rapes her on the couch any less immoral or dangerous or trustworthy than a guy breaks into a woman’s home, holds her down on the couch and rapes her?
Of course not! I have never said that some sorts of rape are not a violation. I have not said that any form of rape is okay…ever.
All that I am saying is the question posed in the OP that some rapes are “less wrong” than others. None are right, all are wrong, all are bad, all are traumatic, all are illegal.
But they are not all equal- that is why there are the distinctions “First Degree Rape” “Second Degree Rape” “third degree rape” etc.
So back to the OP then, in either example I’d be going for “First Degree Rape” as per these laws from wherever and quite frankly I can’t see the difference between the first and second degrees both say: (1) By force and against the will of the other person.
I still think “non violent rape” is being used as a code for “possibly or probably shouldn’t be called rape at all.”
I don’t think it should be called rape if a woman is drunk but awake and loudly consenting. It shouldn’t be called “non violent rape” if it isn’t rape. And if it is rape, then it isn’t non violent.
Is there any situation in which you would say “yes, I agree 100% that it was rape, but it was non-violent and less wrong.”?