robert, if I wasn’t married…
Naw, that’s a “you’re entirely too vile to be argued with”. Your little “grr bad don’t do this” shtick pushed it over the top.
So… you’re both retarded and prone to inchoate anger?
Come on Zerry, help me out here. I’m not sure if I should mock your utter stupidity or have sympathy for your plight.
I wish you would quit using that word.
I don’t know what it means.
It looks like its spelled wrong.
And it reminds me of that Indian dude from Star Trek Voyager.
None of these are good things.
Oh yeah, I can’t pronounce it either.
Heh. I’m sorry, it seems highly relevant with the few nutbars in this thread.
[
Thanks,
But that was mostly a joke son 
PS. I think Kate’s rape dar was kicking in there though.
Aw, shucks. Thank you.
Yeah, I know. I just couldn’t resist pointing out a bit more how the Rape Culture Posse prefers being permanently off the rails.
Some take every opportunity to claim that those who don’t agree with them are “supporting rape culture” or even being “apologists for rape”. Criticizing rapists in the strongest terms and then also saying that an 11 year old girl’s parents should have done more to protect her is seen as being insufficiently… rageful, I guess? Zeriel also decided that it was somehow minimalizing sexual assault to state that grouping ass-slapping together with rape invalidated the statistic.
So to head off the mouthbreaters at the pass, I made sure that to include a quick aside that sexual assault and ass-slapping was bad and you shouldn’t do it. Which Zeriel (his Rape Culture Posse badge still new and shiny) decided meant that he could rage a bit over how ‘vile’ that was.
I have no opinion on your rants other than to agree with the others that they are largely overly angry and content-free. But I must say I do like that word. Very Lovecraftian.
FinnAgain are you really arguing that coerced sex is not rape, as long as physical force wasn’t used? Have I understood you properly?
No, the fault lies in that FinnAgain posted one very brief and out-of-date (2006) summary report and assumed it was the end all be all. The 2009 data is available on the BJS website, here, even broken down by attempted and completed rapes.
*Rate of rape and sexual assault per 1,000 age 12 or older, 2009
All (Female)
Rape/sexual assault 0.5 (0.8)
Rape 0.3 (0.6)
Completed 0.1 (0.3)
Attempted 0.2 (0.3)
Sexual assault 0.2 (0.2)
Source: National Crime Victimization Survey *
Well I’ll put you down as a no on that, which doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
It’s generally a bad sign when your introductory claim is based on… less than accuracy. The cite I provided is, in fact, the full 2006 report. You can find it situated here, if for some reason you doubt the context. Nor was it some “brief” let alone “very brief”. This is the 2008 survey. This is the 2009 one. They’re all roughly the same length.
Astute readers will also notice that you did not provide a link to the list of under-reporting for rape, but the statistics for rape itself. Aside from trying to change the subject and arguing dishonestly, you’ve ignored the fact thatyour own cite shows that 2006 had a greater number of attempted and completed rapes than 2009 and 2009 is actually lower than any point in American history since the NCVS started. Ooops.
But let’s look at the actual 2009 NCVS, shall we? Why, what do you know, they still list the statistic as “rape/sexual assault”. And what’s more, Table 11 clearly shows that they’re talking about alleged unreported crimes, they again conflate the two categories and list it as “rape/sexual assault”.
Which would be a very good point, if that actually happened.
I pointed out the flaws in methodology that they used for their claims on the degree of under-reporting. People can also note that the NCVS Interviewing Manaual of Field Representatives is the exact same one I cited and quoted from.
Force or the threat of force is the general standard used. Psychological coercion, on the other hand, is hopelessly amorphous. Sexual harassment, an example already provided, is not rape, and not attempted rape. Psychological coercion is not a solid standard. Force, and the threat of force (producing a situation of duress), is. I’d hope it would be obvious as to why this is, but perhaps not. A husband, for instance, whose wife isn’t in the mood but tells her that he’ll do the dishes and take out the trash if she has sex anyways has used “psychological coercion”. A wife who tells her husband that she feels he’s not sexually interested in her and he better start having sex with her more often or she might file for divorce, she’s also used “psychological coercion.” A boss who tells his secretary that he’ll give her a raise if she blows him is using “psychological coercion”, too. Are you really arguing that those are instances or rape?
It’s not a trivial matter to have valid definitions when we’re discussing issues. Force, the threat of force, duress, acts that remove or occur without consent… those are what typify actual rape, and that’s part of why they’re so serious. “Psychologically coercing” someone to do something is not even in the same ballpark.
At the point where coercing someone psychologically becomes rape, then the definition has simply become too broad to be useful. Do you honestly and truly think that if a 16 year old boy tells his 16 year old girlfriend “Come on, we’ve been together for a while and this would let me know that you really care about me”, and she has sex with him, that *we should prosecute him as a rapist?
- What if it’s a girl who tells the guy that, same deal, prosecute her as a rapist? While we’re at it, do we prosecute them as adults, seeing as how rape is a serious crime? Or is psychological coercion not a good standard?
It’s okay, I’m sure if you ignore all the content they become content free. Very clever of you. Of course, being the one who’s cited the actual NCVS’s, provided the data, cited their methodology and interviewing guidelines, your claims seem, shall we say, more concerned with poking me with a stick than honest discussion.
Very clever of you, and unexpected.
Okay smarty pants. Enough of the “if you can’t guess why your stupid” routine.
You enlighten us as to why they group them together.
There’s no understanding. Only agreeing with, grasshopper.
Glad to be of service you lying troll.
In re-reading my contributions to this thread, “incohate rage” just about covers it. I had my first solid four hours of sleep in about a week this afternoon, and having re-read most of my contributions to the Dope during that time, I’m frankly embarassed about them, which were borderline idiotic especially in this thread.
So you bore the brunt of a week of infant-related severe insomnia, solely because you were there and to my sleep-addled brain, rageworthy. For that I apologize. I could blame the four-month-old, but that wouldn’t be sporting (and realistically, her teeth growing isn’t her fault either)
Let’s start this over with a definition of rape. Where are you getting yours when you talked about a “legal definition” earlier? If I were going to define it, I’d consider everything under the “Sexual Assault” and “Aggravated Sexual Assault” in the US code–I think coercive but non-violent sexual assault (such as your secretary example) is still rape. (in the US code, non-penetrative sexual assault is described as “Abusive Sexual Contact”).
I can answer that, although I didn’t really want to get into it.
Anyway, he got his definition from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, of course! That’s what he meant by “the federal statute.” Perfectly straightforward.
I liked Finnegans Wake a lot more when it was a whole bunch of imaginary words all mashed up together to make something meaningful, not the other way around.
[QUOTE=]
To such a suggestion the one selfrespecting answer is to affirm that there are certain statements which ought not to be, and one should like to hope to be able to add, ought not to be allowed to be made.
[/QUOTE]
The reason that sexual assault is lumped in with rape is because rape is generally defined as inserting a penis into a vagina without the consent of the owner of the vagina. That is, nonconsensual anal sex is not considered rape under this definition, nor is nonconsensual oral sex. Also, remember the story about the prisoner who had a plunger forced into his anus? In some states, that’s not considered rape, but sexual assault.
THAT’S why sexual assault and rape are lumped together. They’re the same kind of assault, it’s just that the legal definitions will vary from one state to another.
No Lynn, you are simply wrong. Not only on the state-to-state legal aspect, but on the NCVS’s own methodology they indicate that sexual assault in their terminology includes but is not limited to non-violent unwelcome embracing. Non-violent unwelcome embracing is not, by any means “the same kind of assault” as raping someone/sodomizing someone with a plunger. It just isn’t.
Anyways, Zeriel, good on you. That’s one of the more notable acts of class I’ve seen in my time on the Dope.
Those are two separate issues. Rape would be the use of force, or the threat of force to obtain anal, oral or vaginal penetration. Or that penetration with someone who can not consent for various reasons, or who does not consent to you and is tricked into such as identical twins ‘sharing’ a partner, or what have you.
On the second issue, IIRC, I mentioned the legal definition when I said that instead of feelings of violation, the survey should be using “the actual legal definition of sexual assault”. That varies by state. New York, for instance,has a series of offenses that range from sexual touching, on up.
[
](http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/sexual_assault.html)
Obviously with standards that vary that widely, and with the NCVS including everything from non-violent embracing on up, it makes it exceedingly difficult to discuss actual instances of rape.
If we’re looking at federal statutes, Title 18 is similar to the already cited Title 10 when it comes to defining rape/aggravated sexual abuse, in that it specifies that it has to be carried out “By Force or Threat” or by removing the potential for the victim to deny consent.
That’s a large part of the problem with the NCVS’s reporting methodology. If unwelcome non-violent embracing, slapping someone on the ass, groping someone, whatever, is in the same statistic as rape, then we have a muddled statistic. It also doesn’t identify many of the relevant issues of an actual rape. While someone slapping you on the ass is demeaning, perhaps even threatening, it doesn’t carry with it the risk of STD’s and pregnancy, for example.
Except then we’ve even further diluted the issue. A boss offers his secretary a raise if she provides sexual favors, but he certainly doesn’t use force or remove her ability to consent.
You’re right, full of dastardly trickery I linked to the specific part of the US Code that I was citing. Nefarious of me, but that’s the way I roll.
What, did you think that rape was a federal crime in and of itself?
Just so you know, when someone attempts to handwave away an argument as meaningless, when it’s well cited, fully elaborated and cogently reasoned, it’s not a rebuttal. It’s actually a pretty good indicator that person has no rebuttal, and has resorted to the Argument From Nuhn Unnh!!!
But that’s your call I guess.
There’s a movement away from defining rape as a separate offense, and towards including it as a gradation of sexual assault. This affects how statistics are gathered.