I have often read the words “raped to death,” especially in articles or stories about the “Rape of Nanking,” which details the truly horrible atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese invaders of the city of Nanking, China. Without going into too much detail, it was apparently a common practice for “many” Japanese soldiers to capture and basically gang rape a Chinese woman “to death.” This atrocity was always perpetrated with a maximum of violence; the women were beaten into submission with rifle butts and the like. They were also beaten sadistically during the course of the gang rape and in most cases, the death of the woman was as much a goal as the sexual gratification, if the act was indeed sexual. It seems to me that the death of the woman was made certain by the violence inflicted on her; horrific wounds were the norm, as was the fact that physical abuse was virtually non stop during the course of the rape. Even so, the distinction was always that the woman was “raped to death” and not “beaten to death.”
Thanks to the SDMB, my internet exposure has taught me there are things going on that I would not have credited. For instance, I have learned there are women who have willingly submitted to group sex with large (100+) numbers of men in attempts to win and hold the title of Gang Bang Queen of the World, or some such. I would imagine that these contests are conducted under very controlled circumstances and that the women in question are given breaks, kept hydrated, allowed to eat, drink, and rest as required.
If those amenities were removed and if the number of men was limitless, could or would a woman die as a result of constant or near constant sexual intercourse? (No other kind of sex act would take place)
There was recently an article on CNN’s webpage about the victims of sexual violence and warfare in Kenya. It talked about the kind of lasting injury many of these women have. For instance many of them are incontinent from the way tissues are torn during such a violent rape. I’d think that women raped to death could die from internal injuries, from bleeding, or from infected wounds. I also think you need to broaden your definition of rape. Sexual violence as a deliberate war tactic often includes penetration with objects as well as garden variety penile pentration.
Here’s a piece on vaginal fistula and other physical consequences of rape and gang rape in the Congo.
As pendgwen mentioned, if a man or group of men are willing to rape a woman, I doubt it’s usually a matter of missionary sex. Even then, she is not a willing partner. Everything conducive to pleasurable sex – muscle response, adequate lubrication – is likely missing. The alternate definition of rape – assault with a blunt weapon – is particularly useful here.
It should be noted when discussing Iris Chang’s book that most historians take it with a grain of salt. She has a tendency to overestimate absolutely every number given to her (she says 2 million dead, most sources say anywhere from 200,000 to maybe 700,000, etc) Still a good read, just understand her numbers are out of whack
I’ve mentioned elsewhere that my late mother-in-law was a little girl in China during the Japanese occupation. She was born in 1929 or 1930, I think. I was told her family cut her hair short and disguised her as a little boy, because the Japanese soldiers were raping all the other little girls.
I thought I had made it clear that no violence was involved and the woman in my example was not injured in any way other than by being deprived of food and drink. Not being injured would, I would think, automatically remove the possibility of inserting any kind of foreign object and I’m not at all sure why you assumed the question I asked had anything whatsoever to do with rape as a war tactic.
Please read the OP before you post. Thank you. That being said, how the hell did bukkake creep into my example? So far, you are the only jerkoff who has mentioned it. I sure as hell didn’t and it has no part whatever in the question I asked.
The misinterpretation of my question and the apparently deliberate modifications of the conditions I set forth are making me sicker than you, believe me.
If I may be allowed, the OP had to do with the result of constant or very nearly constant sexual intercourse that would take place over an unspecified period of time.
I specified that no other type of sexual act would take place and I specified that the woman in question would not be injured in order to secure her participation; If her willingness to participate is an issue, let’s just assume that she volunteered while in her right mind, was not coerced and was fully aware of what she was getting herself into and was completely willing to participate. Her motives are unknown and the probability of this ever actually happening in real life is zero.
The question is this: If a woman subjected herself willingly to having uninterrupted sexual intercourse with an infinite number of men over some unspecified period of time, would death result solely as a consequence of the act of sexual intercourse or not?
This is slightly off-topic (forgive me LouisB), but in my understanding of warfare historically, apart from seizing lands and looting for bootie etc, one of the ‘spoils’ of war was the systematic raping of the indigenous women…not so much for the immediate sexual gratification of the invading troops (although that was always a bonus), but in order to impregnate the women with invaders sperm, thus assuring their continued racial and genetic domination of the region.
So, the act of killing women by raping them to death would seem to defeat that purpose in that they would not bear the offspring of the invading armies wouldn’t it?
If you are deliberately suggesting that I kill myself because I posed a question that you found offensive then I believe you are way out of line and quite possibly guilty of violating one or more of the SDMB rules.
If you are suggesting that I kill myself because you thought such a response would be amusing, I don’t find it amusing at all.
As was mentioned above, eventually (all other things being OK) the abrasive action of a penis rubbing against a vaginal wall (because natural lubrication would dry up sooner rather than later) would create lesions and bleeding that would eventually cause the victim to bleed out. IMHO, anyway, IANAGynaecologist or anything, but logic prevails I guess.
