(I think someone mentioned this in an earlier post). Raping is a power and control thing… not a sex thing.
Thank you, Bear. I mentioned this. And Wring asked me for my sources. To me (and, I presume, to you), it’s “common knowledge” or “common sence”, like “people seek sexual gratification because it’s pleasurable”. But lawyers like to demand explanations well known things, like Clinton demanded the definition of “is”.
** Union of an object or body part with the anus is just battery though.** BTW, sticking a broom handle up someone’s ass is ‘sexual battery’ in Florida.
To my feeble mind (I ain’t a lawyer) these two statesments contradict each other, unless “broom handle” is not an "object, or “ass” is not “anus”.
Half way up this page I explained why anything done to a man’a anus (“ass”) is not sexual. You seems to agree, and then call it “sexual” again. An unfortunate mistake?
Even getting aroused does not mean consent, but I don’t think im stretching too much in thinking that Hail Ants is not a guy, or at least not a normal one.
Though from what I’ve heard guys actually perform better under circumstances of rape.(ie like 4 women with weapons stand over him and force him to perform.) However you know if you went by Hail Ants standards any woman who was in the least bit attracted to the guy who raped her it was consentual. So lets just throw out rape laws all together.
I feel that you have this all wrong. Allow me to direct you to this: How to rape a man
(link removed by moderator
note: the SDMB frowns upon the inclusion of links that give instructions on how to commit an illegal act, and violent acts are especially reprehensible IMHO
Your right Tuba, my reaction may have been a little over the top. I did not really pay much attention to which forum that I was posting in; I’ll try to be little more sensitive next time. But as far as the argument with the autonomic vs. CNS, it still stands, and I think that Hail is wrong.
I did not even know that he was a male, I just did not bother to read the entire post.
Now, knowing that he is a male, I wonder how he could think that it is possible for males to subdue erections anytime that they wish.
Where are you getting this from? I can think of several common sexual practices that involve the male anus. (that are also employed by heterosxual men) There are several books on the subject if you’re interested in correct information…
I can think of several common sexual practices that involve the male anus
Please, what are you thinking off? I can think of one which is not very common, but the thrill comes not from a physical action per se, but from the entire setup (I keep talking about heterosexual situation). More or less the same or very similar as from sticking the tongue in her mouth (i.e., she is thrilled because she let him inside one of her private orifices).
I cannot confirm my negative statement (“not sexul”). In every book “anorectum” is desribed as defecatin structure, not sexual (as the eye is described as visual structure, not sexual, despite the fact, that the eye can see partner’s sexual organs. Well, actually the brain through the eye). I wuold be very interested to learn about alledged “sexuality” of the anorectum. If you’d post short quotes here, they must clearly indicate that the piece relates not to homosexual anorectum.
The entire thrust of your post is rather ambigiuous. First, you talk about “…common sexual practices that involve the male anus.”. In the same sentence you parenthetically notice that these practices are aso employed by heterosexual men. If you mean that they are common in homosexual men, it does not belong here, as this thread is about heterosexual rape.
And my comment on another subject touched upon here: penile erection, despite what pornliterature may claim, is totally unvoluntary. Of course, it needs to be present for any peno-vaginal intercourse. Like men, women have other means for sexual gratification (even more than men). “Rape” is a means of expressing agression, revenge, etc., but not sexual desire. Again, do not quote porn literature for confirming the opposite. Any scientific facts are welcome.
This is one of the oldest lines in the book, and yet it’s false. Rape very often IS a sex thing; the notion that it isn’t is a political urban myth of fairly recent vintage.
That isn’t to say that “power and control” aren’t part of the sometimes fairly complex motivations to commit rape, but the notion that rape has nothing to do with sexual desire is silly. Someone who drugs his date with rohypnol and rapes her while she’s unconscious is probably more interested in getting his rocks off than exerting “power and control.” Indeed, the expression of power and control is often the catalyst for sexual gratification.
Alessan, if you huh me, I never said “isn’t” rape, I said “is not sex”. Rape is judicial term. It might differ from county to county.
I knowknow that raping lesbians is not OK, but you are the one who introduced lesbians here. In most women anorectum is a secondary sexual zone, like breasts. In some more, in some less. I never read that lesbians are different in this regard. What do you know?
Rick, this ain’t “political urban myth”. It’s called “sociological psychology”. Perhaps, you are confusing Hollywood images, like scenes from “Postman always rings twice” or “The Last Tango in Paris” (both are excellent films, BTW) with rape. In other words, rape and violent (consentual) sex are different.
If you have money and self-confidence, you’d take a girl for a dinner and then will have sex with her. If you have neither, you’ll give her whatever would make her unconscious and then will have sex with her. Or masturbate, while she is asleep naked.
Rapists rape young attractive girls and not so young and attractive, even 85 y olds, whoever happens to be near.
The other two guys are lawyers. What’s your experience? For this MB?
Just re-looked up my state’s statutes In their wording they use words like “victim” and “person”, without gender identifiers. The other terms they use are “sexual penetration” and “sexual contact”. The bodily areas include “breast, mouth, vagina, buttocks, anus” etc. So, sticking your elbow in some one’s ear would probably fall under “assault & battery” (unlawful touching), vs. sexual contact.
So, from the definitions, it is entirely possible for a female to rape a male. If, for example, the woman commited fellatio (the erectness of the penis would not be an issue), this act could constitute CSC according to MI law, involving sexual penetration (the penis in the mouth), which, depending on other circumstances, may be CSC 1st or CSC 3rd.
And, peace as far as ‘if they stuck the guy’s ass and as long as it wasn’t sex to him…’ wouldn’t matter, in my state. (by the way, I’m female, not a lawyer, work with ex offenders in community rehabilitation efforts)
I mis remembered the “for means of sexual gratification” part - it simply talks of sticking things in various orifices or the touching of certain areas. It would be CSC if you touched a breast, but not an elbow for example.
Specifics : Here
Are you sure? Im pretty sure that’s not it; but its “any unwanted touching”…had a lawyer tell me that & its not the same thing as you said.
BTW, it actually happened here near the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey many years back. A guy said that he went on a date with three women and later they sexual assaulted him.
Of course, then there was the male peanut who got attacked by the female peanut. He was a salted.
Sticking the broom handle UP the ass or into it would be penetration. Penetration of the anus is a sexual battery. However, ‘union’ of an object and the anus (just touching the outside) is only a battery.
Handy, ya know, I had to read your post several times before I realized that I typed ‘unlawful’. DUH!! Unwanted is definitely what I meant to say. Thanks for pointing that one out.
{b] Alessan: Peace, as I understand from your previous posts, anally assaulting a man is not sex, unless that man is a homosexual.**
Both clauses are correct, i.e. anal assault is assault, not sex, regardless of sexual proclivity of the victim. See below.
Alessan: So by the same logic, vaginally assaulting a woman is not sex, unless that woman is heterosexual.
Assaulting a woman, vaginally or otherwise, is assalt, not sex. Inserting whatever she asks you into her vagina (or any other body orifice) is “sex”.
As far as I understand, “rape”, “battery”, assault" are judicial terms. If a man or a woman is struck on the head, it’s an “assault”.
If she is manipulated in or around her genitals or breasts (her primary or secondary organs), it’s called “sexual assalt”.*
Some female rape victims may experience purely physiologic pleasure during the intercouse. It makes them feel guilty and sometimes, unwilling to press charges, etc. It does not make the rape a pleasurable psychological experience. Consensual anorectal intercorse may be pleasurable to some women more, than to others, but it’s unpleasurable to any heterosexsual men, who may tolerate anorectal penetration (doctor’s digital exam), but never enjoy it. Therefore, from the victim’s point of view, anorectal penetration, with a penis or a broomstick, is not “sexual” assault. From the law"s persrective, or a homosexual assailant perspective, it may be “sexsual”. I think that a gay, assaulted by other gays, will not psychologically enjoy the intercourse (like a woman). Wether there might be a physiological component, I do not know.
I ask lawyers and other guys and gals to correct me on that. To me “an assault” is an assault, regardless of body parts involved. All assaults are equally painful to the victim. The threshold of pain is lower in and around the genitals than on the head. The punishment is perhaps different. But it’s still an assault, not “sex”. To me, "sex’, without qualifiers, is consensual sex. When I see “forcible sex”, it means “rape”, i.e., non-consentual sex. Therefore, it’s an “assualt”, physical, if acccompanied by pain, or psychological, if the victim is subdued by threats.
First off let me say that I’ve ignored the various gay issues posts because I don’t think they concern my post.
Asmodean:
That’s not what I said at all. I made no mention of what constitues a man raping a women. I believe that a women can so no at any time.
KellyM
What can I say? This only happens in John Irving novels.
again KellyM
This only happens in Bridget Fonda mo-. Sorry. This is certainly morally wrong but does not, in my mind, make the women guilty of rape. Rape is a crime of violence. You can’t be raped on a technicality.
Well, duh. Rape is different from consensual sex in that it isn’t consensual.
Saying it’s different from consensual sex - which is it definition - is not the same as stating that rape is not a sexual act. Of course it’s a sexual act; it’s sexual by definition. The post I was replying to, Bear_nenno’s, claimed that rape (in general, meaning all rape) was NOT ABOUT sexual gratification, which was what I was skeptical of.
Apparently, Hail Ants, you aren’t aquainted with the legal definition of rape at all.
Violence isn’t a necessary element of rape. Lack of consent is all that decides the issue.
Dropping Rohypnol into someone’s drink, taking them home, and then having sex with that person while he/she is unconcious does not involve violence, but it certainly is rape.
Threatening to release private details of a person’s life unless given sex isn’t violent, but it is blackmail and rape.
Having sex with a person under the age of consent isn’t violent, but it is rape.
I could go on and on suggesting scenarios, but the point, Hail Ants, is that you have a . . . unique perspective on this matter that matches neither legal or commonly socially accepted understanding of what rape is.
peace: *Consensual anorectal intercorse may be pleasurable to some women more, than to others, but it’s unpleasurable to any heterosexsual men, who may tolerate anorectal penetration (doctor’s digital exam), but never enjoy it. *
??? No heterosexual men ever enjoy anorectal penetration? peace, I don’t know how that assertion got into the place you pulled it out of, but at least I can be sure that you didn’t enjoy it!
Also, I think your attempts to reserve the term “sex” for consensual sex are doomed to failure. Terms like “sexual assault”, “sexual battery”, “non-consensual sex”, and so forth have widely understood and accepted meanings, both legally and in common usage. You’re not likely to get very far insisting that they’re inaccurate according to your own personal definition of “sex”.
(BTW, I always find it useful to remember that the correct spelling of “consensual”, which looks unnecessarily naughty at first glance, comes from the fact that the word is more closely related to “consensus” than to “consent”.)
Rick, that’s OK. There are things which we easily understand, and things that we do not. For instance, I understand about rape, but I do not get the Bing Bang theory. But I will try one more time. Listen close.
If you are extremely horny and want to knock somebody, you start and at some point, she might resist. Verbally and/or physically. Any man, even you, is able to stop*. If you proceed, it is because you made conscious decision to have sex with her and want to show her who is the boss here. You want to show her that you are one strong determined individual. But actually, you can stop at any time. You can even insert and withdraw. In mid stroke. I’ve “never heard” of it. Go see you friendly doctor. Because something is very wrong with you. Your erection is involuntary. Command or even pain cannot stop it. Sexual intercourse is a voluntary act (like eating), is totally under cortical control. Inability to stop any action started at will may mean very serious condition. Brain tumor, perhaps. Do a check up.
*Compare, if you will, with yourself drowning and trying to reach the surface from the bottom. Something (current, weight) pulls you down. You try to go up and nothing can stop you. That’s the difference. Capisce?
