[QUOTE=Duke of Rat]
No, but clicking on the link in my post would explain why I asked it.
[/QUOTE]
I was referring to VC03’s question. Because if you have a camera on your head then you wouldn’t be able to…oh never mind.
[QUOTE=Crotalus]
That wasn’t him.
[/QUOTE]
Oh. I apologize for my total lack of accuracy there.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Again, in what way is that different from the standard definition?
[/QUOTE]
Well, judging from his post, VC03’s definition seemed to include the notion that women can’t be lubricated if they don’t want to have sex, and that they can’t feel pleasurable sensations if they don’t want to have sex, and that penetration is not possible without lubrication. I don’t think he’s questioning the basics of the definition of forced sex, he is questioning his own understanding of the physiological details.
Perhaps this was a poorly worded post on his part, but I do not automatically assume he is trying to piss people off. I try to give these kinds of questions the benefit of the doubt in order to compensate for any emotional bias I might have on the matter.
[QUOTE=olivesmarch4th]
Well, judging from his post, VC03’s definition seemed to include the notion that women can’t be lubricated if they don’t want to have sex, and that they can’t feel pleasurable sensations if they don’t want to have sex, and that penetration is not possible without lubrication. I don’t think he’s questioning the basics of the definition of forced sex, he is questioning his own understanding of the physiological details.
[/QUOTE]
As well as asking if it has ever actually happened. Not how, not why, but if. Stupid, offensive, rude, and idiotic. No way anyone would seriously question whether rapes actually occur based on a flawed understanding of physiology. No way. It doesn’t pass the sniff test.
[QUOTE=rayh]
I was referring to VC03’s question. Because if you have a camera on your head then you wouldn’t be able to…oh never mind.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe with a little aftermarket lube on the camera?
And put me in the camp of “he knows exactly what rape is, but didn’t think a penis could penetrate a un-willing, un-lubed vagina, therefore rape is impossible”.
Maybe his dick don’t get very hard, I don’t know.
[QUOTE=Anaamika]
If you think that is being a “bitch” and a “total dickhead” then I can only think that you don’t open the Pit very much! I wasn’t intending to be bitchy about it, just a little bit…firm, I guess, pun unintended. Neither did I say I was “surprised”, just a little bit frightened, and neither did I get any of those facts from a book, necessarily, just from my own experiences and from other women. I just think it’s a very good thing to know if you’re involved in any kind of sexual relationship with a woman - that she can be dry and aroused, and wet and unaroused.
All that being said, I certainly didn’t mean to come off as a bitch, and I’m sorry about that. I’ve got nothing against you as a poster and I don’t like being rude. My apologies.
[/QUOTE]
No problem. People around here tend to get jumpy when somebody doesn’t know something, which I guess is understandable considering the medium, but not everybody has the same experiences in life. I have had many relationships, and while I know sometimes my SO is aroused and not wet, I have never seen the reverse. I’ve never thought to ask if the reverse was true either. So I’m 30 and don’t know that (well, now I do). I’m sure there are quite a few guys that don’t know that. Probably no women. IME women tend to be more secretive than men when it comes to bodily functions. I don’t see why it is frightening that a guy doesn’t know that, I’m sure there is a something about guys physiology you don’t know.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
As well as asking if it has ever actually happened. Not how, not why, but if. Stupid, offensive, rude, and idiotic. No way anyone would seriously question whether rapes actually occur based on a flawed understanding of physiology. No way. It doesn’t pass the sniff test.
[/QUOTE]
I just… I don’t think the question was whether rapes actually occur. I think the question was whether rapes as VC03 understood them actually occur.
I don’t think your interpretation is all that unreasonable, I was just trying to explain why I came to a different conclusion.
I don’t mind people being jumpy on the subject, it is sensitive.
**VCO3 ** doesn’t hesitate to bring up a touchey subject which is easy to offend, while at the same time having factual murkiness [for a lot of men who have never, and will never rape a woman]. He could have a bit more tact, but he was far from being a troll. I think he get’s a bad rap for his short fuse and sharp tongue, but if you search for his posts rather than just read his OP’s in his threads he’s really not a bad guy. Just someone who likes to rant. And in this case someone who wasn’t afraid to ask a question about a terrible act about something he could never commit himself so it was confusing to him.
Just MHO.
[QUOTE=Epimetheus]
I don’t see why it is frightening that a guy doesn’t know that, I’m sure there is a something about guys physiology you don’t know.
[/QUOTE]
Glad we’re on the same page. The reason why I said it was frightening to both men and women is I was thinking of the following things:
- Woman isn’t enjoying sex. She is getting wet, though, so man thinks she is.
- Woman isn’t enjoying sex. She is getting wet, so she wonders - what’s wrong with me?
- Woman wants sex but is dry as a bone. She wonders - what is wrong with me?
- A rape is occuring, perhaps a date rape. She’s getting wet, so man thinks she must be enjoying it.
Etc. ad nauseum.
And it was frightening to me, as I said. It’s a little hard to explain but this isn’t something I just knew instinctively either. I only learned it a few years ago myself. I guess my comment is better phrased as such:
“In the year 2007, we know so little about human sexuality as a whole that we still think arousal=moisture. What does that say about how successful our sexual interactions are?”
[QUOTE=Anaamika]
“In the year 2007, we know so little about human sexuality as a whole that we still think arousal=moisture. What does that say about how successful our sexual interactions are?”
[/QUOTE]
Ah, I understand. Sorry for the confusion. I suppose it is frightening. My apologies for my knee-jerk assumption that you were saying I was ignorant of something that is very much common knowledge (thereby making me seem an ignorant clod).
[QUOTE=bigbabysweets2000]
**VCO3 ** doesn’t hesitate to bring up a touchey subject which is easy to offend, while at the same time having factual murkiness [for a lot of men who have never, and will never rape a woman]. He could have a bit more tact, but he was far from being a troll. I think he get’s a bad rap for his short fuse and sharp tongue, but if you search for his posts rather than just read his OP’s in his threads he’s really not a bad guy. Just someone who likes to rant. And in this case someone who wasn’t afraid to ask a question about a terrible act about something he could never commit himself so it was confusing to him.
[/QUOTE]
I agree and I thought the OP implied several good avenues for discussion.
For instance, does the legal definition of rape encompass other acts besides penetration? (I assume it probably does, since “assault” now includes non-physical acts, rendering the word meaningless IMO.) If so, what proportion of rapes involve our traditional idea of rape (actual penetration), and what proportion are ‘other’?
I’m actually sorry that I started this thread.
When I read it, it struck me in the same way as the 1998 Italian court verdict (scroll down to "about Denim Day) in which the Head Judge stated that a woman can’t have been raped if she had been wearing pants that were difficult to remove because she would have had to assist in the removal of the pants, thus consenting to sex. It seemed like a similarly weird way to try to understand what is and is not rape.
I apologize if I read anything into the question that was not intended to be there, although it certainly seems that I am not alone in that.
[QUOTE=lorene]
I’m actually sorry that I started this thread.
When I read it, it struck me in the same way as the 1998 Italian court verdict (scroll down to "about Denim Day) in which the Head Judge stated that a woman can’t have been raped if she had been wearing pants that were difficult to remove because she would have had to assist in the removal of the pants, thus consenting to sex. It seemed like a similarly weird way to try to understand what is and is not rape.
I apologize if I read anything into the question that was not intended to be there, although it certainly seems that I am not alone in that.
[/QUOTE]
You’re not alone. To try to dress it up as a great debate thread is ridiculous. It is a foul and violent act committed for ones gratification by the degradation of another. That an adult in this day and age doesn’t understand that says a lot about the society we live in.
crap. Forgot the period.
I’ve read that many rapists do not ejaculate and that those who do often ejaculate almost immediately upon penetration and that penetration is often only partial in any case. Lubrication or otherwise thus probably wouldn’t much factor into it.
[QUOTE=Anaamika]
Fighting ignorance here:
A woman can get wet without being even a tiny bit aroused, is that clear enough? Her body will naturally lubricate but her mind can be totally uninvolved with the situation. This is why a lot of women can get into sex and enjoy it, etc., but don’t come just from the sex itself, and from this stems a lot of the guilt about rape, i.e., “I was wet so I must have enjoyed it, what a terrible person I am.” Nuh-uh. That’s just a natural reaction and doesn’t necessarily correlate to enjoying it.
That there are men (and women) in the year 2007 who don’t know this frightens me a little. As for raping a woman when she’s dry, I don’t see a damn thing preventing it - it’s happened throughout the centuries and continues even now.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I’ll put my hand up to acknowledge that I wasn’t really aware of these specifics (I know how it works during proper sexual arousal) - and I have once or twice wondered how the mechanics of coerced intercourse must actually work, but I drew the conclusion that there must be some factor of which I was ignorant, rather than doubting the whole phenomenon…
[QUOTE=Omegaman]
To try to dress it up as a great debate thread is ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
It was in GQ, not GD. I wouldn’t nitpick but it seems relevant to the question of VC03’s intent.
Well hell, since we’re on the subject: girls, do you ever get wet on the bus or riding in a car? Because as a man, those activities can be quite uncomfortable sometimes…
[QUOTE=VCO3]
Another poster actually PM’ed me with a great response that answered the question perfectly:
To answer a different way, a lot of confusion about matters like rape stem from the fact that the body is going to respond sexually whether the brain wants it to or not. Someone else hinted in a GD thread about this: ‘‘Emotional impact of rape on victims’’ or something along those lines. This is true of men as well as women. If someone punches you in the face, no amount of mental gymnastics will make it stop hurting. Likewise, if a body is touched in a sexual way, it responds, no stopping it no matter how much you don’t want it to react.
That’s exactly the sort of answer that I was soliciting, and I’m perfectly satisfied and feel more educated on the subject.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I don’t know who your source was but I wonder if they are speaking from experience? Because I find that while the above might possibly be true in some cases, I don’t think it’s true in even the majority of cases.
I speak from experience. My body damn sure did NOT respond sexually. Nope, not even a twinge. And I wouldn’t have felt a bit guilty if it had, I know the difference.
This entire thread is frightening to me. I think there are a lot of people that need to do a lot of googling or book buying on human sexuality. Quickly. Or keep asking questions.
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
Well hell, since we’re on the subject: girls, do you ever get wet on the bus or riding in a car? Because as a man, those activities can be quite uncomfortable sometimes…
[/QUOTE]
Yes. I’ve also gotten wet from taking a bite of a really good ham sandwich.
Really, it’s a good thing that it isn’t outwardly obvious because it’s happening all the time, for silly reasons that have very, very little to do with sex.
[QUOTE=Cattitude]
Well, I don’t know who your source was but I wonder if they are speaking from experience? Because I find that while the above might possibly be true in some cases, I don’t think it’s true in even the majority of cases.
I speak from experience. My body damn sure did NOT respond sexually. Nope, not even a twinge. And I wouldn’t have felt a bit guilty if it had, I know the difference.
[/QUOTE]
I think it depends on what’s happening. In a lot of cases of sexual assault/rape, the assailant is actively trying to inflict pain or discomfort, so it’s kind of hard to imagine how one would feel pleasure. Then again, in other contexts, I’ve experienced some sexual roughness. I think the important thing is context.
I also experience turned on feeling when I’m not necessarily mentally in the mood. When I’m ovulating, often, no matter how unsexy I may feel in my head, my vulva wants it pretty bad. I usually end up…uh, self-abusing, but it’s definitely a physical need. I suppose it’s my internal inner clock saying “GET PREGGRES NOW.” At other times, like if I see a really sexy scene in a movie or on TV, or have a hot, hot dream, I find myself getting turned on in my mind, emotionally/mentally. They’re pretty easily divorced, it seems.
As worded I can’t see the question as anything but trolling. Sorry.
Now if he had asked “Is “rape” - my defintion of a man attacking a woman and, as she struggles, engaging in penetrative vaginal sex against her will - a common thing?” then I’d see a question. But GD?