Is either of them going to call the police and press charges?
Holy shit! A mega bee!
flees
The “she was asking for it” is usually used sarcastically when the rape victim is blamed for the assault wrongly, I don’t think it applies when someone actually sets out to have sex.
Wait! There is no reason that bee and MegaBee cannot be friends!
Bee,
You’re not answering my question.
Your position is that it’s rape. Is it as simple as you put it or not? Would you be willing to act coherently with what you’ve said about what constitutes rape?
If you think it’s rape, you shouldn’t have a problem convicting them. You shouldn’t have to rely on people not pressing charges against what you’ve defined as a crime.
To answer your question, let’s say they do, because they share your definition of rape.
Screw that. Last thing I need is to be covered in mega bees. I’m outta here!
I’ve heard “she was asking for it” and synonymous phrases used seriously far too many times.
Then they’re arrested and it goes to trial. I’m not a judge. I’m not going to be convicting anyone.
So have I. And I will say that there are probably more occasions in which men wrongly get away with rape than there are of women wrongly accusing men of doing so. But if a person actually does ask for it – in words, of their own volition – then that person has not, by definition, been raped. Saying that the person has been raped practically robs the word of meaning.
Ah, I think I get it. You want to define rape in a very broad way to eliminate a spurious rape defense.
If what you want to do is eliminate spurious rape defenses, you can do that without adopting a ridiculously expansive definition of rape.
You likely think that it doesn’t pose a problem to have an overarching definition of rape because in non-abusive situations, people aren’t going to call the police and press charges, right?
To really make sure that we cover all bases and eliminate all spurious rape defenses, we could make any sex rape. That way, no rapist would ever be able to use a spurious defense. Overly broad, ridiculous and subject to abuse, you say? Oh come on, people are only going to call the police and press charges in abusive situations, so there’s nothing wrong with an overly expansive definition of rape.
Wtf, do you really not know that criminal trials are (often, depending on jurisdiction) in front of a jury and the jury decides the verdict?
Whether or not you would personally be in a position to convict someone in your life, I am asking you if you would act coherently with the legal definition you have provided.
If one of the parties feels they were raped, they were.
Easy as that.
No, I didn’t know that. You caught me.
It looks like you’re looking for a particular answer here. What is it?
Do you mean that in a psychological sense, which is to say that if someone feels they were raped, they should get sympathy? Because if you only mean it in that sense, I can see that point.
But do you mean to extend that to the legal realm? Do you really mean that as soon as someone feels they were raped, a court of law should consider that they were? Because if so, every single man who has shaken ZPGZealot’s hand would be sent to prison. Any person who was deranged or had serious issues could send people they have sex with in prison.
#1
Not rape.
#2
Not rape. If it is, I’m apparently a rape victim many times over.
#3
Clearly rape.
Hey, I have very few, if any, emotional issues from all those times I was #2 style raped - so, rape is no big deal? IMO, attempting to conflate situations #1 and #2 with #3 are doing a huge disservice to victims of actual rape.
What if both parties feel they were raped? In your definition, they were both raped by each other?
And in a world following your definition, would it be OK for both of them to press charges against each other for rape, and both end up in jail, for a consensual act that they later both felt was rape?
Do you want to live in such a world?
What if both parties call the police and press charges?
In your ideal world, how would the judicial system handle them? Would it be just for both to end up in jail because they had sex when both were drunk?
I have trouble seeing how that could happen.
And I wasn’t talking about in the legal sense. Laws, rules of evidence, etc are just society’s way of trying to find out what the truth is, given the fact that people lie.
But if, in their hearts, a person believes that what happened to them was rape, then that’s what it is.
Or, to put it another way: does the fact that OJ was found “not guilty” mean that he did not, in fact, kill his ex-wife and her friend? They’re still just as dead.
Similarly, the fact that someone may not be charged with rape, or there might not be enough evidence to prosecute, or they may be acquitted, doesn’t mean that there was no rape.
Yeah. Along those lines, if someone punches me and I don’t die, but I really believe I’m dead, does that mean I was murdered?