[Sensitive topic] Victim culpability in rape

[CplFerro]

I asked this at a Catholic forum and had the message erased. My question is, if someone is raped, and they enjoyed it a little bit, and/or "helped" in the rape instead of fighting or passively resisting, do they have to go to confession?

[Safe-Keeper]

* Safe-Keeper recognizes can of worms he's been through repeatedly before, and leaves thread.

[Pure Argent]

Why wouldn't they? They have to go for normal sex. At least, they're supposed to. I don't think anyone actually does.

[Piscivore]

I don't recognise the authority of the Church, so whatever silly little rules govern their superstition are irrelevant.

The only person the victim is responsible to is her(him)self.

[Thunder]

i do not understand how someone could or would want to have sex with someone who is begging them not to. I just don't see that as being pleasurable at all.

[HeyLeroy]

Can you point to any instance of rape where the victim claimed to enjoy it? Do you know anyone who has been a victim of rape?

I do.

What a ridiculous question.

[Piscivore]

Can you point to any instance of rape where the victim claimed to enjoy it?

Not outside porn. Or Ayn Rand.

[Cavemonster]

I'd say probably.
Look at the Muslim reation to rape, they'll often engage in "honor killing" of the victim.

The whole idea of sin across abrahamic religion is about ritual purity, it only roughly equates to being a good person in practical, real ways.

The catholic church would rather have a child (from a rape) with severe birth defects born to know nothing but pain and bankrupt the mother before dying in pain than allow an abortion.

So I wouldn't at all be surprised if they held the victim as tainted in their eyes, but specifically, ask a priest if you want the answer, it's all more or less arbitrary.

[bookitty]

I asked this at a Catholic forum and had the message erased. My question is, if someone is raped, and they enjoyed it a little bit, and/or "helped" in the rape instead of fighting or passively resisting, do they have to go to confession?

How do you get "helped" & "enjoyed it" in a discussion of rape? Rape is sexual assault without consent. I have to wonder why you would ask this question in the first place.

[HansMustermann]

Well, sad to say, it seems to me that a lot of people think a rape victim would enjoy it.

I'm going to use the aberration known as "corrective rape" as an example again. In which someone rapes a lesbian, apparently based on the retarded idea that it would amply prove that a man does it better and turn her heterosexual. Apparently even if it involves beating her black and blue in the process. Go figure.

I can't imagine what kind of confusion of mind would cause the idea that a thoroughly traumatic event would be enjoyable, but maybe that's just me.

[Mason]

Not to put words into his mouth, but I assume "Help" would be something along the lines of not fighting back to avoid being brutalized further, or not knowing what to do and being very confused and afraid so just going along with it out of fear instead of screaming for help. "Enjoy" might mean that while emotionally traumatic, there may have been some physical pleasure or even climax, even if the victim didn't go along with it.

I think these are reasonable assumptions for what he meant and go along with the OP's apparent intent.

[bookitty]

Not to put words into his mouth, but I assume "Help" would be something along the lines of not fighting back to avoid being brutalized further, or not knowing what to do and being very confused and afraid so just going along with it out of fear instead of screaming for help. "Enjoy" might mean that while emotionally traumatic, there may have been some physical pleasure or even climax, even if the victim didn't go along with it.

I think these are reasonable assumptions for what he meant and go along with the OP's apparent intent.

It's true that human sexuality and all the emotional variations that go with it could lead to a circumstance in which a rape victim felt that they had helped. Fear can cause the body to react in strange ways. So a rape victim might feel as if their body had responded in a positive way.

But the question is does a rape victim who experiences one of these even more traumatic variations need to go to confession? In other words, do they need to take responsibility for their part in the attack? No, of course not. They are not guilty of their own rape, regardless of what happened.

I do wish I knew more about the OP and why they are asking. It would completely change the tone of the question.

[Sun Countess]

Doesn't society as a whole make (many) rape victims feel horrible enough already, because of what they were wearing, or where they were waiting, or because they didn't fight back hard enough? Now someone thinks that these crime victims should admit to their priests that they're filthy sinning whores? Confession sounds like one big guilt-fest, designed to make one feel crappy and worthless, so I suppose the church might think there's some merit in the OP's disgusting suggestion.

In the same way, somebody who doesn't properly fight off a mugger should go to confession because he "helped" someone else commit the sin of stealing.

[Mason]

It's true that human sexuality and all the emotional variations that go with it could lead to a circumstance in which a rape victim felt that they had helped. Fear can cause the body to react in strange ways. So a rape victim might feel as if their body had responded in a positive way.

But the question is does a rape victim who experiences one of these even more traumatic variations need to go to confession? In other words, do they need to take responsibility for their part in the attack? No, of course not. They are not guilty of their own rape, regardless of what happened.

I do wish I knew more about the OP and why they are asking. It would completely change the tone of the question.

I think the question is "Where is the line between sin and innocence?"

Woman goes to bar, intent on one-nighter with the first guy who buys her a drink. First guy turns out to be best man at a bachelor party. Woman loses count somewhere in the teens. High end of sex spectrum.

12 year-old girl who hasn't noticed boys yet. Babysits for the neighbors to save up for confirmation gown. Man comes home, knocks her out with a brick, has his way with her. Low end of sex spectrum.

The OP seems to be asking where along the "sex" spectrum does a particular act no longer count as a sin, and whether that point is located somewhere in the "nonconsent" area of the spectrum.

[slingblade]

There are times when I find I don't like being of the same species as some members of my species.


This would be one of those times.

[lionking]

There are no gradations of rape. The OP is ridiculous.

[JJM 777]

I asked this at a Catholic forum and had the
message erased.
They are so busy erasing any mention of pedophilia in(side) the church (buildings), they may accidentally censor also other topics.

My question is, if someone is raped, and they enjoyed it a little bit, and/or "helped" in the rape instead of fighting or passively resisting, do they have to go to confession?
"Confession" is the Catholic equivalent of a therapy session at psychologist. It is a good idea, but certainly no obligation, for a rape victim to have a therapy session at a qualified psychiatrist. Preferably non-Catholic, I would advise.

There are no gradations of rape. The OP is ridiculous.
What is a "rape", and what is very strong-willed and persistent petition to have sex... the line is not always clear. Someone is simply raped with brute force. Someone is threatened with violence, and she fully cooperates to avoid violence. Someone receives dirty suggestions in private and already erotic circumstances, and next morning the two have different memories about whether she actually agreed to sex or not.

In court the proof is often in words only, word against word, which in civilized world should never justify a penalty, unless there is other proof of the involuntary nature of the act than words only. Because of the practical difficulty of proving that a sex act was actually an involuntary rape, entering private and erotic circumstances with a person whom you don't want to have sex with is a risky thing to do.

[SezMe]

Why wouldn't they? They have to go for normal sex. At least, they're supposed to. I don't think anyone actually does.
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

[SezMe]

Woman goes to bar, intent on one-nighter with the first guy who buys her a drink. First guy turns out to be best man at a bachelor party. Woman loses count somewhere in the teens. High end of sex spectrum.

12 year-old girl who hasn't noticed boys yet. Babysits for the neighbors to save up for confirmation gown. Man comes home, knocks her out with a brick, has his way with her. Low end of sex spectrum.

The OP seems to be asking where along the "sex" spectrum does a particular act no longer count as a sin, and whether that point is located somewhere in the "nonconsent" area of the spectrum.
There is no connection between rape and sex (in the consensual context). The OP, as already stated, ridiculous. It displays a lack of knowledge about sex.

[bookitty]

They are so busy erasing any mention of pedophilia in(side) the church (buildings), they may accidentally censor also other topics.


"Confession" is the Catholic equivalent of a therapy session at psychologist. It is a good idea, but certainly no obligation, for a rape victim to have a therapy session at a qualified psychiatrist. Preferably non-Catholic, I would advise.


What is a "rape", and what is very strong-willed and persistent petition to have sex... the line is not always clear. Someone is simply raped with brute force. Someone is threatened with violence, and she fully cooperates to avoid violence. Someone receives dirty suggestions in private and already erotic circumstances, and next morning the two have different memories about whether she actually agreed to sex or not.

In court the proof is often in words only, word against word, which in civilized world should never justify a penalty, unless there is other proof of the involuntary nature of the act than words only. Because of the practical difficulty of proving that a sex act was actually an involuntary rape, entering private and erotic circumstances with a person whom you don't want to have sex with is a risky thing to do.

And what proof is good enough? A black eye, a neighbor heard screaming?

Are you aware that the common advice to women is to be quiet and take it? Rape is about power. Fighting a rapist can get you killed because it is an escalating battle for control. And if you don't fight, then people will assume that you "helped" or "liked it." Seems like there's an awful lot of rules for women when it comes to being raped.

Rape is a horrific crime. So why are there so many discussions in which people trip all over themselves defending some hypothetical rapist? You always see the "if the woman is drunk, or was flirting..." side but you never see a question like "If a guy takes advantage of a woman who is drunk, should he turn himself in?"

[lionking]

What is a "rape", and what is very strong-willed and persistent petition to have sex... the line is not always clear. Someone is simply raped with brute force. Someone is threatened with violence, and she fully cooperates to avoid violence. Someone receives dirty suggestions in private and already erotic circumstances, and next morning the two have different memories about whether she actually agreed to sex or not.



Unwilling sex is rape. Clear?

[Sabrina]

i do not understand how someone could or would want to have sex with someone who is begging them not to. I just don't see that as being pleasurable at all.

For the rapist, it is about the power over their intended victim; it's not about the sex. They achieve sexual pleasure via the act of dominating another; they get off on the idea that they are forcing this person to do something they do not want to do and violating them in the process. It's a sick, twisted mindset, but it's already been well established that there are some sick, twisted people out there.

As to the OP; the body is a machine, more or less, programmed to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. There have been cases where a rape victim achieved orgasm via the rape that occurred, but that doesn't make it any less an act of rape. My point is, it doesn't matter whether the person doesn't fight back or even receives pleasure from the act; it is still an act of rape and therefore the victim is not at fault. I can't speak to the Catholic requirement for confession in those cases, as I'm not Catholic, but it sounds to me like you are trying to find a way to pin some of the blame on the victim by saying "well, he/she enjoyed it, so they're partially at fault for not fighting back." I've got news for you; often times the person being raped is physically incapable of escaping their captor and may come to the conscious decision that it isn't worth the potential injury to fight back, and their physical response is oftentimes, as I stated above, out of their conscious control. It becomes more important to survive than to fight back in those cases. I'll end with this; quite frankly, I find your apparent assumption that the victim bears some blame in the act extremely insulting to rape victims, and I sincerely hope you never screw up some poor person's head even more by even SUGGESTING so in the future.

[DuckOnWarpath]

If a guy takes advantage of a woman who is drunk, should he turn himself in?

He should, however I don't see that happening.

A rapist may think "(s)he had it coming", however in reality no matter how one acts, dresses etc, no one has any right to rape.

As to the OP, AFAIK they should go to confess even if it were consensual, yet pleasurable love making.

[Mason]

I asked this at a Catholic forum and had the message erased. My question is, if someone is raped, and they enjoyed it a little bit, and/or "helped" in the rape instead of fighting or passively resisting, do they have to go to confession?

After seeing more replies, I find myself wondering WTF is so hard about this question that there has to be an arguement about victims and definitions of rape? We've all read the bible, we all make fun of it on a regular basis, we all know what "abomination" and "unclean" means in the biblical context, we all know that confession is to cleanse one's sins. We all know the sins and the sentances carried for them are ridiculous. We're all very familiar with the absurdities in that book and the irrationality of the people who support it. The question is about these absurdities, and has nothing to do with legal issues, moral issues, or semantics. It's about what is considerd a sin requiring confession, as outlined by the religion that requires confession in the first place.

Women who are menstruating are unclean in the bible. Are they willingly and intentionally engaging in a sinful act? No, it's a natural act, yet the bible still outlines a form of pennance for the act. Unwedded sex, in the eyes of the church, is sinful. Motive, willingness, etc, do not change the fact that the victim still had sex. Again, the question is about whether the CHURCH REQUIRES YOU TO CONFESS THIS SIN, to be cleansed of it in the eyes of God, not about whether you called the police or were wearing something provocative and asked for it.

If I'm outside gardening and I get dirty, I need a shower. If someone throws a bucket of mud on me, I still need a shower. Motive, intent, cooperation, etc do not change the fact that I'm unclean and need a shower in both scenarios. Now, whether I press assault charges against you or if you try to say I has it coming is an entirely different matter, a matter for the courts to decide. In the meantime, I'm going to get a shower to wash the mud off.

That's what confession is, cleansing your sins, with sins being outlined in the bible and interpreted by the church. The OP is trying to find out if the CHURCH considers nonconsensual sex to still be SINFUL for the nonconsenting party.

Maybe I'm just tired, but damn, it's a pretty simple question, and thinking about the old testament, I would say the answer is probably, regrettably, "Yes".

[JJM 777]

Unwilling sex is rape. Clear?
Clear in theory, but how do you prove in court that it was involuntary? Not easy if the woman fears so much that she doesn't resist physically, which means that there will be no signs of physical violence.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Otherwise we will have many innocent men in jail, which already is the case at the moment.

[Dancing David]

I asked this at a Catholic forum and had the message erased. My question is, if someone is raped, and they enjoyed it a little bit, and/or "helped" in the rape instead of fighting or passively resisting, do they have to go to confession?

Have you ever met a rape victim?

Or is this just a how many stupid angels can stand on the head of your stupid question sort of question?

Define 'help', do you mean like prisoners at a concentration camp 'helping' the guards or do you mean like What?

Your question is foolish and hypothetical, what person has enpryed being beaten in a fight? Should they go to confession because they enjoyed being beaten?

[Dancing David]

Clear in theory, but how do you prove in court that it was involuntary? Not easy if the woman fears so much that she doesn't resist physically, which means that there will be no signs of physical violence.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Otherwise we will have many innocent men in jail, which already is the case at the moment.

Excuse me, are you really going to go there?

So when an adult perpetrator uses a child for sexual gratification, without any physical harm to the child, you will say it is not rape?

Rape is non-consensual sex, do you believe in marital rape?

How many innocent people are in jail for other crimes and why do you single out rape?

[Dancing David]

i do not understand how someone could or would want to have sex with someone who is begging them not to. I just don't see that as being pleasurable at all.


Because they get off on causing pain, theye njoy the pain of forcing someone to endure a terrible act.

Why would people get sexual gratification from killing other people?

[JJM 777]

So when an adult perpetrator uses a child for sexual gratification, without any physical harm to the child, you will say it is not rape?
If the child willingly participates, I would classify it as pedophilia (for preteens), or ephebophilia (for teens), not rape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Again, if talking about law enforcement (which is not a necessary topic for us though), proving that anything sexual ever happened between two persons can be difficult or impossible, if the case is reported a long time after the event, as often is the case. Word against word, without any other evidence, should never result in a conviction in court.

Rape is non-consensual sex, do you believe in marital rape?
Rape can happen anywhere, also in marriage.

How many innocent people are in jail for other crimes and why do you single out rape?
I don't "single out" rape. I am against any punishments given to people on "probable" grounds, as popular as it may be in various countries, if binding evidence does not exist.

When binding evidence exists, I support essentially harsher punishments than Western countries give nowadays. 100 years back the punishments were more reasonable.

[Elizabeth I]

They are so busy erasing any mention of pedophilia in(side) the church (buildings), they may accidentally censor also other topics.


"Confession" is the Catholic equivalent of a therapy session at psychologist. It is a good idea, but certainly no obligation, for a rape victim to have a therapy session at a qualified psychiatrist. Preferably non-Catholic, I would advise.


What is a "rape", and what is very strong-willed and persistent petition to have sex... the line is not always clear. Someone is simply raped with brute force. Someone is threatened with violence, and she fully cooperates to avoid violence. Someone receives dirty suggestions in private and already erotic circumstances, and next morning the two have different memories about whether she actually agreed to sex or not.

In court the proof is often in words only, word against word, which in civilized world should never justify a penalty, unless there is other proof of the involuntary nature of the act than words only. Because of the practical difficulty of proving that a sex act was actually an involuntary rape, entering private and erotic circumstances with a person whom you don't want to have sex with is a risky thing to do.

I was about to come out with guns blazing about this post, but many other posters have already blasted it much more effectively than I ever could.


There is no connection between rape and sex (in the consensual context). The OP, as already stated, ridiculous. It displays a lack of knowledge about sex.

And about rape.


Clear in theory, but how do you prove in court that it was involuntary? Not easy if the woman fears so much that she doesn't resist physically, which means that there will be no signs of physical violence.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Otherwise we will have many innocent men in jail, which already is the case at the moment.

Do you know what someone who reports a rape has to go through? Do you think there are a whole lot of people who would go through that just for the LOLs? Or even for some kind of revenge?

Instead of "many innocent men in jail" [for rape], I think what we have is a whole lot of men who thought like you and believed in their god-given right to act on what their penises said.

And your remarks about sex with children leave me incoherent with rage.

[DuckOnWarpath]

If the child willingly participates, I would classify it as pedophilia (for preteens), or ephebophilia (for teens), not rape.

Different people/cultures and states have different laws (thus definitions) regarding that, however IMHO no matter how willing a child becomes to "experiment", it is always rape, because a child has little to no knowledge of the proposed acts. A child cannot be held accountable to make that choice.

[Pardalis]

If the child willingly participates, I would classify it as pedophilia (for preteens), or ephebophilia (for teens), not rape.

Peadophilia or ephebophilia are paraphilias, deviant sexual preferences, they have nothing to do with whether the child is willing or not, or the act of rape itself.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here's my question on the subject: Who gives a crap?

~~ Paul

[slingblade]

What is a "rape", and what is very strong-willed and persistent petition to have sex... the line is not always clear.

Hey, man? You're a man, right?

I bet if someone raped you, you'd know.
I bet if someone raped you, you'd want to hit people who asked this stupid, stupid question.

A man once reached through the open window of my parked car to grope my breasts. I'd just given birth a month before and had major surgery immediately afterwards. I had 12 inches of sutures extending from between my breasts to below my navel. Because of this, I couldn't wear a bra. And this moron walks up to my car as it's parked in a lot, reaches in my window, and grabs a handful of my breast.

I prosecuted the bastard. He went to jail.

I bet if it happened to you, you'd know what sexual assault feels like, and you'd never make stupid, stupid statements about assault again.

[slingblade]

If the child willingly participates, I would classify it as pedophilia (for preteens), or ephebophilia (for teens), not rape.

This argument is really a piece of work.

Oh hey, have I ever mentioned that I was serially sexually assaulted from the ages of 8 to 14 by numerous middle-aged men?

Have I ever mentioned it ruined me as a human being and I pray for death every day now because I'm so defective?

Let's you and me talk about the willing participation of children in sexual assault, shall we?

[Wudang]

"helping" - there was one case I read about at the time (and I found numerous google hits) where the rapist argued that because the victim had begged him to wear a condom that she had consented. This was a remarkably level-headed woman who realised that she had no way of stopping the crime so did what she could to limit the impact - akin to a man being beaten covering his head and not his back.
Of course, the law rightly found that trying to mitigate the effects of a crime does not mean consent to the crime. However the neanderthals came out.
I understand there is also an effect in some male on male rape - stimulation of the prostate may result in an involuntary erection on the victim's part which can cause psychological damage - especially if he has no clue what a prostate is.

[Delscottio]

Do you know what someone who reports a rape has to go through? Do you think there are a whole lot of people who would go through that just for the LOLs? Or even for some kind of revenge?



Strangely enough, there are quite a few people out there willing to do exactly that.

Without looking for exact number a quick google search throws up quite a few cases. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=D3z&q=wasting+police+time+accusation+of+rape&start=0&sa=N

This report claims that in 40% of complaints investigated no rape had taken place. I hope it is a load of rubbish to be honest. http://www.familieslink.co.uk/download/jan07/False%20rape%20claims%20common.pdf

[bookitty]

If the child willingly participates, I would classify it as pedophilia (for preteens), or ephebophilia (for teens), not rape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia


So in your scenario you have a perfectly willing preteen having sex with an adult. The only adult who would want to participate is a pederast. A pederast has sick & selfish reasons for encouraging this. Adults can easily manipulate the emotions of children.

So how willing is a child who has been mentally abused enough to give what looks like consent?

Even if a child indicates willingness without being manipulated, the adult should NOT be taking advantage of that. Children do not have enough life-experience to fully understand the consequences. They are not able to grant consent.

[ponderingturtle]

There are no gradations of rape. The OP is ridiculous.

Then define rape. It gets confusing when say it was consensual sex but under the influences of recreational pharmaceuticals or alcohol.

[ponderingturtle]

There is no connection between rape and sex (in the consensual context). The OP, as already stated, ridiculous. It displays a lack of knowledge about sex.

Given how common rape fantasies are, I find this argument less convincing.

[ponderingturtle]

For the rapist, it is about the power over their intended victim; it's not about the sex. They achieve sexual pleasure via the act of dominating another; they get off on the idea that they are forcing this person to do something they do not want to do and violating them in the process. It's a sick, twisted mindset, but it's already been well established that there are some sick, twisted people out there.

So BDSM is not about sex, but power then.

[bookitty]

So BDSM is not about sex, but power then.

BDSM takes places between two willing and consenting adults. It is not the same as rape.

[slingblade]

Let's try to remember, all of you who haven't been raped, that it's rape when you aren't consenting, when you are unwilling.

Let's try to remember that consensual sex is sex, even if it's rough or involves pain.
Let's try to remember that consensual sex becomes rape as soon as you ask your partner to stop and he or she does not.

Let's try to remember.

[bookitty]

Let's try to remember, all of you who haven't been raped, that it's rape when you aren't consenting, when you are unwilling.

Let's try to remember that consensual sex is sex, even if it's rough or involves pain.
Let's try to remember that consensual sex becomes rape as soon as you ask your partner to stop and he or she does not.

Let's try to remember.

You're going to get some flack for that last sentence. A woman who is already engaging in a sexual act is responsible for expectations, blah, blah, blather, blah.

Threads like these always devolve into rape apologetics. The poor widdle rapist could and mostly likely had some extenuating circumstances. Empathy for the victim is not a goal and should be avoided at all cost.

[Elizabeth I]

You're going to get some flack for that last sentence. A woman who is already engaging in a sexual act is responsible for expectations, blah, blah, blather, blah.

Threads like these always devolve into rape apologetics. The poor widdle rapist could and mostly likely had some extenuating circumstances. Empathy for the victim is not a goal and should be avoided at all cost.

Yes, because we all know that all men are just overgrown, out-of-control infants with no restraint and no power over their own impulses, right? :rolleyes:

[slingblade]

You're going to get some flack for that last sentence.

I get flak all the time.

It's rape when it isn't consensual. Even if it starts out consensual, if it stops being so, it's rape.

Bring on the flak. I fail to care, frankly.

[HeyLeroy]

After seeing more replies, I find myself wondering WTF is so hard about this question that there has to be an arguement about victims and definitions of rape? We've all read the bible, we all make fun of it on a regular basis, we all know what "abomination" and "unclean" means in the biblical context, we all know that confession is to cleanse one's sins. We all know the sins and the sentances carried for them are ridiculous. We're all very familiar with the absurdities in that book and the irrationality of the people who support it. The question is about these absurdities, and has nothing to do with legal issues, moral issues, or semantics. It's about what is considerd a sin requiring confession, as outlined by the religion that requires confession in the first place.

Women who are menstruating are unclean in the bible. Are they willingly and intentionally engaging in a sinful act? No, it's a natural act, yet the bible still outlines a form of pennance for the act. Unwedded sex, in the eyes of the church, is sinful. Motive, willingness, etc, do not change the fact that the victim still had sex. Again, the question is about whether the CHURCH REQUIRES YOU TO CONFESS THIS SIN, to be cleansed of it in the eyes of God, not about whether you called the police or were wearing something provocative and asked for it.

If I'm outside gardening and I get dirty, I need a shower. If someone throws a bucket of mud on me, I still need a shower. Motive, intent, cooperation, etc do not change the fact that I'm unclean and need a shower in both scenarios. Now, whether I press assault charges against you or if you try to say I has it coming is an entirely different matter, a matter for the courts to decide. In the meantime, I'm going to get a shower to wash the mud off.

That's what confession is, cleansing your sins, with sins being outlined in the bible and interpreted by the church. The OP is trying to find out if the CHURCH considers nonconsensual sex to still be SINFUL for the nonconsenting party.

Maybe I'm just tired, but damn, it's a pretty simple question, and thinking about the old testament, I would say the answer is probably, regrettably, "Yes".

If this was really your question, why didn't you post this in the first place?

Your OP seems (to me, at least) designed to provoke just the reactions it has.

[JJM 777]

Peadophilia or ephebophilia are paraphilias, deviant sexual preferences
If "deviant" means "not the choice of majority of population", there are cultures such as Japan and Thailand (not to mention a myriad of African tribes) where ephebophilia is a big mainstream trend, one of the most popular sex fantasies of adult men. Girls wearing school uniforms is one of the most common dress elements used in Japanese erotic publications.

http://en.allexperts.com/e/e/ep/ephebophilia.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

So in your scenario you have a perfectly willing preteen having sex with an adult. The only adult who would want to participate is a pederast. A pederast has sick & selfish reasons for encouraging this.
I never said that pedophilia should be tolerated by a highly civilized, modern human society. I just wanted to keep the language clear and meaningful, to avoid the "abortion = murder" situation where you say "murder (or rape)", and others don't know what you mean with each word at each moment.

I bet if it happened to you, you'd know what sexual assault feels like, and you'd never make stupid, stupid statements about assault again.
So back to "innocent until suspected guilty"? I discussed the practical difficulty of proving in court when a rape has happened and when it has not happened. To the victim it will be crystal clear, but not to outsiders, as we don't possess reliable lie detectors yet.

[ponderingturtle]

BDSM takes places between two willing and consenting adults. It is not the same as rape.

But it is all about power, and therefor not about sex at all by the definition supplied. It is ethical because it takes place between consenting adults, but the motives and basis for it is very similar.

This line between power and sex is a false dichotomy, and BDSM illustrates that very effectively.

[ponderingturtle]

Let's try to remember, all of you who haven't been raped, that it's rape when you aren't consenting, when you are unwilling.

Let's try to remember that consensual sex is sex, even if it's rough or involves pain.
Let's try to remember that consensual sex becomes rape as soon as you ask your partner to stop and he or she does not.

Let's try to remember.

Sure, but the issue was if rape is about sex or not. There are clear ethical differences, even it when diminished capacity becomes involved it gets a bit confusing.

Is it rape if two drunk people have consensual sex, and one regrets it in the morning? Is it that they raped each other if both regret it?

Then there are issues of what degree of coercion can be used and have it be rape or not. Is giving someone gifts OK, and when does not preventing harm to come to them count as too much coercion? Is it rape to say "you are fired if you do not have sex with me" is this so different than "I will give you the job if you have sex with me"?

The thing is that some people have used the word rape to define things that they don't like or are morally wrong or questionable but less clearly rape than what the term calls to mind.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, because we all know that all men are just overgrown, out-of-control infants with no restraint and no power over their own impulses, right? :rolleyes:

How long do they have to process the statement and change their behavior? I am not sure if it is rape if say someone asks them to stop and they keep going for a short while, people near orgasm do not necessarily think clearly of either sex after all.

[bookitty]

I never said that pedophilia should be tolerated by a highly civilized, modern human society. I just wanted to keep the language clear and meaningful, to avoid the "abortion = murder" situation where you say "murder (or rape)", and others don't know what you mean with each word at each moment.


No you just said that it wasn't rape. Rape is sex without consent. A child can not grant consent. Sex with a child is rape. An adult who manipulates a child into having sex is a rapist. An adult who takes advantage of a child's normal curiosity to have sex with that child is a rapist.

[bookitty]

Sure, but the issue was if rape is about sex or not...


No, it wasn't. The issue is whether or not the woman is guilty of her own rape.

[bookitty]

How long do they have to process the statement and change their behavior? I am not sure if it is rape if say someone asks them to stop and they keep going for a short while, people near orgasm do not necessarily think clearly of either sex after all.

You are asking the wrong question. If someone is excited by the idea of rape, how far will they go to fulfill that fantasy? Is it when they push an otherwise normal sexual encounter beyond the comfort zone of their partner? Even if it's just for a short while so that they can achieve orgasm?

[Pardalis]

If "deviant" means "not the choice of majority of population", there are cultures such as Japan and Thailand (not to mention a myriad of African tribes) where ephebophilia is a big mainstream trend, one of the most popular sex fantasies of adult men. Girls wearing school uniforms is one of the most common dress elements used in Japanese erotic publications.

That's completely irrelevant to what you have claimed:

If the child willingly participates, I would classify it as pedophilia (for preteens), or ephebophilia (for teens), not rape.

What I meant, and you didn't get, is that pedophilia and ephebophilia are medically diagnosed states of mind. You are confusing a psychological disorder (pedophilia) with an act (rape).

One can be a pedophile without acting on it, and one can rape a child wihtout being a pedophile.

The act of having sex with a child is not pedophilia, it's rape (even though it is most likely triggered by pedophilic tendencies). And whether the child is "willing" (whatever that means) is pure BS. The child may be accidently aroused, but it is not old enough to consent or understand what it is doing. The rapist may be a pedophile, but the child cannot be a teleiophile (attaction to adults). What you are suggesting is that since the child is willing, therefore the act is acceptable. It is not.

So back to "innocent until suspected guilty"? I discussed the practical difficulty of proving in court when a rape has happened and when it has not happened.

If an adult is found to have had sex with a child, then he is guilty of rape. Period.

There, problem solved.

[Pardalis]

Is it rape if two drunk people have consensual sex, and one regrets it in the morning? Is it that they raped each other if both regret it?

They are both adults responsible for their actions, so therefore it wouldn't be rape.

Is it rape to say "you are fired if you do not have sex with me" is this so different than "I will give you the job if you have sex with me"?


In both cases it's sexual harassment, different thing.

[ponderingturtle]

No, it wasn't. The issue is whether or not the woman is guilty of her own rape.

That was the issue I was responding to.

[ponderingturtle]

You are asking the wrong question. If someone is excited by the idea of rape, how far will they go to fulfill that fantasy?

Is this a rapist fantasy or a rapie fantasy?

Is it when they push an otherwise normal sexual encounter beyond the comfort zone of their partner? Even if it's just for a short while so that they can achieve orgasm?

Again I make the point that this can be a very confusing issue.

[ponderingturtle]

They are both adults responsible for their actions, so therefore it wouldn't be rape.

Again that is not a universal opinion.

In both cases it's sexual harassment, different thing.

So only violent coercion makes something rape then?

[HeyLeroy]

Again I make the point that this can be a very confusing issue.


Not really. Unwanted sexual contact constitutes sexual assault.

Pretty clear-cut.

[bookitty]

Is this a rapist fantasy or a rapie fantasy?

It is not a fantasy at all. It is a sexual fetish of the rapist. (From wiki: Sexual fetishism may be regarded, e.g. in psychiatric medicine, as a disorder of sexual preference or as an enhancing element to a relationship. The sexual acts involving fetishes are characteristically depersonalized and objectified, even when they involve a partner.)

Again I make the point that this can be a very confusing issue.

How is this confusing? The rapist has a sexual fetish, they will go to extremes to fulfill this fetish. This can include getting a woman drunk, pushing light petting into sexual intercourse, emotional manipulation and all the other situations that are usually blamed on the victim.

So how is it not rape if the aggressor is setting up a situation in which they can have sex with an unwilling victim?

[Pardalis]

Again that is not a universal opinion.

For rape you have to have someone forcing himself onto another. If they are both incapacitated, or under the influence and are both unwilling participants in a sexual encouter that can't be called rape.

You seem to be going out of your way to find bizarre circumstances where the line is fuzzy, why is that? You want to ask next if a shizophrenic person masturbates himself uncontrollably can be called self-rape? :rolleyes:

So only violent coercion makes something rape then?I would say unwanted physical contact with the genitals is rape. Sexual assault can be unwanted sexual contact with any parts of the body, and sexual harassment is without contact. All of which are crimes, anyway.

[SezMe]

Given how common rape fantasies are, I find this argument less convincing.
Rape fantasies are not about sex, they're about power, domination, control, etc. Do you think a rapist dwells on how he can make the experience pleasurable for the woman? How he can meet her needs in a way that she wants? No. So then he's not in it for the sex. It only use the tools of sex because that is one of the most powerful ways to dominate and humiliate a woman. And possibly cause permanent physical and emotional damage. Wow, what power.

[Pardalis]

If a zombie had sex with an unwilling person, would that be called rape?

Here's a few other useless hypotheticals:

if the only way to get out of a prison cell would be to stick your penis in the lock, would you be raping yourself?

Are all proctologists or gynecologists rapists?

Come on, let's be serious. The law is very clear about what rape is.

[JJM 777]

Everyone here is talking about "adults" and "children", but it seems a bit unclear what each person means with the concepts.

"adult" = any person whose biological age is 17524 days or more?

"child" = any person whose biological age is less than 17523 days 23 hours 59 minutes?

[Pardalis]

"Mammal" or "species" are still unclear definitions, what's your point?

[bookitty]

Is this a rapist fantasy or a rapie fantasy?


Again I make the point that this can be a very confusing issue.

Everyone here is talking about "adults" and "children", but it seems a bit unclear what each person means with the concepts.

"adult" = any person whose biological age is 17524 days or more?

"child" = any person whose biological age is less than 17523 days 23 hours 59 minutes?

You specifically indicated preteens. That means 12 or younger.

[Pardalis]

It's not a perfect world where everything is clear cut, but we humans work with conventions, we have to draw the line somewhere by consensus. We label things in order to make use of them, but the labels aren't absolutes, outside of our language and conventions they don't exist.

As we have seen not too long ago, the line is fuzzy between "planet" and "asteroid" when the object's size is in-between, and biologists are still not 100% sure what a "species" really is, where one stops and the other starts, but we work with conventions, and to make sense of anything and make society work, we must draw the line somewhere, at some point, even if the line can be redrawn in the future.

Trying to find absolutes is just grasping at straws. There is no absolute definition of "rape", but we've outlined it well enough for it to be applied by the law, which is all that really matters.

[SezMe]

Well said, Pardalis.

[JJM 777]

The apple has fallen far from the OP. The writer of OP must be currently in psychiatric consultation after reading all what was written here.

You specifically indicated preteens. That means 12 or younger.
English language gives a cute wordplay definition of "teen" as a person whose age is between thirTEEN and nineTEEN. Human biology is not as simple as that.

As far as I know, the medical definition of "pedophilia" means being erotically attracted to a human body which has not yet undergone the onset of puberty, regardless of its age. Some overweight and early blossoming 11-year-olds have fuller forms than many thin adult women, and some 16-year-olds only start experiencing the first symptoms of puberty.

Therefore, medically speaking, erotic attraction to maturely developed 11-year olds can be "psychologically normal" (especially if the person does not know the real age of the object of attraction), and erotic attraction to prepubescent 16-year-olds can be "a pedophilic paraphilia". If so, what would be erotic attraction to thin adult women, who are shaved to look exactly like prepubescent girls? Not a rare trend in sex industry.

The official psychiatric diagnosis standards do not include ephebophilia at all. It is regarded as a purely legal issue, not a psychiatric disorder.

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsmivtrcodes.htm
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

[bookitty]

The apple has fallen far from the OP. The writer of OP must be currently in psychiatric consultation after reading all what was written here.


English language gives a cute wordplay definition of "teen" as a person whose age is between thirTEEN and nineTEEN. Human biology is not as simple as that.

As far as I know, the medical definition of "pedophilia" means being erotically attracted to a human body which has not yet undergone the onset of puberty, regardless of its age. Some overweight and early blossoming 11-year-olds have fuller forms than many thin adult women, and some 16-year-olds only start experiencing the first symptoms of puberty.

Therefore, medically speaking, erotic attraction to maturely developed 11-year olds can be "psychologically normal" (especially if the person does not know the real age of the object of attraction), and erotic attraction to prepubescent 16-year-olds can be "a pedophilic paraphilia". If so, what would be erotic attraction to thin adult women, who are shaved to look exactly like prepubescent girls? Not a rare trend in sex industry.


And if an adult male acts on that attraction by having sex with an 11-year-old, it is rape. Period. So what is your point?

[JJM 777]

I have a few points.

1) Sometimes people have sex with each other, without knowing the exact age of each other. Most commonly in prostitution, but to some extent also in other circumstances. The average age of starting a career as prostitute is 12 years in New York City area.

2) I read quite much police literature, I prefer real-life crime stories to detective fiction. Standard language in police literature never uses the term "rape" for any seemingly voluntary circumstances. The term is "child abuse" etc. when no physical coercion or threat of violence has been used during or immediately before the activity.

3) Public media often uses the term "pedophilia" indiscriminately for any sexual activity between a person older than 17524 days and a person younger than 17524 days. Does it help them to make the milder cases look more scandalous, so the magazines will sell better, I don't know. Or then they simply are so dumb that they have no sense of any relativity in the world.

[Fiona]

So your point is "if they are big enough they are old enough"?

[DuckOnWarpath]

1. I doubt that, but still I fail to see the relevance.

2. In legal terms and quite possibly literature, the term rape would apply to very specific criminal acts. However that is by no means indicative of how "normal" people (or if you'd like posters here) would express themselves. I can think of a number of terms (usually profanities) that you wouldn't ever find in literature, yet would be absolutely plausible expressions. And just to make the connection to the OP: are you suggesting we use the term "adult abuse" or sexual abuse when the victim tries to at least be saved some of the beating/injury? What kind of mindset is that anyway?

3. And public media has something to do with a thread in JREF forum and/or the posters?

[kedo1981]

This thread very well illustrates why I think the whole concept of rape should be thrown out and changed to “degrees of sexual assault”.

I ask you Slingy, should the perv that groped you through the car window be in the same league as the guy that abducted my aunt in a parking lot, assaulted her, strangled with her own panty hose and left her to die in a ditch (she didn’t)?
Or are the pervs that assaulted you as a teen be seen as the same as the 18 year guy that after his 14 year old girl friend stops liking him becomes an accused rapist.

[Pardalis]

And if an adult male acts on that attraction by having sex with an 11-year-old, it is rape. Period.

Exactly, although actually, it doesn't necessarily have to be a "male".

Sometimes people have sex with each other, without knowing the exact age of each other.

Oh, please, it's pretty evident if the person is 11. Don't you at least talk to a person before you have sex with it?

The average age of starting a career as prostitute is 12 years in New York City area. Evidence? Is this another of your veiled socialistic rants about America?

Standard language in police literature never uses the term "rape" for any seemingly voluntary circumstances. The term is "child abuse" etc. when no physical coercion or threat of violence has been used during or immediately before the activity.So what? You're grasping at straws.

Does it help them to make the milder cases look more scandalous, so the magazines will sell better, I don't know. Or then they simply are so dumb that they have no sense of any relativity in the world.The law is clear, even though it can be lenient and sometimes rule in a case-to-case basis, it usually is not a place for moral relativism. Sex with someone under the age of consent is rape. I suggest you don't try and make your own rules.

[Cavemonster]

Sex with someone under the age of consent is rape. I suggest you don't try and make your own rules.

I disagree with you there.

Consensual sex between an 18 year old and a 17 year old is not rape.

Maybe in a legal sense depending on where you live, but in a cultural and moral sense consensual sex between an 18 year old and a 17 year old is not rape by any stretch of the imagination.

[HeyLeroy]

The apple has fallen far from the OP. The writer of OP must be currently in psychiatric consultation after reading all what was written here.

English language gives a cute wordplay definition of "teen" as a person whose age is between thirTEEN and nineTEEN. Human biology is not as simple as that.

As far as I know, the medical definition of "pedophilia" means being erotically attracted to a human body which has not yet undergone the onset of puberty, regardless of its age. Some overweight and early blossoming 11-year-olds have fuller forms than many thin adult women, and some 16-year-olds only start experiencing the first symptoms of puberty.

Therefore, medically speaking, erotic attraction to maturely developed 11-year olds can be "psychologically normal" (especially if the person does not know the real age of the object of attraction), and erotic attraction to prepubescent 16-year-olds can be "a pedophilic paraphilia". If so, what would be erotic attraction to thin adult women, who are shaved to look exactly like prepubescent girls? Not a rare trend in sex industry.

Being erotically attracted to someone is not the problem. The problem begins when one person decides to force his penis into someone else against their will.

Why is this so freaking hard to understand?

I have a few points.

1) Sometimes people have sex with each other, without knowing the exact age of each other. Most commonly in prostitution, but to some extent also in other circumstances.

And a person has a legal requirement to take reasonable steps to ensure the person they are having sex with is not a child.

Just because a child may look older doesn't make it okay to have sex with that child.

The average age of starting a career as prostitute is 12 years in New York City area.

2) I read quite much police literature, I prefer real-life crime stories to detective fiction. Standard language in police literature never uses the term "rape" for any seemingly voluntary circumstances. The term is "child abuse" etc. when no physical coercion or threat of violence has been used during or immediately before the activity.

3) Public media often uses the term "pedophilia" indiscriminately for any sexual activity between a person older than 17524 days and a person younger than 17524 days. Does it help them to make the milder cases look more scandalous, so the magazines will sell better, I don't know. Or then they simply are so dumb that they have no sense of any relativity in the world.

Umm, your math appears off. 17524/365.25=47.978.

This thread very well illustrates why I think the whole concept of rape should be thrown out and changed to “degrees of sexual assault”.

I ask you Slingy, should the perv that groped you through the car window be in the same league as the guy that abducted my aunt in a parking lot, assaulted her, strangled with her own panty hose and left her to die in a ditch (she didn’t)?

I'd say, yes.

Or are the pervs that assaulted you as a teen be seen as the same as the 18 year guy that after his 14 year old girl friend stops liking him becomes an accused rapist.

Are you purposely behaving like a filthy disgusting troll, or did you not read where she said,

Oh hey, have I ever mentioned that I was serially sexually assaulted from the ages of 8 to 14 by numerous middle-aged men?

Have I ever mentioned it ruined me as a human being and I pray for death every day now because I'm so defective??

Please let it be that you just lack reading comprehension, or you were simply skimming the thread and didn't absorb the monstrosity of what happened to her.

Either way, that's the most callous, disgusting comment I've seen in a long, long time.

[Pardalis]

I disagree with you there.

Consensual sex between an 18 year old and a 17 year old is not rape.

Maybe in a legal sense depending on where you live, but in a cultural and moral sense consensual sex between an 18 year old and a 17 year old is not rape by any stretch of the imagination.

Here we go again trying to find occurances where there are exceptions. :rolleyes:

Are we going to play this game long? Of course in that case the law is more lenient. But overall, it is rape.

[Cavemonster]

Here we go again trying to find occurances where there are exceptions. :rolleyes:

Are we going to play this game long? Of course in that case the law is more lenient. But overall, it is rape.

For one that's not a rare exception.

And secondly, the whole idea of a specific age of consent is a legal workaround for the fact that there is no convenient way to measure an individual's ability to meaningfully consent. That's why that age varies around the world from 12 to 20, depending on local culture.

In parts of the US, it can be as low as 16 and as high as 18.
In many states, a 17 year old can legally have sex with a 14 year old, but an 18 year old cannot.

If I'm 25 and have sex with a 16 year old, is that rape? In Idaho it is in Georgia it isn't. Which one is right?

In reality, age of consent is a legal construct because we don't have a direct measure of decision making ability that could be effective. There are of 16 year old who are more than ready for sex, and 20 year olds who aren't. And that's not talking about rare cases. the rare case would be someone who is magically ready to make that decision on exactly there birthday of exactly the age that their specific locale endorses, with a range of about 8 years in worldwide consent law.

[Pardalis]

So what? What's wrong with legal constructs? Moral relativism isn't practical, the law is, by definition.

[Cavemonster]

So, we have a meaningful cultural and moral perspective on rape and what it means as a society that go beyond legal constructs. Legal constructs are useful, but they don't answer the moral question.

A 25 year old has sex with a 16 year old, is it rape?

[Pardalis]

A 25 year old has sex with a 16 year old, is it rape?

Legally yes. The 25 year old should have known.

[Cavemonster]

Legally yes. The 25 year old should have known.

If it happened in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Connecticut, Maryland etc etc.

Then no. it isn't legally rape, 16 is a far more common legal age of consent in the US than 18.

So, since it IS legal, should the 25 year old still have known better?

[Pardalis]

So, since it IS legal, should the 25 year old still have known better?

He was lucky he was in a state where the legal age is 16.

[Cavemonster]

He was lucky he was in a state where the legal age is 16.

Not really since 16 is the age of consent in 30 states. A few have 17, 18 is comparatively rare.

But was it rape?

Edit: I guess you could say he was lucky in the same way that a 23 year old who has sex with a 19 year old is lucky they don't live in Madagascar where the age of consent is 21. But that kind of luck really doesn't say anything about the morality of the situation since it's equivalent to a woman who was raped being "lucky" she doesn't live in a country that practices honor killings.

To the point, elevating legal age of consent to a moral status IS moral relativism. You are the moral relativist.

[Pardalis]

It's my turn to propose a hypothetical.

What if a zombie attacked a woman and had intercourse with her. Would you call it rape?

[Cavemonster]

It's my turn to propose a hypothetical.

What if a zombie attacked a woman and had intercourse with her. Would you call it rape?

I'm talking about cases in reality. If you don't have an interest in reality, then have a nice day.

[Pardalis]

You are the moral relativist.

There are no absolute morals, we all have different morals. But we must have a common ground on which to stand if we want to coexist, that common ground is the law that has been collectively agreed upon.

To try and find a few instances where the law can be bent is just mental masturbation.

[JJM 777]

There are no absolute morals, we all have different morals. But we must have a common ground on which to stand if we want to coexist, that common ground is the law that has been collectively agreed upon.
So our common ground should be "the law" [of state X in country X, as long as X = USA]. How lucky we are to have received this holy bible moral code from a source that we can believe in.

Even then, the population of the said state have not collectively agreed upon any law really. Laws are written usually without any referendum. Also in modern politics there are many laws which the politicians would never write, no matter what majority of the population want.

- I understand that God must test the faithfulness of His followers, so He must first give a carrot at age 11, and then require 7 years waiting before you get permission to taste the carrot. (Except that Bible doesn't mention any age limits, they are a rather modern invention.)
- For various reasons, also human societies have attempted something like this, with varying success. Was it Sarah Palin's daughter who broke the bubble: "Abstinence is not a realistic option."
- From a biological viewpoint, this seems like a rabbit drawn from a hat. Which living creatures, other than some humans, want to wait 7 years before tasting the forbidden fruit of their newly-matured erotic instincts?

> it's pretty evident if the person is 11.
> Don't you at least talk to a person before you have sex with it?
By talking you can easily find out that the person is 11 and not 13 or 16? Asking a question from the person will not guarantee that the answer will be truthful.

> The average age of starting a career as prostitute is 12 years in New York City area.
> Evidence? Is this another of your veiled socialistic rants about America?

My Socialist rants are seldom "veiled". Anyhow here are some stats:
http://www.veronicasvoice.org/statistics.html
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/youngsters-bearing-a-terrible-burden/11213/
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/prostitution.html
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/12/in_september_go.php

> Fiona
> So your point is "if they are big enough they are old enough"?

The point in official psychiatric diagnoses is: if the boobs are big enough, erotic attraction to them is a natural and expected reaction, not a mental disorder. (But the point in legislation is: you don't have the right to take everything what you see and would like to have.)

> HeyLeroy
> Umm, your math appears off. 17524/365.25=47.978.

Crap, this is what you get when you use a calculator, and then trust what it tells you. Must have been some mistyping.

> DuckOnWarpath
> are you suggesting we use the term "adult abuse" or sexual abuse
> when the victim tries to at least be saved some of the beating/injury?

The presence of injuries are handy as evidence in court. Any reference that I have made to injuries was made while discussing the question, when a rape is easy to prove in court and when not.

[ponderingturtle]

Not really. Unwanted sexual contact constitutes sexual assault.

Pretty clear-cut.

Ok, so you do not think that consensual drunk sex can ever be rape then. And what about consented sexual contact where consent is withdrawn?

[ponderingturtle]

It is not a fantasy at all. It is a sexual fetish of the rapist. (From wiki: Sexual fetishism may be regarded, e.g. in psychiatric medicine, as a disorder of sexual preference or as an enhancing element to a relationship. The sexual acts involving fetishes are characteristically depersonalized and objectified, even when they involve a partner.)

People fantasize about it, on both sides. So for them it is a fantasy. Of course people fantasize about being cut to pieces as well. It is a fantasy.

As to fetish, it is a very abused term, do you limit it to paraphilias or any unusual sexual practice? And if the practice becomes common enough is it still a fetish?

How is this confusing? The rapist has a sexual fetish, they will go to extremes to fulfill this fetish. This can include getting a woman drunk, pushing light petting into sexual intercourse, emotional manipulation and all the other situations that are usually blamed on the victim.

So people who have rape fetishes are automatically rapists now? Many know that to act on it in reality and not in some form of role-play would be deeply wrong and would never do that.

You seem to be dismissing a great many consensual sexual practices to prove that rape is nothing like sex.

So how is it not rape if the aggressor is setting up a situation in which they can have sex with an unwilling victim?

And if they did not set up the situation? Two people meet at a party drunk, why does one of them have to have set the situation up? And even if one did, if the other knowingly took the substances? And in unknowing situations isn't that poisoning and not rape, as it was just as consensual as the other cases.

I am trying to make two points,
1. That the bounds of what is and is not rape can be debated
2. That the drives behind rape and sex can be very similar, and not the false dichotomy as it is frequently portrayed.

[ponderingturtle]

For rape you have to have someone forcing himself onto another. If they are both incapacitated, or under the influence and are both unwilling participants in a sexual encouter that can't be called rape.

I said nothing about incapacitated, just in situations of diminished judgment, this is often argued to be rape.

You seem to be going out of your way to find bizarre circumstances where the line is fuzzy, why is that? You want to ask next if a shizophrenic person masturbates himself uncontrollably can be called self-rape? :rolleyes:


Drunk people hooking up and regretting it is bizarre? You live in a very different world than I do.

I would say unwanted physical contact with the genitals is rape. Sexual assault can be unwanted sexual contact with any parts of the body, and sexual harassment is without contact. All of which are crimes, anyway.
So you then do not consider it possible to rape a willing drunk.

[ponderingturtle]

Rape fantasies are not about sex, they're about power, domination, control, etc. Do you think a rapist dwells on how he can make the experience pleasurable for the woman? How he can meet her needs in a way that she wants? No. So then he's not in it for the sex. It only use the tools of sex because that is one of the most powerful ways to dominate and humiliate a woman. And possibly cause permanent physical and emotional damage. Wow, what power.

Why are you limiting rape fantasies to those where the person is the rapist and not the raped?

And a lot of sexual activity is about power, domination and control. Or do you not class BDSM as sexual?

[ponderingturtle]

I disagree with you there.

Consensual sex between an 18 year old and a 17 year old is not rape.


Depends on how you define those words. Legally it shouldn't be considered rape. Of course this is a problem, because different reasonable rational and ethical people can draw the lines in different ways.

[ponderingturtle]

Legally yes. The 25 year old should have known.

How? Take a core sample and count the rings?

[Cavemonster]

Depends on how you define those words. Legally it shouldn't be considered rape. Of course this is a problem, because different reasonable rational and ethical people can draw the lines in different ways.

True, in some parts of the world it can legally be rape. And additional circumstances can make either party more or less able to give meaningful consent.

But from a social and moral perspective, a one year age difference falling on a particular state's age of consent should not be itself sufficient to redefine that sex as rape.

[Pardalis]

Why don't we turn the question right back to you guys, Ponderingturtle, Cavemonster and JJM?

You seem to enjoy poking holes in the definition and find ways where it could be more difficult to define it, but what is it according to you?

Or is the moral relativists' job to not have any definition about anything? Rape must be something, right?

[Cavemonster]

Why don't we turn the question right back to you guys, Ponderingturtle, Cavemonster and JJM?

You seem to enjoy poking holes in the definition and find ways where it could be more difficult to define it, but what is it according to you?

Or is the moral relativists' job to not have any definition about anything? Rape must be something, right?

Very easy, rape is sex without consent.


Obviously in cases of physical force and cases where a rapist goes against clearly stated wishes it is fairly easy to gauge consent. In issues like statutory rape and intoxication, and various other kinds of power imbalance, the issue gets murky.
To evaluate consent in a meaningful way, it must be looked at on a case by case basis. Unfortunately this isn't always practical in a legal framework, so we must develop rules, like an age of consent laws. Ideally, the benefits in protecting people who

[Morrigan]

Legally yes. The 25 year old should have known.
In Canada, he wouldn't be a rapist, actually.


To try and find a few instances where the law can be bent is just mental masturbation.

A few instances? Don't be disingenuous. Rape is distinguished from statutory rape for very obvious reasons, one of which being that two people with one year of difference in age can have consensual sex, it happens ALL the time, and it shouldn't be considered rape by any sane mind.

[Sabrina]

So BDSM is not about sex, but power then.

Apologies for the late reply on this; I was out of town.

BDSM is complicated; in some ways, yes, it is about power. Oddly enough, however, the submissive person in those relationships is usually the one who holds said power, not the dominant. Dominants are extremely careful to not go over the line their submissive will draw for them, as they cannot achieve THEIR pleasure in the act if their submissive does not receive pleasure from it; that is why the safeword exists. BDSM is also very much about acts that bring pleasure; note, I'm not necessarily talking about sex. For many people, odd as it may sound, they receive pleasure from being struck or whipped, tied up, spanked, or any one of a number of other acts, and there will typically be someone out there who likes to perform such acts. But such encounters are usually carefully controlled; if someone crosses the submissive's line, it stops being BDSM and becomes assault, whether that includes the act of sexual intercourse or not. And don't let the terms fool you; someone can be submissive in a relationship but still be able to leave their partner if they are no longer being satisfied in the manner they wish to be satisfied. Submissive does not mean incapable of defending oneself; it simply means someone who prefers a submissive role within the confines of acts of pleasure, whatever they may be.

Have I muddied the waters enough for you? ;) It's an extremely confusing and complex topic, and one probably not fitting within the confines of this particular thread, but I figured I should at least answer with what I know (which is, admittedly, rather little, as I am not interested in pursuing such relationships or pleasure acts) of the BDSM community.

[Sabrina]

Why are you limiting rape fantasies to those where the person is the rapist and not the raped?

And a lot of sexual activity is about power, domination and control. Or do you not class BDSM as sexual?

I think the difference with a person who fantasizes about being raped is that, should someone carry out said fantasy with them, it will be controlled by the person with the fantasy, not the person acting as the "rapist". It would be, despite all appearances to the contrary, a consensual act. I would imagine if such a person were actually RAPED, they would not be pleased (understatement of the century there) with the outcome. Once again, the person with the fantasy, much like a submissive in my previous post, would actually have all the control in such a situation; take them out of that situation and I could just about guarantee you they'd call it rape and wouldn't get much, if any, pleasure out of it.

There's a huge difference between fantasies and reality, as I'm sure you're aware, and someone with rape fantasies thrust into the reality of such a situation is in for a rude awakening, I'd imagine.

[slingblade]

Everyone here is talking about "adults" and "children", but it seems a bit unclear what each person means with the concepts.

"adult" = any person whose biological age is 17524 days or more?

"child" = any person whose biological age is less than 17523 days 23 hours 59 minutes?

Statutory adult. If the law has no problem with you having sex with her, then neither do I.

"But Sling, what if she's 16 and he's 60?"

Is it against the law? No? Then what would you like me to say? If the law allows it, then I rather have to, don't I? It won't stop me thinking you're both messed up, but if it's legal, there's not a lot I can do.

ETA: and I said "her" because I assume JJM's a man.

[JJM 777]

Why don't we turn the question right back to you guys, (...) what is it according to you?
To start at the start, OP asked: Can the victim of rape become guilty (before God), if she cooperates with the rapist, and possibly even feels some erotic enjoyment during the action? Well we never now about God, so if you want to play safe, go to your Catholic confession. Otherwise there is nothing what can make the victim of rape "guilty" of anything, because willingness to sex and enjoyment thereof are not crimes.

Then we started discussing, what is rape and what is not. The concept of "rape" seems to certainly include:
- physically forcing an unwilling partner to sex
- threatening with physical violence, to make an unwilling partner agree to sex
- sexually abusing an unconscious person

All these abovementioned cases are generally reported as "rapes" in the press and in police reports. Apart from these clear cases, there are many other possible situations where a basically unwilling partner is coerced into having sex, and the case is publicly reported usually with some other word than "rape":
- threatening with something else than physical violence: blackmailing with any secret information, threatening with losing your job, threatening to leave you and start dating with someone else if you don't give sex, promising to give a job to you, professor promising to give a higher grade to you, falsely promising to marry you or start dating with you if you give sex tonight, paying money for the act

A high civilization might easily ban some or all of these in legislation, but there is limited political willingness to do so. At least some of these topics are a matter of political (or moral) idealism vs. libertarianism. What word we use for describing these acts, is splitting of hairs. The only thing that matters is, what is legal and what is not, and what is the punishment for each act.

Then underage persons somehow came into the picture. The age of consent for sex between a minor and an adult varies from country to country, approximately between 12 and 21 years.

Humans become interested in and capable of sex, AND a remarkable proportion of adult (men) become erotically attracted to adolescents, around 13 years of age (girls maybe one year earlier than boys), BUT the prevailing religious, ethical or social theories suggest that it is "safer" (medically, socially or psychologically) not to have any sex with anyone before 16 or 18 years of age.

Contraception is a big an important question, but we can realistically reach 95%...99% efficiency in contraception, and the remaining 1%...5% can be handled with abortions.

Again we have a struggle between political (or moral) idealism vs. libertarianism. People with very liberal views are not troubled to hear about sexual play between peers (persons of same age group) of any age whatsoever. Some idealists, especially the religious ones, say that 16 or 18 years is the minimum age for any sexual experiences, period and end of topic.

Sexual contacts crossing the boundaries of peer groups (or generations) is yet a very different topic than sexual play within peer groups. I don't like to hear stories of George Soros or Richard Gere dating with a 20 years old blonde. In my Socialist idealism there is as little room for such inequality in sexual relations, as in economical issues. Yet a liberal legislation will not set any limit whatsoever to the age difference between spouses or sexual partners, as long as the younger of them is at least 16 or 18 years old.

The younger the persons are that we are talking about (15 years, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1), the more of us start thinking that sex with an older person is not only a political matter of idealism vs. libertarianism, but indeed an unnegotiable violation of basic human rights. Where the minimum age limit goes, and what would be the minimum age difference in each case, not easy to define with universal authority. I would say that age difference 2 years is always acceptable in any age group whatsoever. How and when this acceptable age difference would be scaled into what we accept for adults over 16 or 18 years, is again difficult to define with universal authority.

[ponderingturtle]

Very easy, rape is sex without consent.


Obviously in cases of physical force and cases where a rapist goes against clearly stated wishes it is fairly easy to gauge consent. In issues like statutory rape and intoxication, and various other kinds of power imbalance, the issue gets murky.
To evaluate consent in a meaningful way, it must be looked at on a case by case basis. Unfortunately this isn't always practical in a legal framework, so we must develop rules, like an age of consent laws. Ideally, the benefits in protecting people who

This fits pretty well. I would also add that there are cases where consent is murky. No one here seems to be lodging their opinions of consensual regretted inebriated sex.

[ponderingturtle]

Apologies for the late reply on this; I was out of town.

BDSM is complicated; in some ways, yes, it is about power. Oddly enough, however, the submissive person in those relationships is usually the one who holds said power, not the dominant. Dominants are extremely careful to not go over the line their submissive will draw for them, as they cannot achieve THEIR pleasure in the act if their submissive does not receive pleasure from it; that is why the safeword exists. BDSM is also very much about acts that bring pleasure; note, I'm not necessarily talking about sex. For many people, odd as it may sound, they receive pleasure from being struck or whipped, tied up, spanked, or any one of a number of other acts, and there will typically be someone out there who likes to perform such acts. But such encounters are usually carefully controlled; if someone crosses the submissive's line, it stops being BDSM and becomes assault, whether that includes the act of sexual intercourse or not. And don't let the terms fool you; someone can be submissive in a relationship but still be able to leave their partner if they are no longer being satisfied in the manner they wish to be satisfied. Submissive does not mean incapable of defending oneself; it simply means someone who prefers a submissive role within the confines of acts of pleasure, whatever they may be.

Have I muddied the waters enough for you? ;) It's an extremely confusing and complex topic, and one probably not fitting within the confines of this particular thread, but I figured I should at least answer with what I know (which is, admittedly, rather little, as I am not interested in pursuing such relationships or pleasure acts) of the BDSM community.

Sure, but it still keeps the point that clearly defining sex on one side of a line and power on another simply does not work. Humans are not that simple to clearly distinguish the two.

[ponderingturtle]

I think the difference with a person who fantasizes about being raped is that, should someone carry out said fantasy with them, it will be controlled by the person with the fantasy, not the person acting as the "rapist". It would be, despite all appearances to the contrary, a consensual act. I would imagine if such a person were actually RAPED, they would not be pleased (understatement of the century there) with the outcome. Once again, the person with the fantasy, much like a submissive in my previous post, would actually have all the control in such a situation; take them out of that situation and I could just about guarantee you they'd call it rape and wouldn't get much, if any, pleasure out of it.

There's a huge difference between fantasies and reality, as I'm sure you're aware, and someone with rape fantasies thrust into the reality of such a situation is in for a rude awakening, I'd imagine.

I am not saying that anyone really wants to be raped, but it is a sexual fantasy. Sex and power are inextricably tied together, and pretending otherwise to make people feel more comfortable is wrong.

[Piscivore]

Otherwise there is nothing what can make the victim of rape "guilty" of anything, because willingness to sex and enjoyment thereof are not crimes.

Well, they might be to the victim. That's why I said the victim was not responsible to anyone but themselves, guiltwise.

[Sabrina]

I am not saying that anyone really wants to be raped, but it is a sexual fantasy. Sex and power are inextricably tied together, and pretending otherwise to make people feel more comfortable is wrong.

I'm confused; where did I say they weren't tied together? All I've said is that for a rapist, it's not about the sex, it's about the power the act gives them over another person; the sex is, for them, incidental in all of it. It's merely a means to an end, not the end itself the way it is for most people.

[ImaginalDisc]

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=71&pictureid=1572

[GreyICE]

Everything related to this thread needs to die in a fire. I pray that it burns.

[SkeptiKhatt]

Most toxic thread ever. But then, I'm not over here much.

[billydkid]

I'm wondering, if I raped somebody and didn't really enjoy it - that would, sort of, make me innocent, right?

[Kahalachan]

Unwilling sex is rape. Clear?

All unwilling sex is rape?


So I was raped by a gf, when I said "No I have a headache" ?

I wasn't willing.

And don't dare pull the "It can't be rape cause you were in a relationship" cause we know that won't hold.

[bookitty]

I'm wondering, if I raped somebody and didn't really enjoy it - that would, sort of, make me innocent, right?

No. Rape as a crime is defined by the impact on the victim, not the aggressor.

Which is also why it doesn't matter if an 11-year-old looks 21.

[Eyeron]

Once a close woman friend of mine confided in me she wished I'd rape her.

I never spoke to her again after that.

[Starthinker]

I once had a woman, whom I was in a relationship with, say this to me, "Remember that time you were all trying to make out with me and I said I wasn't in the mood and we went out and did something else? I really wish now you would have just made me do it. Even if you had to hold me down. Sometimes a girl just wants to be taken. Next time I say no, just keep going anyway. It will be something I'll thank you for later." Anecdotal, but it just goes to show everyone thinks differently.

Like so many things, it's very murky waters. If you were to ask a million people you would get a million different answers. Yes, it's on the table and open to discussion and opinions may change and consensus may arise or the majority gets their way, but there is no way in hell you will ever get people to agree to one definition. There is no way in hell we will ever see this from one point of view. Every single person is different physically, mentally, developmentally, and we all have had different experiences and different lives and thus we'll all act differently and believe different things. "I'm right and you're wrong" absolutes will never work in discussions like this.

[Distracted1]

It seems to me that some of the disconnect on this thread is caused by the timeline that the definition of rape has evolved over.

in the 1950's rape was pretty straightforward in how it was percieved- violent guy jumps out from behind a tree and holds a knife to a womans' throat while he "has his way" with her. Discussions of sex were so non-existant that no one could even feel comfortable conceiving of other sexual scenarios that might be considered rape. Looked at from this angle begged the question " why would'nt the guy just hire a prostitute if he needed sex that bad?"
After serious consideration was given it was determined that the villian actually enjoyed the "raping" part of the act as much as- if not more than the "sexual" part of the act- in other words it was a crime of violence and control, not simply a sexual expression.
Today, many of us still talk about rape as a "crime of violence" and in the context described above it seems that it is.

Since then, discussions of sex have become much more open and free. And our definitions of "rape" have been broadened to include "date-rape" and othe types of "rape" that no longer fit into the old mold that many of us picture when the word rape is used. However, we still cling to the old "rape is an act of violence" meme, even when it is clear that the new definition of rape no longer makes that true for every definition of the word. I find it hard to believe that the fraternity brother who has non-consentual sex with the passed out freshman co-ed is doing it primarily for non-sexual reasons. Thus the expansion of the use of the word rape has led to a morass of misunderstandings due to the different definitions of the word that we all carry around.

With this in mind, it is not inconceivable that the victim of a "date-rape" (wherein physical force was not used or implied, however the victim felt pressured by the environment/tone of the situation to capitulate- a situation an old acquantence found himself prosecuted for in 1988) might find herself taking some enjoyment fromm the act yet still feeling coerced into it in violation of the law. Thus, having been raised Catholic, she requires absolution according to the strictures of the church.

[SkeptiKhatt]

I once had a woman, whom I was in a relationship with, say this to me, "Remember that time you were all trying to make out with me and I said I wasn't in the mood and we went out and did something else? I really wish now you would have just made me do it. Even if you had to hold me down. Sometimes a girl just wants to be taken. Next time I say no, just keep going anyway. It will be something I'll thank you for later." Anecdotal, but it just goes to show everyone thinks differently.

Like so many things, it's very murky waters. If you were to ask a million people you would get a million different answers. Yes, it's on the table and open to discussion and opinions may change and consensus may arise or the majority gets their way, but there is no way in hell you will ever get people to agree to one definition. There is no way in hell we will ever see this from one point of view. Every single person is different physically, mentally, developmentally, and we all have had different experiences and different lives and thus we'll all act differently and believe different things. "I'm right and you're wrong" absolutes will never work in discussions like this.

Did it not occur to you that by saying this, she was trying to manipulate you emotionally? I'm not sure why you would believe or be speaking to that quotation otherwise.

[JJM 777]

If some woman told me to take her by force, I would require a written statement, stored in a safe place, before risking my freedom by starting to play the game with her rules.

Some men believe that women generally want to be "taken" seemingly against their will, some genres of the adult industry feed such ideas too. Well, must be many such men in jail now.