PDA

View Full Version : Definitions of "rape"


ThisBougieLife
September 27th, 2016, 12:27 PM
This is a topic I've always wanted to know more about, but due to its sensitive subject matter, I feel I can never ask about it anywhere.

I've often heard it claimed that rape statistics are inflated by loose definitions of rape, i.e. including in the definition drunk consensual sex or even regretted sex.

So my questions are: how narrow or wide should the definition of rape be? What effect will this have on the so-called "campus rape problem" or "rape culture"?

Flapjack
September 27th, 2016, 12:34 PM
If someone cannot consent and someone has sex with them, then they have raped then. Whether that is because they were drunk or under-age or held at gun point, they are still raped.

Sailor Mars
September 27th, 2016, 12:42 PM
Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability or is below the legal age of consent.
This is rape. Sexual assault against a person who cannot or does not consent. Anyone who says "oh yeah, I had sex with him but then I didn't like it so it was rape" is a fuckin idiot and is wrong.

Idk what the "campus rape problem" is, but to perpetuate and try to justify legitimate rape and sexual assault/abuse is fucked and shouldn't be passed down as an ideology to future generations.

ThisBougieLife
September 27th, 2016, 12:47 PM
If someone cannot consent and someone has sex with them, then they have raped then. Whether that is because they were drunk or under-age or held at gun point, they are still raped.

But see this is where it gets complicated: Does this mean that inherently, a drunk person cannot consent? Does this apply when both parties are drunk?

This is rape. Sexual assault against a person who cannot or does not consent. Anyone who says "oh yeah, I had sex with him but then I didn't like it so it was rape" is a fuckin idiot and is wrong.

Idk what the "campus rape problem" is, but to perpetuate and try to justify legitimate rape and sexual assault/abuse is fucked and shouldn't be passed down as an ideology to future generations.

Essentially it's the idea that there is an epidempic of rape and/or sexual assault on college campuses, particularly associated with fraternities. Yet some claim that this problem is inflated by a definition of rape that is too broad. I agree with your provided definition, however.

Flapjack
September 27th, 2016, 12:49 PM
But see this is where it gets complicated: Does this mean that inherently, a drunk person cannot consent? Does this apply when both parties are drunk?
Yeahhh a drunk person can't consent xD The party that is doing the penetrating is the rapist.

Sailor Mars
September 27th, 2016, 12:51 PM
But see this is where it gets complicated: Does this mean that inherently, a drunk person cannot consent? Does this apply when both parties are drunk?



Essentially it's the idea that there is an epidempic of rape and/or sexual assault on college campuses, particularly associated with fraternities. Yet some claim that this problem is inflated by a definition of rape that is too broad. I agree with your provided definition, however.

If both parties are drunk, then it isn't rape. If one is drunk and the other is not, then it is (regardless of gender).

And ah, gotcha. Thanks for the info.

phuckphace
September 27th, 2016, 01:19 PM
I have a hard time believing that a sane male of age can be "raped" by a female. especially when alcohol is involved, if you can get it up despite your inebriated state then you are probably conscious enough to know what's happening. that and the "beer goggles" thing is mostly made up - the vast majority of guys simply won't have sex with someone they're not sexually interested in no matter how drunk they are.

I've seen this firsthand at parties - friends of mine were extremely inebriated and getting hit on by ugly fat chicks. after about 10 slurred "less go to...less go to the bedroom...c'moooon" one of the dudes staggers to his feet and roars "SHUT THE FUCK UP BITCH!! GO MASTURBATE OR SOMETHING, FUUUUCK!" :lol3: good times.

anyway, I have little sympathy for people who end up getting in legal trouble after combining alcohol and sex. alcohol is a shit drug and to me there's little point in having sex if you can barely remember it later.

WIRED: bud
TIRED: Budweiser

EuRo
September 27th, 2016, 02:17 PM
The "drunk person can't consent" thing is mostly BS in my opinion. If a woman and a man get drunk and have sex, which one is the rapist? Neither. The only circumstance I can see the drunk thing being rape is if someone has blacked out from alcohol and then it happens that way, though it is still their fault for getting that shitfaced. In most circumstances, it's your fault for consuming alcohol and having sex.

If you regret having sex or had a bad partner, it's not rape. People who claim that they were raped when they had some bad sex are petty/horrible people.

In my opinion, some things that qualify as rape are:

- Not consenting to intercourse and being forced to partake in it.
- Being drugged without your knowledge and then taken advantage of, sexually.


Rape is sexual assault, but sexual assault is not always rape. If someone gropes you and you didn't consent to it, that's not rape. Rape would be someone having actual intercourse with you or touching your genitalia/etc without your consent.

ThisBougieLife
September 27th, 2016, 02:23 PM
Agree mostly on the alcohol issue. As someone who's been black-out drunk before, the time when I was blacked out I truly could not recall anything that happened during that 20 minute period afterward. But outside of that, I would've been able to consent or not consent to sexual activity, even though I was very intoxicated. Strictly speaking, though, it's probably a good idea, if you're sober and the other person is not, to not do anything. Even if the other person seems to want it. It just doesn't seem right.

Vlerchan
September 27th, 2016, 02:50 PM
People (DPP) v C (2001) (http://www.feministjudging.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/PeopleDPP-v-C-2001.pdf) defined consent as “voluntary agreement or acquiescence to sexual intercourse by a person of the age of consent with the requisite mental capacity. Knowledge or understanding of the facts material to the act being consented to is necessary for the consent to be considered voluntary or constitute acquiescence”.

If you have engaged in sexual intercourse, and have not received this then you are engaged in an act of rape, period.

It's also worth reading that case.

I've often heard it claimed that rape statistics are inflated by loose definitions of rape, i.e. including in the definition drunk consensual sex or even regretted sex.
First point to make is as far as the official statistics are concerned - as based on convictions - rape is almost certainty being under-recorded in any given year. So far as statistics on reports goes, it's also almost certain that rape is being under-recorded. If you are referring to some campus survey - biased sample, not generalisable - then you will need to point me to the specific definition.

Second, Drunk Consent - consent where one is lacks an "understanding of the facts material to the act being consented to" - is not consent. R v Bree [2007] held that one can still consent whilst drunk but such ability evaporates as their condition deteriorates. In other words, you don't have to be black-out drunk to be unable to understand the material facts.

Third, Regretted-Sex is not rape.

Does this mean that inherently, a drunk person cannot consent? Does this apply when both parties are drunk?
Yes. But it is wroth noting that it is rare that both are equally drunk. For the accused to be able to plead incapacity in such a case, they need to be able to demonstrate that they were so drunk they literally could not understand their actions. You might be able to make the Morgan [DPP v Morgan (1976)*] defence, but I have never heard it attempted.

---

* NSFW (Trigger Warning, etc.): In this case what happened is a man (A) met up with some military men (B, C) for a few drinks. They began to discuss sex. A told them his wife was at home and she really enjoyed rough sex and the feeling of being raped. In their defence B and C argued they had been convinced of this. So, the three returned home and gang-raped A's wife. The pair argued that there could be no intention of rape where they had been under the false impression of consent having been extended.

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability or is below the legal age of consent.
I disagree with this definition because it's implicit that rape needs to be an act of coercion. The Irish and British case law recognises that an act of rape can occur under non-coercive conditions - deception [R v Dee (1884); People (DPP) v C (2001); R v Flattery (1877); R v Jheeta (2007); etc.] and submission [R v Olugboja (1982); etc.] - and I figure that the rulings in these cases are correct.

The "drunk person can't consent" thing is mostly BS in my opinion. If a woman and a man get drunk and have sex, which one is the rapist? Neither. The only circumstance I can see the drunk thing being rape is if someone has blacked out from alcohol and then it happens that way, though it is still their fault for getting that shitfaced. In most circumstances, it's your fault for consuming alcohol and having sex.
I addressed all this above. If someone can not understand the facts material to the act then they are not capable of consenting to that act. Under conditions of intoxication it is possible for the ability to consent to thus evaporate.

Rape is sexual assault, but sexual assault is not always rape.
No. Both refer to different legal actions and neither is a subcategory for the other.

---

Sometimes I really feel like I should do a thread where I define what is and isn't rape, legally speaking. This thread has been OK so far, but some of them in abuse genuinely scare me.

phuckphace
September 27th, 2016, 03:26 PM
basically if you bang someone who's blind drunk/unconscious, telling you to stop, or a literal retard then you're a rapist. that's how I see it.

funnily enough this came up the other day while BSing with one of my roomies. he said something about hatefucking one of his exes and when he said "she stomped out of the room all pissed off and went to her room so I just followed her in there and started fucking her..." I momentarily WTF'd until he hastily added that she gives implied consent by not stopping him since she's apparently "into" the whole hatefucking thing. I suppose in cases like that at any point after she gives you a shove and a "fuck off" and you try to continue then I've got bad news for you.

Uniquemind
September 27th, 2016, 06:57 PM
basically if you bang someone who's blind drunk/unconscious, telling you to stop, or a literal retard then you're a rapist. that's how I see it.

funnily enough this came up the other day while BSing with one of my roomies. he said something about hatefucking one of his exes and when he said "she stomped out of the room all pissed off and went to her room so I just followed her in there and started fucking her..." I momentarily WTF'd until he hastily added that she gives implied consent by not stopping him since she's apparently "into" the whole hatefucking thing. I suppose in cases like that at any point after she gives you a shove and a "fuck off" and you try to continue then I've got bad news for you.


Yeah there's this side of the "dating culture" where society KNOWS people are not generally mindreaders, yet we embrace so much non-verbal communication within flirting and "come-ons" even between partners let alone strangers.

It's those scenarios where a lot of "grey" areas about what is rape or is not rape occurs, and when things get to court juries are like playing "catchup" on what all these sexual-subcultures are, and then the history of the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s).


In my simplified view of this issue: A lot of confusion about this issue is due to non-verbal communication. (symbolic meanings, abstract topics etc.)

If you look at a large percentage of the topics we discuss broadly that become cyclical over time, they all have an element of abstraction that is not tangible and concrete. Rape is one of these topics, not because of what occurs physically, but because "consent/communication" is a non-tangible human perception problem.

Arkansasguy
September 27th, 2016, 07:38 PM
This is a topic I've always wanted to know more about, but due to its sensitive subject matter, I feel I can never ask about it anywhere.

I've often heard it claimed that rape statistics are inflated by loose definitions of rape, i.e. including in the definition drunk consensual sex or even regretted sex.

So my questions are: how narrow or wide should the definition of rape be? What effect will this have on the so-called "campus rape problem" or "rape culture"?

Rape is sex by force. A person who gets drunk and has sex (while still conscious) is not a rape victim.

Uniquemind
September 29th, 2016, 01:36 AM
Rape is sex by force. A person who gets drunk and has sex (while still conscious) is not a rape victim.

But review of all the cases that have been brought to court in this exact scenario says otherwise.

Even in health class, during said sex act, consent can be withdrawn at any time, if it proceeds after that time stamp of change of heart, it becomes rape.

Again, it's an intangible abstract concept one has to prove in court.

Quality of argumentation, reputation of all involved, and jury quality/bias, all play a role in this legal and moral dilemma.

Voice_Of_Unreason
September 29th, 2016, 09:35 AM
But review of all the cases that have been brought to court in this exact scenario says otherwise.

Even in health class, during said sex act, consent can be withdrawn at any time, if it proceeds after that time stamp of change of heart, it becomes rape.

Again, it's an intangible abstract concept one has to prove in court.

Quality of argumentation, reputation of all involved, and jury quality/bias, all play a role in this legal and moral dilemma.

You are basically saying we allow women to throw a guy in prison just because she regretted having sex with him. How do you define when consent is lost? And why do you think that someone who openly consented to sex is suddenly being raped when they start having regrets. They made the choice, they deal with it.

Arkansasguy
September 29th, 2016, 10:15 AM
But review of all the cases that have been brought to court in this exact scenario says otherwise.

Even in health class, during said sex act, consent can be withdrawn at any time, if it proceeds after that time stamp of change of heart, it becomes rape.

Again, it's an intangible abstract concept one has to prove in court.

Quality of argumentation, reputation of all involved, and jury quality/bias, all play a role in this legal and moral dilemma.

It's clear to me that the modern laws regarding rape are designed to excuse females who engage in drunken fornication of any blame. Consequently j dismiss it as nonsense.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with "health" BTW, sounds more like law.

Sailor Mars
September 29th, 2016, 10:52 AM
It's clear to me that the modern laws regarding rape are designed to excuse females who engage in drunken fornication of any blame. Consequently j dismiss it as nonsense.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with "health" BTW, sounds more like law.

You are basically saying we allow women to throw a guy in prison just because she regretted having sex with him. How do you define when consent is lost? And why do you think that someone who openly consented to sex is suddenly being raped when they start having regrets. They made the choice, they deal with it.

I saw this video once where British police compared rape to tea.

You invite your friend or someone to your house and offer them tea. This is the part where it can go several ways.

1. They can refuse your offer saying "Oh no thank you. We had tea the other day and I don't really feel like having tea right now."

-You don't try to force the person into drinking your tea or having tea.
-You don't say "Oh! Well I made tea for you the other day! Now you don't want my tea? Is it because my tea is bad? I made tea and now you won't have it! That hurts you know." And try to guilt them into having tea

2. They can accept the offer...
2a. You go ahead and make them tea. You offer them milk and honey. They say they want honey.

-You don't put milk in instead, just because you like milk.
-You don't offer honey and then say "Oh, well I don't have honey, guess you'll get milk instead."

2b. You go ahead and make them tea. You bring the tea to the table but then your friend says, "Hey... You know, I'm sorry but I don't think I want tea anymore."

-You don't try to force them to drink tea
-You don't try to guilt them into drinking the tea by saying "Oh well you made me waste my time making you tea but now you don't want it?" Because yes, it's annoying that you had to make tea, but they are still not obligated to drink the tea.

2c. You make them tea, bring the tea to the table, and they happily drink tea with you. All is good in the world.

-You don't invite them to your house again and try to make them drink tea with you, just because they had tea with you the other day.

2d. You go ahead and make tea, but then come back to see your friend has fallen asleep.

-You don't try to force tea down their throat while they are asleep.

2e. You go ahead and make tea, only to find out that your friend was heavily intoxicated and doesn't remember or want tea anymore.

-You don't try to force them to drink tea.
-You don't guilt them into drinking tea.

So yeah... I thought this was an amazing analogy and would bring it up. This applies to anything, be it tea, or going places, or sex. You can't force someone into doing something. And if you are intoxicated or the other person is intoxicated, don't try to have sex with them. Regardless of if they regret it or not, they are not fully under control of their actions, and the alcohol may have taken affect on them.

Vlerchan
September 29th, 2016, 12:05 PM
You are basically saying we allow women to throw a guy in prison just because she regretted having sex with him. How do you define when consent is lost? And why do you think that someone who openly consented to sex is suddenly being raped when they start having regrets. They made the choice, they deal with it.
You're misunderstanding. Precedent at the moment directs that the man or women can withdraw their consent at any point during the act. If one party unilaterally precedes with the act after that point then that party has committed rape.

It might be easier to understand as thus. I might invite someone onto my private property. That someone might have a lot of fun on my private property. But I reserve the right to reserve or evict them. If that person refuses to then leaveArkansasguy] them on the same grounds as I might have had they never my permission.

Rape is sex by force.
R v Olugboja [1982]: Dependent offered the victim a lift and instead took her into his house. There he brought her into the room and demanded she had set with him. The victim feared a physical confrontation with the much bigger man. In tears - she submitted and began to strip. The defendent preceded to have set with her. In court the defendent argued that having used no force it could not be rape.

The case was thrown out on the basis of some decisions made in 1850.

People (DPP) v C [2001]: woman retired to bed in a house she shared with her partner and another man. That night the other man entered her room and laid down in bed with her. It was dark and she could not see him. Believing it her partner - she told him she loved him and referred to him using her partners name.
He then initiated sex - the women participated up until the point that she realised it was not her partner. She kicked the man out of her room.

It was settled that impersonation - even passive impersonation - nullified consent as per R v Dee [1884]: a case of similar facts. R v Jheeta is more grotesque in this but being more complicated I am not going to outline all the facts unless required. You can read it of course.

It's clear to me that the modern laws regarding rape are designed to excuse females who engage in drunken fornication of any blame.
The legal standard that women have to meet is quite high - there is very few convictions under this precedent. Nonetheless - defining rape as sex initiated through force is poor legal settlement and lends itself to a host of unjust outcomes.

Though regardless of the outcomes allowing people to be able to consent to things whilst not being able to understand the full facts of the situation is inviting abuse.

---

MARS analogy is also good: +1.

Arkansasguy
September 29th, 2016, 12:30 PM
I saw this video once where British police compared rape to tea.

You invite your friend or someone to your house and offer them tea. This is the part where it can go several ways.

1. They can refuse your offer saying "Oh no thank you. We had tea the other day and I don't really feel like having tea right now."

-You don't try to force the person into drinking your tea or having tea.
-You don't say "Oh! Well I made tea for you the other day! Now you don't want my tea? Is it because my tea is bad? I made tea and now you won't have it! That hurts you know." And try to guilt them into having tea

2. They can accept the offer...
2a. You go ahead and make them tea. You offer them milk and honey. They say they want honey.

-You don't put milk in instead, just because you like milk.
-You don't offer honey and then say "Oh, well I don't have honey, guess you'll get milk instead."

2b. You go ahead and make them tea. You bring the tea to the table but then your friend says, "Hey... You know, I'm sorry but I don't think I want tea anymore."

-You don't try to force them to drink tea
-You don't try to guilt them into drinking the tea by saying "Oh well you made me waste my time making you tea but now you don't want it?"

2c. You make them tea, bring the tea to the table, and they happily drink tea with you. All is good in the world.

-You don't invite them to your house again and try to make them drink tea with you, just because they had tea with you the other day.

2d. You go ahead and make tea, but then come back to see your friend has fallen asleep.

-You don't try to force tea down their throat while they are asleep.

2e. You go ahead and make tea, only to find out that your friend was heavily intoxicated and doesn't remember or want tea anymore.

-You don't try to force them to drink tea.
-You don't guilt them into drinking tea.

So yeah... I thought this was an amazing analogy and would bring it up. This applies to anything, be it tea, or going places, or sex. You can't force someone into doing something. And if you are intoxicated or the other person is intoxicated, don't try to have sex with them. Regardless of if they regret it or not, they are not fully under control of their actions, and the alcohol may have taken affect on them.

You're aware that drinking tea with a drunk person is unobjectionable, right?

You're misunderstanding. Precedent at the moment directs that the man or women can withdraw their consent at any point during the act. If one party unilaterally precedes with the act after that point then that party has committed rape.

It might be easier to understand as thus. I might invite someone onto my private property. That someone might have a lot of fun on my private property. But I reserve the right to reserve or evict them. If that person refuses to then leaveArkansasguy] them on the same grounds as I might have had they never my permission.


R v Olugboja [1982]: Dependent offered the victim a lift and instead took her into his house. There he brought her into the room and demanded she had set with him. The victim feared a physical confrontation with the much bigger man. In tears - she submitted and began to strip. The defendent preceded to have set with her. In court the defendent argued that having used no force it could not be rape.

The case was thrown out on the basis of some decisions made in 1850.

People (DPP) v C [2001]: woman retired to bed in a house she shared with her partner and another man. That night the other man entered her room and laid down in bed with her. It was dark and she could not see him. Believing it her partner - she told him she loved him and referred to him using her partners name.
He then initiated sex - the women participated up until the point that she realised it was not her partner. She kicked the man out of her room.

It was settled that impersonation - even passive impersonation - nullified consent as per R v Dee [1884]: a case of similar facts. R v Jheeta is more grotesque in this but being more complicated I am not going to outline all the facts unless required. You can read it of course.


The legal standard that women have to meet is quite high - there is very few convictions under this precedent. Nonetheless - defining rape as sex initiated through force is poor legal settlement and lends itself to a host of unjust outcomes.

Though regardless of the outcomes allowing people to be able to consent to things whilst not being able to understand the full facts of the situation is inviting abuse.

---

MARS analogy is also good: +1.

Rape was defined as sex by force for ages. It worked for our ancestors, it can work for us.

Of course, adultery was illegal back then, so there was no need to classify such cases of impersonation as rape.

Sailor Mars
September 29th, 2016, 12:44 PM
You're aware that drinking tea with a drunk person is unobjectionable, right?



Rape was defined as sex by force for ages. It worked for our ancestors, it can work for us.

Of course, adultery was illegal back then, so there was no need to classify such cases of impersonation as rape.

The point isn't about tea; it's about consent. If someone is drunk and the not fully aware of their actions or is under the influence so that their actions and opinions are altered, then they cannot both 1. Legally give consent and 2. Give consent, fully aware and conscious of the decision they are making.

Rape is still defined as forcible sexual assault, but it also about a matter of consent, something that you don't seem to understand.

everlong
September 29th, 2016, 12:47 PM
I might have an unpopular opinion here. I think if you're drunk, and agree to sex, you consented. You should be responsible for your own actions. That's kind of like regretting sex later and then calling it rape, which is also very wrong.

Vlerchan
September 29th, 2016, 01:12 PM
Rape was defined as sex by force for ages. It worked for our ancestors, it can work for us.
It's first impossible to determine whether it worked or not because in cases where it didn't work the likelihood is that these went unobserved: rape constituted a property crime against the legal owner of the women (her husband or her father) for ages (until the mid 1800s too). If issue occurred it was impossible for the victim to raise it because she wasn't recognised as a victim.

It also opened avenues to martial rape (which you probably don't consider rape, I imagine).

Of course, adultery was illegal back then, so there was no need to classify such cases of impersonation as rape.
That's no defence that it didn't in fact constitute rape. Using forced during a robbery is also more serious than just engaging in robbery so it's not like that distinction doesn't matter.

R v Flattery [1877]: defendent convinced victim that she requires an operation and under this guise had sequel intercourse with her. She had been decived in this instance and it was ruled that without an understanding of the facts material it was impossible for her to consent.

Rape is still defined as forcible sexual assault
Force doesn't come into it at all under current legal definitions.

It is also not a subcategory of sexual assault which is an entirely different crime.

Sailor Mars
September 29th, 2016, 01:21 PM
Force doesn't come into it at all under current legal definitions.

It is also not a subcategory of sexual assault which is an entirely different crime.

I didn't mean it as a legal definition, but more so someone was forced to do sow thing that they didn't want to.

And I didn't know sexual assault and rape were different? I thought they were interchangeable most of the time?

Uniquemind
September 29th, 2016, 07:35 PM
I didn't mean it as a legal definition, but more so someone was forced to do sow thing that they didn't want to.

And I didn't know sexual assault and rape were different? I thought they were interchangeable most of the time?

I think when discussing definitions it's important to make clear the platform of context in the discussion. In this case law makes the most sense, given that it forces a dichotomy to be made about what is and is not. It takes away the abstract qualities of such a topic and qualifies them.

Whereas I think in a more healing or therapudic context of counseling someone's experience, it can be a little more flexible.

Vlerchan
September 30th, 2016, 03:14 PM
I didn't mean it as a legal definition, but more so someone was forced to do sow thing that they didn't want to.
I agree with Uniquemind's point but I also tend to take a stronger stance about people using misleading definitions of rape, given the rape-scepticism that pollutes our society as it is.

And I didn't know sexual assault and rape were different? I thought they were interchangeable most of the time?
Rape refers to penetrative sex that the victim had failed to consent to.

Sexual assault refers to assault (touching without lawful excuse - basically*) that the "right thinking person" would consider to be indecent (though the accused must have also intended the act to be indecent**) - at the point where penetration occurs it becomes a separate crime called rape. If the act in question occurs on the basis of deceit then it is also considered sexual assault (R v Tabassum [2000]: man impersonated a doctor and offered women breast checks).

Then aggravated sexual assault is sexual assault accompanies with violent force.

---

* In Irish and British law it uses the exact same definition as the general assault passages.

** This makes more sense in the context of the case-law. I hope it makes enough sense to understand what's intended though.

That's kind of like regretting sex later and then calling it rape, which is also very wrong.
It's nothing like that. In the case where someone is not drunk and regrets sex later, during the time of consent they were in a frame of mind where they were capable of considering the material facts and acting on them. What separates this from cases where someone is drunk is that the victim was that state of mind evaporated with the drunkenness.

In other words, that I decide to drink isn't reason to have sex with me.

candorgen
September 30th, 2016, 06:54 PM
I'll try at the definition of rape being an intimate sexual act directed by one person toward another, with an absence of consent on the part of the latter person in participating with this.

If there's one person called A for purposes here, and another called B, then:


Rape by person A on person B is the situation of person A acting sexually directly at person B. Person B does not consent in participating in this.

The consent given by Y needs to be continuous, not just in one moment. A is raping B if B stops consenting and A continues to act. A must be aware of B's consent, otherwise there is no consent from B to A. A should not presume that B is consenting, in the absence of relevant communication from B.

If B is in a drug-induced altered state of consciousness, B is consenting if they agree to participate in receiving direct sexual acts from A, but only if they are aware that A is doing that.

If B is not in a state of consciousness that permits communication between B and A, then B cannot give consent. Any acts directed by A toward B here is rape.


What I've said is not fixed for me, but I'm keeping with this for now.


I have a hard time believing that a sane male of age can be "raped" by a female.

I have a hard time wondering what it is about the definitions of rape which follow that 'sane' males cannot be raped by females (as rape is gender-invariant)...


I've seen this firsthand at parties - friends of mine were extremely inebriated and getting hit on by ugly fat chicks. after about 10 slurred "less go to...less go to the bedroom...c'moooon" one of the dudes staggers to his feet and roars "SHUT THE FUCK UP BITCH!! GO MASTURBATE OR SOMETHING, FUUUUCK!" :lol3: good times.

Your example can't be stretched to represent all cases of situations which could give rise to a female raping a male. All this example shows is what certain personalities are able to do when the person is drunk.


anyway, I have little sympathy for people who end up getting in legal trouble after combining alcohol and sex. alcohol is a shit drug and to me there's little point in having sex if you can barely remember it later.

A good point though.


[...] "consent/communication" is a non-tangible human perception problem.

I feel that this is a dominant factor in what makes the general definition of rape, and its alleged instances, debatable.

Flapjack
October 7th, 2016, 03:17 PM
I might have an unpopular opinion here. I think if you're drunk, and agree to sex, you consented. You should be responsible for your own actions. That's kind of like regretting sex later and then calling it rape, which is also very wrong.
Would you be okay if you signed a contract when you was intoxicated?

Have you ever got intoxicated before?

Uniquemind
October 8th, 2016, 01:30 AM
Would you be okay if you signed a contract when you was intoxicated?

Have you ever got intoxicated before?

That wouldn't work. I don't think contracts are socially acceptable as "sexy smooth" behavior.

It might be a kink for a some people, but I doubt it would catch on.


I hear that in some college campuses, I think it was UC Berkeley, they have had classes or seminars where they just black or white expect both the woman and man to say a verbal "yes" to sex, otherwise it's acknowledged by the man that he runs the risk of being legally charged for rape.

Honestly I can of support such a notion. I find it lame and dumb society expects sexual consent to be some non-verbal thing in order to be "smooth, flirtatious etc".

I get why it's popular and perhaps it has to do with Puritianical origins with sexual topics in America but...idk.

Just JT
October 8th, 2016, 03:42 AM
So my questions are: how narrow or wide should the definition of rape be? What effect will this have on the so-called "campus rape problem" or "rape culture"?

"Rape culture". Is this like a thing?
How wide? When one party is not able or does not give consent. Period. Then it's rape.

But see this is where it gets complicated: Does this mean that inherently, a drunk person cannot consent? Does this apply when both parties are drunk? Essentially it's the idea that there is an epidempic of rape and/or sexual assault on college campuses, particularly associated with fraternities. Yet some claim that this problem is inflated by a definition of rape that is too broad. I agree with your provided definition, however.

Yes, if your drunk, under the law, you can not give consent.


I have a hard time believing that a sane male of age can be "raped" by a female. especially when alcohol is involved, if you can get it up despite your inebriated state then you are probably conscious enough to know what's happening. that and the "beer goggles" thing is mostly made up - the vast majority of guys simply won't have sex with someone they're not sexually interested in no matter how drunk they are.

I've seen this firsthand at parties - friends of mine were extremely inebriated and getting hit on by ugly fat chicks. after about 10 slurred "less go to...less go to the bedroom...c'moooon" one of the dudes staggers to his feet and roars "SHUT THE FUCK UP BITCH!! GO MASTURBATE OR SOMETHING, FUUUUCK!" :lol3: good times.

anyway, I have little sympathy for people who end up getting in legal trouble after combining alcohol and sex. alcohol is a shit drug and to me there's little point in having sex if you can barely remember it later.

WIRED: bud
TIRED: Budweiser

To imply that because you get sexually stimulated when someone's doing something to your body means that there is no rape, because they like it?

Sorry, that's just plane wrong. Enjoying a sexual act, giving consent, and sexual stimulation, can all be a part of a rape, regardless of gender.

To think otherwise is sticking your head in the wet sand at low tide, it's just plane wrong. If you don't want it, and you don't consent, but get it up anyways, that's still,rape

everlong
October 8th, 2016, 11:24 AM
Would you be okay if you signed a contract when you was intoxicated?

Have you ever got intoxicated before?

I'd be angry with myself, but I'd consider it my fault. I do see your point, though. And no, I never have been intoxicated before. Perhaps I'd have to go through that before forming an opinion. I think a contract and sex are two different things though.

Uniquemind
October 9th, 2016, 12:53 PM
Well to to slightly off topic, Donald Trump, is going through some major embarassment from a "grab em by the pussy" comment he said while wearing a hot mic in 2005.

That's a pro-rape culture kind of comment that guys sometimes drop among themselves.

Proves my point about our dating culture and views toward women and sexual opportunity.

All the comedians are having a field day with him if you haven't heard about this.

AussieNicholas
October 14th, 2016, 07:07 AM
Here's how I would define rape: a sexual interaction in which one or more persons involved does not give explicit informed consent. This would include:

A sexual interaction in which someone is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

A sexual interaction in which someone gives consent only after being blackmailed, threatened, or coerced.

A sexual interaction involving someone who is under the age of consent, or between a minor and a person of authority (e.g. a teacher or legal guardian).

What would not count as rape:

A sexual interaction in which all person involved give consent while drunk (if this was counted as rape, then everyone involved would be guilty of rape).

A sexual interaction in which one or more persons carries an STI but does not make their partners aware of such (this is still an abhorrent thing to do and should be illegal, but it's not rape. Anyone can claim to be ST-free, which is why condoms exist).

A sexual interaction in which a person has previously consented but does not withdraw consent during intercourse (it's not fair to call it rape if you initially consent and don't tell your partner when you don't want to continue).

I've listed these examples because the different circumstances can play a part in whether or not a sex act constitutes rape, and I want to give a clear impression of what type of circumstances would be factors.

phuckphace
October 14th, 2016, 10:57 AM
To think otherwise is sticking your head in the wet sand at low tide, it's just plane wrong. If you don't want it, and you don't consent, but get it up anyways, that's still,rape

I forgot to include this angle (my bad) but I can see how, for example, a younger kid could want it and like it without realizing the implications of what they're doing. since children categorically can't consent because they're children, that would indeed be rape.

Bob billy
December 21st, 2016, 12:47 PM
The definition of rape needs to be set in stone a little better. There's a fine line between sexual assault and rape and people aren't getting the clue. Rape, by definition, means FORCED intercourse. Sexual assault is not rape and people keep taking it to that level.

Vlerchan
December 21st, 2016, 02:10 PM
Rape, by definition, means FORCED intercourse.
No. It's intercourse where one partner has not offered consent.

If you ever take criminal law you'll find that there is a significant difference between the pair of definitions.

Phosphene
December 21st, 2016, 02:12 PM
This thread was bumped :locked: