Printable View
I don't know if a similar thread already exists, but this has been on my mind recently and I've had a few discussions. More input would be appreciated.
What is rape? How does one define it? What is (are) the qualitative difference(s) between sex and rape?
The difference is if the other person does not aprove of the sex, it is rape, regardless of how much they enjoy it. Of course the law has called sex with minors also rape, because minors are not considered human. :inquisitive:
Rape here(Urbana) is the forced('forced' includes the partner agreeing to have sex while drunk/high which is STUPID in my vastly superior opinion) insertion, or attempted insertion,(well I think 'penitration' alone is used, which includes attempted insertion) of the penis into the vagina, anus, or mouth(not sure about the last one). Oh yes, and any sex between adults and minors is rape, consentual or no
Rape is considered a violent crime of power it is not a heavy handed version of sex.
Consential S&M is not rape.
Seduction of a minor is rape.
If we could leave legalities aside as stand-alone, definitive answers, I would very much appreciate it.
I heard the other day that some wack-job feminist has publically stated that all heterosexual sex is rape. Is this idea entirely far-fetched, or no?
Even when the age difference is 1 or 2 years? What is allowed in age difference?Quote:
Oh yes, and any sex between adults and minors is rape, consentual or no
Even when the difference is one or two years. Even if they were born days apart to the best of my knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.
tr.v. raped, rap·ing, rapes
1. To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on.
2. To seize and carry off by force.
3. To plunder or pillage.
Webster's Definition of Rape.
By Law (in the U.S. Anyway) there is a legal age at which a person can have sex...generally the legal age is 16 but varies by region (anywhere from 15-18). It is the persons responsibility (assuming he/she is above the legal age of consent) to know the age of the person they are going to have intercourse with, if a person over the legal age of consent has intercourse with someone under the legal age of consent, it is by default, statutory rape. Which does not fall under the same legal guidelines as forced rape, but still carry heavy fines, perhaps some time in prison, and a criminal record. Also, in some cases, depending on the nature of the "consent" the person may also have to register as a sexual offender.
Oh, and the feminist is, as you said before. A Whack-job, or perhaps a Shaker (religious sect in America that does not have sex).
You've got to be kidding! So when a boy and girl are both 17 they can happily have sex but when one becomes 18 they cannot have sex until the other also becomes 18?! :wall:Quote:
Even when the difference is one or two years. Even if they were born days apart to the best of my knowledge.
If 2 kids of 15 years old have sex can they be fined? If one turns 16 it will suddenly become rape even when they had sex when they were 15?Quote:
By Law (in the U.S. Anyway) there is a legal age at which a person can have sex...generally the legal age is 16
It wouldn't matter if the two kids were 15, and then one turned 16 say a week later, because at the date of the crime, the person would still have been 15.
(Finds Legal Dictionary)
In referring to your question, it wouldn't fall under California State law as being a felony. Instead, it falls under Family Law Guidelines Section 502, Article A.
Doesn't say much, just says that at the age, basically it is up to parents to decide how to deal with the matter, they can sue for in Family Court for youth misconduct. But if foul play is suspected, the case would be switched to Criminal Court pending a trial.
oh and your other question, Discovery1 pretty much hit the nail right on the head. However, if say they were weeks apart, you could plea negligence.
So there ya have it. DJ, it is up to the parents to decide how they want to persue the matter.
I meant that what if 2 15-year olds had sex. According to the US law it would be up to the parents what to do with it. And 6 months later the 2 still have sex, but one is now 16 and the other still 15, so a new "crime". Would it then suddenly become rape because of Websters' definition: "if a person over the legal age of consent has intercourse with someone under the legal age of consent, it is by default, statutory rape"? Or is this a law that is commonly put aside in normal cases (teens just having sex) but to have something to fall back on when foul play is suspected as you wrote?Quote:
It wouldn't matter if the two kids were 15, and then one turned 16 say a week later, because at the date of the crime, the person would still have been 15.
Regarding your question, if say they were both under the age of consent it would be considered negligence and probably settled in family court (or not at all). But say 6 months later one turns 16 (legal age of consent), but the other is still 15, and they decide to have sex again, it would then be considered a different crime, and statutory rape. Which is a felony, and would be settled in a Criminal Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
But the notion of "teens just having sex" is probably a common defense, and 99% of the time, these sort of cases never even make it to a court anyway. Unless foul play is suspected, and the person under the legal age of consent comes foreward with rape allegations.
In the end, people under the age of consent and therefore emancipation is up to the parents to decide what to do. I could go into all the legalities of it, which is severely exhausting to type, and I don't want really want to write a thesis paper on it.
Suffice it to say, that if the person under the age of consent has sex, with someone over the age of consent, if his/her parent's decide to persue a criminal conviction, but the person under the age of consent turns 16 a week later, she can opt to drop the charges, because she is considered to be at the legal age of emancipation.
Ok, thanks for explaining it all :bow:
I know that MacKinnon considers anything that is meant to look like rape as rape. Then again, she somehow thinks the words, "Only Whites," are inherintly discriminatory in the way that they are making differences negatively. Which obviously isn't the case since I just wrote, "Only Whites," and there was nothing prejudiced about it. (Discrimination, strictly speaking is seeing a difference between two things.)Quote:
I heard the other day that some wack-job feminist has publically stated that all heterosexual sex is rape.
Rape=unwanted sexual contact with intent; different degrees for differing severity. So, under my definition, molestation would be rape.
I've read one feminist even felt science was sexist: the fact that solid state physics is better understood than fluid dynamics (you see, solid state = erect penis, fluids = menstrual etc etc)...
I feel that to call all sex rape says more about her experiences than anything else. I've met some extremely predatory women / girls and it'd take one hell of a lot of explaining to get me (or them for that matter) to believe that they were being raped! :dizzy2:
~:smoking:
No in TEXAS anywhere from three years after 15 the penalty is much less. IIRC I could be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by discovery1
Around here we used to have two grades of rape in the law books - rape and what probably translates to "aggravated rape" or somehting along those lines. Naturally the latter gets harder sentences. It was removed some time ago, which duly gave the yellow press a field day with senastionalist headlines.
What they, true to form, failed to mention was that the single remaining degree was the old harhser-punishable one without the prefix, ie. there was no longer a "rape lite" in the books.
:dizzy2:
Yellow press. Gotta love those bottom feeders, and by all accounts *ours* are nice and well-behaved compared to, say, the British ones.
In Dutch Law, rape is defined as using violence or threats of any kind to force someone to undergo penetration.
Sex with people under the legal age of consent and having sex with someone who is drunk/on drugs is covered by seperate articles.
I raped my hand repeatedly when I was stationed in Korea.:2thumbsup:
:inquisitive:
Just where exactly in your hand is there a... no, I'm so not proceeding any further.
Rape in Norway is defined as enforced sexual activity(AFAIK). For a couple of months a ago, a women was charged for having raped a man the oral way while he was asleep. Can`t remember if she was found guilty.
I've had someone try to tell me that a lot of scientific theories would be very different if they had been discovered by women. I asked her to explain how Newton's laws would differ if Newton had been a woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
She didn't have much to say, if I recall.
Feminists are fun...Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
It's always fun when dogmatists paint themselves into corners.
She was :2thumbsup: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I remember that case so well.
That guy had alot of balls reporting to the police that he have gotten raped by a woman that's for sure :laugh4:
Was she hot? ya, know the phrase "you can't rape the willing" :laugh4:
I can't recall that any pic of the rapist was ever released.
The victim was engaged I think at the time of the incident which is probably why he refused.
If the rapist was hot however then respect to the guy :2thumbsup:
Umm, you have to be a complete idiot to report oral sex give to you by a woman as rape. Unless she game you HIV or something(highly unlikely), you should also be shot for doing that. :no: :no: :no: :no: :skull: :no: :no: :no:
Or he loved his fiancee so much that he didn't wanna lose her and decided to do what no one has ever done before, getting a woman guilty of raping a man.:idea2: :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Actually, there have been documented cases of women raping men. They're usually not sexual in nature, except by means of humiliation, and are usually brutal and violent. There have been female-on-male gang rapes of the same variety as well.
Yes but have they actually gotten sentance guilty for it ??
And I'm not talking about a teacher having sex with her 14 year old student since that sure as hell ain't rape no matter what the law says.
It is a shame that society bases distinctions on chronological age. Some 14 year olds might be raring to go, other 16 or 18 year olds might not be ready. Something like sexual "gillick competence" would be a good idea so that each can truely develop at their own rate and not be forced or stifled by the law.
~:smoking:
That's definitely not what I'm try to explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by TB666
But the legalities help to answer your question. Very briefly, rape is sex without the consent of the vicitim, when the perpetrator knows there is no consent or does not care whether or not the victim consents.Quote:
If we could leave legalities aside as stand-alone, definitive answers, I would very much appreciate it.
I heard the other day that some wack-job feminist has publically stated that all heterosexual sex is rape. Is this idea entirely far-fetched, or no?
Hence sex with an unconscious woman is, correctly IMHO, defined as rape.
Sex with minors is considered rape because they are deemed to be legally incapable of giving valid consent. Even if it fact they do consent.
So, what your feminist will be arguing (its not new incidently, its been around since at least the 70s) is in effect that women as a gender are
incapable of giving a valid consent to sex. An interestingly "empowered" point of view. Her position will be that men are so powerful (in our society which is phallocentric misogenistic etc etc etc cont until the grant runs out) that a woman cannot consent, even if she thinks she can.
An exampole might be a slave owner having sex with a slave in a society that gave him absolute rights over the slave. Knowing that the slave owner could do absolutely anything to you if you refused, your consent would be questionable even if in fact you did consent willingly.
Of course in the context of ordinary men and women this is technically what we call a load of complete cobblers, based on the classic feminist humpty dumpty approach to the meaning of words (consent means what I define it to mean why do you rapist men think you have the right to impose your oppressive meaning on the language etc etc)
Have a question, if a girl does with a boy when they're 16 how will the case be judged. They're both minors, not capable of giving their consent. Why shold the boy go to prison while the girl is left unharmed.
I think rape is sex that harms the victim physicaly. If a woman does with a man and feels unsatisfied or breaks with him, she accuse him of rape and he goes to prison. The whole penal system is subjective one-way crap at this point.
Feminism is just another legal form of extremism. Maybe in the future we would reduce sexual contact to the sperm-bank approach, no sex, no dildos, no orgasms, no love. Who cares.
Btw, Romanian anti-rape legislation includes "female-rape". If a man does it with a woman and feels bad about loosing his virginity he can sew her for rape and win.
Rape is sex without consent. In the UK anyone over the age of 10 can rape someone. It used to be 14 but the law was changed because younger boys were raping girls. Yes some women have been known to acuse a man of rape because they regretted it afterwards, that doesn't make what happened rape. Personnally I think if a woman gets herself drunk and makes a mistake she should own up to it, unless the man was actually taking advantage of her being drunk/getting her drunk. Obviously drugging and date rape is wrong.
Cronos Impera, is the legal age of consent in your country 18 for sex? Can't people get married at 16, like than can in most of the rest of the Western world?
You see this is where thinking in terms of consent is essential. We all do things (eg people) we otherwise wouldn't when we are drunk. But that shouldn't mean the full force of the law of rape (eg up to life in jail) descends upon our heads, unless the other party is SO drunk she (or he) cannot consent.Quote:
Personnally I think if a woman gets herself drunk and makes a mistake she should own up to it, unless the man was actually taking advantage of her being drunk/getting her drunk
As a judge recently observed, a drunken consent is still a consent, a conventional statement of the law that for some reason resulted in the poor sod being treated as if he had said that all women enjoy being raped, really.
if you don't want to agree to have sex with someone who you wouldn't touch when sober the answer is not to get drunk.
I'm just wondering who is "the law" to say who's minor and who's not? I find it really unfair - say highschool teacher get charged with rape just because she/he agrees to have sex with a teen student. I had this hot spanish teacher back in highschool and I couldn't stop thinking that if we did hook up, we could get in trouble just because I was a "minor" or "not human" (well, I actually wasn't a 'minor' at that time according to US law but you get my point).
There is this thing called:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
Politically Correct or Another Form of Fasism...
Hellenes
Hence my inclusion of the terms 'stand-alone' and 'definitive'. Helping define them is fine, but "the law says this, so this is rape" is a little mindless to help me in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Anyway, my thoughts are that consent is intangible and isn't even always clear, which pretty much everyone knows. But removing the consent issue from the situation at all, there is no discernible difference between rape and acceptable sex. The statement "all heterosexual sex is rape" seems pretty reasonable to me, fetishism aside.
why would you want to remove the consent issue from the discussion? it's a necessary element.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
it's only reasonable if you remove the consideration of consent before-hand. ask a person that has had consensual sex and has also been raped if they distinguish between the two. i'm willing to bet that they do.Quote:
The statement "all heterosexual sex is rape" seems pretty reasonable to me, fetishism aside.
if you are asking if there is a purely physical distinction between rape and sex, then the answer is generally no. consensual sex and rape can both range from mere touching to extreme violence.
That's the whole point of the exercise. Is it really the only necessary element? Besides that, it's awfully fuzzy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
it may not be the only necessary element (some form of sexuality is probably a necessary element of rape), but what exactly is the point? to remove necessary facets of a concept destroys the concept. to talk about "rape" without considering the notion of "consent" is not reduction or deconsruction, but seemingly nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
If you go back to page 1 and read how I explained to Duke John how if two minors are involved in a sexual relationship what happens if the parents decide to pursue charges. (American law, but I imagine it's fairly universal in the western hemisphere).Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
And Rape according to the Law is not really a matter of interpretation, I.E. Having Sexual Intercourse with someone who does not consent, either brutally, or subtley is still considered rape. Given the degree of the crime, depends on what kind of sentence you will recieve (anywhere from 2-6 years), or in some cases, the "victim" may be using rape allegations as a form of blackmail or revenge, in which case the defense may also persue a counter claim if enough evidence is present.
Because consent cannot be measured, seen or empirically proven. I'm merely ignoring the abstract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
again, this way of approaching the issue destroys the question. you can't ignore consent if you want a meaningful answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Nonsense. It doesn't affect the outcome in anything but name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
if you are drastically redefining the terms (i.e., you want to somehow consider "rape" without the notion of "consent"), then the question becomes nonsensical. plain and simple. maybe you should try rephrasing your question.
as was said, from a purely physical consideration, the range of expression of the two acts is probably almost identical (though the frequency of expression of individual parts of that range is probably very different between the two acts). but is this a meaningful realization? is this the answer you are looking for? it's rather mundane.
And it doesn't really matter what your opinion of what consentual or not is, it matters what the other parties opinion of consentual is. It is nonsensical to question something that "is".
Then why is the statement above so silly and extreme?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
you'll have to be a little more explicit.. what "statement above"?
That all heterosexual sex is rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
ah. i would say that the statement that "all heterosexual sex is rape" is nonsense because consensual heterosexual sex is not rape. a bit circular perhaps, but that's what happens when one addresses nonsenical claims.