What is Rape?

[Des-Bal]

Nope. We never marginalize rape victims on the internet. Never happens.

I'm not marginalizing anyone.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Nope. We never marginalize rape victims on the internet. Never happens.

I'm not marginalizing anyone.

Apart from people who are asleep.

[Des-Bal]

I refer you to the FBI's definition.

Rape is, generally, penetrating someone's vagina or anus with something without their consent.

If you're asleep, you can't consent.

Therefore having sex with someone who's asleep is having sex with someone without their consent.

Therefore having sex with someone who's asleep is rape.

Why is this a difficult concept?

The FBI says so isn't an argument. I'm not saying that it isn't legally rape I'm saying that it shouldn't legally be rape.

[Individuality-ness]

Nope. We never marginalize rape victims on the internet. Never happens.

I'm not marginalizing anyone.

"I was raped --"
"By whom? That guy needs to be beat up! GET THE PITCHFORKS!!"
"-- while I was asleep in my bed."
"THAT'S NOT REAL RAPE YOU FUCKING WHORE!"

[The Emerald Dawn]

Nope. We never marginalize rape victims on the internet. Never happens.

I'm not marginalizing anyone.

You know, I believe you. You honestly don't understand that you're marginalizing anyone.

And that's scary to me.

[Ifreann]

So you're saying that having penetrative sex with someone while they're asleep and therefore by definition cannot consent is not rape.

I weep for humanity.

Yes. I'm saying that the absence of consent is not sufficient, there must be an expressed desire.

I'm sure that'll be very important to consider when you're crafting criminal legislation. Us lay folk will will keep calling sex without consent rape.

[Des-Bal]

"I was raped --"
"By whom? That guy needs to be beat up! GET THE PITCHFORKS!!"
"-- while I was asleep in my bed."
"THAT'S NOT REAL RAPE YOU FUCKING WHORE!"

I'll wait for you to finish arguing with your strawmen.

[Des-Bal]

You know, I believe you. You honestly don't understand that you're marginalizing anyone.

And that's scary to me.

Marginalize by definition means to treat someone as "insignificant or peripheral." I'm not doing that.

[Bottle]

So you're saying that having penetrative sex with someone while they're asleep and therefore by definition cannot consent is not rape.

I weep for humanity.

Yes. I'm saying that the absence of consent is not sufficient, there must be an expressed desire.

So can this be applied across the board?

If a man is asleep, it would not be assault to punch him in the nuts, because there's merely an absence of consent to being punched in the nuts...he's not expressing an active desire to not be punched in the nuts.

A man who is out in public wearing, say, bike shorts, can also be assumed to be looking for a punch in the nuts, unless he specifically and clearly demonstrates his desire not to be punched in the nuts.

And really, I mean, any guy who is out at a bar can be assumed to be open to a junk-shot, because everyone knows that bars often have fights. Unless he specifically SAYS he doesn't want to be hit in the testicles, it's really not fair to call it "assault" if someone happens to hit him in the testicles.

Or is it only female genitalia which exist in a state of default consent?

[Individuality-ness]

"I was raped --"
"By whom? That guy needs to be beat up! GET THE PITCHFORKS!!"
"-- while I was asleep in my bed."
"THAT'S NOT REAL RAPE YOU FUCKING WHORE!"

I'll wait for you to finish arguing with your strawmen.

The last part might have been uncalled for, but that's essentially what you're saying. If you're asleep in your bed, and someone fingers you or has sexual intercourse with you, that's not legit rape, because she didn't give that person an explicit "no".

And that idea deserves to be mocked.

[The Emerald Dawn]

You know, I believe you. You honestly don't understand that you're marginalizing anyone.

And that's scary to me.

Marginalize by definition means to treat someone as "insignificant or peripheral." I'm not doing that.

Really? So the fear and pain that someone experiences with non-consensual sexual conduct suddenly not being "actual rape" because they were asleep, isn't marginalizing?

Now you're being dishonest.

[Des-Bal]

So can this be applied across the board?

If a man is asleep, it would not be assault to punch him in the nuts, because there's merely an absence of consent to being punched in the nuts...he's not expressing an active desire to not be punched in the nuts.

A man who is out in public wearing, say, bike shorts, can also be assumed to be looking for a punch in the nuts, unless he specifically and clearly demonstrates his desire not to be punched in the nuts.

And really, I mean, any guy who is out at a bar can be assumed to be open to a junk-shot, because everyone knows that bars often have fights. Unless he specifically SAYS he doesn't want to be hit in the testicles, it's really not fair to call it "assault" if someone happens to hit him in the testicles.

Or is it only female genitalia which exist in a state of default consent?

I didn't say anything about default consent. I've made it clear I'm not talking about default consent. I'm sure someone said something about default consent, if you'd like to argue with them feel free to do so but I'm not part of that conversation and I'm not going to be lumped in with them.

[Bottle]

So can this be applied across the board?

If a man is asleep, it would not be assault to punch him in the nuts, because there's merely an absence of consent to being punched in the nuts...he's not expressing an active desire to not be punched in the nuts.

A man who is out in public wearing, say, bike shorts, can also be assumed to be looking for a punch in the nuts, unless he specifically and clearly demonstrates his desire not to be punched in the nuts.

And really, I mean, any guy who is out at a bar can be assumed to be open to a junk-shot, because everyone knows that bars often have fights. Unless he specifically SAYS he doesn't want to be hit in the testicles, it's really not fair to call it "assault" if someone happens to hit him in the testicles.

Or is it only female genitalia which exist in a state of default consent?

I didn't say anything about default consent. I've made it clear I'm not talking about default consent. I'm sure someone said something about default consent, if you'd like to argue with them feel free to do so but I'm not part of that conversation and I'm not going to be lumped in with them.

So you have no answer, then?

Pitiful. Not unexpected, of course, but still. I'm kind of embarrassed for you.

[Individuality-ness]

So can this be applied across the board?

If a man is asleep, it would not be assault to punch him in the nuts, because there's merely an absence of consent to being punched in the nuts...he's not expressing an active desire to not be punched in the nuts.

A man who is out in public wearing, say, bike shorts, can also be assumed to be looking for a punch in the nuts, unless he specifically and clearly demonstrates his desire not to be punched in the nuts.

And really, I mean, any guy who is out at a bar can be assumed to be open to a junk-shot, because everyone knows that bars often have fights. Unless he specifically SAYS he doesn't want to be hit in the testicles, it's really not fair to call it "assault" if someone happens to hit him in the testicles.

Or is it only female genitalia which exist in a state of default consent?

I didn't say anything about default consent. I've made it clear I'm not talking about default consent. I'm sure someone said something about default consent, if you'd like to argue with them feel free to do so but I'm not part of that conversation and I'm not going to be lumped in with them.

So you're saying that having penetrative sex with someone while they're asleep and therefore by definition cannot consent is not rape.

I weep for humanity.

Yes. I'm saying that the absence of consent is not sufficient, there must be an expressed desire.

Your words contradict you.

[Des-Bal]

Really? So the fear and pain that someone experiences with non-consensual sexual conduct suddenly not being "actual rape" because they were asleep, isn't marginalizing?

Now you're being dishonest.

I'm saying the fear and pain they've experienced is not comparable to the fear and pain experienced in actual rape. I'm saying it's a lesser crime.

[Ifreann]

Yes. I'm saying that the absence of consent is not sufficient, there must be an expressed desire.

So can this be applied across the board?

If a man is asleep, it would not be assault to punch him in the nuts, because there's merely an absence of consent to being punched in the nuts...he's not expressing an active desire to not be punched in the nuts.

A man who is out in public wearing, say, bike shorts, can also be assumed to be looking for a punch in the nuts, unless he specifically and clearly demonstrates his desire not to be punched in the nuts.

And really, I mean, any guy who is out at a bar can be assumed to be open to a junk-shot, because everyone knows that bars often have fights. Unless he specifically SAYS he doesn't want to be hit in the testicles, it's really not fair to call it "assault" if someone happens to hit him in the testicles.

Or is it only female genitalia which exist in a state of default consent?

This is why I always wear my "I do not consent to a nut-shot" sign.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Really? So the fear and pain that someone experiences with non-consensual sexual conduct suddenly not being "actual rape" because they were asleep, isn't marginalizing?

Now you're being dishonest.

I'm saying the fear and pain they've experienced is not comparable to the fear and pain experienced in actual rape. I'm saying it's a lesser crime.

And we're saying that you're completely wrong.

So tell me, say, if you were to wake up in the morning and find that someone else had had anal sex with you without your consent, then you wouldn't feel as bad as a rape victim and you wouldn't think you'd been raped.

Also, this means that, in your world, date rape isn't rape. How charming.

[Des-Bal]

Your words contradict you.

No they don't. I'm not saying that you can assume yes I'm saying that having sex with someone in the absence of consent meets the criteria for some lesser charge. If there isn't an expressed will then I don't consider it rape.

[Bottle]

I didn't say anything about default consent. I've made it clear I'm not talking about default consent. I'm sure someone said something about default consent, if you'd like to argue with them feel free to do so but I'm not part of that conversation and I'm not going to be lumped in with them.

Yes. I'm saying that the absence of consent is not sufficient, there must be an expressed desire.

Your words contradict you.

Ah, but Semantic Dude to the rescue!

He merely said that "absence of consent" isn't enough, you have to "express desire" that you...anti-consent? One assumes?

I'm guessing this falls under the same precedent as the idea that one can safely assume that another person wants to be murdered unless they actively assert that they DO NOT want to be murdered. Which is not to say you are assuming that another person consented to be murdered, you just naturally concluded that they didn't not consent.

[Individuality-ness]

Your words contradict you.

No they don't. I'm not saying that you can assume yes I'm saying that having sex with someone in the absence of consent meets the criteria for some lesser charge. If there isn't an expressed will then I don't consider it rape.

So drug-assisted rape isn't rape then? What happened to the girl in the Steubenville case wasn't really rape?

[The Emerald Dawn]

I've listened to the evidence and changed my position (that may be the first time anyone's acknowledge that on the internet) . I no longer consider sexual abuse of any variety lacking expressed will by the victim to be rape. This includes penetrative acts perpetrated on an unconscious person.

This is what you said.

These are your words.

Really? So the fear and pain that someone experiences with non-consensual sexual conduct suddenly not being "actual rape" because they were asleep, isn't marginalizing?

Now you're being dishonest.

I'm saying the fear and pain they've experienced is not comparable to the fear and pain experienced in actual rape. I'm saying it's a lesser crime.

And that is marginalizing people who have suffered what, in your mind, is a "lesser" crime.

[Bottle]

Really? So the fear and pain that someone experiences with non-consensual sexual conduct suddenly not being "actual rape" because they were asleep, isn't marginalizing?

Now you're being dishonest.

I'm saying the fear and pain they've experienced is not comparable to the fear and pain experienced in actual rape. I'm saying it's a lesser crime.

Oh I cannot wait to see your sources on that.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

No they don't. I'm not saying that you can assume yes I'm saying that having sex with someone in the absence of consent meets the criteria for some lesser charge. If there isn't an expressed will then I don't consider it rape.

So drug-assisted rape isn't rape then? What happened to the girl in the Steubenville case wasn't really raped?

But we're not marginalising people by denying that they've been raped, okay?

[Tel]

I refer you to the FBI's definition.

Rape is, generally, penetrating someone's vagina or anus with something without their consent.

If you're asleep, you can't consent.

Therefore having sex with someone who's asleep is having sex with someone without their consent.

Therefore having sex with someone who's asleep is rape.

Why is this a difficult concept?

The FBI says so isn't an argument. I'm not saying that it isn't legally rape I'm saying that it shouldn't legally be rape.

Edit: Not worth the effort. It was a response to a pro-rape argument.

[Individuality-ness]

Your words contradict you.

Ah, but Semantic Dude to the rescue!

He merely said that "absence of consent" isn't enough, you have to "express desire" that you...anti-consent? One assumes?

I'm guessing this falls under the same precedent as the idea that one can safely assume that another person wants to be murdered unless they actively assert that they DO NOT want to be murdered. Which is not to say you are assuming that another person consented to be murdered, you just naturally concluded that they didn't not consent.

Damn it, do I have to go get a new sign up now?