What is Rape?

[Des-Bal]

Well here's the thing, rape apologist...stabbing isn't rape.

So says you.

[Individuality-ness]

I tried to find the coherent argument in here.

I don't think there is one.

Parking lot guy got stabbed, was he raped? Do you think he was raped? No, because you don't believe the elements that constitute rape were present. Does that make you a rape apologist? No.

That's what I'm saying.

Getting stabbed in the parking lot and being sexually assaulted while you're asleep are two different things.

So are you going to stop with the non sequitur now?

[Samuraikoku]

So says you.

So say many definitions of assault and homicide in several jurisdictions.

[Nadkor]

But...they don't give consent in either situation...

If you're confused about my position I've laid it out in previous posts.

Oh, you've made yourself quite clear.

You don't believe that rape should be tarred with the nasty brush of actually being called rape. You don't think rapists should have to go through the trauma of being labelled rapists. It is, after all, such a horrible term to use to describe someone.

This makes you a rape apologist. This makes you worryingly close, in mindset, to actual rapists.

You're a remarkably disgusting person for holding these opinions.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I tried to find the coherent argument in here.

I don't think there is one.

Parking lot guy got stabbed, was he raped?

No.

Do you think he was raped?

Unless the knife was rammed up his anus, no.

No, because you don't believe the elements that constitute rape were present. Does that make you a rape apologist? No.

That's what I'm saying.

Except no, because I can tell you that the elements that constitute rape were not present in the stabbing situation, unless the knife was rammed up the victim's anus.

In a situation where someone is asleep, and someone has sex with them without first obtaining consent, which they can't do without waking said person up, then the elements of rape, as defined by the law and legal experts, are present.

Then again, given that by your logic date rape isn't rape and raping a comatose person isn't rape, you don't have any credibility on this issue anyway.

[Mavorpen]

Well here's the thing, rape apologist...stabbing isn't rape.

So says you.

It's usually not a good idea to use, "says you" as an argument when the government itself as well as the majority of legal institutions say so as well.

[Norstal]

Well here's the thing, rape apologist...stabbing isn't rape.

So says you.

Oh my god, how ludicrous can this thread go. Apparently any wound you cause is a vagina now.

[The Emerald Dawn]

So says you.

Oh my god, how ludicrous can this thread go. Apparently any wound you cause is a vagina now.

Oh, you read Crossed too?

[Nadkor]

Well here's the thing, rape apologist...stabbing isn't rape.

So says you.

Says the commonly accepted meaning of the word "rape".

Words have meanings. You don't get to unilaterally redefine the meaning of a word just because you don't like it.

Deal with it.

[Neo Art]

Parking lot guy got stabbed, was he raped? Do you think he was raped? No, because you don't believe the elements that constitute rape were present. Does that make you a rape apologist? No.

That's what I'm saying.

When confronted by this kind of, er, "reasoning," one is forced to wonder whether the poster is able to tell the difference between cutting a steak and having sex.

This might be a vaguely worth while point if we were, like, the first people to ever realize rape was "a thing" and were sitting down trying to describe it. But where we've gone completely off the rails is, that his argument LITERALLY IS that being "stabbed" is not "being raped" because the actions that constitute "being stabbed" do not meet the existant legal elements of "rape".

Therefore he was not raped as a matter of law, because rape has an explicitly defined legal definition and "stabbed" doesn't meet it.

OK, fine so far.

Except we've then gone one further. What he's trying to argue here is that rape when the victim is unconcious isn't actually rape because it doesn't meet the definition of rape, except for the fact that it does.

That's what rape is actually legally defined as. Don't believe me? Go ask the two guys who just got convicted of raping a girl for doing exactly that.

[Pradja]

Well here's the thing, rape apologist...stabbing isn't rape.

So says you.

And pretty much any legal office.

[Des-Bal]

Getting stabbed in the parking lot and being sexually assaulted while you're asleep are two different things.

So are you going to stop with the non sequitur now?

Just as soon as you do.

I consider the presence of expressed will necessary to rape if that element is missing then rape did not occur. You're saying that sexual assault is necessary to rape and if that element is missing rape did not occur.

Are you minimizing parking lot guy's trauma? No. Are you saying no crime was committed? No. You're saying that while parking lot guy clearly suffered and was clearly wronged what happened to him was not rape.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"Victims don't always want their attackers to face justice."[/size]

And? Don't come to me with this crap, please.

Rape is rape, non consentual sex is rape, no matter how you slice it is sick and wrong to have sex with someone without the consent of said person. Only cavemen used to do that and we're past that.

Victims don't always want their attackers to face justice, you may be right about that, but the matter is, being such a close person in many instances (people you know are more prone to commit rape rather than strangers) of course the victim may not want to report, and therefore it goes unreported, but it still doesn't make it right.

[Des-Bal]

And pretty much any legal office.

Are you arguing that the law is inherently infallible?

[Nadkor]

I wonder did Des-Bal once have sex with an unconscious girl (or guy, let's be open-minded about this) and is now desperately trying to convince himself that he's not a rapist?

Would certainly explain a great many things.


edit: missed a word, there...

[Neo Art]

Well here's the thing, rape apologist...stabbing isn't rape.

So says you.

Really? This is what you're going for here? When your mind read this, and plumbed the depths of your intellectual capacity, scanned all that you know and believe, filtered through your vocabulary, and came up with an argument, the best, the very best it came up with was "says you"?

And this is something you admit to willingly? In public?

[Mavorpen]

And pretty much any legal office.

Are you arguing that the law is inherently infallible?

What a beautiful straw man.

[Samuraikoku]

And pretty much any legal office.

Are you arguing that the law is inherently infallible?

Once you mistakenly said this to me, now it's good to have payback:

There is nothing intellectual about your dishonesty.

[Bottle]

When confronted by this kind of, er, "reasoning," one is forced to wonder whether the poster is able to tell the difference between cutting a steak and having sex.

This might be a vaguely worth while point if we were, like, the first people to ever realize rape was "a thing" and were sitting down trying to describe it. But where we've gone completely off the rails is, that his argument LITERALLY IS that being "stabbed" is not "being raped" because the actions that constitute "being stabbed" do not meet the existant legal elements of "rape".

Therefore he was not raped as a matter of law, because rape has an explicitly defined legal definition and "stabbed" doesn't meet it.

OK, fine so far.

Except we've then gone one further. What he's trying to argue here is that rape when the victim is unconcious isn't actually rape because it doesn't meet the definition of rape, except for the fact that it does.

That's what rape is actually legally defined as. Don't believe me? Go ask the two guys who just got convicted of raping a girl for doing exactly that.

Well, in fairness, he's arguing that something is only rape if HE, personally, decides it is rape. I see no evidence that he thinks the law has much to do with it, beyond the notion that the law should be the means through which his personal opinion gets imposed on everyone.

I haven't yet seen him present any reason why any of us should agree to his system, or why anybody (other than rapists) would benefit from his system, but I'm sure he'll get right on that.

[Des-Bal]

And? Don't coem to me with this crap, please.

Rape is rape, non consentual sex is rape, no matter how you slice it is sick and wrong to have sex with someone without the consent of said person. Only cavemen used to do that and we're past that.

Victims don't always want their attackers to face justice, you may be right about that, but the matter is, being such a close person in many instances (people you know are more prone to commit rape rather than strangers) of course the victim may not want to report, and therefore it goes unreported, but it still doesn't make it right.

It is absolutely sick and wrong it shouldn't however be conflated with rape.

Who said right? You accused me of not understanding what stockholm syndrome was in a post where I paid general reference to it.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I wonder did Des-Bal once have sex with an unconscious girl (or guy, let's be open-minded about this) and is now desperately trying to convince himself that he's a rapist?

Would certainly explain a great many things.

Wait.
Wait wait wait.

You say Rape Apologists may often PROJECT?

....

Gif's gonna need to help clean up the cranial goo from my mind being blown.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

And pretty much any legal office.

Are you arguing that the law is inherently infallible?

No, it's just that the law is taken to be a better source to lean on in this instance than a lone individual on the internet with no sources whatsoever.

[The Truth and Light]

I feel like my soul is dying. Help.

[Des-Bal]

I wonder did Des-Bal once have sex with an unconscious girl (or guy, let's be open-minded about this) and is now desperately trying to convince himself that he's a rapist?

Would certainly explain a great many things.

And since you've run out of things to say you've actually started accusing me of being a rapist.

[Neo Art]

This might be a vaguely worth while point if we were, like, the first people to ever realize rape was "a thing" and were sitting down trying to describe it. But where we've gone completely off the rails is, that his argument LITERALLY IS that being "stabbed" is not "being raped" because the actions that constitute "being stabbed" do not meet the existant legal elements of "rape".

Therefore he was not raped as a matter of law, because rape has an explicitly defined legal definition and "stabbed" doesn't meet it.

OK, fine so far.

Except we've then gone one further. What he's trying to argue here is that rape when the victim is unconcious isn't actually rape because it doesn't meet the definition of rape, except for the fact that it does.

That's what rape is actually legally defined as. Don't believe me? Go ask the two guys who just got convicted of raping a girl for doing exactly that.

Well, in fairness, he's arguing that something is only rape if HE, personally, decides it is rape. I see no evidence that he thinks the law has much to do with it, beyond the notion that the law should be the means through which his personal opinion gets imposed on everyone.

I haven't yet seen him present any reason why any of us should agree to his system, or why anybody (other than rapists) would benefit from his system, but I'm sure he'll get right on that.

This schtick of "I don't think rape is a good thing, I just don't think certain things should be CALLED rape. I'm not MINIMIZING IT, I'm just strict definitions" is getting fucking old.