What is Rape?

[Des-Bal]

Oh, right, sorry...it would only benefit the totally-not-rapists who fuck unconscious victims.

How would it benefit them?

[The Emerald Dawn]

It's not dying, really, unless it clearly expresses to you that it's dying.

Get me a Dreadnought, we got a Battle-Brother wounded.

Begins CPR on your soul.

Applies Soul Glow.

Puts on Soul Survivor.

Keeps CPR going.

Guys, there's still hope, right? I don't know if I can deal with such idiocy for the rest my life. I'm very aggressive and I might kill someone.

Trust me. I'm an incredibly violent person, and outside of a battlefield I have only ever killed three people. There's always hope, just remember that your actions have consequences, and that jail sucks ass.

[Nadkor]

Wondering about the possibility is, with the arguments you've presented, the only reasonable thing to do.

And, no. I wouldn't accuse you of being a rapist. I wondered whether or not you had sex with an unconscious person. That, after all, isn't rape.

Right?

It shouldn't be, it's definitely a crime but it's not rape.

Ah, so we're clear. By your own definition and your own admission I wasn't accusing you of being a rapist.

Glad that's settled.

[Samuraikoku]

Guys, there's still hope, right? I don't know if I can deal with such idiocy for the rest my life. I'm very aggressive and I might kill someone.

You cannot prevent birds from flying around your head, but you certainly can prevent them from making a nest on it.

[Tiltjuice]

Wondering about the possibility is, with the arguments you've presented, the only reasonable thing to do.

And, no. I wouldn't accuse you of being a rapist. I wondered whether or not you had sex with an unconscious person. That, after all, isn't rape.

Right?

It shouldn't be, it's definitely a crime but it's not rape.

How and/or why?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Wondering about the possibility is, with the arguments you've presented, the only reasonable thing to do.

And, no. I wouldn't accuse you of being a rapist. I wondered whether or not you had sex with an unconscious person. That, after all, isn't rape.

Right?

It shouldn't be, it's definitely a crime but it's not rape.

And again, the only evidence we have for this is your ridiculous and wholly unsupported assertion which benefits only people who are currently classed as rapists for raping someone unconscious.

[Samuraikoku]

How would it benefit them?

How about getting a lighter sentence than they should be getting for committing rape?

[Norstal]

It shouldn't be, it's definitely a crime but it's not rape.

How and/or why?

inb4 sexual battery.

[Des-Bal]

...What the hell do you call it then?

Sexual assault, sexual battery, ishkabibble, there are plenty of words that aren't rape.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Oh, right, sorry...it would only benefit the totally-not-rapists who fuck unconscious victims.

How would it benefit them?

I think you just asked how reclassifying someone as having carried out a lesser crime doesn't benefit them.

[The Emerald Dawn]

How and/or why?

inb4 sexual battery.

Surprise sex.

[Samuraikoku]

Sexual assault, sexual battery, ishkabibble, there are plenty of words that aren't rape.

How about no.

[The Truth and Light]

How and/or why?

inb4 sexual battery.

...What the hell do you call it then?

Sexual assault, sexual battery, ishkabibble, there are plenty of words that aren't rape.

OH MY GODDDDDDD.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I know you aren't intentionally doing this, but please don't buy into the frame that victims who opt not to report are typically doing so because they "don't want their attackers to face justice."

A lot of us choose not to report because we 1) know that the odds of getting justice via reporting our assault are vanishingly small, and 2) know that the odds of us being subjected to shitty treatment are almost assured.

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was downplaying it, but I just thought that was the only case. I certainly did not know that the odds were so vanishingly small before posting that.

In any case, I do honestly think Des-Bal's downplaying of what rape is is disgusting to anyone rational enough to notice that they are both the same thing and that people should be punished for it.

Like I said, there are SOME cases of Stockholm Syndrome going on in some rape cases. However, I do not have the stats to determine how many are actually because of this that they do not report.

[Neo Art]

Wondering about the possibility is, with the arguments you've presented, the only reasonable thing to do.

And, no. I wouldn't accuse you of being a rapist. I wondered whether or not you had sex with an unconscious person. That, after all, isn't rape.

Right?

It shouldn't be, it's definitely a crime but it's not rape.

I mean, his whole point is, it should still be a CRIME, it should still be PUNISHED, we just shouldn't call it RAPE for...some reason.

But his motivation is totally pure you guys.

I mean, fuck I'm a lawyer and I'm not that nitpicky, but no, he's totally doing this out of a sense of definitional purity, apparently. And nothing more. Nosirebob.

[The Truth and Light]

It shouldn't be, it's definitely a crime but it's not rape.

I mean, his whole point is, it should still be a CRIME, it should still be PUNISHED, we just shouldn't call it RAPE for...some reason.

But his motivation is totally pure you guys.

I mean, fuck I'm a lawyer and I'm not that nitpicky, but no, he's totally doing this out of a sense of definitional purity, apparently. And nothing more. Nosirebob.

But this is the thing.

He wants to change the definition of CONSENT in the process.

Dangerous business.

[Des-Bal]

But this is the thing.

He wants to change the definition of CONSENT in the process.

Dangerous business.

No I don't.

[Casm]

It's rape as long as there is lack of consent. What's so difficult to understand?

[Ifreann]

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.

Because he's a guy on the internet, don't you understand how important that makes him?

He has a computer, and opinions about things! Clearly he and he alone shall lead us all

Worked for whatshisname, Peter Wiggin.

[The Truth and Light]

But this is the thing.

He wants to change the definition of CONSENT in the process.

Dangerous business.

No I don't.

You would clearly have to if you're going to redefine rape.

Let's hear it again. Sex minus consent? Rape.

[Samuraikoku]

But this is the thing.

He wants to change the definition of CONSENT in the process.

Dangerous business.

No I don't.

Yes you do. Which is the sad part. It doesn't matter to you if the person is incapable of giving consent. That, I'm afraid, is apology of rape.

[Neo Art]

How would it benefit them?

I think you just asked how reclassifying someone as having carried out a lesser crime doesn't benefit them.

I mean, IN FAIRNESS, in fairness, he has not explicitly said that those things he doesn't think of as "rape" should have a lesser punishment. He has said that, the very narrow definition he considers "rape" should be a capital crime, and all other things that we call "rape" should be reclassified as "something else but rape". No word on the fact they should be punished to a lesser extent, merely CALLED something.

I mean, his whole argument is semantics basically, we just shouldn't CALL it rape. He's not saying it's not bad, he's not saying we shouldn't punish it. We just shouldn't..you know...call it RAPE.

WHY we shouldn't however is a giant fucking mystery that apparently he lacks the ability to articulate in anything other than gibberish.

And why we should fucking bother to redefine legal terms just because some guy on the internet things we should shall, I suppose, remain one of life's great mysteries.

Because clearly he isn't up to the task of explaining it.

[Des-Bal]

You would clearly have to if you're going to redefine rape.

Let's hear it again. Sex minus consent? Rape.

Changing the definition of rape doesn't require changing the definition of consent.

[Neo Art]

Because he's a guy on the internet, don't you understand how important that makes him?

He has a computer, and opinions about things! Clearly he and he alone shall lead us all

Worked for whatshisname, Peter Wiggin.

Fuck you, and fuck that hack who thought that a central plot point about a teenage boy who takes over the world by arguing on the internet would be clever.

Raised a generation of insufferable twits.

[The Emerald Dawn]

You would clearly have to if you're going to redefine rape.

Let's hear it again. Sex minus consent? Rape.

Changing the definition of rape doesn't require changing the definition of consent.

Yes, it does. We've explained why it does.

Now you explain why it doesn't.