What is Rape?

[Samuraikoku]

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.

But if he wants to give rape a capital punishment as he said before, and then he defines that something is not rape, but whatever he wants to call it... then what is rape?

[Trotskylvania]

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.

Except it is rape. There is no difference between the absence of consent and actively saying no. Both acts would be equally heinous, and equally traumatic, even if the victim, whether through fear or incapacitation, never says no.

[The Truth and Light]

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. Because whatever the law will consider rape ALWAYS has to involve an explicit or implicit lack of consent. Because, a fucking gain: Rape = sex w/o consent.

[Des-Bal]

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

Now you explain why it doesn't.

Because it doesn't? I'm saying that expressed desire not consent is what matters when talking about rape.

[Nadkor]

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.

I suspect, based on his complaining before about me calling someone who was convicted of rape for having sex with a very drunk girl a rapist, that it's because it's a word with connotations and he doesn't feel that someone who fucks an unconscious person should have to be tagged with the words "rape" and "rapist".

It's just so unfair on them to brand them like that, you know?

Which, again, leads me back to wonder about his personal investment in this.

[Ifreann]

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.

I must read that book one of these days. I think I'd make a great world leader.

[Neo Art]

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.

Nah, see, you're expecting something more clever. You're expecting something more nuanced. You're expecting something that at least sounds like there's teeth to it.

His whole argument, his ENTIRE argument, is that we should open up the law in microsoft word, hit "ctrl f" and replace all instance of the word "rape" with something else..."blue ballin'" I suppose maybe.

His whole point is literally that it's just the word rape that bothers him.

Really, it took me a minute too. I kept thinking there was something more to it too. There isn't. It's really that vapid.

[Samuraikoku]

Because it doesn't? I'm saying that expressed desire not consent is what matters when talking about rape.

No, it really isn't. That you think it should be is another story.

[Mavorpen]

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.

Actually, he did say why. He said it downplays the act of rape.

He just hasn't explained how it downplays rape nor why it matters if it downplays rape if rape is still treated as a very serious crime.

[Tiltjuice]

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

Now you explain why it doesn't.

Because it doesn't? I'm saying that expressed desire not consent is what matters when talking about rape.

And since those who are comatose or asleep can't express desire

[The Emerald Dawn]

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

Now you explain why it doesn't.

Nah, see, you're expecting something more clever. You're expecting something more nuanced. You're expecting something that at least sounds like there's teeth to it.

His whole argument, his ENTIRE argument, is that we should open up the law in microsoft word, hit "ctrl f" and replace all instance of the word "rape" with something else..."blue ballin'" I suppose maybe.

His whole point is literally that it's just the word rape that bothers him.

Really, it took me a minute too. I kept thinking there was something more to it too. There isn't. It's really that vapid.

That's insane. I mean, I'm fucking batnuts crazy, but that makes me look lucid as all fuck.

[The New World Oceania]

The real question is, where is the line drawn between rape, sexual harassment, and sexual assault? From what I've been taught in various government-funded health classes and lectures, sexual harassment classifies as unwanted sexual behavior (after the victim has asked the harasser to cease), whereas rape is any sex which is forced or given without consent.

I knew a friend once whom had been verbally raped, in which sexual acts were described in detail as they were pinned down. Assault and additional harassment, I take it, were also involved, though I don't think any of this could ultimately classify as "rape," since no intercourse was ever forced.

[Choronzon]

Why am I totally unsurpassed that according to the definition put forward by one of our local MRAs slipping someone a roofie and then having sex with them is no longer rape? Is it because before those big mean feminists got involved we used to call it exciting?

[Kodiopolis]

Here's the legal definition of Rape:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex of another person, without the consent of the victim."

If a person doesn't get an enthusiastic and clear-headed 'Yes' from the other person about engaging in sex, then DO NOT DO IT.

[Des-Bal]

Because it doesn't? I'm saying that expressed desire not consent is what matters when talking about rape.

And since those who are comatose or asleep can't express desire

In this case "expressed desire" refers to the expressed desire not to be a participant. There's not a good word for Anti-Consent.

[Neo Art]

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.

I suspect, based on his complaining before about me calling someone who was convicted of rape for having sex with a very drunk girl a rapist, that it's because it's a word with connotations and he doesn't feel that someone who fucks an unconscious person should have to be tagged with the words "rape" and "rapist".

It's just so unfair on them to brand them like that, you know?

Which, again, leads me back to wonder about his personal investment in this.

I mean, it's kinda like those people on CNN who couldn't risk opining about what a SHAME it was that those two rapists in Ohio had such a promising football career. As if their inability to pursue a career in football was because, like, they got hit by lightning or something, and not that they made a concious decision to rape someone and are now being punished for it.

That seems to be the point right? "I knew some bloke who's really a stand up guy, but it's so UNFAIR that he has to live with being called a rapist, just because he technically raped someone, WE SHOULD CHANGE WHAT WE CALL RAPE!"

[The Emerald Dawn]

And since those who are comatose or asleep can't express desire

In this case "expressed desire" refers to the expressed desire not to be a participant. There's not a good word for Anti-Consent.

Consent is binary.

It's either there, or it isn't.

We don't need to create a word for the lack of consent. It's not a thing. It's the LACK of a thing.

[Samuraikoku]

In this case "expressed desire" refers to the expressed desire not to be a participant. There's not a good word for Anti-Consent.

Yes there are. Lack of consent. That it's directly "no" or unable to say "yes" or "no" is still lack of consent.

[Norstal]

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

Now you explain why it doesn't.

Because it doesn't? I'm saying that expressed desire not consent is what matters when talking about rape.

Ok, so you want "non-forcible" sexual encounters to be sexual assault, while forcible ones to be rape.

In your world:
Fondling someone's boobs without permission - sexual assault.
Fucking someone without permission without desire - sexual assault.
Fucking someone without permission with desire - rape.

Now, see, here's what I don't get. The last two quite obviously shows the same desire: to have sex. Why make the distinction? If you're going to have sex with someone, you're going to have to have the desire for it. You're not going to have sex with someone with a flaccid penis. You're not going to do this action without desire. It isn't like manslaughter. You don't accidentally have sex with someone.

So really, they're all rape.

[Tiltjuice]

And since those who are comatose or asleep can't express desire

In this case "expressed desire" refers to the expressed desire not to be a participant. There's not a good word for Anti-Consent.

Irrelevant. Either way, they can't express desire.

[Choronzon]

I suspect, based on his complaining before about me calling someone who was convicted of rape for having sex with a very drunk girl a rapist, that it's because it's a word with connotations and he doesn't feel that someone who fucks an unconscious person should have to be tagged with the words "rape" and "rapist".

It's just so unfair on them to brand them like that, you know?

Which, again, leads me back to wonder about his personal investment in this.

I mean, it's kinda like those people on CNN who couldn't risk opining about what a SHAME it was that those two rapists in Ohio had such a promising football career. As if their inability to pursue a career in football was because, like, they got hit by lightning or something, and not that they made a concious decision to rape someone and are now being punished for it.

That seems to be the point right? "I knew some bloke who's really a stand up guy, but it's so UNFAIR that he has to live with being called a rapist, just because he technically raped someone, WE SHOULD CHANGE WHAT WE CALL RAPE!"

All he did was repeatedly violate someone who was unconscious, its so horrible for him that people now think he's a rapist!

[Arglorand]

And since those who are comatose or asleep can't express desire

In this case "expressed desire" refers to the expressed desire not to be a participant. There's not a good word for Anti-Consent.

That's because anti-consent doesn't exist.

[Des-Bal]

Irrelevant. Either way, they can't express desire.

It's incredibly relevant I'm saying that unless they have expressed their desire not to be a participant they were not raped.

[Nadkor]

And since those who are comatose or asleep can't express desire

In this case "expressed desire" refers to the expressed desire not to be a participant. There's not a good word for Anti-Consent.

So...what you're saying is that people have to actively opt out of having sex with every individual on the planet or they're fair game and it's not rape?

Rape apologist.

[Des-Bal]

That's because anti-consent doesn't exist.

Sure it does. There is a difference between "I didn't tell you to do this" and "I told you not to do this."