What is Rape?

by **Des-Bal** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:27 am

Zottistan wrote:But do you have any actual evidence that the two are synonyms?

Yes, and I've had just about enough of explaining this. I took the effort to find a specific statue if you're not satisfied find another yourself.

by **Zottistan** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:29 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Zottistan wrote:But do you have any actual evidence that the two are synonyms?

Yes, and I've had just about enough of explaining this. I took the effort to find a specific statue if you're not satisfied find another yourself.

Oh, sorry. Could I see a link?

by **Des-Bal** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:31 am

Zottistan wrote:
Yes, and I've had just about enough of explaining this. I took the effort to find a specific statue if you're not satisfied find another yourself.

Oh, sorry. Could I see a link?[/quote]

http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/794.011

by **Zottistan** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:34 am

Des-Bal wrote:Oh, sorry. Could I see a link?

http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/794.011

Which doesn't actually say it's synonymous with rape. It just says that it covers a lot of acts considered to be rape.

by **Des-Bal** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:37 am

Zottistan wrote:Which doesn't actually say it's synonymous with rape. It just says that it covers a lot of acts considered to be rape.

Because the statute doesn't use the word "rape" I was going to point you to the hundreds of legal experts explaining that "sexual battery" is just how Florida says "rape." I decided against it because I've already laid enough pertinent information on the table and if you're not going to accept it doesn't actually have anything to do with evidence. I don't consider insistently demanding sources from the other person in the hopes they'll get sick of talking to you a valid tactic and I'm not going to be party to it.

by **Zottistan** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:40 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Zottistan wrote:Which doesn't actually say it's synonymous with rape. It just says that it covers a lot of acts considered to be rape.

Because the statute doesn't use the word "rape" I was going to point you to the hundreds of legal experts explaining that "sexual battery" is just how Florida says "rape." I decided against it because I've already laid enough pertinent information on the table and if you're not going to accept it doesn't actually have anything to do with evidence. I don't consider insistently demanding sources from the other person in the hopes they'll get sick of talking to you a valid tactic and I'm not going to be party to it.

Yup. Asking you to back up what you say isn't a valid tactic at all. Legal experts aren't infallible. "Sexual battery", from what you've told me, is not a synonym for rape. It's a separate term which covers many acts included in the category of "rape".

by **Northern Dominus** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:06 am

Zottistan wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:
Because the statute doesn't use the word "rape" I was going to point you to the hundreds of legal experts explaining that "sexual battery" is just how Florida says "rape." I decided against it because I've already laid enough pertinent information on the table and if you're not going to accept it doesn't actually have anything to do with evidence. I don't consider insistently demanding sources from the other person in the hopes they'll get sick of talking to you a valid tactic and I'm not going to be party to it.

Yup. Asking you to back up what you say isn't a valid tactic at all. Legal experts aren't infallible. "Sexual battery", from what you've told me, is not a synonym for rape. It's a separate term which covers many acts included in the category of "rape".

Somewhere George Galloway is getting a warm tingly sensation in his nethers. His whole "sexual ettiquete" gaffe is being justified to an uncomfortable degree thanks to Des-Bal.

by **Condunum** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:50 am

Kromar wrote:
The Steel Magnolia wrote:
It's a copypasta? Missed that...

I'm flattered that people actually think this is copy pasta, but it isn't. I challenge Condunum to prove his claim.

Your entire position is identical to that of a rape troll.

Kromar wrote:I was reading the Men need to be trained not to rape thread, and several people were saying that a lot of men don't understand what counts as rape and what doesn't. I am one of such men. Depending on your definitions, I myself might be considered guilty of rape, but I won't go into specifics on that.

If you've done half the things down here, you're a rapist and you should be locked up.

Specifically I am confused about the following issues:

When a woman says no, should a man instantly stop and back off? I think no, because doing so is unsexy and women like to be chased -- you aren't going to get laid very often if you stop at the first lick of resistance.

She just said no. That doesn't mean "Okay you can finish" it means stop. You don't get to do anything unless she says yes. The "chase" is to get someone to say yes. If you have done this, you are a rapist. Feel bad.

If a woman has enjoys forceful men, men who kiss her without her consent and don't let her go even if she is trying to forcefully push them off and get away, is it rape to force oneself upon her?

My ex loved when I would just kiss her to shut her up. I'm pretty sure if I tried to stick my cock in her to shut her up she would have had issues with it.

and if it is rape is it wrong?

Are you fucking kidding me?

I know one such girl, she told me about one time when she was put in that situation and she ultimately gave in and began kissing back and she really really enjoyed the whole affair, in hindsight.

I really don't believe that. It's a load of horse shit.

Why is it rape to have sex with a girl who is drunk?

She is inhibited. You should know better.

Does it matter if you are also drunk?

Yeah probably.

While I understand it is kind-of rapey to get a girl drunk with this intention, its not as if alcohol mind controls women into becoming sex slaves, it only lowers their inhibitions.

So you consider this "kind of like rape", but you don't think a woman saying no mid-sex would be rape if you continued? What the fuck dude.

If one encounters an inebriated woman and seduces her, why is it fair for her to cry rape when she sobers up?

Perhaps because of the fact that she was drunk.

If a woman never actually says no, and merely implies lack of consent by not cooperating with the sex, covering herself up with blankets, and complaining that it hurts, but she previously DID consent verbally to having sex with you, and you disregard her obvious discomfort and continue using her for your own pleasure, are you a rapist?

Yes. Then you are a god damn rapist.

by **Texacoe** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:53 am

dont you mean Legitimate Rape

by **Condunum** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:54 am

Texacoe wrote:dont you mean Legitimate Rape

While I appreciate the NSG meme, it only actually applies when pregnancy is being talked about with rape.

by **Torcularis Septentrionalis** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:11 am

ITT We learned who is and is not a rapist. Cool.

by **Yue-Laou** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:13 am

Nadkor wrote:
Yue-Laou wrote:So I go out with my gf, we get hammered then go home and have some fun. bam. I'm a rapist.

Possibly, yes, but without more information it's difficult to know.

In fact, as has been shown throughout this thread, that would be the answer in many places.

We tried to do the cowgirl thing but she keept falling off and burst out in laughter. She was fucked up pretty badly.

by **Condunum** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:17 am

Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:ITT We learned who is and is not a rapist. Cool.

You'd be surprised who is actually a rapist. :|
A few people I know who have been either accused of it or convicted of it are extremely strong advocates for anti-rape education.

by **Gravlen** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:23 am

Immoren wrote:Apparently according to Finnish legal system having sex with someone who is unconscious isn't rape. It is "just" "coercive sexual contact". Faith in my country dropping.

Is the maximum possible penalty different between the two categories?

by **Gravlen** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:29 am

Individuality-ness wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:Of course it is, I agree completely. It's expected that even if you're drunk you're responsible for your own actions but we don't apply that to consent.

A man and a woman are both drunk and have sex neither would have had sex with the other sober who committed rape?

Both of them. It's a mutual rape.

Have you ever heard of such a case? IRL?

by **Gravlen** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:31 am

Des-Bal wrote:A man and a woman are both drunk and have sex neither would have had sex with the other sober who committed rape?

How drunk were they? What do they say about their motivations for having sex?

by **Condunum** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:31 am

Gravlen wrote:
Individuality-ness wrote:Both of them. It's a mutual rape.

Have you ever heard of such a case? IRL?

Nevermind if one has actually happened.

What do you DO in that case?

by **Individuality-ness** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:33 am

Gravlen wrote:
Individuality-ness wrote:Both of them. It's a mutual rape.

Have you ever heard of such a case? IRL?

Not a court case, no. Regretful sex, definitely.

by **Condunum** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:35 am

Individuality-ness wrote:
Gravlen wrote:Have you ever heard of such a case? IRL?

Not a court case, no. Regretful sex, definitely.

I wouldn't consider regretful sex rape unless, like the case you presented, they were drunk, or one didn't consent.

by **Individuality-ness** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:39 am

Condunum wrote:
Individuality-ness wrote:Not a court case, no. Regretful sex, definitely.

I wouldn't consider regretful sex rape unless, like the case you presented, they were drunk, or one didn't consent.

Well yes, in the situation highlighted, both parties were drunk. Regretful sex =! rape.

by **Immoren** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:39 am

Gravlen wrote:
Immoren wrote:Apparently according to Finnish legal system having sex with someone who is unconscious isn't rape. It is "just" "coercive sexual contact". Faith in my country dropping.

Is the maximum possible penalty different between the two categories?

aggravated rape:2-10 years in prison
rape:1-6 years in prison
coercive sexual contact: up to 3 years in prison
coercive sexual act: Fines or up to 3 years in prison

by **Des-Bal** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:43 am

Gravlen wrote:How drunk were they? What do they say about their motivations for having sex?

Bother were drunk enough to be incapable of giving consent and neither can understand what could have possibly motivated them to do such a thing.

by **Gravlen** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:46 am

Condunum wrote:
Gravlen wrote:Have you ever heard of such a case? IRL?

Nevermind if one has actually happened.

What do you DO in that case?

Deal with it on its merits.

But I find it unlikely you'd ever see the situation arise. I don't believe there is such a thing as "mutual rape" outside of the realm of theory. You simply won't get two people who are not sufficiently intoxicated to be unable to carry out sexual acts while being sufficiently intoxicated to be unable to consent and, at the same time, is not sufficiently intoxicated to be able to understand that the other party is sufficiently intoxicated to be unable to consent.

by **Des-Bal** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:48 am

Condunum wrote:Nevermind if one has actually happened.

What do you DO in that case?

Pray to god that neither of them presses charges. Unless you're a lawyer in which case you pray to god that both of them press charges.

by **Gravlen** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:49 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Gravlen wrote:How drunk were they? What do they say about their motivations for having sex?

Bother were drunk enough to be incapable of giving consent and neither can understand what could have possibly motivated them to do such a thing.

So neither are actually claiming to be raped, nor are they accusing the other of rape?

What is Rape?

Who is online