[SimeSublime]

Rape is something that bothers Rein more than it does most guys.

I don't see how guys could not be bothered by it. I find it downright disturbing, and always have.

[Amber-Nicole]

Most guys are bothered by it, but some more than others. You know like....how to explain? Okay, someone shooting someone in the arm would disturb me, because I don't like blood very much, unless it's in the movies. Someone shooting someone in the head, and brains and icky tissue stuff going everywhere would disturb me even more, and probably make me physically sick. If that makes any sense?

[reiner]

It's one of the very, very few things that would drive me to killing someone.

[Deven]

We spent a lot of time on rape last semester.

Let me rephrase . . . we spent a lot of time on rape laws last semester.

Believe it or not, there is an issue in rape law reformation as to how much "force" it takes to consitute "forcible" rape. I'm of the opinion that mere penetration is enough force; without being unnecessarily lewd about it, if having some portion of your body penetrated by a foreign object like a knife is forcible, I can't imagine and equally invasive penetration of a different type isn't. This isn't necessarily a universal opinion, and there still lurks a spector of the requirment that the force be sufficient to overcome the resistance of a reasonable person or some such other standard.

[jyd]

there was a police investigation and suit brought against my friend because he allegedly raped the girl, but charges were dropped when he filed a countersuit because THE FUCKING SLUT LIED I WAS THERE!~!!!!@@!@ i hate girls like that

[Deven]

Yeah, that's horrible.

We had a couple of rape (well, technically sexual misconduct or sexual abuse) cases that came across our desk in Brooklyn. Most of the time, the victim didn't want to proceed. My suspicion is that they were having doubts as to whether what THEY feel happened really happened; that is to say, whether it's possible that the defendant actually believed he had consent.

Of course, that's a different situation than when someone just flat-out lies vindictively.

[Despondent]

I had an Intro to American Justice pre-law class, before I took the "easy" path of an art major (1983). the Professor challenged us to surmise Why it is that a Woman CAN NOT rape a man.

Answer, anyone?

[Amber-Nicole]

Uh...Why couldn't a woman rape a man? Ofcourse she could.

[Deven]

In 1983, in New York, there was no such thing as raping a man.

The definition of rape required that the sex be with a woman (specifically, a woman not who is not your wife).

The argument that was put forward in justification was an essentially physiological one: IE, without use of a foreign object (which is a separate crime in NY, and I assume many other jurisdictions), a woman simply couldn't rape a man.

The problem has been largely killed, at least in NY, where the Court of Appeals (this state's highest court) said that the distinction was an unconstiutional discrimination. The court noted, at least in part, that if the slightest penetration by the man into an unwilling female is enough (in the right circumstances, see my post above about force), then surely it's enough for if the woman forces the man to penetrate her, however slightly.

The other part of the argument is, of course, arousal. But arousal does not mean consent, and even if it did, arousal is not required to get the minimal penetration that rape requires.

The details on this might be a little off, because I don't have my references right in front of me, but it's a quick and dirty sketch of the matter.

[Deven]

Update: I did some research. The case in New York is People v. Liberta, 64 N.Y.2d 152 (1984).

[reiner]

Holy shit! I'm being educated!

[Deven]

Look, if I have to know this stuff, I'm going to inflict it on as many people as I possibly can!

[barend]

if a woman forces herself upon a man sexually, and the only way he can stop it is to reort to physical violence (which he refuses to do), i would call that rape.

also, the only thing that disturbs me more than rape is people who lie about it....

it's quite a serious crime.

last year a snooker champion was accused of rape. the girl slept with him becasue of who he was, but her boyfriend found out, and so to cover it up, she thought fuck it, i'll say he raped me! that'll put me in the clear.

how unbelivably fucked is that...
that kind of maliciously irresponsible application of solipsistic socipathic endangerment, is one of the most contemptable things i've ever been disgusted by!!!

they should have imprissoned her for life for endagering an innocent person like that.

[Deven]

WARNING! This post contains a VERY long excerpt from an article; sorry for that, but it's a good excerpt, and rape (and sex crimes in general) is a topic that I think is very, very important. There is absolutely NOTHING even remotely approaching comedy in this post.

The only problem with using a purely "against her/his will" test is, well, sometimes it's not clear what the will is (enter the silly "college codes"). Consider the following by Susan Ager

"The Incident" Detroit Free Press Magazine, Mar. 22, 1992, p. 17, reprinted in Joshua Dressler, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, Third Edition, p. 413.

"We were alone beneath the stars, high in the mountains, miles from the nearest light, our sleeping bags unrolled on the ground, weary from a long drive and anticipating sleep.
"Or so I thought.
"We were not lovers, merely acquaintances. We worked together. We respected each other. he woned a few acres in the mountains, and I admired that back-to-the-land streak in anyone. So we agreed to make this weekend camping trip together to his patch of earth.
"A few days earlier, oh so briefly, i thought about saying something. Issuing a 'don't-get-any-ideas' warning. But I didn't. I thought he'd feel insulted.
"He did not worry so much about my feelings."
"For hours on that starlit night he pestered me. Stroked me. Whispered to me first, then argued, then whined: 'Oh, come on. You'll love it. Why'd you come up here with me then? Just once. It's such a beautiful night. You'll enjoy it, really. Come on. Please?'
"I didn't scream, because there was no one to hear. I didn't fight, because there was nowhere to run. It was his car, and he had the keys. Instead, I curled up. I buried my head against my chest while he touched. Instead, I curled up. I buried my head against my chest while he touched me. I slapped blindly at his touches, as if I were batting away mosquitos.
"Because this happened more than a decade ago, I can't remember with precision how long he continued. * * * I wore no watch that night.
"All I know is that he went on forever. Unrelenting.
"Finally, weary and weepy, I gave up. I remember the sting of my tears rolling down my cheeks and into my ears as I law on my back and he moaned.
"Then, I fell instantly into sleep, as if from the top of a mountain.
"Our weekend ended early because I sullen and that made him angry. There was nothing to say on the long ride home.
"I never called that happened that night 'rape.' I still don't.
"But it wasn't bliss, either.
"I wonder why it has no name. Because it happens all the time: Men push. We submit.
"No violence, no shouting, no cries of 'rape' afterwards. Just sadness and defeat.
"How many of us women have watched this sort of thing happen to us, as if we were outside our bodies, in the 30 years since a confluence of factors made sexual interaction easier, at least practically speaking?
"That night in the mountains I surrendered for one reason: I was tired and wanted to escape.
"But we surrender for reasons besides fatigue.
"Duty: Some women may feel an obligation to reward men who've been particularly kind, or patient, or ardent. Other women may feel an obligation to be a good-and-ready wife.
"Ambiguity: Part of us wants sex, the other part is wary. And as the train is moving toward the station, so to speak, we're still not sure. We may surrender at the same moment that we conclude, 'No, this is stupid.'
"Some men claim not to understand this. But most women know there is a vast geography of shifting sentiment between Yes and No.
"Hope: Sometimes we surrender because our disinterest might turn into delight. A friend calls this the 'No-but-I-could-be-convinced' approach. Sometimes it works. Often it doesn't, and we wonder why we gave in.
"We make these excuses for our surrenders, but that's no consolation for the vanquished.
"Years after that night in the mountains. I'm surprised to find how angry I am about it. Angrier than I was then. At both him and me, and the games people play.
"Now, wiser and less polite, I would not whimper but shout! Not for help, but for my own integrity -- to let him know how I felt about his boorish presumptions.
"I would surrender only if he held me down and forced me to. And then I could call it rape."

So this less-than-wanting, pseudo-consent is a very troubling topic for me; how do we know what's going on in our partners' heads, REALLY? We could always ask, of course, but that raises the question of our partner relenting for, well, some reason less than true consent.

More troubling, the person who "relents", let's use that as the short hand for the term, they may feel that they less-than-consented, so they may genuinely feel violated in a way very similar to what we would consider a conventional rape. It's a mess: a huge, deeply troubling mess.

This post has been edited by Deven: 13 September 2004 - 10:45 PM

[civilian_number_two]

"I never called that happened that night 'rape.' I still don't.
"But it wasn't bliss, either.
"I wonder why it has no name. Because it happens all the time: Men push. We submit.
"No violence, no shouting, no cries of 'rape' afterwards. Just sadness and defeat.

I think there is a term for that, actually. I think that's what they call "date rape."

It's complicated, of course, by the fact that a lot of young women want a man to be aggressive, so they can feel he won then over or some dipshit young girl thing like that, and a lot of young men know that.

Of coourse, this case, hours of unrelenting pressure in a secluded location, accompanied by tears and acrimony, it's pretty damn obvious what went on here.

She: should have said "don't get any ideas" before they went, because that sort of thing was obviously a date. The fact that it occured to her to say it beforehand should have told her something. She says she didn't say it so as not insult him. Fact is, she hadn't made up her mind yet, and figured "don't get any ideas" would have been enough to get him to call off the date. That' one I'll never understand. Women in their thirties never make that mistake; it's cards on the table, every time. eg He: "Want to go camping?" She: "Separate sleeping bags? Sure!"

He: should have taken "no" for an answer, but I don't blame him for being surprised that she wasn't into it. As far as he was concerned, "want to go camping?" meant "want to have sex?" He couldn't be expected to understand the complex nature of her attraction (to his job and to the idea of him, but not to him), and she waited really long to get down to the business of making herself clear. All the same, had she accused him of rape afterward, he would probably have gotten away with it, legally, but he knows what happened there.