voluntary rape

fishin wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:

fishin wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:

Oh for heavens sake.

There is no such thing as voluntary rape. Get a grip.

If a man takes advantage of a women who is so drunk she can't function, that is rape.

If a man takes advantage of a woman who is drunk but is still in control of her body, it is not rape.

Rape is when someone takes sex from you. You do not ask for it. You do not suggest it. You do not want it. Period.

Rape is not about sex. Rape is about power and control over another person.

When will people learn this?

When men stop getting arrested and convicted for rape because some woman changed her mind the morning after.

While everything you stated is (AFAIK) true from a clinical perspective, that isn't the case for the legal aspects of it.

Could you possibly provide some statistics and numbers backing this up?

At least one investigation pegged the number at 41%.

This appears to be about after the fact exonerations. With the use of DNA, many more correct convictions must occur. Is there any recent data? This appears to be from 1996.

fishin wrote:

A Justice Department Study found that 33% of those tried, convicted and sentenced were later exhonerated by DNA evidence. But there are plenty of ancedotal cases as evidence too.

This was a study done in one town, and it didn't say (unless I missed it) that they were convicted, just that there were false accusations. And again, the research is dated.

fishin wrote:

The Tamara Anne Mounier case is a perfect example.

But my original point that the legal system doesn't care about issues of power, etc. It is only concerned with penetration and consent. The "why" aspect isn't relevant to being convicted.

The why doesn't matter, truth be told.
Again, the Tamara case is about accusations, not convictions.

fishin wrote:

Quote:

There are far more rapes that go unprosecuted than there are ones that do.

I have no doubt that this is true. I don't see how that justifes trying to send someone who DIDN'T commit a rape to prison though.

It doesn't and you still did not provide statistical proof that INNOCENT men go to prison.

Chumly wrote:

Bella Dea wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Rape is NEVER voluntary.

Quote:

Or what if you weren't drunk? What if you went home with a guy perfectly sober with the intention to have a one night stand. You start making out and know it's soon going to happen. However, suddenly you don't really feel like it. To avoid an awkward situation you decide to have sex anyway. Is it rape or not? The man can't help it that you refrain from telling him to stop in this particular situation, or could he?

In this case, the woman was not raped because she kept her mouth shut, and implicitly consented to have sex. The man had no way of knowing that the woman changed her mind. Had she objected, then it would have been rape, or in this case, popularly known as "date rape".

I in no way condone rape, but this scenario comes to mind: I have had sexual relations where the woman (my wife) said "no" but it was play.

Key words: It was play.

It was concentual and not rape.

And under what specified context do you confirm this in a legal sense?

She didn't say no. She didn't try to stop you. She wanted to have sex. She was of sound mind. She was of legal age.

In a legal sense, only she can testify if it was rape or not, if she said no or refused sex in any other way.

It's hard to prove rape if there aren't physical signs in the vagina. And even then it can be misinterpreted as just rough, concentual sex.

Rape is difficult to prove, plain and simple.

It doesn't and you still did not provide statistical proof that INNOCENT men go to prison.

I in no way condone rape, but this scenario comes to mind: I have had sexual relations where the woman (my wife) said "no" but it was play.

Chumly wrote:

I in no way condone rape, but this scenario comes to mind: I have had sexual relations where the woman (my wife) said "no" but it was play.

Sex play is different from real rape.
The psychological reasons behind rape are nothing near what is behind playful sex.

What makes this situation ( the one you describe) innocent is because YOU KNOW IT WAS PLAY. If it was not play the fighting would have changed its tune AND YOU WOULD KNOW THAT.


I guess the point can not be made that there is no situation where rape is 'accidental' or 'voluntary'?

What if the man is less gifted in his abilities to perceive these differences, and/or what if the liaison starts as play-rape but then the woman, near the end of the sexual liaison, has a change of heart and/or
what if the woman, after the play-rape has concluded, has a change of heart and/or what if the woman is a prostitute and she agrees to a play-rape scene, but then has a change of heart at some as-of-yet undefined point?

Did you see the "Family Guy" episode with that in mind?

Consensual non-consent refers to the type of agreement made in a relationship based on dominance and submission between the dominant and submissive party, stipulating that the submissive has consented to the dominant's decisions and puts him/herself in the care of the dominant. The submissive party in these types of relationships typically becomes a slave, relinquishing personal freedoms and rights to the dominant's discretion. Note that under most jurisdictions, legal consent may not create a defense to liability for any injuries caused and that, for these purposes, non-physical injuries may be included in the definition of grievous bodily harm.

Chumly wrote:

Did you see the "Family Guy" episode with that in mind?

Errr..... uhhhh..... not exactly...... but, okay.......

fishin, I am not going to argue with you. I simply want less dated information.

And it's pretty obvious none of you have been raped.