Is this really considered rape?

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

How stupid are you. A woman getting undressed isn't the same as a guy undressing a woman and raping her.

I guess I am pretty stupid.

I am asking you to simply reverse the genders in this story (so that the woman does everything that the man did in this story). A woman can undress a man and then climb on top of him to commence sexual intercourse. Answer for the case it is the same.

If a woman undresses a man, and then climbs on top of him to commence sexual activity after some minutes before the man had said (once) that he didn't want to have sex, would this be rape?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Just lying there is consent.

No, not after she explicitly refused consent.

maxdancona wrote:

Of course a woman do this (do I really need to explain the mechanics). She would do the same thing he did, remove clothing and then climb on top of him to initiate sexual activity.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. If "just lying there" constitutes consent for a woman, I suppose you'd have no trouble saying that it constitutes consent for a man as well. You don't mention in your hypothetical whether the man explicitly said "no" to the woman's sexual advances, but I get the sense that you don't think that's relevant. I assure you, however, that the law does.

And I'm not sure why you're taking issue with me. It seems like the only problem you have is with the carelessly inexact usage of the term "rape." I happen to agree with you on that point. People who should know better, like journalists, will often say something is "rape" when it's something else, like sexual assault. You don't want people saying something is rape if it doesn't involve violence or coercion. Well, the Pennsylvania legislature agrees with you. That's why it created the sexual assault category.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

And I'm not sure why you're taking issue with me. It seems like the only problem you have is with the carelessly inexact usage of the term "rape." I happen to agree with you on that point. People who should know better, like journalists, will often say something is "rape" when it's something else, like sexual assault. You don't want people saying something is rape if it doesn't involve violence or coercion. Well, the Pennsylvania legislature agrees with you. That's why it created the sexual assault category.

Joe, I don't think what happened in this story is a crime.

I am asking you to put yourself in the shoes of this alleged rape victim. Imagine that you had been in a sexual relationship with a woman. You come to visit your ex-lover and say that you don't want to have sex with her. Then you get into bed with her. Some time later she takes off her underwear and then takes off your underwear (during this time you don't leave and don't stop her). Then you don't protest or resist or stop her while she climbs on top of you. You don't say anything because you are too tired.

In this situation, would you think that you had been "assaulted" or "raped" or anything else?

If I let someone take off my underwear (without the use of force), that counts as consent.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Joe, I don't think what happened in this story is a crime.

Maybe it isn't. That's why we have trials and juries.

maxdancona wrote:

I am asking you to put yourself in the shoes of this alleged rape victim.

To put myself in the shoes of the victim, I'd have to imagine being sexually assaulted by a man, since that's what happened to her. It's disingenuous to say that the situation can be the same if we just switch the sexes of the victim and the perpetrator. That ignores some very fundamental differences in anatomy that have a substantial impact on the nature of the crime.

maxdancona wrote:

If I let someone take off my underwear (without the use of force), that counts as consent.

I'll bet you must be fun at parties.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

2 days ago, an acquaintance told me that that she is eager to retire
from Walmart. She told me that she wants to go to Seaworld, for a few days,
during her vacation from Walmart. She hinted that we shud go there and reside in a hotel.

( Note that I have no sexual attraction to the lady in question. )

I have plenty of time to go there, I agree that its probably a good place,
and I dont begrudge the money, but (call me paranoid) I can envision the
theoretical possibility of blackmail qua false accusations of rape attempts.
Its not at all likely, that she 'd actually DO that;
much more likely that we 'd enjoy the trip and that it 'd be un-eventful,
the same way that most drunken drivers r not cawt and do not crash
into anything on MOST of their drunken drives, but I chose to defend
against the very remote, slight chance of the said extortion attempt.
( Call me paranoid, again. ) I know that I cud rent 2 rooms,
but if I rented 10 rooms, she cud still execute the blackmail.

Its easier to take Nancy Reagan 's advice and "just say no."
Its safer to go to a good bordello.

David

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

To put myself in the shoes of the victim, I'd have to imagine being sexually assaulted by a man, since that's what happened to her.

OK

Imagine that you had been in a sexual relationship with a man. You come to visit your ex-lover and say that you don't want to have sex with him. Then you get into bed with him. Some time later he takes off his underwear and then takes off your underwear (during this time you don't leave and don't stop him). Then you don't protest or resist or stop him while she climbs on top of you. You don't say anything because you are too tired.

In this case would you consider yourself a victim of sexual assault?

Do you see your problem here? You stick with a knee-jerk response that this is "sexual assault" when it is a man and a woman. But, you aren't willing to call it "sexual assault" when the exact same things happens with a woman or a man, or even a same-sex relationship.

Nothing in this story that has anything to do with anatomy. This issue here is whether the sexual activity in question is coerced. And, if the definition of "sexual assault" has any meaning, the gender of the alleged perpetrator or victim should be irrelevant.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Imagine that you had been in a sexual relationship with a man. You come to visit your ex-lover and say that you don't want to have sex with him. Then you get into bed with him. Some time later he takes off his underwear and then takes off your underwear (during this time you don't leave and don't stop him). Then you don't protest or resist or stop him while she climbs on top of you. You don't say anything because you are too tired.

In this case would you consider yourself a victim of sexual assault?

Yes.

maxdancona wrote:

Do you see your problem here?

No.

maxdancona wrote:

This issue here is whether the sexual activity in question is coerced.

No, the issue here is whether the victim gave consent.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I can easily imagine the gender roles being reversed here, where a man says he wants to just sleep and the woman starts removing her clothes.

I can't. I think it's near-impossible for a woman to have vaginal sex with a man against his will. Heterosexual vaginal sex requires an erection from the man; it requires nothing comparable from the woman; how would a female seducer work up an erection against the man's will? Gender roles in sexual intercourse aren't as symmetrical as your philosophy wants them to be.

maxdancona wrote:

But there is a point where dogma can be pushed to nonsense.

I don't see the dogma. Over the last generation or two, American citizens, acting through their legislatures, have redefined the term "rape" from what we now call "forcible rape" to "any sexual intercourse that isn't mutually consensual". Then they changed the definition further by stating that Americans below a certain age can no longer consent to sex, thereby creating the new crime of statutory rape. But that's par for the course in an open society: rules and language change. If sexual mores change in a more macho direction, nothing is keeping Americans of changing the legal definition right back. So what's dogmatic about that?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

He didn't force her to do anything, nor did he use any type of coercion.

And 50 years ago, I suppose, that would have put him outside the definition of sexual assault. But definitions change over time, just as they change from country to country. I'm surprised that you as a relativist have such a hard time with that.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Hmmmm interesting...

You consider the events in this story to be a sexual assault whether the "victim" is male or female as long as the alleged "perpetrator" is a male. But you are unwilling to consider "sexual assault" with a female "perpetrator".

I don't see this as a sexual assault. The genders of the participants are irrelevant.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

I don't see the dogma. Over the last generation or two, American citizens, acting through their legislatures, have redefined the term "rape" from what we now call "forcible rape" to "any sexual intercourse that isn't mutually consensual". Then they changed the definition further by stating that Americans before a certain age can no longer consent to sex, thereby creating the new crime of statutory rape. But that's par for the course in an open society: rules and language change. If sexual mores change in a more macho direction, nothing is keeping Americans of changing the legal definition right back. So what's dogmatic about that?

that assertion is belied by the great difficulty the state has in getting police to arrest, prosecutors to charge, judges and juries to convict. As well the current claim that universities will not take enough action after charges are made. as well do public opinion polls. As well does the failure of almost all rape victims to report if the claims of the existence vast seas of unreported victims are true.

The state says one thing, but the people say quite another. Any claims that the people have demanded these laws that the people consistently refuse to support are false on the face of it.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

I think it's near-impossible for a woman to have vaginal sex with a man against his will. Heterosexual vaginal sex requires an erection; it doesn't require anything comparable on the woman's part; how would a female seducer work up an erection against the man's will? Gender roles in sexual intercourse aren't as symmetrical as your philosophy wants them to be.

This is irrelevant in this story. In this case, the sexual act required her acceptance. There is no claim that it was forced. He took off her underwear without her objection and made no effort to keep her from leaving his bed.

I would like to challenge your premise with another question (although this question is not at all related to my main argument). Is sexual arousal relevant when determining whether a sexual act is consensual? Do you intend to make the claim that sexual arousal is evidence of consent?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't see this as a sexual assault. The genders of the participants are irrelevant.

Who cares how you see it? Neither you nor joefromchicago get to define legal terms like "sexual assault". American legislatures do. All that joefromchicago did was to observe that the conduct you described matches the definition of sexual assault in Pennsylvania. In observing this, Joe is objectively correct; if you "don't see this", you may want to get your eyes or your reading comprehension checked.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

In this case, the sexual act required her acceptance.

And she explicitly rejected the sexual act by saying "no".

maxdancona wrote:

Is sexual arousal relevant when determining whether a sexual act is consensual? Do you intend to make the claim that sexual arousal is evidence of consent?

As a practical matter, it is.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Hmmmm interesting...

You consider the events in this story to be a sexual assault whether the "victim" is male or female as long as the alleged "perpetrator" is a male. But you are unwilling to consider "sexual assault" with a female "perpetrator".

I have no doubt that, under certain circumstances, a woman can be guilty of sexually assaulting a man. I am not, however, convinced that your hypothetical presents one of those circumstances.

1 Reply

Thomas wrote:

Maxdancona wrote:
Is sexual arousal relevant when determining whether a sexual act is consensual? Do you intend to make the claim that sexual arousal is evidence of consent?

As a practical matter, it is.

You are wrong, Thomas.

A search about men's physiology will tell you so.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

And she denied her acceptance by explicitly saying "no".

She accepted his advances when she allowed him to remove her underwear. Certainly a later acceptance overrides an earlier denial. She was clearly accepting or he would have been unable to remove her underwear without the use of force.

Quote:

As a practical matter, it is.

I strongly disagree that sexual arousal is relevant. If it were, it would be an interesting (and troubling) defense to a rape allegation.

What do you think would happen to a defense attorney who asserted his client was innocent of rape because the alleged victim was aroused?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

I have no doubt that, under certain circumstances, a woman can be guilty of sexually assaulting a man. I am not, however, convinced that your hypothetical presents one of those circumstances.

I agree completely.

I will point out that my "hypothetical" is exactly the situation that happened in real life in the original story (just with the genders switched). It is not sexual assault in either case.

1 Reply

@timur,

timur wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Maxdancona wrote:
Is sexual arousal relevant when determining whether a sexual act is consensual? Do you intend to make the claim that sexual arousal is evidence of consent?

As a practical matter, it is.

You are wrong, Thomas.

A search about men's physiology will tell you so.

By Thomas's theory if a woman cums during sex then it cant be rape. We rejected that theory decades ago.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I strongly disagree that sexual arousal is relevant. If it were, it would be an interesting (and troubling) defense to a rape allegation.

No it wouldn't. Generally speaking, rape is sexual intercourse without mutual consent. If the man isn't sexually aroused enough to work up an erection, there won't be any vaginal intercourse and, hence, nothing to defend. (I'm sure you can come up with exotic cases involving a dildo on the woman penetrating the man's anus, but let's stay with the most common form of sex for now.)

maxdancona wrote:

What do you think would happen to a defense attorney who asserted his client was innocent of rape because the alleged victim was aroused?

I don't know, but if the attorney could prove it, why wouldn't that be a valid defense? "If you didn't want to have sex with her, why did you have a boner for long enough to sustain the intercourse?" seems like a perfectly good question to ask in cross-examination.

1 Reply

Is this really considered rape?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know