Is this really considered rape?

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

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

Please point me to any case, decades ago or not, in which

the defense established to the court's satisfaction that the female plaintiff had an orgasm, and yet
the defendant was nevertheless convicted of rape.

I think you're making up your own legal history here.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

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.

First of all, as Timur pointed out, you are physiologically incorrect. Erection in males is not evidence of consent.

Second of all, what would you think of the equivalent question being asked of a female rape victim? I think most of us would agree that this is a horrible and irrelevant question in a rape case.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

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.

No, it's not exactly the situation that happened in real life. In real life, there was sexual penetration of the victim by the perpetrator. In your hypothetical, it is not clear if that could have happened.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The key point of this argument is consent. There are two simple principles here.

1. If you refuse at first, and then consent later, the later consent is relevant.
2. You can not remove someone's underwear without their consent unless you use physical force.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

In real life, there was sexual penetration of the victim by the perpetrator.

That is very clever. It is irrelevant. But it is clever. The idea that sex is something that men do to women is quaint.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Thomas wrote:

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.

maxdancona wrote:

First of all, as Timur pointed out, you are physiologically incorrect.
Erection in males is not evidence of consent.

That is hard to believe.

maxdancona wrote:

Second of all, what would you think of the equivalent question
being asked of a female rape victim?

WHAT is the "equivalent question"?????

maxdancona wrote:

I think most of us would agree
that this is a horrible and irrelevant question in a rape case.

No, no, no.
I disagree.

David

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

First of all, as Timur pointed out, you are physiologically incorrect. Erection in males is not evidence of consent.

Just because Timur or you point something out, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true. If you have evidence other than "because I said so", I'd be happy to consider it.

maxdancona wrote:

Second of all, what would you think of the equivalent question being asked of a female rape victim?

I think the female rape victim would truthfully answer "no". "No, getting raped did not sexually arouse me." If an alleged rape victim ever answered "yes" to such a question in court --- and until Hawkeye shows me that case of his, I don't believe that ever happened --- then I think this would, and should, cut in favor of the defense.

maxdancona wrote:

I think most of us would agree that this is a horrible and irrelevant question in a rape case.

I agree it would be horrible, because the answer of an actual rape victim is so certain to be "no" that you needn't even ask. But to say it's irrelevant is to say that her answering "yes" rather than "no" would not make it more likely that the sex was consensual. I don't see how you make that argument.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

It is irrelevant.

Not according to the law. It's not sexual assault (or rape) unless there is penetration. If there isn't, it's indecent assault (Penn. Crim. Code § 3126).

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Tom, U 'd have been an EXCELLENT attorney.
It comes naturally to u.

David

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

sometimes, in the middle of an act that is always a violation, a rape survivor will experience increasingly intense physical sensations leading to climax – an orgasm.

Yes, it really happens.

Of those who report their rapes, around 4–5% also describe experiencing orgasm

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/science-arousal-during-rape

Arousal is not consent for females, so it should not be for males either.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

No Joe. You are incorrect.

1. Your phrase "penetration of the victim by the perpetrator" implies that (at least for vaginal rape) the man is always the perpetrator and the woman is always the victim.

The law is very deliberate to not say this. If a woman forces a man to have vaginal intercourse without his consent, she is the perpetrator of rape.

2. The issue here is consent. With consent it is neither rape nor sexual assault. You can't remove someone's underwear without physical force if you don't have their consent.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

And, to repeat my earlier question, when was the last time a rape defendant successfully established that the plaintiff had an orgasm, yet ended with a guilty verdict anyway? You can appeal to exotic corner cases, but have they ever made a legal difference?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You can't remove someone's underwear without physical force if you don't have their consent.

According to the feminists this is not correct, as affirmative consent is required, there must be an opt in. Some say that this consent must be verbal. others allowed that enthusiastic non verbal is ok. Unless you give either approval through words or helping the guy remove your panties you have not consented. The feminists consistently encourage women to remain passive, and then want to ring men up for wrongdoing if they take this submission as consent.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. Your phrase "penetration of the victim by the perpetrator" implies that (at least for vaginal rape) the man is always the perpetrator and the woman is always the victim.

Maybe not as a matter of logic. But as a matter of practice, and without aids like dildos or male enhancements, how would a female perpetrator achieve penetration without the male victim's consent? I think your egalitarian ideology is getting in the way of accepting anatomical reality.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

And, to repeat my earlier question, when was the last time a rape defendant successfully established that the plaintiff had an orgasm, yet ended with a guilty verdict anyway? You can appeal to exotic corner cases, but have they ever made a legal difference?

we are not provided with enough information on cases to know, but judging by how vehemently the feminists claim that judges and jurys refuse to convict rapists I dont think it was too long ago.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

how would a female perpetrator achieve penetration without the male victim's consent?

How about this...

A man says he doesn't want to have sex. A little while later he lets the woman take off his underwear and get on top of him leading to penetration. (Note this is very similar to what happened in the story we are discussing).

Is this, or is this not, an example of penetration without consent?

[Of course a female could also rape a man at gunpoint and force intercourse... but I assume we all agree that this would be rape.]

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. Your phrase "penetration of the victim by the perpetrator" implies that (at least for vaginal rape) the man is always the perpetrator and the woman is always the victim.

No, you're quite wrong. Indeed, I'm beginning to suspect that you're a bit hazy on the whole mechanics of sex. There must be penetration because without penetration there is no intercourse, which is an element of the offense. In other words: no intercourse = no sexual assault. That doesn't mean that the man is always the perpetrator, it just means that there must be intercourse.

maxdancona wrote:

2. The issue here is consent. With consent it is neither rape nor sexual assault. You can't remove someone's underwear without physical force if you don't have their consent.

Well, at least you now think that the question is consent rather than coercion. That's a step in the right direction, I suppose. As for the rest, I don't know what you mean by "physical force."

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

So you really believe that a man can penetrate a woman without having an erection? You just love to argue, Max, and you're not really very good at it, because you don't seem to think about the implications of what you say.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

I think your egalitarian ideology is getting in the way of accepting anatomical reality.

that is pretty much what the feminists say, if the stick ever ends up in the hole and she says either then or after the fact that she did not want it there then by definition a rape took place, there is no need to ask any more questions.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

(Note this is very similar to what happened in the story we are discussing).

It certainly sounds similar, but that's because you're cheating. Your weasel-language about "leading to penetration" obscures the fact that penetration requires an erection. It also obscures that erections are evidence of the man wanting to have sex, but not of the woman wanting it.

maxdancona wrote:

Is this, or is this not, an example of penetration without consent?

Probably not, because the man's erection is evidence of consent.

maxdancona wrote:

[Of course a female could also rape a man at gunpoint and force intercourse... but I assume we all agree that this would be rape.]

But it wouldn't work on me. Fearing for my life turns me off sexually. I couldn't penetrate jelly with that thing. And I wouldn't be surprised if most other man had the same reaction.

1 Reply

Is this really considered rape?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know