Is this really considered rape?

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

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.

Notice how Setanta reflexively goes off-topic ad hominem.
Is that Obsessive Compulsive Disorder or Tourette 's Syndrome ?

He raises a good question, tho.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

He raises a good question, tho.

No he does not. Just because I wake up with morning wood does not mean than any women nearby are free to get off on it.

The law demands consent to stick in the hole action, having a stick in and of itself is not consenting to that particular use of it.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Notice how Mr. Civility Incarnate cannot comment on a post of someone he doesn't like without making a disparaging personal remark.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

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.

Is this your entire argument? That erections are evidence of men wanting to have sex?

There is quite a bit of both scientific research, and case studies, that show that you are incorrect.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01541979

1 Reply

@Setanta,

U make it so much FUN.

0 Replies

Gotta agree with Max here.

It is, tangentially, a part of the notion, "thinking with his dumb stick."

That is not always something happening by choice.

I've certainly had a boner where I definitely did NOT want to have sex with some woman...for a variety of reason.

The arousal was there...often at the woman's instigation, despite the fact that I did not want to be aroused...or to have sex. I wanted very much NOT to be aroused.

Like the woman in the original story...sometimes I just went with the flow in order to get business done and move on to whatever else was next. I'm happy that at other times I've walked away...and allowed the moment to pass.

If you are a guy who has never had that situation arise (pun intended)...good for you.

Many of, however, have.

0 Replies

It's certainly feasible that a man who does not wish to have sex with a woman; who has told her no, could find himself, after stimulation by her, with an erection that she might then take advantage of to have her way with him. The flesh is willing but the mind is weak.

Would he have to throw her off himself to prove he hadn't consented? If so, then this woman's passive response to penetration could also be taken as consent.

I'm sure it has happened a million times that a man, lying in bed with a woman, has approached her for sex, been rebuffed, but then responded to after persistence.

I don't know all the salacious details, but just passively lying there rather than attempting to beat him off with tooth and nail doesn't, to me, imply consent. If she acknowledged that she participated in the act in some way, that would imply consent.

She told him no but didn't leap out of the bed or fight him when he went ahead anyway. That's not the only reaction a woman might have to being "raped." Why anyone would want to have sex with a woman who simply lies there, with total passivity is beyond me, but her passivity is a good sign, beyond her initial "no," that she didn't want to have sex with him.

The quote provided suggests she was pretty blase about the event and so I wonder what led to the rape charge. Was it filed the very next morning or after a period of time and perhaps argument.

I'm not sure if I was on a jury if I could ignore the "I was tired, so I let him finish." comment.

I understand that mental trauma is not a required element of rape, but, based on this quote, it sure doesn't seem that she experienced any.

If there was good evidence that this charge was based not on any sense she had that a crime was committed on her person, but as a means to get this guy, I might put a lot of stock in her saying "I let him finish."
Before the lectures start flowing about the duty of a juror, let's be honest and admit that this is what happens all the time. Many jurors are more focused on reaching what they perceive to be a just verdict rather than simply what they are told is a technically correct one.

In any case, this is a poor example to support the notion that rape is rampant on campus.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Just because I wake up with morning wood does not mean than any women nearby are free to get off on it.

Again with the appeal to obscure hypotheticals. The proposition about erections is that they are evidence of the male wanting to have sex. I repeat: evidence. Not absolute proof. As long as a man with an erection is more likely to want sex than he would without one, erections are evidence of wanting sex. Whether this evidence is, um, hard enough for a lawsuit depends on the standard of proof.

The standard of proof, in turn, couldn't be lower than it would be in Max Dancona's hypothetical about the female perpetrator and the male victim. Indecent assaults, sexual assault, and rape are crimes. Plaintiffs must establish them beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, for Max's female defendant to walk free, she doesn't have to prove that the putative victim wanted it. She merely has to give enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt about the sex being non-consensual. Hence, if she establishes to the jury's satisfaction that the putative male victim had a hard-enough erection to achieve and sustain penetration, what does that mean? In my opinion, the answer is a no-brainer: it means she has established reasonable doubt!

Given that reasonable doubt is all the defense needs, what does it matter that there may be freak accidents of anatomy where the woman might achieve penetration with an unconsenting man? It doesn't. Hawkeye and Max are grasping for straws here.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Again with the appeal to obscure hypotheticals. The proposition about erections is that they are evidence of the male wanting to have sex. I repeat: evidence. Not absolute proof. As long as a man with an erection is more likely to want sex than he would without one, erections are evidence of wanting sex. Whether this evidence is, um, hard enough for a lawsuit depends on the standard of proof.

" she was wet when I stuck it in, so I knew she wanted it"

Ya, dont hold your breath expecting that to save you from a rape conviction.

Under the law as it is now, and under the law if the feminists take it were they want to go, sexual arousal is irrelevant to consent. Active participation in the stick in the hole action is currently evidence of consent, though a lot of feminists want to do away with that, they demand words.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Is this your entire argument? That erections are evidence of men wanting to have sex?

As I pointed out in my last post, your hypothetical involves an alleged crime. The defense in a criminal case doesn't need to prove that the defendant is innocent, it only has to raise a minimum of reasonable doubt about the plaintiff's rejection of sex. Granted, your source establishes that it's possible for male victims to get aroused from molestations by females. But more likely than not, they won't. And "more likely than not" is more than enough to raise reasonable doubt.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Ya, dont hold your breath expecting that to save you from a rape conviction.

So you keep saying. But despite my repeated requests, you still haven't found a single decision where an American court was satisfied that the woman was aroused and still convicted the man for rape.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

And "more likely than not" is more than enough to raise reasonable doubt.

The US has a solution to that problem on campus , simply dont allow reasonable doubt to get the rapist off....if it is 51% likely that he did it then say that he prob did it and punish him as if he did.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

The US has a solution to that problem on campus , simply dont allow reasonable doubt to get the rapist off....if it is 51% likely that he did it then say that he prob did it and punish him as if he did.

That is new to me. What statute in the US, or what legal precedent, exempts plaintiffs from proving rape charges beyond a reasonable doubt?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
And "more likely than not" is more than enough to raise reasonable doubt.
The US has a solution to that problem on campus , simply dont allow reasonable doubt to get the rapist off....if it is 51% likely that he did it then say that he prob did it and punish him as if he did.

I think you are off-base here, Hawk.

As I said earlier, every guy should consider anything other than an enthusiastic "YES"...as a "NO."

Period!

In my opinion, the enthusiastic "YES" is essential to sexual consent.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

The actual story is that one person proceeded to remove the underwear of another person and then they proceeded to have sex. All of this was done without the use of any physical force and no effort was made to prevent it (although some time prior to this story the second person said they didn't want to have sex).

My case is this

1. One person removed the underwear of the other person with no physical force
2. No effort was required or made to coerce either person to participate or even to prevent either participant from leaving.
3. This clearly indicates consent of both parties at the time the sex was initiated.
4. Once someone gives consent, prior declarations of refusal are invalid.

The point is that for the law (or the moral principle) make any sense at all the genders of the two people involved must be irrelevant.

The idea that sex is initiated by a man is rape (or sexual assault) and that sex under the same circumstances initiated by a woman isn't is ludicrous. And the idea that whether either the man or the woman involved was aroused (or enjoyed it) if relevant is equally ludicrous.

The law is clear... the only issue is was there intercourse without consent. Your claims about male physiology are not only demonstrably scientifically false, they are also irrelevant (as irrelevant as measure of female arousal).

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

In my opinion, the enthusiastic "YES" is essential to sexual consent.

I doubt very much that enthusiasm is required for consent.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

As I said earlier, every guy should consider anything other than an enthusiastic "YES"...as a "NO."

... and why does this apply to only one gender?

1 Reply

I don't think that Max wants to retreat from this supposition of equivalence, despite physiology.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. One person removed the underwear of the other person with no physical force

On whatever authority I may have as a physicist, I can tell you this is impossible. We can discuss the amount of physical force that is necessary for removing underwear from a human body. But an amount of zero is a fantasy, not part of an "actual story" as you claim it is.

maxdancona wrote:

2. No effort was required or made to coerce either person to participate or even to prevent either participant from leaving.

Coersion is no longer a necessary element of rape. If this is difficult for you to accept, buy an up-to-date legal dictionary.

maxdancona wrote:

3. This clearly indicates consent of both parties at the time the sex was initiated.

No it doesn't. Again, buy an up-to-date legal dictionary.

maxdancona wrote:

4. Once someone gives consent, prior declarations of refusal are invalid.

Silence and inaction, however, do not necessarily constitute consent. Whether they do depends on the context. Here, the context is that the victim clearly said "no" just before. This emphatically does not add up to her consenting.

maxdancona wrote:

The point is that for the law (or the moral principal) make any sense at all the genders of the two people involved must be irrelevant.

On what compulsion must it?

maxdancona wrote:

The idea that sex is initiated by a man is rape (or sexual assault) and that sex under the same circumstances initiated by a woman isn't is ludicrous.

On whatever authority I may have as a trained biophysicist, I assure you that males and females are not operating under the same circumstances regarding the anatomy of sex and reproduction. The symmetry you are inventing here simply doesn't exist in real life.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

People should be treated equally under the law. Gender doesn't matter in terms of the legal and ethical issues involved (the mechanics of sexual intercourse not withstanding).

The relevant issue here is consent. If two people have intercourse and one does not consent than it is rape. Gender doesn't matter under the law, and the only reason you gave that it should matter (your claim that men don't get erections in cases of legitimate rape) has been shown to be scientifically bogus.

In the original story, one person allowed the other to remove underwear and commence sexual activity without any protest or coercion. The question is whether this constitutes consent.

I say it does constitute consent. It may be reasonable to say that it doesn't constitute consent (particularly given the earlier verbal refusal).

But to say that whether it is consent or not depends on gender, that it is consent for males for but not for females, is ridiculous.

Consent has nothing to do with one's sexual organs.

2 Replies

Is this really considered rape?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know