Is forced insemination without any sexual component rape? - A 'Don't Breathe' inspired thread.

So, is it?

  • Full on Rape (I'm a woman)

  • Full on Rape (I'm a man)

  • Sexual Assault (I'm a woman)

  • Sexual Assault (I'm a man)

  • Not 'rape' rape, but adjacent (I'm a woman)

  • Not 'rape' rape, but adjacent (I'm a man)

  • Not sexual, not rape (I'm a woman)

  • Not sexual, not rape (I'm a man)

  • Breed me, Daddy


Results are only viewable after voting.

Internet War Criminal

Ladder Enthusiast
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Now, first of all, I think we can all agree that this is in the realm of evil, unacceptable, crime, a gross violation of someone's autonomy so fuck off with pearl-clutching. That's not what I want to discuss. What I want to discuss is:

Would it be defined as rape, at least in a legal sense? Or should it be?

My contention is that if there is zero sexual component to it, it's not rape. Rape, by definition, has to involve sex in a function or another. Which is why I'd say that Gaddafi's death was torture, and not sexual assault.

A man who abducts another man and cuts his dick off can be either done as sexual assault, or torture. Depends if he's doing it to torture the guy (he's a rapist, etc..) or he's doing it because he gets his kick from torturing men (then, definitely sexual).

Which brings us back to the Don''t Breathe scene where a man attempts to inseminate a woman for causing the death of his pregnant baby mama with a turkey baster. He goes out of his way to say it's not sexual and that he's not going to get her pregnant the natural way.

To me it's a very evil thing to do, but the fact that he's not getting any pleasure from it (not even visual, the dude is blind), is that it doesn't qualify as rape as a result.
 
Yeah, assault I can definitely see, but again I think that sexual assault has to involve again something sexual in order to be more than just regular assault. Like, if a dude, picks a woman up by her neck and her crotch and throws her against a wall, you wouldn't say he sexually assaulted her even though he grabbed her by the box.
 
How is getting, or attempting to get, a woman pregnant not sexual in nature? Regardless of the means of doing so, or whether or not the perpetrator is sexually aroused at the time. I would argue that impregnation is where the sexual intent is, although it certainly isn't rape, there's still a sexual assault because it's a direct transgression on a woman's reproductive choices, in which sexuality is central.
 
Last edited:
Where I live rape is defined as:
1765415A-30BB-449A-80C8-308024B8A309.jpeg

So not rape.

Sexual assault can result in similar prison sentences but the bit that makes it worse than say, penetration with an object is the risk of pregnancy and/or disease.

Technically it would be sexual assault (non consensual vaginal penetration with an object) but as it is intended to cause pregnancy (and could cause disease too) it’s actually more akin to rape.

A5637B29-24B3-49A2-81B2-FA23F9D386E5.jpeg

The motive can be assumed as sexual even if sexual arousal isn’t experienced by the perp, as deliberately impregnating someone else is (legal phrasing) ‘‘sexual by it’s nature’ (unless it’s carried out by a doctor in a licensed clinic).

Throwing jizz at someone is ‘a common assault’ in Scotland, according to this:
And directly ejaculating onto someone is sexual assault.

‘Forced impregnation’ is a war crime but the nearest report of domestic crime I could find to the scenario described in the OP was some bat shit munchie mum who tried to make her adopted teenage daughter get pregnant with purchased sperm. Unfortunately the article only says the woman was sentenced to 5 years for ‘child cruelty’ (the daughter was coerced into turkey basting the jizz so mum didn’t participate in any sexual assault)


Stealthing (removing a condom without telling the receptive sex partner) makes consensual sex into rape, so it’s clear the law sees putting jizz in someone who didn’t ok it as a very bad thing


But while it’s against the law it hasn’t been any practical use in actual prosecutions, so I reckon here they’d go with ‘sexual assault by penetration’ and then some sort of additional common assault or reckless endangerment (to the women’s health
because pregnancy can fuck you up permanently) for the jizz as an additional charge.

Personally I’d see it as somewhat comparable to the charges for knowingly passing on HIV, which are ‘reckless transmission’ or ‘intentional transmission’ and in some cases ‘grievous bodily harm’ has also been prosecuted (so something akin to ‘intentional transmission’ and then if she were to actually become pregnant I’d say GBH, plus initial assault by penetration).


There is no pregnancy equivalent akin to the HIV charges, but if sick fucks started doing this, I anticipate we’d either create a law along the HIV transmission lines, or it would be an additional type of sexual assault ‘(sexual assault by penetration with mechanical insemination’ or somesuch).

We might need laws to deal with forcible impregnation if surrogacy shit gets any weirder.

Oh, might be able to squeeze some sort of people trafficking/charge attempted people trafficking charge of any resultant baby in there too.

Sexual assault but not rape (but should be sentenced akin to rape due to the potential for long term endangerment to health) is my vote.
 
Last edited:
Sexual assault but not rape (but should be sentenced akin to rape due to the potential for long term endangerment to health) is my vote.
Yeah that's the conclusion I pretty much came to after Pocket's post, I was concentrating too much on the act from the perpetrator's perspective, but yeah it should be definitely be classified as sexual assault, not rape, but sentenced akin to rape.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Apis mellifera
Back