Rape vs 'Rape'

[dacote]

From the Nora Reed thread:

Off topic about the bastardization of the word rape:

It used to always have connotations of violence, but then someone pointed out that being coerced into sex against your will isn't always violent, and they made a valid point. That shit is still wrong and people shouldn't do it. Thing is, if you fuck your boyfriend just because you want to go to sleep and he won't stop whining and you'd rather just get it over with, that's nu-rape but it ain't the same thang as OG rape and it's really unhelpful to conflate them. This is ultimately a failure of language in that cultural attitudes have shifted and we don't have the necessary diversity of words to accommodate it.

Like, I'm perfectly willing to buy into the SJW line that harassing people into letting you fuck them is a thing that is Bad, and probably a Big Deal, but I can't simultaneously accept that and agree with the 'rape is rape' line. If you're going to expand the definition you need to enforce distinctions between the old, commonly accepted definition and your new one.

Rape is rape and is always a violent crime. Coercion is violence.

Coercion is not being persuaded into consenting to something you later regret.

They are entirely aware of the distinction they want to get rid of. They're just lying scumbags.

Coercion isn't always violence. For example, blackmail is a kind of coercion. Declaring the two to be identical leads to exactly the same kind of goalpost shifting we're talking about with rape. I've seen people claim that putting up statues of dead white guys in the universities they created as being violence against Indians/blacks. Ain't the same thang.

It's entirely possible to get someone to comply with something they don't really want without using actual physical force (or to allow you to do something that they don't really want). It's not a matter of regretting it afterward. Buyer's remorse is a different thing again.

Again I think there's a strong distinction between literally forcing yourself on someone vs simply nagging them until they give in. However, just because a victim is weak willed doesn't stop it being abuse. You don't have to be literally trying to scratch the dudes eyes out to be not wanting to have sex and him be fucking you anyway.

And it's not about protecting idiots from the consequences of their own actions. It's about calling a spade a spade. The problem comes when it's an SJW calling a spade a rapist, because then you don't have a strong enough word left for the rapist.

 

[Sailor_Jupiter]

Putting a knife to a terrified girl's throat in an alleyway is not the same thing as making out with someone who's too drunk.

I HATE how much feminists have watered-down the definition of rape, and muddied the waters with so many false accusations. It makes it harder for legitimate victims to be taken seriously. Coercion from a boyfriend someone's presumably had sex with in the past is bad, but it's not nearly on the level of being ripped apart by a stranger who might kill you when he's done and bury you in an unmarked grave, leaving your family wondering what happened to you.

Making everything "rape" is like making everything "racist"- like you said, it leaves us lacking a word strong enough for the worst types of the thing. Excellent post!

 

[AnOminous]

Again I think there's a strong distinction between literally forcing yourself on someone vs simply nagging them until they give in. However, just because a victim is weak willed doesn't stop it being abuse. You don't have to be literally trying to scratch the dudes eyes out to be not wanting to have sex and him be fucking you anyway.

The definitive factor is lack of consent. There is no requirement that there be physical struggle or resistance.

However, if there is (legal) consent, it isn't rape, period.

"Coercion" in a legal sense generally requires intimidation by some means that is not legal. For instance, actual blackmail could count, such as threatening to reveal a crime to the authorities. In at least some states, that constitutes rape (and arguably that should be the case in every state).

However, "emotional blackmail" is not coercion in that sense. For instance, a whiny ass titty-baby proclaims "if you really loved me, you'd have sex with me." It's not rape if someone agrees to sex in that situation, even if the guy is fucking disgusting for doing that.

 

[dacote]

Right, I think we're mostly in agreement here. I'm not suggesting legislating against "c'mon baby please", just acknowledging that it's shitty behavior. We're also agreed that describing people who do it as rapist and people who have had it done to them as rape victims is disingenuous. Still, I think there should be a strong word for it - just perhaps not the same word as for full blown violent rape.

 

[Marvin]

This reminds me of the debate about "rape by deception". How big of a lie is it before you call it rape? Or do you never call it rape?

 

[AnOminous]

This reminds me of the debate about "rape by deception". How big of a lie is it before you call it rape? Or do you never call it rape?

Almost never. The few cases where people have been convicted of this generally involve something that entirely negates consent. For instance, someone goes into a dark room and has sex with a woman who thinks he's her husband. I.e. not "if I would have known this I wouldn't have had sex with that person" but she never consented to have sex with that person at all.

It's a bad idea to extend it much beyond that kind of unambiguous situation.

 

[Alberto Balsalm]

I've noticed that the consensus on this issue appears to change between lolcow threads. The Nora thread wants her to call the sexual encounters she was pressured into something other than "rape", but people in the Assigned Male thread, for instance, call Sophie's habit of not disclosing her transgender status until after having sex "rape by deception". Which one is right? (Can it be both?)

 

[AnOminous]

I've noticed that the consensus on this issue appears to change between lolcow threads. The Nora thread wants her to call the sexual encounters she was pressured into something other than "rape", but people in the Assigned Male thread, for instance, call Sophie's habit of not disclosing her transgender status until after having sex "rape by deception". Which one is right? (Can it be both?)

The first is right. There is (mostly) no such thing as rape by deception. That doesn't mean it isn't repellent behavior, but it isn't "rape."

 

[Sperglord Dante]

I've noticed that the consensus on this issue appears to change between lolcow threads. The Nora thread wants her to call the sexual encounters she was pressured into something other than "rape", but people in the Assigned Male thread, for instance, call Sophie's habit of not disclosing her transgender status until after having sex "rape by deception". Which one is right? (Can it be both?)

I'm not familiar with Nora, but I don't think any of the Assigned Male regulars actually thinks Billie should trialed and jailed for trying to fool dudes into fucking him, just that he's a really shitty person and a bad spokesperson for the trans community for doing so (among many, many other things). Does Nora seek retribution against her alleged rapists?

 

[Alberto Balsalm]

I'm not familiar with Nora, but I don't think any of the Assigned Male regulars actually thinks Billie should trialed and jailed for trying to fool dudes into fucking him, just that he's a really shitty person and a bad spokesperson for the tranny community for doing so (among many, many other things). Does Nora seek retribution against her alleged rapists?

Not precisely. She blames Dan Savage for making her believe that her consent wasn't important, and she blames men in general for her boyfriend's behavior, but she stops short of shaming the man himself. I think most of the people who talk about "rape" in this way understand that it's fundamentally different from rape, but they deliberately use the stronger word because of its connotations.

 

[Wallace]

An important point is the different between assent (going along because you don't want to rock the boat) vs. consent (a definite agreement made from a position of agency). Since having agency or accepting responsibility for one's actions is anathema to SocJus, it's not surprising that the definition of rape has drifted and now conflates a violent assault with regret.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Since I think lying about yourself is a violation of the consent contract I think that rape by deception should be illegal.

I think that what should be legally done about rape is that it should be eliminated as a criminal charge and replaced with a variety of several graded offenses with failure to get proper consent without any actual coercion up to the traditional violent assault with fighting back and causing severe injuries (not sure whether that is law or not already though)

 

[AnOminous]

Since I think lying about yourself is a violation of the consent contract I think that rape by deception should be illegal.

Congratulations, you just made something like 90% of pickups illegal because everyone fucking lies about themselves.

 

[Sperglord Dante]

I think that what should be legally done about rape is that it should be eliminated as a criminal charge and replaced with a variety of several graded offenses with failure to get proper consent without any actual coercion up to the traditional violent assault with fighting back and causing severe injuries (not sure whether that is law or not already though)

Some places do that already, but rarely break it down to multiple tiers. Have an example:

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-jersey-law/new-jersey-sexual-assault-laws.html

 

[WhoWhatWhere]

Since I think lying about yourself is a violation of the consent contract I think that rape by deception should be illegal.

I think that what should be legally done about rape is that it should be eliminated as a criminal charge and replaced with a variety of several graded offenses with failure to get proper consent without any actual coercion up to the traditional violent assault with fighting back and causing severe injuries (not sure whether that is law or not already though)

It's not the controlled substance scale which is a failure in and of itself. There aren't different tiers of feeling violated. Add in the whole 'will anyone believe me' your word against theirs factor and it becomes even messier. Wtf are you even going for here?

False reporting is a whole other issue. But that isn't what you're going for here is it? Maybe I missed something.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

It's not the controlled substance scale which is a failure in and of itself. There aren't different tiers for feeling violated. Add in the whole 'will anyone believe me' your word against theirs factor and it becomes even messier. Wtf are you even going for here?

False reporting is a whole other issue. But that isn't what you're going for here is it? Maybe I missed something.

I am going on that there would be tiers roughly as follows:

1. regret and not explicitly saying yes but giving no indication of not wanting it including both people being equally drunk or emotional manipulation
2. regret while drunk or high with the other person was sober or not as drunk (but not passed out and not gotten drunk by the person)
3. drunk, still conscious and the other person planned it or someone lied about themselves in order to get another person to have sex with them
4. unconscious due to a reason that was not intentional restraint nor indicative of a medical problem (drugs or sleeping) or consent being withdrawn during sexual acts already consented to (but not the introduction of new sexual acts that the person did not consent to which would fall under 5 or 6)
5. unconscious due to conscious effort by the perpetrator or usage of threats of a physical matter (the word no does not need to be said), or unconscious due to injury or medical condition
6. Sexual assault which causes extreme injury either through negligence (as in someone sees a heart attack victim and rapes them instead of calling 911) or through (EDIT: ptsd counts as extreme injury when it impedes daily life)

 

[WhoWhatWhere]

I am going on that there would be tiers roughly as follows:

1. regret and not explicitly saying yes but giving no indication of not wanting it including both people being equally drunk or emotional manipulation
2. regret while drunk or high with the other person was sober or not as drunk (but not passed out and not gotten drunk by the person)
3. drunk, still conscious and the other person planned it or someone lied about themselves in order to get another person to have sex with them
4. unconscious due to a reason that was not intentional restraint nor indicative of a medical problem (drugs or sleeping) or consent being withdrawn during sexual acts already consented to (but not the introduction of new sexual acts that the person did not consent to which would fall under 5 or 6)
5. unconscious due to conscious effort by the perpetrator or usage of threats of a physical matter (the word no does not need to be said), or unconscious due to injury or medical condition
6. Sexual assault which causes extreme injury either through negligence (as in someone sees a heart attack victim and rapes them instead of calling 911) or through violence

How do you prove what happened where and who did or didn't say what? That's already the issue in the first place.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

How do you prove what happened where and who did or didn't say what? That's already the issue in the first place.

That is not the issue. The issue is whether times in which we know what happened are to be considered rape or not. It would be easier to charge a lower tier so when there is a lack of evidence they can charge a lower tier instead

 

[ActualKiwi]

I am going on that there would be tiers roughly as follows:

1. regret and not explicitly saying yes but giving no indication of not wanting it including both people being equally drunk or emotional manipulation
2. regret while drunk or high with the other person was sober or not as drunk (but not passed out and not gotten drunk by the person)
3. drunk, still conscious and the other person planned it or someone lied about themselves in order to get another person to have sex with them
4. unconscious due to a reason that was not intentional restraint nor indicative of a medical problem (drugs or sleeping) or consent being withdrawn during sexual acts already consented to (but not the introduction of new sexual acts that the person did not consent to which would fall under 5 or 6)
5. unconscious due to conscious effort by the perpetrator or usage of threats of a physical matter (the word no does not need to be said), or unconscious due to injury or medical condition
6. Sexual assault which causes extreme injury either through negligence (as in someone sees a heart attack victim and rapes them instead of calling 911) or through (EDIT: ptsd counts as extreme injury when it impedes daily life)

Really don't think Tiers would work, you're just muddying the waters and legitimizing peoples incorrect claims at that point.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Really don't think Tiers would work, you're just muddying the waters and legitimizing peoples incorrect claims at that point.

How does this legitimize incorrect claims?