Given phatboy's admonition... and admission that he's watching us... maybe we need to get a separate room for this.
Are you going to try and claim that he didn't know that she didn't want it (just ignoring whether or not she had explicitly said something prior, which I have not asked her)?
It depends on what she said. I already pretty clearly stated if she said she did not want to have sex then that is enough, though personally I think she should have done more and if she actually stayed in the relationship AFTER that encounter then her position IS discounted. That would have to be the biggest mixed message ever.
But if she did not say she didn't want to have sex, and I mean like "No, I do not want to have sex" then straight off it just wasn't rape.
A girl laying around doing nothing and apparently not even paying attention means NOTHING. I have already said I had two gfs who preferred coerced sex. They would do the above as PART OF the act and were actually upset when I didn't "read their minds" that I was supposed to go on.
And on top of that there are girls who are just really bad in bed. I knew two more that fit the above description and they thought that was supposed to be sex, they lay there while guy pumps away. I was totally blown away.
So yeah, MEN ARE NOT MINDREADERS. A woman has to make clear what she does and does not want. Is this some extremely odd thing to expect?
you give it to them without saying "I don't want to give you my money", can they get off without charges of robbery?
Well it depends on what you mean by threatening. If you meant he just LOOKED scary, then yeah he didn't rob you, you'd be both a coward and an idiot.
If he pulled out a gun while asking, or started beating his fist into his hand as if it was a face, then you are being ASSAULTED. That is when it turns to robbery.
Acquiesence to someone's demands because one does not want to face possible consequences which have not even been made clear, or that a real threat of any kind is clear, then that is just cowardice.
I find this line of argument odd from someone against Bush's invasion of Iraq. Essentially he is using the argument Saddam looked scary and made demands on us (and allies) so we had to take him out as if the threat was real.
it would seem crazy to think that he was unaware that at the *bare minimum*, she blanked out whenever he went to have sex with her, and wouldn't speak to him.
Blanking out means nothing. No offense, but if she said nothing and was too afraid to break up (despite no actual violence or clear threats of violence) then it was her victimizing herself. She lengthened a bad situation in order to avoid the potential (real or not) for some actual violation or assault to occur.
Why is it the guy's responsibility to simply "know" something is wrong, and women have no responsibility to SIMPLY COMMUNICATE? I mean even if not at the time, how about afterward?
Example of using it to "gain power over men"?
I gave a short example where I encountered a number of women doing just that. Using their badge of "rape" they were able to blackmail the men they were with previously, use that story to control current boyfriends, as well as gain status among other women.
Are you trying to tell me that there are not women as unscrupulous as men and invent such stories? I find that really hard to believe.
I gave several examples of abuses towards women
I didn't deny them. I readily admit that happens. I do believe that sexually abusing someone while they are unconscious (other than having brutally injured them into that state during the attempt) is different than rape.
That is one reason I do not call my experience rape... just a violation... it began under a state of unconsciousness. Although it extended into the former once I fully came out of that state.
There is a HUGE difference between being violated and having a conscious experience of direct force against one's active will.
Can I ask why it is so important to get most unwanted or unpleasant sexual experiences labelled as rape, or something "like" rape?
Why is it less just to call it a violation or assault, knowing full well that still entails being used against one's will?
Why you require it to be explicitly spoken is beyond me.
Experience the difference... there is one. Both are bad, one is worse and involves quite a different form of abuse. And I might add that this is getting clear of the very specific case we are talking about.
Your gf... and I want to make sure you understand that I am not trying to say she didn't have a traumatic experience... was awake. In that situation there was no reason for her not to say something.
Did you get details on exactly what the situation entailed? Were the men clearly aware that she didn't want it, or not?
If I didn't get the details and think my description appropriate, do you think I would have mentioned them?
This is kind of unfair to me.
Now that *is* a problem. My partner, for example, only confided it to me after we had been seing each other for a while, and she had trouble talking about it.
I wasn't trying to imply your gf was anything like these other girls. I was trying to show how broadening and tightening of the definition of rape is being misused by both sides.
In my personal opinion, as I currently understand you gf's experience I would say she shouldn't be coming close to using the word rape. Of course if it was really traumatic maybe she has yet to reveal the violence involved.
But I could always play unfair with you and start asking you how YOU know what the truth is. You already said she hasn't shared everything. And if she was unscrupulous it could be that she invented that story later when she needed it to emotionally extort something from you (which is why she didn't mention it up front).
That would be unfair though, so let's trust each other when we mention purely anecdotal evidence. I trust your integrity enough to do so. If you don't trust me enough, let me know.
Almost 10% of rape victims in the US are men. It's far from the majority, but it's anything but inconsequental.
My guess is it's much higher. I never reported my experience (even as a sexual assault). I think Pink Sasquatch here at EvC said he never reported his and knew others that had not. I have yet to meet any guy that has reported it. This is definitely NOT a culture where such a thing gets accepted.
Sexual assault is the legal term for rape. I don't get how this is milder to you, just because it's the legal term. Violation is a euphemism for rape. Again, I'm not sure why this is better to you...
This all depends on the state. I think using different terms makes it more accurate and so better. If semantics were not an issue then I submit you would not have used "in a way" to describe her situation.
There is power in the term rape which people want to use, even if innocently and indirectly, to heighten the gravity of their experience. It blurs the lines of what people are actually going through, and so prevents actual understanding of the human condition.
Rape is the crime of forcing sex on an unwilling recipient. *Of course* there are varying degrees of it. Since rape is the general term, perhaps it would be more reasonable to add a preface, such as "violent rape" or whatnot.
I'm not looking for black and white, comparable to good and evil. I am looking for clear definitions of what people are experiencing.
I would say that rape is the crime of forcing sex AGAINST the will of a recipient, not merely on an unwilling or unresisting recipient. It is precisely because sexual activity is many shades of grey that I think appropriate definitions are required to gradually reach the stage of rape.
If people were wanting to say well any time a person is unwilling it is rape, that would create absurdities.
Men also have sex when they don't want sex (in much the same scenario you outlined of the wife not wanting it but feeling like she cannot say no). They can even do it clearly NOT wanting to and the girl continues. I myself have been in that position and wished it would go away. I wouldn't dream of calling that assault or violation or rape. I was allowing something unpleasant to happen because I wanted to avoid what might be more unpleasant (though we are not talking a threat of force beyond a huge nagging fight).
I think it is necessary that when we start approaching CRIME, that it begins not just with a recipient being unwilling, but some active and KNOWING usurpation of that will by the perpetrator. Thus intentionally drugging or getting someone drunk is acting to negate a person's will and rights and is a crime in and of itself. Heck maybe it belongs to kidnapping as well as assault.
As the degree to which the recipient makes their will known and the perp uses violence or active coercion to fight against it, we reach actual rape.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2