Two different stories about consent and "rape", a paradox

Fraud is a form of theft. What was stolen, here? This is why I would call it a civil case. Rape is a serious crime. If it's rape because one feels defrauded after, including long after, does that mean someone who turns off the light to hide their micropenis or some bodily flaws would be guilty of rape? What if you have sex with someone who claims to be in one political party and, later, you find out they are an active member of the other political party. Would that be rape?

 

Consenting to sex in the past does not necessarily mean consent to all future encounters. It can. And in some cases, such as marriage, implied consent can (not necessarily must) be assumed. HOWEVER, no matter the circumstances, consent can be withdrawn, even in marriage. And that is what makes the OP situation absolute rape. The woman specifically withdrew her consent. Further, simply because we do not witness blanket consent being given, it cannot be assumed that there is no consent. Especially within a marriage. There shouldn't be an issue with such an assumption, as long as we are paying attention to when a person (not just a woman) indicates that there is not consent for any given incident.

 

Consent is something that applies to an act. It is possible to give consent to sex without giving consent to tickling. You can retract (or never give) consent to tickling, without retracting consent to sex. Tickling without consent is not in itself rape.

Of course, it is possible to react to tickling during sex with withdrawing consent to sex altogether. A straight reading of your example didn't make it sound like that, but I'm sure it depends on inflection, history, etc..

The example is not super clear. I could imagine the scenario going in either direction. If "she tells him not to" means "ugh, the baby is crying, I am no longer in the mood, I do not want to have sex", then consent is retracted. On the other hand, I can easily imagine a scenario in which it is merely a coy "we really shouldn't but I want to".

My guess is that that example would be some of the more regular rape. You seem to imply some other understanding of "regular rape" that I haven't seen justified (although I haven't read the entire thread).

And what do you mean by "exactly the same"? There is murder that I think at least borders on justifiable, and there is murder that I think is atrocious. The fact that I think both are murder does not mean I think they are "exactly the same".

I guess it depends on what you mean by "involving". Your tickling example involved sex in the sense that it took place at the same time as sex, but the consent being (explicitly) violated was not consent to sex, or had anything fundamentally to do with sex (unless there is subtext missing).

Extreme examples are good. There are definitely some grey areas, where the distinctions are going to be really subtle, and I'm not so interested in those.

 

There are no levels of consent. It is either there or it is not.

Now I will agree that consent can be generalized or it can be specific. However, if you don't make it specific then it has to be generalized. For example, if you consent to sex with a woman with just a simple yes, that leaves it open to everything. If you didn't want oral included then you need to specify that you are not consenting to oral, just all the rest. If you didn't specify no oral, then you can't call it rape.

I don't see being tricked into sex as rape. If we were to use that standard then we could have "victims" claiming rape because the other promised to marry them after or they said they would buy breakfast the next morning. The principle of "I wouldn't have had sex if I'd know X" has to apply across the board. If it's rape, then it's rape even for "He told me his name was Him. But then I found out it was Mark. I wouldn't have had sex with him if I knew that". Otherwise it's not rape because consent was given.

 

It is 100% about consent. A lack of consent is what makes it rape. We can make an argument as to whether being tricked is a lack of consent or not (with a stipulation that being tricked is different that being drugged or similar), but that's an issue of determining consent not rape.

 

A lack of consent is always rape, actual and truly. And I am not one who agreed that the tricked woman was raped. I agreed that she gave consent. And I showed above why the standard of tricked = raped is a slippery slope issue.

But a lack of consent or withdrawn consent (as per the story with the husband and wife) is 100% rape with no possible exception.

 

Yes it can, although that's not an automatic. And implied consent of a couple agreeing to enter into a sexual relationship counts as blanket consent. BUT, and I think this is the important factor, a simple "no" is a withdrawal of that consent, at least for a time. Because the wife said "no" in the one story, it became rape.

 

Since that would be a subjective position, it does not work as a point of law which needs to be objective based.

 

If a violation is of a low enough degree then it no longer fits in the same exact category.

Example: A husband secretly viewing his wife changing through a peep hole.
Could it be seen as a violation against the rights of his wife? Yes. but that violation is to such a small degree that he would never be criminally charged with invasion of privacy.

 

In older times, that was not seen as applying between husband and wife.
Nor was it seen as applying to situations where the woman consented to sex but just not certain aspects of the sex (unless there was some sort of extreme special circumstances).

This wasn't just some arbitrary exception that it didn't apply between husband and wife. There are plenty of reasons for that. You can arrive at many of these reasons yourself, if you think about it.

Of course that's already been discussed in that other thread, and this one.

 

Maquiscat said: ↑
A lack of consent is always rape, actual and truly.

It does NOW.

I feel you long for the times wives were thought of as property but those times are over

 

In older times, the rape of a woman often carried the death penalty.

When a husband is lying naked in bed with his wife, and he reaches over and caresses her but she says "No, honey, not now" but he goes into her anyway, do you view that as rape?!?

Obviously there is some difference that exists when they are married. You just disagree with how much.

Plus the concept of what a "rape" is seems to be getting totally redefined. In the old days it only applied to the most serious situations, when the woman totally clearly did not and never wanted to have sex with that man.

 

That is sort of my point. The label of "rape" should not apply to any situations that have some unclarity around them.

 

Pot kettle achromatic

 

This is the point in which you are wrong. Unless they already have an agreement as to when "no" does mean no (a common agreement between people into BDSM for example), then she is withdrawing established consent. While context and past history are important, they do not automatically relieve a person of their need to get consent, or to respect the withdrawal of consent.

 

This is correct, because the act of rape includes penetration of a cavity by an body part or object not of the penetrated's own body. It might be considered a sexual assault, although assault is more likely. The tickling is a separate act from the act of sex.

Incorrect. You are in the minority here. This is exactly the definition of rape. The myth of "blue balls" is not an excuse to keep going once consent is withdrawn.

 

You have used the phrase "ordinary rape" and "regular rape". I think you need to define these and tell us what other kinds of "rape" there supposedly is. We can skip "statutory" as all that is, is the law declaring a situation rape regardless of the consent and ability to consent of the participants.

 

At the very least, shouldn't the wife have to kick and scream and fight, at least try to push her husband off her, for this to be considered a "rape"?

They are MARRIED. It seems pretty questionable whether the same exact consent rules should apply that apply to a first date.


Pretty soon we're going to get to the point that a wife can accuse her husband of "rape" simply because she claims that she did not say yes, even though she says she did not say no.
Then it will be truly absurd.

That's the direction things seem to be heading towards.

 

That's not entirely simple or easy to define.
I think it should be obvious, but apparently not if many people are not able to see any distinction.

Obviously the case of a woman being attacked by a stranger in a dark alley would be an example of "ordinary rape". Where there is no indication whatsoever that she ever wanted to have sex with that man at any point, and it was clearly completely forced, she put up strong and clear resistance.

 

There is a difference between whether a described situation is rape or not, and proving that described situation in a court of law.

 

Ok now it seems that we need to know your definition of rape itself, since you claim the feminist have redefined it. What was it and what is the feminist feminist definition now.

 

Which doesn't automatically make it rape. Consent was given freely at the time.

 

You are shifting the goal post from what is or is not rape to what is or is not provable in a court of law.

 

The degree of the crime is a separate issue from whether or not the police or a prosecutor wish to act upon it, or feel there is sufficient evidence to prove the crime. The lack of desire to persued the crime into legal action does not indicate the severity of the crime itself nor whether there are degrees of severity in the crime itself. You are engaging in a conflation fallacy here.

 

UNCHERRY-PICKED POST :

It does NOW.

I feel you long for the times wives were thought of as property but those times are over

Make up your mind, what are you talking about.

YUPPERS! He did NOT have consent...she is NOT his property to use as he pleases...

There is no difference, rape is rape no matter how YOU PLAY IT DOWN.

I know you may hate this but times are better for women...

I feel you long for the times wives were thought of as property but those times are over