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

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by kazenatsu, May 25, 2022.

?

Was it "rape"?

  1. It was not rape in 1st story or 2nd story

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. It was rape in 1st story, not in 2nd story

    2 vote(s)
    10.0%
  3. It was rape in 2nd story, not 1st story

    3 vote(s)
    15.0%
  4. It was rape in both 1st story and 2nd story

    13 vote(s)
    65.0%
  5. In both stories it was sort of rape and sort of not rape, not simple

    2 vote(s)
    10.0%
  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,610
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well you are correct, that is an important thing to do, but unfortunately it is complicated enough that it really could have its own separate thread discussion.

    To try to keep it simple, how about we take a look at the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica definition?
    "RAPE (from Lat. rapere, to seize), in law, the crime of having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man, not her husband, forcibly and unlawfully against her will."
    We could argue about this, but I think by "carnal knowledge" they are implying the woman hasn't had consensual sex with that man before. The "carnal knowledge" of her body was taken from her by force. The husband isn't really gaining any "carnal knowledge" from his wife since he has already had sex with her so many times his "carnal knowledge" of her is already complete.

    The definition also says "forcibly", which I think requires some degree of force to be used (or threat of harm that prevents her from fighting him).
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2022
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fraud gets defined as wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

    The bigger picture is that fraud was used to gain consent.

    The OP case went way beyond misrepresenting ones political beliefs.
     
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,610
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But did it really?

    The main issue, from my perspective anyway, seems to be that she misrepresented her gender.

    It's really hard to make the argument that any of the other forms of deceit she used could actually constitute a criminal violation.
    (For example, I'd hardly call it a violation that the woman was being penetrated with a dildo when she thought it was a penis. If it had been the other way around, it could indeed have been a big violation. I also don't see how it could be a violation to pretend not to be someone that the victim knows; it could only be a violation if she pretends to be someone else, a distinct person completely separate from the perpetrator, that the victim knows. As it was, the victim just agreed to have sex with a mysterious person whom she actually knew little about.)
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2022
  4. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That seems like a strange view of justice. We could close all appeal courts if any situations that have some unclarity would automatically default on the side of the perpetrator. Seems to me the label of rape should apply whenever the definition of rape is fulfilled.

    Good question, let's find out.
    Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent.(Source).​
    I don't see anything in it about kicking and screaming.

    Not everyone responds to bad things by kicking and screaming, especially not in threatening situations.

    On what basis? Where would that be coming from? Just writing it in caps doesn't tell me why.

    I think rape is likely to work differently in a marriage and on a first date, but I don't think it's because the consent rules work different, I think it is because the ways and patterns in which people give consent is different. I think in a marriage, people are more likely to give consent, more likely to give unenthusiastic consent, be better at reading consent, be better at reading circumstances that might lead to consent etc..

    Could a car thief argue that you gave him your car, since you didn't explicitly say you didn't? I don't particularly think the situations are equivalent, but I'd have to see much more detailed discussion of the differences to simply label it absurd.

    I agree that you could construct absurdities in that sorta area, but I don't think the absurdity comes from the consent rules, I think they come from making examples where people give and withdraw consent in an absurd fashion, or interpret consent absurdly.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2022
    WillReadmore likes this.
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was given due to fraud. Thus that consent can't be considered to have been given.

    This isn't just true here. If it were a business deal, fraud would invalidate the commitments.
     
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,610
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're trusting an article from Wikipedia?

    Guess what? If we actually look at the source of that claim, it actually gets glaringly obvious. The footnote for that statement in the Wikipedia article cites the "Sexual Violence" chapter from the World Health Organization, basically an offshoot of the super-progressive UN, and then an article in a law journal titled "Reforming the law of rape", meaning that definition they are coming up with had been changed.

    I think the changing definition of "rape" has some of its roots in political and social ideologies.

    The modern definition emphasizes "consent", but is still vague on exactly what that "consent" means, or whether it should still be considered rape when only a partial level of consent to that sexual act exists.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2022
  7. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,610
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some will dispute that contention.

    Also you seem reluctant to explain exactly how it was fraud. We know that not all forms of fraud that lead to consent constitute a "sexual violation".

    Like I said before, the only way I see this being criminal fraud is that she deceived the other woman about her gender.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2022
  8. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,610
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the situation is obviously a level of threat where it could be plausible the woman may have been too afraid to kick and scream, then obviously that would be rape.
    But this could get into some tricky grey areas. If there is a huge size and strength difference between the man and woman, that could also be a factor.
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What the heck is your point with this thread?

    Are you trying to find arguments for rapists to use? Or, what?
     
  10. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,610
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you have an improper understanding of what rape is, and what type of situations should be seen as constituting adequate evidence of rape.

    I didn't mean to argue about this in this thread, but some of you started accusing me and it turned into a back and forth side argument.

    The original point of this thread was to try to get you to compare two different consent scenarios. See if maybe it would be interesting if people believed one was rape but not the other, and see if there was anything inconsistent about the logic they were applying to each situation.
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It appears to me you are pushing for more nonconsensual sex to be given a pass.

    That is NOT improving our society - it's working to condone more violence, especially against women.
     
  12. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,610
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Needlessly putting men in prison and destroying marriages is not going to be improving our society either.

    There are two sides of the coin to this.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you really think that getting a husband off free for having had nonconsensual sex with his wife is going to save the marriage?

    There aren't two sides. Nonconsensual sex is NOT OK. Neither is other sexual violence.
     
  14. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,610
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely. There are many situations that fall short of a "real rape". She could be complaining about it mainly because she is mad about something else.

    A lot of women can be very emotional and fickle.

    Like I have explained before, a husband can really only truly rape his wife once, so it is not like there is an essential need to criminalize this.

    But we seem to be just arguing around and around in circles.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2022
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,610
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, now you're just making me repeat myself over and over again.

    I never claimed it was "OK". That doesn't automatically mean there should be criminal charges.
    And we are not talking about violence.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2022
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Uh, it isn't 1911 anymore despite what you wish...


    Hey , let's discuss the "men" who rape...the men, the pathetic little ( in every way ;) ) mentally disturbed men who need to dominate and terrify another human to get sexual gratification....what cowardly sickos..... .... sad that you defend them...
     
  17. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    NO, you explained how YOU ERRONEOUSLY thought a husband can really only truly rape his wife once

    a preposterous and inane idea with no base and no merit....just a ton of misogyny..


    The circles would stop if you'd just face real facts and not use your dreams and fairy tales to construct weird misogynistic ideas.


    Hey , let's discuss the "men" who rape...the men, the EMOTIONAL pathetic little ( in every way ;) ) mentally disturbed men who need to dominate and terrify another human to get sexual gratification....what cowardly sickos..... .... sad that you defend them...
     
  18. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    First you have to take into account that even the dictionaries of the time used euphemisms unlike how they can just put it all out in the open now. Carnal knowledge meant sex, and had no implication of force. Carnal meant "of the flesh" and "know/knew" was the euphemism for sex. IIRC, the use of the two together indicated sex for the sake of pleasure as opposed to procreation. That said, the term is more currently used to indicate illegal sex, again, with no implication of force, present or absent. Trying to turn euphemisms into literal phrases doesn't fly. And yes, by the legal definition of the time, it was assumed that a man could not rape his wife. But at the time it was also considered that his wife was his property and he could do as he wanted with her, including beating her. So we can't exactly harken to those times as an example of how to view certain crimes today. Rape today is any forced penetration of an orifice by an object, natural or artificial, against the will of the victim. And yes by this definition, a woman forcing a man to penetrate her is her raping him.
     
  19. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you making a claim that any sexual encounter that does not have kicking and screaming and fighting should not be considered rape, even if the woman, the man's wife or not, doesn't want it? We have plenty of examples of rape out there where the woman was threatened, or feared the attacker for whatever reason and didn't fight back because of that fear. And please don't try to use the "she should have run off after the first time" BS. It has long been shown that an abuse victim does not always run away from their first encounter with abuse, especially if it is something that they grew up with, or gradually escalated over time.

    I've already said that I agree with you that when a couple gets married, that implies, unless otherwise stated prior to the marriage, standing consent for sexual activities, ranging from touches to full out sex. However, that does NOT imply that either part cannot withdraw that consent at any time, and that any action after that withdrawal of consent is sexual assault that can range all the way up to rape.

    Got some bad news for you. It already happens. Hence the need for trials and evidence. Remember a lack of evidence does not automatically mean the crime did not happen. You need to stop trying to conflate what is actually a crime with the ability to prove the crime happened. These are two separate things.
     
  20. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Expanding upon that from your source (and this is piggybacking, not countering) the whole statement reads:

    Not once is the situation of fraud used. I am not claiming that using fraud to obtain sex is not an action that should be illegal. It should. It just simply isn't rape.
     
  21. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Invalidating the commitments doesn't mean that the commitments never happened. It only means that they are no longer valid. Don't get me wrong. The use of fraud to obtain sex is an act that should be illegal. But in the same manner that forced sexual groping without penetration is not rape, so too is sex by fraud not rape.
     
  22. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Basically in making this claim you are engaging in the equivalent of people who want to claim that they were allowed to beat their wives and children and if there was damage, that was still alright. Yeah we changed definitions to include those who were previously excluded from the abuse and attacks. I will gladly claim that for rape as well.

    You're probably one of those people who claims that a woman cannot engage in the PIV rape of a man aren't you? Or that a woman cannot rape a man at all, eh?
     
  23. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am with you as to we need to make sure that we send the right people to prison as the Duke Lacrosse case proves. And if there is enough problems between a husband and wife where she is accusing him of rape (or him accusing her as the case may be) then that marriage is already destroyed. Again, there is a major difference between what constitutes a specific crime (such as rape) and whether or not that crime can be proved. Even with your examples in the OP. Simply because we present what was claim, it does not mean that what was claimed can be proved. But we can certain make statements that if true such a situation was or was not rape. In trying to make a point on what is or isn't a given crime/action, don't muddy the waters with what is or isn't provable in any given situation.
     
  24. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You've not made any proof of this. Your proof requires that a woman who marries can never withdraw her consent to sex with he husband for as long as they are married. And that is the basis of abuse. Consent can always be withdrawn right up to and during what is being consented to. The only time consent cannot be withdrawn is after the fact. A person cannot have sex and once they are done and separated, change their mind and withdraw the consent. Once again, keep in mind the difference between the description of something and the proving of it.
     
    Diablo and WillReadmore like this.
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You even proposed that the woman was lying!

    And, nonconsensual sex absolutely is violence.
     
    Diablo likes this.

Share This Page