So I ran across something that prompted me to set up this poll. I want to hold off presenting it so that I don't influence others' thoughts. Do you feel that the title is a true statement? Please be prepared to support your answer.
I would distinguish two kind of rape : The one where someone use violence on someone else to force that personn to have sexual relationship or using unconsciencness. The sex without true consent, for instance when someone is too drunk to have consent. By the way, the first is the one who is the most dramatic and serious. The second is different. I consider their is responsibility of getting drunk or takings drugs, by the way at the exception of the drugs who was hidden (ghb for instance). They can be "mutual rape" in the second case. But I wouldn't consider that as a real rape.
I pretty much agree with your statement. It explains my "other" answer as well. Two drunk people who legally can't consent to sex can practically consent to sex.
'Rape' is non-consensual sex, this means it is only possible to rape somebody when they are unwilling and you are willing. If two people try to rape each other the situation becomes quite oxymoronic as it would pretty much be the same aa consensual sex.
Non-consensual only means not consented to. If we hold as a legal definition that being inebriated removes the ability to give consent, then why cannot two people both be unable to give consent? And if rape is the act of having sex with someone who did not consent, then is it not them possible for both, per these definitions, to rape each other?
LOL! Great! Start throwing teenagers in juvenile hall for having sex. That makes 41% of teenagers criminals. Sounds about right.
I didn't make the laws about underage sex, I was just pointing that it's technically rape. Some countries have statutes with age limits, so if the people are separated by, say, 2 years then there's no penalty, or a lesser penalty. The age of consent varies a lot from country to country, too.
It is still sex. Whether or not it is illegal, and/or rape depends upon the law. Sex is certain acts. Whether the kids understand what they are doing or enjoy it is a separate issue.
If it is two boys badly needing a shower, it does not count. They can only fool around, it is not real sex anyway. Nobody can get pregnant.
The objection was not that homosexual actions are not sex, but that such said sex doesn't produce children. Even if there are a few who make the same claim as you have it doesn't make them or you any ess wrong.
You did not get my sarcasm, people claim that the purpose of marriage, a man and a woman is to have children. They state two men should not be allowed to marry because neither one can bear children. Hence my sarcastic comment;
I think the word “rape” is too poorly and inconsistently defined to give a simple answer to the question. I think it’s possible to come up with scenarios, some more realistic than others, where two people could have sex and neither of them have given informed consent. Whether those scenarios would meet the legal definition of rape and other criteria for bringing a case in any given jurisdiction would vary greatly and the wider moral questions in any given scenario would likely be different again. I’m not sure trying to draw such distinct and specific lines is beneficial in this area and it’s actually easier to establish some basic principles of behaviour and attitude to avoid pretty much all related issues.
