Wrong. I haven't insisted anything. I have repeatedly stated that nothing can be proven, since both our positions are based on subjective evidence. What I find utterly frustrating is your insistence that I'm insisting anything!




You are seriously suggesting that people contributing to a heated discussion on a vegetarian/vegan internet forum constitute a representative cross-section of society? Really?




Now who's insisting that they're correct? Prove it!




Again, prove it. Of all the people I've asked about this, not one of them has supported your definition of rape. The difference between us is that I'm not insisting that this proves anything - it simply suggests to me that I'm correct in my assertion. You have different experiences that suggest to you that you're correct in your assertion, yet you're insisting that your case is proven. Can't you see which one of us is being unreasonable here?



And again, I have to point out that where the definition of the word is concerned, the world's primary reference dictionary supports my impressions. You think that's just coincidence?



And again again.... what's the big deal? Why not simply agree to differ? The important point here is surely that sexual assault, in all its forms, should be treated extremely seriously?

Huh?

My head hurts.

This (the OP, not the Websters discussion) brings up the issue of whether or not there's a responsibility of the victim to make it known that he feels as such. From what I've read on the supposed crime, it appears that he did not resist very much, and gave a weak, "no", verbally speaking. I think that strong communication is needed in ambiguous cases, where one party is not necessarily strong enough or using direct violence or the threat thereof, for it to be really classified as rape.



Understandably, if there was a major intoxication gap, and it was reasonable to assume that he did not assume or necessarily want sex at the end, that it's rape of a sort ("taking advantage"). Assuming both are equally intoxicated, though, and the man didn't make it blatantly clear that he felt violated, I'm not sure I can consider it criminal rape, and definitely would not put it in the same category as violent, forced copulation. I wouldn't send her to prison for 20-25 to say the least.



I think there's just not enough information for me to form a real opinion on the matter, but it does bring up some interesting issues.

Ah, the 'no-means-maybe' school of thought.






There is no such thing as 'non-criminal' rape. Assuming there was how would you categorize it? Intercourse where someone only says no below a certain decibel threshold or only says no once or twice, but thrice makes it a 'criminal' rape?



If the woman raped the man she should suffer the penalties described in the law. Another woman in Sweden was sent up the river for six years for raping another woman at knife point.



Of course there was a knife and confinement, but without access to police reports nobody knows how either of these crimes really happened.

I don't have time to respond to this fully right now, but this post is nothing but blatant victim-blaming. If he said no and she had sex with him anyway, it was rape, and it's the fault of the rapist, not the victim for not being "unambiguous" enough.

Did he try to resist? Did he give anything more than a single "no" and how definitive was it? I would say it's not criminal because if the criminal didn't realize she was victimizing him, there was no intent, and it's arguable, depending on the nature of the case, that she very well couldn't have known. I would go into it more, but due to the lack of information, I won't bother. I don't feel like going through a laundry list of what would or would not constitute "criminal" rape in my eyes. My point is that there is the possibility of unintentional rape, although I will agree that it's hard to imagine the rapist not knowing.



I've seen "no"s quite quickly turn to "yes"s before. I won't make any excuses for the woman here, since I don't know the nature of what happened, but I'm open the possibility of communication failure.


Yes, my point as well. It's a very obscure situation.


In a lot of cases in life both parties are responsible. One is generally more responsible, though.



Or, should I say your post is nothing but "blatant responsibility-shirking"? I'm going to be far less likely to be persuaded by your argument or engage in any sort of dialog with you if you're going to not bother to address my points and just state opinion and make one-liners.



My point is that I feel victims have a responsibility in ambiguous situations to make it known they feel such. If he was acting unambiguously, then fine she's clearly a rapist. Human interaction and communication are complex and I'm not going to go into all the possibilities and issues here.



Sex offense punishments are serious, so I would want to make sure the crime actually fits that punishment before making such a sentencing.

Okay, so we've established that you don't know what a criminal offense is. You seem to also be confused as to what rape is, however what has already transpired in this thread might explain it to a degree.






I suppose the man could have been 'asking for it'. Maybe he was wearing some very tight pants (or very loose ones).



In the case of a criminal offense you are either guilty or not guilty, never sort-of-guilty.

As I said, I didn't have time to respond fully because I was just about to leave work. I recently did a paper for women's studies on the dangers of rape stereotypes and I think your argument is a good example. The stereotype of rape (TRIGGER WARNING) is a white woman, alone in a public place, being attacked by a man who is either much larger than her or in possession of a weapon or both, who then rapes her while she struggles and fights. The fact is that there are very few rapes that actually conform to this stereotype, and the further a real case deviates, the more difficult it is for the victim to be taken seriously. In this case, you're saying that it's not "real" rape or it's only "rape of a sort" (or "non-criminal rape", whatever that is) because the victim didn't say "no" enough. Most rape laws, as I understand them, operate under the principle of enthusiastic consent: if a "yes" is not clearly understood between both parties, "no" is supposedly implied. That's why it's legally considered rape if one party is unable to give a no or to otherwise object in any coherent way (like if s/he is drugged or drunk or asleep). In this case, the victim actually did say no, and that's enough for the law (in theory at least), even if he didn't say it really loud or a bunch of times. And as Sketchy pointed out, I'm not sure how we would go about discerning the forcefulness of his "no" in any meaningful way.



What you're doing is basically what happens anytime an accusation of rape is made public. As soon as someone says s/he was raped, people fall all over themselves trying to think of reasons why s/he was "asking for it" in one way or another. I can't think of any other crime where the victim is so consistently implicated in her/his own victimization.



Edited because I missed this:






I couldn't disagree with this more. No one should be made to feel responsible for their own rape, and unfortunately, most victims are in one way or another. According to most law in the Western world, if consent is not clear, then it has not been given. If you think that's unfair to those accused of rape, then I suggest you take a look at the dismal statistics of how many rape victims actually manage to see their rapists convicted or even just arrested.

So as long as I say "but your honor she didnt scream NO PLEASE DONT RAPE ME she only whispered please god no so i wasnt really sure if she meant it" I should be able to ge away with anythig right?

No point in responding to the flames, but thank you beatricious for giving me a more thorough argument and responding to my points in a non-flaming manner.


Yes, it would be difficult to discern, and I can understand the obvious "yes". Before reading your response, I had already thought it through and decided that, at least on the "no" issue, the likelihood of someone not knowing the other person wasn't into it would be fairly small, if not impossibly so, verbality aside. Just trying to imagine such a scenario was difficult without massive intoxication on the part of both people, and I'll let the law work itself out on those cases and won't comment.


Well, I wouldn't say that was what I was trying to do. I wasn't trying to imply the man was asking for it, but that on his end he could have been clearer about his state of mind. I was not speaking on rape in general, but this one specific semi-hypothetical instance.


That's understandable. I wasn't trying to make blanket statements against all rape victims here, and when I was saying one party was more responsible, it's sort of how like a pebble and a football field both have length, but one is longer. Some hazy cases, but for the most cases, not in the same ballpark.



I was just questioning the hypothetical (due to lack of information here) situation of someone of at least equal if not greater strength not resisting in any serious manner. I think intentions and expectations are important, and it's not unreasonable for a woman to expect that were the man seriously not interested, he would have been able to make a stronger case, and an erection and drinking may have further clouded her understanding of his emotional state.



I don't like seeing criminals get away free from a crime any more than the next guy, but I also don't like to see people have their lives ruined and spend decades in jail because of an honest communication failure. The vast majority of rape cases are probably very clear cut, at least for those involved, but there is always the chance of the odd case where it was only clear cut on one side. It may be very unlikely, but I think in this semi-hypothetical case the likelihood is high enough to require consideration at least.



I will stand by my statements, for now, that the feelings of the victim need to be made clear in any crime. I'll retract, after reflection, that it should have any bearing on the criminality of the act, for the above-mentioned reasons (and I was speaking ideally, not actually, when referencing the law, which I thought was obvious). But still consider it the victim's responsibility to resist and make verbal their feelings, so long as it does not compromise their safety. It's understandable if they are too scared to do so, but the responsibility still remains.



Now, personally, would I really blame someone for not being so vocal? No. But I would expect it of myself. I think people here are misinterpreting my words as I haven't probably qualified them as best as I could, but I try to keep my posts as short as possible. I find that regardless of how well I can try to word things, people will start skipping over things when I add in a million qualifiers or make a long post.

Huh? In the US, if someone forces oral sex upon you, the crime they have comitted is sexual assault, not rape. Rape requires penetration of a vagina by a penis. Even if a man forces a woman to accept his penis into her anus - my understanding is that this does not meet the legal definition of rape, maybe it is, but I don't think so. According to the legal definition, apparently men cannot be raped. But they can be the victim of a sexual assault, and the penalties for a sexual assault should be just about as severe as the penalties for rape. The penalty should depend upon the degree of force and the amount of harm, not the particular orifice or orifices that were involved, if any.



And if a woman forces a man to put his penis in her vagina? I don't know what that is. The definition of rape seems to be "using force or threat of force to penetrate someone." If you use force to get someone to penetrate you - it doesn't sound like rape according to what I understand the legal definition is.

In sweden rape is legally considered to be forced sex of anything (penetration or oral). It's that way in some places in the US as well

Two women in my town, or I should say "were" as they're now in prison, were convicted of raping a man.



He got crap for it constantly, rumor is he had to leave town because of how people treated him after. Of course having the paper put his name on the front page.... and I think with a picture (not sure on the pic though).... probably had something to do with it.

That's so sad!