Re: When is rape not rape?
Couple of easy rules of thumb to follow:
No means No
Physical intimacy should be consensual everytime.
Re: When is rape not rape?
did you ever see little child playing with plastic toys/trucks ? Did you notice how he/she is given some thing fake and he/she build a whole world of imagination around it.
Problem with you(certain chicks in life1) and some ppl(dudes in PA/WA) is they are given terms from some one smarter then them, now they HAVE to build some thing around it.
They cant just say "what the F... you think we are stupid"
seriously!!
What are you talking about and what does it have to do with the topic at hand?
Re: When is rape not rape?
Monk just shut the **** up already!
Re: When is rape not rape?
Woah ... this is such an easy question and people are going in to graphic depth to answer it ...
It is rape when the judge and jury conclude it to be so .... simple as that ...
It is immaterial (except for those who are part of court procedings) about whether it is before, after, pleasurable, not so, odd behaviours in the process ... In such cases nothing is clear cut until a thorough investigation is undertaken ... and most interestingly "rape" cases are very detailed and I for one have a considerable level of confidence that in such cases the courts do arrive at the right verdict.
Re: When is rape not rape?
**There are 2 issues which it seems people here are arguing ......
1 ) Rape as an Entity
2 ) Alleged "rape" in the Assange case
I think everyone agrees beyond a doubt Rape as an entity is a crime punishable with the severest form of retribution.
However in the Assange case there are several assumptions and the lines between consent and revoking of it are blurry at best.
Miss A & Miss W both seem to have consented and from the accounts and details given did not revoke the consent till AFTER the act. Now can that be alleged as Rape ? How does one judge or define what in both cases would have signalled to Assange that the women he had been with earlier have now revoked their consent.
Miss A alleges she tried to stop him after the condom broke........therefore any form of intimacy after that can be construed as coercion and still fulfills the criteria for alleged rape. However I do not see how Miss W is crying "rape" when she says she consented to the act that night and in the morning she was ASLEEP through the act..........
Another point in this particular case , the 2 women (obviously strangers) to have met each other shortly after and confessing to each other (virtual strangers ) the ( traumatic ) personal occurences seems to big a coincidence to be believable. Seems more like he is being set up . Again details are toooooo "vague and flimsy" in both cases to really know for sure if it was Rape or a conspiracy.**
Re: When is rape not rape?
Monk just shut the **** up already!
what did say so wrong ?
Re: When is rape not rape?
rough sex is different from rape, it's not rape when both partners have consented to it. forced sex on somebody that does not want it is rape.
Re: When is rape not rape?
Couple of easy rules of thumb to follow:
No means No
Physical intimacy should be consensual everytime.
Using your rule of thumb, how does it apply to the alleged facts of the Assange case?
Woah ... this is such an easy question and people are going in to graphic depth to answer it ...
It is rape when the judge and jury conclude it to be so .... simple as that ...
It is immaterial (except for those who are part of court procedings) about whether it is before, after, pleasurable, not so, odd behaviours in the process ... In such cases nothing is clear cut until a thorough investigation is undertaken ... and most interestingly "rape" cases are very detailed and I for one have a considerable level of confidence that in such cases the courts do arrive at the right verdict.
Judges and juries have been known to be wrong. Despite the factual determination, what is the moral judgement in this situation?
**There are 2 issues which it seems people here are arguing ......
1 ) Rape as an Entity
2 ) Alleged "rape" in the Assange case
I think everyone agrees beyond a doubt Rape as an entity is a crime punishable with the severest form of retribution.
However in the Assange case there are several assumptions and the lines between consent and revoking of it are blurry at best. Miss A & Miss W both seem to have consented and from the accounts and details given did not revoke the consent till AFTER the act. Now can that be alleged as Rape ? How does one judge or define what in both cases would have signalled to Assange that the women he had been with earlier have now revoked their consent.
Miss A alleges she tried to stop him after the condom broke........therefore any form of intimacy after that can be construed as coercion and still fulfills the criteria for alleged rape. However I do not see how Miss W is crying "rape" when she says she consented to the act that night and in the morning she was ASLEEP through the act..........
Another point in this particular case , the 2 women (obviously strangers) to have met each other shortly after and confessing to each other (virtual strangers ) the ( traumatic ) personal occurences seems to big a coincidence to be believable. Seems more like he is being set up . Again details are toooooo "vague and flimsy" in both cases to really know for sure if it was Rape or a conspiracy.**
Well said. You've considered the unique circumstances that set the allegations in this case apart from other rape cases.
Re: When is rape not rape?
did you ever see little child playing with plastic toys/trucks ? Did you notice how he/she is given some thing fake and he/she build a whole world of imagination around it.
Problem with you(certain chicks in life1) and some ppl(dudes in PA/WA) is they are given terms from some one smarter then them, now they HAVE to build some thing around it.
They cant just say "what the F... you think we are stupid"
seriously!!
Monk, there you go again with the assumptions. Examining a real-life case and using it as a springboard for discussion does not mean that "certain chicks in life1 and some ppl (dudes in PA/WA)" are not capable of thinking for themselves or that we spend our lives living in an imaginary world where we beleive that only we are correct.
The world is made up of more gray than black and white and while people are not required to agree with each other - what they do need to do is consider what the other has to say in a respectful manner. You disagreed with what others have to say but instead of challenging their ideas, you choose to denigrate them. That is neither mature nor productive. You undermine your own arguments when you treat other's ideas and thoughts with disrespect.
Re: When is rape not rape?
Using your rule of thumb, how does it apply to the alleged facts of the Assange case?
Sheyn put it pretty perfectly. If what the two women say is true, that after the initial consnesus, he forced himself at any other time, then it's rape. But then these two ladies met and may have conspired to blackmail him too, so the truth does get blurred. It's going to end up being how much physical evidence can be found in this particular case, and character witnesses as well, along with finding an untainted jury pool. Though that may be impossible given Assange's recent noteriety.
Re: When is rape not rape?
Judges and juries have been known to be wrong. Despite the factual determination, what is the moral judgement in this situation?
Peace Sehrysh
You want arbitaries or comparatives then here they are:
Morally it is wrong to engage in sex without contract (Marriage being the main contract here, but there are other types of contract).
The contract should be clear that both parties are aware of the extent and bounds of it.
To engage in any sexual intercourse or related activity without contract is wrong since the conditions are not set and it opens the doors to confusion.
If it is in contract that the two have agreed on protected sex then unprotected sex becomes wrong the one who instigates sex on these grounds has made the mistake, the one who allows this to continue has made another separate mistake, which effectively nullifies the agreement, because the ongoing act demonstrating the continuous consent of both parties even if the contract conditions have been breached means that both parties have not considered it important enough to break the intercourse on the grounds of the breach. A new agreement gets created by proxy. If party 1 sues party 2 on the grounds that breach of the contract occurred then a counter claim can be raised that the breach was deemed acceptable. If however party 1 was unaware of the breach until a point later then a case can be raised against the second party for breach of contract and failure to inform of that breach, however a defence can be put in place that the contract was breached in the absence of both parties knowledge or that it was not the cause of party 1 that the breach occurred. In the case of 'torn' contraceptive as a result of unknown circumstance then the concept of 'force majeure' can be invoked or an external claim made against the contraceptive provider.
Morally it is better to plan and agree the event before engaging in it
If engaging in an act is done without plan and agreement it is morally correct to ensure throughout the course of the act at each reasonable interval that both parties are in agreement with it.
It is morally correct for any party who feels exploited to make the other party aware of this without fail.
It is morally correct to ensure both parties are agreed that the end result of the exchange has been satisfactory and if not to explain why
If a valid explanation is given then the other party should compensate willingly
If the gesture is acceptable then the first party should close the issue.
It is morally incorrect to raise feelings of exploitation after exchange on the condition that it was possible to object during the exchange. If it was not possible to object during exchange then it becomes morally correct to raise feelings of exploitation afterwards, but only if the objection is fair and comparative to nature of the exchange.
It is morally incorrect to assume everyone has the same level of self control, understanding, and ability and hence judge everyone by a constant standard. It should be taken into consideration that during to course of sex it becomes harder for the people to stop until satisfaction but also it becomes increasingly harder to distinguish pain from pleasure, the word 'no' in the state of heightened sex can actually mean 'yes'. In such a case this type of exchange is one that suggests it is morally better to agree terms before an act and since the act itself compromises on the conditions of sensible determination of either party's wishes then it is morally wrong to use such conditions during the exchange as a basis to raise concerns about breach of contract.
To blur things more if a wife of a man is enjoying sex and says 'no' if her husbands continues is that rape? The act of sex itself destroys reason because feelings take over and reduces humans to a primal state during the act. It would be morally wrong to condemn another to a crime when they are not in full control nor able to clearly ascertain the full intent of the sex partner.
Re: When is rape not rape?
Rape is rape when it looks like rape. Otherwise it is not rape.
Splitting hair is what we see these days unfortunately and this silly concept now has found its ways in to married couple bedrooms. 
Reasons:
1- for material gain,
2-blackmailing, and
3- as a revenge to cause emotional harm to other partner.
Fortunately this kind of evil behavior of falsely blaming is not common. Many patrners despite having the ability to use this ‘weapon’ do not blame other partners.
One may say it maybe because of shame or complexities of the process a victim may not come out. Feel sorry for them and for those who may just not be able to get justice for one or the other reasons.
It is hard to comment specifically on this incidence but like I said above a rape is rape when it looks like rape.
Twisting the scenario, timing of saying no to revoke the consent, being subdude by the ‘weight’ during an otherwise consensual act, or being ‘sleepy’…is like making up excuses.
If one did not fight enough, used whatever one could use to defend, then it is most likely consensual…(unless a gun or any other weapon was used to threat someone’s life or some other means were used to compell/force someone to be a part of this act).
Prove beyond reasonable doubt of someone being a victim or other being a rapist. Otherwise the risk is that someone may get blamed unjustly.
Re: When is rape not rape?
^ What a load of crap, as usual. Rape does happen in married couples, its called domestic rape and it is not a silly concept. What if someday your wife ass rapes you with a strap-on, and then tells you you didn't fight enough. When it is not consensual, it IS rape.
Re: When is rape not rape?
^ What a load of crap, as usual. Rape does happen in married couples, its called domestic rape and it is not a silly concept. What if someday your wife ass rapes you with a strap-on, and then tells you you didn't fight enough. When it is not consensual, it IS rape.
well said !
when a husband refuse to understand anything and forcefully takes what he wants then that is rape. if she does not shout or run away from the house it may be because she does not have an option , to whom will she complain that her husband raped her ? in the middle of the night where she will run away ?
some things are easier said than done. Husband is not a grass eating animal who can not comprehend if his wife is in a mood not or if her physical condition is not good enough . When he choose to ignore hi wife's consent he has raped her.
Re: When is rape not rape?
**
Rape is Rape till proven otherwise !
What you have stated clearly forgoes the victims response to such a crime , so that only in your narrow mind would it be only rape if there was a struggle…it is exactly mentality like this that lets victims be blamed for somehow “Asking for it” !
Rape is not always with a struggle…have you never heard of being paralysed with fear ??? In such a circumstance do you think the victim would put up a fight let alone resist ?
Everything is not black and white whether its the victim or the perpetrator , or where there are instances of being blamed unjustly…I have seen and dealt with rape victims and their first response is to "internalize " and detach themselves from what has happened in order to somehow protect their emotional and mental integrity after such a heinous crime…**
Re: When is rape not rape?
Before the act - There needs to be consent
During the act - There needs to be consent
After the act - No feeling of exploitation
These are considered the required elements of moral sexual conduct, but since a general agreement such as marriage certificate might not be in place then distinguishing between illegal sex and legal sex is difficult so this alone is not enough to be fair to both parties.
In marriage all of the above apply plus:
Before the act - both partners have a moral responsibility to try and please their spouses so if they do not have consent they should try to encourage themselves to turn their mood around. (It is an injustice on either partner if one gets pleasure and stops before the other gets their pleasure, so the idea of no longer having consent during the act is morally wrong when in marriage).
During the act: Both have a moral responsibility in making their partners pleasured
After the act: Both have a moral responsibility in catering for the emotional needs of the spouse.
Breach of moral responsibility (rape) when in marriage - the punishment should be filing for divorce. (Nothing more than this because the general consent of sex was given in the form of marriage certificate)
Rape without marriage - the punishment should be the penalty of zina only for the rapist.
In the case of unmarried partners being given the same status as married partners then no rape case is valid against the partner, even if a moral injustice had taken place. The penalty for a person who rapes whilst in marriage (a general consent for sex) is divorce, since those who have given general consent for sex without marriage feel hard done then they cannot file for divorce, but they can "break up". If sex occurs after they have broken up then they are analysed for consents again in accordance to the above.
This is another reason why marriage is important ... Answering this question in a moral way without resort to legal language and in the framework of unmarried couples is indeed impossible. There are too many loose ends in such situations and by holding a person responsible for rape when the scenario is muddy can be a bigger moral injustice than what happened to the victim.
In these sorts of cases the victims start off the string of injustices on themselves first for allowing themselves to get that close to who they feel are rapists.
Re: When is rape not rape?
I live in pakistan, there is no such thing as sexual abuse, it's in fact called a usual thing and rape is what called sexual abuse, not a big deal. who gives it a damn anyway, ppl can pass by a crying girl being abused right in the middle of the road. so, i'm pretty confused about this rape thing.
Re: When is rape not rape?
I live in pakistan, there is no such thing as sexual abuse, it's in fact called a usual thing and rape is what called sexual abuse, not a big deal. who gives it a damn anyway, ppl can pass by a crying girl being abused right in the middle of the road. so, i'm pretty confused about this rape thing.
When you experience something as horrible and cruel as rape you don't need to be in USA or Europe to realise it. Pain and suffering is same everywhere.
Re: When is rape not rape?
Not guilty untill proven otherwise 
no??
Re: When is rape not rape?
Rape is just surprise sex.