"That's not rape. Reluctant consent is still consent." /Relationships (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
156 ups - 74 downs = 82 votes
155 comments submitted at 20:36:51 on May 26, 2014 by david-me
"That's not rape. Reluctant consent is still consent." /Relationships (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
156 ups - 74 downs = 82 votes
155 comments submitted at 20:36:51 on May 26, 2014 by david-me
Guilt tripping people into sex is still an extremely shitty thing to do. OP might not have rape (idk I'm not a supreme judge that tells when things are or aren't rape) but its still a super shitty thing to do.
Nah, that's not rape. It's manipulative and kinda scummy, but it can't be rape. It's essentially just providing an argument as to why a person should sleep with you, but in a way that is not really kind at all. Either way though, if you agree to have sex with somebody in the absence of physical threats, actual violence, or some sort of blackmail, consent is pretty much valid, even if you're not super jazzed about it. The line between rape and consensual sex is not tied to emotions. Or at least it shouldn't be.
I mean, I don't think labeling anything as rape when there is a valid option of choice in the matter is really accurate. If you are being guilt tripped by someone, you can always say, "Nah, fuck off. I don't owe you shit." and that'll be that. If the other person tries to escalate the situation and force you to have sex, then it's a rape issue. I don't like the mentality that women aren't adults capable of making decisions when it comes to sex. When a solid element of choice is there, it shouldn't be labeled as rape. You can call the dude a manipulative shitbag, I wouldn't disagree, but not a rapist.
Convincing someone to have sex with you in the absence of threats is not rape, at least not by any definition of the act that I agree with.
I'm a feminist, but I upvoted you and I agree. Morally and ethically pressuring someone like that is wrong, but we shouldn't hold someone legally culpable for rape if verbal consent was given in the absence of violence or the threat of violence. It sets a bad legal precedent to allow people's internal feelings to carry equal weight with verbal and/or written statements.
Right, but what is legally rape and what is actually rape are different things. If somebody is coerced into sex they don't want, and consent, maybe the justice system shouldn't charge people for that (depending on how severe the coercion was) but if that person feels raped, then they were raped.
Rape is a legal construct, and using it outside of that context helps no one.
Telling a woman who felt she was raped that it wasn't rape is what helps no one. My point is that if you feel like you were raped, you were raped, and while it may not meet the legal definition, it does meet other definitions. Rape is not purely a legal construct.
For similar reasons why you shouldn't tell a woman "Well were you watching your drink?" after she was drugged and raped, you shouldn't tell a person, who feels raped, "Yeah, but you did say yes..." edit: Unless you're advising her on how to proceed legally, that is, or if she thinks the person that had sex with her is a rapist. Just because you were raped doesn't mean the guy that did it is a rapist.
I think using it outside of a legal context is both useful and accurate.
This mentality of "if you feel like you were raped, you were raped" is frightening.
Mainly due to my time in TiA and exposure to people feeling like they were "stare raped" or other scenarios were a person convinces themselves after the fact that they were raped.
You must have missed rule #1 of feminism: feels>reals.
I mean...isn't it sort of paranoid to look at that situation and say, "Well, how could this possibly affect me negatively? Ah, some woman could think I fake raped her and I'll get in trouble. Man, I'm against this, and so I"ll spend time posting against theorizing on rape because me or another dude that I care about or some random stranger dude I haven't met but is out there walking around and behaving and feeling much as I do could get in trouble were the laws to suddenly change to reflect online feminist theoreticians' definitions of rape. I mean, it could happen, right?"
Anyway that's something like the interior monologue that I imagine inspires so many dudes on reddit to act so hyperbolic and obsessive about the subject of accused rapist advocacy (can we drop the euphemisms?). I'm not trying to be a dick, nor do I know how deep you are into that "culture," but maybe you or anyone could explain why that subject really needs to be about the accused rapists. Are rape victims just boring at this point, or is it the paranoid thing?
It's just an example of a low probability, but very high consequences type of risk.
I think it's more the subjective nature that seems to be creeping into this specific crime. Let me try to explain:
I think I'm a pretty nice guy and incapable of doing something bad to someone or committing major crimes.
There's no subjective nature to most crimes: there's a body for a murder, there's missing goods in a theft, there's damage in the case of vandalism, etc. therefore, if I'm falsely accused of one of these crimes, there's a good chance I'll be exonerated due to lack of evidence or the real perp being found out.
however if I'm accused of something like rape, which as we're seeing in the linked thread is somewhat subjective, then I'm a little more worried. On top of that my reputation is more likely to take a hit from a subjective crime even if I'm deemed innocent simply due to the nature of the crime.
But I'll be honest, these scenarios are all very unlikely, but I know they do happen to people. And to me being punished for a crime you didn't commit is one of the worst injustices. So these thoughts and the extreme SJW mentality of "guilty until proven innocent" is extremely concerning to me, maybe not from a personal standpoint but from a "I want to live in a just society" standpoint.
So there's my thoughts on why this mentality is frightening.
But I've pointed out that feeling raped doesn't mean the person who had sex with you is a rapist.
Having sex you don't want means you've been raped, even if you gave consent, and your partner has no way of knowing that. He's not a rapist, even if you've been raped.
Like I said, if a woman says she had sex she didn't want with someone but was too scared to say no and feels raped, the way you respond to her is not by telling her "well, you said yes, so it wasn't rape."
That person in that scenario was raped, even if the guy who had sex with her did nothing wrong.
Don't call it rape, give it a new word and don't diminish actual rape from your play rape. Rape already has well established bounds and if you want to make something entirely new, that will function differently from its predecessor then please call it something else. What you are doing is coat-tailing on something serious like rape with having sex but not into it.
I literally don't know where to go with this.
I've heard of supposed "victim-less crimes", but never "perpetrator-less" crimes.
It's not a crime.
More Comments - Click Here
It doesn't help because it lessens the impact of legal rape. If all you need is to "feel raped" to be raped then rape is meaningless. Then when you accuse someone of being a rapist it can be perceived as one or the other, which is not helpful to victims of legal rape. As for victims of perceived rape, well they would be better served using the correct terminology.
As linked above, it is the correct terminology. There are different degrees of rape, and being too frightened, for example, to say no doesn't mean you haven't been raped. It means the person who had sex with you isn't necessarily a rapist.
Which of those definition do you think help your argument? I'm not seeing it.
Also what? Rape requires both an actor and victim, the act cannot exist without both. Trying to separate the two doesn't make sense.
>Which of those definition do you think help your argument?
The second one, if I'm remembering correctly.
>Trying to separate the two doesn't make sense.
Rape does require an actor and a victim. But being raped doesn't mean the person who had sex with you is a rapist.
To be a rapist, you have to commit rape. But being pressured into sex (which can be coercive, and is therefore "forced") can be done without someone realizing it. Meaning you can force someone to have sex with you without realizing you've forced them to have sex with you. Or, a person can be forced by their own fear, even if it's misplaced or irrational. That's why it's rape, but doesn't make the person who had sex with them a rapist.
You may disagree, and that's fine, but this position is logically consistent.
More Comments - Click Here
>Telling a woman who felt she was raped that it wasn't rape is what helps no one.
Except applying the term "rape" to things that do not fit the definition devalues the term- particularly if the claim is being made publicly.
>Just because you were raped doesn't mean the guy that did it is a rapist. I think using it outside of a legal context is both useful and accurate.
So what is your definition of "rape" then? Because you seem to have a definition that is very different from the standard one. Do you have similar alternate definitions for other crimes (if I feel I was scammed, robbed, assaulted, or kidnapped is that enough to make it true?)
You raped me with this comment, now don't argue back you rapist because its about my feelings. As a person that has been raped you couldn't be so far from the truth if you were trolling for the lulz. Rape like murder is purely a legal construct. Your white knighting diminishes my actual rape, please for the love of god stop.
No. As a survivor of rape, I emphatically disagree. Allowing anyone to call any regrettable sexual experience rape undermines our ability to prosecute rape, support victims, and end rape culture. False rape accusations (and the specter of them) undermine the ability of people (including law enforcement officials) to take any rape accusation seriously.It also diminishes the experiences of those who have suffered real trauma to conflate their experiences with those of people who are just emotionally immature. How could any reasonable person take a claim of rape seriously knowing that literally anyone can make that claim at any time based on feelings that could have been, but were not, communicated to her partner at a time when it could have made a difference? Giving in to sex begrudgingly because you don't want to break up with someone sucks, but it isn't rape because it is a decision you're making freely. I don't think that scenario qualifies as coercion unless there's some threat of physical or perhaps financial harm implied.
Dem feels. /popcorn
It seems like you contradicted yourself a bit. Doesn't the victim still have a clear "choice" in the case of blackmail? I think I mostly understand what you're saying. Also as an aside, what if someone threatens you with something legal. For instance, if someone says "I'm going to publish these nude pictures you sent me online unless you have sex with me." Is that considered blackmail/rape?
They do... but blackmail is illegal.
>"I'm going to publish these nude pictures you sent me online unless you have sex with me."
I don't think that's legal.
Blackmail is 100% illegal.
And accusing someone of rape because you gave reluctant consent is an extremely shitty thing to do.
Yes of course that's a shitty thing to do. Who said it wasn't?