The rape culture thread.

[Racket_Man]

here is another stupid example from Aussie Land (sorry FireHeart)

http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/05/05/...n-rape-case%2F

another case of PERCEPTION not actual FACT

[NodmiTheSellout]

I know many, many women who are frustrated with that depiction of pleasure, because statistically, it isn't realistic. My inspiration for saying that came directly from a woman criticizing porn NOT from a feminist standpoint, but from the standpoint of a woman who, well, watches lots of porn. It doesn't take much internet searching at all to find tons of sex-positive women - even many who would scoff at being called a feminist - who say that orgasm just isn't a common product of the kind of sex that such porn portrays, for a woman.

As for the cheapening of the word 'rape' in that way. . .yeah, I should've said "pretty predatory" or something instead, but that's just a. . .I mean, it's the way it rolls off your tongue (or whatever), it's not cheapening the IDEA of rape the way that the other mentioned things do. It's not attacking the concept, it's just using the word in an accurate way that some people think looks weird. I don't think it's the same, but I understand why it's bothersome and will think of how I articulate myself with things like that in the future.

As for asking multiple times. . .this is why I said something to the effect of "ask WHY, don't just continually ASK". There's a difference between, "Let's have sex." "No." "I deserve sex!" "I don't want to." "But it's been so long!" "No." "You'd do it if you loved me!" ". . .*sigh* Fine." and seduction. Seduction usually does involve a "why??" of some shape or form.

[Nyoibo]

Even allowing the "they meet and fuck within two minutes" premise as a necessity for fantasy, it's just shitty that they can't be bothered to paint a realistic picture of female pleasure. Nope, she's getting fucked for three minutes and having a screaming orgasm from it. And people wonder why women feel compelled to fake it.

I'm sorry, you know all about female pleasure? I know several women who have "Met and fucked within 2 minutes" and do orgasm within a few minutes, a "realistic picture" of female pleasure would run the gamut from barely being touched and having an orgasm, to hours of foreplay, oral, intercourse and a bunch more thrown in.

Now, there are about a million ways that could go. If he starts trying to tell her that "I don't feel good" isn't a good reason and just do it anyway, well, we're back on Rapey Way.

Bolding mine.

You're talking about "Rape culture" and the cheapening of the term rape and you're using a word like rapey and saying things like "a bit rapey"? moreso than any other comment in this thread I found that the most offensive and cheapening.

Also on this subject of asking multiple times, getting an answer of no straight up is not always meant as no, sometimes no I'm not in the mood can be changed, a little bit of persuasion and such can be seduction and can be quite fun for both parties involved.

[Hobbs]

OK. In that case, I wonder why it's relevant, when the discussion had turned to moral definitions of rape. Which is what rape culture as an idea is primarily concerned about. I was talking about a moral definition of rape, and a dictionary definition of the word 'rape', which is different from a legal definition. To bring in a legal definition in the middle of that sort of sentiment. . .well, my conclusion was an easy mistake to make, I suppose.

This so-called "culture" you seem to have in your head is a product of the legal and moral ramifications of the crime. In trying to find the military's moral stance, it is logical to find the legal definition and to try and find a common moral thread between the two.

[NodmiTheSellout]

OK. In that case, I wonder why it's relevant, when the discussion had turned to moral definitions of rape. Which is what rape culture as an idea is primarily concerned about. I was talking about a moral definition of rape, and a dictionary definition of the word 'rape', which is different from a legal definition. To bring in a legal definition in the middle of that sort of sentiment. . .well, my conclusion was an easy mistake to make, I suppose.

[Stormraven]

No, I'm sorry - I've tried to stay out of this thread, but his post clearly stated 'as it pertains to me'. Not 'as far as I'm concerned', or 'how I feel', and Hobbs has clearly indicated several times that he's a serving member of the armed forces. The UCMJ is the primary law that pertains to him, whatever he feels about the specifics.

In other words, or tl;dr, there's no insinuation there.

[Hobbs]

Your post insinuated that that's the only definition you care about. Which makes the inclusion of "not his wife" worth noting.

I don't think rapists should be killed. I think rapists should be taught respect for fellow human beings.

Well, it kind of is the one I care about considering it's the one I'd be tried under and the one I will have to uphold.

Ah, so you only hate men a little

[NodmiTheSellout]

Your post insinuated that that's the only definition you care about. Which makes the inclusion of "not his wife" worth noting.

I don't think rapists should be killed. I think rapists should be taught respect for fellow human beings.

[Hobbs]

So you're using the one that pretends a wife can never be raped by her husband. That's good to know! That particular law goes back to when wives were property, so they could be used by their husbands for sex at any time they saw fit, without worrying about being prosecuted for rape. Lovely example of rape culture even in law.

It's not me...this is a quote from the UCMJ. In military law, concern is more towards the unit than personal law. Rape within a unit affects mission effectiveness, which if you didn't know, is our primary goal. No offense, but our job is to win wars, not placate to your sensibilities. Technically, a man can't have anal with his wife, either. I would think you'd at least appreciate that the death penalty can be used in a military rape-crime, seeing how evil men are

I would think, however, that a man who raped his wife in the military would suffer something under Art. 133 and Art 134. The General Article (Art. 134) was made for the purpose of prosecuting crimes not inherently stated in the UCMJ.

[NodmiTheSellout]

The Definition of Rape, as it pertains to myself:

920. ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.

So you're using the one that pretends a wife can never be raped by her husband. That's good to know! That particular law goes back to when wives were property, so they could be used by their husbands for sex at any time they saw fit, without worrying about being prosecuted for rape. Lovely example of rape culture even in law.

[Hobbs]

Well, to be fair, the guy would have been put into the mental institute anyway. If he's crazy (and he seems so) he would be declared mentally unfit to stand trial. Still, it's shocking what that couple did.

[Racket_Man]

I am going to post a story my Ex told me happened in her teenaged years.

She was babysitting for a couple while they had a night out. sometime during the evening a crazy man (I used this term for a specific reason which will become clear later) comes to the door beating on it demanding to be let in. he is demanding to see the wife of the couple my Ex was babysitting for. Ex told him to go away and she was calling the cops. this went on for a few minutes and she reaches for the phone to call the local police the guy crashes his truck through the front door, almost killing Ex. he then proceeds to beat the living shit outta Ex and rapes her repeatedly then leaves.

Couple comes home to find a wrecked house and Ex on the floor clinging to life. Ex manages to tell the cops what happened and who did this to her. Wife reocgnizes the mans name. he was someone she dated many years back but he was placed in a mental hospital for some reason.

it turns out the guy had been obsessed with wife and got really hung up on her and wanted her back. he escaped from the mental hospital and came to couple house for whatever reason.

NOW here is the twist. The wife would NOT press charges again crazy guy (unknown reason) and would NOT let the cops write out rape charges against crazy guy cause in her mind Ex had "enticed" crazy guy to do what he did. Even though Ex did everything right( kept the door closed and locked and tried to call the cops) she had to suffer for this woman's wierd state of denial.

here is an example of several people's "opinion" of what is rape
1. my Ex - got beat up and raped (classic situation) for doing nothing but what was right
2. the wife - Ex "enticed" or led crazy guy on so therefore no rape occured. crazy guy must have had a "good reason" to do what he did
3. grazy guy - well the wife/stalkee/former girlfriend was not there, I am really really frustrated/horny well I will take it out on any available female in the area
no matter what I have to do

result great bodily harm to Ex with no real recourse, couple denies everything and is ostrsized in the community and crazy guy just goes back to the padded cell farm with no punishment

[Hobbs]

Too bad not everyone is like that and, as Fryk said, people inclined toward that kind of manipulation are specifically targeted with it.

I just think that people really need to acknowledge that rape is "sexual activites performed upon a person without his/her consent" (paraphrased, but accurately so). Some places define it only as penetration, others define it as only vaginal penetration (wtf?), but those are clearly places that are in the wrong, here. The key is "sex without consent". If the "consent" is achieved only through manipulation, it is not consent, because given a fair situation (AKA "someone who actually cares for their partner as well as themselves"), the person would not have consented.

I know calling something rape is "extreme" and acknowledging how common something so "extreme" is is painful. . .but, well. That's why people really need to be taught about what is and is not consent, and what is and is not appropriate sexual behavior. Too bad that "inappropriate sexual behavior" is an idea owned by religious figures who pretty much hate any and all sex that doesn't result in a baby, and thus is something that people who have no problem with sex for pleasure, love, etc., have a knee-jerk negative reaction against. I understand that, but. . .sex without solid, genuine consent is inappropriate, in every situation. The person taking advantage of a wavering ghost of consent may not realize what they're doing, might not be a terrible person for it--but they're still doing a terrible thing.

The Definition of Rape, as it pertains to myself:

920. ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.

[NodmiTheSellout]

Too bad not everyone is like that and, as Fryk said, people inclined toward that kind of manipulation are specifically targeted with it.

I just think that people really need to acknowledge that rape is "sexual activites performed upon a person without his/her consent" (paraphrased, but accurately so). Some places define it only as penetration, others define it as only vaginal penetration (wtf?), but those are clearly places that are in the wrong, here. The key is "sex without consent". If the "consent" is achieved only through manipulation, it is not consent, because given a fair situation (AKA "someone who actually cares for their partner as well as themselves"), the person would not have consented.

I know calling something rape is "extreme" and acknowledging how common something so "extreme" is is painful. . .but, well. That's why people really need to be taught about what is and is not consent, and what is and is not appropriate sexual behavior. Too bad that "inappropriate sexual behavior" is an idea owned by religious figures who pretty much hate any and all sex that doesn't result in a baby, and thus is something that people who have no problem with sex for pleasure, love, etc., have a knee-jerk negative reaction against. I understand that, but. . .sex without solid, genuine consent is inappropriate, in every situation. The person taking advantage of a wavering ghost of consent may not realize what they're doing, might not be a terrible person for it--but they're still doing a terrible thing.

[kibbles]

Then there's the whole issue of date rape, i.e. bullying a woman into consent. "You would if you loved me."

I do not believe that is rape at all. If a man or woman gives in because someone says, "you would if you loved me" then that's it..that's their decision to give in.

I'm not talking about physical threats or threats on someone's life. But if someone says "you'd sleep with me if you loved me" and a person gives in..that's just as much on them as anything else.