rape in fiction

[Hotfoot]

You mean you didn't even bother to read that in the FIRST PLACE? You decided to go on a nice little twitch hunt without reading through? Hotfoot stated in no uncertain terms that enjoyment is equivalent to consent. That is BS and I called him on it. It frankly PISSES ME THE HELL OFF when anyone ascerts that ANYTHING SUBSTITUTES FOR CONSENT.

Let's see, you ignored the examples I used to clarify what I meant, then attack strawman examples of your own creation concerning something else entirely.

You just simply can't accept the fact that enjoying something is different from getting physical stimulation, and that is the problem. Your example concerning getting head from a man is total bullshit, and is so far off base as to be completely inapplicable.

There is ample evidence to the contrary; from statutory cases where the victim doesn't know enough to give consent,

That's entirely different, and ONLY applies to cases in which one party is SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER than the other party. Two 15 year olds can sleep together and it is not statutory rape, but if a 21 year old sleeps with a 15 year old, it is statutory rape.

to drug cases where the higher brain functions are too impaired to give consent.

At which point the person is usually too impared to really remember anything, and certainly too impared to conciously enjoy it, you moron.

In either case the sick pervert who perpetuates rape in those cases still deserves to rot in jail even if the medial forebrain bundle does its normal job.

So, tell me, if two 15 year olds fuck, which one goes to jail?

I'd also like to know if you think that first degree murder and manslaughter should carry the same prison sentence, since the end result of both charges is exactly the same.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Given the deviciveness, the miscommunications, the accusations, and flamings, does this thread belong here anymore?

[InnerBrat]

Given the deviciveness, the miscommunications, the accusations, and flamings, does this thread belong here anymore?

I'm not even sure it belongs open

[Queeb Salaron]

Twit, hotfoot, calm down. I got a solution.

Twit, Hotfoot simply claimed that some people like rough sex. It was said that some people like BDSM-type sex, and like to role-play the act of raping / being raped, or like to have their partner role-play a rapist / rape victim. There are well-documented cases of this floating around the internet, some of which you can find at Consumption Junction.

But Hotfoot failed to recognize that in those instances, there is IMPLIED consent where verbal consent is lacking. Nowhere was it said that because someone feels pleasure when having sex against their will, that rape is justified. In fact, someone brought up a study that showed that victims felt immense guilt and suffered depression BECAUSE they felt pleasure. As it has been said numerous times in this thread, pleasure != consent. Everyone agrees on this, and we can stop arguing that point. The case that Hotfoot brought up has to do with fetishes, and in most cases the satisfaction of fetishes demands some kind of implied consent.

Now, I suggest that we either revert this topic back to literature, or else have it locked. Either way, I think most of it should be HOSed.

[Queeb Salaron]

That's entirely different, and ONLY applies to cases in which one party is SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER than the other party. Two 15 year olds can sleep together and it is not statutory rape, but if a 21 year old sleeps with a 15 year old, it is statutory rape.

Hate to say it, Hotfoot, but you're wrong here. Statutory rape only applies when at least one person is under the age of LEGAL CONSENT. This varies from state to state. In Massachusetts, the age of consent is 16, but I've heard tell of it going as low as 13. In the latter case, it would be perfectly legal for a 38-year old to sleep with a 13-year old within the confines of their own home or in the privacy of a hotel room or something. So long as it's not videotaped or reproduced through any media (even audio recordings are illegal), it is a legitimate relationship. Hugh Heffner still sleeps with 20-year olds (or so they say), and he's gotta be at least in his 70s. This is not statutory rape. The difference in age does not matter so long as both parties are above the age of consent. Now as far as morals and ethics go (I really don't know what the distinct difference between the two is, and thus can't tell which applies here), would it be right for a 38-year old to sleep with a 13-year old? That's a matter of opinion, and we can debate it until the sun comes up. The only firm ground on which we have to stand is legal ground, and as long as it's legal there's nothing we can do about it.

Now let's PLEASE turn this back to rape in literature.

EDIT: It has come to my attention that I was a bit wrong on this. The federal age of consent is 18. In-state, as long as both parties are between the state-determined age of consent and the age of 18 (which in some cases is the same damned number), it is legal. But this fact holds true: the age difference does not have to be significant. If a girl is 17 and a boy is 18 (or vice-versa) it is statutory rape. If a girl is 17 and a man is 38, it is also statutory rape.

::Sighs:: Sorry for the mix-up.

[Hotfoot]

But Hotfoot failed to recognize that in those instances, there is IMPLIED consent where verbal consent is lacking.

I failed to make that immediately clear, perhaps, but I most certainly did not fail to recognize it, thank you very much. Twit just can't seem to recognize that physical stimulation != enjoyment. I can offer a very simple proof that support that position: Guys can get erections from physical stimulation, however, not all erections are enjoyable, much less pleasurable. Some can be uncomfortable, and some can even be PAINFUL. Saying that simple physical stimulation is the end all be all of enjoying sex is ridiculous, especially once it passes the threshold from pleasurable stimulation to painful stimulation.

That's entirely different, and ONLY applies to cases in which one party is SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER than the other party. Two 15 year olds can sleep together and it is not statutory rape, but if a 21 year old sleeps with a 15 year old, it is statutory rape.

Hate to say it, Hotfoot, but you're wrong here. Statutory rape only applies when at least one person is under the age of LEGAL CONSENT. This varies from state to state. In Massachusetts, the age of consent is 16, but I've heard tell of it going as low as 13.

Then please provide evidence supporting that position. In any event, my point still stands that if both parties are under the age of legal consent and reasonably similar in age, it is not statutory rape, but is protected under peer sex laws.

In the latter case, it would be perfectly legal for a 38-year old to sleep with a 13-year old within the confines of their own home or in the privacy of a hotel room or something. So long as it's not videotaped or reproduced through any media (even audio recordings are illegal), it is a legitimate relationship.

Which is absolutely irrelevant since Ignorant Twit was asserting that if two people who were BOTH under the age of consent had sex it was statutory rape. But thank you for providing such a lengthy and unnecessary nitpick. I said "significantly older" since peer sex laws generally only protect minors under the age of consent if they are within a few years of each other.

Now let's PLEASE turn this back to rape in literature.

[The Yosemite Bear]

We are going over the same points without end, the flaming is showing no signs of slowing down, I am washing my hands of this thread.

thred locked

Due to: Online Vigilantism, Flames above and beyond the call, and unsolvability.

[AdmiralKanos]

Ignorant Twit now says that he never meant that rape can be enjoyable; he only meant that some biochemical receptors can fire even though the woman would, of course, not enjoy it. However, I don't recall him repudiating:

Oh cut the crap. A woman is at a club. She has a few drinks with an attractive man. They go back to his place. He slips her a roofer and she blacks out. She comes to is bound, gagged, and is being screwed six ways to sunday. She, having a B&D fetish, enjoys the sex.

Having never consent she still enjoys it.

He DID say that a rape victim can enjoy being raped. If he is willing to admit that he fucked up by saying that, then we're OK.

Thread unlocked (sorry, YB).

[AdmiralKanos]

I see that after giving Ignorant Twit a chance to smooth things over by repudiating that statement, he responded by flaming me with his avatar.

OK, fine. That's how you want to play this? Twit, you're banned. Goodbye, asshole. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[ignorant twit v2.0]

Sigh Mike. I'll make one final post by doing this lameass run around your ban, make your decision on what I say, and if you still want me gone ... I'm gone. Do me a favor and unban the general university system after I'm gone, I'd hate to have other people screwed because of me.

Anyway no the avatar was NOT flaming you - it was flaming the custom title, and frankly the last I saw of this thread before the ban, it was locked. I never read your post otherwise I'd have said this earlier. I probably would have still placed a stupid play on words in the avatar, but hey.

In any event:
No I don't retract the point that in the MINORITY of rape cases the victim CAN feel pleasure. The definition of enjoyment I gave you, that you never bothered to reply to was: the act or state of receiving pleasure from.

I frankly don't think there is anything beyond the state of receiving pleasure than the biochemical response. We can MAKE lab subjects feel pleasure/enjoyment/whatever just by zapping the brain with direct electrical stimulation ... a frankly don't see a place outside of the biochemical response for pleasure. You claim there is something more, fine ... what?

Now the victim, in most if not all cases, will experience trauma after the fact, but trauma of that nature is a completely different beast than pleasure and pain. But the question of pleasure during the rape itself is IRRELEVANT, it is a biochemical response (as is pleasure derived from ANYTHING).

Thanks Queeb and Dalton. I enjoyed the board Mike, but hey if you actually want me gone, please just unban the IP, I won't bother to be back.

[Hamel]

Well this is quite a turn of events

[Darth Wong]

Sigh Mike. I'll make one final post by doing this lameass run around your ban, make your decision on what I say, and if you still want me gone ... I'm gone. Do me a favor and unban the general university system after I'm gone, I'd hate to have other people screwed because of me.

Anyway no the avatar was NOT flaming you - it was flaming the custom title, and frankly the last I saw of this thread before the ban, it was locked. I never read your post otherwise I'd have said this earlier. I probably would have still placed a stupid play on words in the avatar, but hey.

So it was just a coincidence that I opened up the thread with my post and then you immediately changed your avatar?

In any event:
No I don't retract the point that in the MINORITY of rape cases the victim CAN feel pleasure. The definition of enjoyment I gave you, that you never bothered to reply to was: the act or state of receiving pleasure from.

Yes, you gave progressively more carefully worded definitions after the storm erupted around your earlier comments. Then you pretended that everyone was being an asshole for being offended in the first place. Would have been much easier to simply admit you fucked up.

I frankly don't think there is anything beyond the state of receiving pleasure than the biochemical response. We can MAKE lab subjects feel pleasure/enjoyment/whatever just by zapping the brain with direct electrical stimulation ... a frankly don't see a place outside of the biochemical response for pleasure. You claim there is something more, fine ... what?

The point is that you made an extremely offensive statement and then tried to backpedal by playing games, whipping out carefully selected dictionary definitions after the fact [EDIT: although I'm not sure what dictionary you're using; all of mine clearly state that enjoyment represents an overall positive experience], and attacking people for going after your initial statements without ever admitting there was anything wrong with them.

Now the victim, in most if not all cases, will experience trauma after the fact, but trauma of that nature is a completely different beast than pleasure and pain. But the question of pleasure during the rape itself is IRRELEVANT, it is a biochemical response (as is pleasure derived from ANYTHING).

Yes, this was a very careful backpedal on your part, after the fact. Congratulations.

Thanks Queeb and Dalton. I enjoyed the board Mike, but hey if you actually want me gone, please just unban the IP, I won't bother to be back.

Boo hoo, I won't miss the games you played.

[Alyeska]

Sigh Mike. I'll make one final post by doing this lameass run around your ban, make your decision on what I say, and if you still want me gone ... I'm gone.

You know, a permanent ban means Mike doesn't want you around. I am surprised you can't take the hint.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Sigh Mike. I'll make one final post by doing this lameass run around your ban, make your decision on what I say, and if you still want me gone ... I'm gone. Do me a favor and unban the general university system after I'm gone, I'd hate to have other people screwed because of me.

About time. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Queeb Salaron]

Whoa, Twit... That last post crossed the line. There is CERTAINLY more to feeling pleasure than the biochemical nervous responses. I thought that you had argued that earlier, but I suppose I was wrong.

That's just fucked up, man... People don't ENJOY being raped. There is no PLEASURE in being raped. Pleasure, as in both physical and situational pleasure. For instance, after eating a huge meal, I could stuff my face with cake. It would taste good, and I would like the taste, but the act of eating the cake would make me sick. Ignoring consent (assume the cake was forced upon me), if this isn't analagous, I don't know what is.