|
Post by davedan on Mar 8, 2010 1:29:19 GMT -5
I don't know about the penis being completely involuntary. But I'm not advovating the position that men can't be raped. I was just highlighting, clumsily that this is usually what people who say that men can't be raped are thinking of when they say it. Although I did see fschmidt from loveshy suggest that men can't be raped and that man on man rape is simply assault.
|
|
|
Post by valsa on Mar 8, 2010 2:30:34 GMT -5
I don't know about the penis being completely involuntary. But I'm not advovating the position that men can't be raped. I was just highlighting, clumsily that this is usually what people who say that men can't be raped are thinking of when they say it. Although I did see fschmidt from loveshy suggest that men can't be raped and that man on man rape is simply assault. Anyone with half a brain (who uses it) can figure out that male erection and ejaculation can happen involuntarily (apparently, some guys don't remember their own puberty) Similarly, women can have an involuntary orgasm during a rape as well. Not too long ago, in a rape trial, the rapist could go free if it was found that the woman had an orgasm during the rape because, after all, no one has an orgasm during sex they don't want... Sorry, but that's a pet peeve of mine.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Mar 8, 2010 2:45:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Mar 8, 2010 3:16:48 GMT -5
Once again not advocating the position. Although I do take issue with the, "you can't consent if you're asleep". That isn't true. You can give prior consent. For instance my wife has my standing consent to interfere with me sexually while I'm asleep (not that she often does). She on the other hand doesn't want me groping her while she's asleep, so if I started to have sex while she slept that would be rape. However if she were to starting having sex with me while I slept it wouldn't. Not because of gender just because she already has my consent.
On another note I had never heard of a woman orgasming during rape.
|
|
|
Post by secretsquirrelsock on Mar 8, 2010 3:22:17 GMT -5
Erection (as well as female lubrication) is an involuntary function. The genitals have no concept of consent. There is an evolutionary biological school of thought that suggests male on female rape is actually an evolutionary tool for spreading genes across disparate populations. This is a proposed explanation for why rape by soldiers in time of war is much more frequent than among civilian populations. If this is an accurate theory, then involuntary function of genitals (i.e. lubrication et al) would be an evolutionary advantage, because it would reduce the chance of damage to the woman's reproductive tract occuring during the assault. Which makes sense to me, because women who don't have the involuntary sexual response would be prone to damage, infection, and death.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Mar 8, 2010 12:38:50 GMT -5
Although I do take issue with the, "you can't consent if you're asleep". That isn't true. You can give prior consent. I don't see why you'd take issue with the idea that you can't consent while asleep by point out that you can consent... before you're asleep.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Mar 8, 2010 17:13:51 GMT -5
Women have had orgasms during childbirth too, from the pressure on the clitoris. But no one says childbirth is a pleasant experience.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Mar 8, 2010 17:24:04 GMT -5
Although I do take issue with the, "you can't consent if you're asleep". That isn't true. You can give prior consent. I don't see why you'd take issue with the idea that you can't consent while asleep by point out that you can consent... before you're asleep. The way you phrased it though you could safely assume that anyone having sex with a sleeping person was automatically a rapist. That just isn't true. It is also possible to give retrospective consent. Although most of these things are things that you would expect in a relationship where they have been discussed. I wouldn't try it on the first date.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Mar 8, 2010 17:47:03 GMT -5
I really don't see how you got that from my original phrasing, but perhaps I should have been clearer.
And I would feel pretty safe saying that the only thing stopping someone who gets retrospective consent from being a rapist is circumstance (i.e., they're taking actions that very well may be raping someone and it just turns out to be ok), so I'm kind of uneasy accepting that.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Mar 8, 2010 18:07:07 GMT -5
What about where both parties are too drunk to give vaild consent?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 8, 2010 18:17:25 GMT -5
Then I doubt they have enough coordination to even fuck in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by valsa on Mar 8, 2010 18:33:42 GMT -5
What about where both parties are too drunk to give vaild consent? Generally, as far as I know, the law tends to treat that as if the man raped the woman (assuming it involves a male and female) However, I hate that line of thinking and I believe it's total crap. But I'm kind of confused as to where that scenerio fits in.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Mar 8, 2010 18:56:35 GMT -5
I was contemplating it regarding retrospective consent. What about where it's two women or two men.
And if fucking requires so much coordination that you can't do it when your drunk you do more exciting positions than me.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 8, 2010 20:10:41 GMT -5
The thing about retrospective consent is that, y'know, it happens after the sex. So the sex was not consensual at the time. So it was rape.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Mar 8, 2010 20:54:42 GMT -5
That's a bloody good point Sigmaleph. What about where both the parties are both too drunk to give a valid consent?
|
|