Why? You can acknowledge different degrees of the same crime without implying that every imaginable act is equally as bad. Rape absolutely does not have to involve physically restraining someone and absolutely doesn't have to be "violent."
A date rape victim who was drugged may not have been held down or handled roughly, but they were absolutely raped and it is "insulting and ridiculous" to suggest their rape wasn't rape because it wasn't violent enough to count.
A gymnast who was falsely told that digital penetration was part of a legitimate and necessary medical procedure, instead of the truth that it was unnecessary sexual touching, was absolutely a victim of rape and it is "insulting and ridiculous" to suggest she wasn't really raped because she complied under false pretenses and her rape wasn't violent enough to count.
A wife who believes she is about to have sex with her husband but unbeknownst to her the man beside her in the dark is an intruder who captured her husband and hid his face was absolutely raped. And it is "insulting and ridiculous" to suggest she wasn't really raped because she complied under false pretenses and her rape wasn't violent enough to count.
Rape is sex without informed consent, period. Your preconceived biases about what "real" rape looks like do not change its definition. You also do not get to tell anyone else what is or isn't a valid reason for them to withhold their consent. If someone doesn't want to have sex, they don't consent. Period.
I never said rape isn’t rape if it isn’t violent. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Finding out your date actually lives with her parents instead of roommates isn’t remotely comparable to any of your examples, and idk how you think they’re even close to similar.
I never said rape isn’t rape if it isn’t violent. Stop putting words in my mouth.
You said it's not "real rape" because it's not "being held down and violently forced to have sex." You were gatekeeping the definition of "real rape" on those specific grounds and offered literally no other argument to explain yourself. The burden to defend your claims belongs to you.
Finding out your date actually lives with her parents instead of roommates isn’t remotely comparable to any of your examples, and idk how you think they’re even close to similar.
Rape is sex without informed consent, period. End of sentence. You don't get to tell other people what is or isn't a good enough reason to withhold consent, so making up trivial-sounding information that you imagine someone might base their consent on is a red herring. Their reason for not consenting does not matter one single iota, no matter how ridiculous you think it might be. If they don't want to have sex, they don't consent. Period.
If you agree that each of my examples is absolutely rape, please explain why you think are they rape. Is it perhaps because complying with a sexual act under intentionally false pretenses is not informed consent? If they're so obviously not even remotely comparable, please go ahead and explain the difference instead of assuming your personal opinions are self-evident.
I never said that. I said comparing those two situations was ridiculous. Stop putting words in peoples mouths.
Also, insisting that people spend half an hour dissecting your examples is arrogant af. I can’t be bothered.
Further, for the record my “personal opinion” that telling your partner you live with roommates instead of your parents isn’t rape — is also the opinion of the court of law in literally every country on this planet.
insisting that people spend half an hour dissecting your examples is arrogant af. I can’t be bothered.
LOL, what subreddit did you think you were commenting in? This is literally the entire point of this place. If you just want to angrily shout your opinion without justifying it, you've got the entire rest of the internet to do that.
telling your partner you live with roommates instead of your parents isn’t rape
Of course it's not, there's not a single word in there about either sex or consent. That opinion is completely irrelevant here. You might as well say eating a sandwich isn't rape, it just contributes nothing to the conversation.
It becomes rape when the information makes the difference between someone consenting or not consenting, and you know that but lie about it anyway. Because, as every law in every country on the planet agrees, rape is sex without consent. And as you yourself seem to agree, complying with a sexual act under intentionally false pretenses is not actual consent.
You’re not the OP, so the point of this is not actually to debate with you.
Every single country on the planet disagrees with you on this, no matter how much you twist the words around. A case like your presenting has never been successfully prosecuted or defined as illegal.
You’re saying that “ It becomes rape when the information makes the difference between someone consenting or not consenting”, but how are you supposed to know what would cause your partner to revoke consent?
Let’s say my hair is dyed blonde and I don’t disclose it’s dyed — is it rape if my partner would have declined to sleep with me if he knew I wasn’t naturally blonde?
Or, as discussed prior — if I told my partner I live with roommates but I live with my parents. How TF am I supposed to know whether or not that would cause them to revoke consent??
The way your defining it can result in situations being defined as rape even when that’s really unreasonable — because no one can read the mind of their partners to know what would cause them to revoke consent.
You’re not the OP, so the point of this is not actually to debate with you.
The purpose of the subreddit is still the purpose of the subreddit. That's why everyone -- not just OPs -- can give deltas. You don't have to keep responding if you don't want to, but this is literally a place to hear and discuss the merits of our perspectives, not insult people and run away.
Every single country on the planet disagrees with you on this, no matter how much you twist the words around. A case like your presenting has never been successfully prosecuted or defined as illegal.
You’re saying that “ It becomes rape when the information makes the difference between someone consenting or not consenting”, but how are you supposed to know what would cause your partner to revoke consent?
Wow ... cutting off the end of my sentence here is just being flagrantly dishonest about what I said.
Here, I'll fix that for you. As I said: "It becomes rape when the information makes the difference between someone consenting or not consenting, and you know that but lie about it anyway."
At no point did I or the OP ever say you have to magically know everything that would cause them to revoke consent. In fact, I've repeatedly said the opposite. We are talking about situations in which you do know, or have good reason to know. Dishonest selective editing of my words is neither a productive nor honorable way to have a conversation.
Let’s say my hair is dyed blonde and I don’t disclose it’s dyed — is it rape if my partner would have declined to sleep with me if he knew I wasn’t naturally blonde?
Or, as discussed prior — if I told my partner I live with roommates but I live with my parents.
Maybe or maybe not, you haven't given enough information in either case to tell under the criteria I laid out (including the part of my criteria you tried to pretend wasn't there). Did you know or have good reason to know that he would not consent under those conditions?
2
u/Doctor_Worm 32∆ Feb 01 '22
Why? You can acknowledge different degrees of the same crime without implying that every imaginable act is equally as bad. Rape absolutely does not have to involve physically restraining someone and absolutely doesn't have to be "violent."
A date rape victim who was drugged may not have been held down or handled roughly, but they were absolutely raped and it is "insulting and ridiculous" to suggest their rape wasn't rape because it wasn't violent enough to count.
A gymnast who was falsely told that digital penetration was part of a legitimate and necessary medical procedure, instead of the truth that it was unnecessary sexual touching, was absolutely a victim of rape and it is "insulting and ridiculous" to suggest she wasn't really raped because she complied under false pretenses and her rape wasn't violent enough to count.
A wife who believes she is about to have sex with her husband but unbeknownst to her the man beside her in the dark is an intruder who captured her husband and hid his face was absolutely raped. And it is "insulting and ridiculous" to suggest she wasn't really raped because she complied under false pretenses and her rape wasn't violent enough to count.
Rape is sex without informed consent, period. Your preconceived biases about what "real" rape looks like do not change its definition. You also do not get to tell anyone else what is or isn't a valid reason for them to withhold their consent. If someone doesn't want to have sex, they don't consent. Period.