Non consentual sex is not rape

AGENT J said:

theres many things you dont know huh?

wow thats the worst and most failed analogy ever
one simple fact destoys it LMAO

by LAW when it comes to pedophilia minors cant give consent

try again

also before you go making more stuff up "i" im not defending anybody in the OP or ALL scenarios of non-consensual sex, just further pointing out the fact that its now 18 pages and the fact remains that not all non-consensual sex is rape

let us know when this changes

Click to expand...

By LAW drunk people cannot give consent. Nice try.

Phys251 said:

By LAW drunk people cannot give consent. Nice try.

Click to expand...

yes i agree your post was a nice try but it failed facts still destroys your failed analogy lol

an example was already given of factual non-consensual sex where the the adults were drunk and it was not rape :shrug: nothign will change this fact, you seem to want to combined all of them to gether and make it a blanket issue, its not and its whay you are losing to facts.


18 pages and the fact remains that not all non-consensual sex is rape

let us know when this changes

Phys251 said:

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources I have checked place the rate of false rape allegations somewhere in the nineties--as in, at least 90% of all rape accusations are true.

We need to deal with that 10% or less, whatever the number may be, but it in no way dismisses the problem of the other 90%. In either case, a life can be destroyed.

Click to expand...

How exactly do they know that? How could they possibly know that? Especially in cases like we are talking about where a person is drunk and doesn't know what really happened or what the other person thought was being given consent-wise? You can't know that, especially for a specific set of cases with specific circumstances because it is mostly unverifiable, he said-she said testimony on what happened. So the number could in fact be well above 50% and that would be a lot of lives needlessly ruined because one person disagreed with another on whether consent was actually given or at least not denied and they were likely both drunk (which would nullify the consent thing anyway, or at least should), and there are other considerations to be made. It is not simple. And you should absolutely not believe that a person is automatically guilty just because someone accuses them. It is wrong. Guilty until proven innocent is not how we should operate. You need more evidence than a simple accusation. And in most of these cases, there really isn't any other evidence than simple testimony from both parties. So how do you determine which times the woman is telling the truth and which times the guy is or worse, which times where alcohol didn't interfere with their memories of what happened, particularly the accuser? You can have the same testimonies and have one person actually guilty and the other innocent.

roguenuke said:

How exactly do they know that? How could they possibly know that? Especially in cases like we are talking about where a person is drunk and doesn't know what really happened or what the other person thought was being given consent-wise? You can't know that, especially for a specific set of cases with specific circumstances because it is mostly unverifiable, he said-she said testimony on what happened. So the number could in fact be well above 50% and that would be a lot of lives needlessly ruined because one person disagreed with another on whether consent was actually given or at least not denied and they were likely both drunk (which would nullify the consent thing anyway, or at least should), and there are other considerations to be made. It is not simple. And you should absolutely not believe that a person is automatically guilty just because someone accuses them. It is wrong. Guilty until proven innocent is not how we should operate. You need more evidence than a simple accusation. And in most of these cases, there really isn't any other evidence than simple testimony from both parties. So how do you determine which times the woman is telling the truth and which times the guy is or worse, which times where alcohol didn't interfere with their memories of what happened, particularly the accuser? You can have the same testimonies and have one person actually guilty and the other innocent.

Click to expand...

Check it out. Sources are linked there.

Phys251 said:

Check it out. Sources are linked there.

Click to expand...

And that was about rapes reported to police, not sexual assaults/rapes reported in other fashions, which would most likely have a higher possibility of being false. Think about it. You want to get someone else in trouble but don't want to get yourself in trouble as well and you are in college. So you figure if you know of a time when you had sex with someone while you were drunk you can use that. It then becomes a he said/she said report. And with the way our colleges are working, in no small part due to media and just PC-ism, there would be an investigation by the campus which would require less evidence to prove that a rape happened than if it were reported to proper authorities, especially if the report is coming more than a couple of days after the incident.

This is the sort of thing that happens in the military. There are women that take advantage of the fact that the military basically treats any accusation of rape as the guy is guilty, especially if he admits to having sex with the woman while she had been drinking at all, even if he had also been drinking. The police and/or DA would not likely have enough evidence to even bring such a case to trial, let alone convict the guy, but that isn't the case when it comes to punishment by an outside organization. Or, like that report that was done a couple of years ago, they compiled the number of women vets who were claiming sexual assault on VA benefits forms and used that as an indicator as to how many women in the military were being sexually assaulted. This is completely flawed. Those women are specifically looking for benefits and something like sexual assault can get them some benefits without providing any proof whatsoever that it happened. They didn't even have to have reported it while they were in, just claim it on the form.

sawyerloggingon said:

I think the word games at Yale are designed to get rich kids with parents that contribute to Yale off the hook but it's just a theory. On the other hand it could be some entirely new "progressive" way of defining rape that escapes me.

Click to expand...

I strongly suspect that you are right and the whole thing is an effort to placate rich parents with kids with a giant sense of entitlement to keep the gravy train rolling for all concerned.

haymarket said:

I strongly suspect that you are right and the whole thing is an effort to placate rich parents with kids with a giant sense of entitlement to keep the gravy train rolling for all concerned.

Click to expand...

That might be true, unless the "victims" are also Yale students....but of course if the accused are sports stars at the school then all bets are off.
We all know that athletes at prestigious colleges can get away with just about anything.

roguenuke said:

And that was about rapes reported to police, not sexual assaults/rapes reported in other fashions, which would most likely have a higher possibility of being false. Think about it. You want to get someone else in trouble but don't want to get yourself in trouble as well and you are in college. So you figure if you know of a time when you had sex with someone while you were drunk you can use that. It then becomes a he said/she said report. And with the way our colleges are working, in no small part due to media and just PC-ism, there would be an investigation by the campus which would require less evidence to prove that a rape happened than if it were reported to proper authorities, especially if the report is coming more than a couple of days after the incident.

This is the sort of thing that happens in the military. There are women that take advantage of the fact that the military basically treats any accusation of rape as the guy is guilty, especially if he admits to having sex with the woman while she had been drinking at all, even if he had also been drinking. The police and/or DA would not likely have enough evidence to even bring such a case to trial, let alone convict the guy, but that isn't the case when it comes to punishment by an outside organization. Or, like that report that was done a couple of years ago, they compiled the number of women vets who were claiming sexual assault on VA benefits forms and used that as an indicator as to how many women in the military were being sexually assaulted. This is completely flawed. Those women are specifically looking for benefits and something like sexual assault can get them some benefits without providing any proof whatsoever that it happened. They didn't even have to have reported it while they were in, just claim it on the form.

Click to expand...

Your word against theirs. Who am I supposed to believe, an organization who has dedicated resources to uncovering the truth of the matter, or one random person on an internet forum?

Phys251 said:

Your word against theirs. Who am I supposed to believe, an organization who has dedicated resources to uncovering the truth of the matter, or one random person on an internet forum?

Click to expand...

You can believe who or what you want. I am pointing out that it is wrong to claim a false accusation statistic would be the same for non-legal reporting as it is for legal repoorting. There are different factors that come into play, including likelihood of being found "guilty" and facing punishment (which would be higher with non-legal reports).

To suggest that, without a reasonable doubt, beyond any question, that 100% of all claims and accusations of rape are justifiable and legally defined as guilty, is beyond asinine.

It's just downright stupid.

To use the word "always" is just a complete failure to be reasonable and intelligent.

Even if the crime is "rape".

roguenuke said:

You can believe who or what you want. I am pointing out that it is wrong to claim a false accusation statistic would be the same for non-legal reporting as it is for legal repoorting. There are different factors that come into play, including likelihood of being found "guilty" and facing punishment (which would be higher with non-legal reports).

Click to expand...

Do you have statistics on this?

Dragonfly said:

To suggest that, without a reasonable doubt, beyond any question, that 100% of all claims and accusations of rape are justifiable and legally defined as guilty, is beyond asinine.

Click to expand...

That is a blatant distortion of my position. And it's a clear sign that your own position is faltering.

It's just downright stupid.

To use the word "always" is just a complete failure to be reasonable and intelligent.

Even if the crime is "rape".

Click to expand...

Yes or no: Are there some circumstances in which a woman says "no" to sexual contact but the man continues, yet it isn't rape? Yes or no--there's no wiggle room here.

Phys251 said:

That is a blatant distortion of my position. And it's a clear sign that your own position is faltering.

Yes or no: Are there some circumstances in which a woman says "no" to sexual contact but the man continues, yet it isn't rape? Yes or no--there's no wiggle room here.

Click to expand...

I've tried to follow your position but I am not sure what you are arguing. I consider "non-cosensual sex" to cover several areas. It could be outright sexual assault which is clearly rape. But it could also be a situation where a woman did not say anything, appeared to be a willing participant, and then later for any number of reasons, cried "rape." She is claiming it was non-consentual but it becomes a She-said/He-said situation.

I think I made the following point earlier in the thread: Women today are more aware of "rape" issues than ever before. If a woman is raped she knows that she should immediately report the incident to the "real" police and not the campus security or the school administration. 911 is a very easy number to remember.

However, the issue sometimes seems to come up days later and well after the "fact." The female claims she was intoxicated and "only knows because people said it happened to me while I was unconscious;" so she reports it. Or she was conscious and seemed willing at the time but blames intoxication/drugs when she gets "sober." Or she was willing and then gets upset because the boy she liked only wanted "one thing," so it's payback time. By "willing" I don't mean she says "yes, lets do it" clearly indicating to all and sundry "consent." A nod, and actively assisting in getting ready seemed to be all the indicators I needed of consent.

After all, should men be carrying around a permission document along with their pack of condoms and require a signature to prove "consent?"

So why are you emphasizing this "No" point, when very few women say Yes and if they say "No" they are very clear about it. How about when neither yes nor no was stated or clearly indicated in any manner? You don't see the possibility that this can be identified as "non-consensual sex" claim at the time of accusation?

My wife doesn't confuse me with mixed signals.

She plainly tells me "I want you!"

Just as plain, she tells me, quit bothering me, old man.

No confusion there.

Now before I'm accused of blaming women for getting raped, by sending mixed messages, that is NOT my point.

I taught my daughters to go after the balls if attacked.

No. Not the testicles.

The EYEBALLS. And be seriously determined to scratch them out.

Nobody is feeling sufficiently aroused to risk blindness.

And it DOES indicate NO! NO WAY! in no uncertain terms!

Some states make a distinction between sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault ("rape" isn't the legal term anymore).

Go for the eyes is the best simple suggestion. My wife knows a woman whose mother taught her to always keep her fingernails long and to file them at an angle from below to keep them SHARP specifically as weapons against assault. So she basically has 10 short daggers on her hands - "thrust and clinch." She is a strikingly beautiful woman and told of how that youthful training did save her life in the past. She was violently sexually assaulted and the man was trying to chock her to death - until she got a chance to ram a handful of sharpen fingernails into his eyes - and as he instinctively brought his hands to his eyes rearing up - she got hold of his testicles with her other hand of sharp claws clinging and pulling as hard as she could. At that point, the now blind man in extreme pain only had the goal of escaping. A blind man can't get away for very far.

She told my wife they also come in handy to convince a man touching her that she doesn't approve of to stop. Like if a man in a flirting pushy sense puts his hand on her arm, all she has to do is "dig my claws into his arm just a little bit" and he'll back off.

Captain Adverse said:

I've tried to follow your position but I am not sure what you are arguing. I consider "non-cosensual sex" to cover several areas. It could be outright sexual assault which is clearly rape. But it could also be a situation where a woman did not say anything, appeared to be a willing participant, and then later for any number of reasons, cried "rape." She is claiming it was non-consentual but it becomes a She-said/He-said situation.

I think I made the following point earlier in the thread: Women today are more aware of "rape" issues than ever before. If a woman is raped she knows that she should immediately report the incident to the "real" police and not the campus security or the school administration. 911 is a very easy number to remember.

However, the issue sometimes seems to come up days later and well after the "fact." The female claims she was intoxicated and "only knows because people said it happened to me while I was unconscious;" so she reports it. Or she was conscious and seemed willing at the time but blames intoxication/drugs when she gets "sober." Or she was willing and then gets upset because the boy she liked only wanted "one thing," so it's payback time. By "willing" I don't mean she says "yes, lets do it" clearly indicating to all and sundry "consent." A nod, and actively assisting in getting ready seemed to be all the indicators I needed of consent.

After all, should men be carrying around a permission document along with their pack of condoms and require a signature to prove "consent?"

So why are you emphasizing this "No" point, when very few women say Yes and if they say "No" they are very clear about it. How about when neither yes nor no was stated or clearly indicated in any manner? You don't see the possibility that this can be identified as "non-consensual sex" claim at the time of accusation?

Click to expand...

There are so many disincentives for a woman to report being sexually assaulted the list is too long to summarize.

Phys251 said:

By the way. Those of you defending the claim "if persons A and B are unable of giving consent, yet have sex anyway, it is plausible that neither of them committed rape" need to realize that two drunk adults having sex is not the only scenario that meets these conditions. If an adult gets drunk then has sex with a child, neither of them is giving consent. Yet by the standard repeatedly and vehemently offered by many of you, it is entirely possible that that pedophile did not commit rape. So if you stand by your position that two drunk people having sex is not necessarily rape, then you must, for consistency's sake, assume the same about pedophilia.

"But this is different!" you say. How. How is it different. How is two people who are unable to give consent automatically rape in one circumstance and not in the other. Are you suggesting that there exist cases where not giving consent is insufficient to classify any sex at that time as rape? Or is it black-and-white, cut-and-dry, at least one person must have raped the other? Which is it?

Click to expand...

Its not like pedophilia at all. Not even a little bit. Your word game doesn't work.

Phys251 said:

By the way. Those of you defending the claim "if persons A and B are unable of giving consent, yet have sex anyway, it is plausible that neither of them committed rape" need to realize that two drunk adults having sex is not the only scenario that meets these conditions. If an adult gets drunk then has sex with a child, neither of them is giving consent. Yet by the standard repeatedly and vehemently offered by many of you, it is entirely possible that that pedophile did not commit rape. So if you stand by your position that two drunk people having sex is not necessarily rape, then you must, for consistency's sake, assume the same about pedophilia.

"But this is different!" you say. How. How is it different. How is two people who are unable to give consent automatically rape in one circumstance and not in the other. Are you suggesting that there exist cases where not giving consent is insufficient to classify any sex at that time as rape? Or is it black-and-white, cut-and-dry, at least one person must have raped the other? Which is it?

Click to expand...

Just a point of information: A single such act, with no prior acts and sincere regret leading to no subsequent acts is not considered "pedophilia" by either the psychiatric or psychological community; although it is still considered a sex offense punishable by law. Check the DSM-IV and V and you will see the correct definition for "pedophilia." It adds exclusions for a single act committed from drunkeness, curiousity, emotional distress, etc. Regardless of these classification exclusions, it is still against the law and punishable.

Carry on.

Phys251 said:

Do you have statistics on this?

Click to expand...

No, I am saying it from the perspective of common sense, experience, and knowledge. Why go to a non-legal authority if you can go to a legal one that will bring real charges against a person? Why involve someone who will only possibly punish them through their career if you could get them put in jail, which would take down their career anyway? Plus, I've had the training in the military. I know what is being taught. We are taught to assume the accused is guilty, to ignore any beliefs about how that person would never do such a thing. I'm willing to bet such training is also in colleges as well. In places such as schools and the military and even likely some businesses (but this may depend on the business and the person accused), an accused person is assumed guilty until proven innocent, and people know this. Whereas in our legal system, a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty. It is a lot harder to prove yourself innocent, especially given some of the things we know about these situations, than it is to prove someone else is guilty given those same set of circumstances. In a courtroom, a person needs more than a simple accusation and unreliable testimony in order to convict a person on such rape accusations.

roguenuke said:

No, I am saying it from the perspective of common sense, experience, and knowledge. Why go to a non-legal authority if you can go to a legal one that will bring real charges against a person? Why involve someone who will only possibly punish them through their career if you could get them put in jail, which would take down their career anyway? Plus, I've had the training in the military. I know what is being taught. We are taught to assume the accused is guilty, to ignore any beliefs about how that person would never do such a thing. I'm willing to bet such training is also in colleges as well. In places such as schools and the military and even likely some businesses (but this may depend on the business and the person accused), an accused person is assumed guilty until proven innocent, and people know this. Whereas in our legal system, a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty. It is a lot harder to prove yourself innocent, especially given some of the things we know about these situations, than it is to prove someone else is guilty given those same set of circumstances. In a courtroom, a person needs more than a simple accusation and unreliable testimony in order to convict a person on such rape accusations.

Click to expand...

Look what happened to Mike Tyson..Groupie Desiree Washington..in his hotel room..in bed..naked..and then cries rape..ruined his career..sent to prison..

I mean, at what point do you laff or cry??

Phys251 said:

By the way. Those of you defending the claim "if persons A and B are unable of giving consent, yet have sex anyway, it is plausible that neither of them committed rape" need to realize that two drunk adults having sex is not the only scenario that meets these conditions. If an adult gets drunk then has sex with a child, neither of them is giving consent. Yet by the standard repeatedly and vehemently offered by many of you, it is entirely possible that that pedophile did not commit rape. So if you stand by your position that two drunk people having sex is not necessarily rape, then you must, for consistency's sake, assume the same about pedophilia.

"But this is different!" you say. How. How is it different. How is two people who are unable to give consent automatically rape in one circumstance and not in the other. Are you suggesting that there exist cases where not giving consent is insufficient to classify any sex at that time as rape? Or is it black-and-white, cut-and-dry, at least one person must have raped the other? Which is it?

Click to expand...

The circumstances are different because there is never any question about what point a child (for a given incident) could consent to sex with the other person. The child never could consent to sex. However, there are plenty of points where both parties in the situation given could consent to sex, and without knowing exactly what happened wherever it is that those two adults had sex and what condition either of them was in at the time, there is no way to know whether or not there was consent given and it either was forgotten or in fact just regretted after the fact. With a child, they can never give consent, so that point is never in contention. Either party when it comes to two adults, could technically be too drunk to give consent though. People just assume that if a man is too drunk to agree to sex that he couldn't get it up. It simply isn't necessarily true for all men.

You seem to be mounting a rational opposition to my views. The rest of you, please take note.

Captain Adverse said:

I've tried to follow your position but I am not sure what you are arguing. I consider "non-cosensual sex" to cover several areas. It could be outright sexual assault which is clearly rape. But it could also be a situation where a woman did not say anything, appeared to be a willing participant, and then later for any number of reasons, cried "rape." She is claiming it was non-consentual but it becomes a She-said/He-said situation.

I think I made the following point earlier in the thread: Women today are more aware of "rape" issues than ever before. If a woman is raped she knows that she should immediately report the incident to the "real" police and not the campus security or the school administration. 911 is a very easy number to remember.

However, the issue sometimes seems to come up days later and well after the "fact." The female claims she was intoxicated and "only knows because people said it happened to me while I was unconscious;" so she reports it. Or she was conscious and seemed willing at the time but blames intoxication/drugs when she gets "sober." Or she was willing and then gets upset because the boy she liked only wanted "one thing," so it's payback time. By "willing" I don't mean she says "yes, lets do it" clearly indicating to all and sundry "consent." A nod, and actively assisting in getting ready seemed to be all the indicators I needed of consent.

After all, should men be carrying around a permission document along with their pack of condoms and require a signature to prove "consent?"

So why are you emphasizing this "No" point, when very few women say Yes and if they say "No" they are very clear about it. How about when neither yes nor no was stated or clearly indicated in any manner? You don't see the possibility that this can be identified as "non-consensual sex" claim at the time of accusation?

Click to expand...

Good questions. I'll use some logical deduction to attempt to answer them, but be advised that this may get a bit complicated.

Let's start by defining terms to make sure we're all on the same page. Rape is the "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim" (FBI). Now right away, that last clause suggests that rape and non-consensual sex are one and the same. Are they?

I will answer this in terms of set theory. A set is a well-defined collection of items or objects. For one set to be a subset of another, anything in the first set has to be in the second. For example, the set of all the different shades of blue is a subset of all the different colors out there. And a set is its own subset. Now by rule, if two sets are each others' subsets, then they are the same set.

Still with me? OK good. Let's classify the set of all acts that qualify as rape as set R, and all acts that qualify as non-consensual sex as set N. Let's agree right now that R is a subset of N. If anyone disagrees with that, then either they don't understand what subsets are, or they don't understand what reality is. Now the big question that remains is whether N is a subset of R. If that occurs, then N = R, and we are done. But is it? Notice, we have not yet established a definition of what non-consensual sex is. Now, merely proving that all non-consensual sex is rape would prove that N = R, precluding this need. But this brings us right back to where we started.

What is my position on whether N is a subset of R? I honestly don't know. I think it would make sense, but an interesting example--mutual drunk sex--was offered as a possible counterexample. So really, that's what we need to establish. It all comes down to examining that. Which, BTW, raises the question of what "consent" means--an entire discussion in its own right.

Captain Adverse said:

Just a point of information: A single such act, with no prior acts and sincere regret leading to no subsequent acts is not considered "pedophilia" by either the psychiatric or psychological community; although it is still considered a sex offense punishable by law. Check the DSM-IV and V and you will see the correct definition for "pedophilia." It adds exclusions for a single act committed from drunkeness, curiousity, emotional distress, etc. Regardless of these classification exclusions, it is still against the law and punishable.

Carry on.

Click to expand...

I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to the common-vernacular definition, not the DSM-IV definition. But you are technically correct.

EDIT - Nevermind, for some reason I misread it as consentual sex but not consent to video taping. Any time a person cannot consent because of age, or mental status it's rape.

Legally, no, but it would fall under video voyeurism laws in many states. In Louisiana it's a major felony to video someone in a compromising position without their prior knowledge. If the sex is consentual that is one thing, if the video taping is another it is not.

Don't confuse any of that with me condoning this particular type of thing though, I absolutely don't. This is a horrible thing to do to someone but legally doesn't meet the usual definition.

Gipper said:

Maybe she was drunk.

Click to expand...

That COULD be rape. Most laws state that an intoxicated person may not have been in the mental state to give consent.