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