On Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, Detective_Mills cuts through the complexities of the rape debate with this bit of wisdom, putting all those rape complaints from women in their proper perspective.
Sorry, did I say “women?” I meant “cuntbags.”
NOTE:
Nameless Coward: Wrong answer. Rape is not acceptable. It’s certainly not something to treat as part of the punishment for crime.
This is classist. And total bullshit.
Rape is not okay, this includes prison rape.
For obvious anatomical reasons, women can’t rape anyone in the pure and literal sense of the word. That’s why MRAs vilify women as “rapists” for allowing biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in consensual relationships. And why this idiot accuses women of “emotionally raping” men.
Prison rape is its one kind of wrong. It is not only the total moral failing of a person and the terrible violence that rape always is, it also the moral failing of the State, that created conditions in which rape is more likely to happen and rapists less likely to ever be sentenced. Rape prison provide an outlet to condone rape in general, to treat it like a light subject: “haha, you killed someone/raped someone/stole a bike/… now you’re going to jail and you’re going to get raped” as if that was something expected, part of the normal sentence.
Monsieur sans Nom, there is nothing shameful about living in a trailer. It’s elitist to make fun of people who live in trailer homes and call them “trash”. Trailers are affordable homes that can be quickly set up during housing shortages. The main problem with trailer homes is that they offer little protection from dangerous storms, but that is nothing against the people who live in them. It just means trailer park owners should be responsible for providing storm shelters to their residents.
You also need to knock it off with the prison rape jokes. It’s not funny.
poor people = evil? this sucks you suck.
michael kuehl:
I’m going to guess that what you mean by the “pure and literal sense” of rape is penetrating someone with a penis without their consent. That is not what rape is. *Trigger warning for kinds of rape*
An individual can be penetrated by many things without their consent, such as fingers or sex toys, and it is no less rape than if it were a penis. It is also possible for PIV sex to be the woman raping the man, as arousal does not mean consent. Just because he’s capable of the act does not mean he’s automatically okay with it. There are other kinds of rape that could be performed by women but I don’t need to make this comment any more potentially upsetting than it already is.
Are you talking about an adult woman having sex with an adolescent or a child? That is not consensual, as children cannot consent at an adult level, which makes it rape. Maybe I’ve misunderstood you here?
Viscaria,
How ironic that you entirely agree with MRAs whom you detest.
As Diana Trilling wrote long ago: “The male can rape the female, the female cannot rape the male. Her point is that “rape” signifies not only the use of violence or threats of same to compel the submission of a victim but also the penile violation of the victim by the assailant. Yes, that’s what I mean by “pure and literal.”
How often do women use violence or threats of same to penetrate males with their fingers or sex toys or whatever? If you want to call this “rape,” go ahead. I would call it a “violent sexual assault.”
Females commit about 1-2% of violent sexual assaults.” And they usually commit such acts with male accomplices, and often under the duress of a violent male.
Since teenage males under age 18 are old and mature enough to form the mens rea or criminal intent to commit rape and murder and aggravated assault, and are often “waived” into adult court if they commit murders and violent rapes, they’re old and mature enough to consent to or initiate sex with adult females. The laws are incongruous, inherently contradictory, and arbitrary.
Even to define such liaisons as “statutory rape” is objectively false and thus absurd since the “rape” in “statutory rape” signifies the reality of penile penetration (of the “minor” by the adult) while the modifying “statutory” implies that the sex was factually as opposed to legally consensual.
In Mexico the age of consent is 12. A 12-year-old girl is judged old enough to consent!! In U.S. states in which the age of consent is 18 a biological man one day short of his 18th birthday is judged incapable of legally consenting but will be judged capable of doing so when he wakes up the next morning! What was once defined under the law as “statutory rape” is the quintessential malum prohibitum crime.
Yeah, the law gives people adult rights at different times depending not only on the state, but the rights at issue, and the person’s situation. Kooky, huh? In my state, frex, a girl under 18 can consent to have an abortion without her parents’ consent, can have a baby and can consent to its medical care, but she may not be able to consent to her own medical treatment in certain cases. What you’re pointing out is indeed a wacky legal result (one day not legal/next day totally legal!), but yet it’s still against the law for an adult to have sex with a minor (unless otherwise allowed under state law, through a Romeo and Juliet or a marriage exception).
As someone smarter than I said, yeah it’s arbitrary, but you have to have a line, and you gotta draw it somewhere.
As far as the “pure and literal” definition of rape, I don’t know why we must be confined to Diana Trilling’s definition. For someone who dislikes arbitrariness, that seems pretty arbitrary. In my state, a person gets charged with first degree rape if they force another person to have sexual intercourse with them. Sexual intercourse is something that occurs upon any penetration. The law doesn’t nitpick about who penetrated who.
This is a step up from the federal rape statute, if I remember correctly. But that would hardly matter to a woman in my state who forced a man to penetrate her.
I’m not convinced that rape can only be defined by statute, however. For legal purposes, yes, but if a man in a jurisdiction without a broad definition of rape were compelled by a woman or women to have sex with them, I for sure as hell would not tell him, “No, that wasn’t rape.” If he viewed it as rape, and calling it rape gave the experience some kind of substance that was meaningful to him, hell yes it was rape, even if it doesn’t meet a statutory definition that he can bring rape charges on. He was forced to have sex with someone without his consent, and he experienced trauma because of it.
As for whether it’s ironic that a MRA might have the same concerns about male rape that I do — I dunno. MRAs generally base their concerns on their ideas of how much women suck. My concerns are based on a genuine concern about people’s rights and sexual autonomy, as well as my empathy for victims. Being a feminist doesn’t mean that one has to have a knee-jerk reaction away from every idea espoused by the MRM. For me, it’s a basic rejection of the idea behind their ideology — a rejection of the idea that women suck.
“How ironic that you entirely agree with MRAs whom you detest.”
If they weren’t holding feminists responsible for everything that’s wrong in their life and the world, if almost all of their post weren’t drooling with misogyny and the occasional misandry, you could have a point. But they do, and they are.
“In U.S. states in which the age of consent is 18 a biological man one day short of his 18th birthday is judged incapable of legally consenting but will be judged capable of doing so when he wakes up the next morning! ”
That’s just plain stupid. If the limit was 10 years old, you would cry that in one day he can’t consent and the next he can. Same thing if the age was five. That’s partly an arbitrary limit, and you deal with it, meaning if he’s a day til he’s 18, he can wait a day to do what he pleases.
Also, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t face the same charges for statutory rape with a 12y-o or a 18-minus-1-day y-o
Michael: “Violent sexual assault” IS RAPE.
I’m sure there are all kinds of rape survivors reading this who are pleased as punch to discover that they weren’t raped because their rapists used a dildo on them instead of a cock. This is definitely nowhere near as violating or harmful to one’s bodily autonomy. The difference between plastic and flesh (or plastic and other flesh) is just that important.
Never mind that people with penises can be raped during PIV sex too. An erection is NOT consent. A person can be physically aroused and still not consent to the sexual act.
Dude, I know people who have been raped by women. No male accomplices involved. As it happens, women are exactly as capable of evil as men are.
Statutory rape is drawing a bright line through a gray area. Two-year-olds are definitely not capable of sexual consent; fifty-year-olds definitely are. Between that, there’s quite often a huge gray area. Some people are fully capable of consenting to sex with adults at sixteen; some people are not. Unfortunately, “some people can and some people can’t” is a terrible rule, so there has to be a ssngle rule.
MRAs are huge fans of age of consent laws? That’s big fucking news to me. I’m not going to argue with you about exactly what age they should be set at – over here it’s 16, by the way – because I don’t know. You’d be better off speaking to a legal or child psych expert. However, that these laws should exist and be the same for both boys and girls seems pretty evident to me. And to you, apparently, since you seem pretty scandalized about Mexico’s laws. But maybe you think there should be a different standard applied to boys and girls? 17 year old girls murder people too, sometimes, and get bumped up to adult courts.
As far as I’m concerned, rape is sex without consent. If you want to call different kinds of sex without consent by different terms for some reason I’m not going to object, unless you’re doing it because you consider penises extra rapey, and therefore sex without consent involving a penis extra bad. It’s ridiculous, and it marginalizes victims.
I’m not saying that women rape at anywhere near the same rate as men do. Because they don’t.
“You really need to suspend your expectations of decency when it comes to trailer trash like that.”
Oh fuck you, and fuck that classist shit. Seriously.
Viscaria – “, unless you’re doing it because you consider penises extra rapey, and therefore sex without consent involving a penis extra bad. It’s ridiculous, and it marginalizes victims.”
so much this.
Since teenage males under age 18 are old and mature enough to form the mens rea or criminal intent to commit rape and murder and aggravated assault, and are often “waived” into adult court if they commit murders and violent rapes, they’re old and mature enough to consent to or initiate sex with adult females. The laws are incongruous, inherently contradictory, and arbitrary.
a teenager can have the wherewithal to form some kinds of intent but not necessarily all, especially when under the influence of a much more mature person. this isn’t incongruous or contradictory at all its basic common sense, and then you don’t understand it only shows that you haven’t really thought your position through.
Also, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t face the same charges for statutory rape with a 12y-o or a 18-minus-1-day y-o
you dont. in the us, the line is generally drawn at around 13 and anything younger than that carries a more serious charge.
michael the vibe i’m getting from your posts is that you don’t really get the concept of consent and dont really want to think about it. i mean this-
is such a simplistic definition of rape as to basically be totally useless. our understanding of what rape is has evolved pretty dramatically from the early 20th century. and for god’s sake,diana trilling is not an authority on rape, or even crime, she was a literary critic. why you would quote her and not someone who was at least tangentially related to philosophy of law is beyond me.
Also, I don’t support juveniles being charged as adults for crimes either…
He sounds like a rapist.
To Kyrie:
My point is that a 17-year-old is indistinguishable, physically and psychologically, from an 18-year-old, and just of capable of consenting to or knowingly initiating sex with an adult. Secondly, my intent was to emphasize the “hair-splitting” arbitrariness of such laws. And so, too, with teenagers of 16 and 17 and 16 and 15.
Conversely, a 10-year-old is just as incapable of meaningful consent as a 9-year-old, so your analogy is ludicrous.
To Sharculese:
Under the law, a biological man of 15 or 16 knows what he’s doing, legally, when he rapes a female, minor or adult, but not when he initiates sex with an adult female. He’s old and mature enough to form the mens rea or criminal intent to knowingly rape a female, but not old and mature enough to knowingly initiate sex with an adult female. He’s an adult (often “waived” into adult court) or quasi-adult when he commits rape, but a “child” when he consents to or intitiates sex with an adult female. That’s common sense?! On the contrary, these positions are inherently incongruous and contradictory.
I believe in defining words narrowly, precisely, objectively, literally. You and others define “rape” so sweepingly, figeratively, and ambiguously as to render the word virtually meaningless. Defining women as “rapists” for allowing biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in de facto consensual relationships is “sex equality dogma taken to lunatic extremes,” to quote John Derbyshire. This is almost as ludicrous as defining men who impregnate women as “pregnant men.”
Obviously, females can commit violent sexual assaults, however rarely. Why are you and others so obsessed with defining such crimes as “rape” rather than “sexual assault”?
I know a lot of 17-year-olds who are pretty similar to most 18-year-olds.
I know a lot of 16-year-olds who are pretty similar to most 17-year-olds.
I know a lot of 15-year-olds who are pretty similar to most 16-year-olds.
I know a lot of 14-year-olds who are pretty similar to most 15-year-olds.
I know a lot of 13-year-olds who are pretty similar to most 14-year-olds.
Therefore the age of consent should be 13. That was easy!
DICKtionary dude: I believe in defining words narrowly, precisely, objectively, literally.
Sucks for you that’s not how language works.
I believe in defining words narrowly, precisely, objectively, literally. You and others define “rape” so sweepingly, figeratively, and ambiguously as to render the word virtually meaningless.
Rape: Non-consensual sex.
Precisely what is “sweeping, figurative, and ambiguous” about that very concise, very simple, very straightforward definition? Why is “rape: non-consensual sex but only if it involves a penis entering a vagina and only if the person with the vagina is the one who doesn’t consent” somehow more “objective” or “literal”?
it’s not about common sense. criminal justice is a complicated subject, not a mindless algorithm. different situations call for different results. it’s this thing called ‘nuance’ that people who take justice seriously care about. just because you can’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s incongruous or contradictory, it just means you don’t understand it. mens rea is a really complicated thing with a lot gray areas. this is a thing we do because we believe in justice, not blind retribution. if you want to live in a country with one-size-fits-all laws, idk move to a fascist dictatorship or something. youll find their laws a lot simpler and easier to understand.
there’s nothing ‘objective’ about your definition. it’s quite plainly chosen because it makes rape into a thing youre comfortable with rape being. don’t be disingenuous. and again, please stop quoting people with no expertise on the subject as if they were authority figures. john derbyshire is a mathematician and a linguist. ive read prime obsession; it was delightful. ive read his writing on other subjects, its lazy and shows lack of serious thought.
if you are going to quote someone, pick them because their ideas have the power of persuasion, not because they said what you already wanted to believe was true.
because theyre quite clearly fields that blend into each other and any serious student of the law recognizes that delineating the boundaries is hard work. why are you so obsessed with taking critical thinking out of criminal law? what perverse definition of justice do you think that serves?
Michael Kuehl: I don’t know if you’re defining rape “narrowly, precisely, objectively, literally” so much as you are incorrectly. What’s ambiguous and figurative about defining rape as forced, coerced, or unconsensual sexual penetration? Your state has its own definition of rape in its criminal code. On the other hand, I don’t think anyone anywhere has been convicted on a Diana Trilling theory of rape.
As for the 15- or 16-year-old being able to be charged with rape, but also not being allowed to consent legally: Read what I read in my last post. The law sets out different rights for minors at different ages depending on those rights, ages, and the minor’s situation. It’s confusing, I know — particularly for someone who doesn’t want to get it. But nonetheless there is a need for a line, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and so it is.
There is of course a difference between being victimized — being taken advantage of, being preyed on — and victimizing someone else. Your claiming that a child-rapist and a child rape victim should be treated under the same legal standard disappears that difference. It’s ridiculous.
@polliwog
he doesnt like our definition of ‘consent’. this isnt because it lacks objectivity. its that he doesnt like or understand it.but he knows that’s a terrible argument so he has to come up with some way his argument is ‘special’ and this is the best he can do, ‘why cant everything be defined so even someone as lazy as i am can understand it?’