Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, (new)

Definition of rape[edit]

The first sentence of this article gives the definition of sexual assault in general. Rape is generally defined as a particular form of sexual assault typically involving penetration, rather than simply "any sex act in which at least one participant has not given informed consent"; that is the definition of sexual assault. In many legal systems in the West, the legal system simply calls the crime "sexual assault".Advicedoge (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Probably ought to have something here or elsewhere, if we don't already, addressing the idea that rape never or rarely results in pregnancy, a la Akin. Was doing some reading on the subject, and according to the Other Wiki, it's a pretty old canard that actually was considered a viable defense against an accusation of rape. --ShorinBJ (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Can the conscious bind the unconscious?[edit]

It says "However, if the victim was quite literally passed out when the sex act took place, or had been plied with "date-rape drugs" such as GHB, it is fairly easy to see how they were unable to give their informed consent to the sexual act." What about the type of scenario where they consented while conscious, and then got drunk and passed out?

I thought the rule was, if you consent, then the consent remains in force until revoked. How is it that the person can revoke the consent to have sex, if they're passed out?

It's not unheard of for a girlfriend to say, "If I'm drunk and pass out in the middle of sex, it's okay for you to finish. I won't consider that rape." Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between "it's not unheard of" and "I thought the rule was". ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What would you call it when someone forms a verbal contract to unconscious sex while they are drunk and about to pass out?[edit]

From what little I've read of rape laws the definition varies on a state by state basis with the FBI's definition until 2013 reading, "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will" and now , "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.” [1]

The person in question is was my alcoholic roommate who seemed to think not being able to wake up to tell her boyfriend to stop was a fun experiment to try. According to one UK judge her consent would still be valid, [2], but according to a toronto judge drunks can't give consent, [3]. The incident in question occurred in America and in addition she has been diagnosed schizophrenic previously which according to his paper depending on the severity may mean she was unable to consent to medical proceedures, I'm not sure if that would also mean she was incapable of legally consenting to sex. [4], [5].

Sorry it's a rather morbid and apparently controversial issue to bring up, but it's been on my mind a lot and I thought it might be on mission. Being told you can't legally have sex seems pretty authoritarian, and the psychological criteria for not being able to consent could potentially be pseudo scientific and more of a legal conception if lacking tangible evidence and criteria. Defining the criteria for rape would also seem to be an issue of major interest to the MRA crowd and those whose actions take them to or beyond the legal limit. X-Factor (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Dawkins and date rape[edit]

Last July, Dawkins wrote, in 136 quickly infamous characters, “Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.”

This contradicts what feminist groups say, that date rape or marital rape are actually worse: And they say marital rape is not as bad as stranger rape. I don’t know. I have never been raped by a stranger. But I think being raped by your husband in your own home must be worse in some ways. At least if you’re attacked by a perfect stranger it is not so personal. Your husband is the person whom you should be able to turn to for comfort, who should protect you. When it is the person you have entrusted your life to who abuses you, it isn’t just physical or sexual assault, it is a betrayal of the very core of your marriage or your person, your trust. If you’re not safe in your own home, next to your husband, where are you safe?

The manosphere would also say, this shows the difference between male and female thinking. According to them, women would think, "Maybe I want to just get this guy to buy me lobster, and then give him a peck on the cheek at the end of the evening!" Men assume that she wouldn't have accepted the date invitation if she didn't have at least some romantic interest in him.

Same with marital rape. Women think, "Maybe I just want this guy for his money, and when I decide to finally cash out by frivorce-raping him, that's when the sex stops!" Men assume, "She wouldn't marry me if she didn't desire me romantically, so what's the big deal about marital rape?" That's just it; if he's the beta, she was in it for the beta bux, and sex was just the toll she was paying to get it. So if he then rapes her, that defeats her point of being able to get something for nothing.

According to the red pill, from her perspective, stranger rape could actually be better than date rape or marital rape, because she might be getting fucked by an alpha rather than a beta. Ailurus (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Can women rape, can men be raped?[edit]

I think that the subject of (a) whether a woman can rape and (b) whether a man can be raped is an important enough debate that it should be covered here. It is a fact that different people accepted as feminists hold different opinions in this debate. Some, like Mary Koss, insist only a man can rape. Others, however, disagree. Ramendik (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that rape is taking sex by force and without consent I would argue that yes, both A and B can be true. However I would also like to point out that such cases have not been documented to any great extent. GrammarCommie (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it shouldn't have to be a debate. Rape doesn't necessarily involve physical force. You can threaten a man with his life (with a gun) to have sex or spike a drink on a man to rape him later. And sexual intercourse don't necessarily need sex organs on both sides (anal sex for instance), so that also covers the question of "can you necessarily rape with a vagina" or "can a lack of a vagina make you unable to be raped"? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with LeftyGreenMario. It can still be rape without the perpetrator physically overpowering the victim. Besides, even if you were to believe that women cannot rape, it is a non sequitur to then say that men cannot be raped. Men can rape other men (and I don't think anyone disputes this). CowHouse (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Rape doesn't even need to involve organs on the perpetrator's side either. People have been sodomized with broom handles, and worse, and while it's forgivable that a legal system wouldn't have been written with every possible scenario in mind, it's quite obvious what such acts are. CorruptUser (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)