• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When Is Rape Rape?

brodski said:
The original drafting of the Sexual Offences Bill (now act) 2006 made the crime of rape gender/sex neutral. After extensive lobbying against changing the definition of rape, a compromised was reached, a new crime of "being made to penetrate" was created, with penalties equal to that of rape. The upshot of this is, however, that bodies (both public and charitable) can discriminated between victims of serious sexual assault.
Click to expand...
Having looked into that recently, I do not believe this to be the case, unless you can cite the relevent legislation.
 
Information Analyst said:
Having looked into that recently, I do not believe this to be the case, unless you can cite the relevent legislation.
Click to expand...

The offence seems to be called "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" and seems to be less narrowly defined than "being made to penetrate". I was also incorrect in my earlier post as it seems assault by penetration (eg using an object) is a seperate offence to rape which must involve the penis.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/4

Sorry for the derail into specific legislation, its probably not all that pertinent to this thread.
 
Mudcat said:
I've heard it from a former coworker that enjoyed BDSM, only he was the one that wanted to get raped.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks.

But the term is actually 'Rape Play' as opposed to 'Consentual Rape'. It sounds like your friend was trying to honestly, but rather awawkardly, describe chocolate concepts to a person who is only familiar with vanilla concepts.

In any event, rape play is quite consentual.
 
Last edited:
Dinwar said:
... snipped for relevance ...

A more typical term is "consentual non-consent"--basically, the person agrees to wave their right to withdraw consent, in a very specific set of conditions, in order to act out a fantasy. Usually these involve some pretty serious negotiations, and typically these situations happen between people who know each other very well. If you're still at the "We need a safe word" stage, you're not ready for consentual non-consent (not that safe words are bad; it's just that if you think they are the be-all, end-all of BDSM safety you're too ignorant of BDSM to understand what you're consenting to).
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I am somewhat knowledgeable with term "consentual non-consent". However, just for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the term, it does involve consent all the same even though it may not appear that way to an unknowning observer.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
The offence seems to be called "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" and seems to be less narrowly defined than "being made to penetrate". I was also incorrect in my earlier post as it seems assault by penetration (eg using an object) is a seperate offence to rape which must involve the penis.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/4

Sorry for the derail into specific legislation, its probably not all that pertinent to this thread.
Click to expand...

The definition is, in fact, quite vague, and while it could be argued that MTP would be covered by it, the legislation is framed in terms of the offender "A" and the victim "B," with the acts covered defined as:

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved— .
(a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina, .
(b)penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis, .
(c)penetration of a person’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body or by B with anything else, or .
(d)penetration of a person’s mouth with B’s penis,

It could be argued that MTP would be covered by (c) and (d), with "a person" actually being "A" but they could also be a third party "C". In fact, I think I'm right is saying that the latter scenario is what this offence is actually aimed at. One could go further and suggest that "A" could cause an unwilling "C" to engage with a consenting "B" and it would not be an offence under the above definition.
 
Last edited:
s_pepys said:
This is an interesting view on the issue.

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

At least it removes all the grey areas around consent etc..

:eek:
Click to expand...

So the survival of mankind (until a few decades ago) has been wholly dependent upon rape? The only logical conclusion of that is that rape cannot be a crime. Crimes, after all, are those actions we deem detrimental to society. An act that is the very precondition of the existence of society cannot be detrimental to it.

I think that blogger (as well as the echo chamber of the reactions) has not quite thought through her argument.
 
Dissolution said:
I'm not sure that I agree with this.
Surely the other participant has to be made aware of the lack of consent and continue regardless?
Click to expand...

Only if such an opportunity presents itself, of course. The default is lack of consent.

Mudcat said:
When it's non-consensual at any moment of the act.
Click to expand...

Even after the fact, the next day?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that qualifies as a "moment of the act".
 
Morrigan said:
Why should there be "another option"? What he did was rape and he should have been charged with rape. I don't see anything borderline whatsoever in this case, assuming it happened as the victim described.
Click to expand...

What makes it borderline in my opinion is that she went willingly with him to his room, was willing to make out with him, and never told him to stop what he was doing. I don't know what non-verbal signals she might have given him, but I find it conceivable that he had no idea of her emotional reaction to what he said.

Whether this is such a case or not, I think there are times when young men force themselves unwittingly on young women, thinking their own enthusiasm is returned and not realizing the woman is terrified rather than sexually excited. I'm not sure that formal charges are appropriate in such murky circumstances. A trial is an ordeal for all the involved parties and the jury is instructed to presume innocence on the part of the defendant. On the other hand, I would like to see policies in place to make sure that young men are informed of the woman's actual emotional reaction afterward and instructed in how to make sure that they don't unwittingly do the same to some other young woman even if formal charges are not pursued.
 
Last edited:
How I define rape:

When one person doesn't want oral, genital, or anal sexual contact and makes it clear they don't want it, but another person forces oral, genital, or anal sexual contact on them with either violence, manipulation or coercion.
 
Beth said:
What makes it borderline in my opinion is that she went willingly with him to his room, was willing to make out with him, and never told him to stop what he was doing. I don't know what non-verbal signals she might have given him, but I find it conceivable that he had no idea of her emotional reaction to what he said.
Click to expand...

Are we reading the same account?

He was a friend of mine and I trusted him. It was a freezing Friday night when I stumbled into his dorm room after too many drinks. He took my shirt off and started biting the skin on my neck and breast. I pushed back on his chest and asked him to stop kissing me aggressively. He laughed. He said that I should “just wear a scarf” to cover the marks. He continued to abuse my body, hurting my breast and vagina. He asked me to use my mouth. I said no. I was intoxicated, I was in pain, I was trapped between him and the wall, and I was scared to death that he would continue to ignore what I said. I stopped everything and turned my back to him, praying he would leave me alone. He started getting impatient. “Are you only going to make me hard, or are you going to make me come?” he said in a demanding tone.

It did not sound like a question. I obeyed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tony said:
How I define rape:

When one person doesn't want oral, genital, or anal sexual contact and makes it clear they don't want it, but another person forces oral, genital, or anal sexual contact on them with either violence, manipulation or coercion.
Click to expand...

Would getting drunk be considered manipulation under your definition? What if she previously said "no way" while sober?
 
superfreddy said:
Would getting drunk be considered manipulation under your definition?
Click to expand...

Not if the person drank on their own accord. If someone kept feeding them alcohol though, then yes, I would call that manipulation or coercion.

What if she previously said "no way" while sober?
Click to expand...

If she got herself drunk and initiated, I would not consider it manipulation or coercion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom