[2011-Jul-19] Those boys most likely gang raped that teache

[Lethal Interjection]

Canadian law doesn't define rape either. We have 3 levels of sexual assault depending on how physical harm was done. As for academic definitions or rape, usually it's defined by not being consensual, not by what type of sex was done. So I'm not exactly sure what Lethal was referring to. Maybe UK law definitions? They legally require penetration to be called rape.

I wasn't really happy with that last post of mine, but I never bothered to correct it. Ultimately I was just saying that male rape is harder to identify when there isn't a male assailant (or if it is statutory, but that doesn't always come down to rape, just advantage-taking). Trying to say that anyways. There is always that one biological factor that kind of makes it difficult...

[smiley_cow]

OK, yeah, I see what you're saying now. And definitely true too, unfortunately. Though the biology factor (if I'm understanding you right) is actually still a problem when the rapist is male. Probably more so since a lot of people don't know that.

[Lethal Interjection]

OK, yeah, I see what you're saying now. And definitely true too, unfortunately. Though the biology factor (if I'm understanding you right) is actually still a problem when the rapist is male. Probably more so since a lot of people don't know that.

The biology factor I'm talking about is that the male can't be "pitcher" and not make it difficult to define as rape. It becomes a lot easier to assume willingness when the man has to be aroused.

[Gangler]

Yeah, I really wish a boner didn't nullify a man's right to refuse sex. "Their mouth said no but their _____ said yes". You really should need the mouth to say yes.

[smiley_cow]

OK, yeah, I see what you're saying now. And definitely true too, unfortunately. Though the biology factor (if I'm understanding you right) is actually still a problem when the rapist is male. Probably more so since a lot of people don't know that.

The biology factor I'm talking about is that the male can't be "pitcher" and not make it difficult to define as rape. It becomes a lot easier to assume willingness when the man has to be aroused.

Ok, yeah, I think we're on the same page then. It's just a little known fact that men often become physically aroused during anal penetration as well. So basically most forms of rape will probably have this result. Of course it's all just a natural response to the stimulation, and it doesn't at all equal any kind of consent, or mean it was at all enjoyed, but it can make things very confusing for people who don't entirely understand what's going on.

Yeah, I really wish a boner didn't nullify a man's right to refuse sex. "Their mouth said no but their _____ said yes". You really should need the mouth to say yes.

Definitely agreed. Sex should always be 100% consensual, and that should always be completely clear. I remember reading an article a while back about how the "No means no" campaign was sending the wrong message because people are now confusing lack of a clear no to mean yes, which leaves a bit of a grey area. The message should be, make sure she says yes, not it's all good so long as you don't hear no.

[Kimra]

But arousal is not proof of consent. In any law that I know of (I'm sure it is in some). Because, although it is harder to do, females can be aroused and it is still rape. In fact there are rapists who's main power kick is to make them physically respond despite the fact that they do not want to have sex. So a guy being aroused should even come into the equation at all.

Did I just repeat what other people said? I think I might have.

[Apocalyptus]

Unfortunately the societal assumption is that men are up for any sex, any time, so physical arousal is just further proof they wanted it (I mean, unless they're gay or something amirite?).
Which means that male victims of rape by women are often not given any sympathy, or are asked first "but was she hot?".
Society depresses me sometimes.

[Kimra]

Why? Your a girl, go a raping and you're fine!

[Gangler]

Go for it!

[Lethal Interjection]

But arousal is not proof of consent. In any law that I know of (I'm sure it is in some). Because, although it is harder to do, females can be aroused and it is still rape. In fact there are rapists who's main power kick is to make them physically respond despite the fact that they do not want to have sex. So a guy being aroused should even come into the equation at all.

Did I just repeat what other people said? I think I might have.

I've never really thought about the topic before, but the more I thought about it the more I realized this to be true.
Physical stimulation alone without consent might make arousal more difficult, but certainly could be enough.

[Apocalyptus]

Why? Your a girl, go a raping and you're fine!

But I'm too lazy!

If only I had some sort of robot that could do my raping for me.

[Gangler]

We got any engineers or roboticists in the forum?

[Apocalyptus]

Or roboengineers?

[Sahan]

No! I am not going to assist in building a robot that will end up raping me! And even if I do, building the robot will not imply that I was asking for it!

[Gangler]

Well it wouldn't rape you specifically would it? I mean it's gonna be designed for maximum efficiency, so presumably after activation it'll rape everyone in the room or area simultaneously. You'd just have to not be in the room when it's activated. I would think "Test from a safe distance" would be standard protocol anyway, so it's all good.