Attitudes to rape

[Theoryofrelativity]

TheoryOfRelativity:



So if a lesbian shoved her fist up your vagina and anus and made you lick her and suck on her anus and vagina, you would not be "traumatized" by this? What about if she used sex toys?

Moreover, what sort of fear are you speaking of in regards to men?



This I will admit. It is rare.



No. And I will note that I do not -defend- rape against a promiscious woman. I have affirmed several times that I find it immoral. Only that I cannot understand why a promiscious woman would care.



If I ever am afraid and I can recall this, I shall try to arouse myself.

Pj,

Which would you prefer...a mans cock up your anus or a womans fist up your anus?

I suspect your answer is the same as mine.

Note: being afraid seems to be outside of your makeup, in which case that explains your inability to imagine fear in others. Fair enough, but at least make more effort to try. The reality contradicts your view regarding promiscuous women 'caring' about being raped, why not accept it when the evidence supports it. Accept your limitations in empathy dept based on your own lack of experience with fear. Reasonable request?

 

[Prince_James]

TheoryOfRelativity:

Which would you prefer...a mans cock up your anus or a womans fist up your anus?

Physically, a cock (less painful). Morally, a woman's hand (it is not shameful).

Note: being afraid seems to be outside of your makeup, in which case that explains your inability to imagine fear in others. Fair enough, but at least make more effort to try. The reality contradicts your view regarding promiscuous women 'caring' about being raped, why not accept it when the evidence supports it. Accept your limitations in empathy dept based on your own lack of experience with fear. Reasonable request?

You are correct: True fear is alien to me and I have difficulty experiencing fear-empathy.

But yes, certainly, I'd be glad to simply accept it as something I do not understand. A bewildering reality which nonetheless is the case.

 

[Roman]

I cannot understand why a promiscious woman would care [about being raped].

Are you also unable to understand why a boxer wouldn't like to be beaten up in an alley?

 

[Baron Max]

...being afraid seems to be outside of your makeup, in which case that explains your inability to imagine fear in others.

I'm not sure that I understand that statement? Are you saying that you (or women in general?) walk around all day and night in fear of some guy forcibly sticking his dick into your body?

Do you carry a gun? If not, why the hell not? Or don't you want to protect yourself?

Baron Max

 

[Prince_James]

Roman:

Are you also unable to understand why a boxer wouldn't like to be beaten up in an alley?

Considering he likes to fight...

 

[Roman]

Roman:



Considering he likes to fight...

I guess you also wouldn't understand why a gambler doesn't like to lose bets, or a shareholder lose money.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

TheoryOfRelativity:



Physically, a cock (less painful). Morally, a woman's hand (it is not shameful).



You are correct: True fear is alien to me and I have difficulty experiencing fear-empathy.

But yes, certainly, I'd be glad to simply accept it as something I do not understand. A bewildering reality which nonetheless is the case.

progress

Meanwhile, you never answered the question, which would you prefer

mens cock or females fist

I agree cock is less painful but I suspect like me it remains the one you'd least prefer. Am I right? If I am, then you are on your way to understanding. The females sexuality is not an issue.

 

[Pete]

Notice that two thirds of responses have been "None of the above" up to this point. This is another clear signal to the people with alternate views that they are out of touch with modern society.

That's pretty specious, James.
Gallup polls from 1987 to 1997 indicated that 90% of American adults hold the view that people were specifically created by God (either recently or not).

This might mean that those with alternative views are out of touch with modern society, but even if it does, is that a bad thing?

 

[James R]

Regarding the poll comment:

Lots of people have pointed out that if 1/3 of respondents hold a certain view, then that is a significant proportion of the total population.

But I didn't say that 2/3 of respondents hold a particular view. What I said was that 2/3 of responses were for the option "None of the above", which is hardly the same thing.

In fact, as things currently stand, out of 28 voters, 19 have voted "none of the above". That's 68%.

Only 3 out of 28 respondents (11%) have considered that rape in marriage cannot exist. And only 1 out of 28 (4%) has said that wearing "sexy" clothing excuses rape. The largest other response is 7 out of 28 (25%) saying that if a women does not explicitly show an absence of consent, then no rape occurs.

To me, 25% is a significant proportion, which shows that a fair proportion of the general population (or at least the sciforums population who chose to answer the poll) still have a way to go in understanding what rape is.

However, the 1 person who thinks that sexy clothing excuses rape is completely out of touch with mainstream society, in my opinion, and the poll results tend to support that conclusion so far.

Pete: you can question the results of any poll. Ultimately, polls tell you something about what the respondents to the poll think, and that is all. Extrapolation to wider society depends on how good a cross-section of society your poll captures in the first place. I know that sciforums is a skewed demographic. I suspect, though I cannot prove, that sciforums would have a slightly higher percentage of people who know something about rape than general society. I also take your point that holding "alternative" views can be either good or bad. In this instance, I set out only to comment that the views expressed by the minority in this poll are out of step with the majority. The poll in itself doesn't tell us whether the majority view is right or wrong, of course.

 

[iam]

pete:

i don't think many atheists polled would condone rape either. If you look at societal demographics is 90% correct in some answers and 90% incorrect on others.

Either way, i don't think this poll is even an accurate representation of the public because though in general rape is not condoned, they do tend to place more blame and responsibility on the victim even if its subtle. The honestly enlightened such as bell or james r are not typical. Its typical in moral type questionaires for people to pick what makes them concieve of themselves as good people.

 

[Pete]

i don't think many atheists polled would condone rape either. If you look at societal demographics is 90% correct in some answers and 90% incorrect on others.

Of course not. I'm not presenting an opinion about the conclusion, only the specious reasoning used to get there.

Either way, i don't think this poll is even an accurate representation of the public because though in general rape is not condoned, they do tend to place more blame and responsibility on the victim even if its subtle. The honestly enlightened such as bell or james r are not typical. Its typical in moral type questionaires for people to pick what makes them concieve of themselves as good people.

That is true.

 

[Pete]

Only 3 out of 28 respondents (11%) have considered that rape in marriage cannot exist. And only 1 out of 28 (4%) has said that wearing "sexy" clothing excuses rape. The largest other response is 7 out of 28 (25%) saying that if a women does not explicitly show an absence of consent, then no rape occurs.

The poll did not ask whether the options excused or negated rape, but whether they were mitigating circumstances in a case of established rape.

My responses were based on an even weaker interpretation, that the mentioned circumstances could justify a reduced penalty for the accused. I do agree that the history or presentation of the victim should not be a factor, but I believe that the history and perceptions of the accused should be considered.

It is clear from the discussion that some respondants consider that some of the poll circumstances always excuse or negate the charge, but the views of those respondants should not be projected onto others.

Pete: you can question the results of any poll. Ultimately, polls tell you something about what the respondents to the poll think, and that is all. Extrapolation to wider society depends on how good a cross-section of society your poll captures in the first place. I know that sciforums is a skewed demographic. I suspect, though I cannot prove, that sciforums would have a slightly higher percentage of people who know something about rape than general society. I also take your point that holding "alternative" views can be either good or bad. In this instance, I set out only to comment that the views expressed by the minority in this poll are out of step with the majority. The poll in itself doesn't tell us whether the majority view is right or wrong, of course.

That's fair

 

[Prince_James]

TheoryOfRelativity:

mens cock or females fist

I have a Roman conception of sex. I view sex in terms of dominance and submission. I do not think submission is befitting a superior man. However, I am unsure if I'd rather be dominated by a man or a woman. With a man, raping me implies he is treating me as a woman and as a submissive, denying both my masculinity and dominance. But having my anus fisted by a woman implies also great shame, as I'm being subjected to domination by what is likely physically inferior to me (in terms of strength and other such things) and which is putting me in a submissive situation. The only thing preferable to the latter is that I am at least not engaging in a homosexual act.

In so much as I am not being subjected to a gay act, I prefer a woman to fist me. Pain I can stand and overcome.

If I am, then you are on your way to understanding. The females sexuality is not an issue.

I do not imagine many women view such things in my light.

 

[madanthonywayne]

For a woman to rape a man, the man has to be sexually aroused, thus already there is NO similarity at all between that and that of a man raping either male or female. AS NO SEXUAL aorusal is present in the victim of male rapist. Now if the man being 'raped' by the female was 'afraid, experiencing trauma' etc an erection would be impossible to maintain or even induce. So the presence of an erection in the 'victim' is evidence that emotional trauma was not present at the time of the said 'rape'.

When the man is aroused the woman will then sit on him. There is no pain to the penis in doing this, no bruising and no damage, presumably significantly less emotional trauma as a result.

For any similarity to exist the male rapist would need to aoruse his female victim first then merely put a jam donut on one of her fingers. No forced penetration of any orrifce must take place.

Thus there is NO similarity between the act of male/female being raped by another male to a male being 'raped' by a female. NONE.

So let's get this straight. If a man takes a woman on a date, engages in consentual sex, but just before he cums, she changes her mind, it's rape. But if a woman forces a man to strip at gunpoint, so long as he gets an erection, it's not rape?

 

[James R]

Pete:

I do agree that the history or presentation of the victim should not be a factor, but I believe that the history and perceptions of the accused should be considered.

They are. In a rape trial, if a defendant can establish that he honestly believed the victim was consenting, even if s/he was not, then that can lead to an acquittal or reduced sentence. In sentencing a convicted offender, courts look at the detailed criminal history of the offender, as well as their general background and circumstances.

It is clear from the discussion that some respondants consider that some of the poll circumstances always excuse or negate the charge, but the views of those respondants should not be projected onto others.

In the cases where there are 3 or fewer votes, there is no need to project, since the three respondents have expressly confirmed their opinions in the thread. In the case of failing to say "no", there are currently 7 people who have chosen that option, and again a large proportion of those have clearly ratified and explained their position on that issue in posts in the thread.

 

[James R]

Theoryofrelativity:

For a woman to rape a man, the man has to be sexually aroused...

This is completely wrong. Sexual penetration in rape can be performed with objects other than a penis, for example.

Moreover, just because a man gets an erection doesn't mean he is necessarily enjoying the experience. In fact, many men who are raped feel a tremendous sense of guilt if at some stage they got an erection. The fact is: erections are a physical response of the body, and not completely under the control of a man. A man does not have to be enjoying a sexual act in order to get an erection.

Now if the man being 'raped' by the female was 'afraid, experiencing trauma' etc an erection would be impossible to maintain or even induce.

This is completely false.

Nonsense like this doesn't help, TOR. At least make an effort to find out the facts before pontificating in future.

So the presence of an erection in the 'victim' is evidence that emotional trauma was not present at the time of the said 'rape'.

Wrong.

Thus there is NO similarity between the act of male/female being raped by another male to a male being 'raped' by a female. NONE.

Wrong again. Both kinds of rape involve the same denial of a person's rights to control their own body, and that is the ultimate insult to the person which makes rape such a terrible crime.


madanthonywayne:

So let's get this straight. If a man takes a woman on a date, engages in consentual sex, but just before he cums, she changes her mind, it's rape.

It is rape if she tells him to stop and he refuses and forces her to continue the act against her will.

But if a woman forces a man to strip at gunpoint, so long as he gets an erection, it's not rape?

Rape is sex without consent. If a woman forces a man to have sex without his consent, it is rape.

---
Sheesh! It's so simple, and yet you people still have difficulty grasping the concept.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Theoryofrelativity:



This is completely wrong. Sexual penetration in rape can be performed with objects other than a penis, for example.

Moreover, just because a man gets an erection doesn't mean he is necessarily enjoying the experience. In fact, many men who are raped feel a tremendous sense of guilt if at some stage they got an erection. The fact is: erections are a physical response of the body, and not completely under the control of a man. A man does not have to be enjoying a sexual act in order to get an erection.



This is completely false.

Nonsense like this doesn't help, TOR. At least make an effort to find out the facts before pontificating in future.



Wrong.



Wrong again. Both kinds of rape involve the same denial of a person's rights to control their own body, and that is the ultimate insult to the person which makes rape such a terrible crime.


madanthonywayne:



It is rape if she tells him to stop and he refuses and forces her to continue the act against her will.



Rape is sex without consent. If a woman forces a man to have sex without his consent, it is rape.

---
Sheesh! It's so simple, and yet you people still have difficulty grasping the concept.

James can you provide a source for these asserisions re male erections and then cite a case of female on male rape where the man was traumatised to the same degree as a female etc. I am not aware of a single case , and as far as I know men experiencing fear and trauma cannot get an erection. Hence 'erectile dysfunction'. So sources please.

(note, you saying I should check my facts in the complete absence of you providing any is er 'funny' to say the least. If you consider my opinion incorrect and yours correct provide evidence before YOU pontificate)

 

[redarmy11]

Now if the man being 'raped' by the female was 'afraid, experiencing trauma' etc an erection would be impossible to maintain or even induce.

This is completely false.

Replace the word 'impossible' with the words 'very difficult' and I'd say it's about right. Of course, like both of you... I'm just speculating.

 

[Bells]

James can you provide a source for these asserisions re male erections and then cite a case of female on male rape where the man was traumatised to the same degree as a female etc. I am not aware of a single case , and as far as I know men experiencing fear and trauma cannot get an erection. Hence 'erectile dysfunction'. So sources please.

(note, you saying I should check my facts in the complete absence of you providing any is er 'funny' to say the least. If you consider my opinion incorrect and yours correct provide evidence before YOU pontificate)

Geez. I come back for a quick read and find you still as silly as you were when I left. There's just no end to your stupidity now is there?

You just don't get it do you? You think that because a male rape victim 'gets it up' he somehow enjoys it or because there might not be scarring on his genitals, he's not as traumatised? Not only does he have to deal with the shame, humiliation, lack of control over his body, guilt, embarrassed, scared, feeling powerless, feeling as though he's lost control of his manhood, embarrassed and ashamed because he got an erection, etc.. except for loss of control over manhood and the erection bit, the feelings are just as bad as that of a female rape victim. Like a female rape victim he has to face the fear of an STD and possible pregnancy of his rapist (assuming it's a woman). In most instances he's also physically abused by his rapist, who can use threats of harm with a weapon to get him to co-operate. So he needs to deal with that as well. He may also be physically hurt in other ways by his rape. But mentally, he will be as injured as a female victim. Why? Becaue rape is one of the most violating crimes that can be committed on a person. So please get your facts straight. Because you never know.. a guy might be reading this who has been raped and your saying what you have said could add to his feeling of confusion and shame. As with female rape victims, male rape victims suffer from the public perception that they wanted it, and if the rapist is female, that he somehow 'scored'. Like female rape victims, drugs and alcohol are often used on a male rape victim. And yes ToR, a man can get an erection even in his sleep or if he is unconscious and even if he's drunk or drugged.

Stress, fear, anxiety.. all of the gamut of emotions a person can feel during a rape can result in a man getting an erection. Men get erections several times a day without having to be aroused or be sexually stimulated. It just happens. I'm surprised that as an adult woman, you don't know that yet. He may even get aroused, as can a woman as the body does react even if the mind is rejecting what is happening. Both male and female rape victims have been known to even climax while raped, a fact that many have tried, unsuccessfully, to use as a defence. Why? Because even the most uneducated boor will know that the body can react to certain things even if the mind has shut down.

30 seconds of searching on the internet. You should try it sometime before you start spouting things that are completely false.

Erection and ejaculation are physiological responses that may result from mere physical contact or even extreme stress. These responses do not imply that you wanted or enjoyed the assault and do not indicate anything about your sexual orientation. Some rapists are aware how erection and ejaculation can confuse a victim of sexual assault -- this motivates them to manipulate their victims to the point of erection or ejaculation to increase their feelings of control and to discourage reporting of the crime.
Link

This next one even has pictures for you, since you seem to have issues understanding the written word:

getting an erection shows nothing other than your body responds how it is suppose to do. It is a totally normal thing to happen and has nothing to do with desire. Have you never been on a bus, or sat in an office meeting, and it has gone hard all by it's self for no reason ?

Basically, unless you have some medical condition that stops you then you will get an erection when it is manipulated. It is a result of stimulation, and it does not matter if you do not want it to happen or not. There is little you can do to stop it most of the time.

Sadly, some males become confused and think an erection equals arousal equals them wanting it. In reality all it means is that part of the body has nerve endings that respond to touch and that touch can be wanted or not wanted, pleasant or non pleasant. With lubricant you will have even less choice as to how it responds to touch. It is the same as the body will respond to someone tickling you and you will probably laugh, but if it is done at a time or by a person you do not want to tickle you it will still respond.

If you were penetrated, the pressure in the prostate gland (see diagram below) also will cause an erection. Anyone who has ever had a DRE (short for Digital Rectal Exam) of the prostate at their doctors will know that getting an erection often happens during the examination.

Now as far as ejaculation goes, again this is a very normal thing to have happened. In fact, the rapist will very often go out of their way to make sure that you do ejaculate, in order to try to make you more ashamed, (adds to their dominate feeling of power) and also they know it will likely reduce your chances of reporting the crime. First off, it is because it is a normal reaction to stimulation. Second, the pressure on the prostate will, by it's self, release some fluid, making the penis more sensitive to that stimulation. In fact, it is possible for a doctor to obtain a semen sample during a DRE. Pressure on the seminal vesicle will likewise release a lot of fluid, and could resemble ejaculation to some extent, although may feel different.
Link

male rape victims suffer a similar fear that female rape victims face -- that people will believe the myth that they may have enjoyed being raped. Some men may believe they were not raped or that they gave consent because they became sexually aroused, had an erection, or ejaculated during the sexual assault. These are normal, involuntary physiological reactions. It does not mean that the victim wanted to be raped or sexually assaulted, or that the survivor enjoyed the traumatic experience. Sexual arousal does not necessarily mean there was consent.
Link

Sometimes men will experience an erection or ejaculate during their assaults as an involuntary response to physical sensation, intense fear or pain.
Link

As James said, read up before making stupidly false statements. And for goodness sake, go back to school and study basic biology and human anatomy.

 

[Baron Max]

Geez. I come back for a quick read and...

Well, geez, you must not come here to read Bells' and Tiassa's posts!!! Those damned things ain't no "quick read", and that's a fact!!

You must stay up late into the night typin' up all those damned words. Can't you spend just a little more time to condense your posts into something that's simple, straightforward and readable? If you did, I'm sure that not only would people be thankful, but you might actually change some opinions. If people wanted to read books, they'd go to the library.

Baron Max