-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
US Redefines Rape
- Thread starter Trey of Diamonds
- Start date
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I've been raped!
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
You were asking for it.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Yep, the definition is 80+ years old and has only now been changed. It doesn't change any laws though, it only changes statistical information for bean counters.
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
That's good! There might not be as many cases of rape with men but it does happen! Also, I'd imagine some victims wouldn't resist because they were terrified, it was with someone close or a bf/gf.
Well anyway, it's really good!
I think people will be surprised to find out more men are raped than they think.
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
That is very great news indeed. It also enforces my love-hate feelings towards the current administration.
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
I have a problem with this revised definition: rape is "the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object," without the consent of the victim. Also constituting rape under the new definition is "oral penetration by a sex organ of another person" without consent.
Both of these definitions exclude woman-on-man rape in which the man is drugged or says 'no/stop.'
Both of these definitions exclude woman-on-man rape in which the man is drugged or says 'no/stop.'
There is "penetration of the " vagina, anus, or oral cavity "without consent of the victim" in the case of woman-on-man rape. It doesn't specify that the penetrator is the rapist or that the penetrated is the victim. It just specifies that someone is penetrated without someone's consent
(Probably splitting hairs here)
I think I prefer the Canadian approach: our criminal code doesn't have the crime of rape; just sexual assault of varying degrees. You don't have to establish "penetration" or anything like that to establish that a crime took place, just that it was an assault and had a sexual aspect to it. Beyond that, it's a matter of the resulting harm or whether any extenuating circumstances were present (i.e. if a weapon was used, or if the assault was on a child).
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
^ Yus.
Getting stuck on details of the definitions is unhelpful! Instead focus on the outcomes
Getting stuck on details of the definitions is unhelpful! Instead focus on the outcomes
How do you define commonly? Seems to me that a large number of people still find it difficult to think that men can even be victims of domestic violence from women, let alone raped by women. And rape can add the additional conceptual difficulty for some of a man with an erection who isn't aroused/willing (despite the fact that it has long been recognized that even women can exhibit the physiological signs of arousal despite unwanted sexual assault and a complete lack of emotional or mental arousal). Personally, I think there are too many people who still think along the lines of "well, if he got it up he must have wanted it."
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
I don't think that's too common recently. My discussions and readings may not accurately reflect the U.S., but in my experience, people are aware that physiological arousal can happen to both sexes, and that women can be violent. There's quite a bit of literature on addressing the shame, confusion, and self-hatred victims of either gender of molestation experience. Many of the feelings males have are the same as females.
I wasn't thinking of the specifics of arousal. To be honest, I had the concept of man-on-man rape in mind. But yeah, regardless, I would be incredibly surprised to find anyone who doesn't believe that men can be raped, and I live in a pretty conservative area.
I thought so too until I learned of the problems someone I knew had with the police, other college students (including some friends), and probably more. And I live outside of Boston, MA, hardly a conservative area. One officer actually said "well if you didn't want it, how did you get it up?" despite the fact that the guy had been drugged.
As for me, I've always thought of myself as forward thinking and egalitarian. Yet it wasn't until a relationship of mine ended after several years and I happened to be taking a psychology class on trauma (it covered domestic abuse of men by women) that I realized I had been in a physically and emotionally abusive relationship. It simply had never occurred to me because after all, I was stronger, I could have physically prevented her from harming me, and so on. If I had been on the outside looking at another couple, I would have had no problems saying "this is an abusive relationship." But apparently the prejudices I didn't even know I had prevented me from coming to that conclusion in my own relationship.
Me Myself
Back to my username
This! WTFRAK?!!