I can't separate my general impression from my legal opinion. Rape is a legal term with a very well articulated definition, and I don't have a "general impression" of rape beyond that legal definition. In my mind, rape *is* the legal definition. I'm also going to assume Pat is a girl and Kris is a boy even though their sexes and genders aren't specified in the OP and don't affect my opinion, purely in order to make my comment easier to read. With that disclaimer in mind:
She didn't give any indication that she was consenting, so it was rape. It doesn't matter to me why Pat was pretending to be passed out, because Kris believed she was passed out and he still did it. No amount of acting vulnerable could make Kris do what he did. Kris thought he was having sex with an unconsenting person. He believed himself to be committing a crime when he did it. That's pretty strong evidence that he's a dangerous person.
Perhaps there is a difference between "Kris raped Pat" and "Pat was raped by Kris". Kris definitely raped Pat, because he had sex with her when she didn't give any indication of consent. I don't think that is a debatable point. However, if Pat was fully lucid and in no way felt pressured or scared Pat probably didn't feel like it was rape. It's impossible to guess with any accuracy what Pat felt without knowing her motivation, though, so I wouldn't put words in her mouth.
Interesting comment about not being able to separate the legal definition from your general idea of what rape is. I feel the same way, but there are a few exceptions. In cases where someone actually did consent but the law says it doesn't count I don't really think of that as rape. For example if Kris *previously* told Pat "I would love it if you had sex with me while I'm unconscious.". That probably wouldn't work legally, but it's good enough for me. Or on the other hand in some places (such as England, I think?) if Kris is a woman, she can't commit rape no matter what, but I don't agree with that.
I agree that if Pat previously (and very recently - like, immediately before the sex and while Pat was sober) told Kris "I would love it if you had sex with me while I'm unconscious" it would be okay, because I think that qualifies as consent.
Looking back, I over-simplified my relationship with the law. I live in England myself, and I'm not sure about how legal discussion of female-on-male rape works exactly. The law is very specific about "penetration of the victim", so I'm almost certain that women can be convicted for rape if they penetrate another person with a "penis-like object" (a dildo, fingers, whatever). But if a women forces a man to penetrate her, I believe this would be considered sexual and not rape assault in the eyes of the law. I completely agree with you that this is bullshit and sexist.
Is this rape?
← View full post
I can't separate my general impression from my legal opinion. Rape is a legal term with a very well articulated definition, and I don't have a "general impression" of rape beyond that legal definition. In my mind, rape *is* the legal definition. I'm also going to assume Pat is a girl and Kris is a boy even though their sexes and genders aren't specified in the OP and don't affect my opinion, purely in order to make my comment easier to read. With that disclaimer in mind:
She didn't give any indication that she was consenting, so it was rape. It doesn't matter to me why Pat was pretending to be passed out, because Kris believed she was passed out and he still did it. No amount of acting vulnerable could make Kris do what he did. Kris thought he was having sex with an unconsenting person. He believed himself to be committing a crime when he did it. That's pretty strong evidence that he's a dangerous person.
Perhaps there is a difference between "Kris raped Pat" and "Pat was raped by Kris". Kris definitely raped Pat, because he had sex with her when she didn't give any indication of consent. I don't think that is a debatable point. However, if Pat was fully lucid and in no way felt pressured or scared Pat probably didn't feel like it was rape. It's impossible to guess with any accuracy what Pat felt without knowing her motivation, though, so I wouldn't put words in her mouth.
--
Couman
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Interesting comment about not being able to separate the legal definition from your general idea of what rape is. I feel the same way, but there are a few exceptions. In cases where someone actually did consent but the law says it doesn't count I don't really think of that as rape. For example if Kris *previously* told Pat "I would love it if you had sex with me while I'm unconscious.". That probably wouldn't work legally, but it's good enough for me. Or on the other hand in some places (such as England, I think?) if Kris is a woman, she can't commit rape no matter what, but I don't agree with that.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
I agree that if Pat previously (and very recently - like, immediately before the sex and while Pat was sober) told Kris "I would love it if you had sex with me while I'm unconscious" it would be okay, because I think that qualifies as consent.
Looking back, I over-simplified my relationship with the law. I live in England myself, and I'm not sure about how legal discussion of female-on-male rape works exactly. The law is very specific about "penetration of the victim", so I'm almost certain that women can be convicted for rape if they penetrate another person with a "penis-like object" (a dildo, fingers, whatever). But if a women forces a man to penetrate her, I believe this would be considered sexual and not rape assault in the eyes of the law. I completely agree with you that this is bullshit and sexist.