Diadem wrote:Thirdly: You're wrong. How traumatic an experience is, does not depend on how how unpleasant an activity is, but on the feelings and emotions involved. Specifically on your sense of integrity being violated. Rapeis not traumatic because its hurts, or because the activity is unpleasant. It is traumatic because your integrity is being violated. Because someone is taking away your autonomy over yourself. The intentions of the other person are also very important. Someone accidently hurting you is much less traumatic than someone doing that on purpose. For all those reasons, realizing halfway through a sexgame that you want to quit, but being unable to, is much less traumatic than actual rape.
So basically, you can make up whatever shit you want to tell yourself without justifying any of your claims at all, and the burden of proof is on us to prove that continuing with sex when your partner does not want it is rape.
Well, doh. Of course the burden of proof lies with you. You're the accuser. The burder on proof lies with the accuser, not the accused. That's a good principle not just in courts of law, but in any debate. The one who makes the claim (that is: a different claim than the null-hypothesis) has to proof it.
But what you have to proof is not the name of the activity, but the morality of it. Ultimate a name is just a label. I personally think it's silly to call two completely unrelated activities rape, but if you insist on doing so, well, a name is just a label. What you have to show is why it would be immoral. So far, I have not seen a single argument for that.
Nor can I think of one. And I'm really trying.
Malice wrote:You said: Rape (you know, rape-rape, the real thing) is unpleasant and traumatic, whereas sex without a safe word that turns unwanted is unpleasant but not as traumatic.
I said (a bit badly, I admit): Anytime sex is against your will, it's rape, and it's the fact of it being against your will that makes it traumatic, therefore they are equally traumatic.
That's fair summary of what i said
Thanks. We obviously disagree though. I think what you are forgetting is that while the sex may at that point be against your will, you signed up in advance for the risk of that happening. That makes a big difference, psychologically. Your will is not being ignored, it is being misread. There is no malice on the side of your partner, he's still respecting your personal integrity. There's no betrayal of trust. Those things really make a big difference. Another important factor that makes rape so traumatic is fear. You don't know what's going on, what's going to happen, what else he is going to do, if you'll even survive. Such fear will be almost entirely absent in a situation where you are having sex without a safe word.
So yeah. Sex without a safe word that turns unwanted is unpleasant but hardly traumatic.
Sex against your will is rape, whether or not you are able to indicate your will. Someone who has been roofied and then fucked has been raped, despite the fact that they were unable to say no or fight back. Sex with a coma patient is rape, even though they're unconscious. Sex with a person who is blacked-out unconscious drunk is rape (even though they willingly removed their ability to protest via drinking, even if they originally intended to drink as a precursor to sex). Sex with somebody who can't speak, move, or indicate distress is rape if it ends up being against their will. Is that rape the partner's fault? That's debatable. But sex against your will is rape. Period.
Well by that logic: Killing is murder. Period. Hitting someone is abuse. Period.
I'm saying "Sure, in general that's true. But there are expections". If you want to argue that no such exceptions exist, sure, but don't do that by rigorously restating your original premise. Give me actual arguments of why sex without a safe word would not be such an exception. Or better yet give me actual arguments why it would be immoral. Because like I said above in response to Philwelch: Morality is what is important. At the end of the day a name is just a label.
The bolded portion is what I disagree with--your assertion and then your restated conclusion. I don't think getting run over by a drunk driver is any more traumatic than getting run over by Kurt Russell from Death Proof.
You're confusing physical trauma with mental trauma. Obviously for physical trauma who does it, or why, is not relevant. But I'm talking about emotional trauma.
In fact, it might be more traumatic knowing that your partner is raping you unwittingly in an act they consider to be loving. But on the whole I don't think the intentions of the rapist matter to the rape victim in any real sense. Rape is traumatic because of the loss of control. Doesn't matter whether it's accidental or malicious.
Disagree. See above.
The Great Hippo wrote:First: The moment someone withdraws their consent, it is now rape. That's some pretty basic stuff and if you can't wrap your head around it, then God help you.
Same logic here as Malice the post before you, so you get the same answer: By that logic killing is always murder, and hitting someone is always abuse. Sure most of the time that is true. But simply declaring all exceptions to be non-existent is not a convincing argument.
Second: I would really, really not go around telling people who have been raped under similar circumstances (basically, any circumstance where consent was withdrawn for whatever reason) that their experiences are less traumatic and do not constitute "actual" rape.
Have you even read the thread? Calling "any circumstance where consent was withdrawn" a similar circumstance makes me wonder if you have. It's like calling a dog and a tree similar because they are both alive.