|
|
 Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
This is shown in the fact that she has no regard for any perspective but the one that leads to it being a rape - "Any instance of sexual contact or activity without consent is sexual assault. Whether a legal case can be built or not is a separate issue."
The moment the girl removed consent, it became rape. How she removed consent doesn't matter. Whether the consent can be reasonably removed doesn't matter. That she did not make it known to the raper that he had changed from partner to monster is not a fault of hers if she claims she was in any way uncomfortable with saying no.
That probably is a decent definition of rape, but if you're going to define rape so broadly, then you might run into a situation where (good god, I can just imagine the day when posting these words on a public forum comes back to haunt me) being a raper isn't morally bad because its possible for them to be "raping" someone without ever possibly having any knowledge that they're doing anything other than making love.
It's like if someone defined suicide so widely that eating a poisoned food fell under the definition, regardless of whether or not they knew that the food was poisoned; are we going to, all of the sudden, decide that someone who was unknowingly poisoned was an immoral person who gave up on life and all those other sorts of associations we have with suicide? No. It would just mean either that our definition sucks, or that the connotations associated with the word isn't going to *gasp* be applicable 100% of the time.
So regardless of whatever the fuck we call this scenario, if the guy legitimately has no idea whatsoever that he is doing anything other than making love with a consensual partner, then he has literally done nothing morally different from any other guy who has ever had sex ever.
In other words, her answer's illogical, but it's the same kind of fallacy that people fall under allllll the fuckin' time (people dice up the definitions of words like "lies" and "homocide" and things like that ALLLL the time because it makes it easier for them to categorize what types of actions are right and wrong, even though the simpler answer is to just say that not all instances of "purposefully misleading someone from the truth" or of "killing a human" are immoral). She looked up the word in Webster, saw that this fell under the definition of a word with a (rightfully so) wretched fucking connotation, and deemed it bad. It's Lazy Morality 101. Pretty much 99.999% of humans do it.
However, in light of some of the responses, I think it's worth pointing out that it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to presume that most guys who are sympathetic to care about what their sexual partner is feeling will, in most cases, notice if someone's not into it all the sudden. This is completely outside of the logic of the Blog Q&A person, so I'm not really defending her. I'm just saying that I've poked a girl at a wrong angle, or noticed a girl start to get too sleepy to be into it, or any other number of not-the-same-but-it's-kinda-comparable situations, and I can say that I think that decent people will generally show enough care and concern to be like, "You enjoying this? Should I keep going?"
It's not the same as jumping someone in a dark alley, or roofying a drink, or anything else as intent-full, but again, this refers back to how deeming all acts that fall under the same technical umbrella of a certain word with certain connotations is a miserably lazy way of approaching these conversations.
|
Is this bitch crazy?
Reply With Quote
