on a woman named jenny who raped a comatose man
22 comments
I don't know what to call it either, but as I was not a participant I cannot tell you who did what to whom, and did they enjoy it? Technically, yes. It's rape.
"But I'm also not sure that "rape" is what we should call this particular act."
Yes, we should call it rape. But I'm curious as to why you think it isn't. After all, even if the victim isn't conscious this is an act of dominance. Or do you not believe that the use of date rape drugs isn't rape either?
This doesn't seem very fundie. It is getting at a legitimate question, which is when does a person stop being a person. People with severe brain damage may be allowed to die on their own even though they don't consent. Is that murder? If a person is really so brain damaged that other legal standards no longer apply to them, why should the standard of consent that determines what is or isn't rape? It's almost more like necrophilia. I don't get the feeling that Kalhoun is defending the act, just pointing out that the concept of rape wasn't really intended to cover this highly peculiar corner case.
He is tentatively offering an opinion, and the reason he holds it. He uses the phrase "I'm not sure" twice. This, to me, seems neither bellicose nor fanatical.
... Y'know, if the genders were reversed, we would be a LOT angrier about this.
Food for thought, friends.
And, in any case, it is ABSOLUTELY fucking rape. There is no doubt about that.
Did the comatose man consent?
No?
Then it's rape.
And it's fundy as hell because this person is saying that unless the rapist intended "humiliation" or "soul-crushing dominance", it's not rape. Which means they're saying raping a drunk and passed out person isn't rape and "corrective rape" isn't rape, and raping a child isn't rape, and that any number of rapes that don't include those criteria aren't rape.
French law : a rape is "any kind of sexual penetration without consent".
Sewual : check
in France, at least, it's rape.
"And it's fundy as hell because this person is saying that unless the rapist intended "humiliation" or "soul-crushing dominance", it's not rape."
That has absolutely nothing to do with the operational definition of fundie that is supposedly being used by this site.
@ 1905331
Someone who believes that rape without humiliation or soul-crushing dominance isn't really rape fits the criteria of someone with "an extreme lack of rationality".
And that's even without delving into the sexism implied by OPs views.
He obviously didn't give his consent, so it is rape. She used his helpless body for her own satisfaction. No anger nor humiliation nor soul-crushing dominance (whatever that is) is needed, only loss of autonomy over your own body.
Why not call it rape? Having sex with someone without their prior consent is rape. That's what's happened here.
@lofgren
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
