I already asked. I have yet to get a response.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Rape: Can a person who was raped enjoy the experience?
- Thread starter The Director
- Start date
- Status
I already asked. I have yet to get a response.
SasakiThePikachu
like pepsi cola
I've always hated that line 'I feel I've been violated, and not in a good way'. Why do so many writers think that injects some comedy into the siuation? Worse still; why do people laugh? There is no 'good way' to be violated. Being violated is not f*cking funny.
As to the question at hand, I guess some folks might have fantasies and fetishes about this kind of thing - S/M and all that - but I doubt many would actually enjoy the experience if they were put into that terrible, life-altering situation. If anything, they'd probably be horrified about the reality of what they've fantasised about in the comfort of their bedrooms. And if you're asking ina roundabout way if someone can reach orgasm through rape...well then probably, but that's a bodily reaction, and nothing to do with the brain or emotions. And it certainly doesn't mean you've 'enjoyed' it.
As to the question at hand, I guess some folks might have fantasies and fetishes about this kind of thing - S/M and all that - but I doubt many would actually enjoy the experience if they were put into that terrible, life-altering situation. If anything, they'd probably be horrified about the reality of what they've fantasised about in the comfort of their bedrooms. And if you're asking ina roundabout way if someone can reach orgasm through rape...well then probably, but that's a bodily reaction, and nothing to do with the brain or emotions. And it certainly doesn't mean you've 'enjoyed' it.
There's a big difference between consensual master/slave or dom/sub relationships that may or may not include various kinky things, and being forced into it. There's actually plenty of people who get off to controlling or being controlled sexually, but they get into those kinds of relationships willingly, I would hope. Grabbing someone and trying to force them into sex without any reason for it is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
The mind is the most powerful sex organ normally, and it remains that way even in cases of non-consensual sex, during which it may do all manner of things to try and cope or protect itself.
The mind is the most powerful sex organ normally, and it remains that way even in cases of non-consensual sex, during which it may do all manner of things to try and cope or protect itself.
Consent is giving permission.
Person A might want to have intercourse with person B but person A doesn't tell person B about that and then person B rapes person A by forcing intercourse with person A without them talking about it first. That is an example of rape without consent but with willingness.
They are not my definitions.
SoulSilverMstr411
Hikikomori
I was reading about this this moring - I have odd reading habits - and it seems some people do get off on it.
Um...it makes perfect sense to me. Let's say I want to have sex with this girl, but I don't tell her, and one day she date-rapes me. I'm willing to do it, but I never gave her consent.
Ze DreamGirl
Future Vaporeon
I don't think that such a situation is likely to happen often...
Consent:
To say Yes
Willing:
Freely participating
Rape:
You pose an interesting paradox, I've known a couple ladies who like it a bit rough, I've also watched a crime show or two that had rapists who forced sex at gun point but did not perform brutally nor did they beat the woman.
In very (VERY) rare circumstances, I think you may be right. YET, forcing someone to have sex is still a crime! Remember if she says NO even once (even if it's afterwards), it is a crime! Whether she is left satisfied or violated.
So you can't actually explain or justify them? Cool.
Gonna second what Malanu said above; the fact that it's rape doesn't lie in the end result or the feelings of the participants after the fact, it lies in the fact that it was an unprovoked and unwanted sexual advance to begin with. Even if the victim has conflicted feelings after the fact, as long as those feelings are even a little dubious and not "yes, I wanted it" right off the bat, it's still rape.
That doesn't matter.
We're obviously not using the same dictionary.
The definition of consent is the same, but expressed with different words.
Willing is also similar, but I'm unsure about what the definition means (due to the word "readily", the context makes it different from "ready"). It does however seem like a form of the word will, making me think that it's supposed to be interpreted as having a motivation for doing it.
The definition of rape is different though, according to the dictionary I used, it is forcing sexual activities without the consent and/or willingness of the partner.
Other than that it's from a dictionary, yes.
Last edited:
...Why are you citing sources if you don't even plan on arguing for them for yourself, though? Are you expecting the sources you're referencing to do all the explaining for you, or are you just too lazy to put the effort into an actual debate?
Either way, if you can't/don't want to bother arguing your own opinion like that, maybe you shouldn't be posting in the thread to begin with. What's the point if you're not actually debating for yourself, anyway? You're effectively having some other source debate for you so much that you can't actually argue anything outside that source's jurisdiction, and that pretty much defeats the purpose of a debate the way I see it.
I'm arguing based on the source. The source is a definition, definitions are absolute, so there is nothing about it to argue about.
Ioneos
old geezer
...There are not enough hard surfaces in the world upon which to apply my head right now.
Definitions are not necessarily absolute, especially when you don't specify where the definitions came from. Words mean things, and they do not always mean the literal things a standard-issue English dictionary will tell you. Especially when it comes to specialized fields like medicine, psychology, or law.
If you're just going to post definitions without even saying where they originate from, refuse to explain them any further than what they literally say when challenged/questioned, and then justify that lack of explanation or elaboration into your own viewpoint with "you can't argue because that's what the dictionary says", you do not belong in a debate, full stop. You need to be able to back your **** up.
Sorry, but you're not actually debating at this point. You are trying to make the dictionary debate for you, and debates do not work that way. You need to use your own sources, your own brainpower, and your own grasp of the English language to get your point across. A few scant lines from a dictionary coupled with "it means exactly what it says, debate over, I win" is lazy, if nothing else.
TL;DR: If you are that terminally lazy that you cannot bother to actually debate and just throw out dictionary definitions and call them absolute truth, you might want to look into a different hobby.
...It kind of saddens me that I have to point this out at all, really.
CSolarstorm
New spicy version
Am I the only one who understood his explanation? His third definition of rape involves someone who incidentally already wanted to have sex with the rapist, but the rapist initiated it forcefully anyway. There's a problem with the definition of 'willing' - they were willing to have sex, but they didn't want to be raped. But nonetheless they were willing to perform a sexual act but wasn't asked, didn't give consent, before the person forced it.
Although I didn't write the source in every post, I did write it in the first post I copied the definition.
Definitions are absolute because otherwise the definition would be worthless. It's not possible to communicate if people have different interpretions of the words, because the person listening/reading would misunderstand what the person writing/talking means. It's the same as when people say something different than what they mean.
If it's not absolute, it's not understandable, because the words got finite definitions and infinite non-definitions.
I did post where it's from.
Definitions can't be discussed because any opinion about them that differs from the dictionary is incorrect.
The thread asks about if it's possible to enjoy rape and I argue that it is. It's possible by definition and therefore there is nothing left to debate about, yet you keep not agreeing.
It's not lazy. If I am to answer if it's possible to enjoy rape, I need to know exactly what is rape. The definition implies that it is possible and that ends the debate. Arguing against a definition is just stupid, you stop using English when you redefine the words.
That's what I wrote as "1.".
I certainly understood his explanation, in fact I gave an example of it. As for the thread itself, it's certainly possible to both mentally and physically enjoy it. It's still rape, though.
- Status