Rape: Can a person who was raped enjoy the experience?

[Kaiserin]

I must've missed you posting the source, so I'll apologize for that much. However...

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.

Then clearly we should just close this thread by that logic, because the dictionary solves everything! Even though there's plenty of words with alternate usages, colloquial or specialized or whatever, that don't show up in the dictionary.

You don't get to say "this is what the dictionary says so it's automatically right, the end, I win" in a debate. Any debate. It doesn't work that way.

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.

On that note, I decided to do some Googling, and I came up with this. It boils down to rape being either:

A) Sex that clearly lacks consent,
B) Sex that involves force, coercion/threats, blackmail, etc.,
C) Sex performed when the victim is unable to issue consent otherwise, such as comatose, asleep, or otherwise incapacitated.

A and B aren't really up for discussion as to whether they'd be enjoyed by the victim, but C is a little trickier. Assuming, for example, a girl of legal age is asleep or unconscious, and her boyfriend, for whatever reason, begins to make sexual contact or even penetrates her. If she doesn't realize it's happening and is physically or mentally unable to consent, it's rape.

...But then, we move onto the question of whether or not she enjoyed it after the fact. Personally, I think if any sane girl found out her boyfriend had sex with her in her sleep, she'd be skeeved as hell and dump his *** real quick.

Now, let's change the story a bit from the girl being unconscious to her being mentally or physically incapacitated, but still conscious and able to understand at some level what's going on. Maybe she's been in an accident and sustained some injuries. She still can't consent to the sex legally, but she's aware of what's happening. She may have wanted to get intimate with him previously, maybe before this hypothetical accident, and she may still want to even after it. The question isn't whether that's rape, though, it's whether she can enjoy it.

Well, let me put it this way, I suppose. Is she capable of enjoying it? To some extent, yes, though it depends on the person because various people have various reactions to being raped, during and after the fact, whether they wanted it or not. Is she likely to enjoy it? I'm inclined to say no, because most women who can think for themselves will be revolted as hell that any significant other they may have at the time would do that to them while they're in a state that disallows them from participating, enjoying it fully, or even really clearly consenting to it.

I maintain that no matter what the circumstances of the rape happen to be, no matter the age or gender of the victim, it will still do some damage to them, mentally if not physically. Even if they don't understand it, or aren't conscious of the change in them... it will still hurt them in some way. And taking into account the fact that they might not understand it hurt them can then call into question whether they can really enjoy something like that, in a mind that most people wouldn't consider completely "right".

 

[Ludwig]

Then clearly we should just close this thread by that logic, because the dictionary solves everything! Even though there's plenty of words with alternate usages, colloquial or specialized or whatever, that don't show up in the dictionary.

Alternate usages that's not in the dictionary aren't English.

You don't get to say "this is what the dictionary says so it's automatically right, the end, I win" in a debate. Any debate. It doesn't work that way.

Of course it does. Debating for any reason other than to convince doesn't make sense and the best way to convince is to give an absolute fact from a good source that say that your opinion is right.

On that note, I decided to do some Googling, and I came up with this. It boils down to rape being either:

A) Sex that clearly lacks consent,
B) Sex that involves force, coercion/threats, blackmail, etc.,
C) Sex performed when the victim is unable to issue consent otherwise, such as comatose, asleep, or otherwise incapacitated.

A and B aren't really up for discussion as to whether they'd be enjoyed by the victim, but C is a little trickier. Assuming, for example, a girl of legal age is asleep or unconscious, and her boyfriend, for whatever reason, begins to make sexual contact or even penetrates her. If she doesn't realize it's happening and is physically or mentally unable to consent, it's rape.

A include what I listed as "1." and "2.", read my arguments for why "1." can be enjoyed.

 

[SouthParkPikachu]

I say no because it's a very traumatic experience. (believe me, i know)

 

[SoulMuse]

To be frank, due to the strange nature of fetish people have, and exactly how they work, it is very likely that out there somewhere, someone was raped and enjoyed it.

Now bear something in mind. While rape is sex without the consent of the second party, that does not mean that they cannot enjoy it.

 

[Kaiserin]

Alternate usages that's not in the dictionary aren't English.

Funny how people can use them in English conversations all the same and still understand what's being said, then, huh?

Of course it does. Debating for any reason other than to convince doesn't make sense and the best way to convince is to give an absolute fact from a good source that say that your opinion is right.

...Seriously? I vehemently beg to differ with you there.

A lot of people actually acknowledge that debating in an attempt to change the opinions of other people is an exercise in futility at its finest. Which it often is, if those people are already set in their opinion. Debating is also not necessarily about being "absolutely right with no room for argument", particularly on topics where there's simply no such thing as a right answer.

You still don't seem to want to put in the effort to defend your stance, so again I ask, why are you bothering?

A include what I listed as "1." and "2.", read my arguments for why "1." can be enjoyed.

1. It's not without consent and without willingness, it's without consent and/or without willingness.
2. Can means that there is a possibility of it being that way and the only thing about the probability that it tells is that it's larger than 0% and because of that vague description about probability, it's not used about the cases with a 100% probability. Therefore, what you're calling "clearly not enjoyable" doesn't apply to all cases.

I argued in my last post that it's quite possible the victim may or may not be considered mentally damaged, distressed, or otherwise not quite in the right state of mind to genuinely enjoy it because of the psychological effects sexual assault can have on a person. I'm not a psychologist, so I couldn't exactly get into specifics, but I'd be very surprised if a rape victim in any of the three scenarios said she enjoyed it in retrospect, and no one looked at her even the slightest bit funny like she was probably too distraught to realize the gravity of what had happened to her. Or perhaps that her mind was trying to convince her she enjoyed it to try and protect herself from the harsh truth that she didn't enjoy it, and that she was in fact violated against her will no matter how she slices it.

Your thoughts?

 

[SoulMuse]

I would agree with that. But if then that raises the question of defining "enjoy". Is enjoying the act taking pleasure from it, feeling good during it or something totally different?

 

[Ludwig]

Funny how people can use them in English conversations all the same and still understand what's being said, then, huh?

That wouldn't be English conversations. The closest to it would be partly English and partly undefined language.

...Seriously? I vehemently beg to differ with you there.

A lot of people actually acknowledge that debating in an attempt to change the opinions of other people is an exercise in futility at its finest. Which it often is, if those people are already set in their opinion. Debating is also not necessarily about being "absolutely right with no room for argument", particularly on topics where there's simply no such thing as a right answer.

You still don't seem to want to put in the effort to defend your stance, so again I ask, why are you bothering?

If there is no right answer, I won't have an opinion about it and therefore won't debate about it.

I argued in my last post that it's quite possible the victim may or may not be considered mentally damaged, distressed, or otherwise not quite in the right state of mind to genuinely enjoy it because of the psychological effects sexual assault can have on a person. I'm not a psychologist, so I couldn't exactly get into specifics, but I'd be very surprised if a rape victim in any of the three scenarios said she enjoyed it in retrospect, and no one looked at her even the slightest bit funny like she was probably too distraught to realize the gravity of what had happened to her. Or perhaps that her mind was trying to convince her she enjoyed it to try and protect herself from the harsh truth that she didn't enjoy it, and that she was in fact violated against her will no matter how she slices it.

Your thoughts?

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.

A person could want to have intercourse without telling about it and then get raped and get what (s)he wanted without telling that (s)he wants it. Very possible to enjoy.

 

[Kaiserin]

That wouldn't be English conversations. The closest to it would be partly English and partly undefined language.

...Now you're just getting into ridiculous semantics, bro.

If there is no right answer, I won't have an opinion about it and therefore won't debate about it.

Implying your opinion is always right...? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this statement.

A person could want to have intercourse without telling about it and then get raped and get what (s)he wanted without telling that (s)he wants it. Very possible to enjoy.

That would only happen, presumably, in the case where the victim is incapacitated or otherwise unable to express consent or lack thereof. If her boyfriend comes onto her while she's conscious, if a little too forcefully, but she decides she likes it and goes along with it, it's consensual sex. After that, she can't claim it was rape if she was legally capable of consenting, and all signs point to the fact she did. Most girls who aren't doormats will not take something like being screwed in their sleep lightly when they find out about it, though, if they have any say in it (and they should).

I'm pretty sure what I said before still applies, though, even if she supposedly wanted it before. Rape is a pretty traumatic experience no matter what, so even if she thinks she enjoyed it in retrospect, the doubt as to how mentally sound her own assessment is will still be there on some level.

 

[Grei]

... it's not like there's some rule that rape MUST NOT be enjoyed. Of course they can enjoy it. It's just not that common to hear.

Depending on the circumstance (like a woman raping a man), it's not that hard to imagine the victim getting pleasure out of the experience.

 

[Ludwig]

If her boyfriend comes onto her while she's conscious, if a little too forcefully, but she decides she likes it and goes along with it, it's consensual sex. After that, she can't claim it was rape if she was legally capable of consenting, and all signs point to the fact she did.

If she doesn't speak or write, she haven't done any communication and therefore haven't done anything to express consent.

 

[Kaiserin]

... it's not like there's some rule that rape MUST NOT be enjoyed. Of course they can enjoy it. It's just not that common to hear.

Depending on the circumstance (like a woman raping a man), it's not that hard to imagine the victim getting pleasure out of the experience.

Define "pleasure", though. I think at this point we need to clarify what's meant not by the definition of rape itself, but the definition of "enjoying" it.

If she doesn't speak or write, she haven't done any communication and therefore haven't done anything to express consent.

I'm not talking about mutes/illiterates. I meant in the case of someone perfectly able and lucid enough to consent. In cases where the girl might say she didn't want it, but didn't verbally or otherwise demonstrate her unwillingness to participate, it can be (and often is) harder to get a conviction or establish if it really was rape.

When it comes to mutes, though? As long as they're not otherwise disabled mentally in a way that would hinder the ability to give consent, there are other ways she can express a "no" without verbalizing it. Struggling, trying to push the attacker away, and just generally being unsexy.

...I'm also inclined to think female on male rape between two legal participants is not only extremely rare, but a rather interesting exception -- after all, it's society's opinion, and often the internalized opinion of many men themselves, that men don't get raped by women. Which again boils down to rape being more about misogyny and power over women or individuals perceived as feminine/weak than anything else.

 

[Ludwig]

I'm not talking about mutes/illiterates.

Me neither.

 

[Kaiserin]

Me neither.

In that case, you're flat-out wrong. Clearly communicating a "no" is important, certainly, but those aren't the only things that can demonstrate lack of consent. As I mentioned, struggling and attempting to push the attacker away will definitely help the victim's case when it comes to determining if she wanted it or not.

It'd also be nice if you stopped replying with one-liners, you know. :\

 

[Mister_SGG]

In some part of them, they'd be enjoying it. It's sexual intercourse. We instinctively enjoy it.

 

[Ludwig]

In that case, you're flat-out wrong. Clearly communicating a "no" is important, certainly, but those aren't the only things that can demonstrate lack of consent. As I mentioned, struggling and attempting to push the attacker away will definitely help the victim's case when it comes to determining if she wanted it or not.

It'd also be nice if you stopped replying with one-liners, you know. :\

If (s)he doesn't communicate, she doesn't express consent. If (s)he doesn't express consent, it's rape. (S)he could want it very badly without saying that and then get raped and enjoy it without communicating.

 

[Kaiserin]

If (s)he doesn't communicate, she doesn't express consent. If (s)he doesn't express consent, it's rape. (S)he could want it very badly without saying that and then get raped and enjoy it without communicating.

If it were that easy to determine, the women who accuse men of varying importance in their lives of raping them who manage to get a conviction against them, even when it's established they did not ever really say no, would be pretty SOL whether or not they were making things up.

It's not unthinkable that a victim wouldn't verbally say no even though they want to. Maybe the guy is threatening them with force or blackmail, and they're too terrified for their lives to say no or otherwise resist.

By that logic, they weren't raped, correct?

 

[SoulMuse]

That raises the question of what consent is defined as, is consent simply verbally agreeing, or is consent actaully wanting the act, and agreeing without duress.

 

[Ludwig]

If it were that easy to determine, the women who accuse men of varying importance in their lives of raping them who manage to get a conviction against them, even when it's established they did not ever really say no, would be pretty SOL whether or not they were making things up.

Saying no and not giving consent is not the same.

It's not unthinkable that a victim wouldn't verbally say no even though they want to. Maybe the guy is threatening them with force or blackmail, and they're too terrified for their lives to say no or otherwise resist.

By that logic, they weren't raped, correct?

It doesn't matter which of the definitions we assume is correct, that scenario would be considered rape by the alternative criteria.

A) Sex that clearly lacks consent,
B) Sex that involves force, coercion/threats, blackmail, etc.,
C) Sex performed when the victim is unable to issue consent otherwise, such as comatose, asleep, or otherwise incapacitated.

1. Without consent from the raped, but the raped person still being willing to do it.
2. Without consent from the rape and without the raped person being willing to do it.
3. With consent from the raped, but the raped person not being willing to do it.

That raises the question of what consent is defined as, is consent simply verbally agreeing, or is consent actaully wanting the act, and agreeing without duress.

Consent is to give permission, which require communication.

 

[Skydra]

There really is no debate here. As we naturally enjoy sex, we enjoy it in some way, whether or not it was forced upon us. Maybe the title is a bit misleading to what the thread entails.

 

[Kaiserin]

Saying no and not giving consent is not the same.

Consent is to give permission, which require communication.

Communication does not necessarily have to involve words. As I said before, you can still theoretically get a conviction against someone who raped you even if you did not/were unable to say no verbally for whatever reason. It's not the only criteria used to determine if someone able-bodied and able-minded was raped.