i'm desensitized yay

[NOA_Haunted]

What..?

[Slim]

But I consider any form of sexual abuse worthy of the term rape, and the seriousness thereof.

You need to rethink your position then.

[the shortest route to the sea]

I think it is.

Groping a woman isn't anywhere near as severe as forcefully penetrating and impregnating her and possibly giving her an STD.

"Severe," you're absolutely right. But sexual abuse exists on a very wide spectrum, and people (not just woman's) reactions to different things can vary wildly. I'm not saying that there are many women who are more scared of being groped than being penetrated. But I am saying that even the less severe stuff can be serious and harmful, and should not be taken lightly by any means.

[Slim]

But I am saying that even the less severe stuff can be serious and harmful, and should not be taken lightly by any means.

How is calling it 'sexual assault' taking it lightly? You don't get to suddenly call it rape just because you want to really make sure everyone is taking it seriously enough for you.

I mean, if I punch someone in the face, it's considered assault and battery, and will be taken as seriously as the situation calls for. You don't get it to come in and call it homicide because you want people to take it more seriously, and then when someone points out that it was only assault, say "I don't think its particularly useful to differentiate the two" because you consider any form of physical abuse to be worthy of the term homicide. I mean, come on now. Don't be silly.

[ncba93ivyase]

"Severe," you're absolutely right. But sexual abuse exists on a very wide spectrum, and people (not just woman's) reactions to different things can vary wildly. I'm not saying that there are many women who are more scared of being groped than being penetrated. But I am saying that even the less severe stuff can be serious and harmful, and should not be taken lightly by any means.

Some people commit suicide because they're picked on at school. It doesn't mean verbal abuse should be considered murder.

If you grope a woman's tits, you'll still most likely be labelled a sex offender--that punishment alone exceeds the damage of the crime.

but yeah pretty much everything slim said

[the shortest route to the sea]

Some people commit suicide because they're picked on at school. It doesn't mean verbal abuse should be considered murder.

If you grope a woman's tits, you'll still most likely be labelled a sex offender--that punishment alone exceeds the damage of the crime.

but yeah pretty much everything slim said

So your point is...the verbal abuse is harmful, but it can't be considered the cause of murder because: a) it's not generally a serious thing and people get over it, b) it's just too much of a distance between the suicide and the words. Within that case, you're right. But being sexually abused is a far more serious thing than, I think, you're giving it credit here, in any context. There is no parallel between being called a slut by kids in the hall, and being groped and forcefully restrained by a few members of the football team.

I follow rape cases and stastics pretty closely, so I can with a pretty good deal of backup say that you are dead wrong. Most cases don't reach court, and the women live with the fact.

How is calling it 'sexual assault' taking it lightly? You don't get to suddenly call it rape just because you want to really make sure everyone is taking it seriously enough for you.

I mean, if I punch someone in the face, it's considered assault and battery, and will be taken as seriously as the situation calls for. You don't get it to come in and call it homicide because you want people to take it more seriously, and then when someone points out that it was only assault, say "I don't think its particularly useful to differentiate the two" because you consider any form of physical abuse to be worthy of the term homicide. I mean, come on now. Don't be silly.

Seriously enough for sexually abused women, the majority of whom do not report their abuse because they feel a socially-reinforced need to "suck it up." This is pretty big in America and Europe, and huge in a lot of other places and cultures.

The difference "assault and battery" and "attempted homocide" lies in both the intent and severity; that's by definition. The different between "rape" and "sexual assault" in legal courts is semantic, based on penetration. There's some illusion that just because there isn't penetration, it still can't be harmful and hurtful to a large degree.

If you want to say Clucky wasn't raped, fine. That's semantic, and if you're using the common legal and somewhat classical definition, you're right because you can point to a dictionary. But the growing definition of the word is far more fluid then just penetration; a quick read of dictionary.com, thinkers and pundits on articles on rape cases, all suggest that rape isn't just penetration. The denotation is fluid enough that I can use the word "rape" and be just as semantically correct as you; and by doing that, I stress the fact that "This is some serious shit." Which it is.

[Slim]

Seriously enough for sexually abused women, the majority of whom do not report their abuse because they feel a socially-reinforced need to "suck it up." This is pretty big in America and Europe, and huge in a lot of other places and cultures.

Yeah, we get it. You don't like sexual abuse. No one here is discussing the merits of rape and claiming it's wrong for people to report their abuse, so I don't see how any of this is relevant. The point is that clucky clearly wasn't raped, despite your desire to claim otherwise.

The difference "assault and battery" and "attempted homocide" lies in both the intent and severity; that's by definition. The different between "rape" and "sexual assault" in legal courts is semantic, based on penetration. There's some illusion that just because there isn't penetration, it still can't be harmful and hurtful to a large degree.

No such illusion exists. Everyone recognizes that it's still harmful and hurtful--just not to the degree that actual rape is, obviously.

If you want to say Clucky wasn't raped, fine. That's semantic, and if you're using the common legal and somewhat classical definition, you're right because you can point to a dictionary. But the growing definition of the word is far more fluid then just penetration; a quick read of dictionary.com, thinkers and pundits on articles on rape cases, all suggest that rape isn't just penetration. The denotation is fluid enough that I can use the word "rape" and be just as semantically correct as you; and by doing that, I stress the fact that "This is some serious shit." Which it is.

That's exactly what I want to say, and yes, I'm well aware that I'm right.
The legal definition is the only thing that's relevant here. The "fluid definition" that supposedly exists somewhere out there in the ether is insignificant. Sure, I get it, language itself is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean that I have to acknowledge any definition that someone cooks up out of nowhere as being just as legitimate as the legal definition of the term.

When people play video games and one player dominates another player, people sometimes say that the loser got 'raped.' If they then said that the definition of 'rape' is fluid and the emotional harm caused by losing is severe enough to warrant being considered a 'rape victim,' would you accept this claim and put their trauma on the same level as an actual rape victim's? Would they be just as semantically correct as you and thus deserving of equal acknowledgment?

Let's just stick with the legal definition, okay?

[the shortest route to the sea]

Yeah, we get it. You don't like sexual abuse. No one here is discussing the merits of rape and claiming it's wrong for people to report their abuse, so I don't see how any of this is relevant. The point is that clucky clearly wasn't raped, despite your desire to claim otherwise.

No such illusion exists. Everyone recognizes that it's still harmful and hurtful--just not to the degree that actual rape is, obviously.

Such illusion does exist, but not here I guess. My bad.

That's exactly what I want to say, and yes, I'm well aware that I'm right.
The legal definition is the only thing that's relevant here. The "fluid definition" that supposedly exists somewhere out there in the ether is insignificant. Sure, I get it, language itself is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean that I have to acknowledge any definition that someone cooks up out of nowhere as being just as legitimate as the legal definition of the term.

What the hell does the legal definition have that makes it legitimate? People don't have trauma based on whether it was an "assault and battery" or "attempted homocide as determined by the court; they have trauma because someone else violated their personal sanctity. The legal definition is a) useful, because it's clear whether there was a dick or inserted object or not; and b) rooted more in the past opinion of sex ("sex is insertion") than the more current concept of sexual activitity (including touching and licking and sucking and all). There's nothing in that definition that reflects the modern way that we approach sex. This wider definition that you call floaty is far more real than you think...or have the ability to back up.

And your argument works both ways: since I have a pretty wide backup for my definition, I do not need to "rethink my position" in any way. It's not somewhere in the ether; try down the street or a few clicks away.

When people play video games and one player dominates another player, people sometimes say that the loser got 'raped.' If they then said that the definition of 'rape' is fluid and the emotional harm caused by losing is severe enough to warrant being considered a 'rape victim,' would you accept this claim and put their trauma on the same level as an actual rape victim's? Would they be just as semantically correct as you and thus deserving of equal acknowledgment?

Because the video game situation has absolutely nothing to do with sex (unless it's a sort of a multiplayer h game), the use of rape is a hugely connotative use of the word. Whether it's defensible or not as a use, much like the word gay, is a separate issue; but we can say at least that they meant a totally different thing than actually being sexually violated.  Since the connotation is in such a different setting, your example doesn't work. But I have something like it:

Let's say that Sally gives Billy a wet willy. Since the laws on the book say that since the finger went into the earhole, and that Billy did not want such a willy, this is legally rape, being nonconsensual penetration. And you know what? Maybe Billy gets freaked out by it. Just as I got freaked out by my sister when she would grind my face into the snow. But since it's not in a sexual connotation, it's not relevant.

I am talking about situations where some form of nonconsensual sexual activity, clearly and undeniablly on that connotative level. I am thus justified in using that denotation, along with the fluid connotation, to use the descriptive noun: rape.

Let's just stick with the legal definition, okay?

Nah.

[?????]

You're just a girl, you have no say.

[the shortest route to the sea]

You're just a girl, you have no say.

Oh hey, you're right.

NEVER MIND GUYS I TAKE IT ALL BACK I APOLOGIZE FOR MY FEMINISM

[?????]

Oh hey, you're right.

NEVER MIND GUYS I TAKE IT ALL BACK I APOLOGIZE FOR MY FEMINISM

But, seriously now. Your main point is to let people realize how horrible the act was? I think people are smart enough to realize how bad something is. You're just splitting hairs.

[the shortest route to the sea]

But, seriously now. Your main point is to let people realize how horrible the act was? I think people are smart enough to realize how bad something is. You're just splitting hairs.

My point is I'm justified in using word rape, because I don't see the act of penetration as being the only thing worth calling rape.

That's really it!

[?????]

My point is I'm justified in using word rape, because I don't see the act of penetration as being the only thing worth calling rape.

That's really it!

Because rape sounds harsher than sexual assault, quit lieing to yourself. It really doesn't matter what you call it. It was still a bad thing.

Spelling mistake?

[the shortest route to the sea]

Because rape sounds harsher than sexual assault, quit lieing to yourself. It really doesn't matter what you call it. It was still a bad thing.

Spelling mistake?

lying, dear. And call me deluded or stupid, but don't say I'm lying to myself.

You're right, it doesn't. I'm not the one accosting someone else for word choice.

[Slim]

Such illusion does exist, but not here I guess. My bad.

It exists nowhere but in your head. And yeah, it is your bad.

What the hell does the legal definition have that makes it legitimate? People don't have trauma based on whether it was an "assault and battery" or "attempted homocide as determined by the court; they have trauma because someone else violated their personal sanctity. The legal definition is a) useful, because it's clear whether there was a dick or inserted object or not; and b) rooted more in the past opinion of sex ("sex is insertion") than the more current concept of sexual activitity (including touching and licking and sucking and all). There's nothing in that definition that reflects the modern way that we approach sex. This wider definition that you call floaty is far more real than you think...or have the ability to back up.

And your argument works both ways: since I have a pretty wide backup for my definition, I do not need to "rethink my position" in any way. It's not somewhere in the ether; try down the street or a few clicks away.

The legal definition is legally legitimate, by definition. It doesn't matter if you don't think it properly encompasses all the modern intricacies and nuances of the term. It doesn't matter how much the victim feels violated after they were groped, how much pain and suffering it caused them to endure, how much irreparable damage it did to their psyche--groping is not and will never be rape.

Sure, you may adamantly believe that it's rape in some abstract sense that transcends the legal definition, but don't expect me or anyone else to take your view seriously. Anyone could come up with their own wacky definition and claim it's the one that's truly backed up by reality, like you're doing now. This is why I believe the legal definition is the only one that's ever worth discussing.

And by the way, sex still must be penetrative as far as I'm concerned. The only exception is oral sex, and even that's iffy (edit: actually, now that I think of it, even that's penetrative, so there are no exceptions). All this doesn't matter, though, since groping is the only thing we're talking about here, and groping sure as hell ain't sex.

Because the video game situation has absolutely nothing to do with sex (unless it's a sort of a multiplayer h game), the use of rape is a hugely connotative use of the word. Whether it's defensible or not as a use, much like the word gay, is a separate issue; but we can say at least that they meant a totally different thing than actually being sexually violated.  Since the connotation is in such a different setting, your example doesn't work. But I have something like it:

I know it has nothing to do with sex; I set up the example that way on purpose. Rape is sexually connotative, according to you. What's stopping me from emulating your independent spirit and coming up with a new definition altogether? Maybe 'rape' is the act of annoying someone--who's to say? Yeah, that sounds good. Maybe you're 'raping' me right now. Why is this definition any less legitimate than yours? If the legal definition holds no weight and can be ignored at will, why don't we all just come up with any subjective definition that we damn well feel like using, just as you've done? It is fluid, after all, so let it flow wherever I want it to flow, I say.

Let's say that Sally gives Billy a wet willy. Since the laws on the book say that since the finger went into the earhole, and that Billy did not want such a willy, this is legally rape, being nonconsensual penetration. And you know what? Maybe Billy gets freaked out by it. Just as I got freaked out by my sister when she would grind my face into the snow. But since it's not in a sexual connotation, it's not relevant.

So what? Let's say that I'm asserting that 'rape' doesn't have to be sexual. Prove me wrong.

I am talking about situations where some form of nonconsensual sexual activity, clearly and undeniablly on that connotative level. I am thus justified in using that denotation, along with the fluid connotation, to use the descriptive noun: rape.

I reject the 'fluid connotation' and therefore do not feel in any way compelled to recognize your definition. As far as I can tell, your argument boils down to this:

a.) Nonconsensual sexual activity is a violation of one's personal sanctity that causes extreme emotional harm
b.) Rape is a violation of one's personal sanctity that causes extreme emotional harm
c.) Therefore, all nonconsensual sexual activity is rape

I think that the second premise is false in the sense that rape has a much more narrow, specific definition that must include insertion (and my view just so happens to coincide with the legal definition--lucky me). You may think otherwise, but I don't really care, quite frankly. Since your definition deviates so widely from the legal one that's commonly used, I see no reason to take it seriously. You can argue all you want that your eccentric view is more 'right,' but anyone could do the same thing with their own competing definition without either of you being definitively 'right,' which is why the legal definition is the only one that should ever be taken seriously in a discussion like this, regardless of how unsatisfactory you may find it.