Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Is it rape, or something else?

Lissa has a question on her blog that's drawing a fair amount of comment.

In order for us to rationally discuss the item of controversy, we must first lay the baseline:

If at any point during sexual congress (and that means before and also means mid-coitus) Person A says “Don’t”, “Stop”, or “I don’t want to do this”, if Person B does not immediately stop then s/he is committing rape.

Period. The End. If you don’t believe this, kindly seek the nearest exit, because you are not welcome at my blog. Ever.

However, I am VERY confident that my regular visitors are still here, so let us continue to my question:

Is it possible for there to be an incident of rape without any participating party being a rapist?

I say yes.

There's more at the link, including specific examples that she uses to illustrate her point. She invites responses from her readers.

I thought I'd offer the same question to my readers here. Please click over to Lissa's blog, read her post (and the already-numerous replies to it), and respond there yourself, if you feel so inclined. I think we all might benefit from the dialog.



Anonymous said...

From her blog:

"Is it possible to still sympathize and empathize with Charlotte as a rape victim, without excoriating Charlie as a rapist?"

No; to have it otherwise is to create a double standard for this term. However, to empathize and have compassion for her sober revelation does not require what occurred to have been rape in the sober-non-consent and under-duress sense.

If someone gets drunk of their own will is that consent to have impaired judgement? If two intoxicated people have sex then at least there is some parity in their efforts to discover bad results.

Regardless, don't have sex while drunk and don't have sex with drunk people; if not for yourselves then for others so they won't have to listen to sad pathetic tales.

Lissa said...

Thank you, Peter!

I was a little surprised at how the comments went. Not because any of them were unreasonable -- they weren't! -- but because I expected a higher percentage of "it's-not-anyone's-fault." In retrospect, it makes sense; many/most of my readers found me through other gunbloggers, and gunnies are the most you-break-it-you-bought-it, personal-responsibility-believing people I've EVER met.

Old NFO said...

It all boils down to personal responsibility on BOTH sides... sigh...

Anonymous said...

Guess I would never be welcome at Lissa's blog. If your quote is correct and needs no qualifications, then Lissa's assertion is inane.

That is all.