That's just something I believe. If you create an environment of fear, then use that fear in order to get women to have sex with you, because they are afraid of some great harm, rather it is real or not, if they refuse, then you are a rapist. I understand that this makes the vast majority of early prominent Mormon leaders rapist, but I feel the label fits.

I added the words, "through fear" to my post in order to clarify what I meant.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2013 11:27PM by forbiddencokedrinker.

Absolutely, positively...YES!!!

A resounding HELL YES!

Yes, I agree. Now food for thought. To what extent does this apply to "positive" manipulation and coercion, ie sweet talking. Does that just make you a jerk, or a rapist as well?

I wouldn't say that sweet talking makes you a rapist. That is just common human behavior. Remember by my standard, rape is based on creating an environment of fear (which is a legal standard in most places BTW)

Lying to a girl may make you a POS, but as someone who has helped women going through the shock and fear that follows rape, I think you are cheapening the seriousness of the crime by using that standard.

I never said it was, I was just throwing it out there to ask for opinions.

What if you bring your own fears to the situation? "I'm afraid I'm unlovable. I'm afraid I'll live my whole life alone. I'm afraid I'm too ugly..."

Then what if you blame a sexual partner for those fears?

Well that wouldn't be rape, and I would hope most people would agree, but that sure wouldn't be a smart choice on the woman's part.

Side note, rape is not about sex, but power, as someone has pointed out is also true with polygamy. It is about having power over someone, and being able to do as you please with them.

Something I have noticed about rape victims, though my experience is limited, is that a big part of what they are going through is the feelings of helplessness that follow a rape. I know some well meaning idiot boyfriends and fathers whose first response is to treat a rape victim like a porcelain doll, that has to be overprotected less something happens again. The girl is continuously made to feel week and powerless. An example, one female friend I have, was going to get a job that involved a lot of traveling around the state. Her boyfriend did not want her to do so, because she was once rapped, and he was worried about her. This really upset her, and made her feel miserable about having been victimized.

Personally, I feel that a better way (though this may not be true for all victims) is to find ways to make them feel empowered again. This may mean giving them something that helps them feel confidence, like a TASER, and training on how to more effectively use it in order to get out of danger. The point is, the victim must be made to feel that she is safe, and capable of protecting her self from future harm, not made to live in fear that it may happen again.

Then again, for other victims, having them carry a TASER may force them to relive the experience, and itself become a totum of fear. I realize it's a highly personal thing, what works for one woman, not working for another. Still, reassurance, rather then belittling is, in my opinion, a major step towards recovering from an attack.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2013 03:44PM by forbiddencokedrinker.

I completely agree. Whether it is with a taser or not, the woman should feel empowered. Being afraid is only giving power to the rapist and is not actually going to solve anything. Part of the reason men still rape is because it is something that they can get away with. The fear needs to be in the rapists that they will get attacked if they try to. Not in the women being afraid of the rapists.

Yep. I agree.

There have been some courts, I understand, that have classed this action as extortion

Hell yes! Manipulating someone in whatever way, whether psychologically, through power or fear in order to gain sexual control over them is absolutely rape, could be extortion too, but any physical sexual violation is rape.

Consensual to me means more than just getting the other party to say yes. It means that a frank discussion and agreement has been made about future intentions. i.e. "So we both agree this is for fun, just NSA." or "I really have an emotional stake in this, so that's where I'm coming from. (And I'm really not an astronaut with a PHD like I told you at the bar.)

I disagree. Rape is forcible assault with threat of physical bodily harm. Even cases where the implicit threat -- loss of livelihood, for example-- implies physical damage do not rise to the legal level of rape.

For example, an employer may tell a subordinate that unless she sleeps with him (or he with her, as the case may be), he'll fire her. Sexual harassment and extortion? No doubt. Rape? Not by a long shot.

Were early Mormon leaders rapists? I don't think so. Helen Mar Kimball was an instrumental figure in my departure, but I don't think she was raped. An emotional threat was presented, but not a physical one. The men involved -- JS and Helen Kimball's father -- were terrible men for presenting the emotional dilemma, but their lies and manipulation do not rise to a level where no choice is presented (as would be the case with rape).

I realize my view may be unpopular. Any forcible physical sexual interaction is undoubtedly rape. Any interaction where a party is incapable of providing consent (drugged, asleep, etc.) is rape. But emotional manipulation, in my opinion, doesn't rise to the same standard. While it may be a crime, the term 'rape' should be reserved for those who give their victims no choice.

Sometimes an unpopular opinion is unpopular for a reason. Such a narrow point of view of rape further stigmatizes victims and perpetuates the idea that women are to blame for their rape.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2013 08:19PM by tapirsaddle.

I never said anything about perpetuating the idea that women are to blame for rape. You'll note that my definition of rape is any event where a person is forcibly compelled without choice -- my definition completely and totally precludes the notion that a woman could be blamed for her own rape.

I'll thank you to separate your disagreements from your projections. Having a difference of opinion doesn't mean I blame women for what others do to them.

Excluding any kind of rape from the definition of rape says that the victim consented when they did not. This is blaming the victim for their own rape.

And, I will ask you to not define rape until you further your understanding about consent.

I'll quote myself:

"Any forcible physical sexual interaction is undoubtedly rape. Any interaction where a party is incapable of providing consent (drugged, asleep, etc.) is rape"

I understand perfectly well about consent, and my definition in fact matches most legal definitions.

You seem to wish to project on me opinions I don't hold because I disagree with you on broadening the definition of rape to include cases that, while still crimes, do not rise to the definition of rape.

I think I understand where you are coming from Alpiner. You don't want the definition expanded so much, that it loses its meaning. I agree, up to a point. That's why I stated earlier that while lying to women, in order to get sex, makes you a son of a bitch, I wouldn't agree that it is rape. However, I think my own definition of creating an environment of fear, is a good one.

I would disagree with your example of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a civil action. Sex crimes are of course a criminal one. The presence of a civil action, does not exclude the presence of a crime. Example, wrongful deaths. If I kill someone, I can be sued by their survivors for wrongful death. This is a separate action from a criminal prosecution, like one for murder. The primary difference is that the standard of proof is different in a civil action then they are in a criminal one.

When I worked for a campus police department, our department once sent a homeless man to prison on a sexual assault charge, because he walked into a classroom, and started to rub the leg of a female student, who was waiting alone in the class. She got up, yelled for help, and ran out, and the cops (I was not involved) showed up and arrested him for sexual assault, which is not the same as rape, but is still a crime. It was an unwanted sexual contact. Likewise, if an employer rubs the leg of a female employee, and she has made it clear she does not want such contact, it is both sexual assault, and sexual harassment. If he forces her, through fear of harm, into having sex, it is then both rape, and still sexual harassment.

I understand what you are saying alpiner, that if there is some level of choice it cannot be called rape. In some ways I agree. But in the case of the 14 year old girl JS told that he would die if she didn't marry him, because God had commanded it, I wonder if that isn't so close to no choice it is debatable? He used GOD as the persauder. I have always felt that whole incident was rape. Yes she consented but under HUGE duress. It is similar to a friend of mine who consented because the rapist threatened to hurt her little children if she didn't. I see very little difference. If we use the whole concept of intention, I think JS WAS a rapist. His intention was to have sex with the women, NO MATTER what he had to do to get it. The fact he did not use violence (that we know of) is beside the point.

Modern law generally considers minors "incapable of giving consent." Seducing a 14-year old is now statutory rape, which is rape. I think that is a correct and just interpretation.

And adults who are incapable of giving consent as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2013 08:00PM by Itzpapalotl.

+1

Lets not confuse psychological manipulation with rape.

****, my wife PMs me every day to get what she wants.
often she gives me incredible, mind blowing kinky sex to get it too.
And me her.
****. Welcome to man versus woman. Boy meets girl.

The content I'm this thread IS very valid and important. But lets not misunderstand PM and human relationships

I didn't say manipulation, I said environment of fear. The key is the state of mind of the victim. If the victim believes that they or others will receive grave physical harm, then that is rape. While it may be a little bit more murky, in the mind of a believing cult member, eternal damnation may be viewed as big a threat, if not bigger, as physical harm, since they interpret in their mind, the receiving of eternal suffering, and I would include that as rape.

BTW, statutory rape is not limited to adults having sex with children. Any time an adult has sex with someone under their power it's considered statutory rape. Additional examples are cops having sex with people in order to not arrest them or write them a ticket, prison guards sleeping with inmates, therapist with patients, and even high school teachers with adult students.

Thanks RAtionalist01 and Itzpapalotl, of course you are TOTALLY correct, it IS statutory rape!! By today's law anyway. I hadn't thought of it in that way, just that the manipulation was SO overwhelming, I didn't feel she had any choice. But your definitions were spot on!

There is a story on another thread of an 8 year old girl who died on her wedding night. Did she really have a choice? Was she manipulated, or was she passed from one controlling man to another? How mature was Helen Mar Kimball? Did she of her own accord go with JS, or was she taken by her father to JS? How many steps did she take from the control of one man to the other? I don't think we know whether she had a choice or not. Was she manipulated or was her father manipulated and she was raped? I've read what she wrote, but it was written later and could have been influenced by victim's shame.

Good point. I think her father really betrayed her by not protecting her and by leading her to follow the wishes of their religious leader. If a parent is telling or implying to a child that they should have sex with someone, that means the child has no choice. A child instinctively follows the wishes of authority figures, and here you had both the parent and the highest leader of the church telling her to have sex. No real choice involved here for the teenage, just horrible betrayal of the innocence and safety of a minor.