General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why the "My bad sex wasn't rape" editorial is so utterly, utterly vile. [View all]Igel
(35,522 posts)In full: "No one is out there telling women that they have to feel that they were raped if they don't feel that way."
This is the crux of the problem, defining it or allowing it to be defined by what somebody feels. They may not press charges, but their feelings are completely beside the point and even if they want to avoid the word "rape" they should acknowledge and admit that they were compelled to engage in sexual activity without due consent.
If their feelings matter, then the guy who "rapes" a woman who doesn't feel raped hasn't actually committed rape. Then when he goes and does the exact same thing with a woman who *does* feel raped, wham--it was okay before, consent was no more explicitly and voluntarily given than last time, and now it's illegal but before it wasn't? What's up with that?
As it is there are a bunch of different definitions for "rape," some legal and legally binding although they vary by jurisdiction; there are some in the activist literature that are different from the legal definitions; and yet others in current colloquial usage that disagree with the legal and activist sets. Yet, in typical scholarly and legal fashion, it's assumed that only one's accepted definition can possibly be used by anybody. And if they don't like it, tough--you'll impose it by sheer dint of will and intimidation.
Like it or not there'll never be a black-and-white, fine-grained definition. But we shouldn't fuzzy this horrendously varied set any more than absolutely necessary.