Consensual Sex and the definition of Rape

[g_bambino]

Student groups composing an advocacy campaign, no matter what language they use, is not a call for "an expansion of the basis for criminal charge."

Not directly, no. But, if people, women, female university students in particular here, are taught that if they had sex with a man after giving him permission to do so, but didn't agree to it or to let it continue with "constant enthusiasm" (the definition of which is lose and completely open to interpretation), they can validly accuse that man of rape. Of course, that doesn't mean he'd be convicted of rape; but the accusation alone is highly damaging.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited March 6, 2014 by g_bambino

[Black Dog]

The op is about the "definition of rape" (read the thread title). Rape (aka sexual assault) is a criminal charge and changing the definition means changing the criteria for which a criminal charge can be laid.

That is insane. It's a public service/awareness campaign. That is all. Support your claims.

[g_bambino]

Support your claims.

He did.

[TimG]

they can validly accuse that man of rape. Of course, that doesn't mean he'd be convicted of rape; but the accusation alone is highly damaging.

More importantly, once the mismatch between the law and their beliefs is exposed they are likely to demand that the law be changed. That is why is it wrong to pretend that there is no connection between the campaign and the criteria used to lay charges.

[Black Dog]

He did.

Yeah it remains an insane interpretation of the campaign.

I mean, if I wanted to get as literal as TimG, I would point out that trying to change the legal definition of rape is impossible, since no such crime exists in Canadian law.

Not directly, no. But, if people, women, female university students in particular here, are taught that if they had sex with a man after giving him permission to do so, but didn't agree to it or to let it continue with "constant enthusiasm" (the definition of which is lose and completely open to interpretation), they can validly accuse that man of rape. Of course, that doesn't mean he'd be convicted of rape; but the accusation alone is highly damaging.

[ed.: c/e]

So your issue is you believe this will increase the number of false claims?

[g_bambino]

More importantly, once the mismatch between the law and their beliefs is exposed they are likely to demand that the law be changed.

Well, that does seem to be a logical assumption. But, so far, an assumption is all it is.

[TimG]

Yeah it remains an insane interpretation of the campaign.

Only if you want to argue that the organizes intended to create a category of non-criminal rape. Personally, I think the organizers would be appalled that people would interpret their campaign in that way and they either 1) believe their expanded definition is already captured in current laws or 2) wish to expand the criminal definition even if they did not state it explicitly.

I mean, if I wanted to get as literal as TimG, I would point out that trying to change the legal definition of rape is impossible, since no such crime exists in Canadian law.

Mr. Pedantic, I said:

If you do not understand that calling for an expansion of the definition of "sexual assault or rape" is calling for an expansion of the basis for criminal charge then you do not understand the English language.

Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Only if you want to argue that the organizes intended to create a category of non-criminal rape. Personally, I think the organizers would be appalled that people would interpret their campaign in that way

The purpose of the campaign is to raise awareness among students about the importance of consent. You're entitled to your fantasies, I suppose, but that's the long and short of it.

Mr. Pedantic, I said:

If you do not understand that calling for an expansion of the definition of "sexual assault or rape" is calling for an expansion of the basis for criminal charge then you do not understand the English language.

You also wrote:

If the campaigners had choose different words. i.e. "sex without enthusiastic consent is disrespectful and demeaning" then I doubt anybody would have disagreed. The disagreement is entirely due to the connection to criminal charge implied by the used of the word "rape".

Which gets crazier every time I read it. Because you know, they couldn't be talking about the rape as a thing that happens to people.

By your logic, if a woman is raped and doesn't press charges, no rape occurred since there's simply no way to even talk about it other than in the context of the justice system.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Black Dog

[cybercoma]

Not directly, no. But, if people, women, female university students in particular here, are taught that if they had sex with a man after giving him permission to do so, but didn't agree to it or to let it continue with "constant enthusiasm" (the definition of which is lose and completely open to interpretation), they can validly accuse that man of rape. Of course, that doesn't mean he'd be convicted of rape; but the accusation alone is highly damaging.

[ed.: c/e]

You should take half a second to think about what it's like to be a woman when she initially gives consent, but then wants the sex to stop and the guy doesn't. Think about what it would be like if she asks him to stop and forces her to keep going or tries to coerce her against her will. Rapists aren't simply men in balaclavas hiding in the bushes and leaving women in ditches. If a woman is forced or coerced into having sex when she doesn't want to, then it's rape. Full stop. The idea of "constant enthusiasm" is a poor choice of words, but it essentially gets to the issue that I'm putting forward here. Consent can be revoked at any time, even if it is given earlier. Just because she says yes at the beginning that doesn't mean you have perpetual consent. If she tells you to stop, even after giving consent, you damn well better stop. Any other characterizations of this education campaign are strawmen.

[TimG]

The purpose of the campaign is to raise awareness among students about the importance of consent.

And when they can go to the police and ask that charges be laid.

By your logic, if a woman is raped and doesn't press charges, no rape occurred.

There are many reasons why crimes are not reported. They have no connection to whether one claims that a crime occurred. If the word "rape" is used then that means people believe a criminal act occurred. No one seriously believes that "non-criminal rape" exists as a category (although people on this thread seem to be advocating it).

[cybercoma]

Tim, this has nothing to do with the Criminal Code. What are you even talking about here? It's a university education campaign that's designed to protect its students by raising awareness about a serious issue. There are some knuckle-dragging neanderthals that truly believe initial consent means perpetual consent, when it doesn't. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with the idea that a woman who says "yes" should be forced to go through with having sex if she later on feels uncomfortable and wants to stop. That's all this is about. Educating hormone and alcohol intoxicated youth that someone can withdraw their consent for sex at any time and they're obligated to stop.

[TimG]

If she tells you to stop, even after giving consent, you damn well better stop.

IOW - no means no. Simple. Objective. But this campaign is not about "no means no". It is about "yes does not mean yes" and that is absurd. Edited March 6, 2014 by TimG

[Bonam]

You should take half a second to think about what it's like to be a woman when she initially gives consent, but then wants the sex to stop and the guy doesn't. Think about what it would be like if she asks him to stop and forces her to keep going or tries to coerce her against her will. Rapists aren't simply men in balaclavas hiding in the bushes and leaving women in ditches. If a woman is forced or coerced into having sex when she doesn't want to, then it's rape. Full stop. The idea of "constant enthusiasm" is a poor choice of words, but it essentially gets to the issue that I'm putting forward here. Consent can be revoked at any time, even if it is given earlier. Just because she says yes at the beginning that doesn't mean you have perpetual consent. If she tells you to stop, even after giving consent, you damn well better stop. Any other characterizations of this education campaign are strawmen.

No one disagrees with that. Hence the "no means no" definition, which no one seems to have a problem with. Soon as she says no, it means no, even if she previously said yes. On the other hand... just because she isn't screaming yes every 5 seconds doesn't mean it suddenly becomes rape.

[TimG]

Tim, this has nothing to do with the Criminal Code. What are you even talking about here? It's a university education campaign that's designed to protect its students by raising awareness about a serious issue.

So you are saying the campaign is knowingly spreading misinformation by telling people that "rape" is not necessarily a criminal offence?

[Bonam]

Tim, this has nothing to do with the Criminal Code. What are you even talking about here?

They are trying to call something rape. Rape is a very serious act, punishable in our justice system. Either it's rape or it's not. Which is it?

Educating people about consent is all fine and good. But calling things rape that aren't rape is not, as it will only lead to greater confusion, false accusations, and other problems.

[cybercoma]

On the other hand... just because she isn't screaming yes every 5 seconds doesn't mean it suddenly becomes rape.

That's a ridiculous strawman that nobody is arguing.

[Bonam]

That's a ridiculous strawman that nobody is arguing.

Good, so we can all discard the idea of "continuous and enthusiastic" consent and revert to the more sensible and objective "no means no" criterion, correct?

Edited March 6, 2014 by Bonam

[Black Dog]

And when they can go to the police and ask that charges be laid.

Cite required.

There are many reasons why crimes are not reported. They have no connection to whether one claims that a crime occurred. If the word "rape" is used then that means people believe a criminal act occurred.

Again, by your logic, whether an act is a crime or not is solely determined by whether criminal charges are laid. Even in cases where crims are reported and no charges are laid, by your logic, no crime occurred.

[g_bambino]

So your issue is you believe this will increase the number of false claims?

I didn't say false claims. It's that the more broad the definition of rape becomes, the more sexual events that will be regarded as rape. If, for example, a man continues having sex with a woman who was at first enthusiastic, but got bored part way through, but didn't tell him to stop, then that man is a rapist, if not by law then in the eyes of those "educated" by this "public service/awareness" campaign. And it stands to reason the campaign aspires to "educate" as many people as possible.

[TimG]

Again, by your logic, whether an act is a crime or not is solely determined by whether criminal charges are laid. Even in cases where crims are reported and no charges are laid, by your logic, no crime occurred.

That is the exact opposite of what the words you quoted said. An unreported crime can still be called a crime. But calling something a crime means that charges could be laid.

[g_bambino]

Think about what it would be like if she asks him to stop and forces her to keep going or tries to coerce her against her will.

That's a specific situation. Not showing "constant enthusiasm" covers far more than the scene you painted.

[Argus]

Oh sure. Let me do that when you've already reached your conclusion and are more interested in standing on your soapbox whining about lefties than actually rubbing the brain cells together in your head on this one.

In other words, having thrown up your hands and gasped about how horrified you are by the subject matter you're unable to actually point to any of that horrifying subject matter which has so offended your dainty, delicate sensibilities?

[Argus]

Next day regret does not mean lack of consent the previous night.

Actually, it does, legally speaking.

[cybercoma]

Good, so we can all discard the idea of "continuous and enthusiastic" consent and revert to the more sensible and objective "no means no" criterion, correct?

You miss the point. Continuous and enthusiastic means it has to be freely given consent that can later be revoked and should not be given under coercion. It means more than simply "no means no." The intent of this campaign is not even controversial. Wente is an sensationalist hack that's trying to create an issue out of something that just isn't the case, likely to promote herself and get hits for her newspaper from the debate. Look at this thread even. Eight pages deep, arguing about something that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would agree with: initial consent is not perpetual consent and consent should not be coerced. I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree with that and I'm not in any way interested in humouring anyone that doesn't.

[Argus]

I'm not sure that we have decided that. There are certainly lots of examples where the 'law and order' attitude has vaulted some politicians into favour by exploiting "the" public's misperceptions. Things such as 3 strikes laws, and right-to-carry appear to exploit such attitudes, don't you think ?

No, I don't. I think those are responding to public concerns. You phrase them as 'misperception' due to your own peculiar biases, but I see nothing wrong with cracking down on repeat criminals. Repeat offenders make up the bulk of the cost of our criminal and legal system. As for 'right to carry' laws, that is an American notion and not at play in Canada.