Poirot,

The definition of rape is broad and varies from country to country; an example of non-violent rape is Rape by Deception

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

another is by continuation of sexual intercourse after being asked to stop.
There was often confusion between "Stop don't!" and "Don't stop" depending on the state of play and the audio perception of the addressee.

Is Mise,

Yes, no doubt there are aberrations.

But on this thread, Bruce was waxing lyrical on women putting themselves in "risky" situations where they might be attacked - and drawing the conclusion that in doing so they are "asking for it".

"BUT, surely if a woman dresses provocatively, goes out and gets drunk she is quite simply ignoring the very real dangers she's flirting with?
By indulging in risky behaviour and going to known danger spots any person is putting their life and/or general weal on the line, gambling with safety in effect...."

That was the subject of his opening post, and that's what I've been addressing.

Keeping in mind that Bruce was referring to women being attacked for being in risky places and situations, it's somewhat fascinating that some of you are negating the violent aspect of this crime. How can someone force themselves sexually onto another person without overpowering them with physical might...resorting to violence by any other name?

I'll also add, for otb's benefit.

In that he appears to think that rape is only a sexual crime, I say that sexual gratification is the "objective". However the means to that gratification (in the terms Bruce has suggested) is violently subduing the victim.

Just as in robbery with violence, the objective is to get hold of somebody's wallet (or whatever) but the means is to violently subdue the victim in order to get to the objective - the wallet.

You would say, in the case of robbery with violence, that the crime is merely one of enrichment at another's expense. You wouldn't negate the violent aspect of the assault.

Poirot, "In that he appears to think that rape is only a sexual crime"

That is a deliberate, twisted fabrication to try to turn it back on your critic, me. As is very obvious from the posts, I was challenged a view that it was solely violence and domination and the rest of the sorry radical feminist fabrications that go with it.

Predictably, you horned in to challenge what I was saying, although you would have it different now. You are on the defensive, Poirot and so you should be. This is your post, Poirot and a damned wrong and shabby view it was,

Poirot, "It's impossible to rape someone without resorting to violence".
Poirot, Sunday, 21 September 2014 10:35:53 PM

Earlier, I was challenging Foxy's (and Lexi's, since Foxy has been regurgitating this trashy 'research' for years) almost direct quoting from the book by radical feminist Susan Brownmiller, that underpins much of feminists' very negative stereotyping of men and boys. I referred to and gave the links and my argument. Foxy denied it all, saying she was not even aware of Brownmiller and her book, which if true, leaves her very ignorant of the driving forces behind feminism and of the unreliable 'research' that ultimately saw the demise of the feminist dinosaurs of the previous Millenium. Apparently Poirot also shares Foxy's ignorance of Brownmiller, which again is odd, but not as questionable as Poirot's opinion on rape.

Any wonder your negative little games of tit-for-tat, where you continually shift the goal posts and introduce irrelevancies, and fudge as you have done here, exasperates all except for Shadow Minister, who deserves a medal for his dogged perseverance.

otb,

"Poirot, "It's impossible to rape someone without resorting to violence".

Nonsense. Are you for real? Rape can involve duress outside of violence. For years feminists rightly challenged your achaic view and succeeded. Good for them!

It is very foolish of you to return to the expectation that a rape must have occasioned violence..."

Rape doesn't "usually" involve duress "outside" violence.

And in the context of G'dayBruce's opening post, it would seem that he is saying that should violence be visited upon "a woman [who] dresses provocatively, [and] goes out and gets drunk" - then she is "asking for it".

Fair enough if you want to go all pedantic and feign outrage because I challenge your diddling about on this thread attempting to make out rape is something not usually accompanied by violence, that's up to you...but don't start shrieking "That is a deliberate, twisted fabrication" and reach for the smelling salts because I challenge your argument.

I was addressing the sentiments in the opening post - and attempting to keep abreast of your confected tangent.

Poirot,

You are digging a deeper hole for yourself. The posting record is there for all to read.

G'dayBruce and I crossed posts as both of us criticised your statement.

You asserted,

<Poirot, "It's impossible to rape someone without resorting to violence">

To which I replied,

<Nonsense. Are you for real? Rape can involve duress outside of violence. For years feminists rightly challenged your achaic view and succeeded. Good for them!

It is very foolish of you to return to the expectation that a rape must have occasioned violence - leaving the hapless victim in the situation of having to show injury or explain why s/he didn't resist.>
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 21 September 2014 12:15:46 PM

For someone who regularly claims to be a woman (always too much information) and a feminist, your view is quite remarkable and callous to rape victims (for the obvious reasons I outlined).

Hence the question, are you the woman you say you are? Accepting that very few men would agree with your opinion either.