The whole problem of rape victims gaining justice and perpetrators being convicted, stems in people's inability to understand rape. Rape has nothing to do with sex. It is NOT unwanted sex. Sexual acts are used by the rapist as a means to defile, humiliate, gain power over and totally degrade their victim. It is a way of showing intense rage and hatred to the chosen victim - male or female. It is sexual abuse.
I am sick to death of hearing about women who are unsure whether they have been raped or not. If one has been raped one certainly knows about it !!! If a man wants genuine sexual relations with a woman, does not wish to harm her but wants passionate sex with her but has misread signals or both parties are drunk and the man believes the woman 'wants it' - this is NOT rape - the man is not a rapist !!
The problem arises because rapists take full advantage of this situation and will prey on vulnerable women who are drunk and make it look like the former case however they have already planned to rape the woman and don't give a damn whether she consents or not. Their main aim is to defile the woman and they are motivated out of deep seated hatred rather than lust.
People must start to understand this difference otherwise innocent men are going to be convicted of rape and rapists ( who are usually very skilled in what they do and plan their attacks) will continue to destroy victims and get away with their offences.
This argument is a dangerous misuse of what experts mean when they say rape is about power not sex. My boyfriend/rapist didn't hate me. He wasn't acting out his rage. Therefore according to Anonymous, my boyfriend is not a rapist.
My boyfriend/rapist knew I didn't consent but found rationalizations for why it was okay for him to ignore my lack of consent. Like many rape victims, I was transformed in my rapist's mind into someone too scared or too shy to say yes. His rape became, in his mind, a positive action.
I got raped, but my boyfriend/rapist told himself and me that he was genuinely trying to help me to get over my fear of sex.
He judged himself against the most monstrous rapists and found himself innocent. Anonymous clearly agrees with this assessment and the twisted logic behind it. If a man ignores the fact that the woman doesn't want to have sex with him then continuing isn't rape -- in his mind -- as long as he is seeking genuine sexual relations with that woman.
This isn't truth this is rationalization. This rape denial explains why seemingly decent boys and men can commit monstrous acts of violence against girls and women. It explains why when they are rightfully accused they can convince themselves and others that they have been wrongfully accused.
All they have to do to convince the people who buy into this rationalization is that their motives were about sex not hatred or rage. Too many non-rapists choose to buy into this rationalization and subsequently slander real rape victims in the name of justice. This explains why so many people ignore the rape victim's experience when evaluating a rape case.
For my boyfriend and this anonymous commenter, the rape victim and the rape victim's experience of being raped doesn't matter. In this definition of rape the only person who matters is the person who proceeds without consent. If he wants to, "Hit it," and the one he wants to hit doesn't also want to, "Hit it," then unwanted, "Hitting it," cannot be rape since the focus is on lust not hatred.
The motivation of lust vs. hatred gives many rapists a handy excuse for why they shouldn't be legally accountable for their actions.
It wasn't my boyfriend's lust or sexual hormones which caused him to rape me, it was his belief that his lust trumped my lack of consent. Unwanted sex (on my part) became acceptable to him. That made his actions about power and control not sex.
This demand for a specific and monstrous motive is not a requirement in physical assaults or any other non-sex crime and it is not a requirement in sexual assaults.
Many non-sex criminals give no thought to the harm they are inflicting on their victims. Yet nobody is demanding that they be viewed as non-criminal or wrongfully accused because they didn't set out to harm or destroy their victims and were instead thinking only of what they wanted.
If Anonymous's logic is valid then the application of non-sex crime laws much change to stop the injustice done to many of those accused and convicted of non-sex crimes. Someone who robs you blind would need to be considered innocent if they didn't hate you or commit the crime out of rage. Same goes for those convicted of assaults or arson which put the victims in the hospital or the morgue.
Anyone who accepts Anonymous's logic in sex crimes must accept it in all non-sex crimes. And anyone who rejects Anonymous's logic in non-sex crimes must reject it in sex crimes.
If a woman doesn't want it and the man proceeds anyway he's a rapist no matter whether he hates her or not. Since misunderstandings are understood to be common then proceeding in any situation where there can be any possible misunderstanding is a deliberate choice to continue despite there being no unequivocal freely given consent. Again that makes this choice about power and control not sex.
That's a choice which makes committing rape an acceptable outcome for the person who does not stop. Anonymous's position helps those who make this choice to have no guilt for the crime they are committing if they proceed without genuine consent.
Anonymous and many others are sick of hearing about women who are unsure whether they were raped but that unsureness is caused by the number of rapes different people -- including juries -- wrongfully exclude.
The number of endings to the sentence, "It isn't real rape if ...," which have absolutely nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence are too many to count.
Motives aren't what separate the innocent from the guilty, actions are what separates them. If someone does not have another person's genuine consent then it is rape. Full stop.
Anonymous's definition allows many rapists to favorably compare themselves to the most monstrous rapists. That's called rationalization. My boyfriend practiced it. Most rapists practice this faithfully. Even the most monstrous rapists can practice rationalization and minimization.
This is the only way they can live with the reality that they decided to commit rape.
If we are serious about protecting the innocent -- all of them -- then we all need to oppose all of these rationalizations. If a father teaches his son any of these rationalizations then he is setting his son up to commit rape and to face rightful accusations of rape.
This is wrong even if the father doesn't hate his son and doesn't feel rage toward his offspring.
Here's part 1 for anyone who missed it.