DICKtionary dude: I believe in defining words narrowly, precisely, objectively, literally.

Sucks for you that’s not how language works.

Under the law, a biological man of 15 or 16 knows what he’s doing, legally, when he rapes a female, minor or adult, but not when he initiates sex with an adult female. He’s old and mature enough to form the mens rea or criminal intent to knowingly rape a female, but not old and mature enough to knowingly initiate sex with an adult female. He’s an adult (often “waived” into adult court) or quasi-adult when he commits rape, but a “child” when he consents to or intitiates sex with an adult female. That’s common sense?! On the contrary, these positions are inherently incongruous and contradictory.

it’s not about common sense. criminal justice is a complicated subject, not a mindless algorithm. different situations call for different results. it’s this thing called ‘nuance’ that people who take justice seriously care about. just because you can’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s incongruous or contradictory, it just means you don’t understand it. mens rea is a really complicated thing with a lot gray areas. this is a thing we do because we believe in justice, not blind retribution. if you want to live in a country with one-size-fits-all laws, idk move to a fascist dictatorship or something. youll find their laws a lot simpler and easier to understand.

I believe in defining words narrowly, precisely, objectively, literally. You and others define “rape” so sweepingly, figeratively, and ambiguously as to render the word virtually meaningless. Defining women as “rapists” for allowing biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in de facto consensual relationships is “sex equality dogma taken to lunatic extremes,” to quote John Derbyshire. This is almost as ludicrous as defining men who impregnate women as “pregnant men.”

there’s nothing ‘objective’ about your definition. it’s quite plainly chosen because it makes rape into a thing youre comfortable with rape being. don’t be disingenuous. and again, please stop quoting people with no expertise on the subject as if they were authority figures. john derbyshire is a mathematician and a linguist. ive read prime obsession; it was delightful. ive read his writing on other subjects, its lazy and shows lack of serious thought.

if you are going to quote someone, pick them because their ideas have the power of persuasion, not because they said what you already wanted to believe was true.

Obviously, females can commit violent sexual assaults, however rarely. Why are you and others so obsessed with defining such crimes as “rape” rather than “sexual assault”?

because theyre quite clearly fields that blend into each other and any serious student of the law recognizes that delineating the boundaries is hard work. why are you so obsessed with taking critical thinking out of criminal law? what perverse definition of justice do you think that serves?

@polliwog

he doesnt like our definition of ‘consent’. this isnt because it lacks objectivity. its that he doesnt like or understand it.but he knows that’s a terrible argument so he has to come up with some way his argument is ‘special’ and this is the best he can do, ‘why cant everything be defined so even someone as lazy as i am can understand it?’

How about this definition: Rape = UNWANTED sex.

Not really, though. Actually, even nonconsensual I have a problem with, if you’re talking about criminal/civil law. In some jurisdictions (i.e., college campuses and workplaces, which established their own rules of behavior) that could be the definition, but most states require something other than lack of consent to establish the crime of rape. Consent is an important part of the case because it’s commonly used as a defense. Lack of consent is generally proved by showing extreme intoxication (if allowed by statute), unconsciousness, or bruises, tears, or other signs of force. In essence, even though utmost resistance is no longer required as an element of rape, most courts will see lack of physical signs of force as proof of consent, rendering actual consent more or less legally meaningless.

Of course, the term rape can be used outside the courtroom, and I think that in that context, nonconsensual is a fine way to define rape. Just because someone didn’t kick and scream, forcing their rapist to choke them or pull a knife on them, doesn’t mean that they weren’t raped. Most rapists actually only use as much force as they need to, so relying on an element of force to prove rape kind of tilts the balance of justice to protect the rapist. I have a feeling that what Frenchy is getting at with his “Rape = unwanted sex” equation, though, is that fucking “regret sex” bullshit that MRMs love to pretend happens all the time, which, fuck that.