Creationist asks ‘hard question’: ‘If evolution is true, is rape wrong?’

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Could a guy passed out drunk get an erection?

[SMR 368]

Yes it does. The text below does not specify who must be doing the penetration. In your scenario, the intoxicated male can claim that penetration was achieved without his consent.

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the ####### or ####### with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Gegel, if that were the actual interpretation, I would agree with you. But the fact is that courts only interpret this with the assumption that the penetrator is the perpetrator and the penetratee is the victim.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Could a guy passed out drunk get an erection?

He's not passed out. Just too intoxicated to legally consent.

[SMR 368]

Could a guy passed out drunk get an erection?

It's certainly possible. 14 year old boys can certainly get erections while not being legally able to consent.

[JohnR! 5,495]

So a man could rape a woman, but the rapist could be the woman because the text does not specify whether the penetrator or the penetratee is the rapist? What?

Yes, a man can rape a woman and a woman can also rape a man.

[SMR 368]

Yes, a man can rape a woman and a woman can also rape a man.

A woman can rape a man, but only by penetrating his ####### with a foreign object without his consent. Whether or not this text specifies it, the interpretation that is applied by the courts is that you have to be penetrated to be raped.

Edited June 12, 2014 by SMR

[JohnR! 5,495]

Gegel, if that were the actual interpretation, I would agree with you. But the fact is that courts only interpret this with the assumption that the penetrator is the perpetrator and the penetratee is the victim.

True. There seems to be a presumption that only men can perpetrate rape because it involves penetration. However don't forget we may be speaking of male on male rape.

[SMR 368]

True. There seems to be a presumption that only men can perpetrate rape because it involves penetration. However don't forget we may be speaking of male on male rape.

Certainly haven't forgotten about that. If prisons are included, there is statistical evidence that most rape victims in the US are actually male. However, that doesn't make the definition of rape gender neutral.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Yes, a man can rape a woman and a woman can also rape a man.

Sure, but that definition seems designed for male-on-male and male-on-female rape. If they intended to cover female-on-male rape, I believe the language could have been much clearer.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Certainly haven't forgotten about that. If prisons are included, there is statistical evidence that most rape victims in the US are actually male. However, that doesn't make the definition of rape gender neutral.

I also think it has to do with the fact that we look at sex differently. If you come to and find out a woman had sex with you while you were passed out, chances are you will file it under '#######', consider whether you should exchange phone numbers, and move on from there; unless of course you were to find out you're physically harmed, because something was inserted in your body.

[Novembro 1,763]

I did read it. According to that definition, if a man has sex with a woman without her consent, it's rape. But if a woman has sex with a man without his consent, that isn't rape. Hence, it's not gender neutral.

It is, as it is defined as "body part or object" and "####### or #######". How is that not gender neutral? Unless you need to be shown an object can penetrate an #######...

[mota bhai 2,675]

Studies have shown that 8.3 out of 10 men like being raped (by women).

[JohnR! 5,495]

Studies have shown that 8.3 out of 10 men like being raped (by women).

And the remaining 1.7 lied.

[mota bhai 2,675]

[SMR 368]

I also think it has to do with the fact that we look at sex differently. If you come to and find out a woman had sex with you while you were passed out, chances are you will file it under '#######', consider whether you should exchange phone numbers, and move on from there; unless of course you were to find out you're physically harmed, because something was inserted in your body.

No, actually I'd go to the police and figure out what my legal recourse is. And honestly, that's what any reasonable man should do. Besides the psychological concerns, there are STDs, potential child support, and moral character to consider. I also don't drink, so I'd wonder why I was passed out.

It is, as it is defined as "body part or object" and "####### or #######". How is that not gender neutral? Unless you need to be shown an object can penetrate an #######...

Because men and women have different body parts. Men and women have sex in different ways, so a law that punishes certain sex acts and not others is not gender neutral.

What if the law for public urination said that people are not allowed to urinate in public unless doing so with a #######? Would that be gender neutral as well?