Is it possible to 'mentally rape' someone?

hippiemom

Cuntified C wrote:

Creepy question, but someone mentioned this to me a few years ago how it is possible to mentally rape someone as opposed to physically do it. I think this means actually getting someone to have sex with you, even though they really don't what to and that's made clear that you don't wanna do it. It could be something as simple as you don't want to have sex, but your partner does and so he/she puts some pressure on you to get what they want. And especially with men, they have to get a hard on before they can have sex so when a guy claims sometimes that their female boss put pressure on them to have sex and claim millions (though women in the same situation get a lot less money in compensation) is that still rape. I think it is. I have heard stories of men, and women who have said that they didn't feel like they were in the mood for it but went ahead because their other half did. That's happened to me, I felt pushed into it one time as it had been a while, but I didn't feel like it, but he insisted to the point where I felt I had to although he knew I didn't want to. And he himself said he felt pushed into it one time as his girlfriend just wouldn't stop until he did. I think this one is a bit more extreme but I think it can be more subtle as well...

What do you guys think?

What form does this "pressure" take? Is begging and nagging the same as pressure? If so, I certainly don't think that constitutes rape. I'm curious as to exactly what you mean here. I've had sex when I didn't really want to, just because it was easier than arguing about it. I can't say I enjoyed myself, but I didn't feel that I'd been raped either.

Rape is generally defined as sex "without consent and accomplished through force, threat of violence or intimidation (such as a threat to harm a woman's child, husband or boyfriend)." This is legalese, of course, but I think it's a pretty good working definition.

Obviously, someone who is sleeping or intoxicated is not capable of giving consent, so any sexual acts with such a person would be illegal (although that sort of leaves up in the air the legal status of a pair of drunks who have sex with each other, which happens roughly once every nanosecond).

As far as I'm concerned, virtually all sex in an abusive relationship is rape, since there is always the threat of violence, but I'm guessing you'd have a hard time selling that one to the judge, unless you can get me elected.

merlin401

hippiemom wrote:

Obviously, someone who is intoxicated is not capable of giving consent, so any sexual acts with such a person would be illegal .

ALthough, most of the time, (unless forced or tricked or something), your decision to drink a lot means you essentially consented to lose your ability to make decisions. So you really consented to be in a compromised situation, and I really can't feel bad for people that get into trouble that way. Nor, by the way, do I think it is necessarily rape. I mean, how much they have lost their ability to consent should not be something you have to figure out.

angelica

merlin401 wrote:

Well thats obvious, yes. But the poster is saying that the "rape victim" is fully aware and they just got talked into it or badged into it. No way that is rape. The way some people are giving their definitions it would be like

"Honey, can we have sex"
"Um, no"
"Oh please, you look so beautiful tonight"
"Ok, sure lets go"

is rape. Thats ridiculous.

Again, when I was sexually assaulted when I slept, when I became aware of the assault, and then complied for whatever reason, I was giving consent by action.

BUT--the assault happened before I became aware of it--meaning the assaulter had sex without my consent, before I decided to consent to it. There may be two different people contributing to a bad situation. And yet, the person who assaulted the humanity of the other without consent in the first place is still fully assaulting another human being.

I agree with what you say in your example--The person who takes the will-less role is 100% responsible for their choice, whether they allow themselves awareness/consciousness of the choice they are making. When one consents out of fear, then the way out for them becomes addressing the initial fear. Blaming someone who does not control your consent is futile and does not solve your problem.

And again to be clear, I've been date raped numerous times and each time I said no, over and over while I was being raped. At no time did I agree. Non-consensual sex ever remains non-consensual sex.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

Not really. It takes "agreement" to be raped or to follow a cult leader. The "agreement" in a physical rape is a forced agreement that goes against the will of the victim. The agreement to follow a cult leader (or a government or a religion or an advertisement or a whatever) is the will of the victim.

Lol, WHAT???? So the 'agreement' in a physical rape is that there IS no agreement?

Heineken Helen

merlin401 wrote:

ALthough, most of the time, (unless forced or tricked or something), your decision to drink a lot means you essentially consented to lose your ability to make decisions. So you really consented to be in a compromised situation, and I really can't feel bad for people that get into trouble that way. Nor, by the way, do I think it is necessarily rape. I mean, how much they have lost their ability to consent should not be something you have to figure out.

I have a right to drink as much as I want and expect people to NOT take advantage of me.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

Lol, WHAT???? So the 'agreement' in a physical rape is that there IS no agreement?

Yes. That's why "agreement" was in quotes. And the contradiction is what makes it a violation of the victim's rights.

Rape is an event between 2 people. There is a reality of consent in that both people are participating. One is doing so willingly, the other unwillingly.

That was my only point. I was not in any way implying that the victim willingly agrees with the event on any level.

angelica

Heatherj43 wrote:

I think some people have that weak of a mind...or we wouldn't see the cults we have seen, like David Korash, Manson, and those guys with the tennis shoes. I think all of those followers may have been mentally raped. Do you?

Many people have "weak" minds. We're entitled to be at whatever stage we are and not be abused or taken advantage of. At the same time, anyone who takes advantage and tramples boundaries also shows a weak mind. Both sides of this coin, unless they learn to become balanced and whole, will continue to seek the other side of the coin for balance.

Taking advantage of others, and being taken advantage of both show weakness. Both lack balance and an ability to be truly potent, boundaried and individual.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

Many people have "weak" minds. We're entitled to be at whatever stage we are and not be abused or taken advantage of. At the same time, anyone who takes advantage and tramples boundaries also shows a weak mind. Both sides of this coin, unless they learn to become balanced and whole, will continue to seek the other side of the coin for balance.

Taking advantage of others, and being taken advantage of both show weakness. Both lack balance and an ability to be truly potent, boundaried and individual.

This is a great post.

merlin401

Heineken Helen wrote:

I have a right to drink as much as I want and expect people to NOT take advantage of me.

Ok, so you want to be able to go out, totally lose control of your ability to make sound decisions, and expect everyone around you (including strangers) to abide by the moral code you WOULD have had under sober conditions? How are they supposed to even know what you would be willing or not willing to do?

Sorry, that is irresponsable on your part.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes. That's why "agreement" was in quotes. And the contradiction is what makes it a violation of the victim's rights.

Rape is an event between 2 people. There is a reality of consent in that both people are participating. One is doing so willingly, the other unwillingly.

That was my only point. I was not in any way implying that the victim willingly agrees with the event on any level.

I know that but please stop trying to define stuff cos it just doesn't work. And it's a bit patronising trying to explain to people who were raped what rape IS.

Heineken Helen

merlin401 wrote:

Ok, so you want to be able to go out, totally lose control of your ability to make sound decisions, and expect everyone around you (including strangers) to abide by the moral code you WOULD have had under sober conditions?

Sorry, that is irresponsable on your part.

Irresponsible... yes!

Responsible for what other people do... NO!

And it's not a moral code, it's the law.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

I have a right to drink as much as I want and expect people to NOT take advantage of me.

You have the right to any expectation you choose. You have no right to craft reality based on your expectations, however.

merlin401

Heineken Helen wrote:

Irresponsible... yes!

Responsible for what other people do... NO!

And it's not a moral code, it's the law.

So suppose some guy starts hitting on you while you're under the influence, you flirt back and eventually start up with him. Then later, when you're sober again, you say "oh, I didn't want that to happen", "he must have taken advantage of me". That is all brought upon yourself! Thats your fault for getting into that state; not his fault for being unable to a) determine how impaired you are and b) determine if under normal conditions you'd object to doing whatever you did with him.

Heineken Helen

merlin401 wrote:

So suppose some guy starts hitting on you while you're under the influence, you flirt back and eventually start up with him. Then later, when you're sober again, you say "oh, I didn't want that to happen", "he must have taken advantage of me". That is all brought upon yourself! Thats your fault for getting into that state; not his fault for being unable to a) determine how impaired you are and b) determine if under normal conditions you'd object to doing whatever you did with him.

:rolleyes: That's not the kinda scenario I'm talking about. Some men go out looking for women who are so drunk they won't know what they're doing. Other men don't realise she's incapable of consent - there's a difference and I'm aware of that. It may be my fault that I got into that state but what happens afterwards certainly isn't.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

I know that but please stop trying to define stuff cos it just doesn't work. And it's a bit patronising trying to explain to people who were raped what rape IS.

???

You asked me what I meant:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Lol, WHAT???? So the 'agreement' in a physical rape is that there IS no agreement?

So I explained. I did not intend to be patronising, nor did I intend to hurt your feelings.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

You have the right to any expectation you choose. You have no right to craft reality based on your expectations, however.

What???????????? Again riddles!!!!!!!! I DO have the right to expect people to respect me. I expect them to when I'm sober, why not when I'm drunk? And all too often men use that excuse you're using - well she got into that state, what did she expect?

merlin401

Heineken Helen wrote:

:rolleyes: That's not the kinda scenario I'm talking about. Some men go out looking for women who are so drunk they won't know what they're doing. Other men don't realise she's incapable of consent - there's a difference and I'm aware of that. .

Thats true, but the point is there is no way to prove the difference between the scumbags that go looking for drunk women and the guys who just didn't realize the girl was impaired etc.

Heineken Helen wrote:

It may be my fault that I got into that state but what happens afterwards certainly isn't.

Well thats not true. How about after you get in the car and drive away drunk you tell that to the cop who is giving you a DUI. You made a bad choice while impaired and pay the consequences. Whether your bad choice was to say "yes" to someone looking for sex or get behind the wheel, it was YOUR choice (even if you can't remember it)

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

???

You asked me what I meant:



So I explained. I did not intend to be patronising, nor did I intend to hurt your feelings.

Sorry it was more of a rhetorical question... should have made that clearer.

And I KNOW you didn't intend but rape isn't just a few words - it doesn't fit into a certain definition... so ya can define away but it doesn't mean that YOUR opinion of what rape is is the only kind of rape there is.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

What???????????? Again riddles!!!!!!!! I DO have the right to expect people to respect me. I expect them to when I'm sober, why not when I'm drunk?

As I said, you DO have the right to any expectation you choose. However, just because you expect something doesn't mean it will happen.

And all too often men use that excuse you're using - well she got into that state, what did she expect?

Where did I use or give any support to that excuse?

Heineken Helen

merlin401 wrote:

Thats true, but the point is there is no way to prove the difference between the scumbags that go looking for drunk women and the guys who just didn't realize the girl was impaired etc.

I'm not talking about how to prove it - yes it's very hard. It's very hard to prove most cases of rape. But I certainly feel for guys who are accused of rape when he may not have known she was that drunk or because she regrets it the next morning. Yes the girl may be ashamed of sleeping with him but we've all been in that situation - ya don't go saying he raped you. If you did, you should be charged with the equivilent of rape imo.

merlin401 wrote:

Well thats not true. How about after you get in the car and drive away drunk you tell that to the cop who is giving you a DUI. You made a bad choice while impaired and pay the consequences. Whether your bad choice was to say "yes" to someone looking for sex or get behind the wheel, it was YOUR choice (even if you can't remember it)

NO, because I drove the car... which more than likely means I was standing, knew how to put the key in the ignition, etc. nobody did that for me. It's not the same thing.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

As I said, you DO have the right to any expectation you choose. However, just because you expect something doesn't mean it will happen.



Where did I use or give any support to that excuse?

You may not be actually using it as an excuse but you're pre-validating it for them by saying if I get too drunk it's my fault for getting that drunk. They will listen to so many men saying that and that is what they will hear. Not ME arguing that I can get as drunk as I want

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

You may not be actually using it as an excuse but you're pre-validating it for them by saying if I get too drunk it's my fault for getting that drunk. They will listen to so many men saying that and that is what they will hear. Not ME arguing that I can get as drunk as I want

WTF?

Where am I "pre-validating" that excuse?

merlin401

Heineken Helen wrote:

NO, because I drove the car... which more than likely means I was standing, knew how to put the key in the ignition, etc. nobody did that for me. It's not the same thing.

Its not the same situation, but its the same principle of wanting to absolve yourself from the consequences of your drunken decisions.

Heineken Helen

merlin401 wrote:

Its not the same situation, but its the same principle of wanting to absolve yourself from the consequences of your drunken decisions.

No it's not. Because drink driving is a stupid decision, drunk sex is a stupid decision, getting so drunk that you don't know what you're doing is a stupid decision... but it does NOT allow anyone to do what they like to me while I'm IN that situation - because that's NOT my decision so I am NOT responsible. I know where you're coming from and I've argued this many times and won't change my mind.

Anyway, I'm going home.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

angelica wrote:

Many people have "weak" minds. We're entitled to be at whatever stage we are and not be abused or taken advantage of. At the same time, anyone who takes advantage and tramples boundaries also shows a weak mind. Both sides of this coin, unless they learn to become balanced and whole, will continue to seek the other side of the coin for balance.

Taking advantage of others, and being taken advantage of both show weakness. Both lack balance and an ability to be truly potent, boundaried and individual.

This is a great post.

I would think you'd agree. You are one of the few people on this board who shows you know this by your very actions. Therefore you show authentic strength. And somehow people sometimes misinterpret that strength as you harming them, and they give themselves license to harm you, seemingly not realising that they are only undermining their own selves and showing their own lack of strength by becoming the true abuser with their mistreatments. It's not a wonder classic fairytales contain the parts where the pure-of-heart hero must solve the riddles in order to pass through closed doors or other symbols of boundary. When we give ourselves permission to bombard the boundaries of another, we have failed the test. One shows a lack of defined individuality when they give themselves license to trample the boundaries of another. Conversely, one shows their own strength of personal boundary by the level of sacredness they treat the boundaries of others with.

I have respected you for your individuality and the resulting fairness with which you treat people, very much, right from the beginning. It shows your sense of centeredness (notice I strategically avoided saying self-centredness which is actually what others are showing)

angelica

I think Helen's point might be being overlooked. Women are not for raping. We are entitled to hold people to such an "ideal" and expect there to be consequences if this ideal is not met.

And I think the counter point is that the ideal does not always play out, and therefore we're not being realistic if we know we can be potentially raped at any point, and then we ignore that potentiality.

This comes down to the fact that many of us do all kinds of unconscious things that might be heard as a message that we're "looking for it" or that "we want 'it' ". Since we cannot police what we are unconscious of, and because we don't control what others interpret of our actions, a good rule is to stick with upfront, explicit consent as the one dependable decider for when sex is okay. Therefore "no" must be the decider that it is not okay. Women are responsible for using it; men are responsible for hearing and respecting it as the decider.

angelica

merlin401 wrote:

its not the same situation, but its the same principle of wanting to absolve yourself from the consequences of your drunken decisions.

I'm wondering if you are hearing Helen's point...If she drives drunk, she is responsible for driving drunk. If as a drunk driver she kills someone, she is responsible for getting drunk and killing someone. If she gets drunk and another person rapes her without her consent, she is not responsible for raping herself--rather the other person is responsible for raping her. She is responsible for being drunk, and yet that is a far cry from being responsible for rape.

When we know that it's possible to get raped in any situation--such as when drunk, or by walking the streets late at night, and we make a decision to trust the odds that it won't happen, we may or may not have poor judgment. In the end, having poor judgment is different than raping someone.

I did not hear Helen deny any accountability for her own drunken actions. She merely denied accountability for people she does not control.

merlin401

angelica wrote:

If she gets drunk and another person rapes her without her consent, she is not responsible for raping herself--rather the other person is responsible for raping her. She is responsible for being drunk, and yet that is a far cry from being responsible for rape.

That is fine by me. But the original post that got me responding to this line of thought was that a drunk woman CANNOT give consent to have sex, implying that any sex with a drunk person is tantamount to rape. And thats absurd. If you're so drunk that you end up saying "YES" to someone's advances, than it is not rape and it is your fault even if, after sobering up, you realize you really didn't want to have sex with that guy. So the only issues I'm talking about is a drunk person giving consent (just like a drunk person consenting to drive a car). Their (admittedly impaired) decision; their responsability.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

I would think you'd agree. You are one of the few people on this board who shows you know this by your very actions. Therefore you show authentic strength. And somehow people sometimes misinterpret that strength as you harming them, and they give themselves license to harm you, seemingly not realising that they are only undermining their own selves and showing their own lack of strength by becoming the true abuser with their mistreatments. It's not a wonder classic fairytales contain the parts where the pure-of-heart hero must solve the riddles in order to pass through closed doors or other symbols of boundary. When we give ourselves permission to bombard the boundaries of another, we have failed the test. One shows a lack of defined individuality when they give themselves license to trample the boundaries of another. Conversely, one shows their own strength of personal boundary by the level of sacredness they treat the boundaries of others with.

I have respected you for your individuality and the resulting fairness with which you treat people, very much, right from the beginning.

Thank you. I take this as a tremendous compliment and return it in kind.

It shows your sense of centeredness (notice I strategically avoided saying self-centredness which is actually what others are showing)

The opposite it true, my dear. And you describe why right here:

"seemingly not realising that they are only undermining their own selves and showing their own lack of strength by becoming the true abuser with their mistreatments"

baraka

angelica wrote:

Many people have "weak" minds. We're entitled to be at whatever stage we are and not be abused or taken advantage of. At the same time, anyone who takes advantage and tramples boundaries also shows a weak mind. Both sides of this coin, unless they learn to become balanced and whole, will continue to seek the other side of the coin for balance.

Taking advantage of others, and being taken advantage of both show weakness. Both lack balance and an ability to be truly potent, boundaried and individual.

What a brilliant & insightful post, angelica!