Is it possible to 'mentally rape' someone?

merlin401

farfromglorified wrote:

It is not possible to be mentally raped.

Rape of the body is the act of sex without sanction.

To 'rape' someone's mind requires the sanction of that mind.

Well, technically, I suppose you could give someone a post-hypnotic suggestion to agree to have sex with you. This would be the only way i would agree to a case of mental rape!

Heatherj43

farfromglorified wrote:

It is not possible to be mentally raped.

Rape of the body is the act of sex without sanction.

To 'rape' someone's mind requires the sanction of that mind.

LOL!! I was waiting for someone to answer the question as it was posed.
Do you think that cult leaders can rape the mind?

farfromglorified

merlin401 wrote:

Well, technically, I suppose you could give someone a post-hypnotic suggestion to agree to have sex with you. This would be the only way i would agree to a case of mental rape!

Even hypnotism requires the sanction of the hypnotized mind.

merlin401

Heatherj43 wrote:

You are right, the physical abuse came first. But, that issue is a long one to explain...as to how women get themselves in abusive relationships. And as for they should had been already arrested...hahaha!!! I had restraining orders that I could not get cops to honor, so learn about abuse before you talk junk you don't know.
While I was awaiting my divorce, he even had the right to come into my home, cuz it was his too until after the divorce, even with the order. I had 3 restraining orders in total and not one was honored by any cops. This is even when he came to my home and beat the crap out of me.


The psychology of abuse is long and well studied, go learn about it...but yes...sexual assault and rape occurs along with the beatings!!! It is rape!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alright, I see what your'e saying. But we can't apply your situation of 'mental rape' in an abusive relationship to non-abusive relationships. That 'mental rape' is occuring because felonies have already been committed by the guy. In a non-absusive relationship, I do not agree that this sort of 'mental rape' can occur.

farfromglorified

Heatherj43 wrote:

Do you think that cult leaders can rape the mind?

Not quite, but that's pretty close. A cult leader attacks a mind, but it's still primarily up to that mind to drop its defenses and then actively suppress them.

That example is about as close as it comes, though.

merlin401

farfromglorified wrote:

Even hypnotism requires the sanction of the hypnotized mind.

I'm not so sure about that... Your mind may be willing to have sex (in general) so a post-hypnotic suggestion to have sex would not be rejected by your mind on moral grounds. Instead, you may, from personal preferences, not have chosen to have sex with that particular person. People perform stupid things under post-hypnotic suggestion that they would not have preferred to do all the time, because the physical act is not something they would morally object to.

Heatherj43

farfromglorified wrote:

Not quite, but that's pretty close. A cult leader attacks a mind, but it's still primarily up to that mind to drop its defenses and then actively suppress them.

That example is about as close as it comes, though.

Physical rape usually involves attacking someone weaker, wouldn't a cult leader be doing the same thing...going after the weaker minded person. Hell, advertisers, government, religion...alll do the same thing to some extent.
But, it involves taking power and control from the weak minded, who likely cannot defend itself.

Like, in sexual rape, I doubt a 100 lb man would be able to rape a bulky 225 man...because of the strength...wouldn't it be the same in who has the weaker mind?
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?

farfromglorified

merlin401 wrote:

I'm not so sure about that... Your mind may be willing to have sex (in general) so a post-hypnotic suggestion to have sex would not be rejected by your mind on moral grounds. Instead, you may, from personal preferences, not have chosen to have sex with that particular person. People perform stupid things under post-hypnotic suggestion that they would not have preferred to do all the time, because the physical act is not something they would morally object to.

The act of inducing hypnotism is what I'm talking about in regards to sanction.

merlin401

farfromglorified wrote:

The act of inducing hypnotism is what I'm talking about in regards to sanction.

ahh, gotcha... I read your post in a different way. Then: Agreed!

This conversation is going off though... looks like now people are discussing mental rape as if it were synonymous with "brainwashing"

farfromglorified

Heatherj43 wrote:

Physical rape usually involves attacking someone weaker, wouldn't a cult leader be doing the same thing...going after the weaker minded person. Hell, advertisers, government, religion...alll do the same thing to some extent.
But, it involves taking power and control from the weak minded, who likely cannot defend itself.

The difference between the mind and body is that a "weak mind" still has everything necessary to reject those attacks. A "weak body" does not.

Like, in sexual rape, I doubt a 100 lb man would be able to rape a bulky 225 man...because of the strength...wouldn't it be the same in who has the weaker mind?

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.

One goes against the will, the other goes with the will.

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?

No. Not to defend cult leaders or advertisers ro governments or whatver, but I see persuasion and force as two distinct things.

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.