Yeah men get rape, i heard about it. BTW happy thanksgiving.
~~Kai~~
yes, most ppl think of the traditional sense of a sexual act. but in most cases the male is sodomized against his will…. come on Triplets talked about this haha
hi…sorry, i saw your comment on kenny’s site, and wanted to contribute an opinion…
the obvious is that the male must obviously have an erection for any form of intercourse [and therefore, rape] to occur. however, despite the more sensible line of thought that ‘you must be aroused to be wet/erect’….this, in a physiological, anatomical and psychological sense, is incorrect [or at least, debatable]
in the periodic cycle, that is, the traditionally accepted ’28 day’ cycle that girls go through, there is a certain period when she will secrete more mucous than normal, whether is is aroused or not. hence, the production of pantyliners. likewise, ky jelly was invented for women who, even upon arousal, cannot produce/secrete a sufficient amount of mucous…therefore, in a physiological sense, being ‘wet’ sometimes doesn’t have much to do with whether one is aroused or not. my point is: if a woman was about to get raped, and was during that certian period of her cycle, she may be wet, but not aroused.
similarly, a young male may sometimes find himself with an erection against his will. psychologically, they know it’s ‘wrong’ to be aroused by certain things, and may ‘think unsexy thoughts, think unsexy thoughts!’…but still have an erection without really wanting to. the opposite of this is also true. men can be extremely aroused, psychologically, but physiologically, are unable to have an erection. hence: viagra, cialis, and more recently PT-141.
to conclude my long winded comment. it is possible to rape a guy….basically what kenny said…it’s the male being sodomised against his will.
p.s i have never sounded so intellectual in my life haha…and btw, i like the stuff you write about…the xmas debate and what not….very stimulating for the mind. i wanna comment on the xmas thing too, but i think that’s enough trying to sound smart for today =P
ill try to ellaborate. i have the impression that your interpretation of a male getting “raped” involves HIM being aroused and performing vaginal intercourse with the female that is supposedly raping him. in the past i was confused as well, thinking how a guy can get aroused if hes not into it. but again the female rapist can use a number of objects to violate the male’s orifices, thus giving the woman power and belittling the male. if a male is raped by another male…well i think you get the picture now.
you’re talking about legally, right? it depends on the statute that you’re given. Jurisdictions differ on how to define rape. I believe the MPC defines rape in a-sexual terms. However, the MPC is far from widely-accepted. I believe the challenge is that if it’s a-sexually defined, does it sufficiently accomodate the context of a male being raped by a woman? It may be very difficult to charge a woman with rape under an a-sexual rape statute because the requisite force may never be proved.
If rape is defined according to gender, then you must see if there is a statute specifically for the woman raping the male. Then should be easier to analyze.
Also, you may want to bring up the public policy issue that often times when a woman rapes a man it is underreported and it’s less socially acceptable to bring up rape as a man. A statute written by state legislators could very well be influenced by inaccurate statistics and ill-advised in their construction of such a rape statute.
(disclaimer: this info was NOT researched.. i’m just writing off the top of my head. )
Comments (5)
Yeah men get rape, i heard about it. BTW happy thanksgiving.
~~Kai~~
yes, most ppl think of the traditional sense of a sexual act. but in most cases the male is sodomized against his will…. come on Triplets talked about this haha
hi…sorry, i saw your comment on kenny’s site, and wanted to contribute an opinion…
the obvious is that the male must obviously have an erection for any form of intercourse [and therefore, rape] to occur. however, despite the more sensible line of thought that ‘you must be aroused to be wet/erect’….this, in a physiological, anatomical and psychological sense, is incorrect [or at least, debatable]
in the periodic cycle, that is, the traditionally accepted ’28 day’ cycle that girls go through, there is a certain period when she will secrete more mucous than normal, whether is is aroused or not. hence, the production of pantyliners. likewise, ky jelly was invented for women who, even upon arousal, cannot produce/secrete a sufficient amount of mucous…therefore, in a physiological sense, being ‘wet’ sometimes doesn’t have much to do with whether one is aroused or not. my point is: if a woman was about to get raped, and was during that certian period of her cycle, she may be wet, but not aroused.
similarly, a young male may sometimes find himself with an erection against his will. psychologically, they know it’s ‘wrong’ to be aroused by certain things, and may ‘think unsexy thoughts, think unsexy thoughts!’…but still have an erection without really wanting to. the opposite of this is also true. men can be extremely aroused, psychologically, but physiologically, are unable to have an erection. hence: viagra, cialis, and more recently PT-141.
to conclude my long winded comment. it is possible to rape a guy….basically what kenny said…it’s the male being sodomised against his will.
p.s i have never sounded so intellectual in my life haha…and btw, i like the stuff you write about…the xmas debate and what not….very stimulating for the mind. i wanna comment on the xmas thing too, but i think that’s enough trying to sound smart for today =P
ill try to ellaborate. i have the impression that your interpretation of a male getting “raped” involves HIM being aroused and performing vaginal intercourse with the female that is supposedly raping him. in the past i was confused as well, thinking how a guy can get aroused if hes not into it. but again the female rapist can use a number of objects to violate the male’s orifices, thus giving the woman power and belittling the male. if a male is raped by another male…well i think you get the picture now.
you’re talking about legally, right? it depends on the statute that you’re given. Jurisdictions differ on how to define rape. I believe the MPC defines rape in a-sexual terms. However, the MPC is far from widely-accepted. I believe the challenge is that if it’s a-sexually defined, does it sufficiently accomodate the context of a male being raped by a woman? It may be very difficult to charge a woman with rape under an a-sexual rape statute because the requisite force may never be proved.
If rape is defined according to gender, then you must see if there is a statute specifically for the woman raping the male. Then should be easier to analyze.
Also, you may want to bring up the public policy issue that often times when a woman rapes a man it is underreported and it’s less socially acceptable to bring up rape as a man. A statute written by state legislators could very well be influenced by inaccurate statistics and ill-advised in their construction of such a rape statute.
(disclaimer: this info was NOT researched.. i’m just writing off the top of my head. )