Rape and Sexual Assault - Definitions and Statistics

Don't really have a problem with those definitions except with the "verbal threats" counting as actual rape and sexual assault.

Death threats are not treated as actual murder, not sure why it's different with rape/sa.

edit: Are there any cases where someone was convicted and sentenced for "rape" over a threat? Could it be a dud law, where it exists, but it's never implemented?

Also do wonder why "attempted rape" and "rape" are treated the same when we distinguish between "attempted murder" and "murder".

Sex crimes have a stronger stigma to them then pure violence in US society.

Which, imo, is symptomatic of our general sexual repression. You can show someone getting decapitated or riddled with bullets in a movie and still get a PG-13 rating, whereas an explicit act of sexual violence is usually enough to instantly make it R.

The UK doesn't have a single legal system. Scots Law is very different from the Rest of the UK. It used to have a single definition of rape as being forced penetration of the vagina by the penis so there was no such crime as male rape. There wasn't even a crime of sexuality assault. Merely 'aggrivated' assault. This all changed about 5 or 6 years ago when the entire law was rewritten.

Sounds like the Scots had it right.

Everyone knows male rape victims are a myth.

Actually seems more like pro or anti anal. Depending on how you look at it.

And being anti-anal means you're basically a homophobe, so you kind of deserve it anyway.

Unless envelopment is considered rape too, then I can't help but feel like any results are going to be skewed.

Just my 2c.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
And being anti-anal means you're basically a homophobe, so you kind of deserve it anyway.

It was even a messed up system for women too, as raping a woman anally and/or orally would net the rapist a lesser crime than raping her vaginally.

Definitely pro-anal. I approve.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't really have a problem with those definitions except with the "verbal threats" counting as actual rape and sexual assault.

Death threats are not treated as actual murder, not sure why it's different with rape/sa.

edit: Are there any cases where someone was convicted and sentenced for "rape" over a threat? Could it be a dud law, where it exists, but it's never implemented? Originally posted by Robtard
Also do wonder why "attempted rape" and "rape" are treated the same when we distinguish between "attempted murder" and "murder".

Well, the US doesn't address rape crimes in the same format as murder:

Wiki tells me that federal law doesn't use the term 'rape', and that rape is grouped with all forms of non-consensual sex acts (which would include sexual threats, I assume) within US legal code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#Criminal_punishment

The severity of the punishment is based on the use of violence, drugs, and the age of the victim.

I think the conversation in this thread (and maybe the purpose of it in the first place) highlights that rape exists as part of a spectrum of crimes, and lacks the clear 'was rape', 'wasn't rape' lines that exist with murder.

By the definition of the Norwegian law, what constitutes as rape is:

Acquiring sexual relations by violence or threatening behaviour
Having sexual relations with someone who is either unconscious or unable to resist the act
by violence or threatening behaviour force someone to have sexual relations with another person or do equivalent actions to themselves

Rape is punishable by up to 10 years, but can go as high as 21 if a minor is involved and the rape is described as "especially violent or degrading".

https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1902-05-22-10/KAPITTEL_2-12?q=straffeloven+192#KAPITTEL_2-12

Originally posted by krisblaze
Having sexual relations with someone who is either unconscious or unable to resist the act

So would bondage, even voluntary, be punishable by law if anyone decides to say something about it? mmm

Lol rape

Originally posted by Sacred 117
So would bondage, even voluntary, be punishable by law if anyone decides to say something about it? mmm

If they are bound and gagged and then later claim it's rape it might make a case, but if the "victim" willingly welt along with it up until then and agreed to have sex then probably not.

Originally posted by krisblaze
By the definition of the Norwegian law, what constitutes as rape is:

Acquiring sexual relations by violence or threatening behaviour
Having sexual relations with someone who is either unconscious or unable to resist the act
by violence or threatening behaviour force someone to have sexual relations with another person or do equivalent actions to themselves

Rape is punishable by up to 10 years, but can go as high as 21 if a minor is involved and the rape is described as "especially violent or degrading".

https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1902-05-22-10/KAPITTEL_2-12?q=straffeloven+192#KAPITTEL_2-12
That seems sensible. The "threatening behavior" dimension is something that I think might not be well enough defined in American law--outright violence need not be employed in every case to carry out a rape.

I wonder if any criminal code in any country makes provisions for more subtle forms of extortion like blackmail.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That seems sensible. The "threatening behavior" dimension is something that I think might not be well enough defined in American law--outright violence need not be employed in every case to carry out a rape.

I wonder if any criminal code in any country makes provisions for more subtle forms of extortion like blackmail.
There have been a lot of "partial" convictions in Norway though.

People being convicted for violence during sex but not rape or say threatening circumstances.

For example there recently was a woman who reported her husband for rape. She later tried to have it pulled claiming that she did it as payback for finding out he had two families.

Once you file something like this, however, you can't just pull it, and the police proceeded with the investigation.

What they eventually found out, was not that he had raped her, but that he often beat her and that he had beat her during sex. So eventually he was not convincted for sexual assault, but some kind of assault and a sexual misdemeanor...

There were also a few cases where someone had been raped in their sleep where the perp almost got away due to the wording of the law.

Originally posted by Existere
I think the conversation in this thread (and maybe the purpose of it in the first place) highlights that rape exists as part of a spectrum of crimes, and lacks the clear 'was rape', 'wasn't rape' lines that exist with murder.

Dude...with eloquence like that, feel free to define the purpose of this thread all you want.