minivanburen wrote:What does this even mean? Do you believe it's not rape if you start having sex with someone, they tell you to stop, and you keep having sex with them--even if they repeatedly tell you "no" and try to physically resist? Do you think it's not rape if you've had sex with that person before?
I mean some cases are a little bit less than rape, due to the background circumstances, and probably shouldn't be called "rape". Some other word might be more appropriate.
minivanburen wrote:For your convenience, here is the federal statutory definition of rape ("sexual abuse"), 18 U.S.C. § 2242:
Modern law has been busy redefining the definition of what "rape" is.
Being that this is a political forum, and many of these laws were not completely without contention, I am going to refuse to let the wording in laws define what terms mean.
Just like I would not expect you to automatically accept that "abortion is murder" just because a law was passed saying that, for example.
minivanburen wrote:As you can see, whether the victim has previously had sex with that person is entirely immaterial to whether the victim has been raped.
I'm sorry, I'm going to disagree with that. In my opinion it is very "material" to how much the offender should be punished, and even perhaps whether they should be punished, in some situations.
The use of the word "rape" is not really definite or specific enough in the type of situations we are discussing here.
Because we've discussed this before in several other threads, I'm not going to get off topic here with you about that.
The specific question in this thread is whether it is rape if she did not immediately leave him.
There are two sides to this: Whether it is rape (theoretically, if we knew for certain what actually happened), and whether it should be treated as rape (since we may have no way of knowing for certain what actually happened to that woman).