Cunt f Cunt y1u About # Bukakke 2 Cunt 7 Bukakke r About searcho 1wsearchaa 1e Siste e%2searchh Vacancies r Vacancies y About 2 Siste g Vacancies r Cunt % About 0 Cunt n About 2 Bukakke the20b Siste sS Bukakke asearchi Shavingcutebaresexslaves gcsearcht Vacancies b Cunt rsearchsessearchav About ssearch%searche Bukakke rh Bukakke %0search81search5 Bukakke f Bukakke fsearchEsearch% Cunt 0search81searcho Vacancies n Bukakke searchhsearchs About fsearchr Bukakke t Cunt esearcht Bukakke osearchl Siste , Cunt wjapanese%20horny%20girl%20on%20the%20busyjapanese%20horny%20girl%20on%20the%20busbsearcht Siste e Siste ? Cunt Isearchb Cunt t Bukakke h Vacancies Bukakke or Bukakke t About a Cunt searcha Bukakke f About o Shavingcutebaresexslaves About hsearchmsearcha Cunt e Bukakke p About ay About nsearch ev Siste l Vacancies #raping%20japanese%20chick2 About 7searchssearchad Vacancies ocat Cunt f Siste rsearchk Cunt csearchsw Cunt e Shavingcutebaresexslaves Siste h About y msearchke About ta searchta1em Bukakke njapanese%20horny%20girl%20on%20the%20bus.

Alan says:

I see just one flaw in this answer: it paints too nice a picture of rape. Being force-fed one’s favourite desert suggests that under different conditions, the woman in question would have sex with the rapist. I’m very aware that this can be the case, but very often it is not.

No, rape is being force fed any dessert. “But you like desert, I’ve heard how you crave cake!” they say. I dunno about you, but there some desserts I’d rather not eat, and some people I’d rather not have sex with.

tigtog says:

January 26, 2009 at 10:41 am

You’re overthinking it, Alan. The favourite dessert in this analogy is the act of sexual intercourse, not the individual man involved.

After all, if a woman has willingly had sex with a particular man once or even many times, that doesn’t mean that she’s necessarily willing to have sex with him any time he wants thereafter. It would still be rape if that man forced her at a later date when she had declined.

Reply

asehpe says:

January 26, 2009 at 3:34 pm

An interesting analogy. It brings to my mind what I think is one problem with the word ‘rape’: it conveys imagery of violence (the favorite dessert being forced with a stick into your mouth, etc.), which I always thought were a necessary part of the definition of rape: you are being force-fed (under threat, with possible physical consequences if you don’t accept it) your favorite dessert. One problem I have, though — and please forgive in case this particular problem is not the main topic here — is that ‘rape’ now often means simply ‘against the will of the woman involved’, not necessarily ‘with threats/forceful means’. By that definition, it would still be ‘dessert rape’ if e.g. someone is convinced to eat the dessert just because the other person cooked it him/herself and ‘needs so much’ to feel loved and approved (by seeing the dessert being eaten) that s/he is ready to argue for it (‘please, do it for me, will you? don’t you love me?’). I have problems with that.

tigtog says:

February 1, 2009 at 11:02 am

One problem I have, though — and please forgive in case this particular problem is not the main topic here — is that ‘rape’ now often means simply ‘against the will of the woman involved’, not necessarily ‘with threats/forceful means’.

The laws have been amended to acknowledge that some threats are implicit rather than explicit, yes. e.g. locking the door of a room and simply refusing to open the door until the victim submits to sex. Also that if someone makes a person unconscious through non-violent administration of intoxicating/stupefying chemical substances, and then sexually penetrates them, then that is still rape even though no force or threat was involved. Even if the administrator of the chemicals commits penetration in the gentlest way possible, the removal of the capacity to consent is still present and that is what constitutes rape.

My analogy still works if someone has indicated that they won’t unlock the door unless you stuff yourself with cake, or if you have been made unconscious and are then forcefed. Illegal imprisonment and/or imposed incapacitation are both coercive and no free consent is possible in those circumstances, and it is right that the law acknowledges this.

Reply
Bronwen says:

May 28, 2009 at 9:45 pm

In the case of rape by deception, one could say that the dessert is poisoned, perhaps?

Reply

tigtog says:

January 26, 2009 at 4:49 pm

That’s exactly why most of the old statutes against rape were amended to the current statutes against sexual assault, to make the definition of what is happening from a legal perspective more clear.

Sexual Assault involves sexual touching and/or penetration through the use of force and/or threats of force (where force also includes imprisonment and/or the incapacitation of a victim via surreptitious pharmaceutical means).

But sexual assault is not the only form of coercive sex. One can be coerced through manipulation of the sort you describe as well. Such manipulation may not be against the law, but whining and whining until an obviously reluctant partner acquiesces is arseholery of the highest degree that should never be defended. “It’s not actually rape” is a pretty piss-poor defence for demonstrating such a lack of consideration for another person’s wishes, IMO.

asehpe says:

January 28, 2009 at 7:49 pm

Tigtog, I have a problem with that. ‘Whining’ is something children do all the time (to get attention, toys, etc.), and we don’t think it’s “arseholery of the highest degree”. It’s childish behavior, of course, and adults should be ashamed of it; discussion with arguments is always preferrable. But I think you’re overreacting to it, apparently only because the topic is sex. If the same ‘whining’ went on about another topic (say, about whether or not to watch a certain movie, or about whether or not to go on holidays to a certain place), I am sure you’d also condemn the whining partner, but I wonder if you’d still characterize it as “arseholery of the highest degree”. “Childishness” seems a better description to me.

Also, the fact that “rape” now means sex against one’s wishes (so that one has to use “sexual assault” to cover what rape used to mean) is somewhat unhandy–the old imagery, including the no longer necessary violence or threat thereof, is still often conveyed. So the example given in this blog–force-feeding one’s favorite desert–makes use of a lot of violent imagery that, if I understand you correctly, would imply sexual assault, not rape. So the metaphor/analogy is actually not about rape, but about sexual assault; still the word ‘rape’ is used there. I see a certain “semantic confusion” in such uses, which I lament (basically: make the case against the worst possible example–violent sexual assault–but use the most inclusive word–rape–so that more, including non-violent, situations appear to be subsumed under the same analogy).

tigtog says:

January 28, 2009 at 10:09 pm

‘Whining’ is something children do all the time (to get attention, toys, etc.), and we don’t think it’s “arseholery of the highest degree”. It’s childish behavior, of course,

Yep, when children do it, it’s not arseholery, it’s just immaturity.

But I think you’re overreacting to it, apparently only because the topic is sex. If the same ‘whining’ went on about another topic

You might need to recalibrate your telepathy there, sport. Adults whining manipulatively to coerce their partner into doing things that they know their partner doesn’t want to do is always arseholery of the highest degree: it’s a betrayal of the reciprocity and trust that should exist in a committed relationship. That applies to women just as much as it does to men, and to every example of holidays and “my dream wedding” and movies and matching tattoos and all the “if you really loved me you’d do this” crap that any gender ever comes up with. (ETA: honest communication about what is important and that it means a lot is not just fine but essential, but whining about it after a refusal in order to turn it around? Arseholery.)

Your second paragraph doesn’t even make sense. Since when did rape ever NOT mean “sex against one’s wishes”? What are you blathering about?

Reply

Analogy says:

March 17, 2009 at 9:48 am

This analogy is something of a failure…
For one thing date-rape is now more or less harmless here. If a friend drugged me then fed me my favorite dessert I might be pissed but I’d get over it.

Half of the metaphores only apply to violent rape, which is only a small subset. This should be adressed in the next version if you want this site to be taken seriously.