Is it still rape if..?

The real question here is why would A forgive and marry this person that is quite clearly a rapist?

I would certainly say that the intent to rape was there and that for at least part of the act, it should be deemed rape.



Well strictly speaking the decision regarding proceeding with a rape allegation is that of the individual in question. If person B considered the dominance to have outweighed the lack of consent then as much as i may consider A to be an inferior form of life, there's no obligation on you to have the guy prosecuted.

Ultimately there are girls out there who want a master/slave relationship or want it incredibly rough (i had a girl tell me that if i could not make her cry then it was not rough enough) and if you are content to be with a man who does not believe consent is important then that is your decision as an individual.

While i agree that person B is a rapist i tend to disagree with the view that there is any abuse or control that is not warranted here. As much as feminists and the like may not like it, there are women that enjoy being submissive and giving their partner control. Now in cases like this i would say that it is wrong for the state to intrude on what individual A has decided was okay behaviour even if i agree person B is an ass.

Kind of like how a lot of people don't feel that sex with a drunk girl is wrong even though it technically may be. Ultimately, that is for the individuals in question to decide.

27.818 interviews in Europe

1007 interviews in Romania

1306 in the UK

Multiple questions to see what people think of domestic violence against women and men and their views on rape.

Lol, not yelling. Sorry.

I'm the type who is trying to understand both sides and get more informed on such aspects, not blaming or trying to come as I'm defending anyone.

It's rape, but the woman probably wouldn't report it, so yeah... Nothing actually gets enforced.

I knew a couple of girls who had asked their boyfriends to "rape" them. Theres the law, then theres the subjective.

Yes, I do think that in this case person A didn't really take the lack of consent as harmful, considering that A wanted to continue the relationship with B afterwards which implies that A didn't see the wrong in it, but maybe A's judgment wasn't clear enough and rather indecisive.

Why would you be surprised that some people are ignorant and that some would find it acceptable?

Chances are that if you're asking the question 'is it rape if...' it's rape.

People found forced sexual intercourse was acceptable if they didn't physically fight back in order to defend themselves.

"Respondents in Romania and Hungary were consistently among the most likely to say each situation may be a justification for sex without consent, while those in Sweden and Spain were consistently among the least likely to say so."

Also, 70% in Europe are aware that it is common in their country but rather ignore it, thinking it's exaggerated.

I was quite surprised that most people know it happens but choose not to question it.

I don't find it just as easy to say it's rape as you do apparently.

"Person A breaks up with Person B.

Person B does not allow Person A to leave, which escalates into Person B physically restraining Person A.

Person B begins to grope and then initiates sex with Person A. Person A does fight back and tell Person B to stop. This goes on for a while.

Near the end of the act, Person A realizes they're enjoying some aspect of what is happening. Assume it's unknown to Person A exactly what they're feeling as it is happening, and feel free to conjecture on it.

At the end of the act, Person A and Person B make up and remain together.

Person A doesn't suffer through the feelings of betrayal of their trust, even though they did intend to end the relationship and did mean it when they asked Person B to stop. Even though Person B used physical coercion that Person A objected to at the moment that it happened--holding them down, pulling them by their hair, biting, face slapping--Person A looks back on the act specifically (that is to say, Person A is looking at this specific event and not just at the acts if they were to happen between two consenting adults) and feels aroused. Person A doesn't feel anger toward Person B for it." (this is a hypothetical situation taken from another site)

-> one of the replies: "Both any physical response that would suggest enjoyment and any feeling of attachment can all happen with sex itself due to over flow of hormones and oxytocin, the bonding hormone. This is how many kidnapper rapists trap their victims and confuse them. The person may not feel anger or anything towards their rapist if they had a prior relationship. That combined with the hormone overflows can cause a false sense of attachment."

Would you consider this rape? Why/why not?

I don't think it's relevant whether person A enjoyed it afterwards.

It was initiated through rape.

Example

Your friend wants to go bungee jumping and you say no.
Your friend forcefully attaches the equipment and pushes you off the bridge.
Afterwards you found it was actually fun and you liked it.

The point here is that you were forced instead of being allowed to decide yourself.

Well yes, but your example could be quite relatable to a parent who pushes their children in the pool in order to encourage them to swim, even if they might cry and be afraid. And that wouldn't be against the law, but I get what you're trying to say. Your decision wasn't your own after all.