Is it still rape if..?

"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.

By the law, when Person A said no or stop, it became rape. I'm aware.

But it is easy to see it as rape, even when the female maybe sometimes doesn't even genuinely mean it and then she wants it.

Yeah, but if person A considers atm it's not rape? Does it change anything?

Legally, I believe so. In practice, it probably depends on their sexual history and the dynamics of their relationship. If they have engaged in similar kinds of rough sex/rape fantasy play before then the waters become pretty murky as Person B might have a reasonable expectation that what they are doing is okay. However, since Person A truly meant no when she said it, I think this is a much harder sell.

In reality, things are said and done during arguments, and especially during ostensible breakups, that are not straightforward. It isn't uncommon at all for these situations to begin with outright refusal and then end in sex as key issues in a relationship finally come to the surface and are worked out in an emotionally volatile way. Hence, I can conceive of a situation where an encounter similar to the one described would be okay.

It's a difficult issue to navigate but, broadly speaking, if both parties are content then so be it. Viewing your experience through a prism of trauma is inherently unhealthy; this is the thing that the modern identikit SJWs get wrong when they demand that everyone be outraged about everything. Sometimes something happens in the context of a particular set of conditions that makes the outcome counter-intuitive, but at all times it is the welfare of the people involved that needs to be paramount.

It became rape before then. Just by the way A was unlawfully detained, it became extremely difficult for B to defend themselves against a charge of rape.



Do you want to try that again?

Before sticking their penis in someone, any man needs a reasonable belief in consent at that point. Without that, if there isn't consent - regardless of any consent earlier or later - it's rape.

Rapeplay isn't actual rape lmao. It's a planned activity, and safe words are always used. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
Also, I'd say it's more unhealthy to be so apologetic towards the type of individual person B obviously is, than to regard one's self as a victim of such behaviour.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Rape doesn't work retroactively. At the time, it was.
You cannot give consent post-act, just like you cannot revoke consent post-act.
(You can however not report it and thus the person won't be a criminal [legally only a criminal after conviction before someone jumps the gun])

I mean it's technically rape yes.

Just like how everytime you have sex with your consenting but drunken partner is technically rape.

But from the passage it sounds like Person A doesn't consider it to be rape. Therefore we shouldn't either.

"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?

A would more likely win the case if she filed a complaint. I heard that in India there were a number of cases of false rape where women were implying false statements.

As most people have said. Its clearly rape the moment there is penetration and he knows he does not have consent. Endof.

How long did you spend thinking this one up?

So would you say that even if A isn't traumatized at all, doesn't think of B as a rapist and still in a long happy relationship with B?

Would B still be considered guilty and punished to face the consequences?

I didn't think it up, just wanted to hear your opinions on it.