- Nov 19, 2010
Lets try some thought experiments. First imagine you are male (if you aren't already male) and;Adam Jensen said:I told you already when your argument makes sense. And it doesn't make sense when a man is stimulated by nothing more than the actual rapist being sexually attractive. Put yourself in the situation where the only thing that stimulates you sexually is the actual "rapist". She does nothing unnatural to you. She's not forcing you to swallow some pills, she's not touching your anus, she's touching herself. If you still can't comprehend why that kind of situation is not rape then something is wrong with you or you're simply lying for the sake of trying to win an argument.
You are unconscious, you are having a dream about having sex with someone. When you wake up you find its someone you are not attracted to, or possibly repulsed by. Does the fact that your body had an erection mean you consented?
Now males can have erections at what age? Does that mean they give informed consent to sex at those ages, even if they get erections from someone moaning or exposing themselves to the male?
Lets say you are in a stable long term relationship, and you are as you suggest tied to a chair by a random woman who you don't love, and don't want to have sex with because you don't want to remain faithful to your relationship. Your body responds to visual and audible stimuli and you have an erection. You repeated inform the person that this will harm your relationship, so despite finding the person attractive you do not want to have sex with them. They do it anyway. Is this acceptable to you?
what if they take pictures or videotape it, is the fact that you had an erection while they set up the camera consent to being filmed or photographed, I mean you were aroused while being filmed, surely you had no problem with it?
You walk past a shop, look in at a large screen TV. its a beautiful TV, you really want that TV, but you reason you have other more important things to spend your money on at the moment. The shopkeeper however comes out and tells you he has charged your credit card and the TV will be sent to your house. You explain you didn't consent to this, he informs you that of course you did, your eyes dilated and your heart rate changed, you face became flushed. He can prove you wanted to buy the TV, so now you have. Would that be right?
There is a huge legal and moral difference between; Being aroused by something, having an involuntary physiological reaction (pupils dilating, hair on the back of your neck standing on end, shuddering in repulsion or fear) and giving informed consent only one of those is a valid reason for someone to do something to you. Would you really want this to be any other way?