Women in the Military More Likely to Be Traumatized by Sexual Assault Than Combat

[Anomalocaris]

I didn't think this could be so complicated.

He is inadvertently letting show the inner demons that made what could have been a man into a mere Christian.

[CliveStaples]

Really? I'm not saying it is ridiculously less traumatic. I am saying it is not rape. If you don't use your sexual organs, it is not rape, as it is not sex.

Does a prosthetic penis count? When, say, two people are engaging in some sort of sexual activity, it might be that one penetrates the other with a fake penis. That isn't "sex"?

Or perhaps you meant "it is not sexual intercourse".

It would be for me. I would still be traumatized, but not knowing for six or more months if I was going to die from an STD is extremely traumatic. I'll give you that it is probably different for people with OCD, but I still imagine that knowing you're not going to catch anything awful or get pregnant alleviates a lot of the shame and fear that comes immediately after rape.

Hmm. I doubt that. I doubt that it eliminates "a lot" of the shame and fear.

Yes.

Right, so if someone had prosthetic skin, you wouldn't be afraid of physical contact with them? Since it is specifically skin-to-skin contact that you're afraid of?

No. Have you ever had sex with a condom on? Skin still touches, dude.

A sufficiently large condom on a sufficiently large object could ensure that no skin-to-skin contact occurs either vaginally or anally. Unless you're including things like the rapist's hands (which could be gloved).

Are you seriously this hung up on it? Again, what does this have to do with the conversation at hand. Rape is rape. All sexual assault is not rape. Fingering someone is not rape. I didn't define rape. All you have to do is Google it. I'm not sure why you need my help with it.

Yes, because I was arguing that "rape isn't rape".


I brought up non-penile forcible insertions because it seemed to me to fit your criteria for what makes rape so vile--"violation of one's body", "a violation of the person's very being", etc. So the gulf between rape and "non-penile forcible insertion" (e.g., a fake penis) seems like a distinction without a difference (modulo concerns regarding pregnancy and disease, which you have asserted contributes a "lot" to the shame and fear caused by rape).

---

I didn't think this could be so complicated.

He is inadvertently letting show the inner demons that made what could have been a man into a mere Christian.

What the fuck? I'm not a man because I'm saying that there are actions other than rape that seem to entail the same or similar violations of one's person? How does that make me less of a man?

Oh, well, you're probably just trolling anyway.

[festive1]

I brought up non-penile forcible insertions because it seemed to me to fit your criteria for what makes rape so vile--"violation of one's body", "a violation of the person's very being", etc. So the gulf between rape and "non-penile forcible insertion" (e.g., a fake penis) seems like a distinction without a difference (modulo concerns regarding pregnancy and disease, which you have asserted contributes a "lot" to the shame and fear caused by rape).

Just to clarify the "violation of one's body" and "a violation of the persons very being" were from my definition, not Shell's. I believe what Shell is getting at is the distinction between penile and non-penile penetration. Many jurisdictions do make a distinction between these two, though they typically carry the same weight.

[Shell B]

Prosthetic skin? That only works on robots, chief. It doesn't work on people. This isn't the, "Make up whatever you can to drag out a ridiculous argument" thread. If you're not even going to use real stuff, I can only laugh at you.

[The Grand Nudger]

As an unrelated aside...since this whole conversation has become an unrelated aside. I use a hefty amount of "prosthetic skin" to cover some choice scars...and it's never been my experience that people are less averse to coming into contact with this area because of that....lol. Just less likely to notice at a glance (which I guess is silly on my part considering the ao anyway...meh, the silly things we do...I guess I use it for other reasons as well..gotta keep the friction down).

[Anomalocaris]

What the fuck? I'm not a man because I'm saying that there are actions other than rape that seem to entail the same or similar violations of one's person? How does that make me less of a man?

You are not a man because of your revealed, yet unavowed, facination with subtle, delicate delineation of sexual violation common amongst those who worship the fantasy of a crucified and tortured man. It's sort of like a teenage virgin's naming of different shape of tits he fantsizes about groping but can't touch, but with suppressed homoerotic tones reflected in the disavowed violence.

Oh, well, you're probably just trolling anyway.

I would be, but the bridge authority won't have me.

[The Grand Nudger]

I would be, but the bridge authority won't have me.

Did you talk to your Troll Union Rep? The Bridge Authorities are right fucking bastards, go around em, or through em.

[cratehorus]

What you quoted has nothing at all to do with the wars in the Middle East. You're still being a dick for no reason. What's up with that? You think I'm using rape to make some comment on war, yet you're the only one who has mentioned it. I'm trying to discuss the judicial system or lack thereof in the military where rape is concerned. I linked the article because it discusses the documentary that led me to this discussion and it also discusses statistics. Now, please point to me where in what you linked they mention Afghanistan at all. If "The Invisible War" is what you are looking at, you clearly didn't read the entire article. The Invisible War is a movie not some euphemism for "I hate the war in Afghanistan."

the article states that the documentary was bullshit........the doc implies that women in the military are more respectable than those common trashy streetwalkers who always get raped, and it's perfectly clear that the women being raped in afganistan are not even human beings. they get raped too, probably more soldiers rape the locals then these women. also, the article clearly states college girls get raped in the same numbers.

so basically your saying that THESE women shouldn't be raped because they're complying with the patriarchal system, while all those other women are trashy whores who are dressing in tubetops and skirts so obviously they deserved to be raped