Is It Considered Rape if You Like It

First of all I hope no one will take offence to this because I honestly don't know. This also has nothing to do with me, but I'm doing law at college at the moment and just wanted to know. I'm not trying to start a debate about rape, I just wanted to know.

No it is not. If she enjoys it then clearly she doesn't give a damn that the guy is penetrating her. If she did class it as rape, she should have mashed him into pieces there and then and kicked him in his spot. Or spat in his face. Or beat the **** out of him.

Okay.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Contrary to the crazy mango and a host of crap 'sex and shopping' / bonkbuster novels, obviously the answer is 'yes'.

Think about it the other way around - is unenjoyable consensual sex rape? Of course not, because the issue is the consent rather than the enjoyment.

It's quite possible to have a physical reaction to non-consensual sex, but that doesn't change the issue of consent.

Yes. The body can react to stimulation, but that doesn't mean the victim themselves has consented.

What a ******ed question.
Its abit like trying to force a muslim to eat pork. Its delicious and you know he will like it but he told you no.

The legal definition of rape highlists non-consentual aswell. Nothing about enjoying it.

The definition of rape is provided by s.1 Sexual Offences Act 2003 which provides: A person (A) commits an offence if he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents."

By statutory definition, in the absence of consent, it is rape, regardless of whether or not the victim 'enjoyed it'. Bodies respond to touch. Sexual penetration is pleasurable and the body responds to that. Intimacy and ejaculation are not correlated. If you are asking, does enjoying the act mitigate the charge, the answer is no. Example: a person whom is too drunk and does not have the requisite capacity to consent may, at the time, enjoy the act. However, no consent was provided and thus, by law, she was 'raped'. An orgasm, for example, isn't an example of pleasure; rather, it is a physical response, regardless of the psychosomatic response (just like an adrenalin rush). The bottom line is: regardless of any physical reaction to the attack, if consent is not forthwith, it is rape.

I remember hearing a case where a rapist went free because his victim had an orgasm. If both parties have clearly expressed their consent (without being pressured/under the influence of drugs/alcohol/etc.) and neither have revoked it at any point during sexual activity, it's not rape. If one party did not give consent, it's rape.

I'm no biologist/psychologist so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the body's physical reaction to stimuli (i.e. orgasm during sex) is the sole indicator of whether somebody enjoyed it or not.

(Original post by folieadeux)
I remember hearing a case where a rapist went free because his victim had an orgasm. If both parties have clearly expressed their consent (without being pressured/under the influence of drugs/alcohol/etc.) and neither have revoked it at any point during sexual activity, it's not rape. If one party did not give consent, it's rape.

I'm no biologist/psychologist so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the body's physical reaction to stimuli (i.e. orgasm during sex) is the sole indicator of whether somebody enjoyed it or not.

Do you have a citation for the aforementioned case? I'd be interested in reading the specifics of that case, although it certainly sounds a misnomer in this jurisdiction. Which country was this? In which year? Did the 'victim' inform the court that consent was there? Was the reason for the acquittal an 'orgasm' (this sounds extremly perverse) Was it an issue involving drink or drugs? The law in England & Wales is very clear that in the absence of consent that rape has been committed (s.1 Sexual Offences Act 2003). In fact, in English law, the Crown Prosecution Services' legal guidance provides that causing an offendor to ejaculate is an aggravating feature.

Further, although I agree that it is 'not rape if both have expressed their consent', both parties must have the requisite capacity to provide the consent. For example, a person who is hevaily intoxicated and does not have the relevant cognitive ability to consent due to the level of intoxication may express consent, but may not have the requisite capacity to do so.

However, I certainly agree to your very apt summary that the body's response in relation to non-consensual penetration is not indicative of consent nor enjoyment - the body reacts to sexual pleasure; the lack of contemporaneous consent does not render the activity consensual.

It is not rape if the person your having physical contact with likes it, because if she or he does not say stop or try to defend themselves than you can not say its rape because your basically saying if you have sexual contact with a women or man that's rape. If the women or man does not give the person consent to go on then it is rape.If the guy forces himself in the women then how is she going to enjoy it

Ok lets say you got raped and you report it to the police the first question that the are going to ask you and the person who rape you is if you tried to fight back or if you said stop and if you tell them that you did not because you like it then they either going to say ok and do nothing or just going to say sexual assault believe me i witness this with a few friends and family members,but this is my opinion

Why do people keep resurrecting old threads?

(Original post by lawobiter)
The definition of rape is provided by s.1 Sexual Offences Act 2003 which provides: A person (A) commits an offence if he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents ."

By statutory definition, in the absence of consent, it is rape, regardless of whether or not the victim 'enjoyed it'. Bodies respond to touch. Sexual penetration is pleasurable and the body responds to that. Intimacy and ejaculation are not correlated. If you are asking, does enjoying the act mitigate the charge, the answer is no. Example: a person whom is too drunk and does not have the requisite capacity to consent may, at the time, enjoy the act. However, no consent was provided and thus, by law, she was 'raped'. An orgasm, for example, isn't an example of pleasure; rather, it is a physical response, regardless of the psychosomatic response (just like an adrenalin rush). The bottom line is: regardless of any physical reaction to the attack, if consent is not forthwith, it is rape.

if the victim enjoys it, is it not reasonable for the defendant to believe the victim has consented?

(Original post by jamianlissa23)
It is not rape if the person your having physical contact with likes it, because if she or he does not say stop or try to defend themselves than you can not say its rape because your basically saying if you have sexual contact with a women or man that's rape. If the women or man does not give the person consent to go on then it is rape.If the guy forces himself in the women then how is she going to enjoy it

Ok lets say you got raped and you report it to the police the first question that the are going to ask you and the person who rape you is if you tried to fight back or if you said stop and if you tell them that you did not because you like it then they either going to say ok and do nothing or just going to say sexual assault believe me i witness this with a few friends and family members,but this is my opinion

So if a woman says no, but the man continues anyway, however the woman eventually gets an orgasm, even if she said no and kept saying no, that's not rape?

The crime of Rape has nothing to do with enjoyment/orgasm. it's to do with consent. If consent was not given it was rape, if there is an orgasm afterwards that has no relevance.

(Original post by jamianlissa23)
if she or he does not say stop or try to defend themselves than you can not say its rape

I think you need to go re-read the laws on consent.

(Original post by cupcakes87)
Why do people keep resurrecting old threads?

And quite bizarre old threads. I am quite unnerved by the thought of what these people must have been Googling in order to find threads like this one.

So when should the consent be given in order for any sexual intercourse to not be interpreted as rape? If there was no consent, does it make the sex a rape? Any force or threat needed to make the action as rape?

I think the follow-up questions have been answered above, and this thread has come back enough times from TSR Oblivion.

Closed.

Is It Considered Rape if You Like It

Source: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3698235

Share this post