Wrong, yet again. I am not calling it rape becaue the law would be unlikely to call it rape.
Actually, that was not one’s first argument. One’s first argument was:
“No, of course it isn’t. Men rape other men, and some women are stronger than men and can force them to have sex.
However, the fact is that this guy was strong enough have stopped her, which in real rape she – and it usually is a she – cannot stop him. This is abuse, and appalling behaviour, but it isn’t rape.”
Basically, one stated that this was not “real” rape because “Mike” is a man and is supposed to be stronger than women. One’s second argument was the Merriam Webster definition of rape, but that is not a legal dictionary and therefore cannot be considered a legal definition. However, it was not until people questioned the use of a clearly skewed definition of rape that one decided to ask where the rape took place. Yet even in doing this one still insisted on using the Merriam Webster definition and then turned to the UK legal definition (which is also a clearly skewed and sexist definition) to justify one’s position.
Nevertheless, one’s actual argument is clearly that a woman cannot rape a man or boy because males are supposed to be stronger and therefore incapable of being victimized. The definition acts as justification, but even in this instance it is weak justification because the laws vary from state to state (and country to country) and also because some laws are in fact bad laws, this being one of them.
Perhaps the law should be changed. That is a valid argument. If it was rape, under the law of the state where it took place, then “Mike” should have pressed charges. End of story.
The victim-blaming does not help one’s argument. All victims of rape should report it, but as one well knows there are many reasons why they will not, including people telling them that they were not really raped or victimized.
Nobody apart from me has asked what state the incident with “Mike” took place in, and whether what happened would be seen as rape under the law of that state.
And one did not ask until people questioned one’s usage of a non-legal definition of rape. Again, that does not help one’s argument. The question is important in a legal context, but not in the general context. As has been noted several times, certain states do not have the term “rape” on their books at all and instead use”sexual assault,” despite describing the exact same act. So again, the semantics one is playing has nothing to do with the law in the state where the rape took place, just with one’s personal and political opinion on whether a woman can force a man or boy into sex.
