A woman raping a man - discuss

[mandalorian2298]

First off, this is not about a fantasy of being forced to be Buffy's sex slave (I outgrew that one months ago). This is about an article 5 Bizarre Realities of Being a Man Who Was Raped by a Woman that I just read on cracked.com. The title looked interesting, so I gave it a go thinking that I might learn something new that would change my opinion on the topic. Long story short: I didn't.

To summarize: the guy went to a party, got blitzed out of his scull, crashed in a heap on a bed and then some woman came by and asked if he wants to have sex. He said that he didn't but she had sex with him anyway. Now, to me this looks like he got drunk (by his own volition), he then had sex with someone he now claims he didn't want to have sex with, but none of it is his fault.

Just to clarify, if the story really happened the way he said it did then the woman who had sex with his is most certainly not someone that I would want as a friend (she is a female dog). My point is that this guy is personally responsible for everything that happened. He got drunk. As for fighting her off...this is my favorite part of the article:

There are actually several reasons why I didn't physically defend myself. First, how about the fact that I don't want to inflict violence on anyone, regardless of who they are or what they're doing? You know, like most of you -- all of us have been put into situations that maybe could have been solved by physical force, yet most of us haven't been in a fistfight since grade school.

I'm a pacifist, but really so are most of us in polite society -- it's crazy to ever ask a crime victim, "But why didn't you just overpower your attacker?" Hell, Sugar Ray Leonard was sexually assaulted as a young man, when he was already an Olympic contender on his way to becoming a prizefighter. Don't you think he would have stopped that if he could have? It's not the same thing as fighting off a mugger -- all of your physical strength becomes useless, because your attacker makes you feel powerless. All of society's messages about what's happening are wrong.

WTF does this mean? Seriously, I have read this over a few times and this dude must be speaking in tongues because I honestly cannot find any logic in his babbling. Does this mean that if a woman fights of a rapist then that means she is not a pacifist? If you act in self defense you are not a memeber of "polite society"? Has the world really gone THIS insane?

[mrswdk]

Would you be making this argument if a woman got drunk, collapsed on a bed and a guy then had sex with her after she'd said no?

'Hey, this guy fucked her while she was passed out drunk. She says she told him not to but I bet that's not true. And anyway, it's her fault for not resisting more and for being drunk.'

[muy_thaiguy]

Would you be making this argument if a woman got drunk, collapsed on a bed and a guy then had sex with her after she'd said no?

'Hey, this guy fucked her while she was passed out drunk. She says she told him not to but I bet that's not true. And anyway, it's her fault for not resisting more and for being drunk.'

I actually agree with you.

Drunk or not (that actually makes it worse), no means no. Simple as that. The guy did not want to have sex, said no, but the woman went ahead and did it anyways.

[mandalorian2298]

Well that is just the thing: I would be.

First off, and this is perhaps a sign of my advanced years, I have missed that meeting where it was decided that the moral system is from now on going to be based on the premise that drinking oneself into oblivion is a normal activity and the purpose of the law is to make the world a consequence-free place for alcoholics.

Secondly, I (unlike the modern society) am able to make a distinction between being raped and having sex with a sleaze that you now wish you hadn't have. Rape is includes being physically forced; seriously threatened (because "...or won't speak with you again!" is also a threat, but I wouldn't call the arsehole who uses it to get sex a rapist); drugged (by another person) or otherwise incapable of defending yourself.

However, if drunk guy has sex with a drunk girl, presuming of course that they were both conscious at the time then, by the "sleeping with drunk people is rape" logic, they are both eachother's rapists AND rape victims.

But, all this had been said before and will be said again. The most interesting thing in the article I quoted above is that inane claim that a victim, even if he is capable of SAFELY preventing sex from happening but decides not to, it is not same as consenting to sex. Somehow.

The whole reason for "No means no!" standard of determining rape is based on the premise that most men are capable of phisically overpowering most women, due to them being bigger and heavier, which is why it souldn't be expected that the woman be able to physically prevent the man from raping her. However, if she is able to prevent her rape and chooses not to, how can that still be considered rape? If some skinny, weakly, small guy with no weapons nor martial skills were to break into Ronda Rousey's house and try to force her to have sex with her then, to my mind, only two things can happen: he would either charm his way into having consensual sex with her (very unlikely) or he would suffer some major injuries (more likley). If my best friend, who is two heads shorter and about half my weight tried to have sex with me an succeeded, it would be, in my opinion, insane to call it rape assuming of course, that she is unarmed, I am unbound and awake. Even if I kept saying "No" through the whole thing: if I can stop something and choose not to then that means that I am consenting.

[_sabotage_]

Rape is an extremely serious crime with a very harsh penalty.

If I were on a jury, I'd like to see some resistance or reason not to resist (reasonable threat of force).

If a guy or girl was wallowing drunk on a bed, someone came and asked if they wanted to have sex, and they spluttered a reply and then offered zero further indication that they were against it, I wouldn't call it rape.

When I was about 18, I was in Thailand with a few friends. We were getting wasted from early afternoon to early morning daily. I got food poisoning and still went out anyway. I ended up extremely drunk with an empty belly. We came back to the hotel early and I crawled into bed. A bit later, a friend crawled into bed with me. I was shivering and her body heat felt nice. I definitely didn't feel like sex, but I don't know if I said so. Anyways, it was not rape and didn't last for more than a minute.

[tkr4lf]

Mandalorian, sabotage... you two are part of the problem. The exact problem the article discusses. No means no. It doesn't matter that he was drunk. It doesn't matter that anybody is drunk. The point isn't that "having sex with a drunk person is rape." The problem is having sex with somebody that said they didn't want to have sex. If somebody says no, and you proceed to have sex with them anyway, that is rape. You are a rapist for doing that. End of story. Doesn't matter if alcohol or drugs were involved, doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman doing it. It's rape.

You should both feel ashamed of yourselves.

[muy_thaiguy]

Here is the definition of rape.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape

1.
unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.

See the bold? That means, if the person, man or woman, says no/does not agree to sexual intercourse, that is rape.

Rape is an extremely serious crime with a very harsh penalty.

Yes and it should be.

If I were on a jury, I'd like to see some resistance or reason not to resist (reasonable threat of force).

And if someone is drugged and unable to resist? Or they freeze up due to fear? What would you say then?

If a guy or girl was wallowing drunk on a bed, someone came and asked if they wanted to have sex, and they spluttered a reply and then offered zero further indication that they were against it, I wouldn't call it rape.

If they were "wallowing drunk" I doubt they would be able to give consent, let alone resist. Here's an example just for you.
If you were "wallowing drunk" on your bed and some guy came in and said he wanted to have sex with you, but you are unable to give a clear response because you are so drunk. He then proceeds to have sex with you anyways, taking advantage of you in your incapacitated state. That is rape.

When I was about 18, I was in Thailand with a few friends. We were getting wasted from early afternoon to early morning daily. I got food poisoning and still went out anyway. I ended up extremely drunk with an empty belly. We came back to the hotel early and I crawled into bed. A bit later, a friend crawled into bed with me. I was shivering and her body heat felt nice. I definitely didn't feel like sex, but I don't know if I said so. Anyways, it was not rape and didn't last for more than a minute.

Her laying down next to you is not rape. If she performed a form of sexual act on you without your consent, then by definition, that is rape.

[_sabotage_]

Sorry, if someone is sputtering drunk, then it can be hard to make out what they're saying when you're drunk too.

My wife says no all the time during foreplay. Her no is short for, no not like that. I know she means that, she knows she means that. If I stopped at that moment it would indicate a breakdown in communication and become quite awkward.

She also has an orgasm no. It's a three no shout signaling she about to cum.

If a no is meaningfully expressed, not seriously contradicted, and is clearly understood as such by a reasonable person, then it's rape. If a girl is biting your ear while tugging on your cock and climbs on top just after whispering, no, you've been bad, then it's not rape.

[muy_thaiguy]

Sorry, if someone is sputtering drunk, then it can be hard to make out what they're saying when you're drunk too.

Being drunk is not an excuse for a rapist. The law is pretty damned clear on that.

My wife says no all the time during foreplay. Her no is short for, no not like that. I know she means that, she knows she means that. If I stopped at that moment it would indicate a breakdown in communication and become quite awkward.

Do we really need to go over the definition of rape again? As your wife has clearly given consent. Rape is when there is NO consent.

She also has an orgasm no. It's a three no shout signaling she about to cum.

Once again, you are skipping the whole "not giving consent" part. That's kind of the point.

If a no is meaningfully expressed, not seriously contradicted, and is clearly understood as such by a reasonable person, then it's rape. If a girl is biting your ear while tugging on your cock and climbs on top just after whispering, no, you've been bad, then it's not rape.

For the love of...
You at least seem to have a basic understanding of rape, sort of. But the #1 thing about rape, is that it happens when one person sexually violates another WITHOUT their consent. The victim is not always in a position to be able to say "no". Like when they are unconscious for whatever reason (sleeping, drugged, passed out, etc). Your sexual relations with your wife are at least consenting, where both you and your wife agreed to it. The situation that mandi outlined, that is rape. He's just in the habit of victim blaming which only enables rapists, male or female.


https://rainn.org/get-information/types ... al-assault

[_sabotage_]

No, I have my understanding of rape, and I don't really care what the law is.

It's about splitting hairs. What does it mean to give consent?

In the case AOG posted a few moths back, the consent was given and then retracted after the event, if you are saying those instances with my wife are deemed consent. But since that can't be deemed rape, and it was deemed rape, what it means is without explicit consent then it's not consent.

So as a matter of fact, all of the above cases I mentioned are considered without consent and the fact that no was said, regardless of the tacit consent being expressed, it would put you in prison. Even if no was not said, the other person could still say explicit consent was not given and therefore rape.

I'm not going to put someone in prison as a juror where tacit consent would be assumed by a reasonable person.

[muy_thaiguy]

No, I have my understanding of rape, and I don't really care what the law is.

And there is problem #1. Your "understanding" of rape is narrow and either avoids so many cases of it or you blame the victim otherwise.

In the case AOG posted a few moths back, the consent was given and then retracted after the event,

Ok.

if you are saying those instances with my wife are deemed consent.

They are consentual though.

But since that can't be deemed rape, and it was deemed rape,

This is why I don't like to discuss things with you. Because you bring up things that sound like they are related, but aren't. You're comparing apples to carrots.

what it means is without explicit consent then it's not consent.

Raping someone, as defined by the dictionary AND the law, is a sexual act done without the consent of one of the parties.

So as a matter of fact, all of the above cases I mentioned are considered without consent and the fact that no was said, regardless of the tacit consent being expressed, it would put you in prison. Even if no was not said, the other person could still say explicit consent was not given and therefore rape

As I said, having consensual sex with your wife is considerably different than "having sex" with a person who said no or was unable to even respond. So your "cases" are about as relevant as a person asking someone to borrow something and calling it stealing.

I'm not going to put someone in prison as a juror where tacit consent would be assumed by a reasonable person.

For any victim's sake, I would pray you would not be a juror period.

[_sabotage_]

No they wouldn't let me on one.

As you said, it requires consent. That consent has to be explicit. In such cases, it can be a case of who calls the cops first. I'm not rewarding someone for a grudge.

If I were asked, do you believe sex requires explicit consent?
No.

But if it's the law, would you agree that having sex without explicit consent is rape?
No.

But if you were tasked to uphold the law that makes our nation great, would you find someone guilty of breaking the law if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt?
No.

[JBlombier]

Hmm, you really might want to think about what you've posted, man. I think you don't fully comprehend what you're saying with those lines, because it's really not cool. Hopefully someone will explain why and it'd be great if you let that explanation sink in.

[mrswdk]

If a no is meaningfully expressed, not seriously contradicted, and is clearly understood as such by a reasonable person, then it's rape.

Seeing as that's exactly what happened in this case, I don't understand why you're arguing.

[/]

I see, so; not vehemently resisting = consent.

Whew, that's a load off my mind. So many things I mistakenly thought were crimes were just misunderstandings.

Walking up to a bank teller with a sack and a note that says "put the money in the bag" isn't a bank robbery if the teller doesn't resist, it's just kindly asking for charity!
Oh, and I guess you'd better hurry up and chase down that guy in front of your house breaking into your car, if you see him and don't go outside to try to stop it, then you must have really wanted him to have it.

[_sabotage_]

If I said yes to those answers, all a lawyer needs to do is prove a woman didn't say yes. Not all cases will have as much supporting evidence as the case AOG described.

If I were faced with a case where the accused was brought to the stand and asked:

Did the woman/man give explicit permission to have sex with him/her?
And the accused replies, well we were engaged in heavy foreplay and I never asked, it just happened from there.

I would be bound to convict him by the law by his own testimony. I wouldn't be willing to convict him though, and they would find this out during the jury selection by asking me those above questions.

[_sabotage_]

/

By your example all forms of sex are illegal, which is not the case.

In your first example he would be charged with robbery', not armed robbery.

A better example would be to use some comparison which is legal or illegal depending on degree.

On the one scale you have a signed statement happening as Dave Chappelles skit shows, on the other you have brutal, violent, malicious, premeditated predatory behavior. Obviously, both aren't rape.

If the person doesn't have the means to resist due to threat or incapacity, that's clearly rape, if two people are making out and one is feeling it is going to far but makes no sign of it, it isn't.

Since sex takes place on a sliding scale of I've been waiting for this day all my life to destroying someone's security, scarring them for life both physically and emotionally, the area between tacit agreement and explicit refusal is essential in determining whether it was consensual or forced.

[/]

If I said yes to those answers, all a lawyer needs to do is prove a woman didn't say yes. Not all cases will have as much supporting evidence as the case AOG described.

If I were faced with a case where the accused was brought to the stand and asked:

Did the woman/man give explicit permission to have sex with him/her?
And the accused replies, well we were engaged in heavy foreplay and I never asked, it just happened from there.

I would be bound to convict him by the law and his own testimony. I wouldn't be willing to convict him though, and they would find this out during the jury selection by asking me those above questions.

Nonverbal consent does exist. If it didn't, then in the case given, if true, would indicate both parties simultaneously raped each-other, which doesn't make sense. The important part is that one willingly encourages the action. Can you understand the difference between permitting someone an action and allowing it to happen?

Case One: A beggar asks someone for some money. The other party silently removes a dollar from their pocket and hands it over to the bum, is this stealing?
Case Two: A beggar asks for some money, then immediately reaches into the other party's pocket and takes a wad of cash and runs off as they stand in stunned silence, is this stealing?

[_sabotage_]

A beggar asks a man for a dollar which the man is holding in his hand. The man says nothing, but as the beggar reaches in to take the dollar, let's him. The beggar remains there, thanks the man. Th man calls the police who arrest the man for stealing.

Man:
You stole this money right out of my hand.

Beggar:
But I asked.

Man:
I didn't say ok.

Beggar:
But you let me take it.

Me on a jury, I let him off.

Let's try another.

Two 19 year-olds are making out. One stops the other and says I don't want to have sex. They agree not to. Later their foreplay advances and intercourse starts. 1 minute in the first party says stop. And the second party stops.

Was it rape?

[/]

If the person doesn't have the means to resist due to threat or incapacity, that's clearly rape, if two people are making out and one is feeling it is going to far but makes no sign of it, it isn't.

Since sex takes place on a sliding scale of I've been waiting for this day all my life to destroying someone's security, scarring them for life both physically and emotionally, the area between tacit agreement and explicit refusal is essential in determining whether it was consensual or forced.

I can agree with that.

If a guy or girl was wallowing drunk on a bed, someone came and asked if they wanted to have sex, and they spluttered a reply and then offered zero further indication that they were against it, I wouldn't call it rape.

When I was about 18, I was in Thailand with a few friends. We were getting wasted from early afternoon to early morning daily. I got food poisoning and still went out anyway. I ended up extremely drunk with an empty belly. We came back to the hotel early and I crawled into bed. A bit later, a friend crawled into bed with me. I was shivering and her body heat felt nice. I definitely didn't feel like sex, but I don't know if I said so. Anyways, it was not rape and didn't last for more than a minute.

But not this,

The whole reason for "No means no!" standard of determining rape is based on the premise that most men are capable of physically overpowering most women, due to them being bigger and heavier, which is why it souldn't be expected that the woman be able to physically prevent the man from raping her. However, if she is able to prevent her rape and chooses not to, how can that still be considered rape? If some skinny, weakly, small guy with no weapons nor martial skills were to break into Ronda Rousey's house and try to force her to have sex with her then, to my mind, only two things can happen: he would either charm his way into having consensual sex with her (very unlikely) or he would suffer some major injuries (more likley). If my best friend, who is two heads shorter and about half my weight tried to have sex with me an succeeded, it would be, in my opinion, insane to call it rape assuming of course, that she is unarmed, I am unbound and awake. Even if I kept saying "No" through the whole thing: if I can stop something and choose not to then that means that I am consenting.

Or this.

There is a line, but it's not too hard to see really. Consent is encouragement, verbally or non-verbally. The lack of non-consent is definitely not consent. If a man or woman wants to have sex with something that provides absolutely no resistance or encouragement, then they should go hump a couch. Is a couch capable of consent? Of course not! Hint: if a couch CAN do what the person is doing, it's not consent.

I just don't see why one would make the argument that a victim must use the best of their ability to actively resist a screwed up action for it to be valid. Most of us are probably stronger than a badger, all the same, most of us would probably not fight off a badger barehanded to protect their sandwich. In the same vein, why is it a "strong person's" duty to violently fight off a rapist just to "prove" non-consent? Why is it not valid to be psychologically off-guard, and logically or illogically scared when someone starts humping them out of nowhere? How is a "weak" stranger automatically nonthreatening? Even an animal or a child might bite your finger off, there's little way to be sure that resisting won't make things much worse, especially when suddenly thrust into a frightening situation.

A beggar asks a man for a dollar which the man is holding in his hand. The man says nothing, but as the beggar reaches in to take the dollar, let's him. The beggar remains there, thanks the man. Th man calls the police who arrest the man for stealing.

Man:
You stole this money right out of my hand.

Beggar:
But I asked.

Man:
I didn't say ok.

Beggar:
But you let me take it.

Me on a jury, I let him off.

Let's try another.

Two 19 year-olds are making out. One stops the other and says I don't want to have sex. They agree not to. Later their foreplay advances and intercourse starts. 1 minute in the first party says stop. And the second party stops.

Was it rape?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were living in a part of Canada ruled by fascist robots. The point was that in the civilized world, the first would not be arrested because humans understand nonverbal consent, while the second would because double-negative consent doesn't exist. The answer to your scenario is that's not rape in any valid court of law that I'm aware of.

[_sabotage_]

Here's his actual account:

A few years ago, I was at a house party, and I'd had what could politely be described as a bit too much to drink. My girlfriend tried to convince me to leave with her, but I assured her I was having fun and would be fine, and she somehow understood me even though I almost certainly sounded like I was speaking Dothraki at that point. It soon became clear to me that "fine" was a planet I had left hours ago, so I found a couch to crash on.

My face slipped neatly into a cushion ass print.

From here on out, every part of this story would be absolutely typical of a sexual assault ... if the genders were reversed. In fact, if I were female, many of you would literally be saying, "Are you crazy? This is how people get raped!" as you read this next part.

A resident of the house, being a good hostess, generously offered to stash me away in the relative privacy of her bedroom. Sometime later, another woman who was at the party came into the room, got into bed with me, and started trying to convince me to have sex with her. My memory of all this is very hazy, but I know that I repeatedly said, "No thanks, I have a girlfriend, surely you understand."

Nope.

That's where my coherent memory of the incident ends, but suffice it to say, she absolutely did not understand at all -- she took advantage of me while I was barely conscious and could no longer say no, which is more or less the exact definition of rape.

He clearly remembers saying no: conscious.

He knows he had sex: conscious.

"My memory of this is all very hazy, but I know I repeatedly said 'no thanks, I have a girlfriend.'"

"My girlfriend tried to convince me to leave with her, but I assured her I was having fun and would be fine, and she somehow understood me even though I almost certainly sounded like I was speaking Dothraki at that point. It soon became clear to me that "fine" was a planet I had left hours ago, so I found a couch to crash on."

Since he quickly found a couch, I'm assuming he hadn't drunk much more beyond this point. At his height of drunkenness he is fine and able to convince his girlfriend of it. His girlfriend later states that she had trouble believing he was raped. Based on her opinion seeing him at the height of his drunkenness, his story didn't mesh. Had he been drunk to the point of not being able t resist, no doubt she'd have been more likely to believe him.

The only anecdotal witness we have through him is someone who witnessed his state and didn't believe it to be rape, who he had successfully convinced to let him stay at the party in that state.

Suddenly, after being on the couch and then on the bed and then defending himself against a woman trying to have sex with him, according to his now hazy memory, his account loses all detail.

Did he have ripped pants? Did she get on top of him? He recalls being erect, he recalls having sex. He recalls feeling powerless during it.

Recalls everything except he doesn't.

When did he tell his girlfriend? How did telling her come about? Was it at a mutual friend's party (the host was female, and it happened in her bed) or just a friend of his, or was it a friend of hers? How likely was the story going to be that "your boyfriend was in my bed last night, a girl went in and there was cum all over my bed." "I knew that asshole wanted to stay behind to f*ck her. Damn him."

Based solely on the evidence he provided, I wouldn't convict. If it turns out his girlfriend would describe his drunken state to be equivalent to being unable to resist, or if there was some corroborating evidence: ripped jeans, witnesses saying he stumbled out and told them what happened, really anything to substantiate it, then I'd keep an open mind.

If on the other hand his girlfriend came back to the party worried about him and found him butt naked in bed with a woman riding her doggy and his explanation was: I was too drunk to know what I was doing, so it's technically rape honey, then no fucking way.

Maybe people should stop rushing to conclusions and make the punishment fit the crime. As to living in the civilized world, the US convicts more people than anywhere, with harsh penalties cops who are required to pursue convictions on charges, prosecutors worried about their conviction rates and the most expensive lawyers in the world.

[/]

You bring up acceptable points about reasonable doubt and evidence and so forth. Those are parts that are, in some regards unknowable to all but those within the room when an incident occurred. Nevertheless, it's completely off topic since I am not arguing in any sense whether or not burden of proof is or isn't met and so on and so forth in the realms of litigation. I am simply arguing what rape is and what consent is.

The fact is, after a certain point of mental impairment, through drugs, alcohol, or otherwise, consent is not legally possible. That does not simply apply to sex, so before you object that it is permissible, how would you feel if I got you drunk and had you sign over the deeds to your house and car?

[_sabotage_]

First, are we celebrating you buying my car and house? If so, get me drunk.

He got himself drunk in this case. If he were intentionally intoxicated for the purpose of taking advantage of him, that's premeditated. So not like your analogy still.

The deeds would be physical proof, if you hadn't paid a reasonable amount, or if I could prove I had no intention of selling even if the price were fair, that could be used as proof . In rape there can also be such tangible proof. But in this case, it would be left to witness testimony.

How drunk was the girl? Some drunk people are pretty out of it. Therein in lies the necessity for clarity of his refusal.

I know I repeatedly said no thanks. Is that twice? Was he grabbing her ass when he said it. Maybe the guy has a legitimate case that this lady harmed him in a way we don't find socially acceptable and deem worthy of deterring other criminals and having her behavior punished. But not yet. It sounds like a story a friend of mine told his girlfriend when she caught him getting a bj at a party once.

He's claiming he's talking weird and maybe she was hearing funny, wouldn't you want to have the benefit of the doubt if you were the accused that she knew she was raping him? If she's under the blanket judging the situation by his erect penis and the incoherent mumbles he's making and had no way to understand that he was against what was happening, then how can it be rape?

If I'm tipsily saying I'm trying to sell my house but the buyer backed out, and you say, how much you looking for? And you reply, I was asking $450k, but I need to sell it now, so I'd take $430k if I could get it. And you make a call to your lawyer and say, I'm selling to this guy, can we do up an agreement. And the next day the old buyer comes back with the $450k, you can't claim you were drunk when accepting the verbal offer and confirmed that you wanted to go through with it.

[mandalorian2298]

I really don't care about the legal definitions of rape (if you stop reading now and start typing your answer then you will miss my point) because:

Law is different in different countries as are the prevailing moral beliefs. Because of the fact that something is against the law in a country or multiple countries does not automatically prove that something should be considered immoral nor that something should be a crime. Think for a moment about what could be considered crime in Nazi Germany or Stalin's SSSR. Even better example would be time when freeing a slave owned by someone else would be considered distruction of property, not in just one country but in many. Think about the LAWS that regulate women's rights in arabic world.

Also judicial systems differ in their efficiency from country to country. The best example, that actually involves a sexual assault comes from my own country (Croatia) where a few years ago a judge dismissed a rape charge on the basis that a rape must be a sexual act but "...inserting a finger into someone's anus is not a sexual act since neither a finger nor an anus are sexual organs. Thus inserting a fingur into someone's anus is a non-sexual act (now comes the best part no different then a handshake." And that is how the term "Lika hanshake" came to be.

I see, so; not vehemently resisting = consent.

Whew, that's a load off my mind. So many things I mistakenly thought were crimes were just misunderstandings.

Walking up to a bank teller with a sack and a note that says "put the money in the bag" isn't a bank robbery if the teller doesn't resist, it's just kindly asking for charity!
Oh, and I guess you'd better hurry up and chase down that guy in front of your house breaking into your car, if you see him and don't go outside to try to stop it, then you must have really wanted him to have it.

I didn't say that. I said that being capable to SAFELY prevent something from happening but deciding not to, is consenting to it. In your example the first (if those are all the relevant facts of the event) is not a crime of robbery but the bak should and probably would sue their employee for giving away their money. In the second example, due to my lack of knowledge that someone is breaking into my car I am unable to safely prevent it, so it is a crime.

However, if I stood next to my car for 10 minutes watching an unarmed 11 year old trying and, finally, succeeding to break into my car and driving off, that would mean that I allowed the child of 11 to drive of in my car and I would probably be at least fined for child endangerment.

Can you understand the difference between permitting someone an action and allowing it to happen?

Case One: A beggar asks someone for some money. The other party silently removes a dollar from their pocket and hands it over to the bum, is this stealing?
Case Two: A beggar asks for some money, then immediately reaches into the other party's pocket and takes a wad of cash and runs off as they stand in stunned silence, is this stealing?

Again, it is a question if you did everything you safely could to prevent it.

If you come to me and say "Mandalorian, can I have some money?" then search my person for 5 minutes while I calmly stand there and then walk away without me trying to prevent you in any way - that is not a robbery, that is just being rather pushy.

All that I am saying here that, for me, if someone attempts to rap you and you are a healthy adult then the minimum of normal response is resisting in any safe way that you can. If you choose not to then it is not rape. If you are unable to do so efficiently because of a state that you intentinaly visited upon yourself then you are, at least in part, responsible for what is happening to you.

All I am trying to say here is that, somewhere along the way, activism directed toward protecting people from being victims of sexual violence degenerated into a crusade against the very concept of personal responisiblity. I think that this is a very bad turn of events because, IMHO, that educating people into accepting responsibility for their own lives is the fundamental step not only for being safe but for being a happy and fulfilled human being. I gather that this position offends some of you and I really can't understand why that is.