Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2007

I don't see how a woman can be the perpetrator, and would like to see how
the attorney general can make that argument. As I stated before, I can use
violence against a male, and that would be assault, but how I can plausibly
get a male victim of that violence to forcibly sustain an erection, forcibly
enter me, forcibly ejaculate, assuming he has been injured, is beyond me.

Law & Order tried it once with a male stripper story, and I didn't find it
convincing then either.

[quoting Joanne Marinelli without attribution]

If you had quoted the Oregon statute the criminalizes rape, we'd have
seen this:

<quote>

163.355 Rape in the third degree. (1) A person commits the crime of
rape in the third degree if the person has sexual intercourse with
another person under 16 years of age.

     (2) Rape in the third degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743
§109; 1991 c.628 §1]

      163.365 Rape in the second degree. (1) A person who has sexual
intercourse with another person commits the crime of rape in the
second degree if the other person is under 14 years of age.

     (2) Rape in the second degree is a Class B felony. [1971 c.743
§110; 1989 c.359 §1; 1991 c.628 §2]

     163.375 Rape in the first degree. (1) A person who has sexual
intercourse with another person commits the crime of rape in the first
degree if:

     (a) The victim is subjected to forcible compulsion by the
person;

     (b) The victim is under 12 years of age;

     (c) The victim is under 16 years of age and is the person’s
sibling, of the whole or half blood, the person’s child or the
person’s spouse’s child; or

     (d) The victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental
defect, mental incapacitation or physical helplessness.

     (2) Rape in the first degree is a Class A felony. [1971 c.743
§111; 1989 c.359 §2; 1991 c.628 §3]

</quote>

"Deviate sexual intercourse" as defined by the Oregon statute is
"sexual conduct between persons consisting of contact between the sex
organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another."  And here is
the definition of plain old "sexual intercourse": "'Sexual
intercourse' has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration,
however slight; emission is not required."  There are three sections
of Oregon law that cover "sodomy," which parallel the three sections
on rape except that they deal with "deviate sexual intercourse" rather
than the regular sort.

So, okay, in Oregon "rape" is male-on-female vaginal intercourse and
"sodomy" is all else.  Nothing peculiar about that; it's just one of
several ways the law can deal with such things.  Note that, in Oregon
at least, consensual "deviate sexual intercourse" between two persons
over the age of 16 is no more a crime than is regular sex between two
persons over the age of 16.

It's also clear that Oregon law felonizes sex (of the non-deviate
kind) with a person under 16 -- without regard to consent -- and
labels it "rape," albeit "third degree" rape.  If the "victim" is
under 14, it's second degree rape, and under 12 will get you first
degree rape.

So where are we?  There's at least one state that doesn't include
male-male sex in its definition of "rap," so Joanne was correct when
she said "I would be amazed if the laws of all 50 US states define
male-on-male forced sexual assault as 'rape'."  One exception is all
it takes.  On the other hand, Joanne's notion that non-forcible
intercourse with people under a given age is not "rape" takes a rather
heavy blow from the Oregon statute.  Still, .500 is damned good in
baseball.

BTW, the Oregon statute has been subjected to a withering critique by
one blogger:
<http://moderatelyinsane.blogspot.com/2006/10/analysis-of-oregon-rape-law.html>.
I haven't bothered to try to figure out if he's right, but it's a fun
rant.

[ ... ]

No, not because I say so.  You started this thread by defining "rape,"
and as far as I could tell that was your sole purpose in starting it.
It is now clear that you were not seeking an objective definition of
the term around which consensus could form (even in legal circles
there is no single agreed definition of the word), but were simply
telling us what you think rape is, i.e., what the defintion of the
word is.  Since we all have our own definitions of rape, there's
little point in simply exchanging them as if they were pictures of our
children to be passed around.  So that discussion has nowhere to go.

I've snipped the remainder of your post, in which you try to sell your
definition of "rape" to others.  I think it pointless.  You seem to
disagree.  Okay, so be it.  But my view of this is that you are
wasting your time.  It's rare indeed that an argument over definition
of terms serves any point.  This is not one of those rare occasions.

If your point is that too many women are subjected to forcible rape,
make that point, even though it's off-topic.  If your point is that
people use the single label "rape" for a range of different offenses
of different severity, no one is disagreeing with you.  If your point
is that they shouldn't do that, you're pissing upwind.

Note that no one yet has shown any indication of reconsidering how
they use the word "rape" to accommodate your views.  I'll be astounded
if anyone does.

None of the foregoing is intended as an endorsement by me of forcible
rape, which is a violent felony and deserves severe punishment.  I'm
talking usage here.

[ ... ]

Dear Ms Marinelli,
Tell us what you want us to say and we'll say it.