Is it rape if the bitch breaks?

[pagg]

Women loving rape may be a myth but. my wife keeps telling me that her rape fantasy Involves a cruel black teenager. If a * gangster * grabbed her, In a parking lot and took her back to his crib, l think she would fuck him like a bitch in heat after he lubed her up a little. Is he raping her?

[Quixote]

If she gives him her consent, and she isn't frightened when she does, then no.

If she doesn't, then yes.  But that doesn't mean she won't still enjoy it.  :-)

[Eggert]

If it's against her own will (no matter if she enjoy it or not) it's rape.

[pagg]

Fear Is indeed the key.

[Dr Verloc]

There was an actual case where this came up as an issue in court. There's a book about it called Perfect Victim. Briefly, a man named Cameron Hooker abducted, torutred, and raped a younf woman named Colleen something or other, and with the aid of his sister, held her for years. Colleen became sufficiently docile that she could be allowed out unsupervised, for jogging and such, and she would return to Hooker's house. Eventually, the sister went to a clergyman, who convinced her to inform the police, and Hooker was arrested.

In court, the defense argued that because Colleen had been past the statute of limitations on the original kidnap, he could not be prosecuted ofr it. Further, they argued that Colleen had, in effect become a consensual slave. THus, no rape charge could be brought against Hooker. The case went to the jury, and Hooker was convicted.

Now, I did some reading about this case, and I'm convinced that Hooker was more or less telling the truth. I rather suspect that Colleen was, in effect, a consensual slave by the time the police showed up. I think she quite probably learned a few things about herself in captivity, but when publicly confronted with it, had to claim that she had been brainwashed or some such, rather than publicly admit that she was "that kind of girl". This is not provable on the available evidence, but neither is brainwashing, and since she did not leave even though given many chances to do so over a period of years, there is at least reasonable doubt on the issue.

Hooker was presented as a monster in the book (The author took the brainwashing theory seriously, and was clearly sympathetic to Colleen.), and not very intelligent. In fact, I suspect that he was very intelligent, able to distinguish fantasy from reality, and quite aware of what, exactly, he was doing. In any case, the legal case for sending Hooker to prison was debateble.

The final answer to the question must be "Is it rape if the bitch breaks?", must be that it's rape if the jury says it is, whether the bitch breaks or not. But yes, I believe that woman might, if she has the right psychological make up and if she is porperly handled, be made to enjoy being raped. But the fact or orgasm and eventual consent is not a reliable legal defense should matters end up in court.

Dr Verloc

[Eggert]

I remember that case and actually had the book. Until I borrowed it to some one.
It had a hell of a P effect. The kidnap scene and device was awesome... According to the book it's his wife who helped him. But if it only was for the book I don't know..

[Quixote]

I agree with the jury, instinctively.  But all I know is the brief outline you just gave.  One of the classic serial killers, I can't remember which but I think it might have been Bundy, tortured some of his victims to the point that he could leave them alone at his home and they didn't try to escape.  Trauma can be like that.  I think the eventual slavery is just an extension of the initial crime.  But, like I said, I don't know the case.

[Dr Verloc]

Quixote wrote:

"I agree with the jury, instinctively."

You could argue that Hooker was guilty on general principles whether ot not he was innoicent of the specific charges brought against him. Some people are too bloody dangerous to be allowed to run around loose, a point which is often lost in the civil rights woo-woos.

Dr Verloc

[Quixote]

Interesting point.

[Quixote]

The Onion - God bless 'em - has contributed this piece of surreal satire to the discussion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/crime_reporter_man_had_sex_with

[Dr Verloc]

Thanks for that one, Quixote. It made for a good mental health break.

Dr Verloc

[Quixote]

I love The Onion.

Their reporting is almost as ridiculous as Fox ...

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Quixote wrote:

"I agree with the jury, instinctively."

You could argue that Hooker was guilty on general principles whether ot not he was innoicent of the specific charges brought against him. Some people are too bloody dangerous to be allowed to run around loose, a point which is often lost in the civil rights woo-woos.

Dr Verloc

I think this could easily get into that wonderful area of him being "not guilty" under the law but obviously not  "innocent" either. The legal arguments from his side appear to have merit i.e. statute of limitations, consensuality, etc. While he is far from innocent in what happened he could possibly be not guilty of the specific charges brought against him due to the above mentioned circumstances.

Wonder what kind of relationship she went int next? Would she find that controlling dominant or not? Might make a good story for someone that can string words together with some skill.

[Quixote]

I think it's probably one of those situations that points out a foolishness in the law.  Why have a statute of limitations on kidnapping?

(I'm perfectly willing to feel like an idiot if someone can explain that to me.  Honest.)

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Statutes of limitations, which date back to early Roman law, are a fundamental part of European and U.S. law. These statutes, which apply to both civil and criminal actions, are designed to prevent fraudulent and stale claims from arising after all evidence has been lost or after the facts have become obscure through the passage of time or the defective memory, death, or disappearance of witnesses.

From: http://www.answers.com/topic/statute-of-limitations