"You're teetering on the edge of idiocy as well."
Why? Isn't it quite logical? There's a difference between "battery" and "rape" - 1 is violent (in the pure English sense), the other is sexual. Some1 at some point in history knew there was a difference to come up w/different terms. Why don't all men who beat the !%@#! out of some woman or murder her have sex w/her?
"So you're a woman (that's what your profile says) and you don't think there's something inherently violent about a man forcing himself upon and inside of a woman? Yes, sex is a motivator, but men want sex all the time, but few resort to using superior physical strength or other threats of violence or actual violence to get it."
Yes I'm a woman, and I think there is a VIOLATION OF MY NATURAL RIGHTS if a man forces himself IN ANY WAY upon me - sticking his thing in me, hitting me, stabbing me to kill. Yet they are all distinguished crimes - rape, battery, murder.
Why does it have to be "violent" in the sense of English, meaning more like "battery"? The most violent the required definition of rape (using the male member) might be is holding a woman captive in place to penetrate her.
You're stretching the "violent" definition beyond common sense. If you go by the "inherently violent" idea as posited w/the mere "holding", then my mother is guilty of "violence" when she had to "hold" boys and girls who were out of control in her special-ed schools.
Just because only a tiny portion of men cannot control themselves enough to simply ASK some woman if she'll bed him, doesn't mean that the genetic overriding desire doesn't exist in those few. You're using the strawman argument there.
Perhaps you simply don't believe anything is genetic.
Why? Isn't it quite logical?
No, it isn't. It's quite disturbing, as others have testified to.
For some reason you wish to minimize rape by saying it is not an act of violence. I can't help you figure out why, but you really should examine why you are doing this. It sure isn't "logical."
There's a difference between "battery" and "rape" - 1 is violent (in the pure English sense), the other is sexual.
The categories are not mutually exclusive. Rape is both violent and sexual.
Some1 at some point in history knew there was a difference to come up w/different terms. Why don't all men who beat the !%@#! out of some woman or murder her have sex w/her?
More illogic from you: "All violence does not end in rape, therefore rape is not violent."
Yes I'm a woman, and I think there is a VIOLATION OF MY NATURAL RIGHTS if a man forces himself IN ANY WAY upon me - sticking his thing in me, hitting me, stabbing me to kill. Yet they are all distinguished crimes - rape, battery, murder. Why does it have to be "violent" in the sense of English, meaning more like "battery"?
From dictionary.com:
vi·o·lence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lns) n.
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
The primary definition works fine here. What is rape if not physical force for the purpose of violating? Is it not "abusive or unjust use of power?"
The most violent the required definition of rape (using the male member) might be is holding a woman captive in place to penetrate her.
Another stunner from you. I ask the audience, isn't this enough? How much more unjust use of force is necessary?
If you go by the "inherently violent" idea as posited w/the mere "holding", then my mother is guilty of "violence" when she had to "hold" boys and girls who were out of control in her special-ed schools.
Only if she is using her power unjustly.
SD