Gefan wrote:
The confusion, I think, comes from the fact you're not using the same definition of rape as they are.
Quite right.
This fact is crucial to understanding the terms 'rape culture' and 'rape apologist' as used by SJWs.
Their definition of these terms seems to be based on the idea of 'consent'.
In other words, if there is no explicit consent for sexual intercourse then the act is rape and seeking to justify is as non-rape is the action of a rape apologist, someone who is supporting rape culture.
The trouble is, of course, that the terms 'consent' or 'non consent', while sounding black and white, have a wide degree of grey.
For example, should you regard sexual consent in the same way you would regard legal consent or medical consent - whereby the individuals should have it explained to them the various previously unspoken details (including ethical) underlying the action?
What about situations whereby one partner lies to the other in order to coaxe them into bed?
For example the case of the Israeli muslim who used a short form of his name in order to trick a woman into thinking he was Jewish - and was subsequently convicted of rape - because she didn't consent to having sex with a muslim.
How about telling someone, falsely, that your intentions are marriage, in order to keep them sleeping with you?
What about having an affair and not telling your partner so that they keep sleeping with you - while not consenting to being involved in an open relationship?
I have seen those last two scenarios raised as cases we should view as 'rape' according to this SJW standard.
The more obvious scenario we are likely to face - and one in which probably 90% of the atheist schism is based on - is the question of sex while under the influence of alcohol.
It seems to me that there is an attempt by the SJWs to define common activity - things that have probably been practiced at some point or other by the vast majority of adults - as non-consensual, specifically the idea that people can have consensual sex after drinking a moderate level of alcohol.
I say moderate level specifically to exclude situations where someone drinks so much alcohol that they pass out, or lose the ability to physically resist, and are subsequently the victim of rape.
If every scenario where someone has been drinking means that (sober) informed consent was not possible then all such events can be treated as potential rape. It shifts the line from situations where most of us can agree that bad was happening (for example the Steubenville case) to a place where it is clear that what society as a whole now sees as acceptable sexual behavior (hooking up at parties, clubs, bars etc, and subsequently engaging in sex) is viewed at the very least as problematic, and at the most as encouraging 'rape culture'.
