It is possible for two people to rape each other simultaneously. (1 Viewer)

[maquiscat]

So something set me off towards this statement. I want to hold off on presenting it, so as not to influence others' thinking.

Do you this the title is a true statement? Please be prepared to support your answer one way or the other.

 

[Lutherf]

Well, as long as "safe words" are agreed on....

 

[MaggieD]

Well, as long as "safe words" are agreed on....

What a great answer! :lamo

 

[TheGoverness]

Okaaaaay. Walking away.....

 

[maquiscat]

Well, as long as "safe words" are agreed on....

If there are safewords, then it's not rape, just a rape role play.

 

[maquiscat]

Okaaaaay. Walking away.....

I suggest not. There is a very real and very serious issue behind this poll, but I want to see where people stand before I reveal it. Part of the reason is to reveal possible paradigm locked thinking.

 

[JANFU]

I suggest not. There is a very real and very serious issue behind this poll, but I want to see where people stand before I reveal it. Part of the reason is to reveal possible paradigm locked thinking.

Till ya drop the curtain, no one will play.

 

[americanwoman]

So something set me off towards this statement. I want to hold off on presenting it, so as not to influence others' thinking.

Do you this the title is a true statement? Please be prepared to support your answer one way or the other.

If I think of rape in the unable to consent form, then yes it's entirely possible for two people to rape each other simultaneously. They could both be so drunk, neither is capable of consent at that time.

If I think of rape in the holding down, physically forcing sex upon an unwilling participant, then no it's not possible.

So, other.

 

[Cigar]

I think I've seen that Movie ...

 

[Fishking]

If I think of rape in the unable to consent form, then yes it's entirely possible for two people to rape each other simultaneously. They could both be so drunk, neither is capable of consent at that time.

Right, but part of it is taking advantage of someone who is vulnerable, among other variables. However, when both people are of the same impairment or condition, then that factor is negated. It's say the difference between someone with normal mental acuity getting someone with Downs syndrome to have sex with them vs two people with Downs syndrome having a sexual relationship.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Sure, when we redefined sexual assault as any sex that the state after the fact does not approve of we opened the door to that, however so long as we continue to give women a complete pass by assuming that they are victims this will be rare, because as we all know Rule #1 of Victim Culture is "Victims are never guilty anything". Homosexual sex gets a lot more dicey because of the challenge of deciding which one we are going to call the Victim and thus is responsible for nothing and which one we are going to make the abuser, thus guilty of everything.

But sure we could very easily ring both people up for the crime of having sex without the government's permission....after the fact...because our sex law is an abomination.

 

[Slyfox696]

I suggest not. There is a very real and very serious issue behind this poll, but I want to see where people stand before I reveal it. Part of the reason is to reveal possible paradigm locked thinking.

The problem is the myriad of factors which can go into such a loaded question.

If you have a specific concept of which you're thinking, then you should describe it so people can more accurately describe whether they think a situation is simultaneous rape. But to try and get a specific answer to a general question so you can later revise the question into a more narrow question, while still holding people to their initial responses which were made absent the new information, is a little disingenuous.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So something set me off towards this statement. I want to hold off on presenting it, so as not to influence others' thinking.

Do you this the title is a true statement? Please be prepared to support your answer one way or the other.

False. Rape requires one party to not to want to have sex with the other party. In your case both want to have sex with the (each?) other so it can't be "mutual" rape.

 

[Lutherf]

Right, but part of it is taking advantage of someone who is vulnerable, among other variables. However, when both people are of the same impairment or condition, then that factor is negated. It's say the difference between someone with normal mental acuity getting someone with Downs syndrome to have sex with them vs two people with Downs syndrome having a sexual relationship.

In most states two 14 year old kids engaging in consensual sex have raped each other.

 

[digsbe]

I think it is possible. Rape is more than saying "yes" to a sexual encounter. Say for example it's a man and woman and the man forces anal on her and she doesn't consent to that but then she also bites/scratches or does something sexually be doesn't consent with. In both cases I'd consider that forms of rape.

 

[backpacker]

False. Rape requires one party to not to want to have sex with the other party. In your case both want to have sex with the (each?) other so it can't be "mutual" rape.

If the two parties cannot legally consent then it could still be simultaneous rape

 

[americanwoman]

Right, but part of it is taking advantage of someone who is vulnerable, among other variables. However, when both people are of the same impairment or condition, then that factor is negated. It's say the difference between someone with normal mental acuity getting someone with Downs syndrome to have sex with them vs two people with Downs syndrome having a sexual relationship.

Ah, very good point that I did not even think of.

 

[Slyfox696]

In most states two 14 year old kids engaging in consensual sex have raped each other.

I'm not sure that is true.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If the two parties cannot legally consent then it could still be simultaneous rape

Maybe on paper but, if neither party can legally consent, then neither party should be able to be held criminally responsible.

 

[AGENT J]

I think it is possible. Rape is more than saying "yes" to a sexual encounter. Say for example it's a man and woman and the man forces anal on her and she doesn't consent to that but then she also bites/scratches or does something sexually be doesn't consent with. In both cases I'd consider that forms of rape.

I know there are rules and you cant get to graphic but im sorta curious how that would happen simultaneously.

 

[AGENT J]

So something set me off towards this statement. I want to hold off on presenting it, so as not to influence others' thinking.

Do you this the title is a true statement? Please be prepared to support your answer one way or the other.

I had to answer other because i have no idea if its true or not.

There may very well be some bat**** law that allows it or some situation i cant currently think of

In my OPINION, my answer is no because of the word "simultaneously" and how consent should work on equality.

 

[Fishking]

In most states two 14 year old kids engaging in consensual sex have raped each other.

Which is stupid.

 

[Lutherf]

Which is stupid.

Well, "stupid" is nothing new:lol:

 

[Fishking]

If you really want to blow your mind, think about all the other things that you're accounted to have consented to do something and held accountable for your own actions while drunk (again, not to be applied to someone who isn't drunk specifically targeting drunk/passed out people).

Drunk driving? You consented to drive and held accountable
Domestic violence while intoxicated? Same thing
Drunken disorderly conduct? Same thing

Every single other example you can come up with you're accounted as being responsible for your choices while drunk except sex.

 

[backpacker]

Maybe on paper but, if neither party can legally consent, then neither party should be able to be held criminally responsible.

Not how it works though logically it should. Some people are incapacitated by age not by real world capacity.