Way back when I was in law school I believe I recall a discussion of the Common Law definition of "rape." It was limited to conventional sexual intercourse (penis-vagina), and the fact that triggered the legal application of "rape" was "insertion of the penis into the vagina, no matter how slight..." This, I could understand. (Statutory rape is excluded from this discussion - a whole 'nother matter). It made sense to me.
Now I understand that criminal statutes define "rape" so broadly that many sorts of activities other than "the old in&out" are included in the definition of "rape." I also understand that Media reporting often circumlocutes around unpleasant details, so as not to make their readers uncomfortable.
But I feel a need to point out that Mr. Weinstein's preferred sexual activity appears to have been to perform cunnilingus, willingly or not, on young women whom he found "attractive."
And this, we are told, is "rape." While I have no doubt that such an encounter, if involuntary, could be traumatic to the victim, it lacks some of the essentials of the rational Common Law crime of rape. Specifically, the perpetrator of cunnilingus gets no physical pleasure from the act, and in fact the act is INTENDED - if grotesquely - to provide sexual pleasure to the victim. It is not intended to be a painful or harmful assault; on the contrary...
Second, the victim suffers no physical harm, and one might note that if she were a virgin before the assault, she would still be a virgin when it was over - for what that's worth.
Parenthetically, one ponders how the flip side of this crime would play out. An ugly older woman physically imposes herself on a handsome young aspirant, giving him a forced BJ. Also "rape," I presume. (This would likely occur in a student-teacher context, most often). In that case, the appropriate punishment would be a stern admonishment.
Criminologists like to say that "Rape is not a crime of sexual passion; it is a crime of violence against women." And in most cases this is true. The rapist is not sexually attracted to the victim; he just wants to hurt a woman in a very intimate and penetrating way (play on words intended). But Weinstein was clearly motivated by sexual passion; he didn't want to harm or hurt any of the women whom he assaulted.
But I don't think Weinstein is a "rapist" as that term is commonly understood. He is a man who idolized women's bodies and took advantage of his position and influence to get a lot of p*ssy. For every true victim, I would wager there were three or four who voluntarily participated in his desired activities, in the hope that it would further their careers. And now some of them hope to cash in, one way or another.
Does this make me a misogynist?
Now I understand that criminal statutes define "rape" so broadly that many sorts of activities other than "the old in&out" are included in the definition of "rape." I also understand that Media reporting often circumlocutes around unpleasant details, so as not to make their readers uncomfortable.
But I feel a need to point out that Mr. Weinstein's preferred sexual activity appears to have been to perform cunnilingus, willingly or not, on young women whom he found "attractive."
And this, we are told, is "rape." While I have no doubt that such an encounter, if involuntary, could be traumatic to the victim, it lacks some of the essentials of the rational Common Law crime of rape. Specifically, the perpetrator of cunnilingus gets no physical pleasure from the act, and in fact the act is INTENDED - if grotesquely - to provide sexual pleasure to the victim. It is not intended to be a painful or harmful assault; on the contrary...
Second, the victim suffers no physical harm, and one might note that if she were a virgin before the assault, she would still be a virgin when it was over - for what that's worth.
Parenthetically, one ponders how the flip side of this crime would play out. An ugly older woman physically imposes herself on a handsome young aspirant, giving him a forced BJ. Also "rape," I presume. (This would likely occur in a student-teacher context, most often). In that case, the appropriate punishment would be a stern admonishment.
Criminologists like to say that "Rape is not a crime of sexual passion; it is a crime of violence against women." And in most cases this is true. The rapist is not sexually attracted to the victim; he just wants to hurt a woman in a very intimate and penetrating way (play on words intended). But Weinstein was clearly motivated by sexual passion; he didn't want to harm or hurt any of the women whom he assaulted.
But I don't think Weinstein is a "rapist" as that term is commonly understood. He is a man who idolized women's bodies and took advantage of his position and influence to get a lot of p*ssy. For every true victim, I would wager there were three or four who voluntarily participated in his desired activities, in the hope that it would further their careers. And now some of them hope to cash in, one way or another.
Does this make me a misogynist?
