I was hoping to resist the urge to engage again, but the idiocy that followed is off the charts:
This was my quote:
"From saying, she agreed to it in the end, to making a great impression of an ostrich by burying your head in the sand and claiming that since you didn't see penetration nothing happened."
I was talking about the depiction angle you were going for.
I understood your point. I just chose to ignore it because I'm loosing my interested in arguing with you. I think we have both made our positions clear and there is little point in continuing. It would be beating a dead horse, so to speak. Besides, when I make a counter point to your point and instead of adressing it you claim that it is unrelated, the debate is over right then and there. You stopped debating with me and resorted to insulting my intelligence, so I will not treat those comments as if they deserve respect. If you present an argument that I feel needs to be addressed I may do so. But I don't really want to talk to you anymore because I feel extremely insulted and disrespected. I forgive you, but I won't respond to disrespectful insults and childish antics as if they are credible arguments. If you decide to be more respectful, perhaps we can resume.
So not only you distorted my argument, but you used it to make another invalid one, like "it's not rape unless there is penetration". Which is in no way relevant with what I was talking about.
Case in point.
Even so, and just for the sake of argument:
A bunch of guys hold you down, fondle you, force you to give them rim jobs and ejaculate all over you. Is that not rape, just because it doesn't fit in the narrow law definition given by the US constitution? Why go with the US version (like cricket did) by the way? Why not Sweden's?
This was actually a fair point and good questions, so I'll address them.
I would call the example you gave Sexual Assault. I would make an omission though. Instead of forcing me to give them rim jobs, I would say try to. Because your example implies that I gave in, but I would exert every fiber of my being unto death to not give in to that. Even with a gun to my head it is still my choice and my act of will to extend my tongue and lick or take a bullet. That is my conviction. Either way, I don't consider it rape.
My view has nothing to do with American laws. It has everything to do with how I've understood the word all my life and read it's definition in dictionaries.
The Swedish definition, or any definition from any source that is not English, means absolutely nothing. Any word in any language is only defined by authoritative credible sources in its own language.
I have never before, in my entire life up until this point, heard so much as a rumor of kissing being considered rape or something not actually witnessed (or in the case of literature, described) referred to as depicted.
I hope that answers your questions to your satisfaction.
I believe that what you're doing is conflating sexual assault with rape, which trivializes rape and blurs the distinction.
(I edited the post to change some wording to what I feel is more accurate upon proof reading and reflecting.)