The problem is that the word “rape” is used differently by different persons. Even the definition of “rape” by different jurisdictions differs:
“Some jurisdictions define “rape” to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault. Other jurisdictions define all non-consensual sexual activity to be rape. But the terminology varies, with some places using other terms. For example, Michigan, United States uses the term “criminal sexual conduct”. In some jurisdictions, rape is defined in terms of sexual penetration of the victim, which may include penetration with objects, rather than body parts. Some jurisdictions also consider rape to include the use of sexual organs of one or both of the parties, such as oral copulation and masturbation.” (From Wikipedia)
Unless you narrow the definition to only mean “penile penetration of the vagina” in cases where the man would fight against with all means there is no doubt that men can be raped. So the discussion is a little theoretical because that won’t happen very often.
So the only thing we don’t agree about is cases like a woman trying to infect a man with AIDS by forcing him to intercourse after she has told him that he will die if she succeeds. Even this isn’t very likely anymore because people don’t die from AIDS anymore except in very poor countries.
Even in the last mentioned cases it may be possible if the woman uses high doses of forced viagra or forces the man into unconsciousness by stopping oxygen to his brain. But otherwise I still don’t think that an ordinary woman could do it.
Unless somebody can find evidence that proves my last statement wrong I think that we should stop this discussion because we are now repeating ourselves too much.
