Well that concept-delineation makes sense, even if I disagree that it would not be good to employ that concept. So the case is that its impossible to rape anybody with a handjob if the target has a penis as the genital.
I could see someone more successfully arguing that a handjob could constitute rape if there was an erection and an orgasm involved (which doesn’t seem to be OP’s case), but what’s important is that events colloquially called rape are significantly more traumatizing than forcibly touching someone’s penis, which is what creates the meaningful distinction (rather than his sexual assaults not fitting the definition of rape).
(Edit: I decided to cross it out in case someone wouldn’t be significantly less traumatized by that rather than by an actual rape.)
Well that concept-delineation makes sense, even if I disagree that it would not be good to employ that concept. So the case is that its impossible to rape anybody with a handjob if the target has a penis as the genital.
I could see someone more successfully arguing that a handjob could constitute rape if there was an erection and an orgasm involved (which doesn’t seem to be OP’s case), but what’s important is that events colloquially called rape are
significantlymore traumatizing than forcibly touching someone’s penis, which is what creates the meaningful distinction (rather than his sexual assaults not fitting the definition of rape).(Edit: I decided to cross it out in case someone wouldn’t be significantly less traumatized by that rather than by an actual rape.)