[Nazo]

Originally Posted by Phunky Philosophy

No, then its Rape and Murder. And last time I checked giving a girl a fatal STD isn't considered murder, even though if done on purpose, it damn well should be.

Originally Posted by Nazo

Hell, it's even possible if the woman is a virgin and the guy is huge, there's a possibility that he could tear her insides a good bit and she'd bleed to death. It has been recorded in some rape victims.

I see what you're trying to say, but this isn't the point. Tearing a woman's insides and her bleeding to death isn't murder, per say. It's an extreme level of roughness during rape, so is the neck breaking part. Just because the rapist is extremely rough, does not mean all the time that the kill was intent. Most rapist let their victims go, and get off to them suffering for the rest of their lives, or just want them to have a painful memory imprinted in their mind. Rapist are sick people with sick minds.

Now I reiterate--Rape can be fatal. It all depends on the rapist.

And, even if it is murder, it's murder during rape. Making the title of, "Rape Survivors" valid.

Originally Posted by Lamb

Rape
Noun
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.


That in and of itself is not fatal. What means the person uses to do this can be, but that is physical violence: rape and/with intent to kill.

This does not null, at all, that rape can be fatal. The definition does not give "side effects" to the happenings of the actual act.

Originally Posted by HTTP 404

The topic of discussion isn't 'murder,' it's what constitutes a survivor. And if it's possible to be rendered dead merely by the act of rape, then one can be considered a 'survivor' of it, even by Lanza's definition.

Correct.