You are applying a bizarre standard.. Almost movie type standard. Physical manipulation and stimulation, Jan. Involuntary reaction. Sometimes he could be asleep, drunk, stoned, etc. Most of the time, there is no gun. Most of the time, there is coercion, threats, some force, etc. And in cases of male on male rape, there is often physical force and threats. You have come up with this bizarre scenario that actually beggars belief. You are the one obsessed with the gun to his head. And again, it can take only one person. Rape is sex without consent. I was actually questioning your frankly pornographic obsession with how a woman could arouse a man to rape him. The demand for details, even after the question was answered.. Repeatedly... Is bordering on pornography. For example: This has been answered multiple times already. I did. Stop demanding we cater to whatever rape fantasy you dream up to explain to you how the male victim could get aroused. And stop asking ridiculous questions in comparison. Consent in the context of this discussion means no rape. If you wish to discuss consent in regards to euthanasia, that is a subject for an entirely different thread. Probably the standard English version. The KJV literally means the same thing. How much further are you going to try to go parsing this to try to deny it means rape? And I'm not even broaching on the subject of the woman's choice or say in the matter, because that's another horrendous thing for her voice and choice to be taken from her. I mean, the earlier passages describe the same wording as a crime worthy of death, but when it comes to the virgin who is not betrothed, it's not rape? And there's the answer to that question... A man "lays hold" on a woman and lies with her, by your own definition of what "lay hold of", is use of force and would classify as rape. Seize, arrest, catch, grasp, wield, be caught, be taken, captured.. The passage is well recognised as discussing rape, Jan. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/neareastarch.78.4.0294?seq=1 "Rape", as we understand it, was a word that existed back then. Back then, it fell under the umbrella of adultery or sex before marriage. If he lay with her, even if by force, he would still be made to marry her and she, to marry her rapist. Do you understand now? Well, that's a start.. Paying her father for her.. The rapist paying the money to her father, is a bride price. It's the transfer of property rights by way of monetary compensation. It was actually very common and still is very common in many parts of the world. Because "rape" is a modern term in the context of this discussion and did not exist in that context when the text was written. If you wish to look at the historical meaning - "The term rape originates from the Latin rapere (supine stem raptum), "to snatch, to grab, to carry off" - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Etymology] And then compare it to what you defined above: to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield (Qal) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands) It would describe rape. You do understand this, yes? Because it is well recognised as discussing rape. After the girl is 'seized/captured/caught/taken/arrested/etc'.. By any definition, such acts would amount to it being rape. The irony is that they use the same language to describe the actions of the man who is later killed... But you say that in the case of the virgin who is not betrothed, it's not rape.. Too bad about the virgin then.. She's made to marry him. You're leaving out the important thing in the context of this discussion. It was all about ownership. No one is saying it is. But it has helped protect and enable the abuse of women and children. Say what now?