I'm starting to wonder if I should make this my sig... *sigh*
Scifi with aggressive sexuality
- Thread starter JirinPanthosa
- Start date
I'm starting to wonder if I should make this my sig... *sigh*
Maybe you want to help women decide what's worse: Rape or losing your financial security, possibly facing poverty.
You know, they're both shit. Not having to care about the latter is quite some privilege. So is not having to worry about the former.
Again, there's coercion and power imbalance so the choice isn't free.
So if you found a woman with her broken down car by the side of the road, and you offered to drive her to the gas station 10 miles up the way (which she could also walk, it'd just take hours), you'd be fine demanding sex as payment?
I mean, since it wouldn't be "rape" or "duress" by your definition.
As I said, thought experiments can tell you a lot about a person.
And folks wonder why women don't report being raped.
Real researchers don't quote Wikipedia. Especially when they don't understand what they're quoting.
There is no positive outcome here for her, and nothing in the posters post suggests he/she meant that there is or that people should capitulate to anything.
The only positive factor here is, she has the legal means to sue their asses off for being wronged.
I didn't read the original link, was just following the posts but it's been explained to me.
I think what's most shocking and upsetting is that some people don't seem to understand that consent can only be given with free choice and in the absence of gross power imbalance and coercion.
There are real researchers in this thread?
A. I think any abuse of power, especially of a sexual nature, should be prosecuted to the fullest extant of the law. Especially holding an economic or emotional threat against another person in exchange for sex. That this doesn't meet the legal standard of rape is a different matter. It doesn't need to be rape in order to be wrong.
B. I don't think losing your job because you refused the sexual advances of a superior to be a "positive outcome" unless the alternative is giving in to the unwanted sexual advances of said superior.
In fact, according to the Equal Opportunity Commission, both the Fox scenario and the boat scenario fall under the legal definition of Sexual Harassment - but not (necessarily) rape.
Hairsplitting = Rape Culture
No consent = Rape
My opinion on what constitutes rape is based on the legal definition of rape according to US law. The key part is "forcible" which is defined as the use of or threat of physical force.
While it would be nice to include emotional or economic force as well, those situations can be much more difficult to prove in a court of law.
If you disagree with the legal definitions, feel free to lobby your representative/senator/mp to change or expand the law.
Fixed that.
@Jedman67 So you really think consent can be given in the presence of huge power imbalance and coercion? You don't think consent can only be given when there's free choice without coercion?
And do you not think the absence of consent means we're talking about rape?
Should be easy enough to answer that.
And do you not think the absence of consent means we're talking about rape?
Should be easy enough to answer that.
No consent = Rape.
Dance all you want. The law once said blacks couldn't vote and were 3/5ths a citizen, too.
No consent = Rape
True.
Consensual relationships can also be possible where there is a power imbalance looked at on the surface of that relationship. Doctor and orderly, professor and student.
As we are in agreement that the situation in the story amounts to rape. What would be the consequences if the woman declines? Is that ferryman responsible for the success of her life? Or is he then just a reprehensible asshole without any decency?
It's always easy to answer a hypothetical. If you can prove the use of or threat of physical force, then clearly it's rape, because force removes consent. Economic, emotional or social threats do not usually equate to the threat of physical force. An imbalance of power can be construed as a threat of physical force, even if not explicitly stated.
define consent.
So unless there's physical force you think it's a free choice no matter the threatened consequences?
Pinch me, it's just too unreal to read what you just wrote.
We are talking about somebody who abuses their power to threaten consequences and coerce somebody else into sex. And you're saying there's still "free choice" and consent can be given?
That's... revolting.
Similar threads
