And we're back to rape culture.
No consent = rape.
Scifi with aggressive sexuality
- Thread starter JirinPanthosa
- Start date
No consent = rape.
It's not even that hard to define.
Consent: saying "yes," of your own free will, with no coercion or pressure or threat of consequences should you say "no."
Consent: saying "yes," of your own free will, with no coercion or pressure or threat of consequences should you say "no."
You'd think this is blatantly obvious. But apparently many people still don't get it.
Which sadly reinforces rape culture.
And you're twisting my words too. It's exactly what you said, coercion and abuse of power is coercion and abuse of power.
If you have the ability to say no, and you say yes, that's free choice. That's consent. If you only say yes because you fear the consequences of saying no, then you apply the rules of coercion or duress. If it's not duress, then it's consent.
There are many things that are prosecutable that are evil and wrong and are not rape.
You keep repeating yourself without responding to my argument.
Great. Under this definition, all of the above posts in this thread are considered rape. Can you prosecute it in court?
So you are saying you disagree with that definition of consent, @Jedman67?
I mean, you personally. Laws can be inadequate because they were created out of a systemically sexist tradition so I'm asking for your personal opinion.
You think the absence of coercion and threat of serious consequences aren't the foundation of free will and the ability to give real consent?
I mean, you personally. Laws can be inadequate because they were created out of a systemically sexist tradition so I'm asking for your personal opinion.
You think the absence of coercion and threat of serious consequences aren't the foundation of free will and the ability to give real consent?
You've made no arguments other than:
Which amounts to 'She didn't (fill in blank) enough.'
No consent = rape. Hairsplit all you want, no consent will still equal rape.
My personal opinion? Yes, that's rape. I think there is much room for improvement on sexual aggression and perceptions, both legally and socially. It should not be "ok" that wealthy or privileged perpetrators get off with a wrist slap (Brock Turner case) or large, well known organizations have abuse at the highest level. It is not ok for someone to be harassed, abused, coerced or otherwise taken advantage of for any reason, and especially not if the abuse is sexual.
What are we arguing about then? If the absence of coercion and power abuse is the basis of free will and consent, then it can't only be about physical harm.
Our point was that it's not just physical threats that take away free will. If you're ready to accept that... I might as well post a cute cat picture and stop arguing.
Last edited:
The story upon which this whole conversation seems to hinge does not involve a threat by the ferryman though.
I believe Emilia would say that it's the power the boatman holds over her is equivalent to the threat of force.
While I agree that the abuse of power - he can take her, but is demanding a price in return - is criminal, I disagreed, leading to 5 pages of back and forth on what does and does not constitute rape.
TL;DR: It's "morally rape" but you can't convict him of rape.
Edit: and now i'm really done with this thread.
Since it was a hypothetical story about a moral question I thought we were discussing what it is "morally". 
I'd say the boatman scenario is a bit more of a gray area than some of the comparisons being made, depending on the details. If he's just a guy who happens to own the only boat around, it's not really the same type of situation as a teacher threatening to flunk a student or an employer threatening to fire/pass over for promotion an employee if sexual favors aren't provided. Those are kind of strawmen with respect to the hypothetical. I see how it can be argued that having the only available boat could be seen as putting him in a position of "power," but I don't see how she's any more entitled to the use of his boat than he is to have sex with her. The boatman is under no obligation or duty to perform any service to this woman, or to prevent the consequences she might suffer from not getting across the river to see her fiancee. Now, if he's running a ferry business and regularly provides this service to paying customers (which isn't specified), then refusing her because she won't have sex with him (assuming she can pay the going rate) is discrimination. In any case, it's a shitty thing to do, and I certainly wouldn't call him a moral person. But I'm iffy on calling it a form of rape per se in the scenario as presented.
(EDITED TO ADD: This is the version of the scenario that I was going by when writing this post. I see now that there were others posted that are significantly different.)
(EDITED TO ADD: This is the version of the scenario that I was going by when writing this post. I see now that there were others posted that are significantly different.)
Last edited:
I agree that the boatman doesn't have a positive obligation to the woman. However, he didn't say, "I won't take you," he said "I'll take you, but the one and only price I'll accept is you having sex with me," and that's an unethical demand that he is making of his own volition.
He would've been a jerk if he's the only game in town and simply refused to take her, but he wouldn't have been a sexual predator/rapist.
He would've been a jerk if he's the only game in town and simply refused to take her, but he wouldn't have been a sexual predator/rapist.
There seems to be various versions of that story, including one where he threatens to throw her overboard. But in the end we may as well be arguing if you're a murderer by flipping the switch so the train kills the baby rather than the group of people. It is a moral question designed to provoke thought and debate. Rather than the law this could be a debate whether the law needs to be changed, definitions broadened or just a change in culture around the whole subject.
Oh my god I take a break from the board to do my job for like, three hours...
Anyway,
@stardream , aside from the obvious problem here of this being a horrible statement to make to any victim, "Couldn't she just knock him out?" has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
I understand that you hate the idea of a helpless woman, which is cool. And I disagree that this is irrelevant to the discussion -- it's definitely part of these issues, and even relates perfectly back to how women are portrayed in the media, especially in science fiction and fantasy.
I think I've made it very clear that I am a feminist and that I don't think women are helpless. I believe in female empowerment, I think physically strong and capable female characters like Buffy (or more realistic versions of female fighters, like Prentiss or J.J. on Criminal Minds ) are a very positive thing, and it's clear that there are plenty of individual women out there who have the physical prowess and/or training to take out a man, and plenty of individual men out there who aren't physically threatening.
However, let's be realistic here. I am a 5'3" 120lb woman. What do you think my odds would be of succeeding in knocking out an average sized man (in America 5'9.5" 195lb)? I took a couple free self-defense courses, sure, but I have don't have the time, the money, or the physical ability to devote my life to the type of training it would take to make me a physical match for an average man.
Also, you do know that, unless you do enough harm to seriously brain damage/kill someone, a person will only be knocked out for a few seconds IRL, right?
Anyway,
Seriously.
@stardream , aside from the obvious problem here of this being a horrible statement to make to any victim, "Couldn't she just knock him out?" has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
I understand that you hate the idea of a helpless woman, which is cool. And I disagree that this is irrelevant to the discussion -- it's definitely part of these issues, and even relates perfectly back to how women are portrayed in the media, especially in science fiction and fantasy.
I think I've made it very clear that I am a feminist and that I don't think women are helpless. I believe in female empowerment, I think physically strong and capable female characters like Buffy (or more realistic versions of female fighters, like Prentiss or J.J. on Criminal Minds ) are a very positive thing, and it's clear that there are plenty of individual women out there who have the physical prowess and/or training to take out a man, and plenty of individual men out there who aren't physically threatening.
However, let's be realistic here. I am a 5'3" 120lb woman. What do you think my odds would be of succeeding in knocking out an average sized man (in America 5'9.5" 195lb)? I took a couple free self-defense courses, sure, but I have don't have the time, the money, or the physical ability to devote my life to the type of training it would take to make me a physical match for an average man.
Also, you do know that, unless you do enough harm to seriously brain damage/kill someone, a person will only be knocked out for a few seconds IRL, right?
@stardream Your statement and my response are both irrelevant to the specific situation, and the speed with which you quoted and responded make me think you didn't give my reply much thought.
Literally, in the time it took me to immediately edit the one typo.
Literally, in the time it took me to immediately edit the one typo.
Similar threads
