Wrongs Darker than Death or Night: Paradoxery ahoy

[Paradon]

That's very true! People can sometime do strange things out of fear...things that they would never do under normal circumstances. A lot of people think psychiatrists and psychologists are nut-jobs, but mental illnesses are very real. A lot of men don't like to admit that they have problems because of this idea, and men naturally don't like to talk about their problems anyway, so it goes untreated.

 

[Timo]

Being forced in any way to have sex with someone is rape.

To be sure, this is a rather counterproductive approach.

After all, there's always an element of initiative to human sex. And the difference between initiative and coercion is purely semantic, with only certain extremes being universally agreed upon. It sounds rather unlikely to me that there would exist a woman on this Earth (now or in history) who would not have been raped, by somebody's definition. A few unraped males might be found with magnifying class, mainly because of the imbalance in the statistics of "somebody's definition".

By universally declaring anything and everything "rape", one is merely diluting the concept and removing all negativity from it. Which apparently ought not to be the case.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Paradon]

Women that have been molested, or raped, sometimes scream out rape when a guy makes an advance because he likes her. Girls and women that have been sexually abused do get really freaked out when they try to get on with their lives.

But, yes, sometimes doctors do misdiagnose...they're only humans (they're not perfect)...but I don't think it's very common, or at least not as common as how it is portrayed on TV. It's an honest mistake...a lot of the time. Everybody screws up their jobs every once in a while, right?

 

[Forbin]

That episode was one of my favorite. The prophets might have done something... I don't know. She might not look the way she does in the past.

That reminds me of one of my pet peeves - Kira's hair. Nana explained that hideous short haircut by saying "She was a guerilla fighter on Bajor. A Guerilla fighter wouldn't have had long hair." So when we did see a flashback episode of her back in the day - she had really long hair in a pony tail!

 

[Timo]

Heh, good observation.

Perhaps she had somebody grab her by that ponytail soon after the incident, and swore "never again"?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Elias Vaughn]

Okay, let me make this clear...

I see a big difference between holding a gun to someone's head and forcing them to have sex with you and what Dukat did.

And let me make this clear.

No, there isn't.

If Kira Meru had said no to Dukat, do you think he would have killed her? Beaten her? I don't think so.

But would he have "accidentally" let harm come to her family in retaliation? Absolutely.

We never saw Dukat threaten Meru in any way.

We also didn't see him return her to her family and home.

Now, I frely admit that it's a creepy and horrible thing that happened to those women, so stop making me out to be some person who thinks that rape is fine and dandy, because I'm not. Someone close to me was raped, so don't make me out to be like that.

I never said you were a fan of rape. I said you don't understand what rape is. I stand by that from what I'm reading here.

And yes, Meru was doing it to help give her family a better life, but there is a difference between sex with someone to avoid something bad and having sex with someone to gain something good.

Oh. So it wasn't rape, Meru was just a whore.

Batting a thousand here.

In the first, if you refuse, things get worse if you refuse and there's no way it can get better if you accept.

In the second, things don't get worse if you refuse.

You don't consider Dukat taking away the good things Meru's family was getting to be worse?

Because that's why she was doing it. To get her family stuff and treatment that non-raped women's families did not get.

This is the situation that Meru was in with Dukat. I freely admit that some other cardassians would have raped the Bajorans, and I agree that that is terrible.

But my point is that we NEVER saw dukat threaten to harm Meru if she refused, and we have NO reason to think that Dukat would have harmed her.

Yeah, Dukat would never harm a Bajoran. It's not like he ordered countless Bajorans to death or masterminded the rape and pillage of their entire world.

And on a side topic, how long do you think that Meru was with Dukat before Kira tried to kill him? How long does it take for a rape victim (if we play by your rules and calim that Meru was a rape victim) to fall in love with their rapist? Because from what I remember of it, it was only a few days.

I'm pretty sure there's no minimum time limit on Stockholm Syndrome.

Was Meru a victim? Yes. She wouldn't have chosen that life for herself. But that doesn't make her a rape victim.

...

She wouldn't have chosen to sleep with Dukat (a pretty big part of "that life for herself" you mention), but she's not a rape victim.

You're not really thinking this through, are you?

Rape doesn't mean JUST physically forcing or threatening someone into sex. Read the Wiki article I linked in my previous post. Or even just the bit I quoted.

Being forced in any way to have sex with someone is rape.

To be sure, this is a rather counterproductive approach.

After all, there's always an element of initiative to human sex. And the difference between initiative and coercion is purely semantic, with only certain extremes being universally agreed upon. It sounds rather unlikely to me that there would exist a woman on this Earth (now or in history) who would not have been raped, by somebody's definition. A few unraped males might be found with magnifying class, mainly because of the imbalance in the statistics of "somebody's definition".

By universally declaring anything and everything "rape", one is merely diluting the concept and removing all negativity from it. Which apparently ought not to be the case.

Timo Saloniemi

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forced

 

[Timo]

Since your initial claim using the word "forced" was already categorically doubtful in its absolutism, I don't see what possible utility there is in examining the various interpretations of the word "forced".

Except, of course, to weaken your argument by backpedaling away from absolutism, by claiming that "forced" only refers to some special means of coercion. Which is a silly thing to do when you already reinforced your use of the word with "forced in any way". I doubt you had this aim?

A more exacting definition of "forced" will only underline my position that the original categorical claim is nonsensical.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Paradon]

That episode was one of my favorite. The prophets might have done something... I don't know. She might not look the way she does in the past.

That reminds me of one of my pet peeves - Kira's hair. Nana explained that hideous short haircut by saying "She was a guerilla fighter on Bajor. A Guerilla fighter wouldn't have had long hair." So when we did see a flashback episode of her back in the day - she had really long hair in a pony tail!

Maybe she got hit on a lot by a lot of guys on the station?

I think she used her looks to deceive the soldiers... I mean...how dangerous can a young, pretty, Bajoran woman be, right?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

It's quite simple: if for any reason you are in a situation where you are made to feel that you cannot exercise your right to say "no" to sexual activity, then it is rape. It does not matter whether that is by a clear physical or verbal threat, or because of a hostile or oppressive environment (i.e. through psychological coercion) that the rapist has created.

Obviously it's usually a highly emotional situation where sexual activity is a possibility and in a normal, peaceful situation, there will sometimes be a sort of inner debate about it. But if you are able to say no and be confident that you can safely exit the situation, then that does not fit the definition of rape. That does not mean there might not be consequences like a breakup or an argument, in the case of a relationship, or knowing that you disappointed someone, but in normal situations people just get over it and get on with their lives and there is not that explicit or implicit threat that goes with it.

But if someone does not accept 'no,' or puts you in a position where you do not believe you or others you care about are safe if you say 'no'--either directly or indirectly--then it is rape.

 

[Elias Vaughn]

Since your initial claim using the word "forced" was already categorically doubtful in its absolutism, I don't see what possible utility there is in examining the various interpretations of the word "forced".

I was assuming you didn't understand the meaning of the word. I posted the link for your benefit.

Except, of course, to weaken your argument by backpedaling away from absolutism,

My argument is that forcing someone into sex, no matter the method, is both rape and bad.

Note that forcing does not mean 'convincing'.

by claiming that "forced" only refers to some special means of coercion. Which is a silly thing to do when you already reinforced your use of the word with "forced in any way". I doubt you had this aim?

Not my quote, so I can't say. Except that, y'know, what I just said like three lines up in this post.

A more exacting definition of "forced" will only underline my position that the original categorical claim is nonsensical.

Sure. But really only because you don't understand the meaning of the word.

Timo Saloniemi

Elias Vaughn

 

[Paradon]

It's quite simple: if for any reason you are in a situation where you are made to feel that you cannot exercise your right to say "no" to sexual activity, then it is rape. It does not matter whether that is by a clear physical or verbal threat, or because of a hostile or oppressive environment (i.e. through psychological coercion) that the rapist has created.

Obviously it's usually a highly emotional situation where sexual activity is a possibility and in a normal, peaceful situation, there will sometimes be a sort of inner debate about it. But if you are able to say no and be confident that you can safely exit the situation, then that does not fit the definition of rape. That does not mean there might not be consequences like a breakup or an argument, in the case of a relationship, or knowing that you disappointed someone, but in normal situations people just get over it and get on with their lives and there is not that explicit or implicit threat that goes with it.

But if someone does not accept 'no,' or puts you in a position where you do not believe you or others you care about are safe if you say 'no'--either directly or indirectly--then it is rape.

That's what people in the old days used to do a lot! [chuckle] Women back then don't talk about these things. They don't even talk about their men in a bad way.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

So you would prefer that women--AND men--in abusive situations just shut up about it?

I'd like to hope that I am just completely misreading what you said.

 

[Paradon]

No, I'm saying...just because they don't talk about it...doesn't mean it doesn't hurt, or they enjoy being abused.

 

[Deimos Anomaly]

I'm of the opinion that she definitely did travel in time. That's what the Orb of Time does.

The episode that comes to my mind is the one with that mad klingon, who used the orb to travel back in time to try to kill Kirk with an exploding tribble.

I think it's fairly obvious that whole thing wasn't an illusion from the prophets, letting them see stuff in the past. It was actual time travel, since it directly inserted them into and made them a "by the way, here's the part you didn't see" backstory component of, a prior TOS epsode.

 

[CoveTom]

It's quite simple: if for any reason you are in a situation where you are made to feel that you cannot exercise your right to say "no" to sexual activity, then it is rape. It does not matter whether that is by a clear physical or verbal threat, or because of a hostile or oppressive environment (i.e. through psychological coercion) that the rapist has created.

"Made to feel" and "oppressive environment" are a tad difficult to nail down in some circumstances, though. People feel a lot of things. And those things are not always reasonable. Because I feel that the environment was oppressive does not necessarily make it so. Maybe you were trying to coerce me into sex. But then, on the other hand, maybe I totally misunderstood the situation. How do we prosecute someone based on a definition like how they make you feel? There has to be some sort of objective standard.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Here is a little legal background regarding the "reasonable person" standard for your information. This is what is used in a court of law to settle such matters.

 

[CoveTom]

I am familiar with the "reasonable person" standard. However, that is still subjective in this case because here we are dealing with the issue of how someone feels in a given circumstance, which is different than whether a reasonable person should have a particular piece of knowledge or act in a particular way.

How do you make an objective determination of what a reasonable person would feel in a given circumstance? Feelings are, by definition, subjective. While I'm certain that any reasonable person would have extreme feelings about the idea of being forced into sex, there are going to be vast differences with regards to the point at which a person begins to feel intimidated and uncomfortable. Some people are far more easily intimidated than others. Some react much more strongly to one situation than others.

It is still not any sort of an objective standard that can be judged as an absolute.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

From a strictly legal perspective, however, there is an enormous amount of prior precedent that a judge and jury would draw upon to make that determination; the legal system does not operate in a vacuum.

 

[Timo]

Which is often just as bad as if it did: that's why it was possible to argue that blacks were property for so long...

In this particular case, it's not idiotic stagnation I'm worried about, though, but change: there seems to be an unhealthy drive to criminalize everything. If every element of our lives receives a slider with "legal" and "illegal" at opposite ends and an arbitrary transition point in between, then the law is just self-serving and offers nothing to the society.

For a third party to declare that "forced" is bad, and then reserve the right to define "forced", is the height of hubris. Sooner or later, it's that third party that is doing the raping, by passing sentences that are out of touch with reality.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Elias Vaughn]

Which is often just as bad as if it did: that's why it was possible to argue that blacks were property for so long...

In this particular case, it's not idiotic stagnation I'm worried about, though, but change: there seems to be an unhealthy drive to criminalize everything. If every element of our lives receives a slider with "legal" and "illegal" at opposite ends and an arbitrary transition point in between, then the law is just self-serving and offers nothing to the society.

For a third party to declare that "forced" is bad, and then reserve the right to define "forced", is the height of hubris. Sooner or later, it's that third party that is doing the raping, by passing sentences that are out of touch with reality.

Timo Saloniemi

Fine.

Then you define rape in a way that works for you instead of nitpicking out reasons why other people's definitions are wrong.

Be forewarned, though, I'm going to nitpick the crap out of whatever definition you come up with.