3 ms·

> It's pointless to hang on technicalities though I don't think you'd consider it a mere technicality, if someone called it "murder", or "extortion", or "batte

by fab13n 11y ago

> It's pointless to hang on technicalities though I don't think you'd consider it a mere technicality, if someone called it "murder", or "extortion", or "battery", although all of those are crimes, which generally entail severe emotional trauma. You can stay general and just call it a "crime", if you don't think the specifics are relevant, but it's not a rape. This sloppy thinking, "it's an hideous deception and it's related to sex, so it must be rape", is the same kind of sloppy thinking that makes citizens accept things they shouldn't, for the sake of "homeland security" or "the war against Terror". So it does matter. As for "Concealing who you are", if you pick an open / vague interpretation of what "who you are" means, you're creating an awful lot of legal insecurity. How many estranged spouses have you heard describing their ex as "(s)he wasn't the person I though (s)he was"? I've heard that one more than a couple of times. That is no basis for rape accusations.

vacri 11y ago
Rape, fundamentally, is a clear violation of a person's intimate life. That is what happened in the article, sponsored and directed by the state. It wasn't the "oh, they changed over time" story that you're making it out to be. In both the article and my twins comment, the bad actor premeditated the duplicity, and was intentionally dishonest from the start. The woman in the article has had her intimate life violated, funded and directed by the state, no less. That violation is the essence of rape. Whether or not it fits the relevant legal definition (which varies wildly between jurisdictions), what has happened is functionally the same. It's just like it doesn't actually matter to the victim who comes home to find their house ransacked, whether the law terms it 'robbery' or 'burglary'. And when the victim says "our house was robbed yesterday", the person who corrects them with "actually, you mean 'burgled'" is missing the point.
YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
>> How many estranged spouses have you heard describing their ex as "(s)he wasn't the person I though (s)he was"? But that's just a metaphor. In this case, he was literally not the person she thought he was.

by fab13n 11y ago

vacri 11y ago

Rape, fundamentally, is a clear violation of a person's intimate life. That is what happened in the article, sponsored and directed by the state. It wasn't the "oh, they changed over time" story that you're making it out to be. In both the article and my twins comment, the bad actor premeditated the duplicity, and was intentionally dishonest from the start. The woman in the article has had her intimate life violated, funded and directed by the state, no less. That violation is the essence of rape. Whether or not it fits the relevant legal definition (which varies wildly between jurisdictions), what has happened is functionally the same. It's just like it doesn't actually matter to the victim who comes home to find their house ransacked, whether the law terms it 'robbery' or 'burglary'. And when the victim says "our house was robbed yesterday", the person who corrects them with "actually, you mean 'burgled'" is missing the point.

YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago

>> How many estranged spouses have you heard describing their ex as "(s)he wasn't the person I though (s)he was"? But that's just a metaphor. In this case, he was literally not the person she thought he was.