3 ms·

You seem dead set on saying "Well, guards exchanged other perks for the sex, therefore it wasn't rape!" Which entirely misunderstands what rape is. It's about

by scarmig 13y ago

You seem dead set on saying "Well, guards exchanged other perks for the sex, therefore it wasn't rape!" Which entirely misunderstands what rape is. It's about consent, or lack thereof. Would the guards have been in a position to have sex with him if not for the position of power they were placed in over him? No. Simply because he adopted very successful survival tactics to leverage the sex they were exacting from him doesn't change the fact he had no real ability to consent. It does move toward a bit of a gray area here, because of possible pressure gangs exerted outside the prison. But that makes it even more rapey--if pressure were really being exerted in that way, both people involved were victims of sexual violence. This kind of sexual relationship is not something to glorify or excuse, and the implicit "go for it dude!" shows a great lack of empathy for his situation.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
> Simply because he adopted very successful survival tactics to leverage the sex they were exacting from him doesn't change the fact he had no real ability to consent. This idea is not compatible with White's own opinion of his situation, "I make every final call in this jail". Have we come to the point where third parties decide for you whether you consented to something? > This kind of sexual relationship is not something to glorify or excuse, Did you miss the part where I said it should be criminal, and called for it to be punished more severely than it already is? (The current level is basically a slap on the wrist.) > and the implicit "go for it dude!" shows a great lack of empathy for his situation. Undisputed master of an extensive domain, making upwards of $16K / month tax free, with an extensive harem, and immune to prosecution (he's already in jail!). I'm pretty sure he doesn't need much empathy. The guards weren't extorting sex from the prisoners. The prisoners were seducing guards in order to get perks. (Similarly, if a girl assumes I'm rich, sleeps with me in the hope that I'll buy her some nice things, and I later do, that doesn't mean I was raped. And if I offer a girl something to sleep with me, and she accepts -- that doesn't mean she was raped. What was going on in that prison was analogous to the first girl, and your erroneous notion is analogous to the second.) The agency distinction is important, and we don't just have to assume the prisoners were the agents because they're the men... we have their direct word that that's what they were doing! We have (and I mentioned this) gang literature on how to effectively seduce guards! We have Tavon White's own word that he controls everything that happens in the jail! There's no conceivable way for him to be coerced into sex, or, really, anything, in the middle of his own thoroughly subverted jail.
- scarmig 13y ago
  Being well-off (supposedly, at least) and having power in certain domains does not mean you can't be raped. The only relevant attribute is consent. If you were making an argument that the prisoner actually had power over the guards through external contacts and implicit threats to their families, that'd be one thing. But you continually mistake masculine bravado and some level of material comfort for ability to consent. It's a category error. Your analogies both fall flat, because there's the key point that the women and men in that situation have the ability to consent. The proper analogy is a kid who's been abducted by a pedophile. No matter how happy the kid is, no matter how kindly the pedophile treats the kid, no matter how many gifts the pedophile gives the kid, no matter how much the kid jockeys with other kids for the pedophile's affection--it's rape. Because consent.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    > The only relevant attribute is consent. The guards here are not asking the prisoners for sex. The prisoners are asking the guards for sex. If I ask you to do something, and you do, I have consented to that thing. If I show a woman a gun, and tell her "sleep with me or I kill you", and she sleeps with me -- that's rape. If I'm her boss, and tell her "sleep with me or you're fired", and she does -- that's not rape. Of those two, the prison guard / prisoner relationship can be reasonably analogized to the gun scenario. But: If I have a gun, and a woman sees it, swoons, and asks to sleep with me -- that's not rape. That's what's actually going on. It's not rape unless I actually use (or threaten to use) my ability to coerce. By focusing so much on the idea that a prison guard could hypothetically have power over inmates, you're worrying about the appearance of impropriety. But while that is present in this case, there is no actual impropriety occurring (toward the prisoners). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appearance_of_impropriety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appearance_of_impropriety The guard who extorts sex from a prisoner they've taken a fancy to is abusing the prisoner. That's not happening here. The guard who caves to an inmate's seduction and does them favors out of love is not abusing the prisoner. They're abusing the trust society placed in them when they were made a prison guard.
    - 13y ago

by scarmig 13y ago

thaumasiotes 13y ago

> Simply because he adopted very successful survival tactics to leverage the sex they were exacting from him doesn't change the fact he had no real ability to consent. This idea is not compatible with White's own opinion of his situation, "I make every final call in this jail". Have we come to the point where third parties decide for you whether you consented to something? > This kind of sexual relationship is not something to glorify or excuse, Did you miss the part where I said it should be criminal, and called for it to be punished more severely than it already is? (The current level is basically a slap on the wrist.) > and the implicit "go for it dude!" shows a great lack of empathy for his situation. Undisputed master of an extensive domain, making upwards of $16K / month tax free, with an extensive harem, and immune to prosecution (he's already in jail!). I'm pretty sure he doesn't need much empathy. The guards weren't extorting sex from the prisoners. The prisoners were seducing guards in order to get perks. (Similarly, if a girl assumes I'm rich, sleeps with me in the hope that I'll buy her some nice things, and I later do, that doesn't mean I was raped. And if I offer a girl something to sleep with me, and she accepts -- that doesn't mean she was raped. What was going on in that prison was analogous to the first girl, and your erroneous notion is analogous to the second.) The agency distinction is important, and we don't just have to assume the prisoners were the agents because they're the men... we have their direct word that that's what they were doing! We have (and I mentioned this) gang literature on how to effectively seduce guards! We have Tavon White's own word that he controls everything that happens in the jail! There's no conceivable way for him to be coerced into sex, or, really, anything, in the middle of his own thoroughly subverted jail.

scarmig 13y ago
Being well-off (supposedly, at least) and having power in certain domains does not mean you can't be raped. The only relevant attribute is consent. If you were making an argument that the prisoner actually had power over the guards through external contacts and implicit threats to their families, that'd be one thing. But you continually mistake masculine bravado and some level of material comfort for ability to consent. It's a category error. Your analogies both fall flat, because there's the key point that the women and men in that situation have the ability to consent. The proper analogy is a kid who's been abducted by a pedophile. No matter how happy the kid is, no matter how kindly the pedophile treats the kid, no matter how many gifts the pedophile gives the kid, no matter how much the kid jockeys with other kids for the pedophile's affection--it's rape. Because consent.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  > The only relevant attribute is consent. The guards here are not asking the prisoners for sex. The prisoners are asking the guards for sex. If I ask you to do something, and you do, I have consented to that thing. If I show a woman a gun, and tell her "sleep with me or I kill you", and she sleeps with me -- that's rape. If I'm her boss, and tell her "sleep with me or you're fired", and she does -- that's not rape. Of those two, the prison guard / prisoner relationship can be reasonably analogized to the gun scenario. But: If I have a gun, and a woman sees it, swoons, and asks to sleep with me -- that's not rape. That's what's actually going on. It's not rape unless I actually use (or threaten to use) my ability to coerce. By focusing so much on the idea that a prison guard could hypothetically have power over inmates, you're worrying about the appearance of impropriety. But while that is present in this case, there is no actual impropriety occurring (toward the prisoners). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appearance_of_impropriety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appearance_of_impropriety The guard who extorts sex from a prisoner they've taken a fancy to is abusing the prisoner. That's not happening here. The guard who caves to an inmate's seduction and does them favors out of love is not abusing the prisoner. They're abusing the trust society placed in them when they were made a prison guard.
  - 13y ago