5 ms·

The word 'rape' is being re-defined now. The definition is being expanded far beyond what we called rape 20 years ago. Feminists are trying to do this in order

The word 'rape' is being re-defined now. The definition is being expanded far beyond what we called rape 20 years ago. Feminists are trying to do this in order to call attention to sexual harassment, but it is backfiring. They will dilute the term to the point where violent rape is no longer seen as the uniformly more serious offense that it is.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
unepipe 12y ago
Forced oral sex is considered rape. This isn't feminist redefinition. You think if a gun is to your head and you give a blowjob that is sexual harassment? Think about someone who has a family and needs their income, and what this kind of situation puts them in.
- BadassFractal 12y ago
  For the sake of argument, let me play the devil's advocate here and do a bit of armchair philosophy. Let's say I have a family, many mouths to feed, maybe it's the last job I could possibly get in my small town in the middle of nowhere. I hate the job, it sucks the life out of me, I don't want to do it, but I'm forced to "against my will" every single day because otherwise my family will starve to death. If I lose it, I might never find one again. I'm under duress. Sure, there's no sexual abuse in this specific scenario, but as other posters have mentioned, modern definition of rape makes it not about sex, but about power structures. Am I being raped, in the scenario above? Note: I want to stress that I'm simply having a philosophical discussion here, I have no agenda, downvotes are pointless.
  - randyrand 12y ago
    Okay, more devils advocate. Your boss comes into the office to fire you. You really really need your job or you and your family starve. You really really don't want to. In fact you would do anything but stoop to this level. But you have no choice and you know he is into you. Your family is starving. You decide to ask your boss, "I'll fuck you if I keep the job." He agrees. It's still sex against your will. You're only doing it to get the job, so your children don't starve. Were you raped?
    - cstrahan 12y ago
      That sounds more like prostitution. I think the important element is this: did person A attempt to coerce person B into having sex? If yes, then A raped B. Let's apply that to your scenario. Is the boss trying to coerce the employee into having sex? No, the boss is firing the employ because * Maybe they're a shitty employee, or * Perhaps because the company has dwindling resources, or * Fill in the blank. In your scenario, the employee came up with a plan to try to sell sex in exchange keeping their job. That's prostitution: "the act of having sex in exchange for money." As a boss, I would decline that offer because, among other things, it would probably look like I was threatening to take away the employees job (i.e. coercion) if I wasn't given sex - even if that was never my intent. If, on the other hand, the boss implied or suggested that the employee could keep their job in exchange for sex, that's coercion and is therefore rape. It's not about "not wanting to do something", it's about coercion. If I'm legitimately fired and I offer sex in exchange for my job, that _is_ my will. If someone threatens (express of implied) to take my job away unless I have sex with them, that's their will, they're coercing me to have sex with them, and that's rape.
      - golemotron 12y ago
        The tragedy of all of this is that it is endlessly open to "he said" versus "she said." And that's the problem with the expansive definition of rape. In the case we are talking about the evidence would have to be that she felt coerced and that there was a power structure that make her feel coerced. It's entirely possible for someone to be in that power structure and still consent or (if they are a bad actor) say that they felt coerced after the fact. Criminal indictment and conviction should be based more than a just a victims statement of their subjective experience.
  - code_reuse 12y ago
    I suppose it depends on what the word 'rape' is to you. To me it is a word in the English vernacular which has a certain meaning to everyday people. To me preserving that lexical meaning is super important because it fosters a common understanding between people which is the primary thing. The word or concept has nothing to do with jurisprudence or the idea of jurisdiction which is what many people here keep referencing. A word still holds it's proper definition in the minds of men and it is prudent to defend them as such irregardless of what goes on within government.
  - JohnBooty 12y ago
    I don't understand this. I don't think anybody is suggesting that nonsexual activities be classified as rape.
  - bluehat 12y ago
    Why is this the most important philosophical discussion to have right now? I just explained how terrible things can be, a thing I called rape only one of a large number of issues. Why is "was she technically correct in saying rape" the most important takeaway from this? Even if I'm wrong, don't you see other things worth fixing?
- code_reuse 12y ago
  It puts her in a stressful situation because now she has to contemplate things like going into debt while she takes the time to secure another job. Or if she doesn't have any credit then she would have to lean on her husband, or an extended family member, or worse of all end up living on the street and putting her children into foster care. She would have to calculate her odds of how likely that situation would be to transpire and whether or not it would actually expose her or her children to physical danger. What if the woman knows that her rural grandparents or great aunt would probably look after the kids while the mom was looking for a job (perhaps living in her car part of the time) ? In that case then what you're talking about is not a threat of violence, what you're talking about is a threat of having to leave the so called middle class lifestyle and fall into a diminished or poverty-stricken lifestyle. It's a horrible thing to have to contemplate because and the lower you fall in the socio-economic todem pole the more physical dangers you're exposed to during the course of everyday living, but that doesn't mean her situation is the same as rape
ossreality 12y ago
Well at least your priorities are in the right place, defending the right people. You piece of fucking shit.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- nknighthb 12y ago
  Not according to the California penal code. Duress suffices, and duress is not limited to physical force. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261 "(b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress."
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Read that whole section. 261.7 refers to public officials abusing their authority, and duress is defined in that context.
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      Incorrect. The paragraph I quoted is 261(b). The paragraph you are talking about is 261(a)(7), part of 261(a). Note that 261(a)(7) never even uses the word "duress". Furthermore, 261(b) says "this section". The "section" is 261, not 261(a)(7). Note also that 261(a)(7) calls itself "this paragraph", not "this section". 261.7 is a completely different section concerning the evidentiary value of birth control methods: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261.7 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261.7
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        You are right, I'm misunderstanding the scoping rules for law. I was interpreting it as (261 ... (7 ... (b ...))) rather than (261 (a ... (7 ...) ) (b ...) ). I guess the question hinges on what is intended by the word "retribution".
jdub 12y ago
Do you understand the difference between robbery, armed robbery, violent robbery, and robbery leading to death (i.e. murder)? OK, now you're ready to reassess your archaic (and frankly offensive) misunderstanding of rape.
JohnBooty 12y ago
Focusing on the distinction between "violent" and "nonviolent" rape is dangerous and harmful. The practical result of this is that it puts the onus onto the victim: "You didn't resist enough. Therefore your rape was nonviolent; therefore it was a lesser crime." Rape is sex against one's consent. Your consent is just as violated whether you resisted a little, a lot, or not at all (perhaps you were incapacitated by the attacker.) In many scenarios the most prudent thing for a victim to do is not to physically resist; as rape is largely a male-on-female crime the victim is frequently at a physical disadvantage. My wife is a small woman. If God forbid this ever happens to her, I certainly hope that the situation remains nonviolent. But I certainly don't see how that would make it less of a crime.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - emj 12y ago
    Since we are specifically talking about conditions in the tech industry the legal definition of rape doesn't matter at all. I would say it's actually harmfull to bring it up at all.
pron 12y ago
> Feminists are trying to do this in order to call attention to sexual harassment Not at all. Feminists are doing it to call attention to the true nature of power, and the fact that power is expressed in many ways -- only one of them is physical violence. When your attacker possesses power and you don't, that means that you don't have options (or that they are severely restricted). If you don't have options because someone else restricts them, well, that's the definition of coercion, and sex under coercion means rape. The definition hasn't changed; rape has always been sex under coercion. All that's changed is that now the law reflects our better understanding of power.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

unepipe 12y ago

Forced oral sex is considered rape. This isn't feminist redefinition. You think if a gun is to your head and you give a blowjob that is sexual harassment? Think about someone who has a family and needs their income, and what this kind of situation puts them in.

BadassFractal 12y ago
For the sake of argument, let me play the devil's advocate here and do a bit of armchair philosophy. Let's say I have a family, many mouths to feed, maybe it's the last job I could possibly get in my small town in the middle of nowhere. I hate the job, it sucks the life out of me, I don't want to do it, but I'm forced to "against my will" every single day because otherwise my family will starve to death. If I lose it, I might never find one again. I'm under duress. Sure, there's no sexual abuse in this specific scenario, but as other posters have mentioned, modern definition of rape makes it not about sex, but about power structures. Am I being raped, in the scenario above? Note: I want to stress that I'm simply having a philosophical discussion here, I have no agenda, downvotes are pointless.
- randyrand 12y ago
  Okay, more devils advocate. Your boss comes into the office to fire you. You really really need your job or you and your family starve. You really really don't want to. In fact you would do anything but stoop to this level. But you have no choice and you know he is into you. Your family is starving. You decide to ask your boss, "I'll fuck you if I keep the job." He agrees. It's still sex against your will. You're only doing it to get the job, so your children don't starve. Were you raped?
  - cstrahan 12y ago
    That sounds more like prostitution. I think the important element is this: did person A attempt to coerce person B into having sex? If yes, then A raped B. Let's apply that to your scenario. Is the boss trying to coerce the employee into having sex? No, the boss is firing the employ because * Maybe they're a shitty employee, or * Perhaps because the company has dwindling resources, or * Fill in the blank. In your scenario, the employee came up with a plan to try to sell sex in exchange keeping their job. That's prostitution: "the act of having sex in exchange for money." As a boss, I would decline that offer because, among other things, it would probably look like I was threatening to take away the employees job (i.e. coercion) if I wasn't given sex - even if that was never my intent. If, on the other hand, the boss implied or suggested that the employee could keep their job in exchange for sex, that's coercion and is therefore rape. It's not about "not wanting to do something", it's about coercion. If I'm legitimately fired and I offer sex in exchange for my job, that _is_ my will. If someone threatens (express of implied) to take my job away unless I have sex with them, that's their will, they're coercing me to have sex with them, and that's rape.
    - golemotron 12y ago
      The tragedy of all of this is that it is endlessly open to "he said" versus "she said." And that's the problem with the expansive definition of rape. In the case we are talking about the evidence would have to be that she felt coerced and that there was a power structure that make her feel coerced. It's entirely possible for someone to be in that power structure and still consent or (if they are a bad actor) say that they felt coerced after the fact. Criminal indictment and conviction should be based more than a just a victims statement of their subjective experience.
- code_reuse 12y ago
  I suppose it depends on what the word 'rape' is to you. To me it is a word in the English vernacular which has a certain meaning to everyday people. To me preserving that lexical meaning is super important because it fosters a common understanding between people which is the primary thing. The word or concept has nothing to do with jurisprudence or the idea of jurisdiction which is what many people here keep referencing. A word still holds it's proper definition in the minds of men and it is prudent to defend them as such irregardless of what goes on within government.
- JohnBooty 12y ago
  I don't understand this. I don't think anybody is suggesting that nonsexual activities be classified as rape.
- bluehat 12y ago
  Why is this the most important philosophical discussion to have right now? I just explained how terrible things can be, a thing I called rape only one of a large number of issues. Why is "was she technically correct in saying rape" the most important takeaway from this? Even if I'm wrong, don't you see other things worth fixing?
code_reuse 12y ago
It puts her in a stressful situation because now she has to contemplate things like going into debt while she takes the time to secure another job. Or if she doesn't have any credit then she would have to lean on her husband, or an extended family member, or worse of all end up living on the street and putting her children into foster care. She would have to calculate her odds of how likely that situation would be to transpire and whether or not it would actually expose her or her children to physical danger. What if the woman knows that her rural grandparents or great aunt would probably look after the kids while the mom was looking for a job (perhaps living in her car part of the time) ? In that case then what you're talking about is not a threat of violence, what you're talking about is a threat of having to leave the so called middle class lifestyle and fall into a diminished or poverty-stricken lifestyle. It's a horrible thing to have to contemplate because and the lower you fall in the socio-economic todem pole the more physical dangers you're exposed to during the course of everyday living, but that doesn't mean her situation is the same as rape

ossreality 12y ago

Well at least your priorities are in the right place, defending the right people. You piece of fucking shit.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nknighthb 12y ago
Not according to the California penal code. Duress suffices, and duress is not limited to physical force. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261 "(b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress."
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Read that whole section. 261.7 refers to public officials abusing their authority, and duress is defined in that context.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    Incorrect. The paragraph I quoted is 261(b). The paragraph you are talking about is 261(a)(7), part of 261(a). Note that 261(a)(7) never even uses the word "duress". Furthermore, 261(b) says "this section". The "section" is 261, not 261(a)(7). Note also that 261(a)(7) calls itself "this paragraph", not "this section". 261.7 is a completely different section concerning the evidentiary value of birth control methods: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261.7 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261.7
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      You are right, I'm misunderstanding the scoping rules for law. I was interpreting it as (261 ... (7 ... (b ...))) rather than (261 (a ... (7 ...) ) (b ...) ). I guess the question hinges on what is intended by the word "retribution".

jdub 12y ago

Do you understand the difference between robbery, armed robbery, violent robbery, and robbery leading to death (i.e. murder)? OK, now you're ready to reassess your archaic (and frankly offensive) misunderstanding of rape.

JohnBooty 12y ago

Focusing on the distinction between "violent" and "nonviolent" rape is dangerous and harmful. The practical result of this is that it puts the onus onto the victim: "You didn't resist enough. Therefore your rape was nonviolent; therefore it was a lesser crime." Rape is sex against one's consent. Your consent is just as violated whether you resisted a little, a lot, or not at all (perhaps you were incapacitated by the attacker.) In many scenarios the most prudent thing for a victim to do is not to physically resist; as rape is largely a male-on-female crime the victim is frequently at a physical disadvantage. My wife is a small woman. If God forbid this ever happens to her, I certainly hope that the situation remains nonviolent. But I certainly don't see how that would make it less of a crime.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- emj 12y ago
  Since we are specifically talking about conditions in the tech industry the legal definition of rape doesn't matter at all. I would say it's actually harmfull to bring it up at all.

pron 12y ago

> Feminists are trying to do this in order to call attention to sexual harassment Not at all. Feminists are doing it to call attention to the true nature of power, and the fact that power is expressed in many ways -- only one of them is physical violence. When your attacker possesses power and you don't, that means that you don't have options (or that they are severely restricted). If you don't have options because someone else restricts them, well, that's the definition of coercion, and sex under coercion means rape. The definition hasn't changed; rape has always been sex under coercion. All that's changed is that now the law reflects our better understanding of power.