4 ms·

You say that rape is a colloquial term for a range of specific crimes and chide me for not being more specific. And yet the person I replied to was making a po

by swatow 12y ago

You say that rape is a colloquial term for a range of specific crimes and chide me for not being more specific. And yet the person I replied to was making a positive claim that certain actions were rape. So how am I supposed to interpret that claim? Does rape take on a different meaning (e.g. a broader feminist definition) in that context? If rape is defined to be a crime or class of crimes, it's completely unreasonable to selectively ask people to be very specific about which crimes they mean. In the US I don't believe there is any such crime as rape by threatening to fire someone, or if there is it is not a serious crime.

Lazare 12y ago
> So how am I supposed to interpret that claim? As someone using a colloquial term for anything sexual without consent, obviously. Sex without consent is generally called rape; most people don't have any clue about the exact legal definitions. You don't even know what legal jurisdiction OP is in; how could you interpret the word as anything but the colloquial definition? > In the US I don't believe there is any such crime as rape by threatening to fire someone, or if there is it is not a serious crime. First, sex crimes are defined at the state level in the US, so it doesn't even make sense to discuss what "the" law is in the US. Pick your state, and you get your answer. Second, if we pick, eg, Michigan, you're describing...hmm. "Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct", which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Not sure about you, but I'd call that a serious crime. Other states have different laws, but generally speaking getting someone to perform an act via the threat of firing is coercion, and penetration achieved via coercion is one of the more serious forms of sexual assault.
- swatow 12y ago
  As someone using a colloquial term for anything sexual without consent, obviously. Sex without consent is generally called rape; most people don't have any clue about the exact legal definitions But most people don't subscribe to your consent based definition of rape. I think the majority of people would lean towards the force based definition of rape. You personally might think that rape should be defined as sex without consent, but that's a different matter. True, there has been some movement towards consent based laws in the US, but many states still retain the requirement of force (which could be expanded to include threats and physical restraint).
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    > But most people don't subscribe to your consent based definition of rape. I think the majority of people would lean towards the force based definition of rape. You are wrong; see for example Wikipedia, which represents a broad agreement of many editors and includes both coercion and abuse of authority as types of rape. Edit to reply to swatow since I've hit the reply limit: that's a good article and I hope you read it carefully and think about what it says.
    - swatow 12y ago
      I don't see how the opinion of Wikipedia editors is a good source for how rape is defined colloquially. Here is an article that discusses the controversy over force based vs consent based definitions of rape. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117630/jed-rubenfeld-rape-law-feminists-debate-force-versus-non-consent http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117630/jed-rubenfeld-rape...
      - Lazare 12y ago
        That's a good article! But I'm kind of confused why you linked it, when it so closely supports the position you've been arguing against? As your link makes clear, most states, the federal government, the legal community, and popular opinion has moved away from force based definitions as archaic and offensive. Which was, of course, my point. I mean, it's literally an article about one iconoclasts weird and much criticized view that maybe rape shouldn't be defined as sex without consent. Even if you agree with him, the existence of the article proves that it's a fringe position, right? (And much of the article is actually just Rubenfeld saying he actually agrees with is critics, and disagrees with the historical requirement to show force, so...)

by swatow 12y ago

Lazare 12y ago

> So how am I supposed to interpret that claim? As someone using a colloquial term for anything sexual without consent, obviously. Sex without consent is generally called rape; most people don't have any clue about the exact legal definitions. You don't even know what legal jurisdiction OP is in; how could you interpret the word as anything but the colloquial definition? > In the US I don't believe there is any such crime as rape by threatening to fire someone, or if there is it is not a serious crime. First, sex crimes are defined at the state level in the US, so it doesn't even make sense to discuss what "the" law is in the US. Pick your state, and you get your answer. Second, if we pick, eg, Michigan, you're describing...hmm. "Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct", which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Not sure about you, but I'd call that a serious crime. Other states have different laws, but generally speaking getting someone to perform an act via the threat of firing is coercion, and penetration achieved via coercion is one of the more serious forms of sexual assault.

swatow 12y ago
As someone using a colloquial term for anything sexual without consent, obviously. Sex without consent is generally called rape; most people don't have any clue about the exact legal definitions But most people don't subscribe to your consent based definition of rape. I think the majority of people would lean towards the force based definition of rape. You personally might think that rape should be defined as sex without consent, but that's a different matter. True, there has been some movement towards consent based laws in the US, but many states still retain the requirement of force (which could be expanded to include threats and physical restraint).
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  > But most people don't subscribe to your consent based definition of rape. I think the majority of people would lean towards the force based definition of rape. You are wrong; see for example Wikipedia, which represents a broad agreement of many editors and includes both coercion and abuse of authority as types of rape. Edit to reply to swatow since I've hit the reply limit: that's a good article and I hope you read it carefully and think about what it says.
  - swatow 12y ago
    I don't see how the opinion of Wikipedia editors is a good source for how rape is defined colloquially. Here is an article that discusses the controversy over force based vs consent based definitions of rape. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117630/jed-rubenfeld-rape-law-feminists-debate-force-versus-non-consent http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117630/jed-rubenfeld-rape...
    - Lazare 12y ago
      That's a good article! But I'm kind of confused why you linked it, when it so closely supports the position you've been arguing against? As your link makes clear, most states, the federal government, the legal community, and popular opinion has moved away from force based definitions as archaic and offensive. Which was, of course, my point. I mean, it's literally an article about one iconoclasts weird and much criticized view that maybe rape shouldn't be defined as sex without consent. Even if you agree with him, the existence of the article proves that it's a fringe position, right? (And much of the article is actually just Rubenfeld saying he actually agrees with is critics, and disagrees with the historical requirement to show force, so...)