6 ms·

That's quite different. She had an option to decline. Maybe it would've a very hard choice indeed, both socially and career-wise but she did have that choice. I

by yason 12y ago

That's quite different. She had an option to decline. Maybe it would've a very hard choice indeed, both socially and career-wise but she did have that choice. It might be convenient in some cases to broaden the definition of rape gradually but the bottom line is you can not be raped if you are simply able to walk away. It might be harassment. It might be blackmailing. It might be a lot of nasty, disgusting, and even criminal things. In the above story, the partner was obviously a complete prick. But the scheme is inherently different from a rape. This abusing prick could've asked both men or women under his supervision for a number of completely unreasonable favours, whether sexual or non-sexual, declining of which would've been similarly catastrophic for the career of his staff members because of the power the abusing partner held over the matter. But they could've walked away. Maybe they could have restarted their career elsewhere or had to change careers, I don't know. Life isn't fair. But they could've walked away and from what I understand, so could've this young associate in the law firm. I think the very definition of rape is crossing the very line where the victim is not allowed to leave and forced to be abused instead. A rape is a physical act of violence, regardless of whether what happens is an intercourse or a blowjob or whatever and whether the victim was physically threatened by fists, a knife, or a gun, but the physical nature of the act means if you are able to walk away the rape doesn't happen because it can not happen. And that is for the same reason why a robber with a knife can't kill you unless you're within a few feet of him. A knifeman can't kill you a block away and a rapist can kill you if you're not there. In some jurisdictions coercion might translate to non-physical threats. Then maybe there it could be classified as a rape. It's still as wrong as if it's classified as something else. But the dynamic of that situation is nevertheless different from the dynamic of a rape with the latter interpreted in the traditional sense. There is a line between situations from where you can actually walk away and situations from where you can not.

rayiner 12y ago
If you threaten to punch someone in the face if she doesn't sleep with you, that's clearly rape. If you threaten to fire someone if she doesn't sleep with you, some people wouldn't call that rape (and the law wouldn't either). But I'd rather get punched in the face then lose a job I worked really hard to get. So why do we consider the latter not as bad? The belief that physical coercion is worse than economic coercion arises from our deep-seated deference to rich people. A migrant worker has to pull a knife to coerce someone. A law firm partner doesn't have to, but can exercise powers that are just as immorally coercive. Would it be easier if I called it "white collar rape?"
- randyrand 12y ago
  You bring up a good point, but the law is very clear and intentional (in illinois). "Uses force or the threat of force." It means that even if you decline you have no choice but to have sex with them. You will be forced to. In the white-collar situation, you can say no, even if you don't want to.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Wait, are you sure that's how to interpret "threat of force"? I would assume that a threat of beating someone up and then leaving would qualify. You disagree?
  - aptwebapps 12y ago
    Did you not read item 4 in the statute you quoted? Here it is again: "(4) is 17 years of age or over and holds a position of trust, authority, or supervision in relation to the victim, and the victim is at least 13 years of age but under 18 years of age. "
- hackuser 12y ago
  Yes, as through this world I've wandered I've seen lots of funny men; Some will rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen. - Woody Guthrie
- abalone 12y ago
  This is why the term "slippery slope" is so common in the legal profession. If financial consequences = coercion = rape then there is a huge range of situations that can now be cast under the cloud of rape, such as relationships where one person is financially dependent on the other. Fortunately some states have laws that specifically define and criminalize sexual extortion. It's distinct from rape / sexual assault but it is a felony.
  - pekk 12y ago
    "relationships where one person is financially dependent on the other." Suppose a couple lives together, and one tells the other: "let me sodomize you right now or I kick you out of the house and you can live on the street." What in the world would be the point of arguing that this is not rape? On the other hand, if there is no threat accompanying a demand for sexual access, it is obviously not rape and nobody is saying it is.
snowwrestler 12y ago
The parent's description above is rape. See for example the Wikipedia page: > Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent... See: ...coercion, abuse of authority... You don't think that it was rape, but that is part of the problem: people are always trying to redefine "rape" so it doesn't cover this or that particular flavor of it. But if it is sex without consent, it's rape, period. I reference Wikipedia not because it is an unassailable authority, but because it represents the lowest common denominator of what most people agree on.
- Claudus 12y ago
  Referencing Wikipedia in specific technical instances like this is ill advised. Wikipedia is good for summarizing sources, but if you actually read the sources, I don't think you'll find any of them [1][2][3][4] make any mention of "abuse of authority" pertaining to rape. Rather than reflecting "the lowest common denominator of what most people agree on", it seems more likely this is what one specific individual with a less accepted definition of rape who cares enough to edit the wiki and fight off all dissenters wants you to believe is the default definition of rape.
drostie 12y ago
There's a much simpler definition of "rape" as "being coerced into having sex that you do not want to have." It, of course, is not the present legal definition of rape. But it's something that's easy to talk about and to use in conversation. In other words, the point is that sex is put into a separate sphere of activity from other ordinarily-pleasant experiences and given a dignity which is not special to those other activities. (This is not particularly tendentious: most cultures have, say, hygeine laws which are important to follow but it's hard to identify the exact reason "why". Egg on your face is "dirty". Will it hurt anyone or cause you to contract or spread disease etc.? No. But it's still dirty and it's still important in our culture.) The gap from sexual harassment to rape is therefore not, say, violence, but the escalation from uncouth groping to uncouth sex. The fact that there is a narrative where she looks out upon her options and says, "okay, I will fearfully give this man a blowjob rather than give him the middle finger and prepare for joblessness" -- one where she somehow rationally "chooses" sex as her "best option" -- is moot if sex is fundamentally privileged by the society you're a part of. The problem is that the "rape" has essentially happened (it's happened as a conspiracy, say), by the time that that "choice" has to be made.
- jobposter1234 12y ago
  Is sex somehow fundamentally different than every* other act that it should be treated so differently? * Every. If I used my power at work to make you eat a literal lunch of feces, is that more or less egregious? I know what my gut would say, but why? Isn't the core bad behavior the concept of abrogating another human's free will? Why is sex in this other classification? Edit: put another way, why is it that being coerced into sex is much worse than being coerced into e.g., murder. Is it simply the frequency? (It doesn't seem like the issue is that the act is against a specific or particular gender/race/hate crime victim group, unless we're differentiating between "straight rape" or "gay rape", which is a moral hazard worth avoiding...)
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    Sure, that would be fucked up, wouldn't it? Fortunately, we don't have too much of a problem with some people forcing other people to eat feces, in the workplace or elsewhere. Or with people scared to complain about their bosses making them eat shit, for fear of ruining their career. We do have a pretty big problem with sexual violence, sexual coercion, and gender-based discrimination, in the workplace and elsewhere. A whole bunch of this thread is people wanting to have abstract philosophical arguments, instead of dealing with what's really going on. Abstract philosophical arguments can be fun, when stoned in a dorm room, under-taken between people who find them fun (usually because they're about things that do not have life-or-death consequences... at least for the people in the room). But they're no substitute for discussion (and action) focused on what's actually going on in the world, people who are being hurt (and I don't mean their 'feelings are hurt'), people who are hurting them (sometimes, but not always, without realizing it), and what to do about it. I think the OP was pretty masterful in keeping a focus on what's actually going on, and what to do about it, practically, in the real world we live in. HN is showing a masterful ability to turn it into diversionary irrelevant mental masturbation instead, which is depressing me, I actually expected better for some reason.

by yason 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

If you threaten to punch someone in the face if she doesn't sleep with you, that's clearly rape. If you threaten to fire someone if she doesn't sleep with you, some people wouldn't call that rape (and the law wouldn't either). But I'd rather get punched in the face then lose a job I worked really hard to get. So why do we consider the latter not as bad? The belief that physical coercion is worse than economic coercion arises from our deep-seated deference to rich people. A migrant worker has to pull a knife to coerce someone. A law firm partner doesn't have to, but can exercise powers that are just as immorally coercive. Would it be easier if I called it "white collar rape?"

randyrand 12y ago
You bring up a good point, but the law is very clear and intentional (in illinois). "Uses force or the threat of force." It means that even if you decline you have no choice but to have sex with them. You will be forced to. In the white-collar situation, you can say no, even if you don't want to.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Wait, are you sure that's how to interpret "threat of force"? I would assume that a threat of beating someone up and then leaving would qualify. You disagree?
- aptwebapps 12y ago
  Did you not read item 4 in the statute you quoted? Here it is again: "(4) is 17 years of age or over and holds a position of trust, authority, or supervision in relation to the victim, and the victim is at least 13 years of age but under 18 years of age. "
hackuser 12y ago
Yes, as through this world I've wandered I've seen lots of funny men; Some will rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen. - Woody Guthrie
abalone 12y ago
This is why the term "slippery slope" is so common in the legal profession. If financial consequences = coercion = rape then there is a huge range of situations that can now be cast under the cloud of rape, such as relationships where one person is financially dependent on the other. Fortunately some states have laws that specifically define and criminalize sexual extortion. It's distinct from rape / sexual assault but it is a felony.
- pekk 12y ago
  "relationships where one person is financially dependent on the other." Suppose a couple lives together, and one tells the other: "let me sodomize you right now or I kick you out of the house and you can live on the street." What in the world would be the point of arguing that this is not rape? On the other hand, if there is no threat accompanying a demand for sexual access, it is obviously not rape and nobody is saying it is.

snowwrestler 12y ago

The parent's description above is rape. See for example the Wikipedia page: > Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent... See: ...coercion, abuse of authority... You don't think that it was rape, but that is part of the problem: people are always trying to redefine "rape" so it doesn't cover this or that particular flavor of it. But if it is sex without consent, it's rape, period. I reference Wikipedia not because it is an unassailable authority, but because it represents the lowest common denominator of what most people agree on.

Claudus 12y ago
Referencing Wikipedia in specific technical instances like this is ill advised. Wikipedia is good for summarizing sources, but if you actually read the sources, I don't think you'll find any of them [1][2][3][4] make any mention of "abuse of authority" pertaining to rape. Rather than reflecting "the lowest common denominator of what most people agree on", it seems more likely this is what one specific individual with a less accepted definition of rape who cares enough to edit the wiki and fight off all dissenters wants you to believe is the default definition of rape.

drostie 12y ago

There's a much simpler definition of "rape" as "being coerced into having sex that you do not want to have." It, of course, is not the present legal definition of rape. But it's something that's easy to talk about and to use in conversation. In other words, the point is that sex is put into a separate sphere of activity from other ordinarily-pleasant experiences and given a dignity which is not special to those other activities. (This is not particularly tendentious: most cultures have, say, hygeine laws which are important to follow but it's hard to identify the exact reason "why". Egg on your face is "dirty". Will it hurt anyone or cause you to contract or spread disease etc.? No. But it's still dirty and it's still important in our culture.) The gap from sexual harassment to rape is therefore not, say, violence, but the escalation from uncouth groping to uncouth sex. The fact that there is a narrative where she looks out upon her options and says, "okay, I will fearfully give this man a blowjob rather than give him the middle finger and prepare for joblessness" -- one where she somehow rationally "chooses" sex as her "best option" -- is moot if sex is fundamentally privileged by the society you're a part of. The problem is that the "rape" has essentially happened (it's happened as a conspiracy, say), by the time that that "choice" has to be made.

jobposter1234 12y ago
Is sex somehow fundamentally different than every* other act that it should be treated so differently? * Every. If I used my power at work to make you eat a literal lunch of feces, is that more or less egregious? I know what my gut would say, but why? Isn't the core bad behavior the concept of abrogating another human's free will? Why is sex in this other classification? Edit: put another way, why is it that being coerced into sex is much worse than being coerced into e.g., murder. Is it simply the frequency? (It doesn't seem like the issue is that the act is against a specific or particular gender/race/hate crime victim group, unless we're differentiating between "straight rape" or "gay rape", which is a moral hazard worth avoiding...)
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  Sure, that would be fucked up, wouldn't it? Fortunately, we don't have too much of a problem with some people forcing other people to eat feces, in the workplace or elsewhere. Or with people scared to complain about their bosses making them eat shit, for fear of ruining their career. We do have a pretty big problem with sexual violence, sexual coercion, and gender-based discrimination, in the workplace and elsewhere. A whole bunch of this thread is people wanting to have abstract philosophical arguments, instead of dealing with what's really going on. Abstract philosophical arguments can be fun, when stoned in a dorm room, under-taken between people who find them fun (usually because they're about things that do not have life-or-death consequences... at least for the people in the room). But they're no substitute for discussion (and action) focused on what's actually going on in the world, people who are being hurt (and I don't mean their 'feelings are hurt'), people who are hurting them (sometimes, but not always, without realizing it), and what to do about it. I think the OP was pretty masterful in keeping a focus on what's actually going on, and what to do about it, practically, in the real world we live in. HN is showing a masterful ability to turn it into diversionary irrelevant mental masturbation instead, which is depressing me, I actually expected better for some reason.