I'd say someone could say "You better say yes". It implies nothing directly. It could imply he'll be heart broken, or it could imply you will soon be arm broken. But you don't know.
I'd almost go so far as to call that sort of coercion a bluff.
You guys are Letting the sex aspect of rape confuse you. Consent is a contract. How would you feel if someone said you needed to buy their house or else would that be a valid contract? If someone got you in a room and wouldn't let you leave till you bought their house would that be a valid contract.
I'm not sure if the second premise, not being allowed to leave until you sign the contract, was a direct reference to my hypothetical about a person propositioning sex, while standing in the doorway or not.
If it is, I want to point out that I never stated the person was not allowing the other to leave. Just using body language (consciously or not) to give the impression that they may not. It hasn't been tested.
Lastly, I would like to add that sales people do this ALL THE TIME. They will do everything in their power to not let you leave until you've bought something, short of physically restraining. They'll stand between you and door. They'll follow you. They'll refuse to let you disengage from the conversation. You frequently do need to be assertive and say "No" and just walk away. And even then it might take a few tries. Happens almost every time you walk through the front door of a car dealership. Least it does to me.
Well it's not a perfect analogy but let's fix it a little. First sale is in a private place with no witnesses. Next the salesmen just needs a drop of blood on the contract so he can get it legitimately or thru force.
So what can the salesmen do to get you to buy? He can ask, he can lie, he can't threaten, he can't force.
Can he say "you better say yes?" can he threaten to say something he you don't say yes? I would say no but their is a line. It is silly to say that only If a person directy threatens another is it coercion.
This is why I'm not bothering with defining the word "coercion". I'm more concerned with determining at what level of threat/coercion/whatever we've decided the act is criminal.
I'd say someone could say "You better say yes". It implies nothing directly. It could imply he'll be heart broken, or it could imply you will soon be arm broken. But you don't know.
I'd almost go so far as to call that sort of coercion a bluff.
Coercion is in the mind of the victim not the coercer. Otherwise it would be impossible to prove.
you cant leave (because you love me.)
I will kill you (with kindness) if you scream.
I will seriously murder you with a knife. (I kid, I kid)
Coercion cannot exist only in the mind of the victim. That is just wrong. Period. That makes it completely subjective, and under the complete discretion of the victim.
Someone else used a good example earlier, prove the last sexual encounter you had was consensual.
I put forth this, prove the last sexual partner you had didn't feel coerced.
In this regard it should be no different than any other item of value. Force or threat of force. Blackmail, as legally defined already. Fraud, perhaps.
Incapacitation and age and such (where consent can't be legally given) can be dealt with separately.
Coercion cannot exist only in the mind of the victim. That is just wrong. Period. That makes it completely subjective, and under the complete discretion of the victim.
Someone else used a good example earlier, prove the last sexual encounter you had was consensual.
I put forth this, prove the last sexual partner you had didn't feel coerced.
Well I don't have to prove it wasn't. The prosecution has to prove that I did.
But lots of stuff is only in the mind of the victim. Harassment and threats work that way. In my line of work, I may have the best of intentions saying that some black people would be more happy in a black area of town but if they take it as racism it breaks the law.
Coercion cannot exist only in the mind of the victim. That is just wrong. Period. That makes it completely subjective, and under the complete discretion of the victim.
Someone else used a good example earlier, prove the last sexual encounter you had was consensual.
I put forth this, prove the last sexual partner you had didn't feel coerced.
Well I don't have to prove it wasn't. The prosecution has to prove that I did.
But lots of stuff is only in the mind of the victim. Harassment and threats work that way. In my line of work, I may have the best of intentions saying that some black people would be more happy in a black area of town but if they take it as racism it breaks the law.
I have to admit you lost me. You say that coercion exists purely in the mind of the victim, but then say law still has to prove it. So I'm assuming you don't think all the evidence they need is the victims word. But if the victims mind is the only place it need exists, that's all you have. So what other sorts of evidence are supposed to be provided for it to be proven in a court of law?
Coercion cannot exist only in the mind of the victim. That is just wrong. Period. That makes it completely subjective, and under the complete discretion of the victim.
Someone else used a good example earlier, prove the last sexual encounter you had was consensual.
I put forth this, prove the last sexual partner you had didn't feel coerced.
Well I don't have to prove it wasn't. The prosecution has to prove that I did.
But lots of stuff is only in the mind of the victim. Harassment and threats work that way. In my line of work, I may have the best of intentions saying that some black people would be more happy in a black area of town but if they take it as racism it breaks the law.
I have to admit you lost me. You say that coercion exists purely in the mind of the victim, but then say law still has to prove it. So I'm assuming you don't think all the evidence they need is the victims word. But if the victims mind is the only place it need exists, that's all you have. So what other sorts of evidence are supposed to be provided for it to be proven in a court of law?
Statements by the accused? Some people do admit to it. Or even brag.
Coercion cannot exist only in the mind of the victim. That is just wrong. Period. That makes it completely subjective, and under the complete discretion of the victim.
Someone else used a good example earlier, prove the last sexual encounter you had was consensual.
I put forth this, prove the last sexual partner you had didn't feel coerced.
Well I don't have to prove it wasn't. The prosecution has to prove that I did.
But lots of stuff is only in the mind of the victim. Harassment and threats work that way. In my line of work, I may have the best of intentions saying that some black people would be more happy in a black area of town but if they take it as racism it breaks the law.
I have to admit you lost me. You say that coercion exists purely in the mind of the victim, but then say law still has to prove it. So I'm assuming you don't think all the evidence they need is the victims word. But if the victims mind is the only place it need exists, that's all you have. So what other sorts of evidence are supposed to be provided for it to be proven in a court of law?
Statements by the accused? Some people do admit to it. Or even brag.
But yeah, pretty hard to prove. And should be.
Not really. The victims testimony is a lot of it but doesn't count for beyond a reasonable doubt(it could be a lie). So you look at what a reasonable person would think in the situation (what would you think if someone told you that you would die if you didn't buy this house?) You look at the persons actions (did they change their mind after being told that they would die if they didn't buy the house). You look at the person's actions after the incident ( did they tell everyone they loved the house?) If all that passes the bar then you have coercion, even if the salesmen was saying you would die of sadness.
No, it is indeed largely pedantic. My use of coercion in the above statements wasn't meant to be a legally permissible statement but the actions on a whole. Using a synonym for influence was appropriate.
Except no English language thesaurus or dictionary I have access to, claims coercion and influence to be synonymous. As far as I can tell, they are not equivalent concepts, although the Venn diagram should show overlap:
According to thesaurus.com, influence has the following synonyms:
access, agency, ascendancy, character, clout, command, connections, consequence, control, credit, direction, domination, dominion, drag, effect, esteem, fame, fix, force, grease, guidance, hold, impact, importance, imprint, in, juice*, leadership, leverage, magnetism, mark, moment, money, monopoly, network, notoriety, predominance, prerogative, pressure, prestige, prominence, pull, repercussion, reputation, ropes, rule, significance, spell, supremacy, sway, weight*
Synonyms:
-nouns
influence; importance; weight, pressure, preponderance, prevalence, sway; predominance, predominancy; ascendency; dominance, reign; control, domination, pull; authority; capability (power); effect; interest., footing; purchase (support); play, leverage, vantage ground., tower of strength, host in himself; protection, patronage, auspices.
-verbs
have influence; be influential; carry weight, weigh, tell; have a hold upon, magnetize, bear upon, gain a footing, work upon; take root, take hold; strike root in., run through, pervade; prevail, dominate, predominate; outweigh, overweigh; override, overbear; gain head; rage; be rife; spread like wildfire; have the upper hand, get the upper hand, gain the upper hand, have full play, get full play, gain full play., be recognized, be listened to; make one's voice heard, gain a hearing; play a part, play a leading part, play a leading part in; take the lead, pull the strings; turn the scale, throw one's weight into the scale; set the fashion, lead the dance.
-adjectives
influential, effective; important; weighty; prevailing; prevalent, rife, rampant, dominant, regnant, predominant, in the ascendant, hegemonical.
-adverbs
with telling effect.
-phrases
tel maure tel valet.
Neither lists the other as a synonym, because you are conflating two things that are not actually the same.
This post is beautiful.
However, I'll point out that, according to the legal definition of rape: "Lack of consent is a necessary element in every rape."
So, I'm not sure why you're all going on about coercion and influence. Rape has to do with consent, not how the consent came about.
That was some wonderful pedantics, @hanskey, but a true pedant wouldn't have been bogged down in the coercion / influence distinction, since, technically, they don't have anything to do with rape in the first place. You ought to have been pedantic about the definition of rape, not coercion and influence.
Consent as ideology cannot be distinguised from habitual acquiescence, assent, silent dissent, submission, or even enforced submission. Unless refusal of consent or withdrawal of consent are real possibilities, we can no longer speak of 'consent' in any genuine sense ...Women exemplify the individuals whom consent theorist declared are incapable of consenting. Yet, simultaneously, women have been presented as always consenting, and their explicit non-consent has been treated as irrelevant or has been reinterpreted as 'consent."
If every utterance of consent can be undermined by asking if that utterance was coerced, then we're left with something of a subjective infinite regress wherein any person can say, to any act of consent, "I said 'yes', but i was coerced into saying 'yes', so I really meant 'no'."
That's problematic. And this quote goes into why it's problematic:
Rape, like many other crimes, requires that the accused possess a criminal mind (mens rea) for his act to be criminal. The man's mental state refers to what he actually understood at the time or to what a reasonable man should have understood under the circumstances. The problem is that the injury of rape lies in the meaning of the act to its victim, but the standard for its criminality lies in the meaning of the act to the assailant. Rape is only an injury from women's point of view. It is only a crime from the male point of view, explicitly including that of the accused.
That's from page 5 of the .pdf, on the left side of the page.
Would a reasonable man understand "yes" to mean "yes"? Or would a reasonable man ask if the "yes" was coerced? And if that first yes wasn't coerced, could the statement "No, I was not coerced into saying 'yes'" itself be coerced?
No, it is indeed largely pedantic. My use of coercion in the above statements wasn't meant to be a legally permissible statement but the actions on a whole. Using a synonym for influence was appropriate.
Except no English language thesaurus or dictionary I have access to, claims coercion and influence to be synonymous. As far as I can tell, they are not equivalent concepts, although the Venn diagram should show overlap:
According to thesaurus.com, influence has the following synonyms:
access, agency, ascendancy, character, clout, command, connections, consequence, control, credit, direction, domination, dominion, drag, effect, esteem, fame, fix, force, grease, guidance, hold, impact, importance, imprint, in, juice*, leadership, leverage, magnetism, mark, moment, money, monopoly, network, notoriety, predominance, prerogative, pressure, prestige, prominence, pull, repercussion, reputation, ropes, rule, significance, spell, supremacy, sway, weight*
Synonyms:
-nouns
influence; importance; weight, pressure, preponderance, prevalence, sway; predominance, predominancy; ascendency; dominance, reign; control, domination, pull; authority; capability (power); effect; interest., footing; purchase (support); play, leverage, vantage ground., tower of strength, host in himself; protection, patronage, auspices.
-verbs
have influence; be influential; carry weight, weigh, tell; have a hold upon, magnetize, bear upon, gain a footing, work upon; take root, take hold; strike root in., run through, pervade; prevail, dominate, predominate; outweigh, overweigh; override, overbear; gain head; rage; be rife; spread like wildfire; have the upper hand, get the upper hand, gain the upper hand, have full play, get full play, gain full play., be recognized, be listened to; make one's voice heard, gain a hearing; play a part, play a leading part, play a leading part in; take the lead, pull the strings; turn the scale, throw one's weight into the scale; set the fashion, lead the dance.
-adjectives
influential, effective; important; weighty; prevailing; prevalent, rife, rampant, dominant, regnant, predominant, in the ascendant, hegemonical.
-adverbs
with telling effect.
-phrases
tel maure tel valet.
Neither lists the other as a synonym, because you are conflating two things that are not actually the same.
This post is beautiful.
However, I'll point out that, according to the legal definition of rape: "Lack of consent is a necessary element in every rape."
So, I'm not sure why you're all going on about coercion and influence. Rape has to do with consent, not how the consent came about.
That was some wonderful pedantics, @hanskey, but a true pedant wouldn't have been bogged down in the coercion / influence distinction, since, technically, they don't have anything to do with rape in the first place. You ought to have been pedantic about the definition of rape, not coercion and influence.
I look forward to learning from a master pedant. :twisted:
Consent as ideology cannot be distinguised from habitual acquiescence, assent, silent dissent, submission, or even enforced submission. Unless refusal of consent or withdrawal of consent are real possibilities, we can no longer speak of 'consent' in any genuine sense ...Women exemplify the individuals whom consent theorist declared are incapable of consenting. Yet, simultaneously, women have been presented as always consenting, and their explicit non-consent has been treated as irrelevant or has been reinterpreted as 'consent."
If every utterance of consent can be undermined by asking if that utterance was coerced, then we're left with something of a subjective infinite regress wherein any person can say, to any act of consent, "I said 'yes', but i was coerced into saying 'yes', so I really meant 'no'."
That's problematic. And this quote goes into why it's problematic:
Rape, like many other crimes, requires that the accused possess a criminal mind (mens rea) for his act to be criminal. The man's mental state refers to what he actually understood at the time or to what a reasonable man should have understood under the circumstances. The problem is that the injury of rape lies in the meaning of the act to its victim, but the standard for its criminality lies in the meaning of the act to the assailant. Rape is only an injury from women's point of view. It is only a crime from the male point of view, explicitly including that of the accused.
That's from page 5 of the .pdf, on the left side of the page.
Would a reasonable man understand "yes" to mean "yes"? Or would a reasonable man ask if the "yes" was coerced? And if that first yes wasn't coerced, could the statement "No, I was not coerced into saying 'yes'" itself be coerced?
On and on we go through the regress.
(my Phone didn't like the link so I couldn't read it)
The parts you quote are completely off base for a couple of reasons. First off, men and woman? Men can get raped, women can rape. Second, it makes it seem like getting consent is some impossible task. It's not hard. Just ask and if they seem scared or uncomfortable don't do it. Easy. Third, legally you have zero chance of being convicted if you unknowingly coerced someone. Hell you are probably safe if you rape someone!
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Coercion cannot exist only in the mind of the victim. That is just wrong. Period. That makes it completely subjective, and under the complete discretion of the victim.
Someone else used a good example earlier, prove the last sexual encounter you had was consensual.
I put forth this, prove the last sexual partner you had didn't feel coerced.
Well I don't have to prove it wasn't. The prosecution has to prove that I did.
But lots of stuff is only in the mind of the victim. Harassment and threats work that way. In my line of work, I may have the best of intentions saying that some black people would be more happy in a black area of town but if they take it as racism it breaks the law.
I have to admit you lost me. You say that coercion exists purely in the mind of the victim, but then say law still has to prove it. So I'm assuming you don't think all the evidence they need is the victims word. But if the victims mind is the only place it need exists, that's all you have. So what other sorts of evidence are supposed to be provided for it to be proven in a court of law?
Statements by the accused? Some people do admit to it. Or even brag.
But yeah, pretty hard to prove. And should be.
Not really. The victims testimony is a lot of it but doesn't count for beyond a reasonable doubt(it could be a lie). So you look at what a reasonable person would think in the situation (what would you think if someone told you that you would die if you didn't buy this house?) You look at the persons actions (did they change their mind after being told that they would die if they didn't buy the house). You look at the person's actions after the incident ( did they tell everyone they loved the house?) If all that passes the bar then you have coercion, even if the salesmen was saying you would die of sadness.
So if a reasonable person wouldn't interpret is as threatening it wouldn't be rape, even if the victim still feels it is?
Second, it makes it seem like getting consent is some impossible task. It's not hard. Just ask and if they seem scared or uncomfortable don't do it. Easy.
If coercion is a factor, then we have an epistemological problem of trying to discern whether "yes" means "yes", or if "yes" is a coerced "no".
Laywer: Did the woman say 'yes'?
Dude: Yeah, she said "Yes, we can have sex."
Lawyer: But did you ask if that "yes" was really "yes", or a coerced "yes"?
Dude: Um...she said "Yes', so i took that to mean "yes".
Judge: RAPIST!
So, yeah, getting consent is an impossible task if any utterance of "yes" can be understood as a coerced "no", or if after the fact any victim can claim that the "yes" was coerced.
Third, legally you have zero chance of being convicted if you unknowingly coerced someone. Hell you are probably safe if you rape someone!
I'm not sure what practical consequences have to do with rape-theory. We're talking about the relation of consent to coercion, not the practicality of claiming that an act of consent was coerced.
Which is why this coercion BS is exactly that. You can't trick someone into allowing rape. If you didn't really want to, but did it anyway, that's not rape, that's a personal lapse of judgement.
Now, if there's a threat of harm or violence, that's not coercion, that's blackmail.
Which is why this coercion BS is exactly that. You can't trick someone into allowing rape. If you didn't really want to, but did it anyway, that's not rape, that's a personal lapse of judgement.
Now, if there's a threat of harm or violence, that's not coercion, that's blackmail.
So if a reasonable person wouldn't interpret is as threatening it wouldn't be rape, even if the victim still feels it is?
here we're back to whether it's the intent of the accused or the perception of the victim that matters (assuming the victim gives consent, even if they feel it was coerced.
basically, are we talking about rape as a noun or a verb? you may feel it was a rape, even though at no point did the accused have any intent or take any deliberate actions to rape you.
So if a reasonable person wouldn't interpret is as threatening it wouldn't be rape, even if the victim still feels it is?
here we're back to whether it's the intent of the accused or the perception of the victim that matters (assuming the victim gives consent, even if they feel it was coerced.
basically, are we talking about rape as a noun or a verb? you may feel it was a rape, even though at no point did the accused have any intent or take any deliberate actions to rape you.
Pretty sure that isn't a noun/verb distinction.
It's about subjective interpretation of an event.
I mean...do you take the male to be verbing and the woman to be nouning after the fact?
Sometimes it seems there's an attempt to label a sexual encounter as rape (noun) without any intent on the part of the rapist.
Which is how we get to the absurdity of "mutual rape" (due to intoxication, age, etc)...because we start to define the act as a rape without anyone actually raping anyone else in any reasonable sense of the verb.
Sometimes it seems there's an attempt to label a sexual encounter as rape (noun) without any intent on the part of the rapist.
Which is how we get to the absurdity of "mutual rape" (due to intoxication, age, etc)...because we start to define the act as a rape without anyone actually raping anyone else in any reasonable sense of the verb.
That article covers the notion that rape has to involve intent by the...uh..."person who doesn't consider the act to be not-rape."
At some point in these conversations I'd hope that other people get the feeling that "rape" is an incredibly stupid concept, outside of some fairly extreeme cases.
Player A and Player B have sex.
Player A considers the sex to not be rape.
Player B considers the sex to have been rape.
When we ask "Was it rape?", we ought to at least recognize how bizzare that question is.
To which people say, "Well, was there consent?"
And our digression into coersion seems to indicate how nigh-impossible that question is to answer, in an objective sense.
Sometimes it seems there's an attempt to label a sexual encounter as rape (noun) without any intent on the part of the rapist.
Which is how we get to the absurdity of "mutual rape" (due to intoxication, age, etc)...because we start to define the act as a rape without anyone actually raping anyone else in any reasonable sense of the verb.
That article covers the notion that rape has to involve intent by the...uh..."person who doesn't consider the act to be not-rape."
At some point in these conversations I'd hope that other people get the feeling that "rape" is an incredibly stupid concept, outside of some fairly extreeme cases.
Player A and Player B have sex.
Player A considers the sex to not be rape.
Player B considers the sex to have been rape.
When we ask "Was it rape?", we ought to at least recognize how bizzare that question is.
To which people say, "Well, was there consent?"
And our digression into coersion seems to indicate how nigh-impossible that question is to answer, in an objective sense.
Hmm, it certainly would be possible to categorize cases of rape into either assault (that happens to be sexual in nature) or some form of illegal coercion (that happens to have sex as a goal). I'm not quite sure where that would put date rape, though, which does need to be addressed.
What happens if you force someone who is drunk or is otherwise incapable of giving consent to carry out an action which causes no lasting physical harm but is otherwise traumatic (and which doesn't involve sex)? Does criminal law even cover that?
Which is why this coercion BS is exactly that. You can't trick someone into allowing rape. If you didn't really want to, but did it anyway, that's not rape, that's a personal lapse of judgement.
Now, if there's a threat of harm or violence, that's not coercion, that's blackmail.
NO means NO.
Yes might mean no.
So, just masturbate.
No means no.
Thats all you need. If you stop there you are golden. Coercion is when you take am action that turns no into yes without changing the other persons desire to have sex with you.
MRA are always trying to make it seem like it some impossible to define, nebulus concept but it is SO easy. No means no. I can promise you that if you ask a person to have sex with you and if they say no you drop it you will never be a rapist.
Coercion is when you take am action that turns no into yes without changing the other persons desire to have sex with you.
The article discusses how our culture might be fundamentally coercive towards women, such that they feel obligated to have sex when they don't actually want to.
So, coercion doesn't always mean:
Jenny: I don't want to have sex tonight.
Jeffy: Oh, baby, but I'm so hard for you, and I bought you dinner, and I made a down payment on that ring.
Jenny: Well, I do want that ring....
MRA are always trying to make it seem like it some impossible to define, nebulus concept but it is SO easy. No means no. I can promise you that if you ask a person to have sex with you and if they say no you drop it you will never be a rapist.
What if she says "yes", but in her heart of hearts she really doesn't want to?
1) Bitch said yes, so go to town.
2) Well, then you're a rapist.
Pick one. I contend that both are less than ideal, and the situation is fundamentally problematic when we even acknowledge a distinction between a linguistic utterance and the victim's true feelings.
I don't see a problem with 1. At some point you have to make people responsible for their actions and take them at their word. Because the ultimate internal state of other people can never be precisely known.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
I... disagree.
As shocking as it may be to some (but not to all), there are less than honorable women out there who will falsely accuse a man of rape. Even that by itself is enough to convict a man in some's eyes. In fact, I had a very close friend have this happen to him. After he and his girlfriend broke up, she started going around telling people that he raped her once (which he didn't, because I was with him when the alledged "rape" happened and I don't recall anyone being raped, or even having sex). It was an absolute nightmare for him, and even after the police got involved and the girl in questioned confessed she made the whole damn thing up the damage had been done... hell, he even failed a class because the teacher heard the rumor and decided he must've done it (again, I've seen his work in the class and it was A quality).
I'm sorry, I'm no fan of rape, but if you put the burden on the accused you're asking for a lot of innocent (well, of rape) men to go to prison and have their lives effectively ruined. As I've said, from my personal experience when a woman accuses a man of rape most people immediately assume he's guilty. You want this to be made a freakin' law, against everything the US court system was founded on.
And don't get me wrong, rape without justice is a travesty, but so is wrongful imprisonment. Your idea has good intentions, but it's ultimately flawed.
Which is why this coercion BS is exactly that. You can't trick someone into allowing rape. If you didn't really want to, but did it anyway, that's not rape, that's a personal lapse of judgement.
Now, if there's a threat of harm or violence, that's not coercion, that's blackmail.
NO means NO.
Yes might mean no.
So, just masturbate.
No means no.
Thats all you need. If you stop there you are golden. Coercion is when you take am action that turns no into yes without changing the other persons desire to have sex with you.
MRA are always trying to make it seem like it some impossible to define, nebulus concept but it is SO easy. No means no. I can promise you that if you ask a person to have sex with you and if they say no you drop it you will never be a rapist.
And whats an action you take that turns no into yes by changing the other persons desire to have sex with you, called? And how is the action taker suppose to tell the difference?
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Which is why this coercion BS is exactly that. You can't trick someone into allowing rape. If you didn't really want to, but did it anyway, that's not rape, that's a personal lapse of judgement.
Now, if there's a threat of harm or violence, that's not coercion, that's blackmail.
NO means NO.
Yes might mean no.
So, just masturbate.
No means no.
Thats all you need. If you stop there you are golden. Coercion is when you take am action that turns no into yes without changing the other persons desire to have sex with you.
MRA are always trying to make it seem like it some impossible to define, nebulus concept but it is SO easy. No means no. I can promise you that if you ask a person to have sex with you and if they say no you drop it you will never be a rapist.
And whats an action you take that turns no into yes by changing the other persons desire to have sex with you, called? And how is the action taker suppose to tell the difference?
Aside from a threat of force I can't really think of anything.
0
Options
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
Which is why this coercion BS is exactly that. You can't trick someone into allowing rape. If you didn't really want to, but did it anyway, that's not rape, that's a personal lapse of judgement.
Now, if there's a threat of harm or violence, that's not coercion, that's blackmail.
NO means NO.
Yes might mean no.
So, just masturbate.
No means no.
Thats all you need. If you stop there you are golden. Coercion is when you take am action that turns no into yes without changing the other persons desire to have sex with you.
MRA are always trying to make it seem like it some impossible to define, nebulus concept but it is SO easy. No means no. I can promise you that if you ask a person to have sex with you and if they say no you drop it you will never be a rapist.
And whats an action you take that turns no into yes by changing the other persons desire to have sex with you, called? And how is the action taker suppose to tell the difference?
An excellent question. What if a guy just has the boobies on the mind and keeps badgering his girlfriend until she, despite not being in the mood, goes ahead and has sex with him to shut him up. She consented, but she was "coerced". Is that man a rapist? He didn't threaten or force in any manner, he just kept saying "Oh, c'mon, you know you wanna," until she said "fine, sure, if it'll shut you up."
Coercion is when you take am action that turns no into yes without changing the other persons desire to have sex with you.
The article discusses how our culture might be fundamentally coercive towards women, such that they feel obligated to have sex when they don't actually want to.
So, coercion doesn't always mean:
Jenny: I don't want to have sex tonight.
Jeffy: Oh, baby, but I'm so hard for you, and I bought you dinner, and I made a down payment on that ring.
Jenny: Well, I do want that ring....
MRA are always trying to make it seem like it some impossible to define, nebulus concept but it is SO easy. No means no. I can promise you that if you ask a person to have sex with you and if they say no you drop it you will never be a rapist.
What if she says "yes", but in her heart of hearts she really doesn't want to?
1) Bitch said yes, so go to town.
2) Well, then you're a rapist.
Pick one. I contend that both are less than ideal, and the situation is fundamentally problematic when we even acknowledge a distinction between a linguistic utterance and the victim's true feelings.
So society held them down as you raped her? Have fun with that trial.
As to your other question if you don't think they don't want to don't, i guess? It Would be a strange situation.
(how do you change people's minds)
People change their minds all the time. Maybe they just didn't want to right now. Maybe you rushed things. Again it's not that hard. If nothing is changed and they change their mind maybe be careful. It's not an unreasonable requirement.
(sex for money)
I am fine with prostitution so go crazy.
(sex to shut up significant other)
Creepy but not rape (within normal limits and a good society) The offend party always has an option to leave.
Which is why this coercion BS is exactly that. You can't trick someone into allowing rape. If you didn't really want to, but did it anyway, that's not rape, that's a personal lapse of judgement.
Now, if there's a threat of harm or violence, that's not coercion, that's blackmail.
NO means NO.
Yes might mean no.
So, just masturbate.
No means no.
Thats all you need. If you stop there you are golden. Coercion is when you take am action that turns no into yes without changing the other persons desire to have sex with you.
MRA are always trying to make it seem like it some impossible to define, nebulus concept but it is SO easy. No means no. I can promise you that if you ask a person to have sex with you and if they say no you drop it you will never be a rapist.
So I guess the trick is to be persuasive enough (not through force or threat of it, mind you) that your partner says yes right off the bat, despite not wanting to do it? As long as there's no initial "no" you're golden?
Or...maybe it's not that simple?
EDIT:
An excellent question. What if a guy just has the boobies on the mind and keeps badgering his girlfriend until she, despite not being in the mood, goes ahead and has sex with him to shut him up. She consented, but she was "coerced". Is that man a rapist? He didn't threaten or force in any manner, he just kept saying "Oh, c'mon, you know you wanna," until she said "fine, sure, if it'll shut you up."
Good question. Is "oh fine, sure" even "yes?" What about "meh, whatever?" I mean, no means no and yes means yes, and apparently yes can't mean no unless of course they said no first then yes can mean no, but what about all the things that are neither really yes nor clearly no?
So society held them down as you raped her? Have fun with that trial.
As to your other question if you don't think they don't want to don't, i guess? It Would be a strange situation.
What if I don't give a shit if they want to, I just want to make sure they said yes?
I mean, I let people do things for me all the time that I know they don't want to do. And I do the same for others.
(how do you change people's minds)
People change their minds all the time. Maybe they just didn't want to right now. Maybe you rushed things. Again it's not that hard. If nothing is changed and they change their mind maybe be careful. It's not an unreasonable requirement.
So read minds. Check.
(sex for money)
I am fine with prostitution so go crazy.
But of course prostitutes don't want to, backtracking a bit. You are paying them money so that you can get technical consent despite lack of desire. But this is cool?
Are we also pretending there's no economic coercion involved leading some into prostitution, despite the fact they might rather play Goofy at Disneyland?
(sex to shut up significant other)
Creepy but not rape (within normal limits and a good society) The offend party always has an option to leave.
How long of a relationship do you need to get away with this? Like a three-date rule? Just trying to separate it out from that first scenario.
While I realize the law is often not pure black and white, we do like some semblance of clarity there. I hope I'm illustrating that you are offering very little here to work with.
1) If your only concern is getting a yes you are likely a rapist and certainly a jerk.
2) Are you talking about social pressures? If you can figure out a way to separate those from how people decide things we could work something out. As is, society and culture are a part of who we are so it would never factor into consent.
3) Well read minds as in body language or even better just language. "are you sure?" "you don't have to." keeping to the side of caution because it is a possible hook up VS a possible rape. It is your responsibility to make sure.
4) Way, way off topic.
5) my personal opinion is that you can always ask to have sex. As long as escape is an option and you aren't being threatening. Not the best plan tho.
1) If your only concern is getting a yes you are likely a rapist and certainly a jerk.
2) Are you talking about social pressures? If you can figure out a way to separate those from how people decide things we could work something out. As is, society and culture are a part of who we are so it would never factor into consent.
3) Well read minds as in body language or even better just language. "are you sure?" "you don't have to." keeping to the side of caution because it is a possible hook up VS a possible rape. It is your responsibility to make sure.
4) Way, way off topic.
5) my personal opinion is that you can always ask to have sex. As long as escape is an option and you aren't being threatening. Not the best plan tho.
No, on topic because right now we're talking about explicit consent versus actual desire.
And if my only concern is getting a yes I'm certainly a jerk (because I'm not speaking personally here) but if I am concerned with getting a yes (absent actual threats) then I'm still a rapist?
Jenny: I don't want to have sex tonight.
Jeffy: Oh, baby, but I'm so hard for you, and I bought you dinner, and I made a down payment on that ring.
Jenny: Well, I do want that ring....
This right here? Perfect example of not rape. Which is why this stupid "coercion" thing needs to stop, because there are so many levels to what it can mean. If A asks "sex?", and B says "No", and then A spends the next 6 hours whining, wheedling, dealing and convincing "sex?", and B finally says, "Fine, yes"...
THIS IS NOT RAPE. THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF CONSENT.
Now, if A were instead to say "Sex, or CREDIBLE THREAT", B giving it up isn't consent, it's rape.
Call me an "MRA" if you will, but I'm pretty sure rockrnger has just transformed like 93% of males into rapists. Particularly if they dated in high school or college. Remember kids, no means no and yes probably means no and you should just masturbate instead.
MRA are always trying to make it seem like it some impossible to define, nebulus concept but it is SO easy. No means no. I can promise you that if you ask a person to have sex with you and if they say no you drop it you will never be a rapist.
You've also just made it clear that this was a lie. Or at the very least you have to keep asking. Like, often. The whole way through. (3) at least seems to imply there's a whole lot more too it than that.
3) Well read minds as in body language or even better just language. "are you sure?" "you don't have to." keeping to the side of caution because it is a possible hook up VS a possible rape. It is your responsibility to make sure.
1) If your only concern is getting a yes you are likely a rapist and certainly a jerk.
2) Are you talking about social pressures? If you can figure out a way to separate those from how people decide things we could work something out. As is, society and culture are a part of who we are so it would never factor into consent.
3) Well read minds as in body language or even better just language. "are you sure?" "you don't have to." keeping to the side of caution because it is a possible hook up VS a possible rape. It is your responsibility to make sure.
4) Way, way off topic.
5) my personal opinion is that you can always ask to have sex. As long as escape is an option and you aren't being threatening. Not the best plan tho.
No, on topic because right now we're talking about explicit consent versus actual desire.
And if my only concern is getting a yes I'm certainly a jerk (because I'm not speaking personally here) but if I am concerned with getting a yes (absent actual threats) then I'm still a rapist?
(ok, but it is going to turn into a prostitution thread in a hurry.)
The two main schools of thought on this are that either A) a person's body can be used however they want or society makes it so people have to have money to live. Some people have to use sex for money so that amounts to rape.
I personally hold to A because every time people have sex they are doing for something in addition to liking it. So prostitutes aren't really enough different to normal sex to override their control of their bodies.
You seem to be hung up on the difference between wanting to have sex right now and wanting sex and the things that come with it. The second is what constitute consent.
Posts
I'd almost go so far as to call that sort of coercion a bluff.
This is why I'm not bothering with defining the word "coercion". I'm more concerned with determining at what level of threat/coercion/whatever we've decided the act is criminal.
Coercion is in the mind of the victim not the coercer. Otherwise it would be impossible to prove.
you cant leave (because you love me.)
I will kill you (with kindness) if you scream.
I will seriously murder you with a knife. (I kid, I kid)
Coercion cannot exist only in the mind of the victim. That is just wrong. Period. That makes it completely subjective, and under the complete discretion of the victim.
Someone else used a good example earlier, prove the last sexual encounter you had was consensual.
I put forth this, prove the last sexual partner you had didn't feel coerced.
Incapacitation and age and such (where consent can't be legally given) can be dealt with separately.
But lots of stuff is only in the mind of the victim. Harassment and threats work that way. In my line of work, I may have the best of intentions saying that some black people would be more happy in a black area of town but if they take it as racism it breaks the law.
I have to admit you lost me. You say that coercion exists purely in the mind of the victim, but then say law still has to prove it. So I'm assuming you don't think all the evidence they need is the victims word. But if the victims mind is the only place it need exists, that's all you have. So what other sorts of evidence are supposed to be provided for it to be proven in a court of law?
Statements by the accused? Some people do admit to it. Or even brag.
But yeah, pretty hard to prove. And should be.
Not really. The victims testimony is a lot of it but doesn't count for beyond a reasonable doubt(it could be a lie). So you look at what a reasonable person would think in the situation (what would you think if someone told you that you would die if you didn't buy this house?) You look at the persons actions (did they change their mind after being told that they would die if they didn't buy the house). You look at the person's actions after the incident ( did they tell everyone they loved the house?) If all that passes the bar then you have coercion, even if the salesmen was saying you would die of sadness.
This post is beautiful.
However, I'll point out that, according to the legal definition of rape: "Lack of consent is a necessary element in every rape."
So, I'm not sure why you're all going on about coercion and influence. Rape has to do with consent, not how the consent came about.
That was some wonderful pedantics, @hanskey, but a true pedant wouldn't have been bogged down in the coercion / influence distinction, since, technically, they don't have anything to do with rape in the first place. You ought to have been pedantic about the definition of rape, not coercion and influence.
This article articulates why that question creates a wealth of problems.
If every utterance of consent can be undermined by asking if that utterance was coerced, then we're left with something of a subjective infinite regress wherein any person can say, to any act of consent, "I said 'yes', but i was coerced into saying 'yes', so I really meant 'no'."
That's problematic. And this quote goes into why it's problematic:
That's from page 5 of the .pdf, on the left side of the page.
Would a reasonable man understand "yes" to mean "yes"? Or would a reasonable man ask if the "yes" was coerced? And if that first yes wasn't coerced, could the statement "No, I was not coerced into saying 'yes'" itself be coerced?
On and on we go through the regress.
Edit: Looks like you've got a good start!!
The parts you quote are completely off base for a couple of reasons. First off, men and woman? Men can get raped, women can rape. Second, it makes it seem like getting consent is some impossible task. It's not hard. Just ask and if they seem scared or uncomfortable don't do it. Easy. Third, legally you have zero chance of being convicted if you unknowingly coerced someone. Hell you are probably safe if you rape someone!
So if a reasonable person wouldn't interpret is as threatening it wouldn't be rape, even if the victim still feels it is?
Sure, but that isn't the sort of thing upon which feminist literature focuses.
If coercion is a factor, then we have an epistemological problem of trying to discern whether "yes" means "yes", or if "yes" is a coerced "no".
Laywer: Did the woman say 'yes'?
Dude: Yeah, she said "Yes, we can have sex."
Lawyer: But did you ask if that "yes" was really "yes", or a coerced "yes"?
Dude: Um...she said "Yes', so i took that to mean "yes".
Judge: RAPIST!
So, yeah, getting consent is an impossible task if any utterance of "yes" can be understood as a coerced "no", or if after the fact any victim can claim that the "yes" was coerced.
I'm not sure what practical consequences have to do with rape-theory. We're talking about the relation of consent to coercion, not the practicality of claiming that an act of consent was coerced.
Now, if there's a threat of harm or violence, that's not coercion, that's blackmail.
NO means NO.
Yes might mean no.
So, just masturbate.
here we're back to whether it's the intent of the accused or the perception of the victim that matters (assuming the victim gives consent, even if they feel it was coerced.
basically, are we talking about rape as a noun or a verb? you may feel it was a rape, even though at no point did the accused have any intent or take any deliberate actions to rape you.
Pretty sure that isn't a noun/verb distinction.
It's about subjective interpretation of an event.
I mean...do you take the male to be verbing and the woman to be nouning after the fact?
Sometimes it seems there's an attempt to label a sexual encounter as rape (noun) without any intent on the part of the rapist.
Which is how we get to the absurdity of "mutual rape" (due to intoxication, age, etc)...because we start to define the act as a rape without anyone actually raping anyone else in any reasonable sense of the verb.
That article covers the notion that rape has to involve intent by the...uh..."person who doesn't consider the act to be not-rape."
At some point in these conversations I'd hope that other people get the feeling that "rape" is an incredibly stupid concept, outside of some fairly extreeme cases.
Player A and Player B have sex.
Player A considers the sex to not be rape.
Player B considers the sex to have been rape.
When we ask "Was it rape?", we ought to at least recognize how bizzare that question is.
To which people say, "Well, was there consent?"
And our digression into coersion seems to indicate how nigh-impossible that question is to answer, in an objective sense.
Hmm, it certainly would be possible to categorize cases of rape into either assault (that happens to be sexual in nature) or some form of illegal coercion (that happens to have sex as a goal). I'm not quite sure where that would put date rape, though, which does need to be addressed.
What happens if you force someone who is drunk or is otherwise incapable of giving consent to carry out an action which causes no lasting physical harm but is otherwise traumatic (and which doesn't involve sex)? Does criminal law even cover that?
No means no.
Thats all you need. If you stop there you are golden. Coercion is when you take am action that turns no into yes without changing the other persons desire to have sex with you.
MRA are always trying to make it seem like it some impossible to define, nebulus concept but it is SO easy. No means no. I can promise you that if you ask a person to have sex with you and if they say no you drop it you will never be a rapist.
The article discusses how our culture might be fundamentally coercive towards women, such that they feel obligated to have sex when they don't actually want to.
So, coercion doesn't always mean:
Jenny: I don't want to have sex tonight.
Jeffy: Oh, baby, but I'm so hard for you, and I bought you dinner, and I made a down payment on that ring.
Jenny: Well, I do want that ring....
Edit:
What if she says "yes", but in her heart of hearts she really doesn't want to?
1) Bitch said yes, so go to town.
2) Well, then you're a rapist.
Pick one. I contend that both are less than ideal, and the situation is fundamentally problematic when we even acknowledge a distinction between a linguistic utterance and the victim's true feelings.
As shocking as it may be to some (but not to all), there are less than honorable women out there who will falsely accuse a man of rape. Even that by itself is enough to convict a man in some's eyes. In fact, I had a very close friend have this happen to him. After he and his girlfriend broke up, she started going around telling people that he raped her once (which he didn't, because I was with him when the alledged "rape" happened and I don't recall anyone being raped, or even having sex). It was an absolute nightmare for him, and even after the police got involved and the girl in questioned confessed she made the whole damn thing up the damage had been done... hell, he even failed a class because the teacher heard the rumor and decided he must've done it (again, I've seen his work in the class and it was A quality).
I'm sorry, I'm no fan of rape, but if you put the burden on the accused you're asking for a lot of innocent (well, of rape) men to go to prison and have their lives effectively ruined. As I've said, from my personal experience when a woman accuses a man of rape most people immediately assume he's guilty. You want this to be made a freakin' law, against everything the US court system was founded on.
And don't get me wrong, rape without justice is a travesty, but so is wrongful imprisonment. Your idea has good intentions, but it's ultimately flawed.
And whats an action you take that turns no into yes by changing the other persons desire to have sex with you, called? And how is the action taker suppose to tell the difference?
Aside from a threat of force I can't really think of anything.
An excellent question. What if a guy just has the boobies on the mind and keeps badgering his girlfriend until she, despite not being in the mood, goes ahead and has sex with him to shut him up. She consented, but she was "coerced". Is that man a rapist? He didn't threaten or force in any manner, he just kept saying "Oh, c'mon, you know you wanna," until she said "fine, sure, if it'll shut you up."
So society held them down as you raped her? Have fun with that trial.
As to your other question if you don't think they don't want to don't, i guess? It Would be a strange situation.
(how do you change people's minds)
People change their minds all the time. Maybe they just didn't want to right now. Maybe you rushed things. Again it's not that hard. If nothing is changed and they change their mind maybe be careful. It's not an unreasonable requirement.
(sex for money)
I am fine with prostitution so go crazy.
(sex to shut up significant other)
Creepy but not rape (within normal limits and a good society) The offend party always has an option to leave.
So I guess the trick is to be persuasive enough (not through force or threat of it, mind you) that your partner says yes right off the bat, despite not wanting to do it? As long as there's no initial "no" you're golden?
Or...maybe it's not that simple?
EDIT:
Good question. Is "oh fine, sure" even "yes?" What about "meh, whatever?" I mean, no means no and yes means yes, and apparently yes can't mean no unless of course they said no first then yes can mean no, but what about all the things that are neither really yes nor clearly no?
But sure, simple enough.
What if I don't give a shit if they want to, I just want to make sure they said yes?
I mean, I let people do things for me all the time that I know they don't want to do. And I do the same for others.
So read minds. Check.
But of course prostitutes don't want to, backtracking a bit. You are paying them money so that you can get technical consent despite lack of desire. But this is cool?
Are we also pretending there's no economic coercion involved leading some into prostitution, despite the fact they might rather play Goofy at Disneyland?
How long of a relationship do you need to get away with this? Like a three-date rule? Just trying to separate it out from that first scenario.
2) Are you talking about social pressures? If you can figure out a way to separate those from how people decide things we could work something out. As is, society and culture are a part of who we are so it would never factor into consent.
3) Well read minds as in body language or even better just language. "are you sure?" "you don't have to." keeping to the side of caution because it is a possible hook up VS a possible rape. It is your responsibility to make sure.
4) Way, way off topic.
5) my personal opinion is that you can always ask to have sex. As long as escape is an option and you aren't being threatening. Not the best plan tho.
No, on topic because right now we're talking about explicit consent versus actual desire.
And if my only concern is getting a yes I'm certainly a jerk (because I'm not speaking personally here) but if I am concerned with getting a yes (absent actual threats) then I'm still a rapist?
This right here? Perfect example of not rape. Which is why this stupid "coercion" thing needs to stop, because there are so many levels to what it can mean. If A asks "sex?", and B says "No", and then A spends the next 6 hours whining, wheedling, dealing and convincing "sex?", and B finally says, "Fine, yes"...
THIS IS NOT RAPE. THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF CONSENT.
Now, if A were instead to say "Sex, or CREDIBLE THREAT", B giving it up isn't consent, it's rape.
You've also just made it clear that this was a lie. Or at the very least you have to keep asking. Like, often. The whole way through. (3) at least seems to imply there's a whole lot more too it than that.
The two main schools of thought on this are that either A) a person's body can be used however they want or
I personally hold to A because every time people have sex they are doing for something in addition to liking it. So prostitutes aren't really enough different to normal sex to override their control of their bodies.
You seem to be hung up on the difference between wanting to have sex right now and wanting sex and the things that come with it. The second is what constitute consent.