Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

I wonder if something is being lost to the fairy tale Disney-esque glorification of the whole Robin Hoood drama. Let's reframe the situation:

A thief breaks into your neighbors house. You hear this, and head next door with your gun to stop the crime in process. The thief stands down, but while you're reaching for your cellphone to call the police, the thief's girlfriend walks in and asks you to please let him go. You agree to not call the police, provided she has sex with you. She agrees, and you let them go. Afterwards, the thief beats the girl, calls her a slut, and tells her he never wants to see her again.

Question 1: Did you coerce her?

Question 2: Who's "better?" You, or the thief?

[Max White]

Well, in the given example I have a gun. It is reasonable to assume that neither the thief nor her girlfriend are exactly safe. When a guy has a gun and is asking for sex, that guy is in the wrong.

If, however, the thief was caught and you could at any time, including a few days later, drop the charges and there is no harm no foul (Welcome to the magical land of hypothetical!) and then the girlfriend shows up, that is a different case. She wasn't forced into having coerced into sex.
I still think I (The guy calling the police) am more moral than the thief, but less so than the girlfriend.

[penguinofhonor]

Screw the gun. Even without force, "Have sex with me or your boyfriend goes to jail" is ridiculously obvious coercion. I really don't know why it's up for debate.

Just because she can technically say no doesn't mean it's not rape. The most technical term I can find for this is "sex by extortion," which also includes blackmailing someone into having sex with you.

edit: Actually, lordbucket's example is pretty much blackmail.

[LordBucket]

"Have sex with me or your boyfriend goes to jail" is ridiculously obvious coercion.
I really don't know why it's up for debate.

I think some of us are drawing a distinction between "give me X or else or will cause harm" and "if you give me X I will release you from punishment that you are due." Sort of like paying a fine instead of going to jail. You have the option. In Marion's case, she is choosing to pay the fine on behalf of a third party.

[MorleyDev]

Except the Sheriff in this scenario is still using it as leverage to extort sex.

[Zangi]

Rather then a fine, you could better say it is a bribe.

Spoiler: Scenario without Robin Hood characters (click to show/hide)

Bill, Bob, Joe and Jane

Bill and Bob are best of friends and serial thieves/robbers/muggers.
Joe is the Warden and the judicial authority of the region Bill and Bob operate.
Jane is Bob's girlfriend/lover, she is also 'fair', is of 'highborn' blood, and acts as a highborn.

Bill and Bob are locked down in jail for repeated acts of thievery/bank robbing/highway robbery/mugging. (We assume Bill and Bob have tried to escape and failed, multiple times.  So no, they cannot get out any other way and are destined to rot there forever.) 

Jane goes to petition/plead Warden Joe for the release of Bill and Bob.  Warden Joe says he would let Bill and Bob go if Jane has sex with him.  She agrees to it and Bill and Bob are let go, no strings attached.

Joe tells Bill and Bob why they are let go.  Bob gets pissed, abuses Jane and leaves.  Bill then steps in, saying he will support her and devote himself to her.  Bill and Jane leave off together.

[Shakerag]

Rather then a fine, you could better say it is a bribe.

Spoiler: Scenario without Robin Hood characters (click to show/hide)

Bill, Bob, Joe and Jane

Bill and Bob are best of friends and serial thieves/robbers/muggers.
Joe is the Warden and the judicial authority of the region Bill and Bob operate.
Jane is Bob's girlfriend/lover, she is also 'fair', is of 'highborn' blood, and acts as a highborn.

Bill and Bob are locked down in jail for repeated acts of thievery/bank robbing/highway robbery/mugging. (We assume Bill and Bob have tried to escape and failed, multiple times.  So no, they cannot get out any other way and are destined to rot there forever.) 

Jane goes to petition/plead Warden Joe for the release of Bill and Bob.  Warden Joe says he would let Bill and Bob go if Jane has sex with him.  She agrees to it and Bill and Bob are let go, no strings attached.

Joe tells Bill and Bob why they are let go.  Bob gets pissed, abuses Jane and leaves.  Bill then steps in, saying he will support her and devote himself to her.  Bill and Jane leave off together.

Hum.  Looks like everyone is in the wrong in some way.  Just going by this example. 

Bill:  Is nice to Jane, but shouldn't have been a serial thief.
Bob:  Also shouldn't have been a serial thief, and should be re-imprisoned for being abusive to Jane.  He is, however, entitled to his opinion about Jane. 
Jane:  Subverting the legal system by agreeing to "bribe" Joe to release Bill and Bob early (or at all).
Joe:  Willing to accept a "bribe" of some sort to subvert the legal system and release prisoners early.

[MorleyDev]

By "shed preconceptions", I assumed we were to assume that in this scenario Robin Hood and Little John and the Merry Men may not exist, that Robin Hood and Little John could be completely innocent or completely guilty of any crime.

So I broke it down to:
Person C loves Person A (I'm just gonna assume this is in a love relationship).
Persons A and B are arrested for unknown reasons.
Person C asks Person D for their release.
Person D states the only terms of release are if Person C and Person D have sex.
Person C, after unknown time, accepts with unknown personal feelings on the acceptance.
Person D release Persons A and B.
Person C tells person A, who reacts harshly and is verbally abusive towards Person C.
Person B offers to take Person C away from where these events took place, promising fidelity.
Person C, for unknown reasons, accepts this offer.

My opinions, being based off the aforementioned set of events, remain the same. So, is Person D committing an act of extortion?
If so, is consent acquired through extortion invalid?
If so, is sex without valid consent rape?

[Frumple]

Fairly certainly not an act of extortion, unless A & B were arrested under false charges. Also would depend on who D is, in that case, since D kinda' comes from nowhere. How D manages to release them, etc.

Assuming D doesn't make the laws A & B were arrested under (or, if D does make those laws, then making the assumption that D didn't make them specifically to imprison A & B, i.e. the law is something equivalent to just and it wasn't mandated to create situations like the one described.), D is not the one ultimately responsible for A & B's imprisonment and there's no coercive force whatsoever coming from D. Can't really call it extortion when the purpose of the imprisonment isn't extortion, methinks. Corruption, yes, and perhaps abuse of authority, but not extortion.

More or less as LB and others have been saying, D is morally culpable for taking a bribe (unless D doesn't have authority to release the prisoners, anyway. Ignoring the possibility of D doing jailbreak or whatever, basically.), but not much else. Well, unless prostitution from a third party is an acceptable form of bail/restitution in their society, I guess, in which case both D and C would probably be pretty blameless all around.

[penguinofhonor]

If an officer offers to release a female prisoner as long as she has sex with him, that's rape, extortion, and abuse of power.

This is the same situation, just with Marion "paying the fine on the behalf" of Robin.

[Cecilff2]

Using characters from the story screws this up a bit.  Even if you try to dispel preconceived notions, I still had the scene from Robin Hood in my mind.

The sheriff's a jerk who helped steal the throne, and Robin Hood/John are locked up trying to end the takeover.  Marion makes the deal to save them from execution.

But we're not supposed to use that theme according to the test.  "Forget any preconceived ideas you may about them - this is a different sort of story from all the others"

We're also never given the actual details of their crime.  Did the Sheriff just release a couple petty larceny criminals or were these murderers?  I mean little john and robin could be some crazy mofos even if little john's promised devotion to marian.

[Frumple]

If an officer offers to release a female prisoner as long as she has sex with him, that's rape, extortion, and abuse of power.

This is the same situation, just with Marion "paying the fine on the behalf" of Robin.

That can be rape and extortion, and it almost certainly is abuse of power, but I definitely wouldn't say it is the former two in all cases. If the prisoner's term is somehow special cased (longer time/worse conditions than others who have been sentenced for the same crime) and the officer is the cause of that, it's definitely extortion. If the prisoner has no other choice (such as the obvious one of finishing the mandated prison time), then I'd pretty comfortably call that rape.

But the prisoner (serving a standard sentence and in appropriate conditions) going up to the officer and saying, "I'll do anything if you let me go." and the response being sex? That's not something I'd call rape or extortion if the prisoner accepts. Prostitution, abuse of power, corruption, yes. But not rape or extortion. There's clear consent with acceptable alternatives to declining the offer and the party who has created the situation and is seeking to gain something is the prisoner (having broken the law and seeking illegal release), not the officer (who is approached and sets and accepts sex as payment.).

---

It's kind of an interesting nuance to most of the scenarios that have been presented so far, honestly. The person in the position to free the imprisoned has generally been presented as the passive party (at least if you ignore the literary burden caused by using Robin Hood characters). The imprisoned caused their imprisonment by breaking the law and the one seeking their illegal release is the one approaching the releaser, who doesn't really have anything to do with the shit the other three have found themselves in. While the releaser is the one that sets the cost to the illegal release, it's the one seeking the release that initiates the interaction and attempts to seek a notable gain.

Basically, the sheriff-equivalents aren't really doing anything in these scenarios, they're having things done to them (either the responsibilities of their position forcing their action or the one seeking illegal release opening negotiations. To the degree the one in power expresses agency, it's to set and accept the price and release the prisoners.). It's an unusual thing to have the one in the position of power be the passive party in these kinds of scenarios.

[Catsup]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I wonder if something is being lost to the fairy tale Disney-esque glorification of the whole Robin Hoood drama. Let's reframe the situation:

A thief breaks into your neighbors house. You hear this, and head next door with your gun to stop the crime in process. The thief stands down, but while you're reaching for your cellphone to call the police, the thief's girlfriend walks in and asks you to please let him go. You agree to not call the police, provided she has sex with you. She agrees, and you let them go. Afterwards, the thief beats the girl, calls her a slut, and tells her he never wants to see her again.

Question 1: Did you coerce her?

Question 2: Who's "better?" You, or the thief?

you DID coerce, and i would never do this under any circumstance.

i would be worse than the thief, i used coercion to rape a girl; the thief only attempted theft and got angry (too angry) over his girl letting herself be raped.

Rather then a fine, you could better say it is a bribe.

Spoiler: Scenario without Robin Hood characters (click to show/hide)

Bill, Bob, Joe and Jane

Bill and Bob are best of friends and serial thieves/robbers/muggers.
Joe is the Warden and the judicial authority of the region Bill and Bob operate.
Jane is Bob's girlfriend/lover, she is also 'fair', is of 'highborn' blood, and acts as a highborn.

Bill and Bob are locked down in jail for repeated acts of thievery/bank robbing/highway robbery/mugging. (We assume Bill and Bob have tried to escape and failed, multiple times.  So no, they cannot get out any other way and are destined to rot there forever.) 

Jane goes to petition/plead Warden Joe for the release of Bill and Bob.  Warden Joe says he would let Bill and Bob go if Jane has sex with him.  She agrees to it and Bill and Bob are let go, no strings attached.

Joe tells Bill and Bob why they are let go.  Bob gets pissed, abuses Jane and leaves.  Bill then steps in, saying he will support her and devote himself to her.  Bill and Jane leave off together.

your scenerio doesnt change a thing at all, whats your point?


i have a few scenarios i want to use to prove my point to most ppl who refuse see it from my point of view:

Scenario A:
The sheriff tells marion that if she wants her soulmate to go free, that she must bring him 50k USD (modern day money). She could either choose to earn this money the slow way by working as a maid (and the sheriff will keep robin barely alive at minimal expense until then) or she could sell herself to slim shady who would gladly pay 50k to have sex with her.

In this scenario i would not call it rape, and she would be ranked pretty high on morality and honesty whatever options she chose.

Scenario B:
The sheriff is adamant in his decision to keep robin locked up forever, and tells her to give up on him. Marion does not accept this and instead seduces the sheriff, pleading her attraction for men in police uniforms, convinces him that she honestly finds him sexy (without use of drugs or anything), and steals his keys after he falls asleep from having sex with her.

In this scenario it is consensual sex, she just happened to conveniently be there to steal the keys afterwards

Scenario C:
The sheriff tells marion that if she wants her soulmate to go free she must either murder the king of sherwood, steal half the royal treasury including the sacred crown that would make the sheriff the absolute ruler due to its magical powers, and murder anyone else who might stand in his way of becoming king. Or have sex with him.

This scenario is mainly different from the first because no reasonable person would murder so many, putting their entire country into turmoil for the sake of their soulmate. It still is not rape compared to the original because she still has a choice that did not involving losing her soulmate, which knocks it down from "coercion" to "guilt-tripping". The world is expendable, your soulmate is not.

[Lysabild]

-Everything- is rape, if you read feminist blogs on the internet.

The real world, however, is a bit more like Lord Bucket, Frumple and many others have tried to explain.

[Catsup]

-Everything- is rape, if you read feminist blogs on the internet.

The real world, however, is a bit more like Lord Bucket, Frumple and many others have tried to explain.

depends on the type of feminists youre talking about, saying "everything is rape" makes women look weak and doesnt empower them at all...