Print

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

[Nilik]

I'm still having trouble seeing where the line between rape, coercion and consensual sex is, I guess. The differences seem to be largely subjective based on the participant's past actions, and the severity of the threat. I mean, let me give some examples:

1. Shady guy ambushes woman in dark alleyway, holds her up at gunpoint and says he'll shoot her if she doesn't have sex with him.

2. Woman is a professional thief. Shady guy has evidence that could put her in prison, and threatens to turn her in to the police if she doesn't have sex with him.

3. Man and woman are a married couple. Man gives woman a terrible ultimatum; if she doesn't sleep with him later tonight, he will eat the last chocolate brownie in the fridge.



#1 is clearly rape. The threat is severe as her options are sex or die. #2 Is murkier. The woman has earned jail time through her own actions, and technically Slim Shady would be doing the right thing by turning her in... but turning the situation into an extortion attempt is most definitely not. But who is worse, really? I couldn't call it, honestly, and I'd hesitate to call it rape. Would it be, legally speaking? #3 Is clearly not rape, but why not? He's still attempting to leverage sex through coercion, so where exactly do we draw the line? How severe does the threat have to be before it counts as rape?

I guess the problem is, my personal definition of rape is forcible sex where there is no decision-making involved. You could try to argue that even 1 isn't rape because you do have a choice; sex or die. But since that's not really much of a choice at all, still clearly rape. In #2 and #3 there is a choice involved, even if the only other outcome in #2 is unpleasant, so I'd have a hard time calling it rape.

[LordBucket]

If an officer offers to release a female prisoner as long as she has sex with him, that's

abuse of power.

Definitely

rape,

No.

Rape is a very specific thing. It is sex that occurs with an unwilling partner via use of force. It is not merely sex that occurs in which one party doesn't want it.

By way of metaphor...let's look at murder. Murder is not any instance of "killing someone." Murder requires premeditation and intent. If someone assaults you and you kill them in the process of halting the attack, that is non-criminal or justifiable homicide. It is not murder. If a state kills someone for violating its laws, that is execution, not murder. If your car slide onto the sidewalk and takes out a pedestrian, that's an accident, not murder. If you're a criminal robbing a bank, tie up hostages and accidentally choke them to death with the ropes, that is manslaughter, not murder.

None of the people who were killed in these examples were willing participants. None of them wanted to die. Nevertheless, none of them were murdered. Murder is a very specific thing. So is rape. Calling every instance of sex where one party feels uncomfortable about it or is at a disadvantage in some way "rape" is simply not accurate.

Just like how murder requires premeditation and intent, rape requires coercion.

If someone if bribed into sex, but there is no coercion, that is not rape. If someone if manipulated into sex but there is no coercion, that is not rape. If someone feels personally obligated to commit a sex act that they don't want, but there is no coercion, that is not rape.

Rape is a very specific thing. It doesn't make sense to call things that aren't rape, rape.

[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.

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

The main point is, many people take information from one of the many Robin Hood shows/literatures and base their decisions on that, despite the test asking they don't.

[Gervassen]

Little John is a "nice guy" that preys on vulnerable girls. Probably the most disgusting character and a true bottomfeeder. He and Robin are both criminals. The sheriff has brought them to justice, but is a bit corrupt, unfortunately; Marian is a willing participant in the corruption, and no better than the corrupt official that she influences. She is crooked, same as him.

I see all as deeply flawed, but the Sheriff has not stolen anything or hurt anyone. Marian has been a companion of a known thief who has done so. She would have been moral to realize her lover was a criminal and leave him. Love is not the midas touch of virtue that redeems all else. It's a silly little emotion that can be enjoyable, but is not a solid basis for making important decisions with long-term consequences. Like aiding criminals and then being party to corruption of the state. The other two are thieves and perhaps murderers. J is a predator attacking women at their weakest and feeding them bullshit about everlasting love. Nothing lasts forever. The girl is clearly deeply confused and immature, and needs a break from men to get her own life in order.  Assuming that these two ride off into the sunset happily-ever-after on the basis of we know, that one is a criminal and the other a girl who loved a man, then didn't love him, then loved his best friend who was also a criminal... is extremely naive.

SMRJ

[GlyphGryph]

Marion does not have the obligation to uphold the law the Sheriff does. It would be a stretch to call her corrupt. Corrupting, maybe, but she is not disregarding her duty for personal gain.

[Trapezohedron]

Little John is a "nice guy" that preys on vulnerable girls. Probably the most disgusting character and a true bottomfeeder. He and Robin are both criminals. The sheriff has brought them to justice, but is a bit corrupt, unfortunately; Marian is a willing participant in the corruption, and no better than the corrupt official that she influences. She is crooked, same as him.

I see all as deeply flawed, but the Sheriff has not stolen anything or hurt anyone. Marian has been a companion of a known thief who has done so. She would have been moral to realize her lover was a criminal and leave him. Love is not the midas touch of virtue that redeems all else. It's a silly little emotion that can be enjoyable, but is not a solid basis for making important decisions with long-term consequences. Like aiding criminals and then being party to corruption of the state. The other two are thieves and perhaps murderers. J is a predator attacking women at their weakest and feeding them bullshit about everlasting love. Nothing lasts forever. The girl is clearly deeply confused and immature, and needs a break from men to get her own life in order.  Assuming that these two ride off into the sunset happily-ever-after on the basis of we know, that one is a criminal and the other a girl who loved a man, then didn't love him, then loved his best friend who was also a criminal... is extremely naive.

SMRJ

Despite having chosen JMSR, I somehow find this point of view agreeable.

[Cecilff2]

Just like how murder requires premeditation and intent, rape requires coercion.

If someone if bribed into sex, but there is no coercion, that is not rape. If someone if manipulated into sex but there is no coercion, that is not rape. If someone feels personally obligated to commit a sex act that they don't want, but there is no coercion, that is not rape.

Rape is a very specific thing. It doesn't make sense to call things that aren't rape, rape.

There is coercion in this case.  The sheriff is the one who initiated, not Marian.  She asked the sheriff to release Robin and HE came up with the terms.  If that's the only way to release Robin from jail, and she cares for Robin, it is psychological coercion.

[anzki4]

Little John is a "nice guy" that preys on vulnerable girls.

Wow. Talk about jumping to conclusions.

[GlyphGryph]

There is coercion in this case.  The sheriff is the one who initiated, not Marian.  She asked the sheriff to release Robin and HE came up with the terms.  If that's the only way to release Robin from jail, and she cares for Robin, it is psychological coercion.

She ASKED him to come up with the terms. Would anything he have said at that point been NOT coercion, other than denying her outright?

Coercion implies limiting a persons options to get them to do what you want. I still fail to say how giving someone more options is coercion. I honestly don't. Because this is literally the only action he took. He gave her an additional option! He didn't take any away! He didn't intend to take any away!

When you point a gun at someone and tell them to have sex with you or they will get shot, that is coercion, because you are limiting the options available to them. Replacing you with someone who isn't a bad guy, they could do ANYTHING and be better off - with you, they suddenly have to choose between a bad option and a worse option.

This is the exact opposite of that. Replace the Sheriff with someone who isn't a bad guy, and you give Marion less choice. Yes, it is immoral for the Sheriff to offer that choice - it is abuse of power, it is corruption, but it is NOT coercion, because the choice she had without him still exists and is just as valid.

Offering someone something they value is not coercion. It is trade. And it is rightly immoral for someone in the Sheriff's position to trade what he did for personal gain. But again, that is a separate issue. He is not, at any point, reducing her options or making any of her options worse off.

[Shakerag]

There is coercion in this case.  The sheriff is the one who initiated, not Marian.  She asked the sheriff to release Robin and HE came up with the terms.  If that's the only way to release Robin from jail, and she cares for Robin, it is psychological coercion.

She ASKED him to come up with the terms. Would anything he have said at that point been NOT coercion, other than denying her outright?

Coercion implies limiting a persons options to get them to do what you want. I still fail to say how giving someone more options is coercion. I honestly don't. Because this is literally the only action he took. He gave her an additional option! He didn't take any away! He didn't intend to take any away!

When you point a gun at someone and tell them to have sex with you or they will get shot, that is coercion, because you are limiting the options available to them. Replacing you with someone who isn't a bad guy, they could do ANYTHING and be better off - with you, they suddenly have to choose between a bad option and a worse option.

This is the exact opposite of that. Replace the Sheriff with someone who isn't a bad guy, and you give Marion less choice. Yes, it is immoral for the Sheriff to offer that choice - it is abuse of power, it is corruption, but it is NOT coercion, because the choice she had without him still exists and is just as valid.

Offering someone something they value is not coercion. It is trade. And it is rightly immoral for someone in the Sheriff's position to trade what he did for personal gain. But again, that is a separate issue. He is not, at any point, reducing her options or making any of her options worse off.

This. 

Marion is coming to the Sheriff and asking him to release two criminals early from their sentences.  Marion is free to not accept his offer and wait for Robin and Little John to be released (if at all).  At no point is a decision being made for her. 

If this sort of scenario happened in modern day times, it would be a humongous scandal, the Sheriff would be fired (and possibly charged himself), Marion would be looked at as ridiculous for trying to bribe an officer of the law to let criminals out early (and likely charged herself), and Robin and LJ would still be chilling in prison.

If I get a speeding ticket (going off the top of my head here), the punishment is $75-ish and one or more points on my license which will increase my auto insurance rates.  If I go to court and say "Is there anyway to not have this ticket on my record?" and the judge says "Okay, pay $400 (again, making shit up here) for a traffic school course and we'll remove the point(s) from your license" ... is that now theft? 

[Cecilff2]

There is coercion in this case.  The sheriff is the one who initiated, not Marian.  She asked the sheriff to release Robin and HE came up with the terms.  If that's the only way to release Robin from jail, and she cares for Robin, it is psychological coercion.

She ASKED him to come up with the terms. Would anything he have said at that point been NOT coercion, other than denying her outright?

Coercion implies limiting a persons options to get them to do what you want. I still fail to say how giving someone more options is coercion. I honestly don't. Because this is literally the only action he took. He gave her an additional option! He didn't take any away! He didn't intend to take any away!

When you point a gun at someone and tell them to have sex with you or they will get shot, that is coercion, because you are limiting the options available to them. Replacing you with someone who isn't a bad guy, they could do ANYTHING and be better off - with you, they suddenly have to choose between a bad option and a worse option.

This is the exact opposite of that. Replace the Sheriff with someone who isn't a bad guy, and you give Marion less choice. Yes, it is immoral for the Sheriff to offer that choice - it is abuse of power, it is corruption, but it is NOT coercion, because the choice she had without him still exists and is just as valid.

Offering someone something they value is not coercion. It is trade. And it is rightly immoral for someone in the Sheriff's position to trade what he did for personal gain. But again, that is a separate issue. He is not, at any point, reducing her options or making any of her options worse off.

This. 

Marion is coming to the Sheriff and asking him to release two criminals early from their sentences.  Marion is free to not accept his offer and wait for Robin and Little John to be released (if at all).  At no point is a decision being made for her. 

If this sort of scenario happened in modern day times, it would be a humongous scandal, the Sheriff would be fired (and possibly charged himself), Marion would be looked at as ridiculous for trying to bribe an officer of the law to let criminals out early (and likely charged herself), and Robin and LJ would still be chilling in prison.

If I get a speeding ticket (going off the top of my head here), the punishment is $75-ish and one or more points on my license which will increase my auto insurance rates.  If I go to court and say "Is there anyway to not have this ticket on my record?" and the judge says "Okay, pay $400 (again, making shit up here) for a traffic school course and we'll remove the point(s) from your license" ... is that now theft?

ARE they criminals?

"The Sheriff of Nottingham captured Little John and Robin Hood and imprisoned them in his maximum-security dungeon.  Maid Marion begged the Sheriff for their release, pleading her love for Robin."

There's no trial here, no sentencing.  For all she knows, Sheriff locked them up for eternity and she's trying to get them out.  She didn't ask for terms, she begged him to release Robin because she loved him.  Coercion is not only physical threats, it's emotional too.

[Catsup]

Little John is a "nice guy" that preys on vulnerable girls. Probably the most disgusting character and a true bottomfeeder. He and Robin are both criminals. The sheriff has brought them to justice, but is a bit corrupt, unfortunately; Marian is a willing participant in the corruption, and no better than the corrupt official that she influences. She is crooked, same as him.

you are too cynical, cynicism needs a limit.

[Catsup]

Marion is coming to the Sheriff and asking him to release two criminals early from their sentences.  Marion is free to not accept his offer and wait for Robin and Little John to be released (if at all).  At no point is a decision being made for her. 

no, she is not free to reject the sheriff's offer, the amount of coercion wouldnt allow it.

When you point a gun at someone and tell them to have sex with you or they will get shot, that is coercion, because you are limiting the options available to them. Replacing you with someone who isn't a bad guy, they could do ANYTHING and be better off - with you, they suddenly have to choose between a bad option and a worse option.

so what is exactly your point glyph? in marian's point of view he is essentially pointing a gun at her soulmate and saying "let me rape you or he dies".

It is not merely sex that occurs in which one party doesn't want it.

its rape if there is no true consent. You might argue that verbally agreeing is consent but that is not true. Words can be lies. If she truly did not want it then that is rape and a sacrifice to save her soulmate.

[Leafsnail]

By way of metaphor...let's look at murder. Murder is not any instance of "killing someone." Murder requires premeditation and intent. If someone assaults you and you kill them in the process of halting the attack, that is non-criminal or justifiable homicide. It is not murder. If a state kills someone for violating its laws, that is execution, not murder. If your car slide onto the sidewalk and takes out a pedestrian, that's an accident, not murder. If you're a criminal robbing a bank, tie up hostages and accidentally choke them to death with the ropes, that is manslaughter, not murder.

None of the people who were killed in these examples were willing participants. None of them wanted to die. Nevertheless, none of them were murdered. Murder is a very specific thing. So is rape. Calling every instance of sex where one party feels uncomfortable about it or is at a disadvantage in some way "rape" is simply not accurate.

This is a really bad analogy, because you are attempting to compare apples to oranges and hoping nobody notices.  Each of these examples can be easily knocked out.

1. "If someone assaults you and you kill them in the process of halting the attack, that is non-criminal or justifiable homicide."
Ok, I agree - in some cases you may have to perform an act that would normally be criminal against a guilty party to prevent a crime.  Only we aren't talking about cases of rape in which it's self-defence (if that were possible).

2. "It is not murder. If a state kills someone for violating its laws, that is execution, not murder."
Sure - it's been specifically listed as "not murder" by the state.  But we aren't talking about an act sanctioned specifically by the state's laws.

3. "If your car slide onto the sidewalk and takes out a pedestrian, that's an accident, not murder."
Yeah - intent is required for most serious crimes.  But we aren't talking about cases of accidental rape, are we

4. "If you're a criminal robbing a bank, tie up hostages and accidentally choke them to death with the ropes, that is manslaughter, not murder."
Same as previously.  Only I think some jurisdictions might list this one as murder.

Just like how murder requires premeditation and intent, rape requires coercion.

Yes.  And using your position of power to make an offer somebody can't refuse is a recognized form of coercion.

If someone if bribed into sex, but there is no coercion, that is not rape. If someone if manipulated into sex but there is no coercion, that is not rape. If someone feels personally obligated to commit a sex act that they don't want, but there is no coercion, that is not rape.

To the first, sure.

To the second, manipulation is a form of coercion so what you're suggesting is contradictory.

To the third, it depends whether the "personal obligation" was created by an act of coercion

[Gervassen]

First, soulmate is a horrible concept. It's a selfish concept that someone out there was made just for you. You're so special that someone else's individuality was suppressed in order to be your perfect match. There are no soulmates.

Coming to a serious representative of the law and pleading that a person under arrest should be freed because... because he's innocent? No... because she loves him is tantamount to challenging the Sheriff to give her an extralegal offer, since it certainly cannot be taken at face value as a legal defence. The man is a criminal who cannot be defended by the customs and values of the setting: whatever his crime is, it's serious enough that she only thinks to plead a foolish thing such as her love and not the greater good of anything or anyone beyond her selfish feelings.

Not only is she perfectly free to reject his offer, she as much as solicited that offer by the moral emptiness of her own pleas. Until she can form a better reason to keep a criminal out of custody, she had no business even being there.