You do not have a right to be in somebody else’s house or a right to be somebody’s boyfriend/girlfriend, so threatening to remove either of these things is not rape. They could remove those things for no reason if they wanted to. If anything it’s morally equivalent to prostitution, because he is offering to give you something (continuing to be your boyfriend and continuing to allow you to come over to his house) in exchange for sex. Even threatening a person with being fired or demoted for not having sex isn’t rape. It is sexual harrassment, and is rightfully illegal but not rape.

You do have a right to be free from physical harm, so threatening somebody with physical harm is rape.

Daran said:
I do not agree, however that “the presence or absence of choice seems to be what consent is about.” Suppose instead of lying like a wet fish, the girl repeatedly says no and pushes ineffectively (because he’s too heavy) against him. Suppose further that she was aware that she is free to leave, either before the act starts, or periodically during it, but will be unable to resist if she remains. Nevertheless she chooses to remain.

Wait a sec, this seems a bit contradictory. If she can’t get him off her, then she isn’t really free to leave, so we can’t say that she “chooses” to remain. If she has to exercise force to get her “freedom,” I wouldn’t really call it “freedom.”

But I think it’s bending the meaning of “consent” beyond recognition to describe someone who is saying “no” (and meaning it) and pushing against him as hard as she can as “consenting”.

You present this as a possible counterexample to my interpretation that consent is about choice. First, I want to point out that the scenario you are outlining above seems critically different from the original scenario that I was talking about. I didn’t see anything in the the original scenario to suggest that she was pinned down under his weight. I was assuming that she could have gotten out from under him without resorting to force if she wanted to.

But let’s go with your alternative scenario for a minute, and see whether or not it would be rape by my criterion. I think it would be, but this may not be obvious from the wording of my last post (though I think it is in the spirit of my argument).

The main idea of my argument was that a sexual situation is rape if the women couldn’t have a chosen a realistic course of action to extricate herself from that situation or end it. If the guy’s weight is on top of the woman, and she “is saying ‘no’ (and meaning it) and pushing against him as hard as she can,” I think that would clearly be rape by my criterion because her choice to end the altercation has been removed.

Yet I see that this wasn’t spelled out as clearly as it could have been in my previous post, where I said:

The rephrased criterion: It’s rape when a man has sex with a woman who has no choice whether he penetrates her or not, or when she knows he will punish her for making the choice to resist by doing something else to her that he has no right to do.

Spelled out like this, I agree that it’s not clear why your scenario would be rape. Though I also said:

If indeed he bruised her arm and restrained her, then there would be a threat of violence, which would make it rape, but we can’t consider those things as part of the scenario.

In your scenario, the guy pinning down the woman physically would be analogous to him restraining her, and could be considered to be a threat of violence if she was asking him to get off or trying to push him off fruitlessly. Clearly though, I missed something in my criterion. It should not only require that the woman not have to fear violence/force/reprisal from the man for exercising her choice to extricate herself from the situation, it should also require that she not have to use force or violence herself to get him to stop.

If the woman has to throw the guy off physically to avoid the sex, and other methods (like asking him or pushing him gently) failed, then it was attempted rape (or sexual assault, depending on how far he was going) even if she doesn’t fear reprisals from him. (I suppose that likewise, if a woman had to, say… threaten a guy’s family in order to get him to stop trying to have sex with her, his actions were probably potential rape or sexual assault.)

So if there are problems with my criterion for consent as depending on the “realistic” (i.e. non-violent, non-fearing of unjust reprisal for both parties) exercise of choice, this specific argument you provide does not appear to be one of them (though I am hardly committed to the criterion, and I will respond to your other arguments against it later).

P.S. And I will email you soon; just been really busy with school/work…

Suppose instead of lying like a wet fish, the girl repeatedly says no and pushes ineffectively (because he’s too heavy) against him. Suppose further that she was aware that she is free to leave, either before the act starts, or periodically during it, but will be unable to resist if she remains. Nevertheless she chooses to remain.

But I think it’s bending the meaning of “consent” beyond recognition to describe someone who is saying “no” (and meaning it) and pushing against him as hard as she can as “consenting”.

toysoldier:

That is a strawman. I do not believe anyone suggested that.

Look again at the scenario I posed. She had the opportunity to leave. She was under no real threat. According to Aegis “the presence or absence of choice seems to be what consent is about.” I do not see how to construe that as asserting anything other than that she is consenting, despite the fact that she is pushing against the boy and saying “no”.

Of course I don’t really believe that Aegis would call this consensual. My intention was to refute his statement by exhibiting a possible situation he had probably not considered.

The simplest means of understanding this position is to reverse the situation. I do not believe anyone would consider that rape, nor could they refrain from giggling even if there was twenty-year age difference.

If a female, of any age, had penatrative (or enclosive) sex with a male, of any age, without the male having expressed a “positive idea” etc., by participating or otherwise, then yes, I would call it rape. And I wouldn’t giggle.

[The level of participation in the act following the coercion] may be relevant to the inquiry into whether the decision depended upon the coercion or not.

toysoldier:

On basis would one make that determination though? Who gets to make the decision: the boy or the girl? Obviously both would have reason to misrepresent the truth.

For someone who objects to the gender-norm that casts females in the (alleged) victim role and males in the (alledged) perp role, you seem to be working very hard to reinforced that norm.

Since it is an inquiry into the alledged victim’s state of mind, only the alledged victim can testify about that directly. Other considerations are the nature and degree of the coercion and the nature and degree of the participation.

Bare in mind that this analysis is only applicable when coersion has been shown.

Me:

Now you are changing your criteria for consent. When I presented the example of the man pressured into working overtime and suggested that he has been enslaved, you stated, “No, he “expresses a positive idea” by actually doing the work.” Even though my point was that his participation resulted from pressuring/coercion, you dismissed it since he “did something.” So which one is it, because it cannot be both? Is consent dependant on the level of participation or it is dependant on whether participation results from pressuring and/or coercion* (the two are not the same)?
* If this is true, then the man in my example has been enslaved.

Yes it can be both. If there is no expression of a “positive idea” etc., (by participation, or in some other way) then there is no consent. If there is such an expression, then we need to determine whether this was secured by coercion.

You offered your “man pressured into working overtime” example as an analogy with the Biting Beaver scenario, in which we have agreed there was no coersion, i.e., that the pressure did involve any (threatened) violation of the girl’s rights. I therefore assumed that the pressure faced by the man in your scenario was similar. If, on the contrary, it involved a (threatened) violation of the man’s rights, (a threat to terminate without cause, for example) and if the man would not have worked overtime absent that threat, then yes, I would agree that it was non-consensual.

But I think it’s bending the meaning of “consent” beyond recognition to describe someone who is saying “no” (and meaning it) and pushing against him as hard as she can as “consenting”.

That is a strawman. I do not believe anyone suggested that. What has been suggested is that if she had opportunity to leave (she did), was under no real threat (she was not) and willingly–meaning she did so without force– had sex (she did), then she has not been raped. The simplest means of understanding this position is to reverse the situation. I do not believe anyone would consider that rape, nor could they refrain from giggling even if there was twenty-year age difference.

If so, then how do you define consent?

I addressed that here.

It may be relevant to the inquiry into whether the decision depended upon the coercion or not.

On basis would one make that determination though? Who gets to make the decision: the boy or the girl? Obviously both would have reason to misrepresent the truth.

“Invalidate” means that it is nonconsensual.

Okay… That is the first time I have seen “invalidate” used to describe a state of consent. But I did ask, so thank you for the explanation.

If the person is coerced, and the participation depends upon the coercion, then it is non-consensual.

Now you are changing your criteria for consent. When I presented the example of the man pressured into working overtime and suggested that he has been enslaved, you stated, “No, he “expresses a positive idea” by actually doing the work.” Even though my point was that his participation resulted from pressuring/coercion, you dismissed it since he “did something.” So which one is it, because it cannot be both? Is consent dependant on the level of participation or it is dependant on whether participation results from pressuring and/or coercion* (the two are not the same)?
* If this is true, then the man in my example has been enslaved.

Aegis:

But let’s suppose you’re right. It’s not such a bad experience for the girl because she chooses it in preference to relatively trivial problem of having to face her parents. You argue that this means it’s not rape.

In other words, whether or not its rape depends upon how she feels.(bolding mine)

Actually, I think they are arguing that it’s not rape because she had a choice.

They had been, up to this point, but I was specifically responding to otterick’s remark “Rape is now nothing more horrific than mommy being angry at her daughter.”

Indeed, the presence or absence of choice seems to be what consent is about. The criterion for how I have been defining rape in the past would look something like this: nonconsensual sex (i.e. rape) is sex where the element of choice has been effectively removed. And I say “in the past” because I am not sure whether I am still committed to it after reading Daran’s arguments, but I will spell it out anyway because it may be the kind of criterion that toysoldier and otterick are using also…

I long ago noticed that there are, in fact two distinct definitions of rape: One is forced sex; the other is non-consensual sex, and although there is a lot of overlap between the two, they are not the same, and occasionally there are situations which meets one definition and not the other.

Likewise legal definitions differ between jurisdictions. Some adopt a “force” definition, others a “consent” definition, still others something in between or a blend of the two.

I do not agree, however that “the presence or absence of choice seems to be what consent is about.” Suppose instead of lying like a wet fish, the girl repeatedly says no and pushes ineffectively (because he’s too heavy) against him. Suppose further that she was aware that she is free to leave, either before the act starts, or periodically during it, but will be unable to resist if she remains. Nevertheless she chooses to remain.

Clearly she has a choice. But I think it’s bending the meaning of “consent” beyond recognition to describe someone who is saying “no” (and meaning it) and pushing against him as hard as she can as “consenting”.

Of course, this conclusion is contingent on accepting my definition of consensual sex for a woman as “being penetrated when she had a realistic choice not to be.” What makes this definition better than Daran’s definition of consent as requiring some form of active agreement? I can’t answer that, because I am not sure my definition is better; there seems to be room in the word “consent” for both definitions.

Can I suggest that a good definition would be one that includes as much of what we would want to criminalise as possible, but excludes everything that we would definitely not want to criminalise.

The disputed category of activity, where the putative victim has choices that do not involved the loss of any right, but has not communicated agreement includes some scenarios I’d like to see criminalised, and a whole lot of arseholry that I don’t mind seeing criminalised, and nothing I definitely do not want to be criminalised. Any further expansion (such as calling it rape if she turns round and says “OK let’s do it” to avoid being escorted to the door) starts to encroach upon his rights (such as the right to evict unwelcome guests from his home).

There is a second category of disputed activities – those which meet your definition but not mine. For example consider a person who agrees to engage in no-safeword rape-play. That’s probably a very bad idea in most cases, but it’s not something I would choose to criminalise.

I think it’s fair to say that being penetrated without having any viable choice not to be (rape by my definition) is worse than being penetrated without having communicated agreement that it was ok (rape by Daran’s broader definition). In other words, if the guy in this example had eliminated the woman’s options of getting up off the couch, or walking out the door, or calling home, his actions would have been much more reprehensible (and yes, Daran, I do think they were reprehensible in the first place, of course).

Suppose a boss threatens to fire an employee (who desparately needs the job) over a relatively minor disciplinary infraction, but nevertheless one sufficient to give him cause. Is this really not as bad as as another employee threatening to steal their pencil?

Edited for typos.

In other words, whether or not its rape depends upon how she feels.(bolding mine)

Actually, I think they are arguing that it’s not rape because she had a choice. Indeed, the presence or absence of choice seems to be what consent is about. The criterion for how I have been defining rape in the past would look something like this: nonconsensual sex (i.e. rape) is sex where the element of choice has been effectively removed. And I say “in the past” because I am not sure whether I am still committed to it after reading Daran’s arguments, but I will spell it out anyway because it may be the kind of criterion that toysoldier and otterick are using also…

For a start, let say that it’s rape when a man has sex with a woman who has no choice whether he penetrates her or not. This is too narrow, because it doesn’t include situations where the woman has a choice, but will suffer punishment or potential punishment from the male if she chooses to resist him in that manner. For example, a woman can always choose to fight more vigorously to try to get him to stop, but that might be even more dangerous for her.

So let’s rephrase the criterion: It’s rape when a man has sex with a woman who has no choice whether he penetrates her or not, or when she knows he will punish her for making the choice to resist. Now it’s either too broad, or too vague. What if the guy threatens to break up with her, or throw her out of his house if she doesn’t have sex with him? She may construe that as “punishment.” Yet since she is not entitled to a relationship with him, he has the right to end it at any time and for any reason. (I am spelling this point out, as I did in a previous post, because there are feminists who say that it’s date rape if a guy threatens to break up with a woman for not having sex with him.) To narrow it down, “punishment” should only include the man doing something that he has no right to do, like hurting her, firing her if he is her boss, threatening her family, etc…

The rephrased criterion: It’s rape when a man has sex with a woman who has no choice whether he penetrates her or not, or when she knows he will punish her for making the choice to resist by doing something else to her that he has no right to do.

According to this criterion, the situation under discussion would not qualify as rape. As far as we can tell, the worst the girl is worried about is being kicked out, or facing the wrath of her parents. Since there is no evidence in the scenario that he knows about her parents potential wrath, we can’t say that he threatened her with it. If indeed he bruised her arm and restrained her, then there would be a threat of violence, which would make it rape, but we can’t consider those things as part of the scenario.

What it comes down to is that she could have gotten up off the couch, and left, tried to call her parents, or asked to be taken home. I think that is what many guys reading the scenario will have trouble wrapping their heads around. Of course, maybe none of those things would have worked. Maybe the boyfriend would have grabbed her arm again, or maybe not. Maybe he would have prevented her from leaving, or from calling home, but we have no reason to believe that she thought that would happen. In the end, she could have chosen a course of action to try to avoid him penetrating her, so it was not rape because her element of choice was not removed.

Of course, this conclusion is contingent on accepting my definition of consensual sex for a woman as “being penetrated when she had a realistic choice not to be.” What makes this definition better than Daran’s definition of consent as requiring some form of active agreement? I can’t answer that, because I am not sure my definition is better; there seems to be room in the word “consent” for both definitions.

I think it’s fair to say that being penetrated without having any viable choice not to be (rape by my definition) is worse than being penetrated without having communicated agreement that it was ok (rape by Daran’s broader definition). In other words, if the guy in this example had eliminated the woman’s options of getting up off the couch, or walking out the door, or calling home, his actions would have been much more reprehensible (and yes, Daran, I do think they were reprehensible in the first place, of course). There is definitively a line between this modified scenario (which would be rape by both Daran and my definitions) and the original scenario (which would be rape only by Daran’s definition). The question is whether that line is the line between “rape” and “not rape,” or between one type of rape and a worse type of rape.

Her unwillingness is irrelevant since it is her participation that determines whether or not she consented

If by “unwillingness” you mean her internal mental state, then no, we cannot oblige someone to act or refrain from acting based upon the mental states of other people they have no access to.

If by “unwillingness” you’re refering to her earlier expressed unwillingness, then it’s relevent. However any subsequent participation in the act may contradict that expression.

One should note that if the girl literally does nothing, then there is a potential legal basis to charge the boy with rape since the girl neither approved nor disapproved of the act.

She’s already disapproved. If I prohibit an action, the prohibition doesn’t cease the moment I finish speaking. The same is true if I permit an action.

Legally speaking, if she is incapable of consenting or rejecting (such as her being in a state of shock) the advances, the act is automatically rape (depending on the state laws).

I’m assuming she’s capable.

No, you can be as clear and precise as you want. That does not mean we should accept your definition as the definition, nor should we accept mines either. My point is that if we cannot agree on what does or does not constitute consent, how can we label this boy a rapist?

Do you disagree with it? If so, then how do you define consent?

For the sake of clarification, are you saying coercion invalidates any decision one makes?

See the fourth point. Coercion invalidates a decision to consent if that decision depended upon the coercion

If so, then the level of participation in the act following the coercion is irrelevant.

It may be relevent to the inquiry into whether the decision depended upon the coercion or not. Ditto the level of coercion.

If not, what meaning of invalidate are you using? Also, if consent is defined as “a positive idea” making “a definite decision” to engage in [a] particular […] act, we must accept that no one can participate in an act unwillingly since participation (of any kind) = consent. In other words, even if you are unwilling to do an act, the fact that you did it means that you actually consented.

“Invalidate” means that it is nonconsensual. If the person doesn’t participate then it is non-consensual. If the person is coerced, and the participation depends upon the coercion, then it is non-consensual. If the person is incapable of consenting, i.e. incapable of understanding the nature of the act or incapable of independent action, then it is non-consensual.

If these characteristics do not apply, then I cannot see how participation in the act does not express willingness. We can hypothesise internal mental states to the contrary, but I can’t see how they can be anything other than hypothetical.

You’ve gotten so caught up in your narcissistic game of semantics that you’ve failed to notice that you’ve stripped the word rape of all its power and force. Rape is now nothing more horrific than mommy being angry at her daughter. Somehow, I don’t think this makes the world a better place.

That’s the other horn of the dilemma you presented us with. I don’t agree that it’s trivial, but I haven’t discussed the reasons for my position.

But let’s suppose you’re right. It’s not such a bad experience for the girl because she chooses it in preference to relatively trivial problem of having to face her parents. You argue that this means it’s not rape.

In other words, whether or not its rape depends upon how she feels.

However if a women were to charge a man with rape after apparently consensual sex, and the only evidence she offered was that she really, really, really felt bad about it, you’d be outraged. You’d be demanding that we judge the incident based on what he did to her, and not on how she feels about it.

And that’s incoherent.

I say that IF in the BB scenario she just lay back like a wet fish without expressing any kind of positive idea or definite decision, then it’s rape.

You appear to be saying that EVEN IF that’s all she did, then it isn’t rape, because, you know, looking at your partner every now and again to check whether she really is digging it is just too much to ask of our poor sexually frustrated young men.

Meanwhile, getting into some big argument over whether she really did lie back like a wet fish, or whether he really did scoot over to the other end of the couch seems rather pointless because this is an illustrative example, and the entire event really did not happen at all.

Can we move onto more substantial issues, such as how many angels really do dance on the end of a pin?

Words don’t rape. People do. You and I weren’t there to witness this event; only the writer was and we have only her words to go on. You’ve based your argument around a fine parsing of “consent” and “giving in” but the actual distinction is relevant only if the writer went to the same effort. How likely is that considering she wrote this: “maybe even scooting to the end of the couch.”

The word “even” in this context means “a possibility that constitutes an extreme case or an unlikely instance.” She doesn’t know whether something happened in HER OWN hypothetical but she knows it’s important if it did. And you base your case around fine distinctions in writing as sloppy as hers?

You’ve gotten so caught up in your narcissistic game of semantics that you’ve failed to notice that you’ve stripped the word rape of all its power and force. Rape is now nothing more horrific than mommy being angry at her daughter. Somehow, I don’t think this makes the world a better place.

The key distinction here is that the employee does something, while there is nothing to indicate that the girl in the scenario does anything rather she is done to.

There is not anything in the scenario indicating that the girl does nothing, either. Being such, since your position is explicitly tied to her level of participation (i.e. her “consent”), which is unknown, there is no way you can determine whether or not she was raped. (Her unwillingness is irrelevant since it is her participation that determines whether or not she consented)

One should note that if the girl literally does nothing, then there is a potential legal basis to charge the boy with rape since the girl neither approved nor disapproved of the act. Legally speaking, if she is incapable of consenting or rejecting (such as her being in a state of shock) the advances, the act is automatically rape (depending on the state laws).

Other people are vague and imprecise means I can’t be clear and precise?

No, you can be as clear and precise as you want. That does not mean we should accept your definition as the definition, nor should we accept mines either. My point is that if we cannot agree on what does or does not constitute consent, how can we label this boy a rapist?

Coercion invalidates any seeming concent there may be*, but the absence of coercion does not create concent.

*bolds are mines

For the sake of clarification, are you saying coercion invalidates any decision one makes? If so, then the level of participation in the act following the coercion is irrelevant. If not, what meaning of invalidate are you using? Also, if consent is defined as “a positive idea” making “a definite decision” to engage in [a] particular […] act, we must accept that no one can participate in an act unwillingly since participation (of any kind) = consent. In other words, even if you are unwilling to do an act, the fact that you did it means that you actually consented.

A’s response to B’s actions proves the nature of B’s actions. Is that a general rule?

Me:

There’s no “proof” of anyone’s actions, because this is only a hypothetical situation, and A and B don’t really exist.

otterick:

So, you’ve concluded that a nonexistent person has been raped. I thought that hypotheticals involved pretending that a scenario is real so we can better understand fine points and develop rules of general application. I’m pretty sure this wasn’t meant as a semantics game.

Of course hypotheticals involve pretending that a scenario is real so we can better understand them. However hypotheticals allow us to shortcut certain considerations, such as how we could know whether things happened as stated, or whether the might have happened differently from stated. The nature of B’s actions are as told to us by Biting Beaver. She can’t be misrepresenting B because there’s no real B whose actions could have been misrepresented in the scenario.

Small wonder you’d conclude that since the writer imbued the girl with thoughts, feelings and circumstances. The boy, on the other hand, is portrayed as a monomaniacal testosterone-driven automaton. How hard would it be to fill in the boy’s character so that he becomes a real person? How about if we make him Daran? You seem like a decent guy.

You can fill it in how you like. My assement is not based upon his character. But if you’re going to involve me, then you have a problem in that I can compare any purported facts you might want to introduce with reality.

So, let’s fill out Daran without contradicting the details of the story or doing so in the slightest bad faith. For example, I could say that he actually offered her a ride home without contradicting the story but that would be in bad faith; she wondered how she could get home which implies he didn’t make such an offer. However, apparently she never asked him which means he might very well have obliged if she had. That is an assumption that is consistent with the story and is made in good faith.

No I don’t think it is. He’s disregarded her wishes with respect to her zipper. Why should he comply with her wishes in any other respect?

In any case, my analysis doesn’t depend upon whether he would have taken her home if asked. It depends upon whether she consented to intercourse.

The story doesn’t say he knew of her dilemma with her parents and if she’s kept the situation with the boyfriend secret from her parents she might very well have the situation with her parent secret from her boyfriend.

Again, my analysis doesn’t depend upon whether he knows this or not. It depends upon whether she consented to intercourse.

In short, the boy doesn’t know of the girl’s immobility. This is you Daran. Had you known would you have given her a ride home? If yes, why do you believe the boy wouldn’t have?

What makes you think I don’t believe the boy wouldn’t have? I haven’t said anything to that effect.

If it had been me, and I hadn’t been drinking, then of course I would have given her a ride. But if it had been me, then there’s no way I would have touched her sexually after the first rebuff. I take ‘no’ for an answer.

We may reasonably assume from the story that these two are very young – maybe 15 or 16. They are quite possibly virgins. They are boyfriend and girlfriend so they’ve been together awhile.

Obviously not me then, because neither of those descriptions fit me.

Daran has long made it clear to her that he considers sex as a part of a complete relationship. She keeps saying “I’m not ready.” Daran is torn. He loves the girl, and always will, but he’s thinking more and more that there might be a girl out that he will love who will have sex with him.

I can certainly imagine being torn like that, but then the choices would be leave her, despite being in love, or stay with her and put up with an incomplete relationship. Raping her would not be an option in my mind. Nor would pressuring her into reluctant-but-consensual sex.

Daran scoots to the end of the couch. The girl accuses him of emotionally blackmailing her and this angers Daran. In the first place he moved to the end of the couch because he’s becoming overly aroused and in the second place, her statement implies that she’s entitled to his affections entirely on her terms.

Now you’re changing the scenario. Not good faith.

In a flash of anger and frustration she stands up to leave. He grabs her arm, “Oh baby, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to make you mad” he says. He looks at her again and quickly it goes through his mind that she’s the one emotionally blackmailing him. He sheepishly returns to her end of the couch.

If I felt I was being emotionally blackmailed, she would be out of the door. I’d offer her a lift home, but one way or another she’d be gone.

They roll on the couch and she gives in. To Daran it appears that she consented. He’s heard that girls take longer to get aroused so an hour seems normal. She looks a little scared but he’s very scared, too.

Like I said, I wouldn’t touch her sexually after a rebuff.

The next day Daran is troubled, depressed, and unable to concentrate. He pressured his girlfriend so that he could have 12 seconds of pleasure.

That would never happen. For a start, I last a lot longer than 12 seconds. Secondly there is continual dialogue between myself and my partner. I watch her face, feel how she moves, talk to her, listen to her. When I have sex, there is always communication, and participation from both sides.

Will she still love him? In optimistic moments he smiles and thinks that with a little practice the sex will get better and he and his girlfriend will grow closer than ever.

Then the cops knock on Daran’s door.

Also a bad-faith assumption. She doesn’t want her parents to know, remember? So she couldn’t go to the cops because they’d find out.

In summary, you’ve not presented the same scenario. You’ve presented a superficially similar one and attached my name to it.

Specifically because your position appears to only be applicable to proving this girl was raped. If any of the variables are altered, it does not appear that you would accept a similar conclusion.

Perhaps I should set out my reasoning in the form of a flowchart. For simplicity, I will assume all parties are capable of consenting.

1. Did an act of penetrative sex take place? If not then no rape. Else continue.
2. Did all the parties consent – defined as expressing “a positive idea” making “a definite decision” to engage in the particular sexual act at question. If not, then the non-consenting party(s) was raped. Else continue.
3. Was any of the parties subject to an unlawful act or threat. If not, then no rape. Else continue.
4. Would the threatened party(s) have consented without that threat. If not, then they were raped.

Under my interpretation of the BB scenario, the answers are

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No.
4. N/A.

The “no” answer to 2 is dispositive.

In that case, if a person does not wish to work overtime and his boss persists in pressuring him until he gives in (i.e. ceases to resist), he has technically been enslaved, correct?

No, he “expresses a positive idea” by actually doing the work. Nor has the boss done, or threatened him with any unlawful act.

The key distinction here is that the employee does something, while there is nothing to indicate that the girl in the scenario does anything rather she is done to.

If she had said “OK, let’s do it”, then that would be consent. If she participated in the act, for example by kissing him back, or by actively touching him, then that would express consent. If she cooperated, for example by helping him undress her, that would express consent. If she just lay there like a wet fish, then that would not express consent.

As I have repeatedly indicated, the conjecture that she did any of these things does not contradict any of the facts given in the scenario, any more than the conjecture that he restrained her, or that she was in fear of physical violence contradicts the given facts. However, both suggestions go against the flow of the narrative, so I consider them to be different scenarios.

Indeed they can be, and are so used.

Then your above “definite decision to comply” criticism is moot.

Other people are vague and imprecise means I can’t be clear and precise?

That is the point. It is not that the act actually is rape. It is more that you think the act is rape depending on who it is done to and in context of the situation. To use this as a premise for imprisonment and punishment, to essentially have an act so broadly defined that if a person feels it was done to her someone will spend years in prison is a ludicrous position.

Indeed it is. It’s a good thing it isn’t my position.

Of course it depends upon the context. Consent is a communicative act, and communication depends upon context. But nothing in my analysis depends upon who it is done to. Nor does it depend upon how any person feels. These are total strawmen.

It was not stated in the example whether the girl actively participated or not,

Neither was it stated that she wasn’t restrained or put in fear of physical harm.

It was, however, very clearly stated that she was unwilling to have sex.

and again it is your decision that you were not raped.

If you honestly cannot tell the difference between trying one’s level best to fuck someone, and lying back like a wet fish, then I suggest that you’re incapable of judging whether something is rape or not.

The position initially presented is pressured sex with willful compliance equals rape, regardless of the level of participation.

I believe I have already rejected that proposition.

The level of participation that I say constitutes rape is “none”.

Also, the participation angle is an odd criterion. If one actively goes along with an act that one cannot have been forced to do said act? That seems to contradict the point that coercive techniques equal forcible assault since one of the main goals of coercion is to gain active participation from the coerced.

Coercion invalidates any seeming concent there may be, but the absence of coercion does not create concent. The five billion or so people on this planet whom I have never coerced are not all consenting to have sex with me. Neither have the much smaller number of uncoerced people who, like the girl in the scenario, have unambiguously expressed their non-consent.

Edited for spelling, typos and markup.

I don’t understand your point here, nor can I see why you are misunderstanding mine.

Specifically because your position appears to only be applicable to proving this girl was raped. If any of the variables are altered, it does not appear that you would accept a similar conclusion.

So my interpretation is that she did not make “a definite decision to comply”. Rather she ceased to resist.

In that case, if a person does not wish to work overtime and his boss persists in pressuring him until he gives in (i.e. ceases to resist), he has technically been enslaved, correct?

Indeed they can be, and are so used.

Then your above “definite decision to comply” criticism is moot.

However, when I use the word “consent”, I have a very clear meaning in mind – one which in my opinion is the correct one when defining rape.

That is the point. It is not that the act actually is rape. It is more that you think the act is rape depending on who it is done to and in context of the situation. To use this as a premise for imprisonment and punishment, to essentially have an act so broadly defined that if a person feels it was done to her someone will spend years in prison is a ludicrous position.

I had an “active and positive idea”, which I expressed by participating in the act. In other words, I did my level best to fuck her, and it was only my uncooperative dick which prevented it.

It was not stated in the example whether the girl actively participated or not, and again it is your decision that you were not raped. The position initially presented is pressured sex with willful compliance equals rape, regardless of the level of participation. Also, the participation angle is an odd criterion. If one actively goes along with an act that one cannot have been forced to do said act? That seems to contradict the point that coercive techniques equal forcible assault since one of the main goals of coercion is to gain active participation from the coerced.

The situation doesn’t meet the legal definition of rape, so basically you are saying that the girl in question has to make up stuff for the cops, and has indeed decided to do so, jeopardizing the reputation and freedom of her long-term boyfriend, and possibly her own reputation too, if people are suspicious about the accuracy of her revised story.

So, you’ve concluded that a nonexistent person has been raped. I thought that hypotheticals involved pretending that a scenario is real so we can better understand fine points and develop rules of general application. I’m pretty sure this wasn’t meant as a semantics game.

Daran: “But there’s nothing in the scenario to suggest either of these, and everything to suggest otherwise.”

Small wonder you’d conclude that since the writer imbued the girl with thoughts, feelings and circumstances. The boy, on the other hand, is portrayed as a monomaniacal testosterone-driven automaton. How hard would it be to fill in the boy’s character so that he becomes a real person? How about if we make him Daran? You seem like a decent guy.

So, let’s fill out Daran without contradicting the details of the story or doing so in the slightest bad faith. For example, I could say that he actually offered her a ride home without contradicting the story but that would be in bad faith; she wondered how she could get home which implies he didn’t make such an offer. However, apparently she never asked him which means he might very well have obliged if she had. That is an assumption that is consistent with the story and is made in good faith.

The story doesn’t say he knew of her dilemma with her parents and if she’s kept the situation with the boyfriend secret from her parents she might very well have the situation with her parent secret from her boyfriend.

In short, the boy doesn’t know of the girl’s immobility. This is you Daran. Had you known would you have given her a ride home? If yes, why do you believe the boy wouldn’t have?

We may reasonably assume from the story that these two are very young – maybe 15 or 16. They are quite possibly virgins. They are boyfriend and girlfriend so they’ve been together awhile.

Daran has long made it clear to her that he considers sex as a part of a complete relationship. She keeps saying “I’m not ready.” Daran is torn. He loves the girl, and always will, but he’s thinking more and more that there might be a girl out that he will love who will have sex with him.

Daran scoots to the end of the couch. The girl accuses him of emotionally blackmailing her and this angers Daran. In the first place he moved to the end of the couch because he’s becoming overly aroused and in the second place, her statement implies that she’s entitled to his affections entirely on her terms.

In a flash of anger and frustration she stands up to leave. He grabs her arm, “Oh baby, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to make you mad” he says. He looks at her again and quickly it goes through his mind that she’s the one emotionally blackmailing him. He sheepishly returns to her end of the couch.

They roll on the couch and she gives in. To Daran it appears that she consented. He’s heard that girls take longer to get aroused so an hour seems normal. She looks a little scared but he’s very scared, too.

The next day Daran is troubled, depressed, and unable to concentrate. He pressured his girlfriend so that he could have 12 seconds of pleasure. Will she still love him? In optimistic moments he smiles and thinks that with a little practice the sex will get better and he and his girlfriend will grow closer than ever.

Then the cops knock on Daran’s door.

What will you say to them?