Subject: Re: RE:rape, etc.

From: "Alfred W. Tueting (Tüting)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:50:11 -0000

--- In [email-masked], pycyn@a... wrote:

> As mark has insisted since the beginning, the crucial thing about
rape is 
> consent. Statuatory rape is rape because a juvenile cannot give
consent in 
> the legal sense -- ditto mentally challenged people of a certain
degree and 
> domestic animals (though other charges may apply). Force is not
the issue 
> ("date rape drugs" make that irrelevant) nor is violence, etc. 
> Interestingly, it is not always the consent of the raped that is
needed 
> (statuatory again -- if the guardian consents -- provided the
guardian is not 
> also the raper -- it is not rape, regardless of the wishes of the
minor. 
> There have been some contrary cases lately, happily.) So, assuming
that 
> consent is the same as permission (something I, as a profesional
philosopher, 
> am loth to do), I think that we are back at {curmi}. However, we
do not need 
> a denial of permission, "not permitted" = "forbidden", but only an
absence of 
> permission, the lack of a positive act of consent (or, indeed, a
positive 
> withdrawal of such consent at a later time). So 
> {curmi claxu gletu}.

Please do not base your tanru creation on AMERICAN law (which very,
very often is weird enough, although you're accustomed to it 
- and also have no chance not to be ;) - this doesn't seem to be
lojbanic philosophy either. 
I now see that there can't be kind of legal definition - we have to
be fuzzy and just call it "criminal copulation" /zekri gletu/ 
(zergletu) and leave it to the user what he/she (i.e. his/her state's
law) defines as criminal sexual intercourse.

.aulun.