From mark@kli.org Fri Sep 15 12:06:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15633 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2000 19:04:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Sep 2000 19:04:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pi.meson.org) (209.191.39.185) by mta3 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2000 19:04:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 30976 invoked by uid 1000); 15 Sep 2000 19:04:21 -0000 Date: 15 Sep 2000 19:04:21 -0000 Message-ID: <20000915190421.30975.qmail@pi.meson.org> To: lojban@egroups.com In-reply-to: <8ptr13+1n92@eGroups.com> (Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de) Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: RE:rape, etc. References: <8ptr13+1n92@eGroups.com> From: "Mark E. Shoulson" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 4335 >User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 >From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" >Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:50:11 -0000 >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. Maybe that's a working definition for "rape"... but it isn't what I was asking for. I wanted "non-consensual sex," and while I did use "rape" as a synonym, I did say so. In many cultures, "zergletu" would probably include mostly incest, not so much rape as we know it. ~mark