Date: 14 Sep 2000 03:04:22 -0000
Message-ID: <20000914030422.28585.qmail@pi.meson.org>
To: lojban@egroups.com
In-reply-to: <39BF16D6.3202A19F@math.bas.bg> (message from Ivan A Derzhanski on Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:55:34 +0300)
Subject: Re: [lojban] ... and rape
References: <20000912211446.26240.qmail@pi.meson.org> <39BF16D6.3202A19F@math.bas.bg>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
Content-Length: 1502
Lines: 41

>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@MATH.BAS.BG>
>Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:55:34 +0300
>
>
>"Mark E. Shoulson" wrote:
>> For no satisfactory reason, I was puttering
>> with translating "rape" into Lojban, and generally non-consent.
>[...]
>> Well, generally, finding a word for "non-consensual" isn't easy!
>> {zifre} is glossed as "willingly," but its definition doesn't mean
>> that; I can't take {tolzifre} to mean "unwillingly" but "required."
>
>Make sure you don't lose track of what applies to whom.  The one who
>is known to be participating unwillingly is the rapee.  (The rapist
>may also -- you can force someone to rape someone else -- but that's
>not the point.)

Right, that's borrowing confusion.

>> We need the (futile) *resistance* to such force in this case [...].
>
>Do we?  Surely resistance is not always there.

Mm.  It was in my mind, I guess.  Is someone too scared to do anything not
resisting, or does her impotent, unexpressed unwillingness constitute
resistance?  Probably not.  So "unwillingness" would have been a better
word than "resistance."  And that's really what I was thinking about:
consent and its lack.

>> Other choices include {vlile}--which could just mean violent but
>> consensual,
>
>I don't think so.  Look at the definition: `x1 is an event/state/act
>of violence'.  Do you think that covers sadomasochism?

Couldn't it?  You can be violent consensually.  Boxers are violent with
each other, but it's part of the game and they expect it.

~mark