Date: 15 Sep 2000 19:00:09 -0000
Message-ID: <20000915190009.30953.qmail@pi.meson.org>
To: lojban@egroups.com
In-reply-to: <44.7262462.26f38bdc@aol.com> (pycyn@aol.com)
Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:rape, etc.
References:  <44.7262462.26f38bdc@aol.com>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>
Content-Length: 2368
Lines: 44

>From: pycyn@aol.com
>Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:27:40 EDT
>
>
>A Central American joke I have heard from time to time says that the way to 
>talk like a Mexican is to make every other word "chingando" ("fuckin'") -- a 
>trait picked up from the Northern Neighbor in translation.  I see that the 
>corresponding rule here is: to get work on a word, have it be one that 
>involves {gletu}.  There is more (whatever replaces ink in this medium) 
>spilled on "rape" than any word since "homosexual" (which -- with a number of 
>related words -- we have not yet decided on either, but note that they too 
>were all {gletu}), more even than on names for programs and computer
>parts.  

Truth be told, I was much more concerned with "non-consensual" in general
(for {gletu} but also for many other settings); I asked specifically about
rape because that's where it came up in my thinking first, and it also
makes, in many ways, a particularly good example, since it is lexicalized
as such in English.

>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}.

It may be that "rape" can mean other things.  But I wasn't asking about
other things.  Yes, I am specifically concerned about non-consensual
(sex).  Hmm... {curmi claxu gletu}... permitter-lacker-copulator.  Actually
pretty good.  {curmi claxu} may work.  I have to think about it.

~mark