Re: [lojban] Re: RE:rape, etc.

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, [iso-8859-1] Alfred W. Tueting (Tüting) wrote:




> 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.


Where sex is illegal, all sex is criminal; is all sex then rape? In some
states of the US, certain common sexual acts between married consenting
adults are nonetheless illegal, but nobody considers them rape, not even
the law there.

The general idea is that rape is nonconsensual. The aspect which may be
uniquely American is the notion that since a child cannot give consent,
any sex with them is rape. (And no, I don't want responses pointing out
similarities in non-US law; we are far enough off-topic.)

So I tend to think that "nonconsenual sexual activity" approximates
"rape" the best.

Note that I am not necessarily using gletu as a requirement, opening up a
new can of worms: How much ka gletu is needed for it to cross between
"violation" or "abuse" into "rape"?

(Certain crackpot feminist theorists would argue the consent aspect,
claiming that women are like children, and cannot ever give their true
consent!)



-----
It worked yesterday
it doesn't work today
Windows is like that