Subject: Re: [lojban] ... and rape

From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Sep 2000 03:04:22 -0000

>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email-masked]>
>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