From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Fri Sep 15 11:50:20 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32337 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2000 18:50:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Sep 2000 18:50:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fj.egroups.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta2 with SMTP; 15 Sep 2000 18:50:20 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.116] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Sep 2000 18:50:20 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:50:11 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: RE:rape, etc. Message-ID: <8ptr13+1n92@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <44.7262462.26f38bdc@aol.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1612 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, pycyn@a... wrote: > 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}. 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. .aulun.