23% of men in parts of Asia admit to rape

[Aurora Novus]

Actually, what she said was that he didn't want to, but he would pester her about it "till she said yes". That's consent. She may regret giving said consent later on, but it's still consent.

Much like a tree consents to falling over after be hit enough times with an axe.

Actually, it's nothing like that at all.

I find it disturbing that you compare women to something with a lack of agency.

[Neu California]

Again, you're demonstrating the same as above. Saying over and over "I'm going to leave you if you don't..." is a form of manipulation.

And? Saying "Hey, will you go buy us a gallon of milk from the corner store" is also a form of manipulation.

And not anywhere near a comparable situation.

Edit: I find it disturbing that you would compare coercion for sex (applicable to rape) as comparable to this.

[Freelanderness]

Again, you're demonstrating the same as above. Saying over and over "I'm going to leave you if you don't..." is a form of manipulation.

And? Saying "Hey, will you go buy us a gallon of milk from the corner store" is also a form of manipulation.

I'm conserned with what's reasonable here, not what is. If you wish to call it manipulation, fine. But it's perfectly reasonable and within somoene's right to say that. They have no obligation to remain in a relationship with someone, under any circumstances. You don't get to own people, just because it would hurt your precious little feelings if they did something you didn't like.

exactly. That's my point exactly. Abusers use manipulation to get their victims to do things they absolutely do not want to do, because to not do so would risk hurting their feelings.

[Aurora Novus]

And? Saying "Hey, will you go buy us a gallon of milk from the corner store" is also a form of manipulation.

And not anywhere near a comparable situation.

No, but it does demonsrate that simple shouting "manipulation" is meaningless. Which I went on to discuss just below where you cut my post off.

[Wikkiwallana]

Much like a tree consents to falling over after be hit enough times with an axe.

Actually, it's nothing like that at all.

I find it disturbing that you compare women to something with a lack of agency.

I find it disturbing that you think having one's finite willpower broken down by continued pressure is the same as actually agreeing. I find it disturbing that you think harassing someone until they sleep with you completely ok.

[Aurora Novus]

And? Saying "Hey, will you go buy us a gallon of milk from the corner store" is also a form of manipulation.

And not anywhere near a comparable situation.

Edit: I find it disturbing that you would compare coercion for sex...

Define "coercion".

Because by some definitions, all sex is coerced.

[Neu California]

And not anywhere near a comparable situation.

Edit: I find it disturbing that you would compare coercion for sex...

Define "coercion".

Because by some definitions, all sex is coerced.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/coercion

The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.

A defense asserted in a criminal prosecution that a person who committed a crime did not do so of his or her own free will, but only because the individual was compelled by another through the use of physical force or threat of immediate serious bodily injury or death.

That's the definition I use

[Aurora Novus]

And? Saying "Hey, will you go buy us a gallon of milk from the corner store" is also a form of manipulation.

I'm conserned with what's reasonable here, not what is. If you wish to call it manipulation, fine. But it's perfectly reasonable and within somoene's right to say that. They have no obligation to remain in a relationship with someone, under any circumstances. You don't get to own people, just because it would hurt your precious little feelings if they did something you didn't like.

exactly. That's my point exactly. Abusers use manipulation to get their victims to do things they absolutely do not want to do, because to not do so would risk hurting their feelings.

Which doesn't change the situation one iota. The potential for hurt feelings doesn't make sex under such pretenses rape.

What matters is whether or not the "manipulation" is unreasonable. And threatening to leave someone is never unreasonable, because there is no pretense under which it is reasonable to force someone to be in a relationship with someone else. You have every right to leave someone whenever, for whatever reason.

You can say many nasty things about someone who acts like that. But you can't call them a rapist. Not with any amount of rationality anyway.

[Aurora Novus]

Define "coercion".

Because by some definitions, all sex is coerced.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/coercion

The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.

A defense asserted in a criminal prosecution that a person who committed a crime did not do so of his or her own free will, but only because the individual was compelled by another through the use of physical force or threat of immediate serious bodily injury or death.

That's the definition I use

EDIT: I can agree physical force is always wrong. However, "psychological pressure" and "threats" I cannot always agree are wrong, because there are perfectly justifiable times for these. If you're going to claim all coercion is rape, by using this definition, I am left to conclude not all rape is immoral.

Of course, I just save a step by saying the definition is flawed to begin with.

[Freelanderness]

exactly. That's my point exactly. Abusers use manipulation to get their victims to do things they absolutely do not want to do, because to not do so would risk hurting their feelings.

Which doesn't change my the situation one iota. The potential for hurt feelings doesn't make sex under such pretenses rape.

What matters is whether or not the "manipulation" is unreasonable. And threatening to leave someone is never unreasonable, because there is no pretense under which it is reasonable to force someone to be in a relationship with someone else. You have every right to leave someone whenever, for whatever reason.

You can say many nasty things about someone who acts like that. But you can't call them a rapist. Not with any amount of rationality anyway.

It's not about forcing them to be in a relationship. It's about forcing them to do things that you want, by using something they are significantly emotionally invested in, and threatening it.

[Aurora Novus]

It's not about forcing them to be in a relationship. It's about forcing them to do things that you want, by using something they are significantly emotionally invested in, and threatening it.

Which is not unreasonable in all situations, in particular, your involvement in a relationship with them.

I understand what it is you are saying. I'm saying it's not unreasonable to make such a threat, and therefore, I would not call sex under such pretense rape.

Only if the threat is unreasonable or unjustified would I call it rape. Any other definition, and you've only left me to conclude that not all rape is wrong nor should all rape be punishable. Which really muddies the issue.

[Neu California]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/coercion



That's the definition I use

EDIT: I can agree physical force is always wrong. However, "psychological pressure" and "threats" I cannot always agree are wrong, because there are perfectly justifiable times for these. If you're going to claim all coercion is rape, by using this definition, I am left to conclude not all rape is immoral.

Of course, I just save a step by saying the definition is flawed to begin with.

Save a step or just sidestep? Prove unequivocally that the definition is flawed, please, or admit that you're operating on a different definition than the one that the US and I'm assuming everyone here (and, I assume, all first world countries) uses.

[Aurora Novus]

EDIT: I can agree physical force is always wrong. However, "psychological pressure" and "threats" I cannot always agree are wrong, because there are perfectly justifiable times for these. If you're going to claim all coercion is rape, by using this definition, I am left to conclude not all rape is immoral.

Of course, I just save a step by saying the definition is flawed to begin with.

Save a step or just sidestep?

I'm not sure there's a difference in this context, but basically for me it's a matter of saying:

1) All psychological pressure and threats are coercion.
2) All coercion is rape.
3) Someone threatening to leave you if you don't have sex with them is psychological manipualtion and threatening behavior.
4) Therefore, sex under this pretense is rape.
5) The act of threatening to leave someone is not unreasonable, because no one is obligated to be in a relationship.
6) Because the threat was not unreasonable or unjustifiable, the rape was not immoral.
7) Therefore, nothing should be done about it.

vs.

1) Unreasonable psychological pressure and threats are coercion.
2) All coecrion is rape.
3) Someone threatening to leave you if you don't have sex with them is not unreasonable psychological manipulation and threatening behavior.
4) Therefore, sex under this pretense is not rape.
5) Therefore, nothing should be done about it.

Prove unequivocally that the definition is flawed,

Well that's impossible, because words have no inherent meanings, so it's technically impossible to "misuse" a word.

But if you want a reasonable argument for why the definition is flawed, it's because it defines things as coercion that are not explicitely immoral. I feel that it makes far more sense to use terms like this to only mean strictly immoral ations. Saves time, and makes the terms have more meaning when used.

[Neu California]

Save a step or just sidestep?

I'm not sure there's a difference in this context, but basically for me it's a matter of saying:

1) All psychological pressure and threats are coercion.
2) All coercion is rape.
3) Someone threatening to leave you if you don't have sex with them is psychological manipualtion and threatening behavior.
4) Therefore, sex under this pretense is rape.
5) The act of threatening to leave someone is not unreasonable, because no one is obligated to be in a relationship.
6) Because the threat was not unreasonable or unjustifiable, the rape was not immoral.
7) Therefore, nothing should be done about it.

vs.

1) Unreasonable psychological pressure and threats are coercion.
2) All coecrion is rape.
3) Someone threatening to leave you if you don't have sex with them is not unreasonable psychological manipulation and threatening behavior.
4) Therefore, sex under this pretense is not rape.
5) Therefore, nothing should be done about it.

Prove unequivocally that the definition is flawed,

Well that's impossible, because words have no inherent meanings, so it's technically impossible to "misuse" a word.

But if you want a reasonable argument for why the definition is flawed, it's because it defines things as coercion that are not explicitely immoral. I feel that it makes far more sense to use terms like this to only mean strictly immoral ations. Saves time, and makes the terms have more meaning when used.

So we've established that you're using a different (and in my opinion seriously flawed) definition of coercion than everyone else, including legal authorities. Good to know.

Also, in general, something may be morally neutral, but within certain contexts, it can be immoral without making the definition less meaningful. To say a morally neutral action is such in all circumstances, which is what you seem to be doing, is patently absurd.

Edit: added a bit

[Aurora Novus]

Also, in general, something may be morally neutral, but within certain contexts, it can be immoral without making the definition less meaningful.

I disagree. The fact that we have to tinker with a situation before people will react negavitely to it means that any definition referring to the situation prior to tinkering is less impactful.

If the term 'coercion' can be used to describe both morally neutral and immoral actions, it means that the term itself, upon first hearing it, has less of an impact on people. Because then they have to say "Okay, so what? Give me the actual details of the situation."

Versus if we used it to define striuctly immoral behavior, their immediate reaciton would be much more stern.

It dilutes the power and impact of the word when it doesn't stricly described immoral actions.

To say a morally neutral action is such in all circumstances, which is what you seem to be doing, is patently absurd.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and I have no idea how you took that away from my post.

What I'm saying is that to use a term to describe a morally neutral, and an immoral action, dilutes the power of the term, and muddies the water of the issue. Beause then we have to go through the annoying process of squabbling whether this situation was an immoral one or not. Not to mention, it can lead some people to wrongly attack moraly neautral situations, because they are associating the term with it's usage against immoral situations.


I think it would be far better to limit the definition of a term to strictly immoral actions. Or at the very least, narrow it as close to that as reasonably possible. So I hold that the definition you use is flawed for that reason.

[Saiwania]

So which nations or region in Asia are more prone to this. That is why women in Asia especially when young should try to go to Wushu school training.

I'm not familiar with the combat effectiveness of Wushu, but I've heard that it is more of an exhibitionist martial art and less of a practical one to fight with. Some styles are simply put, more effective than others. Krav Maga is among the best, while Capoeira is one of the worst. That said, hand to hand combat still won't necessarily save anyone from a rape. If anything, that can sometimes escalate a situation into a dangerous one.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

So which nations or region in Asia are more prone to this. That is why women in Asia especially when young should try to go to Wushu school training.

I'm not familiar with the combat effectiveness of Wushu, but I've heard that it is more of an exhibitionist martial art and less of a practical one to fight with. Some styles are simply put, more effective than others. Krav Maga is among the best, while Capoeira is one of the worst. That said, hand to hand combat still won't necessarily save anyone from a rape. If anything, that can sometimes escalate a situation into a dangerous one.

Capoeira is not a martial art, it is a dance/random sport. -_-

Martial arts to Brazilians are karate and jiu-jitsu.

[Aurora Novus]

I'm not familiar with the combat effectiveness of Wushu, but I've heard that it is more of an exhibitionist martial art and less of a practical one to fight with. Some styles are simply put, more effective than others. Krav Maga is among the best, while Capoeira is one of the worst. That said, hand to hand combat still won't necessarily save anyone from a rape. If anything, that can sometimes escalate a situation into a dangerous one.

Capoeira is not a martial art, it is a dance/random sport. -_-

Martial arts to Brazilians are karate and jiu-jitsu.

Capoeira is indeed a martial art. Are you aware of it's origins?

[Neu California]

Also, in general, something may be morally neutral, but within certain contexts, it can be immoral without making the definition less meaningful.

I disagree. The fact that we have to tinker with a situation before people will react negavitely to it means that any definition referring to the situation prior to tinkering is less impactful.

If the term 'coercion' can be used to describe both morally neutral and immoral actions, it means that the term itself, upon first hearing it, has less of an impact on people. Because then they have to say "Okay, so what? Give me the actual details of the situation."

Versus if we used it to define striuctly immoral behavior, their immediate reaciton would be much more stern.

It dilutes the power and impact of the word when it doesn't stricly described immoral actions.

Not really, no, and I wasn't arguing about the word coercion, I was arguing that the idea that "I, the person you love, will leave you for such and such reason" is not immoral, but when you get into a specific situation, such as "I, the person you love, will leave you if you don't have sex with me" is coercive and immoral. To say that I'm tinkering with the definition is ridiculous, since tinkering implies that I';m throwing in caveats that are highly unrealistic, when I'm describing a realistic scenario.

To say a morally neutral action is such in all circumstances, which is what you seem to be doing, is patently absurd.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and I have no idea how you took that away from my post.

That's how I'm reading your saying that an action that is not immoral under most circumstances can't be immoral under specific circumstances. If that's not what you're saying, I apologize.

What I'm saying is that to use a term to describe a morally neutral, and an immoral action, dilutes the power of the term, and muddies the water of the issue. Beause then we have to go through the annoying process of squabbling whether this situation was an immoral one or not. Not to mention, it can lead some people to wrongly attack moraly neautral situations, because they are associating the term with it's usage against immoral situations.


I think it would be far better to limit the definition of a term to strictly immoral actions. Or at the very least, narrow it as close to that as reasonably possible. So I hold that the definition you use is flawed for that reason.

And I'm just going to say that the definition I provided does just that. If you don't think so, then show that those things are not immoral. I know morality is subjective, but I want to see if you can prove that it's not immoral

[Aurora Novus]

I was arguing that the idea that "I, the person you love, will leave you for such and such reason" is not immoral, but when you get into a specific situation, such as "I, the person you love, will leave you if you don't have sex with me" is coercive and immoral.

Coercive by your definition, certainly. Not by mine though. Particularly because it is not immoral in any sense. Unless you believe in owning people, people reserve the right to leave someone at anytime, for any reason. Even over a lack of sex.

That's how I'm reading your saying that an action that is not immoral under most circumstances can't be immoral under specific circumstances. If that's not what you're saying, I apologize.

That's not at all what I'm saying. Killing, for example, can be both morally neutral and immoral, given the right context.

What I'm saying is that choosing to end a relationship with someone can never be immoral, because there is never an unjustifiable reason for someone to leave another person. "I want to" is justiifcation enough.

Likewise, threatening to leave cannot be immoral in any situation, because you don't even need a reason to make the threat. You could make it just because you wanted to, no reason at all.

And I'm just going to say that the definition I provided does just that. If you don't think so, then show that those things are not immoral. I know morality is subjective, but I want to see if you can prove that it's not immoral

Well to take a different scenario for a moment, by your defition, the mere act of asking a second time, with the addition of "please", would be coercion, as it's "psychologiccal pressure". In fact, the mere act of asking someone period is argubaly psychological pressure. It puts them on the spot, and forces them to make a value judgement. "Do I choose to have sex, even if I don't particularly want it, or do I say no, and potentially dissapoint and temporarily sadden the person asking?" I cannot find that immoral in any sense, because there is no reasonable harm in it, and it is perfectly within one's right to ask for something, even multiple times. To say anything less is servile and delusional.

But on the point of threatening to leave someone, as I said above, because human beings do not get to own one another, you reserve the right to leave anyone, at any time, for any reason. Even a lack of reason. You have no moral obligation to remain in a relationship you do not want to be in. And indeed, the very notion that you would is deplorable.

By extension, it is not immoral to threaten your departure, as you reserve the right to said departure.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Capoeira is not a martial art, it is a dance/random sport. -_-

Martial arts to Brazilians are karate and jiu-jitsu.

Capoeira is indeed a martial art. Are you aware of it's origins?

Perhaps more than you.

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capoeira

"Neste meio, começou a nascer a capoeira. Mais do que uma técnica de combate, surgiu como uma esperança de liberdade e de sobrevivência, uma ferramenta para que o negro foragido, totalmente desequipado, pudesse sobreviver ao ambiente hostil e enfrentar a caça dos capitães-do-mato, sempre armados e montados a cavalo."

It was more of an art. It hugely increases bodily self-recognition and abilities, yes, like yoga and tai chi chuan, but it was hardly used as a weapon. Also because gunpowder was already invented and its fatal use known by that time.

[Aurora Novus]

Capoeira is indeed a martial art. Are you aware of it's origins?

Perhaps more than you.

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capoeira

"Neste meio, começou a nascer a capoeira. Mais do que uma técnica de combate, surgiu como uma esperança de liberdade e de sobrevivência, uma ferramenta para que o negro foragido, totalmente desequipado, pudesse sobreviver ao ambiente hostil e enfrentar a caça dos capitães-do-mato, sempre armados e montados a cavalo."

It was more of an art. It hugely increases bodily self-recognition and abilities, yes, like yoga and tai chi chuan, but it was hardly used as a weapon. Also because gunpowder was already invented and its fatal use known by that time.

Well aside from the fact that your own link describes it as a martial art...

Capoeira arose as a hope of survival for an escaped slave, completely unequipped, in this hostile, unknown land and against the capitães-do-mato, the armed and mounted colonial agents who were charged with capturing escapees. The dance was incorporated to avoid detection and corporal punishments. If slaves were caught practicing fighting techniques, they could be punished or executed. With music and rhythmic moves, they raised no suspicion of escape attempts.

From the Enlgish page.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Well aside from the fact that your own link describes it as a martial art...

In the same way that tai chi chuan is a martial art. Just that capoeira is even less focused on the martial part than tai chi.

[Aurora Novus]

Well aside from the fact that your own link describes it as a martial art...

In the same way that tai chi chuan is a martial art. Just that capoeira is even less focused on the martial part than tai chi.

So we're just going to ignore the latter half of my post then?

I'm not saying Capoeira is the best, most effective of martial arts. I'm not denying it's flashiness. But it is most definitely a form of martial art.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

So we're just going to ignore the latter half of my post then?

I'm not saying Capoeira is the best, most effective of martial arts. I'm not denying it's flashiness. But it is most definitely a form of martial art.

Calling capoeira a martial art seems as sane as calling soy a source of estrogen. We must use a rather wide definition, and such wide definitions aren't useful imo.