fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2132 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2132 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 100 secrets from Secret Submission Post #305.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I took a Shakespeare class briefly a few years ago. We were discussing Measure for Measure one day. For those who haven't read the play, Angelo is the law enforcement, and Isabella's brother Claudio is on death row. Angelo tells Isabella he'll free Claudio only if she sleeps with him. Someone in the class said Isabella was selfish for refusing the deal, and I said something along the lines of "I don't think it's fair for Claudio to expect his sister to let herself be raped for him". The professor interrupted and said that it wouldn't have been rape. I countered that it was sexual coercion, which is the same thing because forced consent isn't consent, and he insisted that no, sexual coercion =/= rape. Realizing it was pointless to argue when he was so set in his opinion, I dropped the subject and the class.

Everyone else I talked to at the time (minus my parents, who only care that I do well in school regardless of horrible faculty) agreed that what the professor had said was highly offensive and completely untrue. But I tend to hang out with like-minded people, and I've realized that those who were outraged for my sake are in fact a pretty small sample size. Now that the incident has come back to mind, I'm kind of curious as to what you guys think about it.

I think, if it was a real life event, it would be rape, but I think, in-story at least, it's meant to come off as dub-con, if that makes sense? And when discussing it/analyzing it, it should be referred to as rape, but I think, in the play itself, it's supposed to be seen as more dub-con-y.

...Or maybe that was just the version I saw.

I would say that "rape" here is just bad terminology. Sexual coercion is a horrible thing, but it's not rape, they're just technically not the same thing.

Calling sexual coercion "rape" is pretty much like calling, let's say, consensual underage sex "incest" or whatnot. Both are bad IRL? Yes. Both are the same thing? Absolutely no.

OK, I'm not even sure that incest IRL is bad. Don't get me wrong, just made up an incorrect example. Probably consensual adult incest is biologically not fine and seems weird, but I absolutely don't mind people having whatever sexual life they want until everyone is happy and the law stays unbroken.

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter.

In a real life event it would be rape. I believe if it was taken up in a US court of law he would be charged as a rapist. (I'm unsure what country you're from and I'm only familiar with US laws.)

In olden times Shakespeare? It's still rape but the characters may not see it that way. I'm unsure about their definitions back in the day.

Edited 2012-11-03 21:22 (UTC)

He was wrong.

I'm not entirely sure it is.

It's certainly immoral, and a crime, but calling it rape gets us into messy ground about the exact nature of consent and what specifically constitutes rape.

Better just to call it sexual coercion.

I vaguely remember reading Measure for Measure in high school, and it being called rape by a few people, including the teacher.

In terms of...legality, though? I'm not as sure.

I typed up a long response, then realized it basically boiled down to this:

Coerced sex is just an attempt to do an end-run around rape by getting the victim to say "yes."

A "yes" in this sort of case is not really consent to sex, it's consent to opt-out of the alternative.

I haven't read this play, but I'd say Isabella was not selfish and your professor seems to be too hung up on semantics to consider how the people involved would actually feel.

I wouldn't call it rape because for the simple fact that Isabella had the choice to refuse while a rape victim is never given that choice to refuse sex. Yes, Isabella is given a horrible choice but it is still choice where she can refuse sex.

A better question would be, can sexual coercion be just a traumatizing as rape? I believe so.

Yeah, I agree. I think there's a very fine line there,but yes, that's the distinction.

It's rape because she didn't have a choice.

That's like saying if someone held a knife up to your throat and made you agree to have sex with them, it isn't rape because you "agreed". They're not focusing on the fact that she was threatened.

This.

From wikipedia: In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]". Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform. The notion of duress must be distinguished both from undue influence in the civil law and from necessity.

Duress has two aspects. One is that it negates the person's consent to an act, such as sexual activity or the entering into a contract; or, secondly, as a possible legal defense or justification to an otherwise unlawful act.[1] A defendant utilizing the duress defense admits to breaking the law, but claims that he/she is not liable because, even though the act broke the law, it was only performed because of extreme unlawful pressure.[2] In criminal law, a duress defense is similar to a plea of guilty, admitting partial culpability, so that if the defense is not accepted then the criminal act is admitted.

Duress or coercion can also be raised in an allegation of rape or sexual assault to negate a defense of consent on the part of the person making the allegation.

Rape by coercion, I'd call it. I feel uncomfortable calling it "sexual coercion" since that makes it sound like it was one step away from seduction, to me. "Have sex with me or [insert horrible thing I will do]" is not merely persuasion, it's a threat, and you can't truly consent to being punched in the face when the only alternative is your house being burned down. It's a different level of severity from being jumped in a dark alley, I suppose, but it's still rape.

[ SECRET POST #2132 ]

Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion

Re: Warning: discussion of sexual coercion