[ SECRET POST #2441 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2441 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #349.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

[kelincihutan]

Threat of job loss would be a no (and a really strong one at that, which I put in my other comment up the thread some. Also, the difference between pressure and force isn't actually as fuzzy as you're making out, either, at least in OP's example.

In the specific example under discussion, you get a soldier, a commander, and a woman. And the commander goes "You should rape this woman." The soldier knows the commander holds his job in the balance, has the ability to access information on his family, and could probably kill him without too much effort. Even so, at this point, he's received an illegal order since the woman is clearly unwilling, so his oath to the Constitution (if he's American; I'm not sure what nationality OP intended) demands he say no. Now the commander says "Rape her or I'll court martial you." The soldier still has a free choice here regardless of his economic situation. It's not as great a one as he had a minute ago (assuming the court martial will be successful, period), but it's still a choice.

Then the commander pulls his gun and says "Rape her or I'll kill you." This is the point where we have reached coercion in the thought experiment. A direct threat of immanent death that absolutely can be carried out at once. Up to this point, the soldier would have been a rapist if he'd chosen to rape this woman. Here the commander assumes all responsibility for whatever happens next (so if the soldier flips his badass switch and tears the commander's head off with his bare hands, that's the commander's fault too). He has turned the scenario from one of hard decision to one of survival. When you hit that point, the person who caused things to get that way assumes all responsibility.

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

[(Anonymous)]

I viscerally hate this logic because it implies that anything besides the threat of physical bodily harm is not grounds for claiming rape. It's a kind of logic that says that, by extension, people who get blackmailed, shamed, emotionally abused, and otherwise emotionally pressured and/or terrified into having sex are not raped.

Rape is coerced sex. It does not say for whom or with whom. Coerced sex is coerced sex.

Re: i'm not a feminism troll, i swear!

[kelincihutan]

What? No it doesn't imply that. You've made a pretty big leap there for reasons that are not in what I wrote. The situation under discussion isn't one of "You have sex with me or I'll fire you." That is rape. But that's not the scenario we're discussing. What we're talking about is "You have sex with this third party or I'll [insert threat here]." The calculus is obviously different when looking at things that violate your rights versus things that would violate the rights of a third party. And it is only logical that it should be.

Come on now. Are you the OP of the thread? 'Cause s/he was making a similar, logically ungrounded leap.