Comment by yason | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yason | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That's quite different. She had an option to decline. Maybe it would've a very hard choice indeed, both socially and career-wise but she did have that choice. It might be convenient in some cases to broaden the definition of rape gradually but the bottom line is you can not be raped if you are simply able to walk away.

It might be harassment.

It might be blackmailing.

It might be a lot of nasty, disgusting, and even criminal things.

In the above story, the partner was obviously a complete prick.

But the scheme is inherently different from a rape. This abusing prick could've asked both men or women under his supervision for a number of completely unreasonable favours, whether sexual or non-sexual, declining of which would've been similarly catastrophic for the career of his staff members because of the power the abusing partner held over the matter.

But they could've walked away. Maybe they could have restarted their career elsewhere or had to change careers, I don't know. Life isn't fair. But they could've walked away and from what I understand, so could've this young associate in the law firm.

I think the very definition of rape is crossing the very line where the victim is not allowed to leave and forced to be abused instead. A rape is a physical act of violence, regardless of whether what happens is an intercourse or a blowjob or whatever and whether the victim was physically threatened by fists, a knife, or a gun, but the physical nature of the act means if you are able to walk away the rape doesn't happen because it can not happen. And that is for the same reason why a robber with a knife can't kill you unless you're within a few feet of him. A knifeman can't kill you a block away and a rapist can kill you if you're not there.

In some jurisdictions coercion might translate to non-physical threats. Then maybe there it could be classified as a rape. It's still as wrong as if it's classified as something else. But the dynamic of that situation is nevertheless different from the dynamic of a rape with the latter interpreted in the traditional sense. There is a line between situations from where you can actually walk away and situations from where you can not.

If you threaten to punch someone in the face if she doesn't sleep with you, that's clearly rape. If you threaten to fire someone if she doesn't sleep with you, some people wouldn't call that rape (and the law wouldn't either). But I'd rather get punched in the face then lose a job I worked really hard to get. So why do we consider the latter not as bad?

The belief that physical coercion is worse than economic coercion arises from our deep-seated deference to rich people. A migrant worker has to pull a knife to coerce someone. A law firm partner doesn't have to, but can exercise powers that are just as immorally coercive.

Would it be easier if I called it "white collar rape?"

You bring up a good point, but the law is very clear and intentional (in illinois).

"Uses force or the threat of force." It means that even if you decline you have no choice but to have sex with them. You will be forced to. In the white-collar situation, you can say no, even if you don't want to.

Wait, are you sure that's how to interpret "threat of force"? I would assume that a threat of beating someone up and then leaving would qualify. You disagree?

Did you not read item 4 in the statute you quoted? Here it is again:

"(4) is 17 years of age or over and holds a position of trust, authority, or supervision in relation to the victim, and the victim is at least 13 years of age but under 18 years of age. "

  Yes, as through this world I've wandered
  I've seen lots of funny men;
  Some will rob you with a six-gun,
  And some with a fountain pen.

- Woody Guthrie

This is why the term "slippery slope" is so common in the legal profession. If financial consequences = coercion = rape then there is a huge range of situations that can now be cast under the cloud of rape, such as relationships where one person is financially dependent on the other.

Fortunately some states have laws that specifically define and criminalize sexual extortion. It's distinct from rape / sexual assault but it is a felony.

"relationships where one person is financially dependent on the other."

Suppose a couple lives together, and one tells the other: "let me sodomize you right now or I kick you out of the house and you can live on the street."

What in the world would be the point of arguing that this is not rape?

On the other hand, if there is no threat accompanying a demand for sexual access, it is obviously not rape and nobody is saying it is.

Nobody argued that that isn't rape, but that's because you've folded in what sounds like a physical threat. "Kick you out right now and you can live on the street" sounds more violent than "have sex with me or I initiate divorce proceedings".

The question is whether there's a distinction between economic coercion and rape. rayiner argues no, it's just as coercive as "pulling a knife", but most state laws (I believe) do have distinct definitions of sexual extortion. It's still a felony, so it's really bad, but not quite as severe. I think that probably reflects the truth of a spectrum of coercion from knife-to-throat (class A felony), to lose-your-job (class E felony), to divorce-with-financial-consequences (sad but not criminal). That's the slope one can slide down if we don't have clear tiers and definitions along the way.

What I'm asking is: what is the point of trying to argue that certain kinds of coerced sex are not rape?

I wonder why HN is so sensitive to this line of questioning that they want to censor it outright. Are people emotionally attached to using certain forms of coercion to get sex, while thinking that it's okay or "not rape" because they aren't holding a knife?

"What I'm asking is: what is the point of trying to argue that certain kinds of coerced sex are not rape?"

The point is that if start using a definition outside the standard definition, you tend to lose the trust of an outside observer.

Suppose someone wants to determine what happened in a given set of circumstances. If a person says, "He did X to me under Y conditions" and the observer comes back with "but Y conditions would seem to make X rather difficult" and the original person says "well, I have different definition of X", the observer instantly feels like the credibility of the person has decreased.

If a person gives a pretty unambiguous description of events, their credibility tends to be high. If a person's story is going to be widely believe, believed in a court of law and so-forth, we want their credibility to be high.

I think I can understand emotional appeal of the argument that the victim shouldn't be under scrutiny and shouldn't have to prove her case. But, I'm sorry, reality can't work that way - any system that discards investigation into truth will instead wind up with the truth suiting those having the most power and that only guarantees more victimization on one level or another.

You're responding to me so I'm going to assume you're talking about me, even though I just stated that sexual extortion is a felony, really bad and definitely not "okay".

Your question is like asking what's the point of arguing why certain kinds of homicide are not first degree murder. If you collapse distinctions in an effort to take a "stronger" stance, you might consider that it actually weakens the severity of the gravest charge. Also, it may have the effect of inhibiting understanding of the specific scenarios at hand and thus crafting strategies for targeting them, which is my motivation here.

>what is the point of trying to argue that certain kinds of coerced sex are not rape?

Because if financial coercion counts the same as physical coercion, we will have to completely rebuild how our market functions or else say that financial coercion only equals physical coercion in certain situations, and then come up with a way to determine when it falls under each (at which point, we are back to arguing about if certain kinds of coercion are equal, including if all forms of coerced sex are equal).

Can they legally kick them out? If not, then there is a problem. But if they can legally kick them out and can legally engage in the sexual act with them (so ruling out cases where the other party is underage, intoxicated, ect.), aren't they just saying 'do this legal thing for me or I'll do this other legal thing that I think you won't like'.

My understanding is that you cannot just kick out someone who has been living their legally, so let's make it a legal action instead. "Start having sex with me or I'll start the eviction process." If that is rape, then should not "Start paying or I'll start the eviction process" would be theft?

But I'd rather get punched in the face then lose a job I worked really hard to get. So why do we consider the latter not as bad?

This is strangely reminiscent of a lot of arguments that men's rights activists make. Namely, they'd rather be raped than lose 50% of their income to paternity fraud. They even attach a prefix to the word rape - "divorce rape" instead of "white collar rape".

I take it you also support their arguments, right? Or if you don't, you've got some clear principle separating the two cases?

(Note: I'm taking no position on any of this, just pointing out a possible inconsistency.)

Where the hell did you get that. rayiner is only comparing punching vs. firing. They're making a point entirely about coercion, not directly about rape.

If those guys were talking about getting punched in the face vs. paternity, then you might have a good comparison.

One involves sexual coercion, the other does not, that's the clear principle 'separating' the two, since rape means coercing someone to have sex. I'm surprised that's not clear.

I understand that criminal law appropriately distinguishes between different levels of severity in harmful and socially undesirable behavior, one way or another. But when people start trying to finely parse what kinds of sexual coercion are 'really rape' and what kinds aren't... it's awfully creepy, and sounds like they're looking for an excuse to justify some kinds of sexual coercion. Why would you want to support, justify, or perpetrate (even accidentally), any kind of sexual coercion? Wouldn't you want to try and prevent it from ever happening? You're sounding kind of creepy, friend.

Your post completely misses the point, but I guess ad hominem attacks are easier than actually using reason.

If you reread what I wrote, you'll discover I'm merely pointing out either a) an uncomfortable implication of a line of reasoning or b) a logical flaw in said line of reasoning or c) an unstated premise. I took no actual position myself.

jrochkind1 correctly pointed out that divorce doesn't involve sexual coercion, which seems a good reason not to regard it as an instance of rape.

The issue is not whether the label "rape" should be applied. The issue is whether this line of reasoning is a valid argument for why something should be a crime:

"If you $X that's clearly $CRIME. If you $Y, some people wouldn't call that $CRIME (and the law wouldn't either). But I'd rather get $X then $Y. So why do we consider the latter not as bad?"

I don't think jrochkind1 was appealing to any kind of universal principle, he was just pointing out that there are many ways of coercing people to have sex, and some of the violent ways of doing it aren't obviously worse than some of the non-violent ones. That certainly raises the question of whether we'd want to make a sharp legal distinction between violent and non-violent coercion in the specific case of rape. As some other people have pointed out, it's important to distinguish times when it is and isn't useful to go into a philosophical discussion. If you want to figure out some kind of moral axiom system that makes it possible to "prove" that one form of forced sex is or isn't as bad as another, then that's best saved for a philosophy seminar. In practical terms, it's obvious that there's a danger of minimizing the significance of non-violent forms of sexual coercion due to the view that these don't count as rape.

That certainly raises the question of whether we'd want to make a sharp legal distinction between violent and non-violent coercion in the specific case of rape...times when it is and isn't useful to go into a philosophical discussion.

Take it up with rayiner then. Once you stop discussing what the law says in favor of what it should say, you've already gotten into moralizing. But when it's pointed out that the moralizing is probably flawed, it's no longer the time for moral philosophy?

I.e., I need to turn off my mind the minute it goes against your emotional conclusions. "Won't someone think of the children/women?"

It's odd to suggest that any discussion of possible changes to the law counts as moral philosophy. As for your last two sentences, there's quite a large middle ground between strict demonstrative reasoning and purely emotional argument. In general, it's rare for moral argument to be a strictly demonstrative affair. So yes, it frequently involves an appeal to principles that don't fully generalize. Aristotle has a nice way of putting it:

"Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs."

But I'd rather get punched in the face then lose a job I worked really hard to get. So why do we consider the latter not as bad?

-- I have no objections to saying "his sexual harassment and manipulation was worse than physical rape". I'm wholly on the side of using every means possible to stop both rape and sexual harassment in the workplace and punishing people severely for both. I'm even all in favor of punishing the wealthy for using their wealth in abusive and manipulative ways, sure.

But I think the "it was as bad as rape so we should call it rape" argument really loses potential supporters.

The problem is that redefining the term creates a situation where the outside observer will feel that they can't really verify the truth or even the substance of the claim.

I know the argument that it is wholly unfair to demand that someone who has already been victimized also speak in an exact and clinical fashion about how they have victimized. Yes, it's unfair but is still the only a believable (by an outside observer) argument is going to happen. And there really isn't any alternative to that.

You are not really helping the issue, you are doing that "I support you, but you are so wrong".

The whole "outside observer" smells like slut shaming to me. The article talkings about how to make the social environment in tech better, the clinical definition of rape is not the issue.

you are doing that "I support you, but you are so wrong".

I sure am.

What is the problem with that? People who have been victimized sometimes say things that are incorrect. Pretending that everything someone who has been victimized says is factually correct and credible seems is totally counter-productive, makes all rational dialog impossible and ultimately allows the strongest to impose their version of events since it produces a situation where no one cares about the facts of a situation.

This is ridiculous. I'm "economically" coerced into working every day (i.e. if I don't work, my employer will stop paying me and fire me), but that's completely distinct from slavery, which is work forced using physical coercion (or threats of physical coercion), and is illegal.

What you're describing is essentially prostitution. While illegal in some jurisdictions, it's far from rape.

Drop the issue of sex for a second. Firing someone with no cause is legal in most states (at will employment). Punching someone is rarely legal outside of very specific situations where both sides agree, and never legal when one side does not agree. Yet many will agree there are easily constructed realistic scenarios where a punch in the face is far preferable.

I believe the issue here is far more rooted in classism and, if I may, class warfare.

The parent's description above is rape. See for example the Wikipedia page:

> Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration perpetrated against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent...

See: ...coercion, abuse of authority...

You don't think that it was rape, but that is part of the problem: people are always trying to redefine "rape" so it doesn't cover this or that particular flavor of it. But if it is sex without consent, it's rape, period.

I reference Wikipedia not because it is an unassailable authority, but because it represents the lowest common denominator of what most people agree on.

Referencing Wikipedia in specific technical instances like this is ill advised. Wikipedia is good for summarizing sources, but if you actually read the sources, I don't think you'll find any of them [1][2][3][4] make any mention of "abuse of authority" pertaining to rape.

Rather than reflecting "the lowest common denominator of what most people agree on", it seems more likely this is what one specific individual with a less accepted definition of rape who cares enough to edit the wiki and fight off all dissenters wants you to believe is the default definition of rape.

There's a much simpler definition of "rape" as "being coerced into having sex that you do not want to have." It, of course, is not the present legal definition of rape. But it's something that's easy to talk about and to use in conversation.

In other words, the point is that sex is put into a separate sphere of activity from other ordinarily-pleasant experiences and given a dignity which is not special to those other activities. (This is not particularly tendentious: most cultures have, say, hygeine laws which are important to follow but it's hard to identify the exact reason "why". Egg on your face is "dirty". Will it hurt anyone or cause you to contract or spread disease etc.? No. But it's still dirty and it's still important in our culture.)

The gap from sexual harassment to rape is therefore not, say, violence, but the escalation from uncouth groping to uncouth sex. The fact that there is a narrative where she looks out upon her options and says, "okay, I will fearfully give this man a blowjob rather than give him the middle finger and prepare for joblessness" -- one where she somehow rationally "chooses" sex as her "best option" -- is moot if sex is fundamentally privileged by the society you're a part of. The problem is that the "rape" has essentially happened (it's happened as a conspiracy, say), by the time that that "choice" has to be made.

Is sex somehow fundamentally different than every* other act that it should be treated so differently?

* Every. If I used my power at work to make you eat a literal lunch of feces, is that more or less egregious? I know what my gut would say, but why? Isn't the core bad behavior the concept of abrogating another human's free will? Why is sex in this other classification?

Edit: put another way, why is it that being coerced into sex is much worse than being coerced into e.g., murder. Is it simply the frequency? (It doesn't seem like the issue is that the act is against a specific or particular gender/race/hate crime victim group, unless we're differentiating between "straight rape" or "gay rape", which is a moral hazard worth avoiding...)

Sure, that would be fucked up, wouldn't it?

Fortunately, we don't have too much of a problem with some people forcing other people to eat feces, in the workplace or elsewhere. Or with people scared to complain about their bosses making them eat shit, for fear of ruining their career.

We do have a pretty big problem with sexual violence, sexual coercion, and gender-based discrimination, in the workplace and elsewhere.

A whole bunch of this thread is people wanting to have abstract philosophical arguments, instead of dealing with what's really going on. Abstract philosophical arguments can be fun, when stoned in a dorm room, under-taken between people who find them fun (usually because they're about things that do not have life-or-death consequences... at least for the people in the room).

But they're no substitute for discussion (and action) focused on what's actually going on in the world, people who are being hurt (and I don't mean their 'feelings are hurt'), people who are hurting them (sometimes, but not always, without realizing it), and what to do about it.

I think the OP was pretty masterful in keeping a focus on what's actually going on, and what to do about it, practically, in the real world we live in. HN is showing a masterful ability to turn it into diversionary irrelevant mental masturbation instead, which is depressing me, I actually expected better for some reason.

Very well said. I'm deeply disappointed by a lot of the comments here. Theoretical distinctions and arguments are often important, but it's unacceptable to use sophistry to ignore serious problems.

Making people eat shit feels very far removed from reality. Putting someone on an empty desk facing a wall and give them menial tasks for years is way more life crushing and actually happens.

People are not disingenious nor delusional when saying that as there is rape, there is also mamy other abuses towards people of both sex, and discussing how these happen, how you can get trapped, and should be aware of these situation is valid.

The problem is really to get rid of situation where the balance of power gets so crushing that you are coerced into getting thinhs done to you that you damages you.

Is it better to focus on each single case and find a specific defense ? or can there be a more universal way of doing it ?

I think the problem is really not centered on the sex of the victim, and more on the crushing power and social impunity of the aggressor. Working on that side of the equation would bring improvement for our society as a whole.

Yes, because we live in a rape culture, but not in a coerced murder culture.

Is sex somehow fundamentally different than every other act that it should be treated so differently?

Yes, sex is different from other things. That was the point of the post you're replying to.

If I used my power at work to make you eat a literal lunch of feces, is that more or less egregious?

I mean, I'd say "more egregious", but that's because it strikes me as unrestrained cruelty. A rapist at least has clear selfish motives with a disregard for human decency; someone who's power-tripping and saying "you're going to do this thing just because I know you don't like it and want to make you suffer" is far scarier.

But it doesn't matter which one is more egregious. The point is that you can call the one thing "rape." That is a valid word to use to describe it.

Isn't the core bad behavior the concept of abrogating another human's free will? Why is sex in this other classification?

You're looking at a two-dimensional figure edge-on so that it looks one dimensional, which causes you to think that these two questions are related, but they are not clearly -- they are about different things.

There are lots of things that are scary about rape. It's not just that someone has "abrogated your free will" -- they're using you as an object and thereby dehumanizing you. This means that certain other questions emerge naturally, like "where exactly does that stop?". And that's a matter of fear for your life (which in law is the crime of assault). It's as if an axiom of our logic has been violated: If someone disregards the basic standards of human decency, we lose all proofs/guarantees that they won't, say, kill us for fun.

If you don't understand where this fear comes from, rape will be an academic question for you, and you will miss the real need for social change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com