Hacker News Reader

Comment by swatow | Hacker News Reader

As someone using a colloquial term for anything sexual without consent, obviously. Sex without consent is generally called rape; most people don't have any clue about the exact legal definitions

But most people don't subscribe to your consent based definition of rape. I think the majority of people would lean towards the force based definition of rape. You personally might think that rape should be defined as sex without consent, but that's a different matter.

True, there has been some movement towards consent based laws in the US, but many states still retain the requirement of force (which could be expanded to include threats and physical restraint).

View on HN

> But most people don't subscribe to your consent based definition of rape. I think the majority of people would lean towards the force based definition of rape.

You are wrong; see for example Wikipedia, which represents a broad agreement of many editors and includes both coercion and abuse of authority as types of rape.

Edit to reply to swatow since I've hit the reply limit: that's a good article and I hope you read it carefully and think about what it says.

I don't see how the opinion of Wikipedia editors is a good source for how rape is defined colloquially.

Here is an article that discusses the controversy over force based vs consent based definitions of rape.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117630/jed-rubenfeld-rape...

That's a good article! But I'm kind of confused why you linked it, when it so closely supports the position you've been arguing against?

As your link makes clear, most states, the federal government, the legal community, and popular opinion has moved away from force based definitions as archaic and offensive. Which was, of course, my point.

I mean, it's literally an article about one iconoclasts weird and much criticized view that maybe rape shouldn't be defined as sex without consent. Even if you agree with him, the existence of the article proves that it's a fringe position, right? (And much of the article is actually just Rubenfeld saying he actually agrees with is critics, and disagrees with the historical requirement to show force, so...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com