Sex, rape, and power

On Feb 2, 6:46 am, s...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
> In article <ku54s2l92ghnoejql1q3lh4lcibdass...@4ax.com>,

> Given the prevalence of "all sex is rape" among feminists, that
> certainly isn't the first group whose opinions I'd consider.

Got you thinking, though, didn't it?  I'm not agreeing that "all sex is rape" either, but I do think it not beyond the bounds of reason to say "all forced sex is rape" regardless of the means used to coerce the unwilling participant.

Nor do I mean to imply that under current law, or under any reasonable extension of the law, "economic force" such as in the landlord example could be prosecutable as a crime.  But one might have said the same thing a few decades ago about a rape prosecution against a husband who physically forced his wife to have sex when she was unwilling.  Such prosecutions are, if not common these days, at least well known to exist.  The law has changed.

I guess what I'm angling for is a world where relationships (of all kinds -- economic, sexual, international) are increasingly built upon cooperation for enlightened mutual self-interest rather than naked, screw-the-other-guy competition.  IN other words, compete with your independent opponents, not with your partners.  I know we're a long way off from that world and may never get there -- naked competition has been the Way of All Flesh since Cain slew Abel.  But a large part of what modern civilization -- and in particular the rule of law -- tries to do is to put limits on naked competition and require at least a measure of consideration for the rights and needs of others.

In context of sexual relations, a mutual choice to engage in sex by partners who are of co-equal standing in that relationship, and who freely consent, without any complusion, economic or otherwise, is the ideal.   Of course most relationships, including probably most marriages, fall short of that ideal.  Which does NOT make such relations into the prosecutable crime of rape.   It just means they've got some serious issues to work out for both of them to be truly happy.

IIRC the feminist syllogism you cite -- which NOT all feminists agree with -- goes something like this.

primary premise -- all forced sex is rape.
secondary premise -- sex between people who are not co-equal in power, compelled by any factor whatsoever, be it economic, psychological, physical -- is forced sex.
intermediate conclusion -- all sex between people who are not co-equal is rape.
tertiary premise -- male-female relationships (in present day paternalistic society) are not co-equal and will not be until women are treated as equals in every way with men.
final conclusion -- all sex between men and women is rape.

I do not personally agree with that logic, or with the conclusion.   I believe that even though, statistically, men as a group and women as a group are not yet equal in economic and political power, it is entirely possible, even common, for individual couples to have a loving, co-equal relationship.  However, that is a relatively modern invention of romantic love, and marriage as we know it has always been primarily an economic and political alliance between potentially warring partners and their families, whether we're talking about King Henry and Eleonor of Aquitaine ("The Lion In Winter") or Ralph and Alice Kramden.

> In that hypothetical, what if some third party offers to pay her rent
> in return for sex (either offering her cash, or calling in a favor
> from the landlord)?

I would posit that, if the benefactor were someone she wanted to have sex with anyway, e.g. her chosen boyfriend, then there is no compulsion involved and thus no "moral" rape (as stated above I don't think either example rises to the level of "criminal" rape).  If it's just the sleazy guy in the apartment next door who overhears the lady's plight and offers to "help her out" in exchange for sexual favors, I don't see that in any way morally different than if the landlord is the one who does it.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685      (fax) 410-740-4300