[unepipe]

Forced oral sex is considered rape. This isn't feminist redefinition. You think if a gun is to your head and you give a blowjob that is sexual harassment? Think about someone who has a family and needs their income, and what this kind of situation puts them in.

[BadassFractal]

For the sake of argument, let me play the devil's advocate here and do a bit of armchair philosophy.

Let's say I have a family, many mouths to feed, maybe it's the last job I could possibly get in my small town in the middle of nowhere. I hate the job, it sucks the life out of me, I don't want to do it, but I'm forced to "against my will" every single day because otherwise my family will starve to death. If I lose it, I might never find one again. I'm under duress. Sure, there's no sexual abuse in this specific scenario, but as other posters have mentioned, modern definition of rape makes it not about sex, but about power structures.

Am I being raped, in the scenario above?

Note: I want to stress that I'm simply having a philosophical discussion here, I have no agenda, downvotes are pointless.

[randyrand]

Okay, more devils advocate.

Your boss comes into the office to fire you. You really really need your job or you and your family starve. You really really don't want to. In fact you would do anything but stoop to this level. But you have no choice and you know he is into you. Your family is starving. You decide to ask your boss, "I'll fuck you if I keep the job." He agrees.

It's still sex against your will. You're only doing it to get the job, so your children don't starve. Were you raped?

[cstrahan]

That sounds more like prostitution.

I think the important element is this: did person A attempt to coerce person B into having sex? If yes, then A raped B.

Let's apply that to your scenario. Is the boss trying to coerce the employee into having sex? No, the boss is firing the employ because

* Maybe they're a shitty employee, or

* Perhaps because the company has dwindling resources, or

* Fill in the blank.

In your scenario, the employee came up with a plan to try to sell sex in exchange keeping their job. That's prostitution: "the act of having sex in exchange for money." As a boss, I would decline that offer because, among other things, it would probably look like I was threatening to take away the employees job (i.e. coercion) if I wasn't given sex - even if that was never my intent.

If, on the other hand, the boss implied or suggested that the employee could keep their job in exchange for sex, that's coercion and is therefore rape.

It's not about "not wanting to do something", it's about coercion. If I'm legitimately fired and I offer sex in exchange for my job, that _is_ my will. If someone threatens (express of implied) to take my job away unless I have sex with them, that's their will, they're coercing me to have sex with them, and that's rape.

[golemotron]

The tragedy of all of this is that it is endlessly open to "he said" versus "she said." And that's the problem with the expansive definition of rape. In the case we are talking about the evidence would have to be that she felt coerced and that there was a power structure that make her feel coerced. It's entirely possible for someone to be in that power structure and still consent or (if they are a bad actor) say that they felt coerced after the fact. Criminal indictment and conviction should be based more than a just a victims statement of their subjective experience.

[code_reuse]

I suppose it depends on what the word 'rape' is to you. To me it is a word in the English vernacular which has a certain meaning to everyday people. To me preserving that lexical meaning is super important because it fosters a common understanding between people which is the primary thing.

The word or concept has nothing to do with jurisprudence or the idea of jurisdiction which is what many people here keep referencing. A word still holds it's proper definition in the minds of men and it is prudent to defend them as such irregardless of what goes on within government.

[bluehat]

Why is this the most important philosophical discussion to have right now? I just explained how terrible things can be, a thing I called rape only one of a large number of issues.

Why is "was she technically correct in saying rape" the most important takeaway from this? Even if I'm wrong, don't you see other things worth fixing?

[JohnBooty]

I don't understand this. I don't think anybody is suggesting that nonsexual activities be classified as rape.

[code_reuse]

It puts her in a stressful situation because now she has to contemplate things like going into debt while she takes the time to secure another job. Or if she doesn't have any credit then she would have to lean on her husband, or an extended family member, or worse of all end up living on the street and putting her children into foster care. She would have to calculate her odds of how likely that situation would be to transpire and whether or not it would actually expose her or her children to physical danger.

What if the woman knows that her rural grandparents or great aunt would probably look after the kids while the mom was looking for a job (perhaps living in her car part of the time) ? In that case then what you're talking about is not a threat of violence, what you're talking about is a threat of having to leave the so called middle class lifestyle and fall into a diminished or poverty-stricken lifestyle.

It's a horrible thing to have to contemplate because and the lower you fall in the socio-economic todem pole the more physical dangers you're exposed to during the course of everyday living, but that doesn't mean her situation is the same as rape