1) Why is this rape? Because coercion doesn't just take the form of physical violence.

2) Why not report to the police? Because it's mutually assured destruction. Even if you bring the guy down, you'll be known as the woman who called the police on her boss.

3) Why let it happen more than once? If you've ruled out calling the police, what are you going to do? Can you afford to quit your job on the spot? Can you compromise your long term future at the firm by bringing it to the management? You've worked years to get to where you are, and you just want to do your job and try to get ahead, just like your coworkers who didn't catch the eye of some creep.

http://jezebel.com/how-to-make-an-accused-rapist-look-good-1...

I'd known, intellectually, that a large fraction of rape is perpetrated by someone the victim knows and somewhat trusts. But the story here put concrete details to that and made me think. What do you do if someone you like, who you have been consensually involved with, takes advantage of you? What do you do if they had been, until then, your strongest support at a new school (or in a new job, or something), and social structures are that you're expected to keep working together? Is there even a better response than pretending it didn't happen, at least for a bit?

I'm also a little ashamed to say that, if I hadn't heard stories like this one and thought them through, I can see myself being the skeptical cop who says, well, why were you continuing to hang out with him and invite him over. And I'd known intellectually that skeptical cops were a problem that dissuaded reporting, and that it often was naïveté not malice, but never thought through what an actual case would look like.

I was curious if this is technically rape in my home state (Illinois) so I looked it up...

edit: Already downvoted? C'mon this is relevant!

  (720 ILCS 5/11-1.20) (was 720 ILCS 5/12-13) 
    Sec. 11-1.20. Criminal Sexual Assault. 
  (a) A person commits criminal sexual assault if that person commits an act of sexual penetration and:
        (1) uses force or threat of force;
        (2) knows that the victim is unable to understand the nature of the act or is unable to give knowing consent;
        (3) is a family member of the victim, and the victim is under 18 years of age; or
        (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.

Why?

What is the point of arguing that blackmailing people into sex isn't rape?

The issue here is that, in your ignorance of legalese, you've misinterpreted the word "force" with a colloquial definition.

Then, because of a mental bias like Dunning-Kruger, you did not stop to think that your ignorance to law would prevent you from having an understanding, you assumed that you were correct in your interpretation by default.

In law, "force" is an interesting concept. You assumed it meant only "unlawful violence" but in law "compulsion" is the second major part of force. As in, compelling someone to act against their free will, which violates their Inalienable Right to Liberty.

You should investigate the legal concept of "force" further because I think you'll find that coercion, blackmail, duress, or any other form of behavior control constitutes legal force and would quality as rape under Illinois law.

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.

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?"

-- 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.

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.

  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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.)

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

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.

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.

"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?"

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?"

"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."

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

> 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.

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.

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.

* 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...)

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.

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.

If her boss found her attractive enough to want a blowjob, why won't he progressively try to get as much as he can get away with ?

She was not in position to refuse the first step, she won't be in a better position to refuse further abuse.

At the first threat, I have the feeling she already has to choose between her career and getting abused for years.

  > Young associate worked for this partner

1. It's quite likely that leaving firm as a young associate carries a huge negative connotation. In other words, her choices might not have been "give a blowjob" or "quit and find another job." It might have been more like "give a blowjob" or "quit and find another job, and maybe not find another job because there's this huge negative on her resume."

2. The law profession has a reputation for being quite chummy. If she had quit over this harassment, even if she filed no charges then it's quite possible that this partner would have gone on the offensive to discredit her character to other influential people.

Once you're out, it's very hard to get back in. So in practice firms have quite a bit of leverage to demand things like work 100 hours in a week, staying until 2am, cancel plans with family on short notice, etc.

Edit: I mean unheard of to leave with no new job and try to get another one in Biglaw.

I am genuinely curious about this point. Why are men in a different situation? Couldn't a homosexual boss want to coerce blowjobs from male subordinates?

  > I am genuinely curious about this point. Why are men 
  > in a different situation? Couldn't a homosexual boss
  > want to coerce blowjobs from male subordinates?

I only mentioned it because the poster I responded to had said, "I'm sure that as a heterosexual man, regardless of my financial circumstances, no one could coerce me into giving blowjobs" and I thought it important to say that there are different dynamics involved there.

If a male boss tried to coerce a male employee into sex, the male victim would be much more likely to respond with physical force, so it's less likely to happen in the first place. The male victim would also be more likely to be viewed as unambiguously victimized, whereas in a male-on-female situation there's likely to be a lot of well, she probably wanted it type speculation and/or congratulation of the male aggressor.

In some senses it might even be more difficult for a male victim. A male victim might be viewed as "weak" for letting it happen in the first place. Whatever the case I'm sure we can agree that it's quite a different dynamic, so the original poster's well, as a man, I'd never let this happen to meeee is not really a useful road to travel down.

It's a common question men have about harassment or abuse of women, especially sexual. Why not just say no? Why not fight back harder? I'm no expert in the subject, but this is my undertanding:

For one thing, generally men are raised to be aggressive -- never let anyone push you around. Women are raised to be inoffensive, pleasing, agreeable. Aggression is unfeminine; it scares off or alienates males; our culture models being the kidnapped princess awaiting rescue (still true in most movies, games, etc.), not the hero on the horse. EDIT: It might be as hard for a woman to respond aggressively as for you to smile sweetly when someone is abusing you.

For another, they are physically overmatched. Probably their life-long experience and realistic assessment is that fighting males is dangerous.

Also, these things don't happen out of the blue. People are 'groomed'; attackers establish their authority and push for more and more. They wait for the right moment, when victims' defenses are weak. The attacker may have experience with these situations.

Lots of people are intimidated into doing things they don't want to do, often when they are young and little green, especially by authority figures and especially when believing something valuable is on the line, such as their career. What if you had kids and a mortgage? A sick spouse or parent and needed the health insurance?

Finally, I don't know you at all, but I know that far more people say these tough things than rise to the moment when faced with danger, with anxiety and fear soaring and everything on the line. I think panic is a more common response.

EDIT: But how sad that HN seems so male-dominated that we have to speculate about the female pespective. Wow.

At some point you crossed the line of acceptable intimacy (probably rather early) and it escalated from there as you were uncertain how to deal with the relationships.

Is it cold hard rape? No. Is it an unacceptable and illegal exploitation of power and psychological torment by the boss? Yes.

Has anyone on HN seen a coworker give another coworker a massage?

I'm even a bit hesitant to give people high-fives. And those emotional goodbyes where you hug employees on their last day in the office? Those are very awkward for me, but everyone else is doing it... so... I just go along. =/

There is a concerted attempt now to characterize sexual harassment as rape. The person we are replying to did it in an off-hand manner and it is wrong - not just as a point of law but as a strategy for social change.

However, I think it kind of misses the point to adjudicate sexual harassment vs. rape in these cases. Saying it's merely sexual harassment implies that it's somehow not an issue. The point is that it's clearly a malicious act, not a well-intentioned boundary-crossing misunderstanding.

Often the opposite happens to a woman who accuses a senior manager of sexual assault.

It's not being a man or woman, being straight or gay, being compatible or not with an abuser, that makes the difference here. Unwanted sex is soul-destroying for everyone. Routine sexual abuse is a horrible, unbearable prospect. For everyone.

It's the implication of the "most" that you're missing.

Most people would walk away from that job. Most people would run!

But that's most. Who else is left?

Who wouldn't run from a situation like that?

I don't know why the particular lady described above didn't run sooner. But I can think of some people who wouldn't.

Someone for whom that job represented their one and only opportunity to break into their chosen field. Someone for whom what was at stake was not just one source of a paycheck, but their entire livelihood. Their entire chosen career. It might be worth it, then, to endure the abuse until you could safely move on.

Someone who was too young or inexperienced to understand their options. Who didn't know this isn't just the way the world works. Who didn't know what resources society offers to fight back with, who didn't think the community would help or back them if they left. Someone who literally sees no way to fight back, for whom leaving represents a public humiliation they see as even more painful than the private humiliation. It might be worth it then.

Someone living paycheck to paycheck, who can't afford to miss even one without seeing their family plunged into immediate misery.

Someone for whom the job represented access to health insurance that was keeping their daughter alive, that they couldn't afford another way.

Someone suffering depression, with such a low sense of self-worth that no abuse feels undeserved, without the will to fight anything in any way.

In short, someone vulnerable.

Yeah, most people don't need a job badly enough to be worth selling their soul and dignity for. Those people aren't raped under the threat of losing their job. It's everyone else who has to worry about that problem.

It is a cruel truth that the people who can leave, the people who can fight back, the people who have the will and resources and personality to retaliate . . . are the ones who are left alone.

This isn't a situation you could find yourself in now. It's not a situation you probably ever could find yourself in. Maybe, though. Life is crazy. Imagine yourself five years of hell from now. Imagine you're diagnosed with cancer, put your life on hold for a grueling year or two, lose all your health, all your savings, and the currency of your skills. Imagine an overzealous state prosecutor comes after you for a crime you didn't commit, and after two years of stressful court battles, you're convicted and serve some time in prison. Imagine you forget what financial security ever felt like. Imagine the stress results in crippling depression, and thoughts of suicide prompt you to seek medical help. Imagine the medication you're given comes with side effects, and you experience severe mood swings, alienating everyone but your closest family and friends. Imagine as you start to recover from all of that, you move two states away from anyone you know to get a new job and start over.

I don't know what it would take for you to become so vulnerable that someone thought they could take advantage of you to that degree. I do know that whatever it would take for you personally, life can be that cruel, and more. Rape is not a female problem, and it's not a male problem. It's a vulnerability problem. If someone ever does take a look at you, and think to themselves, "that guy is so completely under my power that I bet I could get him to blow me" . . . it won't matter a bit that you're a heterosexual man. Getting someone to put up with sexual abuse requires extreme vulnerability. If someone ever thinks they see it in you, for whatever reason, for whatever combination of circumstances is necessary to make that true, there's a good chance they'll be right.

It's true with most kinds of attacks -- the strong aren't the ones who have to worry. The powerful, even the merely self-sufficient, are left alone. The vulnerable people are the ones who are targeted. It's extra true with abuse in general, and sexual abuse in particular. The ones who are targeted are the ones who would need extraordinary outside help in order to stop it. For whatever reason.

That is why it is so important to intervene aggressively if you see a problem. The people who can help themselves are already not targets.

At which point we have to consider they are being coerced to work where they do and thus it should be considered slavery.

Imagine you walked up to some one (of the gender you prefer) who had a dying child that needed a life saving operation and you had enough free income to pay for the procedure.

If you walked past them, would you be guilty of contributing to their death?

If you asked them to trade possessions for the money, would you be guilty of theft?

If you asked the individual to do some non-sexual tasks for the money, would you be guilty of slavery?

If the above are no, why would asking for sex in exchange make one guilty of rape?

That's a very dangerous place for law and social retribution to go. It would actually be better to outlaw sexual relations between people in reporting relationships in employment.

    > heterosexual man, regardless of my financial
    > circumstances, no one could coerce me into giving
    > blowjobs under the threat of losing my job

Yes as a hetro guy you're going to have trouble imagining a situation where you end up with a penis in your mouth, but I suspect with a bit of imagination you can think of how you might end up in a very uncomfortable situation with a female boss that you don't feel you can get out of.

As a man, I may have a hard time understanding any nuances here, but I think being known as "the woman who called the police on her boss" would be highly advantageous in creating a filter where the only male bosses who would want to hire you are the ones who know they aren't going to rape you. Or try to fuck you "consensually" (air quotes) either.

The person becomes a very risky hire personally to the new boss then, because if the police were called once, they might be called again, even if you did nothing wrong. And your career and future income might be ruined. It's much safer to just hire the other person with no history of police involvement.

The general principle can be applied to other crimes too.

The practical result of this is that it puts the onus onto the victim: "You didn't resist enough. Therefore your rape was nonviolent; therefore it was a lesser crime."

Rape is sex against one's consent. Your consent is just as violated whether you resisted a little, a lot, or not at all (perhaps you were incapacitated by the attacker.)

In many scenarios the most prudent thing for a victim to do is not to physically resist; as rape is largely a male-on-female crime the victim is frequently at a physical disadvantage.

My wife is a small woman. If God forbid this ever happens to her, I certainly hope that the situation remains nonviolent. But I certainly don't see how that would make it less of a crime.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

Not at all. Feminists are doing it to call attention to the true nature of power, and the fact that power is expressed in many ways -- only one of them is physical violence. When your attacker possesses power and you don't, that means that you don't have options (or that they are severely restricted). If you don't have options because someone else restricts them, well, that's the definition of coercion, and sex under coercion means rape.

The definition hasn't changed; rape has always been sex under coercion. All that's changed is that now the law reflects our better understanding of power.

It sounds like the young lady experienced sexual harassment and decided that it was worth it to willingfuly have sex with a coworker in order to continue to prop up a financial relationship so that she wouldn't have to deal with the burden of needing to take on some debt, or move in with a relative while she goes out to find another job.

You are assuming that she can somehow show evidence that she believed that it was nearly impossible for her to get another job, and in addition that she believed that losing her income stream would have caused her or her children to actually starve to death. Maybe if she lived in a POW camp where prisoners are assigned strict food rations and a guard was threatening her with losing her only way to get a meal then it would make sense to call it rape rather than sexual harassment. In America though you can go work at McDonalds if you don't have a prior felony record or even go to a homeless shelter.

She could have just sued the bastard to recoup those losses anyways right ? (in theory) Especially if she has that legal background.

I'm not trying to defend the criminal who sexually harassed her but I am trying to point out that falsely accusing someone of rape is a serious crime unto itself.

  > In America though you can go work at McDonalds if you
  > don't have a prior felony record or even go to a
  > homeless shelter.

Would the police do anything about the scenario you outlined above? Wouldn't sexual harassment where the boss trades sexual favors for promotions/job security be considered a civil matter in most places?

In your world view, it it inappropriate for any sexual intercourse to exist between a person of power and a subordinate who might gain from a relationship? Because the conclusion of #2 seems to be that sexual relationships can only exist between social / workplace equals, otherwise it will be M.A.D.

Rape is very serious. Sexual relationships are very complex. Every situation is different, and there is nobody (famous) on this forum that knows all the facts and should comment on this case, and should especially not try to draw conclusions from it.

This is more of a comment about the thread in general than your response, except where I specifically asked questions.

I feel like this is the kind of brave move we'd want to reward, for helping to clean up the whole firm.

Ok, I'm naive. So be it.

Sextortion could happen even without pressure to hang out in social situations, for example. One person simply extorts another, forces them to meet in private. But what the OP is describing seems to be more in the realm of, I don't want to be alone around this person but I have to for professional reasons, and they keep taking advantage of it to rape.

That might be something that startups can actually target with policies that ensure unsupervised social contact with colleagues is not necessary for professional advancement. That's not really on anyone's radar, it seems.

" (b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress."

Every question you've asked is based on fear. Doing nothing because of that fear is cowardice. You are defending it. Stop it. Nothing can be borne from it.

Other countries might lump them together, or call them different names. If you're trying to discuss the actual crimes, you'd want to 1) mention what jurisdiction you're talking about and 2) use the actual names of the crimes as per the statute book. But as a practical matter, it's all rape.

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. You don't even know what legal jurisdiction OP is in; how could you interpret the word as anything but the colloquial definition?

> In the US I don't believe there is any such crime as rape by threatening to fire someone, or if there is it is not a serious crime.

First, sex crimes are defined at the state level in the US, so it doesn't even make sense to discuss what "the" law is in the US. Pick your state, and you get your answer.

Second, if we pick, eg, Michigan, you're describing...hmm. "Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct", which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Not sure about you, but I'd call that a serious crime. Other states have different laws, but generally speaking getting someone to perform an act via the threat of firing is coercion, and penetration achieved via coercion is one of the more serious forms of sexual assault.

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.

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...

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...)

We call sexual coercion rape because it can cause severe and lasting trauma even if physical violence or threat of physical violence is not part of the coercion.

You're missing the threat of violence.

We know rape is statistically a problem and we know it isn't well-studied. We are scientists. The next thing to do is not to listen to panic and get reactionary, it is to dedicate the resources necessary to pursue a proper understanding of it.

We're also engineers and entrepreneurs. I'd like to think we know well enough that to start with the lowest hanging fruit when trying to make positive change.

These are the reasons I'm not really ready to march in here with a "how to fix rape: the article." I would be really excited to see what other people have written as far as possible solutions to this. I'm trying to read through scholarly criminology journals when I have time. They're doing some good work. I wish more smart people were paying attention.

In the meanwhile, what I am for sure is needed is for people to look out a little bit for each other, so if there is somebody in your life who has reason to feel afraid and alone (or afraid of being alone), they know they aren't going to be.

For example, is it after work parties involving alcohol? Does it involve professional blackmail? If so, was there no way to gather evidence that could be used for prosecution, such as a clandestine recording?

It seems to me like there could be an opportunity to speak to the startup community here and now and implement a policy that targets these specific circumstances, and make a difference in the near term.

See her comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9168542

I think this is pretty common and is why many rapes go un-reported. Reporting some criminal stranger on the street who jumps you seems like a no brainer to me, but reporting someone you thought was a friend and who is friends with most of your friends? I bet a lot of people decide it's not worth upending their lives and starting over for.

Now this sounds rather as an assault, a sick power play, but I would accept it called rape when it involved was sexual amusement but probably sexual assault would be a better term as it would not dilute the meanings confusingly.

Nonetheless this kind of behaviour is sickening and not acceptable by any means but it would explain why it was possible to tolerate it multiple times and how hard it was to do anything to prove that it happened.

Edit:

I think that it would be much easier to fight with such behaviour by calling it by actual names.

For example "Stop sexual assaults at work" would be in my opinion much more convincing and believable slogan than the exaggerated wording.

This would make the fight with the problem easier as it would not create that much confusion and opposition from it.

Using strong words creates opposition as people would find it by their own experience rather not believable but perhaps they have seen, heard something that would fit sexual assault definition or sexual harassment definition.

I believe that it would be much easier to define and establish the definition of sexual assault in peoples minds and educate them to see it than trying to redefine the established definition of rape in the society.

For clarification, I consider here acts that are described by

"A second colleague at a different institution held me against a wall against my objections and struggles and hit me with objects for his own amusement."

Now again, we should not tolerate this kind of behaviour and we should fight against it but I think it would be easier when we do not call it by too strong names as it would be then easier to establish this as wrongful and not acceptable behaviour in peoples minds.

I think that it is easier to fight with concrete problems individually rather than stretching the definitions.

No, it won't, and let me explain why. One of the well known forms of sexism is what I like to call (I wonder if there's an academic name for this) "everyone's a lawyer". You'll find that often when men report wrongdoings, there's a simple expression of outrage, but when women do, everyone's a lawyer who says "of course that's horrible, but let's call it by the right name".

Leave the precise naming of offenses to the courts; these are legal definitions, after all, and we are not judges and not bound by the rules of evidence. The best way to fight it is to express outrage, period. No caveats, no "right names", and no legal maneuvering that is not our job anyway.

So I doubt your notion that for men we just express outrage when large institutions are able to wrongly redefine things in a way to dismiss male victims.

Why does this matter for the topic matter of the essay? For real.

Why is the most important thing to discuss, in response to the issues raised in the essay, technical or legal definitions of the word 'rape'? Apparently most important thing to a great many HN commenters as it's incredibly well-represented this unusually enormous comments thread.

Seriously, I'm asking, why is this such an important or interesting point to so many here, the legal definition or rape?

I thought one of the most interesting and important points in the OP was about moving away from concerns about legal liability and towards concerns about keeping people safe and treated with dignity -- because the former has not accomplished the latter.

The part where you engaged in argument about whether rape was the right word (for some hypothetical undescribed situation), arguing it was important not to use it unless it was... was where I got that idea. So, the whole comment.

I'm sorry if I got the wrong idea, and at any rate I acknowledge I was reacting to the direction of this collective thread with many participants, not just specifically to your post. In fact, I wrongly assumed you were the same person who participated in the replied-to replied-to post, without checking the names.

I am also sorry that you feel your safety was threatened by my post, requiring you to reply to restore your safety, my intent was not to threaten your safety in any way.

You're accusatory tone set me in a light that made me look like The Bad Guy™. I don't like looking like The Bad Guy™ so and having already been downvoted, for the "safety" of my reputation, I felt the need to respond to your comment.

(Yeah, now _that_, which I just wrote, does sound accusatory, I agree. from the demand that you quote me, to calling your post a 'tirade'. You know where I got the template.)

That's why I hate these sorts of topics on HN. The community morphs into a hot-tempered accusatory group of individuals who takes any discussion of gendered discrimination and violence in the workplaces as an attack on them personally, and responds by attacking the honesty, intelligence, or motivation of the women describing their experiences, usually while descending into philosophical sophistry instead of actually engaging the subject matter in an honest discussion of how we can reduce people's feelings of unsafety in our workplaces.

Someone is downvoting every comment I leave in this thread but I'm going to go out on a limb and explain myself in case you truly care why I believe your post was accusatory and mine wasn't.

pron (the user I originally replied to) said:

> Leave the precise naming of offenses to the courts; these are legal definitions, after all, and we are not judges and not bound by the rules of evidence. The best way to fight it is to express outrage, period.

It seemed to me pron's argument was essentially even if someone was not raped and was instead sexually harrassed they should call it rape as to express outrage. That argument seemed so absurd to me that I felt I needed confirmation that was in fact the argument being made and so I replied to them with the comment:

> Are you saying even if it wasn't a rape by whatever your very own definition of rape, you would rather call it rape to express outrage?

That's it. I was not attempting to be accusatory but just seeking clarification.

You on the other hand asked me:

> Are you saying that it's important to argue about whether the word 'rape' is the right word or not?

Which came straight out of left field for me and thus your comment felt accusatory to me. I didn't feel I did something and but felt I was accused of doing it and thus described your comment as accusatory.

You seem to dislike me. I don't know why. You seem like you care about gender equality. That makes you sound like a nice person. But that way you talk to me is so off-putting and I don't know why you feel the need to be so venomous to someone asking a question. This is not unique to you and not the first time I encountered someone like this on HN. Maybe if we weren't communicating via text and instead speaking to one another face to face we'd treat each other differently. I hope that's what it would be like.

People who act maliciously don't need justification from me. But sexism is usually inadvertent, and "everyone's a lawyer" is a classic, usually innocent, response. So people who are not misogynist, but simply sexist (and we all are to some degree) -- because that's how we've been trained to be -- can benefit from me pointing out this difference in how we respond to stories by women differently from those by men. My goal is not to maintain the moral high ground (which I know I possess in this case anyway), but simply to educate those who wish to learn. Change will be made through education of the "innocent sexists"; not by reforming misogynists.

Are you saying even if it wasn't a rape by whatever your very own definition of rape, you would rather call it rape to express outrage?

I see a lot these sorts of threads end up with people talking past each other and not really responding to each other questions. Let's try not to do that. We can maybe move forward in the conversation and perhaps you can educate me on the topic. But if you don't answer straight-forward yes or now question I'm just left wondering if I should take any education I receive from you seriously.

What I think is terrible, though, is that when a fellow worker in my industry describes a horrible experience, some people's first response is to discuss the precise legal definition of said horrible experience. It does not surprise me, though, as "everybody's a lawyer" is a very common sexist response to such events. You'll notice that stories by men are not met with the same discourse.

In any case, the very first thing for someone wishing to learn how sexism and racism work, is by reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)

The sum of all the things she has dealt with are incredibly saddening to me. I have met Katy before and seen how much she did for Hacker Dojo and have a lot of respect for her.

I think the focal point for change is exactly what she is saying regarding "whistle blowers". Someone that comes forward to reveal crimes whether it be Snowden or a woman sexually harassed or raped by a colleague should be respected and not pilloried and made persona non-grata. Bring this bullshit into the light.

For all company events pair people up and make each persons' well-being the other person's responsibility. In the sense that they will share the responsiblity for reporting issues about things that happen to either of the pair, and not that they would be somehow liable for the other person's well-being. You could give people an option to anonymously "blacklist" certain partners if they don't feel safe around them, or anonymously "whitelist" certain pairings with people who they know they are comfortable around.

Bottom line, if it's not good enough to make a person's well-being their own responsibility then distribute the workload across at least one, and perhaps many other people within the organization.

I liked the OP for it's message in that direction.

So the reasoning goes: It appears there needs to be some mechanism in place to hold people accountable for their actions. Not that we don't want the overarching goal to teach people how to respect others, but that's a life lesson, and not necessarily something that you can put a definitive timeline on in terms of when you're going to achieve your goal.

I think a real-world solution needs to recognize that you can't guarantee that all employees will understand or follow your guidelines for how to behave in the workplace. So it follows that part of the plan needs to incorporate accountability. It's far more difficult to hold someone accountable when all you have is hearsay. With 3rd party testimony, however, a company is going to have more data to use when trying to figure out / arbitrate a dispute or investigate a claim of harassment.

So, in principle I like the idea that people have mentioned where everyone should be responsible for everyone else. In theory this looks like it's a great idea, but in practice if this is your only rule / policy, it makes it very difficult for people to gauge whether progress is being made, or if they'll ever accomplish their goal. When you have a specific responsibility I find it's going to be far easier for the person to comprehend and observe whether or not they're accomplishing or are on the path to accomplish their objectives of keeping the workplace safe for everyone.

Imagine if one day Larry Page sends out a memo to all Google employees, and says that he's decided to change how they operate. From today forward, "There are no longer specific jobs or goals. Instead we're all just going to concentrate on our one overarching goal. All employees are now in charge of making sure the company makes money". And that's the only direction that is given. It's one big overarching goal and everyone just needs to make sure that happens. No specific tasks are laid out for any one individual in order to make that happen. Now consider this scenario in contrast to the world at Google today where I imagine everyone, though in spirit are all working toward the single overarching goal of the company, each "cog in the wheel" has their own specific responsibilities to make that happen.

That part of the story sounds made up.