My theory on slaves

[ironduck]

For very broad definitions of rape. If there are a number of female slaves, and the ones who sleep with the master get better conditions, they aren't necessarily being forced.

Uhu.. and if you hold a gun to someone's head and tell them that either you're gonna rape them and they live or you kill them and won't rape them, then it really isn't rape either, right?

Or if you tell a woman you'll torture her children or rape her, the choice is hers, and she chooses not to have her children tortured, it really isn't rape either, right?

How sad people still feel this way.

 

[1889]

Thats gross people. Its rape because of the power the master holds over the slaves. It would be the same situation as a prison guard having sex with an inmate. The guards authority over the inmate compromises the inmates ability to consent.

 

[Mirc]

That is rape.

How is it rape? It might be called blackmail, but I don't see how it could be called rape.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@ironduck: Well, you of all people should know that no matter what you call it, I would still think it it is wrong. And no doubt it often was rape. But I don't think that in every circumstance it can be called rape, any more than, say, prostitution.

 

[ironduck]

Apparently some people think that 'consent' means anything that doesn't involve direct physical force.

 

[ironduck]

@ironduck: Well, you of all people should know that no matter what you call it, I would still think it it is wrong. But I don't think that in every circumstance it can be called rape, any more than, say, prostitution.

What the heck does that mean 'you of all people'?!

If a woman is under control of someone else and that person gives her the 'choice' of being mutilated in one way or another way and the other way happens to be 'sex' then that is rape.

If you cannot see that then you really have a trouble understanding what rape is.

 

[Mirc]

Apparently some people think that 'consent' means anything that doesn't involve direct physical force.

I don't get it. What if the female slave likes having sex with her master? How do you know she doesn't? Most females today would love to have sex with a powerful rich man.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

What the heck does that mean 'you of all people'?!

I mean, you are the one usually bringing up the fact that I consider a lot of sexual acts to be wrong, I certainly am not making an exception in this case.

If a woman is under control of someone else and that person gives her the 'choice' of being mutilated in one way or another way and the other way happens to be 'sex' then that is rape. If you cannot see that then you really have a trouble understanding what rape is.

I agree entirely. I just am not convinced that that describes every master-slave sexual relationship in the history of slavery.

 

[ironduck]

I don't get it. What if the female slave likes having sex with her master? How do you know she doesn't? Most females today would love to have sex with a powerful rich man.

Do you have any idea what it means to be owned as a slave?

Having sex with someone voluntarily has nothing to do with being someone else's property.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The relationship between master and slave has not been the same for all societies and eras. Just ask the Mamelukes.

 

[ironduck]

I mean, you are the one usually bringing up the fact that I consider a lot of sexual acts to be wrong, I certainly am not making an exception in this case.

Huh? I have never, ever stated that nonconsentual sex is right in any way whatsoever, in fact I always vocally oppose mistreatment of other people.

I agree entirely. I just am not convinced that that describes every master-slave sexual relationship in the history of slavery.

This is what you said:

It wasn't always rape, though. After all, if your choice is between having sex with your owner and working in the fields, the choice isn't difficult.

If a woman is a man's property and that man tells the woman she can either choose between being tortured in the field or have 'sex' with him, then that 'sex' equals rape. It is that simple.

 

[Mirc]

Do you have any idea what it means to be owned as a slave?

Having sex with someone voluntarily has nothing to do with being someone else's property.

Then a slave can never give his/her consensus, because he's owned? Does this mean the consensus of a slave is always null and void? That's a really strange point of view.

Edit: Yeah, huge crossposts.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Huh? I have never, ever stated that nonconsentual sex is right in any way whatsoever, in fact I always vocally oppose mistreatment of other people.

I never said you did. You seemed, to me at least, to be implying that I did.

If a woman is a man's property and that man tells the woman she can either choose between being tortured in the field or have 'sex' with him, then that 'sex' equals rape. It is that simple.

I wouldn't dispute that. What I am saying is that not all slavery is like that.

 

[1889]

Then a slave can never give his/her consensus, because he's owned? Does this mean the consensus of a slave is always null and void? That's a really strange point of view.

Yes. That is the same reason that underage girls can never have consensual sex. They are not legally able to give consent. Nor can property give consent.

 

[ironduck]

Then a slave can never give his/her consensus, because he's owned? Does this mean the consensus of a slave is always null and void? That's a really strange point of view.

It's hard to give your permission when giving it bears no meaning. There is no equality between someone who is owned and the owner.

 

[Mirc]

Yes. That is the same reason that underage girls can never have consensual sex. They are not legally able to give consent. Nor can property give consent.

I have to disagree there.

So, if the slave consents in having sex with one of the sheep he has to take care of (sounds sick, but it was far from unheard of), the slave is raped, because his consent is worth nothing?

There is no equality between someone who is owned and the owner.

That's true. And it's the definition of slavery.

 

[ironduck]

That's true. And it's the definition of slavery.

And that is exactly why it's not sex but rape when the slave owner asks his slave for sex. The slave has no true choice, he/she is threatened. Complying to have 'sex' under threats is the very definition of rape.

 

[1889]

I didn't quite catch what you were trying to say, but sheep also can not give consent. Are you saying that rapping a slave is not rape because as a slave they have no rights? That makes a certain kind of sense, but they certainly can not have consentual sex.

 

[Mirc]

And that is exactly why it's not sex but rape when the slave owner asks his slave for sex. The slave has no true choice, he/she is threatened. Complying to have 'sex' under threats is the very definition of rape.

Yeah, all right, but what if the slave asks the owner for sex? What if the slave has ALWAYS wished to have sex with his owner? How do you know if he gives his consensus as a result of the power that the owner exercises on him/her?

 

[1889]

Yeah, all right, but what if the slave asks the owner for sex? What if the slave has ALWAYS wished to have sex with his owner? How do you know if he gives his consensus as a result of the power that the owner exercises on him/her?

That’s sexual harassment and slave owners shouldn't have to put up with that sort of behavior in the workplace!