My theory on slaves

[ParkCungHee]

to Park:

I think it's very valid to analyze human conditions in the past as well as in other cultures. We learn from this. I see people arguing that we should not interfere with the oppression of people in other cultures simply because it's another culture, and I strongly disagree on the grounds that human suffering should always be taken seriously.

Oh certainly you can have a discussion on whether they suffered, and I think that would be a much more fruitful discussion. If we were to frame the question as something like that, I think we could get somewhere. But we're applying 20th century legal concepts, such as consent, to a situation where they don't apply, is all purely hypothetical.

 

[ironduck]

Oh certainly you can have a discussion on whether they suffered, and I think that would be a much more fruitful discussion. If we were to frame the question as something like that, I think we could get somewhere. But we're applying 20th century legal concepts, such as consent, to a situation where they don't apply, is all purely hypothetical.

Ok, I'm not sure I understand what we're discussing.

To me 'rape' is not a legal term. Just like beating a baby on the head with a rock is not a legal term. Both are morally wrong. We can suspend our morality when discussing a subject, but to say that people don't know they're being abused when they are/were in fact being abused is what I disagree with.

edit, oh and as for consent, I don't see it as a new concept (even if the term is). I'm pretty sure that when a girl doesn't want to have sex with a guy she knows it. We would consider that non-consent, even if they didn't use that term.

 

[ParkCungHee]

People were aware of the concept of rape long before they could conceive of any legal recourse or prosecution of the offender. I doubt that it was any more pleasant simply because it was not illegal.

Yes but what was that concept of Rape? If you don't believe that the concept of rape has changed, in 2000 years, look at one example from fewer then 100 years ago, when it was considered rape if you tempted a women of good standing into having relations with you (women of Ill-standing were of course excluded). We certainly don't see that as rape, but in this country it once was, on the argument that the woman would have never entered into relations willingly if she hadn't been tempted in the first place.
The question is, did the Slaves see this as Rape, or a means of social advancement?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think that consent/nonconsent is not a binary choice. A girl may not want to have sex, but choose to do so because she figures it beats the alternatives, and the guy is not even aware of her dilemma. It is not quite rape in the traditional sense but it is not quite consensual either.

 

[ironduck]

Yes but what was that concept of Rape? If you don't believe that the concept of rape has changed, in 2000 years, look at one example from fewer then 100 years ago, when it was considered rape if you tempted a women of good standing into having relations with you (women of Ill-standing were of course excluded). We certainly don't see that as rape, but in this country it once was, on the argument that the woman would have never entered into relations willingly if she hadn't been tempted in the first place.
The question is, did the Slaves see this as Rape, or a means of social advancement?

I think our disconnect is that you view rape from a legal perspective while I view it from an emotional one, meaning that it's rape if it feels forced regardless of what the law says. Rape is a personal violation in my view, I don't really care about the legal view. And so, whatever the concept of rape is in any given culture is not important in what I'm trying to describe. It's that the practice of hurting other people was recognized by the individuals at the time / in the other culture just as it is in this culture - any culture. These human emotions do not seem culturally bound, they are more basic than that. Therefore once we have defined rape as a personal (sexually related) violation of another person it still holds in other cultures, because those women do feel violated. We know this because when they escape from such places today they say the very same thing!

I'm not discussing what the concept was called 2000 years ago, but rather what went on inside the mind of the people who were slaves. Whether they had a word for rape or not is not important, what's important is that they would have preferred not to have to succumb to their masters' desires. Therefore it was rape, regardless of whether the slave owner was aware of that or not. Sure, it was legal, but that doesn't change my analysis. The OP was about how well the slaves were doing in various societies (how happy they could be, basically), not what the legal issues were of the day.

 

[ironduck]

I think that consent/nonconsent is not a binary choice. A girl may not want to have sex, but choose to do so because she figures it beats the alternatives, and the guy is not even aware of her dilemma. It is not quite rape in the traditional sense but it is not quite consensual either.

Having sex because it beats the alternative reminds me of how kidnapped girls who are placed in brothels have sex because it beats the alternative..

They're not having sex, they're raped. You may say it beats the alternative, but they're violated grossly.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Therefore once we have defined rape as a personal (sexually related) violation of another person it still holds in other cultures, because those women do feel violated. We know this because when they escape from such places today they say the very same thing!

You cannot argue what happened then by what happens today. Do you have any source on these women feeling emotionaly violated? Because of what I've read of Ancient Roman Slavery, this was considered an enviable position.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@ironduck: In the case of sex workers such as you describe, yes, that is what it is. In other circumstances, it may be less so.

 

[1889]

Yes but what was that concept of Rape? If you don't believe that the concept of rape has changed, in 2000 years, look at one example from fewer then 100 years ago, when it was considered rape if you tempted a women of good standing into having relations with you (women of Ill-standing were of course excluded). We certainly don't see that as rape, but in this country it once was, on the argument that the woman would have never entered into relations willingly if she hadn't been tempted in the first place.
The question is, did the Slaves see this as Rape, or a means of social advancement?

I did a wiki on history of rape and the concept has changed but even during the hundred years war soldiers who raped civilians could be executed.

I don’t see any mention of temptation being equated to rape. If it was I don’t really know what to make of that because forcible rape was clearly also recognized as a crime.

All I can offer is that a nation’s legal code is not the same as a society’s moral code. Many people protested racial discrimination when it was still legally allowed and I can personally attest that I feel no guilt if I drive faster than 55.

If some slaves let their master’s rape them in the hopes of receiving better treatment that sounds like a pretty desperate situation not the machinations of a calculating and manipulative slave.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If some slaves let their master’s rape them in the hopes of receiving better treatment that sounds like a pretty desperate situation not the machinations of a calculating and manipulative slave.

Or one who considers being a consort or a wife of a slave owner to be a way for moving up socially. We're also making assumptions about a situation in which, depending on the roman era, the slave had various degrees of freedom versus threats. For example under Antonius Pious, a slave could claim their freedom if treated cruely, I think being forcably raped would apply.

 

[ironduck]

You cannot argue what happened then by what happens today. Do you have any source on these women feeling emotionaly violated? Because of what I've read of Ancient Roman Slavery, this was considered an enviable position.

I am arguing it! On the very ground that human emotions transcend these cultural bounds. I can provide plenty of examples, you have provided them yourself. Arranged marriages, forced prostitution, other kinds of slavery. All these things take place in some cultures today and the people in question explain that they felt horribly violated once they have escaped.

By the same means there are testaments of slave riots through history because they felt violated. And further, as I explained, people fundamentally appreciates such concepts as kindness and wish to be treated kindly. So yes, when someone in the past had to succumb to someone else under threat I am convinced that the person was quite unhappy about that.

I'm not sure what you're arguing about being enviable positions in Ancient Rome. If a person has the choice of two evils and chooses the lesser evil it doesn't meant that the person would not prefer to not be assaulted (assuming that is the lesser evil). Quite the contrary.

 

[ironduck]

Or one who considers being a consort or a wife of a slave owner to be a way for moving up socially. We're also making assumptions about a situation in which, depending on the roman era, the slave had various degrees of freedom versus threats. For example under Antonius Pious, a slave could claim their freedom if treated cruely, I think being forcably raped would apply.

The thing is that a slave can easily be coerced into all kinds of positions so that the master does not have to forcibly rape the slave, but can simply do so under implicit threats. This doesn't make the slave happy, it simply means the slave is choosing a lesser evil. It's still rape.

 

[ironduck]

@ironduck: In the case of sex workers such as you describe, yes, that is what it is. In other circumstances, it may be less so.

Well I gave another real life example of schoolgirls succumbing to various sexual 'favors' for the boys out of fear of being socially isolated. This is still assault, it's just a lot harder to legally pursue.

I'm not sure what examples you have in mind.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I am arguing it!

They why study history? Why study rome? You're right, you can argue history based on what happens today, but if you do, you're doing a very poor job.
First of all if these emotions are "universal" how come only some people leave arranged marriages. How come some people are happily involved in arranged marriages? If all emotions are "universal" would you say its fare that all women up until the second half of the 20th century were unhappy with their place? How about everyone up until the same time feeling they had a lousy system of government. Did all people in the feudel era feel they were taking part in a backwards and restrictive economic system?

 

[Mirc]

Hmm...... don't you think we're a little off-topic now?

 

[ironduck]

They why study history? Why study rome? You're right, you can argue history based on what happens today, but if you do, you're doing a very poor job.

You are mixing two things up here. I already said several times that we can suspend our moral judgment when we study history and other cultures. But I'm specifically arguing why it is rape when a slave owner does as has been discussed numerous times now. The fact of the matter is that there was a lot of human suffering going on in the past and we can analyze that just as we can analyze other aspects of history. One does not have to pass any judgment, but this thread was specifically about what slaves felt - how happy they could be and how well they could do socially.

First of all if these emotions are "universal" how come only some people leave arranged marriages. How come some people are happily involved in arranged marriages? If all emotions are "universal" would you say its fare that all women up until the second half of the 20th century were unhappy with their place? How about everyone up until the same time feeling they had a lousy system of government. Did all people in the feudel era feel they were taking part in a backwards and restrictive economic system?

I already explained why most people don't leave or escape situations they're unhappy about. They fear the consequences even more than they dislike their present situation. And I did not claim people cannot be happy in arranged marriages - what I said is that many people are in arranged marriages that are essentially a prison to them, and those people are not happy. As for your last two examples - I already explained kindness. The better people are treated the more they appreciate it. When people are treated horribly they don't appreciate it, but they don't always have a choice. I am quite sure that people are happier when they're not being treated like property and can generally do as they wish to.

What does that have to do with analyzing history? It's just one aspect. It's certainly relative. We can also analyze how people in history became happy to go from an oppressed state to a less oppressed one. There are many examples of that, in fact there are many national holidays associated with it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What does that have to do with analyzing history?

My point is that if you're basing your argument in how people respond now, you aren't talking about History anymore.

 

[luiz]

Is all sex between a master and a slave rape? I don't think so, even if it may be discomfortable for our morals (and shoule be).

When a slave chose to have sex with her master because she thought it would improve her condition somewhat, it's like a desperate girl from a poor country prostituting herself. An awful, reprehensible situation and the people who take advantage of it ought to be condemned, but I wouldn't call it rape unless it was actually forced on her (which often was, of course).

 

[sabo]

I think that consent/nonconsent is not a binary choice. A girl may not want to have sex, but choose to do so because she figures it beats the alternatives, and the guy is not even aware of her dilemma. It is not quite rape in the traditional sense but it is not quite consensual either.

I think the politically correct phrase for it today is 'sexual harrasment'

 

[bob bobato]

I've seen at least one poster on these boards indicate that slavery was a good thing.

Like Who? Me (Yeah,you)? Oh, Im ever so sorry Mr. Ironduck! I didn't mean to sound like I was apologising slavery, honest! I was just walking Mr.Pig the other day when the most awfully confusing idea came into my poor little head and I was feeling ever so lonesome, so I crept up to my iddy-biddy computerator and typed up my idea all the way through so you great people could read it and think on the teeny-weeny idea that crept into my head! Honest!