[Victoribus Spolia]

Many highly promiscuous girls are victims of earlier abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, physical or emotional neglect.

Ultimately irrelevant. A voluntary act is still a voluntary act irrespective of background and 13 year old girls are capable of reproduction and often promiscuous; the reason does not matter. Its only that they are and capable of such that is relevant to my point and that they were historically capable of shouldering the consequences of this sexuality with adult responsibility. T

Those acts are therefore primarily the male's responsibility.

No, it still takes two individuals to form an agreement to sex, so unless violence was used directly or one of the agents was not conscious, it was voluntary.

Even in the rare cases where the girl physically initiates vaginal intercourse, it is still the girls body that is being penetrated. To me it seems quite reasonable to make it the responsibility of the male to avoid sexual intercourse where the girl is considered to young to give consent.

I don't think girls who are capable of sexual reproduction are too young to consent, the law is flawed on this. Being ill-prepared or lacking foresight is not the same as lacking the capacity for consent or being a child (unable to reproduce sexually).

On average, human males are significantly privileged in terms of physical strength, aggression, pain threshold, confidence and assertiveness. With those privileges comes certain responsibilities, at least in my world view.

I agree with this, its called chivalry. I believe in Chivalry and think Christians are obligated to practice it; however, feminism by the arm of the state killed chivalry.

it wasn't so along ago that 18 year old men were conscripted, required to over the top in Flanders, storm the beaches at Normandy or were dropped into the sweltering VC infested swamps of Vietnam. I'm glad as men we have things easier,

I am not. I envy their strength and character.

but if some 17 year old can't handle an older women coming on to him, then Jesus what have we come to? Is that the 2018 version of Shell shock?

This is what happens when you have it too easy. Worse is yet to come.

[Pants-of-dog]

Okay Pants,

Indulge Me.

Explain to me the relevance of the power imbalance and how it creates involuntary sexual action.

I'm listening.

Okay, let us start with looking at some excerpts from a World Health Organisation brochure:

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prev ... _chap2.pdf

Sexual violence is defined as, “any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic women’s sexuality, using coercion, threats of harm or physical force, by any person regardless of relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work” (1). According to this definition, a very wide range of behaviours, from rape at gun-point to sexual coercion under a threat of dismissal (i.e. with false agreement), would be classed as an act of sexual violence.

They give an example of a person who is forced to have non-consensual sex or get fired.

This is an example of a boss using his power to force his employee into unwanted sex. No doubt you will tell us all,how you have too much dignity for that, and so you would not do it, and so it is not sexual abuse.

But that would be a generalization from your own experience, which is a fallacy.

Nor does it contradict the fact that employers can use their power to sexually harass their employees.

Let us continue:

False agreement to sexual activity can be obtained in a variety of ways; for instance, through threats of physical violence, threats of withholding benefits (such as a promotion at work or a good grade), psychological pressure or blackmail. Agreement in such circumstances does not amount to freely given consent.The same is true in cases of sexual acts involving individuals who are
unable to give consent, that is to say, individuals who are not capable of understanding the significance of the act or of indicating their consent or refusal (e.g. those who are incapacitated due to the effects of alcohol and/or drugs, or those with a mental disability); such acts would also be described as non- consensual (17).

Here they give more examples, such as a teacher sleeping with his students. Again, the teacher has a certain power over the student and can use this power as leverage to force the student into having non-consensual sex.

Blackmail is another example. If a person wants to keep a certain part of their life private, and someone threatens to reveal it, the balckmailer can use this power as leverage to force the blackmailee into having non-consensual sex.

They also discuss people unable to give consent, such as people who are not conscious, or paralysed, or have some sort of mental issue. The able bodied and consious person who has non-consensual sex with someone like that is taking advantage of the inherent power imbalance in the relationship.

Moving on:

The perpetrator of a sexual assault may be a date, an acquaintance, a friend, a family member, an intimate partner or former intimate partner, or a complete stranger, but more often than not, is someone known to the victim.There is no stereotypical perpetrator; sexually violent men come from all backgrounds, rich and poor, academic and uneducated, religious and non-religious. Perpetrators may be persons in positions of authority who are respected and trusted (e.g. a doctor, teacher, tourist guide, priest, police officer) and thus less likely to be suspected of sexual violence.
Sexual violence is common in situations of war and armed conflict. Specifically, rape and sexual torture are frequently used as weapons to demoralize the enemy; women are sometimes forced into “temporary marriages” with enemy soldiers.Women who are incarcerated may be subjected to sexual violence by prison guards and police officers (18).

Here we see that people in positions of power, such as police or priests, have the advantage of being trusted more than their victims.

This is when the power imbalance can be used to facilitate getting away with it, as well as facilitating the sexual violence itself.

Do I need to explain the bit about incarcerated women being raped by guards and police, or is it obvious enough?

I hope this clarifes how power imbalance can lead to sexual violence.

[Drlee]

Indulge Me.

Explain to me the relevance of the power imbalance and how it creates involuntary sexual action.

I'm listening.

POD did a good job with this.

I am concerned with our notion that biology determines intellectual ability. It does not. A 13 year old (your magic age it seems) is not intellectually well developed. I certainly grant that you may be successful in instilling in your son the conviction to act when the preacher tries to touch him inappropriately. You also may not be successful. You were very quick to mention Christianity. You are aware that when you discuss ancient Christian/Judaic beliefs you ignore the penalty for sex outside of marriage. Death. Certainly you would not advocate for that now.....

More concerning is what appears to be your idea that there are no sexual crimes. This statement is little short of outrageous:

Any voluntary act requires the ability to choose alternative physical possibilities. So unless one of the above critieria was met, the act was consensual according to my definition and I have no problem with it. I see nothing wrong, from a contractual and economic perspective, with a producer asking a chick for a blowjob, pressuring a chick for a blowjob, firing a woman for not giving him a blowjob, etc. period. All of that should be permissible.

I know you are trying to be edgy because you are far to smart to be this shortsighted.

Scenario:

Your wife works at a hospital as a nurse. She amasses 20 years of investment in the retirement program. Five more years and she can retire but failing to complete that five years and she gets nothing. She has always been treated in a respectful and professional way. Until Dr. Jones takes over as administrator. He calls her into his office and tells her that she either has sex with him or she is fired that day. And you have somehow concluded that the reward for her steadfastness to what is right is that she lose her job and retirement. You say this should be "permissible". Nonsense.

I choose not to argue some sort of "choice" as the determinant. That is far too superficial. I prefer to forward the idea that we as a nation benefit from offering protection for our young people from unwanted sexual advances especially those where there is an unbalanced power dynamic. (As POD explained.) I say that a nation that does this benefits from it. Your child is somewhat protected and so is mine.

I forward the idea that we all benefit from protecting workers from a hostile work environment. Using our earlier scenario. Your wife is called to the bosses office. She is told she is being demoted because "Sue" has much bigger tits and blows the boss. How is anyone uplifted by allowing such outrageously unfair treatment? They are not. So we, as a nation, decide that this behavior is not in the best interest of our people and we more to eliminate it to the extent possible. It is not fundamentally different from a speed limit. It is a place beyond which, we as a nation have decided we ought not go. We have decided that we are all benefited by a non-hostile workplace.

As an aside. I was under the impression that you were somewhat of a libertarian. How does your position square with the harm principle?

[Suntzu]

POD did a good job with this.

I am concerned with our notion that biology determines intellectual ability. It does not. A 13 year old (your magic age it seems) is not intellectually well developed. I certainly grant that you may be successful in instilling in your son the conviction to act when the preacher tries to touch him inappropriately. You also may not be successful. You were very quick to mention Christianity. You are aware that when you discuss ancient Christian/Judaic beliefs you ignore the penalty for sex outside of marriage. Death. Certainly you would not advocate for that now.....

More concerning is what appears to be your idea that there are no sexual crimes. This statement is little short of outrageous:



I know you are trying to be edgy because you are far to smart to be this shortsighted.

Scenario:

Your wife works at a hospital as a nurse. She amasses 20 years of investment in the retirement program. Five more years and she can retire but failing to complete that five years and she gets nothing. She has always been treated in a respectful and professional way. Until Dr. Jones takes over as administrator. He calls her into his office and tells her that she either has sex with him or she is fired that day. And you have somehow concluded that the reward for her steadfastness to what is right is that she lose her job and retirement. You say this should be "permissible". Nonsense.

I choose not to argue some sort of "choice" as the determinant. That is far too superficial. I prefer to forward the idea that we as a nation benefit from offering protection for our young people from unwanted sexual advances especially those where there is an unbalanced power dynamic. (As POD explained.) I say that a nation that does this benefits from it. Your child is somewhat protected and so is mine.

I forward the idea that we all benefit from protecting workers from a hostile work environment. Using our earlier scenario. Your wife is called to the bosses office. She is told she is being demoted because "Sue" has much bigger tits and blows the boss. How is anyone uplifted by allowing such outrageously unfair treatment? They are not. So we, as a nation, decide that this behavior is not in the best interest of our people and we more to eliminate it to the extent possible. It is not fundamentally different from a speed limit. It is a place beyond which, we as a nation have decided we ought not go. We have decided that we are all benefited by a non-hostile workplace.

As an aside. I was under the impression that you were somewhat of a libertarian. How does your position square with the harm principle?

Pretty much a bullshit scenario, 'specially in a hospital. All kinds of due process in place.

[Drlee]

Pretty much a bullshit scenario, 'specially in a hospital. All kinds of due process in place.

Read what VS posted. He wants to do away with the so-called "due process". He posits that these actions should not be illegal. He goes further. He states that they should be "permissible".

Do read what one is responding to before jumping in. There's a good fellow.

[Suntzu]

Read what VS posted. He wants to do away with the so-called "due process". He posits that these actions should not be illegal. He goes further. He states that they should be "permissible".

Do read what one is responding to before jumping in. There's a good fellow.

Pardon me! Post up another even more far fetched scenario and I will try to do better.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Pants-of-dog

Thanks for indulging me as requested; however, I asked you specifically how power imbalance creates involuntary action, you have not shown this.

For instance, after giving a contemporary definition for rape and sexual assault, you gave the following commentary:

They give an example of a person who is forced to have non-consensual sex or get fired.

This is an example of a boss using his power to force his employee into unwanted sex.

I don't see anywhere in this scenario where a person did not have the choice between two alternative endings. I still see the choice between job and sex, so long as that occurs, voluntary action still exists. I am only opposed to this activity inasmuch as it may or may not be a violation of a predetermined contract (some explicitly stating the terms of employment termination as to exclude sex, etc).

.....No doubt you will tell us all,how you have too much dignity for that, and so you would not do it, and so it is not sexual abuse.

But that would be a generalization from your own experience, which is a fallacy.

Fallacy of Presumption.

Nor does it contradict the fact that employers can use their power to sexually harass their employees.

They use what they have to offer, that the other agent wants, as a means of getting what they want, that is correct. I do not regard it as an exercise of power as to nullify involuntary action unless voluntary action was actually stopped.

Let me ask you a question of this.

In marriage, men and women have different physical strengths. Lets say the wife wants the husband to get some boxes out of the attic that she can't get down on her own. Lets say he gives her one of these gestures as to imply what he wants in exchange for this act:



Now, lets say the wife in this case doesn't really want to give him a blowjob, but does so in order that he gets the heavy boxes down from that attic; since he used his "power imbalance" as leverage for a BJ that his wife didn't want to give , wouldn't that be sexual assault under your definition?

Just curious. I'd like to see @Drlee 's opinion on this question as well.

I hope this clarifes how power imbalance can lead to sexual violence.

This wasn't what I asked for though, I deny the contemporary definition of both consent and sexual violence, and when I gave my definitions and case in response to your claim that I was ignoring power imbalance (my definitions and arguments are the reason why I see such as irrelevant), you then continued to argue that they were relevant, so I asked you how such created involuntary sexual action. You have no provided this evidence at all.

It doesn't matter if you are the president of the United States, the Pope, Bill Gates, or Genghis Khan, if you can voluntarily refuse sexual involvement it is not rape according my definitions. I told you that, given my argument, that power imbalance was irrelevant and you decided to go ahead and make my point for me.

Thanks.

POD did a good job with this.

I think he did a very good job explaining his position and how its not my position

But, before getting in too deep here with you DrLee, let me just say I generally respect your good sense on political matters and your moderate and measured stance on most issues. I say this by way of preface because you are not likely going to be able to take this intellectual journey with me.

If I have you pegged correctly, your zealous moderatism will keep you from following any argument, no matter how logical, if it were to take you to some form of extremism. My position here certainty does this by most contemporary standards though it would not have been regarded as so extreme 150 years ago and earlier.

Perhaps I am being presumptuous, but your tone as you start your response gives me the impression that your opposition to my view has more to do with how it settles with you and not so much with its debatable content.

Lets dig in then:

I am concerned with our notion that biology determines intellectual ability. It does not.

That was not my argument, and I made my argument quite clear on this, but I will quote myself for you to understand the gist of my point:

A voluntary act is still a voluntary act irrespective of background and 13 year old girls are capable of reproduction and often promiscuous; the reason does not matter. Its only that they are and capable of such that is relevant to my point and that they were historically capable of shouldering the consequences of this sexuality with adult responsibility......I don't think girls who are capable of sexual reproduction are too young to consent, the law is flawed on this. Being ill-prepared or lacking foresight is not the same as lacking the capacity for consent or being a child (unable to reproduce sexually).

Please note in bold as it specifically address your objection.

Also, I think you really need to address this post specifically (link below) on some of these matters if you are so inclined:

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=172456&start=760

A 13 year old (your magic age it seems) is not intellectually well developed.

Most of my reasoning on this is covered in the above link and my previous remarks, but the number is not arbitrary it is the age of manhood is judaism and was the de facto age of adulthood in most ancient societies and all primitive societies for most of human history, which, not coincidentally, also corresponds to the general age of sexual re-productivity in humans.

Likewise, and very important in the context of this conversation regarding U.S. statutory rape laws and the argento case, this is the age of legal consent in Japan (a developed country).

So, this is not a "magic" number, I am arguing it as a resonable number with some precedent, both historical, contemporary (Japan), and biologically.

I have further confirmed this number in discussion of common teenage experience regarding junior high promiscuity.

You were very quick to mention Christianity. You are aware that when you discuss ancient Christian/Judaic beliefs you ignore the penalty for sex outside of marriage. Death.

Sex before marriage was not death, it was either a fine to the father from the young lad or a shotgun wedding, which I think is quite reasonable in point of fact.

Certainly you would not advocate for that now.

Yes I would.

I am a theonomist after all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy

More concerning is what appears to be your idea that there are no sexual crimes. This statement is little short of outrageous:

I don't think this is fair, but then again, I doubt you are very aware of my political views.

I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, so techincally, I do not think there are"crimes" if we mean laws as defined by a state. I think acts that are "involuntary" are immoral as a violation of rights, and I believe a violation of God's laws is not only universally sinful, but is criminal if violated within a covenant community that is voluntarily formed on private property.

My broad political actions are purely self-serving. For instance, I believe in homeschooling, so I support laws that protect and benefit what I am doing, et al. However, if I had my choice, I would have the state with its law disappear altogether.

Indeed, I have no particular affinity for our government beyond this and also some vague sense of American patriotism that is more nostalgic than rational (which I freely admit).

My "outrageous" remarks are consistent with my position on this, all voluntary contracts are valid, even if their contents are immoral according to God's law. I think God Himself acknowledges this dichotomy; contracts and vows are valid even if their contents are lawless (examples could be given, ask if you want them).

I know you are trying to be edgy because you are far to smart to be this shortsighted.

I actually tend to think my position just sounds edgy because its so far out of the mainstream (on-the-edge I suppose); however, it flows from my views (as stated above).

Until Dr. Jones takes over as administrator. He calls her into his office and tells her that she either has sex with him or she is fired that day. And you have somehow concluded that the reward for her steadfastness to what is right is that she lose her job and retirement. You say this should be "permissible".

Correct; the only way I would be opposed to this is if there was something in the employment contract precluding termination on the grounds of refusing sexual advances by the employer. Likewise, if it was specified that her earned retirement was hers irrespective of termination, she should not deprived of such. If such was not specified, the employer was within his rights as far as natural law is concerned. The state's interference with the prerogatives of agents in voluntary exchange is unacceptable in my opinion.

I choose not to argue some sort of "choice" as the determinant. That is far too superficial. I prefer to forward the idea that we as a nation benefit from offering protection for our young people from unwanted sexual advances especially those where there is an unbalanced power dynamic. (As POD explained.) I say that a nation that does this benefits from it. Your child is somewhat protected and so is mine.

I don't think the laws are necessarily the issue here; technically, Japan has the lowest consent laws of the developed world (13), and it subsequently has some of the lowest rates of all crimes, including statutory rape and sexual assault, especially as compared to the west with its gender dysphoria.

So do they really help?

Good question. Patriarchal values and lower consent ages (as in Japan) apparently are yielding better results than western feminism with its dumb laws have.

Your wife is called to the bosses office. She is told she is being demoted because "Sue" has much bigger tits and blows the boss. How is anyone uplifted by allowing such outrageously unfair treatment? They are not. So we, as a nation, decide that this behavior is not in the best interest of our people and we more to eliminate it to the extent possible. It is not fundamentally different from a speed limit. It is a place beyond which, we as a nation have decided we ought not go. We have decided that we are all benefited by a non-hostile workplace.

IF that gentleman can run a business by hiring hussies, that is his prerogative. I for one think women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen and I think this role is natural. Perhaps if we didn't have such state interference to arbitrarily and artificially protect women, more of them would opt out of the workforce and we would have more chivalry where it was incumbent upon the men in their families to look our for the well-being of womwn.....but I digress.

In essence, I don't think that society has benefited by state interference, at all.

As an aside. I was under the impression that you were somewhat of a libertarian. How does your position square with the harm principle?

I hold to the NAP, none of the scenarios violated the NAP unless voluntarism or the terms of a contract were violated.

Soliciting sex as the terms of a contract or partnership, etc., does not violate the NAP.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I did show how people use their pwoer over others to force them into non-consensual sex.

The fact that the rapist used a system where the person had to make a choice does not contradict my claim.

Edit: You seem to be confuisng choice and agency. Or to out it more clearly, you are incorrectly assuming that all choices have the same degree of freedom and lack of consequences.

[Victoribus Spolia]

to force them into non-consensual sex.

Wherein, by "force" you mean; "I if you don't blow me, I won't give you a movie role" and by "non-consensual" you mean "chose to do so, but only begrudgingly."

This is why definitions are important.

Also, answer my question:

In marriage, men and women have different physical strengths. Lets say the wife wants the husband to get some boxes out of the attic that she can't get down on her own. Lets say he gives her one of these gestures as to imply what he wants in exchange for this act (the blowjob sign). Now, lets say the wife in this case doesn't really want to give him a blowjob, but does so in order that he gets the heavy boxes down from that attic; since he used his "power imbalance" as leverage for a BJ that his wife didn't want to give, wouldn't that be sexual assault under your definition?

[Pants-of-dog]

Wherein, by "force" you mean; "I if you don't blow me, I won't give you a movie role" and by "non-consensual" you mean "chose to do so, but only begrudgingly."

This is why definitions are important.

Also, answer my question:

In marriage, men and women have different physical strengths. Lets say the wife wants the husband to get some boxes out of the attic that she can't get down on her own. Lets say he gives her one of these gestures as to imply what he wants in exchange for this act (the blowjob sign). Now, lets say the wife in this case doesn't really want to give him a blowjob, but does so in order that he gets the heavy boxes down from that attic; since he used his "power imbalance" as leverage for a BJ that his wife didn't want to give, wouldn't that be sexual assault under your definition?

I am using the commonly accepted definitions.

Do you agree that there are varying levels of freedom in different choices?

Do you agree that a choice wherein you lose valuable things (life, helath, property, loved ones) is a much more constrained choice than a choice where these things are not risked?

[Victoribus Spolia]

I am using the commonly accepted definitions.

Yes, you are using a contemporary definition that has been the object of my criticism this entire thread. There is no disagreement as to which definition you are using, the issue is whether the definition is a valid one that should be accepted. To simply reassert it when it is the very point under contention, is to beg the question Pants.

Do you agree that there are varying levels of freedom in different choices?

Do you agree that a choice wherein you lose valuable things (life, helath, property, loved ones) is a much more constrained choice than a choice where these things are not risked?

Answer my question (that I have asked you twice already), and I will answer yours.

NOTE: this is the third time I have asked you to answer this question.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, you are using a contemporary definition that has been the object of my criticism this entire thread. There is no disagreement as to which definition you are using, the issue is whether the definition is a valid one that should be accepted. To simply reassert it when it is the very point under contention, is to beg the question Pants.

The definition of “forced” and “consensual” is not being debated.

The only definition being debated is your definition of sexual assault.

Answer my question (that I have asked you twice already), and I will answer yours.

NOTE: this is the third time I have asked you to answer this question.

Yes, and the underlying incorrect assumption isnthat the level of choice for,the lazy wife is comparable to the level fo choice for a woman who (for example) has a child that needs expensive medical treatment that she cannot afford without insurance and thus cannot quit the job that provides said insurance.

Until we look at the different levels of choice in these two different scenarios, your question is not only pointless, but also muddies the waters.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, and the underlying incorrect assumption isnthat the level of choice for,the lazy wife is comparable to the level fo choice for a woman who (for example) has a child that needs expensive medical treatment that she cannot afford without insurance and thus cannot quit the job that provides said insurance.

You don't need to start calling the wife names Pants

Do you agree that there are varying levels of freedom in different choices?

Freedom and choice are the same thing as far as I am concerned.

If you can choose, you are free inasmuch as you have not bound yourself to a contract so long as that contract was itself voluntary.

Do you agree that a choice wherein you lose valuable things (life, helath, property, loved ones) is a much more constrained choice than a choice where these things are not risked?

Its not less free, its just more important having greater potential consequences.

For instance, I am not less free when I choose between two different candy-bars at a grocery store than when I am choose between staying at my job or joining the army. The latter is far more serious though, as it could ultimately mean my life, but its not less free.

People make choices for a plethora of reasons, but they are ultimately irrelevant which is also why I affirm that power imbalance is likewise irrelevant. If you are free to choose, you have voluntarism.

The wife in my example and the woman in your counter-example both have a choice to make, the one was more important than the other. The wife in my example has a low-importance-potential-blowjob--choice, the other woman has a high-importance-blowjob-choice.

They are both free so long as they have the choice, and if a woman thinks its a good enough deal to blow the boss for that raise, she should be free to make that decision.

But my question is not loaded, its simple.

If a man has power over a woman (as in my example), then that is a case of power imbalance.

So, for the fourth time:

answer my question.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since you deny the observable fact that not all choices have the same degree fo freedom, there is no sense continuing this discussion, as you are discussing some imaginary world where all choices have an equal amount of coercion: i.e. none at all.

This seems like a fallacy of equivocation to me. Or perhaps a fallcy if false generalisation.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I have used my definitions consistently actually. If one of your fallacies obtain, please provide evidence from my posts and explain how such applies.

Thanks.

[Suntzu]

"If you don't blow me, I won't give you the movie role" is just salary negotiation.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have used my definitions consistently actually. If one of your fallacies obtain, please provide evidence from my posts and explain how such applies.

Thanks.

Well, you are treating the situation of sexual harassment in the workplace as being equivalent to the choice of choosing between two chocolate bars in the supermarket checkout. This seems like a fallacy of equivocation.

It seems self evident that these two choices are not the same. Not only are the consequences different, in terms of how high the stakes are, but also in terms of how much these consequences constrain the choice in such a way so as to make even undesirable choices as preferable.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Well, you are treating the situation of sexual harassment in the workplace as being equivalent to the choice of choosing between two chocolate bars in the supermarket checkout. This seems like a fallacy of equivocation.

Equivocation is the use of a single definition in two divergent ways, I don't see how I used a stated definition in two different ways, If anything, I was extra-consistent in defining the ability to choose as freedom.

You could be thinking of false equivalency, but I didn't say the two choices were exactly the same, but they were both equally choices and therefore equally free according to my definition.

but also in terms of how much these consequences constrain the choice in such a way so as to make even undesirable choices as preferable.

If by constrained you only mean more measured, well of course, but choices aren't always easy.

You seem to be implying that making a difficult choice is less of a choice than an easy choice, but they are not.

That choosing occurs does not change, that is the common character of both, only the difficultly changes, but as I said earlier, the level of consideration that goes into a choice is not only highly relative, but almost immeasurable in all of the background data each individual may be considering at a given time.

For instance, in my candy bar example, that choice seems trivial to you, but it is not so trivial to a diabetic, or someone who is on a diet, or who is a sugar addict, or someone who is in poverty and can only afford a single candy bar.

Are their choices less choice-like? No, they still must make a choice between two different candy bars, but their decision-making process are all relative to their circumstances and therefore variable.

This is why I acknowledge that the blowjob in the wife example is different than the blowjob in your example. they are higher and lower stakes, but they are still choices.

In an open market, each individual must weigh the implications and consequences of their decision and so when confronted with a difficult choice, they must weigh out their options and choose.

Some women will tell an employer to "fuck off, I quit" when asked to suck a dick in exchange for a raise, others will think "Well, I don't want to suck a dick, but I really need that raise in order to buy groceries, so this seems like the best option,"

Others might even be like "I don't really need a raise, but I have had a crush on my boss for years, so maybe this is my chance to start something with him, plus I love the taste of load, so i'm going to suck that dick like i'm mad at it!"

[Pants-of-dog]

Equivocation is the use of a single definition in two divergent ways, I don't see how I used a stated definition in two different ways, If anything, I was extra-consistent in defining the ability to choose as freedom.

You could be thinking of false equivalency, but I didn't say the two choices were exactly the same, but they were both equally choices and therefore equally free according to my definition.

Well, all of this might be consistent with your defintion of whatever it is you are referring to, but then your defintion is inconsistent with reality.

If by constrained you only mean more measured, well of course, but choices aren't always easy.

You seem to be implying that making a difficult choice is less of a choice than an easy choice, but they are not.

That choosing occurs does not change, that is the common character of both, only the difficultly changes, but as I said earlier, the level of consideration that goes into a choice is not only highly relative, but almost immeasurable in all of the background data each individual may be considering at a given time.

For instance, in my candy bar example, that choice seems trivial to you, but it is not so trivial to a diabetic, or someone who is on a diet, or who is a sugar addict, or someone who is in poverty and can only afford a single candy bar.

Are their choices less choice-like? No, they still must make a choice between two different candy bars, but their decision-making process are all relative to their circumstances and therefore variable.

This is why I acknowledge that the blowjob in the wife example is different than the blowjob in your example. they are higher and lower stakes, but they are still choices.

In an open market, each individual must weigh the implications and consequences of their decision and so when confronted with a difficult choice, they must weigh out their options and choose.

Some women will tell an employer to "fuck off, I quit" when asked to suck a dick in exchange for a raise, others will think "Well, I don't want to suck a dick, but I really need that raise in order to buy groceries, so this seems like the best option,"

Others might even be like "I don't really need a raise, but I have had a crush on my boss for years, so maybe this is my chance to start something with him, plus I love the taste of load, so i'm going to suck that dick like i'm mad at it!"

Well, since none of this negates the fact that some people have contexts wherein they think the choice to not report non-consensual sex is preferable to losing your job, or that this is still non-consensual sex, or that the context still includes a power imbalance that helps the perpetrator get away with it.

You would just describe this as “a difficult choice”, but that does not change the aforementioned facts.

[Suntzu]

Non-consensual sex is rape. Letting someone convince you to have sex is not rape. Rape should require a police report within 24 hours.