The question of rape in the bride kidnapping video

When you wrote: "Kidnapper states "yes we are breaking the law but everybody here understands that it is our tradition and you can"t change it." (3.37) I believe you are mistaken about what part of the law the kidnapper was referencing. While it"s true that kidnappers were aware that their actions were against the law, the breaking of the law discussed in the video is almost directly pertaining to the act of the kidnapping itself. They admit that taking someone off the street by force is wrong. What I don"t necessarily see in your premise is how kidnapping on its own can be linked to the occurrence of rape. It"s unlikely that they believed that their actions are contributing to the girl being eventually raped and most likely they were convinced they were simply following the tradition. The best man even states that if they were stopped by the police, they simply would have clarified that kidnapping was part of a wedding party, and that would most likely suffice as an explanation (20 mins-20 secs). Your claim: "At times there can be a situation where there has been some time elapsed between the force and the intercourse. This situation is never the less threatening even if no explicate threat of harm has been communicated. (167.5.4)" has some determination problems as well. The main issue I have with this argument is that it doesn"t specify what time frame is necessary between the use of force and the actual intercourse. Plus, it doesn"t establish a set of circumstances required for the force to be interpreted as a key component in perpetuating the act of rape. In a hypothetical case where a man forcefully kidnaps a woman, holds her captive for an extended time, during which he slowly breaks her physically and emotionally to the point that when they actually have sex she is no longer resisting, I could see a direct correlation between the use of force on that first day and eventual submission of the captured woman. So even though, at the time of the intercourse, force was no longer present, the initial force used during the kidnapping was critical in the process that led to sex. I fail to see how the time interval between kidnapping of the bride in the video and her eventual decision to consent is conducive to her consenting to marriage and sex. At the time of consent during the wedding ceremony, the use of force during kidnapping seems already irrelevant in her decision making. When she says "yes" to marriage, she already has full autonomy and is undeniably aware that she can say "no" without any fear of harm being done to her. It is possible that, in the situation when she does not consent, the process of convincing her to marry could perhaps go on for days (15 mins-00 secs). In that case, mental and physical fatigue could be a contributing factor in obtaining consent and initial use of force during kidnapping could be linked to eventual sex. That though, has not taken place in the video. I do see problems with this claim as well: "A man often times believes and practices that when some women say no , all they have to do is pressure them in a proper manner and it would result in her saying yes or in the least go along with that same act she never wanted to have any part in. ( 177.5.2) ". Only in the recent years and mainly in the western cultures, the dating practice of aggressive male and passive female has been slowly phased out and replaced by more equal approach of two confident in their wants and desires adults meeting up for romantic purposes. Diminished focus on social stigmas related to dating and increased urbanization to big cities, where negative reputation and notoriety is less significant than in small villages or cities, greatly contributed to women in these cultures no longer feeling an obligation to play the role of a passive female at the risk of any public shaming. In these modern cultures women can properly articulate their feelings and "no" means "yes" philosophy is less likely to be practiced. Circumstances above definitely do not apply to the case in the video. The location in Kyrgyzstan is a very rural area and showcased society seems to follow old fashion, patriarchal way of thinking when it comes to gender roles and what behavior is appropriate for women. The "no" means "yes" philosophy is very much relied on in male/female relations. It is explained that answer "No" is associated with female purity and innocence, while saying "Yes" will be identified with negatively perceived characteristic of being desperate to get married (16 mins-15 secs). A lot of importance is being placed on the idea of purity for women, as evidenced by public display symbolizing girl"s virginity on her wedding night (30 mins-30 secs). If we additionally consider that bride"s mother actually agreed to be married by kidnapping, meaning her resistance and protest was most likely a staged performance, it is virtually impossible to determine if this is a case of "No" means "No" or not (23mins-05 secs).