Bride kidnapping rape

In your argument, you establish a distinction between two primary types of rape: traditional and non-traditional (1.1.6-7). Although I agree that these distinctions exist and that rape is not restricted to only one strict, narrow, and unchangeable definition, the particular bride kidnapping case presented in the video does not fit either distinction--neither traditional nor non-traditional. It is true, as you note, that there are instances where women do not actually resist for fear of harm, but this lack of resistance does not necessarily mean that the rape did not occur or undermine the occurrence of a rape (165.2-4). That is not to say, though, that any and all cases in which a person or party exhibits resistance, rape has occurred. But this is also not to say that when cases arise in which a person or party does not exhibit the resistance you feel they should be exhibiting that rape has occurred or that the party or person not exhibiting the resistance is not doing so out of fear. This is an assumption that cannot be proven, because only the involved party is aware of her feelings in that situation. Also, I agree that use of force is not necessarily required as a criteria for determining the occurrence of rape, as you noted in your argument (1.2.1). Yet, your example of the martial artist not inflicting bruises contradicts your point: a martial artist inflicts force, even if the bruises are concealed or do not exist. Still, force in any form--whether physically visible or not--is not the problem in this case. In the situation of the kidnapped bride, the kidnapped bride was not forced to accept the proposal, however; neither physical force nor verbal force existed--in fact the kidnapped bride is explicitly asked to accept the marriage (14:54). You maintain, though, that the kidnapped bride could not have possibly resisted due to a lack of resources and the knowledge that her family had already consented (1.3.6). Furthermore, you imply specifically that the major source of a "resource" that would have allowed her a free choice--a free choice to resist the marriage--would have been rooted in her family and her family"s consent (1.3.5). According to your argument, the kidnapped bride lacked this free choice because she was aware that her family knew about the kidnapping prior to its occurrence and still did not stop it, and furthermore, her family even gave consent for the marriage after the kidnapping had occurred (1.3.5). The problem with this scenario is that the kidnapped bride was not aware that her family knew of the kidnapping prior to its occurrence, nor that her family consented after she had already consented herself. So if those are her lack of resources that influenced her decision or coerced her to consent, one must consider that she was unaware that those resources did not exist in the first place. Ultimately, the bride was asked to consent (14:54). She gave consent, without the risk of bodily harm and without the knowledge that her family had already known of the kidnapping and would eventually consent to the marriage (15:43). Therefore, the consent granted by the kidnapped wife is valid, and the kidnapping, marriage, and sex could not possibly be defined as rape.