The question of rape in the bride kidnapping video

When you state that "The fact that we as a society or culture are a bit more progressive here in the United States is irrelevant because there have been at least one or more instances where rape has occurred even in today's society where the location is a progressive region in the United States. The law cannot protect a man just because his traditions are different. The fact that this rape has not taken place in the United States is irrelevant because the acts that this man committed are grounds to determine a rape has taken place no matter what region you are from" I believe you are missing the main point of my previous argument. The fact that rape occurs not only in the United States, but all over the world does not make the cultural importance of "No" means "Yes" philosophy in Kyrgyzstan irrelevant. I will argue that cultural connotations of that philosophy are directly relevant to the marriage by kidnapping tradition. The importance of local culture and tradition are the basis for judgment not only for the kidnapper, but also for the victim. It would be absolutely ignorant and culturally elitist to interpreted actions described in the video only from the viewpoint of an outside observer, where interpretations of the events are made strictly using one"s own personal culture as comparison basis. While a person in United States might view the tradition of "Bride Kidnapping" as an unquestionable crime of rape, the culturally relevant observer might see that event as simply an everyday typical occurrence, socially valuable to Kyrgyzstan culture. Your claim that "the law cannot protect a man because his traditions are different" only applies when that tradition is not under the jurisdiction of that law. Indeed, the U.S law would not protect a bride kidnapper if he committed the act on U.S territory. You can"t use the term "law" as something that has the exact universal meaning all over the world, because it obviously does not. What constitutes as punishment for theft in U.S might not even remotely be similar to type of punishment for the same act in other parts of the world. So when you again state: "So to make it clear what constitutes as rape cannot be different in one country then it is in another. The law must recognize rape and what constitutes it as a whole" I feel you once more elected to rely on law standards not relevant to Kyrgyzstan and imposed law and social ideology discussed by Estrich, which mainly focuses on U.S law. Neither the groom nor the bride in the video is living under that set of law. The bride at no point in the video indicates that the actions taken by the groom was a violation of her person and she eventually accepts the events that unfolded as a natural occurrence, a part of her nation"s tradition. She is initially upset for the way she was taken but that initial struggle is quickly replaced by realization that she is participating in that tradition, at which point she is willingly accepting the notion of getting married (27mins09 secs). In conclusion, I believe it is unreasonable to judge the young men in the video as a person who committed an act of rape. The use of force illustrated in the video and demonstrative lack of consent by the kidnapped woman was no longer relevant at the moment when the bride willingly agreed to become his wife. Even the initial harm done to her during the process of kidnapping was eventually interpreted by her as way of following the local tradition. The required in the crime of rape guilty intent was not present at any point during the act, from the moment of kidnapping to the wedding ceremony; everyone involved, including the bride, believed that following the tradition absolved him from anything that could be judged as intentional wrongdoing. If an argument could be made here, it is for the abandonment of the tradition itself on the moral basis, but the actions taken by the groom in the video do not evidence that a Rape of nontraditional rape occurred.