Actions taken by husband in bride-kidnapping video evidence a Rape or nontraditional rape occurred

Yes, Kyrgyzstan law has made Bride Kidnapping illegal, but how effective is a law that is not enforced? Although bride kidnapping is illegal, people, including government officials and policemen, understand that it is a tradition and no harm comes from it; And when it is enforced, the men usually get away with it because by simply talking to the police (10:00). From this response we can assume that even governmental officials understand that no harm in being done to the "brides" including non-traditional rape. In order for the premise to be correct, all characteristics must be true. When one does not apply, then the argument is a weak one. Just because one of the characteristics apply, does not necessarily mean that it is non-traditional rape. If you are arguing that your "premises are not based off of Western Law or even Kyrgyzstan Law or what any official court of Law would conclude" then the use of the video as an example is erroneous. If you are using the Bride Kidnapping video as an example, then Kyrgyzstan law and traditions must apply. Again, force was used only at the time of the kidnap. The "bride" was not forced into marrying the "husband" and although we can"t see it, due to their relationship at the time of the incident, it is safe to argue that the act of sex was not forced. You are correct in arguing that "The woman is placed under a state of duress by the family, as well as her tradition, and she reluctantly agrees to the marriage, and thus the act of sex (27:04)". For the sake of the argument, let"s say that the "bride" was mentally, opposed to physically, forced into marrying the "husband" because of the strict repercussions of the traditional beliefs in Kyrgyzstan, in that case it could be argued that it would be the family who committed the crime and not the "husband". If the "bride" had the choice of deciding whether or not to marry kidnapper and regardless of her decision her family would take her back without any repercussions, I am almost certain that there would be more "brides" who would not consent to the marriage. Therefore, the families are the ones committing the non-traditional rape and not the husband. Yes, those questions could potentially be describing non-traditional rape, it does not necessarily mean that it identifies it as one. If we are not referring to any specific law, then in the case that a woman does not want to marry or have be involved in actual sex, then she can simply say no because no law will hold it against her. However, in the case of the video, saying no to sex or marriage goes beyond the law. In conclusion, I hold my point that the husband did not commit non-traditional rape because there was consent from the side of the bride and there was no use of threat or force at the time of the act of sex. Because the bride is completely aware of the situation and because she is aware that it is an ancient tradition, it can be concluded that Rape or nontraditional rape did not occurred. The only characteristic of non-traditional or proper rape seen is force; however it is not the case during the act of sex. Also, there is no use of "threat" since the husband did not threaten her into marring him, instead she embraced it as part of her tradition. Lastly, the "bride" gave her consent to marrying the "husband" during the ceremony when she was asked if it was her decision and free will in marrying him and she said yes. Once she gives the consent to marry him, she is consenting with the rest that comes with marriage.