The question of rape in the bride kidnapping video

The main principle regarding the act of rape seems to always be centered on the determination of consent by both parties at the time of the intercourse. Refusal and consistent resistance to being penetrated would be considered as sufficient evidence that a victim did not consent to have sex. But when you state in your second premise that "most cases of rape are complex when no physical injury is inflicted (160.7.4)" we enter a gray area of judgment. I agree it would be wrong to generalize physical resistance and verbal protest as the only means of nonconsenting. Not every woman is capable of producing the same expressive reaction; there are cases where it is completely plausible that her defensive system would just simply shut down and she would be rendered helpless, unable to move or protest. That situation would definitely have characteristics of a non-traditional rape; if there are obvious indicators of force or threats of force that would cause the paralyzing fear. What non-traditional rape standard often is unclear about and what it fails to produce is a distinctive criterion of nonconsent. Your premise of "nontraditional rape being quite similar to what happens in many bedrooms across America (161.4.1)" seems to reflect that very notion. If all sex is coerced in some way (161.3.1); the line between consensual and forced sex can be unknowingly crossed at any point, and lack of consent is not properly communicated, is it not possible that cases of mistaken consent could be a regular occurrence? No two people are the same, so experiences with a certain similar group of people might be our only guide about typical behavior related to that group. It is possible that a man has repeated certain type of seductive behavior with a number of women and was never made aware by any of them that his actions went too far. At that point it is possible that he has determined certain aggressive behavior as acceptable. In "Rape" Susan Estrich uses an example of Pat and Rusk. Pat is a young woman who met Rusk at a bar and later gave him a ride home. At one point, when she declined twice to go up, he took her car keys and she followed him to his apartment. The two proceeded to have sex. While Rusk"s action to grab car keys might seem to be excessively forceful and without a doubt surprised Pat, at no point in his room did he say or indicate that any harm would be done to her if she doesn"t cooperate with his wishes. His controlling demeanor and aggressive tone caused Pat to assume and articulate possible negative consequences of nonconsenting, without there really being any evidence that would suggest possibilities of bodily harm. His decision to walk Pat to her car and ask if they could meet again would further imply that he might have been unaware of any wrongdoing (171.4-172.4). What Pat and Rusk example demonstrates is how difficult it is to determine intentions in a non-traditional rape; and how any situations, depending on each party"s position, can be a subject to different interpretations. In bride kidnapping the only real use of physical force occurs during the kidnapping itself (12min30secs-15mins40secs). Assuming the resistance is not a preplanned part of the wedding proceedings, this is the only time that the woman"s freedom is restricted and her pleas are ignored. After the bride regains her autonomy, she seems to make a conscious decision to continue the marriage ceremonies. Since the kidnapping is the only means of physical force that was used, it seems safe to assert that physical force or threat of physical force was not a factor in the women"s decision to marry. Therefore it is important to examine whether psychological manipulation or fear was a decisive element in the bride"s decision. Unlike the woman in "Rape", who"s unfamiliarity of the man and her surroundings led to her consenting out of fear, the bride in the video has known the groom for some extended time and was romantically involved with him (4mins 40 secs). She was fully aware that she will not experience any harm if she does not agree to marry and the video indicates that her family was aware of her location. As it seems unlikely that fear of being harmed was a contributing factor, we can assess whether the mental distress she experienced would be sufficient to qualify the grooms actions as an act of rape. I do agree that other examples of bride kidnapping could evidence rape. When a woman is taken off the streets by a stranger and subjected to extended process of being convinced to marry, it is not difficult to imagine her consent being obtained as a result of severe mental distress. The bride in the video, after the initial vigorous resistance, just seems to give in way too easy; and only moments after she was given her freedom back. When you reference that kidnapee states "since I was already taken, they wouldn"t leave me alone anyhow so I knew I have no choice (27.15)", I find it hard to believe that no other alternatives were available in this situation. There is no evidence she even considered or discussed other choices and, like you stated in your argument when you wrote: Women often feel that "in this position many women who say "yes" are not in fact choosing freely but are submitting because they feel a lack of power to say "no"." (177.5.1). Additionally, your claim that "she understood that there is absolutely no other choice therefore her fear to act otherwise was clearly present" is completely subjective as far as determining the presence of a choice inhibiting fear. Her assumed resignation to her fate should more likely be attributed to her upbringing in Kyrgyzstan, rather than fear of any repercussions as a result of saying "No". She was more likely brought up with an instilled knowledge that in a situation like this, its proper for her to eventually agree since it is a part of a long lasting tradition (27mins09secs).