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

To respond to your introduction argument, although Susan Estrich does state that interpretation is far more complex in nontraditional rape, she provides instances (161.1.3) which could constitute as nontraditional rape. I never stated that the Bride Kidnapping video was a specific example that Susan Estrich used; however, based on her opinions regarding rape, we can use her premises to determine that the instance in Kyrgyzstan could constitute as nontraditional rape. Sex as a side effect of marriage that a woman did not truly want could be considered nontraditional rape. Therefore, I am confused regarding your response to my first premise. Nontraditional rape is defined in the book as "a law which has reflected, legitimized, and enforced a view of sex and women which celebrates male aggressiveness and punishes female passivity" (161.1.5). Therefore, your response to my premise 5 is invalid. Nontraditional rape does punish female passivity. Forced marriages are an example of what could constitute as nontraditional rape under the definition according to our book. One of the above-mentioned instances (161.1.3) involves inarticulate threats, which one could interpret from the video when the family of the husband tells the woman that she will be happy and that this is their tradition. (14:50) This is where she is placed into an extreme amount of stress, as I discussed in my 4th premise on my standard form argument. I never stated that all of these instances the book spoke about had to be true, only that the video could potentially fall into one of these categories, such as I just distinguished above. Based on the premises we discussed in class and our discussion of actus reas and mens rea in class, the physical act and mental state, are what takes places during the act of rape, such as the physical actions of the person committing the act, as well as the victim (which is how force is determined), and the mental states of both (162.1.1). Her duress falls under her mens rea, and her eventual consent which leads to sex that she may not necessarily want but feel obliged to participate in, constitutes as nontraditional rape. She is psychologically persuaded by using tradition as a reason to accept the marriage. I am not understanding your explanation in your argument regarding premise 4 of my initial standard form argument. In response to your response to my premises 2, 3, and 6, I am distinguishing the force used from the kidnapping as opposed to the act of sex. I agree with you regarding that no force was used during the act of sex or that we cannot conclude either way if force was or was not used. The woman does eventually consent to the marriage. However, initial force was used when the woman was kidnapped by the bridal party (12:32). One can draw a conclusion that based on her tradition she understands what is happening to her at that moment is bride kidnapping which will lead to a commencement of marriage which includes sex based on their tradition. Therefore, at that specific instance she is resisting against the whole ideal of marriage which constitutes non-consensual force. Her later state of duress and consent to the marriage when really opposed to the idea distinguishes the act as nontraditional rape. In premise 7 of my initial standard form argument, I am responding to premise 13 which we discussed in class, which helps us to determine a case of nontraditional rape. Such as the example of forced marriages, the man removes himself from blame based on the ideal of tradition. In the video, when he states that everything went according to plan, he is removing the blame from himself. (164.3) (18:41) By her eventually consenting to the marriage, which based on her tradition she knows will lead of a commencement of an act of sex, this can be viewed as a lack of force in the end, which is how he exculpates himself. And that also constitutes this act as an act of nontraditional rape, as opposed to an act of rape proper, due to the lack of force which can be coincided with eventually consent of the victim. ( 161.1.5)(27:04) My conclusion was #8 on my standard form argument because it was located below the line. It therefore reflects all above 7 premises, not only 6 and 7, as your argument claimed. The conclusion of my standard form argument simply states that the husband fits the qualifications for committing non-traditional rape, as opposed to the crime of rape proper.