The question of rape in the bride kidnapping video

Sandra Nisanov Phi/Law 310.08 Round 3 The following claims that you have made directly prove my argument. "I agree it would be wrong to generalize physical resistance and verbal protest as the only means of non - consenting. 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." and "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." It is exactly statements such as these that show the bride was pressured so severely that her mindset transformed into the idea that if she agrees; what follows would be the termination of the pressure and convincing from all of the woman that have surrounded her. Furthermore she understood through her tradition that these events of convincing can take minutes, hours, or even days, so it has been established that these convincing ceremonies could be endless. A man often times believes and practices that when some women say no , all they have to do is pressure them in a proper manner and it would result in her saying yes or in the least go along with that same act she never wanted to have any part in. ( 177.5.2) The following claim that you have made is irrelevant because the "amount of time" need not be specified in order to constitute grounds of rape. "The main issue I have with this argument is that it doesn"t specify what time frame is necessary between the use of force and the actual intercourse. Plus, it doesn"t establish a set of circumstances required for the force to be interpreted as a key component in perpetuating the act of rape. In a hypothetical case where a man forcefully kidnaps a woman, holds her captive for an extended time, during which he slowly breaks her physically and emotionally to the point that when they actually have sex she is no longer resisting, I could see a direct correlation between the use of force on that first day and eventual submission of the captured woman. So even though, at the time of the intercourse, force was no longer present, the initial force used during the kidnapping was critical in the process that led to sex. " It is legitimate to punish the man who chooses to ignore explicitly the words of protestation coming from that woman. With quite certainty if is safe and necessary to say that "many women who say yes " whether on dates or on the job " would say no if they could ; I have no doubt that women"s silence is sometimes the product not of passion and desire , but of pressure and pain." (181.1.1-2) Most importantly the amount of time that has passed between the kidnapping and the actual act of intercourse; is not basis to exculpate the kidnapper. At times there can be a situation where there has been some time elapsed between the force and the intercourse. This situation is never the less threatening even if no explicate threat of harm has been communicated. (167.5.4)