Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?

[Symmetry]

The reason why the pet analogy is relevant is because ITT many people who agree with Sym assume that all pet-owners are all evil bastards who kick their pets. Obviously, that's not true for pet-owners. I don't see why it would be true of slave-owners. So, we need to focus on the individuals involved--not make broad assumptions. Then we need to understand context--and not ignore it.

Sure, owning another person is shitty--well, unless it's your own child, right? That's de facto ownership there, with some constraints, but we should recognize how weird our customs may become compared to societies 100 years in the future. Context still matters, but the Sym-Neo-TGD Trifecta have been ignoring it.

We can throw out your premise because it says nothing about the individuals involved. It just states "social process X = shitty." It doesn't follow that all slave owners would use coercion to rape their slaves. To me, that's like saying all pet owners (given their superior status) all beat up their pets and f*ck them.

Here's y'all's argument so far:

1. Slavery is shitty
2. All slave owners rape their slaves.
3. All slave owners are evil bastards who will coerce their slaves into doing anything at anytime.
4. Therefore, Jefferson raped his slave.

I'd like to point out, I've never once hit, slapped, or thrown any of my pet rocks, thank you very much please and thank you your welcome.


--Andy

Follow the Jefferson code and whip them as a "last resort". Or hire someone else to do it more brutally.

Jefferson policy was to not allow his slaves to be whipped except as a last resort, and then only on the arms and legs, preferring to penalize the lazy and reward the industrious,[214] however his instructions were often ignored by overseers during his long absences.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't understand how people are not understanding Symmetry's perfectly valid argument.

It doesn't matter how old the girl was; she was a slave. As such, she had no choice as to whether her master wanted to have sex with her.

Then most women of the time were raped. They had no choice, either. Women were not full citizens in most places, either.

Two 16 year olds can have consensual sex and are not full citizens. I'm unconvinced by your line of argument.

At this time, that was not true. The age of consent has shifted. The fact that women now have a true voice in these decisions is part of the shift, the other part is that society has changed so that a 14 year old cannot be a self-supporting, functioning adult.

Anyway, I bring up the bit about women for 2 reasons Symmetry likes to bypass. First, despite the fiction, the role of women up until fairly recently was not much different from that of slaves. They could not decide most things for themselves, could be beated/"punished" by their men.

BUT... romance did exist and was real despite all that. To claim that Sally could not refuse was true, but no more true htan it was for many women. "Free" women sometimes, but only sometimes had choice in who their masters were, but not even always then. As much as many wish to idealize the role of women back then, its tempting also to make the role of slaves worse than it was in many cases. Looking back, people tend to believe the "simion Legree" stories more than the "faithful respected servent" stories, but the real truth was that the "faithful servant" bit was probably more often true than the other. Like all things, the biggest truth lay somewhere in between.


Also, it pretends that Jefferson had more choice than HE really did.

[Symmetry]

I don't understand how people are not understanding Symmetry's perfectly valid argument.

It doesn't matter how old the girl was; she was a slave. As such, she had no choice as to whether her master wanted to have sex with her.

Then most women of the time were raped. They had no choice, either. Women were not full citizens in most places, either.

Two 16 year olds can have consensual sex and are not full citizens. I'm unconvinced by your line of argument.

At this time, that was not true. The age of consent has shifted. The fact that women now have a true voice in these decisions is part of the shift, the other part is that society has changed so that a 14 year old cannot be a self-supporting, functioning adult.

Anyway, I bring up the bit about women for 2 reasons Symmetry likes to bypass. First, despite the fiction, the role of women up until fairly recently was not much different from that of slaves. They could not decide most things for themselves, could be beated/"punished" by their men.

BUT... romance did exist and was real despite all that. To claim that Sally could not refuse was true, but no more true htan it was for many women. "Free" women sometimes, but only sometimes had choice in who their masters were, but not even always then. As much as many wish to idealize the role of women back then, its tempting also to make the role of slaves worse than it was in many cases. Looking back, people tend to believe the "simion Legree" stories more than the "faithful respected servent" stories, but the real truth was that the "faithful servant" bit was probably more often true than the other. Like all things, the biggest truth lay somewhere in between.


Also, it pretends that Jefferson had more choice than HE really did.

He could have chosen not to rape.

[BigBallinStalin]

The reason why the pet analogy is relevant is because ITT many people who agree with Sym assume that all pet-owners are all evil bastards who kick their pets. Obviously, that's not true for pet-owners. I don't see why it would be true of slave-owners. So, we need to focus on the individuals involved--not make broad assumptions. Then we need to understand context--and not ignore it.

Sure, owning another person is shitty--well, unless it's your own child, right? That's de facto ownership there, with some constraints, but we should recognize how weird our customs may become compared to societies 100 years in the future. Context still matters, but the Sym-Neo-TGD Trifecta have been ignoring it.

We can throw out your premise because it says nothing about the individuals involved. It just states "social process X = shitty." It doesn't follow that all slave owners would use coercion to rape their slaves. To me, that's like saying all pet owners (given their superior status) all beat up their pets and f*ck them.

Here's y'all's argument so far:

1. Slavery is shitty
2. All slave owners rape their slaves.
3. All slave owners are evil bastards who will coerce their slaves into doing anything at anytime.
4. Therefore, Jefferson raped his slave.

I'd like to point out, I've never once hit, slapped, or thrown any of my pet rocks, thank you very much please and thank you your welcome.


--Andy

Without the ability to freely consent, it's rape.

No matter what actually happens between you and your pet rocks, you must be a dirty rock rapist. "I admit that this argument relies on poor reasoning and is borderline trolling, but I'm being overly emotional because I hate rock rapists."

[Symmetry]

The reason why the pet analogy is relevant is because ITT many people who agree with Sym assume that all pet-owners are all evil bastards who kick their pets. Obviously, that's not true for pet-owners. I don't see why it would be true of slave-owners. So, we need to focus on the individuals involved--not make broad assumptions. Then we need to understand context--and not ignore it.

Sure, owning another person is shitty--well, unless it's your own child, right? That's de facto ownership there, with some constraints, but we should recognize how weird our customs may become compared to societies 100 years in the future. Context still matters, but the Sym-Neo-TGD Trifecta have been ignoring it.

We can throw out your premise because it says nothing about the individuals involved. It just states "social process X = shitty." It doesn't follow that all slave owners would use coercion to rape their slaves. To me, that's like saying all pet owners (given their superior status) all beat up their pets and f*ck them.

Here's y'all's argument so far:

1. Slavery is shitty
2. All slave owners rape their slaves.
3. All slave owners are evil bastards who will coerce their slaves into doing anything at anytime.
4. Therefore, Jefferson raped his slave.

I'd like to point out, I've never once hit, slapped, or thrown any of my pet rocks, thank you very much please and thank you your welcome.


--Andy

Without the ability to freely consent, it's rape.

No matter what actually happens between you and your pet rocks, you must be a dirty rock rapist. "I admit that this argument relies on poor reasoning and is borderline trolling, but I'm being overly emotional because I hate rock rapists."

I'm pretty sure sex has to be involved for it to be rape.

[Neoteny]

Here's y'all's argument so far:

1. Slavery is inherently coercive.
2. All slave owners own slaves.
3. Coercion + sex = rape.
4. Therefore, Jefferson raped his slave.

Ftfy.

Have to respond to Stahrgazer later.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't understand how people are not understanding Symmetry's perfectly valid argument.

It doesn't matter how old the girl was; she was a slave. As such, she had no choice as to whether her master wanted to have sex with her.

Then most women of the time were raped. They had no choice, either. Women were not full citizens in most places, either.

Two 16 year olds can have consensual sex and are not full citizens. I'm unconvinced by your line of argument.

At this time, that was not true. The age of consent has shifted. The fact that women now have a true voice in these decisions is part of the shift, the other part is that society has changed so that a 14 year old cannot be a self-supporting, functioning adult.

Anyway, I bring up the bit about women for 2 reasons Symmetry likes to bypass. First, despite the fiction, the role of women up until fairly recently was not much different from that of slaves. They could not decide most things for themselves, could be beated/"punished" by their men.

BUT... romance did exist and was real despite all that. To claim that Sally could not refuse was true, but no more true htan it was for many women. "Free" women sometimes, but only sometimes had choice in who their masters were, but not even always then. As much as many wish to idealize the role of women back then, its tempting also to make the role of slaves worse than it was in many cases. Looking back, people tend to believe the "simion Legree" stories more than the "faithful respected servent" stories, but the real truth was that the "faithful servant" bit was probably more often true than the other. Like all things, the biggest truth lay somewhere in between.


Also, it pretends that Jefferson had more choice than HE really did.

He could have chosen not to rape.

See, here is the basic problem with your hypothesis.

“Consent” requires information, knowledge of that to which one is consenting. It also requires the ability to have options. You dismiss that argument when it comes to white wives, when in truth they generally did not give consent, either.

So, either virtually all women were raped in that time, and Sally was as well OR something more complicated was happening, such as that women had far fewer choices available to them and “submitting” to a man who was kind to them was one of the better ones available, whether that came with a ring or not.

[BigBallinStalin]

The reason why the pet analogy is relevant is because ITT many people who agree with Sym assume that all pet-owners are all evil bastards who kick their pets. Obviously, that's not true for pet-owners. I don't see why it would be true of slave-owners. So, we need to focus on the individuals involved--not make broad assumptions. Then we need to understand context--and not ignore it.

Sure, owning another person is shitty--well, unless it's your own child, right? That's de facto ownership there, with some constraints, but we should recognize how weird our customs may become compared to societies 100 years in the future. Context still matters, but the Sym-Neo-TGD Trifecta have been ignoring it.

We can throw out your premise because it says nothing about the individuals involved. It just states "social process X = shitty." It doesn't follow that all slave owners would use coercion to rape their slaves. To me, that's like saying all pet owners (given their superior status) all beat up their pets and f*ck them.

Here's y'all's argument so far:

1. Slavery is shitty
2. All slave owners rape their slaves.
3. All slave owners are evil bastards who will coerce their slaves into doing anything at anytime.
4. Therefore, Jefferson raped his slave.

I'd like to point out, I've never once hit, slapped, or thrown any of my pet rocks, thank you very much please and thank you your welcome.


--Andy

Without the ability to freely consent, it's rape.

No matter what actually happens between you and your pet rocks, you must be a dirty rock rapist. "I admit that this argument relies on poor reasoning and is borderline trolling, but I'm being overly emotional because I hate rock rapists."

I'm pretty sure sex has to be involved for it to be rape.

I hope you don't have any pets, sir. I'm gravely concerned.

[stahrgazer]

Without the ability to freely consent, it's rape.

You don't know that she wasn't allowed to refuse. Just as many wives at that time and at other times in history had no "right" to refuse - doesn't mean they weren't allowed to refuse.

A slave had no "right" to "her time" but Sally was given, "her time," anyway.

[Symmetry]

Without the ability to freely consent, it's rape.

You don't know that she wasn't allowed to refuse. Just as many wives at that time and at other times in history had no "right" to refuse - doesn't mean they weren't allowed to refuse.

A slave had no "right" to "her time" but Sally was given, "her time," anyway.

She was a child and a slave. Your "other women were being raped so it's not rape" line of thought is contemptible.

[thegreekdog]

That's not reasonable. We have no idea what their relationship was like, do we? Where's the case for it? Even the historians who've dedicated their lives to writing about Jefferson still can't agree on this (based on the wiki link).

Besides, almost all of us own living creatures--we call them pets. We're the masters, and they are the slaves. Do all pet owners treat their animals like shit? Do all pet owners beat their animals when they refuse to have intercourse whenever they misbehave? No, not in all cases, and no not all pet owners are shitty masters.

Given all that, I'd withhold judgment until actual evidence is presented. All flimsy assumptions shall be discarded!

I'm not sure the pet analogy is appropriate. I mean, it's not appropriate, but it's also not appropriate because animals aren't at the same mental level as humans. So let's toss that out.

The mere ownership of a person, by itself, is shitty. We've made that quite clear in our history. So let's start with that, dare I say, premise - owning another human being is shitty. It may not have been considered shitty in the 18th century, but it's considered shitty now.

Once we start with that premise, the question becomes whether, as Neoteny has put it, coercion is a factor. When Bill Clinton got a BJ from Monica Lewinsky, we were concerned more with the president because he was in a position of power, as both Ms. Lewinsky's employer and as president. He was able to coerce her, whether he did coerce her or not is irrelevant.

It is worse with Mr. Jefferson. He owned her, she was not an employee. Therefore he was able to coerce her, and whether he did coerce her or not is irrelevant.

No, we can't make that assumption, unless we have evidence that he was prone to beating slaves in general.

Further, since he treated her offspring fairly decently, keeping them until their maturity rather than selling them as the chattel they were - legally - the "reasonable assumption" we can make is that he WOULD NOT have beat her because he was a more decent sort than that.

It doesn't matter if he beat her or not. It matters that he owned her. That is simply the only thing that matters. If she was a free black woman, there would likely still be some element of coercion, but I could see the argument you would have in that case. It doesn't matter how fairly he treated her; it matters that she was not free to leave the premises or do what she wanted to do.

Let me put it to you another way - would you trade spots with Ms. Hemings?

The reason why the pet analogy is relevant is because ITT many people who agree with Sym assume that all pet-owners are all evil bastards who kick their pets. Obviously, that's not true for pet-owners. I don't see why it would be true of slave-owners. So, we need to focus on the individuals involved--not make broad assumptions. Then we need to understand context--and not ignore it.

Sure, owning another person is shitty--well, unless it's your own child, right? That's de facto ownership there, with some constraints, but we should recognize how weird our customs may become compared to societies 100 years in the future. Context still matters, but the Sym-Neo-TGD Trifecta have been ignoring it.

We can throw out your premise because it says nothing about the individuals involved. It just states "social process X = shitty." It doesn't follow that all slave owners would use coercion to rape their slaves. To me, that's like saying all pet owners (given their superior status) all beat up their pets and f*ck them.

Here's y'all's argument so far:

1. Slavery is shitty
2. All slave owners rape their slaves.
3. All slave owners are evil bastards who will coerce their slaves into doing anything at anytime.
4. Therefore, Jefferson raped his slave.

lolwat?

Let's start from the beginning. I guess we have to start at the beginning. How is the term "rape" defined for legal purposes? In case you don't want to start from the beginning...

1. Slavery means slaves don't have the ability to disobey their masters without consequence.
2. Having consequences for disobeying means the master can coerce their slaves without actually threatening violence or punishment.
3. Rape may be coercing someone into having sex (but I need a definition from you).
4. Therefore, masters who banged their slaves (all of them) raped them. All.

EDIT - By the way, your weird analogies aren't really relevant to the discussion. It's pretty easy to make this argument without resorting to analogies. Everyone (except stahr - who is providing some research) is ignoring the coercive element. But mostly you are ignoring it BBS. Mostly you.

[tear]

[BigBallinStalin]

lolwat?

Let's start from the beginning. I guess we have to start at the beginning. How is the term "rape" defined for legal purposes? In case you don't want to start from the beginning...

1. Slavery means slaves don't have the ability to disobey their masters without consequence.
2. Having consequences for disobeying means the master can coerce their slaves without actually threatening violence or punishment.
3. Rape may be coercing someone into having sex (but I need a definition from you).
4. Therefore, masters who banged their slaves (all of them) raped them. All.

EDIT - By the way, your weird analogies aren't really relevant to the discussion. It's pretty easy to make this argument without resorting to analogies. Everyone (except stahr - who is providing some research) is ignoring the coercive element. But mostly you are ignoring it BBS. Mostly you.

[tear]

Hmm.. Okay, TGD, you almost have my Army of Argumentation in full rout, but I've mustered my spirits, so they shall put up one final stand.

I mostly agree with your argument, but #3 and #4 shall be attacked without mercy!


I define "rape" as an involuntary exchange of sexual activities, and an "involuntary exchange" occurs when coercion or the threat of coercion is acted upon/engaged. To be clear, a voluntary exchange occurs when neither party uses coercion or threatens with coercion to make the exchange happen.

(A) Are all voluntary exchanges impossible between a master and slave?
(B) Can True Love cement over the institution of slavery, thus paving a foundation for a voluntary exchange between Mr. Jefferson and Ms. Hemings?

So far, I can only answer:

(A) not all are--depending on the circumstances, therefore...

(B) Sure. Even though the threat and capability of coercion exists between the master-slave institution, it may be possible that the rules of the game (i.e. the institution) of slavery did not play a role between Mr. Jefferson and Ms. Hemings' exchange, thus their exchange in this particular circumstance was voluntary.

In other words, I maintain that we don't know if the threat/use of coercion existed between their particular exchange. Perhaps, True Love conquered all in this case. Therefore, we can only arrive at a probabilistic truth, which isn't sound enough.

[stahrgazer]

Without the ability to freely consent, it's rape.

You don't know that she wasn't allowed to refuse. Just as many wives at that time and at other times in history had no "right" to refuse - doesn't mean they weren't allowed to refuse.

A slave had no "right" to "her time" but Sally was given, "her time," anyway.

She was a child and a slave. Your "other women were being raped so it's not rape" line of thought is contemptible.

I guess you don't understand English.

I didn't say others were raped, I said, you don't know that she wasn't allowed to refuse just as you don't know that other women at that time (who were also considered property to obey their husbands, which is why old vows are "Love, Honor, Obey") weren't allowed to refuse.

Further, I posted evidence that indicates she was probably NOT a child when she bore her own children, which was after his wife died which was long after she'd first arrived with her half-sister.

Your continuance of this erroneous emotional outrage despite the facts is what's contemptible.

[Symmetry]

I guess you don't understand English.

Your continuance of this erroneous emotional outrage despite the facts is what's contemptible.

I have, I think, been pretty clear and logical, I would appreciate it if you could do the same.

[Symmetry]

That's not reasonable. We have no idea what their relationship was like, do we? Where's the case for it? Even the historians who've dedicated their lives to writing about Jefferson still can't agree on this (based on the wiki link).

Besides, almost all of us own living creatures--we call them pets. We're the masters, and they are the slaves. Do all pet owners treat their animals like shit? Do all pet owners beat their animals when they refuse to have intercourse whenever they misbehave? No, not in all cases, and no not all pet owners are shitty masters.

Given all that, I'd withhold judgment until actual evidence is presented. All flimsy assumptions shall be discarded!

I'm not sure the pet analogy is appropriate. I mean, it's not appropriate, but it's also not appropriate because animals aren't at the same mental level as humans. So let's toss that out.

The mere ownership of a person, by itself, is shitty. We've made that quite clear in our history. So let's start with that, dare I say, premise - owning another human being is shitty. It may not have been considered shitty in the 18th century, but it's considered shitty now.

Once we start with that premise, the question becomes whether, as Neoteny has put it, coercion is a factor. When Bill Clinton got a BJ from Monica Lewinsky, we were concerned more with the president because he was in a position of power, as both Ms. Lewinsky's employer and as president. He was able to coerce her, whether he did coerce her or not is irrelevant.

It is worse with Mr. Jefferson. He owned her, she was not an employee. Therefore he was able to coerce her, and whether he did coerce her or not is irrelevant.

No, we can't make that assumption, unless we have evidence that he was prone to beating slaves in general.

Further, since he treated her offspring fairly decently, keeping them until their maturity rather than selling them as the chattel they were - legally - the "reasonable assumption" we can make is that he WOULD NOT have beat her because he was a more decent sort than that.

It doesn't matter if he beat her or not. It matters that he owned her. That is simply the only thing that matters. If she was a free black woman, there would likely still be some element of coercion, but I could see the argument you would have in that case. It doesn't matter how fairly he treated her; it matters that she was not free to leave the premises or do what she wanted to do.

Let me put it to you another way - would you trade spots with Ms. Hemings?

The reason why the pet analogy is relevant is because ITT many people who agree with Sym assume that all pet-owners are all evil bastards who kick their pets. Obviously, that's not true for pet-owners. I don't see why it would be true of slave-owners. So, we need to focus on the individuals involved--not make broad assumptions. Then we need to understand context--and not ignore it.

Sure, owning another person is shitty--well, unless it's your own child, right? That's de facto ownership there, with some constraints, but we should recognize how weird our customs may become compared to societies 100 years in the future. Context still matters, but the Sym-Neo-TGD Trifecta have been ignoring it.

We can throw out your premise because it says nothing about the individuals involved. It just states "social process X = shitty." It doesn't follow that all slave owners would use coercion to rape their slaves. To me, that's like saying all pet owners (given their superior status) all beat up their pets and f*ck them.

Here's y'all's argument so far:

1. Slavery is shitty
2. All slave owners rape their slaves.
3. All slave owners are evil bastards who will coerce their slaves into doing anything at anytime.
4. Therefore, Jefferson raped his slave.

lolwat?

Let's start from the beginning. I guess we have to start at the beginning. How is the term "rape" defined for legal purposes? In case you don't want to start from the beginning...

1. Slavery means slaves don't have the ability to disobey their masters without consequence.
2. Having consequences for disobeying means the master can coerce their slaves without actually threatening violence or punishment.
3. Rape may be coercing someone into having sex (but I need a definition from you).
4. Therefore, masters who banged their slaves (all of them) raped them. All.

EDIT - By the way, your weird analogies aren't really relevant to the discussion. It's pretty easy to make this argument without resorting to analogies. Everyone (except stahr - who is providing some research) is ignoring the coercive element. But mostly you are ignoring it BBS. Mostly you.

[tear]

Well said.

[thegreekdog]

Well said.

Neoteny said it first and more succinctly. I thought maybe BBS would respond better to more words.

I mostly agree with your argument, but #3 and #4 shall be attacked without mercy!

Good, because #2 is the linchpin of my argument. The relationship between master and slave is inherently coercive. It is akin to the relationship between a prison guard and a prisoner (although even worse - prison guards can't beat the prisoners if they are lazy and not being "industrious").

I define "rape" as an involuntary exchange of sexual activities, and an "involuntary exchange" occurs when coercion or the threat of coercion is acted upon/engaged. To be clear, a voluntary exchange occurs when neither party uses coercion or threatens with coercion to make the exchange happen.

Ah, so you don't agree with my #2. I don't think there needs to be an overt threat of coercion for coercion to occur. As I indicated before, if the master says "have sex with me" to the slave, the slave is under the implied threat of coercion if she does not obey the order.

Are voluntary exchanges impossible between a master and a slave? I think they are. I think any request or order will have the threat of coercion behind it. Even if the slave says "You know, I do want to have sex with Tommy," there is an implication that if she didn't, she would face some punishment.

As for your true love comment...

"There, he said it - true love."
"No, what he clearly said was 'to blave' which means to bluff. You were probably playing cards and he cheated..."

In any event, we do know that the threat of coercion existed in the mind of the slave and therefore any interaction between slave and master was coercive. The only way I can foresee coercion not existing is if the slave was the one making the offer; even then there may have been non-verbal cues that Tommy wanted to have sex with the slave.

[BigBallinStalin]

Bollocks.

"we do know that the threat of coercion existed in the mind of the slave and therefore any interaction between slave and master was coercive."

And perhaps it didn't in this particular circumstance. Since we cannot know for certain, then we cannot come to your conclusion.

[stahrgazer]

You are negating the fact that Sally had ample opportunities to leave the family, but she could not STAY with the family in Virginia as a free woman.

She was, however, given "her time," which is described as the only feasible way of freeing a slave in Virginia without forcing her to leave.

And, she was frequently PAID.

NOT the treatment of a slave so fearful of massah she'd be "coerced" by threat of his ownership.

If mere "coercion because he is rich and powerful" is the same as rape, than any richer man having sex with any woman must therefore have raped her, because their is coercion in the woman's mind of a man being absolutely able to take care of her.

[Symmetry]

You are negating the fact that Sally had ample opportunities to leave the family, but she could not STAY with the family in Virginia as a free woman.

Ifs true, this is evidence of coercion.

[stahrgazer]

You are negating the fact that Sally had ample opportunities to leave the family, but she could not STAY with the family in Virginia as a free woman.

Ifs true, this is evidence of coercion.

Then the State of Virginia is guilty of Raping Sally - not Jefferson - because it's the State of Virginia that forced this situation on all of them.

Not to mention, it's evidence she wished to stay, not leave (but if Jefferson were a rapist, she'd want to leave.)

[Symmetry]

You are negating the fact that Sally had ample opportunities to leave the family, but she could not STAY with the family in Virginia as a free woman.

Ifs true, this is evidence of coercion.

Then the State of Virginia is guilty of Raping Sally - not Jefferson - because it's the State of Virginia that forced this situation on all of them.

No- if you're now allowing that it was rape, then Jefferson committed the act.

[stahrgazer]

You are negating the fact that Sally had ample opportunities to leave the family, but she could not STAY with the family in Virginia as a free woman.

Ifs true, this is evidence of coercion.

Then the State of Virginia is guilty of Raping Sally - not Jefferson - because it's the State of Virginia that forced this situation on all of them.

No- if you're now allowing that it was rape, then Jefferson committed the act.

No. You have agreed over and over again that "coercion = rape" (I disagree that all coercion is rape, but it's a claim you've agreed with.)

Thus, the party doing the coercion must be the rapist. Since the State of Virginia is the one that decided that Sally must either leave Virginia or remain as slave in name (because she was getting free time for herself and sometimes being paid, she wasn't being treated as slave by the Jefferson family.)

it follows that, if "coercion" = "rape" then it's the State of Virginia that raped her; and, it appears that she must have chosen it as well, since she DID have ample opportunity to leave.

There's no evidence that Jefferson coerced her.

There's only evidence that the State of Virginia wouldn't allow her to live in Virginia as a totally free black woman.

[Symmetry]

You are negating the fact that Sally had ample opportunities to leave the family, but she could not STAY with the family in Virginia as a free woman.

Ifs true, this is evidence of coercion.

Then the State of Virginia is guilty of Raping Sally - not Jefferson - because it's the State of Virginia that forced this situation on all of them.

No- if you're now allowing that it was rape, then Jefferson committed the act.

No. You have agreed over and over again that "coercion = rape" (I disagree that all coercion is rape, but it's a claim you've agreed with.)

Thus, the party doing the coercion must be the rapist. Since the State of Virginia is the one that decided that Sally must either leave Virginia or remain as slave in name (because she was getting free time for herself and sometimes being paid, she wasn't being treated as slave by the Jefferson family.)

it follows that, if "coercion" = "rape" then it's the State of Virginia that raped her; and, it appears that she must have chosen it as well, since she DID have ample opportunity to leave.

There's no evidence that Jefferson coerced her.

There's only evidence that the State of Virginia wouldn't allow her to live in Virginia as a totally free black woman.

I have said that sex without freedom to consent is rape. So two questions.

1) Do you agree?
2) Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

[stahrgazer]

I have said that sex without freedom to consent is rape. So two questions.

1) Do you agree?
2) Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

1) Yes, sex without freedom to consent is rape; however, "freedom to consent" differs from "legal right to consent."

We can agree that Sally didn't have a "legal" right to consent.

What you wish to ignore is that, just because she didn't have a "legal" right doesn't mean the person in power was such a dickhead that he didn't ALLOW her the "freedom to consent."

A slave couldn't eat meat without massah's permission; doesn't mean the slave didn't frequently get to eat meat, nor does it mean the slave wasn't allowed to CHOOSE meat or CHOOSE vegetables at a meal. Because the owner very well could have GIVEN the slave FREEDOM TO CONSENT over what he or she ate.

No evidence suggests that Jefferson was such a total dickhead that he had to rape anything in skirts or was an abusive powermonger type "owner." No evidence suggests that he was such a gamester that he'd give freedom to consent then, if she made the "wrong choice" he take it away.

Evidence DOES suggest that Sally WAS given freedom to consent on things regarding her life. She she was GIVEN money, she was GIVEN an education, she was GIVEN clothing. She was GIVEN ample opportunity to flee if she wished; and she was GIVEN freedom of her own time, which was the closest thing to "full freedom" allowed in the state of Virginia at that time - since she apparently wished to remain in Virginia.

If she was given all those freedoms, and Jefferson wasn't a powermonger type dickhead, then she likely was given freedom to consent. Recognized between them, but NOT recognized by the state of Virginia.

So if any "rape" occurred due to "coercion," the coercion was by the state of Virginia, so the state, not Jefferson, is the rapist.

I think it's more likely that Jefferson was attracted to his deceased wife's half sister and she to him and that she consented, which is not rape.

2) irrelevant

[Symmetry]

I have said that sex without freedom to consent is rape. So two questions.

1) Do you agree?
2) Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

1) Yes, sex without freedom to consent is rape; however, "freedom to consent" differs from "legal right to consent."

We can agree that Sally didn't have a "legal" right to consent.

What you wish to ignore is that, just because she didn't have a "legal" right doesn't mean the person in power was such a dickhead that he didn't ALLOW her the "freedom to consent."

A slave couldn't eat meat without massah's permission; doesn't mean the slave didn't frequently get to eat meat, nor does it mean the slave wasn't allowed to CHOOSE meat or CHOOSE vegetables at a meal. Because the owner very well could have GIVEN the slave FREEDOM TO CONSENT over what he or she ate.

No evidence suggests that Jefferson was such a total dickhead that he had to rape anything in skirts or was an abusive powermonger type "owner." No evidence suggests that he was such a gamester that he'd give freedom to consent then, if she made the "wrong choice" he take it away.

Evidence DOES suggest that Sally WAS given freedom to consent on things regarding her life. She she was GIVEN money, she was GIVEN an education, she was GIVEN clothing. She was GIVEN ample opportunity to flee if she wished; and she was GIVEN freedom of her own time, which was the closest thing to "full freedom" allowed in the state of Virginia at that time - since she apparently wished to remain in Virginia.

If she was given all those freedoms, and Jefferson wasn't a powermonger type dickhead, then she likely was given freedom to consent. Recognized between them, but NOT recognized by the state of Virginia.

So if any "rape" occurred due to "coercion," the coercion was by the state of Virginia, so the state, not Jefferson, is the rapist.

2) irrelevant

1) He never freed her.
2) That you consider the question of consent so irrelevant to sexual acts is telling.