The argument made by Rubenfelt for narrowing the legal definition of rape.

Full Answer Section

• Force as the key element: Under his definition, rape would only occur if force is used to overcome a person's physical resistance and violate their self-possession. This essentially narrows rape to situations involving physical coercion.
• Excluding deception and intoxication: By focusing on physical force, Rubenfeld's definition would likely exclude situations where deception or intoxication play a role. This could potentially leave victims of these types of sexual assaults without legal recourse under his proposed definition.

Essentially, Rubenfeld argues that a narrower definition based on physical force would provide more clarity and consistency in rape law.

It's important to note that Rubenfeld's argument has been criticized for several reasons, including:

• Oversimplifying the concept of rape: Rape can be a complex act that involves psychological coercion and power dynamics, not just physical force.
• Leaving victims vulnerable: Excluding situations involving deception or intoxication could leave victims feeling unheard and their experiences unacknowledged by the law.
• Potential for manipulation: Focusing solely on physical force could allow perpetrators to manipulate situations to avoid legal consequences.

Sample Answer

Rubenfeld argues for a narrower legal definition of rape by focusing on the concept of "self-possession" rather than consent. Here's a breakdown of his argument:

• Current focus on consent: He believes current rape laws rely too heavily on the concept of consent, which can be a complicated concept, especially in cases of deception.
• Self-possession as the core violation: Rubenfeld proposes that rape should be defined as a violation of a person's right to "self-possession," meaning the ability to control one's own body.