It's kind of difficult to judge how aggressive the seduction described in this story was. The verb used means "carry away", but my suspicion is that the guy used purely verbal means. I've tried to leave it ambiguous.
I don't know about Chu, but Qin law distinguished between illicit sex with and without coercion. In the latter case the guy would bear the brunt of the sanctions. There are some really fun bamboo slip court cases involving this point of law.
There's a consensual episode here, wherein the couple is being prosecuted not for moral reasons, but because the woman was supposed to be on a state labour detail at the time.
There's a rape case here, which is actually kind of hilarious because Qin had a double-or-quits appeals process, and this guy keeps on appealing his conviction and receives a sentence extension every time.
Yes, that's why I was careful to say the Confucian view, rather than Confucius' view. You might prefer Xunzi's takes on it yourself, but this has become the orthodoxy.
is that in practice most people look within themselves, say "Well there's clearly nothing wrong here, it must be the kids who are out of touch" and no advance is made.
@MichaelMjfm@Solzi_Sez This may not be what is supposed to happen, but if a person's only metric is his own opinions, it will do, sure as eggs is eggs.
I've had this thread brewing for a while, so let's talk about human nature. (1/n)
For Confucians, human nature is basically good. Even today, it's the one Confucian precept that everyone remembers, thanks to the Three Character Classic:
By contrast, legalists saw human nature as utility-maximising. Most people like luxury, sex and respect, and dislike pain, hard work and degradation. They will try to obtain the former and avoid the latter.
The former vision has certain advantages, not least of which being that it confers a certain moral lustre upon anyone who professes it. Even if you know yourself to be surrounded by shitheads, expressing a belief in human virtue makes *you* seem like a better person.
I've always been bewildered by these history account self-owns. “We suck so hard at fighting that a bunch of peasants from a far-off little island just walked in and stole our stuff and we still can't do anything about it. Boom!”
Now I'm doing the final round of revisions, I'm finally reading the Crump translation. I found it moderately interesting that my default assumption was that multiple sex slaves were involved in every transaction in this story, while for him it was just one at a time.
Fwiw, the Guoxuemeng translation assumes one person, Forestcat many.
Perhaps some of us simply require more extensive persuasion? 🤷
Bring a bucket and a mop and a 270m-tall concrete double-curvature arch dam with 988m crest elevation and 51m-thick foundation bed, and two underground powerhouses on both sides of the river with 5.1GW installed capacity each.