Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being well-off (supposedly, at least) and having power in certain domains does not mean you can't be raped . The only relevant attribute is consent . If you were making an argument that the prisoner actually had power over the guards through external contacts and implicit threats to their families, that'd be one thing. But you continually mistake masculine bravado and some level of material comfort for ability to con…
> The only relevant attribute is consent . The guards here are not asking the prisoners for sex. The prisoners are asking the guards for sex. If I ask you to do something, and you do, I have consented to that thing. If I show a woman a gun, and tell her "sleep with me or I kill you", and she sleeps with me -- that's rape. If I'm her boss, and tell her "sleep with me or you're fired", and she does -- that's not rape.…
Consent is not saying yes.
Consent is meaning yes. It may or may not be measurable. If there are pressures that mean a person has good reasons to say yes when they do not mean yes, then it is not measurable. Consent that can't be measured must be assumed to be absent.
Consent does not exist if a person is in a power relationship. The pressure to say yes comes from the fact that a guard, here, is in a position to dispense favour or disfavour.