Oy! Everyone's so busy talking about laws as they apply to
Ranma's "engagement" to Shampoo, and whether he was reckless in
fighting her either in the village or at the Tendos' house, that
I think you're forgetting a few points.

    Unless the Joketsuzoku village was an autonomous political
unit with authority to pass its own laws (unlikely), the "Laws of
the Amazons" are really more like the by-laws of Amazon society -
rules that apply to MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY.  Shampoo would be
required to kill female Ranma, and to marry male Ranma, but Ranma
would not be required to go along with either procedure.  Note that
even if those were actual laws, the law about marriage would not
apply to Ranma's second defeat of Shampoo, since that happened in
Japan, and any legal violation from the first defeat could only be
dealt with if the Amazons had him deported from Japan to China.
If you look at the way the laws are worded, though, they talk
about what the Amazon must do, rather than saying that the penalty
for beating a warrior is death.  This sounds more like the by-laws
notion.  If that's so, there is no legal problem here; Shampoo has
the problem of trying to persuade Ranma to comply to maintain her
place in Amazon society.

    Moreover, note that no one warned Ranma before the fight in
the village of the possible consequences of victory, not even the
Guide.  However, he DID tell them the meaning of the Kiss of Death
afterwards.  This, combined with the apparent surprise of the
spectators when Shampoo kissed Ranma, has always led me to conclude
that Shampoo, in her wounded pride, had invoked a seldom-used section
of the Amazon code when she tried to kill Ranma.  The shocked
expressions appeared not after the defeat, but after the kiss.

    Should Ranma have been more careful? Perhaps.  But if I've got
a guide taking me around a foreign country, I'd expect him to
warn me of possible cultural misunderstandings, such as, "These
people have a tendency to run berserk at the sight of someone in
white socks."  I really don't think anybody expected Shampoo to
react the way she did.

    All this talk of laws misses the point.  What binds Ranma to
his fiancees, including Shampoo, is honor, not law.  (In the
discussion that follows, I'd appreciate any corrections from
someone with more knowledge of these matters.)

    Ranma and Akane were engaged by their fathers.  They are
honor-bound to go along with it, unless they choose to defy
their parents, unlikely in two who seem quite traditional, in
this respect at least.  In terms of Japanese culture, according
to my limited understanding, the only two honorable obligations
that are effectively unlimited are the obligations to one's
parents and to the Emperor.  Interpreting this strictly, I believe
it is up to Soun and Genma to dissolve the engagement if they see
fit.  Ranma and Akane are not honorably allowed to.

    Ranma and Ukyo were also engaged by their fathers.  This
case is a little trickier, since it might be held that Genma
dissolved the engagement by breaking the agreement and running
off with the yatai.  By doing so, he dishonored Ukyo.  If the
original agreement is not considered to be in effect (I'm not
sure what the Japanese take on this would be), then Ranma's
obligation arises from the stain on Ukyo's honor.  Ukyo has
signaled her willingness to acept marriage to Ranma as a means
of expiating this stain.  I imagine Ranma would have to find
some alternative redress, preferably acceptable to Ukyo, to
get out of this engagement.

   Finally, as Hitomi Ichinohei wrote a while ago, Ranma's
has a debt of honor to Shampoo arising from the respect due
to the code of a fellow martial artist.  Again, some form of
redress would be needed to fulfill his obligation to her.
Again, Shampoo would accept marriage.  What else would suffice
must, as with Ukyo's case, remain a subject for debate and
possible fiction.


Reid Carson
rcarson@mnsinc.com