Conference turris::womannotes-v2

A friend shared a book with me whose author states that Thomas Aquinas deemed
rape and incest 'better' than masturbation (male, obviously), since something
blessed could come out of the former (presumably, life), but not the latter.
The book's title, which I could find, would not help, as there were,
disappointingly, no quotes or references. 
	Mez

I do not dispute that Droit du Seigneur existed and was widespread, but I 
have seen commentaries that tend to refute the suggestion that it is a chattel
issue.

1) Early baronial practice grew from earlier tribal war-lords controlling their 
clans. Since the War-lord was the strongest man in the clan then DdS gave his
genes a higher probability of transmission than that of his weaker brethren. It
was a form of early genetic engineering in the "Master Race" mould.

2) The baron as a [presumably] older and more experienced man would be gentler
than the inexperienced and younger husband. Thus DdS far from being a brutal 
rape could be a much gentler experience.

3) Since the Baron took the bride's maidenhead the husband in fact had no way 
of knowing if his bride came to marriage as a virgin, hence avoiding a lot of 
unpleasantries that might ensue if he found out she wasn't. And the practice 
prevented the couple indulging in pre-marital sex since they could expect to be 
caught.

Also I have seen suggestions that though the Baron "owned" the maidenhead he 
often would not exert the right to take it. Instead in many cases a token tax 
was paid.(Similarly in Britain the Queen theoretically owns all land in the 
country, but this doesn't prevent people owning houses, merely legitimises 
the Stamp Duty paid on the purchase...) 

/. Ian .\

>but I have seen commentaries that tend to refute the suggestion that 
>it is a chattel issue.

I don't see that it really matters what kind of an issue this is.

>It was a form of early genetic engineering in the "Master Race" mould.

Oh, I don't know.  Since the women went on to have children with their
husbands, I tend to doubt the "best genes" rationalization.

> The baron as a [presumably] older and more experienced man would be gentler
>than the inexperienced and younger husband. 

He would?  It would seem to me that the one who loved the woman would be
the gentlest or at least the most concerned for her comfort/enjoyment.

>Thus DdS far from being a brutal rape could be a much gentler experience.

A kinder, gentler rape.  It's all in how you look at it.  It *could* be
as you say, but I doubt a warlord, who most likely considered himself
king dong, was much interested in "gentleness".  I suspect in most cases
it was considered a duty to be dispatched with post haste, (unless of course
the bride was a particularly interesting specimen to him).

>3) Since the Baron took the bride's maidenhead the husband in fact had no way 
>of knowing if his bride came to marriage as a virgin, hence avoiding a lot of 
>unpleasantries that might ensue if he found out she wasn't. 

So you're saying the baron would protect her little secret?  I seriously
doubt this. It especially doesn't hold up according to your best genes
theory.  I'd bet he'd display a little outrage of his own.  Probably
a little lifetime blackmail, ("you give me head whenever I want it or I'll
tell on you!"), was in order for the more interesting brides.  And since
this guy was the only one who really knew, who'd believe a young
woman if he lied and said she was no virgin?

>And the practice prevented the couple indulging in pre-marital sex since 
>they could expect to be caught.

This I can believe.

>Also I have seen suggestions that though the Baron "owned" the maidenhead he 
>often would not exert the right to take it. 

Sure!  If she was fat, ugly, old, had rotten teeth, etc.  I just don't see him
saying, "Ah, leave that sweet, fresh, gorgeous young thing to her husband.  
I can have her if I want, but I'm such a good guy..."
    

    Sorry, but the right word in French is not "Droit du Seigneur",
    but "Droit de Cuissage" (the "cuisse" is the up part of the leg...)..
    
    Could I continue in French ? So do I...
    
    Non seulement le Seigneur etait cense deflorer les jeunes mariees
    de facon plus delicate que leur mari (vues les methodes anti-adulteres
    employees par les seigneurs de l'epoque, cf. ceinture de chastete,
    j'ai quelques doutes quant a leur delicatesse...), mais de plus
    ils se faisaient souvent aider par des jeunes gens, ecuyers, pages,
    ou simplement favoris du seigneur...
    
    Quant a la sauvegarde de la purete de la race, lorsqu'on sait a
    quel point l'inceste etait une pratique courante, j'ai quelques doutes
    egalement...

    
    Zoziau-back

    Merci beaucoup pour votre note. Pouvez-vous traduire en anglais pour
    les autres?
    
     Mark Emile

Two comments:

1) I seriously doubt that the Lord of the Manor would have to apply life 
time blackmail to get his particular sexual kink staisfied, since he 
presumably had a steady supply of fresh young women.

2) Can we really apply todays standards to the past? By this I mean that 
this behaviour *today* would be rape, but is it reasonable to use that term in
describing the past.

/. Ian .\

PS Droit du Seigneur is the correct term in *Norman* French, which of course is
how it got into English.

    re .6:
    
    I agree with Sandy.  One can try to justify rape with all the
    reasons one can, and it's all been tried before, but I'm not
    fooled.
    

What an odd question Ian. Are you suggesting that forcing sex against a woman's
will was not rape, for some reason, for some culture, at some time? It's the
most depressing thing I've read here for a while...
	Mez

    
    "Jus primae noctis: [L, right of first night]
    
    1. Droit du seigneur. 2. A right granted by the law or custom of
    a primitive people to some person other than the bridegroom of
    deflowering the bride."
    
    			-- Webster's Third New International Dictionary
    
    
    Sounds as if the woman's will didn't have a whole heck of a lot to
    do with it, and that's rape, in my book, by definition, no matter
    how much people try to obscure the fact by appealing to the passage of 
    time or by lapsing into foreign languages even to discuss it...
         
    Dorian

No Mez, I'm saying that whatever difficulty I have in putting myself in the 
mind set of a twentieth century woman is orders of magnitude less than putting
myself in the mindset of a tenth century woman.

I am willing to concede that a historian who claims that women of the time
almost universally viewed it as an honour, and that most noblemen would not
force the issue on the few who were genuinely reluctant, may just possibly 
understand what they are saying.

Brainwashed by society and church from birth to believe that it was part of 
the right of passage from maidenhood to wifehood, it is at least possible that
the women did not consider it as rape. 

Incidentally William (the Conqueror, formerly the Bastard) had one of his
barons hanged in public for kidnapping and raping the wife of one of his serfs.
The right such as it was is exactly as stated in the base note: the lord had the
right (if he wished to exercize it) to take the maidenhead of his serf's wife.
Since you can only take a maidenhead once further sexual congress is contrary to
civil and church law. Further if you want to make a point of it, both oral and
anal sex were also forbidden practices.

I honestly don't know what either the women or the barons thought of the 
practice. I consider it just possible that the lord of the manor considered it a 
boring chore with an unlettered and unattractive woman, and that the women 
viewed it as an honour. I am also prepared to admit that some lords of the manor 
might, indeed probably were, lecherous swine, and the women hated the process.

However in conclusion I do want to make one point: an earlier note suggested 
that the woman would find the man they loved more caring than the lord of the 
manor. But are you not aware that serf marriages were almost never marriages of
love. A man who had never travelled from his home village would usually have a 
wife found for him by the Lord's Chief Steward from the available women on
neighbouring manors. In most cases they would never have met until the wedding
or at least the betrothal party. Love, as the old saying has it, comes after
the marriage for the lucky ones. The risk of the wife not being a virgin is
not from a bit of premarital exploring with the man she is to marry, but with
teenage boys in her home village, who she will never see again, and whom her
husband doesn't know. Courtship (the gentle art of wooing your future wife) gets
its name from the court (of a nobleman) - the only place in which such behaviour
occurred. It was totally unknown behaviour for the unlettered, and uncultured 
serfs.

/. Ian .\

re .9:

Dorian, firstly the note in French was written by somebody 
whose primary language is french.

Secondly if you are going to bandy dictionary definitons then please be 
consistent. Rape is defined as unlawful sexual intercourse. And if the sexual
act is ordained by statute it cannot be unlawful and hence cannot be rape.

If you'd written a note about unacceptable mandated sex practices I for one 
would not have been arguing against you.

Terrible, horrible, and unacceptable to the twentieth century mind Drioit du
Seigneur is. rape it isn't. You can't appeal to a dictionary in one case 
and ignore it at will in others.

/. Ian .\

    Susan Brownmiller's _Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape_ has
    many citations which suggest that some legal rapes were permitted 
    throughout recorded history.  A few excerpts:
    
    p.11- "One authority on the blood-vengeance justice  of the early
    Assyrians has noted that under the lex talionis the father of a
    raped virgin was permitted to seize the wife of the rapist and violate
    her in turn."
    
    p.12- "Protecting wellborn daughters of Israel from rape by the
    threat of massive retribution was obviously serious business, but
    as the story of Dinah shows, men of the Hebrew tribes, like their
    neighbors, had no compunctions against freely raping women of tribes
    they had conquered, for in this way they prospered and grew.  Captured
    slave women were lawfully employed as servants, field hands,
    concubines, and breeders of future slaves in much the same manner
    that the eighteenth-century American slaveholder made use of his
    black female slaves, and indeed, this Biblical parallel was often
    cited as religious justification by upholders of American slavery."
    [typist's note: Dinah's story is in the book of Genesis.]
    
    p.12- "...Now the Hebrew elders become seriously concerned, for without
    women the tribe of Benjamin will cease to exist.  They arrange for
    the defeated Benjamites to catch and rape four hundred young virgins
    of neighboring Shiloh, and thus secure for them legal wives."
    [typist's note: This story is in the book of Judges.]
    
    p.15- "...Yet once the nuptials had taken place, their legal and
    churchly sanctity could not be challenged, and so the custom of
    "stealing an heires" by forcible abduction and marriage became a
    routine method of acquiring property by adventurous, upward-mobile
    knights.  As a matter of record, not until a fifteenth-century edict
    of Henry VII was heiress-stealing ruled a felony unto itself."
         
    I haven't time to transcribe further, but you get the picture. 
    Brownmiller would certainly agree with your thesis.
    
    DougO

    Under the law in all the states in the U.S., rape is sexual congress
    with a woman either against her will or without her consent.  (The U.S.
    Supreme Court has ruled that the two prepositional clauses are
    equivalent.)  In some states in the union (fewer than beforetimes),
    the law specifically excludes husbands from prosecution under this
    law.
    
    Thus, yes, there have been times, and there are places where rape,
    as currently defined in the U.S., has been legal.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  I hope no one is surprised to find that life in the Middle
    Ages was unpleasant, and even a bit more unpleasant for women
    than for men.

>What an odd question Ian. Are you suggesting that forcing sex against a woman's
>will was not rape, for some reason, for some culture, at some time? It's the
>most depressing thing I've read here for a while...


	 Mez....who's to say that these women did this against their
	 will?  Perhaps to them it was also an accepted ritual?



	 I'd have to know more about the entire situation to call it
	 rape.




	 kath

Kath, that's why I asked the question. I was looking for more information.
	Mez

>Kath, that's why I asked the question. I was looking for more information.


	 Oops...yea, I see that now, I hadn't read all the replies
	 yet.



	 If the woman accepted it and wasn't forced into it, I would
	 think it couldn't be rape.


	 Also, I don't think we can generalize this into "this ritual
	 was a form of legalized rape."  We could only take it on a
	 case by case basis, I believe.


	 kath

    
                                       
    
    	This concept, and the rationalizations for it that I 
    	can't believe I'm reading _here_, kind of make me
    	want to be sick on my keyboard.
    
    						nancy b.
    

    re .13
    
    Thanks Ann - would you have any idea which states exclude husbands
    from prosecution?
    
    Dorian

How much choice did the 10th century woman have as to whether she would be
married, and to whom?  Once married, how much choice did she have as to 
whether to accept her husband's sexual advances?  In short, should we
assume that rape is any better (or worse) a characterization of the 
institution of droit de seignieur than it is of the entire institution
of marriage at that time?

If the social system universally embraced the notion that women were or 
should be subservient to or (effectively) the property of men, then why
be surprised to find that notion carried through in particular cases?

	-Neil

    I was browsing through _Famous_Detectives_ by Eugene B. Block
    a few weeks ago, and an incident in it struck me as it had not
    when I first read the book.  (Sometime after 1967, but not too
    long after.)
    
    "[Cherrill] often recalled a day in 1931....  A woman had just
    testified against the man she accused of [rape].  His lawyer, in
    cross-examination, had asked her if she had not been arrested
    four years before for stealing a ring...."
    
    It would seem from the above that there was a time, not that long
    ago, when it was not a crime to sexually assault a woman who had
    committed a felony.
    
    						Ann B.

re a few back -

Guess the dictionaries haven't all caught up with the courts on what rape 
*is* -- obviously, if we accept the definition that rape is "unlawful 
sexual intercourse," we don't even have a topic here, we have an - er - 
oxymoron?

And, thanks for the passages from Brownmiller's book. I just discovered it
yesterday. I just think that to understand present-day attitudes towards 
something like rape it's important to be aware of what the history of those 
attitudes has been. When I realized (from her book and others) that rape 
(court's definition) has been going on since biblical times, with the
blessing of god and the state, I thought it was worth pointing out... 

Dorian

> whatever difficulty I have in putting myself in the mind set of a twentieth
> century woman is orders of magnitude less than putting myself in the mind-
>set of a tenth century woman.

If this is true, then you really aren't in a position to determine whether
or not it was considered rape, are you?  Either that or when you think of 
it, you are assuming the determination of whether or not it is rape is made
by someone else and not the woman.  Who decides in your mind?  Please clarify.

>I am willing to concede that a historian who claims that women of the time
>almost universally viewed it as an honour, 

Gag.

>and that most noblemen would not force the issue

So if she simply "said no to noblemen", that would be ok, yes?  Another gag.

>Brainwashed by society and church from birth to believe  that it was part of 
>the right of passage from maidenhood to wifehood, it is at least possible that
the women did not consider it as rape. 

According to this statement, you can rape, (or steal or murder), if you con-
vince your victim(s) that is is not rape, (or theft or murder).  Yes?

>Incidentally William (the Conqueror, formerly the Bastard) had one of his
>barons hanged in public for kidnapping and raping the wife of one of his 
>serfs.

And you simply assume that it's because he thought it was so deplorable.
Perhaps he was related to that particular woman.  Perhaps he loved her.
Perhaps he wanted her himself.  He didn't hang them all, now, did he?
It was one man, for one rape.  Why this one?  Do you think he had a
sudden flash of sympatico?        

>I honestly don't know what either the women or the barons thought of the 
>practice. 

No, you don't.  But as a woman, I guarantee you I know what the women felt.
Most of us don't generally like to have sex with strangers - even if that
stranger is Donald Trump.  We may be willing to make a BARGAIN with him that 
includes sex  ;-)  but just give it to him for nothing?  Not bloody likely, 
mate.

>I consider it just possible that the lord of the manor considered it a 
>boring chore with an unlettered and unattractive woman, and that the women 
>viewed it as an honour. 

Please quit while you're ahead.  This is one of the most blatantly sexist
and disgusting things I've read in ages.  The women were "honoured" and
the men who raped them were bored.  Big time gag.

>I am also prepared to admit that some lords of the manor might, indeed 
>probably were, lecherous swine, and the women hated the process.

You are?  You may have thought this one line disclaimer would protect you, 
(or deflect women's attention), from the less-than-egalitarian explanations/
defenses/rationalizations you have offerred. And since people didn't
live to ripe old ages then, nobelemen must have been rather young. 
Just think about the average 20th century male and how he would act
if he thought rape was his right - his due.  I suspect the culture brought
out the lecherous swine in the best of men.

>But are you not aware that serf marriages were almost never marriages of
love. 

That was my line [that a husband would love and be more gentle/caring].
And you're right.  No one really loved\cared about her beyond her capacity
to make orgasms and babies for men.

>Courtship (the gentle art of wooing your future wife) gets its name from the 
>court (of a nobleman) - the only place in which such behaviour occurred. 

I doubt it's the *only* place it occurred.  The rich/wealthy/powerful are
always and have always been emulated.  If you, the serf, and your neighbor
Joe, the serf, wanted the same woman, you might vie.  And how would you
vie?  Think about it.

>Secondly if you are going to bandy dictionary definitons...

Yes, please, stop "bandying" facts.  Let's deal strictly with conjecture
and emotion.  Only there can we make women feel "honoured" when they're
raped.

>Rape is defined as unlawful sexual intercourse. 

Is this your dictionary?  It must be quite yellowed and dog-eared by now.
Mine defines it as  "The crime of forcing a person to submit to sexual
intercourse".  It doesn't at all imply that some women you can "legally"
rape and some you can't.  Hence this string.

>And if the sexual act is ordained by statute it cannot be unlawful and 
>hence cannot be rape.

Well, there you go!  It isn't rape if the male lawmakers/male
lexicographers SAY it isn't.  You can't be this naive.  If you were,
on of the "three born to take you" would have by now.  I'm curious why
you feel such a need to defend this idea that you are going way out
on a limb to do so.  Right from your "best genes" theory onward, you
seem very determined to defend at all costs.  Why?     

>If you'd written a note about unacceptable mandated sex practices I for one 
>would not have been arguing against you.

She did.  Rape is an unacceptable sex practice which is, in many cases, 
mandated.  Your condition has been met.

>Terrible, horrible, and unacceptable to the twentieth century mind Drioit du
>Seigneur is. rape it isn't. 

You are flat out wrong.

>You can't appeal to a dictionary in one case and ignore it at will in others.

Did you ever think of "appealing" to the women for definition?  Who
are you ignoring in all this?
    
    

    re , Ian:
    
    This is an extremely emotional topic for all women, particulary
    those reading this file who *have* been raped, "legally" or not.
    I think you owe an apology for being extremely insensitive to
    a highly personal and emotional issue.  You can use all the logic
    you want, but there are other important factors in this issue.
    

    re .25
    
    I agree with your assessments from the point of view of a 20th century
    female and probably even an 18th century female.  You seem to be
    placing the same values and thought patterns on people in an entirely
    different culture at an entirely different time. (18th century was
    meant to be medeaval)  I am not a mideaval female either, but I
    do try to imagine myself in the other person's shoes when asked
    to think about such things.  I think that if I were the nobleman,
    I might find some of the serf women attractive and look forward
    to taking my "right".  I might not want to with those I found
    unattractive.  I might find myself getting angry with my family/peers
    who would tease me to do my "duty".  I might find it painfully
    exhausting during marriage "season", not looking forward to it all
    year.
    
    If I were the serf woman, I might look forward to intimacy with
    one of the "elite" nobles.  since my marriage was probably not my
    choice anyway, this event might be a highlight of my life.  I might
    even hope to be "good enough" for him to find a way to take me back
    to the manorhouse where I could life my life in comparative splendor
    even if considered a servant.  If the nobleman was repulsive to
    me for some reason (and there are lots of possible reasons), I would
    hope to avoid being taken by him.  Being a woman of that time,
    especially a serf, I would accept that my body was not mine. (I
    know that's repulsive now, but that was a different time and a
    different culture.)  I think I would look forward to it in most
    cases.
    
    Finally, my mind is boggled by the references that this was condoned
    by the Church.  My reaction to this is that it was probably true.
    that it reflects the leaders of the Church and their weaknesses
    and the culture they were in, and the general lack of education
    and knowledge of the time.  Today's Church also looks the other
    way on issues that are considered sins when they are PC.
    
    
    Bud

>                    <<< Note 880.25 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>

>No, you don't.  But as a woman, I guarantee you I know what the women felt.


	 BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I'm a woman and I can't even begin to
	 place myself in the shoes of those women and know what they
	 were feeling and what they felt was right.  The 10th century
	 is NOT the 20th, and their ideals, opinions, attitudes,
	 etc were NOT what ours are today.

	 It's called evolution.

	 Unless you have a PhD studying the women of this time, I
	 would have to say that you have no idea at all what they were
	 thinking, and whether or not they felt they were being
	 violated/raped.

	 Just because it is untasteful to you does not mean it was
	 untasteful to them.

	 If I were a woman in that time, I would feel honoured to be
	 deflowered and taught how to please another by a man who was
	 almost a sort of god (Lord over the land).....I would believe
	 that it would be the thing I would look most forward to in a
	 marriage, considering, mostly like I would hardly even know
	 who my future husband was, but the Lord of the Land would be
	 a mysterious, illusive creature.......someone I would yearn
	 to be taught by.
	 
>boring chore with an unlettered and unattractive woman, and that the women 
>viewed it as an honour. 

>Please quit while you're ahead.  This is one of the most blatantly sexist
>and disgusting things I've read in ages.  The women were "honoured" and
>the men who raped them were bored.  Big time gag.

	 I disagree so totally with you it's amazing.  I would find it
	 an honour as a woman to be desired enough by a figurehead for
	 him to not waive his rights.

	 And I don't find it sexist in the least.  Place yourself in
	 the shoes of a woman who has a chosen marriage with a man
	 twice her age......Hell, this would be about the only thing a
	 woman would have to look forward to, because, after all, it
	 would be my assumption that the Lord would be very
	 experienced, and it would be highly doubtful many of the
	 normal men would be.

>>I am also prepared to admit that some lords of the manor might, indeed 
>>probably were, lecherous swine, and the women hated the process.
>
>You are?  You may have thought this one line disclaimer would protect you, 
>(or deflect women's attention), from the less-than-egalitarian explanations/

	 I would like to say that I will admit, too, that some of the
	 lords might have been lecherous swine, but i would find it
	 highly doubtful that the majority of them were.
	 
>And you're right.  No one really loved\cared about her beyond her capacity
>to make orgasms and babies for men.

	 You're wrong, the women of that time were actually very
	 respected for their home qualities--the men worked hard long
	 hours in the fields and the women cared for the homes, sewed,
	 cooked, gardened, etc.   Women were very limited in what they
	 were allowed to do, but they were respected for what they
	 did.
	 
>You are flat out wrong.

	 And I maintain that YOU are flat out wrong...you have no
	 business second-guessing what these women were feeling and
	 how they felt about this ritual.  Not unless you have a PhD
	 on the subject, or lived a former life in this time and were
	 one of these women.


	 kathy    

    Well, we can argue dictionary definitions and legal definitions
    of "rape" (it's quite possible that what we're dealing with here
    is a separation of definitions according to American and British
    usage). Still, from a viewpoint of logic, your definition doesn't
    hold. Why?  Because if "rape" were defined as "illegal sexual
    congress", than the concept of "statutory rape" would be superfluous,
    since by your definition of "rape", *all* rape is statutory rape.
    The point of statutory rape is to define certain acts to be rape
    that are not covered by the standard definition of rape.
    
    Now, as far as "defending" the concept of droit de signeur on the
    basis that it was part of a different culture with different
    standards, well, you have a point, except that in making that point,
    you are missing another.
    
    Dorian's reason for starting this discussion was to point out that
    there *was* at least one point in history in which rape was legal.
    Behind this demonstration is the idea that what occurred historically
    anent the treatment of women by men has affected the way women are
    *still* treated by men.
    
    One *may* possibly excuse such treatment in the 10th Century with
    a "well, they didn't know any better", but that doesn't change the
    fact that what they did in the 10th Century has enormous repercussions
    in the 20th.
    
    --- jerry

    	RE: .28  Kath
    
    	> BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I'm a woman and I can't even begin to
	> place myself in the shoes of those women and know what they
	> were feeling and what they felt was right.  The 10th century
	> is NOT the 20th, and their ideals, opinions, attitudes,
	> etc were NOT what ours are today.
    
    	If that's true, then why is the rest of your note filled with
    	your claims to know *precisely* (in specific detail) what *you* 
    	would think and feel in this situation:
    
    	> If I were a woman in that time, I would feel honoured to be
	> deflowered and taught how to please another by a man who was
	> almost a sort of god (Lord over the land).....I would believe
	> that it would be the thing I would look most forward to in a
	> marriage, considering, mostly like I would hardly even know
	> who my future husband was, but the Lord of the Land would be
	> a mysterious, illusive creature.......someone I would yearn
	> to be taught by.
	 
    	Where do you get *your* information from, and why are *your*
    	claims (to know how this would feel) more valid than Sandy's?
    
    	> I would find it an honour as a woman to be desired enough by a 
    	> figurehead for him to not waive his rights.
    
    	Again, how do you know this (when you have already claimed that
    	Sandy would need a PhD in the subject to know how it would feel?)
    
    	> Hell, this would be about the only thing a woman would have to 
    	> look forward to, because, after all, it would be my assumption 
    	> that the Lord would be very experienced, and it would be highly 
    	> doubtful many of the normal men would be.
    
    	Again, why are you allowed this sort of speculation after telling
    	Sandy that she is not??
    
    	And now for the punchline:
    
    	> And I maintain that YOU are flat out wrong...you have no
	> business second-guessing what these women were feeling and
	> how they felt about this ritual.  Not unless you have a PhD
	> on the subject, or lived a former life in this time and were
	> one of these women.
    
    	Doesn't this strike you as being a bit hypocritical (considering
    	the content of the rest of your note?)  What gives?

    Okay, people.  This is a hot topic.  Nobody here can say EXACTLY how
    the women of that era felt, they can only conjecture or quote texts
    they find pertinent.  PLEASE no tit-for-tat argumentative notes.
    
    -Jody
    

>                      <<< Note 880.30 by CSC32::CONLON >>>
    
>    	If that's true, then why is the rest of your note filled with
>    	your claims to know *precisely* (in specific detail) what *you* 
>    	would think and feel in this situation:

	 Suzanne.....I'm talking about how *I* would feel......Sandy
	 is say that it was flat out rape and that the all these women
	 would not have consented to this.

	 I am but one women.....not a million, Suzanne.
	    
>    	Where do you get *your* information from, and why are *your*
>    	claims (to know how this would feel) more valid than Sandy's?

	 My information?  Suzanne.....I'm talking about MYSELF, no one
	 else.  I never claimed to me talking about any woman of that
	 time, especially not all of them!  Sandy's claim is, I
	 believe, that all these women were raped.  If a woman
	 consents, then it is not rape.

	 My point about myself is to point out to Sandy that there
	 could possibly be a different attitude than the one she
	 claims every woman back them had.

	 My example is not even the same thing as Sandy's claim.  I;m
	 talking about the way *I* think I would feel in the
	 situation.  Sandy is making blatent generalizations about how
	 all these women were raped.  She has presented no facts to back up a
	 generalization like that.  I don't need facts to present how
	 I would feel in a like situation.
	 
>    	> I would find it an honour as a woman to be desired enough by a 
>    	> figurehead for him to not waive his rights.
>    
>    	Again, how do you know this (when you have already claimed that
>    	Sandy would need a PhD in the subject to know how it would feel?)

	 Suzanne, can't you READ?!?!  I'm saying the way *I* believe
	 that I would feel!!!

	 I'll go re-read what Sandy wrote, but what I got out of it
	 the three times I read it were that she was claiming that all
	 these women WERE RAPED.......she is attempting to express
	 what she feels the women were thinking as fact.  I am simply
	 stating how *I* believe I would feel.

	 There *IS* a big difference, Suzanne.....I'm not in ANY WAY
	 second-guessing what any of these women would have
	 felt....only what I believe *I* would have felt in a similar
	 situation (using what I know from that period of time, and
	 knowing me, of course).
	    
>    	Doesn't this strike you as being a bit hypocritical (considering
>    	the content of the rest of your note?)  What gives?

	 Suzanne, you're talking apples and oranges here.  I'm not
	 second-guessing the attitudes and feelings of all the women
	 back there.  Sandy is stating that this is flat out rape.
	 I'm pointing out that if I was back then, I would not
	 consider it rape at all, but an honor.

	 I talk for myself and myself only............Sandy is not.

	 Tell me, how does that make me hypocritical?


	 kath

    	RE: .32  Kath
    
    	> I'm talking about how *I* would feel......Sandy
	> is say that it was flat out rape and that the all these women
	> would not have consented to this.
    
    	When you yelled at Sandy for her quote ("As a woman, I can
    	guarantee you I know what the women felt"), you took it out of
    	context.
    
    	What she said immediately after that was, "Most of us don't
    	generally like to have sex with strangers - even if that stranger
    	is Donald Trump.  We may be willing to make a BARGAIN with him
    	that includes sex  ;-) but just give it to him for nothing?  Not
    	bloody likely, mate."
    
    	That sounds like a pretty general comment to me.  Perhaps you
    	failed to notice it.
    
    	She didn't put herself in the place of those women *nearly* as
    	much as you then did.
    
    	Let me requote you:  "I'm a woman and I can't even begin to
    	place myself in the shoes of those women..."  followed by
    	"If I were a woman in that time, I would feel..."
    
    	Those statements contradict each other, unless the first
    	statement was only meant as part of your screaming to Sandy
    	and had nothing to do with what you really think.
    
    	Since it's ok now to say what any of us would think if *WE*
    	lived in that time, I'm sure I would hate being forced to
    	have sex with someone (as part of his property) - and I would
    	consider it rape.  I'm dead sure of it.
    
    	Now where is the fine line that says that *I* am not second-
    	guessing what women back then were feeling (and am only talking
    	about my *own* feelings instead)??  
    
    	You were so anxious to take your disagreement with Sandy to the
    	farthest degree possible that your note to her *glorified* the
    	idea of legalized rape needlessly.  I wonder why you went that 
    	far with it.
    
    	Deflowered, indeed.  Good grief.

In the U.S. today it is de-facto "legal" to rape a prostitute. That is a man
having sex with a prostitute against her will or without her consent will not
be convicted of rape.

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." does not apply to
prostitutes in the U.S. I wonder about other contries? Denmark? Holland?

Traditionally it was "legal" for soldiers to rape women of conquered contries, 
regardless of the other laws of the soldiers or the conquered contry. I.E.
"The Rape of the Sabine Women". On the other hand, the practice is now
"officially" illegal and some soldiers are convicted under it.

Does marrying off a woman against her will count? I would think so, and that
practice is still legal in many parts of the world.

How about selling children into prostitution? Were there cases where that was
"officially" legal, as opposed to "merely" widely practiced and winked at?

Bleah, what a depressing topic.

	-- Charles

    I would like to second Jody's request for calm; as she points out, this
    is an *extremely* sensitive subject and while it would be very easy to
    have perspective and temper go to where the woodbine twineth, it will
    neither advance your argument nor feel good once your blood pressure
    returns to normal.
    
    
    And is there someone who feels able to take responsibility for
    translating Zoziau's notes in good time?  I dare say I'm not the only
    one who feels frustrated at not being able to read french well enough
    to cope, and I'm quite sure Zoziau herself would be glad to be
    understood by us.
    
    						=maggie

Thanx for the backing, Suzanne, you saved me having to say those very words.
                                                                            
> I would feel honoured to be deflowered and taught how to please another 
> by a man who was almost a sort of god

You must read a lot of bodice rippers.  Who says he'd teach you anything
except humiliation and pain?  You're applying 20th century sexuality to
a culture where women were not expected to be sexual.  In the bodice
ripper fantasy you seem to be thinking of, the woman in question is burning 
with desire, bosom heaving and she's wet and ready to be taken by the 
handsome "Lord".  

My guess is she was most likely a trembling, frightened 12 or 13 year old, 
dry and unready.  You seem to imagine a mature and experienced woman and a 
scene complete with a "gentle Lord", smelling of lavender, deflowering a 
panting 18 year old in a huge featherbed in a grand castle after which they 
sip champagne and nibble cookies.  "Lift your skirts, Clarissa", was a quote 
from a book depicting how romantic the men of that time were.  That was about
the extent of foreplay.  (Even non PhDs read books.)  And maybe the act took
place in the girl's home and not the romantic castle.

> And I don't find it sexist in the least.  Place yourself in the shoes of 
> a woman who has a chosen marriage with a man twice her age......

I didn't think girls, (and they were girls, not women), 'chose' marriage
but rather it was forced on them.  The contemporary little ritual of carrying
the bride over the threshold of the house comes from a time when girls had 
to be literally dragged into marriage.  Given this, I don't imagine, (my
lack of credentials notwithstanding), that either marriage or this little
game was romanticized and anticipated breathlessly by young girls.

And if you don't find it sexist, what do you say to the omission of any sexual
"teaching" of young boys?  If the husbands were so "inexperienced" that the
defloration was supposed to be done by someone else, why didn't they bother
to teach the boys?

>Hell, this would be about the only thing a woman would have to look forward 
>to, because, after all, it would be my assumption 

It would be my assumption that it would be just another 'duty' another
negative aspect of 'woman's lot'.

I guess we disagree on the idea of discussing topics in notes.  I think it's
educational to speculate, to toss around ideas; I tell you a little of what
I do know to be true, you tell me a little, and we all learn.  I get the im-
pression you think we should just say how we personally would feel and that's
that.  I'm not interested in knowing how each and every noter would feel
in this instance.  I'd like to converse with others and come to some under-
standing of how the people felt at that time.  To that end, I will speculate 
and make assumptions and generalizations based on what I know.  I don't see
why this is so distasteful.  You can do the same and we can dissect the info 
and put it back together as many times and in as many ways as possible until 
a picture begins to emerge of what "most likely" was.  I'm just not interested
in dallying with personal fantasies about the subject.  So that's where we
differ.
    

"Rape" can surely be meaningfully, and usefully, defined either as "sex with 
a woman against her will" or "illegal sex with a woman against her will".  As
Dorian so clearly pointed out, if you choose the second definition, this 
entire topic is pointless; so it seems easy enough to accept that the question
for this discussion was, "What are some examples of explicit legal tolerance
for sex with women against their wills?"

Regardless of who felt what about it at the time, droit du seignieur as a
legal right of the lord clearly was not concerned with the desires of the 
woman in any way.  That is, as a legal doctrine empowering a particular
man to have sex with a particular woman at a particular time, without
regard to her feelings in the matter, it unquestionably provides a perfect 
example of "explicit legal tolerance for sex with women against their 
wills."

As I noted much earlier, though, the entire institution of marriage in that
era probably provides just as good an example.  I think that Ian suggests
the very good question of whether the institution of droit du seignieur did,
in fact, show any less regard to the feelings and rights of women than did
the entire culture and society of which it was part.

	-Neil

Sandy,

Is this:

>The contemporary little ritual of carrying
>the bride over the threshold of the house comes from a time when girls had 
>to be literally dragged into marriage.  

fact or speculation?  I've never heard a satisfactory explanation for that
tradition.

Oh, and to both Kath and Suzanne, wrt what you would do "if I were in that
time"...I think that is a strange concept.  If you *were* a woman of that
time, you wouldn't be who you are, since the society we are raised in is
a fundamental part of our being.  I would imagine that any 20th century
girl *transplanted* into the 10th century at the tender age of 13 might
have very different reactions than the girl who had spent 13 years immersed
in a culture that condoned this sort of ritual.

Kath, you keep saying "What *I* would do if...". But that is basically a
contradictory statement, because if the "if clause" were true, the *I* you
are refering to simply wouldn't exist.

To sum up my opinion on the subject, I find the concept distasteful, and
I agree with Charles that what happened then has immeasureable affects on
todays society, but I am divided as to whether I would call this "rape".

D!

    re :1  Exactly my point and you made it clearer than I did.  The
    speculation of "what I would do/feel" in that situation is purely
    fantasy.  
    
    I can't quote you the exact book because I read it years ago about
    the origins of the various traditions in weddings.  Young girls were
    brought by their new husbands often kicking and screaming into their
    new homes where they were "made love to" if you choose to call it
    that.  The romantic idea of love in marriage is very 20th century
    and very western.
    

    re .38
    
    On being unsure as to whether or not to call it "rape"...
    
    Would you hesitate to apply the word "murder" to the executions
    of all those millions of people in concentration camps in Europe
    during World War II, because those executions were legally sanctioned 
    by the governments that were then in power in those countries?

    Sandy & Suzanne, I'm glad you two have written what you have in
    here!  Like Nancy, I almost threw-up when I read Ian's first reply.
     I thought Jerry's .29 was good, too.
    
    Lorna
    

	 RE:  everyone


	 My point is simply this.........you cannot call this 'ritual'
	 rape......at least not in every case.

         Yes, if the woman did NOT want it (actively fought it), then
         you could call it rape, but there is no proof whatsoever
         whether this was the case or not.........


	 Also, could not 'chosen marriages' (Sandy, you missed what I
	 meant my chosen marriages) also be considered rape of the
	 woman didn't want to marry the man?


	 Or did these woman accept that this is how life was for them
	 in this time?  Did they accept the Lord's rights to her and
	 did she accept the marriage that was chosen for her?   If so,
	 then it was not rape.



	 We may not LIKE it, but if she accepted the situation, then I
	 would have a VERY hard time calling it rape.


         I'm getting really tired of watching our ancestry being based
         continually in this notesfile.  Yes, women were repressed and
         treated badly in our pasts, but shouldn't we rather learn
         from it instead of just condemning it?  I think everything
         has a reason and I'm sick and tired of seeing my
         ancestors/ancestry bashed over and over again.  I learn from
         it and apply the things I know now, about those times, to
         help the human race evolve even more.........


	 Yes, humans have evolved and we are evolving beyond that
	 necessary time in our past where we were repressed.  Yes, it
	 was necessary or we would not be at the point we are today.

	 How 'bout living and learning from the past instead of
	 bashing it and dwelling on it so much.


	 kath_outta_this_conversation_it_touches_too_close_to_home

>                    <<< Note 880.39 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>
>
>    re :1  Exactly my point and you made it clearer than I did.  The
>    speculation of "what I would do/feel" in that situation is purely
>    fantasy.  


	 So is stating 'facts' about what those women felt as a whole,
	 then......purely speculation and fantasy...........we weren't
	 there.....so we have no idea.



	 kath    

    Re .42, Kath, since the women in the scenario from the 11th century
    (or whenever it was) did not have a *choice* in whether they would
    have sex with the lord, *I* consider it to be rape.  It is true
    that there may have been a few women who were ticked pink to have
    sex with their lord.  But, since none of the women had a *choice*
    in the matter, that, to me, is a form of rape.  This was a custom
    started by the rich, powerful *men* of that society, with no regard
    for how the women or the poor men felt.  There was a reason for
    it.  The reason was so that the lords or barons or whatever could
    show the ordinary people who was boss and get a little piece on
    the side as well, I bet.  
    
    Half of my ancestry is Scottish and the other half English (my
    grandfather's male lineage dating back to the Norman invasion),
    and as far as I'm concerned if my ancestors were doing such barbarous
    things I'm glad to bash them.  They were obviously pretty ignorant
    in some ways.
    
    The custom died out at sometime, just as serfdom and slavery have.
     The reason being that everybody - men, women, rich & poor - like
    to have a say in their daily lives.  
    
    Lorna
    

>you cannot call this 'ritual' rape
    
     Quite frankly, this seems to be largely an argument over semantics.
    Whether one particular word holds the precise meaning for any
    individual is moot; the fact is that this is an example of a practice
    that severely devalued women. I would think that the demise of said
    practise would give hope for us; it is an indication that we are headed
    in the right direction. At least in western society, such a practise
    would hardly be sanctioned by the masses anymore.
    
     I would think that the benefit of this discussion is not that we can
    argue about what constitutes proper usage of a given word, nor that we
    can expound about what horrible things happened years ago. Rather, I
    think that we can look at this as something to remember, but not dwell
    upon. And something to learn from. Women certainly have come a long
    way. And yet the climb always gets steeper as you near the summit. I
    hope we can draw positive energy from this to spur us on to reach the
    peak instead of fodder for bickering. Don't lose sight of the eventual
    goal...
    
     The Doctah

	No PhD, yet, but a BS in Western European History with an
	emphasis on Helenic culture and 15th-17th Century culture.

	In classical Greece - there were males who owned land and
	then everyone else.  There were laws that pertain to one
	set and not the other.  Women were married off at a very
	young age unless their father wished otherwise.  Rape
	was a common occurance since women, for the most part were
	considered property (in some of the polis the situation
	of propertied women was different) and women for some foreign
	states were able to have control over their lives -THESE
	WOMEN WERE THE EXCEPTION.

	In 15th-17th century Western Europe the situation of women
	went from somewhat livable to deadly.  Pre- 15th Century
	Europe there were alternatives for women other than marriage/life
	with a man they did not like.  As Western Europe became
	embroiled in religious wars and each side dug in their heels
	the ones that suffered the most were independent women.  Fair
	game for both sides to attack/rape/kill.

	"Courtship" comes from the 10th-12th Century courts in Southern
	France that had a large number of independent women in charge.
	The men were either young children or dead or off on the
	Crusades or wars leaving the young courtiers in the hands (so
	to speak) of the women.  This is where romance, love ballads
	and the concept of courtly behaviour were developed.  

	Rape in Classical Greece is not forced intercourse but abduction
	and captivity.  Usually if the woman abducted was valued as
	a ransom or something like that there would be no sexual acts
	against her - she would loose her value.  The concept of a woman
	being able to say no does not seem to have existed.

	In 15th-17th Century Western Europe - most of the "lords" were
	carries of sexually transmittable deseases.  They were not
	"god" or anything like that.  In the Fedual period, they were
	given governace over the land and the people who lived on the
	land, but were not see as "gods" no matter how wonderful they
	were.

	If anyone would like some reference books on these ideas - send
	me mail and I will put together a list.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			The Goddess was strong in Souther France
			in the 10th-13th Century.

For anyone interested, I recommend reading the words of Christine de 
Pisan, a 14 century woman, in her "Book of the City of Ladies".
Her words on rape make it pretty clear that women 6 centuries ago felt 
no differently about it then than they do now.  Although not the 10th 
century, it should be a little antidote of realism for those who seem to 
want to justify something unacceptable to 20th century minds by 
pretending that the women of the past were some incredibly different 
kind of creature from us.  The past is a foreign country indeed, and one
must guard against viewing it through the filters of our own cultural
bias.  None the less, some words, some gestures, some artifacts, echo
through time with a humanity that is quite clear and understandable. 

A little tidbit for the church discussion:  Not only did the church 
support this particular right of lords, but granted dispensations to 
bishops (who are the ecclesiastical equivalent of secular dukes) to 
exercise this right which would normally be in conflict with their vows.
Given that the church held maybe a third or so of the land in many 
places, that could be a substantial amount of dispensation.

Another about Guillaume le Batard (William the Conqueror): If he hung a 
vassal for raping a serf's(?) wife, I'm sure there was a suitably
necessary political reason.  William acquired his own wife, Matilda, by 
forcible abduction, so I rather doubt he had many qualms on that score. 
A lord had the right of any woman on his land; that doesn't include the
women on someone else's land.  The offense could have been similar to
shooting a deer on someone else's estate -- a violation of another man's
property rights, having little or nothing to do with the property
itself.  I wouldn't jump to any conclusions based on this anecdote.

And a few words on serfs:  Although arranged marriage may have been
common enough, the variety of customs makes it impossible to state that
categorically all women were married by fiat of their lords to unknown
men from other villages.  A lot of lords could care less, and left
peasant affairs to peasants.  In Celtic regions particularly, where
traditions of women's independence hung on in some form or other longer
than they did in some other areas, I don't think one can always state
that mutual attraction had nothing to do with how marriages were made. 

If anything, the less one had, the more one was free to marry according 
to such whims as personal choice.  Among the landed classes, marriage
was much, much more a political matter.  The tradition of "courtly love" 
(and "courtship") assumes love to be adulterous by nature, since there 
is very little relationship between the business of politics and romance.
The subject of courtly love is an enormously interesting cultural 
phenomenon, but its development should not be seen as proving that a
peasant lad would never had thought to pick a lass a bouquet of flowers 
and ask her nicely if it weren't for the upper classes showing him how
it was done. 

I am by no means romanticizing the lives of serfs, but a little balance 
is in order.  Women's lives have been overwhelmingly oppressive for a 
lot of recorded history, but we do ourselves a disservice to write them 
off as having been so uniformly bleak and dismal that they never in 
their lives had a flicker of thought like ours: for something lovely, 
good and free.  To assume that the pain of their oppression never hurt 
them because they were too brutalized to know it is a way of numbing 
ourselves to its meaning, both for them and for us.

    re .42., ancestor-bashing...
    
    To condemn these acts in the past *is* to learn from it, and also
    to understand the present better. I think if we realize how many 
    centuries back the devaluation of women goes, and how many different 
    forms it took, (and maybe even figure out some of the reasons for it), 
    we're better able to work for something more like equality now. 

    
    	Regardless of which century or culture we're talking about, I
    	think it's pretty safe to say women have always been capable
    	of feeling both emotional and physical pain.
    
    	Just because an intensely male-dominated society at one time
    	ignored and/or condoned it does *NOT* make it acceptable NOW 
    	or EVER.
    
    	Carla
    

    I'm real curious here.  I have met some women whose reality is
    still and now, that a woman has the responsibility to make herself
    available to her husband/SO whenever he feels the need.  They do
    not feel she has the right to say "No", or even "Wait" -- and
    the man has the right to "force his woman" if she doesn't snap to
    it, pronto.
    
    They do not consider this rape -- rape is when a stranger does it.
    They don't question that a man has a right to do this to "his woman",
    it's what they've always known.
    
    However, you could pretty well predict their attitude toward sex
    in general.  They consider it to be a humiliating, filthy, and
    nauseating duty which is just part of the misfortune of having
    been born female.  No pleasure, and certainly no honor.  As one
    said to me, "I'd rather clean sewers."

>    	Just because an intensely male-dominated society at one time
>    	ignored and/or condoned it does *NOT* make it acceptable NOW 
>    	or EVER.

	 I never said it was acceptable.



         I certainly don't find it "acceptable", I "abhore" it.  But I
         accept that it happened in that I realize that the way things
         happened back then have a significant impact on WHY things
         are the way they are now.  Things are changing, things are
         MUCH better.  But without those abhorant acts, we would not
         be where we are today.


	 
	 As for "ancenstor bashing" being ok.  I really beg to differ.
	 We should abhore what happened and use the knowledge of what
	 did happen to make changes today, but I don't think we have
	 any right to ignore or condemn our past.  Facts and history
	 are stable...you can't change them and you can only use them
	 constructively instead of destructively to get ahead.




	 For some reason I think we are arguing two very DIFFERENT
	 things here.

	 Stating the facts is NOT the same as saying that you agree
	 with those facts.  (Case in point, I'm now considered a
	 secretary-hater in another not, when that is not the FACT at
	 all.)


	 anyway.

	 kath

    That the culture condones rape does not mean women don't care that
    it happens. In many practical ways OUR culture condones rape. If it
    didn't a rape conviction would not be so hard to get and a victim
    wouldn't be vitimized by the system as well as the rapist.

    This weekend I read a short paper by Beryl Lieff Benderly. She
    discusses the results of research done by anthropologist Peggy
    Sanday. Through observation of 156 societies she was able to find a
    split between those that condone and accept rape and those where
    rape is almost non-existant.

    The conclusion? That the more violence is promoted by a society the
    more like rape is allowed and accpeted. The 3 main factors were:

    1) the status of women
    2) the values that govern relations between the sexes
    3) the attitudes taught to boys

    She specifically rejects Susan Brownmiller's assertion that rape is
    inherent to the relations between men and women. Rape is rather a
    conditioned response and is NOT universal.

    Of the societies she studied almost half promoted "the social use of
    rape to threaten or punish women". The non rape prone societies
    valued women as persons rather than objects. The US is one of the
    rape prone societies with 13.85 rapes per 100,000 population (this
    article was writen in 1982) and has one of the higest rates of rape
    in the industrialised world.

    "a belief system that glorifies masculine violence, that teaches men
    to regard strength and physical force as the finest expression of
    their nature, reconciles them to the necessity of fighting and dying
    in society's interest. Unstable or threatened societies - gin
    ridden, trigger happy Americam frontiersmen, Southern planters
    outnumbered by their restive slaves... - depended for their survival
    on the physical prowess of their men. Danger brings soldiers and
    fighters to the front lines and encourages the development of
    male-dominated social structures. And these often include the
    concepts of men as bestial creatures and women as property. It is
    interesting that a number of rape prone societies provide
    restitution to the rape victim's husband rather than to the victim
    herself."

    Sanday claims that "the way a society trains it's boys and girls to
    think about themsleves and each other determines to a large extent
    how rape-prone or rape-free that society will be...in a way we all
    conspire to prepetuate it. We expect men to attack and women to
    submit."

    

re:         <<< Note 880.52 by TINCUP::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" >>>

>    Sanday. Through observation of 156 societies she was able to find a
>    split between those that condone and accept rape and those where
>    rape is almost non-existant.

Does the absence of the obvious third category "those that do not condone
rape, but in which it happens anyway", imply that such societies don't
exist, or that Sanday considers the existence of rape defacto proof that
rape is condoned?  If the former, does she present a theory why that might
be so?  If the latter, that casts serious doubt on her findings, in my
eyes.  (Existence of a crime does not, it seems to me, prove society's
acceptance of such a crime.  Theft, for example, probably exists in all
large societies.)

D!

    re .52:
    
    Interesting.  Did Sanday give examples of which societies/cultures/
    countries are in which category?  If so, do you recall, and can
    you post it here?  In particular, it'd be real nice to read about
    a place where a woman can be safer!  Thanks, Liesl.
    

>		Facts and history
>	 are stable...you can't change them and you can only use them
>	 constructively instead of destructively to get ahead.

I really have to respond to this.  History is as much myth as it is 
"fact".  The stories of who were were that get passed down to us through 
tales, customs, documents, and artifacts are interpreted through the
eyes of the present and the eyes of the powerful.  History serves a 
valuable purpose is telling a people who they are and who they might be. 
Throughout time the stories have been selectively remembered and slanted 
to benefit one group or another.  What looks like a "fact" isn't
necessarily as incontrovertible as it appears.  (hmm, this grave of a
man with a bronze necklace must mean that he was a chief and this grave
of a woman with reindeer horns in it must mean she was the wife of a
mighty hunter... rather than, hmm, the husbands of queens must have worn 
bronze necklances and this woman with the reindeer horns must have been 
a great hunter) 

A list of events is worth nothing without and understanding of the web 
of forces that cause historical phenomena.  It can be hard to come to
terms with the arbitrariness of power and domination. Like abused
children who need for survival's sake to believe that their parents beat
them because they are "bad" children who deserve it, I understand that
it must seem necessary to justify the many horrors of history by
assuming there is a "good reason".  Some of the "good reasons" I've
heard for justifying the oppression of women deserve prizes for
creativity, but not for clarity of vision.  It is necessary to probe at
the meanings and effects of actions, and not handicap ourselves with a
belief that it all must somehow be ultimately benign and excusable. To
let ourselves hear the screams of our long ago grandmothers is not
disloyal to our ancestors, unless we deny we are the children of our
mothers. 

	History is fact - that depends on whether it includes
	Herstory as well.

	If you believe that it is fact try studing Pre-Columbian
	America (that is the time before Columbus) from the
	Mayan or Aztec point of view - who is that strange being
	that can separate itself at will.

	_peggy

    More info on Sanday's rape studies.

    "Almost half of the reports (47%) Sanday studied were rape-free
    societies with sexual assault "absent or...rare" Less than a quarter
    (17%) proved to be "unambigously rape-prone"...Reports of rape exist
    for the remaining 36%, but the incidence is not known. Although some
    of these societies may actually have little rape, Sanday added them
    to the rape-prone to form the category "rape-present".

    "A model rape-free society...is the Ashanti of West Africa...Ashanti
    women are respected and influential members of the community. The
    Ashnati religion emphasizes women's contributions to the general
    well-being...Women participate fully in religious life, taking as
    important a ritual role as men."

    "A rape-prone society...the Gusii of Kenya...they have 47.2 rapes
    per 100,000 population..."Normal sexual intercourse between Gusii
    males and females is concieved as an act in which a man overcomes
    the resistance of the woman and causes her pain"...a bridegroom
    "asserts his manhood by bragging to his friends that he reduced his
    bride to tears on their wedding night, that she remained in pain the
    next morning."

    "As Sanday suspected, she found patterns of behavior common to
    rape-prone societies, and they differed markedly from traits of
    rape-free peoples. Societies with a high incidence of rape, she
    discovered, tolerate violence and encourage men and boys to be
    tough,agressive, and competative. Men in such cultures generally
    have special, politically important gathering spots off limits to
    women, whether they be in the Mundurucu men's club or the corner
    tavern. Women take little or no part in public decision making or
    religious rituals; men mock or scorn women's work and remain aloof
    from childbearing and rearing. These groups usually tract their
    beginnings to a male supreme being."

    Sanday's conclusion "Rape is not inherent in men's nature but
    resluts from their image of that nature". It is a product of a
    certain set of beliefs, which in turn derive from particular social
    circumstances. Male dominance serves its purpose."

    Me again: between my two notes I've typed in all but about a page of
    the article which was mostly more examples. I don't know anymore
    about it but found the conclusion comforting. Men don't have to rape
    and we can prevent it for future generations by changing the
    attitudes of our society. Looks like the tack of breaking down the
    "for men only" aspects of society is the right direction to go.
    liesl
    

          
          
          re: .57  (Liesl Kolbe)
          
          >  rape-free societies with sexual assault "absent or...rare"
          
                           What a weird concept.
          
                                                          nancy b.
          

    RE: .9
    
    Dorian,
    
    I am sorry, but it is terribly difficult for me to write in English.
    French is my only language, English is a "business language" only
    for me. I simply cannot express myself correctly in English (not
    because of the language itself, only because of me. I am so bad
    in learning foreign languages...).

    Some months ago, there was always someone kind enough to translate
    my notes in English. I am afraid to see there is noone anymore.

    
    
    Droit du Seigneur : This expression is NOT used in French. "Droits
    du Seigneur" in French mean all the rights the Lord has, not only
    *this* specific one. It is NOT an expression. It is the same as saying
    "Rights of the DEC employees"...
    
    Just to say that if the expression has been kept in English, it
    doesn't exist in French anymore. To get this *feeling*, you would
    say in French "Droit de cuissage".
    
    C'est tout. Ca n'est pas une critique, non mais... 
     
    Faut pas vous facher... Do not get angry...

    
    Blandine-from-Switzerland

Liesl,

>    about it but found the conclusion comforting. Men don't have to rape
>    and we can prevent it for future generations by changing the
>    attitudes of our society. Looks like the tack of breaking down the
>    "for men only" aspects of society is the right direction to go.
>    liesl
    
One of the problems of anthopology is that causal relations are hard to
determine.  Specifically, just because rape-present societies tend to
have men-only spaces and rape-absent societies don't, doesn't mean that
the existence of such spaces *causes* the society to be rape-prone; which
means the elimination of such spaces may not contribute at all to the
elimination of rape.

I would be more inclined to believe that the cause and effect relationship
between rape-existence and all-men-space-existence is only that both are
effects of the same *root* cause, and that they are independent of eachother.
(This is a anthropological lay-persons guess.)  Which means the effects of
eliminating such spaces would be unpredictable.

A question I would have is - is there a correlation between the *size* of
societies and how rape prone they appear.  That is, are there any societies
over a million people in which rape doesn't occur?  (I believe other people
have found the crime and violence in general increases exponentially with
population.)

While I too am comforted to hear that rape is not a part of man's nature, I
still would be inclined to believe that rape is inherent in huge societies,
which is perhaps even more depressing.  (One thing that is very positive 
about hearing about this study is it helps to eliminate one of my previous
fears about anarchy - that is, if rape was part of the male nature, then
rape would ocur in anarchistic societies...)

D!

    
    D!, I think the Japanese would beg to differ on population relating to
    violence/crime. Rape aside, Japanese society is still homogenous enough
    and singular enough in how they view things to force the members of the
    society to conform to certain modes of behavior. Deviations are treated
    VERY harshly. I believe its this combination of homogeneity and
    conformance that keeps crime down.
    
    Thus, the diversity of the society/civilization may have a lot more to
    do with crime, which is just one form of deviant behavior, than the
    size.

I'll do my best at a translation.  I was hoping someone more skilled than
I would be doing this.  Zoziau, would you please fix any errors that you
see?  (S'il vous plait, aidez-moi si j'ai fait une faut!)

     <<< Note 880.4 by SHIRE::MILLIOT "Le bonsoir a vous, Jeune Dame..." >>>
                            -< Back for a while... >-

    Sorry, but the right word in French is not "Droit du Seigneur",
    but "Droit de Cuissage" (the "cuisse" is the up part of the leg...)..
    
    Could I continue in French ? So do I...

Not only the Lord was able to deflower the young brides in a way that was
more delicate than that of their husbands (although when I look at 
the anti-adultery methods used by the lords of the time, i.e. chastity
belts, I somehow doubt that they were so gentle...), but they were also often
aided by the young men, [ecuyers?], pages, or simply a good buddy. 

As for safeguarding the purity of the race, when one considers that incest
was at that time widely practiced, I somehow doubt this is a valid argument.
    
    Zoziau-back

RE: .61

Regarding the Japanese and crime figures, especially rape. I have two comments.

	1) In the U.S. when reporting rape became more acceptable the
	number of reported rapes went up. Few people believe that the
	actual RATE went up, just the number of reports. If a society
	implicitly condones some types of rape, they will not get reported.

	2) The major Japanese organized crime "families", the Yakuza, can
	be found listed in the public phone book. Take this for what it's
	worth.

Japan probably has less crime overall than the U.S., however it it INCREDIBLY
repressive with respect to women's rights, not officially perhaps, but as you
say:

	"... force the members of the society to conform to certain 
	modes of behavior. Deviations are treated VERY harshly."

The behavior of women is part of the "modes of behavior" you mention.

	-- Charles

    
    Charles, that is why I specifically said "rape aside". I was speaking
    of crime in general, not crime against women, which I hate having to
    seperate out, but as long as we are even SLIGHTLY perceived as
    secondary, then it causes a bimodal distribution...
    

    
    re: .28
    
    You're trying to be funny, right?  
    

    It's amazing how many people know _exactly_ how _other_ people would
    feel about rape even though the other people live in a completely
    _different environment_.
    
    There are a lot of opinions in this note along with some information
    about events which we have added to other information we have gathered
    over time to form our own opinions about the feelings people had
    
    
    My information supports .28.  Doesn't mean we're right, but I suggest
    that anyone who does not consider the culture of the time in deriving
    their opinions are unlikely to be completely correct.
    
    My understanding of the culture include such things as a very hard
    work life for all, very limited communication and interaction with
    others outside the village/immediate environment, very large difference
    between the living and working conditions between the masses and
    the nobles, etc to generalize a few.  An environment where even
    the life of the nobles would not attract me if I could choose it.
    
    Just the same, it's all speculation and I'd be VERY suspicious of
    anyone who tried to tell me they KNEW.
    
    Bud

    Bud,
    
    Have you ever read _A_Connecticut_Yankee_in_King_Arthur's_Court_?
    It's been one of my favorite books for -- oh,dear -- ah, since I was
    seven.  Twain describes a certain amount of the feudal system,
    including that characteristic split between owning the land and
    working the land.  Now, Bud, if you can imagine yourself, as a
    peasant, feeling honored that your lord has chosen to trample
    through those of his crops, which you have planted, raised, and
    tended, in the course of a day's hunting, rather than unhappy,
    discontented, or even despairing, then by all means, try to imagine
    yourself honored when your lord does the same thing to your person.
    
    						Ann B.

    Ann,
    
    Your analogy is based on the work of a very famous _fiction_ writer.
    There is no reason why Twain's opinions are any more valid than
    anyone else's.  Actually, I believe there are some reasons to believe
    he might have less information than we have.  I would think that
    there's at least an element of truth in the senario you present.
    I also think that it's enough different from the sex situation that
    it couldn't properly be compared to it.  If considerable damage
    was being done to the crops by the _lord_, it would probably tend
    to damage other relations with the serfs including the desirability
    of sex with the noble.  Another thing that was probably disliked
    was the tax imposed by the noble on those crops.  Some of these
    things are easily researched and proven, others guessed at.  Even
    relying on period books to base ones guess on is questionable because
    most books dealing with relationships and feelings are fiction,
    and often deserve that category even when dealing with relationships
    and feelings.
    
    Bud

    So.

    If you label it "Fiction", then none of it can be true?

    If you say that was the nineteenth century, and this is the
    twentieth, then you can deny than Mark Twain did any research
    worth anything?

    If you say that your opinions are as good as Mark Twain's, then
    I ought to believe you?

    I think you can guess my opinion of these "ideas" you are presenting
    (even if you intend to deny that you were indeed presenting them).

    You clearly don't know much about the medieval era.  A phrase like
    "the tax imposed by the noble on those crops" reveals two errors.
    One is that the "lord" has to be a noble; he didn't.  The other is
    the notion of a "tax".  The produce paid to the lord is not taxes;
    it's "the rents".  The lord did not get a percentage of the crop;
    he got a FIXED amount.  HIS land; HIS crops.  The serf got what was
    left.  If there was nothing, tough.

    Now, we may know more dainty little details about feudal life in this
    century, but whacking great facts like the above were known to Mark
    Twain.  Why don't you know them, Bud?

    Try rereading this sentence of yours:  "If considerable damage
    was being done to the crops by the _lord_, it would probably tend
    to damage other relations with the serfs..."  Don't you understand?
    The lord didn't *care* what his serfs thought.  They rated below
    his cattle and *well* below his horses.  If they bothered him, he
    killed them.  *He* was the high, the low, and the middle justice.

    Another thing.  In all the years since I first read Sir Boss's
    story, I've read a great deal about the medieval era, but *NEVER*
    have I read anything that contradicted Twain.  I've read a lot
    that indicated he was painting a falsely cheery picture, but
    nothing that hinted that he was overdoing it.  

    You might try reading the book.  (Yes, it is clear that you haven't.
    You would never have spoken of Twain's "opinions" as you did, if you
    had read it.)  It's very funny.  It's just a pity that you can't get
    an edition with all the original illustrations.

    Next, I should like to point out a misunderstanding.  I asked
    you to first imagine yourself as a he-peasant, and suggested that
    you work yourself into feeling honored by the "attentions" of
    your lord.  This was in the nature of a preliminary exercise.
    Since you could not make a leap past "My leader must surely value
    my opinion too highly to ...", then you couldn't even pretend to
    imagine yourself a she-peasant, and you shouldn't even bother to
    try.  I *never* suggested a comparison.

    Now to the root of the matter.  It seems to be very important to
    you to believe that at some point in history, women felt honored
    by the attentions of strange men.  Whyever would you want that?
    Is it because you resent the idea that she-peasants had it worse
    than he-peasants?  Don't be.  Whatever happened to the women, they
    at least didn't face conscription for thirty years, or whatever,
    as the men did.  Life just plain wasn't fun for peasants, that's
    all.  Weep over it, shrug it off, ignore it as you like, but please
    don't deny it.

    							Ann B.

>Another thing that was probably disliked ...

What was the first thing that was "probably disliked"?
        
I'm the one who stated emphatically that I'm pretty sure the women
weren't enamored of this practice and I say so from personal experience
as a woman.  

Where we differ, (you and I and everyone else and I who differs), is that 
you and others seem to assume that this aspect of being female, (not
thrilled about having sex with strangers they didn't choose), is more or
less a superficial thing that can change depending on the culture.  This
is where I disagree.  I believe it's part of the nature of humans (human
women too!), and is not something superficial like a penchant for hoop
skirts versus blue jeans or a propensity to faint often that changes
with the times.  To that end, I believe that the women's real feelings of having
sex with unchosen strangers was no different then than today. The women
of our culture today have the luxury of indulging our likes and dislikes.
Because these other women didn't, it's a mistake to think they didn't
have the same basic likes and dislikes in sex partners.

The culture may have created *tolerance* in them, (for what else could they 
do?  I'm sure you can imagine how little choice women had then), but I contend 
that it did not create joy.  Taken out of context, and put within the
safety of the ultimate choice we 20th century women have, it sounds like a nice 
midieval fantasy.  But in context, in the culture where women's bodies were 
used and abused at will from sexual maturity onward, and their thoughts and 
feelings ignored, I can't imagine women thought of it as anything more or less 
than just another insult upon their persons.  These are my thoughts, my beliefs,
my opinions and I have a right to state them. 

I agree it's difficult for men to imagine how women feel and especially how 
women of other cultures feel.  But my belief is that the "culture" of being 
female transcends the various male-created cultures and because of that belief,
I feel pretty confident that women of ANY culture do not appreciate and would
not choose, (if given the choice), sex with annonymous men at the mens' say-so,
understanding that there are exceptions to everything.  Flame me if you want, 
but it's what I believe about being female.  And since they wouldn't
choose it, I call it rape.  Insuring their lack of choice doesn't change
anything.  It just creates a culture where rape is and must be, accepted
by its women.            

    re .69
    
    Ann, it is clear that you have very strong opinions about the medieval
    period.  They may even be factual.  Mark Twain did indeed write
    fiction.  I'm sure you know that.  My objection was not to the opinion,
    but rather to the assertions that they are truth.  I defend the
    right to an alternate opinion which could be true, though you don't
    like it.
    
    It bothers me when anyone says that s/he knows exactly how someone
    else feels, or that no one else could possibly know how s/he feels.
    This is the basis of my former reply.
    
    re .70
    
    Now you use the terms opinion, thought and belief to describe your
    opinion of how those women felt.  That's different from knowing
    exactly what they felt.  I can accept your opinion as that.  I also
    agree with that opinion (=my opinion) with regard to how a woman
    in our society would feel.  That you feel exactly that way regarding
    yourself, I must assume that that is true.
    
    Bud

    Do you think you would be just a little more knowledgable about
    how a male would feel, (that's "would", not "does"), than I would?  
    Wouldn't you feel that your speculations may just be closer to what
    might have been the real truth than a woman's?  And we're not talking
    about just any speculation here but a subject that is very real
    to women and has touched nearly every one of their lives.
    Generalization follows:  I'd bet the rent most women know far more
    about rape than most men.  Think about it.  In any power balance,
    the underling, the one with the most to loose, does the learning.
    Only recently is "society" beginning to realize that most rapes are not
    caused by foaming maniacs jumping from bushes, but by everyday
    husbands, lovers, acquaintences - something women have always known.
    
    Sorry, I would no more speculate on how a vascectomy feels, or how men 
    would react, (or do, or should), to all the different aspects of
    prison rape than I would expect a man to speculate on how rape feels
    to a woman.  And worse, claim his opinions of womens' experience
    are just as valid.
    
    And one further point, I have no vested interest in seeing the women
    as raped but men often do seem to have a vested interest in seeing sex as
    not rape and in seeing other men, (men just like themselves), as not 
    rapists.

    re .73
    Funny, and all along I thought it was you who couldn't make the
    "mental stretch", although I hoped to convince you.  And, of course,
    Mark Twain's writings are not fiction at all, but pure, "big facts".
                                                      
    Since we aren't going to communicate, and put downs (verbal assault
    is violence too) will do no one any service, let's discontinue the 
    discussion.
       
    Bud
    

    re .72
    No, actually I don't think that I would be "just a little more
    knowledgable about how a male would feel, than" you would.  That's
    assuming that you would care enough to put the energy into stepping
    into the male's shoes (empathy).  I would accept your opinion, and
    that it could even be more correct than mine, although I agree with
    you that I would have a head start by virtue of my sex.  
    
    I'd also agree with your assertion that most women know far more
    than most men about rape.  I disagree that it is because they are
    women.  I believe that it is because they care more about it (yes
    because they have been or fear being a victim) than men.  So we
    agree in general about the outcome if not exactly to the cause.
    
    My other point was just that the differences in culture between
    ours and 11th centure England are also major factors in the discussion.
    I can't even see or talk to anyone in that situation and I don't
    expect to ever read something written by one of those peasants that
    might help.
    
    Bud

    Tell you what, Bud.

    Let's start over.  Pretend I never said anything about Mark Twain.
    Pretend I said, "When I was seven, I read a book about medieval
    times.  From it, I learned that serfs didn't own land, but worked
    the land of someone else.  They planted and reaped, and the owner
    got a fixed amount of what they produced.  They only got what was
    left over.  The book also explained that the owner could do whatever
    he wanted with the land.  The example given was of running a hunt
    (chased animal, hounds, and a whole herd of men on horseback) across
    the farm lands of these serfs.  The narrator gave his (nineteenth
    century) opinion, but said nothing of what the serfs thought."

    Now, I am going to ask you to audition for the *chance* to roleplay
    a she-peasant.  Now, since that is a difficult role for a man, I'd
    like you to roleplay the feelings of one of those he-peasants who
    has just had his (well, his lord's) crops run through as your audition.
    This will be easier.  If you can't manage a good performance, well,
    you just don't get a shot at the big one, okay?  Oh!  I'll give you
    a hint:  The emotion that has the best chance of getting you the
    new role is `feeling honored'.  Okay?

    ...

    What?  You'd like to know what I've done in the way of roleplaying
    in this society?  Well, it really wasn't equivalent either time....
    A few years ago I spent a few evenings playing (on paper) a
    simple-minded scullion in a castle in Gwynned.  I was terrified the
    whole time; terrified of being found out as a Deryni by the wrong
    people, terrified of being found out as a spy by anyone, but mostly
    terrified of being smiled upon by men.  I'd go red, then pale, and
    my knees would lock, and I'd try to sink into the wall.  I hated
    being an attractive woman, and I hated being a frail human.  I had
    nightmares all the time.  I was so scared that I couldn't even *act*
    unscared. ... The other time I spent a weekend playing (in the body)
    a governess in 1760.  That wasn't so bad, but the bottom of my stomach
    would fall out whenever I thought about what would happen when my
    charges outgrew me -- as they were doing.  Marrying their father
    seemed my only option, although he made my skin crawl: a drunken,
    womanizing glutton who saw me as some kind of refined pig swill
    (necessary but not pleasant).  I embezzled what I could from him.
    (I still feel badly that I could not get Captain Freeman to take my
    character back to the colonies.)

    							Ann B.

    Women might consider it an honor to have sex with a ruler? Ridiculous.
    Next thing you know people will claim that in some societies men
    considered it an honor and privilege to kill and be killed for/by a
    ruler.

    ~Cliff

    
    
    re .77
    
    I feel compelled to jump in everytime someone uses the phrase "have
    sex with" as a synonym for "be raped by."  I think this is where
    a lot of analogies fall down.  There may in fact be folks out
    there who would choose to "have sex with" rulers or celebrities
    or other powerful people.  But no one ever wants or has wanted to 
    be raped.  It is an act of violence.  
    
    Justine

	re. 77

	To continue past what Justine stated - the important thought
	is CHOICE - no one is honored by being forced to do anything.
	To choose to die/kill for ones ruler/leader may be seen as
	an honorable thing but to be forced to die/kill without any
	choice has no honor at all.

	Rape is rape - no choice for the woman, no honor.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			

And, if instead of the local duke, the honor was to go to, say
Bruce Springsteen, or Eddie Murphy, or, for those of more eclectic
taste, perhaps Woody Allen, ...

Martin.

    But you've added a slight element of "choice" there - you have
    "chosen" what you would expect might be acceptable rapists.
    
    Would you feel any more "honoured" if the woman robbing your house
    (or rolling over your crops, or castrating you, or whatever), was 
    Michele Pfeiffer?
    
    You're missing a fine point here - assuming women wouldn't like
    it merely because the man may not be to her taste.  That if we were
    to "choose" our rapists we might be less inclined to think of it
    as rape.  Well, the minute choice enters the picture, it isn't rape!
    And that's the whole ball of wax here.  Nice guy, bad guy, ugly
    guy, sexy guy - it's a toss of the dice.  She has no choice.

    re: .80 (Martin)
    
    I agree with Sandy (.81) and would add that another element
    you've added is implied consent.  As I understand the definition,
    rape is non-consensual; an individual is forced to perform a
    sexual act (s)he does not wish to.  To bring in a Patrick
    Swayze or Michelle Pfeiffer as the would-be rapist theoretically
    changes that feeling of consent (I wouldn't care to perform any
    sexual acts with Swayze, but I might change my mind - depending
    on the act - if Pfeiffer were doing the demanding).  The theoretical
    dynamic is that if the person doing the demanding were what I 
    consider desirable, I would willingly submit to the "rape"
    
    However, as I see it, this is logically flawed.  In submitting
    *willingly*, I can no longer say it's "rape", an act that is, by
    definition, *unwilling* submission.  I don't think that the 
    relative attractiveness of the attacker is not the issue; consent is.
                                                             
    Steve
    

    RAPE HURTS
    
    ASSAULT HURTS
    
    Being assaulted by Patrick Swayze hurts exactly as much.
    
    --DE
    

	re: 880.18 (Dorian Kottler)

	>     Thanks Ann - would you have any idea which states exclude 
	>     husbands from prosecution?
  	  
	27 states exempt husbands from prosecution for the rape
	of a wife with whom he is currently living.

	_Absolute_ marital rape exemption (i.e., good until the
	ink on the divorce papers is dry) is held in 4 states:
	Vermont, Alabama, Illinois, and South Dakota.  This
	means that even the existence of a restraining order
	against a husband with whom you've separated would *not*
	nullify the marital-rape exemption... Even if he were to
	break in and rape her the day before the divorce becomes
	final.  

	A partial marital rape exemption is "granted" in 8 of the
	27 states.  These laws hold the man responsible for rape 
	only after the couple is separated *under a court order*.
	These states are: Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri,
	North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Utah.	

	Other, more "progressive" states, specify that the marital 
	rape exemption ends when the woman is living apart _and_ 
	*files a petition* for divorce, separation, or annulment 
	from her husband.  These states are: Indiana, Michigan, 
	Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee (where the woman does not have 
	to wait for the *completion* of the divorce or separation
	process to gain protection under the law for rape).

	In 10 other states (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Maine,
	Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia) the
	exemption ends _after_ the man and woman are living apart. 

	Sources:  _A Woman, Her Body, and the Law_
		  _License to Rape - Sexual Abuse of Wives_

							nancy b.

          Paraphrased from:  _License to Rape : Sexual Abuse of Wives_
                             David Finkelhor and Kersti Yllo

          Results of several regional polls concerning the criminalization
          of marital rape:

          o  In Connecticut, 77% of the women approved of a new state  law
          criminalizing marital rape , compared with only 55% of the men.
          In Texas, 45% of the women wanted the state to allow prosecution
          of husbands, compared with only 25% of the men.

          o  more young people than older people see something wrong wtih
          forced sex in marriage...  In the Texas poll, 59% of women under
          forty supported a new state law, while only 33% of women over
          forty agreed with them.

          Other correlations for support for criminalization of marital
          rape:

          o  liberal attitudes toward sex roles

          o  low levels of religious participation (people who were highly
          religious were skeptical of changing the law regarding the
          marital-rape exemption.  "This may have to do with the
          traditional attitudes about male domination that have been
          supported by certain organized religious groups in the past."

          o  patterns of female employment  "By contrast, women who work
          and men whose wives work all express more support for
          criminalizing marital rape, as do persons who show liberal
          attitudes toward the role of women in society and the family."

          o  men and women with higher education

          o  race...

          "Perhaps the only unexpected difference of opinion on the
          marital-rape issue comes on the matter of race.  Non whites seem
          to be *more opposed* to criminalizing marital rape than whites.
          The careful analysis by Texas sociologists Williams and Holmes
          suggests, however, that the difference is almost entirely due to
          the attitudes of the men.  *Nonwhite females* do _not_ differ
          much on this issue from their white sisters, but *minority men*
          seem so adamantly opposed to criminalization of marital rape that
          they pull down the whole score for nonwhites on this subject."

    
    I know this topic has been idle for a while, and perhaps I should let
    sleeping dogs lie, but small matters like work, Christmas vacation, a
    couple of weeks off sick and a hurricane have kept me out. In the mean
    time I did some research - even went to see an old friend who is a
    professor of history at Oxford University. What follows is based on her
    comments, and is concerned only with Droit du Seigneur, and only with
    the British Isles.
    
    She pointed out that in Britain Droit du Seigneur came to the Islands
    after Christianity. Now prior to the 13th century (when marriage became
    a Sacrament of the Church), civil law recognised a mariage as starting
    with consummation (it still does), and canon law recognising the
    thought as equivalent to the deed recognised it as starting when the
    promises were made (ie in modern terms at engagement), but allowed
    annulment at any time up to consummation (as today a church wedding
    that isn't subsequently consummated may be annuled without recourse to
    divorce). Whilst childhood affiancement was normal for the aristocracy,
    the peasantry usually did not have long engagements and it was in order
    to allow a short period for reconsideration that the church encouraged
    the three day wait mentioned in .0 (together with memories of
    pre-Christian practices and beliefs in the magical power of virgin's
    blood which I won't expand on here, but the race memory of which may be
    involved in the current popular image of D.d.S.).
    
    Hence since adultery was paramount over any civil right such as D.d.S.
    we have several scenarios in regard of the modern reading of this
    right.                                         
    
    1) the Lord could not require sexual congress after the marriage since
    the bride and the Lord of the Manner would be commiting adultery.
    
    2) The vast majority of Lords of the Manor were in fact married
    (remember the childhood wedding contracts) and so they could not
    exercise the right before marriage without commiting adultery.
    
    3) They could not do so even if they weren't married because the fact
    of consummated sexual intercourse would create a valid and binding
    civil law marriage between them and marriage between a member of the
    aristocracy and a serf was unthinkable (and would preclude the intended
    marriage anyway).
    
    So the conclusion is inescapable: in Britain at least the right was a
    mere "possesory and permisary" one. The Lord of the manor had control
    over the marriage and would have to give permission before a marriage
    could occur: a fee was usually charged in the form of a tything of the
    husband's earnings for the first year of marriage.
    
    This form indeed persists to the present day since we (and many
    Americans too) get a Marriage Licence which is in fact a "Certificate
    of Permisision to Marry" - the right of Droit du Seigneur has passed,
    with almost all other feifal rights, from the Lords of the Manor to the
    State.
    
    /. Ian .\
    

    There are so many different notes on Rape in this conference that I
    have no idea where to put this, but I thought it might be of interest.
    Feel free to move it mods.

    Does anyone know how many states in which it is still "legal" for a man
    to sexually assault his wife??


    ------

    
    "Man gets prison for raping wife"
    AP -- Brighton Colorado
    (Reprinted w/o permission, Gazette Telegraph, 16-Feb-1990)

    A Commerce City man convicted of first-degree sexual assault on his
    wife has become the first person sent to prison under Colorado's
    relatively new marital rape law.

    Adams County District Court Judge Philip Roan earlier this week
    rejected a probation recommendation and ordered the 31-year-old man to
    prison for six years.

    "It just seemed to me the circumstances of the case warranted a prison
    term rather than probation," Roan said Wednesday.  "He was in denial
    that he had ever done anything while the evidence was clear that he
    abused her pretty violently and raped her."

    The mas was convicted in the case by jury last August.

    [...]

    Commerce City Police Detective Jan Brace testified during the trial
    that the man's wife had reported the rape to police last March 5th.

    The woman told Brace that her husband came home, saw her talking on the
    telephone and accused her of having an affair.  He then dragged his
    wife down the basement stairs, ripped off her clothing and sexually
    assaulted her.

    The man's attorney said the couple had argued, but the wife's clothing
    was ripped when he grabbed her to prevent her from falling down the
    basement steps.  The man said he then had sex with his wife after they
    made up.

    Before 1988, it was difficult or impossible to convict a man of raping
    his wife if the two were living together, court officials said.

    The 1988 law under which the Commerce City man wasd convicted removed
    marriage as a defense for rape.

>    Does anyone know how many states in which it is still "legal" for a man
>    to sexually assault his wife??

Nancy Bittle says .84 has your answer.
	Mez

    I know that I am gonna get slammed for this but......
    
    Isn't this going to pave the road for a higher amount for false
    acusations towards husbands?
    
    Granted that .84's example, where physical, mental, and whatever else
    were present, but what about the woman that claims it to get even?
    
    Something like that of the accusations of sexual assault on a mans
    child during a vicious devource battle.....
    
    What are the guidelines for proving these accusations?
    
    Please, I mean NO offense, I am genuinely curious about this...

    I wouldn't worry.
    
    When I was in school, I was taught that false charges of rape were
    no more common than false charges of any other crime.  (Faked
    burlaries, faked auto theft, the Stuart case, things like that.)
    
    						Ann B.

    That's what courts are for.

    "Thats what courts are for."
    
    Shall I snicker hard or soft?
    
    THats why innocent males are imprisoned for false claims...
    
    and just because there may be a minorty of incidents, the fact still
    remains that males are falsely accused all of the time.
    
    

    If you don't trust a jury of your peers to determine truth,
    who *can* you trust ? (Rhetorical question.) 

    .92
    
    It's also why, in many cases, men who sexually abuse *people* have the
    charges dropped against them before the case even gets to that point.
    Just because charges are dropped and the accusation is assumed to be
    false doesn't mean that the alleged perpetrator is innocent.  It just
    means **in the court's eyes** there was insufficient evidence that the
    crime was committed.
    
    Nanci

    I have been on jury duty several times and, from my experience, they
    try *very very* hard to sift through what is often conflicting
    statements and determine what the truth is.
    
    On several occasions, I felt *very* uncomfortable. I felt like I was
    playing God!
    
    We struggled and struggled over what to decide. 
    
    It wasn't fun!
    
    				Charlie

    The point about false charges being damaging isn't so much whether
    the person is guilty or innocent, but about the damage to that
    person's reputation in the eyes of his peers.
    
    Let's say that, oh, hell, I'll offer myself up as the sacrificial
    lamb here... let's say that I was arrested by the police on a charge
    of having raped someone. How would you people here in this community
    react?  Some of you might think, "I don't believe Jerry could do
    such a thing," but undoubtedly some of you may well be outraged
    at my committing such a horrible act.
    
    Now, moving right along, we get to the trial. After days of evidence,
    argument, and deliberation, the jury finds me Not Guilty. *Now* how
    will you react? Will you see it as "See, I knew Jerry wouldn't do
    such a thing," or "See, the courts let another rapist off the hook!"
    
    Either way, how would you feel about me in general. Would you always
    wonder if I really *was* innocent?  Would you be uncomfortable around
    me at a =wn= party?  Even if such feelings are not explicitly
    expressed, it's still damage to my standing in the community, and
    no verdict from a jury is ever going to wipe that away.
    
    This fear of being falsely accused is in no way as concrete or as
    great as a woman's fear of being raped. But that doesn't make it
    non-trivial.
    
    --- jerry

    re:.97
    
    No, it didn't. There's an extra negative in there. I meant to say
    that the fear wasn't trivial.
    
    --- jerry

    Well, in my own bugs bunny way Jerry, that was exactly what I was
    trying to say.  thanks.

    Actually if someone accused any man I was friends with of sexual
    assault or rape my first reaction would be dibelief..
    
    tho I do recall 15 years ago, a man who was my neighbor and with
    whom I'd been freinds for years telling me about an incident where
    (he was a photographer) he got thrown in jail because a young woman
    he had photographed later accused him of assaulting her sexually,
    I listened to the entire story, and then essentially asked " did you?"
    and he got really upset with me, that, given the time we'd been
    friends, I should even question him on that particular issue. I think
    that each of us women have had one man we trusted act so totally
    out of character, that we harbor a doubt in our minds about most
    men we know that they have a secret, dangerous side..
    
    There are a number of men in this file who I regard as friends, but
    whose replies on topics sometimes totally amaze me..
    
    so I guess that I like so many other women hedge my bets, and test
    friendships and relationships with males for hidden shoals..
    
    Bonnie

>    <<< Note 880.100 by WMOIS::B_REINKE "if you are a dreamer, come in.." >>>
>                          -< communications problems >-
    
>    There are a number of men in this file who I regard as friends, but
>    whose replies on topics sometimes totally amaze me..
    
    Bonnie, if we substitute "women" for "men", is it still true?
    
    	Andrew.

    Re .96, "I don't believe Jerry would do such a thing." :-)
    Seriously, Jerry, after reading your notes, and meeting you, I have
    such an image of you as a nice person that I wouldn't belive it
    if you were accused of raping somebody!  It's just too out of
    character, even tho, apart from notes I actually hardly know you.
     I know appearances can be deceiving but you really have a nice
    face, and I just don't believe you would ever do anything violent
    (except maybe in self-defense) so it would definitely depend on
    the person whether I thought less of them after a rape charge. 
    But, Jerry isn't a good example.  He's too innocent looking. :-)
    
    Re Bonnie, you said, "There are a number of men in this file who
    I regard as friends, but whose replies on topics sometimes totally
    amaze me..."   I definitely agree with *that*!
    
    Lorna
      

>    Re Bonnie, you said, "There are a number of men in this file who
>    I regard as friends, but whose replies on topics sometimes totally
>    amaze me..."   I definitely agree with *that*!
    
     And I bet the sets overlap. ;^)

    in re .101
    
    yes

Actually, Jerry wears a pretty rakish hat...
	Mez

 I've never met Jerry, so I don't know what he look like.  But a couple of 
people have commented that he looks "too nice" to rape anyone.  Isn't that 
a myth (or at least a misconception), that a rapist looks ugly?
 In one or other of the rape/victims notes, I remember someone commenting that
the defence strategy was to make the defendant appear as good looking, careful
dresser, intelligent, "manly"... so that no jury would believe that such a man
would rape any woman.


 Don't mean to be so humorless, but I thought it worth bringing to your 
attention.

						Nigel

    Re .106, Nigel, I meant that Jerry has the facial expression of
    a nice person.  I wasn't talking about physical looks.  I was talking
    about the expression in his eyes and on his face.  To me he just
    happens to come across as a genuinely nice person, more so than
    the average, so I would be especially shocked if he ever turned
    out to have violent tendancies.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .106, .107, Mez, of course, I could be wrong.... I forgot about
    the hat.
    
    Lorna
    

The, um, person who had a thought about attacking me was as nice a guy as
you could get.  Nice looking but not really handsome, friendly but a little
shy, courteous, willing to listen to women's opinions, and at the newspaper
where we both worked had a reputation for being one of the fairest most
egalitarian man on the staff.  

And he thought I "should have known" that when he invited me over to his
apartment for spaghetti after one especially late night putting the paper
to bed, he wanted to put me to bed, too.  

--bonnie

p.s. Actually he didn't want to put me to bed, he wanted to screw right in
the kitchen while the spaghetti was cooking.  I rubbed the leftover onion
in his face and fled, so it never got beyond an unwanted fondling.

    
    
    OK, having brought up the point that *some* times men are falsely
    accused,  what should we do?  Remove the law so that there is no chance
    that some 'nice' man may be falsely accused by his wife of rape when
    in reality she is just trying to get back at him? (back at him for
    *what*, I wonder? Dareing to defy him? Disobey him? Deny him? )
    
    Does this string of notes strike anyone else of having the underlying
    concern that we must, at all costs, (especially since these costs won't
    directly affect men), prevent any possibility of harm coming to the
    good men of this society?
    
    Don't forget that a previous note stated that a false rape charge is no
    more likely than a false burglary charge or arson or murder...
    The differernce as I see it is the false rape charge is a charge made
    by a *woman* against a *man*... and we can't let that happen, can we?
    
    Yup, this is a flame, but the whole trend of those replies made me
    sick.
    
    And plese don't attempt a further rat hole by saying that sometimes
    women rape men, and the same sex will rape another.  I am getting the
    to gennerally assumed roles here.

    While a false rape charge is no more likely than any other false
    charge, it strikes me that the *consequences* of a false rape charge
    are more severe for the one accused.  Somehow, there is more publicity
    attached to the original charge when it is rape than burglary or
    arson.  The willingness of the general public to believe 'where
    there is smoke there must be fire' seems higher when it is sexual
    misconduct than for other charges.  The mud sticks for longer, and
    is detrimental to the ability to simply have normal human contact
    in a way that is different from the other crimes.  To me, that is
    why the heat in response to this particular false charge is higher.
    
    Alison

    ?
    
    Rape is a major, violent felony.  Don't you think that being an
    accused but unconvicted murderer, robber or mugger is equally,
    ah, inhibiting?
    
    						Ann B.

    Thank you Alison. (I hope I spelled it correctly.)
    
     Ann-
    
     Many people consider sex crimes to be the worst kind of crimes. There
    is a stigma due to the perceived motivations. Most sex crimes (except
    date rape) are assumed to be the result of a sick puppy (for lack of a
    better term). When you are charged with assault and battery or murder,
    most people assume you had some sort of motivation they can empathise
    with. "He beat up the other guy to take his wallet,"  "he killed the
    woman during an argument over her infidelity" or whatever.
    
     The Doctah

I've been watching this string and following my thoughts in circles.

There is concern that it is becoming too easy to bring a false charge of rape.
OK, I buy that.  We shouldn't make it too easy to falsely accuse a person of 
this heinous and dehumanising crime.  The stigma _could_ last forever.

On the other hand, there are an awful lot of people like me who have lived
through being raped that cannot bring our rapists to trial because we are not
believed.  Many of us carry our _own_ stigmata.  In a very real way I, and those
like me, stand falsely accused.  There are still those among my friends from 
that time who shy away from me as the woman who accused a good man of raping 
her.  Some men that were my friends evaporated into thin air when it became
known that I had brought charges of rape -- although I didn't seem the type,
maybe I'd accuse _them_ if we were alone together. And there are people now
who, when they know I was once raped, wonder if I'm quite sane.

So, yes, Jerry's scenario makes perfect sense to me, but having lived the
other side I just can't seem to let go of the hope that the laws concerning
rape will be made less harsh upon the victims. Yet I don't wish to offer up
the innocent as sacrifice in my pursuit of the guilty.

  Ann

    
    	RE: He doesn't look like a rapist...
    
    	and therefore is not in keeping with the
    	sensationalized image of Rape.
    
    	Instead, He's a "prince of darkness" who ravishes the wet
    	and wanting damsel who began to enjoy it at some point...
    
    	The man that raped me looked more like someone from "Men's
    	Fitness" magazine, or Krebinski, than how a "rapist" is thought
    	of/portrayed as looking.
    
    	(Before he went to prison, that is...  
    	 At the parole-grant hearing, he looked more like a "rapist".)
    
    	hmm.
    							nancy b.
    

    
    I have only read this topic so far but feel compelled to raise another
    point about false accusations of rape.  It is generally accepted that
    it is extremely difficult to make the accusation of rape "stick" or be
    believeable, often due to the tactics employed by defense lawyers.
    EVERYONE should be concerned about false  accusations of rape. 
    It makes it much easier next time around to say, "X was falsely
    accused, therefore Y could be too".  It is in everyones interest to
    protect the innocent, be it those falsely accused or those a genuine
    victim of crime.  Don't let discussion turn into one group versus
    another.
    
    
    		Holly
    		

    re:.106
    
    Exactly, Nigel. I recall at least one story in this conference
    from a rape survivor who stressed that up until the incident,
    the perp seemed to her like one terrific guy. And given how much
    of a percentage of rapes are date rapes, it seems that a cautious
    woman can't necessarily trust her judgement about someone.
    
    re:.107
    
    Gee, Lorna, that's not what you thought during our arguments over
    violent films in the MOVIES conference. :-)
    
    re:.110
    
    I think you misunderstand the point. I (definitely) and I believe
    the other men who've brought up the point are not trying to claim
    that false accusation is too prevalent, or that the laws should
    be changed to prevent the innocent from being falsely accused, or
    that there should be more concern for the men in our society than
    for the women.
    
    I think it's unfortunate that our legal system is set up in such
    a way that sometimes the innocent *do* get screwed over, but I
    wouldn't change the system, because I believe that it is as fair
    to society as a whole than any other system I can think of.
    
    My only point is that false accusation *can* cause damage, and thus
    the fear of false accusation is not something that should be
    discounted completely just because the probabilities aren't as
    high as they are for a woman getting raped.
    
    Forget that the concept was brought about because of the rape issue.
    Look at it in a more generic sense. How would feel if you were to
    become a pariah within your social circle because you were accused
    of something you didn't do? The odds of it happening may be small,
    but being non-zero, it can still be a point of concern.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .118, Jerry, that's because the violent movies argument took
    place before I met you, and I had, of course, been imagining you
    as some sort of monster! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

>>                          -< perceptions vs reality >-

    
>>    	RE: He doesn't look like a rapist...
    
  
    It's really funny about perceptions.....the guy that put up
    my gutters late one cold October day years ago that I bought
    from a local cop's business was what I considered to be a 
    perfect looking rapist.  I wouldn't let him anywhere near
    the inside of my house.  Years past and I took a course with
    this gutter installer....guess what course we shared???




    RAPE CRISIS COUNSELING



    Guess what his "real job" was????


    


    Police Officer in charge of Rape Detail for my town!!!!

    I took the opportunity to relate my story in our group sharing 
    during the course as a way to explain why he was left out in the
    cold weather.  Of course, one should always be careful in any
    circumstance and listen to one's gut!  

    justme....jacqui

          re:  880.117 (Holly Wright)
          
          > It is generally accepted that it is extremely difficult to
          > make the accusation of rape "stick" or be believeable,
          > often due to the tactics employed by defense lawyers.
          
          I don't think that is generally accepted or even generally known.
          
          >  EVERYONE should be concerned about false  accusations of
          >  rape.
          
          Yes, while at the same time recognizing that the "problem" of
          false accusations is miniscule compared with all the other sh*t
          that goes on which contributes to attrition in rape case
          processing.
          
          Perhaps to put the problem in perspective,
                    

    
    
    
    				when
    
    
    

    
    
    
    				a reply
    
    
    

    
    
    
    				mentioning
    
    
    

    
    
    
    				false accusations
    
    
    

    
    
    
    				of rape
    
    
    

    
    
    
    				is entered
    
    
    

    
    
    
    				reminding us
    
    
    

    
    
    
    				about the "problem"
    
    
    

    
    
    
    				...Perhaps then
    
    
    

    
    
    
    				many replies
    
    
    

    
    
    
    				should be entered
    
    
    

    
    
    
    				to commemorate
    
    
    

    
    
    
    				all of the
    
    
    

    
    
    				Real Rapists
    
    
    

    
    
    
    			that go unpunished
    
    
    

    
    
    
    			and all the victims
    
    
    

    
    
    
    			that the "law" ignores.
    
    
    

    Is the judicial system then to be a war between people victimized by
    rape and people victimized by false accusations?
    
    
    				-- edp

	re .140
        
>>        If a thousand rapists go unpunished
        
        If???  Many more already have.
        
        Dan

            re: .139 (edp)
            
            >  Is the judicial system then to be a war between people
            >  victimized by rape and people victimized by false
            >  accusations?
            
            No one here is advocating "innocent till proven guilty" be
            overturned in the case of rape, edp.
            
            I am trying to convey the relative size of the problems :
            
                 men who commit rape that go totally unpunished
                 
                                    vs
                 
                 men who are falsely accused and subsequently convicted
            

    Re .142:

    >         I am trying to convey the relative size of the problems :
    
    Are you?  The notes you entered reminded me of a child who sticks their
    fingers in their ear and yells "I don't hear you, I don't hear you!".
    Your notes did not convey information; they seemed nothing more than an
    attempt to override the notes discussing the problem of false
    accusations.  The impression gotten wasn't "Our judicial system needs
    to give serious weight to the problem of rape." -- the impression was
    "Rape is more important, so let's ignore the problem false
    accusations.".  Perhaps you do not empathize with people whose lives
    are irreparably damaged by false accusations, but your notes were
    disrespectful.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re: .121 - .138:
    
    Perhaps I should re-phrase my reply.
    
    It is generally accepted BY PEOPLE IN THIS CONFERENCE that it is
    extrememly difficult to make the accusation of rape stick and be
    believable.  I think we are all aware it is different "in the outside
    world" but as the discussion is in this conference I am referring to
    people here.
    
    I am not implying that false accusations is a more severe problem than
    rape itself.  It isn't, but it *is* a problem.  EVERYONE should be
    concerned about false accusations of rape.  They contribute to the
    problem of having real rapists tried and convicted.  The more false
    accusations there are the easier it is to say the next time around
    "that woman (man) is lying/making false accusations, the rape never
    occurred".  I am not expressing myself very well here but I hope you
    get the message.
    
    It is not a case of real rapists *versus* falsely accused.  Pitting one
    against the other doesn't come into it at all.  It is simply that the
    problem exists and as such should be faced.   No-one said it is a
    bigger problem just that it was one which hurts the innocent.  Victims
    of false accusations and indirectly rape victims.
    
    
    		Holly      

    So what are you trying to say nancy?
    
    that my innocent quiry about the possibilities ( I know, never happens
    in real life, only in TV) of a man being falsly accused of rape might
    POSSIBLY be excelled was not wanted here?  
    
    Are you saying that because of the possibility of some males (never the
    word women here....hmmm why is that?) "getting off scot free", that we
    shouldnt give a shit about the males that are falsely accused of
    molesting their god damn children EVERY DAY within our courts?
    
    I dont know about you but, when I talk of changing the system to better
    aid the falsly accused and send away the TRUE scums of the world, I
    SURELY dont talk of, "awww tah hell with the coupla falsly accused
    ones, the numbers are so small and insufficient to warrent concern".
    
    
    Well, thank you very much Nancy.  You have surely shown me the
    way...no, you have "enlightened me....or better yet, lets use words
    that have been thrown around MEGA times here in this file, "You have
    trained me well".
    
    Harsh?  you damn right!
    
    I cant even begin to estimate the amount of men that I have gone into
    devorce court with (or Judges chambers, if the case may be) all of the
    facts, only to be sent out of the room because the dad have been
    charged with molestation (see RAPE here folks) of his god darn
    daughter!
    
    Now, I have entered this office of "LAW" with PROOF that SHE (SEE THE
    MOTHER HERE, NOT THE FATHER) HAS BEEN SEXUALLY INVOLVED WITH ANOTHER
    MAN (yes there even has been ONE where she was involved with a woman)
    and YET THE SYSTEM BELIEVES HER!
    
    Once again, I have been "enlightened" to the rules and regulations of
    the genders...
    
    
    

    	My goodness...
    
    	"...a child who sticks their fingers in their ear and yells 'I
    	don't hear you, I don't hear you!'."
    
    	...followed by a bunch of screaming about divorced fathers
    	and their "goddamn children"...
    
    	Pretty good attempts at baiting.  Sounds like we have some gents
    	here who are striving to become masters at it.  ;^)  
    

    	
    	RE: .121-.138  Nancy
    
    	Your series of replies is one of the most dramatic expressions of
    	an idea that I've ever seen in notes.
    
    	Rape and other crimes of violence against women go unpunished in
    	our society the vast majority of the time (especially if the
    	victims happen to be acquainted or married to the men who rape
    	and/or assault them.)
    
    	Our legal system already bends so far backwards to keep from
    	convicting innocent men from rape that 50% of the *charges* of 
    	rape never even make it to court.
    
    	That's not even counting the cases where the victims have too much 
    	fear to prosecute.
    
    	And it's not counting the cases where the defense attorney is able 
    	to convince the jury that the woman was "asking for it" by wearing 
    	attractive clothing and/or by having had a sexual history with other 
    	men.
    
    	As you can testify yourself - even in the rare cases where the
    	rapist *is* convicted of the crime, the man can be let out of
    	prison after only a few years.
    
    	While I certainly don't relish the thought of *ANY* innocent
    	person being convicted of a crime, the magnitude of the problem
    	of crimes against women going unpunished (or being inadequately
    	punished) is so appalling that it deserves every bit of attention
    	we can possibly give it.
    
    	Your notes were quite moving, Nancy.  Thank you for the calm
    	(but dramatic) presentation of your concern about this problem.

    A new book called The Female Fear talks about how the fear of rape, in
    and of itself, affects women.

    Re .148:
    
    > . . . the magnitude of the problem of crimes against women going
    > unpunished (or being inadequately punished) is so appalling that it
    > deserves every bit of attention we can possibly give it.
    
    It only deserves attention of its own -- there is no justification for
    degrading other important issues.  Would one barge into a discussion on
    ending nuclear war and scream "Stop this!  Rape is more important!"?
    
    
    				-- edp

    re .150 -
    
    The psychology of rape, and the psychology of war, have much in common.

    re: 147
    
    May be so Suzanne, but I am really annoyed at the fact that all I was
    asking was a simple question about the possibilities.... then I pretty
    much get the ole heave ho and "your problems are nothing compared to
    this" ploy.
    
    I have seen a few (Use your own stats, for I am sure that you will
    anyhow) cases of males actually going to jail for falsly accused crimes
    of rape or molestation.  I was merely wondering out loud if this fact
    would escalate.... was that too much to ask?  Was that fact just too
    hard to fathom?
    
    
    RE: 148
    
    Speaking of baiting......
    
    Good show though.....

    I am surprised that all the gentlemen who write with such passion
    of false accusation of rape have never once gotten the idea of
    starting a notestring on the subject, instead of discussing in
    in the notestring entitled "Legalized Rape" (of all places!).
    
    							Ann B.

In the past six to eight weeks, two women in Nashua have been charged 
with filing false rape charges. 

I know nothing about one case except its existence.  

The report of the other indicated that "after extensive questioning by
the police" the woman recanted her story and admitted she made it up to 
get back at her boyfriend.  (Nashua Telegraph, Feb. 11, I think.)

--bonnie

    And she was also charged if I remember correctly Bonnie.
    
    That was all I was trying to say.
    
    If I ratholled this topic, I am sorry.  As I said before, i was merely
    asking an honest (see without malice (sp)) question to a growing
    problem.  Yes Rape is a terrible thing, and IT DOES need a lot of
    attention, but I think that we must also look at the other side of the
    coin to ensure that the proper scum bags get put away, not innocent
    ones as well.
    
    tis all.
    
    again, sorry.
    
    AL

re .150

>    Re .148:
>    
>    > . . . the magnitude of the problem of crimes against women going
>    > unpunished (or being inadequately punished) is so appalling that it
>    > deserves every bit of attention we can possibly give it.
>    
>    It only deserves attention of its own -- there is no justification for
>    degrading other important issues.  Would one barge into a discussion on
>    ending nuclear war and scream "Stop this!  Rape is more important!"?

Not that any of this discussion string in recent memory has anything to do 
with the nominal topic (note 880.0)...  which was quite an interesting one.

	-Neil

    Re .151:
    
    What does that have to do with the question I asked?
    
    
    Re .153:
    
    So start a topic.
    
    
    				-- edp

    The mechanism to prevent unjust accusations already exists.
    
    If a man is falsely accused of rape and subsequently acquited,
    he can press charges against his accuser. If his conscience
    is clear, he should. This will keep the false/unjust 
    accusations to a minimum. [If he fails to take steps to 
    restore his good name, he may a) be unconcerned about
    public opinion or b) not feel too sure of his own position.
    If his acquital was on technical grounds, he probably
    won't be willing to go back to court.]

    
    Caution,  I'm not playing 'nice' here,  but am taking the chance to
    speak as I feel.  If there are any male ego's too delicate out there,
    maybe you should next- unseen.
    
    
  re: 880.139  
    
    >Is  the judicial system then to be a war between people  victimized  by
    >rape and people victimized by false accusations?  
    >    
    >   -- edp 

    Well, if this war is to be 'won' by numbers,  then the women victimized
    will out number the men falsely accused by SEVERAL orders of magnitude.

    But then, I almost forgot, women don't count.  But I guess we CAN count
    all the men who  are also victimized by rape, (since certain members of
    this file consistently bring them up to prove whatever point it is they
    are currently trying to make...   if a mere woman may be allowed to use
    one of 'their' stats....  and to judge by the clamor and vehemence with
    which they bring it up,, this must be a VERY large number!  )
    
    So if there is a 'war' (your term, not any  I've  ever seen chosen by a
    woman in this file..., interesting, no??), then yes, the rights of  the
    people victimized to have a fair & impartial trial, (or even the *CHANCE*
    at  a *biased* trial) should outweigh the *rights* of the men to  avoid
    the possibility  of  being falsely accused.  
    
    Lets  look at the magnitude here, the ability to prosecute rapist,  one
    of the most heinous crimes imaginable, (to men as well as to  women, or
    the  men  wouldn't get so paranoid about our forgetting that it *might*
    happen to them too..), vs the chance that some men may first be falsely
    accused, and secondly,  be unable to clear themselves in a court system
    designed to protect the *innocent*.  (Is that the operative word here?)
    
    Of course we must at all cost, protect these *innocent* men!

    re: 880.140
            
    >If a  thousand  rapists  go unpunished, that does not make a false rape
    >accusation any more acceptable or justified.            
    >
    >   -mike z  
    

    In my opinion, if a thousand rapists go *PUNISHED* that would otherwise
    have  gone *UNpunished*, then  it  *DOES*  make  a  false  *accusation*
    acceptable.  Afterall, let the  man  have his day in court to prove his
    innocence.  Unless you claim that  the court systems are not capable of
    determining the truth.  If this is  the  case,  how  come  you  are not
    equally upset at the number of *true* rapists  that  get off because of
    the court's inadequacy?
    
    
    
    >Perhaps you do  not  empathize  with people whose lives are irreparably
    >damaged by false accusations,  but  your  notes were disrespectful. 
    >
    >     --edp 

    Well,  we  can't  have a disrespectful note by a  woman  upset  at  men
    diverting a discussion in WOMEN's notes, can we?
        
    Re .148:  > 
    >>.  .  .  the magnitude  of  the problem of crimes against women going 
    >>unpunished (or being inadequately punished) is so appalling that  it  
    >>deserves every bit of attention we can possibly give it.   

    >It only deserves attention of its  own -- there is no justification for
    >degrading other important issues.  Would one barge into a discussion on
    >ending nuclear war and scream "Stop this!   Rape  is  more important!"?
    >      -- edp                         

    UH, EXCUSE ME??  I thought this WAS a note  on  LEGALIZED  RAPE, not on
    false accusations.  As someone else said, if it is so important to YOU,
    start another  note.    This  note started out talking about historical
    'legalized rape', note 880.84 talked about which states had allowed 
    wives to prosecute  husbands  for  rape,  note  .85  showed  a survey on
    people's reaction to this  type  of  law.   So we had 85 replies over 4
    weeks discussing various aspects of legalized rape.  Then in note .89,
    the question of false accusations  was  raised.    There are now, what,
    half the the remaining notes (97 )  saying  basically,  hey,  this is
    only going to  make  it  easier to falsely accuse some good men...  and
    all this over a  2  week time period?  Clearly the chances of these men
    being falsely accused is MUCH  more  important  than the fact the it is
    STILL legal in some states for  a  HUSBAND  to  RAPE his wife,even beat
    her, because she asked for it.  (Notice that there are NO laws allowing
    a woman to either rape or beat her  husband?    And yet some members of
    this community find that possibility to be of foremost importance.)
    
    Now that some 50% of our states *JUST  RECENTLY*  allow for marital rape,
    some men are all concerned about their rights?    What about the rights
    of the women who, for centuries, had no legal  recourse?   I agree that
    false  accusations  are  horrible,  but  not NEARLY as horrible as  the
    concept  of  allowing  a  section  of  our  society  NO  MEANS OF  SELF
    PROTECTION.  If a man is falsely accused, take it to our  legal system.
    If  you  don't think our legal system works, change IT.  Don't denounce
    my right  as  a woman to protect myself, so that YOU never have to face
    the possibility of proving your innocence.
    
    

Mike Z,

An *accusation* is an accusation is an accusation is an
accusation.

       It is not a CONVICTION!

It is the job of the courts to figure out whether the
accusation is true or false.

Is it only false accusations of rape you're concerned about,
or are you also concerned about the people who may be
falsely accused of other crimes? 

Kathy

    re: .160
    
    Yes, there are two problems:  
    
      Rapists who go unconvicted,   and
      Not-rapists who are unfairly accused.
    
    Which problem is this note about?  
    
      Rapists who go unconvicted -- and unaccused and unarrested and
      untried -- because THE LAW does not recognize what they did as 
      rape.
    
    Talk about a problem that has no name.
    
    Pam

.160>   A false accusation is wrong, no matter what the history behind it.

    Not all false accusations are deliberate, Mike.  In the case of a
    total stranger, for example, it could be nearly impossible to be
    100% sure.  What you are saying is tantamount to "if a woman isn't
    100% sure of the identity of the rapist, she shouldn't report the
    rape."  I think it is fully reasonable to tie that thought to the 
    fact that enormous numbers of actual rapists go unconvicted!

    Thank you, .159.  That needed to be said.

    RE:.160
    
    >You are mixing 2 problems together and commenting on them as if 1.      
    >                                                                       
    >Rapists who go unconvicted is a problem.                                
    >                                                                       
    >People who are unjustly accused of rape is a different problem. 
    >
    >
    >	-mike z
    
    
    That is because when we were discussing methods of solving problem 1,
    you (& others) chimed in on how horrible problem 2 is,  implying that
    we should do NOTHING that might increase problem 2,  even though it
    will give us a legal chance to solve problem 1.
    
    Also,  the judicial system DOES make human rights tradeoff *ALL THE
    TIME*...  did you never notice that sometimes people get out on bail,
    and sometimes they don't?  Almost always due to the fact that some
    crimes (and criminals) pose more threat to the society at large than
    others do.
    
    So they let some out on bail, and keep others in, DENYING THEM THEIR
    BASIC RIGHT OF FREEDOM, in exchange for protecting the community at
    large.  After all,  this is only a temporary denyial of that freedom,
    since they have their day in court to prove their innocence.  This is
    one of the fundamentals of our legal systems.
    
    Now, do I need to draw the parallel to protecting women and risking an
    increase in accusations to men,, or are you capable of drawing it
    yourself?

	I would suggest that we are in the mists of a case of teaching
	and that certain people will not get their answers without doing
	some homework on their own.

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |

			To see the ocean, desert and mountains in 
			one look takes a good point of view or a
			good imagination - of course all is based
			in the desire to see first.

>Afterall, let the  man  have his day in court to prove his
>    innocence.
    
     Ok- Bonnie Randall just related the fact that two separate women have
    filed false charges of rape in the past two weeks in Nashua. If the
    verity of these accusations were not challenged, and the objects of
    this crime were indeed unjustly accused, how would you react if the
    lives of these two men were ruined by the accusations? Indifference?
    "It's ok because we might be able to catch a few more rapists." "That's
    the price we (read: _they_) have to pay?" What?
    
>    If this is  the  case,  how  come  you  are not
>    equally upset at the number of *true* rapists  that  get off because of
>    the court's inadequacy? 
    
     That assumption is false.
    
>    UH, EXCUSE ME??  I thought this WAS a note  on  LEGALIZED  RAPE, not on
>    false accusations.
    
     If you're that worried about which note you're responding to, take the
    conversation to another note.
    
     The issue that we are concerned with here is typical of the issues
    that face our nation these days. Many people are willing to give up
    protections for the _possibility_ of making our lives safer, of putting
    more people away. That is entirely the wrong way to go about things. We
    _could_ simply abandon the 4th amendment, and mandate unlawful search
    and seizure- we'd sure catch alot more criminals. We _could_ completely
    abandon the exclusionary rule. We could do away with the 5th amendment.
    There are alot of things we could do- but if we have any brains, we
    won't, because they are more harmful to society than that which they
    purport to solve.
    
     Having been very close to some rape victims, I am very much in favor
    of making it as difficult as possible to "get away with it," but not at
    the expense of increasing the number of ruined lives of innocent
    people. You seem to think that a falsely accused man is some sort of
    island, that no one but the man gets hurt. It isn't quite so easy. When
    a man loses his house to pay for the lawyer bills he's run up defending
    himself against a false accusation, his family is affected. His wife
    gets to deal with the looks of neighbors "She's married to that
    rapist." The children get taunted at school "You're daddy's going to
    jail." "You can't play with those children, their daddy is a bad man."
    Etc. Trading freedom for security never works- you get neither.
    
     I fully believe that women deserve every bit of legal protection
    available. I do not believe that having legal witch hunts is the way to
    go.
    
     The Doctah

    Sometimes I wonder if certain people are more interested in the
    reactions they provoke than in communication. We've had Pit-bull
    noting, now I think we have Cattle-prod noting. 
    
    *ZZZZZZT*
    
    "Hey!"
    
    *ZZZZZZZT*
    
    "Hey look - here's the deal...."
    
    *ZZZZZZZT*
    
    "Let me explain this more clearly..."
    
    *ZZZZZZT*
    
    <Add more folks trying to make the point>
    
    *ZZZZT*
    *ZZZZZZT*
    *ZZZZT*
    
    
    etc.

re: .169

Speaking of false allegations, Mark!  

Two women in Nashua have been CHARGED WITH filing false rape charges.
They have not been tried, convicted, or punished.  

--bonnie

    Ok, Bonnie, you're right. Two women, at least one of whom has admitted
    her culpability (but is not convicted), have been charged with filing
    false rape charges. I believe that is not perfectly accurate.
    
     The Doctah

    Re .159:
    
    > So if there is a 'war' (your term, not any  I've  ever seen chosen by a
    > woman in this file..., interesting, no??), then yes, the rights of  the
    > people victimized to have a fair & impartial trial, (or even the *CHANCE*
    > at  a *biased* trial) should outweigh the *rights* of the men to  avoid
    > the possibility  of  being falsely accused.
    
    That doesn't answer the question I asked.  I did not ask what should
    happen if there is a war.  I asked if there were to be a war.  What say
    you?
    
    
    				-- edp

	re: .146 (Al Martin)

>    So what are you trying to say nancy?
    
	That your initial reply in .89:
                                   ----
>    Isn't this going to pave the road for a higher amount for false
>    acusations towards husbands?

	made it appear (to me) as though you were totally ignorant of the
	process involved in rape cases. 

re: .155 (Al Martin)

>   As I said before, i was merely asking an honest (see without malice (sp)) 
>   question to a growing problem.  
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Please present evidence that the problem of false accusations
	is a "growing problem."


.89>    and just because there may be a minorty of incidents, the fact still
.89>    remains that males are falsely accused all of the time.
                     **************************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Words can be so revealing about what a person really feels.

	I think you hit the nail on the head with that sentence, Al.

	For that is the exact approach that too many cops and DA's
	take with rape cases -- 
	It is not just "innocent till proven guilty"; it is more like
	"she's probably making this up..."   or
	"since she knew him, this can't be called rape..."
	(AKA, she's making a false accusation)


	From several mail and phone conversations with the correspondent
	below, it is clear to me that the mentality described above
	(and belied in Al's sentence) was at work when the following
	occurred:

< ***  warning -- graphic response follows; permission granted to post *** >



Hi Nancy,
.
.
.
Your continuum was so right on in how people and the 
legal system view things that I found it depressing.

Mind you, I'm just as glad to have sustained no significant lasting 
physical damage -- but I really did need to be taken seriously and I
wasn't. 

My physical injuries were all minor and fell into two distict 
categories -- the immediately apparent and the apparent after 1-2 
days.  In other words, those that were allowed in the report and the 
ones that were in-admissible [even though they bore a direct 
correlation to events that I described in my complaint] as they could 
have had subsequent origin.

Apparent at point of complaint:

 - large bump in right occipital region centered on a jagged 2.6cm 
   tear [impact with coffee table]
 - mild concussion [see above]
 - a bitten and swollen tongue [my teeth - impact with coffee table]
 - 20cm scratch of irregular path and varying depth originating at the 
   pubis and travelling down the interior of the left thigh. 
 - contusions on the neck under the jaw, consistent with a choking 
   grasp of a left-handed person
 - 5.3cm superficial scratch along neck originating under left ear 
 - tooth marks consistent with two bites on left ear
 - missing left fourth-fingernail w/tearing of underlying tissues
 - mild sprain of right ankle
 - grossly irritated vulva, urethra, & vaginal opening [they all
   agreed that I was 'not happy to have had sex' ...] 

Apparent w/in 1-2 days:

 - torn left trapezius muscle
 - contusions [all irregular, in glorious technicolour]
     - approximately covering right buttocks
     - ~ 11cm diameter directly under left shoulder blade
     - both knees
     - right shin
     - ~ 12.5cm centering upon deepest portion of scratch on left 
	thigh [see above -- *THIS* one couldn't have been of 
        subsequent origin...*AND* it shouldn't have been called a 
        contusion, but that's a nit]
     - ~ 4cm under left eye and extending over cheekbone.  
       accompanying swelling mildly impairing vision in left eye
     - ~ 7.5cm in upper abdominal area

I did put up a _bit_ of a fight, I just didn't 'extend my resistance 
to the utmost limits of physical endurance' ... yep, I never lost 
consciousness, I sustained no broken bones, I required no stitches ... 
you know the 'rules.'  Oh yeah, and I knew the man rather well.

Hence, my complaint was viewed as frivolous.

    
    Several people have  claimed  that  once  a  man is accused of raping a
    woman, that stigma stays with him,  his life is *ruined* forever.
    
    I have a basic problem with that concept.  It doesn't match my model of
    how the world works outside  of  this  enlightened  community.   (And I
    really DO feel that this community,  by  and  large,  makes a conscious
    effort  at  understanding various points of view,  and  strives  to  be
    'fair'.) So I took an informal survey this  weekend,  only asking a few
    people, but I was here in my office working,  so  I  didn't  get to see
    that many!  Oh, and I didn't specifically state *marital* rape, but I
    still feel the answers were interesting.
    
    1) If you found  out  that  a  person  you  knew  had been *previously*
    accused of rape, but had  been  acquitted, what would you think?  That he
    was really guilty?
    
         75% thought that "some b*tch had tried to rake him over the
         coals";and "of course he's not guilty, he was acquitted, wasn't he?"
    
         20% said  it  would  depend  on what they knew about him as a
         person,  but would assume he was innocent if he was acquitted.
    
         5% wanted to know more details to decide.
    
    No  one,  I  repeat  NO  ONE,  assumed  that he had been let off by the
    system, and  felt  that  he  would  be  a  person to avoid, as has been
    suggested would be the case in this file.  Several people reacted as if
    he would have become  a  celebrity  (these,  of course, were people who
    didn't know me very well.    I've found that most men have *some* sense
    of self preservation!  ;-} ) Their reactions mimic alot of what you see
    in the news, ie, the gang rape  at  bedford,  and how the town 'rallied
    around their young men' to protect them from 'the lies of that sl*t".   
    
    I then asked:
    
    2) If you knew a woman who had previously accused a man of rape, but he
    was acquitted, what would you think?
    
         80% thought the man was innocent, and the woman was mistaken 
         as to his identity or 'had tried  to  put  one over'.
    
         10% wanted to know more
    
         10% thought that the system had probably failed, since  it is
         notoriously hard to prosecute rapist.
    
    
    All  of the men said that they would avoid situations where they  might
    be alone with the woman, (ie, she is now 'off limits'.)
    
    I found it interesting that they assumed the man was innocent,  but not
    the woman.  Or maybe they assumed the legal system works.  Neither
    assumption is what some 'enlightened' member of this community think the
    'rank and file' would believe.
    
    Granted, this survey is NOT AT ALL statistically significant.  However,
    it mapped pretty well to my mind's  view of what goes on outside of DEC
    and it's white collar world.  (Go back  and  read  note .84, where many
    people STILL feel that a husband can NOT rape his wife..)
    
    So I  disagree  that  a  man is AUTOMATICALLY 'ruined' forever if he is
    accused of being a rapist.  After all, here in DEC, a person *KNOWN* to
    have attacked women is  simply  told  to  'cool it'.  And it is AGAINST
    POLICY for others to inform  the  general  public about it!  So in DEC,
    unless you get sent to prison,  and  DEC  has to fire you, your life is
    hardly ruined.  (described in some previous note here in WN.)
    
    Not  to  mention  that a man can move away to another state, and unless
    the case became a 'news event', no one is likely to ever know.  A woman
    however,  can NEVER move away from her memories.
    
    So now, for one  more  time,  I  WILL  take  the risk of increasing the
    number  of  false accusations, to  gain  the  INCREASED  capability  of
    prosecuting and CONVICTING rapists.  (The potential bad of the first is
    FAR outweighed by the expected good of the latter.)  

    This,  of  course,  assumes the proposition put  forth  by  Eric  that
    allowing  women  to  prosecute  husbands  for  rape will  automatically
    increase the incidents of false accusations. (Note 880.89 ?)
        
    Does anyone know if, in those states  that  have outlawed marital rape,
    the  number  of  incidents  have risen or fallen?    I  would  find  it
    extremely difficult to believe that they have not fallen significantly.
    Afterall, the husband could no longer claim it was his "right"! 
    
    So, what do you think?  Does making marital  rape  illegal  cause  more
    examples  of    false    accusations?     And  does  false  accusations
    *automatically* ruin a person's life?
    
    
    PS..  I  have  a  another basic problem.  (Actually I have several, but
    only these two related to this topic!  :-)   )
    
    Is a wife likely  to  claim  rape  if  there is no physical evidence to
    support that anything but intercourse  took place?  Wouldn't it be more
    likely that a woman would complain  only if there was physical evidence
    to prove there was force?  Let's  be  real,  folks.  It is very hard to
    prove  rape  even  when  a woman is physically  beaten  and  there  are
    witnesses, so long as the defense can, by some stretch, claim 'she was
    asking for it, judge! "
    
    So,  it  seems  to  me that the only time a  man  would  face  a  false
    accusation, (remember we are talking about marital rape, so false ID is
    not very likely!), is if he did some other actions that would  back  up
    her  story.   (physically  bruised  her,  threatened  to  in  front  of
    witnesses, disobeyed restraining orders, etc.)  
    
    If this thought is  a  new one, does it help to lessen the concern that
    outlawing marital rape will lead to increased false accusations?

    Re .176:
    
    >     All  of the men said that they would avoid situations where they 
    > might be alone with the woman, (ie, she is now 'off limits'.)
    
    How many of the women would say they would avoid situations where they
    might be alone with the man (i.e., he is now "off limits")?
    
    How many would enter into a relationship with him?
    
    How can he move away from the memories of jail, of a public trial, of
    his name in the newspaper, of his coworkers and other associates?
    
    > This,  of  course,  assumes the proposition put  forth  by  Eric  that
    > allowing  women  to  prosecute  husbands  for  rape will  automatically
    > increase the incidents of false accusations. (Note 880.89 ?)
    
    Not me.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    	RE: .179  Mike Z.
    
    	> I would suggest that certain people haven't a good grasp on reality.
    
    	I would suggest that baiting is becoming a nasty habit that certain
    	people appear incapable of breaking.
    

    this has been nagging at my brain for a long time..
    
    would a man call it rape if he has sex with a woman whose bac
    is very high or who has passed out do to a high bac?
    
    me I call it rape.
    

    
    	Implying that some folks are students is not as serious as
    	the implication that others are insane.
    
    	Unless, of course, some of those being called "students" feel 
    	that such a remark is a case of outright insubordination (and 
    	consider stern punishment a requirement to keep order.)
    

    
    	Getting back to the subject of legalized rape ...
    
    	In the states that now have laws which make marital rape a crime,
    	does anyone happen to know what proof is required?
    
    	Is it required that the woman show signs of having been assaulted
    	(with the kinds of defensive injuries that are normally expected
    	for prosecutors to be willing to go to trial with non-marital
    	rape cases)?
    

	A greusome answer to Suzanne's question (in .185) and some
	other info that might answer some of Mary Driskell's questions
	posed in .176 ...


          "However plausible they may sound, these concerns about frivolous
          charges have little supporting evidence.  Their plausibility
          arises less from any real experience than from the reservoir of
          negative stereotypes that many men hold about rape victims.  In
          fact, experience with current marital-rape laws and marital-rape
          prosecutions suggests that they are not used frivolously.  If
          anything, they are underused.  A glance around the country and
          abroad bears this out.

          Sweden, for example, has had a law making marital rape a crime
          for over fifteen years.  Criminologist Gilbert Geis went to
          Sweden in 1979 to find out how the law was working.  No one at
          any level of society in Sweden thought the marital-rape laws were
          being abused.  After searching the records, he was able to come
          up with only four examples of such prosecutions for the year 1970
          and two for the year 1976.  There was no evidence of a large
          number of frivolous complaints.

          Closer to home, a look at the American states that have dropped
          the marital-rape exemption reveals the same results.  Nebraska,
          for example, which eliminated the exemption in 1976, had _not_
          had a _single_ prosecution under it six years later.  Oregon, up
          to 1982 had only four.  IN California, the most populous state in
          the country, we could locate only forty-two cases, and even a
          cursory look at this relative large sample (see Appendix B) shows
          them to be almost entirely made up of well-documented and brutal
          crimes, not quarrels between spouses that happened to spill into
          the courts.

          Part of the problem rests in the persistent cultural stereotype
          that women are prone to making false charges.  This is evident in
          those rape statutes that require another witness corroborate the
          victim's testimony - a corroboration not required for any other
          type of assault.

          But all available evidence points in the other direction: rape is
          an accusation difficult to _make_.  Research suggests that from
          four out of five to nine out of ten rapes go unreported.  Rape
          prosecutions have amongst the lowest conviction rates of all
          serious crimes.  Rapes involving acquaintances and intimates are
          the least likely to be reported and the least likely to result in
          a conviction.  The argument that it would be easy for wives to
          press charges against husbands when they had no legitimate
          complaint is unsubstantiated, relying on stereotype rather than
          fact for the credibility that it still carries."

          [Appendix B is devoted to analyzing the 42 CA marital-rape cases]
          <*** warning *** graphic descriptions follow *** >
          .
          .
          .

          The first thing to note about the cases is that they were, on the
          whole, extremely brutal.  The cases include one in which a woman
          was raped with a crowbar and a 16 inch tire iron and then had her
          breasts slashed with the same instruments.  In another, a woman
          complained that her husband forced her to have sex with other men
          and dogs.  In still another, the fugitive husband murdered the
          victim before he could be apprehended for her rape.  The use of
          knives and guns was a common feature among these cases, and
          several included very severe beatings.

          A second important feature of the cases was that a majority of
          the rapes occurred between spouses who were separated, sometimes
          very recently so.  In only 18% of the cases were the couples
          still living together.
          .
          .
          .

          From:

          (primarily)     David Finkelhor, _License to Rape_


          (referencing)   Carol Bohmer, "Judicial Attitudes Toward Rape    
                          Victims", in _Forcible Rape:  The Crime, the
                          Victim, and the Offender_

                          Gilbert Geis, _Rape in Marriage: Law and Law
                          Reform in England, U.S., Sweden"

                          Renee Binder, "Why Women Don't Report Sexual
                          Assault," _Journal of Clinical Psychiatry_

    Re .186:
    
    The article uses "frivolous charges" to refer to "false charges".  I
    wonder why they think false charges are frivolous.  You don't suppose
    the author might have a bias in any way, do you?
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    
    What *is* it that we're arguing about here?  I went back to the base
    note.  In it Dorian asked us to consider when and under what
    circumstances rape has been legal (or when it has not been illegal).
    She mentioned that a friend of hers had said that in no time in history
    had rape ever been legal, and Dorian offered two examples to support
    her claim:  1. the existence of the "droit du seigneur" -- in which 
    men in power were allowed to have sex with the women who "belonged to" 
    the men over whom they (the "seigneurs") had power.  This "right"
    was often practiced by feudal lords and by white slave owners in
    the U.S.  2. the fact that there are still states in the U.S. where
    a woman cannot prosecute her husband for rape.  
    
    Nancy Bittle has cited some data that show that in states where
    a woman can prosecute her husband for rape, very few charges are
    brought and of those an even smaller number result in convictions.
    Further, in the cases that are prosecuted there is often extreme
    brutality involved in the assault.
    
    It would seem that when women are raped (whether by strangers or by
    men they know), the shame and/or fear they feel prevents them (more
    often than not) from reporting the crime.  Of the crimes that are
    reported, only a small number go to trial (either because the woman
    decides to drop the charges or because the prosecutor fears s/he
    can't win the case).  Of the cases that go to trial, only a small
    number result in convictions.  And it would also seem that the
    sentences served are quite short.  A woman who follows through on
    a rape charge is likely to be traumatized in court, quite possibly
    abandoned by her friends, and after all that, chances are good that
    the rapist will go free or will get out of jail very quickly.
    I dare say that in light of all that, the number of false claims
    that are brought into the criminal justice system must be tiny.
    And yet... it would seem that some men hold up the banner of false
    accusations that "happen all the time" as justification for
    maintaining the status quo.
    
    It would be awful if I or someone I know were falsely accused of rape.
    But 1. I don't think it happens very often, and 2. It seems so hard
    to prove rape when it does happen, that I can't imagine a woman being
    able to be credible enough at the earliest stages of the process (i.e. with
    the investigating police)  to even cause a man to be brought in for
    questioning for a frivolous claim.
    
    Comments?  Have I framed the issues accurately?
    
    Justine
    

    
    Caught an item on the channel 5 news last nite (or was it nite before?
    
    anyway it was talking about the instances of rape in Suffolk County
    (that's Boston)...seems of all the rape charges pressed (claims made
    to the police) only 24% go to a probable cause hearing.  Then only
    a small fraction of those go to grand jury, then FINALLY an even
    smaller % go to jury trial.  Sheesh if I were raped, unless I were
    beaten to a pulp, found by a cop, or had iron-clad witnesses, I'd
    keep my mouth shut.  Seems like most women the news talked with felt
    the same way.  ...
    pity...
    
    yup, I'd like to see things made easier to prosecute.  And if false
    accusations happened, well, too bad.  Course then I;m also staunchy
    pro death penalty, and we all know not all those on death row
    are guilty...but I think the line has to be drawn somewhere, and
    unfortunately there may be innocent folks hurt...
    
    then again, there aren't enough cells for the criminals we've got,
    so where do we put all the new ones?
    
    oh well, this is continuing the rathole...sorry!
    
    deb
    

>    yup, I'd like to see things made easier to prosecute.  And if false
>    accusations happened, well, too bad. 
    
     I read the first line, and I say "yeah!" Then I read the second line
    and I say "no!"
    
     How about this: we make rape easier to prosecute. And false charges of
    rape get punished with the sentence that the victim would have gotten
    had he been convicted unfairly. IE- she claims she's raped, but later
    recants her story. The charge was rape, with a range of sentences from
    3-7 years (say). With the claimed circumstances, the judge would
    normally give 4 years. Since the charges were false, _she_ gets to
    spend 4 years behind bars.
    
     This doesn't mean that if you charge a man with rape and he gets
    acquitted, you go to jail (heavens no!) It means if you falsify a rape
    charge, you get to spend whatever time the accusee would have spent if
    convicted. You also incur any legal costs the accusee has amassed as a
    result of your crime. I'd like to see this concept followed for all
    intentionally false accusations.
    
     The Doctah

    
    Doctah,
    Well, that may sound ok on the surface...if someone falsely
    accused they get the implied sentence...but let's consider...
    
    you come home from work one day to find a burglar running out
    of your house. You get a quick glimpse, and 'luckily' when you
    report the crime, are able to pick his/her picture out of the mug
    shots.  Trial ensues, and person is found not guilty, (your word
    against theirs, no other witnesses, no previous burglary record,
    whatever).  That person then claims 'false accusation' ...i couldn't
    have done it...after all i was just found innocent.  Trial ensues,
    and you get sent up for 5 years.  
    still a no win situation isn't it?  If you have a 50/50 chance
    of conviction (i have no idea what the real # is) then you might
    think twice about charging anyone with anything without lots of
    witnesses.  Not much help.  
    I don't disagree that false accusations are painful, and potentially
    may incur an undue prison term (i have a cousin who spent 4 years
    in jail for a crime he didn't commit) but, there are no easy answers.
    After all, we are judged as humans by humans who all make mistakes.
    There are laws covering false accusations, but I really don't know
    how easy they are to prosecute and convict.  There are similarly laws
    which allow for the prosecution of rape cases, and its clear they are
    NOT easy to prosecute, and even less easy to convict...and should
    be made much more compassionate for the victim.  
    
    So, how do we resolve this catch 22?  chicken and egg...like drugs
    and gangs, and education and poverty, and, and, and...
    
    no answers, only questions.
    
    deb
    

>    Well, that may sound ok on the surface...if someone falsely
>    accused they get the implied sentence...but let's consider...
    
     I specifically precluded such a scenario in my proposal. However, if
    you add the following bits and pieces to your scenario...
    
     The guy you accused was your ex-boyfriend. You caught him catting
    around, and parted on very bad terms. You threatened him in public and
    harassed him at his place of business. 
    
>Trial ensues,
>    and you get sent up for 5 years.                     
    
     Geez- I almost missed this. You are saying that on the one hand, it is
    perfectly acceptable for a man to take the chance on a rape trial, but
    on the other, it is unacceptable for (presumably, a woman) to take the
    very same chance for a different charge. My, but I can't see how that
    isn't hypocritical.
    
     I'd rather go fishing! :-)
    
     The Doctah

    Well, how about this scenario:
    
    A woman tries to break off with her boyfriend.  He refuses, beats,
    and rapes her.  She presses charges.  He threatens to kill her.
    He makes intimidating phone calls, perhaps sets fire to her house.
    Eventually, she recants her testimony, saying she made it all up.
    She is sent to prison for -- how many years did you say was
    appropriate? -- four years.
    
    						Ann B.
    

>    She is sent to prison for -- how many years did you say was
>    appropriate? -- four years.
    
     Nope. During her trial, she decides she'd just as soon NOT go to
    prison. Eventually, the ex-boyfriend is tried and convicted of rape,
    reckless endangerment, witness tampering, and assault. He is sent up
    for 15 years, no parole.
    
     See, Ann. The beauty of these scenarios is that we can make anything
    happen.
    
     The Doctah

    To me the argument, put forward by a few men, that would make no
    distinction between unpunished rape and unpunished accusation is
    ethically bankrupt.
    
    To say that because they are both "wrong" that they're equally
    deserving of societal condemnation and preventative action is simply
    disingenuous and incredibly self-serving on the part of the men who
    presume to make such a claim.  
    
    The only benefit I can think of from such claims is the clear view they
    give us of the thought processes and value systems of certain men.
    
    Feh!
    
    						=maggie

.194>    A woman tries to break off with her boyfriend.  He refuses, beats,
.194>    and rapes her.  She presses charges.  He threatens to kill her.
.194>    He makes intimidating phone calls, perhaps sets fire to her house.
.194>    Eventually, she recants her testimony, saying she made it all up.
.194>    She is sent to prison for -- how many years did you say was
.194>    appropriate? -- four years.
    
.195>     Nope. During her trial, she decides she'd just as soon NOT go to
.195>    prison. Eventually, the ex-boyfriend is tried and convicted of rape,
.195>    reckless endangerment, witness tampering, and assault. He is sent up
.195>    for 15 years, no parole.
    
    Just when I thought I'd seen *everything*!  Far more likely would be
    that the man is acquitted because "she knew him and was dressed
    suggestively, so it wasn't really rape", after, of course, her entire
    sexual history had made the daily papers.  So now, not only has she
    been brutally raped and her reputation smeared, she gets to look forward
    to 15 years in jail, no parole.

    If this is justice, then why don't we just pass a law that states that 
    all women are chattel of all men and if they ever refuse to have sex 
    with a man, they can be jailed for whatever length of time he deems 
    appropriate.

    Excuse me, but I'm going to be ill.

	Sharon

    
    
    Given all that's been said here and elsewhere about how difficult it is
    for a woman to bring charges of rape, and given that there are lots
    of reasons why a woman who decided to press charges might change her
    mind and "recant" -- reasons other than that the man is really not
    guilty of rape, it would seem rather dangerous to offer any woman who
    recants the same penalty that her alleged assailant would receive.
    I do think that anyone who intentionally brings a false accusation
    against another should be penalized appropriately.  I would guess
    that a false accusation would be equivalent to slander and should be
    prosecuted as such -- not as an assault charge!
    
    The thing that still troubles me is how much attention this idea of
    false accusations is getting.  I really don't think that false
    accusations of rape are very common.  And to use the fear of false
    accusations as some kind of justification for the difficulty women
    face when trying to bring a rapist to (some kind of) justice feels
    like an unfair debating tactic.  
                                    
    Justine

So, Doctah, we meet again!

[Sorry, I've been wanting to say that for months now and I'm in a silly mood
this afternoon.]

The problem is that in all rape charges, the rape either happened or it
didn't.  Period.  Either the accusation is true, or it is false.  The
jury will decide which it is, of course.  so either the man is judged a 
criminal and will go to jail, or the woman is judged a criminal and will
go to jail.  It he is acquitted, he can press charges.  (Hell, the way
our legal system works, it isn't a *requirement* for the victim to
press charges - after all, technically it is the *State* vs. the alleged
perpetrator.)

So, it becomes a gamble.  Each woman must ask herself, before charging
a man with rape, "Am I willing to risk going to jail if my evidence 
isn't strong enough to convict him?"  A veritable toss of the dice, given
the fallibility of our legal system.

Frankly, I might very well not press (true) charges if I thought there
was even a 5% chance that doing do would end up with *me* in jail.

Also, as for the possibility of men being falsey accused *and* convicted -
don't you think if the jury knew that if they found the man innocent, they
are setting the woman up to go to jail, that they that might increase
their sympathy towards her, and they would be more inclined to convict him?
I mean, as it stands, the jury decides between making a decision to do
something (send him to jail) or do nothing (not send him to jail.)  Nothing
is the status quo, and easy out to take.  But if they saw themselves as
instead making a decision to do one thing (send him to jail) or another
(send her to jail, or at least set up the possibility of her going to jail,
shoudl he choose to press charges), and haven't the option of "do nothing",
they might be more inclined to find him guilty.

Hmmm...on second thought...

D!

    Mike,
    
    I think I see your problem:  You think the penalty for perjury or
    for filing a false police report is only a "slap on the wrist".
    
    It isn't, you see.
    
    						Ann B.

    Arrrghhh....
    This discussion sickens me; how can anyone compare rape with false
    accusation?  We're talking apples and donuts here folks.
    It's enough to make me delete =wm= from my notebook.
    

    
    Mike, I can't think of an example that could correspond in comparative
    frequency and comparative outcome, but where the sexes are reversed. 
    Can you?  Straight up, I really can't and I would like one.
    
    							=maggie

	Rememeber that men are not responsible for their actions in
	any instance that concerns women - since they the women are
	asking for it and on top of that if one of them dares to 
	complain well then condemn the lot of them one and all.  They
	the women can not be allowed to express their views - they
	would end up condemning a few good men in the process.  So
	play on their (women's) sense of justice and fairplay to get
	them to adhere to our (men's) rules while we (men) get to
	change the rules whenever we wish or just to ignore rules
	in general - Ya know - HE who has the gold makes the rules.

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			Yes I am flaming - I can not believe that
			there are as many BLIND men in this file
			as there appear to be today.

			No I will not respond to any baiting either.

  Re: < Note 880.205 by GEMVAX::BUEHLER >

  >    It's enough to make me delete =wm= from my notebook.
    
  Oh, please don't do that.  That would be giving in to those with 
  size 12 egos, size 6 intellects, and size 2 souls.  And those people
  would like nothing more than to drive people like you out of here.

  Moderators, can the replies in this topic that deal with false 
  accusations be moved to another topic?  Several people have politely 
  asked that this be done but politeness doesn't seem to be working.  
  (Those asked had the colossal effrontery to the the _requesters_ to 
  move to another note!)

  JP

>    it would seem rather dangerous to offer any woman who
>    recants the same penalty that her alleged assailant would receive. 
    
     Which is EXACTLY why that wasn't suggested. There was an explicit
    disclaimer precluding that possibility. And yet, here we go again.
    
>        I do think that anyone who intentionally brings a false accusation
>    against another should be penalized appropriately.
    
     Exactly what I said. Only I was more specific. I said that if you
    INTENTIONALLY falsely accused someone of a particular crime, you ought
    to pay the penalty they would have had to serve if convicted. 
    
>I really don't think that false
>    accusations of rape are very common. 
    
     Let me ask you one question, Justine. Do you believe that we ought to
    enact legislation that facilitates and engenders an environment where
    more false accusations are likely? Ok- I lied; here's another. At what
    point would a rise in the number of willful false accusations concern
    you?
    
     The Doctah

     Is it unreasonable to ask that those of you who have found their
    pleasure in attacking the concept presented in .190 READ PAST THE
    SECOND PARAGRAPH?!!!!
    
     So far, it sure looks that way.

    Arrgghhh.
    
    Moderators, could we please get a second topic devoted to "False
    Accusations", and at least attempt to get separation of the issues?
    
    To all participants......
    
    Please, we have ample evidence *in this file* that there are women
    of our community who have been raped and have either not pursued
    prosecution or seen the prosecution fail.  Before you write a note
    in this topic, would you consider the effect of your words on those
    women, and moderate your tone, bluster and posturing accordingly?
    It would be very much appreciated.
                           
    
    Rape prosecution is difficult for the victim, because often she
    is the one *more* on trial than the man.  This is immoral,
    unconscionable, and legal.  Somewhere I would like a topic to cover
    what the legal system could do to reverse or diminish this effect.
    
    False accusation is difficult for the victim (the one falsely accused),
    because often the public conclusion is that if it came to trial,
    it must have some basis in truth.  The public conclusion is immoral, 
    unconscionable, and legal.  After all, no one can control public
    opinion.
    
    The consequences *to the victim* of the two crimes are *immeasurably*
    different.  That the difference in level of consequence is not being
    valued is what the women in the string are trying to bring forward.
    It is reflected in the willingness of rape victims to even TRY to
    bring their attackers to justice.
    
    Having had some first-hand experience in the last few months with
    a very minor part of our legal system, I'm not sanguine about how
    fair, above-board, and righteous it is.  Something in it is seriously
    skewed, and I am still trying to figure out what feasable steps
    could be taken to improve it.  
    
    Meanwhile, here in =wn=, the default assumption when discussing
    this topic needs to be YOU ARE TALKING TO A VICTIM WHO COULD NOT
    PROSECUTE.
    
    Alison

	I can't believe the sh*t that's been entered in this 
	topic today.  

	Wow, I've never cried in response to anything written here
	before.   I think I am crying because today's discussion
	has convinced me that people's attitudes are such that
	nothing will change for the better w.r.t. rape case processing 
	in my lifetime. 

	And that's sad.

	Or, maybe this all is a really a useful intellectual
	argument.   Either way (whether it's sh*t or a useful
	intellectual argument), I'm taking it much too seriously,
	and would probably benefit by a break from =wn= for
	a while.
						nancy b.

    
    	RE: .214  Nancy
    
    	Unfortunately, what it seems to boil down to is that the travesty
    	involved with the appalling number of violent crimes to women that
    	go unpunished (or inadequately punished) isn't worth doing anything
    	about if there is even a *possibility* that a man could be accused
    	(not convicted necessarily, but just ACCUSED!!) of a crime he didn't
    	commit.
    
    	It's a clear indication of how priorities stack up in our culture,
    	and the value (or lack thereof) placed on women's lives.
    
    	The events of the past week have convinced me, too, that it's time 
    	to take a break from Womannotes.
    

    There have been several requests to move the "unjustified accusations"
    discussion to another topic.
    
    As of now, it is moved.  Any further notes on that subject here will be
    summarily deleted under the trashnote policy by the first moderator
    seeing them.
    
    To give everyone a chance to absorb this, I'm locking the string until
    tomorrow.
    
    						=maggie

	I was also think of just staying out of -wn- after reading _some_
of the replies here.  Instead, I suggest as an exercise, consider this:

	You are a male.
	You have been BRUTALLY raped.
	You can 100% identify your attacker.
	The police laugh at you.
	The case never gets to trial.
	*Everything* goes against you.

	Think of how you would feel.  After 24 hrs, maybe some of the
agonies some women here have felt may not seem so trivial!

			KBear