Conference quark::mennotes-v1

I called this article "brave" because the author (a woman, no less) takes a
daringly un-politically-correct stance, in print.  But I think that the point
needed to be made.  There have been a couple of high-profile date-rape cases
recently which happened after the alleged victims did something patently unwise
(like consent to be alone with a man she hardly knew).  While the ill-adviseness
of a victim's action does nothing to excuse the crime, it should be recognized
and acknowledged, so that like behavior can be discouraged.

                                                              -- Mike

    I feel pretty sorry for anyone who thinks that acknowledging ownership
    of a libido AND acknowledging the fact that rape is, well, against
    one's will gives "mixed messages".  We're supposed to either be sexless
    or be victims?
    
    Oh wait... it's not "we", it's "women", right?  Men are allowed to
    flirt without being beaten or raped, because we're the uncontrollable
    beasts with all the power, I forgot.  And you guys say that DWORKIN is
    anti-male...
    
    If a declared feminist said women should not trust men (which is what
    .0 boils down to), you'd call her a manhater.  If she went on to say
    that this should be changed, you'd call her crazy.  I guess Robinson
    gets away with it because she never says that things should be changed.
    
    Yeesh,
    Ray

    Accepting the blame of abandoning common sense is what I might do if I
    was mugged at 2:30 AM a couple of blocks from here, or if my wallet was
    stolen by a stranger I went to a motel room with.
    
    The kind of blame Robin Morgan and and Susan Brownmiller are writing
    about in those quotes is my robber claiming that I really WANTED to
    redistribute my wealth.
    
    I don't see that .0 ever claims that women DO want to be humiliated and
    violated or that Brownmiller ever claims that women who get drunk with
    men are perfectly safe.  There's no contradiction. The "revisionism" is
    a specious attempt to jump on a "Look, I'm not PC!" bandwagon.
    
    Ray

.2>    Oh wait... it's not "we", it's "women", right?  Men are allowed to
.2>    flirt without being beaten or raped, because we're the uncontrollable
.2>    beasts with all the power, I forgot.  And you guys say that DWORKIN is
.2>    anti-male...

Could you show me where the author of .0 claimed that it wasn't O.K. for women to
flirt?  I don't think that she's saying that it's not okay for women to do any-
thing;  she's just saying that on the other hand, women need to realize the real
possible consequences of their actions.

.0>                                              When a sexual encounter
.0>    involves two adults, willingly together, drunk perhaps, foreplaying
.0>    heavily--on a lawn in Palm Beach, let's say--it's a little harder to
.0>    muster sympathy for the woman's disregarded "no."  Under these
.0>    circumstances, would she deserve to be raped?  The very question is
.0>    offensive.  Should he honor her wishes?  Damn right he should.  Should
.0>    she trust that he will?  Pardon me--but get real.

If you heard that someone had been mugged while walking through an isolated
section of a city park in the middle of the night, you'd say that it was a crime,
but that the person should have known better to than to be doing that.  After
all, 100 people get mugged after dark in that part of the park every year.  But
many people who assume the radical feminist stance, upon hearing that a woman
had been raped by a man she'd met that evening in a bar after willingly coming
with him to his apartment and willingly groping with him in a prone position on
his bed for a while, would say that it was a crime and that the woman was totally
blameless.  I think they're wrong.

                                                             -- Mike

    
.3>    The kind of blame Robin Morgan and and Susan Brownmiller are writing
.3>    about in those quotes is my robber claiming that I really WANTED to
.3>    redistribute my wealth.
    
    The author of .0 isn't arguing with Morgan and Brownmiller.  She's
    saying that arguments like their's have contributed to making it
    impossible to attribute the "blame of abandoning common sense" to a
    rape victim, also.  Actually, the article *does* quote Brownmiller
    argue against women having to accept even the "blame of abandoning
    common sense":
    
.0>                                             "Most men seem to consider a
.0>    woman who engages in sex play but stops short of intercourse is guilty
.0>    not only of precipitant behavior, but of cruel, provocative behavior
.0>    with no excuse," writes Brownmiller.  "Yet I and my sister feminists
.0>    would argue that her actions are perfectly allowable and quite within
.0>    the bounds of human decency and rational decision."  
    
    Actually, all of this is a matter of degrees:  a woman who gives a man
    a long, passionate kiss on her doorstep without wanting intercourse
    cannot be blamed of "abandoning common sense".  The woman who goes to
    his apartment in the middle of the night to neck with him for a while
    when she doesn't want intercourse, is IMHO, on shakey ground,
    especially if she hasn't made it explicitly clear that this is all she
    wants.
    
    							-- Mike

 A powerful and thought provoking article that is destined to incite outrage
and howls of "the backlash" instead of the more difficult to accept 
consideration of the issues...

    
    In other words, like I tell my daughters, "If you go dancin' in a 
    mine field, you shouldn't be too surprised if something goes boom".
    
    I also tell them that something may not be right, but once it's done,
    it's d**n hard to un-do it.
    fred();

    It seems to me that one of the difficulties of American law -and of
    western thinking in general perhaps- is that the world is binary.
    Guilty-innnocent, good-bad,virgin-fallen_woman, etc (To be sure,
    American Law DOES have the concept of mitigating circumstances in
    connection with assessimg penalties).
    Acknowledging to oneself that one's behavior 'facilitated' a crime,
    does NOT in my opinion change the guilt or innocence of the criminal.
    It DOES in my opinion, offer an example of imprudent behavior. Learning
    about imprudent behavior and accepting responsibility for one's
    behavior does offer the hope of decreasing the likelihood of future
    such crimes. (while at the same time, the accused is being treated
    appropriately.)

    RE: .8 - Excellent point, Herb.   I do think in some cases we
    are being asked to absolve the victim of *all* responsibility
    (because to question such a thing would be tantamount to
    ignoring the severity of the accused's actions).
    
    I agree that we can treat the accused appropriately and at
    the same time educate potential victims.
    
    /Greg

    .8 said everything in .0 without putting the blame on feminists.
    
> A powerful and thought provoking article that is destined to incite outrage
> and howls of "the backlash" instead of the more difficult to accept 
> consideration of the issues...
    
    If the profound and sensitive Doctah would point me to the issues to be
    considered, I'd be glad to consider them.  Mostly what I see in the
    base note are issues being covered up by the thought-provoking premise
    "well, that's just the way things are".
    
    Just what IS being said there other than "Don't trust 'em farther
    than you can throw them, and if you do, you can expect the worst"? Good
    advice, I admit, but how is it different from Brownmiller's?
    
    Howlin' Wolf

>    cannot be blamed of "abandoning common sense".  The woman who goes to
>    his apartment in the middle of the night to neck with him for a while
>    when she doesn't want intercourse, is IMHO, on shakey ground,
>    especially if she hasn't made it explicitly clear that this is all she
>    wants.
    
    Shakey ground is one thing.  Being raped is another.  
    
    If it's "natural" for a man to rape a woman in such circumstances and
    it's "unnatural" for a vacillating man to be raped, it seems to me that
    you've gone straight into the premise that men are incapable of
    distinguishing sex from rape.  I disagree with Dworkin when she says
    stuff like that, and I disagree with you if you're saying it.
    
    If men ARE capable of distinguishing sex from rape, then they have to
    accept the blame for committing the crime, no matter how naive their
    victims were to trust them.
    
    Ray

.11>    Shakey ground is one thing.  Being raped is another.  
.11>    
.11>    If it's "natural" for a man to rape a woman in such circumstances and
.11>    it's "unnatural" for a vacillating man to be raped, it seems to me that
.11>    you've gone straight into the premise that men are incapable of
.11>    distinguishing sex from rape.  I disagree with Dworkin when she says
.11>    stuff like that, and I disagree with you if you're saying it.

No one is saying that it's "natural"--just much more *likely*.  If a woman
willingly engages in foreplay with a guy and then stops before
intercourse, then what she has on her hands is a guy who's very likely to be
hyped up with frustrated lust and anger.  Some men have lost their self-control
and raped women under these conditions.  This does not excuse their crime, but
I doubt that many of these same men would ever leap from behind a bush and force
themselves on a stranger.

.11>    If men ARE capable of distinguishing sex from rape, then they have to
.11>    accept the blame for committing the crime, no matter how naive their
.11>    victims were to trust them.

We're essentially in agreement here.  However, I think that under certain cir-
cumstances, the rapist does not bear *all* of the blame.

                                                             -- Mike

.10>    .8 said everything in .0 without putting the blame on feminists.

Some of the blame *does* lie with radical feminist idealists--the author of.0
illustrates this with quoted examples of their rhetoric.  The young woman who
reads and swallows this stuff is put in real danger if she uses it as an excuse
to put herself into situations where she is likely to be raped.

As fred(); points out in .7, once a woman is raped, she cannot be unraped, no
matter how legally at rights she was in her behavior.  Isn't it better for wo-
men to learn to recognize situations which are ripe with potential for rape and
to avoid *creating* them?

                                                                -- Mike

>Some of the blame *does* lie with radical feminist idealists--the author of.0
>illustrates this with quoted examples of their rhetoric.  The young woman who
    
    Show me a feminist who says it's wise to get drunk with a horny guy
    (alone or with his twelve frat brothers) or says that you're safe from
    rape when you're alone in a car being driven by a man and I'll show you
    a non-existant feminist.
    
    The idealistic rhetoric comes when we say that this is NOT a desireable
    state of affairs and try to figure out a) why things are this way (any
    ideas, guys?), and b) how to change them.  These are exactly the steps
    that Robinson doesn't want to take, either out of weariness or because
    articles with the "Proud to Be Non-PC" label are easier to sell.
    
    Ray

    <Isn't it better for wo- men to learn to recognize situations which are
    <ripe with potential for rape and to avoid *creating* them?
    
    
    Of course it is.
    
    But that verb "create" starts giving a very different tone to the
    discussion. A tone that is certain to rouse the mostly somnolent
    'feminists (was it a slip (freudian) of the finger that I typed
    'feminits'?).
    
    Even if walking down a dark alley can be thought of as CREATING a
    mugging (to degenderize it), the mugger is no less a criminal; though to
    be sure the muggee is at best uniformed and at worse a hot-headed,
    impetuous, strident (i'm_going_to_reclaim_my_civil_lilberties) fool.
    
    I think each of us would do well to reflect on what it is about
    ourselves that puts us in a particular point along a spectrum wrt to
    any particular discussion.
    
    I know that for me, there have been lots of things in _my_ life
    experience that orient me toward victim UNtraining. That orient me
    toward feeling that many of the bad things that people might want to do
    to me, are things that i have learned -and continue to learn- to
    prevent.
    
				herb    

    What ever happened to just 'necking'? I went through  high school
    and a good deal of college dating a number of men who didn't 
    assume that because I agreed to a necking and petting session that
    I'd given consent to sex.
    
    Bonnie

.15>    Show me a feminist who says it's wise to get drunk with a horny guy
.15>    (alone or with his twelve frat brothers) or says that you're safe from
.15>    rape when you're alone in a car being driven by a man and I'll show you
.15>    a non-existant feminist.

The examples that you state haven't been discussed here.  However (and I've
quoted this before), .0 *does* show an example of a feminist suggesting that
it's perfectly okay and reasonable for a woman to get a guy "all hot and
bothered" and stop short of intercourse:

.0>                                             "Most men seem to consider a
.0>    woman who engages in sex play but stops short of intercourse is guilty
.0>    not only of precipitant behavior, but of cruel, provocative behavior
.0>    with no excuse," writes Brownmiller.  "Yet I and my sister feminists
.0>    would argue that her actions are perfectly allowable and quite within
.0>    the bounds of human decency and rational decision."  

Susan Brownmiller *is* a self-avowed and published feminist.  I hold that the
idea expressed by her in the above quote is dangerous and irresponsibly
forwarded.

                                                           -- Mike

 re: canis lupus volumis

 Points that I find in the base note to have merit:

 1. Traditional feminist dogma asserts that for women to accept responsibility
for behaviors that prelude acquaintance rape is tantamount to patriarchical
society having conditioned women to hold themselves responsible for their
own oppression.

 2. Some sexual encounters that today carry the label of "date rape" really
amount to unfortunate and unpleasant variations on seduction. The sexual
encounters to which I refer do NOT include situations where a woman has
made her disapproval clear. (An attempt to reduce rathole potential.)

 3. Some women have engaged in behaviors which contributed to a date
rape situation. No, women (and men, for that matter) do not ever deserve
to be raped. (Another attempt to reduce rathole potential.)

 4. Brownmiller's defense of ****teasing as being "perfectly allowable and 
quite within the bounds of human decency and rational decision" creates
a false sense of security in those who accept her writings at face value.
Is it acceptable for women to engage in foreplay with no intention of having
intercourse? Of course. Is it wise? That depends.

 5. "Women who behave as though all men were as enlightened as feminists 
demand they be may be risking more than they bargained for."

 6. Feminist sexual theory lacks pragmatism.

RE: .16

I think that this whole thing is matter of degrees.  If a woman wants to neck
with a guy without intercourse, maybe she'd better make it clear that that's all
she wants.  And she'd better stop him when he puts his hand up her sweater or
down her pants.  As .0 points out, permission to have intercourse with someone
is almost alway implicitly given:  people have to be careful not to give signals
that might reasonably be interpreted as inviting more than they want.

                                                               -- Mike

    <...a number of men who didn't  assume that because I agreed to a
    <necking and petting session that I'd given consent to sex.
    
    i think it would be helpful to be a little more rigorous in word
    selection.
    
    In my case, it certainly was true that I assumed that an acceptance of
    petting or even an initiation by my partner of petting was a signal
    that there was no road block to further advancement and indeed absent
    other signals or agreement ought be interpreted as an 'invitation' to
    advancement. (which is not to say there might not still be a road block
    further down the road).

>or because articles with the "Proud to Be Non-PC" label are easier to sell.

 Above all else, failure to toe the PC line subjects you to aspersions of
this sort. How incredibly tiresome.

>quoted this before), .0 *does* show an example of a feminist suggesting that
>it's perfectly okay and reasonable for a woman to get a guy "all hot and
>bothered" and stop short of intercourse:
>
>.0>                                             "Most men seem to consider a
>.0>    woman who engages in sex play but stops short of intercourse is guilty
>.0>    not only of precipitant behavior, but of cruel, provocative behavior
>.0>    with no excuse," writes Brownmiller.  "Yet I and my sister feminists
>.0>    would argue that her actions are perfectly allowable and quite within
>.0>    the bounds of human decency and rational decision."  
    
    And it IS OK and reasonable, at least as much for women as for men
    (though I prefer Brownmiller's "within the bounds of human decency and
    rational decision").  But IT ISN'T SAFE for women.
    
    Why isn't it safe?  Well, that's why Brownmiller wrote "Against Our
    Will".  I defy anyone to read the book and draw the conclusion that
    women can securely behave like the victims in the base note.
    
    Ray

    I see the "proud to be non-PC" comment (in .15) as a bit of miffedness
    or a slight case of disgruntlement.

    Perhaps the first indication that this discussion may start escalating?
    

    Herb
    
    You and I were in high school  and college before or just at the
    beginning of the sexual revolution. 
    
    At that time, it was indeed 'understood' that a woman would and
    could allow certain liberties without this meaning that permission
    had been given to go 'all the way'.
    
    It was a sort of a dance, a kiss, then 'first, second, and third bases'
    long before you went 'home'. Allowing one's date to put their hand
    up one's sweater, or even in other more intimate places was *not*
    considered to be permission to 'go to home plate'. 
    
    Somewhere down the road the 'rules' changed, and now it seems that
    anything more than a peck on the cheek is seen as a prolog to 'going
    all the way'.
    
    Bonnie

>    I see the "proud to be non-PC" comment (in .15) as a bit of miffedness
>    or a slight case of disgruntlement.

    Actually, I just couldn't figure out any other reason for her dragging
    in the feminist quotes that she did.  As I wrote before, the conflict
    she implies between being-cautious-around-men and feminist theory seems
    specious to me.  I'm probably unfairly impugning her motives, but hey,
    that's what this conference is all about, right?  (,< :)
    
>    Perhaps the first indication that this discussion may start escalating?
    
    Well, I don't seem to be responding to the Doctah's rubber mallet, if
    that's what you mean.  (: >,)
    
    Ray

    <just at the beginning of the sexual revolution>
    i have been sexually revolting (adjective) since the 40s
    
    i didn't say 'all the way', i said -approx- 'continue the trip, knowing
    there might yet be detours ahead'.
    
    Absent prior agreement 'certain liberties' to me always meant 
    "'certain_liberties',_(and_who_knows,_maybe_more)"  :-)

re .10

>    If the profound and sensitive Doctah would point me to the issues to be
>    considered, I'd be glad to consider them.  Mostly what I see in the
>    base note are issues being covered up by the thought-provoking premise
>    "well, that's just the way things are".
    
>    Just what IS being said there other than "Don't trust 'em farther
>    than you can throw them, and if you do, you can expect the worst"? Good
>    advice, I admit, but how is it different from Brownmiller's?
    
My view on what is being said is that each individual is responsible for
their own actions AND THEIR RESULTING consequences (insane/disabled don't
seem to be included in the article). The tease receives personal
consequences, as does one who rapes (no implied value judgments about
'which consequence is worse').

The suggestion that the 'date rap-ee' has some responsibility for the outcome
is far more empowering than for the 'date rap-ee' to view themselves as a
victim. Victims have things done to them, and they have no way to influence
the outcome. But those that accept responsibility are free to choose some
other action if they didn't care for the outcome of the previous action.

My view is this whole country could benefit from each individual accepting
more personal responsibility for the things that 'happen' 'to' them.

    My gut reaction to a tease is to want to slap the tease's teeth in.
    I have never acted on that impulse.

    Maybe I was lucky, but I don't recall that I or my friends were
    ever called teases for assuming that agreeing to a necking/petting
    session did not mean agreement to 'home base'...
    
    as I said, times have changed

>    My gut reaction to a tease is to want to slap the tease's teeth in.
>    I have never acted on that impulse.
    
    I feel the same way around French waiters...
    
    FWIW, the only "teases" I've known in my post-Sexual-Revolution life
    were women who'd recently been raped.  Maybe I've been lucky?  They
    weren't, though...
    
    Ray

    <that I or my friends were ever called teases for assuming that
    <agreeing to a necking/petting session did not mean agreement to 'home
    <base' ...

    i neither said nor implied that, nor do I have any reason for believing
    it.  In fact, I do not recall that I have ever encountered what would be
    appropriate to describe as a sexually teasing situation. My remark was
    triggered by the remark in .27 and reflections on how i would if _IF_ i
    had ever been sexually teased and how I have felt when I have ben
    non-sexuallly teased.

    you seem to be getting a little testy

  	i think that whether someone feels sexually teased is all a matter of 
	individual definition.

	some women feel comfortable just necking, and feel offended
	if a man reaches for her breasts. other women don't feel
	that her breasts are off limits when necking. some men
	enjoy just necking/feeling/kissing. other men want more,
	or feel that one thing should lead to another. the key
	is communication.


	kits
	

I'll admit that I haven't read Brownmiller (and I admit that I'm not likely to--I
haven't been into feminist diatribe since I was a teenager), so it is possible
that .0 takes her statements out of context.  I do think that she has a point,
though.  The campaign to absolve rape victims of any part of the blame had its
point, but has been too successful.  If we don't recognize that it's possible for
women to precipitate rape, we don't encourage them to stop precipitous behaviors.

Any woman who willingly sets out to be alone with a man (especially one in whom
she's expressed an interest) without desiring intercourse should make her desires
explicitly clear at the outset, or at least not engage in suggestive physical
contact with him.

                                                                   -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    What you are saying is that the woman has all the responsibility to
    avoid date rape?  Why should a woman have to state that at the outset? 
    Why can't the man just accept that there won't be any sex?  Why should
    a woman have to go to such great lengths to protect herself?  Why is it
    automatically assumed that a woman will have sex unless she clearly
    states that she won't?  
    
    I apologize here and now for sounding defensive, but this string is
    bringing up alot of bad memories for me and I'm having alot of internal
    reactions going on.
    
    Karen

Sorry, Kathy.  I didn't mean to imply that women bear all responsibility.  But
in today's society, going into a man's apartment in the middle of the night or
inviting him into your *suggests* a desire for sex.  I don't know how things got
that way, or that that it should be that way, but that's the way it is, at least
for some people, and its best to be aware of it.  It might be best if anyone
(man or woman) who was uninterested in sex in these circumstances simply not
chose to be alone with the other person (i.e., don't make the suggestion).  But,
barring that, at least make your intentions clear, if sex isn't what you want.

It may particularly behoove women to be careful about these things, since its
harder to force a man to have sex against his will, and women aren't know to try
to do that anyway.  Although, one can imagine some skewed woman flakey enough
to resort to some other form of violence when frustrated like this.


                                                              -- Mike

    our world just went binary
    
    I don't think he is saying that the woman has all the responsibility.
    I don't think that he said that a woman has to state that at the
    outset (but I trust you agree that would eliminate some potential
    ambiguities)
    Why should a woman have to go to such great lengths to protect herself.
    She doesn't _have to_ go to such great lengths. On the other hand, it
    doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
    Why is it automatically assumed that a woman will have sex unless she
    clearly states that she won't?
    It isn't automatically assumed, on the other hand published statistics
    that the majority of 17 year old girls have had intercourse, and the
    percentage is much, much higher by junior in college, that it's a
    pretty reasonable plausibility. Couple that with the recent film
    industry (if the films our kids watch during vacation are typical), and
    a male of 21-25 is facing a situation where his date has very, very
    likely had intercourse and expects to have intercourse again rather
    soon.
    
    (actually, Bonnie I spent the entire decade of the 60s in school so my
    view is a tad different than many our age.
    I am the only male I know whose mother -appropriately- called him a
    beatnik in the 50s and a hippie in the 60s
    
    

    With all due respect for those who have been victims:
    
    Which would you rather have happen:
    
    1) have the rapist sent to jail and all his worldly goods turned
       over to you?
    
    2) Not be "raped" in the first place.
    
    
    Given todays judicial system (whether it's right or wrong) 1) is 
    not likely to happen.  Even if it does happen you are not going to
    have much control over what happens.  I'm not saying don't try if
    you *are* raped.  By all means *do* try.  *If* Tyson did rape the
    girl, and if he gets off, it will *still* be a cold day in &^%$
    before he tries anything like that again and he'll be several $k 
    poorer.  However, even if the rapist is sent "up the river" for 99 
    years, then hanged twice, it will not undo the fact that you have 
    been raped.  ( and maybe pregnant, and maybe some nasty STD--can
    you say AIDS? )
    
    However there ARE things and precautions that you *can* do that will
    go a looooong way in making sure the rape doesn't occur in the first
    place.
    
    fred();

    >It isn't automatically assumed, on the other hand published statistics
    >that the majority of 17 year old girls have had intercourse, and the
    >percentage is much, much higher by junior in college, that it's a
    >pretty reasonable plausibility. Couple that with the recent film
    >industry (if the films our kids watch during vacation are typical), and
    >a male of 21-25 is facing a situation where his date has very, very
    >likely had intercourse and expects to have intercourse again rather
    >soon.
     
    So, what I'm hearing here is that because a woman has had intercourse
    before, it is only natural for the man to assume that she will want to
    have it again and with him?  That just because she has had intercourse
    before, that makes her an easy mark for sex?  No, Herb, the world
    hasn't gone binary, but I get really upset (and I am now) when I hear
    things like this.  I don't ever want it assumed that just because I've
    accepted a date with someone that it's a prelude to sex, because for me
    it's not.  I value myself and other people too much for that.  
    
    There are alot of gray areas in date rape and to me that is what the
    base note is talking about, the gray areas.  As with any topic, the
    gray areas are hard to define and even harder still to find solutions
    to.
    
    
    Karen

    
    >1) have the rapist sent to jail and all his worldly goods turned
       >over to you?
        Have the rapist sent to jail and all his worldly goods cashed out
    and the money given to rape crisis centers.
    
    >2) Not be "raped" in the first place.
        That would be my preference, yes.
    
    Fred, I don't disagree that most rapists aren't sent to jail.  But if
    we can get even one off the street and prevent him from raping another
    woman, isn't it worth it?  Isn't it worth preventing one other woman
    from experiencing the horror of ANY kind of rape?
    
    Karen    

    you are shooting from the hip, Karen
    I'm not going to respond

    re .39 Karen
    
    If you *are* raped.  By all means do *everything* you can to hang
    the &^%$#$@.  But there are a lot of things you can to that will
    go a long ways to insure that you aren't raped in the first place.
    Even I stay the heck of of some bars.  (when I know you better, I'll
    tell you about that on some day 8^) ).
    
    fred();

    In high school, necking for me was anything you could do while seated
    upright in the front seat, side by side, while parked in her parents
    driveway in the dark.
    					- Vick

 Wow- that's quite alot! ;^)

    Herb,
    I am not shooting from the hip.  For me, today, those are valid
    questions.  Alot of those questions are internal reactions for me and I
    admitted that I find this string very upsetting.  It's not an attack on
    you in any way Herb.  I'm doing alot of personalizing in this string.
    
    Yes, Fred there are alot of things I do today to avoid rape.  I don't
    drink at all, so bars aren't an issue (never have been as I've never
    liked the bar scene).  I don't go out alone at night, I try to get to
    know a person somewhat before I go out with him. If I am out at night I
    stay in well lighted, public places.  I don't even go to the grocery
    store after dark unless it's absolutely necessary.  If I am accepting a
    date with a man that I don't know very well, I always arrange to meet
    the man at the restaurant, movie, or where ever we have decided to go. 
    I don't give out my address until I know the person pretty well.  I
    always have my car keys ready and if I'm parking in a parking garage I
    try to park as close to the exit where there is an attendant.  I take
    lots of precautions.  
    
    Michelle said alot of valuable things and I agree with her.  Ten years
    ago I accepted a blind date set up through mutual friends.  This man
    told me we were going to a party.  Little did I know it was a party for
    2.  It has taken me 10 years to identify that what happened that night
    was rape.  I was not consenting, never did consent.  There was little I
    could do to stop what was happening.  I'm 4'11" tall, he was 6'5" tall. 
    So tell me guys, (yes, a touch of sarcasm here) was I naive to go alone
    with him in his car?  Was I giving silent consent by accepting a date
    with him?  I didn't have any bruises when it was over, yet I was quite 
    sore. Was this really date rape?  In my mind, yes, it was and I still
    haven't resolved the hurt and humiliation of that night.
    
    Karen

    Maybe we need to work on cleaning up the minefields as well?
    
    (don't mean to pick on that phrase, Fred - just made me think
    of something....)
    
    I attended a presentation recently by a Dr. Sut Jhally of UMass
    Amherst.  He produced a video called "Dreamworlds" which was
    a criticism of the portrayal of women in rock videos (it was
    a really powerful piece of work and MTV tried to get it banned).
    
    Anyway, his argument is that we are teaching our adolescent boys and
    girls (thru music videos) that women (at least young, well-dressed, 
    attractive women) are everything fantasizing teenage boys could ever 
    want....indiscriminate and insatiable, willing to sleep with any man 
    available.  He goes on to speculate that a constant diet of images of 
    "women as objects" leads to a mindset where men *DO* expect sex from 
    dates and even reasonably friendly acquaintences.  The Dr. attempted 
    to support this theory by polling six thousand college students.   
    The stats were pretty bad:
    
    	60% of men and 40% of women agreed that women provoke sexual
    	assaults by their dress and behavior.
    
    	30% of men agreed that "it would so some women some good to be
        raped."
    
    There were some other stats mentioned but I didn't write them down.
    
    Considering the number of hours some kids watch MTV and VH-1, it
    isn't surprising that if these kids don't *ALSO* have positive
    images of women to counter-act the ones they see in their 
    entertainment (lets not forget how women are portrayed in typical
    teen slasher movies) it is likely they will grow up with warped
    perceptions of what women are like in the real world.
    
    What do others think?  Just writing this made me think of an idea
    for a new topic (what do we think of how men are portrayed in 
    popular entertainment - or is there already such a topic?)
    
    /Greg

    re .44, hey! That's what I was going to say!!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    I didn't feel a personal attack. I _did_ sense personal involvement.
    (just as I have sensed it on the part of a couple of the men). It is a
    pleasant surprise for me to be able to hold an opinion clearly and
    strongly without blowing up. It's often difficult.
    You have given us enough information to judge -in a conversational
    sense- that you were date raped.
    Regardless, of your behavior, that will always be _true_ and always be
    WRONG.
    You haven't given us enough information to know whether you were naive.
    You haven't given us enough information to know whether you used bad
    judgement.
    You are the only one who can judge that in any case.
    (and that is a horrendous idea in any case; I sure as hell don't want
    to be sitting in judgement of real specific people)
    And regardless of how you assess your naivete and judgement ultimately,
    you know that what HE did was WRONG and any GUILT ought be his, and any
    SHAME ought be his.
    Naivete and poor judgement are not penal words they are growth words.

    I don't think this discussion is about fixing rapists
    This discussion is about fixing rapees.
    I suggest minesweeping work would be more productive in a separate
    discussion.
    
    perhaps it comes across a bit more gently if instead of the above I
    suggest that 
    this discussion is not about preventing victimizers rather
    this discussion is about preventing victimizations and victims.
    I suggest minesweeping work would be more productive in a separate
    discussion (in my opinion the more prominent part of the problem but
    also the less amenable part of the problem)

    re .45 (Karen)
    
    	I'm really saddened on reading your note that you feel you have to
    take all those precautions for your physical safety.  I don't doubt for
    a moment that they are probably highly adviseable, but I am disturbed
    that our society has reached this point.
    
    	In reference to some of the other comments, I really wonder what
    did happen to all the fun things that a man and woman (or boy and girl)
    could do with each other short of actually having intercourse.  I gotta
    admit that back in my youth, I really enjoyed the necking and the
    petting.  And FWIW, No meant No then, and it still does.  

 re: Karen and Michelle

 Thank you for sharing your thoughts here. In many ways, men cannot identify
fully with the female mindset, and I believe your writings will help us
to understand.

 Date rape- real, live, "too bad I'm gonna do it anyway" forceful sex is
far too common. It's certainly more pervasive than most men realize; we
don't expect that our brothers are forcing themselves on women. We don't
want to believe that our friends and relatives our overpowering women
for their own selfish sexual gratification. But it's happening.

 Guys who date rape don't go into the lockerroom and brag about the struggle;
they only brag about the end result. "Yeah, I got her." And we say "wow-
was she good?" "Yeah, she was alright." They don't say "she started screaming
so I threatened her." They don't say "I had to grab her by the hair."

 I'd venture to say that most men don't believe they know any rapists. I don't
think I know any. But I probably do- and that's a rather disgusting thing
to come to grips with. Think about it guys- some guy you know, probably even 
look up to, forces women to have sex with him. What do you think about the
"success stories" now? Lose a little of the luster?

 I can't speak for every guy, but I know that the sex drive can be strong,
a distraction, a powerful motivator, and a drug. But nonconsentual sex
is not justifiable.

 I think we are lucky to have the opportunity to read the feelings of women
who have been taken advantange of here- we get to hear about how they feel
when our buddies disregard human rights. I believe that because we are bigger
and stronger, we have the responsibility to control our ability to overpower.
It's such a tragedy when we abuse this power.

 The solution to the problem of date rape isn't going to lie with women
being more careful. That, while pragmatic, doesn't solve the underlying issue.
Only when men recognize the fundamentally antisocial nature of date rape
can the problem be eliminated. Women can help reduce the problem by being
"smart" but the ultimate solution lies with men. How many women have to
undergo the trauma of date rape before men recognize that we must influence
our peers to refrain from raping women? How many of our sisters, aunts, mothers
and cousins secretly carry around emotional baggage as a result of an 
experience they can only hope to forget, and which they cannot bear to tell
us about? We'd probably all be surprised. We'd probably all be shocked. We'd
probably all be outraged.

 With as much emphasis as we put on the gray areas, we sometimes lose sight
of the fact that there are way, WAY too many cases where things are still
pretty black and white.

 the Doctah

    re .46
    
    I cut the following article out of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer a few
    months ago.  I think it addresses some of what you were trying to say.
    It is copied here without anyones permission.
    
    
    WHAT TEENAGERS DON'T KNOW ABOUT RAPE IS APPALLLING
    
    I would like to say a word in favor of education, which if I remember
    correctly, my teachers told me was a good thing.  Easy for them to say. 
    Back then teachers didn't have to wallow in the moral, religious and
    legal mind of sex education.  They didn't have to teach a subject in
    which they might be required to make sure our knowledge never exceeded
    their ignorance.
    
    Thank goodness that today we live in an enlightened America, where sex
    education is taught in all 50 states.
    
    Why, in 32 states, teachers are even allowed to mention the possibility
    that pregnancy can be prevented.  Can you imagine?
    
    Now forget for a moment the issue of birth control because despite what
    some of you believe, it's not the only subject of or reason for sex
    education.
    
    Consider what we're not teaching our kids about rape.
    
    The William Kennedy Smith case has made rape a hot topic this summer. 
    His trial next January will keep it warmed up.  So far, the issues that
    have received the most public attention have been whether the news
    media should reveal the name of the alleged victim and whether the
    defendant's rights will be abridged if the trial is televised. 
    Complicated issues, both of them.
    
    There's another, much simpler issue.
    
    Ask teen-agers if think rape is bad and most will say "Of course it
    is."  But what happens when you rephrase the question?
    
    The Rhode Island Rape Crisis Center interviewed 1,700 students in the
    6th to 9th grade concerning their knowledge and attitudes about a
    variety of sexual situations.  The students came from private and
    public schools.  The students answered the questions individually and
    anonymously.  
    
    Their answers were shocking.
    
    To begin with, most students believed sexual assault crimes were
    usually committed by strangers.  The truth is that victims knows the
    offender abuot 80 percent of the time.  Obviously, if young people
    aren't aware of this, they don't have the knowledge they need to
    proctect themselves.
    
    That's not the worst.
    
    A majority of the students polled held the victim repsonsible for the
    assault.
    
    More than half of the students thought that "if a woman dresses
    seductively and walks alone at night, she's asking to be raped."  More
    than 25 percent thought that "if incest happens to someone over the age
    of 12, it could be the child's fault."
    
    This kind of ignorance is not going to lead young people to seek help
    if they've been assaulted (or know someone who has).
    
    In addition, most of the students felt there were circumstances where a
    man had the right to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her
    consent.
    
    A whopping 80 percent said a man had the right to force a woman if they
    were married.  Seventy percent said the man did not need the consent of
    the woman to have sexual intercourse if they were planning to get
    married.  Sixty-one percent said it was OK for him to force her if they
    had had sex before.
    
    More than half said a man had the right to have sex with a woman
    without her consent if (1) she has had sexual intercourse with other
    men (2) he is so turned on he can't stop or (3) she is drunk.
    
    Appalling, isn't it?
    
    If young people think this way, aren't they likely to accept or even
    encourage sexual assault?  If young people think this way, isn't it
    time we do whatever's necessary - in the home and in the classroom - to
    change their thinking?  Too complicated a subject?  Not if you start
    with this one sentence:
    
       If she (or he) says no, it's rape.
    
    Now, which part doesn't your kid understand?
    
                                       -Linda Ellerbee

    I think you are right, Herb - it would be best to move such a 
    discussion to another topic.
    
    Thanks for keeping things on track...
    
    /Greg

    Coodoes to 755.51 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE. I couldn't have said it better
    myself.  At least I didn't when I tried to.  (: >,)
    
    Ray

    re .51
    
    Thank you for a wonderful note.  
    
    Karen

    On second though...  although most of my note (and most of
    the presentation) focused on "victimizers" I did mention
    that women (victims in this case) were affected by these
    media images as well.
    
    Perhaps the proper way to use .46 (and .52) is to look at
    how media images and parental discussions (or lack thereof)
    affect victim's attitudes about rape?
    
    I don't know....just trying to make productive contributions.
    
    /Greg

    My goodness!  
    
    As a glass chewing feminist, I never really believed that men were so
    much at the mercy of their hormones.  This really sounds like the
    things my mother used to say about not being able to trust men as they
    were only after one thing.  This also sounds like the Victorian
    philosophy that men and women can't be friends, only sex objects.    
    
    After seeing the replies I've read in here, I am glad I am no longer
    on the "dating" scene.  I'm afraid that if the majority of replies in
    here are really reflecting male views that the best counsel I can give
    my 18-year-old daughter is to break up with her boyfriend and never,
    ever go out with ANY male human over the age of 10 again.  Should
    something happen to the long term relationship I am in, I had best
    become a sepratist woman even if my orientation is het, as all men are
    out for is releiving their needs.
    
    While I hope this isn't really the case and isn't representive of men
    in general, replies in here are doing a pretty good picture of painting 
    men as less than human if we accept the fact that human's are able to
    think and conciously control their actions.
    
    Meg
     

    re59
    
    Cheerfully as long as you won't be there

RE: .59

Now, now, Herb--just when you'd been such a pleasure to note with lately.


RE: .58

Human being do all sorts of things in the heat of passion.  Have you ever heard
of a crime called murder?  People, when emotionally charged up, lose control
fairly often.  Frustrated sexual excitement and anger over feeling abused is a
pretty high emotional state.


RE: .45

I'm sorry for what happened to you, Kathy.  From how you've described your case,
you didn't do anything wrong.  Going up to a man's apartment on a first date may
be unwise, but certainly, if you did no more than that, you are completely blame-
less.  But that's not what I'm talking about.  "Precipitous behavior", is, in my
opinion, going a lot further than that _without making your boundaries known_
before hand.  Don't give a guy any reason to ever assume that you want sex, if
you don't.

The precautions that you listed sound very good.  I was going to cite a similiar
list.  *I* observe like precautions myself when going out with someone I don't
know--not so much because I'm afraid of being injured, but because I'd like to
discourage my dates from being careless with *anyone* until they get to know each
other pretty well.

I believe that there is a class of rapists (let's call them "trusted rapists")
who would never consider stalking some random woman and raping her, all anony-
mous.  I think that these men, after being given certain "physical concessions"
by woman, feel *entitled* to have sex with them.  If they were never trusted by
their victims, they would never have committed their crime.  This does not by
any stretch of the imagination excuse their crime--they should be convicted and
punished with as zealously as the guy who jumps from behind the bushes.

                                                             -- Mike

Ooops.  Sorry, Karen.  -- Mike

 >               Don't give a guy any reason to ever assume that you want sex, if
 > you don't.

    This is an awfully negative indictment of men in general. Perhaps
    the question should be asked: what needs to be done so that in the
    next generation, it won't be necessary to treat men like one of
    Pavlov's dogs, capable of only one response to a given stimulus? 

Re:  .65

You know, I don't think that *most* men are an actual danger to women.  But
*some* men are, and nobody can tell before they rape who they are (probably
not even they).  I don't know what can be done to lessen this danger.  Some
responsible action on the part of the entertainment media might be nice.  Some
responsible action on the part of the parents (and the rest of society) would
also be nice.  I don't count on either of these materializing, however.

                                                            -- Mike

    re .64
    
    Thanks Mike.  It happens all the time.
    
    Karen

    re .45
    
    > This man told me we were going to a party.  
    
    that's the same line that was used on me.  sad.
    
    while i find many of the replies supporting the article in .0
    repellent, i found myself nodding a lot while reading .0.
    
    the term "coerced sex" has been suggested (in _Liscence_to_Rape_ about
    marital rape) to distinguish some of the grayer zones from the black
    and white, universally repugnant term "rape".  the justification for
    this was NOT to downplay the horror of "coerced sex" (which is totally
    disgusting to live through) but rather to retain the negative power of
    the word "rape".
    
    consider the way the term "date rape" has lost so much of its power to
    horrify; when someone refers to "date rape" they may well mean a date
    where someone raped the other while holding a weapon (gun, knife,
    brick) poised, yet i think the image that pops into the minds of most
    of us is much, much more ambiguous - not necessarily less EVIL, but
    certainly more ambiguous.  the term has grown to lack weight as
    compared with "rape".
    
    a victim just beginning a healing process may find that argument and
    the discussion in .0 very, very difficult to accept without revisiting
    the "it's my fault" trap - i know it was that way for me - and may have
    a real, VALID need to polarize the way s/he thinks about rape and
    guilt and danger.  
    
    i still find a lot of the replies supporting .0 horrible - so much so
    that even though i agree with the article they support, i am tempted to
    flame!  perhaps someone who has never experienced such massively
    unpleasant sex may not realize the negative power invoked in some of us
    when reading/hearing these "academic" discussions (and "academic"
    polarizations).
    
    lee

    re .62
    
    Mike,
    
    I didn't knowingly go to this man's apartment.  It wasn't even his
    apartment, but a friends!  I was told we were going to a New Year's Eve
    party.  I thought there would be alot of other people there. I was
    wrong. I haven't made that same mistake, nor have I accepted a blind
    date unless alot of other people were going to be around.  I learned a
    hard lesson that night.
    
    Karen

    re: drunken women.
    
    What should a man do when a woman who has been drinking asks him
    for sex?
    
    It sounds like some people here are saying that situation is date
    rape, should they have sex.

    Also, a potential stumbling block is perspective.
    
    What one person might call "coerced" or "forced" sex might be what
    someone else would call doing it because the guy kept asking for it.
    
    That is what I think of when I read the 1st case in .0.
    
    I believe that if a woman agrees to have sex, even out of a feeling
    of obligation, I can't call that rape. Where there is consent without
    force, there is no rape. In my opinion.

.46>    Anyway, his argument is that we are teaching our adolescent boys and
.46>    girls (thru music videos) that women (at least young, well-dressed, 
.46>    attractive women) are everything fantasizing teenage boys could ever 
.46>    want....indiscriminate and insatiable, willing to sleep with any man 
    
    Well, Greg, I grew up long before MTV's debut in 1981, and I can
    tell you that many teenage girls and young women ARE indiscriminate
    and insatiable.
    
    The good doctor can blame MTV or TV or whomever all he wants, this
    is art imitating life, not life imitating art.

.58>    here are really reflecting male views that the best counsel I can give
.58>    my 18-year-old daughter is to break up with her boyfriend and never,
.58>    ever go out with ANY male human over the age of 10 again.  Should
    
    Why do you think such drastic measures are warranted?
    
    Because males like to have sex?  Has sex become a dirty thing again?

    Mike,
    
    Males liking sex is one thing.  Males using women without consent to 
    relieve their hormones, ego or what have you is quite another.  What I
    am reading hear says to me that any woman who dates a man is in
    danger of coerced sex and it really is her fault unless she wears a
    shapeless sack, and chain mail chastity belt, doesn't drink, flirt, or
    even make eye contact with a man, because "boys will be boys."
    
    I'm not the one who is saying that men can't control themselves, but if
    you look at the replies in this string men seem to be excusing other
    men's behavior, because a women appeared to come on to a person,
    because women over the age of 17 aren't virgins, and because sexually
    active women should expect men to have sex with them.  Different people
    seem to have different impressions as to what is "coming on", from
    dress to fondling, so what I am reading here feels like the only way
    women can be safe from coerced sex is not to have anything at all to do
    with men unless they want sex from that man.  I am not saying this is
    the way it should be, but it sure sounds like it from what I have read
    here.
    
    Tell me,  do you guys really have no control over your hormones?    

    re .58
    That is an awesomely strong indictment of the majority of the
    replies and what they reflect about men.
    Since it _is_ such a strong indictment, I hope you will give us the
    courtesy of citing the particular entries, and substantiating that they
    support your assertions.
    
    That would be a very effective way of preventing us from concluding
    - however inaccurately- that they are simply the remarks of a very
    embittered, angry woman, who -it might seem- has been badly hurt by a
    series of men and who has inappropriately -albeit understandably-
    concluded that the majority of men are similar abusers; and that the
    only way of expressing such hurt is with scathing hyperbole. 
    
    Such itemization would also be an effective way to mitigate against our
    concluding that such vitriol is exactly what we ought to expect from
    self-proclaimed glass chewing feminists. And also inhibit us from
    concluding that similar scathing attacks by others merely reflect an
    understandable lack of objectivity based on some very unfortunate
    personal experiences, rather than a fair observation about the majority
    of men.
    

        >Well, Greg, I grew up long before MTV's debut in 1981, and I can
        >tell you that many teen age girls and young women ARE indiscriminate
        >and insatiable.

    I'm sure that's true, Mike, but that isn't his point.  He doesn't
    disagree that there are some women who behave sort-of the way the women
    in videos do.  The problem is that the behavior is exaggerated and it
    is just about *ALL* that the women in videos do.  It is the pattern, the 
    continuous feed of like images, that Dr. Jhally objects to.   

       >The good doctor can blame MTV or TV or whomever all he wants, this
       >is art imitating life, not life imitating art.

    I don't think in real life, teachers get up and do a strip-tease in
    front of their students.  I don't think in real life so many attractive
    women would want a roll-in-the-hay (and nothing else) with so many 
    physically unappealing men.  I don't think in real life, as many women 
    adamantly say "NO!!!" when they really mean "oh...yes!" - I think such 
    women are few and far between.....but they are *everywhere* in the world 
    of music videos.   MTV is nearly 100% advertising (or at least it was
    for several years) and, as such, I think it is pretty far removed from 
    life in the real world.  I will say it seems to have gotten better. 
    The rock and rap videos are the worst offenders - but even "pop"
    artists like Michael Jackson contribute ("Dirty Dianna").

    The scary thing is that it seems so...normal.  It doesn't seem at all
    strange when you flick on the TV to see whatshisname (ex Van Halen
    lead singer) walking thru the midst of bikini clad women who might as
    well be mannequins - but does that happen on a real beach?  Even in a 
    beauty contest the women move around and do and say things that
    indicate they are in fact people and not just objects.

    Anyway (this got too long) I think Dr. Jhally's got a valid point - and 
    that is we need balance in our entertainment and we don't have it.  At 
    least not for teenagers.

    /Greg

>What I
>    am reading hear says to me that any woman who dates a man is in
>    danger of coerced sex and it really is her fault unless she wears a
>    shapeless sack, and chain mail chastity belt, doesn't drink, flirt, or
>    even make eye contact with a man, because "boys will be boys."

 Maybe I'm in the wrong string, but I haven't seen that at all.

    Herb,  I'm not going to extract it all, because it would make for an
    unmanagably long note.
    
    How about:
    .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .7, .12, .13, .28, .41, .42, .46, . 32, .33, .35,
    .36, .37, 
    
    
    Now in hear there have been women who have more politely than I asked
    "does this article and the responses hear mean we can't trust men?  
    Not one of you has said that women can.  All I hear is that *some men*
    become loose cannons if they aren't given what they want, and will take
    it regardless of what the person they are taking something from feels.  
    
    What I am reading here says to me that if women don't want to be raped
    then they shouldn't go out to *some* bars, shouldn't be alone with a
    man in any private space, and should never engage in any behavior that
    could possibly inflame a man's hormones and/or rage, with a very cloudy
    definition of what those behaviors might be. 
    
    What a man takes from a woman with coerced sex isn't just sex and/or
    the possible STD or unwanted pregnancy.  He is stealing her trust, in
    both men and herself.  He is stealing her trust in any man, not just
    the man who raped her.  He is stealing her faith in other humans in
    general and ultimately affecting how she will relate to every other man
    who enters her life.  she will never again be as trusting that *any*
    man has her best interest at heart.  
    
        

    One of the most powerful things I've learned from my NOTES interactions 
    with women here at DEC is that, from experience, some women *will* view me 
    as a potential threat without knowing anything about me except that I am a 
    man.

    This was very difficult for me to accept.  I was actually angry that some 
    woman I didn't even know would assume that I might hurt her.  I wouldn't 
    dream of hurting someone except in self defense.

    The bottom line though is that I don't walk in her shoes.  The closest I 
    can get to understanding how such women feel is to think of the times *I* 
    have felt unsafe around men I didn't know because of past experience with 
    gay bashers.

    Meg, I see where you are coming from. But I know in my experience that the 
    majority of men I've come into contact with are no threat to women and 
    *are* capable of controlling their hormones (I'm one of those men BTW).  I 
    think you can safely trust most of us.

    But if you trusted once and got burned, I don't know what to say.  I 
    can't tell you your feelings are wrong - and unfortunately, stats on 
    violent assaults aren't all that encouraging.

    ...Generally....
    
    It *is* an awful indictment against men, isn't it?  But what is a woman 
    who has been raped supposed to think after going thru the ordeal of 
    reporting, medical treatment, police reports, *maybe* a trial....just to 
    have the rapist get probation or a few years in jail?  

    /Greg

.78>    What I am reading here says to me that if women don't want to be raped
.78>    then they shouldn't go out to *some* bars, shouldn't be alone with a
.78>    man in any private space, and should never engage in any behavior that
.78>    could possibly inflame a man's hormones and/or rage, with a very cloudy
.78>    definition of what those behaviors might be. 

    That's not quite as extreme as your earlier note :

.74>    relieve their hormones, ego or what have you is quite another.  What I
.74>    am reading hear says to me that any woman who dates a man is in
.74>    danger of coerced sex and it really is her fault unless she wears a
.74>    shapeless sack, and chain mail chastity belt, doesn't drink, flirt, or
.74>    even make eye contact with a man, because "boys will be boys."

    But I still don't see what you see.


    Point me to a note here that contains either message.

.76>    physically unappealing men.  I don't think in real life, as many women 
.76>    adamantly say "NO!!!" when they really mean "oh...yes!" - I think such 
.76>    women are few and far between.....but they are *everywhere* in the world 
.76>    of music videos.   MTV is nearly 100% advertising (or at least it was

    Really?  *Everywhere*?

    Greg, to be honest, I've never seen that.

    Does the good doctor name any videos explicitly?

    Meg,
    
    How much do you think you should be able to trust men?  Especially men
    who are essentially strangers?  I don't trust *anyone* more than
    commiserately with the degree to which I know them.  As I've stated, I
    *don't* think that most men are likely to lose control under any
    circumstances.  (After all, of the millions of dates that must occur in
    this country every night, how many of them end in rape, or "coerced
    sex"?).
    
    But *some* men are likely to lose control and hurt people when they
    don't get what they want.  Those men don't go around wearing placards
    proclaiming themselves to be bullies.  They may outwardly appear to be
    nice guys.  They probably even think of themselves as nice guys.  Until
    you've observed them enough (on dates in public places) to start to
    get an idea of what kind of person they really are, how can you know?
    
    You speak of stolen trust.  Well, I don't offer much trust to people
    whom I hardly know.  Why is it that some women do?
    
                                                      -- Mike

    re .78
    
    Without commenting on the validity of the notes you specified, the
    majority of 57 is 29. You only listed 17. 
    Perhaps we should conclude that math illiteracy is highly correlated with
    glass chewing feminism.

    RE; Mike
    
    His presentation included a film (Dreamworlds) that showed numerous 
    (and I mean numerous) clips from lots and lots of videos.  Most of
    the images were of women, dressed in revealing costumes, dancing
    around...moving "seductively" while the guys sang, danced around
    and oogled the women.   A few clips showed a women yelling at a guy
    and storming out on him....then the guy chases her, grabs her, argues
    with her and suddenly they're kissing (on the hood of a car in the middle
    of the street)...that was one of the more extreme ones.  There seemed
    to be several images of the women pulling away...like she wasn't
    sure...but finally giving in to the guy.
    
    Most of the images though were just of women dancing around like
    airheads.  I can remember some of these acts: Robert Plamer, Van Halen, Rod
    Stewart, Billy Joel, Michael Jackson....  There were more I recognized
    but I can't recall the names (he didn't show entire videos - just clips
    from many, all pieced together).
    
    I haven't watched much MTV in the past few years so I don't know who
    prevelant these images still are.   Most of the groups looked like
    hard rock bands and I'd be less likely to watch videos with that kind
    of music anyway....
    
    /Greg
    

.68>    i still find a lot of the replies supporting .0 horrible - so much so
.68>    that even though I agree with the article they support, I am tempted to
.68>    flame!  perhaps someone who has never experienced such massively
.68>    unpleasant sex may not realize the negative power invoked in some of us
.68>    when reading/hearing these "academic" discussions (and "academic"
.68>    polarizations).

    You know, Lee, it was about two years ago that there was a big hub-bub
    in =WN= about how too much male participation there was derailing
    topics and how some women were afraid to note there because they might
    elicit painfully insensitive male comments.  After much consideration,
    I took the hint and I haven't entered a single note there since.  I was
    tempted to enter the base note there, but I refrained--even after
    Bonnie Reinke asked me to (though I gave her my permission to move it).

    I don't mind the participation of women here, though I think that the
    insensitivity runs both ways (you have no idea what it's like to be a
    man, and there are many aspects of the experience that you cannot
    accurately imagine).  However, I patently refuse to edit my comments
    here because they might upset women readers.  I sympathize with those
    of you who have experienced date rape, but please bear in mind that you
    are reading this topic of your own volition.

                                                  -- Mike

    	None of us know who can be trusted other than ourselves.  I know
    that I've been in more than one of the situations where some people
    think that date rape is somewhat excusable.  In all of those cases (as
    far as I know) a good time was had by all, but not as good a time as
    might have been had.  I'm quite certain that I would never go farther
    than my accomplice wanted to.  I'll never know how far a woman can
    trust any one but myself.
    						John
    

    RE:  .69
    
    I'm sorry, Karen--I should have read your description of what happened
    to you more carefully.   What happened to you isn't even in one of
    these gray areas.  Someone lied to you to get you alone so that he
    could rape you--it sounds completely premeditated.  That isn't
    seduction, that isn't coercion:  it's exactly as bad as if he'd jumped
    you on the street.
    
                                                      -- Mike 

    re Meg
    
    We are not saying that *anyone* deserves to be raped.  In fact I
    believe that we are *all* in agreement that rape is a hideous crime.
    So is murder for that matter, but it still happens in spite of our
    best efforts.  What we're saying is that this is an imperfect world 
    ( and not likely to be for some time in spite of our best efforts--not 
    to say we shouldn't try, but taking a realistic view of our chances of 
    suceeding).  Also we need to make sure that the *cure* isn't worse than 
    the problem. (btw what would you suggest as the cure?  Remembe be 
    realistic here.)
    
    What we *are* saying is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
    or cure.  In this case a *ton* of cure will not be able to undo 
    something after it happens.  And *you* do have some control over 
    your ability to *prevent* being raped in the first place.  Even in a 
    mine field there are is more space free of mines than space that 
    contains mines.  But that one mine may be well hidden and can ruin 
    your whole decade.  One thing that I can to to not get the %$#@ beat
    out of me by Tyson is to not get in the ring with him.
    
    fred();

    re .74
    <What I am reading hear says to me that any woman who dates a man is in
    <danger of coerced sex and it really is her fault unless she wears a
    <shapeless sack, and chain mail chastity belt, doesn't drink, flirt, or
    <even make eye contact with a man, because "boys will be boys."
    
    That is such an outrageously distorted interpretation of what has been
    said, that I find myself concluding that the author of .74 must have
    temporarily lost all power of reason.
    I wonder whether perhaps she was in the middle of an intense flash back
    to some earlier episodes of putative abuse when she composed that
    sentence?
    

.84>    the images were of women, dressed in revealing costumes, dancing
.84>    around...moving "seductively" while the guys sang, danced around
.84>    and oogled the women.   A few clips showed a women yelling at a guy

    Right, you said that before, and that I've seen.

    Where are the examples of this :

.76>  physically unappealing men.  I don't think in real life, as many women 
.76>  adamantly say "NO!!!" when they really mean "oh...yes!" - I think such 
.76>  women are few and far between.....but they are *everywhere* in the world 

    Should I assume we're talking about rape situations, given this
    topic's title... ?

>    One thing that I can to to not get the %$#@ beat
>    out of me by Tyson is to not get in the ring with him.
    
    But if you're making an analogy to the cases cited in the base note, a
    woman necking with a man or drinking with a man or being out in a car
    with a man is taking the same sort of "calculated risk" as if you got
    into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson. 
    
    You have to admit that there's more societal pressure (as shown in some
    replies to this very topic) to not see the first bunch of actions as
    absurd risks.  If they ARE absurd risks, then there's clearly something
    seriously wrong with men and separatism must be the sanest course of
    action.  If they AREN'T absurd risks (and, for obvious reasons, I like
    to think they aren't), then how can victims of date rape be blamed?
    
    Yeah, I know I'll probably be told I'm outrageously distorting what's
    been said.  If so, it's not intentional; I'm just trying to go by what
    I read, like anyone else. I got somewhat the same message as .74,
    without benefit of flashbacks.  Maybe something's being lost in the
    medium? I'll admit to getting my chain yanked by the anti-feminist
    spin...
    
    Ray

    .74 >Tell me, do you guys really have no control over your hormones?
    
    Humm...... Thats a good one.... Real rich..... Guess that answer is in
    the person your dating. Some women and men lead with their
    loins/hormones. Some lead with their brains. Depends upon what your
    dressed for. Some women want to send out that message, some men are
    dumb enough to respond. Guess thats why there are some men and women
    who are into knawing off their arms instead of waking up their dates
    that laying next to them in the morning....:)
    

    this is where we have to part company, Ray.
    
    I believe that it has come to the point where you feel you have to
    defend a woman (presumably, because you have concluded she is hurting)
    even though you know perfectly right well that what she has said is not
    reasonable but rather is a product of her pain. 
    
    That is more slack than I can give, that is more slack than ANY
    self-avowed glass chewing feminist is going to get from me, at least
    as long as she is spitting nails at me.
    
    I was hurt by .58. I believe she intended to hurt me. I believe and
    believed that trying to express how hurt I felt, would expose me to
    ridicule. The only alternative I know to expressing my hurt is to
    express my anger. Hopefully, I have accomplished that in a
    notes_acceptable way.

    re .91
    
    >Yeah, I know I'll probably be told I'm outrageously distorting what's
    >been said. 
    
    You got that right.
    
    fred();
    

.91>    You have to admit that there's more societal pressure (as shown in some
.91>    replies to this very topic) to not see the first bunch of actions as
.91>    absurd risks.  If they ARE absurd risks, then there's clearly something
.91>    seriously wrong with men and separatism must be the sanest course of
.91>    action.  If they AREN'T absurd risks (and, for obvious reasons, I like
.91>    to think they aren't), then how can victims of date rape be blamed?
    
    This is such a specious argument that it's hard to know where to begin
    in pointing out its flaws.  You and .74 insist upon seeing things in
    terms of absolutes, when the whole discussion is about gray areas. 
    What's an "absurd" risk?  Do you deny that when a woman choses to be
    alone with a man she doesn't know well, that she takes *some* risk of
    being raped?  If not, why are so many women raped who chose to be alone
    with men they don't know well (even sometimes with men that they do
    know well, but that's another topic).  All that we're trying to say is
    that there is a lesson to be learned:  don't be alone with men you
    don't know well, and certainly refrain from engaging in anything that
    might be construed as a prelude to sex with them.  If a woman follows
    these rules and still gets raped by a date, then there's nothing she
    could have done to avoid it.  If she doesn't follows these rules, then
    there *may* have been something she could have done (or not done) which
    could have saved her the experience.
    
    Once a woman has gotten to know a man better, and has better reason to
    trust him, then she should go for it.
    
    Are these precautions so restrictive, unreasonable and hard to live
    with?
    
                                                              -- Mike

    Yes Mike, the precautions are.  I would love to be picked up at my
    front door by a man.  I would love to trust a man I don't know very
    well to have my best interests at heart, not sex.  This is not a safe
    world for women.  We don't feel safe in this world.  We don't know
    when or how it could happen, so we go to great lengths to protect
    ourselves.  It sucks, Mike, it really does.  
    
    Karen

    RE: .90
    
    >Should I assume we're talking about rape situations, given this
    >topic's title... ?
    
    Not explicitly - the example right after the one you quoted
    was the kind of thing I'm refering too.   The effect was that
    of a woman who doesn't really know what she wants - it takes
    a man stepping in before she finally realizes that what she
    really desires (of course) is to have sex with the guy.
    
    This kind of image isn't nearly as prevelant as the others
    though - according to what I recall from the film.
    
    /Greg
    

    re:  .96
    
    You're right, Karen.  It does suck.  It sucks that a certain percentage
    of men will rape women who have trusted them.  It sucks that a certain
    percentage of people will try to con you out of your money or just
    outright rob you and leave you bleeding in the street.  So what do we
    do?  We acknowledge that those people are out there and we take
    whatever precautions we can against being hurt or misused and go on
    with our lives.  Dwelling on the unfairness of it only wastes precious
    time.
    
                                                          -- Mike

    "The precautions are too <whatever>"

    Of course they are. Of course, we ought to be able to feel safe all the
    time.
    But we can't.

    Men can't feel safe either, Karen
    Children can't feel safe either, Karen.

    Like you said, life sucks.

    We need to try to restructure our society so that everybody can feel
    safe.
    I don't know how to do it.
    (I don't REALLY know why there is so much inappropriate sexual activity
    between men and women, either)
    I do accept that there is. And until we have been able to restructure our
    society in such a way that we are safe all the time, we ALL damn well
    better learn to recognize some of the danger signals and learn to avoid
    potentially dangerous places, and people.

    (one of the ways that society is NOT going to get restructured is to
    convince innocent men that they should feel guilty about other men's
    behavior. I don't feel any more guilty about Mike Tyson than I do about
    Adam)
    
    It sucks!, but NOT going to great lengths to protect ourselves sucks
    even worse.
    

    .93 -
    
>    I believe that it has come to the point where you feel you have to
>    defend a woman (presumably, because you have concluded she is hurting)
    
    Then I'm mis-writing or you're misreading.  I have to take full
    responsibility for my own unreasonable interpretations, if only because
    I said the same things before any women replied at all.  And I didn't
    read .58 as either a shriek of psychic pain or as a personal attack on
    you, just as someone who was P.O.ed by what she saw as a "heads you
    lose, tails you lose" argument. Her reply should be dealt with as
    argument, not as therapy...
    
    .95 -
    
    If it's such a specious argument, why do we seem to be in agreement? I
    say the claim is that being alone in a car with a man, or drinking with
    a man, or necking with a man is so dangerous that a woman has to accept
    partial blame for an ensuing rape, and you say:
    
>    that there is a lesson to be learned:  don't be alone with men you
>    don't know well, and certainly refrain from engaging in anything that
>    might be construed as a prelude to sex with them. 
    
    Where am I misinterpreting this? 
    
    What those of us who rather like associating with the opposite sex are
    saying is that these restrictions are one-sided and stringent enough to
    imply some ugly things about some men, things which should be dealt
    with and changed instead of being quietly swept under the
    personal-trauma rug.
    
    Ray

    Before signing off for the day (there goes the neighborhood! (: >,)  I
    wanna stress again to you bunch of lovable loons that I'm not trying to
    win a debating team medal and not trying to see how much I can nitpick
    (not now, anyway).  There seems to be a genuine communications gap at
    this point and I'm chattering in the probably absurd hope of closing it
    a bit.
    
    That said, feel free to pile the insults high, boys,
    Ray

    I don't believe there is a communications gap.
    I believe there is a very angry woman who inappropriately acted out her
    anger in this conference.
    (just as there have frequently been men who have inappropriately acted
    out THEIR anger in this conference, even in this very discussion)
    
    

    .99 -
    
    Dang.  Here I was signing off and herb went and wrote a reply I'm in
    complete agreement with (though I bet we have different trigger points
    at which we think someone is trying to make us feel guilty). 
    
    As for .102, well, there isn't much that can be done about differences
    in perceived motivation.  (Actually we agree about the anger, just
    disagree about the inappropriateness...)
    
    Ray

    Happy Valentines day everybody
    Hope you have a good weekend Ray

> I'm not trying to win a debating team medal

 Of course not! You're trying for an individual award, same as the rest of 
us. :-)

.100>    Where am I misinterpreting this? 
.100>    
.100>    What those of us who rather like associating with the opposite sex are
.100>    saying is that these restrictions are one-sided and stringent enough to
.100>    imply some ugly things about some men, things which should be dealt
.100>    with and changed instead of being quietly swept under the
.100>    personal-trauma rug.
    
    "Those of us?"  I only hear you.  Please don't presume to speak for
    everyone who "rather like associating with the opposite sex"--I am one
    of them.
    
    We don't disagree about what's being said.  What we disagree about is
    its unreasonableness.  Is it reasonable for women who, knowing that so
    many women are raped on dates (and this has been *much* in the media
    lately--I've heard figures of some 20-30% of all female college
    students) to not take precautions?  And if they chose to not take
    precautions against the risk of getting raped, do they not deserve some
    of the blame?  I think it's exactly equivalent to the guy who, knowing
    that many people get mugged in the park at night, choses to take a
    midnight stroll through anyway and gets mugged.  While his assailant
    should be punished if caught, the victim deserves some of the blame,
    too.
    
    Those "ugly implications" are real.  So what are you going to do to
    "deal with and change" this reality?  And how many women must get
    date-raped while pretending that the risk doesn't exist, in the
    meantime?  Pragmatic measures do not get rid of the problem, but they
    may reduce the number of people who are hurt by it, and *that* is
    goodness.
    
    						-- Mike

>While his assailant should be punished if caught, the victim deserves some 
>of the blame, too.

 Blame is such an ugly and emotion laden term especially as applied to victims-
could we instead say "the victim must acknowledge her responsibility for the
encounter"? Seems to me that 100% of the blame should be assessed to the
perpetrator- no matter what the victim did to make herself a more accessible
victim. 

I've struggled with the concept of 'date rape' for some time now.  I know
that some women like Susan Estrich (professor, Harvard Law School):"would
argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as
a sign of true consent is misguided."  Thus all sex is without consent.

re.0 ...Mary Koss...

I know that Mary Koss's survey was discredited when follow up revealed that
the women she surveyed and concluded had been raped, 73% said they did not
themselves think they had been raped.

As a male I have had sex with women I didn't want to have sex with.
Afterwards I felt stupid but I didn't feel raped.  I guess I still don't
know what date rape is.

patrick

    Herb 
    
    I am not so much angry as confused.  If a woman is putting herself at risk 
    of rape in any situation in which she finds herself alone with a man, 
    then what am I supposed to tell my daughters about interacting with the
    opposite sex?  
    
    Should I tell her to stay the heck away from men until she is ready for
    the first one she goes out with alone to jump her bones, because after
    all, *some* men can't help themselves and will attack her at the first
    chance they have to get her alone, even though they came off like
    friends?  do I tell her that if she is alone with a man and he forces
    himself on her, that that is too bad, honey, but you let yourself in
    for it by being alone with that "perfectly charming young man"?
    
    How are men training their sons?  Are you teaching them that NO means 
    NO?  Or are you teaching them that it's alright to take whatever they
    want from women?  Are you teaching them about responsible sex, or are
    you leaving this subject alone thereby endangering my daughters; not
    only with unwanted sex, and a damaging first experience, but also STD's
    or an unwanted pregnancy?
    
    Just really curious.
    
    Herb, why does my asking questions and sharing my perceptions hurt you
    so that you feel "forced" to belittle, hurl insults about my
    intellegence, and try to reduce my questions as "flashbacks" or pain?
    
    Meg 

    How many of us are teaching our sons that NO means No? I am shure just
    as many as of the women teaching them. Remember that those things are
    shared among parents. And parents, as your inplying, are the role
    models. So if your asking someone to raise a child to be a normal,
    functional, individual in our society. We must understand, just as
    there are children raised men who must teach their children No, there
    must be women who chew glass to say the same words. 

    <If a woman is putting herself at risk  of rape in any situation in
    <which she finds herself alone with a man,  then what am I supposed to
    <tell my daughters about interacting with the opposite sex?       
    
    She isn't putting herself at risk of rape in any situation in which she
    finds herself alone with a man.
    
    I haven't been insulting your intelligence.
    But if that is truly what you think people have been saying in this
    discussion, then perhaps I should have been.

    re:  .109
    
    Okay, maybe responsibility is a better word.  Semantics.
    
    
.111>    I am not so much angry as confused.  If a woman is putting herself at risk 
.111>    of rape in any situation in which she finds herself alone with a man, 
.111>    then what am I supposed to tell my daughters about interacting with the
.111>    opposite sex?  
    
    As Herb points out, no one is saying this.  "Any situation" would seem
    to cover men that she knew well enough to trust.  If you've been out
    with a man, and talked with him, and experienced his interactions with
    yourself and others enough times to have a warm and fuzzy feeling about
    him, then go ahead and be alone with him, make out with him ... *trust*
    him.  But let him earn that trust first.  Don't go alone with a man you
    just met in a bar, or are out on a blind date with (you hardly know
    the guy, for heavens sake).  The knowledge that a significant number of
    women *do* get raped on dates should make this sort of caution obvious.
    
                                                            -- Mike

    I apologize for my responses to your entries.
    What I interpreted as antagonism was apparently lack of understanding.
    I'm sorry for attributing ill-will to you.
    
    If nothing else however, I hope you will take to heart that identifying
    yourself as a glass chewing feminist in this conference, and stating 
    "I never really believed that men were so much at the mercy of their
    hormones" is not the way to win friends and influence people.
    
    The statements made by people in this discussion are not such as to
    allow one to make the conclusions (listed below) that you made.
    
    Furthermore, all those conclusions are simply WRONG.
    
    <not being able to trust men as they were only after one thing.
    
    <men and women can't be friends, only sex objects.    
    
    <if the majority of replies in here are really reflecting male views
    <that the best counsel I can give my 18-year-old daughter is to break
    <up with her boyfriend and never, ever go out with ANY male human over
    <the age of 10 again. 

    <...replies in here are doing a pretty good picture of painting 
    <men as less than human ...

    Those are extremely insulting to any man who feels some of his
    statements may have been among those that contributed to your
    conclusions. Conclusions that you could not properly draw from what was
    said.
    I therefore felt that your conclusions must be reflecting a long term
    ill-will that you harbour toward men.
    I now see that as you didn't understand what people were saying my
    conclusions were wrong.
    
    I regret all my earlier inaccurate conclusions.
    
    				herb

    re .85 mike scott
    
    if you honestly believe that i tried to derail the conversation with my
    .68, then i'll certainly do as you wish and leave.
    
    the paragraph you cited in .85 was actually referring both to male and
    female victims of coerced sex - i was pretty careful with the genders
    there.
    
    .85> However, I patently refuse to edit my comments here because they
    .85> might upset women readers.  I sympathize with those of you who
    .85> have experienced date rape, but please bear in mind that you are
    .85> reading this topic of your own volition.
    
    i do not find your comments upsetting so much as detracting from your
    argument - with which i agree.  i wonder what their reaction is on
    people who haven't already agreed with you; probably not inducing new
    agreement...
    
    re doctah's semantics - maybe just semantics, but it makes a HUGE
    difference.  inserting his wording, i find myself agreeing again,
    rather than jerking my (trigger-happy) knee.
    
    lt

    re:  .117
    
    Sorry--I didn't mean to imply that you were trying to derail the
    conversation, or that you should butt out of either this discussion or
    the conference.  I was just replying to your suggestion that the
    replies in this topic were insensitive to the feelings of women who had
    suffered date rape.  I guess that I feel that I've done my bit to be
    more sensitive to traumatized women in notes by not writing in =WN=. 
    I'd like to have *some* noting space where I can freely speak my mind
    about such topics.
    
    I'm also sorry that you're turned off by my defense of the basenote.
    I'm just "calling it the way I see it".  Hopefully my replies haven't
    actually worked to _dissuade_ others from sharing my viewpoint. 
    (Actually, I've gone back over them and can see places where I could
    have used a less caustic word, or more carefully completed a thought).
    
                                                        -- Mike 
    

    Whatever happened to the days when there was the kissing and the
    cuddling, and then possibly the "Oh I want you" replied to with "oh I
    want you too" or simply "No"
    
    I find that quite easy to understand, also if the Woman says "touch me"
    I get the feeling that she wants something more than just kissing and
    cuddling.
    
    Simply said, "touch me" or "Oh I want you too" are the green light in
    my book.  Am I right or would I be considered a date rapist in these
    times?.
    
    I am of the opinion that if Women want to be teasers they are playing
    an extremly dangerous game.
    
    I think that a lot of the problems with rape and coerced sex come from
    the attitudes that it's OK for men to screw around but "Nice Girls" are
    expected to be Virgins 'till there marriage day.  With the current
    problems concerning STD"s especially AIDS, these attitudes need to be
    changed, and fast.  I believe that before too long when these attitudes
    have turned around, we should have a much more caring and happier
    World.
    
    Last night on UK television there was a programme "Public Eye" which
    reported on studies being carried out at Cambridge University with
    regard to "Date Rape".  There they found that results of nationwide 
    questioning was mirroring the results found in the US.
    
    

.110>that some women like Susan Estrich (professor, Harvard Law School):"would
.110>argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as
.110>a sign of true consent is misguided."  Thus all sex is without consent.

    That particular outlook is popular nowadays.

    It fits neatly into the victim/oppressor model.

    re: .120
    Popular with whom, Mike?  I don't see anyone espousing it here or in
    =wn=.  And I certainly don't think it is popular with the population
    at large or with most feminists, even the more radical ones.  Can you
    name three people in the world who you think share that "popular" outlook?  
    Maybe you could ask in =wn= if anyone over there has that outlook.
    
    				- Vick

.110>re.0 ...Mary Koss...
.110>
.110>I know that Mary Koss's survey was discredited when follow up revealed that
.110>the women she surveyed and concluded had been raped, 73% said they did not
.110>themselves think they had been raped.
    
    I have heard it argued that the fact that these women were not
    enlightened enough to recognized that they had been raped does not mean
    that they weren't.  Actually, I don't think that this is such an
    unreasonable argument.  If someone beats me up and takes all my money
    and I think that he was blameless for doing it because I wasn't strong
    enough to stop him, does that mean that I haven't been robbed?
    
    re:  Susan Estrich
    
    Her's is one of the many radical feminist fringe views that has
    contributed to giving the term "feminist" such a negative connotation
    for so many people.  How the hell is any man supposed to feel upon
    hearing that not only does "no" always mean "no", but that "yes"
    doesn't necessarily mean "yes"?
    
    
     						-- Mike

.121>    at large or with most feminists, even the more radical ones.  Can you
.121>    name three people in the world who you think share that "popular" outlook?  
    
    Victor, really now.
    
    I can name more than 3 people, all active noters in WomanNotes who 
    could have said what Estrich did.  But that's not an avenue I choose to
    travel, not here and not now, since it is a questionable violation of
    DEC P&P 6.54 regarding misuse of computer resources.
    
    That's a good one, though, to imply that there aren't 3 people in the
    world who would agree with what Estrich said - you nearly had me going
    there... I thought maybe you had seen the irrationality in the Estrich
    quote.

    Mike, 
    	Okay, Mike, I'll help you out.  Since you won't ask the question in
    =wn=, I will.  See you over there.  By the way, is there anyone reading
    this string that agrees with that viewpoint?  If you want to remain
    inconspicuous you can send me mail and I'll keep your identity secret.
    
    The question is:  "Do you believe that there is no such thing as
    consentual sex?"
    
    					- Vick

    And Mike, please read over my reply again and figure out that I did not
    say there weren't three people in the world who espoused that
    viewpoint.  I said it wasn't a "popular" viewpoint, and doubted that
    you could name three people who held it.  So far I seem to be right 
    although you found it expedient to hide behind P&P.
    
    				- Vick

    re:.124
    
    Vick, my goodnees, it appears that you have seen the light and
    can actually see how ludicrous that statement from Estrich is.
    
    Shall I alert the media, or is this false hope?
    
    Oh, and Vick, ol' bud, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anyone
    to agree publicly with such a silly statement as Miz Estrich has
    made, but that doesn't mean they don't.  Tu capisci?
    
.125>  And Mike, please read over my reply again and figure out that I did not
.125>  say there weren't three people in the world who espoused that
.125>  viewpoint.
    
    Right-o, you just asked me to name 3 people in the world who shared
    Miz Estrich's rather unconventional outlook.  Big difference, huh?

    	Well, if Susan Estrich's statement is a popular idea among
    	feminists nowadays, it's news to me.  Nowhere in my subscription
    	to Ms. magazine (or the other feminist publications I receive)
    	have I seen this view espoused.
    
    	Perhaps it is merely a soon-to-be-popular accusation against
    	feminists as a group (for those who finally tire of howling
    	and blaming all/most feminists for a similarly "shocking"
    	statement from Andrea Dworkin.)
    
    	Meanwhile, it doesn't much matter what one noter THINKS a
    	few other noters THINK (unless the one noter happens to be
    	psychic.)  I doubt that many =wn='ers will take such an
    	unfounded accusation seriously enough to put up a defense
    	against it.  (It does remind me of the time someone accused
    	women in the file of having certain "fantasies," though.)
    
    	I wonder how so many would-be psychics end up in the computer
    	business.  :-)

    So do you agree that she's a bit off her rocker with that quote?

    (Not speaking for Suzanne or anyone else ...)

    Whether or not Professor Estrich is "off her rocker" depends a lot
    on the context of her assertion, and (without defending her
    position at all), I believe it's being misattributed and distorted.

    The quote as cited in .110 was:
    
 >  ... some women like Susan Estrich (professor, Harvard Law School):"would
 > argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as
 > a sign of true consent is misguided."

    The conclusion is then made that -

 > Thus all sex is without consent.

    which is a *completely* bogus conclusion!

    Whether or not you believe the quoted argument (or if it's an
    accurate quote), the conclusion is NOT what the argument says! She
    argues that "yes" cannot be a guaranteed sign of assent. That is
    FAR, FAR from saying that "yes" never means consent!

    If you're going to start asking questions about her assertion,
    don't make up your own version of it ... make at least an attempt
    at getting it accurate and trying to understand what she's saying.
    As I read it, the state of power imbalance between women and men
    produces circumstances under which a woman will say "yes" not
    because she wants to consent, but that she feels powerless not to
    consent.

    Do such circumstances exist? It would be very difficult to say
    "never".

    Do such circumstances represent "all sex", or all instances in
    which a woman consents to having sex? Extremely unlikely, and
    there's NOTHING in Prof. Estrich's statement to suggest this is
    what she means.

    Are we dealing with a straightforward misinterpretation of what
    she said, followed by a massive case of terminal knee-jerk, or is
    there more to her statement (quoted *accurately*, please) that
    what was quoted in .110?

    Based on that quote (and my recollection of others she's made), my
    interpretation was that she was making a point about how free
    women are or are not to express their own preferences, and not
    trying to create a rape out of every instance of consensual sex.

    Nobody is helped by taking a statement out of context, and then
    not even making a rational interpretation of the sound bite as
    it's quoted!

    >Vick, my goodnees, it appears that you have seen the light and
    >can actually see how ludicrous that statement from Estrich is.
    
    The statement as presented and as interpretted was ludicrous.  But
    not nearly so ludicrous as your saying it is a popular viewpoint.
    
>    Oh, and Vick, ol' bud, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anyone
>    to agree publicly with such a silly statement as Miz Estrich has
>    made, but that doesn't mean they don't.  Tu capisci?
    
    That's a total cop-out, Mike.  I'm declaring myself the winner here.
    
>    Right-o, you just asked me to name 3 people in the world who shared
>    Miz Estrich's rather unconventional outlook.  Big difference, huh?
    
    Yes, Mike, there is a big difference.  Unless, of course, my assumption
    that you know only a very small percentage of the people in the world
    is false.
    					- Vick
    

    Declare what you want Victor.
    
    You can even declare yourself King of the land and all you survey,
    if you are so inclined.
    
    But thank you for at last commenting on the quote, even if you did
    imply that maybe it was out-of-context. I had begun to lose hope.

    re:.129
    
    What you have seemed to overlook is the fact that I have commented
    on the exact quote, not just the conclusion.
    
    Anything else?

    Since you quoted both the quote *and* the conclusion, without
    disavowing the conclusion, it's hard not to assume you disagree
    with the conclusion (which is clearly bogus). If you do agree with
    the conclusion, my comments stand. If you don't .. then what *is*
    your interpretation of the quote. You haven't said (aside from
    quoting the bogus conclusion), so there's nothing else for us to
    go on.

    You were wrong and you owe me an apology, Paul.
    
    Now stop trying to postpone the inevitable ...

    RE: .128  Mike Z.
    
    > So do you agree that she's a bit off her rocker with that quote?
    
    I don't "buy into" the negative stereotype that a woman's sanity 
    can be (or should become) the issue when a particular woman makes 
    a statement that some people dislike.  
    
    Please keep in mind that the new notes policy (from John Simms)
    states that public figures are NOT fair game for libelous remarks
    (such as the false accusation that the individual is suffering
    from a mental disorder.)
    
    Surely there is some other way to criticize an opinion without 
    resorting to libelous suggestions of insanity (which are in direct
    violation of John Simms' policies.)

    RE: .129  Paul Beck
    
    Thanks for pointing out the false conclusion (about Prof. Estrich's
    statment) that seems to be causing all the excitement here.
    
    I agree with you that her words are most likely being misattributed 
    and distorted.  I'd like to see it in context, too, before it's
    given further consideration.  It's the only fair thing to do.

    RE: .1  Mike Scott
    
    > I called this article "brave" because the author (a woman, no less) 
    > takes a daringly un-politically-correct stance, in print.  
    
    It's hardly "brave" to brag about being UN-politically-correct
    (especially for a woman.)  It sells, and newspapers know it only
    too well.
    
    > While the ill-adviseness of a victim's action does nothing to excuse 
    > the crime, it should be recognized and acknowledged, so that like 
    > behavior can be discouraged.
    
    Do you think women have trouble comprehending the idea of taking
    PRECAUTIONS in dating situations?  Do we really have to force rape
    victims to accept a share of the BLAME for a crime committed by
    someone else to get a "message" to women about the dangers of
    dating?
    
    I have news for you:  Blaming the victims of rape is nothing new.
    It's an old injustice that is finally in the process of being
    corrected.
    
    And by the way:  Pointing out widespread injustices against women
    is *not* a matter of painting all or most women as victims.  These
    injustices are pointed out so that they can be corrected.  Labeling
    it as an exercise in characterizing women as victims serves only
    to cloud the real issues being raised.

    
    Let's try another analogy:
    
    1) Is it right for people to steal cars?
    
    2) Do you take your keys and lock your doors?
    
    fred();

.137>    It's hardly "brave" to brag about being UN-politically-correct
.137>    (especially for a woman.)  It sells, and newspapers know it only
.137>    too well.

    I don't think that Ms. Robinson was bragging about being un-PC.  I
    think that she was making a point that much needs to be made, despite
    the fact that it was un-PC.  There is a difference.

.137>    Do you think women have trouble comprehending the idea of taking
.137>    PRECAUTIONS in dating situations?  Do we really have to force rape
.137>    victims to accept a share of the BLAME for a crime committed by
.137>    someone else to get a "message" to women about the dangers of
.137>    dating?
.137>    
.137>    I have news for you:  Blaming the victims of rape is nothing new.
.137>    It's an old injustice that is finally in the process of being
.137>    corrected.

    Yes, I know that blaming rape victims is nothing new.  And I think that
    a lot of that blame was unjust.  However, the current admonition to
    *never* attribute responsibility to rape victims is equally unjust and
    misguided.

    The fact remains that if you do something and obtain bad results that
    you *knew* you had a significant probability of obtaining, then you
    are in some part responsible for what happened to you.  The currently
    popular view of rape and the victim's responsibility (or rather, total
    lack thereof) could too easily be construed as permission to ignore the
    risks.  (And, yes, I do think that *some* women have trouble
    understanding precaution in dating situations--otherwise, why do *some*
    women keep ignoring it?  Do they simply not care about the risks?  If
    so, then they should accept whatever happens to them).
    
    I've been saying it all along, but I'll say it again--the woman who's
    attacked in the street (or garage or hallway, etc) bears no
    responsibility (no matter how she's dressed).  Neither does the woman
    who's attacked by someone whom she had every reason to believe that she
    knew well and could trust.  But the woman who willfully follows (or
    leads) a man she hardly knows to a place for the expressed purpose of
    being alone with him is taking an unreasonable risk.  While she can
    never *deserve* to be raped, she (and society) must admit that it
    happened in part because she acted unwisely.  Simply calling her a
    poor, innocent victim gives the incorrect impression that she did
    nothing foolish.

    It will take *generations* to lower the risks that some men will commit
    date rape (and that's assuming that society will take direct measures to
    change things, which I doubt).   The concept that, under certain
    circumstances, men can expect sex from women is too deeply ingrained in
    the social consciousness and constantly reinforced by media images. 
    You can expect change in this attitude to be painstakingly slow (if for
    no other reason than that those media images are effective in selling
    products to men).  In the meantime, we do nothing to help the problem
    by denying the mistakes that some women make that put them at risk.

                                                          -- Mike

    We now repeat an earlier message for the hearing impaired ...


    My notes refer to the statement from Miz Estrich, not the
    conclusion from the author of 755.110. One would think that
    this is obvious from the content of 755.120, 755.123 and
    755.126, but apparently not.

    Hope this helps.


    Now ... will I get an apology from everyone who wrongly attributed
    that conclusion to me, or just Paul?  Paul ... ?

    Or perhaps another strawman will be erected to avoid talking about
    the quote from Miz Estrich?

.135>            <<< Note 755.135 by WSC004::CONLON "Dreams happen!!" >>>
    
.135> Please keep in mind that the new notes policy (from John Simms)
.135> states that public figures are NOT fair game for libelous remarks
.135> (such as the false accusation that the individual is suffering
.135> from a mental disorder.)

    Lucky for me, then, that I have avoided making such claims, eh?

    But thanks for reminding me, Ms Conlon.

    RE: .139  Mike Scott
    
    > I don't think that Ms. Robinson was bragging about being un-PC.  I
    > think that she was making a point that much needs to be made, despite
    > the fact that it was un-PC.  There is a difference.
    
    The fact that she took a pointedly UN-PC stance was the selling point
    of the article.  Thus, it was hardly "brave" of her to write such a
    marketable piece.
    
    > Yes, I know that blaming rape victims is nothing new.  And I think that
    > a lot of that blame was unjust.  However, the current admonition to
    > *never* attribute responsibility to rape victims is equally unjust and
    > misguided.
    
    Blaming the victim is unjust to the victim.  If the victim is NOT EVER
    blamed, who precisely is the target of this so-called injustice?  
    (The rapist?)
    
    > The fact remains that if you do something and obtain bad results that
    > you *knew* you had a significant probability of obtaining, then you
    > are in some part responsible for what happened to you. 
    
    This is only true in 'date rape' if a woman carries the assumption that
    all or most men are rapists (or at the very least, not to be trusted.)
    If a young woman distrusts all or most men, she's labeled a man-hater.
    If she shows individual men that she does NOT mistrust all or most
    men, then she should be BLAMED for being raped, right?  (Can you say 
    Catch-22?)
    
    > The currently popular view of rape and the victim's responsibility 
    > (or rather, total lack thereof) could too easily be construed as 
    > permission to ignore the risks. 
    
    If you blame the victim instead, it could be easily construed as
    permission for men to rape women.  Men could say, "Hey, if she agrees
    to be alone with me, then SHE is responsible if we end up having sex,
    even if she says no."
    
    It isn't against the law to ignore risks.  It *is* against the law
    to commit rape.  If we make rape victims responsible for crimes
    committed against them, the only person who benefits from this is
    the rapist.
    
    > (And, yes, I do think that *some* women have trouble
    > understanding precaution in dating situations--otherwise, why do *some*
    > women keep ignoring it?  Do they simply not care about the risks?  If
    > so, then they should accept whatever happens to them).
  
    Do you believe that these women are being raped repeatedly and still
    take risks (or are you saying that some women take risks even after
    other women have been raped?)
    
    Well,  women watch as feminists who WARN about the dangers of being
    raped are called man-haters and are accused (falsely) of calling all 
    men rapists.  So a woman meets a nice guy and the LAST thing she wants 
    to do is to give him the impression that she distrusts men in general.
    
    Meanwhile, feminists are trashed for concentrating too heavily on
    the problem of rape (and we're told that most women didn't even FEAR
    rape until feminists TOLD US to fear it.)  So some women deliberately
    disregard the risks as a result, and the feminist-trashers now blame
    feminists for this, too!  (Can you say 'Damned if you do...'?)
    
    Feminists do not encourage women to take risks with men by refraining
    from blaming rape victims AFTER the fact.  It doesn't teach potential
    rape victims to avoid risks when people blame existing rape victims
    (and it's highly unjust to existing rape victims to USE them in this
    manner.)
    
    If you (and others) really want women to use precaution to PREVENT
    date rape, then tell women that they would be WISE to listen to
    feminists who warn about the dangers of rape!  Further, you can
    fight against those who trash feminists for these warnings.  
    
    Instead of being unjust to existing rape victims, the smart thing
    to do would be to reveal the LIES when feminists are accused of
    man-hating and calling "all men" rapists when we/they try to warn
    women to take the *very precautions* you've been suggesting!  You can
    also stop blaming feminists when women listen to the feminist-trashers
    instead.
    
    Suzanne (...at lunch...)

    
    re Susan.
    
    As they used to say in the "defensive driving" commercials, "Drive
    defensively.  You may be right---dead right".
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .138  Fred
    
    > -< prevention >-
    
    > Let's try another analogy:
    > 1) Is it right for people to steal cars?
    > 2) Do you take your keys and lock your doors?
    
    Do you think women are incapable of comprehending the ideas of
    PRECAUTION or PREVENTION unless you blame existing crime victims?
    
    Most human beings have the intelligence to understand the concept
    of protecting themselves against crime.  Let's not be insulting
    to half the human race, ok?
    
    Suzanne (...at lunch...)

            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 755.8     A Brave and Thought Provoking Article on Date Rape       8 of 144
VMSSG::NICHOLS "conferences are like apple barrels"  12 lines  13-FEB-1992 09:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It seems to me that one of the difficulties of American law -and of
    western thinking in general perhaps- is that the world is binary.
    Guilty-innnocent, good-bad,virgin-fallen_woman, etc (To be sure,
    American Law DOES have the concept of mitigating circumstances in
    connection with assessimg penalties).
    Acknowledging to oneself that one's behavior 'facilitated' a crime,
    does NOT in my opinion change the guilt or innocence of the criminal.
    It DOES in my opinion, offer an example of imprudent behavior. Learning
    about imprudent behavior and accepting responsibility for one's
    behavior does offer the hope of decreasing the likelihood of future
    such crimes. (while at the same time, the accused is being treated
    appropriately.)

    re .144
    
    >Most human beings have the intelligence to understand the concept
    >of protecting themselves against crime.  
    
    From some some of the replies in this string it would make me wonder.
    
    >Let's not be insulting
    >to half the human race, ok?
    
    Which half are we talking about??
    
    fred();
    
    

    RE: .146  Fred
    
    >  -< As irresponsible as the wanna be? >-
    
    Who in this topic is advocating irresponsibility?  No one!
    
    >> Most human beings have the intelligence to understand the concept
    >> of protecting themselves against crime.  
    
    > From some some of the replies in this string it would make me wonder.
    
    Who in this topic is advocating that women (or anyone) NOT try to
    protect themselves against crime?  No one!

            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 755.14    A Brave and Thought Provoking Article on Date Rape      14 of 146
VMSSG::NICHOLS "conferences are like apple barrels"  27 lines  13-FEB-1992 12:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    			.
    			.
    			.
    
    Even if walking down a dark alley can be thought of as CREATING a
    mugging (to degenderize it), the mugger is no less a criminal; though to
    be sure the muggee is at best uniformed and at worse a hot-headed,
    impetuous, strident (i'm_going_to_reclaim_my_civil_lilberties) fool.
    
    I think each of us would do well to reflect on what it is about
    ourselves that puts us in a particular point along a spectrum wrt to
    any particular discussion.
    
    I know that for me, there have been lots of things in _my_ life
    experience that orient me toward victim UNtraining. That orient me
    toward feeling that many of the bad things that people might want to do
    to me, are things that i have learned -and continue to learn- to
    prevent.
    
				herb    

 
   > Who in this topic is advocating irresponsibility?  No one!
    
    Gee-Ya coulda fooled me.
    
    fred();

    RE: .149  Fred
    
    >> Who in this topic is advocating irresponsibility?  No one!
    
    > Gee-Ya coulda fooled me.
    
    If you're still laboring under the misapprehension that anyone
    here is advocating irresponsibility, then please point out the
    statements and/or notes that you still don't understand.
    
    Perhaps individual instruction would be helpful to you.

    _now_ what the hell are you two trying to prove?

    What it looks like to me is that each is trying to convince the other
    that she/he is a dolt for continuing the discussion. 

    re susan
    
    Saying that the victim has *absolutely no* ( blame, irresponsibility,
    whatever you want call it) for deliberately putting themselves in
    a very precarious position, to me at least, is saying that they
    have the right to be as irresponsible as they want to be, then they
    have a right for society to come "take care" of them when they 
    step on a mine.
    
    fred();

    	Fred, you're rewriting others' notes.
    
    	Point out the exact statements that you still mistakenly
    	believe advocate irresponsibility.

    Susan.  If you want to nit-pick every response go ahead,  I have a
    life.
    
    fred();

    	The notes advocating irresponsibility don't exist.
    
    	Hopefully, you've figured this out by now, too, Fred.

    What I now see going on, is something that is fairly common.
    That is, for a person_of_the_first_part to MISparaphrase 
    a person_of_the_second_part in such a way as to make the statement
    ludicrous. Then to attack this ludicrous statement as if it represented
    distorted thinking on the part of the_person_of_the_second_part  whereas in
    fact of course it represents distorted thinking on the part of 
    the_person_of_the_first_part. Actually, I spose it could also be
    interpreted as mischievness by the_person_of_the_first_part. But that
    bespeaks a certain level of impish sophistication ...

    ok susan you win.  This whole note hasn't been about responsibility.
    its been about blameing the big ugly victim for taking advantage of
    those poor defenseless rapists.
    
    sheeeesh!
    
    fred();

re. 129
re. 110

Here's the complete article :

Excerpted from the Gazette Telegraph Sunday Nov. 10, 1991 without
Permission

RAPE ISN'T A POLITICAL CONCEPT, IT'S ASSAULT

by Suzanne Fields

Editor's note:  Today Suzanne Fields joins the Gazette Telegraph's lineup
of syndicated writers.  A columnist for the Washington Times since 1984,
she is syndicated nationwide by the Los Angeles Times Syndicate.  She is
a trained psychologist who spent eight years as editor of Innovations, a
magazine for professionals in the field of psychology.

We've only just finished the intellectual arguments over Long Dong Silver
and the pubic hair on the Coke can, and now we begin debating whether it
proves anything that the woman who accused Willie Smith of rape buys her
underwear at Victoria's Secret.

It's titillating, that's for sure.  But it's also demeaning when public
discussion is more intimate than private conversation.  One of the greater
ironies of our time is that this chatty exhibitionism coincides with the
neo-Puritanical streak of feminists in the work place, who keep widening
the definition of sexual harassment.

The first wave of modern feminism insisted that women were the same as men,
but soon the organized feminists became dominated by women who dislike men.
Rather than settle for equality, these women look for offense and demand
special treatment, seeking to be more equal than thou.  As a result, the
explicit and specific violence of a particular man toward a particular
woman is lost in inflated statistics and expanded perceptions of a generic
Woman-as-Victim.

If some good can come out of the Willie Smith trial, besides trying to find
out the truth of what happened that night - and to find justice, if we may
be so old-fashioned - it would be a precise working definition of "rape."

Rape has nothing to do with the lingerie a woman wears, or where she buys
it (or even who buys it for her), whether she's a virgin, whether she has
borne an illegitimate child or had an abortion.

It's about whether she consented to sexual intercourse.  To read some of
the feminist literature, consent is no defense against a charge of rape.

"Many feminists," writes Susan Estrich, a professor at the Harvard Law
School who ran the Michael Dukakis campaign and who describes herself as a
victim of rape, "would argue that so long as women are powerless relative
to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided."

By this analysis, language no longer has meaning, and rape becomes a
political concept rather than a criminal one.  Women are rendered incapable
of making the most fundamental of all decisions themselves.

In a survey of "rape victims" in Ms. magazine, Mary Koss asked questions of
6,159 college students, and says that 15 percent of them had been raped.
Another 11 percent experienced attempted rape.  But these are not real
statistics.  The answers are not necessarily the answers the 6,159
respondents gave, but Koss' interpretations of the answers.

Fully 73 percent of the women Koss identified as having been raped, said
they did not themselves think they were raped, and 42 percent had sexual
intercourse again with their "rapist".  Sexual assault, in the nutty Koss
scenario, is more like a Victorian seduction scene, where the man presses
on and the woman gives in.

Neil Gilbert, a professor of social welfare at the University of
California, analyzing the data in the magazine Public Interest, writes that
Mary Koss has a peculiar view of criminal assault: " ...the slightest
pressure constitutes use of force; all degrees of intoxication are the
same; sweet talk and efforts at verbal persuasion are coercive; above all,
the faintest demurral means no."

Definition becomes crucial.  In the Middle Ages rape was punished by
castration and blinding, and not so long ago it was a hanging offense
nearly everywhere in America.  The sexual revolution, which scrambled so
many of the signals between men and women, changed all that.

When "yes" means "no", and the victim does not see herself as a victim, how
can we distinguish the crime from the rhetoric?  If rape is merely in the
eye of the social scientist, how can women accept responsibility for their
own actions?  One of the most heinous crimes becomes merely a
"misunderstanding."  Guilt and innocence become diluted beyond recognition,
and we are all victims.

 I'm glad you entered that, Pat. I've believed that Susan Estrich's quotation
was being inaccurately used to impugn her in this string, and your entry 
confirms it. 

 People, the quote says "Many feminists would argue." NOT Susan Estrich says.
Indeed, the quoted passage gives no indication whatsoever whether Ms. Estrich
agrees or disagrees with the quote. So stop bashing Susan Estrich unless
you have additional evidence to support the idea that Ms. Estrich agrees
with the proverbial "many feminists."

 Thank you.

 The Doctah

	I don't think that *any given woman* being alone with
	*any given man* in a car or on a blind date is
	in danger of being raped !

	Most men are just not potential rapists....not date
	rapists....not hallway-skulkers...nothing.

	But, which ones ARE the bad ones ?  The brutes don't
	wear neon signs.  They might not even have arrest
	records ( yet ).

	So, what women might want to consider is avoiding
	behaviour like some that I've seen:

	1) Getting drunk at a rather out-of-control party,
	   taking her pants off, and slinking up to a guy
	   asking literally, "F#$% me!"   This is behaviour
	   that ( when not among friends and gentler souls )
	   may result in loss of virginity ! P.S. we put her
	   to bed -- alone.

	2) Acting like some character out of the hottest film
	   you've ever seen: dramatically dropping clothes on
	   the floor, "bedroom eyes", moaning and groaning,
	   all the right physical touching....then dropping
	   the issue like a stone when matters progress.  P.S.,
	   I slept on the couch.

	The point is, since the neon signs "Brute" aren't installed
	on the bad guys, women should at least be sure of 
	what they're doing.   That doesn't mean never be alone
	with a man.  If there's a real criminal out there,
	it'll be tough to avoid him.   But sending blatantly
	misleading signals and then becoming a victim of
	unwanted sex is somehow not the same in degree.

	I dated a woman once who always made it perfectly clear
	that we were date companions, friends, whatever.  There
	was no ambiguity:  Little physical contact, no sexual
	or extremely personal talk, passionless kisses good night
	at her doorstep.   I had no illusions about our relationship,
	and that was great.   I have no doubt that any guy she
	decided to finally tackle would have had no illusions,
	either.

	Would that all relationships were so unambiguous.

	Steve H

    
    but sometimes, particularly in cases of date rape, he *knows* she
    doesn't want to, and he DOES IT ANYWAY.
    
    Don't you see, Steve, what is wrong with the "better be cautious"
    attitude?  It's trying to fix the leak by mopping up where the water
    falls.  The THING to FIX is the ATTITUDE and BEHAVIOR of the
    PERPETRATORS.
    
    The people at FAULT are NOT the WOMEN.  Nobody deserves to be raped.
    No matter how they act.  Women are raped who do NOT act sexy or dress
    sexy or get drunk.  Pretty dates are raped.  Ugly dates are raped.  So
    many times rape is a crime of CONTROL and POWER.
    
    Of course it's great to say "don't drink at parties" or "don't act
    sexy" or "don't bare your leg to mid-thigh".  But that's not the
    answer.  Date rape will happen as long as there are date-rapists to
    commit the act.  
    
    Car thieves will steal cars until there's enough reason for them not
    to, or they lose the desire to do so.  Robbers will rob you, muggers
    will mug you, until there's enough reason for them to change.  
    
    -Jody
    

    that's right,
     
    
    NOT AT FAULT
    
    

.142>    The fact that she took a pointedly UN-PC stance was the selling point
.142>    of the article.  Thus, it was hardly "brave" of her to write such a
.142>    marketable piece.

If you think all she was trying to do by taking this stance was market an article
then that's an opinion that I can't argue with.  Neither of us is in a position
to know her true motives.

.142>    Blaming the victim is unjust to the victim.  If the victim is NOT EVER
.142>    blamed, who precisely is the target of this so-called injustice?  
.142>    (The rapist?)

Sorry--"unjust" was a bad choice of words there;  "stupid" or "naive" would have
been better.

.142>    This is only true in 'date rape' if a woman carries the assumption that
.142>    all or most men are rapists (or at the very least, not to be trusted.)
.142>    If a young woman distrusts all or most men, she's labeled a man-hater.
.142>    If she shows individual men that she does NOT mistrust all or most
.142>    men, then she should be BLAMED for being raped, right?  (Can you say 
.142>    Catch-22?)

"All or most" is not necessary.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 15% of
men are not to be trusted.  Then you take a statistical chance of getting hurt
by 3 out of every 20 men.  Hardly "all or most" men, but enough men to justify
being wary of all men until you know them better, IMHO.

Only an ass would label a woman a "man-hater" for being careful.  Why should any
woman care what such people think of her?

.142>    If you blame the victim instead, it could be easily construed as
.142>    permission for men to rape women.  Men could say, "Hey, if she agrees
.142>    to be alone with me, then SHE is responsible if we end up having sex,

Who have you heard suggesting that we "blame the victim *instead*"?  All I'm
saying is that the victim bears some responsibility *also* (please note that
I'm carefully avoiding use of the word "blame").  Any man who commits
rape should be punished stringently, no matter what circumstance he commits
it under.  As someone pointed out with the example of people's responsibility to
lock their possessions up if they don't want them stolen, it is possible to have
a crime committed against you and still be some extent responsible yourself.

.142>    Do you believe that these women are being raped repeatedly and still
.142>    take risks (or are you saying that some women take risks even after
.142>    other women have been raped?)

The latter.

.142>    Meanwhile, feminists are trashed for concentrating too heavily on
.142>    the problem of rape (and we're told that most women didn't even FEAR
.142>    rape until feminists TOLD US to fear it.)  So some women deliberately
.142>    disregard the risks as a result, and the feminist-trashers now blame
.142>    feminists for this, too!  (Can you say 'Damned if you do...'?)

The women who "deliberately disregard the risks as a result" should know better
than to put themselves at risk just because of what people might think of them.
I don't have any sympathy for them.  We teach children not to take dares just
because of what their peers might think of them if they don't.  We can only hope
that they remember this lesson as adults.

And any guy who can't understand and respect a woman's reasons for being cautious
when she first goes out with him is a jerk.

                                                              -- Mike

.160>People, the quote says "Many feminists would argue." NOT Susan Estrich
.160>says. Indeed, the quoted passage gives no indication whatsoever whether Ms.
.160>Estrich agrees or disagrees with the quote.

    Miz Estrich may or may not feel this way, but she recognizes that
    that "many feminists" do.

.159>"Many feminists," writes Susan Estrich, a professor at the Harvard Law
.159>School who ran the Michael Dukakis campaign and who describes herself as a
.159>victim of rape, "would argue that so long as women are powerless relative
.159>to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided."

    The major implication of this, and please let me know if you feel
    I'm drawing an incorrect conclusion, is that when a woman says
    "yes," she is not necessarily conferring consent.   ! !

    Perhaps this belongs in "The trouble with feminism" note in WN.

    In spite of this rather unusual perspective I will probably
    continue to assume that "yes" means "yes."  What else is a guy
    to do?  A pre-carnal agreement, signed and notarized might be
    enough to kill the mood.  :^)

    re .162
    
    >Car thieves will steal cars until there's enough reason for them not
    >to, or they lose the desire to do so.  Robbers will rob you, muggers
    >will mug you, until there's enough reason for them to change.  
    
    Friday when I left work, there was a *brand new* MERCEDES 760 TURBO
    DIESEL setting right in front of the building with door open, the
    engin running and the keys inthe ignition.  Being honest can be
    a real b**ch sometimes.
    
    fred();

RE:  .162

And the point I've been trying to make is that there are no quick fixes for "the
ATTITUDE and BEHAVIOR of the PERPETRATORS".  I can only believe that date rape
can be decreased if women stop putting themselves in situations which facilitate
it (not stopped, but significantly decreased--I'm unconvince that it can be
stopped altogether).  If a woman gets raped by someone she'd been careful with
for long enough that she ought to be able to trust him, then there's nothing else
she could have done to protect herself.  If she doesn't protect herself, then
some of the responsibility for what happened lays with her (certainly not all,
and it does not excuse the rapist one tiny bit).

                                                          -- Mike

    RE: .164  Mike Scott

    > If you think all she was trying to do by taking this stance was market 
    > an article then that's an opinion that I can't argue with.  Neither of 
    > us is in a position to know her true motives.

    Fine.  I'll take this as a recant of your characterization of her as
    "brave" for writing the article.  Thanks.

    > Sorry--"unjust" was a bad choice of words there;  "stupid" or "naive" 
    > would have been better.

    Ok, so it's not an "injustice" to refrain from blaming a rape victim.
    So what's the point of it?  To scare other women?  Rape victims have
    been blamed all along yet it doesn't seem to have prevented rape much.

    So what *is* the point of it?  To make the rape victim feel horrible?
    Too late.

    Perhaps you can explain what the perceived benefit would be if we made
    a point of fixing blame onto rape victims.

    > Only an ass would label a woman a "man-hater" for being careful.  
    > Why should any woman care what such people think of her?

    Mike, lots of people you might not want to call "asses" label women
    man-haters for a lot less provocation than this.  I agree in the utter
    pointlessness of caring what such people think, but it does come up
    in notes discussions (so we end up having to deal with it.)

    > All I'm saying is that the victim bears some responsibility *also* 
    > (please note that I'm carefully avoiding use of the word "blame").  

    Hey, if you want rape victims to ACCEPT responsibility for the horror
    of being raped, it's their choice.  If you feel you are in a position
    to declare that they ARE responsible (whether they accept it or not,)
    then you're simply fixing blame ONTO them, no matter how nicely you
    phrase it.

    IFF you are itching to fix blame onto rape victims, I can't imagine
    why.

    Earlier, it sounded as though people were saying that it was the ONLY
    WAY women could receive the "message" to be careful around men (as if
    the mental torturing of existing rape victims would cause other women
    to be "scared careful.")  Talk about a patronizing attitude....

    > As someone pointed out with the example of people's responsibility to
    > lock their possessions up if they don't want them stolen, it is possible 
    > to have a crime committed against you and still be some extent 
    > responsible yourself.

    Keep in mind that DATING (you know, romance? flirting? infatuation?)
    is different than trying to keep one's car from getting ripped off.
    When someone (MALE OR FEMALE) sees a possible romantic partner, it's
    easy to trust a bit too quickly.  I rarely see an interesting car
    thief walking down the street and think to myself, "I bet it would
    be ok if I left the keys in the car and the engine running THIS time..."

    > The women who "deliberately disregard the risks as a result [of being
    > convinced that feminist-trashers are right to call feminists man-haters
    > for concentrating on the dangers of rape]" should know better than to 
    > put themselves at risk just because of what people might think of them.
    > I don't have any sympathy for them.

    Wonderful.  People talk some women OUT of listening to feminists'
    warnings about the dangers of rape, and you blame the women *AND*
    feminists for this.  (Before you respond to this, read the part of
    my original paragraph from which you took the above quote OUT OF
    CONTEXT.)

    > We teach children not to take dares just because of what their peers 
    > might think of them if they don't.  We can only hope that they remember 
    > this lesson as adults.

    Fine.  Teach girls and boys not to ever date.  Problem solved.

    > And any guy who can't understand and respect a woman's reasons for 
    > being cautious when she first goes out with him is a jerk.

    Right.  Then the jerk will come to notes to moan and wail about how
    he's tired of being treated as a potential rapist thanks to nasty
    ole man-hating feminists who have poisoned women's minds against
    men by convincing them that all men are rapists.

    When this happens, we'll tell the jerk to go see you.  :-)

This discussion confuses me because it seems to me that everyone here is
saying substantially the same thing on the most important points, which are:

	1. Men should not commit rape;

	2. Women should take precautions to reduce the chance that they will be
	   raped; but

	3. Even if a woman doesn't take precautions, this doesn't make the
	   rapist any less guilty.

So why the heated disagreement?  It seems to be mainly because of the statement
by one side that women who don't take adequate precautions are partially
responsible for being raped.  The key word here is "responsible".  What does
this mean?  It does not mean that the victims are *legally* responsible, as in
"Normally we'd sentence the rapist to 7 years, but because the victim
foolishly went up to the man's room at 2 a.m. we'll sentence the rapist to
5 years and sentence the victim to 2 years".  I'd say that if the victim is
partially "responsible" for the rape she is responsible *to herself*, as in:
she owes it to herself to be more careful next time.

The problem is, there is unfortunately a large number of potential jurors who
think that if a woman acts in a way that "invites rape", the rapist is
less responsible for his actions.  Saying that the victim is "partially
responsible" for the rape seems to buy into this line of thinking, even though
in this note the supporters of the "brave and thought provoking article" have
said that the rapist is *not* less responsible.

Instead of saying that women who don't take precautions are partially
responsible for being raped, I think it would be more constructive to say
that women who do take precautions can reduce their chances of being raped.

				-- Bob

    RE: .167  Mike Scott
    
    > And the point I've been trying to make is that there are no quick fixes 
    > for "the ATTITUDE and BEHAVIOR of the PERPETRATORS".  
    
    It may not be a "quick fix," but education for young men about the
    definition of rape ("NO MEANS NO!!!") and an end to the practice
    of men gaining status by how many women they can nail (regardless
    of whether the woman wanted it or consented) is crucial to solving
    this problem.
    
    We can't just say, "Well, men will be men, so just don't trust 'em!"
    Men should tell their sons (and other men, young and old):  "IT IS
    DEFINITELY *NOT* A SIGN OF BEING COOL OR MANLY TO SET OUT TO HAVE SEX
    WITH A WOMAN WITHOUT REGARD TO HER FEELINGS OR HER CONSENT!"
    
    If men tell other men, "The woman is at fault for being alone with
    the rapist in the first place," it won't help the situation.
    
    > I can only believe that date rape can be decreased if women stop 
    > putting themselves in situations which facilitate it (not stopped, 
    > but significantly decreased--I'm unconvince that it can be stopped 
    > altogether). 
    
    So there's no way to change men's behavior on dates, eh?  Sorry, but I
    don't have as negative an opinion of men as you seem to have.  I think
    men can learn that date rape is inexcusable.
    
    > If she doesn't protect herself, then some of the responsibility for 
    > what happened lays with her (certainly not all, and it does not excuse 
    > the rapist one tiny bit).
    
    You do seem to be "fixing blame" on the rape victim here (as opposed
    to hoping she will "accept responsibility.")
    
    Again I ask, who benefits by making the rape victim feel worse (and
    more burdened by cultural blame) than she already is?
    
    What's the point?

    RE: .170  Bob Messenger
    
    >Instead of saying that women who don't take precautions are partially
    >responsible for being raped, I think it would be more constructive to say
    >that women who do take precautions can reduce their chances of being raped.
    
    Bingo!

>The problem is, there is unfortunately a large number of potential jurors who
>think that if a woman acts in a way that "invites rape", the rapist is
>less responsible for his actions.

 And so your solution to this problem is to refrain from stating that women
can be responsible for engaging in behaviors that heighten their risk of
being raped. That solves nothing. It doesn't address the root problem that
jurors have, and it doesn't discourage women from increasing their risks.
What it does do is assuage the feelings of those whose priority is in making
nice with words.

>Instead of saying that women who don't take precautions are partially
>responsible for being raped, I think it would be more constructive to say
>that women who do take precautions can reduce their chances of being raped.

 I think it would be more constructive to work on getting the potential
juror pool to recognize that men must control their actions and that no
amount of risky behavior on the part of a woman justifies or excuses
nonconsentual sex. I think it would also be pragmatic to indicate that
people are responsible for their own behaviors; and behaving in a way
that increases one's risk of being victimized sometimes carries a hefty
price tag.

 Still, of greater long term importance than the obvious pragmatic benefits
of women refraining from overtly risky behaviors is that of eliminating the
raping behavior of men. 

Re: .172

>>The problem is, there is unfortunately a large number of potential jurors who
>>think that if a woman acts in a way that "invites rape", the rapist is
>>less responsible for his actions.
>
> And so your solution to this problem is to refrain from stating that women
>can be responsible for engaging in behaviors that heighten their risk of
>being raped. That solves nothing.

My solution to the problem of rape is to emphasize the three points I listed
in .170: i.e. men should not commit rape, woman should take precautions to
reduce their chances of being raped, but that even if a woman does not take
adequate precautions this does not reduce the guilt of the rapist.  As far as
I can tell, everyone is in substantial agreement with these three points.

The dispute is (among other things) over the choice of wording of the second
point.  I think it's more positive to say that "woman who take precautions can
reduce their chances of being raped" rather than "woman who don't take
precautions are partially responsible for being raped", because the latter
wording can be misinterpreted to mean that rape is less of a crime if the
victim did not take the right precautions.  I don't agree with you that
"this [change of wording] solves nothing".

				-- Bob

.168>    Fine.  I'll take this as a recant of your characterization of her as
.168>    "brave" for writing the article.  Thanks.

You presume too much.  I still think that Kathryn Robinson had something to say
with this article and that she probably took a lot of heat for saying it among
her friends and associates.  Of course, you could be right, and she only wrote
it to make a quick buck.  Neither of us will ever know for sure.

.168>    Perhaps you can explain what the perceived benefit would be if we made
.168>    a point of fixing blame onto rape victims.

I still don't like the phrase "fixing blame".  I just think that when we so
adamantly and strenously deny that the rape victim was at all at fault, we may
be covering up the fact that she was involved in high-risk behavior when the
rape happened.  That if she had not been involved in that activity, maybe it
wouldn't have happened.

Not afixing blame, per se, just being sure to point out that what the victim was
doing put her at extra risk of rape, if it did.  It may well be easy for ex-
perienced women to see the ill-advisedness of a victim's behavior, but I think
that maybe if we fail to point it out, young girls, who have a right to be naive,
may miss it.

.168>    Earlier, it sounded as though people were saying that it was the ONLY
.168>    WAY women could receive the "message" to be careful around men (as if
.168>    the mental torturing of existing rape victims would cause other women
.168>    to be "scared careful.")  Talk about a patronizing attitude....

This was pretty much what I was trying to say (but not that it was the *only*
way).  I admit that it might be a patronizing attitude to take.  I just get very
frustrated that date rape (and other crimes against women who trust men too
easily) happens so often.  There are a number of single women whose welfare I
care very much about.  Sometimes I feel frightened for them, and helpless to do
anything about it.      

.168>    Keep in mind that DATING (you know, romance? flirting? infatuation?)
.168>    is different than trying to keep one's car from getting ripped off.
.168>    When someone (MALE OR FEMALE) sees a possible romantic partner, it's
.168>    easy to trust a bit too quickly.  I rarely see an interesting car
.168>    thief walking down the street and think to myself, "I bet it would
.168>    be ok if I left the keys in the car and the engine running THIS time..."

Give me a break.  Are you saying that attraction and infatuation is a good ex-
cuse for throwing caution out the window?   Whose not in control of their hor-
mones, now?

.168>    Wonderful.  People talk some women OUT of listening to feminists'
.168>    warnings about the dangers of rape, and you blame the women *AND*
.168>    feminists for this.  (Before you respond to this, read the part of
.168>    my original paragraph from which you took the above quote OUT OF
.168>    CONTEXT.)

You original paragraph was quoted, in total, just above the offending quote.
I don't see how that's OUT OF CONTEXT.  And I'm not blaming *feminist* as a
class.  Just a bit of rhetoric that I feel has been too successful.

.168>    Fine.  Teach girls and boys not to ever date.  Problem solved.

I think that you've heard me suggest that there's a middle ground.  Dating more
carefully.  Actually, I believe I've heard you say that feminists have been ad-
vocating this for years.

.168>    Right.  Then the jerk will come to notes to moan and wail about how
.168>    he's tired of being treated as a potential rapist thanks to nasty
.168>    ole man-hating feminists who have poisoned women's minds against
.168>    men by convincing them that all men are rapists.
.168>
.168>    When this happens, we'll tell the jerk to go see you.  :-)

Send him on.

                                                         -- Mike

    I agree with Suzzanne.  From what I am seeing here the only way to
    raise my daughters so that they are safe from aquaintance rape is to
    teach them to never date, never be alone with ANY man, and to realize
    that while it isn't all men, the 15% or so that will force themselves
    on women are men and don't wear signs.  
    
    The heck with romance, if they send you roses they are just trying to
    get you alone to work their evil deeds, you know dear, because men just
    can't control their urges.  (Shades of what my mother's mother taught
    her), and Gran died at the age of 92 in 1985.  
    
    Now look this isn't man hating, I am just going to encourage my
    daughters to go for "sterotypical" Victorian mores, complete with
    chaperone when she is around men, until she is married.  OK?  (With
    our family history that might be age 36 or more.)  But this should
    "help" the poor young men who have no concept of control, and the
    word NO and its meaning to stay out of trouble.  Hey!  It will be a
    great solution to teen pregnancy as well!   it won't be any help when
    she is married from her hubby's friends, but if she acts like a
    "proper" victorian, men will never be permitted in her home unless
    Hubby, or mom is there to preserve appearences.
    
    Back to the futurly yours
    
    Meg 
    
     

    what a sad, and simplistic view of the world.
    But all of god's creatures gut a place in the choir (even ostriches)
    
    p.s.
    
    i think the 15%(whomever it came from) was simply manufactured out of
    whole cloth.

    Herb,
    
    I have no idea what the number really is, but even if it's .01% I have
    a duty to protect my children from raging male hormones.
    
    I beleive there was a study among Jr. High kids where 60% of the male
    students believed that men have the right to force sex on  women if
    they took her out to an expensive dinner.  The good old, putting sex on
    the comodity trick.  (in all fairness 25% of female students felt the
    same way)
    
    Simplistic, maybe, sad yes, but what is a responsible woman to do?  

    Hopefully, she would start by behaving responsibly.
    
    Beyond that I don't know. Or at least I don't think it is possible to
    discuss in this (or in V4) notes conference. (if for no other reason
    than that it requires real give and take discussion NOT debate, and
    real committment not to care about winning or losing, and real
    committment about not insulting anybody.
    

    re .175, but, women can still be alone with men they wouldn't mind
    having sex with, right?  (Remember the old joke - ya can't rape the
    willing?)  So, the way I see it, my daughter can still date and be
    alone with men she would like to have sex with, which is what I,
    personally, always thought the the ultimate goal was anyway - to date
    men we'd like to have sex with?  
    
    But, perhaps, I've missed something and become hopelessly confused
    along the way!  This is not to say, that I don't think date rape is an
    awful problem.  It is!  It's more of an "all is not lost" type of
    comment.
    
    Lorna
    

RE:  .174

I have to agree that this is the essense of what I'd like to say.  However, it
doesn't seem to say it loudly enough.  As Suzanne has pointed out, feminists
have been saying this for years, and some women have deliberately ignored their
advice because they didn't want to be seen as "man-hating".

Also, I believe in a doctrine of always accepting responsibility for whatever
happens to me.  This is a mechanism for getting *around* blame.  If you accept
responsibility (whether you fully deserve it or not), you can let go of blaming
other people for your problems and get on with your life.  This makes me want
to see women who put themselves carelessly at greater risk of rape admit that
to themselves.

                                                                -- Mike

    Here is an extract from a 1991 poll of class of '66 Wellesley college
    grads published in the Boston Globe (by three alumnae(sp?) and
    reproduced in v3 of woman notes. (37.81) 
    .
    				.
    				.
    
    "14 percent of us have been mugged on the street, 5 percent have been
    raped (in 69 percent of these cases, by a person we knew), and 6
    percent have been beaten by a husband or significant other."

The 15% number came from me and was made up entirely of smoke.  I was just using
it to make the point that a number that could not be called "all or most" men
could still constitute a significant number of men.  5% or 10% would have worked
as well.

                                                              -- Mike

    thnx

    RE: .174  Mike Scott

    > You presume too much.  I still think that Kathryn Robinson had something 
    > to say with this article and that she probably took a lot of heat for 
    > saying it among her friends and associates. 

    YOU presume too much, Mike.  I'll bet she would have taken far more heat 
    for daring to take a feminist stand (but of course, such an article 
    wouldn't have been published where this article ended up, either...)

    You may (or may not) have noticed, but nearly all of what we see in the
    mainstream press about what feminists write comes from ANTI-feminists
    who are trashing them for it (out of context, no less.)  It's pretty
    obvious which viewpoint SELLS these days (in mainstream publications.)

    > I still don't like the phrase "fixing blame".  I just think that when 
    > we so adamantly and strenously deny that the rape victim was at all at 
    > fault, we may be covering up the fact that she was involved in high-risk 
    > behavior when the rape happened.  That if she had not been involved in 
    > that activity, maybe it wouldn't have happened.

    You may not like the phrase "fixing blame," but when you suggest we
    make a special effort to declare that the rape victim was NOT free of
    FAULT for <whatever>, you're FIXING BLAME onto the victim.

    Again, I wonder why it's so important to some people here that rape
    victims be put through the ordeal of being BLAMED for crimes committed 
    against them?  Why do some people want to do this to people who hurt
    so much already? 

    > Not afixing blame, per se, just being sure to point out that what the 
    > victim was doing put her at extra risk of rape, if it did.  

    In other words, let's make the rape victim feel worse than she already
    does.  It isn't enough that she was raped.  Let's make her suffer more.
    Why?  What is the point?

    > It may well be easy for experienced women to see the ill-advisedness 
    > of a victim's behavior, but I think that maybe if we fail to point it 
    > out, young girls, who have a right to be naive, may miss it.

    So let's make an example out of a rape victim to HELP other potential
    rape victims.  Such action may well teach future rape victims NOT TO
    REPORT RAPE (since they now know they'll be traumatized further by
    society in the NAME of helping other women.)  Is this the idea?

    .168>Earlier, it sounded as though people were saying that it was the ONLY
    .168>WAY women could receive the "message" to be careful around men (as if
    .168>the mental torturing of existing rape victims would cause other women
    .168>to be "scared careful.")  Talk about a patronizing attitude....

    > This was pretty much what I was trying to say (but not that it was the 
    > *only* way).  I admit that it might be a patronizing attitude to take.  

    Perhaps you can explain to me why some people here seem to be having
    so much difficulty believing that women can comprehend the idea of
    taking precautions UNLESS rape victims are directly blamed!

    When people say to women, "Here are precautions you can take to help
    prevent rape" - which words do some folks here think women DON'T
    UNDERSTAND?

    > I just get very frustrated that date rape (and other crimes against 
    > women who trust men too easily) happens so often.  There are a number 
    > of single women whose welfare I care very much about.  Sometimes I 
    > feel frightened for them, and helpless to do anything about it.      

    Mike - is it worth it to you to make rape victims SUFFER MORE to ease 
    your frustration, fear and helplessness?

    .168> When someone (MALE OR FEMALE) sees a possible romantic partner, it's
    .168> easy to trust a bit too quickly. 

    > Give me a break.  Are you saying that attraction and infatuation is a 
    > good excuse for throwing caution out the window?   Whose not in control 
    > of their hormones, now?

    Who's talking about hormones?  I'm talking about the tendency to TRUST
    someone for whom one feels the beginnings of a romantic attachment.
    Love does involve TRUST, after all, and it has to begin somewhere.
    For some, it begins a bit too soon.  

    If you want to start blaming people for trusting others, then are you
    willing to blame divorced men (screwed over by an ex) for having TRUSTED
    their exs enough to marry them in the first place?

    > I think that you've heard me suggest that there's a middle ground.  
    > Dating more carefully.  Actually, I believe I've heard you say that 
    > feminists have been advocating this for years.

    Fine.  Suggest to people that they date more carefully.  You can do
    this without making an example of a rape victim to show how you
    believe she can be blamed for the crime committed against her.

    You can get the "message" to women without putting rape victims through
    the extra ordeal of being blamed for having been raped.

    If you still insist it's necessary to blame rape victims for what they've
    suffered, then I have to wonder why.  What is so important to you about
    causing additional pain to people who have already been through something
    so traumatizing?

    Suzanne (...at lunch...)

    RE: .180  Mike Scott
    
    > Also, I believe in a doctrine of always accepting responsibility for 
    > whatever happens to me.  This is a mechanism for getting *around* blame. 
    > If you accept responsibility (whether you fully deserve it or not), you 
    > can let go of blaming other people for your problems and get on with 
    > your life.  
    
    "Accepting responsibility" is something a person can only do for
    him/herself, though.  If YOU decide that others should accept the
    responsibility YOU have decided for them, then you are BLAMING 
    them.  
    
    > This makes me want to see women who put themselves carelessly at 
    > greater risk of rape admit that to themselves.
    
    Look at your words...  YOU want women to "accept responsibility" 
    (because YOU have decided they should.)
    
    In other words, you're casting BLAME onto them.  
    
    Mike, if you shove "accepting responsibility" onto others, you are
    not getting around blame.  You are blaming.

    re .184
    
    >Fine.  Suggest to people that they date more carefully.  You can do
    >this without making an example of a rape victim to show how you
    >believe she can be blamed for the crime committed against her.
    
    Unless I've forgotten how to read somewhere along the line, I thought
    that this *was* what we are trying to do.  Why do you insist on this
    continual yowling over a discussion that we already agree on?  Why
    do you have to turn every note into a feminist WWIII?
    
   > Suzanne (...at lunch...)
    
    .....Naw just too easy...
    
    fred();

    <You may not like the phrase "fixing blame," but when you suggest we
    <make a special effort to declare that the rape victim was NOT free of
    <FAULT for <whatever>, you're FIXING BLAME onto the victim.

    <Again, I wonder why it's so important to some people here that rape
    <victims be put through the ordeal of being BLAMED for crimes committed 
    <against them?  Why do some people want to do this to people who hurt
    <so much already? 
    That is absolutely classic distortion!
    
    declaring somebody not free of fault 		Comment
    		= FIXING BLAME   			colossal KRAP
    
    FIXING BLAME = 
    	blaming women for crimes committed against 	more KRAP
        them	 

    Fred, the topic under discussion is about an article called "Date Rape -
    Who's to BLAME?"
    
    Blaming RAPE VICTIMS is the point raised originally (and still being
    discussed now.)  People can say, "Oh, I don't like the word 'blame,'"
    but if they support the article in the basenote, they are indeed
    talking about BLAME.
    
    > .....Naw just too easy...
    
    It was a gift (just for you...)  :-)

    RE:  187  Herb
    
    The title of the article being discussed is (once more):
    
    		"DATE RAPE - WHO'S TO BLAME?"
    				      ^^^^^
                                      ^^^^^
    				      ^^^^^
    
    You can deny that this is the subject of the topic all you want.
    It won't change a thing.

    
    
    re .188
    
    But what we have already stated (over and over) that a woman taking
    responsibility for her own actions does not lessen the seriousness
    of the offense.  Just seems to me that would be wiser to try to
    take action that will significantly decrease the chances of the 
    offense happening in the first place.
    
    There's being right, then there's being stupid.
    
    fred();

    There is absolutely NO WAY that any reasonably intelligent UNBIASED
    person could possibly come to the conclusion that the principle thrust
    of that article is that women ought to be BLAMED for being raped. 
    
    			NONE, NONE, NONE
    
    (and I say that inspite of the eye-catching title "Date Rape -- Who's
    to Blame"
    
    One way I could make sense out of why it is that you KEEP, KEEP, KEEP
    having absurd arguments is to conclude that you simply have no reading
    judgement whatsoever. But that's a very harsh conclusion. Another
    conclusion I could make is that you get so caught up with your anger
    that you lose all sensible judgement. But that's a very harsh
    conclusion, too. Somethings wrong! And it ain't me.

    RE: .190  Fred
    
    > But what we have already stated (over and over) that a woman taking
    > responsibility for her own actions does not lessen the seriousness
    > of the offense. 
    
    Fine.  If a woman WANTS to "accept reponsibility" for the rape, then
    she can do it for herself (as her choice.)  No one is stopping her.
    
    It's not something anyone else can do FOR her, though.
    
    > Just seems to me that would be wiser to try to
    > take action that will significantly decrease the chances of the 
    > offense happening in the first place.
 
    We don't have to blame rape victims to make this happen, though.
    (Many women already DO take precautions against being raped, in
    fact.  Blaming rape victims is not necessary to make this happen
    more.)
    
    > There's being right, then there's being stupid.
 
    Then again, there's compassion (for people who don't need insults
    from cruel people to make their pain worse.)

    RE: .191  Herb
    
    Herb, you're getting hysterical again.
    
    When you can stop wailing and screaming insults at me, perhaps you will
    be prepared to discuss the topic.
    
    Give your blood pressure a rest, meanwhile.

    re. 192
    
    >Then again, there's compassion (for people who don't need insults
    >from cruel people to make their pain worse.)
    
    I think that this could also be a two way street.
    
    fred();

    I am not hysterical.

    	You sound much better now, Herb.

Re: .195

Well, Herb, I can understand Suzanne's impression given your repeating
certain words in upper case, as if shouting the word over and over gives
it added weight, even though the actual effect is just the opposite.  Just
think of how you'd feel if someone responded to something you said in that
fashion.


Anyway, one should only speak for oneself, not for others.  Just because you
can't imagine coming to a certain conclusion, that doesn't mean that others
couldn't.

					Steve

    There is absolutely no way that any reasonably intelligent unbiased
    person could possibly come to the conclusion that the principle thrust
    of that article is that women ought to be blamed for being raped.
    
    (and I say that inspite of the eye-catching title "Date Rape -- Who's
    to Blame"
    
    One way I could make sense out of why it is that you keep having absurd
    arguments is to conclude that you simply have no reading judgement
    whatsoever. But that's a very harsh conclusion. Another conclusion I
    could make is that you get so caught up with your anger that you lose
    all sensible judgement. But that's a very harsh conclusion, too.
    Somethings wrong! And it ain't me.

    re .197
    
>Anyway, one should only speak for oneself, not for others.  Just because you
>can't imagine coming to a certain conclusion, that doesn't mean that others
>couldn't.
    
    I didn't see a one-way sign on this street either.
    
    fred();
    

    Herb, if you're having trouble following the flow of the discussion
    in this topic, perhaps someone would be willing to help you offline.
    
    The discussion has been straightforward enough that I can't imagine
    which parts you don't understand.

.175>  Now look this isn't man hating, I am just going to encourage my

    It's also an unrealistic interpretation of what's been said by
    others in this topic.

    If you disagree, would you point to the notes that lead you
    to believe the following?

.175>                        From what I am seeing here the only way to
.175> raise my daughters so that they are safe from aquaintance rape is to
.175> teach them to never date, never be alone with ANY man, and to realize
.175> that while it isn't all men, the 15% or so that will force themselves
.175> on women are men and don't wear signs.  

    and

.175> The heck with romance, if they send you roses they are just trying to
.175> get you alone to work their evil deeds, you know dear, because men just
.175> can't control their urges.

    
    Suzanne,
    
    I basically agree with your points but I do have a problem with the
    gender generalizations.
    
>    If men tell other men, "The woman is at fault for being alone with
>    the rapist in the first place," it won't help the situation.
    
    How about if it said ... when people tell others "The women ....  
    
    After all in the Thomas, Kennedy, and Tyson situations the ratio of men
    shifting the blame to the alledged victom was about the same as the
    ratio of women doing the same. 
    
    The statement as stated is true ... it is also true if the statement
    was worded as 
    
     If men tell other women, "The woman is at fault for being alone with
     the rapist in the first place," it won't help the situation.
    
     or
     If women tell other men, "The woman is at fault for being alone with
     the rapist in the first place," it won't help the situation.
    
     or
     If women tell other women, "The woman is at fault for being alone with
     the rapist in the first place," it won't help the situation.
    
    
    Are the other three variations better in your eyes?
    
    Take care,
    Greg
    
    

    RE: .202  Greg
    
    Pls go back and read my note (.169) again.
    
    I wasn't generalizing about men's likelihood to shift blame to women
    in rape cases in the passage you quoted.
    
    We were talking about the lack of "quick fixes" for the attitudes and
    behaviors of the perpetrators of rape.  The passage you quoted was one
    of two possible contrasting messages to men from men about date rape.

.184>    In other words, let's make the rape victim feel worse than she already
.184>    does.  It isn't enough that she was raped.  Let's make her suffer more.
.184>    Why?  What is the point?

Okay, Suzanne--you've wrestled me to the ground (which, considering our probable
relative sizes, is pretty impresive 8^).  You're right--nothing can be accom-
plished by rubbing the victim's nose in her mistakes.  Or at least nothing that's
worth subjecting her to more pain than she's been through already.

Still, I doubt that anything can be done to stem the tide of date rape other
than getting more women to take precautions.  Through education, you might even-
tually reach the sons of middle- and upper-class, relatively well-educated pa-
rents, but I think that the blue-collar masses can't be easily effected that way.
The macho tradition runs too strong in that environment.

Oh well, I guess there's really nothing you can do to stop adults (men or women)
from taking what would seem unreasonable risks in pursuit of happiness (or just
momentary pleasure).  The week-end "meet-market" activity in clubs around the na-
tion barely paused in the face of the mounting STD epidemic.

                                                           -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    What about training men that use of force/coercion to get their
    needs/wants met sexually is unacceptable behaviour.  
    
    What about training men, that having sex with an nearly unconcious
    person isn't rewarding.  The same goes for a crying unwilling victim.
    
    What about training men that rape is rape and will be prosecuted to the
    max?  (This requires a shift in the judicial systme's perception of
    rape vs. any other assault)
    
    What about training all MEN, not some men that NO means NO?
    
    
    
    Why should women have to take all the precautions? 

    May I suggest that you move a slightly modified version of response
    .205 to the discussion on how to train men (761)?
    
    
    
    				herb
    
    
    				

.205>        Why should women have to take all the precautions? 

I hate to be callus, Meg, but women don't have to take precautions--they can
live without them, and accept the higher risk of getting raped.

Insofar as training all men not to rape is concerned, how do you suppose we go
about doing this?  People have been saying "NO means NO" for years now, and there
are men who have heard this and still don't believe it.  Men who have the
attitudes that precipitate date rape usually are pretty dense on this
topic.  I don't know that there's anything you can do about the ones that are
already "infected" today.  The best you might do is try to fix up future genera-
tions.

So, how do we get the message to the young, impressionable kids that it might
have some good effect on?  Sounds like sex education to me.  Parents have already
rejected *that* all over this wonderful country.

Doing something about the perpetrators of date rape is going to take at least
a generation.  And it will be an up-hill battle all the way.

                                                      -- Mike

    
    Actually as stated by many "social scientists" rape is not a "sex
    thing" it is a power thing.   For them NO only means that they are
    accomplishing their real intention--to dominate.  Moral of story--
    if you find yourself with a *real* rapist, NO isn't going to get you
    much.
    
    fred();

RE:  .209

But we are talking about ways to reduce DATE rape.  If a woman accepts a date
with a predatory rapist who preys on his dates, then all bets are off.

    re .209
    
>But we are talking about ways to reduce DATE rape.  If a woman accepts a date
>with a predatory rapist who preys on his dates, then all bets are off.

    Yea, but that's the trouble with minefields.
    
    Something is getting lost here.  The vast majority of men *WILL* take
    NO for an answer.  Even after she gets naked and rolls around in the
    bed a while.  They may be p**sed, and they may never talk to her again,
    and if they're smart they will runn like hell for the nearest exit, but
    they *will* take no for an answer.  What distinguishes the ones who 
    will from the ones who won't?  And why?
    
    fred();
    
    
    

    RE:  .211
    
    I think that some guys are just bullies.  If someone weaker frustrates
    them, they lash out physically.   Rape is just a way of beating someone
    up, using your sexual organs.  A particularly emotionally painful way,
    which probably suits their purposes just fine.
    
                                                    -- Mike