Conference quark::mennotes-v1

	Here's one:

	If the woman says "No!" clearly and unambiguously, and
	the man continues physical advances, then:

	A knee to the groin is a great instructional tool.

	A frying pan to the head has been show valuable in
	"The School of Hard Knocks."

	Use of a knife, pistol or even a nail file is appropriate 
	for defense when a true capital crime is being committed.

	I suggest that a major deterrent to rape would be an
	elimination of concealed-carry permit restrictions for
	law-abiding citizens, and the more women that begin 
	to carry....the more safe women there would be:  
	"Did I show you my nice, new Smith and Wesson ?",  she asked, 
	smiling sweetly....

	Steve H

I think that we need to work towards a change in social attitudes and
expectations, and I'm not sure how to break it up between men and women.  
Specifically, we need to work on the following:
	a: teach people that sex isn't "bad" or "dirty", and that normal
	   humans have sexual desires.  
	b: teach people that women have sexual desires (and frequently 
	   desire sex!).
	c: teach people that it's OK to say NO to sexual intercourse, and
	   that it's OK to say YES to sexual intercourse, depending on what 
	   you want and what the other person wants.
	d: teach people that YES means YES, NO means NO and MAYBE means MAYBE.
	e: teach boys and men that it is un-manly to force a person into a 
	   sexual act, either thru extreme coercion, alcohol, threats or 
  	   trickery.
	f: learn to treat sexually active men (aka "studs") and sexual active
	   women (aka "sluts") in the same way; that being sexually active is
	   not a moral condemnation providing that care is taken
	g: teach sexual etiquette and safety.


Well, that's a start! There's only one on this list that's male-sepcific (in my
opinion) but what the heck...  flame away, dudes.

				Nigel

    
    (my .02)
    
    I think young boys need to learn self-respect
    so as they grow in to young men they can naturally
    respect others 
    
    Most young boys/men today have no respect for themselves
    so they overcompensate by demanding others to
    give them respect
    
    Unfortunately for them, they have not learned that
    respect is earned not automagically given
    
    Until there is more emphasis on this, women everywhere
    will need instruction in self-defense
    

 	Men are not born to rape. It is the environment in which
	they are raised which brings about the way a man (or woman)
	turns out. It has been shown that men who commit acts of
	violence against women are men who were abused (either
	mentally or physically) by women from the time they were
	mere infants. In turn, most of these women were abused by
	men as infants and children. The circle keeps going round
	and round. How does it stop? When does it stop? Who is
	entirely to blame?  Everyone would love to have the 
	answers, but can an answer truly be found.   IMHO


	kits

    Re: .2
    
    I think Nigel's suggestions depend on the concept that rape is a sex
    thing.  It's not.  it's a power thing, and sex is the ultimate form of
    power over another.  Teaching men/boys that it's unmanly to force sex
    won't work unless we also teach them (and they LEARN) that taking power
    over another person without its being given, regardless of the form of
    that taking, is unmanly.
    
    -dick

I feel that one of the major underlying causes of rape and other abuses is
that our society teaches males that females are "things", not people.  Women
are prizes to be won, by force if necessary, and by posessing a woman a man
proves his "manhood" to others.

If we can teach our children (both boys AND girls) that "women are people too",
I think we'll have gone a long way towards eradicating rape.

				Steve

    
    One thing that I have seen come up over and over in literature and
    tv documenteries is that rape is not a sex thing (as .4 also
    indicates).  Rape is a power thing committed by men who are
    generally *unable* to deal with women on any other basis.  Usually
    this is because of feelings of inadequacy in dealing with women
    on a social basis, usually caused by child abuse or by repeated
    abuse by women in social settings.  ie "All men are scum sucking
    semen dripping hormone driven &^%$holes. Oh! not you son".  Almost
    from day one we are taught that little girls are made of up "sugar
    and spice and everything nice" and little boys are made up of
    %$#@#$.  As stated by many "social scientists" this type of verbal 
    abuse, especially towards children, tends to sink in and they (at 
    least some) will start to *believe* it.
    
    Now before the PC crowd starts throwing hand grenades my way for
    my last statement.  This is probably not the *only* reason that 
    *some* men have difficulty dealing with women on a social basis.
    Rape is another of those peoblems with many facets and no *one*
    solution.  Stronger penalties and more agressive prosecution of
    those *convicted* of rape is but one part (recent advances in
    DNA "fingerprinting" should and have already helped in this).
    Changing the judicial system, especailly in automatically giving
    "rape victims" "more credibility", is probably not a very realistic
    goal at this point (  if you don't like it, take it up with the
    Supreme Court ).
    
    Who's to blame at this point is not really as important as to
    what's to be done about the current situation.  I don't think
    that the solution lies totally with men.  One thing that will 
    likely have a bigger imapct will be to try to change the *causes*
    as to why men become rapists in the first place.  To teach men,
    especially young men and boys, how to deal with women and making
    non sexual social interaction on a people to people basis easier
    and more acceptable.  
    
    One thing that makes this social interaction difficult is the 
    changeing ( or is it lack of ) "rules" for social interaction.
    It used to be that a woman *DIDN'T* go to a man's (especially
    a strange man's) appartment (especailly at 3 a.m. after dringing
    and dancing and "making out") unless she intended to have sex.
    There was hardly ever any explicit concent given.  There is still
    hardly ever any explicit concent given.  If she want's him to make
    a "pass" and he does-great.  If she wants him to make a pass and
    he doesn't-bummer.  If she doesn't want him to make a pass and he
    does--rape, and in all cases *his* intentions may have been the same.
    The differences between hero, goat, and rapeist is determined by 
    *her* wishes.  Through all of this a man must operate "by feel",
    and if the rules that he's been dealing with and his interpretetation
    of the "signals" happens to be wrong...
    
    Blast away
    fred();
    
    

    re .-1

    Thnx for the thoughtful remarks, Fred.
    I agree with what you -and the others have to say.
    I think that some of the remarks near the end of your reply might be
    viewed more positively if they were entered in 762 as recommendation
    for changes. And others could be stated in a positive way for men. As
    an example of the latter, men need to be taught that there is somewhat
    more ambiguity in modern social life than earlier. And along with being
    taught that life is more ambiguous perhaps we need to be aware of our
    responsibility in clarifying ambiguity before making important
    decisions.
    
    				herb
    

    Teaching young men that their physiological sexual response typically
    happens much more quickly for them than for females and that young
    females probably do not understand this.
    I don't feel I have sufficient command of either language or propriety
    to carry this any further. I hope others can.
    
    
    				herb

    >Men are not born to rape.
    
    But what of us viking types?:) Rape, loot, and plunder!:) I would drop
    the rape part and just stick to looting and plundering.:) Ah! The
    gods of Vahala are calling! I must go to the ship and set sail.

    re: .7
    
    And on further thought, the culture needs to redefine sex as shared,
    mutual intimacy with meaning, rather than sometimes mindless conquest. 
    I think that many boys look around themselves in the culture and learn
    that competition and domination are seen as WINS for men.  This extends
    to many areas (obtaining THINGS, winning support from your peers,
    raising your esteem in their eyes, etc - and when women are defined as
    THINGS, and conquering them raises peer ESTEEM it's a pretty clear
    message, I think).
    
    I think if more fathers were present in the home and interacting
    tenderly with the children for a greater percent than many (NOT ALL)
    do, it would be a positive influence in several ways.
    
    1.  teach a nurturing male role model
    2.  help to ensure that societal norms will not be mindlessly
    	incorporated into the boy's view of "what's right" in the society -
    	the father and mother could discuss the norms, and discuss what
    	they feel is right, and the child could see different options,
    	rather than just what the society presents.
    3.  help to counterbalance any negative female impressions by
    	offering the mother time off, space to think, and offering
    	male/female counterbalance of parental support for the boy.
    
    I think having more fathers influencing the raising of BOTH boys and
    girls in greater ways would be wonderful, but in this case I merely
    discuss the boys.
    
    -Jody
    

    Instruct boys and men that when you have sex, if your partner
    objects to the act, then it is rape and that is wrong.
    
    I believe that just about covers it.
    
    I almost said "unless the partner offers consent" but then that
    makes explicit consent a necessary prerequisite and I don't think
    that's a good precedent to set.

>    Instruct boys and men that when you have sex, if your partner
>    objects to the act, then it is rape and that is wrong.
    
>    I believe that just about covers it.

	How's this:

	Instruct boys and men and women and girls that sex is always
	a sharing experience.  If you're partner isn't sharing, then
	you're taking, and taking is wrong.

	-Jim

    Another way to educate males regarding rape, is to make the penalty
    for rape VERY CRUEL.  And that is to emasculate rapists.
    
    
    Just an opinion....
    
    
    Jeff

     And what remedy do you have when a rape victims recants after the
    fact, like the Gary Dotson case? "Oops"?

    And what remedy do we have when a person is wrongly convicted for the
    crime?  Like Steve Titus was here in Seattle.  Read the book "Predator"
    by Jack Olson for the full story.  Very enlightening book.
    
    Karen

Concentrating on rape as such is to miss the boat.

The radical feminist garbage about rape being about power and not sex is slowly 
but surely being driven back under the rock from which is crawled.  Sex and 
aggression are inextricably linked in males.  The link is biological.  To 
those interested I suggest you look at the role of the hypothalamus in men.  In
any event the penis makes a poor weapon.

What is important is the question of when is sex proper, and the best answer to
that is a theory called Appropriate Vulnerability.  Put simply, sex is 
inappropriate when there is an imbalance in (mostly emotional) vulnerability 
between partners.  Rape falls out naturally as wrong, because one person is 
supremely vulnerable and the other not.  But it also addresses many of the 
issues about so-called date rape, and relationships generally, without falling 
into ideological traps or being tied to particular sexual modes.  It's quite a 
well thought-out theory.

    re .17
    
    Your first paragraph would really offend me if I were a man.  Sex and
    aggression are linked forever with men?  Wonderful.  Remind me to stay
    clear of you when you're angry.  

Good morning, all.

 I would argue that "date rape" is more of a sexual thing than a power thing. 
That is, I believe that many instances of date rape occur because the male 
either "misunderstands" or ignores cues that indicate an unwillingness on the
part of his partner/victim.  I think the misunderstandings are caused by 
cultural conditioning and apparent social mores as I outlined in my earlier 
reply; I believe that education is the answer in these cases.  

 I agree that rape (not date rape) is a violent crime of assault, and not a
sexual thing at all.  I'll admit that I don't know what to do to stop these
acts of violence.

				Nigel

    re .19
    
    I don't think "NO" is all that hard to understand.  As Iv'e pointed
    out before, millions of men *DO* control their hormones even in 
    *extreme* cases.  So what differentiates those who do from those
    who don't?
    
    fred();

    RE: .20
    
    If I may interject...The dynamics of social-economics is
    largest differentiator
    
    There are many factors at work, the constant struggle for
    survival is one albeit real or perceived ... the lack of
    self-esteem is another, so to increase self-esteem human
    behaviour becomes violent
    
    I do not condone, but I think it can be understood
    

    I see the discussions about rape usually involve punishment after the
    rape has occured (which doesn't help the rape victim much because
    the rape already happened), and how to stop a rape in progress. 
    Good issues to discuss.  I wonder WHY some men are inclined to rape
    in the first place?  If a man wants raw sex a woman (or man) can be
    hired for that purpose.  I have read articles which say that rape is
    primarily a crime of domination/violence, rather than because a man
    lusts for sex and must have it NOW ragardless of what the other person
    says.  
    
    How do we spot boys who are developing a 'rape personality', and help
    them before the urge (sex/violence) becomes ingrained in their
    personalities and then to read about them and their victims when they
    become older teenagers?  
    
    Somehow they are LEARNING that violence/domination satisfies them
    sexually.  Society in general does tend to glorify men who 'don't
    take no XXXX' are ruggedly built, are somewhat dimwitted, and fight
    before they think.  "Taking a woman" fits that image IMO.  
    
    We can go on and on about punishment, the courts, poor police action
    etc, but until we help people who are developing 'rape personalities'
    we are going to be trying to repair damage which has been already done
    rather than helping potential rapists not to rape before it occurs.
    
    I did NOT say don't hold rapits responsible for their actions.  I did
    say why not look at what promotes a person into developing into a rapist and
    help change the factors which contribute to that personality.
    
    The prisons are strained beyond capacity.  They are breeding grounds
    for violence and more crime after the inmates are eventually released.
    And, most of them, eventually WILL be released.  It makes me uneasy to
    know that this bulging prison population eventually will be walking the
    streets with me and my family.  As I see it the prisons DO work for a
    while..... they take the criminals off the street for the period of
    time they are locked up... beyond that they seem to be an utter
    failure.  Many of the released inmates come out WORSE and far more
    vengeful then when they went in.    
    
    We hate rape, crime and violence?  Then we as a Nation had better get
    our morals straight, the messages we send to our kids APPROPRIATE
    toward love, peace, and justice.  We should get the hateful violent
    trash which is shown on TV off the air and we should start respecting
    other people.  I have watched this Country 'go down the tubes' over the
    last 35 years.... largely because too many of us have forgotten what
    really counts.... love and respect for others and ourselves.  
     
    I will get off my soapbox.
    
    
    Jeff
    
    

.17>The [...] garbage about rape being about power and not sex is slowly 
.17>but surely being driven back under the rock from which is crawled.
    
    Well, I got sidetracked onto taking on the disease model of alcoholism 
    in Soapbox, but as soon as I get that rolling, I'll be back in WN with
    supporting evidence that agrees with that.
    
    Nice to see that some people can see beyond what they hear on Donahue
    and Oprah and Sally Jesse.

re .18

>    Your first paragraph would really offend me if I were a man.  Sex and
>    aggression are linked forever with men?  Wonderful.  Remind me to stay

What you've essentially said here is that if you were a man you would be upset 
by this particular set of facts.  A very strange attitude, I must say.

The rape-as-power argument is essential to the seperatist feminist ideologies 
which seek to portray all male-female relationships, including sex, as 
fundamentally imbalanced and male-dominated.  It aids their victim mentality.

On the other hand, if you are truly interested in truth, then ignoring the 
fundamental link between sex and aggression in men is self-contradictory and 
therefore unacceptable.  Once you accept the facts then, and only then, can you 
develop a comprehensive solution to the problem, in this case rape.

    QUESTION
        Are we going to make punishment the same if a man got raped bye 
    a woman?

    Good question. Looks dim for that one. Just as men can get beaten up by
    women, even killed by them. Many women are let off the hook. A bunch
    of women were let go from a Maryland prision for killing their husbands 
    and were told that its O.k. cause they were in an abusive family
    situation.. Sorry. That doesn't hold water for me. Thats a ceap out.
    You have the options of leaving, or getting the law on his butt side.
    No one has the right to take a life. 
    
    

    
    re: .26
    
    >No one has the right to take a life.
    
    Whoa!  What happened to "self-defense"?
    
    					- Vick

    	
    	i have to differ on that last one.....
    	
    	many women DO NOT have the simple option of leaving....there
    	have been a few cases where murder and battery have occurred
    	AFTER a restraining order was put on the husband/boyfriend.
    	the anthony case (kidnapping and murder in mass. is a point	
    	that comes to mind) the man had a history of taking rejection
    	a bit hard.... 
    	
    	...then there's the pelletier's (i think that's the name) nice
    	family home....neighbors never heard boo from either one of them.
    	they had 2 daughters....wife puts a restraining order on husband 
    	he comes back and kills them all....
    
    	those 2 instances come to mind....and i'm sure there are a few
    	more.

    Ah! But! There was a case where a woman, her daughter, and the
    daughters boyfriend killed of a man because he was called a couch
    potato by his family. He worked, she was a home maker, the daughter and 
    beau were just living there. And decided to take his life. Zappo!
     
    How about the man in Exeter N.H. Mr. West, who was repetedly beaten by
    his wife who was taking karaty lessons. Mr. West was even paying for
    these class's. Mr. West went to the Exeter police who said, 'tuff
    luck, we won't get involved". Mr. West took his life a year ago last
    January.
    
    Sorry guys. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Hence
    if you take a life, you give a life. There are more stories that never
    make TV movies because they happen to men. And men don't scream as well
    as women in a movie. So, they don't make the grade. 
    
    And sorry. I beg to differ. Women and men have that option. Its their
    call not ours. We all are adults.

    To the extent that _either_ of the following statements is true, I
    wonder whether perhaps maybe both of them are ...
    
    Women take control of men through sex
    Men dominate women with power.
    
    (and the men who find it necessary to dominate with power, do it
    specifically because they feel so overpowered by women through sex)

    and using their power to RAPE kills two birds with one stone
    
    it reestablishes dominance
    and reclaims 'control' of sex
    
    				herb

    
    	mebbe, ::NICHOLS.... mebbe....
    
    	gives credence to the collection of whips in chains in my closet...
    
    	;-)
    
    	have a nice day

    re .31
    
    or at least the people asserting dominance/control are doing it because
    they PERCEIVE that the other gender are asserting THEIR
    control/dominance.
    
    
    				herb

    re .17
    
    first of all, and more importantly, I agree with everything you say
    after "crawled". I found it powerful and cogent. I am particularly
    caught up with the notion of Appropriate Vulnerability. Thankyou.
    
    I do not find the editorial terminated by "crawled" to be quite as
    compelling. Herewith my comments with respect to that...
    
    I think that to concentrate on sex alone is also to miss the boat.
    
    Furthermore, the smug, elitist, sexist, chauvinistic, and patronizing
    garbage about rape being only about sex and not about power AND sex 
    is slowly but surely being driven back into the festering, suppurating
    chancre from which it oozed.

				herb :-)

I think that one of the reasons that we have so much trouble dealing
with rape is the view of what rape really is.  Rape is actually a form 
of assault.  Comparable more to bashing someone with a shovel handle 
than to "making love.  Rape takes on much more odious connotations
(or is it denotations) because of the body parts violated and the body 
parts used to do the violating.

I believe that you will be seriously hard pressed to find someone who
does not believe that rape is a serious offense.  Where communication
breaks down and why we have so much trouble dealing with rape is the 
other stuff that I view a that feminists (at least the more radical feminists)
try to hang on to *men* because *some* men rape *some* women.  Men 
(people) tend to get defensive when they view the solution (to them)
as being worse than the problem (to them).  I personally get very offended 
when said feminists send out the message "Rape involves sex, therefore 
all sex must be rape and men by nature are chemically and socially 
conditioned to want sex so therefore all men must be rapists", and "Rape 
is aggression therefore all aggression is rape and men are naturally 
aggressive so therefore men must naturally be rapists", and try thereby 
to gain some sort of moral high ground in their own power struggle.  It's 
amazing what becomes correct behavior (like dropping napalm on villages) 
when you are "morally" correct.  And though said "feminists" are quick
to add "but not all men" when challenged,  I can't help but feel that I
am still viewed as one of those "well you *know* how *men* are".

Not all aggression is rape.  Nor for that matter is all aggression bad.
Neither is all violence bad.   For the first few million years of our
existence, being able to walk through the valley of death and fear no
evil because you were the biggest baddest s.o.b. in the valley had its
distinct advantages.  Like when dealing with things like saber-tooth
tigers, Vikings, and Nazis.  Going one on one with a cave bear was not
an activity for the timid but may have been necessary for survival.
It's not just the rules of dating that have changed in the very near
past.  This may also be the reason why (at least some) women "keep
getting into relationships with such ***holes".  If you had the biggest
badass in the valley for your husband/protector the likelihood of your
survival and the survival of your children increased.  The problem 
comes in getting him to be a badass to "them" and nice to "us".  Again
it's not just the rules of dating that have recently changed.  Whether
it's by genetic selection or by social training I believe some of the 
these "old rules" are still being passed from generation to generation.
When people get thrown into life and stress situations, they tend to 
revert to the "tried and true" "solutions".

Should we get rid of these "old rules"?  Is it wise to just scrap all
of them after so many generations?  What do we replace them with?  
Who gets to decide?  A certain amount of (controlled) aggression can
still be very useful.  Who gets to decide how much?  Have things *really*
changed all that much?  We used to stampede herds of animals over the
cliffs then bash them to death with clubs to obtain food.  Now we 
"slaughter" animals in "packing houses".  We still have pseudo-Nazis
trying to overrun weaker countries over some trumped up excuse.  Most
of the wars and survival, however, have taken place away from the U.S and 
out of sight/mind from the majority of Americans.  We ( humans ) used 
to slaughter each other over access to food and territory, but only 
since the 1930's few in the U.S. have had to really go hungry.  The 
"Final Solution" of the Nazis was really nothing new, and we still
have some groups in the world advocating some form or other of this 
"solution" against other groups (i.e. Cambodia).   There are even
places in the U.S. that even I won't go.  I may have a perfect right
to go there and what may happen to me there may be illegal for which
someone may or may not be punished, but is it smart to go there? 
What if I should find myself in one of those situations by accident?
As the nursery rhyme says "not even all the kings horses (police) and
all the kings men (judges) could put the egg back together again".
If by some miracle *everyone* in the world suddenly became gentle,
law-abiding citizens, maybe we could get rid of some of the "old
rules", but the chances of that happening are about.....

So what do we do about rape.  Maybe we can start bay taking a realistic
view of what the world really is.  By viewing rape for what it really
is, and by not trying to use the injustices against one group (women) as an
excuse to increase the injustices against another group (men).

fred();

    re .-1
    
    I disagree, furthermore ...

    				_______
				|||||||
				 ~   ~
		@ @		(o) (o)    	@ @
		 >	       O|  ^  |O	 <
		\_/		| \-/ |		\_/
				 `---'
    				
				_______
				|||||||
				 ~   ~
		@ @		(o) (o)    	@ @
		 >	       O|  ^  |O	 <
		\_/		| \-/ |		\_/
				 `---'
    				super job!

    Assault is a form of assault.
    
    Rape need not be a form of assault.
    
    There is a charge called sexual assault to handle those cases where
    rape is also assault.

    In topic 755.*, so-called "radical feminists" were accused of
    not warning women ENOUGH about the dangers of rape (at one point.)
    
    So-called "radical feminists" have been blasted (in this topic) for 
    the message that rape is NOT SEX, but is a crime of violence:
    
    .17> The radical feminist garbage about rape being about power and not 
    .17> sex is slowly but surely being driven back under the rock from which 
    .17> is crawled.  
    
    Now feminists are trashed again with the claim that the so-called
    "radical feminists" say that RAPE IS SEX, after all:
    
    .35> I personally get very offended when said feminists send out the 
    .35> message "Rape involves sex, therefore all sex must be rape and men 
    .35> by nature are chemically and socially conditioned to want sex so 
    .35> therefore all men must be rapists", 
    
    The author goes on to trash feminists with this claim/complaint about
    attitudes involving rape (sex) and aggression:
    
    .35> [I personally get very offended when said feminists send out the 
    .35> message]  "Rape is aggression therefore all aggression is rape 
    .35> and men are naturally aggressive so therefore men must naturally 
    .35> be rapists"...
    
    Well, I'd like to point out that the same author who blasted feminists
    as being wrong for the idea that rape is NOT sex, also wrote THIS about 
    men, sex, (rape), and aggression:
    
    .17> Sex and aggression are inextricably linked in males.  The link is 
    .17> biological.
    
    If the point of all this is to blame feminists for everything and
    anything you can think to bring up, please keep in mind that these
    contradicting accusations cancel each other out (and make it much
    more obvious that it's only an excuse to engage in the favorite
    sport of feminist-bashing.)
    
    Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

    RE: "There is a charge called sexual assault to handle those cases
    where rape is also assault."
    
    Perhaps that depends on your state's laws.  In NH, there is
    1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree sexual assault.  1st is unwanted touching,
    2nd is penetration, 3rd is with brutality (in a laymen's terms).
    However, in all cases rape is sexual assault.
    
    ed

re .38 (Conlon)

There is no contradiction in what I said in .17.  I attacked the spurious 
notion, propagated by Brownmiller and co., that rape is not a sexual crime but 
a political one.  To link sex and aggression is not at all acceding to a warped 
framework that denies the sexual element of rape and concentrates solely on the 
'power-relationship'.  

As a man, Susan, I tell you that if I wanted to physically 'dominate' a women 
then my fists are far more effective weapons than my penis.  I loathe 
Brownmiller and friends simply because they are so *WRONG*!, not because 
bashing feminists is my favourite pasttime.  

    RE: .40  Simpson
    
    > There is no contradiction in what I said in .17. 
    
    As I mentioned in my note (which you do not seem to have read very
    carefully) is that the contradictions lie between the various attacks
    (by multiple noters) against feminists.
    
    One person bashes feminists for the idea that rape is NOT sex, while
    another bashes feminists for the idea that rape IS sex (for example.)
    
    > I attacked the spurious notion, propagated by Brownmiller and co., 
    > that rape is not a sexual crime but a political one. 
    
    You mentioned nothing in .17 about rape being called a "political"
    crime.  You did mention "power" (which is a slant away from the words
    used by many - not feminists in particular - about rape:  It is called
    a crime of VIOLENCE, rather than a crime of sex.)
    
    Using violence during the commission of a crime does involve a sense
    of power over the victim.  Not an unusual dynamic in our culture.
    
    Descriptions of violence follow.  Pls hit next unseen if this would
    bother you.
    
    > To link sex and aggression is not at all acceding to a warped 
    > framework that denies the sexual element of rape and concentrates 
    > solely on the 'power-relationship'.  
    
    What you call a "warped framework" is more likely a look at rape
    from the aspect of the person being raped (rather than looking at
    the perspective of the one committing a crime with this act.)
    
    The "sexual element" of rape is not present for the rape victim,
    (except in a way that is as close to "sex" as having a broom
    handle shoved violently towards the colon would be for a man, or
    a woman.)
    
    > As a man, Susan, I tell you that if I wanted to physically 'dominate' 
    > a women then my fists are far more effective weapons than my penis.  
    
    Unless they are dealing a fatal blow, a man's fists are less devastating,
    though (to many people) than being raped.  A slap or a punch is painful,
    but the violation and humiliation of having one's most intimate parts
    of the body invaded in a violent manner can be much worse (for the one
    receiving it.)
    
    When someone takes a sexual organ and uses it for violent penetration
    of a screaming child or a struggling adult who has to be pinned down
    with force or threatened with a knife or a gun - does this really sound
    like "sex" to you? 
    
    Calling this "sex" (which is a natural act) is the real distortion.

re .41

>    One person bashes feminists for the idea that rape is NOT sex, while

I said radical feminists, and what I said, quite clearly, was that ignoring 
the sexual element of rape was wrong.  For someone supposedly concerned with 
accuracy this is sloppy.

>    What you call a "warped framework" is more likely a look at rape
>    from the aspect of the person being raped (rather than looking at

What I call warped is the ideological framework propounded by Brownmiller et al 
which condemns men (in this case as rapists, potential or otherwise) simply 
because they are men.  This ideology is manifestly and demonstrably wrong, in 
principle and in practice.

>    with force or threatened with a knife or a gun - does this really sound
>    like "sex" to you? 

Frankly, yes.  Sex by violence, to be sure, or violent sex, whichever you 
prefer.  But it is in principle an extension of sado-machistic sex, the 
essential difference being the lack of consent.  The desire, or need, for 
physical as well as psychological domination is fundamentally no different.

    I hope that one can read the comments by trodon::simpson carefully.
    When one excludes the frequently inflammatory editorials, I believe
    that one finds thoughtful and useful commentary.
    
    
    				herb

    re .38
    
    Awww Geee!  How DARE I bash those poor defenseless little feminists.
    
    fred();

    RE: .44  Fred
    
    > Awww Geee!  How DARE I bash those poor defenseless little feminists.
    
    Well, just think - if feminists bashed men as a group, they could
    say to you, "How DARE we bash those poor defenseless 2 or 3 billion
    little men...!"

    RE: .42  Simpson
    
    > What I call warped is the ideological framework propounded by 
    > Brownmiller et al which condemns men (in this case as rapists, 
    > potential or otherwise) simply because they are men. 
    
    It's only your understanding of their message that is warped, Simpson.
    Men aren't being condemned as a group.
    
    Injustice is being condemned.
    
    >> with force or threatened with a knife or a gun - does this really sound
    >> like "sex" to you? 

    > Frankly, yes.  Sex by violence, to be sure, or violent sex, whichever you 
    > prefer.  But it is in principle an extension of sado-machistic sex, the 
    > essential difference being the lack of consent.  
    
    When only one partner consents (and the other is overtaken by violent
    means against the person's will,) it may seem like sex to the party
    initiating the violence assault, but it's rape to the victim (which is
    a different enough experience to be worth distinguishing from sex.)
    
    > The desire, or need, for physical as well as psychological domination 
    > is fundamentally no different [from sado-masochistic sex.]
    
    I disagree.  Perhaps some folks who practice S & M would be willing
    to come forward to explain the difference between dominating someone
    because it turns BOTH people on, versus dominating someone who is
    genuinely being violated and traumatized beyond words.  
    
    My understanding is that the difference is quite substantial.

    re .45
    
    >Well, just think - if feminists bashed men as a group, 
    
    Your kidding---right???
    
    fred();

    If an interaction between a man and a victim results in an erection and
    subsequent ejaculation by the man, it seems to me that by definition
    that interaction is at least partly a sexual interaction (e.g. there
    are sexual elements for the man, regardless of whether the victim
    considers it in ANY way sexual)
    Is it primarily sexual or primarily about power?
    I don't know.
    
    				herb

    
    Re: rape as sex
    
    The crime itself is not about sex.  Sex in and of itself is not
    necessarily a crime.  The crime comes in TAKING something you want
    especilly if the other party is not all that thrilled about GIVING.
    
    fred();

    re .-1 (the crime is in TAKING something other party does want to give)
    
    did you intend to be addressing anything I said, Fred?

    All this careless use of the word "bashing" makes me cringe.
    
    That's because, in my opinion, bashing is when you're physically
    attacked, not when someone says something you don't like about you,
    
    I wouldn't doubt that some people, when they hear about gay bashing,
    assume it's just someone saying "I don't like you" rather then the
    reality of what it means for them.

    Saying rape is not about sex is tantamount to saying theft is not
    about money.

    re .50
    
    Not necessarily.  Just the Rape as Sex statements in general.
    Just that Rape may involve sex, but the sex really isn't the crime.
    If she *wanted* him to have sex with her, then it would not be a crime.
    However, *his* intentions in both cases may well have been the same.
    The crime is in the taking (against someone else's will), not in the sex.
    
    fred();
    

    In .30,.31,.33 I wondered whether there exists a small subset of people
    defined by ...

    Women who control men through sex (or are perceived to by...
    Men who seize control through power and then use that power to initiate
    sexual congress.

    I think that subset exists. Furthermore, I think that it is in THAT
    subset that one finds many rapists/date rapists and possibly many of their
    victims as well. That is so say, many rapists may be raping/date raping
    specifically those women who they perceive to be using sex as an instrument
    of control/manipulation. In the case of the 'random'/anonymous rapist,
    I wonder whether many of _these_ rapists feel that WOMAN by definition
    (the rapist's distorted definition that is) have control over him by
    virtue of their 'sexness' (sexuality is too wholesome a term to be used) 

    			herb

    women are raped from the cradle to the grave.
    if it was about sex, why would it happen to babies and old ladies?
    
    boys and men are raped by boys and men also, and not necessarily
    homosexual ones.  Is this about sex also?
    
    I'd suggest anyone interested in the sex/power dichotomy read Susan
    Brownmuller's book "against our will: men, women, and rape"
    
    -Jody
    

    <boys and men are raped by boys and men also, and not necessarily
    <homosexual ones.  Is this about sex also?
    
    you betcha

    furthermore, in _this_ case, sometimes the VICTIM enjoys the sex as
    well.
    
    I will never forget the (apochryphal?) short story about the man who
    was somehow overpowered by another man/men, tied up, and brought to
    orgasm.
    
    The man was so ashamed of himself afterward (for 'enjoying' the
    experience, said enjoyment manifested by his orgasm) that he committed
    suicide.
    
    
    Could a woman write such a story with a woman as victim?
    I think so.
    			herb

    .55
    
    Good points.
    
    What's been going through my mind is that assault with a baseball bat
    has nothing to do with the game of baseball.  I think that perceptions
    are skewed by the "special status" given to body parts.
    
    Ron

    
    re:.55, the grave
    Jeffrey Dahmer raped men who were dead.
    That was about control, not sex?
    
    re:.55, the cradle
    I have but one word - pedophilia.

    Anybody who says rape is only about power is wrong.
    Anybody who says rape is only about sex   is also wrong.
    It is about both and it ranges from being completely about sex to
    completely about power to all the stops along the way.
    As Mark Levesque said (more elequently) in another conference
    the world is not a binary world and binary models of that world do
    injustice to reality.
    
    
    				herb

If rape is indeed a "hormone driven sex thing" then there is indeed no
hope for men and women to live together.  Because in that case, boys
would indeed be boys and men *would* be doing "what comes natural".
Men would naturally prey on women as a part of their natural being
much as lions naturally eat other animals.  If you deprived men of
a form of sexual outlet for a given period of time then they would
driven to more and more desperate acts to obtain sex in the same manner
that people deprived of food will be driven to more and more desperate
acts to obtain available food.  However, since men and women have been
able to live together for several millennia, and the vast majority of
men *can* control their sexual urges over periods of time, and the 
fact that men have over the millennia been protectors of rather than
predators on women and children, I find the rape as sex argument hard
to buy.

Viewing rape as a political thing is also very dangerous.  Not only
does it open the door to the political subjugation and repression of
men, but it also opens the door to the *justification* of rape as a
form of political expression ( much as as murder, arson, kidnaping, 
bombing, random firing of rockets and artillery are justified by
certain "freedom fighters" ).  As I've said before, it's amazing what
becomes correct behavior when you're morally justified.  Since I have 
never seen anyone get raped "in the name of God and Freedom" I also find 
it hard to buy the argument of sex as a political act.

What rape *is* is a *criminal* act.  If you take away the emotional
connotations added by the sexual aspects of the act, bashing someone
over the head and stealing their purse/wallet and bashing someone
over the head and stealing their sex is not that much different.  Both
are the act of taking something from someone against their will through
some sort of violence, threat of violence, or coercion.  There are
no laws against rape per se.  Rape in the law books goes by varying
degrees ( first, second, third, etc) of "sexual assault", ie a physical
assault or violation in which certain body parts are violated in certain
ways.  So whether you rape someone into submission, bludgeon them with
a pool queue, or shoot them, it is not the tool that is used that is
bad, but the act and end result of using that tool.

fred();
    

    re .-2
    
    That leads me to conclude that you do not understand the difference
    between
    
    "Rape is indeed a hormone driven sex thing" on the one hand and 
    
    "Rape has hormonal driven elements" or
    
    "Some rapists are hormonally driven to some extent" or
    
    "It is possible for the rapist to get sexual pleasure out of rape" or
    
    "It is possible for the victim to get sexual pleasure out of rape"
    
    I would be surprised if you consider that conclusion correct.
    Comment?

    re .-2
    
    Anybody who recognizes that rape often has elements of both power and
    sex (as well as others) is right.
    
    Anybody who says rape is only about power is wrong.
    Anybody who says rape is only about sex   is wrong.

    re .64
    
    Being "hormonally driven" and obtaining sex is not in and of itself
    a crime or even in and of itself bad for that matter.  In fact it 
    is "love" that "makes the world go round".  Ever wonder what would
    happen if men *did* suddenly loose their sex drive? (Scarry isn't it
    ;^) )
    
    It's *how* you go about obtaing what you want (sex, money, food,
    etc) that becomes a crime.
    
    fred();

    re .-1
    if what you have been trying to say since 761.35 is that rape is a
    crime then i agree with you rape is a crime (and should be)
    
    did you have some additional point?

    re .67
    
    What I have been trying to say is that rape is much more related to
    theft ( criminal, the act of "taking" ) than it is to "making love".
    It is not the desire for sex, or power, that causes rape.  It is,
    rather, the *attitude* of *taking* what you want without consideration
    for the other person's wishes or well being.
    
    fred();
    

    re .-1
    <rape is much more related to theft ( criminal, the act of "taking" )
    <than it is to "making love". 
    I agree that that is typically the case.
    
    
    <it is not the desire for sex, or power that causes rape>
    I disagree with that 
    I think they are likely to be contributing factors in many cases. I
    think they may be the primary or factor in some cases
    
    
    				herb

    If rape were primarily about control, why wouldn't most rapists
    kidnap their victims, rather than have sex and then let them go?
    
    Seems to me that someone who is driven by control and domination
    and violence would want to prolong their ability to carry out
    such deeds.

RE:  .70

By the nature of the crime, rape is a lot easier to get away with than kidnap-
ping.  Even so, there have been incidents of women being held captive and repeat-
edly raped.

So what's your point?

                                                               -- Mike

.71>By the nature of the crime, rape is a lot easier to get away with than
.71>kidnapping.  Even so, there have been incidents of women being held
.71>captive and repeatedly raped.
    
    A thief who is interested in money will not steal $1 at a time, he
    will stick up a grocery store and take $100 at once, even though
    taking $1 is easier and less risky.
    
    A rapist who is interested in control will not rape one woman per
    year, he will kidnap a woman for a month.
    
    You second sentence IS about control.  The typical rape is not.

re .46

>    It's only your understanding of their message that is warped, Simpson.
>    Men aren't being condemned as a group.

This is unmitigated crap, and you know it.  Brownmiller's argument hinges on 
and is best exemplified by her Myrmidon analogy.  Do you know what the 
Myrmidons were?  Do you understand their significance?  Brownmiller not only 
attacks and condemns all men, but her analysis of rape and rapists is shallow 
and ignores many salient facts which don't fit her convenient package.  I quote 
from 'Against Our Will':

"A world without rapists would be a world in which women moved freely without 
fear of men.  That _some_ men rape provides a sufficient threat to keep all 
women in a constant state of intimidation, forever conscious of the knowledge 
that the biological tool must be held in awe for it may turn to a weapon with 
sudden swiftness born of harmful intent.  Myrmidons to the cause of male 
dominance, police-blotter rapists have performed their duty well, so well in 
fact that the true meaning of their act has largely gone unnoticed.  Rather 
than society's aberrants or "spoilers of purity", men who commit rape have 
served in effect as front-line masculine shock troops, guerillas in the longest 
sustained battle the world has known."

The flaws are many.  Ignoring the obvious stupidity of suggesting that a world 
without rape would be for women a world without fear, whether necessarily of 
men or otherwise, Brownmiller clearly and unambiguously draws the lines: men 
and women are at war, all men are the enemy, and rapists are men's SS.  The 
Myrmidons were the ant-men of ancient Greek myth, not wholly human but 
ferocious and without mercy or other human feeling. Thus Brownmiller removes 
the individual circumstance from rape, for rapists now are but mindless 
sex-warriors terrorising and demoralising the enemy (women) in front of the 
oncoming male hordes intent on psychic as well as physical domination.

The picture thus painted, our male protestations of our own outrage against 
rape can at best be superficial and at worst lies, because according to 
Brownmiller rapists are not longer "society's aberrants".  If they are not, and 
rape is not an aberration, then it must be the norm (if not in fact then in our 
fantasies).  Presumably, the "true meaning" of rape goes unnoticed because we 
men are too busy indulging in mental masturbation predicated upon these 
fantasies of domination.

Her simplistic view is also shown by her 'police-blotter' rapist.  By this she 
refers to a supposed rapine archetype, and thus rapists fit a mold.  Elsewhere 
in her book she describes this, and ignores the vast evidence of different 
modus operandi and motivation of rapists from around the world.  She ignores 
issues of class and rape, she ignores psychology and evidence.

Can you doubt that all men are the enemy?  If so, then I quote again:

"Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear 
must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along 
with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe.  From prehistoric times to 
the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function.  It is nothing 
more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which _all_ men keep 
_all_ women in a state of fear."

Rape is now not merely a fantasy lurking deep in the psychic masculine depths - 
it is a "conscious process of intimidation".  To be conscious is to be aware - 
we are thus, all of us men, aware of what we are doing and yet we persist.

This is the world of the Brownmillers.  

>    initiating the violence assault, but it's rape to the victim (which is
>    a different enough experience to be worth distinguishing from sex.)

That is why we have laws against sexual assualt.  Of course it is rape to the 
victim - it would be foolish to suggest otherwise.  But it is nevertheless a 
sexual crime, and rape is distinguished from other forms of assault by the 
sexual element.

re .55

>    I'd suggest anyone interested in the sex/power dichotomy read Susan
>    Brownmuller's book "against our will: men, women, and rape"

That particular polemic is precisely the sort of ideological cess to which I 
object so vehemently (see above).  It is a classic in the 'men are bad because 
they are men' set.  It is wrong, in principle and in fact, and has been 
attacked not only by men who object to its distortions and lies, but even by 
more moderate feminists who fear being tainted by association with its 
extremist folly.

From the point of view of women who have been victimised by rape, and further
victimised by the incompetent handling of their complaints by authorities, as
well as to the legions of women who may not have suffered that fate but are
quite well aware of it; the Myrmidon analogy seems apt.  Is it so unreasonable,
David, for Brownmiller to postulate the effect of centuries of unpunished rape
upon the female populace?  Tell me, if you can, of any other such studies of
the sociological/historical fact of rape throughout the history of civilization.
Brownmiller was breaking new ground, and her synthesis, while flawed, is still
a remarkable accomplishment; or don't you find the sociological implications of
rape worth serious study?  Go on, cite for us the predecessor to whom she should
have referred to avoid such egregious errors.  Or acknowledge that the first
scholar to chart a particular realm often finds the biggest rocks.

DougO

re .74

>quite well aware of it; the Myrmidon analogy seems apt.  Is it so 

The Myrmidon analogy is never apt.  In so doing, rapists are turned from errant
human beings into inhuman monsters whose sole purpose is as mere agents.  In 
Brownmiller's world not only the rapist but the men for whom he purportedly 
acts are guilty, and by implication similarly inhuman.

>a remarkable accomplishment; or don't you find the sociological implications 
>of rape worth serious study?  Go on, cite for us the predecessor to whom she 

This is unfair.  That I slam such a fundamentally flawed work does not imply 
that I find the area unworthy of study.  However, what you refer to as a 
sociohistorical work fails as such.  The Myrmidon argument turns what should be
sociology into dogmatic sexism.  'All men are guilty because they are men'.

>rape worth serious study?  Go on, cite for us the predecessor to whom she 
>should have referred to avoid such egregious errors.  Or acknowledge that the 

Brownmiller published 'Against Our Will' in 1975.  She could have perused Paul 
Gephard et al's monolithic 'Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types', (Heinemann, 
London, 1965) which blows many of the popular myths about sex offenders, 
including those perpetuated by Brownmiller, right out of the water.

Her stereotype is this: Rapists (she calls them the police-blotter rapist) are 
young, poor, psychologically normal but part of the subculture of violence, 
usually coloured or a member of an ethnic minority.  Note, as Faust says, "he 
is _bad_, not _mad_."  He is also based on information about rapists judicially
processed in America.

Her stereotype fails to differentiate between solitary rapists (who tend to be 
older and often married) and pack rapists (who tend to be younger and single). 
She fails to distinguish between differences in venue, timing, modus operandi 
and degree of violence used.  These differences are not hair splitting.  If 
"rapists are not one of a kind and rape is not a single crime but a group of 
related crimes, then different programmes may be required to eliminate rape as 
a threat to women" (Faust, 1981).

So, Brownmiller's stereotypical Schutz Staffel of the Sex War(s) is at once an 
inhuman storm trooper forcing the way for complete male domination, and also a 
psychologically normal (coloured) male.  He is based upon an inadequate study 
of rape as the courts of America know it, but he represents all men.

>first scholar to chart a particular realm often finds the biggest rocks.

She is not the first, and certainly far from the best.  We may hope, however, 
that she may be the last of her type.  Women generally, and feminism 
specifically, fail to benefit from her dubious scare tactics and spurious
ideology.

    re .62
<What rape *is* is a *criminal* act.  If you take away the emotional
<connotations added by the sexual aspects of the act, bashing someone
<over the head and stealing their purse/wallet and bashing someone
<over the head and stealing their sex is not that much different.  Both
<are the act of taking something from someone against their will through
<some sort of violence, threat of violence, or coercion.
    
    That seems sensible from some perspectives
        
    In writing about power and sex and control, I have been trying to
    think in the perspective of what might have motivated the commission of the
    crime.

    In that context it seems to me that there are some some useful
    psychological differences to understand between that person who hits a
    woman of the head and rapes her and that person who hits a woman over
    the head and steals her purse.
    And I think that a useful component of that difference is associated
    with sex(uality).
    That is to say, that mugging for theft and mugging for rape, have important
    similarities namely the kind/intensity of force that was used (e.g. a pool
    cue); but they also may have some important differences. One facet of
    those differences concerns itself with sex(uality), it seems to me.
    
    				herb

    
    >cue); but they also may have some important differences. One facet of
    >those differences concerns itself with sex(uality), it seems to me.
    
    The only difference is the *thing* that they want to obtain and the
    length that they are willing to go to obtain it.  Sex is no more
    a part of the one crime than the money is part of the other.
    Money itself is not bad.  It's just part of our society.  Likewise
    a desire for sex is not bad.  Unless a person a eunuch or have some 
    serious psychological hangups, the sex drive is just a part of what 
    we *all* are.  It's what makes the world go 'round and keeps the planet 
    populated.  In fact you will have a lot better chance in getting rid of 
    money than in getting of the sex drive of *either* male or female.
    However, like any other tool in our society, sex or money, can be used
    as a *tool* to accomplish bad purposes.
    
    fred();
    

    re .-1
    <sex is no more a part of the one crime than the money is part of the
    <other
    
    We have reached an impasse. 
    
    
    				herb

 
herb,

You are dealing with the wrong problem here, and you are probably not
alone.  This may be why we (society) have so much trouble dealing
with rape and teaching our children how to "not rape/get_raped".

The *real* problem is not sex.  If it is, then we're sunk.  Because in
spite of the best efforts of the best clergy in the world to eliminate
sex or to use our guilt over our sex drive to control us, the problem
of rape is as bad or worse than it ever was.  The real problem, again
in spite of the best efforts of a *lot* of people/saints, is *still*
honesty, integrity, concern for one's fellow man/woman, etc.

Can you say "Me Generation".

fred();
    

    <dealing with the wrong problem>

    It is of course correct to say that if everybody were good guys
    (honesty integrity, etc) then there would be no need to understand the
    motivation for any crime, cuz there wouldn't be any.

    I see no conflict between teaching people to be good guys and
    recognizing that the motiviation for rape is not necessarily the same
    as the motivation for stealing money. 
    If what you have been trying to do is indicate that understanding
    differences between the two crimes doesn't help prevent the crimes,
    perhaps you are correct. I don't think that is where this discussion
    turned starting at -say- .17 (but I admire your tenacity in sticking to
    that point).

> he Myrmidon analogy is never apt.  In so doing, rapists are turned from 
> errant human beings into inhuman monsters whose sole purpose is as mere 
> agents.

And I repeat, to the women victimised first by the rapist, and then by the
system, and all other women aware of that, the rapist IS an agent, merely the
first to victimise her as a woman.  Perhaps it is quite painful to you to see
that for some women the rapist is aided and abbetted by our society's inability
to stop the rapes, prosecute the rapists, generate a healthy cultural matrix to
prevent the mentalities that become rapists.  It is, yes, a monstrous thesis;
appropriate to describe one perspective on a monstrous problem.  I can recognize
its aptness; you seem to be unable and/or unwilling to do so.  That's your 
problem, not Brownmiller's.

>  In Brownmiller's world not only the rapist but the men for whom he 
> purportedly acts are guilty, and by implication similarly inhuman.

Brownmiller maintain that a human society that in large fails to respect its 
citizens enough to prevent rapes is in fact guilty and de facto inhuman.  You
are entitled to disagree with the thesis; merely recognizing it is insufficient
to discredit it.

DougO

    Our judical system, Supreme Court, Bill of Rights, and Constitution
    were set up *primarily* to prevent US from getting RAPED by our
    GOVERNMENT.  (Considering the trillion dollar deficits, it doesn't
    look like it is doing a very good job, but that's another argument).
    It was set up to prevent YOU from being dragged out of your bed,
    stood up in front of a court on false charges and sent off to a 
    slave labor camp until you were worked/starved to death.  Now we
    have a group that was origionally created to seak equality demanding
    *privilege* to do just that.
    
    fred();
    

>    It was set up to prevent YOU from being dragged out of your bed,
>    stood up in front of a court on false charges and sent off to a 
>    slave labor camp until you were worked/starved to death.  Now we
>    have a group that was origionally created to seak equality demanding
>    *privilege* to do just that.

Surely you can't expect a serious response to that?!?!

(stifling giggles)

DougO

    Um - Fred...  when someone says they want "more" credibility for
    women they don't mean "more credibility than men" they mean "more
    credibility than women currently have" (which is less than men - in
    some cases, especially rape cases).
    
    It seems pretty clear to me that "equal credibility" is the goal.
    
    /Greg

 Can't we just somehow get the system to a point to where a woman who has been
raped, can see the person arrested, brought to trial, convicted and punished
without having to deal with the prejudices that exist (ie, why were you there,
what were you wearing, doing, etc)?  



Jim back to read only

    <can't we just somehow get the system to a point ...>
    
    No, not as long as we have the adversarial system of justice.

    Jim,
    
    	I cannot see why not. But can we also find a way to make it fair as
    so that we can face our accusers on equal footing? And not have our
    faces splashed all over the media unless its both faces or no faces?
    
    	While were working on our wish list,,,, lets figure out a way to
    keep men from being falsely arrested, falsely accused for things that
    they were not even in the same county for? Lets also drop false 
    accusations of child abuse, spouce beatings, and such UNLESS THEY ARE
    TRUE! And that if such things are not proven that WE have an equal 
    chance to sue our accusers.
    
    

Re: .87

George,

I don't think anyone would object to elimination of false arrests, period.  But
it almost seems as if you would rather keep it difficult for legitimate
charges to be persued because you're worried about the risk of false charges.

People get falsely accused of all manner of crimes, for various reasons.  For
the most part, the truth comes out sooner than later, though there are of
course celebrated cases where this did not happen.  But I think it would be
wrong to use these few cases as a reason to make it more difficult to press
charges.

				Steve

    re .83 
    
    Actually yes I do.  If I am paranoid, then I am in some real good
    company.  My reply may seem laughable only because some good 
    people have paid some very high prices to make sure it CAN'T 
    happen here.  I'd like to keep it that way. 
    
    fred();

    Then why not is Clarance Tomas pressing charges of Anita Hill? Or Willy
    Smith agianst his accuser? Why didn't the man who spent time in the big
    house press charges agianst his false accuser? 

    George, are you trying to turn this topic into "Let's fix it so that 
    men can rape as many people as they want without worrying about being
    charged for it"?
    
    If rape victims had to worry about being charged or sued if the
    prosecution failed to make a convincing case, then we'd have
    a "rape free-for-all" in this country.
    
    Do you accept that rape is a problem?  How do we (in our society)
    convince ACTUAL RAPISTS to stop doing this?

    re .90, maybe Clarence and Willy think it's best to leave well enough
    alone.  (why press your luck, etc?)  Or, maybe they're not filled with
    hate and vengeance, which would be a refreshing change, but is probably
    not the case.  It's probably the leave well enough alone reason.
    
    Lorna
    

re .89, Fred, I don't know quite how to treat that seriously, but I'll try.

In .81, I said:

> Brownmiller maintain that a human society that in large fails to respect its 
> citizens enough to prevent rapes is in fact guilty and de facto inhuman.

Your response in .82 was:

>    Our judical system, Supreme Court, Bill of Rights, and Constitution
>    were set up *primarily* to prevent US from getting RAPED by our
>    GOVERNMENT.  (Considering the trillion dollar deficits, it doesn't
>    look like it is doing a very good job, but that's another argument).
>    It was set up to prevent YOU from being dragged out of your bed,
>    stood up in front of a court on false charges and sent off to a 
>    slave labor camp until you were worked/starved to death.  Now we
>    have a group that was origionally created to seak equality demanding
>    *privilege* to do just that.

Now, to me, Brownmiller's is a diagnosis.  An indictment, if you will, of
the system that leads some women to conclude that in fact the society accepts
the current level of rape, because it hasn't managed to stop it.  This is in
no way a proposal that any individual man be presumed guilty, or whatever else
you appear to be worried about in .82.  It is a description of the error; a
damning indictment of the society and the system.  What you are afraid of is
a strawman you constructed in your own mind; it bears no resemblance to what
Brownmiller said.  Beyond that, I can't give you a serious answer.

DougO

    re:.90
    
    The penalty for filing a false criminal charge should be similar
    to the penalty for the crime being charged.
    
    re:.91
    
    False charges would have to be proven, not assumed. But it would
    give people a chance to reevaluate if they really want to lie or
    not.
    
    And if the accuser is not lying, what has s/he got to worry about?  The
    same thing the accused has to worry about, if s/he's not lying.
    
    Sounds fair to me.

.73> "Man's discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear 
.73> must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along 
.73> with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe.  From prehistoric times to 
.73> the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function.  It is nothing 
.73> more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which _all_ men keep 
.73> _all_ women in a state of fear."

How is anyone supposed to read this passage as anything less than an indictment
of all men?  She makes it sound as though there were an organized conspiracy a-
mong all men to ignore the crime of rape in order to keep women in their place--
worse yet, she makes it sound as though that conspiracy survives into modern
society.  Lord save us from such lunatic paranoia.


                                                         -- Mike

    Miz Brownmiller and Miz Dworkin share many similarities.

re .81 (DougO)

>system, and all other women aware of that, the rapist IS an agent, merely the

Wrong.  The rapist is an individual, a human being who commits a crime.  He is 
an agent for no-one but himself.

>that for some women the rapist is aided and abbetted by our society's 
>inability to stop the rapes, prosecute the rapists, generate a healthy 
>cultural matrix to prevent the mentalities that become rapists.

If this were so then women, as part of our society, must bear some of the 
responsibility.  They sit on juries, they vote, they have voices.  How then can 
it be a purely male responsibility, as Brownmiller says?

>prevent the mentalities that become rapists.  It is, yes, a monstrous thesis;
>appropriate to describe one perspective on a monstrous problem.  I can 
>recogniz its aptness; you seem to be unable and/or unwilling to do so.

Very desperate, DougO.  Even if I were to grant that rape is monstrous in a way 
distinct from other crimes of attack upon the person, then to say that this 
justifies a thesis that indiscriminately attacks all men for simply being, that 
denies individual responsibility by positing the rapist as an inhuman rape 
machine, that ignores evidence and rights and facts - that is truly monstrous.

>its aptness; you seem to be unable and/or unwilling to do so.  That's your 
>problem, not Brownmiller's.

Oh, no.  I posit that rapists are humans, who are thus accountable for their 
actions as determined beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence.  I hold that 
they are responsible for their deeds, as are all people.  This is apt.  

Brownmiller's polemics not only fail to adequately addres the problem, they 
actively hinder attempts by reasonable people to solve it.

>Brownmiller maintain that a human society that in large fails to respect its 
>citizens enough to prevent rapes is in fact guilty and de facto inhuman.  You

Lack of respect is not enough to deny human status.  In fact, I'd go so far as 
to say that it is a very human trait, and evidence against her thesis.

When you have to resort to incomplete quotes to answer my notes, David, the
weakness of your position becomes evident.  Let's go back over that last bit,
shall we?

My sentence:

>> And I repeat, to the women victimised first by the rapist, and then by the
>> system, and all other women aware of that, the rapist IS an agent, merely the
>> first to victimise her as a woman.

Your rejoinder to a partial quote of this sentence:

>>system, and all other women aware of that, the rapist IS an agent, merely the
>
> Wrong.  The rapist is an individual, a human being who commits a crime.  He is 
> an agent for no-one but himself.

You left out the perspective portion- TO THE WOMAN INVOLVED, and to other women
aware of her plight, the rapist is an agent of the system.  Or that system would
punish him.  Only 3% of rapes result in a perpetrator serving time, David; the
system doesn't punish rapists, in large.  You think women don't know that?  You
think that the hypothesis that some women therefore see the system as hand-in-
hand with the rapist cannot be held?  I *know* that from your perspective the
rapist is an individual.  From many women's perspective, even without assuming
any prior overt conspiracy, the fact that 97% of rapes go unpunished is defacto
proof that the rapist is an agent of the system; that THE SYSTEM is NOT set up
to handle punishing of rapists, and that this constitutes tacit acceptance.  

You bet its an ugly hypothesis; too bad for you it is consistent with the data.

Now, I could do that for each of your responses to snippets, but I think the
illustration is sufficient to show you haven't understood the thesis to the 
point where you can argue cogently against it.  You don't like it, we know
that.  But you haven't yet demonstrated sufficient understanding of premises,
yet, for me to bore evrybody while explaining it to you.  Go back to .81 and
try to answer it relevantly this time.

DougO

    and lets not forget, it is less than 2% of rape convictions that are
    false.  That is 2% of the 3% that are even convicted.  I don't know if
    this stat has changed, but less than 25% of all rapes are reported, out
    of that less than 25% even come to trial.

    So let's see 25% of rapes are reported, of those 25% go to trial,
    of those 3% are convicted, of those 2% were false accusations?
    
    If that's what you said, of every 26,667 rapes, one results in a
    falsely accused conviction?
    
    How many have an incorrectly identified and convicted defendant?
    Maybe one more?
    
    ed

    re:.99
    
    Would you expect the percentage of false claims of rape at the
    police report level, to be more or less than that at the conviction
    level?
    
    I would expect them to be higher.
    
    If there are X false claims, almost all of them will never make
    it to court, versus the real claims.
    
    The closer you get to a REAL CASE, the quicker the liars drop out.

  WRT the question in .0

  .2 and .3 say it well.

  I'd like to emphasize a point that was made in .2, and that is the attitude
  WRT 'men as studs' (or something like that). As long as our society advocates
  sexual behavior, on the part of men, while condeming sexual behavior, on the
  part of womyn, then, IMHO, we, as a society are putting men and womyn alike
  in a double bind.

  For example, she wants to say "Yes", but he says, "I'll respect you in the
  morning", so she says "No". Such comments as, "I'll respect you in the
  morning", say that it is *not* okay for a womyn to say "Yes". I *really*
  believe that these kinds of situations are the ones I hear men speaking of
  when they (generically) say, "No" really means "Yes".

  I also beleive that it is absolutely necessary for us to teach our young men
  that, no matter what, "No" means "NO". It is not up to our young men to be
  trying to divine whether there is another meaning with that "No". In this
  case, no matter *what* other signals are being sent, teach them to take "No"
  at face value.

  And finally, IMHO, I believe we need to teach our young men, AND womyn, that
  rape *IS* an act of violence. I believe that, in the case of rape (date or
  otherwise), sex is used as a tool to perpetrate violence upon its victim. I
  also believe that as long as we (the royal we, as a society) view rape as an
  act of sex, then we (the royal we) will continue to justify certain situa-
  tions, such as, "well, *she* had sex with him before" as acts of passion, and
  not rape.

    re .98
    
>punish him.  Only 3% of rapes result in a perpetrator serving time, David; the
    
    I don't believe for one second that this figure is fact as you
    represent it.  It is an estimate generated by groups with vested
    interests.  I certainly agree that some number of crimes, including
    some rapes, go unreported, but the fact that such statistics are for
    obvious reasons nebulous makes any such claim that much more difficult
    to sustain.  I do not believe, for lack of evidence, that the 'real'
    number of rapes is so much higher, particularly just because feminist
    groups say so (remember, logic and evidence are 'male' things and for
    them thus to be avoided).  That sort of nonsense falls dangerously
    close to the 'all men are rapists' nonsense.
    
>proof that the rapist is an agent of the system; that THE SYSTEM is NOT set up
>to handle punishing of rapists, and that this constitutes tacit acceptance.  
    
    That the 'system' fails in some way to either protect women and/or
    punish rapists is not in and of itself sufficient argument to show that
    rapists are agents for said system.  Your hypothesis is not only ugly,
    as you conceded, but untenable as well.
    
>weakness of your position becomes evident.  Let's go back over that last bit,
    
    I've been around too long, and know the strength of my position too
    well, to be bothered by this.  The rapist as agent theory is
    unsustainable unless you are prepared to abandon logic and evidence.
    
    PS: Don't expect timely responses.  I'm travelling Stateside for the
    next few weeks.

    RE: .103
    
    Well stated.  If one swallows Brownmiller's argument, we must
    conclude that every crime that the system fails to effectively control
    is, in fact, supported and encouraged by the system, for whatever
    nefarious reasons.  This would notably include the distribution of
    drugs in this country.
    
                                                   -- Mike
    

David, you disappoint me, really.  Now you are arguing that *you* don't
believe that the punishment of rapists is really as ineffective as the
numbers I've reported...you don't "believe for one second", for those 
numbers are the estimate of "groups with vested interests".  At least
you aren't misquoting me any longer.  I suppose you can accept now, that
some people, who *do* accept the numbers, can see rapists as agents of 
the system?  As a thesis to be argued against, not merely caricatured?

>    That the 'system' fails in some way to either protect women and/or
>    punish rapists is not in and of itself sufficient argument to show that
>    rapists are agents for said system.  Your hypothesis is not only ugly,
>    as you conceded, but untenable as well.

Insufficient to *you*, perhaps.  But it isn't the only evidence, not by a
long shot.  And your attribution is mistaken; this is one of many aspects 
of the argument that Brownmiller used to develop her thesis (the one you 
screamed about as so unjust, the "myrmidon analogy", remember?  The one 
we've been discussing all along?)

>    I've been around too long, and know the strength of my position too
>    well, to be bothered by this.  The rapist as agent theory is
>    unsustainable unless you are prepared to abandon logic and evidence.

Right, far be it from you to recognize your entrenched position as merely
reflecting your inability to grasp someone else's argument.  You'll have to
do much more than this if you want to keep slurring Brownmiller's book.  So
far you've displayed an extraordinarily shallow understanding of her analogy.
Goodness me, perhaps I'll have to dust it off again myself, and take all the
trouble to explain it to you.  That is, if you can't manage to see your way
clear of your 'strong position' (*I had to giggle when I saw that*) yourself.

DougO

ps- re .104- are you so sure that the system is *not* implicated in the
distribution of drugs in this country?  Perhaps you should read the newspapers
about the Noriega trial.  Oh, *I* get it; you were using irony!  After all, it
is painfully obvious that the DEA is indeed implicated.  You must be agreeing
with me that Brownmiller's hypothesis supportably indicts the system.  Sorry
for assuming you didn't get it.