Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Martin, I agree with .0 absolutely -- if things are to change, we
    must be aggressive about it.  And it will only work if each of us
    "does our part". 
    
    That is sound theory and morals.  But the practical aspects (trauma
    of prosecution, surety that you will _not_ be able to do thing-1
    about getting that crud from doing it again to someone else, personal
    fear for your physical safety) make individual action nearly
    impossible, at least for many of us (I did _not_ prosecute, if I
    had the same situation again I probably still would not).
    
    The morality is sound, but the personal sacrifice can be astronomical.
    Consider the following:
    
    I have one friend who is afraid to prosecute _not_ because she would be
    traumatized, _not_ because the guy wouldn't go to jail, but rather
    because if he ever got out he would find her again, and she would be
    dead. 
    
    Every time she has fled, he has found her (in another state!).  Once
    the only people who knew where she was were her family.  What goes
    around and around in her head is that he'll find her, she can't escape,
    he'll find her, she's doomed. 
    
    Even with a lot of support (police, society, etc) it seems the only
    way she can escape is to completely cut _all_ ties, including family,
    forever.  Maybe leave the country...
    
    This could very well be a life-long problem.  Longer than waiting
    for him to die or be thrown in jail for something else.  An extremely
    high price for an individual to pay for the well-being of society
    at large.
    
    Everyone who presses charges against her rapist(s) is a bona fide
    saint, in my opinion.  Comparisons to the major modern saints --
    Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Ghandi -- are not inappropriate.
    
    The bad-doers must be prosecuted, I agree.  But for it to make a
    difference, we as a society end up needing a huge number of saints.
    
    Lee

    I agree it takes a saint to prosecute.  The way things work now
    prosecuting is likely to ruin the victim's life.  That's a lot to
    ask of a person.  For example, after thinking about what happened
    to the woman who was raped in the famous pool table incident in
    New Bedford/Fall River (?), the smartest thing she could have done
    would have been to go home and keep her mouth shut.
    
    Lorna
    

	RE: .0

	Martin, I agree completely.  My point is that these women
	should not be looked down on for not prosecuting.  No blame
	can be attached to them for in any way helping to perpetuate
	the problem.  The individual sacrifice must be looked at
	perhaps even above the gain to society as a whole.  But I
	also totally agree that having more women prosecute is a
	way to help stop the rapes.  Perhaps we need to find other
	ways too that put the burden on us all, not just the victims.

	This is one of those areas where only the individual involved
	can make the right decision.  In a way I am selfish to hope
	that they will prosecute so that perhaps my chances of not
	being raped are better.  I have no right to ask this of
	others, only of myself.

	...Karen

    Some don't prosecute because they don't want the rapist to have
    any claims of fatherhood on the resulting child.  This is a legitimate
    wish.  Kids may need fathers too, but nobody needs a dangerous and
    physically abusive parent.

    Re: .4
    
    I seem to recall we discussed this topic a long time ago.  Can anyone
    cite a case where a rapist was given legal status as the father of
    a child born of his rape of a woman?  I have not heard of such a thing.
    
    				Steve

    Well, what if you can't prove in a court of law that it was rape,
    even though you know it was?  What if you're afraid you can't prove
    it?  Which is something that cannot be guaranteed, right, that you
    can prove it?  Whether or not we can come up with any legal precedence,
    I can tell you I've known women who feared it.  I can't blame them
    for not wanting to name a rapist.
    
    Besides which, it lets the mother carry on the gift of a fiction
    "You were created in love".  If there was a rape trial, it's no
    secret what happened.
    
    All I'm doing is presenting a defense for some women who don't want
    to accuse their rapists.  But I also don't condemn those who do
    accuse *and* have the child resulting.

    Re: .6
    
    Point taken.  No matter what the law says, the emotions regarding this
    issue are far too complex for any simplistic answer.
    
    				Steve

    Supposedly, we live in an enlighted age where rape is recognized
    as a crime of violence not passion.  Fear of retaliation is
    unquestionably why many women do not prosecute (or even report)
    the rapist.  The other very real reason is the perception out
    there (even among women) that the victim must have somehow "asked
    for it."  That was a real issue in the Big Dan pool table rape in
    New Bedford around which defense lawyers formulated their case. They
    tried to portray the victim as a "woman of loose morals" which
    presumably was supposed to make the crime "ok".
    
    There's also a misguided perception that if the woman knows the
    rapist somehow it's not really rape, aka "date rape".  The TV
    show "Cagny and Lacey" did a segment on just that topic Tuesday
    night where Cagny was raped by a man on their first date.  Cagny
    said it best: "if it's sex without my consent, it's rape."  So
    in that context, it does not matter if you are husband, boyfriend,
    date acquaintance or stranger, if you force sex on me against my
    will, you have not only raped my body but my mind and emotional
    well being as well.  
                                                   
    So, fear of retaliation is of primary consideration, but public
    and personal humiliation is an important factor, too.
    
    Diane

    
    RE .1    I'am sorry Lee about your friends plight, but I personally
             can't condone her actions. To my way of thinking shes just
             as well off to prosecute this person, since he continues
             to plague her life even though she hasn't. I just can't 
             understand why anyone would continue to live in constant 
             fear like that. The only way she is going to get any peace
             of life and mind is to see to it this dirt bag is put far
             far away.
    
             I realize its a tramadic problem for any woman thats been
             raped to prosecute her attacker. But on the other side of
             the coin, if it doesn't happen, it give that person and others
             like him the signal, that to rape is alright and you can
             and will get away with it. That message only continues
             to place you and other women in danger of it happening
             again.   

    
RE: .10

Steven, I've taken your paragraph, replacing the word "rape" with "pistol-
whipping" and "she" (the victim) with the word "shopkeeper".
    
   > Some men are violent and irrational ... and having committed a
   > pistol-whipping tells the victim exactly what sort of animal the shopkeeper
   > is dealing with.  Now what does the victim DO exactly?  Say the shopkeeper 
   > prosecutes and the shopkeeper "wins" in court.  Say the shopkeeper's 
   > assailant gets "what he deserves" while imprisoned for a few years.  
   > Eventually he gets back out.
    
   > What do YOU think will be his first irrational and violent act?

Now, I'm not at all trying to minimize the terror, agony, anger, and deg-
redation that a woman who has been raped experiences. It has to be an awful 
feeling.

However, I think that all victims of the acts of violent and irrational men
are faced with much the same dilemma.

Do you have any suggestions for better alternatives for all victims of
the acts of violent men?

  Alan  

    O.K., Steven,
    
    We can probably both get bogged down in analogies and metaphors.
    
    The question remains, what do you think is a viable alternative?
    
      Alan

    
    	Hmmm...   I don't know the whole story, but my dad corresponds
    with the people who live on Pitcarin's Island, the descendants of
    the Bounty Mutineers, and their Tahitian wives.
    
    	The story is that several years after they stranded themselves
    there, the women all became disgusted with the men.   This was because
    there were six too few women when they got to the island, and the
    men were fighting over them.   The women killed *all* the adult men
    in their sleep, except for John Adams, who was allowed to live
    to an old age.   The island is now populated with John Adam's
    descendants.   I understand that they have had very few problems
    with violence, since that time.
    
    	Alan.

    RE: .16
    
    An obvious (to me, anyway) question is why didn't they only kill
    off 6 of the men to bring equality to their numbers?
    
    That one remaining man must have been one worn-out sucker.
    
      Alan

    Not to detrack from .16 (ack!), but I'm going to continue instead with
    stuff from before.
                                  
    What some people are saying is that we can't blame rape victims
    from not prosecuting.  Yes, it could help enlighten everyone if
    they did.  But the real problem is rape.  What I find so disturbing
    and humiliating is the attitude (although quite uncommon amongst
    us here) is that men can't help themselves  when Sex "rears its
    ugly head".  I think if we could shift that attitude to something
    more human, we'd reduce the number of rapes.
    
    Yes, I know, it won't help with the dangerously violent.  What does.
    However, if we had a more human attitude about the meaning of rape,
    then perhaps we could better deal with the remaining victims of
    the sickos.
    
    >sigh<  Those of us who haven't been raped should remember that
    there are those of us who have.  You probably know someone who has,
    although she or he may never tell you.

    RE: .18
    
    >       But the real problem is rape. What I find so disturbing
    >  and humiliating is the attitude (although quite uncommon amongst
    >  us here is that men can't help themselves When Sex "rears its
    >  ugly head".
    
    I guess I'm confused by this statement, since most of the time I've
    heard statements that say that rape has not as much to do with sex,
    per se, as it has to do with violence.
    
      Alan

    
    	Agree very strongly with those who have stated that the main
    	issue is the way victims are treated after the crime has been
    	committed.
    
    	Sure, it is great to get the person to prosecute (and it would
    	be ideal if all victims would do this.)
    
    	However, the main thing is that we should refrain from treating
    	victims as if *they* are the criminals.  I think that includes
    	treating them harshly when they are hesistant to prosecute.
    
    							    Suzanne...

    Hmm.  Okay, I'm ambiguous there.  In cases of date rape, it might
    be sex for one of the people, but to the person who said "no" it's
    not sex, it's assault.  Does that make more sense?  I don't mean
    cases where you mistakenly go out with Charles Manson or something,
    I mean someone who's always heard that women only pretend to object.
    It's still not sex for the victim.

    re .20  Suzanne, I see a no-win situation for the victim - she is
    harassed by the cops if she doesn't want to help them put the
    rapist away. She is harassed by the defense attorney if she does.
    
    The best course is self-defense - don't become a victim. And there
    is no guarantee on that. Just lower/better odds.
    
    Dana

    Yeah...and imagine what would happen if she armed herself and
    *really* prevented the rape?! "No proof, lady. We'll see *you* in
    about 99 years!"
    
    But, of course, it's "unequal force" ,right? Argh.
    
    I think I'm feeling cynical today....
    
    Dawn
    

    re -1
    
    A Gun In The House starring Sally Struthers is along the sames lines.
     Pretty good flick.
    
    t

    Re .21: (Lisa)
    
    The men who think that women only pretend to object, and "really
    want it" are kind of an unfortunate thing.  They don't view what
    they are doing is wrong, the woman has been assulted.  Clearly a
    case for education - if all men heard that "no means no, until
    countered by a yes", that would get rid of this situation.
    
    RE -.(several)   (Rapist gets fatherhood rights to the child)
    
    It could happen quite easily, if the rapist happens to be the victim's
    husband or boyfriend, or the situation happens in a situation of
    "you got her pregnant, now MARRY HER OR ELSE!"
    
    Elizabeth

    I think a lot of these answers are based on cases which involve
    rape as a violent crime, but what of the cases when it was a
    passion crime.
    
    Most rape victims *know* their attacker.  They may be an ex-husband
    or family member, or best-friends husband.  It could be someone
    just obessesed with YOU.  Not necessarily with raping a woman. 
    I think these cases are the ones hardest to prosecute.  These people
    are a part of their life.  Others in their life can be drastically
    affected by the outcome of the trial.
    
    How about the women who have to bring charges against an ex-husband
    when there are children involved.  What if the children are old
    enough to know what "rape" is?  How does she bring this to trial?
    
                                             cj
    

    RE: 645.27
    
    Rape is about power not passion...the ability to dominate and force
    the victim to submit to their will...regardless of the relationship 
    of the victim and the rapist....consider when men rape other men...
    same power trip.
    
    Diane
    

    I agree with your definition of why there is rape for power.
    But still stand by the fact there is rape of passion.  A man
    obessesed with *a* woman, to the point where he can not be
    satisfied till he's had her.  Granted, these men most likely
    already have some deep problems to start with.  
    
    But there is a point where they see their obsession with this
    woman as "love" and want to prove it to her, show her how they
    "really feel" about her, and they think it will make her love
    them.  I guess maybe that can be seen as a power trip, but I
    don't really think so.  The motive is different, one being
    malicious the other emotional (if not demented).
    
    

    are you saying that "power" rape is bad, but you reserve judgement
    on "passion" rape? truly confused...
    
    liz

    The title of this note is "The Victim's Response to Rape", so let's
    translate this discussion back to the victim's viewpoint a bit.
    
    I don't know about anyone else, but I can't respect anyone who tries
    to force their views on me, including their views of how I should
    think of them.  If coercion isn't a power trip, I don't know what
    is.  Garnering people's respect by doing them physical violence
    is one of the sick fictions of our culture.

    Believe me, I feel very strongly about any rape.  The only reason
    I got off on that tangent was *because* of the topic - Victim's
    Response.
    
    A lot of people were very firm minded on women persecuting people
    who raped them.  One reason stated the most, was to prevent the
    rapist from raping someone else.  Quite a few people felt it
    was the women's "duty" to go to trial.  I was merely pointing out
    cases, and maybe *weak* but still some reasons why some women would
    not prosecute.
    
    Sorry if it didn't come across that way.
    
                                         cj
    

    re .29 I think in both cases one thing is the same - the rapist
    is trying to obtain, by force, that which is not his by right.
    Whether that is a sense of control, or a sense of being loved,
    is not essential. Would it make a difference to the victim, re.
    her decision to prosecute ?
    
    Dana

    I was raped nearly 16 years ago.  It was a really stupid thing that
    the guy did it.  I was fixed up with him by a girlfriend.  You know
    the setup - "Marion, I just met the *greatest* guy, and he has a
    friend.  Lets double date."  After the date, the guy staged it that he
    dropped me off at home last.  He forced his way into my apartment.
    The rest is history.  Not only that, but on the way out of the house,
    the louse stole a small portable TV.  What a prince!  Actually,
    that TV is what lead me to prosicute.  I wanted to claim it on my
    apartment dwellers insurance, but I was told that I would have to
    report the theft to the cops before I could file the claim.  I did,
    though at first I didn't tell the entire story.  I called the police
    and said something like "My TV was stolen and it's no big deal,
    but I had to report it for my insurance.  The cop said he'd send
    somebody right out to take a report.  I balked, so the cop got curious.
    I agreed to talk to him and but I stated that there was no way I
    would press charges.  He told me that he didn't blame me, but to
    think on one thing.  If he does it to somebody else, it would be
    partly my fault because I refused to do anything to stop him.  I
    told him I would think about it for two days.  After that time I
    called the prosicutor.  I agreed to do what needed to be done to
    catch and prosicute the bum.  There was some cops and robers stuff to
    finding the guy [including a stake out (steak out?)] but in the
    end he was found and I testified at a show cause hearing, in which
    we did very well.  Did the guy "do time"?  Oh, probably not any
    longer than it took him to post bail.  He coped a plea for wreckless
    endangerment.  The state (not Mass) at that time required that a
    rape be witnessed by another person who is willing to testify (#@%&!).
    The thing that meant a lot to me at the time is that I did something
    about it.  Sure, what happened to me was a shame.  Shouldn't happen
    to a dog.  That's exactly why I had to do "my part" no matter how
    ineffective (or effective for that matter) it might be.  I know
    for a fact that I earned the respect of a number of people in the
    process, including - and most importantly - ME!
    
    Marion                        
    
    PS  The guy did tell me that if I did anything to get him in trouble,
        he and his friends would come back and kill me.  It seems that
        he was not only crazy, but a friendless coward since I am still
        alive and kicking.  

    re .34 Marion
    
    Wow!  Thanks -- it's good to hear the story of someone who _did_
    press charges...
    
    Lee

    Marion,
    you sound like such a tough cookie!  good for you.
    
    liz

RE: .4

"Kids may need fathers too, but nobody needs a dangerous and physically abusive
parent."

This attitude (not unjustified) overlooks the possibility that people change.

Jim.

RE: .6

"Besides which, it lets the mother carry on the gift of a fiction "You were
created in love"."

This would seem to me very hard to pull off with conviction, and having the
child really believe this. 

(I really like your notes!)

Jim.

RE: .13

"Do you have any suggestions for better alternatives for all victims of the acts
of violent men?"

Wouldn't it be better to just say, "people"?

Jim. 

RE: .18

"But the real problem is rape."

I think that the fact that the system is set up making life difficult for
victims who prosecute *is* a real problem.  (and not too far off topic)

Jim.

RE: rape like events...

Has anyone ever heard of the experience of having someone tell you forcefully to
'''have sex with''' them?  Not rape, but where the other person angrily tells
you to 'have sex with' them, for a variety of reasons, even though that is the
last thing that you want at that time...

Jim. 

RE: .31

"Garnering people's respect by doing them physical violence is one of the sick
fictions of our culture."

It is not fiction.  In some sick way, it works...

Jim. 

RE: .32

I see your point.  But it is still wrong, and still should be 'corrected',
perhaps not by prosecution.

Jim.

    
    Re: 645.41
    for once I agree with jim baranski.....
              
    
    MOSTLY GIBBERISH 
    
    Well, they say there's a first time for everything!
    
    Mary

What category does this fall into? :

You are out on a date...the boy/man you're with is pushing for 
more physical interaction (sex) than you are willing or ready to 
deal with.  This person means something to you and you're getting 
thrown a guilt trip..."If you *really* loved me, you'd do this.  
If you don't do this, you're just 1) playing with me 2) being a 
tease 3) cruel (pick one)."

The one (?) time (many, many years ago) I gave into this guilt
trip, I came out of it feeling used and abused.  It was *NOT*
making love.  It was not even having sex.  I couldn't even manage 
to understand how the other person could have gotten *any* 
satisfaction out of this act if they were at all as sensitive to 
my feelings as they professed to be.  

Is this rape?  If feeling worthless, invaded, lost, are the 
aftermath of a rape (for the victim), than that's what this was.

Roxanne

    Roxanne, what you are talking about is now referred to as
    "date rape", and lots and lots of women have had the same
    experience!
    A lot of college campuses now have programs dealing with this
    very issue. Both showing young men that using this sort of
    pressure, or having sex with a woman who is drunk, etc is
    a type of rape, and also telling young women that they do not
    have to give in to this kind of pressure.
    Bonnie

    re .48
    
>   Is this rape?  If feeling worthless, invaded, lost, are the 
>   aftermath of a rape (for the victim), than that's what this was.
    
    Roxanne, I think we must be kindred souls.  I agree.
    
    Some of the experts ... well, they agree and they disagree.  In
    _Liscense_to_Rape_ (a study of marital rape), the authors muse on
    what to call that kind of rape, where horrible societal or
    psychological methods (guilt-trips) are used to coerce the woman
    to have sex, but _no_ overt violence or threat of violence was
    involved. 
    
    Their feeling was that to call the guilt-thing rape might dilute
    the word itself, that currently the level of horror associated with
    rape is quite high, and while you and I and countless others _know_
    the guilt-thing and that it _is_ a horror, others do not.  They
    may feel that it is less important.  So the authors chose to call
    the "coerced sex".
    
    Me, I think that their thought about diluting the word "rape" is
    good, but "coerced sex" does _nothing_ to say how AWFUL it is. 
    Date Rape is okay, but there _are_ date rapes where violence is
    used or threatened, and if *some* people are able to write off the
    phrase "date rape" because "she really wanted it" or "he talked
    her into it" [GRRR] maybe the phrase will become meaningless to
    them and the American-speaking world at large.
    
    Lee

RE: .44

"If you have never been raped (yet) how come you have SO MUCH INPUT ???"

It is not good to make such assumptions...

RE: .45

"-< Does he mean it for _all_ his reply's?!? >-" 
 
No...

RE: .46

"What study was it that showed that about 2% of battering men cease battering?
Once a batterer, always a batterer, with nearly no exceptions."

Do you think that it is impossible to improve on this 2%?  There are a large
number of social problems society is just now starting to work on that are
impressed from parent to child generation after generation.  The work seems (to
me) to be quite sucessfull in preventing such behaviors.

"My impression is that you are pretty ticked off by the response to your notes
in this file."

*shrug*... You guessed wrong... 

"While violent women exist, the number of female rapists is nearly nonexistent
when compared with the number of male rapists." .46

"This issue is ABOUT the acts of violent men. It is not about the acts of
violent people. The base note discusses women being raped (by men) and that is
what women here want to talk about." .47 

Still... would it hurt any, regardless of the numbers to say 'people' and
include all the rapists, and maybe have men feel a little less insulted? Here is
a good reason why.  Is there a good reason why not?  Or perhaps you would like
to be able to ignore the fact that there are *any* female rapists, and you would
like to continue to target (in this way) men? 

Would it help all these victims of rapists who are afraid of men if the label
"rapist" had been the one placed on thier assailant instead of the label "men"?
It is so much *easier* to use the label "men", though... you can see who is
"men" and who is not.  Such a pity that it applies to half the human race. 

"I'm sure it breaks their hearts to hear about men being raped by women but I
doubt it is on the top of their list."

If you feel that that is the right attitude, then why should any man care what
happens to any *woman* who is raped? 

Jim.

    <--(.51)
    
    Jim, I'd be grateful for less contentiousness.  On your part
    particularly. 
    
    						=maggie

    Back to the question,, was this rape?
    
   I guess that I agree with the authors, that when that when violence
    or threat of violence is used,  it is definitely rape.
    
    When it is mental coertion, I'm not positive, but I'm not sure that
    I'd call it rape.  It almost happened to me, but I was able to make
    him listen to my "NO" (applying pressure to his windpipe probably
    assisted in this....when he said that hurt, I said he was hurting
    me also, so STOP).  My problem is, as I write this, it seems so
    close to the old idea that even when force is used, the woman _should_
    fight back, and since she didn't, it's not rape. But that would
    imply that since _I_ was able to not submit, others should be able
    to escape also.  And I don't mean that at all.  
    
    Maybe I'm changing my mind as I write this?  It's a good topic,
    and I'm glad you raised it. I look forward to hearing other's replies,
    and hopefully helping me to clarrify my ideas.
    
    Mary
    
    PS, I've lost the name of the person who originally asked the question,
    but I think she was very brave to bring it up.  Somehow it appears
    that society is more 'forgiving' (as if the _victim_ needed
    forgiveness!) of victims of a rape where there is force used, as
    opposed to those who have merely (_merely_ ?!??!!) suffered this
    other type of 'rape'.  I hope that what is discussed here is of
    help to you.
    
    PSS. I think I've changed my own mind. It IS rape.

Re:  .48

>What category does this fall into? :

>You are out on a date...the boy/man you're with is pushing for 
>more physical interaction (sex) than you are willing or ready to 
>deal with....

>The one (?) time (many, many years ago) I gave into this guilt
>trip, I came out of it feeling used and abused....

>Is this rape?  If feeling worthless, invaded, lost, are the 
>aftermath of a rape (for the victim), than that's what this was.

Some years ago Michigan rewrote its law about criminal sexual conduct,
defining four different categories (one of which was only a misdemeanor;
the other three were felonies).  I no longer recall the basis for the
distinction among the categories; however, one thing I do recall quite
well was that many people in support of the law reform stressed that rape
was not a crime of sex; rather, it was a crime of violence.

Judging by that standard, what happened to Roxanne in .48 was not rape,
although it was an ugly experience.  It seems to me that we have come a
long way in persuading many people that passion has little to do with rape.
I, for one, think that it is important to separate the cases where violence
(either real or threatened) was used from those where there was none.  Clear-
ly, the emotional effects of sex as a result of a guilt trip can be nearly as
nasty as those resulting from an act of violence.  However, I think it would
be useful if we used some word other than "rape" to describe the non-
violent actions, if only to avoid confusing the issue again.

					--Q (Dick Wagman)

    Re: a while back, Dick Wagman (Q?)  not rape with no resistance
    
    Please be careful, Dick.  Statements like that are like telling
    a recovering alcoholic that "just drinking beer" is okay and putting
    a can in their hand.  The whole body flashes "*DANGER* *DANGER*
    IMMINENT PAIN, DISASTER AND DESTRUCTION".  I nearly killed myself
    over that sort of reaction -- there are others here who may be
    similarly vulnerable.  And a disclaimer does not alter the pain
    of that thought, not one bit.
    
    Resistance can take many forms: a friend was dragged into an alley
    (isn't Paris a _wonderful_ city?) and it was clear he was going
    to rape her.  She tried to pull away at first, and he ... well he
    neither hit her nor threatened her, but she had been struck by
    lovers/parents before and froze with terror, knowing she couldn't
    cope with another black eye (strange the terrified brain: she certainly
    couldn't cope with being raped either, but that felt less "real"
    than the imminent violence).  When he started to tear at her clothing,
    she was a vegetable, unable to blink even.  Well he moved her hand
    to his body and she fainted dead away.
    
    Strange form of resistance, eh?  But it worked.  He was _certainly_
    going to rape her.  She made _no_ resistance whatsoever.  There
    was NO overt violence or threat of violence.  But it was easily
    identified as attempted rape because she did not know him.  But
    what if she _had_ known him, met him at a party?  Say he had pulled
    her into another room and started pawing her, gave that horribly
    frightening tight-lipped expression when she pulled back, freezing
    her in her boots until something happens to make her faint, causing
    him to "chicken out"?  It would have been an attempted rape, but
    getting anyone (other than herself) to recognize it as such would
    be pretty hard.
    
    I think the kind of rape with no violence or threat of violence
    is still a rape -- the aftermath of the thing is nearly identical
    to that of violent rape.  
    
    Similarities:
        1) the fear that it _might_ happen again, someone else might
           attack your brain and body like that again so you are
           continually on your guard;
        2) the pure revulsion and disgust, with yourself and with "your"
           perpetrator(s) -- any sight or smell of _him_ (or _them_)
           is enought to send you retching to the bathroom;
        3) the purge -- when you finally get to safety (home, alone),
           well, _I_ threw away every single piece of clothing (it smelled
           of _them_), took a bath with NO cold water (lobster time),
           brushed my teeth a zillion times, gargled over and over,
           douched (I had never done that before and never have since),
           lathered by bod with perfume then caked it with baby powder.
           Unable to "cleanse" myself of what happened, I decided to
           completely change -- most of my waist-long hair ended up
           in the trash and what was left was not exactly attractive.
    and 4) guilt, horrible guilt.  Even if you have been taught to _know_
           better than to blame yourself for the wrongful action of
           another, you _still_ feel guilty, indescribably guilty. 
   
    It is pure horror.
    
    Differences in aftermath: 
        1) where violence is not used, the victim is left with the 
           horrible question of "why was I so stupid as to let this 
           happen?" whereas that question, still a horrible one, has 
           less intensity for the victim of the violent coersion; 
        2) no violence means no trip to the hospital; 
    and 3) the social/psychological coersion can be used on men, too 
           -- women are not the only victims of this sort of rape.

    Men, imagine: you don't much like her even though she is incredibly
    beautiful by your standards, and really don't want to f*ck even
    though _she_does_.  But a "red-blooded man" is "supposed" to be 
    willing to f*ck anything female, attractive, and willing.  So either
    you aren't a "red-blooded man" ["is there something wrong with me?"]
    or you do something you don't want.  Oh, but you can cope, the
    stereotypes are wrong anyway, and you decide that you are uninterested
    and still the kind of "red-blooded man" _you_ want to be despite
    the fact that you won't f*ck her.  Great.  She jumps you, clearly
    willing to do anything, starts to remove your clothing.  You pre-empt
    that, re-button your shirt explaining that you don't want to be
    physical with her.  She says okay, if you don't want to we won't,
    and then she proceeds to kiss you more, unbuttoning your clothing
    again.  Now for the "red-blooded man" this is a fantasy come true.
    But you are finding it more and more revolting, your resolve to
    get the heck out of there is getting more and more firm.  Her friends
    come in and start helping her undress you.  You keep saying, no
    stop it, I DON'T WANT THIS, get OFF, go AWAY.  When you finally
    get up to dress, you find your keys are gone and they KEEP taking
    things off you as fast as you put them back on.  All along your
    subconscious is screaming what's _wrong_ with you, fool, this is
    what you always thought you _wanted_?  This goes on for hours.
    
    Is it rape?  Yep, close enough.  Should they go to jail?  Probably not.
    This is verrrrrry near to what happened to me.  It could almost as
    easily happen to a man [some basic facts of life like physical size and
    total temporary impotence make it more likely that you can get out of
    there "intact"].  You feel soiled no matter what comes of it.  And
    my FEAR simply does _not_ go away by force of will.
    
    Lee

    Lee,
    Thank you for writing .56. I appreciate the effort that it took
    to describe your experience and feelings so clearly.

    Liz    
    

    If that ever happened to me I'd likely spend the rest of my life
    homicidal.
    
    Goddess how REVOLTING!

    re: 48
    
    I would call that rape also...
    
    re: .54
    
    When someone forces a woman/man to have sex by threats and violence
    I would call that "RAPE W/ THREATS AND VIOLENCE"  in 48's case I
    would call that "RAPE W/O THREATS AND VIOLENCE"  Mentally and
    emotionally I wouldn't think one is worse than the other...
    
    
    
    T

    Lee, how is it that you bring everything back home to us.

    A pair of technical ratholes have been brought up.
    
    First, rape as a violent rather than sexual crime.  For longer than
    I like to think, men have used the claim that they raped because
    the woman drove them to it, enticed them, led them on, whatever.
    It has been entered as a legitimate defense, and men have been
    acquitted because of it.  With the [closer to] general realization
    that it is not a "crime of passion", but instead a crime of violence,
    this defense because less acceptable, prosecutors are more likely
    to prosecute in cases where they would not before, and judges will
    now add this to their instructions to juries on what constitutes
    a valid defense, and what does not.
    
    There are many felony crimes which do not require an act of violence
    in the sense that we laymen think of an act as being "violence".
    Burglary is "breaking and entering a dwelling in the nighttime with
    the intent to commit a felony therein."  The "breaking" -- the only
    violence necessary -- may be as mild as pushing open a door by
    merely an inch.  One can therefore argue that "force" (if, indeed,
    it is required at all -- see below) need not be applied beyond that,
    um, necessary to, uh, commit the, sigh, act itself.

    Second, the nature of rape.  Some statutes use the term "against
    her will" and others use the term "without her consent".  It is
    acknowledged (Commonwealth v. Burke) that the two terms are intended
    to be interchangeable.  So, if a woman is cajoled into sex when
    her will is against it, that may be considered to be rape.
    
    							Ann B.
    

    Ann, you are saying that this is true in SOME cases right?
    I find it hard to accept this for ALL cases.

    Uh, could *you* please clarify:  What does the word "cases" mean
    to you in this context?
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  I must point out that nowhere did I use or intend to imply
    the concept "readily acceptable to your average jury".

    RE: .61 (and others, relating to "cajoling")
    
    And yet, within the legal framework of laws within the *same*
    state (e.g, Massachusetts), we have these anomalies:
    
    Grantable grounds for divorce for a man against his wife would be  
    her repeated failure (however that gets defined) for her to have
    sex with him. One classic example, cited, is the case where 
    a married woman joined a religious sect that proscribed her
    having any sort of sexual activities, even within her marriage.
    
    Grantable grounds for divorce for a woman against her husband
    in Massachusetts include impotence (presumably, chronic).
    
      Alan

    I don't find these laws to be contradictory.  The purpose of a rape
    law is to allow those who forcibly have sex with another person to
    be punished (and part of our discussion here is to determine the
    definition of "forcibly" in this context).
    
    The stated divorce grounds provide for the mitigation of these
    circumstances:
    
    	1.  As a matter of public policy, it should be possible for
	    married persons both to find sexual satisfaction and to be 
    	    monogamous, therefore to find sexual satisfaction within the 
    	    context of their marriage, and
    
	2.  As a matter of public policy, it is not required that a
	    spouse who is unwilling must engage in sex (therefore, "or
	    unwilling to" in point 3), and

       	3.  For whatever reason, a spouse becomes incapable of
    	    or unwilling to satisfy the other spouse sexually
    
    These circumstances should allow for the dissolution of the marriage
    in order that another mutually satisfying one may be formed.
    
    The only connection I see between the two is whether it is or is
    not legal for a spouse to force sexual contact on an unwilling partner.
    If not legal, this is so-called "marital rape".

My goodness -- what a lot of discussion on this subject!  I'm 
glad I brought it up.

On further reflection, I don't think that this type of cajoled
sex could be categorized with rape in the sense that it is not a
crime of violence.  And in the case I sited, I think the young
man really thought that it was a mutually gratifying experience. 
This is the sad thing. It's the feeling of not being understood
by someone you care about that really hurts you.  If "love" is
there, shouldn't that person KNOW you aren't ready and respect
that? 

I'm some twenty years away from that experience, and yet, when I
think of my daughter who is on the threshold of her womanhood, I
feel keenly the need to be able to understand what went wrong
with that relationship.  How can I help her be more firm in her
resolve to keep faith with her own mind and body?  When I was in
my teens, I was never sure about my expectations about myself,
let alone anyone else's, and it seems to me that only those very
sure of themselves come out of this kind of a situation intact.

Using "love" as a leverage is a very subtle and damaging thing.  
I lost faith in a lot of things through that experience.  It took 
a long time for me to believe that I had other things to offer 
and that anyone would be interested.  Well, it felt like a long 
time anyway.  And I still feel sad for the young girl that died a 
little bit.

Roxanne

    By the way there is a long note on date rape (175 replies) 
    note number 189.
    Bonnie

    Sorry Ann, a misunderstanding on my part.   @L

    Sounds like we are skirting a fine line here.
    
    There is only a subtle difference between "If you loved me you
    would..." and "Please.  I really love you and I want..."  Both are
    trying to talk someone into something that they said they didn't
    want.                                                    
    
    However, as awful as a woman may feel afterward if she succumbed
    to some man's talking her into sex when she didn't want it, I hardly
    see it as something for which he should be sent to prison - after
    all - she did say "yes" without threat of violence.  He did respect
    the concept of "NO means NO until countered with a YES".  He may be a
    jerk, but I don't think he is a rapist.
    
    The main difference I see is the presence or absence of violence
    (or threat of violence).  In the case of the man talking the woman
    into sex, it is obviously sex that he wants.  In the case of rape,
    sex is secondary to power and humiliation.
    
    Elizabeth

RE: .53

"Somehow it appears that society is more 'forgiving' (as if the _victim_ needed
forgiveness!) of victims of a rape where there is force used, as opposed to
those who have merely (_merely_ ?!??!!) suffered this other type of 'rape'."

Maybe because society ***still*** considers the nonsexual physical violance to
be a more important crime then the rape.  (not my belief)  Maybe because the
physical violence is 'easier to call'. 

RE: .55

"However, I think it would be useful if we used some word other than "rape" to
describe the nonviolent actions, if only to avoid confusing the issue again."

Do you mean a word for nonviolent rapes, or a word that describes the nonviolent
actions which take the place of the violence in a violent rape, or what? I do
not think that the first is a good idea, nonviolent reap is still rape. 

RE: .56

Easy, Lee... this is a safe place... there is no danger here...

Thank you for considering what a rape might be like for a man.
Believe it or not it is quite realistic.  Think about it.

RE: .61  Ann

"There are many felony crimes which do not require an act of violence in the
sense that we laymen think of an act as being "violence"."

True, but...  if rape is a crime of violence, doesn't it require an act of
violence? 

"Burglary is "breaking and entering a dwelling in the nighttime with the intent
to commit a felony therein.""

Although violence is not necessary, intent is necessary. 

Ummm...  If you are saying that Burglary does not require force, that may be
true, but the exact same acts given other circumstance can be not burglary.
The same can be said for rape.

This is getting very confusing, and very hard to tell when is rape, and when
is sex...  I can remind myself that 'no'=rape, but it sounds to me like even
without the 'no' it can be rape.

RE: .64

"Grantable grounds for divorce for a man against his wife would be her repeated
failure (however that gets defined) for her to have sex with him."

*Grantable* only possibly these days.  Not that it matters since 'winning' the
divorce based on no sex gains you nothing.  

And I think that there can be a case made for civil divorce for lank of sex.
Civil marriage involves sex as part of the 'contract'.  None fullfillment of
contract breaks the contract.  I assume one could customize their contract if
the parties involved did not want sex to be part of the contract. 

Does this necessarily have anything to do with rape? :-|  Even in contracts one
is not allowed to force fullfillment of a contract.

But I think that they do get confuse with rape.  People may think, 'I have a
right to have sex with you', when that is not the case.  What they have is a
right to legal address of the breaking of the contract by not having sex.' 

That's the problem with rights, sometimes they're more trouble to get then they
are worth.

Jim. 

    re .46 -.56
    
    Is it rape?
    
    I'm hearing many different things. When someone gives you 3 choices:
    1) You're a tease 2) ...
    
    or (for a man)
    
    1) What, are you a fag?
    
    I'm sorry. As an adult, you have to make your own decisions. Calling
    this rape is giving up your own responsibility. Anyone who gives
    in to this type of pressure and then calls it rape is simply shifting
    their own guilt.
    
    On the other hand, if there is an undercurrent of physical violence,
    even if it is unspoken, then it could be construed as rape. It doesn't
    matter what the legal definition is. If you are afraid with good
    cause, then you are being raped. On the other hand, sex is a funny
    thing, people don't always say what they mean. So you should make sure
    you are understood before you give up and freeze. If you say no,
    you can reinforce it by standing up, moving away, whatever.
    
    If some subconcious thing from your past makes you freeze up
    because the guy looks like your uncle who abused you, or whatever,
    that is NOT his fault. If his expression is hostile, is that true,
    or just your view from out of a terrified mind? If this is on a date,
    and you are that messed up inside, I would suggest you avoid any
    possibility of this situation. ie, don't be alone with someone when a
    perfectly gentle sexual approach will throw you into a panic. How do
    you expect anyone to understand that you get completely unravelled
    with (apparently) no provocation?
    
    BOOZE: This has happened to me, in younger and foolish days. While
    I have never been drunk enough to ignore necessities (birth control)
    I was indeed pleasantly high, not caring about anything but enjoying
    the company of the beautiful person I was with; someone I met at
    a party, and really liked.
    I got furious when I was treated with contempt afterwards, by someone
    who had to find a scapegoat for her own sexuality. I have never forced
    anyone to do anything, nor would I have sex with someone who was
    unconscious. But I gather this is not what we're talking about.
    I could just as easily claim to have been raped, except that any
    buddies I had would just grin and say "so you got lucky." The difference
    is how we are socialized to deal with sex. In this aspect, I have
    to say that for once, men are better trained. If you're going to
    let go of all your inhibitions, be a hedonist, and have a good time,
    don't take it out on your partner afterwards.
    
    re .56
    
    Lee -- 
    
    With multiple, drunk men, there is an implied threat of physical
    force, so I can definitely understand why you felt threatened. I
    don't know the situation so I leave it up to your judgement -- and
    you did get out. But this is *not* what was originally said.
    
    dov

    645.* is supposed to be about "The Victim's Response to Rape." If
    you have never been raped or threatened with rape, I don't think you
    should be posting in 645. There have been too many terribly
    insensitive things said here recently.

    Look people, if a person thinks they have been raped, they have been
    raped. It's that simple.

    If you want to talk about whether the perpetrator should be legally
    culpable or even feel guilty about what they did or didn't do, knew
    or didn't know, take it to another note. If you want to dry,
    intellectual arguments about the definition of the word rape, take it
    elsewhere. Please.

    PK

[
   I know I said that I didn't like the meta comments being posted to
    this file, but I felt compelled to post this note. If the moderators
    want to remove this note, I will not object.
]

   			THE LADIES CLUB


A movie that I have recently rented from my video club was on the topic
of women's response to rape.  I would caution any victim to please have
an understanding person watch it with them as the content is very close
to what happens in real life situations.  It is worth the effort of
going through the emotional ups and downs and possible "flashbacks" to
see filmed what some victims would like to happen to the offender.

The T.H.E. VIDEO Store in Hudson, MA has a copy available for rental if
you can't find it anywhere.  

justme....jacqui


For anyone having "flashback" problems or haven't dealt with their rape/
sexual abuse issues, I would recommend calling your local RAPE HOTLINE
and speaking with a counsellor.  They are there for those whose rape/abuse
happened recently or many years ago and hasn't been dealt with effectively.

    Re .70
    
    <<True but...if rape is a crime of violence, doesn't it require
    an act of violence?>>
    
    YES.  _Rape_ IS an act of violence.
                
    

    Scenario:
    
    A man (Smith) walks through a bad section of town, flashing a wad
    of bills.  Not unexpectedly, he is robbed (no violence).  The mugger 
    (Jones) is caught and brought to trial.  Jones' defense attorney says 
    it was okay that Jones robbed Smith because Smith "asked for it."
    The jury/judge agrees and Jones is off scot free--no jail, no
    restitution to Smith.
    
    Sounds absurd, huh?  But it's a defense that is accepted repeatedly
    for rape.

    Even more absurd. Remove the conditions that Smith even "flashes"
    the bills, and that he's in a "bad section of town".
    
    *That's* closer to the general scenario.
    
    --DE
    

    re .77
    
    Or, remember, the rich deserve it.  Hey, they even like it.

    Yeah....Geez....what's wrong with having a strong money drive??
    
    

    
    RE: .56
    
        Lee, 
            I am so glad to have read what you stated. I was a victim
    of date rape at the age of 17.  I was in shock. I didn't react.
    I couldn't really comprehend that this was happening to me. I was
    so afraid, that I did absolutely nothing. I couldn't. It was on a
    first date. Things like this don't happen.  I must of asked for
    this. I got home and I threw out the clothes I wore that night,
    took a scalding hot shower and bathed in every possible thing, trying
    to *cleanse* myself.  Then for 3 weeks I woke up every morning fearing
    that I would be pregnant.  I was so ashamed, I didn't tell a soul.
    Finally, six months after it happened, I broke down and confronted
    my parents with it. They had a hard time accepting it.  I started
    to go for counseling.  Now I know that what happened to me was not
    my fault. My parents do too. I have accepted it, and am willing
    to share my story, hoping that it may help someone else. I never
    was strong enough to prosecute. But I have run into this subhuman
    life form twice since the "incident" and have been able to handle
    myself and my emotions. I was going to avoid that place of
    socialization  where I ran into him, but why should I stop living?
    I told him what I think of him to his face and have released that
    anger. But for some reason I could never prosecute. I would hate
    to have to deal with the public once they found out. Sometimes I
    do feel guilty, because I worry about other girls, but I guess that
    why I have chosen to share my story.
    
    - Sasha

>>               -< -<No Resistance Does Not Make You at Fault>- >-


>>    ....... But for some reason I could never prosecute. I would hate
>>    to have to deal with the public once they found out. Sometimes I
>>    do feel guilty, because I worry about other girls, but I guess that
>>    why I have chosen to share my story.
    
  
	A lot of times it is not to your advantage to prosecute with the
	court system the way it is.....you could be victimized again.  As
	long as you have taken the control the rapist took from you at the
	time back for yourself, then you are no longer the victim.  Now,
	the issue for you is to free yourself from any guilt for not 
	prosecuting the perpetrator....you are not under any obligation
	to do prosecute....you can contact the Marlboro Sexual Abuse Hotline
	at 485-RAPE to discuss your problem with this guilt with one of
	their volunteer counselors either in person or on the phone.  It
	is a confidential service.  

	Keep working on becoming your own person.

	justme....jacqui

RE: .80

Ask yourself honestly, 'haven't you done all that is necessary?'  Perhaps you
have.  You told him off; to me that shows that you are not about to let what
happened run your life.  Perhaps that was sufficient to modify his behavior (I
certainly don't know). 

Jim.