| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 525.1 | Do people ask to be raped? | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 02:07 | 64 |
|
Moved from topic 99...
================================================================================
Note 99.10 Side Effects of Rape 10 of 47
MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE "Purple power!" 17 lines 21-MAR-1989 10:33
-< a thought >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a newsgroup I occasionally follow:
------------------------------
March 14, 1989 Message 1925 from Eileen Schwab
On the office door across from my office the following is posted:
If women who wear sexy outfits secretly want to be raped...
does that mean...
men who wear expensive suits secretly want to be robbed?
Everyone I've shared this with has said "Hmmm, I never thought of
it that way."
================================================================================
Note 99.11 Side Effects of Rape 11 of 47
RUTLND::KUPTON "Thinner in '89" 15 lines 21-MAR-1989 11:15
-< Reaching a bit, me thinks >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re:Liz
>Does a woman who wears sexy clothes want to be raped?
>Does a man who wears expensive clothes want to be robbed?
That doesn't wash. You know it and we know it.
That should read: Does a man who wears sexy clothes want to be raped?
or Does a womwn who wears expensive clothes want to be robbed?
Rape to women and robbery to men aren't even in the same arena.
Did you bring your lunch today or did you walk??
Ken
================================================================================
Note 99.12 Side Effects of Rape 12 of 47
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern" 11 lines 21-MAR-1989 12:02
-< apples to apples >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that very many people want to be raped. I don't think very many
people want to be robbed.
If a woman wears very sexy clothes and conducts herself in a provocative
manner in a place where guys are known to be animals, it is no different than
a man (or woman) dressing to excess with all of the accompanying gold jewelry
and money flashing in a crime infested place. They may not want it. But they
are asking for it.(Which doesn't make the crime right, just more likely to
happen.)
The Doctah
|
| 525.2 | does wearing sexy clothes invite rape? | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 02:10 | 66 |
| moved from topic 99...
================================================================================
Note 99.13 Side Effects of Rape 13 of 47
SALEM::LUPACCHINO "There's a world beyond this room." 7 lines 21-MAR-1989 12:13
-< Excuse me?? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .11
I can do without the snide remarks, thanks. I think the point of.10 is that
how one is dress is not a cause/invitation to violate said person.
Ann Marie, a noter
================================================================================
Note 99.14 Side Effects of Rape 14 of 47
RUTLND::KUPTON "Thinner in '89" 26 lines 21-MAR-1989 15:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I reread my reply (.11) and I see where Ann Marie might think
it snide. I think it makes a statement about how easily we lose
sight of what we want to say. I thought it quite unfair to so casually
make a comparison to suit one's needs. I'd be willing to bet that
a lot of women would have nodded in agreement with the sign that
Liz told us about. I also see how quick the anger surfaces when
that same sign is reversed. I'd be willing to bet that any man
who hung a sign with my reversal would be in personnel within seconds
after putting it up. While many women feel that it's justifiable
to put up the original.
I don't agree with double standards and making carte blanc remarks
or signs that express statements like that are unfair and don't
help to make a woman's effort for equality in the workplace easier.
If anything that type of thing causes deep resentment in men because
most of us believe that anyone should be able to wear what we want
without fear of retribution. I don't want to get into a session
on dress and behavior because that's in another note.
My reply (.11) was not meant to be snide, rude, or sexist. It
was meant to get some attention to the fact that we sometimes make
statements that send different messages to different audiences.
Ken
================================================================================
Note 99.15 Side Effects of Rape 15 of 47
TUT::SMITH "Passionate commitment to reasoned faith" 14 lines 21-MAR-1989 16:00
-< Try it this way, then >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .11, .14
Do you go along with this, then:
Does a woman who wears sexy clothes want to be raped?
Does *anyone* who wears expensive clothes want to be robbed?
Does *anyone* who drives [substitute name of whatever expensive
car is "in" these days] wnat to have their car stolen?
Having first heard this comparison in terms of a woman's attire
and someone owning a flashy Cadillac, I didn't "tune in" on the
*man* in the comparison. Sorry *you* did!
Nancy
|
| 525.3 | More questions why | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 02:13 | 60 |
| Moved from topic 99...
================================================================================
Note 99.16 Side Effects of Rape 16 of 47
ACESMK::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." 15 lines 21-MAR-1989 18:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .14
>I thought it quite unfair to so casually make a comparison to suit
>one's needs.
I didn't find it casual at all. I don't see the analogy as "rape
and robbery are similar." I see the point of similarity as "dress
advertises desires."
>If anything that type of thing causes deep resentment in men because
>most of us believe that anyone should be able to wear what we want
>without fear of retribution.
I'm not understanding how the sign would contribute to retribution
for wearing something.
================================================================================
Note 99.17 Side Effects of Rape 17 of 47
HAMPS::PHILPOTT_I "Col. Philpott is back in action." 20 lines 22-MAR-1989 09:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .10: bad analogy.
A few years ago the US Dept of Justice did a research program in
which they showed convicted muggers cine film of people walking
down the street and questioned them on which they would target to
rob.
They consistently picked out men [and women] wearing expensive clothes
They consistently picked out men [and women] with abnormal walking
patterns (eg swinging left arm with left leg and right arm with
right leg, rather than contra-swinging).
It categorically stated that victims "self-selected themselves"
by their behaviour. This is preceisely what people mean when they
say that women who wear sexy clothes "want" to be raped: that they
behave in a way that makes them self selected victims.
/. Ian .\
================================================================================
Note 99.18 Side Effects of Rape 18 of 47
ULTRA::ZURKO "Words like winter snowflakes" 8 lines 22-MAR-1989 11:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is preceisely what people mean when they
> say that women who wear sexy clothes "want" to be raped: that they
> behave in a way that makes them self selected victims.
That was not my impression. I thought they were talking about deep, dark
fantasies. But I haven't had the opportunity to ask someone who might say that
what they mean. The unfortunate side of being so obviously a feminist.
Mez
|
| 525.4 | more on "asking for it" | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 02:17 | 75 |
| moved from topic 99...
================================================================================
Note 99.19 Side Effects of Rape 19 of 47
TRADE::SULLIVAN "Karen - 291-0008" 20 lines 23-MAR-1989 16:23
-< what?! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: .12
> If a woman wears very sexy clothes and conducts herself in a provocative
>manner in a place where guys are known to be animals, it is no different than
>a man (or woman) dressing to excess with all of the accompanying gold jewelry
>and money flashing in a crime infested place. They may not want it. But they
>are asking for it.(Which doesn't make the crime right, just more likely to
>happen.)
The point was that dress doesn't mean you're asking for
anything. The memo was pointing that out, not pointing out
that men could be asking to be robbed by wearing expensive
clothes.
They do not want it, and they are *not* asking for it. It
is wrong for someone else to claim that they are asking for
it. Don't blame the victim.
...Karen
================================================================================
Note 99.20 Side Effects of Rape 20 of 47
NOETIC::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" 9 lines 23-MAR-1989 17:52
-< so where do they happen? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that women who dress in a sexy manner *do not* want to get
raped. I also believe that if they dress this way and walk alone
at night that they greatly increase their chances of this
happening. Does anyone have any stats on where most rapes occur?
If the women are usually at home and the rape is part of a breakin
clothes probably have nothing to do with it. Certainly anyone
raping an old woman or a child is not being "turned on" by sexy
clothes. liesl
================================================================================
Note 99.21 Side Effects of Rape 21 of 47
ACESMK::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." 12 lines 23-MAR-1989 18:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the sort of argument that comes from terminology again.
"Asking for it" can mean "making a request," which implies a desire
for such an action. "Asking for it" can also mean "acting in a
way that encourages such behavior" and does not necessarily imply
any desire for the reaction.
Suffice to say that women who dress in a "sexy manner" and walk
alone at night are putting themselves at greater risk, and they
should be aware of this. However, this does not imply that they
desire to be raped. (If anyone did, either she doesn't have a good
understanding of what rape is all about or she has problem that
requires psychiatric counseling.)
================================================================================
Note 99.22 Side Effects of Rape 22 of 47
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern" 9 lines 24-MAR-1989 07:46
-< thanks, Chelsea >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: asking for it
As Chelsea stated, in this context, "asking for it" simply means acting in a
manner that makes <rape> more likely. If I flash a wad of cash in front of a
bunch of homeless people, then settle down for a nap on a park bench nect to
them, I am "asking for it," where "it" is robbery. I hope you can see the
parallel I was trying to draw.
the Doctah
|
| 525.5 | more and more on "asking for it" | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 02:20 | 51 |
|
Moved from topic 99...
================================================================================
Note 99.23 Side Effects of Rape 23 of 47
SUPER::HENDRICKS "The only way out is through" 12 lines 24-MAR-1989 08:08
-< I think there's a difference. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the connotation of "asking for it" that bothers me.
I agree that flashing cash or flashing legs in the combat zone after
dark is stupid, but it don't think it says anything about the person's
intention, or desire, to become a victim. It shows a lack of
good judgement.
When men are mugged, they are often considered to have been "in the
wrong place at the wrong time". When women are raped, too often "they
must have been asking for it".
Holly
================================================================================
Note 99.24 Side Effects of Rape 24 of 47
QUARK::LIONEL "The dream is alive" 11 lines 24-MAR-1989 08:25
-< No excuse >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: "asking for it"
More to the point, I think, is the widespread acceptance of the
notion that "asking for it" renders the attacker blameless, and
instead convicts the victim.
No matter how much cash one flashes in front of the homeless, it's
still wrong for them to steal it from you. No matter how
provocatively a woman dresses, it's still wrong to rape her.
Steve
================================================================================
Note 99.25 Side Effects of Rape 25 of 47
HYDRA::LARU "Surfin' the Zuvuya" 7 lines 24-MAR-1989 09:31
-< major flaming rathole >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it smacks of classism and prejudice to single
out the homeless as being more likely to rob one, than
say, Donald Trump. Just because someone is poor does
not mean that their ethics are inferior to your own.
Indeed, it is quite possible that the opposite is true.
/bruce
|
| 525.6 | Who rapes? Why? | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 02:22 | 78 |
|
Moved from topic 99...
================================================================================
Note 99.26 Side Effects of Rape 26 of 47
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern" 29 lines 24-MAR-1989 09:57
-< xxxx >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: convicting the victim
While it is obvious that the victim of crime is not the guilty party,
intelligent behavior can go a long way in preventing the crime from happening
in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. There are
certain behaviors that trigger criminals to commit crimes. This does not
mitigate the severity of the crime whatever, nor has anyone implied such
nonsense. Using your head can help prevent you from being a victim. If you
continue to engage in dangerous behavior (of any kind) you must be cognizant
of the increased possibility of misadventure.
There are a great many crimes which occur for no apparent reason. There are
also a great many preventable crimes. It does not make sense to say "I think
I'll walk in the tunnels at Central Park tonight at midnight by myself with
no protection and assume that I will not be a victim of crime because it is
illegal." When you engage in dangerous behavior like that you must accept
responsibility for putting yourself at greater risk. This does not mean that you
wouldn't try to put your attacker in jail. This doesn't mean that an attack in
Central park is any less devastating than one on 5th Avenue. It just means that
you have the power to prevent some kinds of crimes.
re: classisism and prejudice
Well, /bruce, you can get all upset about it or not. The fact is, statistically
speaking, you are more likely to be a victim of violent crime, or robbery from
a have not than a have. You can say how terrible it is that someone would point
that out, but the facts do not change. Sorry.
The Doctah
================================================================================
Note 99.27 Side Effects of Rape 27 of 47
ULTRA::WITTENBERG "Secure Systems for Insecure Peop" 11 lines 24-MAR-1989 10:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .25
Good point, Bruce.
Re: .26
It's the word violent that makes the last paragraph work. White
collar criminals don't carry a gun, but they steal a great deal
more than anyone makes by breaking and entering.
--David
================================================================================
Note 99.28 Side Effects of Rape 28 of 47
TUT::SMITH "Passionate commitment to reasoned faith" 3 lines 24-MAR-1989 10:58
-< Depends on your def. of violence >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violence perptrated by a large system of some kind (corporation,
government, gonglomerate, whatever) can be even more devastating
because it works slowly and kills the spirit, too...
================================================================================
Note 99.29 Side Effects of Rape 29 of 47
ULTRA::ZURKO "Words like winter snowflakes" 11 lines 24-MAR-1989 11:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a reply a bit back about what kind of behaviour muggers gravitate
towards. One of the criteria was walking strangely. Another had something to do
with looks or dress, but I didn't remember the reply being specific on that.
So, I ask: are there any studies indicating or implying how rapists chose their
victims? I seem to remember the majority being female. And that a high
percentage knew their assailant. The latter seems to contradict the theory
that the clothes you wear are a danger; it's the people you know.
Anything else? Pointers?
Mez
|
| 525.7 | Muggers and Rapists - motivations? | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 02:24 | 87 |
|
Moved from topic 99....
================================================================================
Note 99.31 Side Effects of Rape 31 of 47
ACESMK::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." 12 lines 24-MAR-1989 12:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a scene in _Someone to Watch Over Me_ where Tom Berenger
explains that muggers don't attack people who walk oddly -- I guess
people who don't move directly from point A to point B, or show
some strong individuality.
When my mother was a young woman, she occasionally had to pass some
Boston bars at night on the way home. She would walk briskly, swinging
her arms with her hands in fists, looking directly where she was
going; she says she never had any trouble. I suspect an important
signal to send when walking is "I know exactly where I'm going and
how I'm going to get there." It conveys confidence, competence
and determination, which are not traits usually looked for in victims.
================================================================================
Note 99.32 Side Effects of Rape 32 of 47
SA1794::CHARBONND "I'm the NRA" 4 lines 24-MAR-1989 12:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say the guy flashing the cash was negligent.
Self-defense is not a part-time attitude. At the least, one
should be aware of one's surroundings. I know my eyes tend to
move more when I cash my check and leave the bank.
================================================================================
Note 99.33 Side Effects of Rape 33 of 47
CURIE::ROCCO 16 lines 24-MAR-1989 16:47
-< Rape is not for sex >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have an pointers to exact studies but from what I have read rape is
not so much an act of sex, or desire for sex as it is for violence. I doubt
that pretty women are raped more often than unattractive women, and I
question if provacatively dressed women are raped more than conservatively
dressed women, since it doesn't seem to be a question of a man getting
turned on and unable to help himself.
It goes back to looking like a victim - so do certain ways a woman is dressed
make her look more like a victim?
I think the psychology of gang rape is a bit different - and my gut reaction
is that a provacatively dressed women is at more risk - but again I haven't
seen any studies.
Muggsie
================================================================================
Note 99.34 Side Effects of Rape 34 of 47
TRADE::SULLIVAN "Karen - 291-0008" 30 lines 24-MAR-1989 17:13
-< it's not my fault that acorn hit me >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: asking for it
The problem with the mind set of saying that someone is
"asking for it", or just that they were stupid or negligent
is still that blame is being placed on the victim. Don't
come up with extreme examples of people flashing money
in front of possible muggers. The fact is that a person
could have nice clothes and look well off and just happen
to be somewhere where a mugger hangs out, and they get
mugged. You can't tell them that they shouldn't have
been there, or they should have tried to dress poorly, it's
not their fault. It's like blaming someone who gets hit
by another car during rush hour, since they should have known
going out at that time is more dangerous, and they shouldn't
have risked it just to pick up some unimportant item at the store.
People who are raped have *no* part of the blame no matter how
sexy they dress and no matter where they happened to be at the
time. Women get raped no matter what they are wearing or
where they are, so there's no sense in even considering that
they must be dressed wrong. All too often, victims in any
type of crime get asked what did they do to invite that crime.
If you allow the concept of "asking for it" or negligence, at
what fine line do you allow the victim to be blameless? When
they're barricaded in a fortress without any human contact?
...karen
p.s. Of course people should take precautions, but even
when they're not taken they are still blameless when victimized.
|
| 525.8 | motivations and the victim's guilt | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 02:27 | 156 |
|
Moved from topic 99...
================================================================================
Note 99.35 Side Effects of Rape 35 of 47
ANT::ZARLENGA "that funky cold medina" 16 lines 25-MAR-1989 16:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.34> The fact is that a person
.34> could have nice clothes and look well off and just happen
.34> to be somewhere where a mugger hangs out, and they get
.34> mugged.
"You were asking for it" is such a lame excuse.
It isn't a crime to dress in expensive or sexy clothes.
It is a crime to mug or rape someone.
Seems to me it should be a simple matter to decide guilt, and
it's about time people started taking responsibility for their actions.
-mike z
================================================================================
Note 99.36 Side Effects of Rape 36 of 47
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern" 35 lines 27-MAR-1989 08:40
-< only if you don't shake the tree :-) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with the mind set of saying that someone is
> "asking for it", or just that they were stupid or negligent
> is still that blame is being placed on the victim. Don't
> come up with extreme examples of people flashing money
> in front of possible muggers.
Blame is not placed on the victim for being raped or mugged or whatever. Blame
is being placed on the victim ONLY for placing themselves at higher risk of
victimization. Nobody is claiming that crime is justified or can be mitigated
because of victims' behavior. What is being claimed is that people can influence
their fate in many cases, and to ignore this fact is tantamount to stupidity.
BTW- the "extreme" example holds.
> People who are raped have *no* part of the blame no matter how
> sexy they dress and no matter where they happened to be at the
If you accept this premise, then why do you have locks on your front doors?
Is it because, even though you recognize that robbery is illegal, you feel that
a little preventative medicine goes a long way towards preventing crime? What
about your car? Do you lock it when you go into Boston or any large, crime
infested city? Why?
> p.s. Of course people should take precautions, but even
> when they're not taken they are still blameless when victimized.
I would say that blameless is not correct here, in my understanding of the
word. I think guilty is more accurate. A crime victim may not be guilty of
anything, but may have contributed to their becoming a victim. If you leave your
keys in your car (unlocked) and your car gets stolen, you are not guilty of
anything, but you share a (very small) portion of the blame because you
facilitated your own victimization. It doesn't make it any more right to have
your car stolen. The theif still ought to go to jail. But you have to
acknowledge the impact of your actions on the commission of the crime.
The Doctah
================================================================================
Note 99.37 Side Effects of Rape 37 of 47
FOOZLE::WHITE "Natural Woman" 40 lines 27-MAR-1989 12:22
-< Your home is least safe from rape >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have the numbers in front of me (but possibly
could retrieve them). From memory, some information from
a presentation by the Worcester Rape Crisis Center:
The most likely place for a woman to be raped is in her
own home. Most rapists decide ahead of time that they
are going to rape a particular woman whom they know at
least by sight. The rape encounter is not usually the
first encounter, although the previous meeting may just
be that he spoke to her in the street.
So much for provocative clothes or being in the combat
zone as the immediate stimulus.
I believe that most muggers go out to rob any convenient
person, and therefore being in the wrong place and flashing
money and jewelry may incite robbery. This is a personal
opinion, not part of the Rape Crisis Center information.
Most rapists do not believe that they have done anything
wrong. They invent reasons why "she asked for it", and
some are pretty irrational, as Ann noted. Most rapists
will continue raping until they reach the age of about
57.
Date rapes are a different situation, and have not been
studied in depth yet.
None os these facts apply to the very small percentage
of rapists who are also serial killers. These men do
cruise for likely victims. Again, their selection
criteria can be odd. They may select women with long
black hair, a certain age, etc. The fact that these
patterns exist is how police track them down. If you
don't fit the pattern you are probably safe.
Pat
================================================================================
Note 99.38 Side Effects of Rape 38 of 47
WMOIS::B_REINKE "If you are a dreamer, come in.." 39 lines 27-MAR-1989 21:38
-< on victims ....from a moderator point of view >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark,
I know that you and others who have answered this note mean
no offense by what you say and are only talking from the
point of view of what seems reasonable and practical.
However, to talk of blame or guilt and all, to those who have
been raped (even if only in the sense of reducing their risk)
comes close to 'talking of rope in the houses of the hanged.'
Tho I have been fortunate to never have had such an experience,
I have talked to women who have been raped and read their stories
and read articles about women who have suffered such attacks.
One of the biggest problems that women have with dealing with
rape is guilt. This is one reason that the crime is still so
under reported. Many many women who have been sexually attacked
flagellate themselves trying to figure out what they did to
cause this terrible thing to happend to them. Even tho they
did absolutely nothing.
I recall something that happened when I was a teenager. A woman
in my town was raped. She was so devistated by the experience that
she committed suicide by parking her car on a train track. This
is the mental state that affects a lot of women after such an
experience. Even years later, after healing has occured, remarks
implying that women are guilty in such an experience can bring
back these kinds of feelings in a victim.
I would like to ask anyone who has not been the victim of a sexual
attack or been close to someone who has to be very very careful
how you talk about it, especially in a public notes file where
many people come to read and look for information on subjects
that trouble them.
thankyou
Bonnie J
co mod
|
| 525.9 | victims and avoidance | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 02:31 | 105 |
|
Moved from topic 99...
================================================================================
Note 99.39 Side Effects of Rape 39 of 47
PRYDE::ERVIN "Roots & Wings..." 16 lines 28-MAR-1989 11:10
-< Wow! I'm now enlightened! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .36
"Blame is being placed on the victim ONLY for placing themselves
at a higher risk of victimization..." "What is being claimed is
that people can influence their fate in many cases, and to ignore
this fact is tantamount to stupidity."
Well, I'm really glad that we have simple solutions to these nagging
problems. Imagine that. All women have to do is avoid going out on
a date with a man that she presumes to be nice, or going out
shopping in broad daylight, or going out at night to visit a
friend...no problem...I'm sure we can avoid these high risk activities
and not stupidly fall into situations where we could become victims.
================================================================================
Note 99.40 Side Effects of Rape 40 of 47
TRADE::SULLIVAN "Karen - 291-0008" 37 lines 28-MAR-1989 11:42
-< standing under oak trees >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know, maybe I don't know how to get my meaning across, so
I'll try one more time and try to keep it simple.
1. Yes, people should take precautions for *known* dangers.
2. However, we all know hindsight by those not involved is
always better than forsight by those in the situation. And
it is totally unreasonable for someone not in a situation to
pass judgement on what were reasonable precautions and whether
blame should be placed on a victim for not taking those
reasonable precautions.
3. We don't know what causes an individual criminal to choose
a victim, it isn't a simple black and white criteria.
Therefore:
1. It is *wrong* for people to ever talk about how certain
actions of certain parties could be called "asking for it"
given that there is no basis for those claims and that they
are passing judgment on others when they blame victims.
2. Claiming that certain actions by certain people are
"asking for it" help to spread prejudice. For example,
women who dress sexy (which is a judgment in itself) are
"asking for" rape, which leads to the unspoken message that
they aren't "good" women anyways so it's okay to rape them.
...Karen
p.s. I think it's a very human reaction to question the
circumstances of a crime. Oh if only they hadn't been
in that place... However, there is a very fine line
between that qustioning and laying blame. I think we need
to try very hard not to ask those questions of a victim in
case it is perceived as laying blame (no matter how much
we don't mean to).
================================================================================
Note 99.41 Side Effects of Rape 41 of 47
SSDEVO::YOUNGER "Smile when you feel like crying" 15 lines 28-MAR-1989 15:37
-< Myths make us feel safer >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering that rape happens to people from infancy through very old
age, in their homes, on the streets, in offices, in shopping malls, and
in all sorts of other places, no one is really safe.
If you view it as a totally random occurrence, it is very scary.
However, if you view it as something that can be "asked for", and thus
"prevented", it makes life seem a little safer, even if that safety is
not real. When a woman is raped, it is easier to say "she asked for it
by dressing that way/being in that area at night" than to admit "It
could have been me instead. I was just lucky." Unfortunately for the
victim, she buys into this "asked for it" line too, and spends her life
beating herself up "I should have known better...I could have avoided
it.", causing herself much grief over these myths.
Elizabeth
================================================================================
Note 99.42 Side Effects of Rape 42 of 47
BOLT::MINOW "Who will can the anchovies?" 11 lines 28-MAR-1989 17:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my (probably imperfect) memory of one of the earlier discussions of
Model Mugging that, in addition to teaching a woman her options when
she is attacked, the course also gave some pointers for avoiding attack.
Perhaps one of the Model Mugging graduates could elaborate further?
There was an article on rape in a recent New York Road Runner's Magazine
(written by one of their employees who had been raped while jogging).
Contact me if you'd like a xerox of the article. It did have some
comments on avoidance.
Martin.
|
| 525.10 | Further discussion | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 02:37 | 75 |
|
moved from topic 99...
================================================================================
Note 99.43 Side Effects of Rape 43 of 47
ACESMK::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." 22 lines 28-MAR-1989 17:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the point is being taken out of proportion. It is an
undeniable fact that being in certain areas in certain times under
certain conditions will increase the likelihood of assault. If
you want to deny that, present your case. Otherwise, I'll take
it that the point is accepted.
Now then, it has never been claimed that this is all there is to
it. This is one aspect of a complex situation and I think we all
have enough native intelligence to realize that. The point made
was not a solution or a myth or anything other than an observation.
If you want to argue the complexities of the situation, there's
nothing to stop you. However, harping on the fact that the observation
doesn't address the complexities of the situation is unwarranted,
since it gives the observation more weight than it ever pretended
to claim. I suspect it's also unnecessary, given the above-mentioned
native intelligence.
It seems like we're creating an argument where there are no strong
disagreements. The debate is not so much "You're wrong" as "That's
not all there is to it." To my knowledge, no one has ever said
"This is all there is to it." Unless I'm mistaken, the arguments
are being lodged against an imaginary premise. So what's the point?
================================================================================
Note 99.44 Side Effects of Rape 44 of 47
ULTRA::ZURKO "mud-luscious and puddle-wonderful" 7 lines 29-MAR-1989 07:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea,
While you're right about assault, I haven't seen anything to back up your
statement of assault as it applies to rape. My understanding, based on studies
quotes in this notesfile, is that women are raped by people they know, in
familiar environments.
Mez
================================================================================
Note 99.45 Side Effects of Rape 45 of 47
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern" 13 lines 29-MAR-1989 11:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea- perfect wavelength and synchronization.
Mez- I was addressing rapes other than date rape and rapes by a known assailant
where one's situation on the given night could not possibly have contributed in
any way to her assault. A woman sitting in her home who gets raped by an
attacker who enters with the intent of raping could not possibly have provoked
the rape unless she is an exhibitionist. Even then, the rape is not justified
(rape is never justified).
So, if you want to pick me apart for making a statement that applies in a
limited number of cases, do so. But please put it in context. Thank you.
The Doctah
================================================================================
Note 99.46 Side Effects of Rape 46 of 47
ULTRA::ZURKO "mud-luscious and puddle-wonderful" 10 lines 29-MAR-1989 15:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Mark; we are not talking about the same thing, nor are we talking to each
other, although we are in the same topic. Usually when I am talking to someone
I make it clear by using their name or note number.
> So, if you want to pick me apart for making a statement that applies in a
>limited number of cases, do so. But please put it in context. Thank you.
Does this refer to me? Since I wasn't speaking directly to any of your notes,
I'm hoping it doesn't.
Mez
|
| 525.11 | Why the previous notes migrated... | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 02:41 | 36 |
|
Moved from .99....consider it done, Pat...
-Jody
================================================================================
Note 99.47 Side Effects of Rape 47 of 47
FOOZLE::WHITE "Natural Woman" 25 lines 29-MAR-1989 19:34
-< Please keep this note for the base topic >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have just read through all the replies in this note.
I am concerned that the entire March 1989 series of
replies are off the subject of the base note.
Many notes go off the track. In this case, I think that
all the replies that are not about side effects of rape
should be moved to a new note. The reason is that the
early replies were a very powerful series of personal
experiences. They can be helpful to anyone who is having
rape side effects and is looking for support or comfort,
or just to not feel so alone. I believe that notes like
these are re-read by those who need them.
If someone was reading through the replies for that
reason, the recent side track about whether a person
may be "asking for" rape would be a rude shock. Debate
about the possible negligence of victims doesn't belong
in a note started for personal stories of the side effects
of rape.
Moderators, can all the recent replies be moved to
leave this note for side effects of rape?
Pat
|
| 525.12 | An Act of Violence | USEM::DONOVAN | | Thu Mar 30 1989 13:38 | 18 |
| Many women who are raped feel like:
* Maybe I shouldn't have worn that.
But I did so I must have subconsciously wanted it.
* Bad things don't happen to good people
* Filthy in a way a billion showers can't clean.
* Sex is not enjoyable
* Afraid of relationships w/men
* The big secret that has to be kept from the co-workers.
* Moodswings, rage, tears, spaciness
Kate
|
| 525.13 | Perceived Psychological Violence | SAGE::OWENS | Dave Owens | Thu Mar 30 1989 16:12 | 20 |
| From reading, observation and my own experience, it seems there
are two core problems of sexual attraction
1. Reality sanity checks disolve easily. Namely, it's far
easier to fantasize. Mass consumerism reinforces this
enormously.
2. Sexual ego rejection is painful. Arguably, it represents
life's biggest ego shock. Some people can spend the
balance of their lifetime never recovering from some
sexual rejection.
Between these, it is easy for some men to get into a vicious circle
of fantasizing and getting rejected. If they cannot integrate the
pain, they take it as psychological violence. Then, if enough
perceived "ego violence to me" goes unhealed over a long enough
time, it makes sense that it could erupt in physical violence -
rape.
Dave
|
| 525.14 | That's not it. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Thu Mar 30 1989 16:20 | 5 |
| Dave,
Rape has even less to do with sex than you think.
Ann B.
|
| 525.15 | thoughts.... | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | Food, Shelter & Diamonds | Thu Mar 30 1989 16:26 | 52 |
| Ideally, I think that people should be able to wear whatever
they want without having to worry about the consequences, and I
think that the final blame is always with the person who actually
chooses to commit the crime. As someone said before, it is a crime
to rape or mug, it is not a crime to dress in sexy or expensive
clothes. I've always thought that the tendency to comment on the
fact that rape victims may have been dressed like "sluts" or whatever,
is an attempt to lessen the horror of the crime by rationalizing
that "nice" women don't get raped. The myth that "nice women" don't
get raped is obviously one of the most upsetting aspects of getting
raped,(after physical pain, violation and fear of being killed).
I think that by constantly pointing out that women would be wise
not to dress in clothes that are too "sexy" the myth that "nice women"
don't get raped is being perpetuated, and the myth that "that slut
in the black leather mini skirt was asking for it" is also being
perpetuated. Maybe some men get the message that women who dress
a certain way are fair game. I think the courts and the media have
to get across the message that it isn't alright to rape anybody
no matter how they were dressed. In the past, and I'm not sure
it's really changed, I've gotten the impression that it's almost
a "crime" to accuse somebody of rape. It's always been considered
to be such a terrible thing to accuse someone of rape that the person
doing the accusing had better be pretty sure they've been living
a virtuous life and dressing the part, or they're in for more trouble
than the rapist.
How can the message be gotten across to men and young boys growing
up that they are not supposed to treat women dressed in "sexy" clothes
or like "sluts" any worse than they treat women who dress in a virtuous
manner? Will this ever change?
Obviously, when men rape old women or little kids they are not reacting
to sexy clothes. But in the cases where women are raped by men they
know, are there any statistics that actually suggest that women
who habitually dress in sexy or revealing clothes get raped more
often than women who dress more conservatively? Or does this only
tend to come into play after the rape has occurred, as a way to
blame the victim?
The other day a male friend asked me why I don't wear "sexier clothes"?
He said, "You could get away with dressing a lot sexier than you
do." He suggested that I would look good in shorter skirts and
higher heels. I said that the heels are just too uncomfortable
and that I thought I was too old to wear shorter skirts. He said
that was precisely why I should to show I still could. I realized
that I'm afraid to dress that way. I feel much more comfortable
going about in the world looking like a conservative, virtuous lady.
At least I don't look like I'm "asking for it." :-(
Lorna
|
| 525.16 | | TRADE::SULLIVAN | Karen - 291-0008 | Thu Mar 30 1989 17:00 | 5 |
| Lorna, what a great reply. It's says so much of what I've
been trying to say.
...Karen
|
| 525.17 | | GERBIL::IRLBACHER | A middle class bag lady | Thu Mar 30 1989 17:01 | 27 |
| re:.13
Rape very seldom has sex as its main objective. Rape is generally
about control, dominance, anger, woman-as-hated-object, to name
a few objectives of the rapist.
I remember reading somewhere once a statement made by a rapist.
He went to an area that he knew only vaguely, waited until the *third*
woman alone came onto the street from her home, and attacked her.
He deliberately set the #3 as the goal; no matter the age, looks,
whatever--if he could, he would have the 3rd woman as victim. No
sexual ego rejection there---just a terrifying control over the
life of a woman who happened to be the 3d female to walk into his
sight. And that is just what he said. It was the sense of power,
of control over her life, any woman's life, that gave him the sexual
"rush".
Rape is rape when the woman says "no". Period. *I don't care if
she is stark naked on the kitchen floor, she has the right to change
her mind.* And when a man does not take "no" for an answer, and
justifies it for whatever reason, he is raping not for sex, but
for power, control, dominance.
Marilyn
|
| 525.18 | CLASSES START 3 APRIL 1989 | DEMING::GARDNER | justme....jacqui | Thu Mar 30 1989 17:23 | 43 |
|
RAPE CRISIS TRAINING CURRICULUM
DATE TOPIC
3 Apr - Mon 1. Introduction to H.I.R.S. and Hotline Procedures,
6:30 - 10 PM "Rape Trauma Syndrome", Date Rape
17 Apr - Mon 2. Incest and Child Victim/Psychology of the Offender
6:30 - 10 PM
24 Apr - Mon 3. Medical Intervention
7 - 10 PM
1 May - Mon 4. Police and Court Procedures
7 - 10 PM
10 May - Wed 5. Rape Crisis Counseling Techniques
7 - 10 PM
15 May - Mon 6. Rape Counseling - con't Role Playing
7 - 10 PM
20 May - Sat 7. Family Work/Special Groups (Ethics, Males), Community
10 AM - 4 PM Resources and Referral Work
To sign up for the above training and experience on the RAPE HOTLINE in
the greater Marlboro area, call Laura Morrall at the Health Information
Referral Service, Inc., 169 Pleasant Street, Marlboro, MA 01752, (508)
481-8290. Contact Hour credits are offered for this training program.
It is open to both males and females and there are already both sexes
signed up for this training session.
When you call to sign up, tell her Jacqui Gardner sent you!
justme....jacqui
p.s. It's a great training course! Full of information and a good
text book. Go! You won't regret it!
|
| 525.19 | wary of what I wear | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 17:39 | 20 |
| re: clothing.
I've never been a flashy dresser, but on occasion I sometimes dress
downright dowdy, particularly when I know I'll be walking around the
streets of a city, alone. Of course, I didn't have any qualms when I
was heavier, but now I've stopped wearing certain things...side-slit
skirts, form-fitting T-shirts, and there's a turtleneck I love that I
don't wear by itself anymore (I'm wearing it under a sweater today)
because it elicited remarks and whistles...
When I'm walking outside in a city at night, particularly alone,
I want to disappear. I dont' want to be seen. I want to melt into
the woodwork. I don't want to be noticed. So I dress "safely".
I know this is no cure. I know there is no cure for the raping
in this society, short of taking the crime more seriously and meting
out just punishment to offenders the FIRST TIME.
-Jody
|
| 525.20 | | FSHQA2::DROGER | | Thu Mar 30 1989 17:42 | 24 |
| I remember having a conversation with a friend many years ago about
rape. He said.."hey, if you can't prevent the rape, you should just
enjoy it". I then asked him what he would do if he were raped.
He just grinned, thinking that it wouldn't be that bad. I then asked
him...what if she had a gun to your head and said "you better
be good or I'll blow your head off!" Well, he paused a moment and
realized that that wouldn't be very much fun.
Basically, my reason for pointing this out to him was to emphasize
that when women are raped, they are in a position of being physically
harmed, not to mention psychologically harmed. It isn't sex to women,
it is an act of violence and degradation.
I think its about time men in this society began standing up for
women that are being raped instead of thinking that she must have
been asking for it. Rape is an act of violence, not an act of
manhood! It could be your sister, wife, daughter, mother...being raped.
Would you say they were out there asking for it because they happened
to be wearing clothes of a certain style? I think not! I think
its about time that men/women in this society started to rally against
rape! It shouldn't be permitted in this society REGARDLESS of the
circumstances!
Donna
|
| 525.21 | Pointers to related discussions | LEZAH::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Thu Mar 30 1989 17:52 | 16 |
| A cursory glance at some other files produce the following related
topics:
Womannotes-V1:
topic 189 - Date Rape
topic 645 - The Victim's Response To Rape
Human_Relations:
topic 438 - How Do Men Handle Rape Victims
Mennotes:
topic 308 - Rape Protection Devices
-Jody
|
| 525.22 | Extremes Provoke Violent Power Seizing | SAGE::OWENS | Dave Owens | Thu Mar 30 1989 19:45 | 14 |
| RE: Distinctions Between Power and Sex
In the extreme of any appetite, doesn't it make sense that power
and the appetite will mix. If a person is frustrated enough from
food (starving), water (thirst) or air (choking), they will get
violent to get it. Even though sex is only a pleasure appetite,
it makes sense to me that a vicious circle of rejection, chronic
teasing and low self-esteem can artificially make someone _just_as_
frustrated_.
Why doesn't this make sense?
Dave
|
| 525.23 | Note To David | USEM::DONOVAN | | Thu Mar 30 1989 20:02 | 10 |
| re:22
David, It has been proven by studies that rape has nothing to do
with sex. The drive to overpower is much stronger than the sex drive.
Your theory seems to make sence but it just isn't the case. It's
hard to figure out a twisted mind.
Kate
|
| 525.24 | Two possibilities | EVER11::KRUPINSKI | A kinder, gentler, Tom_K | Thu Mar 30 1989 20:03 | 8 |
| Because there are alternatives that do not involve abrogation
of another persons rights?
Because a need on the part of one parson does not create
an obligation on the part of another person?
Tom_K
|
| 525.26 | | GEMVAX::KOTTLER | | Thu Mar 30 1989 20:21 | 2 |
| Do media images of women (such as pornography) make rape more likely?
|
| 525.27 | Welcome to Cedar Junction little boy. . . | HANDY::MALLETT | Barking Spider Industries | Thu Mar 30 1989 20:27 | 11 |
| re: .20
There's another tack you can try with men who try the "lie back
and enjoy it" line. That line presupposes (at least from a
heterosexual speaker) that their attacker would be a woman; try
asking the guy how he'd feel about it if the attacker were another
man (and one holding a gun or knife to his head to boot). I've
found that this notion can begin to convey some of the sense of
horror a rape victim must feel.
Steve
|
| 525.28 | | TRADE::SULLIVAN | Karen - 291-0008 | Thu Mar 30 1989 21:06 | 6 |
| >< Note 525.26 by GEMVAX::KOTTLER >
> Do media images of women (such as pornography) make rape more likely?
Yes, in as much that a lot of pornography includes images of violence
towards women. A lot of music vidios do to.
|
| 525.29 | something very basic is wrong here | DECWET::JWHITE | rule #1 | Thu Mar 30 1989 21:13 | 18 |
|
re:.21
i suspect that ms. bobbitt did not intend this interpretation, but i am
struck that in HUMAN relations there is a note concerning how MEN
should handle rape victims and in MEN notes there is a note concerning
rape *protection*. the discussions in WOMEN notes have a somewhat
different tone, date rape and the *victim's* response.
to put it more bluntly, i can't help but read:
HUMAN= MEN
MEN and RAPE= protection
and (need it be said?)
WOMEN= victim
|
| 525.30 | | RAINBO::TARBET | I'm the ERA | Fri Mar 31 1989 12:23 | 6 |
| <--(.29)
And aren't you amazed, Joe, the way people will claim that there's
really not a lot of verrrry subtle stuff going on in the world?
=maggie
|
| 525.31 | | BOLT::MINOW | Who will can the anchovies? | Fri Mar 31 1989 16:20 | 17 |
| re: .29:
i suspect that ms. bobbitt did not intend this interpretation, but i am
struck that in HUMAN relations there is a note concerning how MEN
should handle rape victims and in MEN notes there is a note concerning
rape *protection*. the discussions in WOMEN notes have a somewhat
different tone, date rape and the *victim's* response.
If I remember previous discussions correctly, there have been replies
in previous rape discussions in Womannotes on rape protection and how
men should handle rape victims. Since, in our society, wommen are
statistically at greater risk for rape than men, it seems quite reasonable
for date rape and victim's response to be discussed here.
If you feel these topics should also be discussed in Human Relations, why
don't you start a topic there?
Martin.
|
| 525.32 | | RAINBO::RU | | Fri Mar 31 1989 16:28 | 13 |
|
I saw the rape news all over in the media.
Since there is major percentage of unreported rape, I wonder
how often it happen in this society.
My daughter and son are going to summer camp, it seems to be
a good place the rape will happen. Is the summer camp safe?
I don't see any indication that those summer camp officer are taking
action to prevent the rape crime.
I know the rape victim suffer a lot physically and mentally, can
the victim ask for compensation(read: money) from the criminal in
civil suit?
|
| 525.33 | | CUPMK::SLOANE | Opportunity knocks softly | Fri Mar 31 1989 18:45 | 26 |
| < Check Out the Camp >
Re: .32
I wrote the anonymous account in 99.9 of a male rape victim.
(Why hide?)
It happened in a summer camp. Summer camps provide 24 hour
intimacy, often with little supervision. But camps vary widely in
their security and operating procedures.
Before making a decision, I would carefully interview the
directors, and personally check out the camp thoroughly. Generally
speaking, you want as many experienced counselors around as much
as possible.
What is the average age of the counselors? What sort of previous
camp experience do they have? What is the counselor-to-camper
ratio? How many counselors are on duty in the evenings and at
night? Are the cabins locked? Do the counselors sleep in the
cabin with the children? Etc.
If you aren't satisfied with the answers, don't send your kids.
Bruce
|
| 525.34 | Way to go, nancy - response to note 99.24 | WMOIS::B_REINKE | If you are a dreamer, come in.. | Sun Jun 11 1989 00:13 | 53 |
| Moved by moderator
<<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 99.25 Side Effects of Rape, please put responses to notes in 525 25 of 26
AQUA::WAGMAN "QQSV" 43 lines 2-JUN-1989 18:16
-< Way to go, nancy >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .21
> Finally, surprise that I can talk about this in a notes conference when
> I have gone to great extremes to hide this from [others]...
Congratulations on having developed the strength to speak here, nancy. I'm
sure your example has served to show other victims that it is possible to
recover psychologically. Your writing has had more effect than you might
have imagined, by the way. After many years of advocating banning handguns
and other firearms, I've begun to reconsider my position on the point, and
your writing has been a strong influence on my thoughts. I've been parti-
cularly impressed by your decision to continue frequenting places that others
might consider too threatening. I sympathize with your choice to take charge
of your own safety. Brava. (And please keep writing!)
With respect to
> apprehension in knowing I will have to face my rapist as an "interested
> party" in future parole hearings
please don't forget to ask for support from this community when that time
comes.
Re some of the other side effects you mentioned:
> guilt about [promiscuity]
> guilt about not being smart/strong/quick enough to stop attacker
> guilt about being in a "relatively safe" but wrong place at wrong time
All of these are things that have been mentioned many times before by other
women in this file. To my simplistic male eyes these guilts seem particularly
unfortunate; I wish that the attacker were the only one to feel guilty. None-
theless, your experiences seem typical. So my question: to what extent is
society responsible for making rape victims feel guilty? What can we do to
help relieve that guilt? Can we, by working on people's attitudes, help
victims accept that they were not at fault? And what can men do as friends/
lovers/spouses/relatives to help support women who have been victimized?
I would value responses from any women (signed or anonymous) on this subject.
--Q (Dick Wagman)
|
| 525.35 | Notes moved from 99.* | WMOIS::B_REINKE | If you are a dreamer, come in.. | Sun Jun 11 1989 00:37 | 33 |
| <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 99.23 Side Effects of Rape, please put responses to notes in 525 23 of 26
HANNAH::OSMAN "see HANNAH::IGLOO$:[OSMAN]ERIC.VT240" 10 lines 2-JUN-1989 14:20
-< a brave lady, that Nancy >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy, I think you're being incredibly brave and healthy to reveal
all of this in a notes file.
I'm glad I met you at that noter's luncheon so I have a little more
sense of who the author is.
It makes me respect you all the more...
/Eric
================================================================================
Note 99.24 Side Effects of Rape, please put responses to notes in 525 24 of 26
RAINBO::LARUE "An easy day for a lady." 9 lines 2-JUN-1989 15:09
-< let's try this again >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy, it was very courageous of you to write all that and I can relate
to every item on your list. It's been 23 years for me not 3. It took
19 years for me to even tell anyone what happened to me. Abstract
discussions about rape are not possible for me. Rape is a personal,
invasive, violent horror show. The results are a gift that keep on
giving. I can't be kind, I can't be objective. I can't forgive it or
the man.
Dondi
|
| 525.36 | Men helping women victims of rape | SYSENG::BITTLE | Nancy Bittle-Hardware Engineer,LSEE | Wed Jun 14 1989 08:29 | 90 |
| re: 525.34 (One of Dick Wagman's questions in response to 99.29)
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| And what can men do as friends/lovers/spouses/relatives to help support|
| women who have been victimized? |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Men as friends
--------------
My closest friend at the time of The Incident happened to be male. His
reaction was to simply spend as much time with me as possible. He studied
with me, ate with me, slept (literally) with me, held me when I cried or
woke up from a nightmare hitting him. When he couldn't be with me, he made
sure someone else was. He was an excellent listener, never asking too many
direct questions but always subtly challenging any absurd statement I made
with a passive maybe-it's-not-like-that observation. Later, he told me he
was worried I would do something to harm myself. He probably saved my
life.
Three years later, I am a transplant in a different place with different
and relatively new men friends. Till most recently, none of my men friends
even knew. The one that now does know asked me some very tough questions
about my feelings that I could not answer logically...which was slightly
startling to me. But I am tough now, and can handle any question without
being hurt. So maybe I am ready to start thinking about what happened so I
can eventually sleep normally.
Timing is important. One year ago I would not have considered talking to
any male friend about this. Don't press the issue if she is not somehow
indicating a need to talk about it. If she does seem to need to talk, put
on a listening cap. Reword your advice in the form of a question, because
she might be more inclined to accept conclusions she has reasoned out in
her mind instead of ones that you have thought through in yours.
Men as Lovers
-------------
First thought that comes to mind: Too bad they can't be mind readers.
Knowing this isn't possible, and knowing men justifiably get tired of
either having to be mind readers or suddenly being abandoned, rejected, and
left in a state of confusion as to what they did wrong, I still find it
tough to discuss things I would be averse to doing because of The Incident.
Maybe a discussion could take place outside of the bedroom, but while
sharing an intimate moment together. Ask her specific questions like
"Would it bother you if I did ....", so that the only thing she'll have to
say is either yes or no. And in order to get the most honest response,
phrase your question so that there is no hint as to whether this is
something you really want to do or not.
When in bed, be aware of a quick mood change or a sudden resistance when
there was none before that might indicate something is feeling wrong. Be
cautious with expressing sexual assertiveness, especially if it is of a
nature you have never expressed before.
Of course, when making love to someone who's most recent sexual experience
was a violent one, it is extremely important to be sincerely gentle and
take things very slowly. I've read that men who make love to a woman the
first time after her rape find it quite exciting, as though they were
making love to a virgin.
Men as Relatives
----------------
I think men who are relatives can potentially be the most helpful of all,
dependent on a close relationship existing before the rape occurred. This
especially applies to brothers. You grew up with her and could know better
than any other person how she is likely to react to this experience.
Strong guidance might be what is needed immediately following the incident.
I know that if my brother had been around he would've been the first person
I would have called. He would've known exactly what to do and say. My
father, on the other hand, is really almost 2 generations before me (my mom
and dad were about 42 when they had me). I am positive I could never talk
to him about this experience in any helpful manner.
Men as Spouses
--------------
I will punt on this one...
I guess a combination of Men as Friends and Men as Lovers from above ... if
spouse = friend + lover ...
Hope this helps.
nancy b.
|
| 525.37 | a guy's perspective on dealing with a lover/victim | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Sad Wings of Destiny | Wed Jun 14 1989 13:23 | 54 |
| I'd like to respond to this from the perspective of a man who dated a
woman who was a victim of rape. Our relationship lasted several years,
and I feel its decline and eventual demise was related to her rape.
She went to the outdoor movies with an older guy, one who was heading
out to the armed services the next day. They were making out, when he
placed his hand under her shirt. She told him no and pushed his hand
away. He said "I'm going to the army tomorrow, and we're going to have
a going away party tonight." He then proceeded to rape her. She had
been a virgin before this.
Needless to say she was quite emotionally distraught. This had happened
during her senior year in high school. I met her in college. Our
relationship began as friends, but gradually worked it's way into
romance.
It did not take too long before I noticed that she acted somewhat
strange in bed. Like something was holding her back. She explained
through tears that we could never make love, and that she could not
tell me why. I tried to be as supportive as I could, figuring something
must have happened to her. Eventually it came out that she was a rape
victim. We talked about it whenever she wanted to. I tried to listen
and soothe her. She said it really helped.
Eventually, we were able to work through her fears. Some things still
did (and I imagine still do) bother her. She had a feeling of
helplessness since he told her that she couldn't come after him because
he was in the military- police had no jurisdiction. Second, she
developed a sleeping disorder. She was impossible to wake up. This
eventually caused her schoolwork to suffer. She'd sleep till 1 in the
afternoon, then stay up the next night till very late, 'cuz she wasn't
tired.
It all became too much, and eventually we parted ways.
It is very difficult from a guys perspective to "do the right thing."
That was something I always tried to do, but often "the right thing to
do" was not apparent. Our dialogues gave me considerable insight into
her feelings and her problems with her attack, but obviously it is
still only second hand information. I find myself able to empathise
with other victims of rape; I have a tenderness in my heart for them. I
know that the ordeal that they must go through is absolutely horrible.
This is one of the reasons I'd like to see increased penalties for rape
and other assaults.
Thank you, Nancy, for sharing your harrowing experience. Since the
number of rape victims is so high, there is also a correspondingly high
number of men who must deal with their lovers, sisters or friends that
have been subjected to sexual assault. Reading your notes helps me to
understand HOW I can help in the future, though I hope I never have a
need for this information. I only wish I read this stuff before I
needed it.
The Doctah
|
| 525.38 | To the men of =wn= | SYSENG::BITTLE | Nancy Bittle-Hardware Engineer, LSEE | Tue Jun 27 1989 05:56 | 52 |
|
Since I have received strong objections via email from now more than one
male =wn=er concerning what I wrote in 667.9 about men and rape, I think
I should clarify what I said there in this note publicly, in case there
are other men who were offended by what I said.
I am also requesting that if you take offense or strongly disagree with
something I say in =wn=, please voice your opinions here in =wn=, rather
than to me personally via email. This way I will only have to defend
my statements in one place, instead of to multiple people via email
where redundancy is likely to occur. That has become tiring.
But please believe me when I say that I am not too emotionally delicate
to have my beliefs on rape questioned by male =wn=ers. Having to think
through my feelings and resulting beliefs on the subject will hopefully
allow me to understand and overcome some of the "side effects" I am
experiencing now.
In 667.9, "Non-Coercive Romance", I stated:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> been an education. I never thought myself capable of being
> a rapist to begin with, but now I'm thoroughly immunized.
Well, I've deleted and rewritten most of my immediate reactions to
that sentence because I was afraid of sounding like I was "male bashing"
(not wanting to give fuel to a debate going on in another topic.)
You are not "thoroughly immunized" unless it is no longer structurally
possible for you to rape a woman. I suspect this is not the case.
Rape is a means by which any man can keep any woman in a state of fear.
You *are* capable of rape.
A more factual statement would be that you are less likely to rape
because of your heightened awareness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, do not be offended by an irrefutable fact resulting from your
(or any typical man's) biological structure and physical strength.
I did *not* mean to imply that *every* man should be "viewed" as a
potential rapist by a woman. I do not think that would be very healthy
at all. Nor did I mean to make men who opt not to rape feel guilty or
criminal by stating that any man is capable of rape.
I apologize for causing any hurt feelings among the men of =wn=, but I
still believe what I said is true (and you are welcome to try to change
my mind about that in =wn=.)
nancy b
|
| 525.40 | | RAINBO::TARBET | I'm the ERA | Tue Jun 27 1989 13:13 | 19 |
| 525.41 | | HANDY::MALLETT | Barking Spider Industries | Tue Jun 27 1989 13:39 | 41 |
| 525.43 | Two separate subjects... | BEING::DUNNE | | Tue Jun 27 1989 14:56 | 28 |
| RE: .42 by SIETTG::HETRICK "Potential Rapist"
Brian, I don't think your personal is funny, and I think it is
inappropriate. Rape should never be made a joke of, in any context.
I suspect you didn't intend to suggest that rape is a joke,
but I also feel sure that you have no idea of the impact
of that personal name on a woman: it's very scary.
While I don't agree with Nancy either when she says that every
man is a potential rapist, I understand that, having been
raped, she might feel that way. I was mugged once, and for
a long time afterwards every person who walked down the street
to me was a potential mugger.
On another issue, I sometimes wonder if this notes file should be
for women only. I recently read a note in Mennotes in which a
man who was very distressed wrote about an infertility problem,
and other men actually joked about his condition in the replies.
I wanted to say something about this but decided not to. I decided
not to because that file is a men's forum. I hoped some man would
notice the same thing; it might be more effective for the men
involved to hear that message from another man. I can always use
mail to respond to the original note. After all, we have the Human
Relations file in which to discuss the many issues that affect
both men and women.
Eileen
|
| 525.46 | What I Thought | 2EASY::PIKET | YUPPie:Young Urban Poor Piano Player | Tue Jun 27 1989 19:13 | 18 |
|
Just my 2 cents:
When I read Nancy's note saying every man is a potential rapist,
in response to Keith's (?) statement that he was "immunized", I
didn't think she was saying we should be afraid of all men.
I got the impression she was responding to what seemed like a rather
naive comment. I think all people should be aware of their potential
to become something they don't see in themselves right away. If
you decide that you are "immune" to something, you stop watching
out for it. All I thought Nancy was saying was, "Be aware."
BTW, Nancy, thank you for sharing such personal and painful memories
with us.
Roberta
|
| 525.47 | Views, and a suggestion | SKYLRK::OLSON | Partner in the Almaden Train Wreck | Wed Jun 28 1989 02:16 | 112 |
| This particular essay may be underappreciated by some readers ;-).
In the last 6 months I have addressed this topic with six or
seven email correspondents. One of them contacted me yesterday
suggesting that I respond here...so I've gone to my mail archives
and pulled together the following musings on the topic. It is
not directed to anybody in particular...except me. These are my
rules for *me*.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
=wn=
This is a special place. This place has history. I respect that.
Having participated here and in many other conferences, I've been
speculating upon them; how notesfiles evolve, how conferences' rules
and moderators and communities and individuals and topics interact
to create each conference's own unique feel, its own culture. And
how we recognize that as individuals of the community, we can be
active in guiding that cultural evolution by the nature of our
participation; in defending viewpoints that are unfairly attacked,
in complimenting the person who presents a difficult insight with
skill, we can nurture the climate we desire, and evolve towards a
supportive community.
My perspective is that when I see things of value in the file, I
try to offer support to the person who placed it there...I try to
reinforce the kind of noting that I value. It feels then that I am
not so much reacting when my hot buttons get pushed (though I do
that too) as I am supporting the development of the community in
directions that appeal to *my* interests and desires.
Supporting a woman when she says things that are hard for men to
hear expressed is *important* because she should know that the
message is recognizable, and understandable from this side of the
gender gap, even if that comprehension happens infrequently...or
even if it causes some men to feel pain. Here, my politics are
showing. I really do think that encouraging the expression of
women's feeling even at the expense of some male readers is the
right, VoD thing to do. The goal, of course, is not to hurt men.
The goal is to support individuals as they teach themselves to
understand and live with the knowledge of their feelings.
When I see something like "All men are capable of rape", I could
feel hurt...but I can also feel, "whoa, what kind of experiences
does a woman have to go through to be capable of thinking and saying
that!" When I feel that, I recognize that my first feeling pales
beside the enormity of the second. I learn, for those few fleeting
moments of empathy, that a woman who has been raped might never look
at men in quite the same way again. And for this knowledge, which,
sorrowfully, teaches me more about life than I knew before...I can
put aside the pain her statement caused. Other men do this, too.
Many of us recognize that here in =wn=, those individuals with the
first call on our empathy are women. On the other hand, my brothers
who can't quite see the value (from my own particular set of values,
I know) may just sometimes have to do without my support, when a
woman's self-expression causes them pain. That's my choice.
=WN= has had a varied assortment of responses to male criticism.
In my own rendition of history, male criticism here is often
recognizable as just a reaction to that noter's ox getting gored.
It is not generally tolerated real well, which is perhaps unfor-
tunate...for the following reasons. I don't mind watching when
some guy with his foot in his mouth and/or his attitudes in the
dark ages gets crisped. But so many times a male noter will get
flamed for revealing an "attitude" by using a common turn-of-
phrase that isn't acceptable in womannotes. A *very* high price
is exacted here from men who are sloppy with the language. This
has the following unfortunate result:
Men who have learned to ignore the heat and stay with the file
have also learned how not to attract the heat. Male criticism
in =wn= will seldom be as outspoken as in most other notesfiles.
(I don't mind that at all; its a good place to practice one's
written sensitivity.) The downside is that the upset men will
often find their relief/need_to_respond to whatever upsets them
in =wn= via email...taking their battles private, to a one-on-one
situation. In such circumstances, I consider that "antagonistic"
because the initial expression in =wn= is deemed to be "supportive"
context, and a person who enters something which the community
supports publicly shouldn't necessarily have to turn around and
defend herself privately for revealing something in the supportive
space. My concern here is that, as Nancy's experience related in
525.38 bears witness, male readers have no hesitation about taking
their beefs to mail. To me, that has the appearance of a picked
fight...refusing to address the issues in the public forum where
they were raised.
Am I far enough out on a limb yet? Let me carry on just a bit
further...
My response, then, if/when I see notes that might draw private
flames, yet that correspond to my values as descibed above, is to
support the noter privately. Reference my previous comments on
the evolution of the file; I express my appreciation for noters
I'd like to see more of, when I can find sufficient sensitivity
within myself to dare address issues which cause pain. My hope
is that such support counterbalances the email hostility which
often accompanies such fine noting.
The picked fight aspect of some private email still disturbs me,
though, and I have a suggestion for individuals who may find
themselves in such a position. Were I subject to antagonistic
mail, I might politely respond that I would prefer to discuss
this publicly where it originated, and invite the writer to
repeat the criticism in the file if I were to be expected to
respond. I think this would work great to get any truly antag-
onistic people off of one's back, while permitting people who
truly desired a dialogue, or to exchange views, a chance to
practice their written sensitivity (putting one's views up for
the community to see them often teaches one restraint.)
DougO
|
| 525.48 | moderator response | WMOIS::B_REINKE | If you are a dreamer, come in.. | Wed Jun 28 1989 02:27 | 10 |
| Thankyou Doug for you long and thoughtful note.
May I also add as a moderator, that *anyone*, who feels that they
have been subjected to mail that they find harassing or objectionable,
feel free to contact the moderators. As has been mentioned in other
places in this file, we strongly discourage anyone from engaging
in harassing behavior by mail and will do what we can to assist
someone who is having a problem with this sort of situation.
Bonnie
|
| 525.49 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | Nancy Bittle-Hardware Engineer, LSEE | Wed Jun 28 1989 05:53 | 101 |
|
re: .41 (Steve "Barking Spider Industries" Mallett)
---------------------------------------------------
> To the co-mods: I feel this discussion is something of a tangent
Probably... I wasn't sure where to put my reply addressed to men =wn=ers.
It was kind of a processing topic, but not really...It kind of relates to
this topic, though less so since the title was changed...And I bet there's
a topic about men in =wn= that it could belong to also... I knew there
wouldn't be a moderator in her office at the time I entered the note, and
I wanted to enter it before I received any more email.
re: .42 (Brian "Potential Rapist" Hetrick)
-------------------------------------------
> case, but I freely admit the potential is there -- I have all the
> necessary functional parts.
THANK YOU. I was quite psyched to see that a male =wn=er understood what
I said.
And I admit to being mildly amused by your choice of personal name for that
reply...I interpreted that as a clever way of underlining what you said
in your reply.
re: .43 (Eileen Dunne)
----------------------
> While I don't agree with Nancy either when she says that every
> man is a potential rapist, I understand that, having been
> raped, she might feel that way. I was mugged once, and for
> a long time afterwards every person who walked down the street
> to me was a potential mugger.
I do *not* look at every man and think "rapist" or "potential rapist",
now or ever. Makes me shudder to think of how continually upset I
would be if that were the case. I am really a generally happy person
who enjoys life (and men) immensely and, until recently, did not
*consciously* think often about rape and rapists.
My main problem (side effect) is that I can't sleep normally unless I
am drugged, completely exhausted, or sleeping with someone. Shutting
my consciousness off to the subject was not helping my unconscious state,
so I'm experimenting with thinking about it....Nevertheless, I still do
not look at every man I encounter and think, "rapist."
.46 (Roberta Piket)
--------------------
> All I thought Nancy was saying was, "Be aware."
EXACTLY.
> I think all people should be aware of their potential
> to become something they don't see in themselves right away. If
> you decide that you are "immune" to something, you stop watching
> out for it.
Good observation and insight.
Mainly, I said what I said, because I wish people would stop thinking of
men who rape as diseased, sick, wildly deranged types that could easily be
recognized and avoided.
Most men are physically capable of raping. A lot of men have sexual intercourse
with women with some degree of frequency. Most of these men choose not to
(use physical or verbal coercion to get sex) / rape. ^^^^^^
But unfortunately, men that appear otherwise normal can change their mind on
this; a timely for-instance has been provided by Ann Johnston in topic 99.
re: .47 (Doug Olson)
---------------------
Awesome.
Thank you for taking the time to assemble your writings and mails into an
essay that made a lot of sense to me.
> My hope
> is that such support counterbalances the email hostility which
> often accompanies such fine noting.
Yes, it does. I would substitute "counterbalances" with "far outweighs"
in the above sentence for what I am experiencing.
re: .48 (Bonnie Reinke)
------------------------
Nothing I have experienced with respect to =wn= comes close to anything
I would call harassment.
But thanks for the reminder that you are there if needed...
nancy b.
|
| 525.50 | | SHIRE::DICKER | Keith Dicker, @Geneva, Switzerland | Wed Jun 28 1989 10:32 | 36 |
| I have been following the debate concerning what nancy wrote in
667.9 for a few times, and I think it's time to put in my reaction
as the base note author.
I was NOT offended or bothered by
> You *are* capable of rape
for a couple different reasons. First of all, I may have sounded
as though I meant "I could never rape anyone, so I don't have to
worry about it, it's not my problem." What I MEANT was, "I don't
think I'll ever rape anyone because I WILL think about and respect
the other person's feelings, and I wouldn't want to hurt ANYONE
in that way regardless of what they might have done to me. Secondly,
nancy (or anyone who doesn't know me that well, or that matter)
can not know whether I would do such a thing, and in a society where
1 in 3 women are raped I can accept a healthy caution as long as
it does not turn into paranoia.
> Rape is a means by which any man can keep a woman in a state
> of fear.
This statement bothered me somewhat more. I felt that it implicated
me more personally -- because it seemed to suggest that if a woman
is afraid of me, then I, personally am using it to keep it that
way. I feel that SOME men who use rape to try to control women
keep many women in a state of fear which I must recognize and accept
and try to alleviate, but for which I am not PERSONALLY responsible
and for which I will not BECOME responsible if I avoid engaging
in behaviour that is perceived as coercive.
I accept and understand, nancy, if your statements reflect your
feelings of anger. I only ask that you also try to understand mine
if/when you react to this response.
-Keith
|
| 525.51 | | HANDY::MALLETT | Barking Spider Industries | Wed Jun 28 1989 15:19 | 15 |
| re: .49 (the part that was re: .41, which was re: .39, which
has since been deleted but was re:. . .uh. . .well, you get the idea)
I'm sorry I wasn't a bit more specific, Nancy. What I meant by
"this discussion" was my reply (.41) to Steve Thompson's (.39,
now deleted) in which he questioned the difference in "mindset"
between a rapist and an individual using MAIL and/or NOTES intrusively.
It seemed to me at the time that such a discussion, while valid,
was out of place. To tell the truth, though, I was guilty of having
lost the beat - I was focusing on this note's title and thinking that
the discussion here was about the side effects of rape. In re-reading
Jody's base note, I'm realized I goofed, so I guess I take back what
I said about .39/.41 being a tangent.
Steve
|
| 525.52 | | RUBY::BOYAJIAN | Protect! Serve! Run Away! | Thu Jun 29 1989 09:50 | 17 |
| I already mentioned this in 667, but I agree totally with what
Nancy was trying to say (at least, with what I thought Nancy was
trying to say), and I didn't feel the least bit offended by it,
as a man or as a human being.
For reasons that I mentioned in that previous note, I think men
*are* "potential rapists" *without realizing it*.
There are some incidents from my past (as perpetrator, not victim)
that bother me, because I simply don't know where they fall along
that spectrum that runs from persuasion to rape (well, they *weren't*
forcible rape, but as I said in the other note, what one woman sees
as persuasion, another can see as rape). *That bothers the HELL
out of me.* I know that my intentions weren't malevolent, but it
doesn't make me feel any less guilty.
--- jerry
|
| 525.53 | | AKOV13::MCGARGHAN | Love Others; Value Everything | Thu Jun 29 1989 16:05 | 21 |
| I don't know where to begin. I was raped. Twice. In one of the
cases there was no question in my mind that the man involved was
demented. The other was a case of date rape.
We all walk a fine line in our lives, and I applaud all who are
willing to look at so terrible a side of aggression and see whether
the seeds can exist.
I do not distrust men as a class. But, after twelve years, I still
have extreme anxiety when face-to-face with an angry man. I expect
it'll take some time to believe in my heart, as I know in my mind,
that all anger does not come out in the form of abuse either physical,
mental, emotional, sexual...
To look at the potential for rape is to look at the potential for
any other kind of abuse, I think.
And we are all potentially abusive.
Cat
|
| 525.54 | | SA1794::CHARBONND | I'm the NRA | Thu Jun 29 1989 16:47 | 12 |
| re .53 >and we are all potentially abusive.
You're right, Cat. And it's extra easy to be abusive in an
area where one has an obvious advantage. Superior strength
might make one more likely to be physically abusive, a
faster wit might make one verbally abusive, etc...
You have to trust others not to abuse an advantage they
may have over you. And not use your own advantages in
an abusive manner.
Dana
|
| 525.55 | Women as 'natural' victims of violence | SYSENG::BITTLE | losing direction in the darkness | Tue Jul 11 1989 13:25 | 36 |
| The previous discussion of viewing men as potential rapists educed a
conception of women I have which I would not have otherwise been aware
of...
I am much more likely to look at a woman and think "easy victim" than I
am to look at a man and think "potential rapist". I look at a woman and
think "easy victim" (relative to other women) because of her slight
build, her thinness, or her lack of much muscular development. I look
at *all* women as "easy victims" relative to men. I was very frustrated
to catch myself focusing on the victim instead of the perpetrator, as do
too many others in society. This is twisted!
Or is it? Is it just a woman's reality to be a victim of violence? If
we could accept that we [women] are inevitable victims, wouldn't it be
easier to handle the violence when it occurred?
Men by design will always be able to perpetrate violence against women.
For mostly three reasons: 1)they are stronger, 2)they have greater
strength, 3)their strength is superior. Men are fit for life. They are
faster, more powerful. They don't bleed every month. They typically
don't need to go to a male-equivalent of a gynecologist at least once a
year. Men are socialized to be tough, aggressive; to be able to take
control.
Women, by design and evolution, are natural victims. Women are weaker
and slower. Women need gynecologists. Women are treated as objects.
Women are looked upon as possessions. Women are subjects in violent
pornography. Women need to be protected. Women are socialized to be
quiet, demure, soft-spoken, to let the man take control. Women are
supposed to count on others for protection.
Because we are natural victims......
we must become instinctive survivors.
nancy b.
|
| 525.56 | Not to me... | VALKYR::RUST | | Tue Jul 11 1989 15:07 | 14 |
| Re .55: What a horrible image...
If you don't mind, I'll continue to think of myself - and most women -
as sensible, resilient, capable, and tough. Heck, "fragile" is not the
word for bodies designed for childbearing!
This is not to say there aren't a lot of real problems out there, but I
prefer not to view the world as consisting mostly of attackers and
victims. (Admittedly, if I had been a victim of a serious attack, my
views might change; as it is, the only time I was ever physically
attacked was a relatively mild mugging from some teenage girls when I
was about 12...)
-b
|
| 525.57 | Victimization of women: nature or NURTURE? | SHIRE::DICKER | Keith Dicker, @Geneva, Switzerland | Tue Jul 11 1989 16:51 | 61 |
| RE .55
Your reply evoked in me an understanding of bitterness and fear.
I think that there are certain natural attributes which cannot be
changed, but ther are many other factors which CAN be changed.
Men ARE physically stronger, on the average, in terms of brute
force over a short period of time. Women are stronger in terms
of endurance; this is useful to carry a child but unfortunately
will not help much in fighting off an attack. Women do bleed every
month, but they did survive fine long before gynecology.
But as far as the rest goes, IT CAN BE CHANGED!!! The fact that
women are treated as objects, seen as possessions, subjects in violent
pornography -- is NOT an unchangeable given. Surely, it is incredibly
difficult to change an entire culture, but DON'T GIVE UP!!! Women's
rights have come to be better recognized over the last couple of
centuries (voting, right to OWN property instead of BEING property,
etc.). And no I'm not saying, "chill out, you're doing okay" --
I'm saying KEEP FIGHTING to move in the same direction! It is an
unfortunate fact that since women stand to gain more from change,
women will have to make more of the effort -- but some of us guys
are ready do our part in letter writing, voting, and day-to-day
interaction with other people. And if some women are socialized
to be "passive" -- well, you can't change "other women": people
change themselves. But you can (surely do) present a "positive
role model" by refusing to be quiet, demure, etc. -- and showing
that it WORKS.
Your statement, "Women are supposed to count on others for protection,"
set off some thinking. There are a lot of romantic gestures (offering
a coat when it's chilly, for example) that are based on this. Bu
I'm sure the woman could survive just FINE without the coat. What's
interesting is... in our society, the woman (is socialized to) enjoy
being "protected" in this way and the man (is socialized to) enjoy
"protecting" the woman. Perhaps this is putting the cart before
the horse, but... maybe trying to use romantic gestures that do
NOT imply "protection" of this type would be a move in the right
direction. Just an idea to toss in the wind...
Regarding what I said a couple replies back in the discussion of
"potential rapists": I noted that as a man, I had feelings about
being labeled a potential rapist. I also wanted to put that in
a context: since the issue of rape (in the case of rapes of women
by men) has infinitely greater effects on women than on men, I feel
it to be normal that women's feelings be stronger then men's. I
want to recognize, therefore, that (IMHO) women's consideration
of men's feelings about the issue is important, but not to the extent
that it prevents women from dealing with it: your (generic) feelings
of fear need more attention than my feelings of being held responsible
for something I didn't do.
Don't resign yourself. When I was travelling alone in the Scandinavian
countries, I met young Scandinavian women who were also travelling
alone. They did not feel afraid to hitchhike alone in their own
countries. And the Scandinavian cultures are fairly close to Western
culture. The U.S. is still quite a ways behind, but -- I refuse
to accept that the treatment of women in our culture is an immutable
tenet of nature; it is an obsolete trapping of Western civilization
which must me gnawed at until it is destroyed.
|
| 525.58 | a long history of being chattel | NOETIC::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Wed Jul 12 1989 03:05 | 14 |
|
I believe it's an undeniable fact that until just the last couple
hundred (and maybe not that much) years any sign of weakness was
cause to get you either cast out or killed by your tribe. Those
with mental or physical handicaps were disposed of or left as
beggers. Women being smaller and weaker were just lower in the
pecking order than men so they could be kept and used or discarded
as seemed convienient. I suppose as long as they kept having
healthy children and grew the veggies they were considered worth
keeping. Any female that wasn't yours was probably fair game for
rape and there was always a supply of younger ones to replace the
ones lost in childbirth. And hey, if your tribe ran out of women
you just raided your neighbor's and took his. liesl
|
| 525.59 | No safety | CLOSET::TAYLOR | | Wed Jul 12 1989 11:57 | 14 |
| RE: .57:
> Don't resign yourself. When I was travelling alone in the Scandinavian
> countries, I met young Scandinavian women who were also travelling
> alone. They did not feel afraid to hitchhike alone in their own
> countries. And the Scandinavian cultures are fairly close to Western
> culture. The U.S. is still quite a ways behind, but -- I refuse
> to accept that the treatment of women in our culture is an immutable
> tenet of nature; it is an obsolete trapping of Western civilization
> which must me gnawed at until it is destroyed.
Interesting, when I was travelling in Europe alone I was molested twice. Both
times were on late night trains. The first time I was in Sweden going to
Norway, then second time was in Spain. So much for Scandinavian
countries being so safe!
|
| 525.60 | further clarification... | SYSENG::BITTLE | Hardware Engineer - LSEE - 223-7653 | Wed Jul 12 1989 16:52 | 72 |
| re: .56 (Beth Rust)
> Re .55: What a horrible image...
Yes, it is.
> If you don't mind, I'll continue to think of myself - and most women -
No, I don't mind at all how you continue to think of yourself and most
women.
I was *asking* the following:
if: we believe x,
then: when y occurs, we understand, because y = f(x)
where x = women are natural victims of violence because of...
y = violence
In other words, having violence inflicted on us is just
... a function of being a woman.
> ...I'll continue to think of myself - and most women - as sensible,
Yes.
> resilient,
Yes.
> capable,
Yes.
> and tough.
Mentally? Yes.
Physically? Relative to men? Don't kid yourself.
> Heck, "fragile" is not the word for bodies designed for childbearing!
Funny you mentioned childbearing, Beth...I came very close to including
that in my list of what makes women more susceptible to violence.
While it is true that we must be internally strong to bear a child, from
what I've observed, the entire experience puts women in a weakened state
physically to the external world, both during the pregnancy and for a
while afterwards, thus making it easier to be victimized.
> ..but I prefer not to view the world as consisting mostly of attackers
and victims.
I prefer that also, try not to, and usually succeed.
However, there are times when I do catch myself doing it...
Like when men loitering at this playground I must walk by in Cambridge
on the way to an evening meeting at least once a week whistle at me.
I think, "They could rape me, and I wouldn't have a prayer at defending
myself." It's upsetting and leaves me with a sense of futility.
Or when I'm just walking around a mall, and I see a very petite, thin,
or obviously weak woman, I typically think, "She should start lifting weights
so she would at least not *look* so vulnerable, and then take a course
in self-defense with a handgun so she would not actually *be* as vulnerable."
The above examples and the discussion on understanding that all men are
potential rapists are what prompted me to enter 525.55.... I didn't
realize before that, while it takes a man to say or do something
unordinary to make me think "potential rapist", it only takes a woman to
be too thin, slight of build, or weak for me to think "potential victim".
nancy b.
|
| 525.61 | | VALKYR::RUST | | Thu Jul 13 1989 13:24 | 64 |
| Re .60: I hear what you're saying, Nancy, but I don't agree.
>Is it just a woman's reality to be a victim of violence?
I believe that everybody is a _potential_ victim of violence, and while
it is obvious that some groups seem to be victimized more often, it
seems to me that focusing on woman-as-victim doesn't do anything to
help the situation.
>If
>we could accept that we [women] are inevitable victims, wouldn't it be
>easier to handle the violence when it occurred?
This statement bothers me. While I do think one should be prepared to
face the problems of life, this sounds too much like the dreadful "lie
back and enjoy it". I don't think that's what you meant, but it rings
that way to me.
I believe that _humans_ are all potential (not inevitable) victims. I
don't worry about it much, but I do try to avoid situations that make
me vulnerable; and if the worst should happen, I believe I will get
through it - cursing perhaps, crying certainly, railing against Fate
maybe, but I will get through. (Or die, of course, but since that's the
One True Inevitability, I don't worry about that at all!)
> if: we believe x,
> then: when y occurs, we understand, because y = f(x)
>
> where x = women are natural victims of violence because of...
> y = violence
>
> In other words, having violence inflicted on us is just
> ... a function of being a woman.
Hmmm. New thought: Is the idea to remove any possibility of feelings of
guilt at being victimized? This theory would certainly do _that_. "I am
woman, therefore I will be beaten up; doesn't matter what I do or say,
so it's Not My Fault. It's a law of Nature." If that's comforting, OK,
but I find it disabling instead, as if there isn't any point in even
trying to find solutions.
I dunno. I just don't find it useful to think of myself as a victim,
potential or otherwise. I choose the word "survivor".
One other thing. Your focus on physical strength vs. weakness confused
me a little. When I said I thought of women as tough, I wasn't thinking
"able to beat anybody on the block," but a combination of mental,
emotional, and physical _resilience_; the ability to endure. (Many of
the notes in this string - including yours - seem to bear this out in
spades!) But when you say that you want to urge a frail, thin woman to
take up weightlifting - and then comment that I'm mistaken if I think a
woman is physically tougher than a man - you seem to be contradicting
yourself. No matter how strong I get, I'm never going to be able to
out-fight most men (or women... or 8-year-olds...) But even if I were
the heavyweight champ of the world, all it would take is an armed
opponent, or two or three unarmed ones, to make all that muscle
irrelevant. So I'm a bit confused on that point, because if women are
inevitable victims, what difference would it make if they built
themselves up?
My, how I do run on. This has certainly been a thought-provoking topic;
heck, it's been provoking me since last night!
-b
|
| 525.62 | | SA1794::CHARBONND | I'm the NRA | Thu Jul 13 1989 14:26 | 13 |
| re. the frail women building themselves up
I think it's important that one not project a 'victim look',
that is, if one looks healthy and self-confident, one is less
likely to be hassled, even if _not_ really able to defend
oneself physically.
Picture two women, both 5'4", 110 lbs. One works out, has a
tan, walks confidently. The other has poor muscle tone, looks
pale, walks hesitantly. Who is more likely to be victimized ?
Dana (who admits that at 5'10 & 200 + it's easy not to look
like a victim)
|
| 525.63 | WOMEN ARE **NOT** NATURAL VICTIMS!!! | BOXTOP::BAILIN | | Fri Jul 14 1989 17:37 | 40 |
| I MUST respond to .55. I only read .55 and all this has probably
been said but it could use restating...
There is absolutely NO REASON why women are "natural" rather than
socialized victims. I agree with all the statements about being
socialized to weakness but I do not agree that less height or weight
makes one naturally a victim.
IF THAT WERE TRUE, SMALL JAPANESE MEN WOULD BE THE "NATURAL" VICTIMS
OF LARGE, WHITE MEN. This is not the case. If you want inspiration
that slight people can effectively defend themselves, try Bruce
Lee.
Let alone that most of defense is AWARENESS not PHYSICALITY.
I don't care if a man is as big and strong as Arnold Schwarzenegger.
If a woman is socialized to feel that she can and will defend herself,
she can. Arnold has a jugular vein. Arnold (assumedly) has VERY
vulnerable genitalia (unlike women). Arnold has a very breakable
nose. Arnold has eyeballs in eyesockets. Arnold, with all his
strength cannot hold even a very weak woman by the wrist who knows
how to turn her wrist against his thumb. The human thumb simply
does not have the power.
Let alone weapons. Women can learn to use weapons effectively and
equalize the difference in height and weight. With training and
a .45 the "natural" difference can be compensated for.
The idea that women are "natural" victims because of size IS ITSELF
THE VICTIMIZATION!!!!!!!!It is difficult to fight socialization
and learn to be aware and learn to defend yourself but it can be
done and MUST be done.
I have heard that Model Mugging (a course on self-defense -- it's
available from Interface) is excellent in this regard.
IT'S NOT TRUE!!!! I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!!!! I'm not saying we can
win every battle but to say that we a priori lose because of nature
is DANGEROUS and VICTIMIZING.
|
| 525.64 | re .59 | SHIRE::DICKER | Keith Dicker, @Geneva, Switzerland | Tue Jul 18 1989 07:24 | 14 |
| re: .59:
That's scary! But, at the same time, I would like to mention that
trains, especially night trains, are a special case. They will
probably be filled with a lot of people from outside of the home
country (you didn't specify the nationality of your assailants;
not that you would necessarily know, but you could guess). The
roads, at least in Scandinavia, would have less foreigners:
Scandinavia is so far out of the way from most places that I noticed
very few cars there from non-Scandinavian countries. So perhaps
hitching is actually SAFER than late-night trains in the Scandinavian
countries.
Keith
|
| 525.65 | | BRONS::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Tue Aug 01 1989 03:12 | 40 |
| (Just catching up. Been to California on business. I'll probably
be a little scarce for the rest of the month, too.)
The idea that women are natural victims or that men are natural
victimizers are, so far as I'm concerned, extremely dangerous
and far more likely to encourage victimization than reduce it.
It is not at all natural or inevitable that women are victims,
nor is it necessary or normal for men to be victimizers.
These ideas strike me as dangerous in at least two ways. First
of all it gives victimizers an excuse--a way to escape the
responsibility for their actions. They merely fob off their
actions as "just doin' what comes naturally". They excuse their
actions because abuse is the natural fate of women.
Second, it seems to me that the expectation that one is going to
be victimized leads one to play the victim. If one has a
self-image as small, weak, fragile vulnerable and a natural
victim, then my experience is that one is much more likely to be
victimized. The attitude that Beth Rust has been presenting
seems to me to be one that will do a lot more in terms of
minimizing the probability of victimization than the "women are
natural victims" notion.
It seems to me that looking like a victim is much more a
function of internals than of physical condition. Working out
and building up muscle may help a person look less like a
victim, but I think that most of the diffrence would come from
the way they feel about themselves and the determination that
caused them to do it in the first place.
My own experience is that inner strength, peace and self-esteme
are amongst the strongest armor against victimization, and at
the same time some of the most important assets one can have if
one needs to recover from being victimized.
On the other hand, having been a victim can make it very hard to
find the strength and peace that is needed.
JimB.
|
| 525.66 | Rape defined | SYSENG::BITTLE | Nancy Bittle - Hardware Engineer; LSEE | Wed Aug 02 1989 15:57 | 24 |
|
From one of the feminist books on sex in the book store Martin Minow
recommended in 11.58...
***caution***
potential offensive language proceeds
Rape defined:
"An animal fuck delivered by animal masculinity."
|
| 525.67 | | RAINBO::TARBET | I'm the ERA | Wed Aug 02 1989 17:05 | 10 |
| <--(.66)
That's sorta interesting when I think about it, y'know? I can
certainly hear the anger in the words...wow, can I ever!... but it
seems as though in the end it fails for two reasons: (a) it makes sex
the focal motive rather than the violent control of women; and (b) it
gives either rapists far too much credit, or animals far too little:
who ever heard of any non-human animal commiting rape?
=maggie
|
| 525.68 | | RUTLND::KUPTON | Let Dad pull that tooth for ya | Wed Aug 02 1989 17:30 | 12 |
| RE:Maggie
I don't think animals rape, but they sure try.....I've got a female
cat, spayed. The local males still hang around my house and sing
their lonely love songs. When she goes outside at night or when
I forget to call her in the males go after her like she's in heat.
I've gone outside to bring her in and find her fighting like hell
with a male draped over her back....
Maybe she's a tease???? 8^)
Ken
|
| 525.69 | caution- graphic reply | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Black as night, Faster than a shadow... | Wed Aug 02 1989 17:30 | 17 |
| > who ever heard of any non-human animal commiting rape?
Well, I have seen it, sort of, though it all depends on your definition of
rape. A large and powerful tomcat forcefully mated with a sexually immature
female cat on the front lawn of a friend's house. (We knew the cat was sexually
immature because it was the daughter of the tom). We heard its screeches and
squirted the tom until he decoupled, but it sure looked like rape to me, ie
the female cat was quite unhappy about the whole event.
Was it really rape? I dunno. Like I said, it depends on your idea of rape.
Another example is that of (can't remember the species of rodent) that will
mount another of it's own sex if no member of the opposite sex is around.
Supposedly this is done to assert dominance and "keep all systems working."
So I think there are parallels in the non-human animal world to rape.
the Doctah
|
| 525.70 | | SA1794::CHARBONND | I'm the NRA | Thu Aug 03 1989 16:31 | 13 |
| re .67 A magazine article I recently read described an
incident in an area where a few dozen deer were penned.
If callousness bothers you, please KP-comma
The does do not all come into estrus at exactly the same
time, and when one does, she is the center of attention of
all the surrounding males.
In this pen, one doe in heat was repeatedly mounted by a
gang of bucks, to the point of exhaustion. When she
attempted to lie down, she was prodded by antlers until
she rose, then mounted again. This continued for about 36
hours.
|
| 525.71 | Just a man being male? | SYSENG::BITTLE | Test your limits...then push back | Fri Aug 04 1989 04:16 | 15 |
| re: .67 (=maggie)
> but it seems as though in the end it fails for two reasons:
> (a) it makes sex the focal motive rather than the violent control of women;
Good catch - the focal point of the book was indeed sex, not rape.
Moreover, the context of the phrase was something like :
"She didn't want a rape... She wanted more than an animal fuck delivered
by animal masculinity."
...and the context of *that* sentence was in a chapter discussing
how sexual intercourse is frequently just two people, *both* experiencing ...
a man being male.
nancy b.
|
| 525.72 | | BRONS::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Fri Aug 04 1989 19:20 | 6 |
| No. Not a man being male. A man being violent or a man being
inconsiderate or aman being a victimizer or a man being cruel or
a man being thoughtless, but not a man being male. Being male is
no excuse to be any of the above.
JimB.
|
| 525.73 | Oops! Let's backtrack... | SYSENG::BITTLE | The Unopposite Sex | Mon Aug 07 1989 07:28 | 42 |
| re: .72 (Jim Burrows)
-----------------
-< Just a man being male? >- does not refer to "rape". I admit
in rereading .71, this isn't clear. You know how you enter the
title of a reply after you finish writing the reply?
The subject of .71, -< Just a man being male? >- , refers to the
very last sentence I wrote in the reply. It refers to the
subject of the book's chapter that I described in .71 as follows:
.71> ...and the context of *that* sentence was in a chapter
.71> discussing how sexual intercourse is frequently just
.71> two people, *both* experiencing ... a man being male.
I've thought a bit on how my experiences fit into the author's thesis
about sexual intercourse being "two people experiencing a man being
male", which she later uses as proof of the ultimate irony behind the
logic of male supremacy.
I wondered what other =wn=ers would think about the statement above...
It's an interesting proposition, though not one I agree with based
on my experiences. But others may feel differently.
Thus, I used it as the subject of .71.
My question for you, Jim, is what were *you* referring to in .72 with
> No. Not a man being male. A man being violent or a man being
> inconsiderate or aman being a victimizer or a man being cruel or
> a man being thoughtless, but not a man being male. Being male is
> no excuse to be any of the above.
Were you referring to rape? If so, I hardly find "inconsiderate" an
appropriate adjective to use to describe a man that rapes.
Inconsiderate describes someone without good manners, someone who
cuts in front of you on the road...not a man that rapes.
But maybe I'm biased...
nancy b.
|
| 525.74 | Attempting to clarify, somewhat... | BRONS::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Mon Aug 07 1989 22:47 | 69 |
| Was I refering to rape in 525.73? Well, yes, along with the
other forms of unsatisfactory sex that appeared to be referred
to in the passage quoted. I had realized that a number of topics
were being refered to in the note to which I was replying,
ranging the gammut from rape to mere man-centered sex.
The notion of "two people both experiencing a man being male"
seemed to be being applied rather broadly in the notes to which
I was responding. It seemed clear that a lot of "normal" or at
least every day sex was being painted with that brush, but that
at least one person regarded highly male orient animalistic sex
to be the equivalent of rape. The spectrum between mere male-
centered sex through to classic violent rape seemed to be
brought in without a great deal of delineation amongst the
various kinds of behavior.
For all of these behaviors, however, I don't see it as an issue
of someone acting male, but rather of someone acting badly in
some manner, from mere thoughtlessness or inconsideration in the
case of male-centered but consentual sex through to cruelty,
violence and victimization at the end of classic violent rape.
The root issue is not a man being male, but some form of
imposition upon the woman. Far too much feminist rhetoric and
reasoning appears to place the blame on masculinity, which I
hold to be highly non-productive. It gives victimizers a form of
camoflage to hide behind. It focuses attention and effort to
solve the problem on something other than the route problem. And
it alienates some number of people who would otherwise be on the
side of solving the problem.
I think, by the way, that the general problem that is being
refered to is a real one. I think that in fact too much of the
focus on sex in our culture is on male-centered sex rather than
on balanced male/female sex. More than that, I think that the
center poit is a rather badly distorted view of the masculine
aspect or view of sex.
A recent editorial in Playboy, for instance, pointed out that
most X-rated films are aimed at a male audience, but went on to
question why people thought that the kind of imagery used was or
ought to be appealing to men. It certainly isn't erotic in the
eyes of many men, the author of the commentary and me for
instance. Erotic film aimed at women-- if you can find such--is
far more appealing to these men and quite possibly to the vast
majority of men. Why, then, is just about the entire porn film
industry centered on such a distorted view of masculinity?
It seems to me that this focus on male-centered (or male-off-
centered) sex is harmful to both men and women and to healthy
sex. It doesn't seem to me to be any sort of normal male
behavior, but rather a social pathology that our culture suffers
from and one that needs some amount of fixing for everybodies
sake. Clearly, in as much as this problem contributes to rape or
other manipulative, oppressive or victimizing sexual behavior in
men, women suffer more due to it. After all, the vast majority
of victims of sexual assaults and rape are women. Nonetheless,
men are at times victims in just the same ways, and by having
their own attitudes and behaviors warped by this problem they
are in a sense also victims.
So, in as much as I understand the viewpoint that was being
presented, I think I agree that it has identified--at least
roughly--a very real and a very important problem in the area of
sexual relations and behaviors. I disagree with some of what I
see as the rhetorical baggage that is attached to the statement
of the problem, however.
JimB.
|
| 525.76 | a small request | SYSENG::BITTLE | Nancy Bittle - Hardware Engineer; LSEE | Tue Aug 08 1989 04:39 | 7 |
|
Could further descriptions of rape in the animal kingdom please
follow a formfeed and a warning?
thanks,
nancy b.
|
| 525.77 | Animal rape: mallard ducks | MOIRA::FAIMAN | light upon the figured leaf | Tue Aug 08 1989 12:35 | 17 |
| With regard to the subject of "rape" amongst animals, I am including
the following description of sexual practices among mallard ducks,
taken from Rien Poortvliet's _The Living Forest_. It is placed after
a form feed because it describes fairly graphically behaviour which,
occurring among humans, would be atrocious.
-Neil
The problem with mallard drakes is that they are "oversexed".
I have often been very upset watching their merciless male
assaults. No female duck is safe when she is outnumbered by a
troop of drakes. The drakes fasten their beaks to the back of
the hen duck's head and push her under water. If she is lucky,
she may escape wretchedly through the waterplants. Quite often,
the duck drowns and then her brood will also perish. You can do
little to stop this wretched behavior beyond throwing a stick at
the drakes.
|
| 525.78 | some stats | VIA::HEFFERNAN | Mentally diverse | Tue Aug 15 1989 12:28 | 16 |
| There's been a lot of discussion about violence against women and men.
Here are some stats that may be of interest. I'm not sure what they
mean but here goes. They are from US govment figures from the late
seventies.
Victims/100K Offenders/100K
M F M F
Murder 16 4 7 1
Rape 20 200 13 .1 (not stat significant)
Robbery 1000 400 55 4
Assault 1400 600 92 14
john
|
| 525.79 | further breakdown of stats? | SYSENG::BITTLE | and justice for none | Wed Aug 16 1989 03:55 | 33 |
|
re: .78 (John Heffernan)
Thanks for supplying those stats...
I'd be very interested to see them broken down further by race
and by age group.
I have a hunch (probably read this at one point, but can't remember
where) that you'd see the segment of the population most likely
to be the victim of robbery or assault is :
black males between 15 - 25 or 15 - 30 years of age.
But I'm not absolutely sure...anyone know the truth?
One place comes to mind that I would not want to step foot close to
if I were male (of any color) -- the Fenway area of Boston. It seems
every other time I pick up the paper I read about a male victim of
intolerant thugs out gay-bashing.
I still think women make *much* easier victims than men for all the
reasons I listed previously in 525.55 and in 525.60. I quit defending
the statements in this topic because to continue I'd have to post the
reply I wrote to 525.63 which would undoubtably hurt someone's feelings
and be in poor judgement on my part.
However ...
if women are easier victims (still my current opinion) than men, why
the disproportionate percentage of [perhaps mostly young black] males
being victimized (granted, by other males) instead of females?
nancy b.
|
| 525.80 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Black as night, Faster than a shadow... | Wed Aug 16 1989 12:53 | 16 |
| >if women are easier victims (still my current opinion) than men, why
>the disproportionate percentage of [perhaps mostly young black] males
>being victimized (granted, by other males) instead of females?
1. Drugs (deals gone sour or perp on them)
2. gang violence
3. the long cycle of revenge and retribution
4. machismo
As far as assaults go, the perps aren't always looking for the easiest victim.
Oftentimes an assault is a test of one's strength/power/ability to prevail
upon someone perceived to be a challenge. (Mostly the case with serial
assaults). And one cannot overlook the grudge factor, especially in the inner
cities.
The Doctah
|
| 525.81 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | and justice for none | Thu Aug 17 1989 11:45 | 34 |
| I've received similar questions on some of the specific things
I mentioned in 99.37. Am answering here in case anyone
else is wondering the same thing...
o At the time I did not think to ask the male police officers to
leave during the gyn exam, although their presence did bother
me. Later, when I inquired why they stayed there during the
exam, I was told that they had to ensure proper procedures were
followed by the doctor so that any results of medical corrobor-
ation that I was raped would hold up in court.
o I don't know what drug I was given to prevent pregnancy.
o Yes, I was told any statements I made to a crisis center
counselor could be brought as evidence in court, although
there was no clear-cut precedent for a challenge to this.
Confidentiality rules don't seem to apply here.
o I have *not* been compensated since for any medical expenses
by Him. It's news to me that some states do this.
o Federal Sentencing Guidelines place sexual assault at offense
level 27 (for reference, murder 1 is offense level 43).
Sexual assault against someone under the age of 12 raises the
offense level by 4, against someone under the age of 16 raises
the offense level by 2, permanently injuring the victim...+6,
seriously injuring the victim...+4.
Want to hear a joke ? An offense level of 27 carries a suggested
imprisionment of 70 - 87 years.
The average time served by a convicted rapist is 36 months.
nancy b.
|
| 525.82 | sometimes win-win just ain't there | SELL3::JOHNSTON | weaving my dreams | Thu Aug 17 1989 13:48 | 26 |
| For what it's worth...
pursuant to Nancy's 99.37 and my own previous entry in the string about
my own experience:
I absolutely INSISTED upon a woman police office to be present at the
gyn exam. After the trauma of the interrogation by the two [male]
officers, there was no WAY I was going to just stretch myself out and
spread my legs with them in the room. For 40 minutes I sat curled up
in a tight little ball and indulged in the most un-mannerly responses
to both the officers and the doctor [a woman] as they tried to harrass
me into compliance. The woman officer, who finally arrived, was no more
sympathetic than anyone else I had encountered [dates don't rape, you
know, they just 'get a bit hot and bothered and lose control' -- now
isn't THAT a puny comment on men, but I digress...].
While my little stand for being treated like a living breathing human
being may have been personally empowering, it pretty much nailed the
coffin lid closed on any chance of redress through the justice system.
I had proved myself to be a difficult woman...no doubt I had it coming.
Yes, even the doctor expressed the opinion that I was just the sort
that needed to be taken down a notch or two.
Somehow I can't reconcile being raped by a friend with my come-uppance.
Ann
|
| 525.83 | | EGYPT::CRITZ | Greg Lemond wins 2nd Tour de France | Thu Aug 17 1989 16:02 | 23 |
| Please excuse me for jumping into the middle of this.
Last evening, Oprah had a family on. Daughter had been raped
one evening while waiting for a bus to take her to her job.
The mother was so furious, she and husband (police officer in
the city) finally staked out the location. The same man that
raped the daughter attacked the mother. She was wearing a
bullet-proof vest and carrying a stun gun. Her husband arrived
within seconds of the wife's attack. He identified himself, but
the rapist ran. Father chased, but could not catch him.
Eventually, the man was caught. He had 123 counts against him.
Sentence: Life plus 1700 years in prison.
BTW, the mother (by her own admission) was a whopping 105 pounds.
But, she knew the odds. She said she knew she had a 10% chance
of being killed, but did it anyway.
Sorry for the interruption. Thought maybe you'd like to hear about
this woman's courage.
Scott
|
| 525.84 | | BALMER::MUDGETT | did you say FREE food? | Sat Aug 19 1989 19:49 | 13 |
| Speaking of stories,
Back in like 1975 I think it was...I remember a rape suspect was
held at a local police station and I don't remember what part of
the legal process the suspect was but the mother of the child that
this guy raped brought a gun and shot him 5 times. Of course she
was arrested and the rape suspect (who was paralysed from the neck
down) was released. The mother was later found inocent because of
temporary insanity. Sorry for the confusing details but if you were
around then you could remember this story and that for once a criminal
got what he deserved.
Fred Mudgett
|
| 525.85 | Let's keep a little perspective on this | RUBY::BOYAJIAN | He's baaaaccckkk!!!! | Mon Aug 21 1989 03:21 | 6 |
| re:.84
It's nice to know that a *suspect* who hadn't been tried, let
alone convicted, got the justice "he deserved".
--- jerry
|
| 525.86 | Life can be a Catch-22 sometimes... | SYSENG::BITTLE | coming up for air | Mon Sep 11 1989 05:21 | 45 |
| I was a total failure in therapy for rape several years ago, and
have not attempted formal counseling since.
[BTW, I feel I've accomplished so much more in the way of
understanding what happened and working out my feelings (anger,
confusion, hatred, powerlessness, etc...) here, in =wn=, more
than I ever did in therapy. *thank you*, =wn=]
So for the next couple years, right up until I started writing in
topic 99, I tried to forget it all, to not think about it ever.
This works until I try to sleep.
Those (men) with (unpleasant) firsthand knowledge of my
nightmares told me that suppressing myself and not talking about
it was wrong, and that I couldn't expect to ever get better till
I did.
Eventually, in my own time, I decide to talk about it. Here, in
=wn=. I admittedly was very focused, very intense... Ironically
enough, this led to comments from 3 (all male, what a
coincidence!; 2 in topic 714 "Boundaries of Fear" and 1 via
email) members of =wn= to the effect of "That's about all you
talk about here".
The catch-22 presents itself - I'm blamed for not talking about
it; I'm warned and judged when I talk about it freely, which
causes me to feel that I've somehow screwed up again.
Reflecting on this leads me to imagine that other rape victims
have probably experienced this also...in different contexts...
(I'll refer to myself as a rape "survivor" when I stop having
nightmares so frequently).
But someone at DougO's dinner last week discussed with me the
aspect of being focused and intense on a particular area. She
used examples to illustrate that being focused to an extreme on
an issue is a very effective way that many people have used to
accomplish their goal. She helped me conclude that it was "OK"
to talk predominantly about rape and it's effects on me here. I
suddenly felt much better about my contributions to =wn= than I
had since I was first told I was obsessive about it.
Thank you Joyce LaMotte.
nancy b.
|
| 525.87 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | The quality of mercy is not strained | Mon Sep 11 1989 16:36 | 2 |
| Hurrah and thanx to Joyce from me too!
Mez
|
| 525.88 | Hey, MEZ, does this alter your def. of a RadFem?:) | SYSENG::BITTLE | coming up for air | Tue Sep 12 1989 02:24 | 56 |
| I've been reading a book entitled "Men on Rape - What They
Have to Say on Sexual Violence" by Timothy Beneke. Reading
this has helped me to better understand several events that
happened to me after I was raped, namely why my SO broke up
with me, and why I was treated so inhumanly in court by the
defense lawyer (this doesn't mean I excuse him from what he
did; just that I understand his motives better.)
Part of the book consists of interviews of a variety of men
on the subject of rape. One man, a social worker in his
mid-fourties, describes the following experience:
"I once knew a woman who wanted me to rape her to prove a
point. She was a very bright woman, a radical feminist, who
was taking the intellectual position that a man could wear
down a woman's resistance in a strictly physical sense very
quickly; that he could simply outlast her, and that a woman
submitting to a man without struggling is not doing it
willingly, but because she's simply run out of energy. This
woman put me to the test by asking me to rape her, literally
to force her to the bed and force her legs apart and to keep
struggling with her until I wore down her resistance, which
she was convinced would cave in before I wore out. She
initially put up a fierce struggle, which I simply matched,
without trying to overpower her, and sure enough, her energy
was totally drained in a very short time (two or three
minutes), while I hadn't even gone to my reserve energy
yet...."
Reading that reinforced my concept of reality that most
women (say all but the upper 5-8% in terms of strength and
agility) are physically very vulnerable to most men. In
thinking about that I recalled a recent experience of mine
which also illustrated that point.
This past summer I had a housemate that I grew to be very
close friends with. We did a lot of sports activities
together (basketball, swimming, tossing a football around
after work, etc.), and were generally a good athletic match
with regards to endurance and energy. One Saturday, we were
discussing whose turn it was to do a certain household chore
that neither of us really wanted to do. He suggested we
wrestle, and the person who was pinned would have to do the
chore. I thought about it for a second and agreed with the
rationale that I might learn something about defending
myself, and that, my chances were probably 50-50 (you'd
think I'd have known better!). Uh-uh. After about 3.5
minutes, I was pinned and totally exhausted by a guy who was
shorter than I! He gave me some pointers, but I could
never pin him (though it gradually took longer for him to
pin me). So I did a lot of lawn-mowing last summer :-).
(just kidding - we took turns after the first time I got
stuck doing it)
nancy b.
|
| 525.89 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | The quality of mercy is not strained | Tue Sep 12 1989 12:46 | 3 |
| Well, that's certainly going to great lengths to attempt to prove a point to
yourself!
Mez
|
| 525.90 | Has this ever been explained? | SYSENG::BITTLE | healing from the inside out | Fri Sep 15 1989 04:15 | 25 |
| One concept I've never understood about rape is how and why
the psychological and physical components of a man are *not*
in conflict when the rape is committed...
It is asserted that rape is a crime of violence ... not of
out-of-control lust or sex. Indeed, the classic police-
blotter rapist is typically very angry at women, and chooses
to express that resentment through rape.
How a man can be emotionally enraged enough to be committing
acts of violence against another human being while
_simultaneously_ being sexually aroused enough to have an
erection?
nancy b.
[FWIW, the man that raped me (twice in 1-1.5 hours) was
angry at women because he blamed his parents' divorce solely
on his mother. He had apparently not been abused as a
child. He was good looking, articulate, educated, held a
steady job, was 29 at the time, and could easily pass for
the man in the cube next door. Though this was his first
rape conviction, he had a previous history of minor sexual
offenses that indicated to me he'd probably acted out his
hostility against women several times before.]
|
| 525.91 | Wish I could remember names as well as studies | TLE::D_CARROLL | On the outside, looking in | Fri Sep 15 1989 14:03 | 37 |
| > How a man can be emotionally enraged enough to be committing
> acts of violence against another human being while
> _simultaneously_ being sexually aroused enough to have an
> erection?
I don't have an explanation, but two things...
1) I myself have felt that I can feel aroused when I am furious with
someone. I don't think that ability is exclusively male, or exclusively
rapist. In a psych course I took last semester, we talked about a
phenomenon that I felt was a good explanation of this... I don't
remember what it was called, something like "spillover". The basic
idea was that when people are feeling a strong emotion (say, anger)
and then they find themselves in a situation where that emotion is not
appropriate (say, with a female in front of them), they can confuse/
change their original emotion into one more appropriate for the situation
(say, arousal.)
One study sited in the course was about fear vs. arousal. They had
people cross over a very teetering, apparantly unsafe bridge, presumably
producing fear while it was crossed. On the other side, an interviewer
greeted them and asked them questions about their state. When the
interviewer was the opposite sex from the participant, often he or she
would feel aroused. When the participant was the same sex as the
interviewer, they often became angry instead.
They don't conclusively state *why* this happens, only that it does.
My own (somewhat supported) theory is it has to do with adrenalin and
endorphins and such in the blood associated with strong emotions...
that emotion needs to be directed somewhere....
2) I have *heard* that many times rapists *don't* manage to get full
erections, and that sometimes the beating associated with a rape is
not only anger at women but frustration at their inability. But I
dunno, I am not a rapist, nor have I done much study of this.
D!
|
| 525.92 | i understand it | SUBSYS::NEUMYER | | Fri Sep 15 1989 20:15 | 6 |
|
The use of force or power over someone is a very erotic sensation. If
indulging in a little gentle wrestling with my wife I can bvecome
aroused.
ed
|
| 525.93 | "Rape with a little 'r'" -or- "Where's the crime?" | SYSENG::BITTLE | healing from the inside out | Tue Sep 19 1989 06:45 | 58 |
| re: 544.88 (MEZ)
> Does anyone know if 'date rape' or 'acquaintance rape' has
> a conviction rate at all akin to 'random rape'?
From:
Kristin Williams, _The Prosecution of Sexual Assaults_,
(Washington, D.C.:Institute for Law and Social
Research, 1978).
Battelle Memorial Institute, Law and Justice Study
Center, _Forcible Rape: A National Survey of the
Response by Prosecutors_ (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, 1977)
[paraphrasing]
The two most significant factors in determining the outcome of
rape cases are (1) the relationship between the victim and the
defendant and (2) the use of physical force during the alleged
rape (other factors are resistance by the victim, injury to the
victim, use of weapon).
In the DC area, researchers have found that the closer the
relationship between the victim and offender, the lower the
conviction rate, despite the violence level of the incident.
(I couldn't find where I recorded national statistics, MEZ, and
even if I did they would probably be meaningless because the
stats on this varies so much from city to city).
The "probability of indictment" with stranger vs non-stranger
cases appears to be better researched then the "probability of
conviction." In New York City, only *7* % of the non-stranger
cases led to indictments, whereas 33% of the "stranger" cases led
to indictments.
One part of the process of convicting a rapist that most people
are unaware of is the power that your local police officers have
in determining whether your case is "founded" or "unfounded".
"Unfounded" cases are not prosecuted. One study showed that in
New York, 25% of the time a potential case is classified as
"unfounded" if there is a prior relationship between victim and
offender (as opposed to 5% of the time with stranger rapes).
These statistics disgust me. I believe we are seeing the result
of what happens when police*men* on case teams form male
judgements of a woman's explanation of rape, when one fourth of
the women who come forward to prosecute a rape are turned away at
the very first step in the process.
The book "Men on Rape" describes acquaintance rape as "Rape with
a little 'r'". One trial deputy in a D.A.'s office who has
prosecuted over 30 rape cases himself said, "We still have older
D.A.s in the office who have classical attitudes toward rape,
like 'Where's the crime?'"
nancy b.
|
| 525.94 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | The quality of mercy is not strained | Tue Sep 19 1989 12:42 | 7 |
| Thanx Nancy. I was wondering why we were mostly discussing 'stranger rape',
when all the statistics I've heard point to the fact that it is the least
likely form of rape. In particular, I wonder about the linkage with pornography
and rape (and brought up in other topics) and 'rape by a normal man, who is
known to the woman he assails', as it were. In fact, I wonder about pornography
and those men in a position of power who blow off acquaintance rape.
Mez
|
| 525.95 | Any recourse? | JAIMES::GODIN | This is the only world we have | Tue Sep 19 1989 12:53 | 8 |
| I'm going to admit my ignorance about the criminal "justice" system
here and ask: if the police/DA determine the rape charge is
"unfounded," does the victim have any recourse? In other words,
are there other avenues -- short of vigilante action, that is --
that she can pursue to bring the rapist to trial? Civil procedures,
for instance.
Karen
|
| 525.96 | it ain't easy | SELL3::JOHNSTON | bord failte | Tue Sep 19 1989 13:33 | 34 |
| re.93 - 95.
First, Nancy, while I concede your point that most police officers are
men and that most of the persons I dealt with in the aftermath of my
rape by a dear and valued friend were men, I must point out that the
most virulent abuse I suffered came from _women_. I was a serious
'fear object' to these women, much more than to the men involved. I
was living proof that a woman not doing anything 'risky' could still be
at risk -- there were no 'explanations' that neatly categorised why it
happened, other than I was alone with him and _that_ couldn't be gthe
reason could it?
I believe that this might be why we are not discussing it more, Mez.
There is nothing we can speak of in terms of future prevention; there
would seem to be no action that we can take. I can talk of the
side-effects, and I can talk of the healing process, but I cannot speak
of actions which might have prevented it. Certainly, I would not have
been raped by this man is I had not been with him, but
acquaintance/date rape broadens the field of potential assailants to
the point that it would been absolutely impossible to avoid them all.
And finally, Karen, if the DA/police determine that your charge is
unfounded, you may certainly get a lawyer and pursue other avenues.
[Finding a civil aspect of rape could prove difficult, though.] If you
are barred from bringing the rape to trial, you may certainly pursue it
in the media; however, you will certainly be publically crucified and
run a _serious_ risk of being brought up on slander/libel charges
yourself as your 'victim' [the rapist] will be able to point to the
undisputable fact that fact that the authorities found no grounds for
indictment.
Ann
|
| 525.97 | "Getting to guilty" a.k.a. "The Second Rape" | SYSENG::BITTLE | healing from the inside out | Fri Oct 06 1989 04:16 | 131 |
|
I originally wrote this reply last July, but didn't feel quite
right about posting it then. It now seems somewhat relevant to
the friend of 812.0 "Problems arising from an assault" if the man
who raped her twice is ever caught and she must decide whether to
try to convict him...
A question I received from a member of the =wn= community a
(long) while ago prompted me to look through some of the research
I did in law libraries while preparing for court, and the notes I
took on what happened in court.
Though it was painful to look again at what I was writing at that
time, I realized after Ann Johnston related her story about date
rape in topic 99 that some of the information I had might be
useful here in support of her subject title : 'Prosecuting is not
always the answer'. Also, this should illustrate to others who
might be skeptical of why prosecuting is (in the best case) not
necessarily in the best interest of the victim, and (in the worst
case) could be more damaging to her long term mental health than
the rape itself.
Some comic relief to start this off (at least, I found his
wording of the first sentence mildly humorous/ironic):
Sympathetic police officer: "Those rape laws are all f*cked up.
I wouldn't want my wife or daughters to go through that."
The following are examples of:
(1)Questions I was asked, and questions my lawyer told me I could
be asked under oath...questions I had to answer or risk being
discredited by not answering
(2)Shocking court precedents that have been set using totally
irrevalent data as rules of proof
To understand why what I will describe below can happen in the
'criminal justice system', you must realize the following:
When lawyer agrees to take a case, the lawyer typically believes
the case can be won. Therefore, in the event of rape, the [IMHO
inhuman, scumbag, ...] lawyer is going to attempt to prove you
[general] somehow *consented* to sexual intercourse with the
defendant, or to convince the jury you are not a true 'victim'
because you were bound to be raped sooner or later, because of
..[see below].. and therefore the "victim" (technically the
"witness" in People vs Him) is guilty of entrapment and the
defendant (Him) was just acting on your 'suggestions'.
On the other hand, if rape were treated like aggravated assault
by those in the 'criminal justice system', the question of
consent would not enter into the case. After all, who *wants* to
be assaulted?
With rape, of course, you have to *prove* you didn't want it for
the rapist to be found guilty.
Warning: some explicit sexual terms follow...
Questions the 'victim' could be asked under oath :
o Did _you_ have an orgasm during the alleged rape? {this
question was cleverly disguised by the slimebag criminal defense
lawyer who asked it *after* the legitimate question (to confirm
medical corroboration), "Did the _defendant_ have an orgasm?"
Hopefully, your lawyer would be awake enough to object at that
point.}
read: at some point, you began to enjoy it
o Were you a virgin on [date of alleged rape] ?
read: "You weren't a virgin anyway..."
o Were you wearing a bra at [time, date] ?
read: "The manner in which you dress could have provoked
attack."
o Did you have sexual intercourse with anyone else on [date]?
read: "The semen found in the medical exam could have been
another man's."
o Could you demonstrate to the court how loudly you screamed?
o Did you have sexual intercourse on [the day of the alleged
rape]?
Think *quick* -- what's the correct answer, given you "made
love" to no one that day?
"Yes - once, if you include the rape, because rape is defined
as forced sexual intercourse."
tricky tricky...
o How many other men have you accused of rape?
Court precedents noted:
o the shock experienced by a woman immediately following the
rape resulted in a false display of tranquility and calmness.
This not the way the men in power in the judicial system expect a
woman who's been raped to behave. This was successfully used
against the women in the rapist's defense.
o a conviction was overturned on implications of the fact that
the victim told the rapist to "fuck-off" when initially
responding to verbal harassment
o need an objective showing of evidence on non-consent --
People V Taylor, Illinois, 1961
He threatened that he had a gun.
She never actually *saw* the gun.
The rape conviction was overturned in appeals court.
nancy b.
|
| 525.98 | (moved from 99.40 by =m) | NITTY::DIERCKS | Music -- the voice of the soul! | Tue Oct 10 1989 17:34 | 13 |
|
> Does it ever end for the victims or there family?
It depends on what you mean by "end"!! The memory will never go away.
In fact, a good part of the healing process involves remembering -- in
a healthy way.
If it "ending" means learning to live with the memory and move on, yes,
it does end, thought the process is never ending. It "ends" with the
help of a good counselor and a loving Saviour.
Greg
|
| 525.99 | looking for suggestions (w/in 3 days please) | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - hardware engineer;LSE | Thu Nov 02 1989 15:39 | 16 |
| I'm writing a "victim impact statement", which I will mail in place of
personally attending the parole-grant hearing on Nov 10.
The information requested of me is how I have been affected by the
crime He committed. For this, I am basically using the list of side
effects I described in 99.29. I think I'm also going to include 99.37
("Don't Scream"), if just to raise their awareness of the reality of
rape's aftermath in today's "enlightened" times.
My purpose with this letter is to somehow make it more unlikely He
will be released.
Is there _anything_ else that you think I could write in the letter
that could influence the parole board to *not* approve his release?
nancy b.
|
| 525.100 | I hope this helps | CECV03::LUEBKERT | | Fri Nov 03 1989 21:54 | 44 |
| First, I'd advise you to talk with a lawyer familiar with rape parole
hearings. I think you might get very good advise from this person.
I would talk to a lawyer, with an initial letter, if I were you.
I believe that the parole boards are swayed by the following:
1. Severity/brutality of the crime
2. Reasons to expect a reoccurance
I don't think they specifically pay as much attention to revenge
as they should. I would give any evidence of this that I had just
the same.
In 99.29 you did not mention anything about the assault except that
you still have one scar. If I were you, I would describe the event
in brutal detail. I would want the members of the board to vividly
picture what he did. I would detail the injuries. I would detail
the pain, which includes mention of the things you listed unemotionally
in 99.29, but this time I would insert the intensity of pain and
duration of suffering. If your pain doesn't show in the letter,
I think you will fail. You need to build up empathy in them, and
that is done through feelings not thoughts.
Do you have any history of past offenses for this person. I would
say as much as I can about these to begin to demonstrate how the
rapist has not been rehabilitated in the past. Has he said anything
about what he would do in the future?
Can you say anything about his lack of remorse or threats?
Lastly, can you get in touch with any past victims? Work together
on it. Try to get them to write hard hitting letters as well.
I would probably also mention something about Truth in Sentencing.
Seven to 15 should mean that he might get out in seven years if
he is an ideal prisoner. There should be no case of getting out
sooner. But I would talk to a lawyer before inserting this. The
Board may consider it an attack on them, and you want them on your
side.
I know my suggestions are painful, I just hope they're not too painful
for you. I wish you Peace.
Bud
|
| 525.101 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - Hardware Engineer; LSE | Mon Nov 06 1989 01:23 | 94 |
| re: .100 (Bud Luebkert)
> First, I'd advise you to talk with a lawyer familiar
> with rape parole hearings. I think you might get very
> good advise from this person.
I've been doing this. My lawyer said that victim-impact
statements typically have little effect on the outcome of the
board's decision. Maybe this is the way it should be, since I
am obviously not objective about Him being released, and the
board has to make an objective, logical decision.
> I don't think they specifically pay as much attention
> to revenge as they should. I would give any evidence
> of this that I had just the same.
I have no evidence of this, unfortunately. Perhaps I'm overly
fearful of Him seeking revenge just because it's been happening
more and more in my nightmares, which could be reinforcing the
idea that He will acutally do so.
> In 99.29 you did not mention anything about the assault
> except that you still have one scar. If I were you, I would
> describe the event in brutal detail. I would want the
> members of the board to vividly picture what he did.
Describing the event "in brutal detail" is something I've not
been able to do since the trial. The suggestion from a
psychiatrist that reliving that experience was something I would
need to do was what caused me to immediately abandon therapy.
I know I need to do this, and I think sometime in the near future
I will be strong enough to... but not this week... when I am not
feeling particularly stable anyway.
> I would detail the injuries. I would detail the pain, which
> includes mention of the things you listed unemotionally
> in 99.29, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ?
Unemotionally? Wow, did I ever fool you! I was quite emotional
when, after spending a few minutes/day for a couple days
recalling all the "side effects", I looked at the list in its
entirety. But I know what you mean... The fact that I could be
unemotional and removed-from-myself when I was typing at my PC at
night into this obscure medium called VAXnotes was what enabled
me to first start writing about rape here in =wn=.
So my efforts to be dispassionate about my experience are
apparent in 99.29? Thanks for that input - I can probably
change 99.29 into paragraph form easily.
> but this time I would insert the intensity of pain and
> duration of suffering. If your pain doesn't show in the
> letter, I think you will fail. You need to build up empathy
> in them, and that is done through feelings not thoughts.
I already have that part written (re: intensity of pain and
duration of suffering, detailing the injuries sustained, etc.).
> Do you have any history of past offenses for this person.
He had never been _convicted_ of a sexual offense before, but He
had been arrested several times on "minor sexual offenses"
(whatever that means).
> I would say as much as I can about these to begin to
> demonstrate how the rapist has not been rehabilitated in the
> past.
I described the repeat nature of His behaviors, but I can't talk
about 'rehabilitation' because He had never been convicted
before.
> Has he said anything about what he would do in the future?
No. (and I try to use the capitalized form of the pronoun when
referring to Him so as to not insult all other men who are
commonly referred to by him or he.)
> Can you say anything about his lack of remorse or threats?
Well, He certainly had no remorse at the time of the rape, and I
would not count anonymous flowers He sent me after the rape as a
sign of remorse, either.
> Lastly, can you get in touch with any past victims?
Good idea! I wish I had thought of it earlier. I will see what
I can do in the next 3 days.
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful reply.
nancy b.
|
| 525.102 | | ICESK8::KLEINBERGER | time, time, ticking, ticking... | Tue Nov 07 1989 11:29 | 6 |
| I watched the made for TV movie When He's not a stranger last night...
I thought it was powerful, well done for a MFTV movie, and left me not
being able to sleep well last night.
Comments from those who did watch it?
|
| 525.103 | | BALMER::MUDGETT | did you say FREE food? | Thu Nov 16 1989 00:45 | 41 |
| You know I thought I had a pretty good handle on woman's issues.
When I was getting my degree I took two (count em 2) classes in
woman's topics. The amazing thing to me is that two topics that
I can't handle are abortion and rape. I used to think of rape as
a police issue and being something of a redneck myself I could never
buy the stories that blamed the criminal's action on my *.*;* and
it was what caused me to do that crime. I picked up a novel recently
named "Badge of Honor" which is apparently written by a policeman
it reads like a Tom Clancey novel. Anyway the first incident in
the book is about a fairly violent rape and the interview from the
policeman, from the policeman's point of view. It was so horrifying
real because it sounded just as it has been discribed in this
conference. The police was discribing the chain of evidence, the
Johnson rape kits the need for a very through interview with the
victim and what she was going to have to go through. I hated reading
it because it showed how powerless our society is at handling the
most violent abuse people can do to one another.
"So," as all my customers ask me all day, "what are you going to
do about it?"
1. I'm going to teach my children that rape is a horriable crime
not a curiousity as it was viewed when I was growing up.
2. I'm only going to vote for people who promise to build more jails
and put criminals in them for the crimes they commit for as long
as it takes those criminals to figure out that they shouldn't do
whatever they did again.
3. I'm going to hurt at stories like those in this conference.
Finally I'm sorry for dragging religon into this, but, if some of
us are correct and there is a God all the lawyers games that these
criminals used to avoid punishment in this life isn't going to work.
They will pay for the crime they committed.
Sorry for the rambling but I needed this,
Fred Mudgett
|
| 525.104 | He's out. | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - Hardware Engineer; LSE | Mon Nov 27 1989 19:28 | 81 |
|
[I wrote this 2 weeks ago. At the last minute, I decided to
attend to the hearing myself.]
I didn't really think they would let Him out. I was afraid
of His being released, but in my heart I really didn't think they
would - after only 3 years. So I don't care anymore.
Reasons for His parole - His good behavior, overcrowding -
"other criminals have committed more serious crimes that need to
be incarcerated much more than..." (my listening between the
lines ==> "...much more than ... someone who'e just committed
rape once "), and He had a job lined up already.
I passed out when I saw Him. I wish I could remember what I
was thinking at the time. How ironic - I just realized as I
write this and see if it still hurts when I touch my head, that
where I had a sore spot for 2 days was about the same location of
the blow He inflicted which resulted in a concussion.
He looked like He had aged over 10 years in 3. He didn't
look healthy. His body looked weak, when I had expected Him to
be much stronger from having so much time to do nothing but work-
out in prison. Maybe He's contracted AIDS; I can see him being
called a "pretty boy" in prison. One can only hope... I wanted
to tell Him about the AIDS tests I've taken two times a year (6
total) since He raped me. And that maybe I'll quit worrying
about after 2 or so more tests w/ negative results (since I've
read 3 years is the longest the virus can exist in sleep mode
w/out producing antibodies that can be detected in the test).
But that He probably has it. I wanted to ask Him how many times
He was raped in prison. I wanted to tell Him how what He did is
affecting my relationships with men now; how He has enormously
decreased my capacity for trust and surrender with men I love,
how those men suffer when I have violent nightmares. Since He
hates women, He wouldn't care about my side effects, but He might
care about how what He did to me has affected other men. nah...
I read my victim impact statement with only the parole board
present (it was almost an accident that I actually saw Him). The
spokesperson of the (all-male) parole board told me to "Get some
counseling." Though polite, the manner by which he addressed me
was more conducive to eliciting a "f*ck you" under my breath than
making me want to go out and "get some counseling."
They made a condition (one of many) of His parole that He
make monthly reparation payments to me. My first reaction was
[I'm not a prostitute, damn it]. When they said missing a pay-
ment is grounds for having His parole revoked, I remained
silent. I'm having the payments sent to my lawyer for the time
being, as I definitely don't want Him to know my address, nor do
I want to see monthly reminders of this in my mailbox.
I was very surprised that his release actually was a fore-
gone conclusion, or so it seemed. I just didn't really believe in
my heart they would let Him out after 3 years.
[since writing the above I've talked to my lawyer and another person
knowledgeable about parole-grant hearings, both who've indicated
the fact that He was there at all is a good indicator that the
decision was already made before the hearing]
I guess I should be enraged. I just feel tired, and very
defeated.
After the hearing, my first desparate thoughts were how I
could get the decision reversed. I had a few ideas, but trashed
them all. He would still get out eventually, no matter what I do.
So I don't care. But I am glad I attended the hearing. I faced
Him (well... I guess I can't say that too strongly since it was
too much for me), and am now less fearful of Him. And while I
could detect absolutely no feeling of remorse or any emotion on
His face when He saw me, it was useful to see His body debased by
prison; His body and probably His mind corrupted...just as He
vitiated mine over 3 years ago. I went back to where it happened
and cried for a while.
I wonder if He still hates women and will rape again.
nancy b.
|
| 525.105 | | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Secure Systems for Insecure People | Mon Nov 27 1989 20:37 | 7 |
| I don't have the strength to respond to most of the last reply,
but let me suggest that you give the reparations to charity. A
group that helps victims or a battered woman's shelter come to
mind. That way you don't profit, but he must make the payments or
risk his parole.
--David
|
| 525.106 | *hugs* | CASPRO::LUST | Flights of Fantasy | Mon Nov 27 1989 21:26 | 4 |
| Nancy - *hugs* You have a great deal of strength - perhaps much more
than you realize...
Linda
|
| 525.107 | | RUBY::BOYAJIAN | Secretary of the Stratosphere | Tue Nov 28 1989 06:23 | 6 |
| I was going to make the same suggestion as David. If you pass the
money on to a rape crisis center or battered women's shelter, it
makes the "reparations" seem more like reparations than "blood
money".
--- jerry
|
| 525.108 | The pain IS beatable, trust me. | CONURE::AMARTIN | U-Q36-Explosive-Space-Modulator | Tue Nov 28 1989 11:42 | 11 |
| NOthing we can say will make you feel any better Nancy, but perhaps
a hug would at least comfort you for the moment.
You have the strength of a thousand horses, and that strength will
guide you. I only hope that my entry, as a male noter, doesn't come
across as heartless or condensending (sp). It os not ment that way, it
is ment as support, nothing more.
May your spiritual force guide you in this dificult time.
AL
|
| 525.109 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - Hardware Engineer; LSE | Wed Nov 29 1989 14:38 | 32 |
|
re: .105 (David Wittenberg) & .107 (Jerry Boyajian)
> but let me suggest that you give the reparations to
> charity. A group that helps victims or a battered woman's
> shelter come to mind.
What a great idea! Thanks, David and Jerry.
Funny, I hadn't even given how I'd use the reparations much
thought at all. Wellll, to be totally honest, on the airplane
flight home, a really wicked thought crossed my mind, but that
was about it.
re:.106 (Linda Lust)
> -< *hugs* >-
Thanks, Linda.
re: .108 (Al Martin)
Thanks, also, Al.
> NOthing we can say will make you feel any better Nancy,
Not true! I am very influenced by the words of people
I respect here.
nancy b.
|
| 525.110 | moving forward.... | DEMING::GARDNER | justme....jacqui | Wed Nov 29 1989 15:58 | 15 |
|
RE: .109
Nancy,
Remember to PAY ALL YOUR EXPENSES (i.e. doctor's, trips to
parole board, lawyer, future therapy) BEFORE donating to a
worthy charity. Your right to not be out financially for
any expenses incurred by this outrageous act against your
person/life comes as the first charitable act that can be
generated from this fund.
justme....jacqui
|
| 525.111 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - Hardware Engineer; LSE | Wed Nov 29 1989 19:22 | 17 |
|
re: .110 (justme....jacqui)
> Remember to PAY ALL YOUR EXPENSES (i.e. doctor's, trips to
> parole board, lawyer, future therapy) BEFORE donating to a
> worthy charity.
Yes, lawyers' (that's plural) fees have been non-trivial.
Also, maybe to pay for a Model Mugging class.
Or, maybe one of those new subcompact ultra-light 9mm
semi-auto hanguns accompanied by jacketed hollowpoints
proceeded by a chambered Glaser safety-slug.
Lorna and 'Ren, wanna go shopping :-) ?
nancy b.
|
| 525.112 | | SCARY::M_DAVIS | Marge Davis Hallyburton | Wed Nov 29 1989 19:39 | 5 |
|
Now you're talking, Nancy... !!!
love your spunk,
Marge
|
| 525.114 | | NRADM::KING | It shouldn't hurt to be a child!!!!!!! | Wed Nov 29 1989 23:18 | 4 |
| Just what we need, another person running around with a semi-automatic
gun.....
REK
|
| 525.115 | | PEAKS::OAKEY | Support the 2nd | Wed Nov 29 1989 23:40 | 9 |
| A revolver shoots just as fast. A revolver is just as powerful (if not
more). A revolver is just as accurate. What's so magical (read:
fearsome) about a semi-automatic?
Let's take it to the gun note from here.
(with the offer, you remove your note and I'll remove mine...)
Roak
|
| 525.116 | Matching Gift | BOLT::MINOW | Pere Ubu is coming soon, are you ready? | Thu Nov 30 1989 00:32 | 10 |
| When you make the donation, don't forget the "matching gift form."
Now, if you really want to be nasty, you could make a donation to
a rape conselling center or battered woman's shelter IN HIS NAME,
so they send him a thank-you card every month.
On second thought, send the money in your name, and just think
about the thank-you card.
Martin.
|
| 525.117 | There really isn't much justice | CECV03::LUEBKERT | | Thu Nov 30 1989 02:28 | 3 |
| sorry, Nancy.
Bud
|
| 525.118 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - Hardware Engineer; LSE | Thu Nov 30 1989 03:58 | 29 |
|
re: .116 (Martin Minow)
> Now, if you really want to be nasty, you could make a donation
> to a rape conselling center or battered woman's shelter IN HIS
> NAME, so they send him a thank-you card every month.
ummmm - wicked awesome idea, Martin! (I can easily find out His
address...)
> On second thought, send the money in your name, and just think
> about the thank-you card.
nah... they say to always trust your first hunch :-).
re: .117 (Bud Luebkert)
> -< There really isn't much justice >-
Maybe there will be, in the end.
BTW, my lawyer was able to get names and addresses of 2
other women He had assaulted, but it took a lot longer than a
couple of days (16 days to be exact) since their charges did not
result in convictions. In retrospect, I really don't think it
would have made a difference (but it was still a good idea).
nancy b.
|
| 525.119 | 847.94 ==> 525.120; and a request (again) | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - Hardware Engineer; LSE | Thu Nov 30 1989 16:10 | 12 |
|
I received a request to repost the last reply I put in topic
847 in a new topic for further discussion. I have decided
to repost it as a reply here instead of starting a new topic.
I really didn't expect everyone to agree with what I said in the
reply, but I would prefer to debate what I said here, in =wn=,
and not to several different people via email. For my reasons
on that, please see reply .38 of this topic.
nancy b.
|
| 525.120 | Do men benefit from(threat of/) violence agst women? | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - Hardware Engineer; LSE | Thu Nov 30 1989 16:13 | 55 |
|
re: 847.81 (Gale Kleinberger)
While all of my messages to Gale concerning her ordeal have been
offline so far, this part of her situation I wanted to publicly
discuss:
("She" is Gale's daughter)
> She will live with her father after this, as she doesn't
** trust just living with me anymore. She wants to be around a
** male for protection. I understand her reasoning, although I
> don't think her father could have done anymore than what I did
> when I heard her screams...
I made it through all of Gale's note, the one containing the
"Dear Baby" letter written by her daughter to the child of the
rape, without shedding a tear until I read that. Then came many
tears; tears of anger and of frustration. Feelings not directed
_towards_ her daughter; just at the situation itself: Her
daughter now wanting/feeling the need to be around a male for
protection and subsequently rejecting her mother.
Something I wrote down in my notebook when I was reading
everything I could on the subject while preparing for the trial
echoed in my mind...
"All men benefit because some men rape."
I didn't understand it very well at the time, but it echoed in my
mind as I read Gale's paragraph above, for Gale's ex is indeed
benefitting because his daughter was raped.
Not that I claim ignorance of this reaction or pretend I am/was
"above it" - I am far more likely to make it through the night
without nightmares if I am sleeping with a man. I hate this
side-effect which, in effect, makes me very dependant on men
for having a normal day-to-day existence.
In "Men on Rape", Timothy Beneke wrote,
"It is painful but necessary to acknowledge the sense in
which men benefit from violence against women. Men compete
with women in myriad ways, both professional and personal;
the threats to women give men definite advantages. It is
sometimes said that men tolerate violence against women
_because_ they benefit from it.
... How much longer will men accept as normal lives of
constraint and abuse for women? "
nancy b.
|
| 525.121 | | SA1794::CHARBONND | Dana Charbonneau 243-2414 | Thu Nov 30 1989 18:29 | 10 |
| In other words, all we men are a few points up in the "winning
through intimidation" game because some men rape. All the
women I meet are already a few points down.
Those are points I could do without, even if intimidation were
my game strategy.
Dana (who doesn't care for an 'advantage' earned at the cost
of knowing that,according to statistics, one of my four
sisters will be raped.)
|
| 525.122 | Two, Dana, two. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Thu Nov 30 1989 18:36 | 0 |
| 525.123 | | CECV03::LUEBKERT | | Fri Dec 01 1989 17:42 | 6 |
| As I see it, the problem is that there is no REAL PAINFUL PENALTY
for rape, or for much other violent crime for that matter. Some
how, white collar crimes have become the only ones society takes
seriously.
Bud
|
| 525.124 | What kind of penalty did you have in mind? | TLE::D_CARROLL | It's time, it's time to heal... | Fri Dec 01 1989 17:57 | 8 |
| > As I see it, the problem is that there is no REAL PAINFUL PENALTY
> for rape
Painful? Like how? As far as I know, causing pain as punishment for
a crime is considered "cruel and unusual" and therefore it's use is only
allowed against children in our society. (Figure *that* one out!)
D!
|
| 525.125 | Don't read before lunch | CECV03::LUEBKERT | | Fri Dec 01 1989 19:14 | 33 |
| "cruel and unusual" in practice goes far beyond reason. Our prisons
don't work generally. Sentences are too short unless for white
collar crimes (a reversal from 50 years ago). Prisoners have too
many "rights" (they didn't have citizenship rights 50 years ago).
Sentences are lies (50 years is 4 with good behavior). We're too
quick to say a prison is overcrowded. I often say that a cell isn't
full when there is still standing room. (Obviously exageration of
my point) Little penalty can be expected for further crimes behind
bars, and there is too much freedom allowing such crimes.
My point is that prison is not scary enough in terms of lost freedom
for me to believe it helps as a deterrent. Courts need a lot more
streamlining to get criminals behind bars (too many rapists and
murderers do it again while awaiting trial).
People who do these things should, in justice, expect to be locked
up in miserable conditions (but not conditions of further lawlessness)
if they proceed with the crime. Now they have a 90+% probability
of getting off, and if they don't--prison isn't all that bad and
doesn't take all that much time out of their lives. Wrong message!
"cruel and unusual" probably was never intended to mean not being
able to play basket ball and have subscriptions to sexy magazines.
The original concept most likely meant that we shouldn't horse whip
them, throw them in a dark wet mud pit for a year, and feed them
only rotten food with maggots crawling over it. We go too far in
making life comfortable for people who chose to deny life, health,
possessions to someone else through force.
Oh, I forgot to warn you not to read the last paragraph before lunch.
Kinda graphic, but it describes my point fairly well.
Bud
|
| 525.126 | Where rape is concerned, NOBODY wins | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Sat Dec 02 1989 01:08 | 52 |
| I had hoped I would have been able to take some time to write this
response and choose just the right words, but I wasn't, so I'll
have to do it on the fly, even though I've been mulling this over
for a few days.
I want to respond to Nancy's premise of "All men benefit because some
men rape." This hit hard when I read it, but I purposely didn't
respond immediately. Something about the notion bothered me, and
I wanted to figure out what it was. And so I did.
What was bothering me is that I don't believe the premise is valid.
I don't even think it comes close to being true. On the contrary,
I feel strongly that:
"All men lose because some men rape"
Now before I go any farther, I want to make sure that one thing is
understood. Some of you may have seen me say before that "life is
not a zero-sum game". What this means is that just because one
group loses, that doesn't automatically mean the other group wins.
And vice versa. When rape is concerned, women lose AND men lose.
The basic thing men lose because some men rape is trust - women's
trust. Because some men rape, women always have to be suspicious
of men, and this is a tremendous loss. Men lose because they
can't do something nice for a woman without having their motives
scrutinized. Men lose because the element of suspicion places
a barrier between them and women, a barrier that is often hard
to overcome.
But more to the point, men lose because they see their friends and
loved ones hurt and scarred and even killed due to rape. Men lose
because no matter how decent they are, or how well they treat
women, they are, by necessity, tarred by the acts of a few.
I can't deny that there may be some men out there who think that the
existence of rape keeps women "in their place". But I feel that any
"benefit" these particular men believe they have received is
vastly outweighed by the loss sustained by men in general. The loss
of a world free of the horror of rape.
It may be, in some way, comforting to search for villains, to assign
the blame to the generic "men". But by doing so, one only drives
the wedge further, and in the end, makes the problem worse. To
end rape, we must develop a society where women and men don't view
the other sex as "the enemy". I wish this could happen tomorrow.
This didn't come out as eloquent as I would have liked. But here
it is.
Steve
|
| 525.127 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - hardware engineer; LSE | Mon Dec 04 1989 04:45 | 63 |
|
Note 525.126 (Steve Lionel)
> I feel strongly that:
> "All men lose because some men rape"
No. Men, as a class (a group?) in the hierarchy of our society,
benefit since women are subordinated and made dependent upon
others through rape and the threat of male-violence.
Specific individuals within that group may indeed lose - be it
because they are close to a woman who's been raped, because they
unwantingly invoke fear in a woman who they just happen to be
walking behind in a parking garage, etc... But this loss does
not negate or lessen the advantage that rape and the threat of
violence in general gives men in maintaining male dominance and
female subordination in gender relations.
> It may be, in some way, comforting to search for villains,
> to assign the blame to the generic "men".
I did _NOT_ write 847.94 to find "comfort" in "searching for
villains". Who needs a "search" to determine that men are
responsible for the overwhelming majority of violent crimes
committed against women? One could glance over any year's FBI
Uniform Crime Reports to verify. I find no comfort in that
truth.
The purpose of 847.94 where I said "All men benefit because some
men rape" (which was written in my notes from something I read 3+
years ago), was
1) To broaden the context by which we conceptualize violence
against women. ... To look upon the concept of male power in
gender relations as a tool by which female subordination is
maintained.
2) To explore one reason why violence against women has only
became an issue in the recent past (IMHO due largely to loud
Feminist voices in the 70's that raised public awareness)
> But by doing so, one only drives the wedge further, and in the
> end, makes the problem worse.
How could furthering the understanding of how complex societal
interactions relate to male violence against women make the
problem worse?
> To end rape, we must develop a society where women and men
> don't view the other sex as "the enemy".
You are saying that the root cause of rape is women and men
viewing the opposite gender as the enemy? Half of this is:
Myth # 99999 - if women would just somehow change their
behaviours, thoughts, or actions, men would stop raping; that
women are somehow capable of provoking sexual violence from men
by "feelings", by their "views".
Dream on.
nancy b.
|
| 525.128 | | ICESK8::KLEINBERGER | Shoot it, stuff it, or marry it | Mon Dec 04 1989 10:22 | 42 |
| Since what Nancy wrote (and Steve's response) was an outcome of what I
said, or what my daughter said/did, then perhaps maybe I should inject
something here. (perhaps not, but with the mood I'm in...)
I do agree that with Becky's case, a man did benefit. My daughter
would be with me now if the whole ordeal did not happen. Period.
But there isn't anything I can do about it now, so, we are just moving
forward. She is going to come visit me for a week this month, which is
more than she could have done 6 months ago, so progress is taking
place. Then again, maybe its not, as she might get here, and then
decide its too much on her emotional system, and have to go right back.
That's a step we'll take one day (moment?) at a time.
As for the comment about men in total. I'm not sure whether to say
*all* men or not is a true statement. I really try not to lump
EVERYONE into one blanket. I do know that I am now frightened whenever
I hear a sound in a house. I know that if I have to walk to my car in
what to everyone else should look like a VERY safe place, but to my
mind is not, I am scared to do it. I know I am scared when I have to
stay in a place all by myself that I am unsure of the environment.
However, this is also not just dedicated to what happened to Becky. I
know of several people who have had some bad luck in the not so distant
past, involving criminals of different sorts, and this has brought out
a lot of those fears.
I think the one thing that does benefit is society - but only parts of
them. Model mugging (is that the name of it Nancy?) is one of them...
more woman pay to go through the classes, so they can feel like they can
protect themselves, that cost $$. People move to apartments that are
safer and cost more $$ than average to feel safer, or people put in
alarm systems, and pay to have them hooked into the police department
each month, costing $$, or people pay for extra insurance to guard
against whatever they feel needing to be guarded against... all this
cost $$, so society as a whole benefits, and people as a sub-set lose
money that they would have otherwise directed those $$ to elsewhere.
I don't think there is anything that can be done. Men and Women are
going to rape, steal, and even murder. This is a fact that no matter
what you or I do or say is going to change. What we can do is educate
ourselves, protect ourselves, and move forward. If we don't move
forward, we will not grow, and if we don't grow, we allow ourself to be
vulnerable for attack.
|
| 525.129 | Steve, I'm not ignoring you... | DEMING::FOSTER | | Mon Dec 04 1989 14:10 | 16 |
|
If there was any way to rephrase the statement to include Steve's
statements while still recognizing Nancy's, one could say the
following:
"The recognition of the male gender's general superiority in
strength, power and, sometimes, ability to protect, is always
re-inforced when a female is raped by a male."
This does not deny the fact that a man may feel bad when a woman he
loves is raped. But it recognizes something that our ever increasingly
intellect-dominated society cannot ignore. Men typically have a
physical edge on women. Some use it to protect women. Some use it to
hurt women.
And its not going to go away tomorrow.
|
| 525.130 | I think you're both right | MOIRA::FAIMAN | light upon the figured leaf | Mon Dec 04 1989 14:10 | 12 |
| Ummm... might it not be possible that we as men gain *and* lose because of the
existence of rape? That, as Steve says, every man who is not a rapist loses
because he *cannot avoid* being seen as "a man who might rape" (quite aside
from the more personal losses)? And, as Nancy says, even though we didn't
ask for it and don't want it, we men *do* receive a socio-economic edge
from the suppression of women that the threat of rape acomplishes?
Suppose that my country invades another country. I may not be involved in
the war. I may even be actively opposed to it. But if my country achieves
an economic advantage in consequence, I cannot help but benefit by it. And
who say that it is unjust, or even unrealistic, if the victims in the invaded
country see me as one of the enemy?
|
| 525.131 | | HANDY::MALLETT | Barking Spider Industries | Mon Dec 04 1989 14:38 | 25 |
| I'm finding it difficult to put my thoughts into words here, but
let me take a shot at it anyway. I have a think that the idea that
"All men benefit because some men rape" may be simultaneously true
and false, the key word being "benefit".
I believe the statement is true in the sense that Nancy and others
have used - men, as a class, have gained a socio-political edge by
intimidation. And this is apparently a benefit. But I wonder if
it's not a matter of "winning the battle and losing the war". If
our continued survival as a species on an increasingly endangered
planet hinges on the integration and co-operation of all people,
then perhaps the dominance of one class over another will, in the
end, prove to be a disastrous detriment.
In similar fashion, Gale mentioned some "benefits" to society in
terms of revenue generated by this situation. But if the costs of
those "benefits" is to drive us into greater fear, suspicion, and
isolation as a race of beings, perhaps the cost of those monetary
benefits is far too dear.
I keep wondering if a patriarchal society doesn't represent a kind
of Pyrhic victory, the losses from which are only now beginning to
dawn on us.
Steve
|
| 525.132 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Evening Star- I can see the light | Mon Dec 04 1989 14:51 | 14 |
| >Ummm... might it not be possible that we as men gain *and* lose because of the
>existence of rape?
Neil- thanks for saying what had appeared to me to be obvious (but
can't be because not everyone noticed). I think a fair case can be made
that men in general "gain" a sort of fear induced respect from women
whenever a man physically overpowers a woman. Such an overpowering
cannot be denied and so really seems to get attention. And yet, at the
same time, men lose the respect borne out of trust whenever one
individual rapes another. And this gain and the loss certainly do not
cancel one another out; they twist the male-female relationship
further. And in that way, we all lose.
The Doctah
|
| 525.133 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | am I going to chance, am I going to dance | Mon Dec 04 1989 16:32 | 18 |
|
RE: men gaining and losing from rape
I'd also like to say that "women gain and lose from being
raped" as well, but I would be flogged by many noters in
here, so I just attempt to keep my mouth shut on this
subject.
I agree totally.....men gain AND lose from rape.
kath
|
| 525.134 | | ULTRA::GUGEL | Adrenaline: my drug of choice | Mon Dec 04 1989 16:45 | 12 |
| re .133:
Well, you did say something in your note, so I'd like to
know how you think women can possibly *benefit* from rape.
re "all men benefit when a woman is raped", and Steve Mallett's
(and a couple other men's) comments:
Well put - I understand how you see a "loss" for men also.
|
| 525.135 | just idle curiousity ... | SYSENG::BITTLE | hymn to her | Mon Dec 04 1989 17:13 | 10 |
|
re: .133 (Kathy Gallup)
> I'd also like to say that "women gain and lose from being
> raped" as well,
How do women gain from rape?
nancy b.
|
| 525.136 | | ICESK8::KLEINBERGER | Shoot it, stuff it, or marry it | Mon Dec 04 1989 17:24 | 14 |
|
.133> Well, you did say something in your note, so I'd like to
.133> know how you think women can possibly *benefit* from rape.
Just a thought... there are men who have been raped by women. Isn't it
possible that those men might have the same feelings as a woman does,
only now reversing the sexes? If so, then if what is said about men
holds true, then the opposite would hold true in this case, and
women would be gaining in that scenario, right?
Although I don't know what Kathy is thinking, when I was writing up my
last reply, I tried to incorporate this thought pattern into it.
|
| 525.137 | I don't thing "reverse genders" works here | TLE::D_CARROLL | It's time, it's time to heal... | Mon Dec 04 1989 17:27 | 27 |
|
> Just a thought... there are men who have been raped by women. Isn't it
> possible that those men might have the same feelings as a woman does,
> only now revering the sexes?
Doesn't seem likely. A specific man might feel the same way about being
raped as a specific woman...but I don't think the reinforcing of the current
hierarchy (which Nancy is calling a "benefit") or even the raising of women
in that hierarchy happens when a woman rapes a man. Much of the so-called
"benefit" that comes from a man raping a woman is that it happens so often
that women are (justifiable) afraid of it happening again. I think female
rape of men happens so seldom that the general man's views and fears are
not affected by that rape.
I guess what it comes down to is there is some threshold frequency (or
at least expectability) with which something must happen in a society, before
the fear (or expectance) of it happening really has an affect on that
society (or portion thereof.) Women raping men is so rare that men don't
learn to fear rape by women, therefore it doesn't "benefit" women.
Also, it might be said along the lines that when one group is in "competition"
with another, that any act(s) which cause one group to be divided, lose
confidence in themselves, seek protection or feel afraid is a "benefit" to
the other group (in the context of the competition.) In other words, men
would also benefit from *women raping women* (hypothetically).
D!
|
| 525.138 | not worth 2 cents | IAMOK::ALFORD | I'd rather be fishing | Mon Dec 04 1989 17:35 | 23 |
| re: Kathy's comments
Kathy is more than able to speak for herself...but a few possible
ideas:
perhaps women/a woman gains from rape by becoming more assertive,
less docile.
or by being more careful/alert---Nancy, would you have ever
considered carrying a weapon BEFORE the rape?
or perhaps you've learned you're stronger than you thought, and
you respect yourself and your own strenghts more..
now, those are MINIMAL gains for such a dear price, and I doubt
I could justify them to anyone....nor would I want to...too bad
in such a society as we have everyone wants it to be a win-win
situation, and all to often its lose-lose.
say, are the latest statistics near 50% of all women will be
assaulted at some point in their life? seems I read that
recently.
deb
|
| 525.139 | FWIW | SSDEVO::GALLUP | am I going to chance, am I going to dance | Mon Dec 04 1989 18:07 | 100 |
|
RE: > I'd also like to say that "women gain and lose from being
RE: > raped" as well,
> How do women gain from rape?
Well, in all actuality, my statement should actually say
"women gain and lose from rape" because women who haven't
been raped can still gain from those that have.
How? I'm like to sit down and really formulate an acceptable
note about this (because it could be considered a very
delicate subject), but I don't have the time...
So here goes.
Women can benefit from rape by
1. The more rape continues to happen, the more the general
public and the justice system become aware that this is a
serious problem. Sentences for rapes in the future will (and
are now) become more harsh. Women that are raped are fast
becoming seen as victims instead of a while ago when they
were merely viewed as "asking for it" or that it was "his
right."
2. Rapes have caused high-rape areas to be watched more
carefully by police, the threat of rape has started many
"escort services" on college campuses and have significantly
lowered the rape rate on many of them.
3. Raped women become more aware that their personal
protection is important--they no longer believe the old
adage, "that can't happen to me." They become more conscious
of what they can do to protect themselves in any given
scenario.
4. Because of the ever-growing threat of date rape
prosecutions, men are beginning to think twice about pushing
a woman. ("you know you want it, baby.")
5. Woman that have NOT been raped are becoming more aware of
the places and the situations they need to avoid. They are
becoming aware that someone won't always be there to protect
them...that they have to protect themselves.
6. A rapist is fast becoming abhored within the walls of
prison. Rapists not only suffer thru sentences, they suffer
other ways as well. Society is become SO MUCH MORE aware of
how abhorant rape is.
I've been raped, twice...one succeeded in violating me, one
did not (so, technically, you could call it attempted rape).
Yes, I suppose it has severely effected my ability to
show/feel real emotion; yes, it severely hampers my ability
to trust men whom I care about. But MORE than that, it has
benefitted me by making me much more aware of the hazzards of
life....it has made me much more aware that in ONE VERY
IMPORTANT way, women are NOT equal to men (strength), and
that to make that more equal, I need to take action of my
own. It has made me more aware that no one is going to be
there for me, but myself.
Perhaps I can deal with my rape(s) more because I've learned
that they are an act of violence, something that happened to
me, that is now OVER. Something I can avoid in the
future...Something that has caused me to become strong enough
to know how to keep a level head if it happens again and
strong enough to fight back.
The fact is, the way our society functions, rape WILL happen.
That is a fact of our society, but by gaining some good out
of each rape, some knowledge, we can build a better future
for ourselves and our children by heightening awareness.
Let something good rise from the bad.
The benefits of rape will never come NEAR to outweighing the
detriments, but the benefits still exist.
A woman's place is fast becoming NOT the home....and the
outside world is a very rough and tumble place....women are
becoming aware, thru rape that they need to protect themself
in that world.
My rapes are in my past....they still effect me and my
feelings and emotions, but they also make me more aware, and
help me to help others to become more aware.
I consider this to be a benefit to women from rape.
kath
|
| 525.140 | | MOIRA::FAIMAN | light upon the figured leaf | Mon Dec 04 1989 18:26 | 21 |
| re .139,
To me, a "benefit" of a phenomenon is a sense in which someone is better off
because of the phenomenon.
Thus, to me it makes no sense to describe increased awareness / caution /
societal intolerance of rape as a "benefit" of rape, since if rape didn't
exist at all, there would be no need for those things. Indeed, I would
describe the need for those things, the fact they can be seen as "benefits"
at all, as one of the *costs* of rape. Why should women *have* to be more
aware of dangerous situations?
An analogy: Consider an earthquake. A boom for the local construction
industry might be regarded as a benefit of the earthquake (for the
construction industry) -- someone gets business that they wouldn't have
had if there hadn't been an earthquake. But increased awareness of the
need for earthquake safety is not a benefit, but a cost, of the earthquake --
it diverts economic resources that could be used somewhere else, and there
would have been no need for it if the earthquake hadn't occurred.
-Neil
|
| 525.141 | I hate being called a winner when I get hurt! | CECV03::LUEBKERT | | Mon Dec 04 1989 18:30 | 22 |
| re _men_ losing:
Feeling untrusted by those they love.
Afraid to say or do something upsetting, that might hurt--especially
since it came from a man.( That care caused me to write cautiously
and apologize for potential pain to Nancy. She replied that she
was strong and could take it, but I still didn't feel good/felt
her defenses were up in defense from me. I'm not convinced that
my candor didn't hurt. I believe that I/men lost because of her
assault.
re _women_ winning:
Extra attention/doting/tender loving from their SO (which is sometimes
thrown back for reasons above= both lose)
I believe that the "men losing" is far more real than men winning,
just as I believe that "women losing" is far more real than women
winning. In other words, the truth is that both lose with exceptions.
Bud
|
| 525.142 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | i get up, i get down... | Mon Dec 04 1989 18:31 | 34 |
| > <<< Note 525.140 by MOIRA::FAIMAN "light upon the figured leaf" >>>
>To me, a "benefit" of a phenomenon is a sense in which someone is better off
>because of the phenomenon.
I am better off because of it.
>Thus, to me it makes no sense to describe increased awareness / caution /
>societal intolerance of rape as a "benefit" of rape, since if rape didn't
>exist at all, there would be no need for those things.
If ANY crime did not exist, there would be no need for these
things.
Rape is crime, just like murder, burglary, extortion, etc,
that will NOT be eliminated out of our society in the coming
years.
I view my gains in my personal safety to be a benefit from my
rape. My rape resulted in something GOOD, however bad it
was, something good did come out of it.
I no longer feel I am "immune" to anything.
I consider that to be a benefit......as well as the other
"benefits" I stated.
but then again, it's all a matter of opinion how we each view
anything, isn't it?
kath
|
| 525.143 | Not really independent "benefits: | TLE::D_CARROLL | It's time, it's time to heal... | Mon Dec 04 1989 19:46 | 29 |
| Kath, I think what Niel is trying to say is that it doesn't make much
sense to call something a benefit, when the only reason that thing is a
benefit is because of the *existence* of the negative.
Your benefits are real, but they are benefits (it trouble me to write
that word in this context, but bear with me) of *your* rape. Or of some
particular woman's rape. But not of the *existence* of rape.
Nancy's statement that "all men benefit because some men rape", is really
saying that mankind (and I mean that exclusively) benefits from the
*existence* of rape (at least, that of man against woman.) The statement
implies that in some way, Men are *better* of with the existence of rape in
our society than it's nonexistence.
Except for .4 in your list, all of your "possible benefits" would not be
benefits at all if rape simply didn't exist. The benefits are *dependent*
on the existence of rape, so it doesn't make sense to call them benefits
*of* the existence of rape.
I don't see that Womankind is in any way better off from the existence of
rape. I can see how Mankind might be better off (in some ways) from the
existence of rape.
You see the difference? You are talking about ways in which individual
women (however many) can benefit from rape (either theirs or others) in a
world in which rape is a reality, but Nancy is talking about how Mankind
benefits from the fact that rape is a reality.
D!
|
| 525.144 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | i get up, i get down... | Mon Dec 04 1989 21:01 | 21 |
|
D!
>Kath, I think what Niel is trying to say is that it doesn't make much
>sense to call something a benefit, when the only reason that thing is a
>benefit is because of the *existence* of the negative.
I don't understand how, if what you say here is true, how
men can "benefit" whereas woman cannot.
The *existence of the negative* is always there, regardless
of the gender it is effecting.
kath
|
| 525.145 | Could there really be hope? | SYSENG::BITTLE | hymn to her | Tue Dec 05 1989 04:18 | 45 |
|
re: .128 (Gale Kleinburger)
| I don't think there is anything that can be done. Men and |
| Women are going to rape, steal, and even murder. This is a |
| fact that no matter what you or I do or say is going to |
| change. |
Often I think that way too. But from reading the studies Liesl
described in 880.57, maybe it doesn't have to be that way
forever. Listen to this (emphasis below is mine):
"Almost half of the reports (47%) Sanday studied were rape-
free societies with sexual assault "absent or...rare"
Sanday's conclusion "Rape is *not* inherent in men's nature
but results from their _image_ of that nature". It is a
product of a certain set of beliefs, which in turn derive
from particular social circumstances. Male dominance serves
its purpose."
[Liesl's conclusion on the studies]
...found the conclusion comforting. Men don't have to rape
and we can prevent it for future generations by changing the
attitudes of our society. Looks like the tack of breaking
down the "for men only" aspects of society is the right
direction to go.
I found that research (and Liesl's conclusion) quite uplifting.
Maybe it _will_ be different for future generations of females.
Maybe change will occur quicker than I think, given the
phonemenal rate of change occurring in the world right now.
That's not a certainty, though.
The only certainty in 1989 is the need for Model Mugging,
firearms for self-defense, women constraining their activities so
that they are not in the wrong place at the wrong time, women
constraining their body language, verbal language, and choice of
clothing so as not to be provocative enough to invoke male
violence, etc....
nancy b.
|
| 525.146 | _this_ clicked! | SYSENG::BITTLE | hymn to her | Tue Dec 05 1989 04:22 | 39 |
| re: .131 (Steve Mallett)
Steve, I think you're on to something here !!!!
Your reply really made me stop and rethink what I said in terms
of what is true-for-now vs what could be true-for-the-future.
You said:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have a think that the idea that "All men benefit
because some men rape" may be simultaneously true and false,
the key word being "benefit".
I believe the statement is true in the sense that Nancy
and others have used - men, as a class, have gained a socio-
political edge by intimidation. And this is apparently a
benefit. But I wonder if it's not a matter of "winning the
battle and losing the war". If our continued survival as a
species on an increasingly endangered planet hinges on the
integration and co-operation of all people, then perhaps the
dominance of one class over another will, in the end, prove
to be a disastrous detriment.
I keep wondering if a patriarchal society doesn't
represent a kind of Pyrhic victory, the losses from which
are only now beginning to dawn on us.
------------------------------------------------------------
While I still believe that male violence currently benefits and
has been benefitting men as a class as another means by which the
status quo is maintained, I think I am beginning to understand
what you mean above by "Pyrrhic victory."
I'm interested in this, and would appreciate any further
illuminations on this facet of the argument you (and/or others
who understand what Steve said) could provide.
nancy b.
|
| 525.147 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | hymn to her | Tue Dec 05 1989 04:24 | 20 |
|
re: .132 (the Doctah)
> men in general "gain" a sort of fear induced respect from
> women whenever a man physically overpowers a woman.
Good, applicable term ==> "fear-induced respect"
I think this is true in many more cases than "_whenever_ a
man physically overpowers a women". I.e., female to male fear-
induced respect occurs frequently outside of the actual event of
a man physically overpowering a woman.
> And this gain and the loss certainly do not cancel one
> another out; they twist the male-female relationship further.
> And in that way, we all lose.
Agreed.
nancy b.
|
| 525.148 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | hymn to her | Tue Dec 05 1989 04:28 | 33 |
| re: .138 (Deb Alford)
> Nancy, would you have ever considered carrying a weapon
> BEFORE the rape?
Never.
I was afraid of guns. I thought they were only for cowboy-
types or bambi-killer hunters or macho, uneducated, uncivilized
men. I was "above" that. It wasn't until I researched the
statistics on successful methods of self-defense that considered
touching a gun. Since then, I've also come to understand the
philosophical importance of gun-ownership by a country's law-
abiding citizens.
> or perhaps you've learned you're stronger than you thought,
No. I learned I was physically weaker than I thought
relative to the average male (at a time when I was at peak
strength and fitness; when I was really "into" weightlifting,
basketball, water polo, football-on-the-quad, etc.) I learned
that men who rape are likely to know how to successfully counter
the classic self-defense maneuvers taught to women in those
sessions that the typical college might sponsor for female
students.
> and you respect yourself and your own strenghts more..
No. I respect my body much less, and am absolutely pissed
off that women are physically weaker than men.
nancy b.
|
| 525.149 | finding the silver lining | SYSENG::BITTLE | hymn to her | Tue Dec 05 1989 04:29 | 86 |
|
re: .139 (Kathy Gallup)
kath, when you wrote:
> "women gain and lose from being raped" as well,
...my interpretation was that you were implying that "_women_",
women as a _class_ or _group_, somehow gained because some women
are raped (and all straining of my imagination could not come up
with one such example).
My interpretation of what you _said_ was further reinforced as
being what you _meant_ after reading:
> women who haven't been raped can still gain from those that
> have
Though I disagree that this is the case, and don't see your #1,
#2, or #5 as true benefits for women as a group _or_ women who
have not been raped, I agree that there can be some positive
"side effects" on _individual_ rape victims, like your #3 (more
aware of importance of personal protection).
> Let something good rise from the bad.
I've described before in 812.13, "Problems Arising Out of an
Assault", some potentially positive outcomes of being raped:
------------------------------------------------
Some positive side effects of her rape could be:
o independent/mentally stronger
o feminist attitudes
o becoming closer to women
o knowledge that she has the right to control her own
body
o aware of risks for herself and her daughters
o determined to avoid coercive sex
-------------------------------------------------
> The benefits of rape will never come NEAR to outweighing
> the detriments, but the benefits still exist.
Yea - here are some detriments (also from 812.13):
[ kath, wanna add to the list? ]
-------------------------------------------------
Some negative side effects of her rape could be:
o distrust of men
o affected attitude to sex
o flashbacks
o dreams/nightmares
o cues which remind her of rape
o vulnerability/fear
o insecurity
o breakdown linked to assault
o negative effect on education
o losing custody of children (sound familiar Gale?)
o fear of challenging men
o suicide attempt
o loss of security and safety
o expecting coercive sex
o linking sex to being used
o using sex as revenge
o loss of self-respect
o self-blame
o confusion between love/sex/affection
o not being able to cope with images of violence
o more vulnerable to later abuse
o attempts to bury the memory and suppress the
feelings it evokes; denial
o difficulty in relaxing during sex
o having sex trigger memories of the rape
o becoming promiscuous or frigid/celibate
(and I guess I'm using the male-defined connotations
of 'frigid' and 'promiscuous')
-------------------------------------------------------
> -< FWIW >-
Alot. Thanks for replying, kath.
nancy b.
|
| 525.150 | just a *little* bitter | SYSENG::BITTLE | hymn to her | Tue Dec 05 1989 04:37 | 13 |
| re: .141 (Bud Luebkert)
> re _women_ winning:
> Extra attention/doting/tender loving from their SO
This is *not* my reality -
My SO of two years did not find me attractive after the rape
and wouldn't do anything physical with me at a time when I
desperately wanted to be touched and reassured. He broke up
with me within 2 months.
nancy b.
|
| 525.151 | | RUBY::BOYAJIAN | Secretary of the Stratosphere | Tue Dec 05 1989 09:18 | 8 |
| I appreciate both Neil's (.130) and Steve's (.131) notes as they
managed to say what I'd been thinking inside and didn't quite know
how to express. I understood (and agreed with) what Steve Lionel
was trying to say in his refutation of Nancy's statement, but I
also understood (and agreed with) what Nancy was trying to say in
her original statement.
--- jerry
|
| 525.152 | some comments | VIA::HEFFERNAN | Juggling Fool | Tue Dec 05 1989 12:01 | 30 |
| If one's premise if that all men want to dominate and control women,
then I agree with the statement that rape and violence against women
benefits all men. Perhaps a better way of saying this is: men that
want to dominate and control women benefit by rape and violence
against women.
I don't think that all men want to control and dominate women.
However, it is a very insideous thing. Unfortunately our training as
men in adolescent is very bad. Rape is just this training taken to
the extreme. But the messages you get in the playground and locker
are not very pleasant and the message is that women are objects for
sex and not to be respected otherwise. This conditioning is very hard
to overcome and I'd guess women have a different set of conditioning
that is equally difficult to overcome. Even after adolescence, these
messages continue in the media and thru our peers.
Those men that are not aware of this and still buy into the
conditioning, even though they benifit, by their own measure by rape
and violence, are in my view, impoverished in the long run by missing
out on a real emotional and spiritual life and seeing all beings for
that our regardless of gender differences. An interesting question
for me is how to help with this situation. One of my beleifs is that
all being are endowed with the capability to be aware and enlightened
beings but this is hidden and obsured by images, ideas, conditioning,
and ignorance. So how do you get thru and make a difference to these
men and to their victims?
john
|
| 525.153 | How do men deal with the two images, anyway? | DEMING::FOSTER | | Tue Dec 05 1989 13:01 | 15 |
| John, you remind me of something I used to hear about in terms of the
(I think) whore/Madonna complex.
How do males reconcile their images of their sisters and mothers,
typically not thought of sexually, (and do throw in grandmothers!) with
other women, whom you say they are taught on the playground to think of
as objects.
I've heard that some men get very protective of their sisters, simply
because they don't want some other man doing what they know that THEY
THEMSELVES are doing to other women. And I've seen some men get pretty
messed up when they see their mothers get abused by their fathers.
Maybe this is something to take to mennotes. Its certainly something I
can't fathom.
|
| 525.154 | More logical analysis (groan) | TLE::D_CARROLL | It's time, it's time to heal... | Tue Dec 05 1989 13:10 | 31 |
| Kath,
> I don't understand how, if what you say here is true, how
> men can "benefit" whereas woman cannot.
Hmmm...do you understand the difference between an effect of an action
being independent of the existence of that action? As in, the effect is
a benefit, where the nature of the benefit has nothing to do with the
action? There are really, logically two seperate things going on here,
and I'm not sure if you see that.
> The *existence of the negative* is always there, regardless
> of the gender it is effecting.
Forget gender for a moment. The trick is to take the "existence" as
a conditional clause to test for the independence of the result. Let us
say that X causes Y. Is Y a "benefit of X"? Well, if Y, by itself, would
still be a positive if "X" were untrue, then yes. If "Y" ceases to be
a benefit if "X" is untrue, then one can't really call "Y" a benefit of
"X", because the beneficial nature of "Y" is dependent on "X".
(In this case, of couse, X=the existence of rape, and Y=[list of possible
benefits].)
I can't give any better example then Niel's earthquake example, how some
benefits are independent of the existence of earthquakes (increased business
for contructon companies) and some are dependent on earthquakes (increased
awareness of the dangers of earthquakes.) If you don't understand that, there
isn't much better I can do.
D!
|
| 525.155 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | the mirror speaks, the reflection lies | Tue Dec 05 1989 14:18 | 20 |
| 525.156 | not 100% sure but here's some ideas | VIA::HEFFERNAN | Juggling Fool | Tue Dec 05 1989 15:45 | 10 |
| RE: .153 (ren) whore/madonna complex in relation to mother/sisters
I'm not really sure. I think that I somehow escaped a lot of the
playground attitudes but I would guess that the social taboo against
incest is strong enough to allow a division between family and
non-family in most cases. Also, you do have a special long term
relationship with your siblings and parents whereas someone you don't
know is easily objectified. I'm always amazed at the thoughts, ideas,
and conclusions we come up in the absence of real information and
contact.
|
| 525.157 | caution: frank reply follows | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Evening Star- I can see the light | Tue Dec 05 1989 17:22 | 32 |
| > How do males reconcile their images of their sisters and mothers,
> typically not thought of sexually, (and do throw in grandmothers!) with
> other women,
Boy, does that get to the bone! It isn't easy. In fact, it leads to
some people having problems, severe problems, with women as a result.
One aspect of the problem seems to be related to peer pressure for guys
to have sex with as many women as possible as a show of masculinity or
whatever. The competition is intense. Unfortunately, the majority of
the participants seem not to know _why_ they are doing what they are
doing except for the fact that _everyone else is doing it_. Gotta
measure up. Gotta be a "man."
Another impact is that of parents and religion saying that having sex
is "bad." So many guys start to feel guilty after they have convinced a
girl to have sex with them, so they then want to get away. Others
simply feel that the only "interesting" girl is one with whom you
haven't had sex with yet. After all, a conquest is a conquest, right?
Why climb a mountain the second time with these other peaks
unconquered?
Many guys know what the effect of their attitude and actions is on the
females involved, but are unable to deal with the guilt and/or
embarassment of what they have done. So they instead get extremely
protective of their sisters. "I wouldn't want that to happen to her."
They channel the nurturing feelings which they do not know how to deal
with towards their sisters, etc, because they already know how to do
that.
The Doctah
|
| 525.158 | extra? | SELL3::JOHNSTON | bord failte | Wed Dec 06 1989 12:36 | 35 |
| I _know_ it's already been answered, but...
The idea that women receive extra TLC in the wake of a rape just
doesn't pass muster!
I was fortunate. My SO was pretty wrecked himself, but he stuck with me
and was unfailingly himself ... nothing extra, just himself. [That's
what I needed]
The woman who performed my exam most likely received her MD from the
Marquis de Sade Mail-Order Med School.
Other women in my life began to regard me as a Fear-Object and treated
me with the contempt and loathing one reserves for garden slugs
suddenly found in a birthday cake. [after all I wasn't anywhere risky
and with an old and dear friend and IT happened to me, maybe it could
happen to them...oh, but that's scary...don't look, don't
touch...icky,icky,slimy creature!!!!]
Now, I can say that I came out of my experience of rape and the
aftermath much stronger [I had to be] and less naive. I sustained no
lasting physical damage and time dealt with the Slug-Effect as the
denial of other women caused my ordeal and the pain they experienced as
a result to fade from memory. Indeed after awhile I became an Icon of
Resiliency for fighting back to health after my Horrible Ordeal.
But on balance, I would still prefer not to have been raped no matter
what the benefit I derived. The price was too high.
I paid it and its over [mostly] and I am no Icon. Merely a woman who
chose to survive. [I suppose I could have chosen to end it all
honorably and become the Tragic Victim, but even in the depths of my
depression that struck me as horse-pucky]
Ann
|
| 525.159 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Evening Star- I can see the light | Wed Dec 06 1989 13:18 | 20 |
| > The idea that women receive extra TLC in the wake of a rape just
> doesn't pass muster!
Hmmm. Interesting. I know I tried to be especially careful, gentle and
supportive when I found out about my girlfriend's rape.
> Other women in my life began to regard me as a Fear-Object and treated
> me with the contempt and loathing one reserves for garden slugs
> suddenly found in a birthday cake.
If I was somewhat surprised at the former, this one really throws me. I
can't for the life of me imagine why it would be so. Comprehension
failure- go to auxiliary information gathering...
> But on balance, I would still prefer not to have been raped no matter
> what the benefit I derived. The price was too high.
I can't imagine that too many women would disagree with you.
The Doctah
|
| 525.160 | Did I say that? | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Thu Dec 07 1989 03:13 | 43 |
| It's been a few days since I've gotten back here, and I'm glad to see
the discussion going the way it is. As I suspected, I was less than
eloquent in my wording, but Steve Mallet and Neil Faiman made up for
my lack.
I was indeed trying to say that, while looked at narrowly, there
may be "gains" for some men given the existence of rape, the losses
completely overwhelm them in my view. And, for me, none of the
supposed "gains" for men are considered a gain by me. From my
perspective, there are only losses for all concerned.
Nancy, in .127 you took part of my response and extrapolated the
following:
>> To end rape, we must develop a society where women and men
>> don't view the other sex as "the enemy".
>
> You are saying that the root cause of rape is women and men
> viewing the opposite gender as the enemy? Half of this is:
>
> Myth # 99999 - if women would just somehow change their
> behaviours, thoughts, or actions, men would stop raping; that
> women are somehow capable of provoking sexual violence from men
> by "feelings", by their "views".
>
> Dream on.
I was disappointed by this, because if you had taken the "other half",
wondering about men changing their views, I think you might have
supported the notion. I don't think it was fair to split my
statement and attribute a non-existent attitude to me based on it.
However, I then came upon your note 525.145, which, in my view, has
you supporting my position.
This should make some interesting possible conversation at the party.
I won't be able to get back in here before that, I'm sure.
Steve
|
| 525.161 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | to be psychically milked | Thu Jan 04 1990 14:37 | 26 |
|
Called the IRS Q&A number at (800)424-1040 to see if the reparation
payments I receive is taxable income. The person said that according
to Publication 525, page 14 (which he is mailing me):
o "Compensatory payments" are not taxable. This applies to payment(s)
received for specific expenses incurred. For example, had He been
ordered to reimburse me for the hospital expense (which I paid in
full myself even though I had insurance because I didn't want my
parents finding out about it from the insurance company), that
money would be not taxable. What the IRS calls compensatory, the
criminal justice system calls "restitution".
o "Punitive damages" are taxable. This includes amounts received
by judgements and settlements which are not for a specific expense
incurred. What the IRS calls punitive damages, the criminal justice
system calls "reparation".
Bummer. I think that if my reparation payments can be counted as
_income_, I should be able to deduct from that income other expenses
that I am/have incurred as a result of the crime. It's not like I
won the lottery or something where the income is on a 1-way street,
but that's how the IRS appears to see it.
nancy b.
|
| 525.162 | just a random thought | SYSENG::BITTLE | to be psychically milked | Thu Jan 04 1990 19:41 | 10 |
| .161 > It's not like I won the lottery or something ...
Too bad the odds for being raped aren't more like
the odds for winning the lottery.
And, too bad the odds for winning the lottery aren't
like the odds for being raped -- 1 out of every 4
women would be rich!
nancy b.
|
| 525.163 | | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Secure Systems for Insecure People | Fri Jan 05 1990 13:09 | 8 |
| Talk to a tax accountant (I've recommended one who I find very
sharp elsewhere). You may be able to argue that even though the
courts awarded money as reparations, you can use it to cover
expenses from the crime, in which case it would be compensatory. I
don't know if this is true, but call a sharp accountant who may be
able to find some similar trick.
--David
|
| 525.164 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | We're more paranoid than you are. | Fri Jan 05 1990 15:02 | 13 |
| This is a request from a member of the community who wishes to remain anonymous
at this time.
Mez
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
subj> : Request for counselor/therapist recommendations
Does anyone know of a good therapist who deals with rape
survivors in the greater Boston/S. New Hampshire area?
Should a rape thaerapist be a woman? Thanks.
|
| 525.165 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | to be psychically milked | Sun Jan 07 1990 06:01 | 30 |
|
re: .163 (David Wittenberg)
> You may be able to argue that even though the courts
> awarded money as reparations, you can use it to cover
> expenses from the crime, in which case it would be
> compensatory.
Thanks, David, I'm planning on doing just that.
Showing that the reparations could be used to cover expenses from
the crime will not be difficult for 1989, since the related
expenses last year were relatively high and because the payments
only started in December.
For this year, I can't imagine it will be nearly as easy (to show
reparations cover expenses).
[set sarcasm/on]
So I s'pose I should wait till filing next year's return for
claiming 6 dependents... Since the Supreme Court believes that
life begins at conception, it is conceivable (pun intended) that
I could have had 6 pregnancies in 1 year; all prematurely
terminated because they were "blighted ovums". Darn it, I
already had the letter started!
"Dear IRS: ...
nancy b.
|
| 525.166 | | AV8OR::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Mon Jan 08 1990 11:18 | 7 |
| re .164 counseling
i would call the cambridge rape crisis center for referrals. most
areas in new england have something.
and yes, i would recommend a woman, preferably one who's been through
it.
|
| 525.167 | "asking for it" | SYSENG::BITTLE | to be psychically milked | Mon Jan 15 1990 18:50 | 149 |
|
The following usenet posting was forwarded to me from a
member of the community.
The author is responding to an argument about women "asking
for it" that sounds a lot like a debate that occurred waaay
back around the beginning of this topic. I phoned the author
to request permission to repost to =wn= what she wrote. It
was kinda strange/shocking to talk with someone who shared
so many of the same views and experiences as I.
nancy b.
Article 9053
From: carole@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Carole Ashmore)
Subject: Re: Asking for it
Summary: Too bloody damn many naive postings on this subject.
Keywords: Why ask for trouble?
Organization: Rosemount Inc., Eden Prairie, MN
In article <75445@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, dyson@lily.cis.ohio-state.edu (mark l dyson) writes:
> In article <10455@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> seebs@agnes.stolaf.edu (--SeebS--) writes:
>
> >As we are so fond of saying: She may be asking for trouble. But does this
> >excuse someone giving it to her?
>
> Absolutely not. But then, we are all 'decent, law-abiding' folks who wouldn't
> force sex on an unwilling woman even if she strolled down every dark alley in
> town stark naked! Unfortunately, not all people share our self-restraint and
> regard for the rights of others. The major point is this: 'Asking for it' in
> no wise excuses the animal behavior of an assailant. But 'asking for it' is a
> very, very stupid thing to do, and makes it very difficult to add sympathy for
> someone so idiotic to our normal repugnance for the animal who 'gave it.'
> Please, PLEASE be aware of the shits in the world, and be careful. Don't get
> into situations you can't handle--there's no excuse for that, either!
Mark,
I'm not picking on you any more than on all the other naive men and
boys who have posted on this subject; it's just that I finally reached
my saturation point with your well meant reply and decided to do some
educating.
First let me tell you a story. Up till the age of 29 I lived the sort
of life where your advice made some sense. I had gotten an
undergraduate degree while living in my parents house and commuting to
a local university. I had married and lived with my husband in
suburbia and worked at a well paying job. I took the reasonable
precautions of never going out alone after dark (in any neighborhood)
except in a car with the doors locked --and if my destination meant
parking as much as a block away and walking after dark I took my
husband with me or got some man to walk me to the car, etc. I didn't
face the dangers of a woman living alone; I slept in the same bed as
my husband. I didn't go out on dates, period; so I wasn't vulnerable
to date rape by misjudging a man I agreed to be alone with. These
precautions were slightly restrictive; there were things my husband or
other men could do that I couldn't. But they weren't too imposibly
restrictive. They did not interfere with my making a living or
getting an education, or being able to afford housing or getting
enough to eat. The degree of restriction was unpleasant, but seemed
justified given the degree of safety it purchased.
At age 29 I got divorced and decided to go back to school and work on
a graduate degree. As with most students, funds were very tight. I
sold my car and moved to cheap housing within walking distance of the
university. I got a half time student job that, along with my savings
and my more frugal lifestyle, would enable me to get that degree. The
job was a very good one for a student, paying top student wages, and
it was in the University computer center, enabling me to learn some of
the practical aspects of the field I was seeking the degree in. One
little problem. The guy who scheduled student help at the computer
center would work around your class schedule and nothing else. On the
average of twice a week I found myself needing to walk home after
dark. I didn't think it would be much of a problem; the University
area certainly didn't look like what I thought of as a 'high crime'
area. Wrongo. Two months after I started the job I was attacked on
the street, on my way home, by a would-be rapist with a knife. Got
out of that one with the help of loud screams and a couple of gutsy
passers-by. Two months after that another would-be rapist (with
another knife) pulled out the screen of the second story window of my
room at the rooming house, held the knife to my throat in the dark,
and said "Don't move and don't scream and I won't hurt you." Luck was
really running with me that time. In the dark he hadn't noticed that
my current lover had happened to spend the night and was sleeping on
the far side of the bed. Said lover sat up and groggily said,
"Carole, what the hell's going on?" and the would-be rapist made a
fast exit through the window.
About this point in time it occurred to me that I was living in a much
more dangerous environment than before and that it would be totally
unreasonable to depend on the sort of luck that had saved me twice.
I had gone to the police both times, and their advice had been (in the
first instance) "Don't go out after dark, ever; if you do it's your
own fault you get raped." Only one little problem with that. In
Minnesota, in the winter, there are approximately 8.5 hours of
daylight. Even if I quit my good student job and took one that was
strictly days, there was no way I could work 20 hours a week, attend
school half time, and buy groceries without going outside after dark.
No way. In the second instance their advice was "Don't live in a
cheap rooming house around the University where lots of women live
alone and rapists are attracted; live in a high security apartment
building in the suburbs and commute by car, not bus." Only one little
problem with that. There was no way I could afford it except on a
full time job, in which case I couldn't go to school.
In summary, I had put myself in a situation where getting the degree I
wanted was a reasonable option for any man but not a safe option for
any woman. The restrictions needed for safety would destroy something
really important in my life. I asked the police for a permit to carry
a gun. "You're kidding," they said. "The only people who get permits
to carry are people who have to carry large amounts of money." Shows
you what this society values and how important they think protection
for women is. I looked into my state laws and discovered that the
penalty for 'carrying' was a $1,000 fine with a year in jail at the
option of the judge. I bought the gun and carried it, figuring that
the chances of getting caught and actually having to go to jail were
minimal and that risk was worth taking for the sake of my education,
whereas the risk of being defenseless against knife wielding rapists
was not. However, I am one of the rare women in this culture who was
raised around guns, taught how to handle them in youth, and shown that
they could be used responsibly by good citizens (Thank you Dad. Thank
you NRA.) Very few women feel they have this as a safe option. And
most of those who do are put off by the fact that it has been made
illegal for women to defend themselves.
Can you understand that the simple precautions you tell me I would
have been a fool not to take would have precluded my getting that
degree? Can you look at the real situation of women in this country
who are not upper middle class, who don't have husbands, who may be
single parents, and realize that they may *have* to work the night
shift and take the bus home to a bad neighborhood because that is the
only gooddam way they can feed their children? Can you understand how
ridiculous saying "If you don't take these simple precautions, you are
a fool." to them really is?
THINK, you turkeys, before opening your mouths. Women don't live in
the same world men do. Poor people don't live in the same world
well-to-do ones do. Some of you are so FUCKING naive. Instead of
telling women they are fools to take chances they may HAVE to take,
get out there and campaign for allowing women to legally defend
themselves. Get out there and campaign for life sentences for
convicted rapists-with-weapons. Do something bloody useful for a
change!
Carole Ashmore
|
| 525.168 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Love at first sin... | Wed Jan 17 1990 11:46 | 13 |
| A very interesting piece.
I would like to make one comment, though. There are some activities which
are just normal activities which happen to be more dangerous for women to do.
When someone says "Don't engage in risky behavior," they don't mean "Stop
living as a human being because you are female." They mean "It may not be
foolproof, but take _some_ precautions."
The fact that the victim engages in risky behavior does not mitigate the guilt
of the perpetrator one iota. It does increase the chances of meeting up with
a perpetrator. And that is what is being addressed.
The Doctah
|
| 525.169 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Wed Jan 17 1990 12:32 | 15 |
| I worry about us ---and I'm not the only one, this has been expressed
many times already here--- when we focus on what *women* should do to
avoid attack. Parallels have been drawn to other tactics such as "not
leaving keys in the ignition" to create the impression that defensive
behavior by potential victims is nothing more than reasonable and
prudent, but the parallels fail because they're not something that only
*women* should do.
Mark, I would argue that no normal activity "happens" to be more
dangerous for women to do: they're *made* more dangerous for women to
do. It doesn't seem to me that it's a healthy idea to minimise the
intentional, directed nature of these crimes or to characterise them as
things that just "happen" mostly or exclusively to women.
=maggie
|
| 525.170 | I thought it was an 'interesting' contrast | BANZAI::FISHER | Pat Pending | Wed Jan 17 1990 13:07 | 8 |
| Many years ago I was in NYC and happened to be having a few drinks in a
bar with a steward for BOAC (shows you how many years ago?). He told
me that when they landed anywhere before releasing the crew they were
reminded not to be on the streets after dark without an escort in
Hong Kong, Singapore, a few other cities, and the United States of
America.
ed
|
| 525.171 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Love at first sin... | Wed Jan 17 1990 16:26 | 34 |
| > Mark, I would argue that no normal activity "happens" to be more
> dangerous for women to do: they're *made* more dangerous for women to
> do.
Is that not a semantic distinction, in the pragmatic sense?
>It doesn't seem to me that it's a healthy idea to minimise the
> intentional, directed nature of these crimes or to characterise them as
> things that just "happen" mostly or exclusively to women.
That's not my aim at all. I'm failing to communicate.
What I mean to say is certain activities performed in certain manners at
certain times in certain places substantially increase the probability that
any particular individual will be victimized. When these activities can be
curtailed without adversely affecting the freedoms of the individuals in
question, it seems to be common sense to do so. Even so, it still isn't a
guarantee against victimization. And it also fails to address situations
which cannot be altered, such as having to walk home in the dark because you
cannot afford alternative transporation.
I was thinking on a much larger plane than rape when I wrote the previous
entry. Evidently, what I was thinking didn't quite make it to the screen.
And to repeat, whether or not someone engages in risky behavior or not has
no relevance whatsoever to the guilt associated with the perpetrator of the
crime. If I whip out a wad of $100 bills in central park at night, the gang of
white trash that relieves me of them are no less guilty than if they accosted
me on a "safe" street in an upper middle class neighborhood. However, I could
have reduced my chances of losing my cash had I kept it in my pocket.
Is this any clearer, or is my point still lost?
The Doctah
|
| 525.172 | ooops, peggy's note was elsewhere, I can't find it! | SKYLRK::OLSON | Trouble ahead, trouble behind! | Wed Jan 17 1990 17:11 | 18 |
| re .171, Mark-
> Is that not a semantic distinction, in the pragmatic sense?
Hmmmm. Yes and no.
The important distinction here is that the words we use to describe our
reality have an effect upon our perceptions. Words are not neutral,
they carry nuance and value-loading. You yourself have been making the
distinction that a perpetrator bears full responsibility. But claiming
that the distinction between "activity that happens to be more
dangerous" and "activitiy that is *made* dangerous" is only semantic,
biases the listener towards blaming the victim.
Sensitivity towards the words we use is exactly the point that Peggy
was making, especially in her postscript.
DougO
|
| 525.173 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Wed Jan 17 1990 18:39 | 20 |
| ('sokay, Doug, both Peggy & I are Margarets on our birth certs. so
the confusion is understandable. 'Sides, we look so much alike ;')
Mark, I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head...it is
indeed a "semantic" distinction: it concerns the *meaning* of what
is said. (Yes I know that by "semantic" you mean "trivial" or
"surface" but that's another problem: it *doesn't*. People
trivialise the effect of word-choice too much. Whorf has probably
been doing a steady 2500 rpm since the day he was planted!)
When we talk about some act as though it were the product of natural
law instead of an intentional choice on the part of the actor, we
minimise the responsibility for the act: if something "just
happens" or happens because of something the victim did or didn't
do, then clearly there is less blame attached to the
perpetrator...even when we also verbally genuflect to the notion of
that individual's personal responsibility.
=maggie
|
| 525.174 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Love at first sin... | Wed Jan 17 1990 19:05 | 15 |
| >if something "just
> happens" or happens because of something the victim did or didn't
> do,
I tried to separate the "happens" from anything the victim did or didn't do.
I also specifically stated that the culpability of the perpetrator was not
in any way affected by anything the victim did or didn't do.
I think you picked on a semantic problem and zeroed in on it, despite the fact
that I came out and stated that (the implications of my word usage) were
contrary to my intended meaning.
Hey- I tried.
The Doctah
|
| 525.175 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Wed Jan 17 1990 19:13 | 13 |
| Mark, regardless of how it might look :-) I'm really not beating on
you personally...you simply provided a fine example of a wretched
tendency: to talk about the bad things that are done, particularly
to women and members of minority groups, as though intentional
causality were minimal or absent.
=maggie
(And I'm not immune, btw: my original sentence was "...bad things
that happen,....".
The problem is a *very* hard, pervasive, and subtle one. I think it
merits considerable attention.)
|
| 525.176 | Two separate lines of discussion confused | MOIRA::FAIMAN | light upon the figured leaf | Wed Jan 17 1990 19:17 | 25 |
| It seems like there are two incontrovertible facts about rape:
1. It is a horrible crime; it is a monstrous injustice that women
have to worry about it at all; there can be no justification
it.
2. There are things that women can do to reduce their risk of
being raped.
These are totally independent. They are both important, but they don't
have anything to do with each other. However, any discussion that begins
with one of them is quickly derailed by the interjection of the other.
If you tell the story of a woman who was raped (class 1), and I reply that
she might have avoided it by not walking alone at night (class 2), my comment
is a complete non sequitur -- and a rather insensitive one at that.
If you observe that women need to acquire the means to defend themselves
(guns, self defense training, or whatever) (class 2), and I reply that
women ought not to have to have to defend themselves (class 1), then once
again I am guilty of a non sequitur.
The result is discussions where both parties can go "Yes, but..." forever.
-Neil
|
| 525.177 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Wed Jan 17 1990 19:21 | 6 |
| Neil, it's not clear to me that the two things are independent: I
would argue that if rape did not exist, it would neither be horrible
nor would there be any risk to reduce. Am I seeing a dependency
that isn't there, do you think?
=maggie
|
| 525.178 | uh, no. | COBWEB::SWALKER | | Wed Jan 17 1990 20:09 | 39 |
|
> The fact that the victim engages in risky behavior does not mitigate the guilt
> of the perpetrator one iota. It does increase the chances of meeting up with
> a perpetrator. And that is what is being addressed.
No, the question is not entirely one of who is guilty and who is innocent.
The question is also one of who is the victim. Because of the ethos
that states "take precautions, and it won't happen", _all_ women become
victims.
Carol is 100% right. What she is saying is that women cannot lead
a life free from fear, and that that is deeply unfair.
You don't have to be attacked to realize that your life is being run
by fear of crazies in the streets and the knowledge that society is
not going to support _your side_ if anything happens, even though you
are doing nothing that would be considered dangerous if a _man_ did it.
To give you an example, a few years back I was working at another job
in a dangerous section of a major U.S. city. That day, I knew I'd
have to be at work late, and a [male] friend said he'd give me a ride
home. We had an argument, and he decided to renege at the last minute
out of vengeance. There was no way I could get another ride home at
that point, and he knew it. He suggested I take the train, "like _I_
would". This would have meant I'd have to walk several blocks through
a poorly lighted region known for violent attacks on women at night,
and wait in two fairly dangerous subway stations for trains (for a total
of about 40 minutes of waiting.) I was wearing a skirt, so there was
little chance of my being taken for male.
Needless to say, I was livid, and said many of the same things to him
that Carol wrote. And, much as I pride myself on being independent, at
that moment I felt like a victim.
If "chances of meeting up with a perpetrator" are all that's being
addressed, you're missing what I consider to be the key point.
Sharon
|
| 525.179 | yes, separate lines of argument | CADSYS::PSMITH | foop-shootin', flip city! | Wed Jan 17 1990 20:51 | 18 |
| I did some head-nodding at .176 by Neil (?).
Point 1 (rape is horrible and injust) is a different angle completely
from point 2 (women can reduce their risk of rape). Both spring from
the same source (rape exists), but go in different directions. One
focuses on the root horror of it all, one focuses on dealing with the
practical consequences. (Of course, the practical consequences are
part of the horror, so...) The danger of concentrating solely on the
first point is that one can become angry at the thought of having to
take unfair precautions; the danger of concentrating solely on the
second point is that one can come closer to blaming the victim. And
people who concentrate on opposite points sometimes misunderstand each
other.
I think disentangling the lines of argument could help us communicate
better.
Pam
|
| 525.180 | not really directed to you, =m, but at the issue. | SKYLRK::OLSON | Trouble ahead, trouble behind! | Wed Jan 17 1990 23:01 | 20 |
| re .173, Maggie! hmph.
I knew I'd just read something of Peggy's that was relevant, and
dern my luck, it was in another string entirely. Here 'tis-
930.91>
> (-)
> |
> I have said that it is what one does
> that is telling, in some instances this
> does include how one uses words/ideas.
We are beholden to make careful choices, in the words we use.
Our choices not only reveal us...they can trigger reactions in
our readers. To enhance communications, we can judiciously pick
words that will not alienate or pre-bias our audience.
"Semantics"? Yes. "Just semantics"? No.
DougO
|
| 525.181 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Love at first sin... | Thu Jan 18 1990 12:13 | 21 |
| >Because of the ethos
> that states "take precautions, and it won't happen",
I have never heard anyone make this claim. Risk reduction, yes. Prevention, no.
If you pack a gun, it still isn't prevention like an immunization. It's just
stcking the deck more in your favor (read: less in the perp's favor.)
>What she is saying is that women cannot lead
> a life free from fear, and that that is deeply unfair.
Neither can men.
> If "chances of meeting up with a perpetrator" are all that's being
> addressed, you're missing what I consider to be the key point.
That's all that is being addressed by a single argument, not the entire rape
discussion.
Boy, I really managed to scramble transmissions yesterday. :-)
The Doctah
|
| 525.182 | | GEMVAX::KOTTLER | | Thu Jan 18 1990 14:51 | 5 |
| re .181 -
"Neither can men" -
You really think fear of rape affects men as much as it does women?
|
| 525.183 | | MOIRA::FAIMAN | light upon the figured leaf | Thu Jan 18 1990 16:46 | 31 |
| Dorian in .182 takes a comment from Mark's .181 out of context, and so gives
the impression that he was saying something quite other than what he really
was saying.
.182:
> "Neither can men" -
>
> You really think fear of rape affects men as much as it does women?
but the context in .181 is:
> >What she is saying is that women cannot lead
> > a life free from fear, and that that is deeply unfair.
>
> Neither can men.
This may be irrelevant to the discussion, but it neither says that men
are affected by fear *as much* as women are, nor that the fear that men
have that concerns men is rape. It simply points out that men, too, have
to be afraid, have to be cautious, perhaps not do things they would like
to do, because of fear of what might happen to them.
I say "irrelevant" because
- The magnitude of the appropriate fear, and its impact on one's life,
is totally out of proportion for men and for women; and
- *this* discussion is about women's fear.
Neil
|
| 525.185 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Fall to your knees and repent if you please | Fri Jan 19 1990 13:47 | 12 |
| re: Mike
I don't believe that the fear of being unfairly charged with rape is on the
same level as the fear of being raped. Was that your assertion?
re: .182
> You really think fear of rape affects men as much as it does women?
Nope. But the fear of assault does.
The Doctah
|
| 525.186 | where we've been | SKYLRK::OLSON | Trouble ahead, trouble behind! | Fri Jan 19 1990 14:07 | 7 |
| I strongly urge anyone who wants to consider relative degrees of 'fear'
to reference this topic in the previous version of the file, before
asking leading questions or making pointed answers to those questions.
mosaic::womannotes-v1, topic 214, "Fear".
DougO
|
| 525.188 | what it's like... | GEMVAX::KOTTLER | | Fri Jan 19 1990 14:37 | 31 |
| re .184 -
>>.182> You really think fear of rape affects men as much as it does women?
> Nope. But fear of being unfairly charged with it does.
Really. Is it anything like this?
"Fear of rape is a cold wind blowing
all of the time on a woman's hunched back.
Never to stroll alone on a sand road through pinewoods
never to climb a trail across a bald mountain
without that aluminum in the mouth
when I see a man climbing toward me.
"Never to open the door to a knock
without that razor just grazing the throat.
The fear of the dark side of hedges,
the back seat of the car, the empty house
rattling keys like a snake's warning.
The fear of the smiling man
in whose pocket is a knife.
The fear of the serious man
in whose fist is locked hatred...."
from a poem by Marge Piercy.
|
| 525.189 | amazed | DECWET::JWHITE | keep on rockin', girl | Fri Jan 19 1990 15:11 | 4 |
|
re:.184
you're kidding, right?
|
| 525.190 | Rape/fear | SUPER::EVANS | I'm baa-ack | Fri Jan 19 1990 16:05 | 21 |
| RE; last couple
Wow.
I really don't think men understand the kind of unlying constant
fear that women in this society feel. Waiting in your car in the
parking lot in broad daylight so the guy who pulled in the same time
you did gets out of his car and gets a long way away before you
leave yours. Going through an entire flow-chart of which street to
take, shortcut/no shortcut/ where are the streetlights?, watch
the doorways, and on and on, just to get to your destination.
(Oh yeah....that's "not *all* men")
RE: Fear of being accused of rape
Too bad that fear hasn't infected the 12 men per minute who are still
raping.
--DE
|
| 525.192 | | DELNI::P_LEEDBERG | Memory is the second | Fri Jan 19 1990 16:46 | 25 |
|
You want to know fear.
Someone tried to break into the home last night - into the
room where my daughter was sleeping.
Was it a know person or a stranger - I don't know.
Was it a man or a woman - if it was a woman she had mighty
big feet.
Were they going to steal something or rape my daughter - I
don't know.
Am I scared to live alone? You bet I am. Will I continue
to live alone after my kids leave this month. You bet I will.
_peggy
(-)
|
Fear is part of everywoman survival kit.
|
| 525.193 | | ROLL::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Fri Jan 19 1990 17:53 | 32 |
|
Fear of being raped? Yup.
I'm going to be moving much farther from Boston when I eventually
get my own apartment. Not because the rent's much cheaper (it's really
not), but because the suburbs are safer.
I'm going to be buying a new car. I'd like to be able to park it
away from other cars in a parking lot, but if I'm alone I can't
because I'd have to walk to an empty part of the lot and I could
be attacked.
I like to go see bands perform live in a club, but I don't go
alone anymore because I'm too scared these days. I mean I would
probably meet lots of people I knew at the show, but I'd have to
walk from my car to the club alone.
The winter is the worst time because it gets dark so quickly. And if
you're a woman out alone after dark, of course you're asking to get
raped.
Little things, but it definitely changes the way I live.
And I don't think a lot of men really understand the fear a woman
has of being raped. Besides being beaten, you're violated.
Just imagine after being smacked over the head and having your money
taken, then having something shoved into you where it doesn't belong.
And being told you deserve it.
Lisa
|
| 525.194 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | Ultimately, it's an Analog World. | Fri Jan 19 1990 19:26 | 25 |
|
re: .168,.181 (the Doctah)
.168 > I would like to make one comment, though. [...]
Mark, I got a chuckle to see that you were the first to respond to
.167 as you did. As a matter of fact, when I first read Carole
Ashmore's .167 and saw how she addressed a guy named "Mark", I found
it amusing since I seemed to remember *you* making a similar
argument waaay early in this topic. I hate to say, "I knew you'd
respond like that", but... [hey, you've done it to me once before
re: Dead Ringers in this conference too, so there :-P!]
.181>> Because of the ethos that states "take precautions,
.181>> and it won't happen",
.181> I have never heard anyone make this claim.
Too bad you weren't there in the police station when the police
officer said basically the above >> in explaining why I did not need
a gun permit.
nancy b.
|
| 525.195 | FWIW... I strongly agree | SYSENG::BITTLE | Ultimately, it's an Analog World. | Fri Jan 19 1990 19:29 | 25 |
| re: =maggie
.169 [...] no normal activity "happens" to be more
dangerous for women to do: they're *made* more dangerous for women to
do. It doesn't seem to me that it's a healthy idea to minimise the
intentional, directed nature of these crimes or to characterise them as
things that just "happen" mostly or exclusively to women.
.173 When we talk about some act as though it were the product of natural
law instead of an intentional choice on the part of the actor, we
minimise the responsibility for the act:
.175 ...you simply provided a fine example of a wretched tendency: to talk
about the bad things that are done, particularly to women and members
of minority groups, as though intentional causality were minimal or
absent.
re: DougO
.172 Words are not neutral, they carry nuance and value-loading.
...claiming that the distinction between "activity that happens to
be more dangerous" and "activitiy that is *made* dangerous" is only
semantic, biases the listener towards blaming the victim.
|
| 525.196 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Fall to your knees & repent if you plz | Fri Jan 19 1990 19:36 | 28 |
| > .181> I have never heard anyone make this claim.
>
> Too bad you weren't there in the police station when the police
> officer said basically the above >> in explaining why I did not need
> a gun permit.
In this conference, I mean. C'mon, Nancy, can't you see the cheif's point
of view? We can't have women out there shooting every guy that makes a pass at
them, now can we? Besides, women don't know how to use guns anyway. Why can't
they just find a man to protect them? Besides, if they weren't where they
weren't supposed to be, they wouldn't have to worry about this in the first
place.
I hate authority figures that are less intelligent than you but think they
know better. Arrgh. Here you are, an intelligent person speaking to this
dopey good 'ole boy who by the power granted him by the legislature, holds
the key in determining whether you can legally defend yourself in the manner
you choose. Isn't that special? "C'mon missy, the worst that'll happen is
you'll get raped, and as long as you lay quietly and accept it, you won't
get that hurt. Besides, we all secretly know that you enjoy it." I could
just about puke when I hear words that essentially say the same thing, albeit
indirectly, from the mouths of those in charge of maintaining order.
> I hate to say,...
Baloney. You like to say it. Admit it. Hope you enjoyed it. :-)
The Doctah
|
| 525.197 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | Ultimately, it's an Analog World. | Fri Jan 19 1990 19:38 | 20 |
|
re: .178 (Sharon Walker)
> We had an argument, and he decided to renege at the last
> minute out of vengeance.
Sharon, I would have been totally pissed off at him for doing
that too.
re: .192 (Peggy Leedberg)
Peggy, I'm sorry that happened.
At least your locks or whatever were strong enough to stop the person.
(and I don't want to give unsolicited advice, though you probably
know what I feel like strongly urging you to consider doing...)
nancy b.
|
| 525.198 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | Ultimately, it's an Analog World. | Fri Jan 19 1990 19:46 | 17 |
|
re: .176 (Neil Faiman) -< Two separate lines of discussion confused >-
Neil, I was immediately puzzled by what you said in .176 about the
2 things concerning rape ( 1-rape is a horrible crime,
and 2-there are things women can do to reduce their risk of being
raped) as being "totally independant".
Not confused about *what* you said, but puzzled as to how you
reconcile the above with what you told Kath in 525.140, where you
spoke about the interdependence of 1-rape and 2-how the supposed
benefit to women of increased awareness/caution, etc., that rape
and the threat of rape "provides" (gag) us, is not a true "benefit"
at all.
nancy b.
|
| 525.199 | yes, i'm afraid | LYRIC::QUIRIY | Christine | Fri Jan 19 1990 19:48 | 59 |
|
re: .192, Peggy -- I'm so sorry you had to go through that. I cringed
reading your note.
----------
I've been thinking about feelings recently. About a month ago I
started thinking about experiences I've had. For each experience
that came to mind, I recalled accompanying feelings and put names to
them. After I'd gotten together quite a good list I saw (it was
there in black and white) that the feeling I'd experienced most
often (or most memorably) was fear or some variation on it -- I've
been scared, afraid, terrified, apprehensive, as well as fearful.
My most terrifying moments have been either in places where I
thought I was safe (at home) or with people I thought I could be
safe with (family members, lovers).
I live a regular life. I come and go here and there, at night or
during the day, very often alone. I don't have bars on my windows,
nor is my house alarmed. I don't even have a dog to bark at strange
noises in the night (though I wish I did have a dog for that and
other reasons). But, I am, very often, afraid. A by-product of
living with this is, I think, what I now call my "impending doom"
flashes. I can be doing anything ordinary and suddenly, for only as
long as it takes to become aware of it, my mind will conjure up
something bad happening -- a common and not particularly unnerving
one is getting crunched beneath the wheels of a big truck when I'm
driving (or riding with someone else) on the highway, and approach
or begin to pass one. I pass trucks frequently. I drive a lot and
even enjoy it. But, every once in awhile I get a flash of a
catastrophic and unavoidable collision.
A more personal "flash", and the one that made me think about the
fact that I had them ('Am I crazy?' I wondered...) happened a
couple of summers ago, when I was home alone at night. It was
summer and my housemate was working late. It was about 11:00 and I
was logged in (probably reading notes). The window was open and I
was aware of voices coming from the street and realised they
belonged to a couple of kids (teenagers? early 20's?) from across
the street -- they were sitting on the edge of their lawn, near the
street, joking and goofing around. No doubt they could see me
sitting at the desk, in front of the window. I'd turned the
sprinkler on when I got home and every hour or so I'd gone out to
move it to another part of the lawn. It was about time to do that
again, but I couldn't. I suddenly was afraid that the boys (young
men?) across the street would overpower me and (what?) rape me, or
hurt me in someway, if I went outside. I imagined they were
plotting something as they drank their beer, watching me, lit up in
my window and I was afraid that they might sneak around to the back
door, up the stairs, and inside. It was a very pleasant night; I
didn't want to close and lock the door or the windows off the deck.
I remembered all the times I'd not bothered to cover up or close the
shades when going from one room to another and wondered if they'd
seen me in various stages of undress (and would I now be "punished"
for that?). I felt like I'd been a "bad girl."
That's a part of what "being a woman" is like for me.
CQ
|
| 525.200 | | RAB::HEFFERNAN | Juggling Fool | Fri Jan 19 1990 20:06 | 20 |
| RE: .193
I'm sure that men have a hard time understand the constant threat/fear
of rape. I know I do.
A couple of times I thought I was in danger of getting sexually
assaulted. Once, I accepted a ride on a motorcycle from a guy and he
started getting abusive and grabbing my private parts. I jumped off
the bike as soon as I could. Another time, I was out running at about
5:30 in the morning at a ski resort and no one else was up. I saw a
car following me a short distance behind. The man started making
sexually harassing comments. He followed me for quite a while. I ran
towards the main street as fast as I could. I remember being shaken up
for quite some time.
I don't think about these two incidents much and I don't live in fear
of being raped (altough in certain situations, I will remember these
incidents and be afraid)...
john
|
| 525.202 | Monday Musings | WFOV11::APODACA | Down to the sea in blips. | Mon Jan 22 1990 14:44 | 66 |
| I don't think about rape, not really. Of course, every now and
then, I think "Gee, it *could* happen to me", but then again, every
now and then I also think I could get in a car accident, or smushed
by a falling overpass. (dryly humorous side note: Coming from
the San Francisco Bay Area, I tend to think about the latter most
of all while driving under a small maze of overpasses where I reside).
I also don't get scared often, unless I psyche myself out. I go
and come as I please, outside or inside, night or day. Certainly
I do not go out of my way to make myself a target, like hang out
in super seedy sides of town, or lurk in dark areas or hang out
on street corners, but if it is 1am and I wanna go walk down the
street to get my car, and go someplace, I do. Hell, if I liked
to jog, I'd run whenever I wanted to, I suppose, altho why I'd go
out in the early a.m. is beyond me (I can't even get up at 7am like
I am supposed to). I never have put bars on my windows, or jumped
every time I heard voices out on the street, or saw people hanging
around (even men) outside my yard. Sure, I try and pull the blinds
whenever I am getting dressed if there's a chance someone might
see in from outside, but that's from a sense of modesty, not really,
"Someone might think it's an invitation" (not that the thought-flash
hasn't ever crossed my mind, but again, I thought-flash that the
elevator I'm in will fall down the shaft).
Does that make me any more risky or "asking for trouble" or less
careful than I should be? I don't think so. I'm not looking for
anything. Certainly, I do not wish to be raped. I don't wish to
be mugged. I don't even wish for someone to shove me in passing.
I also don't wish for me to get in a car accident, or slide off
the road, or whatever, and I do the best I can to make sure my car
doesn't hit anyone else's, but I still drive. Even in dangerous
road conditions. I take ordinary precautions. And I take ordinary
precautions with my daily life, too. I *could* get raped. I *could*
get beat up. I *could* get murdered. But I still go out.
I will be moving in with my boyfriend next month. I honestly don't
think I will be any safer living with him, than living without him,
since my daily in-and-out life are going to be the same. I suppose,
statisically, I am less likely to be the target of a roving
burgular-rapist who is looking for women who live alone, but what
about the burgular-whatever who doesn't care who lives in the house,
or simply didn't case it first hand, or *thinks* I live alone?
What about the loonies I might bump into in the supermarket, or
at the mall, and who might follow me home? Or try and peg me in
the parking lot? I dunno. I can't worry about them. Otherwise
I'd live in fear, in a box. Life is hard enough to enjoy by
itself--getting trapped by the fear of society's misfits makes it
that much harder. I expect society as a whole to behave itself
and leave me alone--acknowledging that, yes, people CAN get hurt--but
not fretting about it. I don't think I am that much more vulnerable
to assault than if I were a man--maybe if I were a guy, I'd get
killed, or beat up, or whatever (or even raped!) by someone who
wanted to prove how tough he was (or she was?).
Maybe I'm more blase about things than I should be, or just determined
not to let misfits run MY life, but I feel that woman or not, you
really can't let fear be your captor. I know that if I get raped,
or assaulted or robbed or killed, it wasn't MY fault. It isn't
a contest that whoever lets their guard down first deserves to get
whomped. I'm minding the rules, and I can do a little to watch
out for those that don't mind the rules, but I can't stop them from
breaking the rules, and I can't stop the fact that I might run into
a rulebreaker sometime in my life. As they say, sometimes sh*t
happens. I can watch out for it, but some of it might hit me anyway.
---kim
|
| 525.203 | Datum | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Jan 22 1990 15:05 | 13 |
| I'm vaguely surprised that no one has mentioned the results of a
survey done on fear. It was mentioned in Time (I think) just a
few weeks ago.
The most fearful category of men (old men) is still less fearful
than the least fearful category of women (young women).
So, could we at least not have any claims about how men are just
as fearful as women about "things"? Thank you.
Ann B.
P.S. No, I don't know how the survey was done.
|
| 525.204 | That's not my suburb . . . | RDVAX::COLLIER | Bruce Collier | Mon Jan 22 1990 15:11 | 41 |
| I can certainly imagine people - perhaps especially single women -
feeling especially isolated and exposed in "the suburbs" (an overly
vague term). But I believe the facts don't bear this out. Boston proper
has a small fraction of the population of the "greater Boston area,"
yet surely it has most of the crime - violent and otherwise. Nor do I
think suburbs have "all the kinkos," long mouldring unfound bodies, or
new waves of criminals. It is true that rapes and murders in "quiet,
prosperous" suburbs get a ton of publicity, but that's because they are
rare, not common. City crime is usually too boring to report, except,
of course, when it has middle class suburban victims. And suburban
violence is even more likely than city crime to be "all in the family."
Those who are single and friendless way have little to worry about.
Of course, just because you're paranoid, you may not be _safe_. Do
think about when to lock doors, etc., wherever you are.
Finally, (warning, R rated material ahead)
I think what you say about mutilation fears may apply equally
to men (for whom it is not _only_ a fear of castration). Certainly the
secret police of various Latin American regimes seem to have found
genital threats and pain a method of choice, regardless of the victim's
sex (if one can believe what one has read). But I'm going to speculate
that for men, fantasies of sexual violation/mutilation don't often get
mentally connected to perceptions of actual danger, as they do for
women, since one hears so much less about sexual violence of any kind
against men. Origin of this thought. When I started college, I
attracted a lot of unwelcome attention from a large, strong,
body-building, male classmate (I was quite cute!). Sometimes his
harrasment got quite physical, and I was rescued from I-don't-know-what
only by the intervention of other students. I was afraid, but only as
of being hurt in a fight; I never got worried about specifically sexual
acts, though perhaps I should have. This was long before the current
concept of sexual harrasment had evolved for either sex, so it never
occured to me to lodge complaints with any authorities; just to avoid
unpeopled areas where I might meet him. Yet this essentially seemed an
isolated and anomolous experience for me; and even after there were
echos of it later in college life, I never came to feel I had to shape
my life around such threats.
- Bruce
|
| 525.205 | | BSS::BLAZEK | in case the laughing strangers call | Mon Jan 22 1990 15:17 | 9 |
|
Date rape is a very real and very frequent occurrence in this country.
No woman is safe just just because she lives in the suburbs and not a
big city. Rape does not just occur by strangers.
If anyone has any figures on date rape, I'd be curious to see them.
Carla
|
| 525.206 | When no isn't enough...its a crime | WMOIS::RICCI | | Mon Jan 22 1990 16:07 | 12 |
| I don't know that the figures can be compiled. By its very definition,
date rape is very ambiguous in terms of 'labels' due, in part to the
attitudes in our society. Attitudes like, 'you want it as much as me',
or any other manipulative manner that results in date rape goes
unreported, by-in-large for some very obvious reasons. If we can get
the courts to protect women from the violent rapes without subjecting
them to 'you must have been looking for it' or using past sexual
activity as justification for rape we might stand a chance to address
this socially tolerated form of rape.
rick
|
| 525.207 | blaming the victim | OXNARD::HAYNES | Charles Haynes | Tue Jan 23 1990 05:13 | 10 |
| I've been bothered by the "there are things that you (women) can do to
reduce your risk of rape" comment. If a women doesn't do anything to
reduce her chances of being raped, even if she engages in what might
be considered "risky" behavior, and she is raped IT IS NOT HER FAULT.
Not even a little bit. As long as we agree on that, I will agree with
the premise, but if there is even the tiniest implication that anyone
who hasn't done those things desrves to be raped... I disagree.
Vehemently. The "problem" is the rapists. Entirely.
-- Charles
|
| 525.208 | | SA1794::CHARBONND | Mail SPWACY::CHARBONND | Tue Jan 23 1990 09:38 | 19 |
| re .207 >The "problem" is the rapists. Entirely.
Granted. We are looking for solutions, both short- and long
term. In the long term, education and change in attitudes,
on a social level, is desirable. In the short term, you have
to survive long enough to help effect the long term solutions.
I'd prefer the statement "there are things that we each can
do to reduce our risk of being assaulted." I won't pretend
that a man being mugged and a woman being raped are similar.
Those are different in kind, not just degree. However, the
same precautions can reduce the risk of both. (Personally,
there are neighborhoods *I* won't go after dark, with or
without a gun. Is this OK? No. If I go there, am I looking
for trouble ? No. Solutions ? Long-term: reduce crime.
Short-term: seek amusement elsewhere.)
Dana
|
| 525.209 | date rape | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Tue Jan 23 1990 09:50 | 6 |
| Although it has been many years since I was dating the subject of
date rape is still one that deeply troubles me. Men who force or
coerce a date into having sex for what ever reason are a type
of person I do not understand.
Bonnie
|
| 525.210 | It is never OK to abuse someone..... | WMOIS::RICCI | | Tue Jan 23 1990 10:36 | 11 |
| One bad side affect from date rape is our (social) assertion that it is OK,
sometimes, to force yourself on a woman. I am deeply offended that this
country still tolerates such behavior. Need we wonder why women are
stuggling to deal with the terrible rapes that occur. There should
never be a question of weather or not she deserved it ...noone does.
I would say that even a prostitute who sells sex should not be
subjected to rape...somehow, if her morals are less than ours, we
sanction the rape. SAD
bob
|
| 525.211 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | We're more paranoid than you are. | Tue Jan 23 1990 11:20 | 5 |
| And putting together date rape and the "would you tell" topic, what if you know
for sure that someone date raped? What if you heard it nth hand? Rumor are so
tenuous, but I feel a great deal of instincts kick in on defending women on
this one.
Mez
|
| 525.212 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | RRRRRRRRR! | Tue Jan 23 1990 11:30 | 9 |
| > I've been bothered by the "there are things that you (women) can do to
> reduce your risk of rape" comment. If a women doesn't do anything to
> reduce her chances of being raped, even if she engages in what might
> be considered "risky" behavior, and she is raped IT IS NOT HER FAULT.
Thank you Charles for saying it for the nth time. I have yet to see anyone
disagree with that.
The Doctah
|
| 525.215 | pyschological coercion | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Tue Jan 23 1990 12:17 | 17 |
| This goes back a long way, I was in college 25 years ago.
One thing that was quite common was young men who felt it was
okay to use almost any kind of pressure, largely psychological
(if you loved me you'd..) in the form of lines, but also just
wearing away at someone, or continuing to 'make out' past
the young woman's comfort point, to achieve intercourse. It was
like the woman didn't matter, 'scoring' did.
Very often the young woman found her self dropped cold and treated
as lower than pond scum the next day.
I don't know if this sort of behavior is still common, perhaps with
teenagers it is, but I know a lot of my friends had their hearts
broken by it in those days.
Bonnie
|
| 525.216 | ??? | AQUA::WALKER | | Tue Jan 23 1990 12:33 | 5 |
| What is the saying - if you are part of the problem, you are part of
the solution.
Has the question been asked - What can men do to reduce the incidence
of men raping women?
|
| 525.217 | *Not* date rape (here we go again) | TLE::D_CARROLL | Love is a dangerous drug | Tue Jan 23 1990 12:42 | 19 |
| (Donning my asbestos suit...)
> One thing that was quite common was young men who felt it was
> okay to use almost any kind of pressure, largely psychological
> (if you loved me you'd..)
The "If you loved me you'd..." line is slimy, it's manipulative, it's unfair,
it's often tragic, but it is *not* date rape. Psychological manipulation,
however insidious, deliberate and damaging, is not force or coercion.
The law cannot protect against a broken heart. Nor should it.
And the "If you loved me..." manipulation technique is most certainly not
the sole property of young men. While young women may have different goals,
they manipulate just as much. (I've used that line myself, in my younger
years. I was a master at manipulation, and while I'm not proud of it,
it's true - but I will deny that that made me a rapist.)
D!
|
| 525.218 | | SONATA::ERVIN | Roots & Wings... | Tue Jan 23 1990 12:43 | 7 |
| >>What is the saying - if you are part of the problem, you are part of
>>the solution.
I think the saying goes:
If you aren't a part of the solution then you are part of the problem.
|
| 525.219 | | RDVAX::COLLIER | Bruce Collier | Tue Jan 23 1990 13:02 | 8 |
| In re: Note 525.213 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA
> This country also tolerates women forcing themselves on men.
Just what are these women doing, in "forcing themselves" on men, that
constitutes rape, date rape or otherwise?
- Bruce
|
| 525.220 | | AISVAX::SAISI | | Tue Jan 23 1990 13:03 | 8 |
| I think it is important to point out that while a women may be able
to lessen her chance of rape in a given situation, there is nothing
a women can do that will assure her 100% that in her life she will
not be raped. It is a source of my own underlying fear. That some
day it is something that I may have to recover from emotionally.
I used to think it would turn me into a basket case, but now I believe
I am strong enough to get through it. But I sure hope I never have to.
Linda
|
| 525.221 | women raping men?.... | LYRIC::BOBBITT | invictus maneo | Tue Jan 23 1990 13:23 | 16 |
| I can't imagine how a man who does not want to have sex can maintain an
erection if a woman is forcing sex on him. If a man is not aroused, he
does not have an erection. A flaccid (unaroused) man cannot penetrate
a woman. Intercourse does not occur. Rape cannot occur. A woman
cannot force sex on a flaccid (unaroused) man.
Formfeed for the sexually-graphic squeamish
She could take some sort of sexual device, threaten him at gunpoint,
flip him over, and penetrate him anally with the device, but I have
NEVER heard of this happening. EVER.
-Jody
|
| 525.222 | | AISVAX::SAISI | | Tue Jan 23 1990 13:28 | 6 |
| Not entirely true Jody, as some children have had arousal responses
during sexual abuse by adults. There can be a disconnect between
mind and body. But I agree with you that for adults, the second
scenerio you describe is a closer approximation of what rape is
like for a woman.
Linda
|
| 525.224 | And people wonder why I don't enjoy sex. | SSDEVO::GALLUP | the urge to splurge | Tue Jan 23 1990 15:34 | 54 |
| > <<< Note 525.223 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "second kiss had a twist" >>>
> Those women use mental manipulation to get sex or to keep lovers.
I'm still VERY unsure that mental manipulation is rape. A
person has the CHOICE not to submit to mental manipulation.
Mental manipulation is NOT force. Basically, a man does NOT
have to have sex with a woman if he doesn't want to. *HE* is
the penetrator.......*HE* is, also, quite often the stronger
of the two.
> Whether or not that constitutes "date rape", per se, is not
> decided, but it is entirely analogous to those men using mental
> manipulation on women, with the same objectives in mind.
Quite often I've been mentally manipulated by men into sex.
But that mental manipulation was ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS
accompanied by physical force. I can't even COUNT the number
of times I was kissing a guy and he want too far and I said
"No" and he said "Yes" and we fought and he won. More often
than not I have SUBMITTED to it after fighting, because I
know that nothing I can do will get this guy off of me. It
is soooo easy for me to separate my mind from what is
happening to my body....especially after it happens to you
numerous times.
Even though I submitted, it was STILL DATE RAPE because *I*
did not want it, and attempted to stop it. Many times when I
used to drink a lot, I would be SOOO drunk, yet still
slightly aware of what was going on around me, and I was
raped. Raped by men that felt that "well, she'll never
remember it". When you get drunk like that you CAN'T make a
choice as to whether you want sex or not, NOR can you resist
much. A man that does that does this sort of date rape is,
in my mind, totally despicable.
I can't count the number of times I have been "date raped",
they are just too numerous to even begin to count. Two,
however, I've said before, were very violent and still effect
me today.
> Sexual intercouse is not necessary for rape.
Rape: the crime of forcing a female to submit to sexual
intercourse.
Yes, rape *is* sexual intercourse, and I don't know of any case
where a man was convicted of rape when he did not penetrate
(does anyone else?). It's either 'attempted rape' or 'assault
and battery.'
kathy
|
| 525.225 | It ain't impossible, just maybe unlikely. | WFOV12::APODACA | Down to the sea in blips. | Tue Jan 23 1990 15:55 | 33 |
| Re .221 and what Mike_Z was saying:
I WISH to h*ll I could find the article--it was most intriguing,
and I have no reason to believe it was made up. The article concerned
the rape of a man by two women. If I can recall correctly, the
man was in a bar approached by two women (he was somewhat inebriated,
I believe), taken away by them, then tied down and made (yes, really)
to have intercourse and/or oral sex (that part I can't recall).
The women had a gun. Even though the man was understandably more
than a bit afraid for his well-being and was NOT willing to have
intercourse, he did gain and maintain an erection. This throws
some doubt on the theory that if men don't wanna have sex, they
just don't get an erection.
I really wish I still had the article. I cannot remember if it
was in a magazine or in a textbook at school (I am leaning towards
the latter, however my textbooks are all packed up and away in my
storage space 3000 miles across the country). If this is true,
and I really suspect it is, then the incidence or possibility of
a male being raped by a female is not impossible, but perhaps only
uncommon (and probably not reported in any kind of numbers).
Re: manipulation=Rape
I hold with D!. Manipulation is unfortunate, even less so when
it succeeds, but it is not rape. Rape is an act of force, physical.
I don't believe you can "talk" someone into raping them.
Rape - penetration = sodomy, or so I thought. Perhaps that applies
only to acts with a victim under the age of consent.
---kim
|
| 525.227 | talk radio... | ULTRA::ZURKO | We're more paranoid than you are. | Tue Jan 23 1990 16:41 | 5 |
| > I don't believe you can "talk" someone into raping them.
Do folks who believe this include "threaten" in the category of "talk" or
"coercion"? "Scare"? Or just "plead" and "dissemble"?
Mez
|
| 525.228 | | BSS::BLAZEK | tripping the light fantastic | Tue Jan 23 1990 17:07 | 23 |
|
.225> Manipulation is unfortunate, even less so when it succeeds,
.225> but it is not rape.
When a man enters his son's bedroom, whispers in his ear that if he
tells his mother he'll be in very big trouble and will be a very bad
boy, and the boy closes his eyes and silently allows his father to do
his thing, that is rape.
When a man is on a date with a woman, or heck maybe it's not even a
date, and he mauls her repeatedly and she finally gives in just to
get the bastard off her back, so to speak, that is rape.
Apparently this has never happened to you. Rape is not only when a
pack of knife-wielding thugs jump you in a dark alley or when a man
breaks into your bedroom in the still of the night and forces you to
have sex with him at gunpoint. It is sex AGAINST YOUR WILL.
Just because she stops fighting does *NOT* mean a woman is a willing
participant.
Carla
|
| 525.229 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | put your hand inside the puppet head | Tue Jan 23 1990 17:40 | 19 |
| > <<< Note 525.226 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "second kiss had a twist" >>>
> Your definition says otherwise.
"My definition" comes from American Heritage Dictionary, New
College Edition.
feel free to look up Webster's definition.
FWIW....when a person is forced to give a male oral sex, I do
not believe it's called rape, but rather it falls under some
other legal definition that I can't seem to think of at the
moment.
kath
|
| 525.230 | | SONATA::ERVIN | Roots & Wings... | Tue Jan 23 1990 17:40 | 15 |
| **.225> Manipulation is unfortunate, even less so when it succeeds,
**.225> but it is not rape.
>>When a man enters his son's bedroom, whispers in his ear that if he
>>tells his mother he'll be in very big trouble and will be a very bad
>>boy, and the boy closes his eyes and silently allows his father to do
>>his thing, that is rape.
Child sexual abuse as a part of discussing manipulation as rape is not
an accurate or comparable analogy. Child sexual abuse demonstrates a
different form of power. If a child does or does not struggle has no
bearing on what is to be considered child sexual abuse. Please, let us
not confuse the issue of what happens when a child is sexually abused
vs. what happens when an adult is raped.
|
| 525.231 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | put your hand inside the puppet head | Tue Jan 23 1990 17:45 | 20 |
|
RE: .227 and .228
Threatening violence/punishment/etc is MUCH different than
manipulation. To threaten someone to the point that they are
scared and truly believe the threat would be rape.
Simple manipulation, like "I'll buy you that if you will have
sex with me" would NOT be rape. The person does NOT have to
submit to manipulation.
I think it's VERY important here to define the difference
between manipulation and threats.
kath
|
| 525.232 | Not talking about children! | TLE::D_CARROLL | Love is a dangerous drug | Tue Jan 23 1990 20:24 | 40 |
| >When a man enters his son's bedroom, whispers in his ear that if he
>tells his mother he'll be in very big trouble and will be a very bad
>boy, and the boy closes his eyes and silently allows his father to do
>his thing, that is rape.
Yes. I, and I would guess Kim too, meant rape of a person over the age of
majority. And I think you knew that's what I (we?) meant.
>When a man is on a date with a woman, or heck maybe it's not even a
>date, and he mauls her repeatedly and she finally gives in just to
>get the bastard off her back, so to speak, that is rape.
Maul? What does that mean? the dictionary says "To beat, as with a hammer,
to tear or bruise." If that's what you meant, it is most definitely rape,
and I don't think anyone would disagree. The secondary definition was
"to paw, to mishandle", which is what I think you meant. If so, I would
venture to disagree. If he paws, and she says "No, leave me alone" and
continues to paw against her will, then it's rape. But if he paws, and
she feels manipulated by his pawing, and things to herself "Fine, then, I'll
give him sex so he'll leave me alone" it isn't.
>Apparently this has never happened to you.
I don't know if it has happened to Kim. It most certainly has happened
to me. I have been with men who's passes were obtrusive, and I thought it
would be easier to give in than to say no. Yuck. They were slimy and I
hated myself for giving in. But they didn't rape me.
>Just because she stops fighting does *NOT* mean a woman is a willing
>participant.
Did someone say she was? I said "psychological manipulation". In the
bit you quoted from the article you responded to said "manipulation".
Devastating though it may be, subcumbing to *psyhological manipulation*
is still a *choice* to do so. (And remember, I am talking about *adults*
here. Children don't have the tools to deal with manipulation, and so
it is as effective as force, and is rape. And no, Mez, I am not including
threats of physical force under the "manipulation" category.)
D!
|
| 525.233 | maybe that's for mennotes | TINCUP::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Tue Jan 23 1990 20:27 | 18 |
| I really get tired of hearing how men can be victims too. Yes, it's
true, but mostly at the hands of other men not women. It seems a
ploy to somehow make the act less despicable because even though 90%
of the victims are women there is a very minute possiblity that a
woman might rape a man. So there, you see, women are guilty too
seems to be the attitude. How many men really expect to be raped by
women? I have no idea. How many women really expect they may be
raped by men? Probably most of us.
The issue of manipulation is a tough one. I agree that it's not
really rape in the physical sense. It is in the mental and emotional
sense. I had an experience of the sort Bonnie mentioned. The guy
dated me and nagged constantly for sex. I finally gave in and then
never saw him again. I guess he just wanted to prove he could do it.
That happened well over 20 years ago and I still remember it with
distaste. It may not have been rape but it certainly wasn't
enjoyable sex. And it's somehow still the woman's fault. She's the
one who "gave in" after all. liesl
|
| 525.234 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | We're more paranoid than you are. | Tue Jan 23 1990 21:11 | 7 |
| I was actually interested in allsorts of threats D!; emotional, financial, as
well as physical. Someone who can without a promotion? Someone who can fire
you? And the job market is depressed? Someone who knows something about you and
can ruin your life by telling? I'm interested in where people draw the line (if
they do indeed draw the line, either clearly or smudgily).
Mez
|
| 525.235 | me too | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Tue Jan 23 1990 21:54 | 31 |
| 525.237 | You haven't experienced this as a woman, WE HAVE! | SSDEVO::GALLUP | you can't erase a memory | Wed Jan 24 1990 02:56 | 23 |
| > <<< Note 525.236 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "kick the bass like an NFL punter" >>>
> what's to stop
> her from saying "I said NO, and I mean NO, now STOP!" ??
Because, Mike. most times it doesn't work. That's what
we've been talking about here. Sure, sometimes I've said No,
and the guy quit, but if I could have a dime for everytime I
saw the look "I know you want it, baby" in a guy's eyes, I
would be rich.
Ideally, yes. But you're living in a dream world if you
think it really happens like that.
> Is it wrong to think that when a woman says "yes", when she could
> also say "no", she has consented?
Yes. Especially after numerous "no"s.
kath
|
| 525.239 | it's very simple | MOSAIC::TARBET | centimental = halfwit/50 | Wed Jan 24 1990 12:25 | 2 |
| It's attempted rape once the assailant pushes past the first "no".
Nothing else matters.
|
| 525.240 | How about "Side Effects of Women's Rape" ... just to make it obvious | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - hardware engineer; LSE | Wed Jan 24 1990 13:52 | 10 |
| re: .233 (Liesl Kolbe)
> I really get tired of hearing how men can be victims too.
THANK YOU, Liesl. I agree.
(and I could care less what the motives are).
Especially in topics about rape.
nancy b.
|
| 525.242 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | break the chain awhile | Wed Jan 24 1990 14:07 | 21 |
| > <<< Note 525.238 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "kick the bass like an NFL punter" >>>
> Numerous `no's aside, what you're telling me, is that "when a
> woman says `yes', she may really mean `no'" - that the consent given
> via spoken word may not really be consent.
You're changing the meaning of the entire scenario, Mike.
The scenario is, when a woman says no REPEATEDLY and a man
pushes her, and finally she gives in just to get the bastard
off her back, THEN a "yes" of sorts is still a "no."
Don't go changing the context of the situation we're
discussing.
kath
|
| 525.243 | Sigh. | WFOV12::APODACA | Down to the sea in blips. | Wed Jan 24 1990 14:43 | 51 |
| Well color me confused a bit, too.
Probably won't make many friends this way, but I agree with what
Mike_Z was saying. A yes after many no's may not be a heartfelt,
"yes I really want it" yes, but a yes is a yes.
I DO NOT, repeat DO NOT mean to lessen the wrongness of feeling
*forced* to give in, but I'm on Mike's_Z here and don't feel he
was changing the context. Circumstance often determines what goes
on, but I can't, really can't, see saying yes, if you really mean
no (unless, naturally, your life is in danger).
Re: .228 Nope, I've never been raped. Never even come in danger
of it (well, not really). While it's a given that
this pretty much devaules any attempt on my part to tell what it's
like to be raped from personal experience, I don't feel it devalues
my opinions on the difference between manipulation, threats and
actual rape. I'm not attempting to relate the former, I'm discussing
the latter.
But I think I know, and
hopefully most everyone else here knows, what I meant when I called
manipulation just that. There's a difference between manipulation
and threats. Manipulation is just that--rape is something else
that CAN happen during/before/after rape. Telling a child he'll
get in trouble if he says anything is manipulation, but if the father
didn't proceed with some kind of sexual assault in the example given,
it wouldn't be sexual assault. It would be the father manipulating
the child, and nothing else. It's highly unlikely that in the example
cited, manipulation/threats would NOT happen without also having
a sexual act, but in the scenario's given before, the manipulation
without the "of course" sex act was separate. I am specifically
citing the "If you loved me, you'd...." lines and any other line
generally given to pressure someone into intercourse. Disagree
if you will, but I still hold that you cannot "talk" a rape. You
either rape them or you don't.
.231 Thanks, D! for helping clarify some points I made.
One last note that might not also help make any friends here--I
really, REALLY don't understand the threads of animosity about men
being raped to being mentioned here. No one is trying to turn the
topic in that direction, and it might be just my perception, but
I get this feeling that if a man IS raped, it's somehow LESS of
a tragedy/crime/trauma than if a woman is raped. Egad. No one
is trying to sanctify women being raped by saying "Oh, it's okie,
men can be raped too". And yeah, I know this is Womannotes, but
we've certainly discussed men in here before.
---kim
|
| 525.245 | Spoken as a woman | TLE::D_CARROLL | Love is a dangerous drug | Wed Jan 24 1990 15:14 | 54 |
| Maggie (.239)
> It's attempted rape once the assailant pushes past the first "no".
> Nothing else matters.
Depends what you mean by "pushing"? If he continues to *physically* push
her, paw her, etc, then yes. If he begs, pleads, or manipulates, if
he "pushes" verbally, then no.
Mez, as far as manipulation goes, yes, there is a line where manipulation
turns in to a threat, and it doesn't have to be a threat of physical violence.
But I am still not sure I'd call it rape if it was a threat of, say, losing
a job. Now wait, all of you, before you say "What, you think demanding sex
in return for keeping your job is okay?" No. I think it sucks. I think
it's harassment, or it's blackmail, or whatever. It's *bad*, and whats more,
it's *illegal*. But it isn't rape. Not *everything* that has to do with
sex that a man shouldn't do to a woman is *rape*.
Kath (.236)
-< You haven't experienced this as a woman, WE HAVE! >-
I am a woman. I have experienced this. As a woman.
>> what's to stop
>> her from saying "I said NO, and I mean NO, now STOP!" ??
> Because, Mike. most times it doesn't work.
If it doesn't work, then it's rape. The possibility that it won't work
doesn't stop a woman from saying it.
As a woman who's been through it, I say if I'm on a date, and the guy
wants to <whatever>, and I say "NO", and he verbally continues to try
to convince me ("C'mon baby, I know you really want it") if he manages to
convince me I want it, and I say "YES", it's not rape. Slimy, yes.
Manipulative, yes. Rape, no.
If my boss says to me "I'll give you a bad review unless you sleep with
me", and I sleep with him to get a good review, it's not rape. Slimy,
yes. Harrasment, yes. Illegal, yes. Rape, no.
>> Is it wrong to think that when a woman says "yes", when she could
>> also say "no", she has consented?
> Yes. Especially after numerous "no"s.
No, it isn't wrong. The smudgy line is in the "when she could also
say 'no'" bit. At some point, manipulation becomes threat, or passes
become assault, and it's no longer true that "she could also say 'no'."
But I think in the two situations I described, and many others involving
psychological or even financial manipulation, that it hasn't crossed that
line.
D!
|
| 525.246 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | wherever you go, you're there | Wed Jan 24 1990 15:36 | 18 |
| > <<< Note 525.245 by TLE::D_CARROLL "Love is a dangerous drug" >>>
We're talking apples and oranges here, D!. I'm talking a "No
No No", threatening situation where you give in because you
know you won't get out, and if you resist more, then you
could get "hurt."
You're talking a "No No No" manipulative situation where
there IS a choice. (BTW, Mike, you're talking this scenario
too, while I'm not). I call this situation slimy,
underhanded and disgusting, but not rape because in
manipulation, a woman has a CHOICE. Sure, we feel slimy and
gross when we give in, but it's not rape because of that
choice.
kath
|
| 525.247 | it's all part of the same messy picture | DECWET::JWHITE | keep on rockin', girl | Wed Jan 24 1990 15:46 | 5 |
|
re: slimy and manipulative
i would still call it rape.
|
| 525.248 | | DASXPS::ZBROWN | | Wed Jan 24 1990 16:24 | 11 |
|
RE:.229 Kath,
Any type of forced intercourse is rape. I went to a self defence
course last week and they were saying that even if the person
uses an object, finger, or the penis, each time this is done that
is ONE account of rape. One person can be taken to court for
several accounts of rape on one person.
Zina
|
| 525.249 | | DELNI::P_LEEDBERG | Memory is the second | Wed Jan 24 1990 16:28 | 23 |
|
All things being equal and all. The first NO means no.
What make a male think that he should continue to try,
does he not respect and value the feelings of the woman
he is with.
Let's try this one more time.
NO means NO.
A rational discussion should follow if the man is really
interested in the feelings of the woman - if he isn't then
her NO was well founded.
_peggy
(-)
|
Why is this concept so hard to understand????
|
| 525.250 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | just a vampire for your love | Wed Jan 24 1990 16:38 | 24 |
| > <<< Note 525.248 by DASXPS::ZBROWN >>>
Zina....
I guess I don't understand the reference you're trying to
make to my .229.
Intercourse (no matter WHAT the object is) is not the same as
making a person perform oral sex. It's not "rape" as such,
by definition, I don't believe, but the penalty is the same
the name of the offense is just different.
I'm NOT disputing what intercourse is (or attempting to
imply that it *has* to be a penis). Rape can occur with any
usable device, but I do believe it MUST have penetration, by
something, to be called rape.
Could you clarify what you're saying in relation to .229,
please?
kath_confused
|
| 525.252 | | BSS::BLAZEK | tripping the light fantastic | Wed Jan 24 1990 16:46 | 6 |
|
The mouth is penetratable, as is the anus. Or does a man have to
specifically penetrate the vagina for it to be classifed as rape?
Carla
|
| 525.253 | | HANDY::MALLETT | Barking Spider Industries | Wed Jan 24 1990 17:00 | 28 |
| 525.254 | "are you really sure you know your own mind?" | ULTRA::ZURKO | We're more paranoid than you are. | Wed Jan 24 1990 17:04 | 4 |
| I get pissed when my _mom_ asks me the same thing twice. Of course getting
asked for sex twice in a row is even more irritating, stupider, and wronger.
What's so tough about that concept?
Mez
|
| 525.255 | Same thing, different names, I think. | SSDEVO::GALLUP | you can't erase a memory | Wed Jan 24 1990 17:20 | 22 |
| > <<< Note 525.252 by BSS::BLAZEK "tripping the light fantastic" >>>
>
>The mouth is penetratable, as is the anus. Or does a man have to
>specifically penetrate the vagina for it to be classifed as rape?
I think we would need a lawyer or something to get the right
definition.
FWIW.......it would be prosecuted just a rape would be, but
I'm not so sure it's called "rape." The point is moot
though....it's a mere matter of semantics. It would STILL be
treated as rape would be, but I don't believe it's called
rape.
Does that make sense? But I could be wrong, does anyone know
a lawyer? ;-)
kath
|
| 525.256 | Another try | TLE::D_CARROLL | Love is a dangerous drug | Wed Jan 24 1990 17:32 | 8 |
| >I get pissed when my _mom_ asks me the same thing twice. Of course getting
>asked for sex twice in a row is even more irritating, stupider, and wronger.
>What's so tough about that concept?
Nothing at all. I never said it wasn't irritating, stupid, or wrong. I
said it wasn't *rape*. What's so tough about that concept?
D!
|
| 525.258 | do men 'allow' women ? | DECWET::JWHITE | keep on rockin', girl | Wed Jan 24 1990 18:10 | 4 |
|
re:.257
i am struck by the use of the word 'allow'.
|
| 525.259 | ain't notes fun | ULTRA::ZURKO | We're more paranoid than you are. | Wed Jan 24 1990 18:11 | 2 |
| Sorry D!, I wasn't talking to you (was my reply right after yours?).
Mez
|
| 525.260 | Legalities, and the Michigan rape law reform | MOIRA::FAIMAN | light upon the figured leaf | Wed Jan 24 1990 18:21 | 12 |
| I suspect that you are going to find that the laws around rape vary from state
to state. I know that back in the mid 70's (when I was living there) Michigan
completely restructured its rape laws. In fact, I believe that "rape" was
discarded as a crime, and was replaced by "first-degree sexual assault",
"second-degree sexual assault", and "third-degree sexual assault".
My vague recollection is that third-degree sexual assault would be something
like (forced) fondling of the genitals or breasts, and first-degree would be
penetration. Furthermore, I think the definitions were written so as to make
the law "unisex".
-Neil
|
| 525.262 | no means no | IAMOK::ALFORD | I'd rather be fishing | Wed Jan 24 1990 18:54 | 42 |
|
i have found this string of replies to be quite distressing...
thinking back to high school/college days when I was dating, I
recall saying 'no' and the boy tried again (no Mike not an
hour later, or day later, maybe 2 minutes later) and, like
someone else said, I didn't say 'no' then I slapped him across the
face as hard as I could while I attempted to extricate myself
from his reach. Now, in that situation, I could have been
unlucky and wound up being attacked, but I wasn't. The fellow
meekly stood up and left.
but really....WHY did it take a slap, or a second, or third,
NO in a span of a few minutes???? why wasn't the first NO enough???
If we all agree that no means no, then there should never be
any attempt to continue the 'passion'. If there is, and the
woman keeps saying no till she's blue in the face then finally
gives up thinking this idiot will only leave if I say yes...
well...what a sh***y situation! I can certainly imagine if
it were a first date, and you didn't know if the guy would
turn violent, yeah you might say yes, even though you meant no.
but only after you'd already said NO to begin with. So, Mike
no means no.... If you still want it, ask the woman why she
said no, find out what it means for her to have sex, discuss what
you think/feel. Then maybe things will be different...but
don't keep pushing...that, even though legally may not BE rape
sure does FEEL like rape.
Let's put some of the 'blame' back on the men...they should stop
with the first no. period. Another day, another time, it may
be right, but it's not then. And if they press the issue,
continue to 'manipulate' , persuade, cajole...then they are
at fault.
that's my 2 cents
deb
|
| 525.263 | <*** Moderator Request ***> | MOSAIC::TARBET | centimental = halfwit/50 | Wed Jan 24 1990 18:58 | 4 |
| Please do continue the definitional discussion in 961.* rather than
here. Thanks.
=maggie
|
| 525.264 | | OPERA::LEE | Much better! | Wed Jan 24 1990 19:23 | 12 |
|
Re: Definitions
At least in the State of New York, I believe rape refers to forced
penile[?]-vaginal intercourse, while vaginal penetration with other
objects/body parts and oral/anal penile penetration are considered
sodomy.
>>AL<<
|
| 525.261 | <*** Moderator Request ***> | MOSAIC::TARBET | centimental = halfwit/50 | Wed Jan 24 1990 19:30 | 11 |
| <<< $2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
-< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 525.261 Side Effects of Rape: Discussion & Responses to 99.* 261 of 264
MOSAIC::TARBET "centimental = halfwit/50" 4 lines 24-JAN-1990 15:42
-< <*** Moderator Request ***> >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
961.* is the new string dedicated to the discussion of the definition
of rap. Please continue there.
=maggie
|
| 525.265 | <*** Ogress Request ***> | MOSAIC::TARBET | centimental = halfwit/50 | Wed Jan 24 1990 19:33 | 5 |
| *Please* take all further definitional discussion to 961.*!
Thank you.
=maggie
|
| 525.267 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - hardware engineer; LSE | Wed Jan 24 1990 20:01 | 9 |
|
re: .262 (Deb Alford)
> i have found this string of replies to be quite distressing...
me too.
nancy b.
|
| 525.268 | Here tis....MOD NOTE/NOTE_ID=xx.xx | SSDEVO::GALLUP | you're a hard act to follow | Wed Jan 24 1990 20:03 | 11 |
|
Maggie....it looks like notes collision....why don't you just
move the appropriate ones to the correct note.
BTW...what version of notes is MOSAIC running? The newest
version supports moving of notes rather easily, but I'm not
sure of the syntax.
kath
|
| 525.269 | said in a CSC32::M_VALENZA manner of sarcasm :-] | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - hardware engineer; LSE | Wed Jan 24 1990 20:32 | 20 |
|
Oh, by the way, I think rape should be defined as
Huh?
What was that you were saying, =maggie?
Speak up! You need to talk louder and be a
little more direct or maybe say what you want
to say a little more plainly, ya know?
Maybe saying NO 5 times fast will work.
Or perhaps you don't really know what you're
trying to say?
But GEEZ do you have to be such an OGRESS about it !?!
|
| 525.270 | violation of personal space | DECWET::JWHITE | keep on rockin', girl | Wed Jan 24 1990 20:45 | 10 |
|
re:'allow'
a woman should have the choice of what she wants to do, sexually or
otherwise, without having to be 'allowed' by some man.
re:.241
i would submit that when the man in this example leans over and kisses
the woman, after she has said 'no, i don't want to park', he has in
essence committed rape.
|
| 525.272 | nobody 'allows' me to speak, go armed, choose | SA1794::CHARBONND | Mail SPWACY::CHARBONND | Thu Jan 25 1990 09:30 | 8 |
| "allow" was used in the sense that men should "allow" women
to choose. Men should *recognize and respect the moman's right*
to choose. Men don't 'allow' women to have rights any more
than the government 'allows' us to have rights. We *have*
rights. We must insist that government and fellow citizen alike
recognize and respect our rights, else people can not live together
as free individuals.
|
| 525.273 | I don't know where to begin ...
I don't know where to begin | YGREN::JOHNSTON | bord failte | Thu Jan 25 1990 11:52 | 32 |
| Reading over the last 70-ish [?!] replies brings back to me quite vividly why
I chose not to prosecute ... or more accurately, why prosecuting seemed
like the equivalent of emotional suicide ... when I was raped by a friend.
I did indeed submit. I never agreed or said 'yes', but I did give up fighting.
Some said that this was implied consent. Horse pucky!
Was I engaging in risky behaviours? Apparently so ... I had dinner with an old
friend and we were continuing a conversation in my own home [*GasP*].
I heard about the shadings and gradations of 'no' until I thought I would commit
mayhem! I was asked if I found the man physically attractive [trick question],
as if that made the slightest difference.
Oh, indeed, everyone felt that the man had been _most_ ungentlemanly to force
himself upon my unwilling self; but certainly I couldn't delude myself that it
was something as nasty as rape.
So much energy is spent in determining whether or not a particular series of
events constitutes 'rape.' I think that is ultimately harmful. So long as
the discussion of what it _is_ persists, we don't have to really look at it.
Rape is an ugly, ugly thing. The tendency is to never willingly look directly
upon its ugliness. People really _don't_ want to know, even if they feel they
_must_ know. But if we do not look and act, we will never make progress.
Brushing aside something as 'not _rape_' is an excuse and an evasion. What does
it matter? [aside from the legal] Physical force, threats, coercion ...
compelling another person to a sexual act is heinous ... and not just 'a little'
heinous ... whatever we choose to call it.
Ann
|
| 525.275 | re: 99.50 | RAINBO::TARBET | centimental = halfwit/50 | Thu Jan 25 1990 17:54 | 4 |
| In your place, Nancy, I'd do the same thing, I think. Plus have my
phone number changed!
=maggie
|
| 525.276 | re: 99.50 | SA1794::CHARBONND | Mail SPWACY::CHARBONND | Thu Jan 25 1990 18:08 | 7 |
| re .50 Nancy you're not being mean, there are some things
that you simply can't forgive. (There's a few on my life-
long sh*tlist.)
Someone once said 'to forgive is divine' but we're only human.
Dana
|
| 525.278 | <*** Moderator Response ***> | MOSAIC::TARBET | centimental = halfwit/50 | Fri Jan 26 1990 13:02 | 4 |
| I'm re-opening this string in hope that the definitional discussion
will stay in 961.* where it belongs.
=maggie
|
| 525.280 | his problem, not yours | TLE::RANDALL | living on another planet | Fri Jan 26 1990 17:22 | 16 |
| Nancy, I was going to ask the same thing, but the note was still
write-locked.
How is it your responsibility to keep him from feeling bad about
treating you badly?
Maybe that's how he wants you to think, but his feelings are HIS
problem. They're not yours. (You've got enough of your own.)
Getting an unlisted number, or changing the number, won't do much
good if you've got friends who are willing to give him the number.
You might try buying or renting an answering machine and leaving
it hooked up all the time. That way you can screen your calls and
only return the ones from friends.
--bonnie
|
| 525.281 | But again, I'm not Nancy.... | SSDEVO::GALLUP | as I go along my way, I say hey hey... | Fri Jan 26 1990 19:23 | 25 |
|
What I wanted to say the other day when this was write-locked
is that we ALL make mistakes that effect other people's
lives.
Nancy go hurt pretty badly by this guy, and her reactions are
very understandable.
Where I in Nancy's place, however, and someone that had hurt
me like this was making attempts at explaining/talking about
it, I would make every possible attempt to listen to them
objectively. Because being angry at them for hurting me
would be festering inside of me. And anger is something that
I feel needs to be worked through, not left alone to build.
Forgiveness might not be possible in any case, but at least I
would feel better about working thru it....and have.
My motto is that we all make mistakes and it's better to be
able to face those mistakes than to hide from them.
kath
|
| 525.282 | A taste of his own medicine. | ASHBY::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Fri Jan 26 1990 19:53 | 20 |
| Another route:
He hurt Nancy by not being there when she needed him. Maybe he didn't
understand how much someone could be hurt if you left them alone when
they needed a friend.
Maybe Nancy's refusal to deal with him might show him how it feels
whan the person you need to talk with won't listen, and maybe he'd be
more willing to stick around in the future if someone needed his help.
If he calls again, maybe make it clear that he wasn't around when
you needed him so you have no obligation to listen to his problems.
And that he might want to think about how troubled he feels now the
next time someone needs his help.
You learn the most from your own experiences.......
Just a suggestion......
Lisa
|
| 525.283 | it's easy to be sorry when it's over | TINCUP::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Fri Jan 26 1990 22:18 | 8 |
| Of course he thinks she should listen and forgive! She's a woman,
it's her nature and duty to do so. How dare she rebuff him when
he decides (after a long safe interval) to say "hey, sorry about
deserting you when you needed me the most, you know how it is".
It's his karma now and he will have to live with it. What goes
around comes around. Maybe next time he's in a terrible situation
he'll make the right choice. liesl
|
| 525.284 | | KEISAN::NANCYB | all my instincts, they return | Sun Jan 28 1990 22:42 | 92 |
| re: .277 (Herb Nichols)
> I hope he cares enough about you to write you a letter!
Yea, I think a letter would be easier to take at this point
than a phone call...
re: .279 (Mary Dougherty)
> IMO, *you* are not responsible for providing your ex-boyfriend
> with a way of getting things off his chest! Why do you feel
> that you have to "take care of him" in this situation!?!?!?!?!?
I dunno for sure... I think because I really loved him a lot for
a long time. Also because the thought of me causing another person
mental anguish doesn't sit very well... I wouldn't wish pain
similar to what I've experienced from his rejecting me after being
raped on anybody, even him.
re: .280 (Bonnie Randall)
> How is it your responsibility to keep him from feeling bad about
> treating you badly?
Because, more than anyone else, I could help him to not feel as bad
about what he did by saying that I'm glad he called and letting him
talk with me.
> but his feelings are HIS problem. They're not yours.
> (You've got enough of your own.)
Well, gee, Bonnie, THANKS :-).
It may seem like I have a lot of problems, but I honestly had
had/am living a very wonderful and fun life. My mom always said
that "everyone has their cross to bear," meaning that everyone
has certain hardships. This is mine.
re: .281 (Kathy Gallup)
> Where I in Nancy's place, however, and someone that had hurt
> me like this was making attempts at explaining/talking about
> it, I would make every possible attempt to listen to them
> objectively.
A couple of days after the first time he called me, that was what I
decided to do if he called again. But it didn't work like that when
I heard him on the phone the second time.
> My motto is that we all make mistakes and it's better to be
> able to face those mistakes than to hide from them.
Kath, I don't quite follow what you mean... Could you elaborate?
re: .282 (Lisa Gassaway) -< A taste of his own medicine. >-
> Maybe Nancy's refusal to deal with him might show him how it feels
> whan the person you need to talk with won't listen, and maybe he'd be
> more willing to stick around in the future if someone needed his help.
Thanks, Lisa! Putting it in that frame-of-reference enables me to
feel not so bad about not being able to talk with him. I couldn't
think of a true benefit of me behaving like that, but I think you
found one. Maybe this "lesson" will make him think twice before he
runs out on someone in need again.
> If he calls again, maybe make it clear that he wasn't around when
> you needed him so you have no obligation to listen to his problems.
I'll have to practice that so that I just don't hang-up again (it
really was practically a reflex!)
re: .283 (Liesl Kolbe)
> Of course he thinks she should listen and forgive! She's a woman,
> it's her nature and duty to do so.
That might have just a _little_ bit to do with it :^).
> How dare she rebuff him when he decides (after a long safe interval)
> to say "hey, sorry about deserting you when you needed me the most,
> you know how it is".
Yea, he did seem surprised by my unwillingness to listen...
> Maybe next time he's in a terrible situation he'll make the right choice.
Yes, hopefully.
nancyb.
|
| 525.285 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | Go Wildcats....or is that Wildkat? | Sun Jan 28 1990 23:45 | 34 |
| > <<< Note 525.284 by KEISAN::NANCYB "all my instincts, they return" >>>
>> My motto is that we all make mistakes and it's better to be
>> able to face those mistakes than to hide from them.
>
> Kath, I don't quite follow what you mean... Could you elaborate?
My understanding from what you wrote is that he is trying to
face is mistakes and you are not particularly letting him do
that.
Perhaps to expand on my statement...we all make mistakes but
it take a strong person to be able to face those mistakes.
And a willingness to grow beyond those mistakes.
I don't feel you're allowing him the chance to really face
his mistake. He hurt you, and it seems to me that he wants
to work thru what he did. You're not giving him the chance
to work thru that by hanging up on him.
I'm not sayinng forgive the guy or anything, but maybe
allowing him to work thru his mistake of hurting you will
allow you to work thru your hurt that he caused.
I find it better to face an adversary, not avoid it and hide
from it.
JMO if i were in your place (and was at one time)
kath
|
| 525.286 | I should be more careful on Friday afternoon | TLE::RANDALL | living on another planet | Mon Jan 29 1990 11:48 | 44 |
| re: Nancy
>> but his feelings are HIS problem. They're not yours.
>> (You've got enough of your own.)
>
> Well, gee, Bonnie, THANKS :-).
>
> It may seem like I have a lot of problems, but I honestly had
Ooops, sorry, I didn't mean this quite the way it came out -- it
was a casual platitude, not a reference to your life in
particular. Like in, we've each got enough things to deal with in
our own lives without taking over someone else's problems, too.
>> How is it your responsibility to keep him from feeling bad about
>> treating you badly?
>
> Because, more than anyone else, I could help him to not feel as bad
> about what he did by saying that I'm glad he called and letting him
> talk with me.
I was trying to get at the same thing that Leisl said more
bluntly, that you seem to be taking on responsibility for making
him feel better just because you're the woman and that's your job,
no matter how badly he failed you and hurt you.
If he wants to work through his failure, that's his lookout. You
don't have any responsibility to make it easier for him. If you
want to, if you're really glad to hear from him, well, that's up
to you, obviously, but if you're not glad he called, what kind of
favors are you doing him by telling him you are? You'd only be
contributing to a belief that he can treat you badly and not have
to pay any consequences because you'll still be there waiting for
him, understanding how it workds.
If he needs somebody to talk to, offer to refer him to a good
counsellor. I'm sure the womannotes community can come up with
several suggestions . . .
--bonnie
p.s. I'm not advocating that you not forgive him, but I don't
think forgiveness requires that one be a doormat for the person
who wronged one.
|
| 525.287 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Tue Jan 30 1990 12:56 | 7 |
| I completely agree that you have ZERO responsibility to help him "work
through" anything, Nancy, Kath's implicit argument to the contrary
notwithstanding. If he has to live unforgiven with his small piece of
that whole rotten episode, as (Liesl?) said maybe he'll get a better
grip on reality and act more responsibly next time.
=maggie
|
| 525.288 | Face reality...it's not always what we want. | SSDEVO::GALLUP | by the light of a magical moon | Tue Jan 30 1990 14:21 | 22 |
| > <<< Note 525.287 by MOSAIC::TARBET >>>
> that whole rotten episode, as (Liesl?) said maybe he'll get a better
> grip on reality and act more responsibly next time.
Or maybe he's start fostering a little anger of his own at
not being allowed to just talk it out with her. Anger and
guilt can fester into something terribly awful.
Guilt doesn't always foster responsibility, it could just as
easily turn him into the next rapist thru anger.
Ya, see? It's not as easy as just "making him pay." I saw a
friend in high school cheat on his girlfriend, she found and
and never let him explain. His guilt festered into anger and
now he's in prison for attempted murder (her's).
It doesn't always happen the way we would like it to happen,
ya know?
kath
|
| 525.289 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Tue Jan 30 1990 14:30 | 6 |
| Kath, maybe he'll be angry with her *anyway*. Suppose he wants to
sleep with her, should she agree just because otherwise he might get
angry? Supposing he wants her to say that he behaved well and that it
was all her fault? Should she agree to that? Where does it stop?
=maggie
|
| 525.290 | Victim's needs first, then other's wants... | BSS::VANFLEET | Living my Possibilities | Tue Jan 30 1990 14:48 | 16 |
| On the other hand, Kath, it may not be possible for a victim to be able
to deal with this particular side effect of rape with any charity at
all. For me, real charity, requires some level of forgiveness and a
willingness to see the other person's side. When I'm so wounded by
an incident that I have my hands full trying to deal with my own anger
and hurt just to survive I really am not capable of mustering up the
energy required to attempt any kind of forgiveness or even sympathy,
much less empathy, towards someone who was involved in my hurt in any
way. Once my healing is completed, then I may be able to walk in the
other person's shoes if I so choose, but it has to be free choice, not
an obligation because it's the "right" or "charitable" thing to do.
Otherwise I do it under duress and, while it may make the other person
feel better, I have once again given up a part of myself unwillingly
which will probably open up the old wounds.
Nanci
|
| 525.291 | I would have talked (but can understand why you didn't) | TLE::D_CARROLL | My place is of the sun | Tue Jan 30 1990 15:00 | 28 |
| Were *I* in the situation, I would most likely have talked to the turk...er,
man when he called (at least the second time.) In some way I agree with Kath...
I think there is a lot of anger and guilt and hurt out there in the world,
and when I can, I try to reduce it.
However, if talking to him would hurt you more than it would help him, then
doing so would *increase* the hurt and anger in the world, which would defeat
the point. I think a lot of people forget when they talk about helping people
that "people" includes *yourself*, and the world is not benefitted by your
helping someone else at severe cost to yourself.
Also, deciding to talk to him out of concern for him, while perhaps a
generous and even altruistic thing to do is certainly not your *responsibility.*
You have no obligation whatsoever to help someone at cost to yourself. In
ethics class we called such actions "superogatory actions", and no one can
condemn you for not performing them. Even if what Kath suggested was true,
that his anger/guilt will fester into something truly harmful, that is neither
your fault nor your responsibility. The responsibility lies with him alone,
and that is not affected by your choice of whether or not to help him carry
that burden. If you choose to, you might be making the world a better place.
Or you might not. If you choose not to, no one can condemn you for not taking
on a burden that rightfully belongs to someone else.
If you still feel bad that you didn't talk to him, perhaps you can write him
a note explaining that you aren't comfortable talking to him, but if he wants
to write you a letter to get things of his chest, he may.
D!
|
| 525.292 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | just a vampire for your love | Tue Jan 30 1990 15:18 | 33 |
| > <<< Note 525.289 by MOSAIC::TARBET >>>
Maggie. You KNOW I didn't say that, so I would appreciate
you not implying that I did.
> Kath, maybe he'll be angry with her *anyway*. Suppose he wants to
> sleep with her, should she agree just because otherwise he might get
> angry? Supposing he wants her to say that he behaved well and that it
> was all her fault? Should she agree to that? Where does it stop?
I'm NOT asking Nancy to forgive him for ANYTHING! I'm simply
pointing out that it might be better for BOTH PARTIES
INVOLVED if they talked THRU their anger and their hurt and
the situation.
Nancy has a PRIME opportunity to educate someone here on rape
and it's effects. She can either choose to do it, or she can
choose not to.
Nancy doesn't have to agree to do anything, I am just stating
that were *I* in the same situation (which I HAVE been) *I*
would talk with him and allow him to work thru this problems,
not let them fester inside of him with guilt.
However NANCY is not KATHY and NANCY can do anything she damn
well pleases.
Thank you, I'm sick of this.
kath
|
| 525.293 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | just a vampire for your love | Tue Jan 30 1990 15:28 | 42 |
| > <<< Note 525.291 by TLE::D_CARROLL "My place is of the sun" >>>
> -< I would have talked (but can understand why you didn't) >-
I can understand why she didn't want to too. I mean, I've
been there, in the same situation, I know what it's like,
Nancy.
>Also, deciding to talk to him out of concern for him, while perhaps a
>generous and even altruistic thing to do is certainly not your *responsibility.*
Ahhh, I see now where the misunderstanding comes in. I'm not
implying Nancy shuld talk to him "out of concern for him",
but rather out of "concern for herself." When it comes to my
feelings I'me a purely selfish person. My feelings and my
well being MUST come before another in almost every instance.
In my situation, he wanted to talk about it, to work thru his
being a heel, and I did it, but I did it for ME!!!! Because
I was overcome with anger against him because HE left me. My
anger for him was so bad that it was effecting my other
relationships with good, kind men. Talking to him was purely
selfish for me. I wanted to see that he really hurt, I
wanted him to see what he had done to me.
>that his anger/guilt will fester into something truly harmful, that is neither
>your fault nor your responsibility. The responsibility lies with him alone,
True. Not her responibility at all. But to be aware of what
might come to pass is always nice. If I see a drunk passed
out on the railroad tracks, do I not pull him off because
it's not my fault he got drunk and passed out there? (Let's
assume that I'm violently against drinking. It's a mortal
sin). After all, he might wake up in time to get off the
tracks before a train comes.
Or perhaps he won't.
kath
|
| 525.294 | anger | RAB::HEFFERNAN | Juggling Fool | Tue Jan 30 1990 15:55 | 45 |
| Sounds like a difficult situation for everyone (including some of the
people entering replies so far ;-).
I'm sure Nancy knows in her heart of hearts what to do. I'm not sure
an answer can be given based on logic, rationality, or pyschological
theory. I believe that if you can get some quietness and stillness,
the right thing to do will always appear and also that I can never
tell another what that thing is (altough I could give my opinion on
what I think I might do).
This reminds me of something that I have been struggling lately around
the emotion of anger. I used to think that anger was bad and that I
should always act the saint and not express anger or at least tone it
down. Of course, it sometimes ends out coming out in other ways. I
used to do this in the belief that that would "help" the other person.
Of course, a lot of it was a fear of expressing anger and what would
happen if I did. Now, I see that anger arises and that you can notice
it and not get to invested in its permanance and reality. What to do
with it is another question. But if it's there, it's there. It's an
emotion and I find that basically its a physical sensation in my body
(this is anger itself and not all the thoughts that get woven around
it).
I think it is sometimes appropriate to express it and sometimes not.
I try and let the little things pass. And I try to express it as soon
and as naturally as possible before the anger has been transformed
into something else through thinking about it (like irritation or
hostility).
And I think that there is a skillful way of expressing anger without
passing a lot of judgements on the other person (which as far as I can
tell is something that comes from thinking about anger). But just
saying I am angry and here is why. Many times it turns out the here's
why part if a misunderstanding on my part, a communication breakdown, or
really something in myself that I don't want to look at and that I am
projecting onto another. However, sometimes we have a good reason to
be angry and I don't see anything wrong with letting the other person
involved know what our emotional state is. In fact, this can really
be helpful to the other person!
Sometimes I need time before I can forgive and let go of my investment
in my own anger and sometimes I wish it was sooner but wishing doesn't
seem to change very much.
john
|
| 525.295 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | roRRRRRRRRRut! | Tue Jan 30 1990 19:34 | 27 |
| >Once my healing is completed, then I may be able to walk in the
> other person's shoes if I so choose, but it has to be free choice, not
> an obligation because it's the "right" or "charitable" thing to do.
Can you really be fully healed when unresolved feelings remain? I tend to think
that in order to reach a fullness of healing, the final feelings stashed in
the most remote corners of the psyche must be addressed.
Whether Nancy talks to her ex-boyfriend or not is almost immaterial to the
healing process itself. The biggest obstacle to getting over her trauma of
having her boyfriend leave her during a very stressful time in her life is
her unresolved feelings regarding his behavior. And she can approach this
obstacle from a number of ways. It is not necessary to grant the boy absolution
to help her heal. She probably should address her feelings in some way, however.
The reason to deal with this aspect of her past is not because it is the
consensus "right thing to do," not because she has any particular need to be
magnanimous, not because his feelings are as important as hers or anything
else of that nature. The reason to deal with him is because she harbors feelings
for him that she has stashed away that remain unresolved. To fully heal herself
she should address these feelings, possibly including him in the process (which
may indeed hasten the healing in addition to allowing him to deal with his
unresolved feelings.)
Nancy has already heard the rest of what I have to offer.
The Doctah
|
| 525.296 | I'm probably over reacting | TINCUP::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Tue Jan 30 1990 22:45 | 22 |
| I'm really bothered by the idea that if someone hurts me terribly
I'd better forgive him or even listen to him or there may be hell to
pay later. What a rotten reason to try and forgive someone. It
places blame on the victim all over again.
It makes me think of "be a nice girl" no matter what. Your feelings
don't count. Yes, kath, I KNOW that's not what you said later but
that's the *feeling* I got from your note. Make "nice,nice" or
the boy may get ugly. What if the victim's healing requires her to
tell this person that he was a "coldhearted SOB and he should rot in
hell"? That might make him hate women and rape somebody too. Now
what?
I agree that healing requires you to make peace within your soul.
And that holding feelings of hate and bitterness make that hard if
not impossible to do. The catch is that sometimes what you have to
let go is the feeling that you are responsible for everything. I
think that women (myself very much included) have a tendancy to take
the blame for everything when it comes to relationships. That we are
seen as responsible for making it easy emotionaly for the men in our
lives. That's an awful heavy burden to bear. liesl
|
| 525.297 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | roRRRRRRRRRut! | Wed Jan 31 1990 11:57 | 19 |
| >What if the victim's healing requires her to
> tell this person that he was a "coldhearted SOB and he should rot in
> hell"?
Then that is by definition 'the right thing to do.'
>That might make him hate women and rape somebody too. Now what?
That is his problem. If he reacts in such an antisocial manner he needs to
be held responsible for that. He has not been forced to act that way; it was
a choice.
>That we are
> seen as responsible for making it easy emotionaly for the men in our
> lives. That's an awful heavy burden to bear.
I'd bet.
The Doctah
|
| 525.298 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Wed Jan 31 1990 13:03 | 16 |
| 525.299 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | you can't erase a memory | Wed Jan 31 1990 14:09 | 11 |
| > <<< Note 525.296 by TINCUP::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" >>>
> It makes me think of "be a nice girl" no matter what. Your feelings
> don't count. Yes, kath, I KNOW that's not what you said later but
> that's the *feeling* I got from your note. Make "nice,nice" or
You're right liesl, that's not what I said.
k
|
| 525.300 | Communication does not have to be forgiveness | MEMORY::BKENDALL | | Fri Feb 02 1990 01:48 | 70 |
|
.296> TINCUP::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" 22 lines 30-JAN-1990 19:45
>
> I'm really bothered by the idea that if someone hurts me terribly
> I'd better forgive him or even listen to him or there may be hell to
> pay later. What a rotten reason to try and forgive someone. It
> places blame on the victim all over again.
Liesl, I don't think Kathy or anyone else HERE is saying that. What I
believe Kathy and others are saying is to tell him how you feel about
what he did. I see it that they are advising Nancy to express to him
how much pain it caused her when he abandoned her at the moment she
needed him most. Perhaps he realizes the wrong of what he did and
wants to apologize? Perhaps he is seeking forgiveness? Perhaps he doesn't
realize why Nancy is angry? All that is being advocated is for Nancy
to express to him in words the pain he caused her by what he did.
Then let him sort it out. If he's a decent guy then he should realize the
wrong of what he did and perhaps won't do it again if faced with a similar
situation. If he doesn't realize why he caused her pain, and what it was
he did that are wrong then he might just react the same way next time he's
faced with a difficult situation.
Nancy doesn't have to give him forgiveness if she doesn't feel he is
deserving of it.
> the boy may get ugly. What if the victim's healing requires her to
> tell this person that he was a "coldhearted SOB and he should rot in
> hell"?
As the Doctah said, if that's what Nancy feels is the right thing to
do, then so be it.
> I agree that healing requires you to make peace within your soul.
> And that holding feelings of hate and bitterness make that hard if
> not impossible to do.
That gets back to what was proposed. Not giving forgiveness, but
COMMUNICATING your feelings. Telling what it was that hurt you and
why. We're talking adults here. Don't play games "I'll teach you".
You don't have to forgive the person and shouldn't if you feel that
the case. Communicate why you feel the way you do. You can tell him
that because of his actions you feel betrayed and let down. That you
no longer feel you can count on such a person and therefore don't see
any purpose to a friendship or relationship with that person, if that's
how you feel. But through communication at least you can gain the peace
of mind in knowing you have told him how what he did hurt you. Then it
is up to him how that knowledge gets put to future use.
> The catch is that sometimes what you have to
> let go is the feeling that you are responsible for everything. I
> think that women (myself very much included) have a tendancy to take
> the blame for everything when it comes to relationships. That we are
> seen as responsible for making it easy emotionaly for the men in our
> lives. That's an awful heavy burden to bear. liesl
Being an adult and acting responsibly is a heavy burden on a man or a
woman. It is much easier to act the child. But most of the pain in this
world seems to be caused by people who don't/won't take responsibility
for their actions. Wouldn't this world be such a better place if everyone
took responsibility for their actions and communicated better?
It's too bad that all too often it is the woman who takes on the
responsible role. This doesn't mean however that you, women, should
feel responsible for taking on "blame for everything when it comes to
relationships". Perhaps through better communications skills and
expressing your feelings you can "teach" men to take on our share
of the responsibility. There are those of us who try.
Communication starts with each one of us. Do your part.
Brad
|
| 525.301 | Communications II - Teaching | MEMORY::BKENDALL | | Fri Feb 02 1990 01:58 | 37 |
|
>MOSAIC::TARBET 7 lines 30-JAN-1990 09:56
.287>
> I completely agree that you have ZERO responsibility to help him "work
> through" anything, Nancy, Kath's implicit argument to the contrary
> notwithstanding. If he has to live unforgiven with his small piece of
> that whole rotten episode, as (Liesl?) said maybe he'll get a better
> grip on reality and act more responsibly next time.
>
> =maggie
I agree that Nancy has zero responsibility to help him "work through"
anything. I don't agree that by not communicating how his neglect
hurt Nancy that "maybe he'll get a better grip on reality and act more
responsibly next time".
Let me make an analogy. Perhaps a bad one but I'll try.
You leave your dog home unattended all day. You come home and find that
it has chewed on your sofa. You yell at the dog and hit it. The dog
has no idea why you are yelling at it and what it did wrong. How is
it going to learn from this? If you caught the dog in the act of chewing
on the sofa and yelled at and slapped it, the dog might get the idea not
to do this again.
What I'm saying is that if you communicate/explain why what he did
hurt you so terribly then it might sink in if he's a decent caring guy.
You don't have to forgive him. Explain yourself and tell him you choose
not to have any further dealing with him if you wish.
By not explaining yourself he might truly not understand why you
are mad at him and thus learn nothing from the experience.
I had a girlfriend once that used the silence treatment with me.
I never knew why she was mad when she was. Perhaps the only thing
I did learn from it is how important communication is and to look
for and value a woman who know how to express her feelings with
words rather than by playing games.
Brad
|
| 525.302 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Fri Feb 02 1990 12:51 | 8 |
| Brad, your analogy does indeed fail badly: it suggests that since she
didn't tell him at the time how she felt, it's too late to do it now.
But your position is flawed in another, more important way: you
presume that there is no communication occurring when Nancy slammed
down the phone. Surely, on reflection, you don't believe that?
=maggie
|
| 525.303 | I'm pissed and I don't care who knows it | YGREN::JOHNSTON | ou krineis, me krinesthe | Fri Feb 02 1990 13:22 | 19 |
| There's a large piece of art [5ft x 7ft] called 'Faces ... of Annie' hanging
in some stranger's home. It is a collage [?] in oil and pastel taken from a
myriad of pen & ink and pencil sketches of me in my various moods drawn during
the eight months I lived with the man who raped me 18 months after he moved
out.
Someone who doesn't know about the rape sent me and article on its sale thinking
I'd be tickled at such residual affection.
After puking and then getting swokked as a moat-monster followed by more
puking, I called the fine piece of pond-scum and asked him nicely to buy
the damned thing back and burn it.
He says he can understand why I feel this way, but that he found its creation
to be marvelously cleansing. Isn't that just ducky? And that the proceeds from
the sale made for a lovely vacation in Antigua.
Wow, I know that _I_ feel emancipated just knowing that I'm finally out of his
system......
|
| 525.304 | Productive vs. nonproductive anger | MEMORY::BKENDALL | | Fri Feb 02 1990 19:27 | 45 |
| RE .302
>MOSAIC::TARBET 8 lines 2-FEB-1990 09:51
> Brad, your analogy does indeed fail badly: it suggests that since she
> didn't tell him at the time how she felt, it's too late to do it now.
No Maggie, that's not the point of my analogy. With a dog, cat, etc. you
can not explain why you are mad at them. You can not tell them why what
they did is wrong, unless you're Dr. Maggie Dolittle ;-)
Therefore you must show an animal your displeasure with what they did
at the moment they are doing it. Otherwise they will sense your anger
but not know the reason behind it. Thus learning nothing. THAT is
the point I was trying to make.
With humans we have the wonderful ability to communicate our feelings
and reasoning with words. The point I was trying to make with my analogy
was that if he doesn't understand why she is angry with him then he
won't learn from his mistake. Unlike with an animal that won't remember
what incident it is that you are yelling at them about, it can be
explained that the reason Nancy is angry with him is because he deserted
her when she needed him most. She can explain why that hurt her so much.
He may not have a clue as to why she is angry or her reasoning. He may
just feel she hates all men now. It *might* help Nancy to express her
feelings of anger to him. It *might* help him to be more sensitive the
next time he's faced with someone needing his help. But only if the
issue is discussed and he understands why she's angry.
> But your position is flawed in another, more important way: you
> presume that there is no communication occurring when Nancy slammed
> down the phone. Surely, on reflection, you don't believe that?
>
> =maggie
Maggie, I truly hope that is not how you choose to communicate. All that
is communicated is anger. Not the reason behind the anger. Someone can only
learn from their mistakes if they know what those mistakes were.
We humans have the wonderful ability to express feelings with words, as I
stated above. So why not use words rather than play silly childish games
and hope someone else can second guess the correct reason for your actions?
I don't believe anything productive was communicated through slamming down
the phone. Surely, on reflection, you don't believe anything was?
Brad
|
| 525.305 | Another angle | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Fri Feb 02 1990 19:50 | 29 |
| Brad,
I hope you don't really think that when Nancy slammed down the phone
that she was playing a ~silly, unproductive game~.
It was very clear to me that that was her immediate, un-thought-out
response. It's one I've made myself. The alternative, in my case,
would have meant burst blood vessels in my throat, or little chips
ground off my teeth, or something else equally un-useful. Now,
if what you wished to object to is someone following the dictates
of her (or his) subconscious mind, please say so. It is a different
matter entirely.
Further, I see no reason to believe that Nancy did not make clear the
cause of her displeasure at the time he incurred it. If he cannot
remember, then his problems are far greater than *any* layman could
expect to even work on. (In fact, I believe he indicated that he
actually understood her complaint, so that point is moot.)
Since the end of any deep relationship takes at least two years
to heal, and since a termination by betrayal (from (I'm guessing)
Nancy's viewpoint) is more traumatic than most, I would say that
Nancy has a good long time to go before it would be considerate,
or even legitimate, to suggest that Nancy communicate with her
former boyfriend.
Do you understand me?
Ann B.
|
| 525.306 | Follow instincts, not theory | CADSYS::PSMITH | foop-shootin', flip city! | Fri Feb 02 1990 20:06 | 30 |
| We don't necessarily know the details of the situation. It seems that
the general assumption is that Nancy and her ex did NO communicating at
the time the rift occurred. I.e., he did a fade and they never saw
each other or spoke again until he called. Therefore her not letting
him explain what happened and why he did what he did ("I had ... er ...
AMNESIA, yeah, that's the ticket, AMNESIA...") is seen as bad
communication skills.
Seems like a pretty big assumption to me.
MY assumption is that something horrible happened to her, he didn't
support her emotionally, they had arguments, he did a fade, and is now
seeking absolution. My assumption is that he DOES know what he did
wrong before, so talking to him about it now (particularly since her
first uncontrollable instinct is to slam down the phone) is more for
his sake than hers.
In my view, it is entirely up to Nancy as to whether she gives him a
hearing or not. They no longer have a relationship. There is no such
thing as "bad communication" in a non-relationship. I agree that it
might be helpful for both of them to talk. I agree that it might be
hurtful, too. AND I agree that some people need to have "done unto
them what they have done unto others" before they truly understand what
it is they have done to others. So we don't always know what the right
thing to do is in every individual situation.
Since we're all giving advice here (!): Nancy, do what feels right to
you! (big help, huh!)
Pam
|
| 525.307 | | MEMORY::BKENDALL | | Fri Feb 02 1990 21:26 | 101 |
| RE .305
>REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." 29 lines 2-FEB-1990 16:50
> I hope you don't really think that when Nancy slammed down the phone
> that she was playing a ~silly, unproductive game~.
:-( Your right. I didn't say that, but it was inferred. I was out
of place to infer that. Her reaction was a gut reaction that
couldn't be controlled. Sorry.
> It was very clear to me that that was her immediate, un-thought-out
> response. It's one I've made myself.
Shhhhh!!! me too.
> Now,
> if what you wished to object to is someone following the dictates
> of her (or his) subconscious mind, please say so. It is a different
> matter entirely.
You are right. It's easy to say what the *right* thing to do is, AFTER the
fact. Not so easy to do the right thing in the heat of the moment.
> Further, I see no reason to believe that Nancy did not make clear the
> cause of her displeasure at the time he incurred it. If he cannot
This I don't know. Only she and he might.
> (In fact, I believe he indicated that he
> actually understood her complaint, so that point is moot.)
So be it.
> Since the end of any deep relationship takes at least two years
> to heal, and since a termination by betrayal (from (I'm guessing)
> Nancy's viewpoint) is more traumatic than most, I would say that
> Nancy has a good long time to go before it would be considerate,
> or even legitimate, to suggest that Nancy communicate with her
> former boyfriend.
If he does indeed know the reason for her anger then I agree there is
no further benefit to be gained. It is up to her as to whether she
feels the need to explain her feelings to him or not. It's up to her
to decide if she feels that doing so will produce any productive benefit
to herself or him.
> Do you understand me?
> Ann B.
Yup, Loud and clear. :-)
Re .306
>CADSYS::PSMITH "foop-shootin', flip city!" 30 lines 2-FEB-1990 17:06
> -< Follow instincts, not theory >-
Well, it's sad but all too true. In the heat of the moment theory all to often
goes out the window first.
> MY assumption is that something horrible happened to her, he didn't
> support her emotionally, they had arguments, he did a fade, and is now
> seeking absolution.
You could very well be correct. Only through communication will she know.
I understand she must be ready to deal with talking to him, which
apparently she is not.
> My assumption is that he DOES know what he did
> wrong before, so talking to him about it now (particularly since her
> first uncontrollable instinct is to slam down the phone) is more for
> his sake than hers.
It would be for her sake if it helped HER feel better to express herself
verbally.
> In my view, it is entirely up to Nancy as to whether she gives him a
> hearing or not.
I TOTALLY agree. If she doesn't feel she can handle talking with him then
then she shouldn't face the pain. It's easy for me to sit here and say
how "childish" it is to slam the phone, but I'd be lying if I said I have
never done that myself.
> There is no such thing as "bad communication" in a non-relationship.
I disagree. How do you think wars start? :-(
> AND I agree that some people need to have "done unto
> them what they have done unto others" before they truly understand what
> it is they have done to others.
Yes this is very true.
> Since we're all giving advice here (!): Nancy, do what feels right to
> you! (big help, huh!)
> Pam
THAT is the best advice.
Brad
|
| 525.308 | read all the replies in a string | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Fri Feb 02 1990 22:51 | 13 |
| 525.309 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | don't look distracted | Sat Feb 03 1990 02:30 | 22 |
| > <<< Note 525.308 by WMOIS::B_REINKE "if you are a dreamer, come in.." >>>
> I'd have a hard time forgiving such a person myself.
How many times do we have to say that NOT A SINGLE PERSON in
here (that I know of) has EVER said that Nancy should forgive
this guy.
Not a one....the implication is purely yours (and others).
There is a BIG difference between talking to someone and
forgiving someone. There is a BIG difference between working
out your own problems and giving absolution to another
person's problems.
kath
|
| 525.310 | | LEZAH::QUIRIY | Christine | Sat Feb 03 1990 15:08 | 8 |
|
I'm having a difficult time believing that people are discussing what
Nancy did and what she didn't do and what she might have done better,
as if anyone can know better than she. It seems really rude to me,
like talking about someone instead of to them, when they're standing
right there.
CQ
|
| 525.311 | Would she? | SSDEVO::GALLUP | wherever you go, you're there | Mon Feb 05 1990 02:50 | 10 |
| > <<< Note 525.310 by LEZAH::QUIRIY "Christine" >>>
If Nancy didn't want the pros and cons of the situation
discussed, then I find it highly doubtful she would have put
anything in this notesfile.
kath
|
| 525.312 | Only if she's as dumb as me | ULTRA::ZURKO | We're more paranoid than you are. | Mon Feb 05 1990 12:39 | 3 |
| Personally, I have been known to turn to notesfiles for support, not debate,
though I always kick myself for such silly instincts after the fact.
Mez
|
| 525.313 | | LYRIC::QUIRIY | Christine | Mon Feb 05 1990 17:36 | 7 |
|
Kath, maybe you're right. And this is, after all, the discussion note,
so I guess that's what it's here for. I've just felt uncomfortable,
almost embarrassed, reading the notes (and yes I do know how to hit next
unseen and very often do).
CQ
|
| 525.314 | Well, at least that was how it was written. | SSDEVO::GALLUP | the passion of reason | Mon Feb 05 1990 19:46 | 17 |
| > <<< Note 525.313 by LYRIC::QUIRIY "Christine" >>>
I guess, Christine, I can understand your discomfort. But
I really don't think anyone in here is trying to condemn
Nancy for her actions, but rather to discuss alternatives
that could help her to get thru these problems and the
discomfort (to say the least) that she felt when he called
her.
I would hope that anything I wrote about it would be viewed
as simply a supportive alternative to help Nancy get thru
it....a way for her to deal with it.
kath
|
| 525.315 | Caint git there from heah | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Feb 05 1990 20:25 | 8 |
| Kath et alia,
I think that what annoys me about this class of responses is that
it is (at this point) like informing an acrophobe that the best
method of escape from <whatever> is to open the window, climb out,
swing over to the fire escape, and "just climb down".
Ann B.
|
| 525.316 | No, I'm more than angry! | SSDEVO::GALLUP | just a jeepster for your love | Mon Feb 05 1990 22:04 | 43 |
|
RE: last few
Fine....I'll just shut up.......I thought I could give Nancy
some advice because I HAVE BEEN THERE....that my advice is
"wrong" and "bad" and "awful" and above all, "impossible."
Sometimes you HAVE to "just DO IT". Sometimes its a matter
of having to do something that is going to hurt you REALLY
REALLY bad, but you've got to do it if you want the hurt to
be less later on.
Sometimes we don't always like to hear controversial things,
but that doesn't make them "wrong" or "bad." Sometimes we
have to do things we don't like to do, but that doesn't make
them "awful."
Sometimes if we'd maybe FACE our pain instead of putting it
off, even though it hurts like HELL, we might just gain
something from it.
So, let's just sit here and give Kudos to Nancy for hanging
up on him because he's worse than a jerk, and not face the
reality that PERHAPS, JUST PERHAPS, Nancy might have an
opportunity to help herself out of some of her pain.
Yea, let's just not face it because it's too distasteful and
because it's a hard things to do, and because it would mean
going against everything we're geared to doing, and just
because it's "easier" to just ignore it.
Yea, we're not strong enough to face something that might
help us like that.........yea, we'd better not go outside
with someone there to guide us, if we're scared of the
outside (forgot the -phobia).....let's just sit inside and
rot.
|
| 525.317 | | SSDEVO::GALLUP | just a jeepster for your love | Mon Feb 05 1990 22:06 | 14 |
|
RE: Nancy
I'd send you mail, but I can't find your node name.
Sorry.
k
|
| 525.319 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | I've got the fire | Tue Feb 06 1990 11:23 | 7 |
| >Caint git there from heah
and
> I think that what annoys me about this class of responses
Fortunately, the advice wasn't meant for you. :-)
The Doctah
|
| 525.320 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Tue Feb 06 1990 13:04 | 36 |
| There's an interesting discussion going on in our sister file.
Here's the basenote that started it.
=maggie
<<< TRUCKS::DISK$USER72:[NOTES$LIBRARY]EURO_WOMAN.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Euro_Woman >-
================================================================================
Note 180.0 the undefended 6 replies
CHEFS::BUXTON 24 lines 5-FEB-1990 13:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read an article in the Sunday Torygraph where it was alleged that
two major law firms were refusing to defend men accused of rape.
The article suggested that some of their major clients were connected
with womens groups and that one group had made the statement that
they: Only employ women solicitors.
Will not use a solicitor who has been associated with a rape
defence.
Will not use a law firm where any of the partners has defended
an alleged rapist.
The article went on to say that the specific womens group held that
the acussed person was _always_ considered to be guilty and by
defending that person the defence always tried to besmirch the
character of the complainant.
Whilst I can understand the attitude taken by the womens groups;
although I may not agree with it, I can't understand how the major
law firms can be so blatently mercenary in bowing to such pressure.
What do the panel think?
Bucko...
|
| 525.321 | Heaven forbid! | TLE::D_CARROLL | My place is of the sun | Tue Feb 06 1990 13:40 | 11 |
| > The article suggested that some of their major clients were connected
> with womens groups and that one group had made the statement that
> they: [...]
> Will not use a law firm where any of the partners has defended
> an alleged rapist.
How would these women's groups have it, that no law firm would defend someone
charged with rape? I don't understand - anyone *accused* a rape doesn't
deserve the service of a lawyer? Can you say "assumed guilty"?
D!
|
| 525.322 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | I've got the fire | Tue Feb 06 1990 14:07 | 10 |
| If the law firms had any character, they'd continue to do what they have
been sworn to do, and allow the women's groups to do whatever they want.
If that means that none of the top law firms qualify for their business, so
be it.
I consider the actions of the women's groups, if accurately represented, to be
deplorable. I consider the actions of the law firms that cater to them to be
even more so.
The Doctah
|
| 525.323 | | HEFTY::CHARBONND | What a pitcher! | Tue Feb 06 1990 14:56 | 1 |
| A fine example of sacrificing principle to issue.
|
| 525.324 | Asymmetry? | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Tue Feb 06 1990 15:13 | 4 |
| I gather, Mark and Dana, that you have no such objections to the
techniques law firms use in defending men accused of rape?
Ann B.
|
| 525.325 | | CADSE::MACKIN | CAD/CAM Integration Framework | Tue Feb 06 1990 15:26 | 5 |
| Bingo. That's the first thing that went through my head (and back out
again). Some of the approaches used by lawyers is, IMHO, indefensible.
Refusing to do business with law firms which use those types of
repugnant tactics is probably a reasonable thing to do. Boycotting law
firms just because they defend alledged (sp?) rapists is going too far.
|
| 525.326 | you're barking up the wrong tree
| WAHOO::LEVESQUE | I've got the fire | Tue Feb 06 1990 15:28 | 6 |
| > I gather, Mark and Dana, that you have no such objections to the
> techniques law firms use in defending men accused of rape?
You gather incorrectly, at least from my perspective.
The Doctah
|
| 525.327 | wrong issue, Ann | SA1794::CHARBONND | What a pitcher! | Tue Feb 06 1990 16:43 | 13 |
| No, I disapprove of a legal firm being told who it may
and may not serve. For better or worse, all those
accused are entitled to a legal representation. All
lawyers are comitted by law and profession to defend
their clients. To punish a lawyer for doing his job
is like punishing a doctor for doing *his*, when the
patient is someone of whom you disapprove.
As for the tactics of defense lawyers, I think they are
sometimes reprehensible. However, a lawyer *must* do
his damndest for his client.
Dana
|
| 525.328 | | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Secure Systems for Insecure People | Tue Feb 06 1990 18:02 | 14 |
| Somebody has to defend the lawyers. The lawyers have a legal
obligation to defend thier client as effectively as possible, and
a moral obligation to provide defense to anyone accused of a
crime. This means that lawyers have a legal obligation to smear
the victim as long as that tactic is effective. The courts have a
moral obligation to ensure that such unacceptable tactics are not
effective.
This must be handled by the courts, as asking individual lawyers
to not use such tactics leaves them open to charges of
malpractice. This is a classic argument for regulation in a
free-market system.
--David
|
| 525.329 | No parallel | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Tue Feb 06 1990 18:09 | 5 |
| I am so pleased to see such fine sentiments coming from people
willing to work for a company which refuses to do business in
South Africa.
Ann B.
|
| 525.330 | or do i mean 'strategy'? | DECWET::JWHITE | keep on rockin', girl | Tue Feb 06 1990 18:16 | 4 |
|
if lawyers can use the 'tactic' of smearing the victim, why can't
the 'tactic' of boycott be used against the lawyers?
|
| 525.331 | Wrong approach | ACESMK::POIRIER | | Tue Feb 06 1990 18:20 | 8 |
| The problem is not lawyers that defend "alleged" rapists, it is the
tactic of smearing the victim. This so called boycott is not going to
change the fact that "alleged" rapists are innocent until proven guilty
and have the right to the lawyer. A better approach would be to
support law firms who's lawyers do not make the victim into the guilty
party.
Suzanne
|
| 525.332 | The system isn't perfect, it just *is* | HEFTY::CHARBONND | What a pitcher! | Tue Feb 06 1990 18:35 | 25 |
| "Smearing" is not technically correct. What they are doing is
attempting to divest the opponent of her 'mantle of innocence',
the legal presumption that one is completely innocent of any
wrongdoing in the matter. The same technique is used when
an armed citizen shoots a mugger or other assailant.
"Why were you in that neighborhood carrying a gun ? Were
you *looking* for a chance to use your deadly power ?
Were you *looking* for a fight ?"
This is harsh, but the lawyer is doing his job - looking for
*anything* that may get his client off.
Some lawyers are extremely crude in their attempts to do so.
When this crudeness is deliberate, the judge should put a
stop to it.
Dana
PS I don't *like* this, but that's how the system works.
And if you expect to prevail in a court of law, you
should take care to maintain your 'mantle of innocence'.
I know this is the old ' avoid looking like xxxx ' routine,
and it sucks, but it is a fact of life. Any ideas on how to
change it ?
|
| 525.333 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Dissident aggressor | Tue Feb 06 1990 18:36 | 17 |
| SP>A better approach would be to
SP> support law firms who's lawyers do not make the victim into the guilty
SP> party.
Yes. Much better.
DW>The courts have a
DW> moral obligation to ensure that such unacceptable tactics are not
DW> effective.
I think it is the fault of judges for not ruling such things inadmissable.
DW>This is a classic argument for regulation in a free-market system.
No, it isn't, but that's a whole other ball of wax.
The Doctah
|
| 525.334 | | SONATA::ERVIN | Roots & Wings... | Tue Feb 06 1990 19:06 | 35 |
| re: .332
>>"Smearing" is not technically correct. What they are doing is
>>attempting to divest the opponent of her 'mantle of innocence',
>>the legal presumption that one is completely innocent of any
>>wrongdoing in the matter. The same technique is used when
>>an armed citizen shoots a mugger or other assailant.
>>"Why were you in that neighborhood carrying a gun ? Were
>>you *looking* for a chance to use your deadly power ?
>>Were you *looking* for a fight ?"
So in our charming legal system, it is perfectly o.k. to presume a
woman is guilty (as in not innocent) because she was walking home from
the corner convenience store at night, or parking her car in a parking
garage so she could go out to some meeting or visit with friends, etc.,
etc. I don't see any correlation between a woman who is raped (and is
unarmed) and a person who is wandering around caryying a gun and ends
up shooting someone. Besides, this rationale supports the notion that
women shouldn't be out, at night/without a "protector" and puts the
blame on the woman in the guise of what was *she* doing out on the
street at night. Beyong that, the questioning is about how many
times she's had sex and with whom, especially if it is sex outside the
sanctimony of marriage (i.e. sex with a man who doesn't
legally own her as *his* wife/property). The questioning is about
trying to convince the jury that *she* asked for it, that *she* enjoyed
it and that the accused rapist is just some innocent victim of mistaken
identity or mistaken intentions.
The net/net is that the tactic *is* smearing and it is dehumanizing and
degrading for the woman (who ends up being on trial rather than the
rapist) and the legal system, the lawyers and the judges engage in,
support and condone this vile behavior. The rationale that you
present, Dana, just doesn't wash.
Laura
|
| 525.335 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Dissident aggressor | Tue Feb 06 1990 20:01 | 55 |
| > So in our charming legal system, it is perfectly o.k. to presume a
> woman is guilty (as in not innocent) because she was walking home from
> the corner convenience store at night, or parking her car in a parking
> garage so she could go out to some meeting or visit with friends, etc.,
> etc.
That's not what he said. He said the defense lawyer will typically try to
establish that the victim is not completely innocent in the course of ANY
criminal trial INCLUDING rape.
>I don't see any correlation between a woman who is raped (and is
> unarmed) and a person who is wandering around caryying a gun and ends
> up shooting someone.
Do you see it now?
>Besides, this rationale supports the notion that
> women shouldn't be out, at night/without a "protector" and puts the
> blame on the woman in the guise of what was *she* doing out on the
> street at night.
Sort of. It supports the notion that it sucks to be a victim of any crime;
not only do you get to be a victim of the perpetrator, you also get to be a
victim of the judicial system. But our system is optimized to prevent innocent
people from being convicted.
>Beyong that, the questioning is about how many
> times she's had sex and with whom, especially if it is sex outside the
> sanctimony of marriage (i.e. sex with a man who doesn't
> legally own her as *his* wife/property).
That happens to be a tactic often used in rape cases. Why? The prosecutor has
to prove two things: sexual congress occurred, and it was not voluntary. When
a prosecutor has sufficient evidence to prove that sexual congress occurred,
the only "regular" route left for the defense is to make it unclear that
the act was involuntary. Technical avenues often remain open.
In my opinion, the whole line of questioning of "how often do you have sex?"
etc is usually irrelevant and should not be admissable. Unfortunately, sometimes
a woman will agree to have sex, realize she didn't like it/want it, and then
feel she never gave her consent. So some degree of latitude must be granted
to defense lawyers to gget to the bottom of the situation. But I don't think
they should be given carte blanche in asking (and subsequently withdrawing)
irrelevant personal questions.
>the tactic *is* smearing and it is dehumanizing and degrading for the woman
Yes.
>The rationale that you present, Dana, just doesn't wash.
It is consistent. It does wash. It isn't pretty. It isn't nice. It isn't
easy to accept.
The Doctah
|
| 525.336 | I wouldn't want to be a lawyer... or a judge for that matter | WAYLAY::GORDON | It's always the freakin' dots... | Tue Feb 06 1990 20:09 | 24 |
| 525.337 | been down so long | TINCUP::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Tue Feb 06 1990 23:26 | 16 |
| So what we're saying here is that the only way to change this is to
make what is OK for victim smearing different?
I don't agree with boycotting firms just because they defend alleged
rapists.
I do think that having to prove I'm practically a virgin before it's
not OK to rape me a direct message saying that I'm nothing but
property. If I've ever had sex I'm now a suspect. "If she did IT
once she'll probably want IT from any man" therefore it can't be
rape. What a bunch of *BS* from the SYSTEM THAT'S SUPPOSED TO
PROTECT ME! Because I'm a woman I'm guilty by default and any trial
is only to prove whether I'm innocent not whether the man was
guilty. I wish men got raped by men as often as women did. Maybe
things would be different. YES, this does make me bitter about how
women are treated in our society. liesl
|
| 525.338 | bingo! | COBWEB::SWALKER | | Wed Feb 07 1990 00:10 | 19 |
| Thank you liesl! Very well said. The problem with victim smearing
isn't that it is used to defend alleged rapists, but to prosecute
victims when they are particularly vulnerable. I think it's wrong
to pre-prosecute alleged rapists by denying them defense, but I also
think the current system, in humiliating women, *encourages* rape.
If you disagree with that statement, reread Nancy Bittle's reply
about what to do if you are raped. Why should the decision to
report it have anything to do with how your background will stand
up to scrutiny??
Smearing a rape victim's reputation should not be allowed. Period!
It shouldn't even be an *option* for a law firm - on legal as well
as ethical grounds. When was the last time you heard of an alleged
child abuser's lawyer arguing that the child was "asking for it" by
misbehaving? Or a bank robber being defended with the argument that
the bank was making a good profit and didn't need the extra money?
Sharon
|
| 525.339 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Dissident aggressor | Wed Feb 07 1990 11:12 | 13 |
| > It shouldn't even be an *option* for a law firm - on legal as well
> as ethical grounds.
EXACTLY!!!! Thanks, Sharon, that hits the nail on the head.
>I wish men got raped by men as often as women did. Maybe
> things would be different.
I can't help but feel you're right about this. And that is pretty indicative
of how far we still have to go to acheive anything even remotely resembling
equality.
The Doctah
|
| 525.340 | Humiliate the victim 'til she drops the charges. | WJOUSM::GOODHUE | | Wed Feb 07 1990 14:30 | 14 |
| I think there are now at least some states that allow questioning of
the victim's sexual background only as it pertains to the alleged
rapist. This protects both people. The victim doesn't get smeared and
the alleged rapist gets to bring out information that may help
exonerate him.
Asking a rape victim about her past sexual experiences is the same as
asking a mugging victim whether s/he ever willingly gave money to
_______. It makes no sense and has no relevance except as a tactic to
intimdate the victim into dropping their charges and convince a
narrow-minded judgemental jurist that the victim has had sex outside the
holy bonds on matrimony and is, therefore, a slut who willingly has sex
with any slimeball who asks.
|
| 525.341 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | nancy b. - hardware engineer; LSE | Fri Feb 09 1990 16:41 | 33 |
|
re: .320 extract from Euro_Woman "the undefended"
Not defending accused rapists is, of course, wrong, but
I was quite psyched to read .320, because this means
that more people are becoming aware of the unfair, slimeball
sexist tactics used by defense lawyers in rape trials.
In the book "Men on Rape" that was referenced in topic 958,
a lawyer who had (successfully) defended several accused
rapists said something like "I would try to play up to the
sexist attitudes of the jurors to help get my client off,
whereas I think taking advantage of racist attitudes is wrong."
He said he couldn't believe the jury acquitted one of his
clients that was obviously guilty.
re: .340 (Goodhue)
> I think there are now at least some states that allow questioning of
> the victim's sexual background only as it pertains to the alleged
> rapist.
Yes, some states have these laws. They are called "Rape Shield Laws".
> -< Humiliate the victim 'til she drops the charges. >-
And the FBI wonders why rape is the most underreported felony...
they wonder why, according to their stats, that the chances of
a rapist getting caught and convicted are 1 in 605...
nancy b.
|
| 525.342 | yeah, well ... | YGREN::JOHNSTON | ou krineis, me krinesthe | Fri Feb 09 1990 20:12 | 15 |
| re.340,.341
While asking questions of the victim only as they might pertain to her
relationship with the alleged rapist is certainly a step in the right direction,
this restriction wouldn't/didn't 'shield' me from character assasination.
Somehow, the fact that 18 months previously I had lived with the man who ripped
off one of my fingernails, choked me, caused a concussion and a torn trapezius
muscle, not to mention some technicolour contusions made me fair game and my
experience 'not rape' ... well not reeeaaally rape.
Still, half a shield is better than none and I'm glad that these laws are
present where they are.
Ann
|
| 525.343 | help requested by ex-member | ULTRA::ZURKO | We're more paranoid than you are. | Thu Mar 01 1990 12:45 | 43 |
| A previous member of the community is requesting information for a friend.
Notes policy is not to share any notes outside a notesfile without checking
with an author. Maybe some of the authors will be willing to send their notes,
or information and help.
Mez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DECPA::"Keith_Dicker@ub.cc.umich.edu" 1-MAR-1990 09:39:20.94
To: ultra::zurko
CC:
Subj: Womannotes...
Hi Mary Ellen,
I am writing you from the University of Michigan. I worked at DEC as a
temporary from Sep '87-Apr '88, and again in the summer of 1989. I
participated in =wn= as SHIRE::DICKER.
I am writing because one of my girlfriend's closest friends was recently
raped. I remember seeing a lot of items related to that topic in =wn=.
In particular, there was an item entered by a rape survivor describing
what people close to her could do to help. I was hoping that you could enter
an item in the conference for her, so that participants could send her that
iteand perhaps other stuff.
Her net address is DECWRL::"Abi_Lipshutz@ub.cc.umich.edu", and mine is
DECWRL::"Keith_Dicker@ub.cc.umich.edu". I sent a message to Bonnie
Reinke recently, but either she is on vacation or my message failed to
get through, so now I'm writing you. Do you think this would be OK?
Thanks,
Keith C. Dicker
======= Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) =======
Received: by decpa.pa.dec.com; id AA04544; Thu, 1 Mar 90 06:36:14 -0800
Received: from ubmts.cc.umich.edu by umich.edu (5.61/1123-1.0)
id AA26169; Thu, 1 Mar 90 09:34:53 -0500
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 09:34:38 EST
From: Keith_Dicker@ub.cc.umich.edu
To: ultra::zurko
Message-Id: <4699773@ub.cc.umich.edu>
Subject: Womannotes...
|
| 525.344 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | the promise of spring | Thu Mar 01 1990 15:33 | 10 |
|
Just to be sure:
Is the address he's giving that of the rape victim's girlfriend
or the rape victim?
Also, I thought DECWRL:: was permanently down, and DEPCA::
took its place...
nancy b.
|
| 525.345 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Thu Mar 01 1990 16:42 | 1 |
| that's DECPA::
|
| 525.346 | DECWRL lives! | OXNARD::HAYNES | Charles Haynes | Thu Mar 01 1990 19:42 | 15 |
| DECWRL is alive...
1 >ruptime
decwrl.dec.com up 10+19:51, 3 users, load 103.45, 104.26, 102.90
2 >
For those of you who don't speak unix, that means it's been up for 10 days,
19 hours, and 51 minutes since its last reboot. (that line also shows that there
are over 100 processes on the "ready" queue, but all that means is that it's
completely overloaded, which you already knew if you used it at all...)
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that DECPA is the preferred internal mail gateway, but
both addresses SHOULD work.
-- Charles
|
| 525.347 | some words of advice; all IMHO of course | SYSENG::BITTLE | the promise of spring | Fri Mar 02 1990 09:16 | 209 |
| re: .343 (Mez)
The 2 replies below are the ones I"ll be sending Keith.
nancy b.
<<< RAINBO::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
-< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 812.13 Problems growing out of an assualt 13 of 23
SYSENG::BITTLE "healing from the inside out" 94 lines 4-OCT-1989 18:27
-< Help her cope, help her survive >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .0 (anonymous basenoter)
> I have a good friend who has done daycare for me for 9 or more
> years.(multiple kids). She has been assulted in her home by a
> stranger, twice.
Now she must learn how to cope with the consequences of sexual
violence. How long and to what extent her life is affected by
the assault will result from a complex interaction between the
assault(s) itself, whether the perpetrator is caught and con-
victed, her responses and coping options, and the reactions and
amount of support she receives from others, especially those she
loves and respects.
As a good friend who's known her for a long time, you could be
instrumental in starting her on the road to recovery.
You have already begun to do so in many ways you described in .0.
Have compassion for yourself, as well, since anyone close to a
woman who has to deal with the aftermath of rape will also have a
difficult time.
Now is the time for you to think clearly. Do not let your anger
of the situation get out of control. At this point in time, she
needs to be comforted, soothed, reassured, and given lots of sup-
port. She does _not_ need rage, tears, or some profound social,
political, or economic explanation (though that may be useful
_later_). Don't try to force her to talk about it for her own
good. If she's somehow indicating the need to discuss it, ap-
proach the subject in a manner on which she can either expound or
abandon while saving face. After experiencing a total loss of
control during the rape(s), she needs to taste what it is like to
be in control again. This could be perceived from something as
trivial as having her decide where to go out to eat and having
her drive there. Although she needs much support, avoid over-as-
sisting her to the point that she could feel helpless or not in
control of her life.
Her most immediate need is one of safety. She must be feeling an
immense amount of terror at the fact that the same man was able
to forcibly rape her twice at knifepoint and he is free to do so
again. She needs someone as a companion and protector for her
short term mental and physical well-being. She needs to decide
on a means of protecting herself in which she's confident she
could successfully utilize, given her first-hand knowledge of the
reality of a physical confrontation between man and woman. En-
courage her to research the success rates of the various methods
of self-defense, so that her decision is based more on facts than
emotion.
I hope she was given proper medical attention... She should have
been literally pumped full of antibiotics to prevent contraction
of a STD, she perhaps should have been given something to prevent
pregnancy, and she should be aware that immediately beginning AZT
treatment could create an unhealthy environment for the AIDS
virus if the rapist is a carrier. Was it possible to obtain med-
ical corroboration of the rape? If not, were notes made of any
physical injuries sustained during the attack? I am not familiar
with Mass laws regarding rape, but some states *require* physical
corroboration or an eyewitness to the rape.
Some negative side effects of her rape could be:
o distrust of men o affected attitude to sex
o flashbacks o dreams/nightmares
o cues which remind her of rape o vulnerability/fear
o insecurity o breakdown linked to assault
o negative effect on education o losing custody of children
o fear of challenging men o suicide attempt
o loss of security and safety o expecting coercive sex
o linking sex to being used o using sex as revenge
o loss of self-respect o self-blame
o confusion between love/sex/affection
o not being able to cope with images of violence
o more vulnerable to later abuse
o attempts to bury the memory and suppress the feelings it
evokes; denial
o difficulty in relaxing during sex
o having sex trigger memories of the rape
o becoming promiscuous or frigid/celibate (and I guess I'm using
the male-defined connotations of 'frigid' and 'promiscuous')
Some positive side effects of her rape could be:
o independent/stronger o feminist attitudes
o becoming closer to women
o knowledge that she has the right to control her own body
o aware of risks for herself and her daughters
o determined to avoid coercive sex
Good luck. She sounds lucky to have you as a friend.
nancy b.
Note 525.36 Side Effects of Rape: Discussion & Responses to 99.* 36 of 344
SYSENG::BITTLE "Nancy Bittle-Hardware Engineer,LSEE" 90 lines 14-JUN-1989 04:29
-< Men helping women victims of rape >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: 525.34 (One of Dick Wagman's questions in response to 99.29)
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| And what can men do as friends/lovers/spouses/relatives to help support|
| women who have been victimized? |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Men as friends
--------------
My closest friend at the time of The Incident happened to be male. His
reaction was to simply spend as much time with me as possible. He studied
with me, ate with me, slept (literally) with me, held me when I cried or
woke up from a nightmare hitting him. When he couldn't be with me, he made
sure someone else was. He was an excellent listener, never asking too many
direct questions but always subtly challenging any absurd statement I made
with a passive maybe-it's-not-like-that observation. Later, he told me he
was worried I would do something to harm myself. He probably saved my
life.
Three years later, I am a transplant in a different place with different
and relatively new men friends. Till most recently, none of my men friends
even knew. The one that now does know asked me some very tough questions
about my feelings that I could not answer logically...which was slightly
startling to me. But I am tough now, and can handle any question without
being hurt. So maybe I am ready to start thinking about what happened so I
can eventually sleep normally.
Timing is important. One year ago I would not have considered talking to
any male friend about this. Don't press the issue if she is not somehow
indicating a need to talk about it. If she does seem to need to talk, put
on a listening cap. Reword your advice in the form of a question, because
she might be more inclined to accept conclusions she has reasoned out in
her mind instead of ones that you have thought through in yours.
Men as Lovers
-------------
First thought that comes to mind: Too bad they can't be mind readers.
Knowing this isn't possible, and knowing men justifiably get tired of
either having to be mind readers or suddenly being abandoned, rejected, and
left in a state of confusion as to what they did wrong, I still find it
tough to discuss things I would be averse to doing because of The Incident.
Maybe a discussion could take place outside of the bedroom, but while
sharing an intimate moment together. Ask her specific questions like
"Would it bother you if I did ....", so that the only thing she'll have to
say is either yes or no. And in order to get the most honest response,
phrase your question so that there is no hint as to whether this is
something you really want to do or not.
When in bed, be aware of a quick mood change or a sudden resistance when
there was none before that might indicate something is feeling wrong. Be
cautious with expressing sexual assertiveness, especially if it is of a
nature you have never expressed before.
Of course, when making love to someone who's most recent sexual experience
was a violent one, it is extremely important to be sincerely gentle and
take things very slowly. I've read that men who make love to a woman the
first time after her rape find it quite exciting, as though they were
making love to a virgin.
Men as Relatives
----------------
I think men who are relatives can potentially be the most helpful of all,
dependent on a close relationship existing before the rape occurred. This
especially applies to brothers. You grew up with her and could know better
than any other person how she is likely to react to this experience.
Strong guidance might be what is needed immediately following the incident.
I know that if my brother had been around he would've been the first person
I would have called. He would've known exactly what to do and say. My
father, on the other hand, is really almost 2 generations before me (my mom
and dad were about 42 when they had me). I am positive I could never talk
to him about this experience in any helpful manner.
Men as Spouses
--------------
I will punt on this one...
I guess a combination of Men as Friends and Men as Lovers from above ... if
spouse = friend + lover ...
Hope this helps.
nancy b.
|
| 525.348 | A GIANT step backward | SALEM::KUPTON | | Mon Mar 05 1990 11:02 | 60 |
| Understanding rape took a giant step backward last Friday when
10 men and 2 women jurors found the "Dirty Dancing" foursome innocent
of rape, but guilty of sexual assault.
What this decision said to me, is that women who dance nude
in a nightclub, walk provocitivally on a beach in a bikini, or wear
a halter with erect nipples showing through are 'asking for it'.
What follows is *my* understanding of the circumstances:
In 1985 an accident left this young woman in a 6 week coma and with
a slightly (?) damaged brain. She is considered "slightly semi-mentally
handicapped". (if there is such a thing, how is it measured) She
and these 4 young men in the heat of July (1987) were together and
she invited them in to her apartment to watch the video Dirty Dancing.
(the judge allowed the jury to see the movie to "set the atmosphere")
The young girl apparently changed into a sleeveless top and shorts
and danced like the girl in the movie. What followed are piecemeal
from my memory.
The Woman: Claims that that they forced her into have intercourse
though she protested. That the first man held her down and that
she tried to struggle but was afraid that they would hurt her so
she became submissive.
The Men: Claim she danced in front of them, invited one into
the bedroom and then sent out for the other three, one at a time.
That she enjoyed it and didn't scream or yeall, but talked etc.
A witness for the defense claims that she was proud, bragged
etc. about the incident.
Evidence (tissues-Kleenex) examine shoed that each boy wiped
himself clean after each episode and deposited the kleenex in the
trash by the bed. One side's (defense) view this as a crucial link
that the men were not raping her or they would have destroyed the
tissue. The prosecution says that they did it as a show of disgust
as if she were unclean etc.
The girl did not report the incident for a few days because
she claims she was afraid of repercussions/shame etc.
I guess the question remains: What does it take to get people
to realize that nobody has any right to touch the body of another
human being regardless of what they do or how they dress or act.
Example: A woman walks into my office. (Floor to ceiling with a
door) She sit down and say that she has ripped her nylons. She hikes
up her skirt and is wearing a red and black lacy garter with crotchless
lacy panties and black stockings that have a hole in the mid-thigh.
Does that give the right to throw her on the floor and have intercourse
because she wanted to show her stockings?????
I'm so p*ssed off at this I can't see straight. I'm just glad
that I have a pool so I don't have to worry that some lunk thinks
because my daughter (14) is wearing a bikini at the beach and is
being 'suggestive' he can violate the sanctity of her body......
AAAAaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhhh
Ken
|
| 525.349 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Mon Mar 05 1990 12:27 | 41 |
| re: .348
Tidbits about the case as read in the Boston Globe over the last
several weeks (& the Herald as well).
-The woman was drinking heavily.
-The woman danced seductively with the participants.
-The woman exposed her breasts before leading the first one into her
bedroom.
-The woman told her friend "I was drinking and you know how I get when
I'm drinking. They all had their fun with me."
-The woman did not say anything about rape at first. She expressed
some concern over the possibilities of pregnancy and/or AIDS, at which
point her mother took her to the hospital then to the police station to
fill out a report. IE- "rape" was the mother's idea.
From what I have heard about the case, it sounds like a case of
consensual sex deemed rape after the fact. It sounded like the mother
reacted very strongly to the daughter's admiddion that she had "done
it" with four boys and had forced the issue. The fly in the ointment
here is the woman's diminished mental capacity. I have absolutely no
idea how affected she is. If she is incapable of making decisions to
have sex on her own, then the sex would be non-consensual and therefore
illegal. On the other hand, because she was in a car accident that left
her impaired, that shouldn't mean that she should be disallowed from
choosing to have sex necessarily.
Having not seen the victim, I don't really know how to react to this
case. If she is able to make rational decisions on her own, then it
would seem that based on the evidence, no crime has been committed. If
she is unable to make rational decisions, then I believe indecent
assault is a proper verdict.
For the record, I personally feel that taking sexual advantage of a
retarded person to be a rather low thing to do.
The Doctah
|
| 525.350 | So - how much time did they get? | TLE::D_CARROLL | Turn and face the strange changes | Mon Mar 05 1990 12:28 | 11 |
| re: dirty dancing...
I don't understand that jury's verdict. Either the woman *did* invite the
men to her bedroom, in which case the men are guilty of *nothing*, or she
*didn't* invite them back, in which case they are guilty of *rape*. How
did they justify "sexual assault"? (Nancy said a while back that some states
now eliminate "rape" from the law books, and use...what was it, aggravated
sexual assault (?) instead...so maybe the verdict *was* rape, but the
terminology was different.)
D!
|
| 525.351 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Mon Mar 05 1990 13:11 | 36 |
| I've been following this case in the Middlesex News. I don't know that
I necessarily think the men raped the woman. I remember reading
that an acquaintance described the woman as being "very lonely."
My impression is that the woman was drunk, lonely, as well as "mentally
impaired" from the car accident, (whatever *that* means), and that
she may have really wished that she had a boyfriend who cared about
her to make love to her, (maybe someone like Patrick Swayze in
"Dirty Dancing") and instead she wound up having sex with 4 guys
whom she later realized didn't give a damn about her, and who would
most likely never consider dating her, even though they lined up
to screw her. I think that it was a sad situation, and I feel sorry
for the woman.
I also feel that this incident is an example that boys are not taught
some things about sex, while growing up, that I think they should
be taught. I don't think they actually raped the woman, but I don't
understand *why* these guys (all decent enough looking in newspaper
photos) would *want* to line up to screw a "mentally impaired" drunk
woman!!! I cannot imagine myself and my 3 closest female friends
lining up to screw a "mentally impaired" drunk man!!! Doesn't anybody
tell there sons that they don't have to screw every woman who comes
along and says they can? If these guys wanted to have sex why didn't
they just ask someone they liked on a date, and get to know someone
first, and have sex in private with someone they like, like normal
people do!!! Personally, it makes me sick that these guys did this!
Didn't it occur to them to just go home? One of my best male friends
used to tell me, "Just remember most men would screw a snake if
it had a hole in it!" and I guess maybe he was right.
Also, I think using the movie "Dirty Dancing" as a reason to prove
she was "asking for it" is ridiculous! I've seen the movie and
I think it's very cute and very romantic. It's a far cry from a
porno flick!
Lorna
|
| 525.352 | | XCUSME::KOSKI | This NOTE's for you | Mon Mar 05 1990 15:02 | 8 |
| I don't know the extent of the mental illness, I thought I'd read that
after the accident and recovery she finished high school and was
attending college. I think the press was playing upon public sympathy
with that phrase. Based on the testimony available, I wonder why
the defendents were found guilty of a lesser charge, it seemed that
it should have been more binary, either she consented or she didn't.
Gail
|
| 525.354 | boys will be boys | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Mon Mar 05 1990 16:13 | 10 |
| Re .353, do I think these men will ever be treated the same?
Yes, I do. I don't think the charges or the trial or the verdict
will have a negative impact on their lives. Judging by the majority
of the replies in here most people think that what they did was
just fine. I can only assume that most people in the world in general
will also think that what they did is perfectly acceptable behavior.
Lorna
|
| 525.355 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Mon Mar 05 1990 16:20 | 17 |
| I completely disagree, Lorna. The stigma of being convicted of a sex
crime will likely haunt them the rest of their lives.
> Judging by the majority
> of the replies in here most people think that what they did was
> just fine.
If the sex was consentual, do you have a problem with what the "boys"
did? What about the woman?
>I can only assume that most people in the world in general
> will also think that what they did is perfectly acceptable behavior.
If the sex was consentual, what part of their behavior would you
consider to be unacceptable?
The Doctah
|
| 525.356 | my opinion | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Mon Mar 05 1990 16:32 | 27 |
| Re .355, Mark, I really don't think that many people are going to
hold what happened against them since most people seem to think
that the woman was at fault. Only time will tell which one of us
turns out to be right.
I do not think it is right for 4 guys to line up to have sex with
a "mentally impaired" woman. They were all aware of her problems.
I think they took advantage of the fact that she has some type
of mental problems, her loneliness and her drunkiness. I think they should
have realized it was an unsavory situation, and that trouble could
arise from it.
I think there are very few women who really want to have four men
line up and fuck them one after the other, Mark. That type of activity
may sound like a good time for the average American male, but most
women want relationships and love, as well as sex.
I think she realized after they went home that none of them gave
a damn about her and that they were just using her, and I think
that this hurt and anger are what led her to agree to the rape charges.
I have already said that I don't think that they actually raped
her. However, I do feel that the "boys" should have known better
than to conduct themselves in just a manner.
Lorna
|
| 525.357 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Mon Mar 05 1990 16:51 | 7 |
| To further clarify, I think that the boys were asking for it (it
being rape charges), by having sex with a "mentally impaired" woman
under these conditions. The boys should have realized that the
way they were acting could result in their being charged with rape.
Lorna
|
| 525.358 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Mon Mar 05 1990 16:58 | 21 |
| > Re .355, Mark, I really don't think that many people are going to
> hold what happened against them since most people seem to think
> that the woman was at fault.
I don't see the need to assign a "fault" here (unless a crime
occurred.)
> I do not think it is right for 4 guys to line up to have sex with
> a "mentally impaired" woman.
Why? Does it depend on the degree of impairment?
>However, I do feel that the "boys" should have known better
> than to conduct themselves in just a manner.
Because they all had sex with her or because she was drunk or because
she is mentally impaired?
What if she likes it?
The Doctah
|
| 525.359 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Mon Mar 05 1990 17:04 | 13 |
| Re .358, if she liked it, she wouldn't have charged them with rape,
would she?
I'm sure you've noticed a difference between what you like when
you're drunk and what you like when you're sober.
As I said in .357, I just happen to think the boys were asking for
trouble. They should have realized that they could get in trouble
by acting this way.
Lorna
|
| 525.360 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Mon Mar 05 1990 17:41 | 16 |
| If you can believe what was written, the charges never would have been
brought by the woman herself. It appeared to be the mother's crusade, to
punish the boys and apparently salvage her daughter's reputation.
> As I said in .357, I just happen to think the boys were asking for
> trouble. They should have realized that they could get in trouble
> by acting this way.
Let me ask you this: do you think if only one boy was present, he
would have been "asking for trouble" if he had sex with a mentally
impaired woman? Well, if the woman was not mentally impaired, would the
4 boys have been "asking for trouble" by having sex with her? I guess
the bottom line question is what factor accounts for the boys' "asking
for trouble?"
The Doctah
|
| 525.361 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Mon Mar 05 1990 18:00 | 21 |
| They were asking for trouble, in my opinion, because they knew she
was mentally impaired, they knew she was drunk, I believe they knew
she was lonely and bored since that seems to have been common knowledge
amongst people who knew her. I think they went over there with
the idea that they could get "a piece of ass" from her. I don't
think any of them were interested in having a relationship with her.
I think it was wrong for them to use her, and take advantage of
her this way. I think it is morally wrong for people to have sex
with people who may not have full use of their faculties. In our
society, when people care about each other, it is customary for
sex to usually consist of one male and one female, as I'm sure you
have observed yourself, Doctah. I realize that some people have
chosen to engage in "group sex" which usually consists of a few
members of both sexes. But, I think it is especially wrong for
four men to take advantage of one mentally impaired female. I'm
sure the four of them were physically capable of raping her. They
should have realized that what they are doing was a dangerous
situation.
Lorna
|
| 525.363 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Mon Mar 05 1990 18:02 | 6 |
| re .361, I realize that I made a comment about sex usually consisting
of one male and one female. My apologies to all those who normally
prefer their sex to consist of two individuals of the same sex.
Lorna
|
| 525.364 | good for the goose, etc. | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Mon Mar 05 1990 18:04 | 4 |
| re .362, yes, Mike, I guess it is.
Lorna
|
| 525.365 | | SALEM::KUPTON | | Mon Mar 05 1990 18:24 | 28 |
| Just a minor nit:
These guys have had three or four years to get together and confirm
stories and notes. She's had the same amount of time to wait to
be cross examined 4 times about everything that took place.
One very interesting part of the trial was that the second in line
claimed she said "who next?" when the third in line claimed the second
in line said "who's next?
The four will be sentenced next week (?) and each could receive
up to 5 years hard time for "sexual assault". If 3 cons hold one
of them down and one con decides he's going to penetrate one of these
guys anally, and the kid says "go ahead", is this consent?????
C'mon folks!! The girl was mentally impaired. These guys knew it.
They planned it and it worked to a point.
Sexual assault is a copout to keep "wholesome" guys like this in
bad circumstances from doin' a life term. This way they get a felony
charge and possibly do 1-1/2 years in a med. security pen.
Anybody in this file want to trust any of these guys with a "mentally
impaired" sister or daughter??
Ken
|
| 525.366 | Boys will be boys. But they *can* be better than that. | SUPER::EVANS | I'm baa-ack | Mon Mar 05 1990 18:30 | 25 |
| I agree with Lorna.
There is a gigantic difference between one man having sex with a woman
and 4 men lining up to do so. Add to that the fact that they knew this
woman had (no pun intended)(well, maybe :-}) a screw or 2 loose, and
these guys were behaving irresponsibly.
The question is: should young men have to be responsible about sex?
Should men be viewing sex as a way to "get off" and not as a part
of caring about someone (who isn't himself).
There are places men can go to "get off". There is no ambivalence
about what these places are. There is no doubt about their intention,
their function, and no need to care about the mental condition of the
women who work there. Problem is, they cost money. And it'll probably
cost you more, four at a time.
Somehow, I don't think the analogy between these guys "asking for
trouble" by their behaviour and women"asking for trouble" by their
dress really works. The perceptions surrounding women's dress and
men's behaviour are so different in this society as to be apples and
oranges.
--DE
|
| 525.367 | jusy :== jury | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Mon Mar 05 1990 19:12 | 28 |
| >I think it is morally wrong for people to have sex
> with people who may not have full use of their faculties.
That sure would preclude alot of sex from happening.
> But, I think it is especially wrong for
> four men to take advantage of one mentally impaired female.
Interesting that you chose to make this sex specific.
> I'm sure the four of them were physically capable of raping her.
That's irrelevant. I am physically capable of killing someone; that's
no excuse to lock me up.
I guess the bottom line is that I believe that in order to convict
these boys of rape, the prosecution should have to prove that the sex
was nonconsentual. That could be done one of two ways- either prove
that the sex occurred against the woman's will or prove that the woman
was not capable of making that decision. From the testimony that was
reported in the papers, it does not appear that the sex occurred
against the woman's will, so one must assume that the jury found her
incapable of giving her consent. This act in effect makes it illegal
for ANYONE to engage in sexual activities with this woman. Which also
means that the jusy has made it against the law for her to have sex
with anyone. I find that to be a troubling prospect.
The Doctah
|
| 525.368 | Mentally disabled people have rights and feelings too | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Mon Mar 05 1990 19:26 | 24 |
| > I think it is morally wrong for people to have sex
> with people who may not have full use of their faculties.
Hmmm...
In other words, if everyone "did the right thing", any person not having
"full use of their faculties" would be unable to have sex, even if he or
she wanted it.
Total sexual isolation is a pretty harsh punishment for not being up to
society's par for "mental faculties".
"mentally disabled" can mean horribly retarded. But it can also mean
learning disabled, dyslexic, or any number of other disabilities which, while
very unpleasent for the person in question, do not necessarily inhibit
their judgement about when and with whom to have sex. (I can tick of on
my fingers right now a whole slew of mental disabilities that I don't think
require the person having them to live a life of sexual deprivation.)
I think the mentally disabled have rights too, and should not be treated
like children. They should be allowed to make decisions for themselves as
much as they are able.
D!
|
| 525.369 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Mon Mar 05 1990 19:41 | 10 |
| re .367, .368, if this woman should meet a man who loves her just
the way she is, "mentally impaired" and all, and he is truly interested
in having a relationship with her, then I don't think there is anything
wrong in the two of them having sex - as an expression of their
mutual love/like :-). What I think is wrong, is that these four
local boys knew of her weakness, and decided to take advantage of
it just to get off.
Lorna
|
| 525.370 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Mon Mar 05 1990 19:49 | 8 |
| >What I think is wrong, is that these four
> local boys knew of her weakness, and decided to take advantage of
> it just to get off.
The possibility that she could have wanted to do it doesn't seem to
enter into the equation, does it?
The Doctah
|
| 525.371 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Mon Mar 05 1990 19:52 | 11 |
| Re .370, Not to me it doesn't, because I don't think she did want
it.
She have wanted one of the boys to fall in love with her, and want
to have a relationship with her, but I don't think she wanted all
four of them to fuck her and go home and leave her there like a
piece of used toilet paper. I don't think there are very many women
who want to be screwed by 4 men who don't give a shit about them.
Lorna
|
| 525.372 | Not something a hell of a lot of women want | SUPER::EVANS | I'm baa-ack | Mon Mar 05 1990 19:58 | 18 |
| Doc:
I know a LOT of women. None of them have ever had, nor have now, any
desire to have sex like THAT. It's exactly the kind of stuff that's
portrayed in pornographic films/stories for *men*.
Now, I grant you, all the women I know have no mental impairments. But
somehow, having that impairment makes it all the more important that
that type of sex, those types of male fantasies, aren't played out
using such a person.
I'll grant you she probably wanted some kind of warmth and loving. I'll
grant you she probably figured she'd have to have sex with a man to get
the warmth and loving. But I doubt the experience she had was pleasant.
And I still say those men (someone said boys?) were irresponsible.
--DE
|
| 525.373 | Whoa! We're talking major value judgements here! | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Mon Mar 05 1990 20:09 | 28 |
| Hey, wait a minute there a second.
There are women who sometimes want to have sex, just sex, without love, caring,
relationships, etc, entering into the picture. Trust me on this, I have it
on very good authority. ;^) Some women even want it with more than one man
(I would imagine.)
It seems to me that if a woman who is (supposedly) fully mentally capable
wants such a thing, that it is at least possible that a woman who happens
to have some sort of mental disability might want it too.
While I will admit that *in* *this* *case* it doesn't sound all that likely
that the scenario as it occured was exactly what this woman had in mind, I
strongly resent all these implications that "all women want love, sex, etc,
never just sex"; I find even more offensive the implication that having
a mental impairment means that one can't want sex or enjoy sex like other
people.
I think you folks are making an *awful* lot of assumptions by saying that
since this woman had a disability, that she can't have been looking for a
gang-bang.
D!
(Also, if you are lonely and desperate, and what you really want is love and
affection and caring, but you can't get it, sometimes one night of sex is
better than being all alone. Is it morally wrong to give someone that, even
if you know that *ideally* they would have you fall in love with them?)
|
| 525.374 | Hmmmm | SUPER::EVANS | I'm baa-ack | Mon Mar 05 1990 20:18 | 18 |
| The only women I have seen who "want a gang bang" are in pornographic
movies. We'll never know from the folks here, but I'd would be VERY
surprised if 1% of women polled are truly interested in a "gang bang".
"Just sex" is different than a "gang bang". And I don't think anyone
denied that "just sex" is a viable option for folks. How much this
*particular|* person would be able to weigh "just sex" and "making
love" and "being loved" is unknown to this assemblage.
Even "more than one man" isn't *FOUR*.
I give up. Here I go again, getting involved in this stuff when all
we have are news accounts of the situation. Reliable sources, fer sure.
;-|
--DE
|
| 525.375 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Mon Mar 05 1990 20:18 | 24 |
| Re .373, D! I've been in the situation where I've allowed one night
of sex with someone who didn't give a shit about me to help get
rid of loneliness. In retrospect it always seemed worse than having
just read a good book instead.
Besides, one night of sex with a friend who likes a person, is
different than having 4 guys line up to screw you and then yell
next.
I said *most* women don't want that, and I don't think most women
do want that. I realize there is a small minority that that wouldn't
mind having sex with a bunch of men at once, but I'd hardly consider
it one of the major dreams of most women.
I think if this particular woman had really enjoyed exactly what
happened she would have kept the incident to herself, and not told
her mother. I think she felt angry and betrayed by the guys because
she realized they didn't care about her. Let's face it how many
guys would line up to screw a woman they really cared about? (I
don't think many. That's not the kind of thing men want to have
happen to *their* wife, or SO, or fiancee, or sister.)
Lorna
|
| 525.376 | Maybe I'm just a chronic Devil's Advocate... | WAYLAY::GORDON | No bunnies in the sky today, Jack... | Mon Mar 05 1990 20:29 | 15 |
| I have to support D! to some extent... (since she once told me she
wished more people would write when they did)
Just because *you* or *your friends* {don't do/wouldn't do/can't
conceive of doing} something doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and there aren't
people who enjoy it. I'm probably somewhere very middle of the road in what
I myself participate in, but I sure know people at the extremes.
I also agree that arguing about it using hearsay evidence from the
newspaper is pretty much an exercise in futility. We can color all the
"factoids" any way we please to suit our position, but I doubt we're any
closer to the truth.
--D (no bang...)
|
| 525.377 | | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Mon Mar 05 1990 20:37 | 72 |
| > Re .373, D! I've been in the situation where I've allowed one night
> of sex with someone who didn't give a shit about me to help get
> rid of loneliness. In retrospect it always seemed worse than having
> just read a good book instead.
But, Lorna, we are talking "morally wrong" here! (Your words.) You made
the decision to take a night of sex in lieu of a life of love. Your decision.
Your mistake. Was it "morally wrong" for the man you slept with to
abide by your decision?
> Besides, one night of sex with a friend who likes a person, is
> different than having 4 guys line up to screw you and then yell
> next.
Of course it is different. That isn't the issue. I didn't say she *did*
like it, I said that you are de facto eliminating the possibility that
she could, and basing it on the fact that she is disabled, and I
say that is a value-loaded judgement.
> mind having sex with a bunch of men at once, but I'd hardly consider
> it one of the major dreams of most women.
Irrelevent. If *one* woman wants it, somewhere, would it be morally
wrong for men to do it to her? And if she *says* she wants it (or agrees
to it) how are they to know she doesn't mean it (or will regret it in
the morning.) You are saying that these four men/boys/whatever had
the moral responsibility to assume that *this* woman didn't want a gang-
bang based solely on the fact that 1) she was "mentally impaired" (does
anyone know to what extent "impaired" means???) and 2) most women don't
want gang-bangs.
> I think if this particular woman had really enjoyed exactly what
> happened she would have kept the incident to herself, and not told
> her mother.
What if she consented, but still didn't enjoy it? Lorna, in the first
paragraph, you said you had had sex you didn't enjoy. Maybe you would
complain about not enjoying it to your Mom (doesn't sound likely ;-) or
friends or whatever.
On the other hand, what if you had such a great time, that you wanted to
*shout* about it? (I didn't say likely, but pointing out that you are
basing your moral judgements on a lot of unwarrented assumptions.)
>I think she felt angry and betrayed by the guys because
> she realized they didn't care about her.
Quite possibly. But I don't think it is morally wrong to have sex with
someone you don't care about it, if they want it.
>Let's face it how many
> guys would line up to screw a woman they really cared about?
Not many. I never argued that they cared about her.
I think you should totally drop the business of "...because she was impaired"
as a defense of your moral judgements, because unless we *know* she was
impaired to the level where she can't make rational decisions (most impairments
are not that radical), it is simply prejudice against the mentally
handicapped to say that believing what they say and following through on
it is immoral.
Do you still consider it immoral if you ignore the fact that she was
mentally impaired?
D!
(Based on my [admitedly minimal] knowledge about psych and neurological
damage, it seems that if her disability were caused by an accident that
it was more likely to causes difficulties like short-term memory problems,
vision processing problems, amnesia, etc than to cause problems with
ability to make rational decisions.)
|
| 525.378 | Some background on jury verdicts | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Mon Mar 05 1990 20:38 | 36 |
| This case is unfamiliar to me (how did I miss it before?), but I want to
comment on the question of the verdict of sexual assault instead of rape, from
the perspective of having had this explained to me when I was a juror in
New Hampshire several years ago. (My comments may not be applicable to other
states.)
As I understand it, there is not usually a legal charge called "rape". In
New Hampshire, it would be "felonious sexual assult", which could also
have the term "aggravated" attached to it (I think this means if some sort
of physical violence or threat with a weapon was involved). There are,
however, various "degrees" of the crime, and a jury is free to find the
defendant(s) guilty of any of the "lesser included crimes" as they decide
is appropriate. Juries will often use "extenuating circumstances", such as
in this case, the apparent serious question of whether or not the acts
were concensual, and the resulting verdict may not make a lot of sense
when taken out of this context.
For example, when I was a juror, I had a case of a man who had attacked
a teen-ager with a knife and had slashed his nose. He was charged with,
if I recall, "second degree assault", a felony. However, there were many
extenuating circumstances, such as the teen-ager being part of a group of
kids who had threatened the man verbally and physically, and that the teen-ager
had a stick as a weapon, that caused us to find the man guilty of "reckless
conduct", a misdemeanor. Taken out of context, that verdict seems ridiculous,
but the judge later agreed with us that it was the most appropriate for the
circumstances.
Jurors have to answer to no one for their verdicts. Theoretically, they are
not supposed to know what kinds of punishments go with what verdicts, though
they usually have a good idea. Without having been in the courtroom to
hear and see all the evidence for myself, I would not conclude that a
verdict of some degree of sexual assault was not in fact appropriate. It is
still a serious crime with possibly severe penalties. It would be interesting
to see what the penalties are for this case.
Steve
|
| 525.379 | it's always shades of gray | TINCUP::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Mon Mar 05 1990 21:46 | 8 |
| In relation to what Steve said: it's situations like this that show the
reason behind our jury system. There is no way any law can be right for
every possible variation of a crime. We may argue over the affect of
society's views on a jury's decision but it seems hard to argue
against the need to temper laws with knowledge of the circumstances.
On a purely personal note: I would hope that the men in my life would
be of the sort who wouldn't have participated in this event. liesl
|
| 525.380 | | SCHOOL::KIRK | Matt Kirk -- 297-6370 | Mon Mar 05 1990 22:04 | 15 |
| >>(Based on my [admitedly minimal] knowledge about psych and neurological
>>damage, it seems that if her disability were caused by an accident that
>>it was more likely to causes difficulties like short-term memory problems,
>>vision processing problems, amnesia, etc than to cause problems with
>>ability to make rational decisions.)
I went to school with and worked with a woman who fractured her skull
& suffered a good bit of brain damage. This included vision problems,
complete and apparently irreparable loss of memory prior to the accident,
and slight retardation. During her reeducation (which was still going
on last time I saw her) she was definitely unable to make rational,
informed decisions. She was eventually enrolled in a live-in program
at Penn State to help people who suffered complete memory loss. One
of the problems they had was that although the people in the program
were non-compus-mentis (sp?), they still had sexual urges.
|
| 525.384 | | OXNARD::HAYNES | Charles Haynes | Tue Mar 06 1990 01:07 | 11 |
| Testing understanding here. We're trying to judge whether these four "boys" are
or are not guilty of rape by what noters have written about what newspapers have
written about what was said in a courtroom about actions that took place four
years ago?
Huh. Some people will use any excuse for an argument. Like me.
They're obviously guilty. They deserve chemical castration. Anyone who disagrees
is a foo-foo head.
-- Charles
|
| 525.385 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Tue Mar 06 1990 15:17 | 12 |
| Re .377, D!, when did I ever say I had accepted "a night of sex
in lieu of a life of love"????? What a crazy thing to say. I
certainly don't feel that accepting "a night of sex" precludes anyone
from having a "life of love." ????? I don't understand you and
you don't understand me. I think we are very different.
Re .379, Liesl, I agree! I hope no men who are part of my life
would ever participate in a situation like that, too! (but sadly
I have my doubts)
Lorna
|
| 525.386 | | NAVIER::SAISI | | Tue Mar 06 1990 15:19 | 17 |
| re .56
> I think there are very few women who really want to have four men
> line up and fuck them one after the other,
Thanks for saying that Lorna. I couldn't agree with you more.
It always gets me in these situations that it doesn't occur
to (or concern) the men in question, that the woman being hurt.
There was a case like this when I was in college. Two men and
a woman were drinking in one of their rooms. She ended up on
the floor with each of these guys scr*wing her. As word spread
thru the dorm, four more guys took a turn, some in her mouth.
Others watched. They all claimed that they thought she was
wanted it.
Linda
|
| 525.387 | perish the thought. | GEMVAX::KOTTLER | | Tue Mar 06 1990 15:28 | 8 |
| re .56
"they all claimed they thought she wanted it"
That has a suspiciously familiar ring. Sounds almost like the Typical
Male Fantasy that the media projects all around us everywhere...
Not to suggest any causal relation, of course! ;-)
|
| 525.388 | what's your point? | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Tue Mar 06 1990 15:57 | 13 |
| They all claimed that they thought she was
wanted it.
Well...did she?
I assume from your telling of the tale that you have more information, like
that you knew her and knew she was unhappy about what happened, or know that
she pressed rape charges, or was in counselling because of what happened or
something.
Without that information, why should we assume she *didn't* want it?
D!
|
| 525.389 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | she's institutionalized now | Tue Mar 06 1990 16:03 | 4 |
| Re .388, because *most* women wouldn't want it, D!
Lorna
|
| 525.390 | Perhaps misphrased, but not misintended | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Tue Mar 06 1990 16:03 | 22 |
| Lorna, you said:
> Re .373, D! I've been in the situation where I've allowed one night
> of sex with someone who didn't give a shit about me to help get
> rid of loneliness. In retrospect it always seemed worse than having
> just read a good book instead.
My comment was just intended to paraphrase yours. As I understand the
above paragraph, you were lonely, and what you *really* wanted was a
caring, loving *relationship* (with poetic license, = life of love),
but since at that particular time you didn't have it, so you accepted what
appeared to be the next best thing - a night of sex. Thus my paraphrasing
"a night of sex in lieu of a life of love." There was no implication there
that you couldn't find your "life of love" with some other man at some
other time! Just that for that night, you took what you could get (and
later decided that it wasn't worth it.)
Anyway, I am still interested in the answer to my question:
>Do you still consider it immoral if you ignore the fact that she was
>mentally impaired?
D!
|
| 525.391 | Circular reasoning | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Tue Mar 06 1990 16:11 | 22 |
| > Re .388, because *most* women wouldn't want it, D!
Lorna, that note was entered as *support* for the contention that most women
wouldn't want it. We can't assume the conclusion - that's circular.
I said that most women don't, but some do. Then someone gave what I guess
was supposed to be a data-point about it happening, and people assuming that
she was "one of the one's who do". If you are going to argue *against*
people making that assumption, you should have more evidence that in that
instant it *wasn't* true than just the assumption that it wasn't.
In other words, this argument's premises are it's conclusions and it isn't
going anywhere.
A: I think it is okay to assume X.
B: Not it isn't, because in this situation X was false.
A: What makes you think that X was false in that situation?
A: I assumed it.
Doesn't work.
D!
|
| 525.392 | | NAVIER::SAISI | | Tue Mar 06 1990 16:12 | 13 |
| >I assume from your telling of the tale that you have more information, like
>that you knew her and knew she was unhappy about what happened, or know that
>she pressed rape charges, or was in counselling because of what happened or
>something.
Correct.
>Without that information, why should we assume she *didn't* want it?
Because we have the human capacity to empathize.
Linda
|
| 525.393 | More of Logic 101 | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Tue Mar 06 1990 18:18 | 38 |
| >>Without that information, why should we assume she *didn't* want it?
> Because we have the human capacity to empathize.
Linda,
You appear to be missing my point too. Your above statement is *very* loaded.
In a discussion about *whether* it is possible for a woman to desire
something most women don't, you give us a situation where that thing
happened...and then imply that *obviously* she didn't like it, because
most women wouldn't. Please read what I said to Lorna - if you are
discussing the usefulness/correctness of certain assumptions, you *can't*
*use* *those* *assumptions* *as* *premises*.
*I* have the human capacity to empathize. That very loaded, very judgemental
statement above implies that it is *obvious* that she didn't enjoy it to
anyone who is capable of empathy. Yet it is not obvious to me!
You merely described a situation, and through *empathy* with a person about
whom the *only* thing we know is that she is a female college student, you want
us to predict her reactions.
This clearly means that you expect us to put ourselves in her shoes, and
imagine how *we* would feel, and then it would be obvious how she feels.
This is *wrong* and this is the whole point I am trying to get across. Just
becuse you, or Lorna, or hundreds of other women would feel terrible in her
shoes is *not* enough to *prove* that that woman felt terrible!!!
Empathy does *not* mean "What would *my* reaction be to your situation?";
empathy means feeling with another person and *their* reactions, not yours!
The statement that we should be able to empathize with a woman we know *nothing*
about implies that the mere fact that she is a woman should give us total
understand about her feelings!
Grrrrr....
D!
|
| 525.394 | I am flaming. | DELNI::P_LEEDBERG | Memory is the second | Tue Mar 06 1990 18:30 | 19 |
|
D!
I think that you should take a few minutes and read a number of
the notes in this file and v1 where women talk about how they
have experienced sexual attention against their wishes and how
NO was not understood to mean NO. Now if you want to argue that
maybe just maybe the woman did "want it" I would like to know
what you base your assumtion on - a survey on one?????
The terms used is "most women" not all. If you happen to be one
of the women who would like to have men line up to screw you, fine
but state it as a survey of one or if you have a few friends or
know 100 women who would. I personally know of one woman who
would try to kill any man who tried this action.
_peggy
|
| 525.395 | | RANGER::TARBET | | Tue Mar 06 1990 18:33 | 9 |
| This is interesting. D, I would guess (and as always am open to
correction) that your reaction comes from your interest in and
attraction to S&M, while Linda's is "statistical": most women would
not be interested in an experience like that. Now, you're quite right
that there is no way to determine from the information given whether
the particular woman of the anecdote did or did not enjoy the
experience, but I'd sure put my money on the "not", wouldn't you? :-)
=maggie
|
| 525.396 | | MOIRA::FAIMAN | light upon the figured leaf | Tue Mar 06 1990 18:46 | 27 |
| Somehow D!'s notes seemed perfectly clear to me, but .394 doesn't seem to
be responding to the same notes that I read.
I believe that D! is simply saying the following:
If a person X whom we don't know had an experience that we weren't
present at, then we can legitimately say:
I would hate it if that happened to me.
Most people I know would hate it if that happened to them.
(Based on appropriate statistical data) The overwhelming
majority of people would hate it if that happened to them.
What we *can't* legitimately say is:
I know that X hated it.
We can, of course, apply our statistical data and say "There is an
a priori probability of 97% that X hated it," but that completely
abstracts the particular situation, and is not qualitatively
different (though it might be quantitatively more accurate) than
(for example) "of course she want's to have children -- she's a
woman, isn't she?"
-Neil
|
| 525.397 | Getting into the heat of things (*this* is what I read =wn= for! :-/) | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Tue Mar 06 1990 19:09 | 122 |
| Peggy,
excuse me for a moment...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!
There...now, on to your note (aka totally unwarranted flame):
> have experienced sexual attention against their wishes and how
> NO was not understood to mean NO.
Er, beg your pardon? I didn't see any mention in Linda's little story about
the woman saying "no". Did you? That would have entirely changed the story. So
clearly your statement that I should read messages about women who have been
raped is not related to the current discussion about gang-bangs. Are you
responding to something I said a long time ago? If so, please remind me.
>Now if you want to argue that
> maybe just maybe the woman did "want it" I would like to know
> what you base your assumtion on - a survey on one?????
In the current discussion I have not made a single suggestion that a woman
who said "no" really meant "yes". We did have a discussion about that about
a month ago, where I made a lot of comments about this, none of which were
as simplistic as "saying no when they mean yes." If you are responding to one
of those notes, please give me a pointer so that I know what you are talking
about.
Secondly, I would like you to quote (verbatim please) the place where I
make the assumption you assert. I am not at all clear what that assumption
was that you are refering to, it would help to have the text here.
IF you mean that I assumed that "maybe just maybe...", then it seems to be
it is (almost) *always* warranted to assume that something *might* have been
possible. It seems strange to apply the term "assumption" to that statement
that something "maybe just maybe..." true, but I guess linguistically it
works.
> The terms used is "most women" not all.
I didn't say all did. or didn't. Or might. Or anything about all women.
I said (if I haven't stated it clearly enough): It is NOT acceptable to
condemn a man for doing something that a woman *said* she wanted, on the grounds
that since *most* women wouldn't want that, then it should be obvious to him
that *she* doesn't want that. I am making two points: 1) if *some* woman
some where might want it, then how come a man is required to assume that
*this* woman doesn't know what she's talking about when she says she wants it,
and 2) it isn't *necessarily* true that she doesn't want it just because most
women don't want it.
>If you happen to be one
> of the women who would like to have men line up to screw you, fine
> but state it as a survey of one or if you have a few friends or
> know 100 women who would.
State *what* as survey? I haven't made a statements that implied that even
one woman *did* want it. Only that one woman *might* want it. Might.
Maybe. Possibly. Perhaps. Capiche?
> I personally know of one woman who
> would try to kill any man who tried this action.
Horrible. This is a friend of yours? Gah. Well I haven't been in any gang-
bangs recently, but if I am ever in one voluntarily, I will be sure *not* to
mention the names of the men involved to the woman you know else she might
try to kill them. Lovely.
Maggie:
> D, I would guess (and as always am open to
> correction) that your reaction comes from your interest in and
> attraction to S&M
Not in particular, no. My reaction comes from a general hot-button about
people assuming that because *most* people react some way, that no person
can react differently. In this discussion the claim is even worse: not
only can *no* woman want a gang-bang, no man is allowed to assume that a
particular woman *might* (MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT) want one.
Since suddenly my personal sexual tastes seem to have become relevent to
the conversation, I'll answer the burning question on everyone's mind: no,
I do not want a gang-bang. Yes, I suspect that *I*, in the woman's position
Linda described, or the Dirty Dancing situation, would not be happy about
what happened. But I acknowledge the possibility that some woman might want
it, and that if she does, the men who do it to her should *not* *be*
*condmened*!
>Now, you're quite right
> that there is no way to determine from the information given whether
> the particular woman of the anecdote did or did not enjoy the
> experience, but I'd sure put my money on the "not", wouldn't you?
Absolutely! If I had money riding on it, I would bet a good 100:1 odds
or more that she didn't enjoy it.
But the implication in the note was that the men should have *assumed*
that she wouldn't like it, even if she claimed otherwise (since there was no
mention in the anecdote about her saying "no", I will assume she didn't...
if she did say "no", the point I am making remains, it just doesn't apply
to this situation.)
I would be *damned* upset if I told a man I wanted him to do X to me, and
he said "No, you are saying that, but I know that most women wouldn't enjoy
it, so I am going to assume that *you* won't enjoy it, so I won't do it." I
would be *doubly* pissed if someone else came in later, after I convinced the
guy I really wanted it, and condemned him for it!
That is what Lorna (and apparantly Linda) are doing. Condemning the men
involved for believing a woman when she says she has desires that most women
do not.
Talk about devaluing! "She says she wants X, but most women don't want X
so she must not know what she's talking about. And men better assume she
doesn't know what she is talking about."
I do *not* think the responsibility lies with *me* to try and figure out
if someone *else* is making a decision they will regret in the morning.
I refuse to be condemned for not assuming that my partner is just like
everyone else in his or her class.
D!
|
| 525.398 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Mar 06 1990 19:13 | 19 |
| Re .394:
> I think that you should take a few minutes and read a number of the
> notes in this file and v1 where women talk about how they have
> experienced sexual attention against their wishes and how NO was not
> understood to mean NO.
Disclaimer: I am not writing this response to express an opinion. I
am only trying to clear up a misunderstanding that I think I see
between two people.
In the original note, it was not said that the woman did not consent.
If I am correct, Dianne is just saying that we need to be told that the
women did not consent before we can conclude with any certainty that
she did not consent. In other words, nobody is saying no doesn't mean
no; it is just that a part of the story was missing.
-- edp
|
| 525.399 | | TLE::CHONO::RANDALL | On another planet | Tue Mar 06 1990 19:19 | 8 |
| re: .396
Yeah, that's all I thought she was saying, too.
The rules of logic aren't suspended just because we're talking about something
that's very painful and distressing for all concerned.
--bonnie
|
| 525.400 | | NAVIER::SAISI | | Tue Mar 06 1990 19:20 | 18 |
| D!, I replied that yes there was additional information. No, I
am not going to share it so that we can speculate more. When I
observe a situation where I think someone is being hurt, I use my
own assumptions and observations to decide how to react. If it
was unclear, I may say something like, "Are you okay?" If the person
said, "Yes, I'm loving it!" I would back off. I would not walk
away saying "That is one sick/bad woman." If it really seemed to
me that she was acting in a self-destructive way I may worry about
her, but I would certainly not condemn her, especially not on any
moral grounds.
Regarding my perceptions, I have never heard a woman speak of
how she enjoyed the experience of getting drunk and having men who
she did not select line up to get off while other men, who she
also did not select, and who were her neighbors, watched. It would
really surprise me. Yet all the men who participated in
this apparently thought it was very common for women to enjoy such
an experience, or didn't care. That is what I found disturbing.
Linda
|
| 525.402 | Power imbalance --> unethical | WELKIN::SULLIVAN | | Tue Mar 06 1990 19:41 | 38 |
|
I think it is unethical for a more powerful person to have sex with
a less powerful person. I guess my sense of how unethical it is
would vary depending on how wide the power gap is. I think that this
kind of power gap excludes S&M sex, because I believe that choosing to
give power temporarily to another is an act of power (if there were actual
power imbalances in the relationship between two or more people involved
in S&M, then my other idea about the ethics of it still holds (in my
mind).)
In the case of the dirty dancing rape I believe the 4 men had a lot more
power than the woman -- both because there were 4 of them and because
she was drunk and seemed to have some other impairment because of her
car accident. I don't understand enough of the law or of the facts of the
case to be able to comment on what sentence should have been handed down.
But in my gut, I feel that it was ethically wrong for those 4 men to have
sex with a woman who was drunk (and in some way impaired because of her
accident). {I put that last part in parentheses, because I would feel it
was unethical even if she'd only been drunk and not otherwise impaired.}
I suppose that it is possible that some women might like to invite 4 men
over to get drunk and have sex. And I suppose that if that was this
woman's intention -- to get drunk and have sex with these 4 men, then I
have to work at adjusting my judgement of the situation. But what I
think, feel, and know about myself and about other women -- suggests to
me that this is not true.
I can't *know* that, though, so my arguments won't pass any kind of logic
test. In fact, I believe we'd all need more facts to be able to *prove*
anything. But I'm comfortable talking about what I feel and what I
believe. I believe that those men took advantage of the women's impairment
(from both the alcohol and perhaps from whatever her injuries were) and
that they were wrong to do it. If they also happened to break some laws
(and in my opinion the law has a hard time addressing crimes against women,
because it was designed to address crimes against men), then I hope they
are punished appropriately according to those laws.
Justine
|
| 525.403 | Right, Justine! | SUPER::EVANS | I'm baa-ack | Tue Mar 06 1990 20:11 | 27 |
| RE: .402
Thanks! *That* was what was bothering me all along! The imbalance
of *power*. Yes. Absolutely.
I agree with Justine.
(Parenthetically, I think we here must be very careful not to pander to
the typical societal reaction that "she was asking for it". If I knew
50 women, and 40 of them wanted to have a "gang-bang" with 4 guys, I
think it would be acceptable to figure lots of women were interested in
that. No woman I know - not one - is interested in that. And
apparently, there are other women here who know NO women who are
interested in it, either. And yet, we are being asked to believe that
this *one* woman in the news story is part of such a small minority.
Even when it's a "gang-bang", even when it's obviously a power
imbalanced situation, even when the woman has mental impairments of
some sort, we are *still* asked to believe she was asking for it.
To what lengths will we go to hang it on ourselves?)
Again, we don;t have all the facts. But there was, indeed, a power
imbalance and - one more time - I think those men/boys acted
irresponsibly.
--DE
|
| 525.404 | ? | COBWEB::SWALKER | Sharon Walker, BASIC/SCAN | Tue Mar 06 1990 20:28 | 42 |
| RE: .402 (Justine)
What standard are you using to define "power" here? Do you mean
physical power, the perceived relative power of the individuals
involved, political power, willpower, economic power, legal power,
or mental acuity?
I am under the impression from your note that the "power" you
cite derived from a mixture of various factors, but find it
difficult to conceive of how they would be weighed in order to
reach a composite "power measurement". How do you weigh someone
who's more manipulative than their partner against someone who is
more intelligent than their partner?
To take this concept to a perhaps ridiculous extreme, most people
I know find it awkward enough to bring up the topic of birth control
beforehand, or what to do if there's an unwanted pregnancy. I can't
see power balances being weighed, especially if it's irrelevant
(i.e., he may be a world-class weightlifter with bulging muscles and
she a sedentary sort, but if he doesn't assert that power against her,
does it matter that he _could_? Does it mean that he should only have
sex with other world-class weightlifters?)
Also, there's an implicit assumption here that since there were
4 men and 1 woman involved here, that it was 4 against 1. While I
think that assumption is legitimated by the context of this particular
case, I don't think that it's fair to judge all 4-male-1-female group-sex
situations by that premise. And if one is judging the potential ethics
of a situation by the metric you describe, then to reach the conclusion
you did, one would have to do just that. But if we take a hypothetical
situation in which three of the males regularly convened for group sex
every Saturday night, say, and one Saturday night they invited a friend
and his wife to join them... I think the power equations would get a
little blurry.
I, myself, would tend to think that viewing a sexual encounter in
terms of an adversarial power relationship would be a signal of potential
trouble in and of itself, but perhaps I just misunderstood what you
were trying to say.
Sharon
|
| 525.405 | illegal <> imoral | ULTRA::WITTENBERG | Secure Systems for Insecure People | Tue Mar 06 1990 20:42 | 14 |
| There's a difference between unwise behaviour, morally wrong
behaviour, and illegal behaviour.
It seems fairly clear that these four young men's behaviour was at
best unwise, and probably difficult to defend morally, but I'm not
so sure that it was illegal. If whe didn't say no (to at least one
of them), and was concious the whole time, then I don't see
anything illegal. Deciding the next day that a particular sex act
was unwise and regrettable has probably happened to many of us
(including me), but if there was no objection at the time,
deciding the next day that this particular act was regrettable
doesn't make it rape.
--David
|
| 525.406 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Wed Mar 07 1990 10:42 | 11 |
| > Now, you're quite right
> that there is no way to determine from the information given whether
> the particular woman of the anecdote did or did not enjoy the
> experience, but I'd sure put my money on the "not", wouldn't you? :-)
Certainly. However, in order to obtain a conviction, a certain level
of proof must be attained. You don't convict just because it's a "safer
bet."
The Doctah
|
| 525.407 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 07 1990 10:44 | 12 |
| Re .403:
> And yet, we are being asked to believe that this *one* woman in the
> news story is part of such a small minority.
Oh. I see. So if many people in some group have some characteristic,
you are saying that not only is it okay to assume that a person in the
group has that characteristic, but in fact we SHOULD assume that a
person in the group has that characteristic?
-- edp
|
| 525.408 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Wed Mar 07 1990 10:50 | 25 |
| > I think it is unethical for a more powerful person to have sex with
> a less powerful person.
That is pretty all encompassing. Every sexual union must be forged on
equal power or it is unethical?
> I can't *know* that, though, so my arguments won't pass any kind of logic
> test. In fact, I believe we'd all need more facts to be able to *prove*
> anything. But I'm comfortable talking about what I feel and what I
> believe.
It sounds alot like you are talking about the general case where the
specific facts can be represented by gut feelings of how you would
expect such a thing to occur as opposed to the facts that relate to
this particular case.
> (and in my opinion the law has a hard time addressing crimes against women,
> because it was designed to address crimes against men)
That is a crock. The law is designed to address crimes against people.
Certain crimes that happen to occur more often to women are harder to
prove because of the nature of the crime, not because those mean old
men don't care because the victims are _only women_.
The Doctah
|
| 525.409 | That's the way to start | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Mar 07 1990 11:30 | 3 |
| Yes, edp, that is the better *beginning* assumption.
Ann B.
|
| 525.410 | since we're throwing crockery here... | GEMVAX::KOTTLER | | Wed Mar 07 1990 11:36 | 14 |
| re .408
> (and in my opinion the law has a hard time addressing crimes against women,
> because it was designed to address crimes against men)
>> That is a crock. The law is designed to address crimes against people.
>> Certain crimes that happen to occur more often to women are harder to
>> prove because of the nature of the crime, not because those mean old
>> men don't care because the victims are _only women_.
Gee. I'd love to hear how you'd apply this reasoning to (for starters) laws
(or lack of laws) against marital rape.
|
| 525.411 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 07 1990 11:56 | 11 |
| Re .409:
> Yes, edp, that is the better *beginning* assumption.
Okay, so we'll judge all women based on the pattern defined by the
general behavior of them, and all blacks based on their general
pattern, and all Jews . . . Congratulations, you just supported
stereotyping people.
-- edp
|
| 525.412 | Question everything | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Mar 07 1990 12:01 | 11 |
| Only if you stick to the actualities; i.e., your average person
is honest, hard-working, willing to think, things like that.
You see, edp, one begins with the most charitable assumptions:
The witness is telling the truth; the defendant is innocent; the
judge is honest and impartial. Then we have an adversarial set
of activities called a trial, and the jury questions everything
that the prosecution, defense, and judge brought to their
attention. It works very well.
Ann B.
|
| 525.413 | | VIA::HEFFERNAN | Juggling Fool | Wed Mar 07 1990 12:02 | 7 |
| RE: .402 (Justine)
Thanks for that reply. You said much better than I could what I was
thinking and feeling on the subject but could not put into words...
john
|
| 525.415 | bad decisions aren't rape | TLE::CHONO::RANDALL | On another planet | Wed Mar 07 1990 12:37 | 18 |
| Justine's absolutely right, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, there's
a big difference between something being unwise, something being immoral,
and something being illegal.
I can conceive of circumstances under which I would, if sufficiently drunk,
lustful, or otherwise throwing common sense to the wind,
consent to group sex with a bunch of men. I would probably enjoy it at the
time. And in the morning I would almost certainly wake up convinced it was
the dumbest thing I ever did, probably feeling demeaned and dirty and
ashamed of myself.
That would mean I made a mistake (and not the first one I've made in the
sexual arena, either). It wouldn't mean the men did anything wrong. It
certainly wouldn't mean I had been raped! Saying they should have known
I was making a mistake would be a cop-out, trying to blame them for my
own bad decision.
--bonnie
|
| 525.416 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 07 1990 12:40 | 28 |
| Re .412:
> Only if you stick to the actualities; i.e., your average person
> is honest, hard-working, willing to think, things like that.
Oh, of course. One should just ASSUME about any stranger that they are
the "default person". One should just assume about any Jew what one
knows about Jews in general. One should just assume about any black
what one knows about blacks in general. One should just assume about
any woman what one knows about women in general.
All you are doing is making the same mistake any bigot makes:
Stereotyping people. There is no magic "actuality meter" that tells
people which characteristics are actualities and which are incorrect.
It is WRONG to assume that a specific person fits a particular mold.
Further, I did not bring this up in relation to honesty, hard-working,
or willingness to think. It is okay to give people the benefit of the
doubt on those, but this was brought up in relation to supposing what a
person's sexual desires are. It is WRONG to assume that a person
CANNOT have certain desires simply because YOU THINK MOST PEOPLE DO
NOT.
It is WRONG to judge another person according to YOUR DESIRES. People
are different, individual human beings, and their diversity should be
cherished, not denied.
-- edp
|
| 525.417 | A little calmer | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Wed Mar 07 1990 12:53 | 46 |
| > And yet, we are being asked to believe that
> this *one* woman in the news story is part of such a small minority.
Certainly the defense attourney(s) are asking you (in a general sense) to
believe that. I hope you understand that *I* am not asking you to believe
that, or in fact, to believe *anything* about the situation. I am asking
you to entertain the *possibility*, without rejecting it out of hand simply
because *most* women don't belong to that minority.
I am *not* discussing the legality of the situation. It is certainly a
good thing to discuss, but it is not what I am discussing. I am discussing
the *ethics* of the situation, and I was prompted by Lorna's far reaching
statement that it is immoral to (I forget her exact words) have sex with
a woman you are not interested in when what she really wants is love and
affection, especially if that person is drunk and/or mentally "impaired."
The real specifics of this case aren't relevent to the discussion. If she
said "no" and tried to fight the men off, then it's rape. If her disability
was severe enough to prevent her from making rational decisions, then it
was statutory rape. I just want to demonstrate that it is not *enough*
to say that "most women wouldn't like what happened to her" to prove that
1) she didn't want what happened to her, and 2) the men are to blame for
"taking advantage of her."
I believe it was Justine that brought up the comment about imbalance of
power. (BTW, thank you for the comment on S&M...you are right, most S&M
relationships do not involve an inherent imbalance of power - one person
*chooses* to relenquish power, and the ability to make that decision is
actually empowering...but anyway...) I am not convinced that the situation
is that black and white. It seems to me that in 90% of heterosexual sex,
the male is more powerful, physically, than the woman. But, as Sharon said,
if he chooses not to exercise that power (against her will) then it isn't
unethical. In our culture, it is quite often that the man is more *financially*
powerful. In any relationship, one person will be older, one is likely to
be better educated, more intelligent, wittier, stronger, whatever. I think
the key is that if the person with the power does not exert that power to
persuade, coerce or otherwise influence the other into sex, then there isn't
a problem.
BTW, I think Mike made a very important point a while back that got lost
in the shuffle. If we decide that these men are guilty of rape *because
her mental disability meant that she couldn't give informed consent*, then
every single sexual experience this woman will ever have will also technically
be rape. (Until she is "cured" or something.)
D!
|
| 525.418 | <*** Moderator Request ***> | RANGER::TARBET | | Wed Mar 07 1990 13:05 | 10 |
| I think there may be a fair amount of confusion floating around in this
discussion, and I would urge everyone to check and make sure that they
know what someone else is talking about. For example, my [personal]
comment about betting with the odds was made in reference to Linda's
anecdote, not to the event that resulted in the court case; I have no
opinion about the latter, other than the "mental impairment" may be
the peculiar hypothalamic damage that results in *greatly* heightened
sexual interest.
=maggie
|
| 525.419 | ... | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Wed Mar 07 1990 14:25 | 51 |
| RE: .416 edp
>> Only if you stick to the actualities; i.e., your average person
>> is honest, hard-working, willing to think, things like that.
> Oh, of course. One should just ASSUME about any stranger that
> they are the "default person".
Giving "the benefit of the doubt" could fall into this category,
as you mention later in your note.
> One should just assume about any Jew what one knows about Jews
> in general. One should just assume about any black what one knows
> about blacks in general. One should just assume about any woman
> what one knows about women in general.
When charaterizes Jews/blacks/women as being dishonest, sneaky or
stupid, is it stereotyping to think to oneself, "Wait a minute!
I've known *many* Jews/blacks/women who were definitely *far* from
being dishonest, sneaky or stupid! Something is wrong with this
characterization!"
> All you are doing is making the same mistake any bigot makes:
> Stereotyping people.
This isn't true when giving people "the benefit of the doubt,"
as you well know.
> It is okay to give people the benefit of the doubt on those, but
> this was brought up in relation to supposing what a person's sexual
> desires are. It is WRONG to assume that a person CANNOT have
> certain desires simply because YOU THINK MOST PEOPLE DO NOT.
How about if we give the woman involved in this rape the benefit of
the doubt (since none of us are members of the jury and are only
discussing it here as outsiders.)
When someone says [paraphrased], "She probably wanted a nice gang bang
that afternoon, then changed her mind later" - how about we give *HER*
the benefit of the doubt, since there is no concrete proof that this is
what happened.
> It is WRONG to judge another person according to YOUR DESIRES. People
> are different, individual human beings, and their diversity should be
> cherished, not denied.
You've alreadgy agreed that "giving the benefit of the doubt" is ok,
so your characterization of "wrongness" doesn't always hold.
The main problem seems to be in agreeing what constitutes "the benefit
of the doubt."
|
| 525.420 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | isn't she a riot? | Wed Mar 07 1990 15:08 | 52 |
| Re .402, thanks, Justine. I agree with .402, and .403, unethical
and irresponsible.
As far as I know none of us was there, so all any of us have given
here is our opinion. My opinion seems to be the same as Justine's,
Dawn's and Linda's.
I think most people base their opinion on what happens in a situation
like this (it's just the woman's word against the 4 men's word,
there were no witnesses from what I understand), at least partly
upon how they would feel in a similar situation. I think that's
the first way we learn to empathize with other people, to imagine
how we would feel in their place, to imagine how situations happened
we try to imagine how it could ever happen to us. In some situations,
I would have to realize that my reaction would be in the minority
(I would know this from talking to other people, and books, movies,
tv, etc.), therefore, I would not expect a stranger to feel like
me in *all* situations. But, my experiences in life have led me
to believe that the majority of women would not enjoy a gang-bang,
so I would, therefore, give a strange woman, who claimed she didn't
enjoy it, the benefit of the doubt, and think that probably she
didn't.
As far as edp, and his stereotype claim, I think it's far fetched
here. Somehow, saying most women don't like gang-bangs does not
seem comparable to saying something like "most blacks are not as
smart as whites" or "most jews are cheap" or other horrible racists
statements. For one thing, most women I have known don't like
gang-bangs, whereas most blacks I have known are not stupid and
most Jews I have known are not cheap. It's just not the same thing.
On another issue, I do happen to think that people have a
responsibility for how their actions will affect other people, whether
the other person is for or against the action. If someone asks
me to do something that I think may hurt the person, I think I,
or anyone else, has a responsibility to not do whatever it is.
If someone said they want to die, and asked me to shoot them, does
that mean I should do it????
I do know that if I ever found out that a son, or brother, or SO
of *mine* ever engaged in a gang-bang, with some drunk woman who
had invited them over and danced around them, I would never want
to associate with them again.
But, that's just my opinion and people disagree all the time. None
of us will ever know what went on inside that woman's head. But,
I still think the guys should have known better. It disgusts me
to think that there are men who would even *want* to do what they
did.
Lorna
|
| 525.421 | | CSC32::SPARROW | standing in the myth | Wed Mar 07 1990 16:16 | 5 |
|
well said Lorna..
vivian
|
| 525.422 | | NAVIER::SAISI | | Wed Mar 07 1990 16:25 | 21 |
| > On another issue, I do happen to think that people have a
> responsibility for how their actions will affect other people, whether
> the other person is for or against the action. If someone asks
> me to do something that I think may hurt the person, I think I,
> or anyone else, has a responsibility to not do whatever it is.
Thanks again Lorna, for expressing this. I am sensitive to
the issue that Bonnie raised that people have to take resonsibility
for their actions, and I certaintly don't want "protectionist" laws
for women with the assumption made that they can't make decisions
about their lives. For that reason, I'm not saying that a sexual
situation should result in a rape just because the woman regrets
it the next day. It depends on if she indicated her objection at
the time. However IMHO, it is morally wrong to knowingly hurt someone
for your own advantage when they are in a powerless position.
For example, if a friend of yours was depressed about a divorce
and over drinks one night offers to sell you the vacation home he
and his wife bought for 1/10th its true value, would you run and
get a pen and paper, or say, "No, why don't you think about this
some more."
Linda
|
| 525.423 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 07 1990 16:29 | 27 |
| Re .419:
> Giving "the benefit of the doubt" could fall into this category, as
> you mention later in your note.
But this is not about "the benefit of the doubt"; I'm not talking about
assuming whether or not a person is honest. This was brought up in
respect to making assumptions about a person's sexual practices, and
assuming that because a supposed majority of people have certain
preferences that a particular person MUST have those preferences is
WRONG.
> How about if we give the woman involved in this rape the benefit of
> the doubt (since none of us are members of the jury and are only
> discussing it here as outsiders.)
What on Earth can that phrase mean in this context? Are you going to
give the accuser the benefit and thus find the accused guilty based
upon the existence of doubt?
Suppose for a minute that you admit there is doubt about _everybody_
involved in the case. You DO NOT KNOW whether or not the woman
consent, and you DO NOT KNOW whether the men are guilty or not. GIVEN
THAT INFORMATION, what conclusions do you draw?
-- edp
|
| 525.424 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 07 1990 16:33 | 15 |
| Re .419:
> When charaterizes Jews/blacks/women as being dishonest, sneaky or
> stupid, is it stereotyping to think to oneself, "Wait a minute!
> I've known *many* Jews/blacks/women who were definitely *far* from
> being dishonest, sneaky or stupid! Something is wrong with this
> characterization!"
That is an example of NOT placing somebody in a stereotype. I support
that. I do NOT support supposing that because somebody is in some
group, they MUST have some characteristic that the majority of the
group has.
-- edp
|
| 525.425 | One concludes that one is not a juror. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Mar 07 1990 16:33 | 0 |
| 525.426 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 07 1990 16:40 | 26 |
| Re .420:
> . . . I would, therefore, give a strange woman, who claimed she
> didn't enjoy it, the benefit of the doubt, and think that probably she
> didn't.
The original complaints that were made about the dormitory anecdote
were that WE WERE NOT TOLD THE WOMAN CLAIMED SHE DID NOT ENJOY IT. Yet
some noters were jumping on others for not immediately assuming that
the woman did not consent.
> Somehow, saying most women don't like gang-bangs does not seem
> comparable to saying something like "most blacks are not as smart as
> whites" or "most jews are cheap" or other horrible racists statements.
I did NOT say there was anything wrong with saying MOST women do not
like group sex. I DID SAY there IS something wrong with assuming it is
unbelievable that a PARTICULAR woman does not like group sex JUST
BECAUSE the majority do not.
Stereotyping people is WRONG. It does not even matter if they
stereotyped characteristics DO or DO NOT apply to the majority --
including the minority in the stereotype is WRONG.
-- edp
|
| 525.427 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Wed Mar 07 1990 16:50 | 49 |
| RE: .423 edp
>> Giving "the benefit of the doubt" could fall into this category, as
>> you mention later in your note.
> But this is not about "the benefit of the doubt"; I'm not talking
> about assuming whether or not a person is honest. This was brought
> up in respect to making assumptions about a person's sexual
> practices, and assuming that because a supposed majority of people
> have certain preferences that a particular person MUST have those
> preferences is WRONG.
Perhaps you'd care to show me where anyone said that it was IMPOSSIBLE
that the woman in question wanted to be gang banged (since most women
don't seem to care for such things.) I thought people were saying it
was *unlikely* that the woman wanted it, not that she could not
*possibly* have wanted it since most women don't.
How about if someone starts telling me that a certain man likes
screwing baby goats. Would or would it not be giving him the benefit
of the doubt to say, "Well, very few people screw baby goats, so
I find it unlikely that this individual would fall into the small
minority of people who do such things."
>> How about if we give the woman involved in this rape the benefit of
>> the doubt (since none of us are members of the jury and are only
>> discussing it here as outsiders.)
>What on Earth can that phrase mean in this context? Are you going to
>give the accuser the benefit and thus find the accused guilty based
>upon the existence of doubt?
You can quote 'em, even if you don't read 'em, evidently.
How are we going to find anyone guilty when I've stated quite
specifically that WE ARE NOT ON THE JURY!!!!
>Suppose for a minute that you admit there is doubt about _everybody_
>involved in the case. You DO NOT KNOW whether or not the woman
>consent, and you DO NOT KNOW whether the men are guilty or not. GIVEN
>THAT INFORMATION, what conclusions do you draw?
Let's hope that you aren't implying that I should assume that the
woman wanted to be gang banged. (No, I'm not assuming that you are.)
The conclusion I would draw is that there is insufficient information
to draw a reliable conclusion as an outsider, but that the odds are
against the woman having wanted to be gang banged (so I would refrain
from suggesting this as being *likely*.)
|
| 525.428 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | We're more paranoid than you are. | Wed Mar 07 1990 16:54 | 7 |
| Hi Nancy; I'm osrry it took me so long to reply. I've been away, and/or
otherwise occupied.
I think the address he gave is his girlfriend, not the actual survivor. I'll be
glad to ask him, though it seems as if you've forged ahead without me (good
idea).
Mez
|
| 525.429 | ... | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Wed Mar 07 1990 17:05 | 36 |
| RE: .424 edp
>>When [someone] charaterizes Jews/blacks/women as being dishonest,
>>sneaky or stupid, is it stereotyping to think to oneself, "Wait a
>>minute! I've known *many* Jews/blacks/women who were definitely
>>*far* from being dishonest, sneaky or stupid! Something is wrong
>>with this characterization!"
>That is an example of NOT placing somebody in a stereotype. I support
>that. I do NOT support supposing that because somebody is in some
>group, they MUST have some characteristic that the majority of the
>group has.
Let's try my example again.
When someone characterizes women as being dishonest and sneaky (in
that they say women LIE about RAPE, rather than admit that they LIKE
things like being gang banged,) is it stereotyping to think to oneself,
"Wait a minute! I've known *many* women who were definitely *far*
from being dishonest or sneaky, and who would *never* seek out a gang
bang then lie about it later! Something is wrong with this
characterization!"
Didn't you know it is an unfair STEREOTYPE that "loose women who
say YES to all kinds of sex imaginable but change their minds and
cry rape against poor innocent men" are the ones involved in rape
cases???
Defense attorneys have been banking on this stereotype in court
for a long time. Where have *you* been?
It is not a stereotype to try to avoid falling into this unfair
stereotype by giving a woman the benefit of the doubt (as OUTSIDE
OBSERVERS IN THIS SITUATION.)
Clearer to you now, Eric?
|
| 525.430 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 07 1990 17:18 | 48 |
| Re .427:
> Perhaps you'd care to show me where anyone said that it was IMPOSSIBLE
> that the woman in question wanted to be gang banged (since most women
> don't seem to care for such things.)
In .389, Lorna said that we should _assume_ the woman did not consent.
That is in spite of the fact that there was no evidence the woman did
not consent, not even a statement in the report that she said she did
not. In .392, Linda said we should _assume_ the woman did not want the
sex "because we have the human capacity to empathize". Linda just
dismissed entirely the notion that the woman might have wanted the sex.
In .394, Peggy implies that Dianne is wrong "to argue that MAYBE JUST
MAYBE the woman did 'want it'" (emphasis mine).
> I thought people were saying it was *unlikely* that the woman
> wanted it, not that she could not *possibly* have wanted it since
> most women don't.
Saying something is unlikely is not the same as saying we should
_assume_ it is not true. If you think it is unlikely, then proceed
with that in mind -- don't just assume it is false. If you do not know
if a statement is true or false, you do not necessarily need to assume
whichever is more likely is true and proceed with that created belief
-- you can proceed with the thought that YOU DO NOT KNOW.
> Would or would it not be giving him the benefit of the doubt to
> say, "Well, very few people screw baby goats, so I find it unlikely
> that this individual would fall into the small minority of people
> who do such things."
I ask again: What does it mean to give the person the benefit of the
doubt? If, in these circumstances, giving the person the benefit of
the doubt means not accusing them of an illegal or immoral act because
you are not certain there is an illegal or immoral act, then, yes, you
would be giving the person in your example the benefit of the doubt.
> The conclusion I would draw is that there is insufficient information
> to draw a reliable conclusion as an outsider, but that the odds are
> against the woman having wanted to be gang banged (so I would refrain
> from suggesting this as being *likely*.)
Please explain to me how that gives the woman the benefit of the doubt.
Also, since there is doubt, please explain to me how you might give the
men the benefit of the doubt, supposing that you wanted to.
-- edp
|
| 525.431 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 07 1990 17:20 | 27 |
| Re .429:
> When someone characterizes women as being dishonest and sneaky (in
> that they say women LIE about RAPE, rather than admit that they LIKE
> things like being gang banged,) is it stereotyping to think to oneself,
> "Wait a minute! I've known *many* women who were definitely *far*
> from being dishonest or sneaky, and who would *never* seek out a gang
> bang then lie about it later! Something is wrong with this
> characterization!"
That is again an example of not stereotyping a person. I have already
said I support not stereotyping people.
> Didn't you know it is an unfair STEREOTYPE that "loose women who
> say YES to all kinds of sex imaginable but change their minds and
> cry rape against poor innocent men" are the ones involved in rape
> cases???
I fail to see how this is relevant in any way. I have NOT said that we
should assume any person is in such a stereotype.
Do you think that if I say we should not place a group of people into
one stereotype that I am therefore saying we should place them into
another?
-- edp
|
| 525.432 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Wed Mar 07 1990 17:42 | 41 |
| RE: .430 edp
>> Perhaps you'd care to show me where anyone said that it was IMPOSSIBLE
>> that the woman in question wanted to be gang banged (since most women
>> don't seem to care for such things.)
> In .389, Lorna said that we should _assume_ the woman did not consent.
> That is in spite of the fact that there was no evidence the woman did
> not consent, not even a statement in the report that she said she did
> not. In .392, Linda said we should _assume_ the woman did not want the
> sex "because we have the human capacity to empathize". Linda just
> dismissed entirely the notion that the woman might have wanted the sex.
> In .394, Peggy implies that Dianne is wrong "to argue that MAYBE JUST
> MAYBE the woman did 'want it'" (emphasis mine).
First off, it is important to point out that this is a different
case than the one with the mentally impaired woman (just to keep
things straight.)
Second, Linda "dismissed entirely the notion that the woman might
have wanted the sex" because she had ADDITIONAL INFORMATION about
the case that she chose not to present here (and you chose not to
notice when you found her reply, evidently.)
> Saying something is unlikely is not the same as saying we should
> _assume_ it is not true.
Giving someone the "benefit of the doubt" is an ASSUMPTION! If
you feel we should never make a positive ASSUMPTION about anyone,
then you ought to be arguing against giving the benefit of the
doubt *and* the fight against stereotypes.
> If, in these circumstances, giving the person the benefit of
> the doubt means not accusing them of an illegal or immoral act because
> you are not certain there is an illegal or immoral act, then, yes, you
> would be giving the person in your example the benefit of the doubt.
False accusations of rape are immoral and/or illegal, so assuming
that the woman did not do that is THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
Glad that's settled.
|
| 525.433 | How do you judge competancy? | OTOU01::BUCKLAND | and things were going so well... | Wed Mar 07 1990 17:44 | 17 |
| 525.434 | a positive stereotype but.... | SUBSYS::NEUMYER | FUBAR, Big time! | Wed Mar 07 1990 17:46 | 18 |
|
re. 420
> As far as edp, and his stereotype claim, I think it's far fetched
> here. Somehow, saying most women don't like gang-bangs does not
> seem comparable to saying something like "most blacks are not as
> smart as whites" or "most jews are cheap" or other horrible racists
> statements. For one thing, most women I have known don't like
> gang-bangs, whereas most blacks I have known are not stupid and
> most Jews I have known are not cheap. It's just not the same thing.
Just a nit here, but what I believe edp is saying the it is still
stereotypical to say that becuase if "most blacks are not stupid" then
it follows that "NO blacks are not stupid".
Again this is just my opinion of what edp is trying to say
ed
|
| 525.435 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Wed Mar 07 1990 17:47 | 14 |
| RE: .431 edp
> Do you think that if I say we should not place a group of people into
> one stereotype that I am therefore saying we should place them into
> another?
What you are doing is fighting the idea of others fighting an unfair
stereotype (because you have failed to recognize that this is what
is being done.)
Clearly, the women should be given the benefit of the doubt in this
conference (since we are NOT sitting on a jury.)
Labeling this "benefit of the doubt" a stereotype is preposterous.
|
| 525.436 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Wed Mar 07 1990 17:50 | 11 |
|
RE: .434 NEUMYER
> Just a nit here, but what I believe edp is saying the it is still
> stereotypical to say that becuase if "most blacks are not stupid" then
> it follows that "NO blacks are not stupid".
Yes, I agree that this is what he is trying to say, and also regard
it as *most inappropriate* in this discussion since no one has claimed
that there are NO women in the entire world who like group sex.
|
| 525.437 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 07 1990 18:27 | 34 |
| Re .432:
> First off, it is important to point out that this is a different
> case than the one with the mentally impaired woman (just to keep
> things straight.)
And that different case is what started this string, just to keep
things straight.
> Second, Linda "dismissed entirely the notion that the woman might
> have wanted the sex" because she had ADDITIONAL INFORMATION about
> the case that she chose not to present here (and you chose not to
> notice when you found her reply, evidently.)
BUT she was chastising Dianne for NOT coming to a conclusion WITHOUT
that information.
> Giving someone the "benefit of the doubt" is an ASSUMPTION!
No, it is not. You can give somebody the benefit of the doubt without
assuming what they are saying is true. You simply SUSPEND JUDGEMENT
and do not take action against the person.
> False accusations of rape are immoral and/or illegal, so assuming
> that the woman did not do that is THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.
>
> Glad that's settled.
You did not answer my question: What would it mean to give the men the
benefit of the doubt, supposing you wanted to? Also, could you give
both the woman and the men the benefit of the doubt? If so, how?
-- edp
|
| 525.438 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 07 1990 18:29 | 16 |
| Re .435:
> What you are doing is fighting the idea of others fighting an unfair
> stereotype (because you have failed to recognize that this is what
> is being done.)
You have misinterpreted my words. I am not fighting people fighting an
unfair stereotype. I am fighting an unfair stereotype.
> Clearly, the women should be given the benefit of the doubt in this
> conference (since we are NOT sitting on a jury.)
Please explain that.
-- edp
|
| 525.441 | thoughts from a devil's advocate | WMOIS::B_REINKE | if you are a dreamer, come in.. | Thu Mar 08 1990 00:50 | 29 |
| in re mental compency..
my 15 year old son is mildly retarded..
should he never have sex?
in re gang banging..
being a devils advocate here, by the way on both questions..
a common fantasy as reported by Nancy Friday in 'Forbidden Flowers'
and its sequel (more forbidden flowers?).... sex with more than
one man is a common fantasy among women...tho for most of us a fantasy
is a fantasy ...not something we act out..
so maybe this young woman had such a fantasy and was drunk enough
to let down her barriers and act it out, and things got away from her..
that is tragic and embarassing and painful but still not rape..
I'd suspect that there are a number of heterosexual women who
might enjoy hving two or more men spend time together telling her
and showing her how beautiful and wonderful and sexy she was..
at least as a fantasy..
so she might be tempted if 'high' or drunk to act out a day dream..
Bonnie
|
| 525.442 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Mar 08 1990 01:06 | 8 |
| Questions for Suzanne Conlon:
What would it mean to give the men the benefit of the doubt, supposing
you wanted to? Also, could you give both the woman and the men the
benefit of the doubt? If so, how?
-- edp
|
| 525.443 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Mar 08 1990 03:09 | 77 |
| RE: .437 edp
> And that different case is what started this string, just to keep
> things straight.
Meanwhile, people are still talking about the case with the mentally
impaired woman, so it's helpful to keep it in mind.
> BUT she was chastising Dianne for NOT coming to a conclusion WITHOUT
> that information.
When asked, "Without that information, why should we assume she
*didn't* want it?" - Linda replied, "Because we have the human
capacity to empathize."
Does that sound like chastising to you??? It doesn't to me. It
sounds more like a suggestion and/or an explanation.
>> Giving someone the "benefit of the doubt" is an ASSUMPTION!
>No, it is not. You can give somebody the benefit of the doubt without
>assuming what they are saying is true. You simply SUSPEND JUDGEMENT
>and do not take action against the person.
Ok, *some* benefits of the doubts are assumptions, then. What sort of
"benefit" would there be to "suspend judgment," after all, if there is
never any additional information forthcoming about the accusation
involved?
For example, getting back to the case of the man accused of screwing
baby goats: If we give him the benefit of the doubt, aren't we making
the assumption that it isn't true (or do we make him live under a
shadow for the rest of his life by deciding, "We will simply suspend
judgment about whether or not he screws baby goats until we know for
certain ONE WAY OR THE OTHER even if it takes the rest of our lives
to find out.") Not much charity in that, is there?
The "benefit of the doubt" is a gift - we choose to assume that some
hideous accusations about another person are not true (in light of the
lack of clear evidence that the accusations *are* true.)
>You did not answer my question: What would it mean to give the men the
>benefit of the doubt, supposing you wanted to? Also, could you give
>both the woman and the men the benefit of the doubt? If so, how?
As I mentioned, giving the benefit of the doubt is a gift. No one is
required to do it, although there certainly isn't a problem with
anyone making a *suggestion* that someone should be given the benefit
of the doubt.
As for the men involved with the mentally impaired woman, they've been
convicted of a crime, so it's quite a bit harder (for me, at least) to
give them the benefit of the doubt since their guilt has been "proven"
in a court of law.
As for the men involved with the dormitory situation (brought up by
Linda,) I don't have enough of the facts present to know if I can give
them the benefit of the doubt. I seem to recall that they were reported
to have thought she wanted the gang bang, which sounds a bit fishy to
me on the surface (since a commonly used defense for most rape cases
seems to be, "She wanted me to do it," even when the victim has been
beaten to a pulp.)
My hesitancy about giving these men the benefit of the doubt is not
because they are men, and certainly not because I think all men are
rapists (or anything remotely similar to that.)
My benefit of the doubt is a gift, and I hesitate to give it to
people accused of rape simply on the basis of their having said that
"the victim wanted it." (It's too common a rape defense for me to
believe it *without question*, and it has nothing to do with a
negative belief about men. If anything, it has to do with a negative
belief about lawyers, and our legal system.)
Luckily for the defendants in rape cases, they are NOT dependent on
my opinion as an outsider (nor do they probably care about whether or
not I am personally willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.)
|
| 525.445 | I can see it in a skit... | SYSENG::BITTLE | the promise of spring | Thu Mar 08 1990 03:19 | 35 |
|
After reading 1 newspaper account, the first thing I thought was
it sounded like section 213.1.b of the Model Penal Code would
apply.
What disturbed me the most about this case was that the judge
allowed the defense attorney(s) to submit as evidence and show
segments of the Dirty Dancing movie to the jury.
nancy b.
Note 961.2 -< Legal definitions from which states make laws >-
Model Penal Code
Section 213.1 Rape and Related Offenses
(1)Rape. A male who has sexual intercourse with a female
not his wife is guilty of rape if:
.
.
A man who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife
commits
a felony of the third degree if:
.
.
(b) he knows that she suffers from a mental disease or
defect
which renders her incapable of appraising the nature of
her conduct; or
.
.
|
| 525.446 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Mar 08 1990 03:31 | 31 |
| RE: .445 Nancy
> A man who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife
> commits
> a felony of the third degree if:
> .
> .
> (b) he knows that she suffers from a mental disease or
> defect
> which renders her incapable of appraising the nature of
> her conduct; or
Some years ago, I knew a man in college who spent time in jail
for this very offense. He and his friends used to play cards
with a man who would send the card players into the bedroom
in shifts to sleep with his wife during the game. (Both the
man and his wife were retarded.)
When the wife's mother went to their house one night, two or
three men were in bed with her daughter (so she called the cops.)
The men present (who'd had intercourse with the wife that night)
were convicted and sent to prison.
The man I knew was fully convinced of his own responsibility in
this situation - he knew the woman and her husband were both
retarded, and also knew he was breaking the law, but went ahead
and participated in nightly/weekly gang bangs anyway. He served
his time, and admitted (to me, personally) that his behavior was
a foolish mistake. He felt remorse, but no self-pity at all for
having served time for this crime.
|
| 525.447 | re: Suzanne's .446 (AKA ... barf.) | SYSENG::BITTLE | the promise of spring | Thu Mar 08 1990 04:09 | 8 |
|
Reverse peristalsis.
|
| 525.448 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Mar 08 1990 10:25 | 41 |
| Re .443:
> What sort of "benefit" would there be to "suspend judgment," . . .
The benefit is in not taking action against a person, because there is
doubt that there is reason to.
> If we give him the benefit of the doubt, aren't we making the
> assumption that it isn't true . . .
Not necessarily. As I said previously, one does not need to assume a
particular statement is true or false. A person can proceed without
making an assumption either way.
> . . . (or do we make him live under a shadow for the rest of his life
> by deciding, "We will simply suspend judgment about whether or not he
> screws baby goats until we know for certain ONE WAY OR THE OTHER even
> if it takes the rest of our lives to find out.")
Is that so difficult? Do you always have to act as if _maybe_ the
person is guilty (and thus be suspicious) or can you act as if _you do
not know_ (and thus not act suspicious)?
> Not much charity in that, is there?
I do not see anything wrong with that state.
> As for the men involved with the dormitory situation (brought up by
> Linda,) I don't have enough of the facts present to know if I can give
> them the benefit of the doubt.
I did not ask IF you could give them the benefit of the doubt. I asked
HOW you could give them the benefit of the doubt, supposing you wanted
to. In other words, if you decided to give them the benefit of the
doubt, what would you do? What you believe/say/do?
Also, I asked if you could give the benefit of the doubt to both the
woman and the men involved, simultaneously.
-- edp
|
| 525.449 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Mar 08 1990 11:32 | 35 |
| RE: .448 edp
> The benefit is in not taking action against a person, because there
> is doubt that there is reason to.
Well, I suppose that the "benefit" can be offered on a variety of
levels. A person could chose to give the "benefit of the doubt"
as an assumption of innocence. (There may not always be actions
that one could refrain from taking against the accused person.)
> Do you always have to act as if _maybe_ the person is guilty (and
> thus be suspicious) or can you act as if _you do not know_ (and thus
> not act suspicious)?
It's possible, but as a friend, I would offer the "benefit of the
doubt" (if at all feasible) in the form of an assumption of the
person's innocence.
If I were the one being accused, I would only consider those who
were able to offer me this assumption of innocence to be my true
friends. (Those who would say to me, "I am only willing to
suspend judgment about your guilt, meaning that I still consider
your innocence in doubt," would no longer be considered as much
my friends as those who were willing to have faith in my innocence.)
> In other words, if you decided to give them the benefit of the
> doubt, what would you do? What you believe/say/do?
The only way I see that it could be possible to give the alleged
(or convicted) rapists the benefit of the doubt at the same time
as the women would be to refrain from considering the guilt of
the rapists (or the truth of the charges against them) at all,
which would work in favor of the alleged (or convicted) rapists.
If I were willing to do this, of course...
|
| 525.450 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Mar 08 1990 11:51 | 10 |
| Re .449:
I see that you deleted your note and re-entered it. I wasn't going to
reply, since you had acknowledged the possibility of giving the benefit
of the doubt to both the accuser and the accused, but the change in
your note is interesting. Are you not very comfortable with the idea
of giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
-- edp
|
| 525.452 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Thu Mar 08 1990 11:57 | 27 |
| > After reading 1 newspaper account, the first thing I thought was
> it sounded like section 213.1.b of the Model Penal Code would
> apply.
> (b) he knows that she suffers from a mental disease or
> defect
> which renders her incapable of appraising the nature of
> her conduct; or
What did you read that lead you to believe that she was incapable of
rendering a competant decision to engage in sexual relations? What did
you read that lead you to believe that the impairment was such that a
normal person would be able to recognize this inability to make such
decisions?
All of the accounts I have read have glossed over the degree of her
impairment (which is the crucial factor in this case IMO because in no
account has it been indicated that the woman declined or resisted to
participate; indeed she is alleged to have initiated it.) All of the
reports I have read or seen have indicated that her impairment was
"mild." Since the implication that a 213.1.b conviction is that she
could never legally have sex with another person, I am loathe to see
that section used unless it applies strongly; it is in effect an
imposition on her as well. A damocles sword, if you will.
The Doctah
|
| 525.453 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Mar 08 1990 12:35 | 19 |
| RE: .450 edp
If you have questions about my actions involving a certain note,
do me the courtesy of asking me about it offline.
I really dislike unsolicited revelations like "AHA!! Caught you
editing again!" (with a few inuendos thrown in as to the motives
for it) when there is a simple explanation involved.
I removed the note to edit it for a typo. Unfortunately, I
realized too late that I'd already written another note in the
meantime, so I had to start .449 over from scratch (since a
"reply/last" no longer had the same text in it.)
Having already spent a considerable amount of time composing the same
note earlier, I was less enthusiastic the second time around, so
the note came out much shorter.
Ask me about these things offline next time.
|
| 525.454 | If she *did* want it, assuming she didn't doesn't count as beneficial | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Thu Mar 08 1990 12:45 | 55 |
| edp says:
> BUT she was chastising [Diana] for NOT coming to a conclusion WITHOUT
> that information.
Suzanne says:
When asked, "Without that information, why should we assume she
*didn't* want it?" - Linda replied, "Because we have the human
capacity to empathize."
Does that sound like chastising to you??? It doesn't to me. It
sounds more like a suggestion and/or an explanation.
It most certainly was chastising, if only by implication! The implication
was that "capacity to empathize" *should* yield the conclusion that the
dormitory-woman didn't want a gang-bang. The implication was that only
a *lack* of such a capacity would lead to any other conclusion, or in fact,
not making any assumption at all.
So in essence, Linda was saying that anyone (me included) who did not
automatically assume that the gang-bang was undesired was lacking in the
capacity to empathize.
Since in generally, ability to empathize is considered "good", and an
inability (or unwillingness) to empathize is considered "bad", she was
essentially chastising me (and anyone who agreed with me) by saying I
lacked empathy.
Frankly, I was offended. Whether she *intended* it was offensive or
chastisement doesn't really matter.
> The "benefit of the doubt" is a gift - we choose to assume that some
> hideous accusations about another person are not true (in light of the
> lack of clear evidence that the accusations *are* true.)
Suzanne, you choose to give the "benefit of the doubt" to the impaired-woman
by assuming that she did *not* want a gang-bang. Does that mean that
accusing her of wanting it is a "hideous accusation"? I am unclear why
it is considered more "beneficial" to assume she didn't want it than that
she did.
As I understand it, it was *her* who decided to press charges, but her mother.
Clearly if it was *her*, giving her the benefit of the doubt would mean
assuming she was telling the truth (since accusation of lying is a "hideous
accusation".) But since she didn't, why is one assumption more "beneficial"
than the other?
Similarly with the goat example. The fact that you assume it is more
beneficial to assume the man *doesn't* have sex with goats implies that there
is something "hideous" about having sex with goats. (Again, if he *said*
he doesn't do goats, then the benefit of the doubt clearly means believing
him. But in absence of that...)
Don't you think you are making a lot of value judgements in your assesment
of "beneficial"?
D!
|
| 525.455 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | these 4 lanes will take us anywhere | Thu Mar 08 1990 13:11 | 15 |
| Re .454, D! I don't understand what is wrong with making value
judgements. I don't understand what is wrong with thinking that
it is hideous for people to have sex with goats. I, also, don't
think it is wrong for me to think that it is hideous for a woman
to have/or want to have sex with 4 men. I have a right to that
opinion, and I have a right to assume that another woman might feel
the same way. You have a right to disagree with me, and there is
the possibility that I may be wrong in assuming another woman also
thinks that sex with 4 men or a goat is hideous. There is the
possibility that another woman might absolutely love having sex
with 4 men or 4 goats. However, I still think I have a right to
consider it hideous.
Lorna
|
| 525.456 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Thu Mar 08 1990 13:17 | 11 |
| Valuing differences, Lorna.
It's prefectly fine for you to make value judgements for your own
life. There is a gray area when you begin to make value judgements
about other people's lives. Some things we can all agree on- killing
other people is one (ok, most of us). Other things, bigamy,
homosexuality, etc are things that we might personally be disgusted
with, but we can't impose our beliefs on others. Like they say-
"everything is tolerated except iontolerance."
The Doctah
|
| 525.457 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Mar 08 1990 13:22 | 59 |
| RE: .454 D!
> It most certainly was chastising, if only by implication. The
> implication was that "capacity to empathize" *should* yield the
> conclusion that the dormitory-woman didn't want a gang-bang. The
> implication was that only a *lack* of such a capacity would lead
> to any other conclusion, or in fact, not making any assumption at all.
D!, I disagree that the simple statement about "having the capacity
to empathize" was an indictment of anyone who failed to empathize
with the woman in the dormitory in precisely the same way that the
author (and some of the rest of us) did.
You could probably build a nit-based case on the exact language
that she used in her statement, but I wonder how productive it
would be. When reading between the lines of someone's note,
so very much of it is subjective.
> Frankly, I was offended. Whether she *intended* it was offensive
> or chastisement doesn't really matter.
Your interpretation of her innocent comment offends me, too. So
I guess there is a lot of that going around. :)
> Suzanne, you choose to give the "benefit of the doubt" to the
> impaired-woman by assuming that she did *not* want a gang-bang.
> Does that mean that accusing her of wanting it is a "hideous
> accusation"? I am unclear why it is considered more "beneficial"
> to assume she didn't want it than that she did.
D!, I was responding to the supposed inequity assumed by another
noter while comparing an accusation such as "screwing baby goats"
with "consenting to a gang-bang in the dormitory, then charging
rape afterward" (in the specific discussion that Linda brought
up.) The implication was that the assumption that the woman didn't
want to have sex with a group of men didn't qualify as being "the
benefit of the doubt" since it was only a sexual practice, and not
an accusation as bad as that of "screwing baby goats."
My point was that the accusation of a false rape charge is every
bit as "damaging" as the accusation of "screwing baby goats," so
an assumption of innocence qualifies as the "benefit of the doubt."
> The fact that you assume it is more beneficial to assume the man
> *doesn't* have sex with goats implies that there is something
> "hideous" about having sex with goats. (Again, if he *said*
> he doesn't do goats, then the benefit of the doubt clearly means
> believing him. But in absence of that...)
My example about the man accused of having sex with baby goats
was meant to be the case where he emphatically denied that the
accusations were true. (Sorry if I neglected to make that clear.)
> Don't you think you are making a lot of value judgements in your
> assesment of "beneficial"?
My discussion assumes that the accusations are emphatically denied
by the persons being accused. I consider it "beneficial" to
believe that someone is telling the truth.
|
| 525.458 | that's | TLE::CHONO::RANDALL | On another planet | Thu Mar 08 1990 13:44 | 25 |
| 525.459 | A moral judgement against moral judgements | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Thu Mar 08 1990 13:47 | 49 |
| > I, also, don't
> think it is wrong for me to think that it is hideous for a woman
> to have/or want to have sex with 4 men.
I disagree. I think this is the crux of the matter, Lorna, and why your
original comments on this situation made my back arch and fur stand on
end (figuratively speaking, of course.)
You are very ready and willing to make value judgements about other
people's choice. No, I do not think it is "hideous for a woman to
want to have sex with four men." I don't think it is hideous for a
man to want to have sex with goats. (Seeing as how goats can't consent,
it probably is hideous for his to do it, but not to want to do it.)
In fact, I am *very* *very* hesitant to call someone *else's* desire
hideous.
Which isn't to say I never do. I think it is hideous to murder someone,
or even to want to murder someone. But in the case of a situation where
someone wants to do something or does something that hurts no one, I can't
see that you have a right to call it hideous. Because that word (and no,
I am not picking on that word, I have sensed this in other notes and
other words you have used) implies moral judgement.
And no, Lorna, I do *not* believe that you have the right to make a
moral judgement against a woman wanting to have sex with four men. Or
a man wanting to have sex with a woman along with three other men. Or
a person for wanting to do obscene things with antique lamp shades in
a vat of strawberry jello. Even if you don't *like* those things, even
if you think you would *die* before doing those things yourself.
I think the whole issue behind this discussion is our differing ideas
about making moral judgements about what *other* people do and want to do.
Throughout all the notes you have written about the Dirty Dancing situation,
there was an underlying tone that said "gang-bangs are *wrong*." Not
just wrong for me, not just a good guess that it is wrong for her, not
that they are unappealing or disgusting or unlikely or anything else, but
*wrong* in a moral, ethical sense. Bad. Regardless of whether everyone
involved wants it or not.
And I don't think you have the right to apply that moral judgement to
someone else's decisions that do not affect you or anyone else.
In other words, I think you are *wrong*. As someone said earlier, "anything
will be tolerated but intolerance."
Valueing Differences, Lorna, does not mean valuing someone's right not to
value someone else differences.
D!
|
| 525.460 | | NAVIER::SAISI | | Thu Mar 08 1990 13:51 | 37 |
| D!, you did say "Without that (additional) information". I can't
really remember (the Reagan defense!) if I as answering that you
would have empathized if you were there, or if I was thinking that
the information I gave was adequate, and assuming that no woman would
want to be in that situation as I described it. I apologize for
offending you. My dictionary defines
empathy as "Identification with and understanding of another's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
situation, feelings, and motives." I think it does have that element
of projection. I have never heard any woman (except in pornographic
fiction) speak of enjoying 6 men who are her peers and neighbors taking
turns screwing her (=no kissing, fondling, or change in her position)
while others of her neighbors and peers watched. The issue of
fantasies that Bonnie raised is IMHO a red herring. But I will
suspend disbelief that such a woman doesn't exist out there somewhere.
Anyway I thought it would be interesting to describe a situation,
giving out information in stages, and at what point does each person
make up their mind about the situation, and is your decision to:
1) Join in as a participant or spectator, 2) Intercede on the woman's
behalf (misinformed as you may be) by questioning the situation, 3)
Walk away assuming it is none of your business:
You are in your dorm room studying and hear a commotion in the hallway,
you open your door, and another dorm resident runs by saying, "A
bunch of guys are having sex with X." You have seen X in some of
your classes and in the cafeteria, but don't know her personally.
You follow the crowd and come to a dorm room (not hers) with the
door open. X is lying on the floor and another dorm resident is
screwing her. Other residents are gathered around watching.
You realize that other guys are lining up to take their turn.
You realize that X is not moving.
You realize that X has passed out.
|
| 525.461 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Mar 08 1990 13:56 | 19 |
| RE: .459 D!
While I do see your point about wanting to value the differences
of women who like sex with 4 men, or anyone who desires sex with
baby goats, I don't see it as a compelling reason to assume that
someone has done such things if they claim otherwise.
In rape cases, it is far more likely that the woman is claiming
that it happened against her will, such that an assumption about
her having consented to the act would amount to an accusation
that she lied.
Aside from that, since it seems likely that women who enjoy sex
with 4 men at a time (and people who desire sex with baby goats)
are in the minority, the odds alone are reason enough to cast a
bit of doubt on the truth of accusations such as those (whether
or not they are being vehemently denied.)
It's not a simple matter of value judgments, D!
|
| 525.462 | | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | these 4 lanes will take us anywhere | Thu Mar 08 1990 14:09 | 24 |
| re .456, Mark, right, I understand that, and that's why I would
never vote for a law that would make it illegal for a woman to have
sex with 4 men, or with 4 goats.
re .459, D!, I disagree with you. I think you and I disagree about
the difference between *opinion* and *valuing differences.* I would
never try to put through a law that would prevent group sex, or
sex with animals, nor would I ever refuse to hire a person, or rent
an apartment to a person, nor would I ever be willfully rude to
a person because I knew they engaged in group sex or in sex with
animals. Therefore, I think I am abiding by the *valuing differences*
philosophy as set forth by Digital. However, I still believe that
I have a right to my opinion. Nobody can tell me that I don't have
a right to my personal opinion as long as I don't use my opinion
as a justification to limit another person's freedom.
D! it does not anger me that you do not find gang-bangs or sex with
goats disgusting. I am perfectly happy to live in a world where
you hold the opinion that these acts are not disgusting. I don't
think these acts should be illegal, however, I, personally, find
them disgusting.
Lorna
|
| 525.463 | Question, *always* question! | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Thu Mar 08 1990 14:31 | 78 |
| > 1) Join in as a participant or spectator, 2) Intercede on the woman's
> behalf (misinformed as you may be) by questioning the situation, 3)
> Walk away assuming it is none of your business:
Well, the situation doesn't work for me, because I would probably choose
3) right away, and never enter the room in the first place, or pursue the
issue enough to seek out the situation. But assuming for some reason I
happen to be *passing* by the room in question, or for some other reason
I am there...
> You realize that X is not moving.
Here I question whether 1) she is alive, 2) she is consensual, and
3) she is concious. The "question" would probably involve looking at
her closely, speaking to her, asking the spectators if they could
describe how this came to be, etc. Upon doing so I would discover that...
> You realize that X has passed out.
(BTW, by your scenario, how would I "realize" that unless I took an
active stance of looking for that information.)
Having discovered that, I would attempt to stop the situation by
whatever means seemed most appropriate...physically removing the men,
calling the Resident Associate, calling the police, or whatever.
I have a problem with your phrasing, and what appears to be a misinterpretation
of what I have said:
>2) Intercede on the woman's
> behalf (misinformed as you may be) by questioning the situation
"Questioning" is not wrong or misinformed. Nor is it intervention. I
would not *intercede* until the *last* part of the scenario described above.
I would *question* (either to myself, with my actions, or verbally) long
before that. (In fact, I would probably "question", to the extent that
I would wonder if it was *truly* consensual when I first heard about the
incident.) I havenever suggested that it was wrong to pursue the
possibility that a gang-bang is non-consensual. In fact, given the
high probability (as everyone has pointed out) that she doesn't want it,
it might even be considered wrong *not* to consider the possibility that
she doesn't want it.
To give a real life example:
There was one time in college that I heard the girl in the room next to me
yelling and carrying on quite loudly, and I wandered over there to see
if she needed help. (The door was ajar.) I knocked and got no answer,
but the noise continued, so I peeked in. The girl was in there with two
boys on her bed, all in partial states of undress, and she was responding
loudly to their touches. I couldn't tell if the response was positive or
negative though, so I cleared my throat, and they all looked up...
So you see, I do *question*. But I didn't assume one way or another. I
didn't barge in and "defend her". But because the situation seemed a little
fishy though, I also didn't ignore her. Because it didn't seem *likely*
that the noises were positive. So I am not suggesting that one assume
*anything*!
(Oh, you want to know what happened? It's really not relevent, you know.
The point was that I made no assumptions, but still acted on likelihoods.
Whatever it turned, I did what I thought was best. But to appease your
curiosity, what happened after I looked in was that they all looked terribly
embarassed, and the guys looked awfully *guilty*, and she said "Don't
worry, I'm okay, we'll be quieter, sorry." Apparantly she knew right off
why I was there, which made me feel better. I found out later that one of
the boys was her boyfriend, so clearly this situation is not like the one
Linda described, but the point remains.)
There have been a few times *I* have been in that situation, especially
at parties. Once, I was doing something that *really* didn't look consensual.
An aquaintence pushed my partner out of the way and said "You okay? You
need help?" I assured him I didn't. I was not upset, I thought his
behavior was appropriate given the information he had, and he left us alone
once I said we were alright. Another time I *wasn't* alright, and someone
said "Do you need help?" and I said *yes*. And he helped. And I was very,
very grateful. You *can* do the right thing without making assumptions.
D!
|
| 525.464 | | RANGER::TARBET | | Thu Mar 08 1990 14:49 | 8 |
| D, Lorna has illuminated the "valuing differences" principle exactly in
her .462: there is NOTHING wrong with making value judgements, it's
part of the human condition. The difference comes when, as Lorna says,
someones tries to translate their personal values into law. Then the
ground is *much* shakier, and issues of individual -vs- societal rights
come into play.
=maggie
|
| 525.465 | More to value judgements than just legality | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Thu Mar 08 1990 14:55 | 66 |
| Suzzane,
> baby goats, I don't see it as a compelling reason to assume that
> someone has done such things if they claim otherwise.
I didn't say it was. In fact, I said explicitly that giving the benefit
of the doubt involves assuming people are tellingthe truth. Where are
you getting this?
> It's not a simple matter of value judgments, D!
I was responding to Lorna's value judgement, when she said sex with four
men was "hideous". He statement *was* a simple matter of value judgements.
Lorna,
> I have a right to my opinion. Nobody can tell me that I don't have
> a right to my personal opinion as long as I don't use my opinion
> as a justification to limit another person's freedom.
The ways in which a moral judgement can limit other people's freedom
is not limited to simply *laws*. Moral judgements are pervasive and
subtle in the way they affect the lives of those you are judging.
For instance, take the "benefit of the doubt" issue. Say that you feel
X is *wrong* and *immoral*. Say that A is accused of doing X. (A has
not responded to the accusations, or you don't know A's response, or whatever.)
Say that you take Suzanne's advice that we should give A the benefit of
the doubt. to *you* the benefit of the doubt would mean assuming that
A hasn't done something *wrong*, therefore A hasn't done X. But the
"beneficialness" of that assumption rests on X's wrongness. If you hadn't
thought of X as wrong to begin with, then giving A the "benefit of the
doubt" wouldn't yield any assumptions at all. What results is a bias
on your part against the idea that A actually did X. (A may not
consider X to be wrong, and might not be happy to know that you assume
s/he didn't do X just because *you* think it is wrong.)
In other words, your judgements about right and wrong will affect your
assumptions and actions regarding other people, even if you are not
actively discriminating *against* people who do those things.
> D! it does not anger me that you do not find gang-bangs or sex with
> goats disgusting.
Whoa, hold on just a second here!!
first, There is difference between "wrong" and "disgusting". I can be
repulsed by something without thinking it is *bad*. As I said in another
note, I used to think menses were disgusting, but I certainly didn't think
they were wrong. I think the removal of vericose veins is disgusting -
I saw a show about it on TV once and I almost threw-up! But clearly, such
removal is not *bad*. I think eating eggplant is disgusting; I think
brushing your teeth with baking soda is disgusting. It think going to
Friday the 13th Part N is disgusting. But not *wrong*.
Secondly, why is it that people (not just you) automatically assume that
*defending* something means that I do that thing myself, or like it, or
whatever. Being pro-equal rights doesn't make you black or a woman or
homsexual. Advocating tolerance doesn't mean I participate in gang bangs
or like the idea of sex with animals. (Doesn't mean I *don't*, either.
This is not a disclaimer.)
This is a disclaimer: I think sex with animals is disgusting. If I
ever saw it happen, I would most certainly turn away, get nauseous, etc.
I would never *do* it. But I don't think it is ethically wrong to want
to. (Actually that is debateably, given the inability of animals to
consent, but you get my point.)
D!
|
| 525.466 | | NAVIER::SAISI | | Thu Mar 08 1990 15:12 | 26 |
| >Well, the situation doesn't work for me, because I would probably choose
>3) right away, and never enter the room in the first place, or pursue the
>issue enough to seek out the situation.
That was one of the points of the question, how much information
does it take for you to form an idea about the situation, and
based on that idea what would you do.
>"Questioning" is not wrong or misinformed. Nor is it intervention...
> In fact, given the
>high probability (as everyone has pointed out) that she doesn't want it,
>it might even be considered wrong *not* to consider the possibility that
>she doesn't want it.
That is all I was trying to say in my original foray into this
discussion! To an extent, when one takes action, one is acting
on an assumption, or more accurately one is acting on a theory.
I suppose it was a mistake for me to answer the question you posed
of "Why should we assume" without rephrasing it. (Do all these
discussions end up with semantics?)
The thing that bothered me about the original situation as I
described it was that not one of the male participants *questioned* the
consensuality of the situation enough to intercede, or they didn't
care if it was consensual or not. Which showed to me a big gap
in understanding between me (a women) and the participants (some men)
as to what women want, or a big gap about what is acceptable treatment
of another human being.
|
| 525.467 | My Fully Thought Rational Position on Goats Is: | VIA::HEFFERNAN | Juggling Fool | Thu Mar 08 1990 15:33 | 13 |
| Personally, I find sex with goats disgusting unless:
1) There is only one goat.
2) The goat is sober and in full posession of its facilities
including hooves and goat breath.
3) The goat does not insist on playing any videos.
4) It is consentual and the goat is over 20 goat year old.
NOW, IS THIS POSITION IMMORAL, ILLEGAL OR JUST PLAIN FATTENING???
;-)
PS: Whatever floats your goat is fine with me.
|
| 525.468 | yes, judgements do affect others
| TLE::CHONO::RANDALL | On another planet | Thu Mar 08 1990 15:33 | 29 |
| re: .466
> (Do all these discussions end up with semantics?)
No, but you have to get through the semantics -- making sure you're all
talking about the same thing, using the same terms to mean the same things --
before you can get on to discussing the real issues. I had missed your
point about nobody even questioning what was happening.
re: .465
>The ways in which a moral judgement can limit other people's freedom
>is not limited to simply *laws*. Moral judgements are pervasive and
>subtle in the way they affect the lives of those you are judging.
This is an important point. When Kat was a baby, nobody told me
it was illegal to have a child out of wedlock. But plenty of them
took time to let me know that it was wrong -- wrong of me to have had
sex in the first place, wrong of me to have kept her as if I were
a decent woman. I seem to recall the words "disgusting how few morals
you young people have" from an older relative.
It didn't make my life any easier, let me tell you.
Now she had a right to think that, and say that, but I wish she had
thought twice before she said it, and been a little more charitable
about it.
--bonnie
|
| 525.469 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Thu Mar 08 1990 15:56 | 42 |
| Linda-
The point that was made (and debated and ratholed) about your initial
recounting of the story was that you did not tell us that the sex was
nonconsentual but expected us to come to the conclusion that it was
wrong on basis of our ability to empathise. And if we were sitting
around talking, you'd find that alot of people would have indeed
assumed it was nonconsentual by interpreting the nuances of the way you
told the story- your facial features, your tone of voice, particular
adjectives you used etc. However, with the written medium, our gut
level responses end up being replaced by a more careful examination of
the facts and a more accurate assessment- for several reasons. We are
able to go back and read the facts as many times as we like. We lose
many of the nuances of how you tell the story (though we tend to
imagine your voice when we read it). And finally, because our responses
are more or less permanent, the serve to demonstrate alot about us. And
that can be a demonstration of "jumping to conclusions," "reacting
emotionally," "reacting logically," "showing careful judgement," or any
other number of things. Since a vital piece of information was missing
(though hinted at due to the context IMO), making the assumption which
you wanted us to make would not have shown a propensity to logical
analysis (which is why, I believe, the backlash started).
That said, let us examine the whole scenario (as now described).
If for whatever reason I decided to "follow the crowd" to the dorm
room in question and became a spectator (rather unlikely but within the
realm of possibility), I would have certainly noticed if the woman was
passed out. I think my initial reaction would be to stop the act, by
utilizing verbal methods. Should that fail to produce results, an
attempot to physically restrain the participants would have ensued. If
this also failed, I would just leave (and get the authorities ASAP).
This is how I'd handle things.
I would have an extremely difficult time ever being able to respect
the participants or the spectators again, regardless of my opinions of
the woman in question. Such an act displays a baseness of behavior, a
recklessness and complete disregard for the rights of others that I
begin to see red. I will never understand why people do things like
that. I'd better stop now...
The Doctah
|
| 525.471 | cowardice speaking | TLE::CHONO::RANDALL | On another planet | Thu Mar 08 1990 17:13 | 10 |
| I'd feel awfully powerless and scared. I mean, what if they decided ot
start on me next? What can I do about a large group like that?
I admit it, I'd worry about getting myself out first. Then, if I could
do so safely, I'd probably call some kind of authorities -- the dorm
resident or campus police.
But I might be too scared of retribution to do even that.
--bonnie
|
| 525.472 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Makaira Indica | Thu Mar 08 1990 17:29 | 14 |
| > -< It has been an awful long time since I was that age, but >-
Well, it's only been a few years for me. :-)
> I don't believe that your reactions are the reactions of the typical
> college age boy.
Maybe not. I never could see why people would do things that they KNEW
would hurt others, but it still remains a prett popular pastime. :-(
Thankfully, I have never been in such a situation, so maybe this is
"sitting behind the terminal thinking."
The Doctah
|
| 525.473 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Mar 08 1990 18:12 | 55 |
| RE: .465 D!
> Say that you take Suzanne's advice that we should give A the
> benefit of the doubt.
It wasn't my advice. I wrote notes defending the right of someone
else to suggest that "the benefit of the doubt" be given, but I
wasn't part of the original discussion about whether the "benefit
of the doubt" *should* be given or not.
> But the "beneficialness" of that assumption rests on X's wrongness.
> If you hadn't thought of X as wrong to begin with, then giving A the
> "benefit of the doubt" wouldn't yield any assumptions at all.
You're ready WAY too much into giving someone the benefit of the
doubt.
Let me give you another example. If someone told me that a co-worker
was gay - now hear me out and read this carefully! - I would refrain
from assuming that the person is actually gay (and would give the
person the benefit of the doubt that s/he is not.) Keep reading,
and don't extract this until you find out why, ok?
It's definitely *NOT* that I think there is anything wrong wih being
gay! It's just that I *do* think people are entitled to their
privacy, so unless the person came up and told me him/herself that
s/he is gay, I can't assume that the person wanted me to know her/his
sexuality EITHER WAY!!! So the person's PRIVACY would get the benefit
of the doubt (without implying AT ALL that I personally think it's
bad or wrong to be gay.)
How would I say this to make it clear to the person telling me this
information - well, I don't always CLUE EVERYONE IN when I give
the benefit of the doubt, first off. If I did say something, it
would probably be along the lines of how X is a nice person, and
there is certainly nothing wrong or bad about being gay, but that
I'd wait to hear about X's private life when s/he decided to tell
me him/herself.
Giving the benefit of the doubt is not always a gift for the
reason of considering the information negative. Therefore, giving
the benefit of the doubt does not creat a bias against a behavior
that causes someone to give the benefit of the doubt.
>>D! it does not anger me that you do not find gang-bangs or sex with
>>goats disgusting.
> Whoa, hold on just a second here!!
D!, please refrain from quoting two people's notes in the same reply
without accurately identifying the author of each quote, ok? (One
could assume that I wrote the above, based on your having addressed
the note to me, and as you know, it was written by someone else.)
Thanks.
|
| 525.474 | Lorna and Suzanne, I often get the mixed up you know ;-) | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Thu Mar 08 1990 18:52 | 33 |
| > You're ready WAY too much into giving someone the benefit of the
> doubt.
No I'm not. Would you not agree that *if* you considered X to be bad,
and *if* you were giving someone the benefit of the doubt, that you
would, indeed, assume that they had *not* done X?
Anyway, that example was intended for Lorna, and not in response to
your "benefit of the doubt" discussion. (Your comment that giving the
benefit of the doubt mean assuming they were telling the truth, rather
than assuming they hadn't done something satisfied me and I saw no need
to continue the discussion, since we were in agreement.)
I wasn't implying that *your* discussion of "benefit of the doubt" involved
moral judgement. It was just a handy example of a type of situation where
*if* someone was making moral judgements, how those judgements would affect
their perceptions and actions.
> D!, please refrain from quoting two people's notes in the same reply
> without accurately identifying the author of each quote, ok?
Suzanne, please go back and read my note. The part where I was responding
to you, I started with "Suzanne, ...". The part where I was responding to
Lorna I started with "Lorna, ...". I thought having those two words
adequately explained the quotes and my responses.
>(One
> could assume that I wrote the above, based on your having addressed
> the note to me, and as you know, it was written by someone else.)
I addressed the first half of thenote to you, and the second half to Lorna.
D!
|
| 525.475 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Mar 08 1990 19:14 | 41 |
| RE: .474 D!
>> You're ready WAY too much into giving someone the benefit of the
>> doubt.
> No I'm not. Would you not agree that *if* you considered X to be
> bad, and *if* you were giving someone the benefit of the doubt, that
> you would, indeed, assume that they had *not* done X?
The benefit of the doubt assumes the kindest perception of the
situation, and the most realistic, usually.
It is usually "kindest" to refrain from believing everything that
gets spread around about someone else, especially if the behaviors
being discussed have any sort of negative connotation in our culture,
whether we personally find the behaviors "bad/wrong" or not.
A person could find nothing at all wrong with screwing baby goats (and
might practice goat-romance him/herself,) but could *still* offer the
benefit of the doubt to someone else accused of it (for the fact of
the rarity of people who do this sort of thing, if nothing else.)
More than anything else, I see the benefit of the doubt as a guard
of someone else's privacy (by refraining to believe what others
have said about the person in the absence of corroboration from
the individual and/or furthur evidence.)
> The part where I was responding to you, I started with "Suzanne, ..."
> The part where I was responding to Lorna I started with "Lorna, ..."
> I thought having those two words adequately explained the quotes
> and my responses.
Obviously, I thought those two words were inadequate, or I wouldn't
have brought it up. (Right?)
Next time, try dividing your note into sections that reference both
a reply number and a name:
RE: .xxx Ms. X
then
RE: .xxx Ms. Y
|
| 525.476 | | BEING::POSTPISCHIL | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Mar 08 1990 19:21 | 19 |
| Re .449:
> The only way I see that it could be possible to give the alleged
> (or convicted) rapists the benefit of the doubt at the same time
> as the women would be to refrain from considering the guilt of
> the rapists (or the truth of the charges against them) at all,
> which would work in favor of the alleged (or convicted) rapists.
And if they are not guilty, there is nothing wrong with something
working in their favor -- that's the point of giving them the benefit
of the doubt.
> If I were willing to do this, of course...
How willing are you to give accused rapists (in any given situation)
the benefit of the doubt?
-- edp
|
| 525.477 | *Last* reply to Suzanne regarding "benefit of the doubt". Period. | TLE::D_CARROLL | Juggle naked | Thu Mar 08 1990 19:23 | 25 |
| > The benefit of the doubt assumes the kindest perception of the
> situation, and the most realistic, usually.
[...]
> More than anything else, I see the benefit of the doubt as a guard
> of someone else's privacy (by refraining to believe what others
> have said about the person in the absence of corroboration from
> the individual and/or furthur evidence.)
But that isn't the point and isn't what I asked. Regardless of what *other*
situations would *also* make you doubt what you had heard, but you not consider
it "giving the benefit of the doubt" to *not* believe it if someone tells you
A did X, *if* you consider X is bad?
This example *really* had nothing to do with *all* that constitutes
"beneficial". It was just one example of one situation where one type of
"benefit" and "doubt" exist. There are others. I don't care.
> Obviously, I thought those two words were inadequate, or I wouldn't
> have brought it up. (Right?)
Right. However, I still think they were adequate. Oh well, c'est la vie,
and all that.
D!
|
| 525.478 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Thu Mar 08 1990 19:36 | 17 |
| RE: .476 edp
> And if they are not guilty, there is nothing wrong with something
> working in their favor -- that's the point of giving them the benefit
> of the doubt.
No one on the outside of a legal case is required to offer the gift
of the benefit of the doubt, though.
> How willing are you to give accused rapists (in any given situation)
> the benefit of the doubt?
As an outsider to the personal or legal situation involved, I'm
not often willing to give this particular gift.
In no way am I *obligated* to give this gift unless I choose to do
so voluntarily (as an outsider.)
|
| 525.479 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | the promise of spring | Sun Mar 11 1990 20:25 | 43 |
| re: .452 (Mark Levesque)
>> After reading 1 newspaper account, the first thing I thought
>> was it sounded like section 213.1.b of the Model Penal Code
>> would apply.
>> (b) he knows that she suffers from a mental disease or
>> defect which renders her incapable of appraising the
>> nature of her conduct; or
> What did you read that lead you to believe that she was
> incapable of rendering a competant decision to engage in
> sexual relations?
The way the mental condition was described made it seem as though
she was in a condition (at the time of the alleged rape) where
her mental facilities were definitely and seriously affected as
the result of some accident.
> What did you read that lead you to believe that the impairment
> was such that a normal person would be able to recognize this
> inability to make such decisions?
They described her as "retarded". I am able to sense when a
person I encounter could be retarded. Spending a few moments
with that person, and a answer is usually obvious. If she was
indeed "retarded" as the media described her, I think it would
have been apparent.
Mark, I never said Section 213.1.b _should_ have been applied in
this case. I merely said that my first thought upon hearing of a
rape case with a retarded woman was that section 213.1.b _would_
be applicable. Applicable, as in, that would be the part of the
law (if MA did indeed adopt that part of the Model Penal Code)
that the lawyers would be arguing about. Section 213.1.b would
be the point of contention - whether her impairment was of
sufficient degree, whether the men knew of her impairment, etc...
Yet, you reacted to my reply as though I was saying 213.1.b
should definitely have been used to convict the men.
nancy b.
|
| 525.480 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Itchin' to go fishin' | Mon Mar 12 1990 12:31 | 36 |
| > They described her as "retarded". I am able to sense when a
> person I encounter could be retarded. Spending a few moments
> with that person, and a answer is usually obvious. If she was
> indeed "retarded" as the media described her, I think it would
> have been apparent.
Ok- this begs the question, "How are you able to determine when a
person is retarded to the degree where you must override their apparent
wishes because you deem them to be unqualified to make such decisions?"
> Mark, I never said Section 213.1.b _should_ have been applied in
> this case. I merely said that my first thought upon hearing of a
> rape case with a retarded woman was that section 213.1.b _would_
> be applicable.
I guess I don't see the difference. To me, if someone says "I believe
the law against crime n is applicable in this situation," I take that
to mean that they believe a crime has been committed. In the case of
serious crime, one presumes that such a statement indictates a belief
that said crime ought to be prosecuted using the applicable law. Since
the idea of speaking about an activity in terms of being in violation
of a certain statute generally occurs as a belief that the offending
party has indeed violated the statute, one would tend to believe that
you would expect the offending party to be convicted of violating the
statute (otherwise why bring it up?)
Now you are saying that you thought the statute would be applicable in
this case. Do you continue to hold this view? If you do, would it be
unreasonable to believe that you would expect the offending parties to
be convicted of violating said statute in a court of law?
I guess I'm confused by your assetion that the section would be
applicable but that you did not necessarily think it should be applied.
Do you or don't you think it should be applied? Why or why not?
The Doctah
|
| 525.481 | pretty simple, eh? | DECWET::JWHITE | keep on rockin', girl | Mon Mar 12 1990 17:28 | 11 |
|
re:525.408
> I think it is unethical for a more powerful person to have sex with
> a less powerful person.
>> That is pretty all encompassing. Every sexual union must be forged on
>> equal power or it is unethical?
yes.
|
| 525.483 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Alone is not a venture | Mon Mar 12 1990 19:16 | 17 |
| >> That is pretty all encompassing. Every sexual union must be forged on
>> equal power or it is unethical?
> yes.
Well, excuse me if I think that's just a bit ridiculous. Now I'm sure
that you have never personally had sex with anyone who is smaller than
you, weaker than you, less intelligent than you, less musically
inclined, etc etc ad nauseum, right? I find that practically impossible
to believe.
The Doctah
ps- I also assume that you've never had sex with anyone who had a
higher BAC than you, right? In fact, they were always exactly the same,
right? Neato!
|
| 525.484 | | GEMVAX::KOTTLER | | Mon Mar 12 1990 19:24 | 1 |
| We may need a definition of power in this specific context.
|
| 525.485 | on power imbalances | CADSYS::PSMITH | foop-shootin', flip city! | Mon Mar 12 1990 19:48 | 22 |
| re: .484, Yes, unfortunately...
We apparently do need to define what is meant by "power". What's being
done is a reducto ad absurdum (I think) (for the Logic 101 buffs like
me). ANY argument can be made ridiculous.
Obviously what is meant by "there should not be a power imbalance" is
that one person should not have AND USE an obvious advantage over
another person. Does this definition seem reasonable?
In other words,
o Your boss should not be allowed to coerce you into sex, using
influence or threats to do so.
o A stronger person should not coerce a physically weaker person into
sex, using strength or threats to do so.
o A person should not knowingly use or dupe a mentally handicapped
person into sex, using manipulation or threats to do so.
Pam
|
| 525.486 | Jane and Mary and Harry (and Arnold and Gertrude...) | TLE::D_CARROLL | Watch for singing pigs | Mon Mar 12 1990 22:03 | 46 |
| > We apparently do need to define what is meant by "power". What's being
> done is a reducto ad absurdum (I think) (for the Logic 101 buffs like
> me). ANY argument can be made ridiculous.
Yes. Reductio ad absurdum - proving an argument is invalid by applying the
same logic to a different but true set of premises and yielding a false
conclusion. That does appear to be what is happening. And it is a valid
way of disproving an argument. And it isn't true that it works on *any*
argument, only on invalid ones. (Talk about Logic 101 buffs!)
Anyway, this isn't a lesson in logic. Wht I am trying to say is that you
can't dismiss extremes but use the same logic in non extreme cases. If
it is as simple as Joe White says, that it is *always* unethical to have
sex with someone with a power imbalance, (whatever the definition of power)
then it has to work in *all* cases, or the statement is incorrect, and
must be modified so that it is only applied to those cases where it works.
(Such as "...when a large [however that is defined] power imbalance exists"
or "...when the imblance in power is used to influence one of the persons.".)
> Obviously what is meant by "there should not be a power imbalance" is
> that one person should not have AND USE an obvious advantage over
> another person. Does this definition seem reasonable?
It does, but it is not obvious that that is "what is meant". In fact, I
said this quite a while back, that it wasn't the imbalance in power but the
*use* of that power that makes it unethical. The Doctah agreed with me (I
think) and Joe *disagreed* with him. Joe thinks it is "simple" and has not
modified the clause to include the bit about "use".
Should we define "power"? I don't think it is necessary. Do we all agree
that, for instance, a boss has power over an employee? Alright, if we do,
then what about the situation where the boss and the employee are in love,
and have been for quite some time, perhaps even since before they were boss
and employee. Maybe Mary is a secretary to Harry, and Jane was dating Mary.
Then Harry quits, and Jane gets moved into his job. According to this
theory, Jane and Mary should stop having sex.
I disagree that it would be *unethical* for them to continue having sex.
If you disagree, then we have a case of "irreconcilable differences" and
I think there is no further need to discuss this.
(BTW, lots of arguments can be made that Mary should quit or Jane should
quit or whatever...but even having sex *once*, while the situation is being
resolved, is considered unethical.)
D!
|
| 525.487 | this should not be so difficult | DECWET::JWHITE | keep on rockin', girl | Mon Mar 12 1990 22:37 | 23 |
|
If it is as simple as Joe White says, that it is *always* unethical to have
sex with someone with a power imbalance, (whatever the definition of power)
then it has to work in *all* cases, or the statement is incorrect, and
must be modified so that it is only applied to those cases where it works.
>so far, it works in all cases as far as i know.
I said this quite a while back, that it wasn't the imbalance in power but the
*use* of that power that makes it unethical. The Doctah agreed with me (I
think) and Joe *disagreed* with him.
>i do not know to which exchange you are referring.
Should we define "power"? I don't think it is necessary. Do we all agree
that, for instance, a boss has power over an employee? Alright, if we do,
then what about the situation where the boss and the employee are in love,
and have been for quite some time, perhaps even since before they were boss
and employee....
>i guess i must refine the definition of power to mean the power
>within the relationship; 'personal' power, if you will.
|
| 525.488 | More def'n on "personal power" needed | TLE::D_CARROLL | Watch for singing pigs | Tue Mar 13 1990 01:19 | 48 |
| Joe:
>i guess i must refine the definition of power to mean the power
>within the relationship; 'personal' power, if you will.
That's different. And interesting. I think it is *closer* to something
I would agree with, but not yet.
I think of marriages where the husband is "in charge". he makes the
money and decides how it is spent, when in disagreement his decision
prevails, etc. This doesn't seem all that unusual. I wouldn't be
caught dead in such a relationship, I doubt many women here would. But
some women have been raised to feel that that is their pride and duty in
life; they *want* it, they are happy with that, would be unhappy
without it.
Would you agree this situation constitutes "personal power"?
I think the man and wife described above should be allowed to have sex if
they wish.
Also, when you start talking about "personal power" things get a little
fuzzy. How much personal power is inherent, and how much is willful and
voluntary? Does your statement still hold if the imbalance in power
arises from informed consent and decision on the part of both people, who
were equals when the decision was made (eg: the marriage described above,
and, of course, any sex involving dominance and submission)?
Also, you still haven't anwered the question others have posed. What
about physical power? That seems as personal as you can get. That is the
only power (maybe intelligence too) that exists in bed, between two people,
the rest of the world forgotten for the moment. Two people together, body
to body, alone, in a private world for a short amount of time - and
the stronger person, and the more intelligent person, has a very real, very
defineable and very personal power over the other person.
------------------
Back in my younger days, when I found alcohol necessary for sex (and a
number of other things) I would often be with a guy, decide ahead of time
I wanted to sleep with him, discuss it with him, and *then* get drunk.
At the time sex occured, he had "personal power" over me. But I don't
think he was doing anything unethical. (granted, I was doing something
incredibly damaging to myself through my dependence on alcohol, etc, but
I made the decision to do so with full capacity to make decisions.) Was
he wrong?
D!
|
| 525.492 | | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Tue Mar 13 1990 02:20 | 9 |
|
RE: .489 Mike Z.
> We don't need a defintion of absurd radical extremism.
> We've got examples.
We've also got plenty of examples of the malicious use of convenient
stereotypes, so we can do without another.
|
| 525.493 | most respectfully | DECWET::JWHITE | keep on rockin', girl | Tue Mar 13 1990 02:30 | 72 |
|
re:.488
That's different. And interesting. I think it is *closer* to something
I would agree with, but not yet.
I think of marriages where the husband is "in charge". he makes the
money and decides how it is spent, when in disagreement his decision
prevails, etc. This doesn't seem all that unusual. I wouldn't be
caught dead in such a relationship, I doubt many women here would. But
some women have been raised to feel that that is their pride and duty in
life; they *want* it, they are happy with that, would be unhappy
without it.
Would you agree this situation constitutes "personal power"?
> yes
I think the man and wife described above should be allowed to have sex if
they wish.
> i wouldn't 'allow' or 'disallow' at all. as for it being immoral, i
> think it probably is.
Also, when you start talking about "personal power" things get a little
fuzzy. How much personal power is inherent, and how much is willful and
voluntary?
> i don't really understand what you mean.
Does your statement still hold if the imbalance in power
arises from informed consent and decision on the part of both people, who
were equals when the decision was made (eg: the marriage described above,
and, of course, any sex involving dominance and submission)?
> if, at some time, there truly was equal power and a subsequent decision
> to distribute power unequally, that strikes me as an odd, but not immoral
> choice. i note that you now say that the marriage described above
> started with both partners having equal power, this was not apparent from
> the original case; in fact, one would be tempted to assume just the
> opposite. if that was the case then i merely think them (in this case)
> foolish (and the man, in particular, kind of slimy).
Also, you still haven't answered the question others have posed.
> so what? is that required? ;^)
What
about physical power? That seems as personal as you can get. That is the
only power (maybe intelligence too) that exists in bed, between two people,
the rest of the world forgotten for the moment. Two people together, body
to body, alone, in a private world for a short amount of time - and
the stronger person, and the more intelligent person, has a very real, very
defineable and very personal power over the other person.
> this strikes me as an extremely narrow construing of the dynamics of
> interpersonal/sexual relations.
------------------
Back in my younger days, when I found alcohol necessary for sex (and a
number of other things) I would often be with a guy, decide ahead of time
I wanted to sleep with him, discuss it with him, and *then* get drunk.
At the time sex occured, he had "personal power" over me. But I don't
think he was doing anything unethical. (granted, I was doing something
incredibly damaging to myself through my dependence on alcohol, etc, but
I made the decision to do so with full capacity to make decisions.) Was
he wrong?
> probably; but for the reason that he was a collaborator in your admittedly
> self-destructive behaviour. it seems to me, from what you've written
> that the 'power relation' between you was basically equal.
|
| 525.495 | "Malicious" is a label like "absurd radical extremism"... | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Tue Mar 13 1990 02:48 | 9 |
|
RE: .494 Mike Z.
It was a label, that's all.
As you have amply demonstrated, attaching a negative label to the
actions of another person does not require anything more than an
opinion.
|
| 525.497 | Meanwhile, getting back to the discussion... | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Tue Mar 13 1990 03:07 | 7 |
|
RE: .484 Dorian
> We may need a definition of power in this specific context.
A more than reasonable request at this point...
|
| 525.498 | | SA1794::CHARBONND | Mail SPWACY::CHARBONND | Tue Mar 13 1990 10:20 | 16 |
| A person's 'power' is not a constant (within or without a
relationship.) There are times when I feel strong and in
control, there are times when I feel small and helpless
and need to be held (Yes, all 200+ macho pounds of me.)
In the latter case, would it be unethical of some woman
to make love to me ? (Sounds of hysterical laughter)
If two people are in a relationship, and their 'power' is
fluctuating up and down, should they refrain from making
love except when their power levels are exactly equal ?
The species wouldn't reproduce !
If the relationship is worth a damn, the people involved
will recognize their strengths and weaknesses and refrain
from taking advantage of them.
|
| 525.499 | more coffee! | SA1794::CHARBONND | Mail SPWACY::CHARBONND | Tue Mar 13 1990 10:21 | 2 |
| oops .498 should read "recognize *each others'* strengths
and weaknesses..."
|
| 525.500 | | RANGER::TARBET | Det var som fan! | Tue Mar 13 1990 10:37 | 11 |
| I think the whole "power" issue is simple: if you don't feel okay
saying no to _this_ person, right _now_...then there's a power
imbalance. Could be economic, emotional, physical, whatever, doesn't
matter, the result is the same. The other person has you over a
barrel whether they know it or not and whether they would chose it or
not. If they _did_ choose it and/or _do_ know it, then going thru with
sex is an abuse of the power.
I think this might be what Joe is trying to get at.
=maggie
|
| 525.501 | a lot of unethical things get done in this world | TLE::CHONO::RANDALL | On another planet | Tue Mar 13 1990 12:08 | 19 |
| I tend to agree with the position that it's always unethical to have a
sexual relationship between two people when one person has a lot of
power over the other one. Yes, the dynamics of the relationship will
vary a lot over the years, sometimes by the choice of the partners and
sometimes from power struggles, but when the person on the bottom isn't
fully able to refuse the suggestions of the person on top, even if the
person on top never explicitly uses or threatens to use that power, just
isn't right. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's rape, but it's wrong.
Sometimes even in existing healthy relationships, power can be abused.
For instance, .483 mentioned not having sex with your wife when she has
a broken arm. Well, if she didn't want to have sex, and her husband
went ahead and pushed her down and took advantage of her weakness, yes,
that would be wrong, and it might even be rape, depending on how
strongly she felt about it.
Yes, I think the traditional man-in-charge marriage is unethical.
--bonnie
|
| 525.502 | thanks! | DECWET::JWHITE | keep on rockin', girl | Tue Mar 13 1990 15:05 | 4 |
|
re:.500,.501
yes; this is the sort of thing i had in mind.
|
| 525.503 | All I can say is "good thing you aren't making the laws" :-) | TLE::D_CARROLL | Watch for singing pigs | Tue Mar 13 1990 15:29 | 55 |
| me:
I think the man and wife described above should be allowed to have sex if
they wish.
Joe:
> i wouldn't 'allow' or 'disallow' at all. as for it being immoral, i
> think it probably is.
I meant "allow" in the context of an ethical system. ie: allow = considered
"morally permissible" by the ethical system in question. I didn't mean
"allow" as in physically preventing or allowing someone to do something,
or even legally preventing or allowing someone to do something. Just
ethically since that what we are discussing.
Anyway...
>>Also, when you start talking about "personal power" things get a little
>>fuzzy. How much personal power is inherent, and how much is willful and
>>voluntary?
> i don't really understand what you mean.
I mean that it becomes unclear how much the power imbalance has to do with
"absolute" power, and how much has to do with power someone has allowed
the other person to have. Like, if someone knows something very private
about me, they have power over me (ie; if they wanted to they could blackmail
me, or use it to hurt me.) If they found out about it by chancing to see
it, or hearing it from a friend, or whatever, then I have not voluntarily
given them that power. But if I *tell* them this, then they still have the
same power, but I have entrusted them with it, voluntarily, and therefore I
don't think such power would make relations in such a situation unethical.
It seems to me there are many situations where one person choose to let
themselves be in a vulnerable position to another, whether through telling
them intimate things, letting that person support them financially, or
whatever.
> this strikes me as an extremely narrow construing of the dynamics of
> interpersonal/sexual relations.
I don't think so. I think it means looking at one aspect of it, and discussing
that one aspect as *well* as other aspects, in an effort to get a feel for
the whole system. Physical strength is one (perhaps small) aspect and type
of personal power one person may hold over another. I think if your ethical
system doesn't apply to this aspect, then it is flawed, and must be modified
to exclude it.
At any rate, I think what we have come down to here is a difference in
personal morality. You think certain situations are unethical that I do
*not* think are unethical. I think your ethical system is flawed. you
think mine is flawed. I think we have both presented our viewpoints
adequately clearly that the other person *understands* it. If the other
person doesn't agree, there is nothing more to be done, except either
fight it out, or agree to disagree. I choose the latter...
D!
|
| 525.504 | if you can't say no, how can you say yes? | COGITO::SULLIVAN | Justine | Tue Mar 13 1990 16:38 | 27 |
|
D!,
If I choose to make myself vulnerable (I think that's how you phrased
it) with you by telling you some secret about myself, I don't think
that makes me have less power than you. Now if you actually threatened
to tell my secret unless I went along with your wishes, and if I was
afraid and went along with you because I was afraid, I would say that
*that* would constitute your having power over me.
I guess the scenarios I had in mind, though, when I raised this issue
of power imbalances, were much less coercive. I think Maggie got at
the heart of it. If one person feels unable to say no, then I think
there's a power imbalance. Maybe I can't say no because the person has
a gun. But maybe it's because s/he's my professor or my boss. Or
maybe it's because s/he's an adult, and I'm a child. These are some
of the relationships that I had in mind where there could be power
imbalances.
D!, I think that in most of the counter examples you give, one person
willingly gives (some kind of) power to the other. I think that's
different from a situation where one person has more power than another
by virtue of her/his position in society.
Justine
|
| 525.505 | i think you'd *like* my legal system | DECWET::JWHITE | keep on rockin', girl | Tue Mar 13 1990 16:58 | 40 |
|
re:.503
re: the use of the word 'allow'.
i understand; i was being legalistic; sorry for the static.
re: 'absolute' power.
in the examples you have given there always seems to be
explicit the idea of giving or sharing power voluntarily.
to me, that implies that the people involved at least
began with equal power. these situations do not strike me
as immoral (see justine's .504).
re: 'physical' power in the bedroom.
in your earlier reply you suggest this was the *only* power
involved in a sexually intimate relationship. i think that's
too narrow. you now say it's 'one (perhaps small) aspect'.
i quite agree. if physical power is only one aspect of the
total picture of power interplay, it may be possible that
some other aspect of power evens out what might otherwise
be an imbalance.
i'm sure you are aware of feminist theorists who, even more
extreme than my poor self, posit that sexual relations between
men and women are by definition unequal power relationships.
re: flawed ethical systems.
actually, i think our systems are remarkably alike. we are
both terribly conscious of the role of power in interpersonal
relationships. we both agree in the rights of people to make
their own choices, even odd choices. we both agree in the
wrongness of people forcing themselves, personally or morally,
on another. the only point of contention i see is a certain
vague misunderstanding on what constitutes the reasonable
and fair exchange of power. perhaps, even here, it is a
gender-related item. being a semi-conscious male, it is all
to clear to me how easy it is for me to take and abuse power.
perhaps to a woman, it is more important to boldly claim and
assert that ability. it is a claim that i respect and admire.
|
| 525.507 | and I'd probably like you if I ever meet you . . .
| TLE::CHONO::RANDALL | On another planet | Tue Mar 13 1990 18:15 | 6 |
| >> i think you'd *like* my legal system
I dunno if I'd like your legal system, Joe, but I like your ideas . . . and
your notes persona.
--bonnie
|
| 525.508 | likewise, i'm sure! | DECWET::JWHITE | keep on rockin', girl | Tue Mar 13 1990 19:18 | 4 |
|
re:.507
how kind! thank you!
|
| 525.509 | Not self-contradictory, all evidence notwithstanding :-) | TLE::D_CARROLL | Watch for singing pigs | Tue Mar 13 1990 20:04 | 53 |
| One small note of clarification (as I said, I am not trying to convince you
of something now.)
> in your earlier reply you suggest this was the *only* power
> involved in a sexually intimate relationship. i think that's
> too narrow. you now say it's 'one (perhaps small) aspect'.
I think you misunderstood me.
In my earlier reply, I meant it is the only power that is absolute, not
dependent on other places, other people, other times. It is the only
one (I did qualify it with the addition of intelligence) that exists
totally independent of the outside world, and directly relates to
sexual relations. (On second thought, I might add the power of parent
over child.)
Things like employee/boss relationships, or teacher/student, or finanacial
supporter/supportee are all basically artificial creations of society, and
only have meaning when you take the "outside world" into account. Therefore
they are less "personal" (it was when you brought up "personal" that I
mentioned this) than those power relationships that exist just within a
person and between two people, and involve no one and nothing else.
Abilities which are absolute (like strength) as opposed to situational
abilities (like being a teacher or manager) seem, to me, to be the epitome
of *personal* power.
Moreover, there is more voluntariness about those non-absolute type
of powers. That is, while it is certainly unethical for a boss to insist
on sexual relations with an employee, because it is an externally imposed
power, the employee voluntarily accepted the job, and can *end* the nature
of the managers power over him and her by leaving the job. (Obviously
this still isn't the 100% voluntary necessary to call it "consensual", just
"more" voluntary - I believe in degrees of voluntariness.) But you can't
volunteer to be weaker than some one, nor in most cases (esp. with
a large man and small woman) can you make a decision to choose to *end*
that power imbalance. Therefore it seems to me very *personal*, as in,
relates directly to the *people* themselves, who they are, as opposed
to the situation they are in.
When I later stated that physical strength was one small aspect of a sexual
relationship, I wasn';t contradicting myself, because the first time I wasn't
referring to an "intimate relationship" in general, just to the specific
act of sex, without regarding the outside context. Obviously an outside
context *does* exist as part of an "intimate relationship", and therefore
many other factors come into play.
> i'm sure you are aware of feminist theorists who, even more
> extreme than my poor self, posit that sexual relations between
> men and women are by definition unequal power relationships.
I am. And I'll bet you can imagine my reactions to such "posits". :-)
D!
|
| 525.510 | makes sense to me | DECWET::JWHITE | keep on rockin', girl | Tue Mar 13 1990 22:22 | 19 |
|
re:.509
yes, i misunderstood you. thanks for the clarification. i accept
your distinction between 'personal' and 'outside' power. i note that
you add the idea of power between parent and child; i wonder if there
aren't others? also, in discussing the ultimate 'voluntariness' of the
'outside' situations (leaving the employ of the offending boss, for
example), it seems apropos to note that, in real life, that kind of
flexibility is often not an option. the 'outside' power problem
of employment becomes a 'personal' power problem of starving.
>One small note of clarification (as I said, I am not trying to convince you
>of something now.)
amazing; carry on a discussion and ideas mold and expand, carry on an
arguement and ideas contract and atrophy.
|
| 525.511 | Voluntariness, choices and consensuality - key ingredients | TLE::D_CARROLL | Watch for singing pigs | Wed Mar 14 1990 12:26 | 37 |
| >i note that
>you add the idea of power between parent and child; i wonder if there
>aren't others?
"Inherent powers?" There might be. Those were the only one's I could come
up with. It seemed to me that most powers in the world are "assigned" by
society, and in a different society, or a different world, that power
imbalance wouldn't exist. On thinking about it, some other possibilities
appear to be: when one person is in love with the other, and not vice
versa...when one person has past experience with similar situations, and
the other person is ignorant...and, obviously, when one person has a weapon
or some such. (This sort of falls into the same category as "physically
stronger"...)
>also, in discussing the ultimate 'voluntariness' of the
>'outside' situations (leaving the employ of the offending boss, for
>example), it seems apropos to note that, in real life, that kind of
>flexibility is often not an option.
Of course. That is why I pointed out that the situation still doesn't
qualify as "consensual" because it isn't always possible or good for
an employee to quit or whatever. I suppose I measure degrees of voluntariness
by the *number* and *feasibility* of the choices available to the person
of lesser power. That is, in a situation where someone holds a gun to
another person's head and says "Have sex with me or die", the person-with-
less-power has exactly *two* choices, therefore a *very* low level of
voluntariness. I can't say exactly how many or how feasible the choices
have to be to make it a level of voluntariness to qualify it as "consensual"
(to me, consensual == ethical). Perhaps where to draw that line is where
you and I differ.
>amazing; carry on a discussion and ideas mold and expand, carry on an
>arguement and ideas contract and atrophy.
:-) Surprise!
D!
|
| 525.512 | Revenge? | CAM::ARENDT | Harry Arendt CAM:: | Mon Mar 26 1990 17:49 | 51 |
|
Hi y'all,
I don't know if this is an ongoing discussion however I have just
completed reading this note as well as 99.* and 961.* and I have
a few questions and comments. I may have missed something here
but I did not see any notes which indicated a desire for revenge
against the perpatrator of a rape. I have seen notes which indicate
a clear desire for justice and for public condemnation of the rapist
however none which indicate a desire for pure revenge. A woman
once asked me what I would do if I were sexually assaulted by a
man or group of men and survived the attack. My reply was that
I would not report the crime and that I would plan and execute
revenge. She found my attitude to be barbaric and said so. What
do the women and men of this conference think of the question of
revenge?
Another note I read spoke of a woman who attempted to use self
defense against a rapist, was overpowered and was surprised at
how ineffective the self defense techniques were. This is not
completly surprising since most self defense is dependent on
size and weight. However when I was in college I attempted to teach
a rape defense class to some of the women in my dorm and I found
a surprisingly niave attitude about combat. I think that television
and movies can give a false sense of what combat and rape are all
about. Specifically the women in my class wanted to learn moves
and blows which would allow them to escape unharmed without severly
injuring the attacker. They were surprised when I told them that
such techniques do not exist. The techniques I attempted to teach
were designed specifically to blind, deafen, maim and kill the
opponent. I felt that only such techniques would deter a rapist.
I also taught them that a fight only lasts 15-20 seconds before
you win or loose so you must maximize the damage you do in the
shortest period of time. Of 15 students 12 dropped out after the
introduction and the other three expressed doubt about thier
ability to carry out the moves, not thier strength or speed but
thier will to do this sort of damage to another human being. How do
you feel about self defense in rape? Do you have the right to kill,
blind or maim your opponent?
Also many notes seem to dance around when no means no. Well no
allways means no. I allways asked the women I dated what they
wanted to do on a date including if they wanted to have sex with
me, if they said no then no it was. If they said "ask me later"
I would usually reply "No, it would be better if you asked me later."
Sex between men and women is not all that important for a good
releationship, fun yes! but important? No!. Simply being straight
with people avoids all chance of misreading a situation.
|
| 525.513 | revenge? | YGREN::JOHNSTON | bean sidhe | Mon Mar 26 1990 21:07 | 13 |
| re.512
sure, I wanted revenge. I dreamed of it. I immersed myself in walking through
more and more gruesome scenarios of retribution. I even planned a couple down
to the very last detail. It was wonderfully therapeutic and vastly empowering
to know that I _could_ avenge myself.
but I never acted on it. ultimately, vengeance has no place in my life.
It happened. I hate and despise the man. I will probably rejoice shamelessly
when he dies.
Ann
|
| 525.514 | | SYSENG::BITTLE | good girls make good wives | Fri Apr 13 1990 03:55 | 39 |
| Recently I read a book called
"Her Wits About Her"
Self-Defense Success Stories by Women
It describes real-life accounts of how women from all walks of
life have successfully defended themselves. Strategies employed
includes everything from negotiation to weapons.
On the back cover it says it offers the "empowering message that
women can fight back, and do so effectively." I think many women
would be inspired by reading this book (although I felt jealous
and resentful, but that's my prob).
re: 525.512 (Harry Arendt) -< Revenge? >-
> ...but I did not see any notes which indicated a desire for
> revenge against the perpatrator of a rape. [...] What do the
> women and men of this conference think of the question of
> revenge?
The idea doesn't really do much for me. I got some satisfaction
thinking about how reparation payments could be used as a type of
revenge-from-a-distance, but I didn't act on it. And if He got
AIDS while in prison, I wouldn't be upset about it. Reading the
book above spurred some fantasies about what might have happened
(how hurt He would have been) if I had won, but then I just get
bummed because that's not what happened. If I've ever thought
about active revenge, I can't recall it.
> I also taught them that a fight only lasts 15-20 seconds before
> you win or loose so ...
Or less than that. I think if your first defensive then
offensive maneuver fails, well... you're f*cked.
nancy b.
|