Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Legally, if you believe that someone is both able to, and about 
    to attack you, causing harm, you are as justified in defending
    yourself as if the attack were in progress. In other words, the
    immediate threat of force is seen as being equal to the actual
    use of force. 
    
    Since the result of either force, or the threat of force, is the 
    same - unwilling cooperation - the law makes no distinction. Both
    take away freedom to choose, thus both are equally wrong.

    I'd say yes.  Unwanted sex is always rape. 
    
    Please see also:
    
    Womannotes-V1
    189 - date rape
    645 - the victim's response to rape
    
    Womannotes-V2
    525 - side effects of rape
    958 - offshoot of topic  525: the rapists
    961 - what IS rape anyway
    1027 - false rape accusations
    
    -Jody
    
    

    Allow me to ask the question in a different way.  First I'll give some
    background.  I am a child of the 60's and went to College in California
    in the early 70's.  A number of times in my life I got in a situation
    where I ended up having sex with women I didn't want to have sex with. 
    There was no force or implied force.  It was just situations where I
    was tired or tipsy etc. and I didn't want to defend myself anymore and
    while I never said 'yes' I didn't leave either.  For years I would
    never have called this rape, but after reading the PEOPLE magazine
    article I don't know.  This may seem trivial next to cases where women
    have been brutalized; I think it's two different worlds.  But if there
    is a new definition, I'm all ears.
    
    
    patrick

    Also, if a woman is drunk enough to be unable to give consent to
    sex, it is considered to be rape (i.e. non consentual sex). So the
    examples of women who had been unconsious from over drinking who
    awoke to find a man or men having sex with her, are examples of rape.
    
    BJ

    Coercion (sp?) of anyone into performing sex that they didn't want to
    in the first place is, IMHO, RAPE. In these cases, we don't know all of
    the circumstances. It may be that the woman were not in their correct
    mind at the time. ie. under the influence of alcohol, drugs, extreme
    stress or other reasons. It may be that the woman are doing this
    deliberately. I don't think that this is the reason. It doesn't seem
    plausible to me. We just can't be sure of the circumstances surrounding
    these cases, without more information to go on. 
    
    As I opened, in my mind, if you coerce someone into performing an act
    that they did not wish to perform, then you have raped them. Plain and
    simple. It's wrong, period.
    
    Phil

Don't forget that there are degrees of rape and coercion. There will always be
cases that sit right on the line too. 

I would call it slime ball tacky if someone nagged me into having sex with them,
but I wouldn't call it rape. If I gave in and had sex just because it was easier
than arguing, I wouldn't call it rape. If someone threatened me, either
physically or psychologically, then it's rape. 

Basically, if you can get up and leave without any sort of harm, then I don't 
call it rape. If you're made to believe that isn't the case, then it's rape.
So in your case, unless you were threatened, it was giving in to avoid a hassle
but not rape. It's tacky that someone put you in that situation but you could
have left. 

Of course there's another issue with men. A man can force me to have intercourse
whether I'm physically excited or not. It seems a pretty difficult task in the
reverse with an unwilling man.  Not many women would view that as a fun time. 
liesl

    re:.6
    
    You say that there are degrees of rape and coercion.  I guess don't
    know what they are in the case of rape.  To me rape is the use of force
    or implied force or violence to make someone submit to sex.  It is in
    my opinion the most hienous of crimes.  It robs a person of their
    ability to make a decision about their own body.  It has long lasting
    mental affects has no place in society.  I don't see examples of
    degrees of this.
    
    I agree with you that it's pretty slimy to wear someone down so that
    they will concede to have sex with you.  These women were experimenting
    with their newly awakened aggression and didn't know how to handle a
    male that said 'no'.  I wonder how often this type of thing happens the
    other way around.  I suspect a lot but is it rape?  That's what I'm
    trying to sort out.
    
    patrick 

What I meant when I refered to degrees of rape and coercion is this: If I'm
beaten bloody it's a different level of assault than if I'm just knocked down.
I believe we discussed this once and it was said that the crime is broken down
into 1st,2nd and 3rd degree levels of assault. I don't recall what acts placed
the crime into a certain category.  liesl

    DO I smell the scent of chedder here?...
    
    REK

    RE: all
                 A very good reason that, even when single, I *NEVER* made
    a "pass" at a woman.  Its just too dangerous.  If a woman wanted to
    "get close" to me, *SHE* would have to make the first move.
    
    
    Dave

    In college I knew many women who would get drunk, have "unwanted sex"
    with a person they met at a party and be thoroughly ashamed in the
    morning.
    
    Next week-end they did the same thing.  This is not rape, this is an
    excuse.
    
    Women need to take responsibility for their own actions.  Don't get
    yourself in the predicament in the first place.
    
    I agree with others that say if you are in any way forced by threat of
    violence or with violence it's rape.
    
    If a woman says "no" and sex still happens it's rape.
    
    If she is too drunk to say this and got drunk of her own free will
    I don't think it's rape.  She shouldn't have been in the position
    in the first place.
    
    
    
                                      L.J.

    
    
    > Women need to take responsibility for their own actions.  Don't get
    >    yourself in the predicament in the first place.
    
    I consider statements like that to be a cop-out.  No one should have to
    avoid anything and EVERYONE should take responsibility for their own
    actions.
    
    Yes, women should take responsibility for their own actions, but if you
    read the string on this subject in Soapbox you'll see people advocating
    that if a woman drinks to the point of being severely intoxicated, then
    she's a whore and deserves what she gets (I'm probably making their 
    statements sound worse than what they really said, but....).
    
    Frankly, yes....women need to take responsibility for their actions,
    but they shouldn't have to totally avoid situations where they are
    intoxicated and in the company of males.  
    
    EVERYONE (women and men alike) need to take responsibility for their
    actions and not FORCE someone else to do something that they do not
    want to do.  
    
    As a woman, I can get myself into ANY situation that I want to, and NO
    ONE has the right to rape me because of it.  If I consent to sex, then
    it's not rape REGARDLESS of whether or not I feel thoroughly ashamed in
    the morning.  However, no one has the right to rape me because of the
    situation I happen to have put myself in.
    
    Just some comments.
    
    kath

    re:12
    
    You say women need to take responsibility for their own actions.  That
    they need to avoid situations that would put them at risk.
    
    I agree with the first statement, as everyone should take
    responsibility for their actions.  But that second one . . . 
    By your reasoning if I'm on a commercial jet and it crashes because the
    pilot was drunk I should not be able to sue because I should have not
    gotten on the plane in the first place.  What you're saying to women is
    that they should be able to forsee the unknown before it happens and
    avoid those situations.  That would be a good trick.  Sure there are
    women who have not shown the best of judgements in many situations. 
    Does it follow that they are 'fair game'?  I think not.  
    
    What of these women who fein drunkeness and have sex to preserve their
    Judeo-Christian 'virtue'.  What of them?  What of women who were
    brought up in families where men were the only ones who had
    responsibility/power and so when they wake up the next morning and
    realize they had sex with someone they didn't even like they blame the
    man?  These are the questions I have no answers for.
    
    patrick

    kath
    
    I agree. It appears that there are people, many of them men, who think
    that if a woman is foolish enough to drink to excess she's just
    made herself available for sex with any man who wishes to have her.
    And it is *her* fault!
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie and Kath,
    
    Look at it this way, if women are the only ones supposed to avoid
    doing anything that might get them into a "compromized situation",
    isn't this a direct put down on men.  This is saying that men have no
    control over their sexdrives, hormones or need for over powering a
    weaker, more vulnerable person.
    
    Is this what men are saying when they say, to stay out of empty areas
    at night if you are female, don't drink with members of the opposite
    sex, don't drive with your car doors unlocked, don't park in dark areas
    etc.  I can't beleive that a man, can't understand that no means no and
    take responsibility for his actions around a weaker, drunker, smaller
    individual.
    
    Meg

    re:16
    
    The problem arises when women mean 'yes' but say 'no'.  Hopefully women
    have ceased this silly and dangerous game but when I was in College I
    responded to a woman who was giving me all the signs that she wanted to
    be sexually intimate.  When I asked her she said 'no'.  I was confused
    but said ok, fine.  I continued to be friends with her (we were in two
    classes together) but never asked her that question again.  A week
    later she asked me but I said yes.  I eventually asked her why she said
    'no'.  She said that she didn't want to appear 'slutty' and was amazed
    and a little annoyed that I didn't pursue it until she said 'yes'. 
    This type of behavior will drive the average male crazy.  It also gives
    the sociopaths ammo.
    
    Honesty in relationships would solve a lot of these problems.
    
    patrick

    RE: .14
    
    If you knew in advance that the pilot was drunk I would throw your case
    out of court.
    
    No one can know what the future holds.  I simply object to people
    putting themselves in situations that may be dangerous and then
    complaining later when something bad happens.
    
    When people are drunk they do things they would not normally do.  They
    are unpredictable.  For myself, I never get into these positions.  I
    go to parties, but never drink to excess if I even drink at all.  I 
    usually volunteer to be designated driver.
    
    I believe Kath suggested EVERYONE should take responsibility for them
    selves, not just women.  I whole heartedly agree with this.  I don't,
    however, trust the rest of world to have this kind of enlightenment.
    So until this happens I will take my own precautions and advise the
    rest of the world to do the same.
    
    
    
                                       L.J.
    

>    Honesty in relationships would solve a lot of these problems.

    So will more men doing exactly what you did.  Once the women who do
    this find out that their 'no' is consistently taken seriously even
    though it's not what they mean, they will stop being so unclear.

    re:  20
    
    When a woman is in a violent rape situation there is no doubt in anyone's
    mind what the word 'no!' means.
    
    When a woman is in a flirtation situation and she sends out signals
    like "You are a very handsome guy."  "I really like your sense of
    humor."  "I would like to get to know you better . . . much better, if
    you know what I mean."  "Would you like give me a massage?"  And then
    says 'no' when she has never changed her mind but only says 'no'
    because she does not want to appear 'easy' or 'slutty', it becomes very
    confusing to most males.  
    
    In my opinion every woman has the option to change her mind.  I see sex as
    a very important decision and even at the last minute if she gets
    scared or uncomfortable it's ok with me.  I will understand.  It's ok!
     
    What I'm saying is mixed signals are confusing and frustrating.  It's a
    game that I have had women play on me.  It's not a fun game.  If a
    woman does it to be coy I will put some distance between us.  If a
    woman does it because she is uncomfortable with the situation AND she
    TELLS me, I am closer to her.  I don't argue with her and my respect
    for her honesty will peg the meter!
    
    I can't speak for most men because frankly I don't think like most men
    I know.  I started this note because I wanted to know the opinion of
    women in this conference.  The question is still "Does unwanted sex
    = rape?"  I know when a woman is brutalized and forced to have sex that
    this is rape  I've stated that.  I know that if a woman overtly
    consents to having sex with a man that it is NOT rape.  What I'm trying
    to explore, with the help of the women in this conference, is the areas
    in between.  So far I haven't gotten very far but I'm still hanging in
    there.
    
    patrick

    .21
    
    I think your take is perfect.  If she doesn't know what she wants, or
    sends conflicting signals, stop there.  Let her figure it out.  Sex to
    some men feels like winning, and some men like to win at all costs
    (PLEASE note the conditionals in that sentence...) - it's part of the
    macho masculine psyche that relates to winning and taking (conquering?), 
    I guess.
    
    If a woman didn't know what she wanted, then the answer probably is not
    a resounding YES, and presuming it is would probably kill any budding
    relationship as well as hurting either or both people involved.  NO is
    NO.  MAYBE is NO.  NOT SURE is NO.  only YES is YES.  
    
    -Jody
    

    Re: .12
    
    > If she is too drunk to say this and got drunk of her own free will
    > I don't think it's rape.  She shouldn't have been in the position
    > in the first place.
    
    I've done a lot of thinking about this issue.  I had a very close
    friend in college in the early 70's who went to a frat party got drunk
    passed out and woke up with her date on top of her.  She was a virgin,
    and had never been drunk before.  She had only known the guy a couple
    of days.  A really great way to remember your first time, eh?  She
    wasn't a slut, just a young and naive college freshwoman.
    
    A woman too drunk to give consent is an easy target and has IMHO put
    herself in a vulnerable position, but that does not give a man an
    excuse to take advantage of her vulnerable situation, even if he's
    drunk, too.
    
    I look at it like this.  If I were to park my car and, through my own
    negligence, leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition, I would be
    doing something really stupid and leaving my car vulnerable to being
    stolen.  But the guy who comes along and steals my car is still a
    criminal.
    
    Mary

    
    
    RE: .21  (patrick)
    
    >I started this note because I wanted to know the opinion of
    >women in this conference.  The question is still "Does unwanted sex
    > = rape?" 
    
    
    The answer to your question is "It depends on the circumstances."
    
    If someone doesn't want to have sex with another person and they say
    "no" and the other person forces them.....yes, it is rape.
    
    If someone doesn't want to have sex with another person, but they go
    ahead and consent to sex.....no, it is not rape.
    
    
    The question posed in the title of this note is misleading.  Exactly
    what do you mean by saying "unwanted" sex?  CONSENT is the issue here,
    not whether someone "wants" sex or "doesn't want" sex.
    
    There have been many times in my life that I have no wanted sex with
    someone, but I went ahead and did it just to get it over with.....I
    consented, it is NOT rape (even though it feels just as gross and
    dirty).
    
    kathy
    

What if those 'mixed signals' is not some 'coy little game' but the honest 
truth?  

I've been attracted to a man, Very attracted, given and received backrubs,
with body language working overtime, YET have honestly and sincerely meant
NO when I said it.  Cuddling, yes.  Hugging, yes. Kissing, yes.  SEX?? NO!!!

And some of them, like you, HAVE HAD THE NERVE TO TELL ME THAT I DON'T REALLY
MEAN NO,  SINCE  I LIKE THE REST I MUST REALLY WANT SEX BUT AM UNABLE TO SAY
SO FOR FEAR OF BEING THOUGHT A SLUT OR SOMETHING.

Come on,  give us a break.  If we say NO,  we mean NO.  I think this myth of
NO really meaning YES is a male fantasy,  though admittedly fueled by some
women changing their minds after the first no.

So If I'm attracted to a man, and let him see it, but won't have sex with him,
I'm either playing a coy game or don't know my own feeble mind?

If a woman (or man!) says No,  she means no.  She may change her mind later,
but she means No now.  If you go ahead and "overcome her inhibitions", without
getting an explicit YES from her,  it's rape.  Once she says NO,  it's rape
untill she says YES.  That's simple enough, isn't it?  Even us feeble females
can understand it.

    There's a third case which has been alluded to - neither consent
    nor refusal. The classic example is the first-time drinker who
    passes out or is too woozy to respond in any coherent way. In
    these cases, the assailant could point out non-refusal as assent.
    To my mind, non-assent is refusal, and such cases constitute rape.

    Re: .22
    
    > NO is NO.  MAYBE is NO.  NOT SURE is NO.  only YES is YES.
    
    Amen, Jody!
    
    Taking a "no", a "maybe" or a "not sure" to mean "yes", may not = rape,
    i.e., be enough to get a man convicted of rape, but it shows a lack of
    respect for the woman's right to control her own body.  IMHO a man of
    real integrity would follow Jody's advice.
    
    Mary
    

    
>    > NO is NO.  MAYBE is NO.  NOT SURE is NO.  only YES is YES.
    
>    Amen, Jody!
 
    hear, hear!
       
>    Taking a "no", a "maybe" or a "not sure" to mean "yes", may not = rape,
 
    i think it does.
    
    

    re:  .24
    
    Thanks Kathy.  
    
    The reason I choose the word 'unwanted' is because that is the word the
    courts are using to set precedents.  'Consent' in some cases has become
    secondary if a woman (or really anyone) is incapacitated.  One case
    recently involves a woman with multiple personalities.  One of her
    personalities gave consent.  From what I've heard the man may have
    known that this woman was disturbed and the case is pending.  In this
    case the woman gave consent with one personality but it was unwanted
    for the rest.  The word 'unwanted' seems to be the buzz word in courts. 
    The situation on college campuses seems to be a parrallel situation. 
    When a young and naive woman goes to college and wants to fit in and
    feel part of the crowd, she goes to parties and sometimes ends up drunk
    or maybe she just doesn't want to make it seem that she isn't part of
    the crowd.  She gives consent to unwanted sex.  What is happening is
    the courts are prosecuting and convicting college males on the basis of
    their knowing that these women were vunerable.  
    
    While I think that this type of behavior on the part of college males
    is abhorant makes me want to vomit, I don't know what it is classified
    as.  If it's rape, it's a new definition for me.  The courts seem to
    think it is.  If it's rape what is it when a man breaks into a womans
    house, beats her unconsiousness and sodomizes her?  
    
    Are the courts going after the college males because they're easier to
    catch?  Are they trying to satisfy some blood lust?
    
    Kathy, I would agree with your definition of rape, but the courts are
    not in agreement with us.
    
    patrick
    

    Patrick,
    
   >>... If it's rape what is it when a man breaks into a womans
   >> house, beats her unconsiousness and sodomizes her?  
    
    
    Rape.
    
    Just because a "lesser" form of rape is committed, do not assume that
    the "greater" form is not still rape.
    
    E Grace

    re: .25
    
    Please re-read my .21 note.  I won't bother to defend myself against
    things I did NOT write.  
    
    patrick         

    re: .29
    
    The case you are refering to was prosecuted on the basis that the man
    knew the woman was mentally ill and had intercourse with her anyway, 
    which is unlawful in that state.  The statute presumes that a mentally ill
    person cannot give informed consent.  It was very apparent that the
    woman was mentally ill with multiple personalities, so it is really a
    moot point whether one of the personalities gave consent.  The fact
    remains that the defendent KNEW that the woman was mentally ill and
    took ADVANTAGE of that fact, just what the statute was trying to
    address.
    
    Unwanted still rates as a NO in my opinion.
    
    sue
    

    Practically every time I've had this discussion with a male friend
    they've asked "what about those times when 'no' means 'yes'"? 
    It would stand to reason that if there are women out there playing
    coy games of saying 'no' and meaning 'yes' because they don't want
    to appear slutty, then there are also women out there saying 'yes'
    and meaning 'no' because they want to seem agreeable.  I was going	
    to say that I have yet to hear a male express concern about _this_ 
    problem, but Patrick's last reply preempted me.

    You're wrong, Patrick, by the way.  Your note would make it seem
    like college males are being convicted of rape "just in case" on a 
    wholesale basis.  Well, the overall percentage of reported rapes 
    that actually result in convictions is very small, and I can't believe
    that the courts are making any exceptions for "vulnerable college
    women".  While there may be a couple isolated cases where the man's
    lawyer made it look like this sort of situation, the fact is that the
    courts are generally unwilling to convict men of rape without a
    preponderance of solid evidence, and, in converse, very likely to
    "prosecute" the woman instead on the basis of her reputation or style
    of dress.  Ask some women who have been through rape trials.  It's 
    *hardly* "guilty until proven innocent" out there.

    I had one friend who insisted that what women who refused sex "really
    wanted" was to be overtaken by passion (or something like that), and 
    that their refusal should be taken as a challenge.  When I mentioned 
    that this sounded like something from the school of "yes means yes and 
    no means yes and nothing means no", he responded "no, that's not true.  
    A kick in the b*lls means no."  (I didn't ask if he would consider a
    woman to be sending mixed signals if she said 'no', then kicked him.)

    Personally I've never understood why the men who present the argument
    "what about those times when 'no' means 'yes'?" are so concerned about 
    not missing *any* possible opportunities, to the point that they'll run
    the risk of a woman who really *meant* 'no' accusing them of rape.  It
    just doesn't seem like it'd be worth the risk.  Can someone explain this 
    to me?

	Sharon    

    Re: .28 by Joe (???)
    
    > but i'm a radical
    
    and a man of real integrity!!!
    
    Mary

    Thanks for the replies so far!  They are very appreciated.  In case
    you're wondering where I stand, let me tell you.
    
    No means No; always.  If a woman really means yes she's not the type of
    person I want to be with anyway, so for me it's still a no regardless
    of what she means.
    
    Maybe means no, not now, but who knows about the future.
    
    Yes means yes if that person is in a condition to say yes.  If not it
    means no.
    
    I understand now that there are degrees of rape.  I didn't know that. 
    To me rape is rape.  Sexual assault is sexual assault.  I am in the
    process of re-evaluating my definitions and I'm grateful to the people
    in the conference for helping.  
    
    Thanks
    patrick
    

>    If a woman really means yes she's not the type of person I want to be
>    with anyway
    
    Funny, I feel it that way, just never really saw it that way. But
    indeed, it's not my worry - it's a childish game anyway.
    
    Re. quite a few back - The "if she" ... "then she deserves it" comes
    quite close to the "reasoning" someone entered in V2 about what would
    be going on in a rapist's head (I'll look it up if anyone is
    interested) which seemed to me to be quite spot on. In fact if one
    looks at the phrasing it doesn't express anything but violence.
    
    Ad

    I've been following this discussion with interest.  It seems to me that
    Patrick is sincerely asking for our opinions here.  I hear him saying
    "I thought I knew the rules, now they're all changing around me.  So
    tell me, what are the rules?"
    
    There was another issue he brought up early in the topic in which I
    thought he was trying to ask (I hope I'm not reading more than he was
    saying), "What is it when a man doesn't really want to have sex, but he
    agrees when approached because he thinks it's expected of him. . .how
    can I say No. . .I'm a nice guy and I can be pushed too far. . .what is
    this then?"
    
    I suppose matters are changing and it may be more common now for women
    to push men further than they want to go.  I don't know how shaming
    this may be for men.  Perhaps they can elaborate.
    
    But in comparing this to rape, he sets off hot buttons, because we know
    for how many years we can be affected by rape, and how much more common
    this is from acquaintances than from strangers.  
    
    Still, I think he is sincerely trying to articulate a moral position
    for himself.
    
    Briana

    .38  "Why would someone want sex with someone who doesn't?"  You are
    saying that the only time people 'should' WANT sex with someone is if
    the other person also wants sex at the same time? There is a BIG
    difference between wanting vs. having sex.  How many times does one
    partners desire for sex turn the other partner on when the 2nd partner
    didn't want sex before the other came on to them?  Many many times I
    would say.  There is a big difference between wanting sex with someone
    and moving in on a 'no'. I think I am having trouble following .38's
    reasoning because there seems to be no differentiation between desire
    and action.    Jeff

    
    re:.35
    
    shhh. don't tell anybody.
    

RE:                      <<< Note 596.38 by TOOLS::IRELAND >>>

    
       
   >    Reasonable men receive some kind of no message and then still pursue.
   > why?
    
   > This risk that men are taking, moving on a "no" in hopes of a "yes"...
   > is that just for the carnal effects? I mean, what's the rule..."let no
   > opportunity for sex go unturned"? Is it an ego thing?
    


  Years ago when I was much younger, and not very experienced sexually, I had
  a close friendship with a woman.  We spent a lot of time together talking,
  going to movies, out to dinner, etc.  One evening we shared the same bed, for
  purposes of sleeping.  To her this was nothing more than a friendship, and I
  knew, or thought I knew and understood that.  

  But, one night after going out for a nice meal, and *no* sexual messages
  that I could see, we went back to her apartment and had a few glasses of
  wine and being too tipsy to drive she invited me to stay.  Which somehow
  or other I interpreted as meaning "let's have sex."  After making a total
  a** of myself, and her insistance I got the message.  Why did I keep per-
  suing sex?  I would have to answer that it was "let no opportunity for sex
  go unturned"  Was it an ego thing?  In this case, my limited experience
  in view of my male roommates' seemingly plethora of experience did indeed
  make it an ego thing.

  I can't speak for other males.  But this was my (one and only) experience 
  in taking no to mean yes, and thankfully I learned from it.    


  I'd like to think that now I am a reasonable man and that such a thing will
  NEVER happen again.  But there are men out there who, despite seeming reason-
  able are not able to control their egos or unable to leave an "opportunity"
  go unturned.


  

  Jim

    958.38 in -v2 was the note I was thinking of. .37 was from memory, but
    now having re-read it as it is, I still think that "deserve" bit is
    quite strong in it.
    
    Re. Times changing... well, times do change and I for one have found
    myself thinking about that alleged "no means yes" bit. Being rather on
    the shy side myself (loudmouthing in Notes doesn't count!) I've never
    really been in the "danger zone" but it's one of those things that I've
    been taught as "expected behaviour" - peer pressure, whatever.
    
    Same thing about "man doesn't want" - actually it's quite accepted that
    "men always want sex", I'd be inclined to be embarrassed in such a
    situation.
    
    Ad

    RE:  .39
    
    Briana, for the most part you are correct about my questions and
    feelings.
    
    I know that rape is a violent act.  To me it has always been an act of
    violence and not a sexual act per se.
    
    But now the definition seems to be changing to include sexual acts with
    no violence.
    
    That is where my questions lie.  I did not mean to lessen the severity
    of rape.  I didn't intend to even imply that unwanted sex was ok.  I'm
    just aware that things are changing and I'm trying to sort them out. 
    Maybe this wasn't the best place to do it.  I took a chance thinking
    that maybe I could get some input from informed women.  I did get some
    of that but I feel that others may have taken me the wrong way.  Anyway
    it's worth it for the perspective I am getting.  Is it so rare that a
    man in our culture asks a woman for her viewpoint so that he may
    re-evaluate his own?  Thanks for understanding Briana, Kathy and
    others.
    
    patrick

    I've been in the position of having a "no" interpreted as a "I want
    you to push me into it".  The guy told me afterward that it was
    the *first time* that any woman had continued to tell him no all
    the way through the action.  Yes, I was attracted to him.  Yes,
    I was turned on and ready physically (thank heavens).  But that
    contributed to me sending a "mixed message", in spite of the fact
    that *I* thought I was being crystal clear.  He wasn't used to
    interpreting words as being as powerful and meaningful as physical
    reactions.  I wasn't prepared to use physical force to stop him
    - it wasn't that important to me!
    
    In retrospect, I believe that his continued action was a result of 
    several factors.  It was an ego thing (no woman had ever turned him 
    down before).  He couldn't believe that it was possible to be 
    "turned on" and not follow through (very adolescent mind-set, 
    contrary to our chronological ages).  He knew of no non-sexual way 
    of relating to a woman.  His world-view was sex-driven - daily 
    intercourse was a priority in his life.  At the time I knew none of 
    this, unfortunately.  In a lot of ways, I feel sorry for him, because
    of the emotional poverty of the way he views the world.  But he
    is no longer part of my life.
    
    Alison

    Why does a push on the males part to have sex 'always' = 'proving his
    manhood, or an ego thing'?  How about just plain being turned on by
    the other person and wanting to make love to them as a valid reason?
    
    Jeff
    
    

>    But now the definition seems to be changing to include sexual acts with
>    no violence.
    
	I'm not sure if it's the definition that's changing, or only
	our society.  For one thing, I think it's become more socially
	acceptable to admit that one has been raped, whereas once it
	would have been nearly unthinkable.

	In the case of, say, a college student who went to a frat party,
	got drunk, passed out, and awoke to find a man having sex with
	her, then I'd say YES, absolutely, that is rape if that's how she
	regards it.  I wouldn't call this a sexual act with no violence,
	though - the act of rape *is* the act of violence.  No additional
	beating or physical coersion is necessary for it to be called rape.

	I don't see a real change in the definition of rape - I see a
	difference in the rape cases that are being reported.  But I would
	attribute that more to changes in how society regards women, not
	to a change in how our courts define rape or a change in the 
	definition of the word.  I certainly don't see "sexual acts with
	no violence" being defined as rape; I see a society that is less
	likely to regard certain acts of violence as being sexual acts.

	    Sharon

    re:  .38
    
    Some people find necrophilia acceptable.  There are some things you may
    never understand.  Having sex with someone who doesn't want it is one
    of them.  For me sex is much more than swapping body fluids.  
    
    re:  .46  (violence)
    
    That's great - thanks!
    
    patrick
    

RE:                      <<< Note 596.49 by EXPRES::GILMAN >>>
                               -< Why not this >-

   > Why does a push on the males part to have sex 'always' = 'proving his
   >manhood, or an ego thing'?  How about just plain being turned on by
   > the other person and wanting to make love to them as a valid reason?
                                               ^^
    
   Sounds ok, but what if the other person says "I don't want to have
   sex with you"?  What would be your response?    
    
   I think the phrase "make love TO them" is also significant.



   Jim

RE:                      <<< Note 596.53 by TOOLS::IRELAND >>>

    
   >	Are we still talking about "conquest" sex...?
    
    
        I can't speak for all men, but I believe that is a big factor in
the problem.



Jim    

    I do believe that women should be responsible for their own actions,
    but there are always different circumstances.  On my 20th birthday my
    two roommates through me a party.  It was basically the same kind of
    drunken party that we had at least 3 times a week.  A lot of good
    friends and a few acquaintances that wandered in.  At most of our
    parties everyone got completely ripped and slept where they fell, I
    would normally black out and wake up alone in my room in my bed.  On
    this evening I awoke at about 3:00 am to find someone on top of me.  I
    became instantly violent and with a minimal amount of force he removed
    himself from my person and left.
    
    Had I have known this person and was doing something that led up to
    where he felt that I was interested in engaging in sex with him (being
    conscious at the time he decided to "have me" would have helped), or I
    was at someone else's home and was drunk and crawled in an available
    bed, no I would not really consider it rape.  Bad judgment on my part
    and possibly being taken advantage of, but not rape.  But the situation
    as it was, I believe to be rape.  I'm probably the strongest person I
    know, but it was very hard for me to deal with.  I was very ashamed and
    embarrassed and therefore never did anything about it except to accept
    what happened, chalk one up for experience, put a lock on my bedroom 
    door, and never drink to the point of blacking out again.
    
    I agree with L.J., do not put yourself in a voluntary position that may
    have a negative outcome.  When it comes down to the wire, don't rely on
    others to respect you or for a friend to be aware enough of the
    situation to save you.  I wish the world could be different, but women
    will always be raped, people will die violent and needless deaths,
    innocent children will be abused and neglected, and animal species will
    continue to vanish each and every day.  Such is life, and we must
    protect ourselves and keep hope enough to at least strive to change an
    overcrowded and unchangeable society, or our existance means nothing.
         
    

    Patrick,
    
    Sexual assault is such an emotional topic for victims, and potential
    victims it is difficult to address politely.  
    
    Anytime one is subjected to something unwanted it is a violation of
    that person.  In the case of "unwanted sex" it is also known as sexual
    assault.  Assault by law can be anything from invading one's personal
    space in a threatening manner to assualt and battery where one can be
    seriously injured by the person causing the assault.
    
    Rape is the same way.  Just because a person doesn't come out of the
    encounter with bumps, bruises, abrasions, cuts, or worse doesn't mean
    they weren't sexually assaulted.  If someone puts me in a position
    where I can't say no and I don't want sex with that person it is a
    violation and to me a violent act.  Don't forget that person is already
    within MY personal space, and is planning on being inside MY personal
    body even though I have said no.
    
    WANRING serious potential for offense here!  This also extends to long
    term relationships or marriages, IMNSHO.  The "man" who couldn't wait
    while my little sister took care of her birth control needs, and flung
    her into the bed was a rapist, even though they had lived together for
    2 years.  My ex-husband, who felt deprived and sulked if he couldn't
    have sex twice a day including the day after I was home from the
    hospital after my oldest was born was a rapist.  If you would like me
    to be more polite on that subject, using anybodies body for sexual
    gratification with no thought as to that person's enjoyment, physical
    or mental is a rapist.  If the need for sex is that strong in that
    person, there are magazines, hands and higher techequipment for
    masturbation.
    
    Meg

Seems to me there's a line here, and I'm not sure where to draw it. I have
sometimes "had sex" with someone when I wasn't really interested in sex, but
was willing to "accomodate" the other person either because they really wanted
it, or I was only mildly uninterested. Analogy is suspect, but I think in those
cases it's like wanting to have my back scratched. Sometimes Janice doesn't
want to, and I just accept it, and sometimes my back REALLY itches and while
she doesn't really want to, she's willing to scratch my back because it means
so much to me, and sometimes she REALLY doesn't want to and I have to go find
the back scratcher. Rape, it seems to me, would be like me forcing her to
scratch my back in the last case. Bleah. The first case doesn't seem like
rape to me - but neither does she "want" to scratch my back, and she even might
say "no" at first - and mean it, and I know she means it - but I might push a
bit anyway, not because I don't respect her "no" but because it might be a
"no I don't really feel like it" rather than a "NO!". If you get my meaning.

I've been willing to be accomodating in the converse circumstances as well. I
might not really be interested, but if it's clear that it's important to my
partner then I may be convincible. But all of this presumes two things 1) that
the unwilling partner is of sound judgment and not impaired in some way and 2)
that the unwilling partner eventally does say "yes".

The grey area seems to me to be when the unwilling partner doesn't actually
eventuyally say "yes", they just stop saying "no" and that is interpreted as
"yes" - a very risky interpretation it seems to me... Ego does get involved, as
does selfishness, childishness, petulance, and power. Also impaired judgment
works both ways - but that's not an excuse.

Enough rambling for now.

	-- Charles

>    do men really hate us so much?

Some do. And some just don't care about anyone except themselves. And some
operate only on the idea that "fear = respect", they don't respect anyone
they don't fear.

There really are people like that.

	-- Charles

    Meg,
    
    When I hear stories like yours it makes me want to go over to CXO and
    just hug you.  That may not be something you need and don't worry I
    won't do it but that's how I feel.
    
    It also shakes me up.  I mean the obvious question is 'What the hell is
    wrong with people?'  We're not talking about people you don't know,
    we're talking about people you should be able to feel safe with.
    
    In 1968 I was drafted, sent to Viet Nam and shot at and made to become
    part of something I didn't want to be part of, made to do things that I
    felt no human being should be made to do.  But I knew my enemies and
    they weren't only the North Vietnamese.  I didn't expect them to treat
    me with love and respect, I expected them to be violent and they were. 
    I wouldn't expect a spouse be.
    
    I'm sorry Meg, really I am.
    
    patrick  

AH ~K, you must have never been married if you are surprised at men wanting sex
regardless of whether you did or not. Seems it's one of the most frequent
complaints I hear, and *most* married women I know (myself included, when I was
married) consented because it was our "job" and we'd pay for it later if we put
up too much fuss. That's why we had *unwanted* sex, the price of refusing was
too high. BTW, I'm not talking about beatings but rather the emotional backlash
that denying a male his wishes can invoke. 

It's not been my experience that the woman not being interested slowed down many
men though I too find that sort of sex a complete turn off. I must assume it's
social conditioning since some men find it appalling also.

The really significant difference I think is that sex for a woman is an internal
act while for a man it's an external one. How can we *not* see it in a different
light? When sex is unwanted we are being *invaded*. liesl 

    Pat,
    
    Don't worry about it.  I've been happpily involved with someone who is
    quite understanding and loving and thinks about others besides himself
    for about 8 years now.  But thanks for the hugs.  Hugs are almost
    always welcome in this file, as you will find out. Right E Grace?
    
    However, does this help define how "non violent" sexual assault can
    occur?  In my case there were no bruises, bumps, I wasn't smacked
    around, just sulked at, picked at, whined at, my needs ignored, until I
    took care of his.  I am now quite a bit older, and that sort of thing
    wouldn't happen to me again as I have learned that real men know that
    no means NO, and don't get upset about it or abusive.  They give you a
    hug and back off.
    
    Meg

    re:  .65
    
    Meg,
    
    Yes!  I understand.  Much of this kind of thing is beyond me because it
    has just never been part of my life.  One can go all over the world and
    never see what goes on in the privacy of people's lives.  I thank you
    for sharing what must have been uncomfortable to share.  It helps me
    understand some things.
    
    patrick
    

 
 >   and rather than invasion, or penetration, it's been suggested that
    i try to think of heterosexual intercourse as envelopment.
    in that thought the woman is less passive.
    

In the case of being with someone you want, I'd agree completely. I also must
agree with Charles that there are times you can be persuaded on behalf of a
loved one's desires. I see that in terms of a long term relationship though and
not in the sense of the "date rape" scenerios we've been discussing. liesl

    
    Some of the responses here discuss the notion of persons "giving in"
    to someone's request to have sex even though the individual in question
    did not desire it, and no force was/would_have_been involved.
    
    In my opinion, assuming we're discussing adults possessing their
    full mental faculties, that argument is as fallacious as saying
    "Well, I really didn't want to jump off this cliff, but he/she 
    would have kept nagging me, so I just did it to get it over with".
    
    I find it difficult to believe that most adults would be easily
    "pressured" into having sex (or anything else, for that matter)
    if they really felt strongly (one way or another) about the issue.
    
    I want to stress that I am obviously not referring to situations
    where physical force or threat is involved, that is a different
    matter altogether.
    
    But (I believe) to lay blame on another for your actions under other 
    circumstances is really a desire to give up accountability for your 
    own decisions and your own life. 
                  

    When you are in a long term relationship with a partner that
    you love and who loves you, I don't find it unreasonable for
    one partner who is less turned on or not in the mood for some
    reason to accomodate the other who wants sex. If we all waited
    for both to be in the mood at the same time we'd have a lot
    less love making. There are lots and lots of times (esp first
    thing in the morning) when my husband has been more 'turned on'
    than I was, and I've at first discouraged him. Then he'd continue
    to tickle or touch or kiss or what ever and I'd get turned on
    and enjoy love making. And there have been lots of times when
    it went the other way, and I got him going when he was initially
    not interested.
    
    I don't think that situations like this count as sexual coercion.
    
    Bonnie

    This is being entered for a noter who wishes to remain anoymous...
    
    -Jody
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
                      -------------------------


    	When I was 18 1/2, the "man" I had been dating decided it was time
    for me to lose my virginity.  *I* had fully intended to wait until I
    was married to make love.  I was, even then, a liberated woman; but to
    me liberation simply meant being allowed to make my own choice in the
    matter.  He knew this.  He supposedly understood this.  Sigh.

    	On that Halloween night (how appropriate, eh?) he just decided *he*
    didn't want me to wait.  He had been building up -- pardon the pun --
    to this for a while.  We were going to "run away and get married."  He
    was going to "be the first."  Anyway, that night the persuasive
    pressure was in full force.  I still said no.  He said "okay, we'll
    just cuddle, and hold each other."  I believed him.  After all, he
    *loved* me, right?  Suffice it to say that he did not take my "no"
    seriously, and we did *not* cuddle, and that was *not* the way I had
    wanted my first intimate encounter to be.

    	Was I raped?  You betcha.  Did I know that?  No.  He was very
    convincing about that.  Did he dump me right after?  Oh, yeah, his ego
    had been stroked, he didn't need me any more.  Did I have bruises?  Not
    on the outside, but I felt like my guts had been ripped out and danced
    on.

    	About a year later he came to a similar conclusion, I guess,
    because he call me to ask if he could come to my parents and see me.  I
    said yes, then made sure I had friends there with me.  It turned out
    that he just wanted to make amends, and apologise for what he had done. 
    It helped, but it didn't take away the fact that my right to decide had
    been stripped from me.

    	It took a long time for me to build my trust resources up again. 
    In fact, even now, 15 years later, I have trouble trusting emotions and
    expressions of love.  I'm working on it still, though, and, happily, I
    have someone in my life who is making the work easier.

    Brian
    
    how does this apply to the issue I brought up, of long term
    partners where one has started getting turned on  before
    the other?
    
    other than that I agree with you.
    
    Bonnie

    There is one man in soapbox in a similar string on the idea
    of date rape, who not only denies that date rape occurs,  but
    says that if someone has sex with an unconscious woman and
    she never knows about it, that nothing is damaged.
    
    sigh

    
    
    RE: .53
    
    
    > where does the ego get stroked?
    
    In the feeling of POWER over someone else.  You're getting lost in
    thinking that rape is about sexual turn-on.  It's NOT, it's about POWER
    and CONTROL over someone else.
    
    
    You have to understand that before you can understand the reason people
    rape others......and why they would even want to.
    
    
    To many, power over someone else is INDEED an "ego boost" (look at some
    of the politicians/dictators and entrepreneurs out there).
    
    
    kathy
    

    Bonnie,
    
    There is a difference between two people who love working to arouse
    each other or the other partner who isn't really there at the moment,
    and demanding that one's "needs" be fulfilled regardless of the
    physical or emotional state of the other person involved.
    
    This isn't loving, it really isn't even sex, it is a power game.
    It's getting what that person wants regardless, of what anyone else
    thinks or feels about it.  I seriously doubt that this sort of thing
    happens in a truly loving relationship, and experience seems to have
    proved me out.
    
    For those who can't understand how a woman can get herself into the
    situations I described, and that others have also experienced, I would
    like to know how a male animal can do this sort of thing to someone
    they allegedly love.  I would say and/or respect, but to me it is
    obvious that they have no repsect for the women they are involved with.  
    
    I was raised to believe that a woman was to submit to her husband, and
    never to raise her voice against him, even though I was also told to
    make sure I had some sort of income of my own.  Thanks for the mixed
    messages Mom.  (She has changed radically over the last eighteen years
    as well.)  
    
    It took 2 years to figure out that there was something
    seriously wrong with my relationship to my ex and another 5 to do
    something about it.  Divorce was also a no no in my family, inspite of
    my grandmothers who had both been through them.  I heard that I didn't
    love him if I wasn't ready to jump into the sack at a moments notice,
    had to put up with stony silences, off hand remarks, and finally an
    affair (see I can't get enough at home so I'm stepping out) when I
    finally stated that sex (I can't call this making love) was beginning
    to make me physically ill.  
    
    Don't think I'm soured on sex, I'm not.  I'm very soured on individuals
    who put their own power trip on someone else, and make them the guilty
    party, when the power tripper owns the problem.  As I have said, now
    that I am older, wiser, and less dependent on other's opinions of me,
    I'll never put up with someone using me as an inflatable doll to get
    two sets of rocks off mostly the power rock.  I hope that both my
    daughters will have the defenses and that I have raised them to avoid
    people of this sort.
    
    Meg                 
    

    Patrick,
    
    Please don't use what you read in People's magazine to determine what
    standards courts are using for anything.  Rape laws are statutes and
    the standards are written.  I know of NO rape statue that uses the term
    "unwanted".  "Consent" is still the basis for determing whether or not
    rape occurred.

    I agree with Kath that the crime of rape involves the motivation
    of the perpetrator needing to exert his/her own will over one who
    may be percieved as a weaker individual.
    
    In my CJ courses, we learned that rape was a crime of violence,
    whether the violence be actual physical, emotional or implied.
    By violence, the definition we learned was that the perpetrator
    was NOT motivated by sexual desire, but a craving for POWER and
    the ability to exert his/her will over somebody else.  My studies
    also indicated that in many cases of rape, the rapist was unable
    to achieve an erection/ejaculation, but the invasion of the body
    did not need to be genital to be rape.  In many cases, the perpetrator
    considers himself/herself so powerless in their daily lives, that
    their rage builds and ultimately results in the heinous act of rape.
    (I'm not saying that all angry people will rape, this was just one
    of the old profiles used when describing psychological make ups of
    convicted rapists).
    
    I think in terms of motivation, yes, Patrick, the definition of rape
    is changing.  Not the act, but the causes.  I've never been in a rape
    situation, so I cannot speak from experience.  It would seem to me 
    that in many cases of date rape (especially when some sort of rapport
    has already been established) that the prime motivator is now more of
    a sexual one.  I'm not saying that power doesn't come into play, but
    I do think that the desire is primarily to have sex with this person
    where as in the past it has been to make the victim subservient to 
    you.  In either case, it's a horrible crime and I wish nobody had to
    endure it ever again.
    
    Christine

   RE: .56
    
    Unconcious = yes.  Default state = yes.  In my opinion, that's garbage.
    Although from what I've encountered that seems to be true more often than
    not.

    The true default is NO.  Unless explictly stated otherwise.  At no
    time does drug use or alcohol illuminate a sign on ones back saying
    anyone can do what ever comes to mind.  To me that was a stunning 
    example of if we can't change the mind we'll wait until it's out
    for the count.  It operating on opertunity, rather than using force to
    achieve same.  The analogy would be, the door wasn't locked so it was
    ok for me to take the car.  In the analogy it was still theft.  So
    at least to me drunk at a party is not an excuse for someone else
    assuming permission.
    
    Allison

    Re .79 et al.  The gist of the definition of rape as described by
    people in this string seems to center around POWER over another person
    as the motivating factor.  Does this mean that sexual desire alone
    'cannot' be the motive for rape? Does this mean that a rapist who
    is turned on to the point of erection and/or ejacuation is actually
    turned on by his power trip rather than by a more purely sexual
    component?  This seems to imply that someone who 'wants anothers
    body' and is willing to take license (read pressure) another to obtain
    that sex is actually on a power trip and sex really isn't the motive?
    
    Does the potential rapist view potential victims through the eyes of
    a horny person, or through the eyes of someone who wants power over
    another with no CONSCIOUS sexual thoughts as they commit the crime?
    Its difficult to believe that a guy with a hard on isn't having sexual
    thoughts.
    
    I know, lots of questions here. Reading through some of your replies
    makes me wonder if the motive(s) for rape aren't actually more
    complicated than some of you seem to believe. "Its a power thing and
    one person simply wants to dominate/hurt another"
    
    Jeff 

    re .81 I agree, the desire for power is probably a consequence,
    not a root cause.
    
    The 'power/domination' -seeking is probably rooted in a deficient 
    self-image. "I am not in control. I am powerless. I am not good
    enough to receive love/affection/sex." This makes the act of
    _taking_ sex an attempt to fake a sense that "I _am_ in control;
    I _am_ powerful; I _deserve_ to have this person." 
    
    But like any other lie, wishing, or repetition, or denial of the
    truth doesn't change the lie to truth. Self-esteem can not be 
    faked.

re .49

>    Why does a push on the males part to have sex 'always' = 'proving his
>    manhood, or an ego thing'?  How about just plain being turned on by
>    the other person and wanting to make love to them as a valid reason?

This takes the view that sex is a one-person/one-object interaction.  
If you want a bauble or a desirable house, you can go out and buy
or build one.  They are objects and they don't care who they are used by.

However, if you want a desirable house that someone else is living in,
then you must negotiate with the owner to use it, a two-person interaction.  
The owner is a person with their own wants and desires, and they may or 
may not like you.  If you move in without the owner's consent, or move 
in because the owner is away on vacation, you are commiting a crime.  
You have violated another person's rights.

The problem with date rape is some men see women as objects.  The women
aren't people to be negotiated with, they are objects to possess through
sex.  The attitude in .49 portrays the one-person/one-object approach
to sex.  

			Bb

    Re. 81
    
>    Does this mean that sexual desire alone 'cannot' be the motive for
>    rape?
    
    Mmmmh, I'd say it isn't. Sexual desire alone can lead to trying to
    coerce somebody (within reason - I do agree about the accomodation to
    each other in a long-term relationship discussed earlier) but no matter
    how strong that desire is, I think it stops there once it's clear that
    the other *really* doesn't want. 
    
    Once it pushes further in spite of the other's wishes there's often
    something else playing - like having the feeling of having the "right",
    and "claiming" it. That, if you look at it, is a power play and nothing
    else. I don't think that takes the place of sexual desire, but it adds
    something that shouldn't ever be there.
    
    Ad

    Notes collision - oh well...
    
    Ad

    re. 83
    
    I like your analogy.  A few years ago -- maybe 5 -- a defense attorney
    told me that he felt that rape was still one of the easiest crimes to
    defend because having their house broken into was the closest most men 
    -- and there will be men on the jury -- would ever come to being
    personally violated.  He felt that this created a lack of understanding
    of the damage that rape (especially those which don't involve other
    physical harm) does to the victim and that lack of understanding
    coupled with societal attitudes stacked the deck in favor of the
    accused rapist. 

    
    I'm not sure I understand this latest thread of the discussion -- is it
    sex or is it power.  I think some folks (in this case, mostly men) "get
    off" on power.  I remember reading a book (based on a true story)
    about a man who was being tried for murdering a couple of people with a 
    homemade bomb.  In court, some police-expert described the death of one 
    man in gory detail: what kind of metal lodged where in the body, etc.  
    While this was being described, the defendant.....
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    came.       
    
    
    The presence of sexual arrousal and/or satisfaction of the assailant
    *DOESN'T* mean that no violence occurred or that the underlying motives
    didn't include a desire to completely control another human being.
    
    Justine

    re: rape motivations 
    
    while the desire to do violence or to control are two primary motives
    for rape, studies of convicted rapists show that lust (desire for sex)
    can indeed be a motive.
    
    'fraid i don't recall the source - except that it sounded pretty
    reputable to me.  i was paying very little attention to the show until
    they said sex was a motive...

    re:  .80
    
    If someone in the drunken state says yes, means yes at that time but
    under normal conditions wouldn't do such a thing, is that rape?????
    
    Unconcious in my mind is a definate "NO", but if you've got two drunks
    together saying "yes" or "what the hell" I really don't consider that
    rape, unless some sort of physical or mental threat was present.
    
    I'm probably going to come off as real cold and get totally sacked for
    this one, but I really don't have much pity of someone who's drunk and
    doesn't want to have sex but allows themself to be talked into it. 
    I've done a "ship load" of drinking in my day, and even when pretty
    well intoxicated I'm still capable of making fairly good decisions
    regarding myself, "I shouldn't drive home, I need to find a ride," or
    "I don't know this person, I'm not going to screw him."
    
    I guess I'm really really confused about this "intoxicated" yes or no
    situation.  If someone drunk says no and the person FORCES sex I do see
    it as rape, but if they're real drunk and they say yes, I really can't
    view that as rape.
    
    Kel
    

    Question --
    
    If someone drives drunk and kills another it is purely the intoxicated
    persons fault, although under normal conditions they wouldn't have
    harmed a soul.  If an intoxicated person consents to sex, but wouldn't
    have sober, it's rape?
    
    I feel for the coming generations.
    
    Kel
    

    >.89
    
    Yeah!  A sane voice in the crowd.  If someone made the decision to get
    drunk and then winds up doing something they regret...tough!
    
    Sure, a nice person wouldn't take advantage of the situation, but we're
    talking reality here.  If you do something stupid long enough,
    eventually you're going to pay for it. I'm not saying I thimk that
    person *deserved* to be raped.  Just that I have no sympathy for them.
    
    You're not cold, Kel...just practical.  There should be like you.
    
    
    
                                       L.J.

    re:  .80
    
<    If someone in the drunken state says yes, means yes at that time but
<    under normal conditions wouldn't do such a thing, is that rape?????
 
     You have a valid case there.  What if it were no initally then
     talked into yes?  The possible cases are endless.   Some case are 
     abusive others are opertunistic, I don't know.   Maybe the key is
     my assumption (I know but...) that one of the players was less drunk
     and being opertunistic.
       
     My inital reaction was partly to the idea that NO means yes because
     in some minds the inital condition is yes unless a no is forced.
     The old saw, she really didn't mean no because she did it anyway.
     That's what I meant by default yes.
    
     Allison

    If someone were mute, they can't say no very well.  If someone were
    mentally unbalanced, they can't say no very well.  If someone is drunk,
    they can't say no very well.  It's not CONSENT if you're obviously
    impaired in your judgement or communication.  In the case of liquor or
    mental impairment, you're BRAIN isn't all functioning, isn't all
    normal, isn't all "there".  
    
    The kindest thing to do with someone who's utterly trashed is help them
    through it and put 'em to bed alone (or take 'em to the hospital if
    they seem really badly off - alcohol poisoning is no joke).  It's
    compassion that drives us to help others even if our own needs aren't
    met in the process. It's compassion that allows someone to overlook
    their raging hormones for a minute and say "look, this isn't right,
    let's do this when we can both really enjoy it".  It's compassion and
    respect that allows a man to accept that "maybe" or "I don't know" or
    "no" or a drunken, slurred "yeshhhh" should all be taken as a NO or a
    NOT NOW.  If we're equal human beings, lets treat others as well as we
    treat ourselves, and respect their wishes as we hope they'd respect our
    own.  Let's cut them some slack when they're having an off day, or are
    not in the mood, or have tippled one too many.
    
    How the hell can the universe survive without compassion?
    
    -Jody
    

    Jody, you are absolutely correct in all this. Anyone who would take
    advantage of a person in any of these condition is, well, you know
    those things under rocks that make people go YYYUUUCCCHHH? A person who
    does that makes those things go YYYUUUCCCHHH. Humor aside, I could
    never understand how a person could take advantage of someone in a
    mentally unbalanced or drunken condition. Also, emotionally vulnerable
    states are easy targets. Say a personwho has just lost a loved one or
    broken up with their SO. I've been in these situation before and it
    would have been very easy to go to bed with these people. I don't think
    I could have lived with myself after. The cost would be my soul. 
    
    I didn't, the people recovered from their problems, and we are all
    still friends. 
    
    The other type of slime fungus I can't abide is the person who beds
    someone who is emotionally "hung up" on them, just to get quick sex and
    then dumps them or won't even acknowledge their existence afterwards. I
    need true emotional invovlement both giving and receiving before I can
    sleep with anyone. I hope that any future partner would feel the same
    way. I'm not saying this has to be a life partner, but, hopefully has
    the potential to last beyond a week or two. The only ones in this
    category that I can excuse are younger people. I think most of us know
    how hard wakening libidos are to control.
    
    Anyway, that's my take on it for now.
    
    Phil

    A reply from a second anonymous noter.
    
    -Jody
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    It bothers me a great deal to see "non-consent" twisted to mean "the
    woman consented but later decided that she'd made a wrong decision
    while drunk so changed her mind" (or some such.)  It implies that the
    woman's intoxicated state is being used as an excuse to "take back"
    consent that is assumed to have been given in the first place.

    While I would agree that someone who knowingly consents to intercourse
    should not be allowed to take it back later (and charge rape,) we have
    to ask ourselves what it takes to "knowingly" consent.

    When I was a teenager, some friends gave me a birthday party at the
    apartment I shared with 4 other young women.  It was the second night
    I'd been up all night, so I was extremely sleepy (along with having
    had several beers.)  Several of us were in my room listening to music
    when my date started kissing and touching me.  Everyone else in the
    room had fallen asleep except for his best friend (who was intently
    watching the moves my date was making on me.)

    My date was a man I'd been out with once before, but I hadn't done more
    than kiss him before that night.  When he started kissing and touching
    me, he regarded my body language as responding to him (which he took
    as consent for intercourse.)  What was really happening to me is that
    I was in enough of a semi-sleep state to believe I was having a dream
    (and that nothing was actually happening.)

    My dream wasn't sexual, though.  In my dream, I felt what he was doing
    to me, but I didn't regard it as being touched in a sensuous or sexual
    way.  It was painful to me - and my dream involved being caught up in
    a violent riot on a college campus (where people were breaking windows
    and bursting through locked doors.)  I felt frightened and uncomfortable.

    After some moments (before my date's actions removed the rest of my
    clothes and proceeded to intercourse,) I woke up and looked up at him.
    I said, "What are you doing???"  He stopped everything immediately.
    I looked over and saw his friend watching us from a bed 3 feet away
    (we were on the floor.)  My date was very apologetic.  He had no idea
    that I wasn't involved in his sexual advances towards me.  He had no
    idea that I was too "out of it" to know what was happening.

    Sure, it wasn't smart of me to stay up for two nights in a row because
    of my birthday.  It wasn't smart of me to refrain from telling him to
    leave, even though the apartment (and my room) were filled with other
    sleeping roommates and guests.

    The point I'm trying to make is that it is possible for intercourse
    to proceed without the woman being conscious enough to make a real
    decision about it (and without the woman knowing that it is happening.)
    A greater degree of awareness is usually required for the man because
    of the state of arousal and actions that are most often necessary for
    the man to penetrate another person.

    Medical histories given by patients during exams for sexually transmitted
    diseases use the terms "active" and "passive" for various forms of
    intercourse.  While I'm not trying to suggest that women are truly passive
    during sex, it is true that heterosexual vaginal intercourse involves a
    set of actions that can be termed "active" and "passive" (in terms of
    who is penetrating whom.)  The active person is more in a position to
    guide the events when the passive person is incapacitated through
    sleep or alcohol.

    If the man engages in sexual intercourse with a woman without her
    knowingly consenting, he is doing it against her will.  Cases like
    these rarely result in a charge of rape, but it doesn't change the
    fact that a rape has been committed.  If a man takes away the woman's
    capacity to consent, he should not regard this as a "yes" by default.
    Neither should the woman be held responsible for this rape by being
    in a position to lose her capacity to consent.  The decision to engage
    in intercourse should always belong to both individuals.  Talking
    someone into having sex is one thing, but assuming that it's ok because
    the person is not capable of giving consent at all and proceeding on
    one's own initiative is rape.
    

    Decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1870:
    
    All the statutes of England and of Massachusetts, and all the text
    books of authority, which have undertaken to define the crime of
    rape, have defined it as the having carnal knowledge of a woman
    by force and against her will.  The crime [Commonwealth v. Burke]
    consists in the enforcement of a woman without her consent.  The
    simple question, expressed in the briefest form, is, Was the woman
    willing or unwilling?  The earlier and more weighty authorities show
    that the words "against her will," in the standard definitions, mean
    exactly the same thing as "without her consent;" and that the
    distinction between these phrases, as applied to this crime, which
    has been suggested in some modern books, is unfounded.

>   The earlier and more weighty authorities show
>    that the words "against her will," in the standard definitions, mean
>    exactly the same thing as "without her consent;" and that the
>    distinction between these phrases, as applied to this crime, which
>    has been suggested in some modern books, is unfounded.

	This goes back to many other replies.

	How do you know it's "against her will"?

	Different people may interpret identical signals differently.

	It would be simple to say that saying "YES" was the only yes.

	However, in relationships, especially early on in relationships, 
	misunderstandings can happen, what then? You don't always discuss, and
	agree yes/no - often lovemaking is spontaneous.
	
	If you find the situation going differently from what you expected, then
	speak up, or you may continue to be misunderstood.

	There are some very clear situations. However, if you find yourself in a
	"grey" area, for goodness sake say something. You owe it to yourself.

	Heather

	OK,  I'm confused.  Do people actually go from touching and
	carressing,  no matter how involved, to actual penetration
	without first asking, "Do you want to?"  or at least, "Are
	you protected?"  ????  In this day & age of STD's  and
	concern about un-planned pregnancies?


	I can't imagin the type of person who'd proceed without a clear
	answer to a clear statement.  Yeah it's a little unromantic,
	but as the saying goes,  if you don't know them well enough
	to ask,  you don't know them well enough to do it.


	m

    Yes, there are people who engage in that behavior.
    
    It is *precisely* those questions I wanted out on the table before
    the "gentleman" (heavy sarcasm) in question and I went any further,
    and which he persistently brushed aside while proceeding to full
    penetration.
    
    In hindsight, I should have hit him.  But ladies don't do that,
    particularly to people they like. :-}
    
    Alison 

    Allison, ladies(however you wish to define that term) most certainly
    should hit a "gentleman" (read bastard) who ignores a woman's wishes or
    attempts to force himself on her at anytime that she might not wish it.
    She should pick up the nearest blunt instrument and threaten him with
    it. She should do anything required to protect herself in a potentially
    dangerous situation. Make no mistake, a man trying to force his
    unwanted sexual advances on another person (man or woman) is creating a
    dangerous, not always lifethreatening, situation and should be stopped
    cold. Even if that means taking his life. 
    
    I know. I know. This is the real world we live in and a person could
    find hirself in trouble with the law just for protecting hirself. I can
    only say that I would not make a good juror in these cases. I would
    always vote to aquit someone standing trial for assault or murder
    committed in the defense of hir personal being.
    
    Phil

    Page One in the New York Times today....
    
    "Growing Talk of Date Rape Separates Sex From Assault"
    Agony on Campus:  What Is Rape?
    A Special Report.
    
    A brief excerpt:
    
        The most widely cited study to date on the issue was
        conducted in 1984 and 1985 by Mary P. Koss, then at Kent
        State University and now a professor of psychiatray at
        the University of Arizona, and three associates, with
        financing from the National Institute of Mental Health. 
        It found that 207 women, or almost 7 percent of the
        sample of the 3,187 polled on 32 campuses, said they had
        experienced sexual assualt in the previous 12 months. 
        The poll defined assault as intercourse by physical
        force, intercourse as a result of intentionally getting
        the woman intoxicated, or forcible oral or anal
        penetration.
        
        But university administrators, councelors and students
        say that acquaintance rape occurs far more often than is
        reported, or than studies show.
        
        ....
    
        For example, during a dormitory lecture on acquaintance
        rape at Lehigh University recently, a male student was
        asked by a dorm official whether he had ever committed
        rape.
        
        "Hell no," the young man responded.  But when the
        student was asked whether a women he had dated had
        consented to having sex, he responded, "No, but she
        didn't say no, so she must have wanted it, too."
        
        "Are you sure?" he was asked.
        
        "Well, not really, but you can never be completely
        sure," the man responded, adding that both of them had
        been drunk and that the woman had struggled initially
        before they had sex.  "But they all do .... It's the way
        it works," he told the dorm official.
        
        After the conversation, the young man admitted he was
        "very confused."  He then concluded he had raped "some"
        of the women he had dated.
        
        							-mr. bill

    It seems to me that there is a big difference between acts that fit the
    legal definition of rape and acts that can be proved beyond reasonable
    doubt to be rape.  When the *only* evidence is her word vs. his word
    that isn't going to stand up in court (at least I hope not).  But, just
    because there isn't enough evidence to prove rape doesn't mean it
    didn't occur.
    
    One thing that I find very disturbing about it is that rape of all
    kinds is considered a serious crime and carries a very stiff penalty.
    To me there's a big difference between two drunken college students
    having sex while their judgement is impaired, and a violent physical
    sexual assault by a stranger.  I certainly agree its wrong to take
    sexual advantage of someone with impaired judgement, but a person who
    does it shouldn't necessarily be locked up for years.
    
    Anyway, I still agree with Jody.  Even if its not a crime, it doesn't
    show good judgement or compassion to have sex with someone whose
    judgement is impaired.  But compassion is also due to the man who makes
    such an error in judgement.  He is guilty, but is he really guilty of a
    felony?
    
    Mary

re: .104
    
>    judgement is impaired.  But compassion is also due to the man who makes
>    such an error in judgement.  He is guilty, but is he really guilty of a
>    felony?
    
    I think his intent comes clear the morning after.  How does he treat
    her?  Like a stray cat, or a friend?  Does he ask her how she feels? 
    Do they discuss what happened and either heal what was wrong or assure
    each other they'll try not to let it happen again?  I think a great
    deal of the "date rape" stuff that's all bedecked with liquor and "she
    says no but she means yes" is he-focused - his gratification, his
    comfort, his pleasure.  So consequently, the next morning, he won't
    care how she feels, or what, if anything, she would like from him
    afterwards in the way of communication, support, commiseration, or
    whatever.  Non-consensual sex against one's will is different from
    "oops we were both drunk and we did it anyway, but we talked about it
    and decided that.....whatever....would be best for both of us" (where
    "whatever" is getting support, assuring it doesn't happen again,
    talking about it until you feel understood, communicating better in the
    future, staying away from liquor, using birth control if they really
    care about each other, etc....)
    
    -Jody
    
    
 

     
    RE: .104
    
    In some Mass towns, the Police don't care about resonable doubt,
    and will arrest person B if person A says a rape has been commited,
    and that is the *only* evidence. It may not stand up in court, but....
    
    GTN
    

    re:  .78
    
    The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a woman in a sexual harrassment
    case who gave consent to "unwelcome sex".  It seems feasible to me that
    the Supreme court could also re-rule on "consent" vs. "unwanted".
    
    patrick
    

    GTN
    
    I hope if I walk into a police station and say I've been
    raped that the police will arrest my assalant if I know
    hir by sight. Just as if I walk in and say I've been beaten
    or robbed or..
    
    that is standard police procedure. 
    
    It seems to me that this issue has hit a hot button for you.
    Would you like to talk about it in greater depth?
    
    Bonnie

    -d

    agreed, what I was trying to say was should I walk into a police
    station saying that I have been raped! with evidence or
    robbed with evidence, or assaulted with evidence, that the police
    will pick up the person that I describe as the perp without worrying 
    about the laws that pertain to trial, i.e. innocent until guilty.
    If there is sufficient evidence they will get a warrant and arrest
    someone. It is up to the jury to decide if the evidence fits the
    suspect.

    if there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed
    and there is an eye witness identification, then the police will
    arrest the person, and laws about presumed innocence apply at the
    trail *not* at the arrest.

    That was what I was trying to say.

    Bonnie

    Only in the case --Polly, correct me if I'm wrong-- a misdemeanor do
    the police need personal knowledge of the act, for a felony charge
    probable cause can be provided by the complaint of a reputable citizen
    and no warrant is needed if the police have reason to believe that the
    delay might allow the alleged perp to escape.

    
    
    I was just pointing out that not all Police departments will arrest
    on someone's word. Some will investigate further before making an
    arrest, some will just arrest.
    
    My earlier note was intended to be an FYI.
    
    GTN
    

    Makes sense to me.  Good communication in that note; thanks, edp!

    ..and I certainly hope that if I walk into a police station and explain
    that I've been raped that the police will get busy and arrest my
    assailant without any delay. I also hope they lock her a way for a very
    long, long time.
    
    Don
    *8-)

    re: .113
    
    Eric,
    
    I hope this helps.  I think we all know that miscommunication 
    can be a part of all our daily lives, there is no disputing
    that.  I also realize that it is still difficult for some folks
    to openly discuss sex.  In the case you described, I would not
    say rape occurred, but without trying to talk about it and being
    sure your partner wants to participate, I would imagine such a
    scenario could result in a broken friendship due to the reluctant
    one's resentment for not wanting to go that far.  I know this 
    doesn't really answer the question, but I think sometimes a
    woman can be physically ready to have sex with somebody, but for
    whatever reasons, emotionally, they may not be ready to go that
    far, so while body language is saying "yes, this is nice, I like
    this", it's being interpreted as "great, let's do it", and it's
    very easy to go along with the flow if you give into your senses.
    You may not have been ready for it, and afterwards have regrets,
    but I would not call that situation rape.  I would suggest that 
    the parties learn to communicate verbally as well as physically,
    but this isn't a perfect world.  If you are looking for guidelines
    you should follow, I'd say always ask and make sure.  It can't
    hurt.
    
    Christine

    
    re .115:
    
    Don, FWIW, if you were raped, it's most likely (by a longshot)
    the assailant would be male, not female.
    

	One time, a female acquaintance and I spent the night together and
	engaged in sexual intercourse.  Sometime later we were talking
	about that night and confided to each other that neither of us
	really wanted to have intercourse, but did so because we thought
	the other person wanted to.  I don't recall either one of us
	saying yes or no.

	Does this mean we raped each other ?

	Rich...

    Again, I'd say it's the intent that mattered.  You GAVE to each other,
    rather than taking.  I'd say that's a big difference.  Did it feel like
    rape?
    
    -Jody

    
    >Did it feel like rape ?
    
    No, not at all.  I'd say it felt more like a chore, but fun.
    
    Rich...
    

    Reading through this string, I get the impression its' risky business
    having sex with someone you don't know well, and I am not talking about
    the risk of AIDS.  I am talking about going to jail if there has been
    a miscommunication or a less than perfectly clear yes.  Guess we had
    all be pretty careful.
    
    Jeff

    
    Re: .113
    
    edp - well put.  I agree with you, the "neither yes or no" scenario
    seemed to be being ignored in this note.
    
    Sam
    

    Why shouldn't it be?  The courts decided it over a hundred years ago.
    
    :-)
    
    						Ann B.

There are always gray areas. I'm sure we can manufacture hundreds of scenerios
where it would be difficult to tell if rape occured. In most of those instances
I don't think the women would claim it was rape. She may well decide not to
continue in a relationship with the male in question. 

As to getting into bed with someone and removing your clothes, that's flat
asking bodies to be saints. If it wasn't agreed beforehand that sex was *not*
in the picture I'd have a *real* hard time saying it was rape. Why would you put
someone in that situation?

I can also imagine many situations where a woman might be physically aroused and
not want sex. If she is the sort of person who wants emotional commitment and
not just a physical experience then she may well decide not to follow through
on what her body wants. We have the *right* to choose. liesl

    Re: .121 risky business and being careful
    
    Your note sums up things pretty well to me.  I think our culture has
    taught a lot of people that "sowing wild oats" is the norm for men and
    its treated with a very casual attitude.  The risks and consequences of
    it are not widely understood.
    
    Miscommunication is easy.  So when it comes to something like making
    a decision to have sex with someone else, its wise to make sure that
    the two of you are communicating well before proceeding.
    
    Mary

     the desire for emotional commitment is not the only reason why a
    woman might not want sex, though she is attracted physically to a man. 
    It has happened to me a few times that I meet a man I like a lot, and
    am *also* attracted to.  Now, since I am a married person with fairly
    conventional ideas about the exclusive nature of that contract, I am
    not going to bed the guy.  (Note, I'm not gonna try to platonically
    share a bed with him either!  I'm not *that* stupid! and clearly there
    are certain other situations  and actions to be avoided... )  In one
    particular case of this, both the man and I acknowledged both the
    attraction, and the understanding that it wasn't going anywhere.  I
    know this is off the track of this string somewhat, but only wanted to
    point out explicitly what's been implied in a few replies:  hormones are
    not destiny.  You don't necessarily even want to act on every one of
    your body's (or mind's) whims... so add another dimension to the
    discussion:  yes, I like you and it'd be fun, but the answer is no.
                                              

    
>    You say anything except yes is no.  But then you say the yes need not
<    be verbal.  READ MY NOTE; I indicated the actions of deciding to sleep
				^^^^^^^^^^
<    together, getting undressed, and getting into bed communicated a yes.
						      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^		
<    There was, in one person's mind and quite reasonably so, a yes
<    communicated, a non-verbal yes.  That person thought they had a yes,
						 ^^^^^^^^^
<    and they had no reason to believe they were not reading the signals
<    correctly.
<    
<    This is not a case where there was a no.  This is not a case where a
<    default yes was assumed.  It is a case where there was
<    miscommunication.
<                     
<    
<    				-- edp


	-- edp,

	I think the key word here is *thought*...., while the situation
	you discribe may not be prosecutable in todays judicial system,
	I personally feel it is rape.  Obviously,  some in this file
	agree with me,  some don't.

	If you are asking purely as a debating technique, you've succeeded
	in arousing several people.

	If you are interested in how to ensure you personally never fall
	into the above situation, very simply ASK.  An explicit question
	with an explicit answer (possibly while the two of you are engaged
	in the 'preliminaries') will leave no room for "mis-communication".
	
	mary

	Note: You state that getting in bed together, undressed, *indicates*
	a yes.  I strongly disagree.  If you base your actions on that
	assumption, you do risk a "mis-communication", (which would hopefully
	be cleared up before a rape occured.)
	

    RE .107 -- Sexual Harrassment is a civil offense, not a crime.  Rape is
    a crime.  Crimes have "elements" which must be proven.  For rape lack
    of consent is an element.  "I didn't want to but I said OK." - absent
    force or other forms of duress - is still consent.  Believe me, our
    legal system has many, many safe-guards built in to protect the rights
    of the accused.  The judge has very little, if any, leaway in
    interpretation of the law as written.
    
    Sexual harassment is based on the concept of "unwanted sexual"
    attention.  If the woman -- and I haven't read the case -- consented to
    unwanted sex because she felt she had to to protect her job, then I can
    see how the Court could rule it as sexual harassment.  
    
    I made the comment to an acquaintance -- also a 40'ish woman -- that my
    daughter had been sexually harassed on her first job and her comment
    was "Wasn't everyone?"  Unless you've been in the position of
    supporting a family and afraid that a "no" will mean you don't have
    that job, you can't really understand the position this woman was in
    and why the courts would rule that this falls under the scope of the
    sexual harassment statute. 
    
    

    Re: .127
    
    > you've succeeded in arousing several people.
    
    Yes, but do they want sex?  :-)
    
    Mary

    >	Note: You state that getting in bed together, undressed, *indicates*
    >	a yes.  I strongly disagree.  If you base your actions on that
    >	assumption, you do risk a "mis-communication", (which would hopefully
    >	be cleared up before a rape occured.)
    
    I do not want to discount the suffering that results from rape; I do
    not want to imply that victims of rape "ask for it."  You will have to
    take my word for it that these statements are a true reflection of my
    feelings.
    
    I believe we human beings have to take responsibility for our
    actions and the results of those actions.
    
    Any sensible adult person has to realize that getting in bed together
    (willingly, with someone whom you have recently been communicating sexual
    messages to) with clothes off (voluntarily) is generally a prelude to 
    sex.  If you don't want it, you don't do it. 
    
    Now I'm sure someone will come up with a valid example of just when
    such a situation could occur when sex was not intended as the end
    result (we were caught in a freezing cold downpour in the only clothes
    available to us and the heat was off in the cabin and the only way we 
    could keep warm and not freeze to death while our clothes dried was to
    share our minimal body heat in the single sleeping bag within 20
    miles).  And I'll willingly grant that there COULD be OCCASIONS when
    circumstances conspire to create a tempting but potentially dishonorable 
    situation.  
    
    But without such compelling circumstances, I can't understand how any
    mature, sensible adult female would put herself into such a position
    without intending for sex to result.
      	
    We women bear some of the responsibility for preventing "rape," too. 
    	-  Clear and forceful NOs if that's what we mean
    	-  Open and honest YESes if that's how we feel 
        -  And recognizing that if we place ourselves in chancy
           positions, we'd better darn well be prepared to communicate 
           our decisions and defend them if necessary 
    all would be a good place to start.   
    
    Karen
               

    
>    Now I'm sure someone will come up with a valid example of just when
>    such a situation could occur when sex was not intended as the end
>    result (we were caught in a freezing cold downpour in the only clothes
>    ............................................


	Okay,     just so you won't be dissapointed, an example:      :-)

	every single night when my husband and I go to bed.........not wearing
	clothes in bed has nothing to do with making love, it just means we 
	don't wear night clothes.
	(ps some people like to make love with clothes on, not off, it just 
	depends on the person).

	I can't remember the last time I actually owned pajamas - probably at 
	19 when the whole family moved into a house with central heating.

	But if this had been a first date - well, I wouldn't have been in bed 
	with them anyway!

	Heather

    re .131, still, I think it's probably pretty safe for your husband to
    assume that at some point you will be having sex with him even if it's
    not every night.  
    
    I think people who don't want to have sex should go to bed alone or, at
    the very least, keep their pants on.
    
    I, also, agree with Karen that women have to accept responsibility for
    not having sex when they don't want to, and I thought edp's replies
    were interesting.  I think that when someone winds up having sex when
    they didn't really want to it's usually because of miscommunication.  I
    don't think most men want to have sex with women who aren't
    interested.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    RE: .133
    
    
    Even though you might think that was funny......
    
    I think it was totally uncalled for and very rude.
    
    
    kathy

    re: .128
    
    What I'm saying is:
    
    1.  Many court rulings are based on 'related but not identical' cases.
    
    2.  I know the difference between Sexual Harrassment and Rape but other
        recent cases of 'date rape' have used the 'voluntary but unwelcome
        sex' issue to prosecute male college students.
    
    3.  The line is thin.  The line moves.  A situation may not be rape but
        even if the woman consents it may not be welcome sex.  The bottom
        line for me is:
    
    		a.  Only have sex with someone you know well (for a variety
    			of reasons).
    
    		b.  Sex with someone who is not an extremely active partner
    			can't be very enjoyable anyway.
    
    		c.  Sex with someone unconscious is approaching
    			necrophilia and should be treated like the crime of
    			necrophilia.
    
    		d.  Rape is a crime of violence.  Sometimes the power
    			motive is hidden behind an erection.
    
    		e.  Unwanted sex is serious and deserves our national
    			attention.
    
    		f.  Even women with poor judgement deserve to be treated as
    			human beings.
    
    		g.  I've had my share plus a couple of others share of
    			testosterone and I have always taken 'no' to mean
    			'no' (no exceptions).  I have at times interpreted
    			'yes' to mean 'no'.  I have never tried to
    			overpower a woman.
    
    My point of all this self-disclosure is to say I know what's 'moral'
    for me.  There are people in this country who will tread upon anothers
    rights if it's not 'illegal'.  My purpose of this note (I've stated
    before) was to gather opinions of women in this conference.  I've read
    the male comments, and while some of them were valid, it wasn't what I
    was looking for.  I'm curious where this issue will go in the courts.
    
    The response of this note went beyond what I thought it would. 
    Especially given the fact that many people are still on vacation.  I
    hope that others have been given as much to think about and assimilate
    as I have.
    
    patrick

    
    
    
    >2.  I know the difference between Sexual Harrassment and Rape but
    >other recent cases of 'date rape' have used the 'voluntary but
    >unwelcome sex' issue to prosecute male college students.
    
    Can you please cite some examples of this?  I don't think I've ever
    heard of any cases where such a case was presented and ever made it to
    trial.
    
    I've been thru the date rape system.......and from my experiences, I
    would safely say that they use that defense, not to prosecute males,
    but rather to prove innocence (ie, the woman really wanted it).
    
    
    My experiences are VERY different from what you cite.....could you
    please go into more detail?
    
    Thanks.
    
    kathy

    Re .133
    
    Who's EDP? What sex is he/she?
    
    Don
    *8-)

    re:  .136
    
    Kathy,
    
    There are a couple of cases.  I'll try to bring in some specific references
    from home tomorrow.  One involves a woman on the CU campus the other
    is a case that was mentioned here about the woman in Minnesota (?) with
    multiple personalities.  She consented (one of her personalities) while
    on a date with a guy (the slime butt was married).  The court found him
    guilty although I don't know what kind of sentance he was given. 
    Actually the CU Boulder woman was in PEOPLE magazine.  She's on the
    front cover and it was from last month.  From that article I got that
    they questioned at least one of these guys who unknowingly admitted to
    the crime because he didn't see it as rape.  He was convicted.  I don't
    know what kind of sentance they got but I think they mentioned some of
    that in the article.  I realize that PEOPLE magazine is a long way from
    the Supreme Court, and they didn't give the actual court proceedings,
    but it sure seemed that these guys were convicted of 'date rape'.
    
    patrick

    re.142
    
    But, Patrick, again the question in the multiple personality case was
    "consent" and the woman's legal capacity to consent.  It also, as I
    recall turned around a state statute which made it illegal for a person
    to knowingly have sex with a mentally ill person.  Conviction would
    then turn on whether or not the prosecution could prove beyond a
    reasonable doubt that the accused knew that the woman was mentally ill
    and unable -- legally -- to consent.
    
    I have a hard time seeing rape cases and sexual harassment cases as
    "similar" from a legal standpoint.  The legal issues to be decided are
    not the same. And, a ruling in a harassment case sets absolutely no 
    precedence for a rape case. 
    
    If People magazine is portraying the issue in date rape cases as being
    whether or not the woman wanted sex as opposed to whether or not she
    consented to sex, then they are misconstruing the law.  The real issue
    is proving consent or lack thereof.  In date rape that can be more
    difficult than in a more physically forceful situation.
    
    As to your bottom line -- I think you're right on the mark.
    
    Polly

    Perhaps it's time that people gave up trying to read minds. 
    
    Maybe it's the culture's odd way of dealing with sex and/or the
    human body - I think we're still suffering the legacy of all those
    poor Victorians. But this is too important an issue for potential
    sexual partners to be guessing about *anything* - from AIDS to consent.
    
    If a woman can't stop playing games and look a guy in the eye and
    say "Yes.", then I think the guy should opt out. If she really wanted
    to have sex with him, she'll learn (is it Operant Conditioning? I
    always forget...) to say "yes". If she *doesn't* want to have sex
    with him, she won't have done anything that felt forced to her, and
    *he* won't have done anything that put him in doubt about her consent.
    
    It isn't always easy to think, what with all that Heavy Breathing
    going on, but I think both genders owe it to themselves to do so.
    
    --DE
    

    in re .127
    
    mary
    
    I very much disagree with you..
    
    given the nature of human beings, I think that if a woman takes
    her clothes off and lies down in a bed with a man who has
    also taken his clothes off, that she has given an non verbal
    signal that she has consented to have sex with him.
    
    to argue other wise, is in my mind rather silly and is asking 
    far more of the man than is entirely fair.
    
    if a woman wishes to lie in a bed naked with a man and not have
    sex I think she dern well ought to tell him that before she undresses.
    
    If I were in a bed naked with a man I would assume that sex
    would follow unless 
    
    1. I've just been rescued from a natural disaster and have not clothes
    2. My husband is sick and I couldn't find my nitie in the clean
    clothes.
    
    Bonnie

    
>    given the nature of human beings, I think that if a woman takes
>    her clothes off and lies down in a bed with a man who has
>    also taken his clothes off, that she has given an non verbal
>    signal that she has consented to have sex with him.
 
	I can just see us now......

	Me, "Well Dave, I've just taken off my clothes to get into bed, but it's
	"hands-off" tonight".

	Dave, " pardon? "

	Me, "Well, you must think I want sex because I've taken my clothes off"

	Dave "No I don't, you take your clothes off to go to bed, just like
	we do every night.   Anyway, why would I think you want sex when you 
	haven't even nibbled my ear?"

	Dave now wonders if I'm coming down with something - like insanity.	
   
>    to argue other wise, is in my mind rather silly and is asking 
>    far more of the man than is entirely fair.
 
	I dissagree, and so does my husband.
   
>    if a woman wishes to lie in a bed naked with a man and not have
>    sex I think she dern well ought to tell him that before she undresses.
 
	I disagree, and so does my husband.
   
>    If I were in a bed naked with a man I would assume that sex
>    would follow unless 
>    
>    1. I've just been rescued from a natural disaster and have not clothes
>    2. My husband is sick and I couldn't find my nitie in the clean
>    clothes.
 
	You have forgotten:

     3. Neither of you have possesed night clothes since you threw out your
	winceyette pajamas - at the earliest opportunity that your mother 
	allowed.

	Heather

    .149
    
    Hear! Hear!  I agree totally with your comments Heather.  Since
    moving in together nearly 3.5 years ago my now hubby has never owned
    nor worn a pair of PJ's and I for that matter prefer to sleep in
    the buff too.
    
    It's also nicer to snuggle up to ;-))
    
    
    Tracy W

    re .149, I think the situation you describe only applies to married
    couples.  Obviously, a discussion of date rape is not a discussion of
    married couples since I would assume that anyone who agreed to marry me
    had also agreed to have sex with me (at least on occasion).  
    
    Lorna
    

    okay Heather, I should have included, the option that this is
    a couple that has known each other for some period of time and
    the normally sleep in the  buff.
    
    :-)
    
    Bonnie

Lorna, you beat me to it!

It looks like there are a number of conversations going on in
here, with Heather, Bonnie, -d, edp (everyone, actually) making
some good points. But some of the points apply best to dating
partners and some to long-term partners.

It might help other readers if you indicated the context of their
statements.

Kathy

>  It might help other readers if you indicated the context of their
>  statements.

Make that:

It might help readers if you indicate the context of your statements.

Kathy

    I have just been scanning thru many of the comments and just wanted to
    add my two cents. 
    
    What ever happend to the days when people "made love" not "had sex".
    There is a big difference.  All these people having a problem
    communicating with their partner about yes or no, etc, its because
    they are just "having sex" with practically a total stranger.  Making
    love to someone you truly love makes it truly magical not just a
    physical release.   Too bad society has condoned all this multiple
    sex partners and live-in situations.  In my opinion, and it's just
    my opinion,  people don't know how to "date" anymore.  It's who's
    going to score tonight. Sex is almost automatically something that
    happens at the end of the date.   They miss out on really getting to
    know a person and having a wonderful time.   And for any relationship
    to endure a long period of time, especially marriage, the couple has
    to be "best friends" first then lovers.  That person has to be the
    one you turn to for all your needs. You've got to love that
    person above anyone else.  Now a days, too many relationships are
    based on sex.  When the newness and first time thrills of sex wear off
    eventually, they have nothing concrete to hold the relationship
    together.     I can vouch for 29 years of a great marriage and great
    sex.  We are best friends as well as lovers!
    

    Why in the name of heaven would a guy want to have sex with a woman 
    with whom he doesn't have communication clear enough that she can
    tell him she *wants* to have sex/make love with him?
    
    --DE
    

    re:.158
    
    BRAVO!!!!! That's exactly what I was refering to in my note only you
    put it much simplier. I think people feel presssured that they *have*
    to have sex with everyone they date!
    
    

    re:  .158
    
    <<Why in the name of heaven would a guy want to have sex with a woman
    with whom he doesn't have communication clear enough that she can 
    tell him she *wants* to have sex/make love with him?>>
    
    Necrophilia.
    
    It's a pretty ugly fact but a true fact.  There are millions of shades
    of gray in between sex that is a wonderful act of love and necrophilia. 
    Your answer lies in there.  Good luck on finding it, I never have.
    
    For me making love is a consumation and a physical manifestation of
    something that is happening on a spiritual, mental and emotional level. 
    Anything else is not making love but rather having sex.
    
    Although having sex is not something I see as *EVIL*, it doesn't have
    anything going for it but a physical release.  I knew a woman in
    College.  For some reason when we were together we could'nt keep our
    hands off one another.  She told me that simply being close to me made
    her light-headed and other things I wouldn't feel comfortable writing
    in this note.  We had sex; lots of sex.  It wasn't love but at the
    time, for where we were and what we needed, it was great.  I discovered
    the passionate side of myself and she discovered multiple orgasms.
    
    My point is that making love and having sex are two different things
    but for me it doesn't mean that one is good and the other bad.  But in
    all cases with me the key is communication.  With no communication you
    might as well do it yourself.
    
    patrick 

re: .157, .159:

    set flame/medium-high

    This is a hot button, because this is the sort of thing I've heard
    from my parents more times than I want to think about counting.

    You say you've been happily married for 29 years.  Presumably, that
    means you've been out of the dating scene for that time, too.  How
    do you know what pressures people feel when they go on dates?  How
    do you know it's "who's going to score tonight": movies, TV?  And
    what, pray tell, makes you think that live-in partners don't know each
    other well, or that something like a live-in relationship would 
    contribute to the problem of date rape?  Shoot, why do you even think
    most people are looking for lasting relationships?

    The average moral code is different than it was in 1962.  It is not
    necessarily "worse", not nonexistent, just different.  Most people I
    know do *not* feel pressured to have sex on the first date - even those
    that have been in situations where date rape did or almost occurred.
    And most live-in relationships I know of are quite exclusive, and the
    participants know each other quite well.  If you aren't familiar with
    what's really going on "out there", why are you judging it?  Do you think
    that's going to *help*?

    Rolling the clock back 30 or 40 years is *not* going to stop date rape.
    Just because the problem wasn't publicized as much then doesn't mean
    it wasn't happening then, too.  Perhaps it is "pressure to score" that's
    the problem.  If so, it's been around since long before society condoned
    kissing on the first date.

    set flame/off

	Sharon

    
    
    re: .161  Gee, sure didn't intend to get you all wound up. You sound
    so angry. It was "just my opinion".  I'm not judging anyone. I thought
    this note file was to be able to express ones *opinion*.  
    
    Of course I've been out of the dating game for 29 years,
    however, I have three grown children who have been in the dating scene
    and also at college with all the party scenes. Our kids are 
    very open with us and they *told* us the pressures
    to have sex.  Some of the things that happened in one of my daughters
    dorm were unbelievable. Both daughters told us of the date rapes that
    happened to their friends.  So how do I know about "who's going to
    score" - right from my children's mouth. No Movies or TV as you
    suggest. That's not the real world. 
    
    Obviously you weren't able to have open discussions 
    with your parents per your opening sentence of your reply.  
    I have a 21 year old  son, and he says his friends talk about
    that all the time.  Guys talk about it in the locker room or where ever.
    Getting "it" is the big thing today. 
    
    You ask why do I think most people are looking for a lasting
    reltionship.  I'll tell you why. You just have to listen to
    people and read reports to see that the majority of people want a 
    "lasting" relationship. Some would give their eye teeth, but they 
    don't know how to go about it. I work with some people in their 30's
    and they are still trying to find a lasting relationship but they go
    about it all wrong.  They jump into bed first date and later down
    the road it doesn't work out. No wonder. They don't have a basis
    for a lasting friendship!   
      
    
    Too bad the moral values of today have changed drastically
    and just maybe they "ought" to go back to the old Moral code. With all
    the disease out there and AIDS, people are going to have to change 
    their habits 'cause it's a matter of life and death! 
    
    I never said live-in relationships contribute to date-rape. I was
    only pointing out the majority of live-ins fizzle out after a while
    as there is no legal commitment in the relationship making it too 
    easy to walk out the door first sign of trouble. Therefore, people go
    from one relationship to another never really finding peace and
    happiness.
    
    

    Thanks, Sharon, I feel exactly the same way.
    
    I'd like to add that making generalizations about *any* generation is
    guaranteed to 1) be wrong in some cases and 2) get your in trouble. 
    You are making generalizations about todays "dating" generation.
    
    Also, think about this...all those marriages that are so superior to
    co-living?  Why are they all failing.  I was talking with my father
    (he's of your generation) and he says he doesn't know one single,
    solitary friend from that time period who got married and is still
    married.  
    
    I would say most *relationships8 tend to fizzle out, whether they are
    legally bound or not.
    
    D!

    Gee, I actually wasn't *that* angry. It's just that what you described
    hasn't been my experience at all.

    I won't deny that there are pressures (especially on college campuses)
    to have sex early in a relationship.  However, from my experience that
    has *not* translated to "on the first date" at all.

    Frankly, I *don't* think the guys who are talking in the locker room
    about "getting it" are seriously looking for a lasting relationship.
    I think that at that point they're looking for sex, preferably on a 
    regular basis.  A lasting relationship, if it's a goal, is probably
    secondary.

>    I was only pointing out the majority of live-ins fizzle out after a while
>    as there is no legal commitment in the relationship making it too easy 
>    to walk out the door first sign of trouble.

    Here's where I felt you were being judgemental.  Actually, if I take a
    count of all the live-in relationships of my friends I've seen, in over
    50% the couple has eventually gotten married.  I have *never* seen anyone
    in a live-in relationship "walk out at the first sign of trouble".  (I
    *have* seen that with married couples, however - "She's my wife.  She has
    to take me back, or I'll screw her over in court.")

    Have you ever "walked out" on a live-in relationship?  I have.  "Walking 
    out" is not the phrase I'd use to describe it, however.  It was _not_ 
    easy, not at the first sign of trouble, and not an event a legal 
    commitment could have prevented.  In my experience, I found your theory
    to be far from the truth.

	Sharon

    in re .148

    Ok, lets try a different scenario.

    A man walking down some street, see's a provocatively clad prostitute,
    and gets a hard on.  Can she take that as a "Yes,  lets have sex" ??
    After all, he's given an extremely, visible, verbal clue that he'd like
    to have sex.  Is it ok for her to jump his bones?

    What if he's nude, lying on the CO beach, and a woman walks by, takes 
    off her clothes, and lays down beside him,  and the same thing happens.  
    Can she assume this is a  "yes" ?  Would it be a mis-communication if 
    she 'jumps' him?  After all, he's lying there naked, visibly aroused, 
    how else is she to take it?


	Now, before I get 'flamed', I would not take either of the above
	situations as a yes.  But it's the same thing, one person giving
	non-verbal signals that the other could view as a yes.  
					 ^^^^^^ 
					(key word)

	Admittedly,  one is in public (or semi-public) and the other is
	in the privacy of a home,  but why should that make a difference?
	I consider it a point of respect and courtesy (if not legally
	required...) to ask first before you leap.


    Bonnie,

<    given the nature of human beings, I think that if a woman takes
<    her clothes off and lies down in a bed with a man who has
<    also taken his clothes off, that she has given an non verbal
<    signal that she has consented to have sex with him.
<    
<    to argue other wise, is in my mind rather silly and is asking 
<    far more of the man than is entirely fair.
<
<    if a woman wishes to lie in a bed naked with a man and not have
<    sex I think she dern well ought to tell him that before she undresses.
<    
    I personally would never get into bed with someone, not intending
    to have sex, without making my position perfectly clear.  (In today's
    world, I have to.)  However, I DON"T believe that my failure to do
    so would mean that *I'd deserve whatever I'd get*.  I know that is not 
    what *you* said, but I've known people who feel this way.

    To me,  it's similar to a man, having gotten "X" far with a woman
    on a previous date, assumes that he has the god-given right to get
    *AT LEAST* that far on any subsequent 'dates'.
    
    (Note: I'm using hetrosexual terms here since that is my only experience,
    either first hand or hearsay.  I do not mean to offend anyone of another
    persuation.)

    Of course, the criticality of my 'upfront' statement would vary
    depending on whether I was involved in an on-going physical relationship
    with that person or not. The 'less' I knew him,  the more I'd state my
    'intentions' before anything.

    But even in a long-term SO relationship, I would still ask, and
    expect to be asked, "Do you want to?" or "Should I get [the protection 
    of choice]?" before we reached a critical point (so to speak...).

    Personally,  I have slept in the same bed with men, and not "slept" with
    them.  Not only on 'innocent' occasions like camping trips or crashing
    at a buddy's house, but also with 'dates' where I had decided that
    while I was 'physically' wanting to, I'd emotionally or mentally decided
    no.  Or he had.  And yes, it was 'asking a lot' of both of us, (sometimes
    'painfully' a lot, 8-}  ), but no more than I'd expect from two mature
    adults. And perfectly fair.

    I agree with those who've said that nothing less than an explicit yes
    (hand-signed if necessary) to an *explicit* question should be considered
    a yes.  In actual practice.  

    As far as legal law or debating goes, that's up to the courts to decide.  
    Hopefully the population will start making less 'assumptions' and 
    eliminate this whole class of 'mis-communications' (what I'd call rapes).

    mary

>    I would say most *relationships* tend to fizzle out, whether they are
>    legally bound or not.

"Most"? You were saying about not making too many generalizations?

I suspect that the expectation might lead to the reality, and that the increase
in the percentage of divorce feeds itself (the higher it gets, the more 
acceptable it is, and the more it's thereby used for less-important 
differences).

But I guess I wouldn't want to generalize about that...

>"Most"? You were saying about not making too many generalizations?
    
    Beg your pardon?  "Most" is not a generalization, by def'n.  In my
    experience, and that of various researchers, etc, most relationships
    fizzle.  Period.  Most marriages end in divorce.  A vast majority of
    "mere" dating relationships do not lead to marriage.  So yes, most
    relationships fizzle.  You disagree?
    
    And like Sharon said, this bit about "walking out" on a live-in
    relationship is utter bullshit.  Sure, it might be easy for some
    people, but then, getting a divorce is easy for some people too.  To
    this day, when I refer to the break-up I had with my most serious (and
    live-in) ex, I call it the "divorce".  It was even fairly amicable and
    yet it was still traumatic.  our relationship deteriorated for a year
    before we decided it couldn't go on.  When it finally happened, there
    were tears and yelling and depression and anger and regret all around. 
    And I think this is more typical than not.
    
    I think the increase in divorce acceptibility might increase the number
    of divorces, but I don't think it increases the number of failed
    relationships.  I have met a lot of people in the older generation, who
    do *not* accept divorce as a viable alternative, who are in miserable
    relationships and *ought* to be divorced (IMHO.)  I think it is a
    *good* thing that society now permits people to realize and correct
    their mistakes withou ostracisizing or penalizing them.
    
    But then, I think marriage is a flawed concept from the start.
    
    D!

    I actually quoted the wrong part of your note - I meant to refer
    to the line about "why are they all failing". I merely meant to
    raise a nit about how easy it is to generalize. And while it may
    be literally true that "most" only requires 50+epsilon%, in a more
    vernacular sense it implies (to me) a more substantial proportion.
    So even the quibble about generalizing about "most" has a
    foundation (though it may be built on sand).

>>    I think the increase in divorce acceptibility might increase the number
>>    of divorces, but I don't think it increases the number of failed
>>    relationships.

    Quibble/nit. I'd agree that it probably doesn't increase the
    number of "failING" relationships, but does increase failED
    relationships, since an incentive to stay together is an incentive
    to heal a relationship that some (dunno how many) would take
    advantage of, give time.

>>    I have met a lot of people in the older generation ...

    Well, at least you're not talking about *my* contemporaries (now,
    where did I put my Geritol?)...

    You people are definately taking the fun out of sex.
    
    Charles

    re .170
    
    Date rape is *not* my idea of enjoyable sex.
    
    
    Judi
    

    re. -1
    I know, but the from way it discussed in here, I get the feeling I have to
    get written permission and possible have the form countersigned by a
    sollicitor.
    
    Charles

    Charles,
    
    Just ask.  If you aren't comfortable enough with a person to discuss
    yes or no regarding sex, birth control, or other safe sex precautions,
    then IMNSHO, you have no business engaging in same with that person. 
    Asking a yes, no, or not at this time answerable question will clarify
    things between you and the other party. If the opther person(s)
    involved are obviously too loaded, emotionally upset, or what have you
    to give an informed "yes" answer, then default to no.
    
    Meg

    re:  .172
    
    <I know, but the from way it discussed in here, I get the feeling I
    have to get written permission and possible have the form contersigned
    by a sollicitor>
    
    Charles, the reality of todays 'dating' is changing.  If someone comes
    into my home and sells me a vacuum cleaner, I have a couple of days to
    change my mind even if I sign a contract and give them my VISA card. 
    The reason is because there are people out there who are very good
    salespeople who can coerice, convince or strongarm people into making
    committments for things they later realize were bad choices.  
    
    It's ironic isn't it that sex in todays culture has the potential to
    kill you through AIDS or send you to the Doctor for treatment of
    Clamidia and other STDs, or maybe even trash someone psychically and
    yet in this sense we make better provisions for mistakes in buying
    appliances than our lives.
    
    The solution, in my opinion, is not a written contract, but rather
    knowing someone better before you have sex with them.  It won't solve
    all the problems but it certainly will help close the gap I see
    widening between men and women.  
    
    Having sex with strangers is not a good idea as far as I'm conerned. 
    And I'm really not just talking about AIDS and STDs.  If someone wakes
    up the next morning and feels violated and hurt and stupid instead of
    warm, loved and good about themselves, something is wrong.
    
    patrick

    I am posting this for a member of the community who wishes to remain
    anonymous....
    
    -Jody
    
------------------------------------------------------------------

    There's been a lot of talk about date rape, and most people agree that
    it's pretty scary, but just how scary is it when it's *you*?  How does
    date rape happen?  Why doesn't the woman just say no?  What follows is
    how it almost happened to me.

    I had been dating a man I was very much in love with for about three
    months.  I thought we knew each other very well, and every indication
    he gave was that he loved me, too.  And three months is an awfully long
    time to cultivate a person you're not interested in!

    One day he invited to be his date at a theatre production that night. 
    I said yes, expecting that things would go much like the many other
    dates we'd had together.  Our previousd dates had included hugging,
    kissing, and touching--third base in kids' terms--but never had we come
    close to going all the way with each other.  We had discussed what it
    would be like.  (And we both *wanted* it, believe me!)  But for both
    religious and personal reasons, we both knew that while heavy petting
    was okay, going all the way would be the wrong thing for us to do
    together.

    We went to the theatre that evening.  The performance was wonderful,
    and we thoroughly enjoyed ourselves.  During the ride home, we began to
    touch each other; this wasn't uncommon for us to do.  One thing led to
    another, and my date asked me to remove my panties so he could reach me
    better.  I'd done it before, and he'd always respected our agreement,
    so I felt safe.  I took them off.  A few minutes later, my date pulled
    off the road at a dark lonely spot.  He began to take his clothing off,
    and we both got very excited.  Still, we'd done all this before, and I
    felt safe.

    Almost before I realized what was happening, he was on my side of the
    car.  On top of me.  He was pushing himself between my thighs, and he
    was moving very quickly!  Was he going to go all the way with me? 
    Now?!  I thought about how we'd talked about this before and agreed it
    was the wrong thing for us to do!  I said to him, "Don't go inside me. 
    Please don't."  His body was right up against mine.  Heavy, pushing. 
    It was as if he couldn't even *hear* me.  I repeated myself, "Don't go
    inside me.  Don't!"  Finally, much to my relief, he *heard* me.  He
    moved back over to his own side of the car.  We had a very brief
    conversation, we got dressed again, and he took me home.

    As I got out of the car he said, "I don't think it will be necessary
    for us to get together tomorrow as we'd originally planned."  I
    thought, "Fine--you *bastard*!  You nearly rape me, you get your rocks
    off, and then reduce me to scum because I didn't go to bed with you. 
    You're damn right there's no need for us to get together tomorrow, or
    ever!".

    I went inside my home, exhausted from the emotional experience of the
    night.  He, the man I loved and trusted, had nearly raped me!  I was
    bewildered.  A night that started out no different than any night I had
    been on a date with this man had nearly ended in my being raped!  I was
    never going to speak to this bastard again.  I was awake all night. 
    Sick to my stomach.  Throwing up.  Disgusted.  Angry.  *Hurt*.  I felt
    dirty.  What had gone wrong?  When did things get mixed up??  It was an
    *awful* night for me.  It was one of the longest nights of my life.

    The next morning, very first thing, he phoned me.  He pleaded with me
    to see him that day at lunch.  He wanted to meet me somewhere.  He said
    he really needed to talk to me, he felt *horrible* about the night
    before.  He didn't understand what happened.  I flat out told him under
    *no* circumstances was I willing to meet him.  Not today, not ever
    again.  I didn't trust him.  I couldn't possibly take a chance on being
    alone with him again.  He was someone I really didn't know.  I
    repeatedly refused to see him.  Then, I heard his voice crack--he was
    crying.  It came to me that he was telling the truth.  He didn't
    understand what had happened any more than I did--and he cared.  Again,
    he asked me to meet him.  He promised he wouldn't lay a finger on me,
    not even to even kiss me on the check.  But he *had* to see me.

    We met for lunch.  I chose a public place, one where we could talk but
    where we'd be seen.  It was very difficult.  Over the few months we had
    been dating we had grown very close emotionally, but that day it was as
    if we didn't even know each other.  Each of us was looking at the other
    as a different person.  It was because that night had changed us both. 
    We had been playing with fire, and we both got burned.

    *Thank God* this man heard me, really heard *me*, and stopped.  Thank
    God I was with *him* instead of a man who would have told himself, "Oh,
    she really wants this, so I'll give her what she wants!"  Had that
    happened, I couldn't possibly have grown into the woman I am today.  I
    would have been emotionally damaged; I think I would have been afraid
    of men.  But we talked it out.  Our resolution didn't all haoppen that
    day--it took months.

    That incident happened three years ago.  For the record, that man is
    now my best friend.  We talk a lot these days--that's what we do best. 
    Recently, he and I discussed that night for what it really was.  For
    me, it was a turning point.  I will never physically place myself in
    that position with *anyone* again unless I *know* I'm ready, physically
    *and* emotionally.  As for my friend, he told me that he hadn't really
    connected what he did with the word "rape" until we talked, even though
    he's pretty outspoken against "date rape."  We both have a new, better
    understanding of what "date rape" is, and we know how it can and does
    happen even when the woman *does* say no.  My heart goes out to every
    person who isn't so lucky as I was.
    

    re .174, you said you see "the gap widening between men and women." 
    Well, I don't think it is.  I don't think the gap between men and women
    is any wider now than it ever was.  I think the only difference is that
    before most men didn't know there was a gap.
    
    Lorna
    

A lot of notes here have recommened knowing a person before having
sexual contact due to AIDS and other STD's.  Just a public service
announcement.  Knowing someone else does not prevent HIV infection,
only safe sex does (or you both being tested over a long period of
time).

john

    re.179
    Shouldn't that read "Im my opinion that's baloney"?
    
    Charles

    RE: edp
    
            Eric,
                    I would have to agree that miscommunication is the same
    as a lack of communication.  If you speak to a wall, you can be sure
    that the wall will not understand you....you have failed to
    communicate.  It is assumed that the requirement for communication is
    an understanding on the part of both people.  Otherwise you, again have
    failed to communicate.  Whether you attempt to make the object of you 
    communication thru "body language" or verbally, still requires the
    object to "understand".  I have understood the defination of a "lack of
    communication" to mean that the attempt failed and one or more of the 
    objects missunderstood.  I do not believe that the defination of "the
    lack of communication" to mean I didn't even try.
    
    
    Dave      

    I think Eric's point, Dave, is that sometimes people act wrongly
    despite acting in perfectly good faith...ie, that their metaknowledge
    (knowledge about what they know) is screwed up...and that it's very
    hard if a person is to be condemned for that.

Article 338 of clari.news.sex:
Path: shlump.nac.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!looking!clarinews
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.news.sex,clari.news.group,clari.news.interest.people
Subject: Oshkosh woman threatens man in rape case
Keywords: sex, human interest, handicapped, special interest, people
Message-ID: <Umultiple_1fd@clarinet.com>
Date: 8 Jan 91 15:41:47 GMT
Lines: 33
Approved: clarinews@clarinet.com
Xref: shlump.nac.dec.com clari.news.sex:338 clari.news.group:958 clari.news.interest.people:2396
ACategory: usa
Slugword: multiple
Priority: daily
Format: regular
ANPA: Wc: 336; Id: a0786; Sel: na--a; Adate: 1-8-1040aes
Codes: ynhxrxx., ynjrrxx., ynhprxx.


	OSHKOSH, Wis. (UPI) -- The attorney for a woman with multiple
personalities who was the victim in a bizarre sexual assault trial
acknowledged that his client, overcome by one of her personalities,
threatened to beat the man convicted of assaulting her.
	George Curtis, the attorney and legal guardian for a woman identified
only as Sarah, said Monday that police went to the woman's home Dec. 22
because one of her personalities threatened to harm Mark Peterson, 29.
	Peterson was convicted in November of having sex with the mentally
ill woman, but the conviction was overturned Dec. 20 and charges dropped
after evidence surfaced that the woman had had sex with two other men at
various times, including a prosecution witness who said he had warned
Peterson not to take advantage of the woman because she was mentally
ill.
	Police said Curtis called and asked them to go to the woman's house
after she told him on the telephone that ``a rougher personality in her
was coming out.'' Police said the woman, who lives alone, told two
officers a male personality named ``Burn'' wanted her to buy a baseball
bat and go to Peterson's house to beat him with it.
	However, the woman told police if she took her evening medication,
she would fall asleep and ``Burn'' would go away. Police said she took
the medicine and they stayed until she fell asleep.
	``The police did a nice, sensitive job of coming to her rescue,''
said Curtis. ``They calmed her down until her medication could take
effect. The next day she was very appreciative.''
	During Peterson's trial, the woman was diagnosed as having 46
personalities but Curtis said she has developed new personalities since
then.
	``It's my impression there is a constant process of splintering (into
different personalities),'' said Curtis.
	Peterson said Monday he was unaware of the incident.
	``I had no idea of this,'' he said, adding he was ``not at all''
worried about any harm from the woman.

    While I appreciate some of the subtleties discussed here, I don't think
    that most cases of "date rape" are so complicated.   As I understand
    it, the consent just is not present, and active "no" is the rule, not
    the exception.   Even physical force (given the fact that most males
    are stronger than most females) is not unusual.   I don't think we even
    need to bother prosecuting the miscommunications - the obvious ones are
    numerous enough, and I would be much more comfortable if those obvious
    cases were really dealt wi th under the law.
    
    What I am saying is, that the following should define a criminal rape 
    (IMHO):
    
    	1.   sex taken when a partner says "no" actively by words or
    		actions.  (pushing away, etc...)
    
    	2.   sex taken when a partner cannot make informed consent
    		(mentally incapacitated no matter what the reason).
    
    If we could just get the perpetrators of the above two instances
    adequately treated or punished/off the streets and campuses, then
    we would be miles ahead.
    
    In addition to the 2 cases above, there are probably several "degrees"
    that could go along with each.
    
    
    BTW - someone several replies back said that sexual harrassment was a
    civil offense.   I remember a case recently documented that insisted
    that a person making unwanted advances on a ski lift (yup, that's what
    I said) could be criminally prosecuted for "third degree sexual
    harrassment" in the state of Colorado.   Does anyone know that that
    means?
    
    
    
    -m

    The previous replies do not address women as "innocent people",
    who do not deserve to be punished by being raped.
    
    						Ann B.

But Eric, the whole point of the jury system is to handle the "nobody's quite
sure" cases. Isn't that what reasonable doubt is all about? Plus, as you stated,
the cases you are discussing are the non-typical and as such, while I argee they
shouldn't be ignored, they don't solve much of a problem if we spend the large
part of our energy on them. Woman are far more likely to be raped and victimized
than men are to be falsely accussed. It's far more likely that date rape and
unwanted sex will not even be reported. liesl

    re: .186
    
    Well said.   I really wasn't trying to make a point of what typical
    date rape is, only that we are debating some very fine points - and
    that most cases are more black and white.   
    
    My opinion is:   while "unwanted sex" might be defined by some people
    as rape, and is indeed immoral, I am not sure that it can adequately be 
    defined as criminal rape, to allow objective legal decisions.   I was 
    limiting my comments to what I felt *criminal* rape should be defined as.
    
    -m

    -edp, quick, specify the antecedent of "they" in .191:
    
    >Re .187:
    >> The previous replies do not address women as "innocent people",
    >> who do not deserve to be punished by being raped.
    
    >Yes, they do.
    
    Folks, *assume* that "they" refers to the previous replies, not to
    women who deserve to be punished!!!

    I'm posting this for a member of the community who wishes to remain
    anonymous.
    
    -Jody
    
================================================================================
                          Pre-adolescents and Rape
================================================================================
 

    I have a cousin who is ten years old. He is at the stage where he is
    not at all interested in girls, as is normal for boys his age. One of
    his friends, however, is very interested in girls. David is also 10
    years old. He apparently "likes" one of the little girls in their
    class.

    My aunt was at one or another event chaperoning, and she overheard
    David say that he was going to "rape" this little girl. (I'll call her
    Jane because I don't remember her real name.) Needless to say, my aunt
    was shocked. Her first reaction was that David couldn't possibly mean
    what he said; being only 10, he probably didn't understand the
    implications of his statements. She talked to my other cousin (twin
    sister of the first cousin) to try to figure out if David knew what he
    was talking about. It appears that he does realize that sex is 
    involved, at any rate.

    My aunt is in a quandary. She doesn't know whether she should approach
    David's parents or not (she is a rather meek woman, so she called my
    wife for guidance.  My wife said "definitely.") 

    Setting aside the aspects of this particular case, I would like to
    discuss the  general situation. Apparently very young boys are being
    conditioned/are learning that rape is an acceptable social outlet. I
    just can't understand it.

    As the parent of 3 girls, I am fearful. I am outraged. I want to wring
    the  little b@st@rd's neck. I don't understand how such a thing could
    be happening.  The media makes virtually every reference to rape out to
    be a bad thing; how can these boys feel that it is acceptable
    behavior? And more importantly, what can we do about it?

    I have read cases where preadolescent boys rape young girls.  It is so
    distressing.
    
    While you may view the media as portraying rape in a negative way, I
    don't see it that way.  Yes, a rape trial may be portrayed as negative.
    But we have images of women being raped, cut up, tortured, and so on in
    advertisements--both print and TV, TV shows, movies, cartoons, and
    virtually every other visual media that I can think of.
    
    So it is not surprising that young boys would view rape as an
    alternative.
    
    judy

    >how can these boys...?
    
    See note 233.0 for at least part of the answer. Not all the ideas
    floating around in our civilization are _civilized_.

>    Find out what the child meant before punishment is initiated.

I don't see how punishment could be called for in any case?  Whether the
child doesn't understand what "rape" really means, or if he *does* but
thinks that rape is okay, it really sounds like a situation for *education*,
not anger.  i think calmly but firmly explaining to the child that rape
is a Bad Thing and very hurtful to other people would go a lot further than
a spanking.

D!

    This episode reminded me of one of the W.I.T.C.H. lectures I went
    to, back in 1989, which I wrote up and put in V2 of Womannotes.
    Here is the pertinent extract:

April 4
Gail Dines
The Male Lust For Violence

Gail Dines teaches sociology and women's studies at Wheelock College. She has
traveled extensively throughout the Northeast speaking on the transnational
pornographic imaging of women in the media. She has presented her slides and
analysis to groups such as the International Trafficking in Women Conference in
New York....

From the lecture:

...

She pointed out what children are learning from Saturday morning cartoons
and their `games'.  By age ten, the girls, when asked to draw pictures
of themselves, draw themselves dead.  The boys' games are all about
killing and violence, and the bad guys are always the Other (not blond,
not white, not human).  What they learn from their new "interactive [with
the television] games" is to kill or be killed.  What sort of relationships
can these children form when they grow up?

...
    						Ann B.

    I'm posting this for a member of the community who wishes to remain
    anonymous....
    
    -Jody
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    
   
    Both as a parent, and as a person exposed to inappropriate information
    as a child, I am quite concerned that a ten year old knows what rape
    means. Let alone is considering DOING it.

    It suggests to me that the 10-year has also been exposed to some
    inappropriate information.

    I share the concern of both your aunt and your mother. This matter
    needs be pursued.

    If nobody feels comfortable discussing this with the parents of the
    10-year old (e.g. where did the 10-yr get this info?) then I suggest
    contacting the grammar school that the boy attends. Talk to the nurse,
    maybe she will have some observations that make the boy's knowledge
    less sinister.

Why is a ten year old knowing rape exists inappropriate? In many societies 10
year olds are living on the street and selling their bodies to survive. To hide
reality doesn't serve any purpose other than giving the child a make believe
world to live in. Education is the key, not ignorance. liesl

    Liesl, to me education means a *gradual* process of imparting
    information, at a rate and level that's comfortable for the learner.
    Ten-year-olds who are living on the street are subjected to many of the
    gritty realities of survival at the same time -- too many, in my
    opinion.  That isn't my idea of education.

    I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with 10-year-olds knowing
    rape exists, in the abstract, as a class of crime.  It sounds like the
    10-year-old in question does not see it as a crime.  That's an
    opportunity for education.
    
    However, there has to be a balance.  A child has a right to *be* a
    child:  to generally feel safe, loved, and free to explore within
    limits.  I don't think a child can be expected to understand
    the ramifications of rape in our society.
    
    So I'm not horrified by the idea that this child knows about rape,
    but I'm not overjoyed that it seems to be time to tell him that it's
    not an acceptable way to talk about interacting with one's peers.

    
    I agree that someone needs to talk to this child about what his words
    meant to the person hearing them, and I also share the concern that
    someone raised that maybe this boy has been vicitimized himself.  A
    disproportionate number of rapists have themselves been victims of 
    violence.  Maybe if we start intervening when they're 10 instead of
    when they're finally arrested at 19 or 28 or 60, we'd have a better
    chance of saving them (and their victims) from their own violence.  
    It may be that the boy has not been vicitmized, and it may be that he 
    meant "nothing" by it, but someone should ask... and listen, and tell
    him that it is not ok to even joke about such a horrible thing.  Anyone
    remember the show "The Fantastiks?"  I first saw it when I was in my
    teens, and I was talking to my sweetie a while ago about how much I
    loved that show, and she looked at with me with horror in her eyes.
    Don't you remember that whole number about how the villain was going
    to "rape" the innocent girl -- this was what she needed, and she would
    love it.  I had totally forgotten that part of the show.  It seemed
    harmless, and I considered myself a feminist (!) even then.  
    
    I'd be uncomfortable going to the boy's parents, too.  I think the best
    thing to do would be to raise it with the teacher, the nurse, whoever
    will listen and be willing to follow up on it.
    
    Justine
                                                               

    A case similar to this little boy's happened recently in the UK. 
    Form feed for the language that follows
    
    A boy of 8 sexually molested a little girl of 6 in the school
    cloak-room. The little girl was bright enough to tell her teacher, and
    the little boy was interviewed by social workers and health visitors.
    He was found to have been abused by his parents and has been taken into
    care.
    
    I don't think this can be ignored - the boys welfare may be in danger
    here. I don't know about the US but in the UK the social worker/helath
    visitior has to be the first to speak to the child and a lot of the
    interviews are videod, to stop later accusations of 'putting words
    into the childrens mouths'
    
    sad, very very sad, i hope this little boy can recover.
    
    Jane

    not to mention the little girl who was molested, her recovery.
    
    my former neighbor's daughter was sexually accosted (language, groped,
    etc) on the bus by a boy younger than she.  Investigation revealed that
    the boy had been the target of sexual advances by another girl, older
    than him, against whom he felt powerless, so he acted out against my
    neighbor's daughter.  My knowledge of the chain of events stops here. 
    I do know the boy was counseled.  Not sure about the other girl.
    
    sigh