Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Again, this entry contains some yucky material!

    Some of us have a view that rape requires an erection. And that an erection
    requires 'consent'. People with this view might (indeed _do_) argue that it
    is impossible for a woman to 'rape' a man. Is that really true? 

    I once read of an episode (i think it was fiction) in which one
    man was 'raped' by another.
    As I recall, the 'victim' was disabled by another man, by being tied up.
    The 'rapist' then fellated the 'victim' until the 'victim' reached orgasm.

    Subsequently when the 'victim' realized what had happened, he was overcome
    with such extreme guilt at having 'enjoyed' the episode, that he killed
    himself. 

    Although the specific story was fiction it seems to be making the following
    points...

    a) 	A man has very little control over an erection. In particular an
    	erection has very little -if anything- to do with WILL. 
    b)	Although an erection is not as 'involuntary' as -say- breathing it is
    	more involuntary than -say- scratching an itch. 
    c)	Men are SO homophobic that being struck with SUCH an apparent
      	incongruity between his personal antipathy toward homosexuality and his
    	personal 'enjoyment' of an homosexual act, the victim felt the only way
        he could resolve this conflict was to kill himself.

    Comments on this. 
    Was it rape?

    
    Herb,
    
    My definitions of rape are not so concerned with what happens to the
    (male) rapist's penis but with what happens to the victim.  If someone
    is forced to engage in sexual behavior or is sexually violated 
    against her/his will, it is rape.  (what do I mean by sexual behavior
    and sexually violated?:  I was trying to find phrases that would cover
    all kinds of penetration (by any object) and all kinds of coerced
    behavior, i.e., rapist forces victim to do ---).
    
    
    Justine

    yuck follows formfeed
    
    in .1 I did not intend to be talking about the state of the rapist's
    penis
    in both examples i intended to be giving possible examples when the
    VICTIM's penis was _involuntarily_ erect and therefore might be
    considered rape in spite of the _potential_ argument of the sort...
    
    "Well, he must have wanted it, after all he had an erection"

Herb,

It was rape because it was done without the victim's consent.  Period.

-d

re:.0 and .1

Yes.

D!

    The 'he must have wanted it because he had an erection' argument is
    just as spurious as 'she must have wanted it because she had an
    orgasm?'  These things happen divorced from will and want.
    
    If consent is not given, or the victim unable to give consent; then
    it's rape.
    
      Annie

    What if the consent is given, because the victim does not have the power
    to say no? It may or may not legally be rape, but I see it as rape.
    
    manisha

    .-1 causes me to think of another circumstances.

    There is a book out on "Multiple Personality Disorder" by Frank Putnam,
    M.D. chief psychiatrist of the 'unit' on dissociative disorders at
    National Institue of Mental Health

    (to possibly refresh some memories, the etiology (cause) of Multiple
    Personality Disorder is generally very severe trauma. Examples of such
    trauma are World War II death camps, a child seeing his parents blown
    to bits in Cambodia, and trying to put the pieces back to together, and
    then seeing his brother beheaded...)
    
    It is generally understood that approx 85% of people with Multiple
    Personality Disorder had been sexually abused over extended periods of
    time during very early childhood. (the female to male ratio is very, very
    high). 
    Many MPDs have 'malicious' alters among their cluster of alter
    personalities. e.g. when self harm is inflicted the 'personality' that
    performed the harm is one of the negative personalities who wants to
    punish her/himself for being 'bad'.
    
    Anyway...
    Putnam notes that fully 50% of all women with MPD have been raped as
    adults. He _knows_ that in some of _those_ cases (and he speculates on
    the rest) it was the case that a punitive alter would set up the sex
    scene [possibly including *very* elaborate seduction] and then at the
    last minute turn the scene over to the 'host personality' (who most
    typically is not the slightest bit interested in sex). The host
    personality trys to say NO -she doesn't even know of the prior
    seduction scene by the alter, trys to fight him off...

    Is THAT rape?
    (i think so, but it sure is confusing!)

    What if the consent is given, because the victim does not have the power
    to say no? It may or may not legally be rape, but I see it as rape.
 
What do you mean, doesn't have the power to say no?

If you mean, she was being threatened, and therefore couldn't say no, because
her life, health, or whatever was at stake, that's rape.

If you mean she didn't have the *capacity* to say no, because she is a child,
or mentally handicapped, or drunk, or whatever, then that is rape, too, of
a special kind: statuatory rape.

D!

    I haven't looked at the rape statutes in several years so can't
    quote them but .....  most rape statutes today are gender free  --
    Males can be raped as well as being rapists; males under the age of 16
    (or whatever) are also legally incapable of consenting so fall under
    the statutory rape laws; women can be rapists as well as victims. --
    and require penetration but not penetration by a penis.  Penetration
    can be by any body part and/or by a foreign object and (as I remember
    it) to any body orifice.
    
    Polly

    D!, I was thinking of various scenarios. If the victim consents because
    their life is in danger, it's obviously rape. But what if it's not
    their life but "only" their job that's in danger. Say a boss
    threatening to fire the secretary. Now I know, that's sexual
    harrassment. I'm not so sure it is rape, legally speaking. But morally
    it feels like one to me.

    
    re .11:
    
    You're right - it's not rape.  Sexual harassment and sexual
    discrimination - yes.  You can't prosecute your scenario in a
    criminal court of law the way you can rape.  Your scenario would
    go to a civil court.  You'd probably hit the company up (not the
    perpetrator) for money or your job back (some compensation).
    

    My first thought is that it is very,very difficult to establish a scale
    for rape. Something either IS rape or ISN'T rape.
    Using that black and white scheme, i don't think that sexual harassment
    is rape.
    
    (on the other hand,...
    there are several categories of death penalties
    murder 1
    voluntary manslaughter
    involuntary manslaughter etc
    
    there are several categories of assault
    there is simple assault
    there is aggravated assault
    assault with a deadly weapon
    assault with intent to kill
    etc
    so why not gradations of rape?
    

    
    I think true consent is more than just saying yes (or not resisting).
    If someone is threatening you (with bodily harm or loss of job), and 
    you say, "ok," I don't think of that as consent.
    
    Penal system may define it differently.
    
    Justine
                                                               

    
    this seems to me to be a strange place to focus energy.
    I suppose if we talk enough about it we don't have to think about it or
    fear it because our energy is elsewhere.
    Also, if we analyze it to death it removes it from the realm of reality
    and it's only words so what's to be afraid of.
    
    If we know what it is and isn't does that take out the terror?
    
    -Jody
    

    not to me it doesn't 
    
    (take out the terror)

    well i guess i would agree with you in terms of sexual harassment vs
    more traditional knock-em-down-jump-on-top rape being the same
    if you also did not distinguish between 
    
    -say- seducing a 15 yr old
    and 
    -say- using a 1 yr old
    
    Sure they are both 'rape', but almost as sure is that
    the courts would give them rather different treatment in terms of
    penalties. (and that society has rather disparate views of the two
    acts)
    
    				h

        At a  party  about  15 years ago, I walked into the bathroom to
        find a young  woman vomiting in the sink.  The guy who had been
        plying her with booze  was  'intimately  engaged' with her from
        behind, and she was incapable of doing anything about it.
        
        I  came  close  to  being  jailed  the  next  day,  but  for  a
        sympathetic cop who had a daughter around the same age.
        
        Don't tar us all with the same brush. Please.
        

               re: .16 (Jody Bobbitt)

          >   this seems to me to be a strange place to focus energy.

               I agree.

          >   I suppose if we talk enough about it we don't have to think
          >   about it or fear it because our energy is elsewhere.
          >   Also, if we analyze it to death it removes it from the realm
          >   of reality and it's only words so what's to be afraid of.

               Interesting hypothesis.  I can't come up with a better one
          for why, whenever the subject of rape is discussed, the extreme
          cases end out dominating the conversation...   (either false
          accusations, or "but is it rape if..." the woman is in a coma and
          the man is drunk and they are hanging from a chandelier.)



          I mean... haven't we been through this before?  OK, not everyone,
          but Herb (the basenoter), weren't you around in =wn=V2 when we
          discussed:

          Topic      Title                                        # replies
          ---      ------------------                                 ----
          99    Side Effect Of Rape (VICTIMS ONLY...others use 525.*)   53
          525   Side Effects of Rape: Discussion & Responses to 99.*   514
          627   Subject: Teen-age rapists                                3
          767   Rape daughter for cocaine                              145
          817   Unbelievable rape story                                 46
          880   Legalized Rape                                         217
          942   2 sisters suing father for rape                         91
          958   Offshoot of topic 525 - The Rapists                     99
          961   What *is* rape, anyway?                                118
          1027  False Rape Accusations                                  51
          1028  Reforming Rape Case Processing                           8


          In particular, didn't topic 961, "What *is* rape, anyway?"
          covered the definition pretty thoroughly?   We talked about

          >     so why not gradations of rape?

          we talked about the statutes, I entered the model penal code,
          etc...  You seem to be such a long time contributor to =wn=.  It
          surprises me you would start a topic that has been raked over the
          coals ad infinitum.

          What was not covered in V2 that still has you curious about the
          **definition** ???
                                                  nancy b.

for me, this topic does not defuse the terror, but focuses it.  And I have not
been raped, thank all gods at once!  the one time that I was in any position
even close to (date) rape, the boy didn't.

I am having a difficult time with these discussions (over the last few days) for
several reasons, not all of them clear to me.

I don't want to focus on terror.  This does not say I want to deny it -- that
would be discounting the pain of more than a few people I have come to care 
about here.  I don't want to forget that it happens.  But I also do not want
to rake up my own (and our own) anger to flare so high that it blots out reason.

I want to do right, the right thing, and terror and unthinking anger do not
clear a path for me to see the way.  They are valid responses to rape and its
consequences, but not helpful in dealing with legal definitions of degrees of
rape (ala Herb's comparison to degrees of killing).

More in the false-accusations topic, which I feel is related to this last.

Sara

I have neither been raped nor raped anyone.  But talking about it over
and over again serves to heighten my consciousness of its ubiquitousness
so that I won't forget it -- it can happen to me, it can happen to the
people I care about, it *has* happened to people I care about.  The more
I know about it, in *all* senses, the better able I am to deal with it
in whatever way it can affect me.

Take back the night, dammit.  i fwe talk about it enough, *some* of us
will at some moment, when we are in a position to do so, *do* something
about it.

-d

    Justine:

    praps you'd like to comment on what prompted your creation of a
    duplicate to this topic. I think that *your* motives might be less
    suspect.
    
    
    				herb

    I received the following in mail this morning and am entering it
    anonymously for the author.

    Bonnie

    _____________________________________________________________________

          As I scan =WN=, I see a preoccupation with rape.  I can't say whether
that is good or bad...but it is there.  It does bring up some very ugly memories
for me but it also makes me angry.  I am going to state some "do's and don'ts"
in this letter because I was trained to talk to rape victims....  If you feel
that it would be appropriate to enter this somewhere in the file, please feel
free to do so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Talking to a rape victim is one of the most misunderstood situations a 
    person can find themselves in.  Too often the first thing we say is exactly
    the wrong thing and unfortunately, the first things out of a persons mouth 
    will be the most important and most remembered by the victim.  The 
    following are some "basic" rules to use when you find yourself in a 
    situation of counseling a recent rape victim.


           *  Watch what your first words are.  Things like "Oh!  That must have
              been awful" can be *VERY* hurtful.  What you feel about rape is of
              *NO* consequence at this point.  It is Possible that the victim 
              may have a different feeling toward the rape.

 
          *   *NEVER* intrude in a rape victim's "space".  Our first reaction
              is to want to "hug" that person and try to comfort them.  Again,
              they have just been much too close to another person during the
              rape.  Touching hands, gently, is the usually the preferred action,
              although, you need to be *VERY* sensitive to the victims wants.


          *   Some counselors call the upcoming doctors examinations as a 
              "second rape" and can be just as traumatic as the first.  Since
              the law requires this action, the victim should be advised as 
              soon as possible that this will take place.  Almost without fail,
              victims will refuse....this is normal.  Same sex doctors do help.

          
          *   ABOVE ALL!!!  Should you find yourself feeling uncomfortable and
              unable to help constructively....GET OUT!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reading these replies reminded me of something a friend confided to me
    a few years ago.  He said that once he was out with a "girl" and that
    she had gotten so drunk that by the time they got back to his place,
    she passed out on his bed.  He told me that he had pulled off her
    clothes and "screwed" her and that she didn't even wake-up.  He seemed
    to think it was funny.  I remember that at the time he told me I was
    kind of surprised and I said, "I can't believe you did that!  That's
    awful!  The poor girl!"  He laughed and replied, "Well, I figured that
    just because she drank so much she passed out, it didn't mean I should
    miss out on my fun!"  I said, "You could have at least waited until she
    woke-up in the morning and see if she wanted to!"  I can't remember
    what he said to that.  It didn't occur to me at the time to think that
    my friend had actually *raped* a girl, but now I realize that there are
    probably some people who would.  Incidently, this particular guy was in
    his early 20's at the time, very personable and extremely goodlooking. 
    It occurs to me now that if a guy as nice as him could do *that* then
    it's no wonder what the guys who are real jerks do.
    
    In general, I'm shocked reading about so much rape.  I'm another one of
    the lucky ones who's never been raped, or raped anybody else.
    
    Lorna
    

    Of course it was rape. For her. For *him*, it was borderline
    necrophilia.  IMHO, as always, of course. :-|
    
    --DE
    

Yeah, I've always wondered about that.

I mean, if nothing else convinced me that rape was not a crime of sex,
the scenario Lorna described would; I mean, I just can't believe that the
only reason a man did that was he was just SO aroused by a drunk and 
unconcious woman that he wouldn't resist inserting his penis into a passive
and unmoving hunk of female flesh.

ICK!

D!

    re .26
    
    i agree with the latter
    not sure of the former

herb, I go the other way 'round.  No force, but she could get pregnant,
or get an std, or give him one -- 'course that might be simple justice. 
Candida, hopefully. Serve him right for not asking first.

sex with an unconscious person is weird, tacky, and (in the absence of prior
consent) rape.  Gender of sleeper & wakeful not important.

    a priori -in my opinion- it's a kind of 'necrophilia' for him.
    
    As to what it meant to her, I was withholding judgement, based on lack
    of info of prior activities/ consent.
    

    re 920.20

    <It surprises me you would start a topic that has been raked over
    <the coals ad infinitum.

    to answer the implicit question, Why did i start a topic...?

    SET MODE/IRONY
    dunno, ya think maybe i find it salacious?
    SET MODE/NOIRONY

    <... hypothesis for why, whenever the subject of rape is discussed, the
    <extreme cases end out dominating the conversation... 
    
    my tentative cut of that is threefold...

    1) some people -by nature- may feel that loosely constructed ideas need
       sharper definition and that the best way to identify those loosely
       constructed ideas is by ridiculing their implications.

    2) some people may feel 'under attack' 
    
    3) some people may feel that searching for clarity is best done as
       argumentation  (sort of a 'poor man's' Socratic dialogue?)

    				herb
    p.s. 
    thnx for the pointers to v2, had forgot about them myself. I wonder how
    many people weren't aware of the V2 discussions? In any case, reading a
    past discussion often has -to me at least- less relevance and less
    impact than following a current discussion. 

    As to what prompted *me* to talk about this?  Not really sure, but I
    think that part of it may have been the frustration i feel when I keep
    seeing the rapist identified as 'he', and the victim as 'she'.

    Maybe the first time this frustration happened to me was around the
    discussion of Pamela Smart? When it looked to me as if some people
    didn't seem to realize it was even _possible_ for a woman to rape.

    I certainly am aware that the vast, vast majority of documented rapes
    are done by men, (although the collusion of mothers is common when
    father/step-father sexually abuses a child). Am also aware that the
    majority of rape victims are female .  But i begin to lose sight of
    the above when it starts feeling like important segments of the
    conference talk as if they believe *all* the bad-guys are guys. (which
    i think is the way many men often react to this conference and -i
    think is at the root of much of our combativeness)
    Please note I did NOT say *all* the guys are bad-guys! just
                              *all* the bad-guys are guys.

In California at least, sex with someone who is incapacitated due to drugs or
alchohol is rape. I believe, that GIVING someone drugs or alchohol for the
purpose of having sex with them is aggravated rape.

	-- Charles

    Would I feel any less violated if I found out my house were robbed
    while I was asleep?
    
    Nope.
    

    
    All men should have to pay a "sexual abuse" tax, says German politician
    Baerbel Tewes.  The tax would fund self-help groups for women and
    children to help "repair the lifelong damage inflicted by men."
    
    This cam from the magazine, "Reason", copied without permission.
    
    
    This takes care of the question of defining rape, at least in the
    context of the harm done.    It is difficult to determine the amount
    of psychological harm done when a woman feels sexually violated,
    whether, she may have been violently raped, or emotionally raped,
    or taken advantage of.
    
    This reminds me of the NY incident in which three white boys forced
    a black girl to orally please them.     The black girl had gone to the
    home of one of the boys, along with his two friends, because she had
    a crush on him.    She had not agreed to sex.    To make a long story
    short - all three abused her and a jury found them guilty of bad
    behavior, but not of rape.    The point was made that the guy that
    the girl had the crush on took advantage of her because he was aware
    of how much she liked him.    Another situation was shared in which
    a young girl let a couple of her boyfriends' friends have sex with
    her because he threatened to leave her if she didn't.    This girl had
    come from a home of neglect, and abuse, and saw her boyfriend as her
    knight in shining armor.  She automatically reverted to victim
    behavior, when he let her down, and insisted that she prove how
    much she loved him by making his friends happy.
    
    Would a jury find those guys guilty of rape?   Probably not. 
    Unfortunately.
    
    Perhaps if the laws were changed to reflect a category of "sexual
    abuse", rather than "rape" as we know it today - we could work on
    mending the many women that have been sexually abused, rather than
    "raped" as it is currently defined.  Rape is not rape unless you have
    physically fought your invader, never had sex before - especially with
    the person that's raping you, and you must be dressed and carry
    yourself like a nun.
    
    
     
    

I had an interesting thought during a discussion on rape with a friend
recently...

I have always stated that if woman doesn't say no (and isn't in some way
prevented from saying no, such as a gun pointed at her head, or her
life or health being threatened) it isn't rape.  If she does, it is...simple
as that.

I'd like to amend that position.  It is still true, with respect to the
men involved - they can't be convicted of rape (legally or, IMO, morally)
of rape if she didn't say no.  However, despite the fact that *he* didn't
rape her, there are instances where she was indeed raped, where the
defintion of rape is: having sex when she didn't want to.

This would include things like: if she didn't say no because he convinced
her if she loved him she'd do it; if she didn't say no because she was
afraid of losing him, losing her reputation, etc; if she didn't say no
because her self-esteem was so poor she didn't feel like she had a right
to say no; she didn't say no because she thought if she did, she'd be
raped anyway.  (Scenarios like those described in the previous reply.)

In other words, the definition of rape with respect to the rapER is: if
s/he said no, it's rape.  The definition of rape with respect to the rapEE
is: if s/he didn't want to, it's rape.

This clearly leaves a gap between the two definitions, and what do you do
about the middle case, where someone was raped but no one raped her?  I
call those "societal rapes".  She is being forced into unwanted sex by a
society which teaches women that they have no rights to their own bodies.

There's not much you can do *legally* about this gap - I still contend
that men who presuade, convince or trick a woman into sleeping with them
are guilty only of jerkiness.  But we can accept the woman's claim that
she was, in fact, raped, because it seems the emotional impact on her is
the same.  We can take the education route...

Anyway, my thoughts aren't totally clear on this yet, but I thought it
was an interesting idea and so I'd share it...

D!

    Thank you D!  There have been instances in my life when that term
    certainly applied.....When I didn't feel I had the choice/right to
    say no, but felt used/raped anyway.  No, I didn't say no, didn't fight,
    etc., etc.....But the end result is the same.  No it probably can't be
    prosecuted, but it still hurt like hell at the time, and to remember
    now.  The biggest factor for me was self-esteem (how many times it
    comes back to this!), I didn't have any, so allowed others much more
    power over me than they should have had or deserved.  There are times
    when "Against our will" is not always 'without our consent" at least
    verbally, even if we really wish we felt we could say no.
    
    I realize that was all clear as mud, but I wanted to respond to what
    D! said, with a "Yes, well put!"
    
    bright blessings,
    -HA

    
    
    Sure you can prosecute!  Guilty of faulty ESP!
    

    
    
    RE: .35
    
    >In other words, the definition of rape with respect to the rapER is: if
    >s/he said no, it's rape.  The definition of rape with respect to the
    >rapEE is: if s/he didn't want to, it's rape.
    
    
    I get chills reading these these definitions of rape, D!
    
    Your definitions seem, to me, to perpetuate the belief that we, as
    women, are somehow less able, or not able to make our own decisions for
    ourselves while receiving non-life-threatening pressure from another
    person.
    
    For thousands of years, women have had decisions made for them, they
    have been thought incapable of making those decisions, and they have
    been conditioned to the point that they too believe that they are not
    capable of making those decisions.  
    
    As a woman, if I do not have a gun pointed at my head, or a knife at my
    throat, I am capable of making decisions and voicing those decisions to
    others.  One of those choices I can make is to choose to be manipulated
    and used for the gratification of others.
    
    If I do not want to have sex with a person, I can say "No."  If I do
    not want to have sex with a person, I can allow sex to happen despite
    the fact that I don't want it.  In the first case it is rape.  In the
    second case I have allowed something to happen that I did not want thru
    inaction on my part:  it is NOT rape.
    
    
    Please, do not attempt to take my decision-making abilities away from me.  
    As a human-being I have the right to say "No"....or not to...and the
    responsibility to accept the consequence of that decision.
    
    If you take my control away from me, who am I?
    
    
    kath
    
    
    
    

    re:37 - I was not blaming another nearly as much as I was faulting my
    low self-esteem of the period - Your reply felt like a slap to me.  I
    was recounting a period of my life that was painful, and that I've
    thankfully overcome, but I was not asking for what felt like snide
    comments.  Ouch!
    
    It would be nice to add one's comments to a string without feeling the
    need to defend them constantly (especially to defend something done by
    a person I no longer am).  All I wanted to point out, was that to me,
    "societal rape" as D! defined it seemed valid to me for the reasons
    stated in my reply.
    
    -HA

    Kath,
    
    I don't think D!'s definition takes away the right to make decisions,
    and voice them.  Surely, if you make the conscious decision to accept
    sex even though you don't want it, it's not rape.  You made the
    decision, so it wasn't rape.  
    
    D!'s definition appeals to me, because there have been times in my life
    when I was NOT capable of making that decision;  where I was not
    capable of saying NO even when I wanted to.  I'd been taught from a
    very early age to be a victim; I did not have the tools to say no. 
    Thinking of those situations as rape helps me reject feelings of
    revulsion, guilt, disgust at myself for what happened, and helps me
    build the strength to say no.  
    
    It's certainly a different category from a rape where the woman could
    say no, but I think the idea is valid.
    
    cheryl

    
    
    
    
    Cheryl..................
    
    I think many people have the ability to say "No" even when they think
    they don't.
    
    Many times it is so easy to picture ourselves as powerless in a given
    situation.
    
    However, I don't feel that we can be considered to be powerless if we
    never take the steps to TRY.
    
    If I try, and I fail, I am powerless.  However, if I never try, I shall
    never know.
    
    
    
    
    kath

I think the definition of rape presented in 920.35:

> defintion of rape is: having sex when she didn't want to.

is on the right track, but has some serious problems.

Problem 1: The use of "she" makes this definition a one-way street.

Problem 2: It covers the situation faced by couples in long-term relationships
	when one partner really wants to make love that night, but the other
	would rather not, but accedes to the first's wishes because they
	want to avoid a hassle or for some other reason.  This is a
	situation that I have been in on both sides at different times.  It
	probably isn't very healthy, but I submit it is a long way from
	rape too.

Ben

    re: .41
    
    >>I think many people have the ability to say "No" even when they think
    >>they don't.
    
    There is a difference between the ability to say no and being
    socialized not to say no.  I think you're comparing apples and oranges.
    
    As a woman who lived her teen years during the 60s, I understand and
    identify with, not only that kind of socialization, but also the
    significant effort it took for me to break out of that mind set.  The
    lessons run very deep.  Don't beat your boyfriend playing tennis, or
    any other sport for that matter.  If you boyfriend calls and asks you
    out and you already have plans with one of your girlfriends, cancel
    your plans with your girlfriend in order to say yes to your boyfriend.
    Always please him.  Always say yes.  Always let him win.  
    
    The hardest thing I find about your replies, Kath, is that even when
    women say "this is my experience," your replies tend to imply that
    because you personally haven't experienced what they have then their 
    experience just isn't possible or valid.
    
    Laura

    If you were raised to not say No and it helps to call unwanted sex
    rape for your own sanity, fine.
    
    On the other hand I don't think you should ever mention the other
    persons name to another soul.  As far as that person is concerned
    they didn't rape you, because you never said no.  I'm not saying
    you're to blame, but don't blame the other person for not reading
    your mind.
    
    
    
                                        L.J.

    We could probably start a separate note to discuss the difference
    between what is legally rape and what is psychologically rape.
    
    Or maybe, in the interest of not muddying the water, we could 
    use the term 'taking advantage' for the latter. 

But Kathy, your note is self-contradictory!!

First you say:

    For thousands of years, women have had decisions made for them, they
    have been thought incapable of making those decisions, and they have
    been conditioned to the point that they too believe that they are not
    capable of making those decisions.

which is exactly my point!  Women have, for thousands of years, been socialized
to believe they *can't* make their decisions.

SOCIETY convinced them they they can't say no. That is why I call it SOCIETAL
rape...it is society that is really raping the woman, by convincing her she
can't say no.

Then you say:

    As a woman, if I do not have a gun pointed at my head, or a knife at my
    throat, I am capable of making decisions and voicing those decisions to
    others.  One of those choices I can make is to choose to be manipulated
    and used for the gratification of others.

You may have such a decision. But as you said in your first quote paragraph
above, not every woman has that ability. Or, rather, she has the ability, but
if she has been convinved (by society) that she doesn't have the ability, then
having it doesn't do much good.  If a woman truly believes it is not in her
power to say no, but she wants to, then she has been raped.  

Just because *you* have escaped the socialization that makes you powerless
to say no doesn't mean every woman has.

This part...

    Please, do not attempt to take my decision-making abilities away from me.  
    As a human-being I have the right to say "No"....or not to...and the
    responsibility to accept the consequence of that decision.

doesn't make any sense to me.  How does what I say take away your decision
making abilities. If you want to say no, and you can, then do it!  If you want
to say yes, and you can, then do it!  If you can always say whatever you want,
then you CAN'T BE "SOCIETALLY RAPED".  Thank the stars that you are immune to
that particular variety of rape!  I am not taking away anything from you - 
I am *giving* something to the women who (as you stated exist in the first
quoted paragraph above) have been socialized to believe they are powerless to
say no.

D!

New Hampshire and many other states have replaced their rape laws with laws
on sexual assault. 

The offenses range from simple sexual assault, which can sometimes be no more 
than an unwanted pat on the buttocks, to aggravated sexual assault.. The law
is gender free so that females can (and have) been convicted. It is very 
specific in its definitions.
 
I'm sorry I don't have a copy. Maybe some kind person can look it up
and summarize it?

Bruce

    re:.46
    
       Bottom line...do you think the person who has been *raped* because
    they *truly* couldn't say no has a legal right to try and send the
    accused to jail?
    
    
    
                                          L.J.

    I thought D! made it clear she wasn't talking legal rights. I remember
    something about educating women to say no when they want to.
    
    manisha

    Yes

    Kath,
    
    I know, from experience, very ugly and extremely damaging experience,
    that we do not always have the ability to say "no".  As a child, I
    was sexually abused.  I was too horribly frightened and devastated to
    say no.  Nevertheless, it was rape. (note, i'm not saying this fits
    D!'s definition...child molestation is another category entirely)
    
    My self esteem, ability to trust, personal boundaries and numerous
    other character traits that allow us to say "no" were destroyed.
    Throughout much of my life, I have tried to deny the effects this has
    had on me, and blame myself.  For a long time, it was a great deal
    easier and more tolerable to believe I was bad than to believe that
    there is that much cruelty and horror in the world around me.
    
    There have been many other instances in my life when I have felt
    powerless to say "no".  I believe that this is primarily due to what I
    suffered as a child. From what I've read, my experiences and beliefs
    are quite common to survivors of child sexual abuse.  Recognizing that,
    and dealing with that, I can learn to develop the ability to say "no". 
    I still have painful nightmares about the times when I couldn't say
    "no", and about feeling that helpless again.
    
    If you have always felt powerful, and had the ability to say "no", I
    consider you quite lucky.  I envy you.  I have not had that.  I am very
    angry that that was taken away from me.
    
    When you say these things, I feel very angry.  Since they were
    addressed to me, and in response to my statements that I did not feel I
    have always had the power to say "no", I expect that it is safe to
    assume that they are, at least in part, directed at me.
    
   >>    I think many people have the ability to say "No" even when they think
          they don't.
    
    How do you know?  Do you know what it's like to be small and utterly
    helpless and to be raped, and to scream inside and hide in closets and
    hope against hope that noone will find you?  Do you know what it's like
    to relive that experience in sexual situations, to go numb, to split
    from your body, to feel like you can't even open your mouth, you can't
    even let out the softest squeak, that you're just not even able to
    produce a noise?  Do you know what it's like to dream about this night
    after night, to wake up sweating and shaking and wishing you were dead?
    Do you know what it's like to experience this sometimes with someone
    you love, with someone you want to be with, that you've chosen, and to 
    have part of you that feels like screaming and crying and fighting but
    you *physically* can't.  I do.  Hell couldn't be worse.  
    
    >> Many times it is so easy to picture ourselves as powerless in a given
       situation.
    
    For me, feeling powerless has never been easy.  It may sound easy if
    you've never felt that way.  But, to me, it feels like torture.  It
    feels like being split up into a thousand pieces.  Sometimes, it feels
    like nothing at all...a lack...and that can even be worse.  
    
    
    >>> However, I don't feel that we can be considered to be powerless if we
        never take the steps to TRY.

    >>>If I try, and I fail, I am powerless.  However, if I never try, I shall
        never know.
    
   Who said anything about *not* trying?  I can try and try and still choke
    on the words.  Trying doesn't mean your efforts will produce what you
    want them to.
     
    Kath, you're welcome to voice your opinions about the things that work 
    for you.  I appreciate knowing that there are people out there who can
    say "no" with no difficulty.  When you say to me that you think people 
    really have the power to do something when they think they don't, it
    feels to me like you're invalidating my experiences and devaluing my
    feelings.  Actually, it just feels like *shit*.
    
    Cheryl

    re .52, you might be surprised by how many people have learned to live
    with faulty decisions.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    RE: .51 (cheryl)
    
    I never said that I had the ability.....or that I'd always been able to
    "say No."  I think you're reading much too much into what I said.
    
    I still stand by my statement that we DO have the power to say "No"
    even though we believe ourselves not capable of it.  It's the difference
    between allowing forces around us to control our lives and controlling
    our lives ourselves.
    
    I think I'm talking on a much deeper, much different plane than people
    think I am.  Or maybe I'm just not very good at getting my point
    across.  It's not my intention to invalidate anyone or anyone's
    experiences.  What I'm talking about is controlling ourselves and our
    destinies.........controlling how we act and how we react.  The mind is
    a fabulous tool.......unfortunately the vast majority of us allow
    society and outside influences to control our minds to a great degree.
    You seem to think I'm setting myself up on a pedestal.....wrong....I'm
    just as pitifully poor off as most everyone here.
    
    >How do you know?  Do you know what it's like to be............
    
    Yes.  I KNOW what it's like..........  Just because I present a
    different viewpoint does NOT mean that I don't know or don't understand
    your plight or the plight of the vast number of others out there.  Just
    because I say we are not powerless does NOT mean that I don't ever feel
    powerless myself in many ways.  
    
    >When you say to me that you think people really have the power to do
    >something when they think they don't, it feels to me like you're
    >invalidating my experiences and devaluing my feelings. 
    
    For myself, I can't make the connection....Perhaps that's because I
    know that my intention is not to invalidate or devalue anyone or
    anyone's experiences, but rather to enable change.  I believe that we
    DO have the power, we ARE in control of our destiny, we CHOOSE to
    succumb to pressures around us, and we ALLOW our experiences of rape to
    paralyze us.
    
    Only by believing that can I EVER hope to strive toward my goals.  By
    knowing that I have the power inside me somewhere and attempting to
    enact that power can I EVER put any facet of my life back on track.  I
    do not invalidate myself nor devalue myself because I cannot exercise
    that power in all areas of my life, because, you see, I'm not perfect. 
    
    Just because I've been raped does not mean that rape must control my
    life.  If I believe I'm powerless, then he has won.
    
    kathy
    

    re .54, no matter what you say or do you can still never control
    everything that happens to you in life, though.  Scary, isn't it? 
    Although, I certainly don't blame you for trying.  
    
    Lorna
    

       Bottom line...do you think the person who has been *raped* because
    they *truly* couldn't say no has a legal right to try and send the
    accused to jail?

You didn't read my note, did you?

I said in as plain English as I could manage that, in the gray area of
"societal rape", that there was a gap between the definitions of rapEE
and rapER - that is, while the victim was indeed raped, the other person
was not a rapIST.  I also said in exactly so many words that there 
wasn't, and shouldn't, be legal recourse against that person.

Sheesh. You clearly have preset ideas about what I am saying, enough that
you don't even read my note. Try letting go of your agenda for long enough
to listen to what I am saying.

D!

    re:.55
    
       True, but you do have absolute control over how you react to it.
    
    
    
                                        L.J.

    Wow L.J. I admire you if you have absolute control over how you react.
    I'm far away from it.
    manisha

re: .59

I'm sure that all the victims of that guy in Milwaukee are happily enduring 
their wrong decision (to go home with him). 

Bruce

    
    re .57, L.J.:
    
>       True, but you do have absolute control over how you react to it.
    
    You've never in your entire life then, I take it, made a mistake
    in your reaction to something - you've never said something you
    later regretted, never done something foolish, never given a
    "knee-jerk" response to something your sister or husband or mother
    or whomever said to you.

    Conclusion: you must be perfect (sneer). (Yes, I'm jealous.)

    
    But seriously - Cheryl's response (as I read it) is talking about
    some terrible things that happened to her as the *child* that she
    was - at the hands of *adults*.  Children *don't* have perfect control
    over many things - they lack judgment and experience on many levels
    - that's why they're children and not adults.  They are not in a
    position of power, compared to adults.  The law gives children special
    treatment in many regards (e.g., statutory rape).  It's patently
    absurd to apply your above statement to children (actually, to adults
    too, but we can argue that part).
    

    re .57, I disagree.  I can *try* to control how I react to something
    but (1) I'm human  (2) I'm not perfect.  If I were mentally ill or
    under the influence of drugs or alcohol, I might not even be able to
    try to control how I react.  If I lose my temper, or if I'm suffering
    from PMS at the moment I might not be able to control how I act.  If I
    have a phobia and that phobia is involved, I might not be able to
    control how I act.   If I'm in pain at the time, etc, etc, etc...
    
    I don't think there are any absolutes, so I think sometimes I can
    control how I react.  (sort of, pretty much...)
    
    Lorna
      
    
    

    RE:.62
    
      I didn't say I never flew off the handle, etc.  I said I had a choice
    not to.  I believe choices are always there...and sometimes you make
    really stupid ones you do regret, but the choice was made.
    
      Additionally sometimes it's a matter of a choice between two evils,
    and you try to pick the lesser (sort of like voting for Pres. ;^)  ),
    but the choice and the consequences are yours on how you deal with
    others things out of your control.
    
    
    
                                       L.J.

L.J.,

Sometimes a situation is such that the choices are all eliminated from
conideration; e.g., if a rapist is holding a knife at your throat and
has already drawn blood, it's a pretty good chance that any response
other than submission is not a viable alternative.

-d

Ann Landers had a recent column that discussed date rape. She said something I
tend to agree with, there really is a point beyond which stopping is not likely
to happen. How far can petting go before you are in trouble? If you haven't
defined a stopping point how is the evening going to end? How much can you push
against human nature before someone loses control? The woman owns some of the
responsibilty here.

How can a woman really get into this and not know it's dangerous territory? I
think there really is a point when it's not fair to the guy to be placed in the
situation.

Don't misunderstand me, if I say no it's rape. But if I willingly enter into a
heavy petting session with no predetermined rules I can expect things may get
ugly if I suddenly stop. liesl

>How can a woman really get into this and not know it's dangerous territory? I
>think there really is a point when it's not fair to the guy to be placed in the
>situation.
    
    And how should guys (of either sex) react to really unfairly
    frustrating situations?  I'd suggest by losing their tempers, getting
    up, readjusting, muttering "Too weird for me!" to themselves, and
    remembering not to get physically entwined with that other guy (of
    either sex) again, until after they have One of Those Talks.  Reacting
    MORE sexually to an unfair situation seems, shall we say,
    counterproductive for all parties?
    
    I guess it's Landers's "raging-hormones-thinly-surrounded-by-a-man"
    premise that I have problems with.  If the woman has "really gotten
    into this," her hormonal brakes are going to squeal too.  The notion
    that one sex is peculiarly destined to be led by the genitals is too
    easy an excuse -- for _everyone_ involved in these unpleasant Landers
    "dates".
    
    Ray

    re:.65
    
       I agree.  There are times when there doesn't seem to be a choice.
    I have close friends who have been raped and I've seen what they've
    gone through and are still going through.  One of them still wishes
    she had said no and been killed instead of having to live with it.
    I'm not sure which I'd choose if I was ever in that situation.  But
    based on their experiences, I hope I'd choose death.
    
    
    
                                    L.J.

This note is being entered anonymously for a member of our community.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you reported Ann Landers as saying and what you said are two different
things, Liesl.  The "predetermined rules" clause is key.

How can a woman really get into this and not know it's dangerous territory?
I'll give you an example from the time I nearly got date-raped.  My
roommate was away, and my then-boyfriend wanted to come stay with me.  I 
had had maybe 4 hours of sleep in the past 3 days and was dead tired.  I 
made it clear that I was going home to *sleep*, and when he pushed the issue 
I told him he could sleep in my room if he wanted, but that sleeping was
all I intended to do from the time the door latched until it was next opened.
He agreed to that, so I let him stay.  We'd petted before, but never had
sex -- I'd always made it clear I wasn't comfortable with that yet, and while
he wasn't pushing me exactly, he'd always made it clear that I was welcome
to change my mind.

So, when his idea of sleep turned out to include petting, I wasn't too
surprised (although neither was I too awake).  When it became clearer that
he thought this meant I'd consented to sex (despite repeated nos), I *was* 
surprised.  Although "no" and "stop" were coming out of my mouth, I was
informed that that didn't count because "your body says yes".

Although I was clear enough on the particulars of the situation to attempt
to push him off a top bunk at that point, I didn't realize he'd nearly raped
me until the next morning, when he told me he'd thought seriously about it, 
but decided not to.

    RE: .69
    
    
	>when he told me he'd thought seriously about it, but decided not to.
    
    
    I'm going to be ill.  That one statement says so much to me about how
    far we still have to go.
    
    I've said it before, and I'll say it again -
    
    		gack
    
    
    
    E Grace

Re .70:

> 	>when he told me he'd thought seriously about it, but decided not to.
>    
>    
>    I'm going to be ill.  That one statement says so much to me about how
>    far we still have to go.
 
Meaning no disrespect here, but this could be looked at another way.  The
fact that the fellow "decided not to" could also mean that the message is
getting through - that he had enough sense not to force himself upon her.

Ben

    	Another worrisome aspect of all this is the popular notion (among
    	some young men, especially) that sex is a game where the use of
    	another person's body is termed a "SCORE"!
    
    	When sex suddenly seems possible in a given situation, anything
    	short of violent force suddenly seems fair game (literally) - the
    	pursuit takes on the spirit and challenge of a sport with the 
    	ideal of "Winning is all that matters."
    
    	It would help a great deal if we could move cultural attitudes
    	away from this.

Maybe I'm too much of a cynic here but I've seen the power sexual attraction has
had over people. People ruin their lives over these passions routinely. While
I don't think men are barely controlled bundles of hormones (with a few notable
exceptions) I do believe that if you play with fire you will get burned. 

I personally would not get into bed with a man if I considered the possiblity
of sex as unacceptable. (baring the freezing to death scenerio). It's like the
idea of walking on a dark street in a bad part of town. Maybe you should be able
to do it but the smart money bets you'll be sorry in the morning. 

I was talking to a friend and he told me he couldn't imagine not wanting sex
with someone he was interested enough in to ask out. My personal experience is
that I would go out with a guy even if I didn't feel that way. Maybe that's the
problem. Women see dates as "going out" and men see them as preludes to sex.
liesl

    
    Hearing folks defend actual or would-be acquaintance rapists is hard
    for me to take not just because I think the responsibility for a rape always
    belongs to the rapist (more about this later) but also because when
    I'm with someone, I need to experience a lot more than non-resistance from
    my sexual partner to want to continue.  I get the feeling that we're
    talking about sex as if there were a yes or a no at the "beginning" and
    then no more communicating until after "it's over."  I mean, don't people
    kinda want to know how it's going for everyone involved all during the
    time that you're making love?  Things change.  Something that felt good
    a minute ago might not anymore.  A person might not realize how tired
    she is.  A stray thought or an unpleasant memory might make it not ok
    anymore -- I can't imagine thinking (let alone saying) well, you said
    yes, so now you have to let me...  gawd.  I don't think you have to
    read minds to know what's going on with a person you're making love
    with (unless it's over the phone and the line suddenly goes dead :-).
    
    About the rapist being responsible...  the attacker is responsible for
    the attack.  period.  I think we need to consider 2 things: 1) there
    may be things we can do to make us less likely to be attacked (self
    defense training (with or without weapons), looking in the backseat of
    your car before you get in it, communicating your limits clearly and
    then defending them, etc., BUT failing to take one or more of these
    steps might make us more vulnerable, but (imo) it does not make us
    RESPONSIBLE (as in, to blame at all) for another person's act of
    violence against us!  2)As survivors of violence and its constant
    threat (as I see it for women), we all have to find a way to keep on
    living, to get out of bed in the morning.  We must each develop strategies 
    that work for us -- some are clearly not acceptable (e.g., for me, murder 
    or other retaliatory violence would be out) or not functional (depression, 
    drug abuse, etc.), but outside those extreme areas, there is lots of room
    for variation.  I can live with someone saying that s/he is in complete
    control of all s/he does and that happens to her/him, and I expect that
    my belief (and others' belief) that the ACTOR is responsible for the
    ACT will be similarly respected.  It's not against the law for you to
    tell a woman who can hardly sleep through the night because of her
    nightmares where she relives being raped that she always had a choice
    (no matter what that word means to you), but I don't think it's very
    nice.
    
    Justine

    Well said, Justine.
    
    The "if you're gonna <kiss/date/pet> with him, what can you expect"
    argument reminds me of what a friend told me once. After she had been
    date-raped, the guy said: "I couldn't help it. You're just so
    beautiful."
    
    What can we expect? Respect. Self-control. Communication. If someone
    "leads one on" and then changes their mind, it's tough, but it's not
    the end of the world. If person A wants <some level of> sex and Person
    B does not, that's life. Cope. Grow up, already. Stop looking at sex as
    some kind of contest to be "won" or "lost". Stop looking at forced sex
    as a method of controlling a situation. Let's separate sexual activity
    from the Way One Proves One's Masculinity or Femininity. 
    
    --DE
    

    liesl, I'm certainly not adverse to ruining my life over passion (: >,)
    but that's a different deal than date rape.  And going to bed with a
    sexually interested party that you wouldn't want sex with seems on the
    iffy side to me, too (even aside from considerations of safety).  But
    people are chaotic juiced-up bundles of emotion, and situations like
    that are bound to happen.  My point is that rape is not a "natural" or
    "fair" response to such situations.

    Landers's "asking for it" attitude, and the sex-as-trophy attitude that
    Suzanne talks about, and the sullen "I worked for it" attitude that I
    hear from some men, all seem part of the objectification of sex which
    makes a rape response possible. It's all part of seeing
    sex-as-punishment and sex-as-reward rather than sex-as-sex.
    
    I was going to wax verbose over alternatives to objectifying sex, but
    Justine did a better job first.

    Ray

I had a real problem with Ann Lander's response.  It's the same old
she asked for it stuff if any contact was involved.  It also says that
men are different from woman and that they can not control their
sexuality once it is arosed.  Bunk.

I don't have any problem stopping at time the other person wants to.
You can always take care of yourself later if you get really aroused.
In fact, I actually believe that you can make love without having
intercourse or having an orgasm.  It can be a very beautiful
experience.  The other point is why aren't these people talking about
this stuff?  It's pretty important decision in my mind when to have
sex and I think it sets a good precedent to actual discuss such
things.  The whole experience would feel icky to me anyway if it's
wasn't something we both really wanted to do together.

But I really don't like the picture Ann's response seems to paint of
men.  As I get older, I'm finding it interesting to work through some
of the men's training that I got.  Another one is that men always want
sex.  My sense is that a lot of woman still beleive this too.  So I'm
learning to say no when I don't feel like it (I usually do but there
are times when I don't)...

Anyway, Ann's response really got me steamed...

peace,
john

    "The views of Ann Landers are not necessarily those of any moderator
    of this conference."
    
    						Ann B.

I think we have a difference here of what is and what should be. We should be
able to say no at any time. I don't think that in today's culture that it's
anything to count on.


<But I really don't like the picture Ann's response seems to paint of
<men.  As I get older, I'm finding it interesting to work through some
<of the men's training that I got.  Another one is that men always want
<sex.  My sense is that a lot of woman still beleive this too.  So I'm
<learning to say no when I don't feel like it (I usually do but there
<are times when I don't)...

I made this comment to my So that he had just as much right to say no to sex as
I did. His response was that it didn't seem like something a man could do. As
if he was "required" to always want sex if it was offered. Early traning is
hard to overcome but we're working on it.

And Ray, ruining a life for passion has it's own rewards, but it's so messy. ;*)
"Wild nights, wild nights, were I with thee, wild nights would be our luxury"
liesl

p.s. for those who don't recognise it, that quote is Emily Dickinson. Who'd a
thought she had those ideas in her head? 

    RE .77
    
    Nice note, John. Also Justine's on the same subject in a different 
    string.
    
    Eileen
    

    Good evening, everyone.  I think I'm registered back in an archived
    version, but it's too late to do it now (besides, I'm allegedly on
    vacation this week...)
    
    In answer to the base note: several years ago I served on Grand Jury
    Duty in Norfolk County.  It's a 3 month stint, 1-2 days/week.  During
    the first week, one of the District Attorneys was presenting a rape
    case.  He took the time to define rape for us, since many of the
    cases we'd be presented in the next months were about rape.
    
    Basically, he defined it as: "the insertion of any foreign object
    into an orifice without consent."  He turned to an older woman and said: 
    "Explicitly, madam, were I to put this pencil in your ear without your 
    permission, that would constitute sufficient grounds for a rape case."
    
    I think we all smirked a bit at his definition of a "foreign object"
    as a pencil.  We weren't smirking 3 months later.
    
    Thank God for my small world and simple life.
    
    Regards,
    
    Pat MilliganAbber

    I just finished reading this entire subject. One of the viewpoints
    missing (but present between the lines) was:  We are endorsing the idea
    that a man (or woman) should go to jail because the "rapee" refused to
    say no but felt like it. I saw letters saying that all it takes is
    lack of consent, not actually saying: NO!
    
    I agree with the writer who said he wants considerably more than
    passivity, otherwise it's no fun. 

    Re: .82
    
    Jorge,
    
    You have missed the point.  Rape is not a sexual crime.  It isn't fun
    in the way that one expects sex to be.  It is a crime of violence and
    power.  Fun isn't the issue; control of another person is what the
    raper wants/needs.  Passivity makes no difference in that -- once the
    raper has proven complete control of the rapee's body, the desired
    effect (for the raper) is achieved.
    
    Since the issue is really one of making another person do something to
    which that person has not consented, all it *should* take to constitute
    rape is the failure of the rapee to say "Yes."  He or she should not be
    required to say "No."  Would you say "No" if you felt a knife at your
    throat and heard the person holding you down with it say, "Spread your
    legs, or I'll spread 'em for you with this knife"?  I don't think I'm
    courageous enough to risk losing this life in that way.  Rape by a
    "friend," rape without a knife, is different *only* in the degree of
    threat.
    
    -d

    Scenario
    
    Just say, early morning, before he wakes, my fiance has an erection,
    and it arouses me and I mount and make love to him, during which he
    wakes up and enjoys it.
    
    Is it rape?
    
    I did that once, and he loved it! Said it was a great way to wake up.
    
    Alice T.

    re .84
    
    IMHO it wasn't.
    
    But, somewhere else in this (or another) conference, I read about a
    chap who had sex with an unconscious (through drink) date. Although
    the replie(s) said this constitutes rape, is this rape if the regular 
    partner does the same and the partner later doesn't object ? 
    
    I suspect that the law would say it was, even if the partner does not
    object on discovery of what is, or was, going on because consent was
    not given *prior* to the act taking place.
    
    Jerome.

    RE: .83
    
    D: No, you missed the point. I was not at all discussing violent
    (criminal) rape, we all agree on that. I was commenting on those date
    "rapes" committed when the passive person does not object, not because
    of fear but because she/he does not want to rock the boat for some
    reason although her/his "heart" isn't in it.

    Jorge,
    
    My point is that unless the rapee is willing, it's rape.  Doesn't
    matter if s/he resists, says no, doesn't say yes.  If s/he is not
    willing, and does not give indication of willingness, it's rape.
    Here are the logical equivalencies that *should* be observed:
    
    (!no != yes) == no
    no == no
    !yes == no
    yes == yes
    
    Note that only *one* of these four statements yields a result in which
    the act isn't technically a rape.
    
    As to .84, no, it's not rape because he wakes up and is willing for the
    act to continue.  If he woke up and said, "Stop, I don't want this,"
    then if she continued, it would be *technically* a case of rape.  I
    know that when I wake up with an erection I also wake up with a full
    bladder, and I don't want sex...but my wife wouldn't try to make me go
    on with it.
    
    Passed-out drunk is incapacitated.  If a person *cannot* communicatre
    hir wishes, then we are talking the first of my equivalency statements
    above.
    
    -d

    Re: -.1
    
    -d, I agree with your intent but disagree with your phrasing.  If
    person A started f*cking, without permission, person B who was asleep
    then I'd say technically it is rape.  The way you phrase it makes it
    sound like if the other person wakes up, says stop, and I do, then it
    is no longer a case of rape.  Of course, in Alice's particular case,
    it's pretty obvious what the intent of the perpetrator is and what the
    net reaction of the perpetratee will be.  Perhaps prior, maybe
    implicit, consent is what makes the difference.
    
    Jim

    Re: .88
    
    Thank you, Jim, you have indeed completed the point I was going for.
    My wife, who is sitting next to me as I write this, puts it this way: 
    "If you belong in my bed, there's a good chance we're not going to
    think of it as rape."
    
    -d

>    "If you belong in my bed, there's a good chance we're not going to
>    think of it as rape."
    
    When I read this, alarm bells went off in my head.  The quotation could
    be interpreted as denying the existence of marital rape, because a
    spouse "belongs" in your bed.  That sounds dangerous -- did I give up
    the right to say no when I got married?
    
    We're getting back to discussing unusual cases again, aren't we?
    
    I'll give you my legalistic opinion:  
    
    1) _Is_ it rape?
    	In my opinion, _if_ he wakes up and says no, then he has _already_
    been raped.  If he says yes, then technically he has been raped
    ("...without consent") but is no longer being raped once he consents.
    
    2) Will the ex-sleeper think of it as rape?	I can only speculate about
    this.  I'd say, with someone I loved and trusted, I probably would call
    it an attempt to do me a favor that I didn't happen to appreciate.
    
    Bob
    

    Well, as a woman who has done what has been described here, if you
    are with a partner who you are comfortable with and with whom
    you have mutual love, then, it is not rape to arouse them sexually,
    or to take advantage of early morning arousal, by starting love making
    while they are asleep.
    
    It is definitely not rape.
    
    BJ

    	When I was married, we each gave each other explicit permission
    	to start love-making while the other partner was still asleep -
    	I'm sure neither of us would have done it if we hadn't known for
    	certain that such attentions were welcomed by the other.
    
    	It didn't mean that marital rape wasn't possible between us -
    	it just meant that we each gave our consent ahead of time for
    	this particular situation.  Each of us had the option of waking
    	up and revoking the prior consent (although we never did.)
    
    	Married and/or cohabitating couples may have implicit consent
    	for this activity in their relationship without stating it
    	outright.
    
    	As for me, I don't think I'd ever presume that such consent was
    	present (in my relationship) unless it was given explicitly by
    	my partner, so I'd never attempt to initiate something like this
    	without it.

    re .91 (Bonnie J)
    
    Sigh... and I thought I was staying out of controversies!
    I guess I'm learning what a charged word "rape" is.
    
    Actually, I agree with you that starting love making while a loved
    and trusted partner is asleep is _not_ rape in any practical or
    emotional sense.  It doesn't feel like it to either partner, it doesn't
    involve any kind of threat or power trip, it doesn't cause any trauma.
    
    But in an abstract, nit-picking, legalistic sense, I think
    it _could_ be considered rape, simply because consent was not given.
    
    I think I've just convinced myself that this particular abstraction has
    no relationship to real life, and that it's harder to define rape than
    I thought.
    
    Bob

    Re: .89
    
    Yup, Bob, it *is* a tough thing.  What I said in .88 wasn't to imply
    that marital rape cannot happen.  The concept of "belong in my bed" is
    vitiated, for example, if a couple happen to be at odds over something. 
    Even if they are sleeping in a double bed, that doesn't mean that A
    belongs in B's bed or B in A's.  Each, under those conditions, belongs
    in HIR half of THEIR (perhaps inconveniently) shared bedding unit.  I
    do know that if I were that pissed at my wife, I'd sleep in the guest
    room instead -- or, if she were that pissed at me, I'd sleep there,
    too, just to prevent further friction.  But if we were visiting in-laws
    and got into a tiff, it would be inconvenient to air our dirty linen
    there, so we'd sleep together for propriety's sake.
    
    And even if a couple are not at odds, there are almost certainly
    situations in which A could start something, hoping for a positive
    response, and B says forget it, and A goes ahead anyway.  This is rape. 
    
    But prior intimacy does give certain latitude -- A has the right to try
    something, if they've been together for 20 years, that s/he would *not*
    have the right to try on a first date.
    
    -d

Why is there this fascination with boundary conditions?

Say I have a deadbeat brother in law who is always "borrowing" money from me. 
If I don't want to give him the money but I do is it robbery?  If I justifiably
fear that he is going to trash my house if I don't give it to him is it
robbery?  If he's drunk and carrying a big knife?  There are borderline
conditions where it's difficult to define what constitutes robbery and what
doesn't.  And differences in what I would consider robbery, what he would
consider robbery, and what a jury would consider robbery.

So what?

The fact that it is impossible to come up with a precise algorithm which will
take any conceivable situation and produce a verdict of "yes, this is
definitely a crime" or "no, this definitely is not" does not make the crime any
less real.  For some crimes, like sexual harassment or distribution of
pornography, it is important to discuss boundaries because the majority of
offenses occur at the boundaries.  Not so with rape and robbery.  Borderline
crimes certainly occur, but the majority of offenses are no where near the
line.  No borderline case is going to make it to court - and most people would
agree they shouldn't.  So why do people spend so much time trying to define the
borders and why do others take such apparent glee in their inability to do so?

Re: .95

If you fear justifiably that your deadbeat brother-in-law might trash
your house or slash you with his knife if you don't fork over the money,
he may be guilty -- quite literally -- of either terrorism or extortion.
Proving it, given the "innocent until *proven* guilty" mindset, would be
extremely difficult, yet he would be guilty nonetheless.


Borders and their definition.  Rape and robbery.

With rape, you are wrong.  More rapes occur at the boundary than within
the easily definable set of conditions.  My daughter was editor-in-chief
of her college newspaper for two years, and the number of date rapes she
knew about in the limited confines of a 3000-student college would,
quite frankly, shock you.  Most of them never got reported, but that
does not mean they didn't *happen*.  And it is high time they *stopped*
happening.

It is my honest opinion that at least some percentage people who are
happy that the borders can't be defined easily are responding to the
inner need to feel that things they have done are *not* crimes.  It's
far easier to sleep with yourself if you believe, "She wanted it" than
it is to sleep woith yourself if you believe, "I took advantage of
another person and used that person to satisfy my own needs despite her
needs or desires."  Rationalization is deeply ingrained in the human
psyche.

-d

    
    One thing that p*sses me off is (oops, is this the wrong note for this)
    that so many rapes (that we hear about!) are way over the line. 
    The woman is brutally beaten and raped or raped at knife or gun-point, and
    so many of those rapists are: not prosecuted, allowed to plea-bargain
    to some lesser charge, given light sentences when found guilty; and
    yet almost every discussion of rape ends up focussed on the
    hypothetically ambiguous cases.  Why is that?  
    
    Justine 

    Well, I heard a bright ray of sunshine (if one can actually *hear* such
    things!), on the news the other night.....The 76 year old NH woman who
    was raped and then extremely angry that her rapist (and this was a
    clear cut case!) was allowed to plea-bargin, is now lobbying the state
    of NH to change/correct/expand (you choose) their laws to make the
    penalties greater, plus try to get some relief for the victims.  She
    said her goal was to make NH the "leading edge" of the reform of rape
    laws from their current (IMHO sorry) state!  Way to Go!  I'm so proud
    of that woman!!!
    
    -HA

Re: .98

Yes, and she's receiving strong support from everywhere and everybody, 
including most of the legislators.

There is also movement afoot to eliminate plea bargaining in rape cases, and to
make rape a mandatory 25 year sentence with no parole.  

This sounds good on the surface, but it may actually result in fewer 
convictions. Plea bargaining is traditionally used to plead guilty to a less 
serious offense when the evidence is weak for the more serious crime. (For 
example, accept a plea bargain of guilty of manslaughter because the evidence 
may not be enough to get a conviction for premeditated murder.) This may 
make prosecuters lose cases that they could have plea-bargained for conviction
on a lesser offense.
 
In addition, a mandatory sentence may make prosecuters hesitate to prosecute 
an ambiguous rape case (like we've been discussing elsewhere) because they feel 
that a 25-year sentence is too much. 

Bruce

>   so many of those rapists are: not prosecuted, allowed to plea-bargain
>    to some lesser charge, given light sentences when found guilty; and
>    yet almost every discussion of rape ends up focussed on the
>    hypothetically ambiguous cases.  Why is that?  
    
 
	A justice system that allows plea-bargaining is bound to go down this 
	route.

	Heather

    
    For sure, the system needs to be cleaned up, plea-bargaining kept
    to a minimum, stiffer minimum sentences, limits on parole in
    crimes of violence. 
    
    But all that is band-aids. How do we condition the culture _away_
    from rape (and assault in general) ?

    I don't understand what plea-bargaining is. Could somebody please
    define/explain it?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Alice T.

Alice,

In the American court system, as in the English, an accused person has
the right to plead innocent or guilty to the charges before s/he is
brought to trial.

Plea bargaining is the striking of a deal between the prosecution and
the defence whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a charge lesser than
the one on which s/he is being arraigned, instead of pleading not guilty
and going through a trial.

Plea bargaining is used for several purposes.  Persons who are involved
in a case with multiple defendants sometimes offer to provide evidence
on behalf of the prosecution in return for a lesser charge.  Persons who
are accused of a crime, for which accusation the evidence is thought to
be marginal, sometimes plea bargain as a way to avoid the risk of the
more serious penalty; this is what is usually at point in rape plea
bargaining.  A concrete example of this sort of thing would be a person
who is charged with first-degree homicide (premeditated intentional
killing of another person) who is afraid that s/he is very likely to be
convicted.  S/he might choose to plea bargain down to second-degree
homicide (intentional but not premeditated killing); this latter crime
carries a much lesser penalty.  (In some states, first-degree homicide
carries a mandatory life sentence with no chance for parole, with
second-degree calling for 25-40 years in prison with possibility of
parole in as little as 8 years.)

Plea bargaining offers a little more to the accused in the USA than it
would in the UK, because here there is no "not proven" verdict allowed.

Does that explain enough?

-d

    Basically, plea-bargaining involves a deal between the district 
    attorney's office and the defendant.  In many cases, it is due
    to the problems of not enough physical or circumstation evidence
    to substatiate charges of the greater crime (ie, rape), and the
    deal will be the defendant pleads to a lesser charge, like maybe
    aggravated assault.  In other cases, especially in cases with 
    multiple defendants, one of the defendants may have information
    that the DA will find valuable during prosecution, so a deal may
    be cut where partial/full immunity is granted to the defendant who
    turns in this evidence or he/she may have the opportunity to plead
    to a lesser crime.
    
    Hope this helps,
    
    Christine
    
    PS IMO-it really sucks.

>    PS IMO-it really sucks.

 As with most things, it "really sucks" only when it is misused. For example,
in many instances, people who have committed crimes that were difficult to
win convictions of spend time in jail on the lesser charge as opposed to 
potentially going free. The real solution to the problem of plea bargaining
comes from several fronts; first, we must ensure that prosecutors don't have
to dispense justice based on economics (ie, can we afford to take all of these 
cases to trial), second, we have to ensure that we have sufficient courtroom
bandwidth to try all of these cases speedily, and third we have to eliminate
the frivolous court clogging cases. (A good fourth would be to get rid of
victimless crimes and such, which also clog up the courts).

 And the other important thing we have to do (which has to do more with rape
than plea bargaining per se) is to create an environment where every rape
allegation is treated seriously from the police to the courtrooms. 

 The Doctah

Minor rathole (but how often do we have the chance to one-plus -d :-) )

Scottish law provides for a "Not Proven" verdict; this is peculiar to the 
Scottish legal system only and is not valid elsewhere in the UK. Elsewhere
you have the tradition Guilty and Not Guilty pleas.

Not Proven means just that; neither your guilt nor innocence was demonstrated
to the satisfaction of the court.  I believe (but I'm not sure of this) that 
you can be retried for a crime for which the verdict was "not proven". 

					Nigel

    Thanks for the responses.
    
    If I understand your definitions correctly, plea-bargaining sounds
    dishonest to me - do they admit to that sort of thing?
    
    Alice T.

Re: .107

> do they admit to that sort of thing?

Yes, it's common knowledge when a major news-figure person plea
bargains.  recently, many banking people have been plea bargaining;
they plead guilty to a small crime of which they are absolutely provably
guilty in order to avoid prosecution on other charges for which the
evidence is nebulous.  They do this as a return for turning state's
evidence so that others, who are more "important" in the scheme of
the prosecution's case can be more reliably convicted.

Don't look at it as dishonest so much as as a way to reduce some part
of the years-long backlog of the overburdened American court system.
When used conscientiously by capable and dedicated legal professionals,
it is a blessing.  When used unscrupulously, as is unfortunately often
the case, it sucks.  See earlier replies...  :-)

-d

Plea bargaining is not dishonest; it's perfectly legal. It does have a place 
in certain cases. It can result in some people going to jail on a lesser 
charge when they probably would have been found not guilty and freed 
on a more serious charge. It saves the expense of a long trial, and frees up
the court and prosecutor for other cases.

Remember that in the U.S.you have to be found guilty "beyond a reasonable
doubt." This means that, inevitably, some people who have committed crimes are
found not guilty. It also means that the liklihood of an innocent person being
convicted is reduced. 

As with most things, it can be mishandled and abused. It is not a perfect 
system, but works better than anything else the human race has been able to 
come up with. 

Incidentally, the equivalent in the U.S. of "no findings" is "nolle prosse" 
which means "not prosecuted." It means you don't admit guilt, but you're not
going to fight it in court. It's most often used in minor traffic offenses. 
(It's handled by mail. You usually get the same fine you would have gotten if 
you had gone to court and been found guilty, but the offense is not entered on 
your record, and usually your insurance company never hears about it.)

Bruce

    
    Plea bargaining can be very dishonest... and not fair.
    
    Suppose you are arrested for a serious crime (you are innocent) and
    the evidence is circumstantial. 
    
    Now, the day of your trial arrives and the DA has only *read* the case
    the night before. He realizes that the case is weak and it will take
    a miricle for him to win. The DA will take your lawyer aside and offer
    a deal to plead guilty to a lesser charge. The DA should drop the case
    if he doesn't want to prosecute, but DAs don't like to drop cases and
    admit that they didn't prepare. The DA may try and bluff your lawyer
    into taking the deal.
    
    An innocent person may take the deal to avoid going thru a trial,
    even if the chance of a conviction and jail time is remote.
    
    Guy
      

    re:
    
    Doctah-
    
    Thank you for your comments....actually I'm in perfect agreement
    with you-I really should have elaborated, for again, it's the 
    abuses of the system that piss me off.
    
    Christine

>Incidentally, the equivalent in the U.S. of "no findings" is "nolle prosse" 
>which means "not prosecuted." It means you don't admit guilt, but you're not
>going to fight it in court. It's most often used in minor traffic offenses. 
>(It's handled by mail. You usually get the same fine you would have gotten if 
>you had gone to court and been found guilty, but the offense is not entered on 
>your record, and usually your insurance company never hears about it.)

 You have confused nolle prossed with a plea of nolo contendere. The plea of 
nolo contendere means you are pleading "no contest" ie, you won't plead
guilty but you cannot "prove" your innocence. You are basically throwing 
yourself at the mercy of the court. <zing!> ;-)

 Nolle Prossed is what happens when the proseuctor chooses not to prosecute
you for somethine with which you have been charged. Usually this is because
there are multiple charges and they get you on one and hope you learn your 
lesson (all in the interest of justice, you see.)

 the Doctah (who is learning about the "justice" system, unfortunately.)

    Doctah,
    
    A question...is nolo contendere the same as having a continuance
    without
    a finding?  I was in court once for assault (I was the assaultee)
    and the case was settled by a continuance without a finding plus
    a 350.00 fine.  THe continuance was for 2.5 years and I was told
    that  what this actually means is that the perpetrator would not
    have a record for this particular offense UNLESS he screwed up during
    the 2.5 year period, in which case, they would then enter a guilty
    finding and jail time may me required/recommended for that offense
    as well.
    
    Christine

Doctah - yes -- thank you. I did mean nolo contendre. (Maybe I should read these
things over before hitting the send button. I plead nolo.)

Re: several back.

A lawyer cannot decide to plea bargain without the defendant's consent. 
The lawyer can advise the defendant to plea bargain, but the actual 
choice will be up to the defendant. In court, the judge will explain to the 
defendant exactly what is involved in plea bargaining, and will ask the 
defendant directly (not through the lawyer) if she or he accepts the plea 
bargain. If this is not done, the defendant has very good grounds for an appeal
and new trial.

Pretrial preparation takes much more time than the trial. I cannot 
imagine a DA (or any lawyer) walking into court knowing nothing about the case.
Trials are routinely postponed because one lawyer or another is not ready.

Bruce 

>    A question...is nolo contendere the same as having a continuance
>    without a finding.

 Not at all. A continuance without a finding means the case is still open
(which implies you pled innocent.) It generally means you are on informal 
probation; ie you are probably a first time offender and they want to wield
this offense over your head to convince you to live on the straight and
narrow.

 Nolo contendere is a plea. Pleas precede findings.

 Nolle Prossed may (I'm not sure) amount to essentially the same thing, though
I imagine there are some minute legal points which differ.

    
    Bruce, were you referring to my note?
    
    I didn't say that the laywer accepts the plea, only that the DA makes
    the lawyer an offer, who then conveys it to the client. And of course
    the client decides perhaps with the help of the lawyer.
    
    I also didn't say the DA would walk in knowing *nothing* about a case,
    Although I saw that alot during bail-hearings and arraignments, but
    that the DA hasn'studied thet ccase and looked at all the evidence, and
    their strategy doesn't reflect the facts.
    
    I personally saw a DA blow a case by relying on hearsey, rumors and
    inuendo instead of hard evidence. The judge disallowed most of it.
    
    This particular DA was cocky because he supposedly never lost a case
    and this was his last case before going out into private pratice.
    But, he lost the case and was he mad. :-). 
    
                      

    re .99
    < There is also movement ..... to make rape a mandatory 25 year sentence
    with no parole. >
    
    There is a chilling experience from the Soviet union. So long there
    was death penalty for rape, very often the victim was murdered,
    to eliminate a witness. After the penalty was reduced, the homicide
    rate went reportedly down.
    
    There are no simple cures for (very) complex problems, simple
    cures may make things even worse (after rof. Jay Forrester,
    former BOD of DEC).
    
    I miss a swift and just application of existing laws and penalties in the
    first place and am offended that violence against some people
    (gender, age, orientation) is often considered 'normal' and/or justifiable.
    However, in free and democratic societies the law benefits the
    offender (this starts with the 'in dubio pro reo').

Justine:

> Note 920.97 by COGITO::SULLIVAN "Don't sign it; live it!" >>>
>
> ...and yet almost every discussion of rape ends up focussed on the
> hypothetically ambiguous cases.  Why is that?  
  

  I believe this occurs because, by some of the definitions that are
  offered and accepted in these discussions, all of us could be con-
  victed as "rapists".  *ALL OF US*.  Even within this most recent
  topic, we've come up with several cases where "absence of YES"
  seemed to default to "YES" in the minds of most noters, but by
  the strictest definitions offered, there's no doubt that these
  cases were technically rape.

  Rhetorical question:  Thinking back across your entire life's history,
  could *YOU* prove that every instance of sexual penetration that any
  partner might ever *ALLEGE* that you perpetrated was accompanied by
  the spoken or written assent of your partner?  I couldn't!  I don't
  believe anyone could.  Hence, the arguments about the boundary con-
  ditions, because that's where our fears of unjust prosecution/perse-
  cution lie.

                                   Atlant

> Note 920.97 by COGITO::SULLIVAN "Don't sign it; live it!" >>>
>
> ...and yet almost every discussion of rape ends up focussed on the
> hypothetically ambiguous cases.  Why is that?  
  

  I believe this occurs because, by some of the definitions that are
  offered and accepted in these discussions, all of us could be con-
  victed as "rapists".  *ALL OF US*.

So it comes down to the fact that it is people's defensiveness that
keeps derailing otherwise useful discussions on rape.

Alright, how about if we universally declare at the beginning of the
discussion that - we aren't talking about the participants of the
discussion, they are exempt from our judgements, that way we can get
on with discussing *rape*, rather than bizarre gray-area scenarios.

No one is going to press charges against people in the discussion for
their deep-secret not-quite-but-might-be-interpretted-as-rape incidences.
Can we continue now?

D!

  D!, that suggestion doesn't address my concerns.  I don't want a
  personal grant of immunity.  I want a clear and unambiguous defi-
  nition of rape that doesn't lead to either:

    o All of us being rapists, or

    o All of us saying "Well, in that particular case, even
      though it meets the definition for rape, we all know it
      really wasn't."

                                   Atlant

>I want a clear and unambiguous definition of rape that doesn't lead to...

Are you about to propose a definition?

Bob

Bob:

  No.  I was attempting to answer Justine's question as to why we
  all hem-and-haw so much about the boundary cases.

                                   Atlant

Atlant, I interpreted Justine's questions, and previous similar
complaints from others, that we focus so much discussion on the
boundary cases rather than on the *meat* of the problem.

I think your answer was correct about why - because people feel
that the definition threatens their own status as "nice people"
and they get defensive.

I think the answer Justine's implicit question is: we should get
rid of the defensiveness that prevents real discussion, rather than
that we should come up with a definition that allows for no
ambiguity.

I think a purely unambiguous definition is inherently impossible,
and therefore focus on boundary cases and "Well what if she said
no the split second before penetration" kind of case studies are
merely derailing to the real issue.  And I *think* that's what
Justine was getting at.  (She'll correct me if I'm wrong.)

D!

> I think a purely unambiguous definition is inherently impossible,
> and therefore focus on boundary cases and "Well what if she said
> no the split second before penetration" kind of case studies are
> merely derailing to the real issue.  And I *think* that's what
> Justine was getting at.  (She'll correct me if I'm wrong.)

 I think I agree on all points.

                                   Atlant

    Going into the fuzzy area of rape, and aquaintance rape maybe there
    should be some qualifiers
    
    	1.  did it feel good after you were finished?  Was the feeling a
    typical release or was it more of power over the other individual?
    
    	2.  Did you both maintain a good relationship after the event?  
    
    	3.  Did you and do you still feel respect for the person.
    
    	4.  If you saw the other person involved in this do you have guilty
    feelings and hope that they didn't see you.
    
    	5.  Do you worry about what they said about you to others?  
    
    	6.  Do you worry about running into the person involved in a social
    occaision?
    
    	7.  Would you like to go out with person again, or maintain a
    relationship?
    
    	Just a few random thoughts
    
    	Meg

Good points, Brian, I will have to ponder them...

D!

    re .127, guidelines for what?  I would imagine that plenty of people
    have been in situations where they had agreed to have sex, but later
    on would answer No to most or all of those questions.  People can wind
    up regreting things they wanted to do, as well as things they didn't
    want to do.
    
    Lorna
    

		Trying to define what is and what isn't rape leads
	to boundary confusion. If a person has sex with another person
	against their desires and the other person is aware that it 
	is against their desires then it is rape. Many cases are
	easy to define others are very difficult, because you can't 
	crawl inside a person head. That's why we have judges and
	jury's--to make judgements. If a person is unable to say no
	clearly and loudly and the other person is insensitive and 
	unaware and can't see or hear the "no!" --what is it? The answer
	then cannot be made black and white --it's gray. People must then
 	judge whether a "mormal person" would have understood the "no" 
	or not. Judgement is easy where the acts are clear cut, be it 
	in a rape case or any other crime. But there will always be 
	the gray ones that are difficult to determine what is the right 
	action to take. Some people are very good, some are very bad, 
	but most of the world is in-between and trying to change the 
	world into a black and white situation is very difficult.

inre .126

Brian, I'm glad you stopped when asked, it was the right thing to do.

But I have to ask -- doesn't anyone else but me think that she was being just
a bit unreasonable???

Sara

On further contemplation, I think it is *not* necessary to define rape so
precisely and closely that there is no gray area. As I said before, I don't
think it is possible.

Regarding laws, I think it is possible to come up with laws that define
it well enough.  And after all, the way our legal system is set up,
each case must be examined individually and in detail before a conclusion
can be reached - that is as it should be.  The law should provide a
guideline for deciding whether a particular incident is rape, not an
ennumertive definition.

I think as far as academic discussion in -wn- and similar places goes,
it is not possible or desireable to discuss such extreme gray area
cases.   At least, not in a general sense. If someone *really* wants
=wn= to act as judge and jury, and to determine if a particular incident
is rape, well alright, although I don't see the benefit. but this 
continual refinement of the definition I do not see as beneficial
at all.

Further, I think it is the responsibility of the discussors to subdue
their own defensive reactions to the discussion; it is emphatically not
the responsibility of those discussing to alter their discussion so
that those people who think of themselves as "nice people" won't have
to question themselves.

And if you are looking for a definition so you can tell whether past
incidences are rape - the answer lies within you, not in some arbitrary
definition.  If you are looking for a definition for *future* incidences
(presumably so as to avoid them) I think the "better safe than sorry"
motto applies.  If the area is gray, then *don't*. I would hate to think
that someone would justify doing something jerky that borders on rape
and justify it to themselvs by saying "Well, the =wn= definition of rape
technically allows this."  If you have to ask yourself if something is
rape and the answer isn't obvious, then you probably shouldn't be doing
it!

As misused as it is, I still think the concept of the "reasonable [hu]man"
is a good one for judging an act.

D!

Thanks Brian! You said exactly what I would have, but better!

D!

    Yes Brian, that's it!  Thank you so much!
    
    bright blessings,
    -HA

Rape is too narrow a term. By definition, anything less than penile
penetration cannot be rape.

Sexual assault is a much broader term. If properly defined by the law, as it
is in many states, it can cover unwarrented touching and fondling of various
bodily parts, use of threats (perceived or actual), and other sexually 
assaultive behavior that falls short of "classical" rape. The punishment for 
the offense varies, too. 

I'll continue this later in part 2. Digital is calling.

Bruce 

 

    mee three, on .133.  It would have been rape.
    
    But I would have far less sympathy for that woman than I would have, for
    example, for the woman who was jogging in Central Park, or for a woman
    whose dinner date forces her past the door to her apartment, or for a
    child who is raped.  Or for the man who was repeatedly assaulted in the
    jail in St. Johnsbury a few weeks back, when the prison guard staff had
    been cut way back.  I guess what I'm saying is, that just as there are
    degrees of murder, the degrees being differentiated by intent,
    premeditation, deliberation, and probably more things which I am
    leaving out; that perhaps there are (or should be) degrees of rape.
    
    This leaves the reality that a crime has occurred in one piece, while
    not automatically equating the kind of thing Brian has related with the
    kind of thing that happened in Central Park.  I see a large difference
    between these acts, and I think that many (most?) men do too, but that
    many (most?) men fear that the "rhetoric of rape" paints them all as
    part of the wilding crowd.
    
    Sara
    

    But I would have far less sympathy for that woman than I would have, for
    example, for the woman who was jogging in Central Park, or for a woman
    whose dinner date forces her past the door to her apartment, or for a
    child who is raped. 

1, what does sympathy have to do with it?

2, why does one's own culpability alter "sympathy" (whatever that means)?
I really liked Brian's examples.  If a man killed his wife, would it make
you feel less sympathy for you if you knew she liked to play the kazoo at
midnight than if she were the perfect wife in every regard?  These things
do not make her deserve death, though they may be bad.  Similarly, the
scenario Brian describes would not make her deserve to be raped, bad though
it may be.  Are you saying that only people who meet you criteria of
goodness get your best sympathy? What if the guy raped in the prison 
actually beats his wife or steals from poor people? How do you know he doesn't?

    This leaves the reality that a crime has occurred in one piece, while
    not automatically equating the kind of thing Brian has related with the
    kind of thing that happened in Central Park.

There is *already* room for differences in types of assault - like degrees.
There is attempted assault (sexual and otherwise), first degree, second
degree, pre-meditated, etc.  Other than that, what exactly *is* the difference
between brian's scenario and the prison scenario?

And what does it mean that you have "less sympathy" for someone, anyway?

D!

Further, I wonder why these "sympathy" things come up in rape?

if we were discussing murder, I doubt we would talk about different
actions of the person being murdered that would make us more or less
sympathetic toward the victim.

When discussing robbery, I never hear anyone mention "sympathy"
for the victim (except as a show of support toward the victim.)

What is it about this crime (rape) that makes so many people find
it necessary to add information/comments/judgements about the person
being raped!

When you a story about a robbery, a little blurb in the paper, it
will say something about "John Doe is charged with robbing Jane Joe.
John was seen running from the scene of the crime with a bag of
money.  He has 3 prior convictions..." blah blah.  All information
about *John*, not Jane.  (They might stick a little in about Jane
as human interest, but not in a straight news story.)  No comments
about whether Jane should have locked her doors better. No comments
about whether Jane was poor anyway, and so really wouldn't miss the
stolen items, since they weren't valuable.  No comments about
"sympathy" for Jane, or whether she deserved to be robbed.

Please, Sara, don't dismiss what I have said right off. Please think
whether you would have a similar reaction concerning "sympathy" if
the situation was murder or theft instead of rape.

D!

    if a person baits someone, that person should not be held completely
    irresponsible if the quarry takes the bait.  If the government does it
    it's called entrapment.  What would you call what Brian's girlfriend
    did?  Do you exonerate her behavior completely?  I do not.  She acted
    foolishly at least, irresponsibly at best.
    
    No one deserves to be raped.  No one deserves to be murdered. 
    Sometimes a crime is more understandable -- not necessarily forgivable,
    but understandable -- than other times.

    What would you call what Brian's girlfriend
    did?  Do you exonerate her behavior completely?  I do not.  She acted
    foolishly at least, irresponsibly at best.

That isn't the point.

As I said, the behavior of the victim may be exemplary, horrible, or
somewhere in between.  But it is irrelevent!  The topic of "women who
lead men on" is an ENTIRELY different topic than the topic of
"rape".

We have a topic in womannotes about securing your house to prevent
theft.  That is a note about victims, or rather, about potential
victims preventing themselves from being actual victims.  However
that discussion is an entirely different issue that "What is theft" 
or "what is the correct punishment for a thief" or whatever.

What the victim did or did not do wrong is an issue completely
seperate from her (or his) rape.  Why bring it up? 

I don't know *why* this particular woman said no 3 seconds before
penetration.  Do you want to discuss whether that's acceptable?
Start a topic on "Women saying no at the last minute: pro and con".
But that would not be a topic about rape.  This is a topic about
rape.

D!

Here's a scheme which tries to distinguish between seriousness of various
degrees of sexual assault and rape, plus examples.

I realize it's not perfect -- if the world were perfect, we wouldn't need this
at all. 
                                                               

                         LEGAL OFFENSES

Sexual      ---->    Attempted   ---->   Sexual    ----> Felonious 
harrassment          sexual assault      assault         sexual assault        
                               
Less serious       --- >      More serious        ---> Most serious
 light sentence                longer sentence          very long sentence
  or fine
                          EXAMPLES

Unwanted touching  --- >   Attempted rape --- >   Rape  --- >  Aggravated rape  
(Breasts or buttocks)      No penetration         Penile       Penetration 
(Some verbal harassment)   or assault             penetration    & beating


How does this look to others?

Bruce

    Yesterday on Donahue there was the young man that killed Joel
    Schoenfeld.
    
    Joel was a photographer that had a history of a variety of sexual
    offenses and did in fact rape the young man's girlfriend.
    
    My sympathy for the murderer is based on a dislike for what the victim
    did.  
    
    And I am sympathetic to the rapist who somehow reads the signals wrong
    and commits a crime.  
    
    Rape and murder are wrong.  But...

>The topic of "women who
>lead men on" is an ENTIRELY different topic than the topic of
>"rape".

 I think you overstate the case, given the fact that some women are raped
after having lead men on. It's not entirely different. The two subjects may be
only marginally connected, but they aren't orthogonal.

>What the victim did or did not do wrong is an issue completely
>seperate from her (or his) rape.  Why bring it up? 

 Apparently the point is that not everybody agrees with this sentiment.
(And if you make one comment insinuating I think rape is ever acceptable, I 
swear I'll run right to the Primal Scream topic and let loose.) :-)/2

 The Doctah

Alright, but what good does that do us?  "Sexual assualt" is still an
undefined term on your chart.  In fact (and I don't mean this derogatorily)
your chart seems to just state the obvious: that sexual harasment should
get less of a punishment than sexual assault, which in turn should get
less than aggravated sexual assault.  But it doesn't define anything...

D!

    So, how many people think that if the circumstance is that the
    display window of a jewelry store is enticingly laid out with
    beautiful and valuable goodies that a smash-and-grab theft is
    made more excusable than if circumstances were otherwise?
    
    						Ann B.

>Do circumstances *always* matter?

 I personally try to stay away from terms like "always" and "never" as
they have an alarming capacity to be misused. Dah?

I think circumstances *do* matter. If I am "raped" by my SO in the "well, I 
really didn't want it this morning" sense it is a "world" of difference than
if someone I just met pushes his way into my house and throws me on the bed
and rapes me. 

In the first case I may be spitting mad and will dish out my own form of punish-
ment. In the second I would be devastated and call the police and probably
have years of recovery ahead of me. 

It just occurs to me that we have so many levels of sexual offences against
women that we are in need of new words. Like the Eskimos and a hundred words
to describe the different types of snow. liesl

Re: <<< Note 920.146 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>

>>    So, how many people think that if the circumstance is that the
>>    display window of a jewelry store is enticingly laid out with
>>    beautiful and valuable goodies that a smash-and-grab theft is
>>    made more excusable than if circumstances were otherwise?

What if the jewelry is in the open with a sign "Free!" and the moment a person
is reaching to take something the sign is removed and the cops are called?

And no, I'm not supporting rape.  I'm attacking your poor example, nothing else.

                              Roak

    So, Liesl, does your spouse, by virtue of marriage, have more right 
    to force sex upon you than a stranger? Because you can personally
    punish him? 

    An aside:  Recent research has shown that the Eskimos do NOT, in fact,
    have any more words for snow than does the English language.  Sorry to
    disabuse you of that old folklore.  Carry on.
    
    					- Vick

    re.149, Roak, is it logical to assume that a woman who is 'advertising'
    is free for the taking. Or is it more logical to asssume that when a
    woman 'advertises', she's for sale at a price. 
    
    Both assumptions are false. a) gifts are given, not taken, and
    b) people *are not* merchandise. 

Re: <<< Note 920.152 by SA1794::CHARBONND "Northern Exposure?" >>>
    
>>    Both assumptions are false. a) gifts are given, not taken, and
>>    b) people *are not* merchandise. 

Go reread my note; I was attacking the example given.  You don't like the
example either, or my counter-example (in the context of people and merchandise,
which my counter-example was not ment to address).

I think we agree.  Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

                           Roak

Dana, I do think it's different for a regular partner. I will make a caveate
however, I am *not* discussing cases of physically abusive spouses. 

It's a difference to me of being terrorized as opposed to being pissed off. 
It's also a very different effect on my life. I have some control in the first
situation even if it's after the fact. Maybe it's that there will be some
accountability in the first scenerio that is totallt absent from the second.
liesl

    Mr. Oakey,
    
    Please do not change my example, and then complain that `my' example
    is poor.
    
    					Ann B.

Re: <<< Note 920.156 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>
    
>>    Please do not change my example, and then complain that `my' example
>>    is poor.

Both (your's and mine) are poor.  The anaology fails on many levels...

                          Roak

    what I would want to see is responsible behavior by both men and women.
    Men should always stop when they are told their advances are unwelcome.
    Women should always clearly say what's welcome, what's not.  This means
    that a woman who does not object to a very clearly assumed course of
    actions until the last half-inch (we're assuming the scenario described
    earlier in the string, no coercion whatever) bears some responsibility
    for the situation she finds herself in.
    This does not excuse the man who goes on, in the face of her refusal.
    It would be rape.  It would be wrong.  No matter how stupid or foolish
    her behavior was.  I could not forgive the crime of rape here.  But I
    would still think the woman an irresponsible fool.
    
    Yes, I think the victims of some crimes have been irresponsible fools.  I
    remember my h.s. boyfriend being voluntarily done out of $200 by a
    fast-talking fleecer.  No one held a gun to P.'s head.  No one
    threatened a loved one with harm.  No coercion was involved.  He forked
    over 200 bucks to a con man.  The con man was a crook, and P. was a
    fool that day.  Have I 'forgiven' the con man?  Don't be silly!  But I
    hold that P. was responsible, in a real way, for the fact that he was a
    victim that day.
    
    (His parents didn't believe him.  They thought he was lying to them. 
    They said, "Come on, P., you can tell us the truth!"  :-} )

    <== What she said.

    But Sara, as I asked before - why bring it up?  I might concede that
    the woman is foolish and irresponsible and cruel.  But that isn't the
    point.  The point is: what is it about rape that makes people
    (including but not limited to you) find it necessary to judge the
    victim while judging the perpetrator.  The victim's guilt or innocence
    of "teasing" or whatever is independent of the perp's guilt of rape. 
    The crucial point I am making is not that her behavior is excuseable,
    but that her behavior is irrelevent, and responding to the statement
    "person X is a rapist if he does situation Y" with "Yes, true, but Y is
    a fool" smacks of blaming the victim.  Really.
    
    D!

    re.160 Until the _alleged_ perpetrator is found guilty, the 
    _alleged_ victim's credibility may be challenged. By proving 
    the victim is less-than-innocent the defense tries to prove
    their client less-than-guilty. This is SOP in American courts.

  There is always a need to consider mitigating and extenuating
  circumstances.  Lines get drawn by legislatures and then are
  fine-tuned by judges and juries.

  If you believe that such circumstances are completeley irrelevant,
  then consistency requires that you believe some very silly things.
  E.g., consider a woman who murders her husband after 20 years of 
  mental, physical, and sexual abuse, and after calls to the police,
  restraining orders, attempted escapes, etc., vs. a woman
  who murders her husband because he ate crackers in bed one night.

  JP

    I haven't gotten to the end of this string yet, but I had to 
    comment on .144
    
    "given the fact that some women are raped after having lead (sic) men 
    on"
    
    OH, COME ON!  Rape is a crime of violence!  How in hell do you lead
    someone on to violence?  
    
    And whatta ya mean by leading someone on, anyway?  From whose
    perspective?  Any man might interpret any woman's actions as leading
    them on, and the woman may have no such intent.  Noone is leading
    anyone on to rape....that is by definition impossible....if it's rape,
    you didn't want it to happen.  
    
    I doubt we'd ever talk about someone leading someone on to murder,
    robbery, etc.  Only in the case of rape do we scrutinize the victim
    more than the perpetrator.  Why does everyone seem to want to find 
    excuses for the rapists of this world?
    
    Listen.  Rape is a crime of violence.  Who the victim is, what they've
    done, where they've been, whom they've known, what they wore, is irrelevant.
    
    Should I have said, Flame on?
    
    Cheryl

well Dana said it, but I'll try to say it different.  It is sometimes SOMETIMES
relevant in those wonderful so-called 'gray areas'.  In what I will call the Fog
of Human Interactions there are missed signals, misinterpreted signals, and
plain old wrong signals.  All these are listed with the express intent to
leave out malice and criminal intent by any party.  D! I just believe that in
the foggy areas of social behavior, each of us must act in a responsible way,
and bear responsibility for our actions.  Note, I am not excusing the con
artist who takes advantage of a fool!  But I cannot say the fool is blameless,
any more than I can say that the con artist is blameless because of the fool's
actions.

It is relevant to the question "what is rape" just because of the fog.  Case on
the radio this a.m.  Woman student takes beer to frat house.  Willingly drinks
with fratrats (sorry folks, I admit to a dislike of all Greek orgs).  Invites
intercourse with one or more of the fratrats (this even according to the D.A.).
At least one fratrat who was not explicitly invited by the woman got in line and
had a turn.  Woman accuses/presses charges against them all - rape charges.
Upon investigation, interviews, and some re-interviews, the D.A. drops all 
charges NOT because she likes the situation -- indeed, the atty from the D.A.'s 
office who was handling the case gave her opinion that the men were "not 
exactly angels" -- but because she did not feel she had a case that could
stand up to the "reasonable doubt" standard in a criminal trial.

Now if it's not clear to all readers that I think the fratrats involved who
took advantage of this woman are real slimeballs who should at the very least
be sent in for re-grooving, well then I guess I have more of a problem 
expressing myself than I think.  But the woman in this case is not blameless.
She did not deserve to be raped - there is no justification for it.  But did
all of those men rape her, as she charged?  From what I heard this a.m., No.
And given the circumstances of the social situation, could a reasonable
person think that she had seemed *to*those*men* to have invited intercourse?
Yes.  So she is not entirely blameless -- neither are they.

Sara

    And another thing....
    
    Sure, it may be standard operating procedure to discredit the alleged
    victime during a trial.  But it seems like nowhere else but in rape
    cases does that tend to make people think the crime is "less bad".
    
    cheryl

    re.165 Sex-with-consent is not bad. Rape is bad. The 'less bad'
    comes from showing that the alleged crime was not without consent.
    Personally I don't like the idea that there is a continuum between
    sex and rape, but our society is wound up in the notion that every
    pair of black-and-white moral opposites is linked with a continuum
    of grey. (Which discussion more properly belongs in the philosophy
    conference.)
    

re .163

>    OH, COME ON!  Rape is a crime of violence!  How in hell do you lead
>    someone on to violence?  

	You give that person reason to believe that they will 
	get away with it.

	I don't think that individual people tend to do this, 
	but I do believe our society does.

					Tom_K

	>Rape is too narrow a term. By definition, anything less than penile
	>penetration cannot be rape.


    Bruce, where did you get this definition?  Many *many* objects other
    than penises are used to rape.  In this state (Massachusetts) at least,
    forced penetration is rape.  Period.

    E Grace

E. Grace, you're right -- it's penetration by whatever that defines rape. 

Bruce

Sara, the situation you describe ("fratrats" et al) the issue was: did
she or did she not consent.  *That* is a very valid thing to discuss
in the issue of a rape trial - in fact, that is just about the *only*
valid thing to discuss in a rape trial.

That is not at all parallel to the "3 seconds before penetration" 
question, which is not "did she consent" (if she said "stop" then she
clearly did not) but whether she *should* have consented (as in, if
she got that far, she should have said yes, and if she didn't want to
say yes, she shouldn't have gotten that far.)

i have no objection to discussing the presence of consent. I do have
problems with discussing the "goodness" of the actions of a woman who
has clearly not consented.

D!

I hate it when windows crash in the middle of editing a reply.

Suzanne, I agree that resisted, unwanted intercourse is rape.  But I feel that
your comparison is specious.  The woman did not sit on the sidewalk wearing a
sign that said "free sex, just take it".  She was at a drunken frat party, where
the social convention and assumptions differ somewhat from my marriage agreement
with my husband, just as they differ from the conventions that rule at tea with
the queen.

None of us know how specific her invitation was.  If it was "Joe let's get it
on" then all men other than Joe are rapists -- though from what I heard this 
a.m., even Joe was accused of rape.  If it was "ok, I'll take on a few of you"
then it gets much much harder to say whether or not it was rape.

I will not assert that all the men are certainly rapists, because the woman
says so.  I will also not take the men's word for it that she invited them all.
I do not think that I can ever know the truth of it.  (I wonder if the drunken
participants can, either!  None of them acted responsibly!  They all "own"
their actions and choices, but seem to be trying not to.)

How does one judge among fools?

Also, the concept of "extenuating circumstances" implies that there is
justification for rape.  I believe there is not.

Dana, I disagree that my denying such circumstances in the existence of
rape thereby means that consistency demands I deny them in the case of
homicide.  The two are different crimes.

I believe there is such a thing as justifiable homicide.  Self-defense 
is one of them (and I believe in "good faith" too - in the sense that
a woman who kills a man who has systematically brutalized her over the
years might genuinely believe that killing him is her only out, and
therefore it was homicide in self-defense in good faith - even though
technically it might *not* have been her only out.)

So extenuating circumstances in homicide cases are relevent, because
it is possible for such circumstances to justify murder. Are you
claiming that there are extenuating circumstances that justify rape?
Such as what?

Rape in self-defense?  Rape in anger?  What???

D!

    	RE: .172  Sara
    
    	Lost my earlier reply in an edit attempt (ooops!) - but the point
    	I was trying to make was that the description of the situation
    	was worded in vague terms designed to condemn the victim.
    
    	They said she consented to sex with "ONE OR MORE" men.  Gee, this
    	is a phrase that can be used to describe every woman who has ever
    	consented to sex with any man (including her own husband.)  The
    	term "ONE OR MORE" can be used to described "consent to sex with
    	one man."  See what I mean?
    
    	If she consented to sex with ONE MAN at the Frat party, she does
    	not deserve to have been raped by the whole bunch.  If the man she
    	originally consented to sleep with (and your note indicates that
    	we ARE talking about one man here) HELPED and ENCOURAGED the other
    	men to rape her - AND if he continued on himself after she asked
    	him to stop what he was doing - then he committed rape, too.
    
    	Being at a Frat party is not a crime.  Rape is not justifiable
    	as a punishment for being at a Frat party.

  Re: .173

  D!, I made the "consistency" remark, not Dana.  I don't believe that 
  the concept of extenuating circumstances implies that there is ever a 
  justification for rape.  

  If rape is penetration without consent, then extenuating/mitigating
  circumstances are examined to determine whether consent was present -- as
  well as whether the alleged perpetrator could reasonably believe that
  consent was present.

  Obviously it is possible to draw these lines in the wrong place, e.g.,
  that jury in Florida that decided a miniskirt and no underwear somehow 
  implied consent. But that does not mean that such lines shouldn't ever
  be drawn.  Criminal intent does enter into it, and Sara's fratrat example 
  isn't black and white, at least not to me.

  JP

>extenuating circumstances only relevent is crime is justifiable ever!

 Do you have an english translation for that? :-)

>Also, the concept of "extenuating circumstances" implies that there is
>justification for rape.  I believe there is not.

 Here is where this discussion is breaking down. I, and apparently others,
do not agree with that assumption. Discussing extenuating circumstances
does not imply in the least that some rapes are justifiable (something that
we've said all along.) 

>So extenuating circumstances in homicide cases are relevent, because
>it is possible for such circumstances to justify murder. Are you
>claiming that there are extenuating circumstances that justify rape?

 No. But there is a legal term called "contributory negligence" which
describes the phenomenon which we are discussing. 

 The Doctah

    Look this may not be that popular to say, but if a woman has
    consented, even drunkenly to have sex with men 4-5, and men
    6 and 7 and 8 come along and are watching the goings on, I don't
    think they can be faulted for thinking that there is no reason
    why they can't join in.
    
    Bonnie

    "But there is a legal term called "contributory negligence" which
    describes the phenomenon which we are discussing."
    
    No.  There is a concept of "contributory negligence" which SOME
    people hold is important, but which others hold is a common,
    socially-approved, but morally invalid red herring.
    
    						Ann B.

    re.166
    
    Actually, no one for a minute tried to prove that I had consented. 
    Everyone seemed to agree that I had not.
    
    What was proven was that 18 months previous to the incident, I _had_
    consented to sexual relations [fairly regularly and under circumstances
    of extreme amiability] with the man who attacked me.
    
    Therefore it was not rape.
    
      Ann

    re .177
    
    if they don't ask, how do they know that it isn't already a gang rape
    taking place?   

    in re .180
    
    true

  I agree with Ann B. that contributory negligence is a red herring
  here.  In the case of the proverbial muggee who has $100 bills sticking 
  out of his pocket, no one ever seems to accuse him of contributing
  to the crime, at least not in the legal sense of the term.

  Which brings up another point.  D! argued cogently that while there is 
  something called justifiable homicide, there is not and should not be 
  anything called justifiable rape.  But note that there is no such
  thing as "justifiable murder" -- because murder is defined as the
  unlawful taking of a human life.  So for symmetry in this
  discussion, we would need a term like "justifiable penetration"
  rather than "justifiable rape" because crime is built into the term
  "rape."

  And to confuse matters further, we have a potential collision between 
  the legal and the Standard English meanings of terms.  The legal 
  definition of "justifiable homicide" has some very specific conditions 
  (such as the prevention of another imminent homicide, either your own 
  or someone else's).  So in the case of the woman who kills her 
  sleeping husband after decades of abuse, it may not be "justifiable"
  in the legal sense.  In the Standard English sense, the moral sense,
  and in my own opinion, killing that abuser is not only "justifiable"
  but deserving of a medal.

  JP

    	RE: .177  Bonnie
    
    	If the report says "ONE OR MORE MEN," there isn't a reason in
    	the world to assume she consented to sex with 4-5 men (or even
    	TWO men.)
    
    	As condemning as the reports sounded about the woman, if they
    	could have claimed she'd consented to even ONE additional man,
    	don't you think they would have written "TWO OR MORE MEN"??
    
    	Don't be fooled by the prejudicial way this woman has been
    	described while on public trial.

No one is putting "this woman ... on public trial".  I am trying to show that
there CAN be cases that are not clear.  The woman at a frat party is one.  A
woman and man who are into s&m could be another -- how is this time's "no! no!"
necessarily different, if one of them was convincing enough at acting before?
What if a woman changes her mind not a half-inch before, but a half-inch after.
Is that rape?

I am not trying to draw up legal guidelines here, or to convict anybody.  I am
only trying to say that I will not automatically say that an accusation, alone,
proves the guilt of the accused. Regardless of the genders of the parties. And
that the lines of very many human interactions are foggy indeed, fuzzy enough
that there are gray areas.  And that women and men must both take responsibility
for their actions, their choices.  

Sara

    Sara,
    
    I agree with you..
    
    Bonnie

>In the case of the proverbial muggee who has $100 bills sticking 
>  out of his pocket, no one ever seems to accuse him of contributing
>  to the crime, at least not in the legal sense of the term.

 Maybe it's because no one is sensitized to that? I was in a courtroom in
which a man was robbed when he went through an apparently dangerous neighborhood
with a bank bag full of money at night. The judge berated the man, saying he
was "foolish and irresponsible." But the robber was still guilty. (Marlboro
District Court, 1986).

 If you leave your keys in your car and your car gets stolen, does the
insurance company treat you the same way as if you had your car locked and 
the alarm on?

 If a drunken slob is obnoxious to the wrong person and gets the crap beaten 
out of him (if he can even get a policeman to pursue the assault), do you think
that the crime is treated the same way as a random mugging, even if the
incurred injuries are identical?

 The Doctah

    RE: .184  Sara
    
    > No one is putting "this woman ... on public trial".
    
    Wanna bet?  You described a story that said the victim consented to
    sex with "ONE OR MORE" men (which means she only had to agree to sex
    with ONE individual man for this to be true) - yet an accused rapist
    is described as "standing in line, taking a turn" (as if he were in
    a bank queue waiting to cash a check.)
    
    I'm not blaming you for this, but this woman sure as HELL is being
    tried in public.

> A
>woman and man who are into s&m could be another -- how is this time's "no! no!"
>necessarily different, if one of them was convincing enough at acting before?

Well that one's easy enough.  People who are into S&M, and are into the
particular aspect of SM whereas the "bottom" gets to cry "no no" and not
really mean it, use "safewords".  This is a special word that *REALLY*
means "no", even when the word "no" doesn't.  Rape is still equally clear
in this case: if the woman said the safeword, it's rape.

We who play this game anticipate this problem.  If only the rest of the
world were so clear on it.

D!

There has been an unchallenged consensus that while rape is rape, a woman would
have to be very foolish and unreasonable to change her mind about having sex
with "inches to spare".  I disagree.

I had a girlfriend (the proper term at the time) in college who was raped under
circumstances that were probably very similar to those described by Brian
(.126).  He was a guy she had known for a while as part of a group.  They may
have been on a couple of "dates".  One night, she invited him back to her room
and one thing led to another and they ended up naked in bed together.  It was
never her intention to have sex with him, but from his perspective it almost
certainly seemed like she "changed her mind" at the last minute.  She said no
forcefully and struggled to resist him, but he overpowered her.

Was she naive and foolish?  Perhaps a little.  She was a virgin and the bulk of
her dating experience had been with an unusually meek and tender guy.  ;-)  Did
she behave unreasonably?  I don't think so.  Sex play is a delicate negotiation
rarely preceded by a discussion of limits and ground rules.  Perhaps it should
be, but realistically it's never going to happen.  There is probing by one
party or the other with feedback of yes, no, or not yet.  She followed the
rules.  He didn't.

Have the rules changed?  How far does Emily Post say you're allowed to go
keeping the option of stopping without being called a shameless tease?

          re: .139 (D!) -< and why bring up the "sympathy" issue anyway? >-

          > Further, I wonder why these "sympathy" things come up in rape?

          > What is it about this crime (rape) that makes so many people
          > find it necessary to add information/comments/judgements about
          > the person being raped!

          I wish people realized the tremendous impact that such judgements
          about the victim have on her life (whether or not a conviction
          happens) and attitudes about herself.

          I'm having a very hard time not taking many of the remarks in
          this note as personal affronts.  Even though my situation was the
          kind that generated a lot of sympathy, I all-too-clearly remember
          each and every person, time, and place where I was asked
          something along the lines of "why were you alone? why were you
          there?", and the later feelings of guilt and doubt.


          One reason why the sympathy factor immediately enters into any
          discussion of rape is because people still have this sense of
          entitlement about judging and controlling aspects of women's
          sexuality.  It's related to that old double standard of
          morality...

          re: .168 (Tom Krupinski)
          >    You give that person reason to believe that they will
          >    get away with it.

          >    I don't think that individual people tend to do this,
          >    but I do believe our society does.

          Yep.

          I'd bet that from the rapist's viewpoint, rape is a low-risk,
          high return transaction.
                                                  nancy b.

          re: .173 (D!)

          >... Are you claiming that there are extenuating circumstances
          > that justify rape?

               The YES answer to your question is being asserted right now
          by a couple people in the USENET news group talk.rape.

               See the thread "Teasing and Justifiable Rape".

                                                  nancy b.

    Well I personally don't actually believe that it matters what the "act"
    in question (on *any* occassion) is called. What matters is whether the
    person/subject/victim/whatever *wanted* what was happening.
    
    If I want someone to have belongings of mine, that's ok. If I don't
    it's theft.
    
    Alice T.
    (who feels this argument is becoming a bit samey)

Believe it or not it has weighed heavily on me that some women in general, and
in particular some women I know and like through meeting them here in =wn=,
would feel splashed, hurt, by things I have said here.  I have not wanted to 
make it worse by - what, making a list of people of whom I say, but oh I don't
mean *you*.  What happened to *you* was different.
My heart is wrenched for anyone (woman, man, boy, girl) who is abused.  There is
no reason, no provacation, that excuses a rapist - the person who rapes is
responsible for that act, and should be punished; and I hope I never find myself
in a position to deal out punishment in anger, for I don't know how well I would
be in control.  Perhaps in concentrating on the few kinds of cases that are in
a gray area, I have seemed to neglect that point.  I believe that forcing
the will and body of another person is evidence of a kind of illness of the 
soul.  I'm not a forgiving enough person to say that the illness reduces
responsibility; it may be a reason, but it does not reduce responsibility.
I'm not saying this well. But I am sorry for the hurt I have caused people here.

    re: .184 (Sara)
    
          I agree with what you wrote, particularly the last paragraph
    or so...
    
    re: .193 (Sara)
         
          I can empathize...it's very difficult to demonstrate the
    difference between responsibility and "blame the victim" (which
    is how most people prefer to interpret that...)
    
    Frederick
    

    My definition of Rape is the taking of someone without their consent. 
    If the woman discussed previously did agree to sex with some and then
    others forced themselves on her then that is rape.  If a store has a
    promotional giveaway that ends at 10:00 and then the crowd continues to
    "take" the previously free goods until 12:00 without the consent of the
    owner then isn't that stealing?
    
    It seems to me that we can go overboard with the "crowd" rules.  We
    need to educate our young that even though the so called majority is
    doing it that does not make it right.
    
    I have seen so much of the "she was asking for it" mentality.  From
    short skirts to being drunk to letting one out of a crowd to you are my
    wife and your body is mine.  They are all rape.  The wife who gets
    taken against her will and finially gives up protesting out of
    frustation is still being raped.  Unfortunately rape is not only a
    crime against the physical body but is more a crime against the "soul".
    
    Linda B

Re: .194

>             She told me of a man who had been robbed and killed, appar-
>     ently immediately after taking money out of an automated teller
>     machine at roughly 3 in the morning.  

Well I hope that when the judge takes everything into consideration when
the poor misguided and tempted murderer is charged that the victim was
obviously "asking for it" I mean !  taking money out of a machine...alone...in
the early hours of the morning !!!!!!!!